Response to Felixflyer
The desire [to connect via LHR] comes from the passengers
I hate to break this to you, but I detect ZERO desire from Northern passengers to change planes at LHR. They sometimes tolerate this out of necessity, but they categorically don't desire it. Primarily they want a non-stop flight from their own region. In the absence of this, transfer via a relatively hassle-free hub (which LHR is not) is preferred.
MAN is only the 'gateway to Yorkshire' due to it being the only option
MAN is not the only option. LBA already has regular BA flights to LHR offering a range of onward connections. LBA also offers frequent KLM departures to its AMS hub, as do nearby HUY and MME. MAN is the 'gateway to Yorkshire' because it is comfortably the best of the three main options on offer.
Travelling from North Yorkshire to MAN for a flight is a huge pain and being able to buy a ticket from Leeds, Doncaster, Humberside, Teeside etc. that connects easily through LHR would be a better option for many.
That is a matter of opinion. York, Leeds, Sheffield and Doncaster offer fast hourly through trains direct to Manchester Airport Station in the heart of the terminals complex. It could hardly be more convenient. Quick connections are available from other Yorkshire towns and cities. The road journey from Manchester to Leeds is almost entirely motorway. No journey option is 100% hassle-free, but these choices compare very favourably with the existing BA Shuttle to LHR (check-in, security) and transfer there (second security search, possible terminals transfer).
it matters not whether that connection is in London or Amsterdam but it does matter to UK PLC
If the UK is genuinely missing out on a profitable business opportunity, then that does matter to UK PLC. However, if the cost required to provide that hub capability is wildly excessive (and arguably uneconomic) then it is best to invest scarce capital in alternative projects which better serve the national interest.
when passengers from all over Europe could be brought into LHR and put onto larger aircraft
This sounds like us trying to dictate to passengers what we think is good for them rather than listening to what their travel choices are telling us. Customers are actively selecting non-stop P2P services from their own region where this choice exists, except when price discounting via a hub is too profound to ignore.
Such as HS3? I can see that will face major planning issues and complaints from the NIMBYs up there
Yes, HS3 would be a very welcome innovation for the North. And in common with all major infrastructure initiatives it would undoubtedly face some opposition, but plenty of positive support too. At this stage, HS3 is a very early concept. We don't yet know whether it will be a new-build line, a major upgrade of an existing route or a combination of the two. It is not costed or funded. But it is exactly the sort of project that the regions should be putting forward for investment. There are other proposals of merit concerning regional infrastructure which also deserve public support.
if there was a business case for something as strong as the case the LHR expansion
The case for LHR expansion is only strong from an operational perspective. From a financial perspective, the case is extremely weak as the LHR proposals are stratospherically over-priced at the point of delivery.
Are you aware of the Proposed York Potash tunnel? It is a huge project with a viable business case funded by a private company that is under threat from the North Yorkshire moors association. It is no use complaining about lack of investment when people do not want the end result.
I'm pleased you have raised this, as the mining industry is something of a pet-topic for me. Warning to other readers: we're wandering a bit off-topic here (some may wish to skip the next couple of paragraphs?).
There are very significant differences between permitting a mining project and approving an infrastructure project intended for public use. Extractive industries have a terrible public image, being widely associated with dirt, pollution and danger. This largely dates back to our impressions of labour-intensive Victorian-era coal mines with visions of blackened faces, slag-heaps and appalling disasters. And you can throw in greedy absentee entrepreneurs and downtrodden salt-of-the-earth workers. This is the image which must be overcome when a new-build mining proposal is put before a community.
Mining today bears little resemblance to its Victorian counterpart. A new-build mine in this era will be very highly mechanised, employing perhaps less than 5% of the staff required in the early days. And many of these will work in the office monitoring equipment. This is actually a mixed-blessing, as the new mine will offer comparatively few employment positions to the host community. Those jobs which are required often need highly specialised skills which must be imported. So, in the case of an application like that of Sirius Minerals (which you reference), local opponents perceive little direct benefit coming their way, whilst fears of the area facing ruin loom large. Add to the mix the spectre of remote elite shareholders ("the rich") making off with the profits, and you have a recipe for protest and unrest.
The mining industry is accustomed to allaying this innate prejudice. They will accept numerous environmental protection clauses as part of the permitting process. They will make section 106 contributions to benefit local projects (in Sirius' case £175M is proposed). They will sponsor community projects. Landscaping commitments will be agreed and financed. And eventually, after a rigorous process has been seen to be negotiated, after a series of challenges, after the lawyers have made their cut, a permit will be granted. Because a world-class mineral deposit - a very rare and precious discovery - cannot then be 'undiscovered' if it is deemed inconvenient. Once it is discovered, everybody knows it is there. And eventually - even decades later in some cases - the project will be permitted and developed.
Public infrastructure projects are not directly comparable, although there are some similarities. An airport development is seen as an unwelcome neighbour by many. It stirs up images of noise and pollution hell (to those unfamiliar with the reality in 2015). So it will stir strongly-motivated opposition from eco-extremists and some local residents. But there will be support too from local business leaders and residents who will use the facility or work there. So it is a much more two-sided debate than a mining project which stirs near-universal opposition. But one major difference is this: a mineral deposit is located where 'mother nature' put it; an airport location is a variable ... interested parties can propose alternative sites which will still do a job for the users.
The truth is that many more people want the end result (of investment) when they can see something in it for them. Airports, passenger railways, motorways, shopping centres all fall into this category. Mining projects - for the vast majority of people - do not. So in the latter case, the public must instead be persuaded by the direct benefits which the mine will bring to their community via sponsorships, direct investment in general infrastructure and environmental improvement measures.
Please can we lay to rest the idea that the south east of England is desperate for a new runway anywhere else.
Unfortunately not. Whilst we are all clear that this represents your personal opinion, leading figures representing LGW profoundly disagree with you. They deserve a full and comprehensive hearing as part of the Davies Commission process.