Felixflyer ...
Well, Mr Felixflyer, I gave you all the rope I could, but it seems that you are determined to hang yourself. So be it.
Now you are talking about the £8-20bn from the taxpayer so we are getting somewhere
Scroll back to post No.178 in this thread. It is my second posting in our recent exchange. The one dated 10.06.2015 at 01:46. Note that it has not been interfered with since. Now, about a quarter of the way in you will find a paragraph which begins: "The cost is ABSOLUTELY the issue". Re-read it very carefully. And lo and behold, three lines in (by my display) there they are: the exact numbers you accuse me of having belatedly introduced. Set amidst a more detailed summary of the cost parameters. It is true that I didn't repeat those numbers in every subsequent posting. Constant repetition irks other readers. But aside from that, I afforded you the courtesy of assuming that you had a memory-span exceeding that of a goldfish. Was that an error of judgment on my part?
I still think the figure will be nearer the bottom end
I still think the figure will be nearer the top end. We'll have to disagree on this.
We do however as taxpayers need to know there will be value for money and a benefit to the whole of the UK.
For once I agree with you. That is the basis of my issue with the proposed LHR costings. There is a huge 'opportunity cost' associated with allocating substantial public funds to LHR instead of compelling infrastructure priorities in the regions.
Research suggests that the benefits to the UK from LHR expansion would more than pay for the cost paid by the taxpayer.
This depends upon whose research you believe. And note the 'opportunity cost' factor highlighted above.
Your obviously a Manchester airport enthusiast so you will never want any expansion in the south
So that must explain why I have been promoting the merits of the LGW option, stating that the greater good must apply when challenged on MAG's concerns for STN, and outlining RYR & EZY fleet-strengths to illustrate why MAN should not feel threatened. By the way, if you follow the PPRuNe Manchester thread you will find that I am frequently accused of being too negative about the place. You see, I address the facts as they actually are, as opposed to how I would like them to be.
I have no affinity to any airport
Damn! I just spat Vimto all over my keyboard ...
It is not 'verboten just irrelevant. The charter stuff is not what LHR is looking for
EasyJet, by far LGW's biggest user, doesn't do charter stuff. BA, Virgin, Norwegian, Monarch ... all scheduled too. Not that there is anything wrong with charter, of course. If a flight needs to land on a runway in the SE then it is relevant. Whatever label we attach to it. Davies must consider the 'big picture overview', not just the cherry-picked morcels which support your personal agenda.
This idea that the SE just needs a new runway built somewhere is not a response to the business case BAA have for expanding LHR into a hub.
LGW has compiled a compelling business case as well. It is entirely appropriate that the Davies Commission should carefully examine all options.
Putting more med flights on from Gatwick, Lydd or Luton is for another thread
According to you. But who put you in charge of the agenda? The airports you cite are about far more than just Med flights anyway ... not that there is anything wrong with Med flights, by the way. The case for LHR cannot be meaningfully considered if we ban examination of the alternative options.
I think I have made my point clear now feel I have repeated myself too much so will sit back and read others comments now.
Fine. Well if you do return to the fray, be sure to discuss the issues and the data as I have done. No more of the pantomime stuff.