Everyone benefits. UK plc benefits.
T&N - Your recent postings on this topic present you as a cheerleader rather than somebody prepared to engage in serious debate.
Everyone benefits? You cannot be serious! I don't see any value in typing up an extremely lengthy list of those who do not benefit - it would be too time-consuming. The whole LHR R3 issue is deeply contentious precisely because so many do NOT benefit. If it were otherwise, R3 would have been a done deal long ago.
UK plc benefits? Well, London and the SE will see some benefits but as for UK plc in its entirety ... that is another area of contentious debate. The regions would certainly benefit far more if the public portion of funding earmarked for LHR R3 and associated works were spent on infrastructure projects directly in the regions instead. There is a substantial 'opportunity cost' associated with any decision to publicly fund LHR development as opposed to investing directly in regional projects of merit. And regional projects are decades overdue their turn for public infrastructure investment. Currently, planned public infrastructure spending per head by region shows London at £5305 per annum and the NE at £414. This is before Crossrail 2 and LHR R3 come into play. Source: Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute.
The LHR 'good for Britain' argument relies on the concept of trickledown working its magic. Well, trickledown produces very little magic for the regions. It produces a trickle! And as for £147Bn payback from LHR R3 (as forecast in the Davies Report), reputable commentators have ridiculed that figure as vastly over-optimistic. Based upon standard government accountancy principles the true number is projected to be a fraction of this. The article containing the exact details and numbers was published on August 28th - I would like to link it here as is good practice, but the link now leads to a blank page save for onward links to football reports and lots of side-adverts promoting LHR expansion! Funny that, although it could of course be remotely targeted advertising generated by Google. If I am able to locate the original article I will come back with the figures quoted.
Let's just say there is a debate to be had here. This is not cut and dried. They who you dismiss lightly as "those complaining" actually have genuine and substantial grievances backing them up.