I've noticed from the argument that it seems to be the pro MAN folks who are opposed.
Many of you see DUB as your main rival now. WW has made no secret of the fact he wants to make DUB and EI the hub for North America for the UK regions if R3 doesn't get the go ahead in LHR. So the question is thus: LHR 3 or DUB hub? One costs you nothing up front, the other may cost much longer term
Good questions, Una Due Tfc. It does appear anecdotally that most contributors opposing LHR R3 are posting from NW England. Of course, the actual PPRuNe discussions on this topic appear to have only a handful of regular participants anyway. It would be helpful to gain perspective from other regions as well if any lurkers wish to contribute.
As you know, my own posting location is Manchester. However, that does not mean that my postings are slaved to the best interests of my closest airport. The record shows that I argued the case for LGW expansion prior to publication of the Davies Report. This was because IMO LGW offered the SE a reservoir of additional runway slots at a significantly less prohibitive price than does LHR R3. An operational trade-off in return for much less financial exposure, with particular emphasis on the projected requirement to draw from scarce public funds. If you are interested in my detailed reasoning on all this, my archived postings on the topic remain easily accessible.
Out of interest, some of the LHR advocates challenged me on my support for LGW arguing that expansion there would be detrimental to MAN itself as well as to MAG's stablemate at STN. I actually disagreed with many of those suggestions anyway, but the point is that I do support cost-effective provision of airport infrastructure in the SE regardless of any anticipated negative implications for MAN.
Moving on to the 'LHR R3 or DUB hub' question. Quite understandably (on an aviation forum), the question is posed purely within the context of this industry. And on this level, MAN must be ready to compete with all its competitors for business regardless of which of these is in the ascendancy. However, whilst I do of course wish to see Manchester Airport prosper, my answer on this issue must address bigger considerations.
For me, the fundamental problem with the LHR R3 proposal is cost, specifically the publicly funded portion thereof. Davies puts this at £5Bn, Sir Peter Hendy (very well placed to judge) at £10Bn and TfL at £20Bn. I accept that TfL's number may be too high - perhaps politically motivated as some here suggest. But Davies' number does seem too low as well, and Sir Peter Hendy's number pitched at just half the highest projection makes a lot of sense. Now, please keep in mind that £10Bn is more than ten times the largest sum of public money which has
ever been allocated to a standalone transport infrastructure project outside the SE. Over the last three decades, London and the SE has enjoyed a conveyor belt of multi-billion pound projects supported by public funds. Endorsements now for further multiple billions in favour of LHR R3 and Crossrail 2 will assure that the regional famine in public infrastructure investment will be locked in for many more years to come. The infrastructure funding budget is finite. If London monopolises it again, the regions will pay a terrible price. Their transport infrastructure is already a generation behind that enjoyed in the SE.
This for me is the key issue, and as you will appreciate it goes way beyond aviation considerations alone. That there might (or might not) be a slightly better outcome for Manchester Airport specifically dependent on the LHR R3 decision cannot be allowed to take precedence over the more important consideration. The time is right for public funding of transport infrastructure initiatives to be more equitably distributed around the UK as a whole. It is not an airport v airport issue. It is yet more public infrastructure investment concentrated in the SE only v the elusive concept of a fair share of public infrastructure investment everywhere else.