LGW should - subject to not tapping public funds - be allowed to develop the runway infrastructure necessary to service this large leisure-orientated niche. The airport has amply demonstrated its suitability for that market. We're talking additional journey demand in the multiple millions per annum to destinations of this type.
Good point.
Growth in terms of volume looks like it will be around that segment, this is partially why easyJet were sniffing around Terminal 4 with a view to a medium term LHR presence should Runway 3 go ahead. In terms of the strategic growth around investment and overseas trade then that's always LHR, LGW has nothing to say here. I do not disagree that LGW really ought to be allowed a second runway to make a good airport even better however. What worries the money men at GIP is that any runway three at LHR will see EZY at LHR and suddenly the dynamics of the market flip. Not only do they risk EZY bleeding across to LHR but, and feel free to disagree, BA would be greatly tempted to shift those ten daily long haul movements out to LHR as would VS for the sake of six B744 / A330s. Overnight they could slash the cost of their London handling and Engineering cover with little risk that the LGW market would not follow them to LHR.
Just ban foreign holidays and there will be plenty of airport capacity for the 'suits'
Much of (most?) short haul business travel is in Economy nowadays, and only b(w)ankers and car salesman tend to wear suits to work
