Do you spend multiple £Millions on extending a very problematic short restricted runway that points completely in the wrong direction at 700ft AMSL in frequent poor weather? - No, of course not. You might if the airport was in the perfect geographic location to control its catchment (such as Birmingham). LBIA does not control its catchment because of the M62/M1 and Trans Pennine Express fast railway that dissect even the Leeds City Region and go directly to competition airports. The gigantic Yorkshire and Humberside catchment is divided up and so LBA's affected population catchment is actually not that big. Therefore there would not be sufficient demand for the majority of longhaul flights that would require an extended runway that most certainly would be viable from a better located and accessible airport within Yorkshire and Humberside. It's called a Double Wammy. Yes 787s and A350s could marginally operate out of LBA but no airline will go anywhere near that risk - because of the Double Wammy; Terrible catchment reducing location/accessibility and extremely restricted runway/airfield operation. So of course the owners say we can manage as we are - But Where are those flights? You can work on an airport if maybe 1 thing is lacking like Birmingham did with their runway (and now look) but you cannot work on correcting an airport if virtually everything is so far from ideal. Simple economics. The same is true for an awful lot of other flights from LBA - not just longhaul. You don't need many diversions, holding, cancellations, missed approaches, delays to turn profit into loss as an airline. When the deals are all done and dusted you need an airport that is perfectly located and accessible to control the catchment and equally as important can handle all aircraft types efficiently and economically to destinations that are viable from that catchment.