presumably you will be happy to enlighten us on precisely where the AC's calculations are in error?
I am very happy to do so, T&N - thanks for asking. But rather than type up archived material again I refer you to my posting of 8th April on this thread (Number 4040). This should spare the anguish of readers who note that this debate tends to go round in circles. If you're interested, direct yourself also to a series of postings I made on this topic in September 2015. They're all archived on PPRuNe.
That's if you can post anything in the LHR forum without hyperbole or conjecture.
A degree of conjecture is unavoidable from all parties in a debate such as this one because of the imprecise nature of the data made available. However, I studiously avoid hyperbole preferring to stick to the facts as known.
I meant it doesn't alter the fact that there is still a business case to expand LHR as a hub airport
The cost of making it happen negates the business case for this.
a whole load of works that will need doing anyway by 2030 even without expansion.
I remind you once more that there are numerous essential works already required on public infrastructure across regional UK. There is no justification for those in the vicinity of LHR to jump the queue for scarce public funds.
Please, it is used as the only other option is an expensive taxi ride on busy motorways.
Incorrect. Besides mainline rail, Manchester Airport is accessible by light rail (Metrolink), National Express coaches, independent coach operators, regional and local bus services, and (of course) by private cars and taxis. The bulk of MAN's catchment area is well-served by at least one of the public transport alternatives listed here. Such are the facts (since you raise the topic). However, note that I only reference Manchester Airport in this context in answer to you raising the subject. I have never argued the LHR R3 debate from a Manchester Airport perspective, although I'm sure you would like to portray that notion as some kind of ulterior motive on my part.
A short taxi ride, bags checked and gone then be sat with a coffee in T5 in 45 minutes is much more convenient believe me.
The LHR transfer option exists because it is considered useful by a proportion of the market. However, many customers prefer alternatives for a multitude of reasons. Each individual customer makes a travel choice appropriate to their own circumstances, location and budget. BTW, congratulations on reaching the T5 seating inside 45 minutes. You obviously caught the duplicated full security check at a very quiet time and didn't require an airside transfer to one of the other LHR terminals (so tedious).
I don't think Shed needs to do that - public bodies are doing just that - all you need to do is Google them...
Thanks for the support, Dobbo, but I think it would be a very useful exercise for T&N to refresh his memory concerning the flawed methodology reported as having been used by the AC. The postings I referenced at the beginning of this answer address the issue.