Really? Then why do we have 3 different figures put forward for the access works.
Pause to consider what the term
range of projected estimates actually means.
If the train to London, tube transfer and hotel room was replaced by a 45 minute cheap shuttle flight though?
Shuttle services already exist from certain airports and are the solution of choice for a proportion of the market. Other customers consider alternative choices preferable. It is an individual decision based upon personal circumstance. However, forget the notion of a
cheap Shuttle flight. The Shuttle isn't cheap now and certainly won't be when airlines are additionally loaded with the exorbitant costs of the proposed LHR R3 expansion.
The last thing people want is to have to get on a coach after a long flight and sit on the motorway
Let's be clear here.
You evidently dislike coach travel. But you don't speak for the whole market. Many customers consider taking a coach to the airport to be an excellent solution. And when I've used coaches to and from airports I have rarely ended up having to "sit on the motorway".
You have already mentioned that people pay a premium to fly from Manchester. Add that to a coach/train ticket or expensive taxi fare and it is not even cheaper than the LHR option. Certainly a lot more hassle though.
You are over-generalising. Each journey is unique with its own combination of air fare and associated costs for ground travel to/from the airport at each end of the journey. Some journeys are cheaper from Airport A, others from Airport B. Hence the market fragments as customers identify the best option for their own needs. As for alternatives to using LHR being "certainly a lot more hassle", well, let's just say that is a very subjective statement. I and many others would profoundly disagree.
It is, which is why connecting regionals that could never hope to have LH flights with LHR is such a good thing.
We have established in previous exchanges that LHR expansion would bring certain operational advantages if it could be delivered cost-effectively. Our problem has always been that the cost of the proposed R3 project is many multiples higher than what could ever be considered a reasonable sum. The marginal increase in utility provided by additional shuttle frequencies is monstrously outweighed by the mammoth cost of the scheme.
The fact remains however that even Manchester doesn't have the demand for a large number of international locations that an expanded LHR connected to multiple regionals would.
And the solution to that is to change flights at an en route hub such as DXB, ATL or IST. That's not so difficult. Works a treat, actually. And it averts the need for irrational overspending in the course of expanding LHR. Indeed, even if LHR were extended at vast expense much of the market would still choose to do their flight transfers elsewhere.
This is more about routes that currently require a change elsewhere and bringing the connection in to the UK.
Why is this the
Holy Grail? If such connections cannot be facilitated cost-effectively then UKplc is better off persevering with one-stop services to marginal niche destinations via overseas hubs. A 90 minute aircraft change in DXB really doesn't kill off the lure of profitable business travel. Remember too that a customer flying (for example) GLA-DXB-BKK is effectively gaining nothing by switching to GLA-LHR-BKK instead. What is the compelling USP of LHR in cases such as this?
The numbers of people flying to Amsterdam to connect show the market is there.
The numbers of people connecting through Amsterdam show that UK travellers are coping just fine without a LHR expanded at eyewatering cost.
There is a lot of money spent whilst waiting for a connecting flight.
You need to sell a helluva lot of sandwiches to offset £18Bn of public money. Remember too that we're talking only about the tax portion of products sold, not 100% of the price-tag.
Talking about the setup in place at the moment though is pointless.
On the contrary, it is highly relevant in establishing the relative attractiveness of competing passenger transfer options.
You could build LHR, HS2, HS3, the Sheffield to Manchester tunnel and a new runway at LGW for less than the amount given to bail out the banks.
Agreed, but we both know that the Treasury will not in reality fund all comers. Tough choices must be made. The nation must prioritise.
All of these would pay for themselves and more in the long run IMO.
Only if they are funded at a price-point which makes economic sense. Sadly, the LHR R3 proposals don't even come close.