You also seem to overlook that increasingly TfL will have to fund its own projects so the taxpayers and service users affected will be those living and working (and running businesses) in London, not the rest of the U.K. In that case it is only natural that it will try to lump as much of its future project costs on to the back of any major development that gets put forward. There is no magic £18bn pot of money sat in the Treasury to fund the wish list of those wanting to secure investment for the regions. As you rightly say there are limited resources at the present time so investment will flow to those projects that generate the most growth (principally in the form of GVA and tax revenue).
Airports rightly are expected under State Aid rules to meet the costs of infrastructure from which they directly benefit. So far TfL (I suspect partly driven by their former political master) have been stretching the definition of direct benefit beyond reason and have included any and every project that is linked to Heathrow that might require investment in the next couple of decades.
Why are you so obsessed with TFL? It's involvement with LHR surface infrastructure enhancements are minimal. Motorway/trunk road tunnels and/or diversions and junction improvements plus the new railways are part of the remit of the Dept. of Transport, and that's where most of the spending will go.
Also, these infrastructure and connectivity improvements will be beneficial to others apart from airport staff and passengers so government involvement is justified.
TFL may operate some new bus routes perhaps and that would help, but no new tube extensions are planned, so its role would be marginal. TFL was doing its master's bidding by inflating figures and getting involved with issues beyond its remit at the time when Mayor Boris was banging on about "fantasy island".
Boris MP now has bigger fish to fry, plus many constituents who either work on the airport, or for organisations closely linked to it and dependent on its continued success.
Liverpool, along with its sister airports, Doncaster Sheffield and Durham Tees Valley, support the 3rd runway at Heathrow. All three airports are majority owned by Manchester-based Peel Holdings who also support the Heathrow expansion.
This should really not come as a surprise, it's common sense!
I don't think it matters where I am from.
I travel regularly and happen to like flying through Heathrow. So, why should I not wish for it to be expanded just because I am from the North West of England.
If Manchester was the alternative to Heathrow, which as we know is operating at full capacity, then the Airlines would already be at Manchester or any other UK Regional Airport.
United could easily have added UK capacity by adding Flights from Manchester to Chicago, Houston and San Francisco but they have not. After all, they no longer have a UK feed to their Heathrow routes. A deal with Flybe at Manchester would be perfect.
Delta/Virgin could have added Manchester to Detroit, Minneapolis St Paul or Los Angeles and American could have added Manchester to Charlotte, Dallas or Miami, but neither have!
Exactly.
Manchester airport isn't trying to beat Heathrow but it offers a credible alternative. The Heathrow bubble has been burst and there is no turning back. It's a gateway to the world but the nonsense that it's that or nothing is just guff. Passengers will go where they want and Heathrow isn't the choice for millions any more.
I think London is a fantastic city and I use Heathrow but it should not be given a potentially massive hand out because we are told it will be the saviour of the UK.
Think there's a lot of missing the point here. It is really quite simple.
Where the market can support just one route between the UK and another country that route will be (with a handful of exceptions) to/from LHR (e.g. Vietnam, Indonesia, Kenya, Colombia, Brazil, etc.). This has always been the case, and in recent years, it has sometimes had to be via the LGW waiting room.
Where the market can support two routes between the UK and another country those routes will
usually be to/from LHR and MAN (e.g. Hong Kong, Singapore, China, Egypt, etc.).
Where the market can support multiple routes between the UK and another country the other UK airports get a look in, (e.g. Ireland, USA, Canada, UAE, most of Europe, etc.).
Therefore LHR will always be the main UK airport and there is a pecking order for the rest. Pax, especially premium pax, want to use LHR, so carriers want to be there. The evidence is the willingness of carriers to pay millions for LHR slots!
The more connectivity the better, and more routes to/from more airports is clearly desirable and necessary, but in some cases there will always be a need to change planes at LHR (or AMS, DUB, etc.), and the presence of transfer pax at LHR makes more routes viable, especially thinner ones.
So win-win all round, and the
alleged "
potentially massive hand out" could turn out to be excellent value for money.