I don't think it matters where I am from.
I am in full agreement with you on this, Ametyst. Prophead was suggesting that posters located in the NW were ganging up against LHR R3. I was reminding him that there is diversity of opinion. It doesn't matter where you are posting from and it doesn't matter where I am posting from either. Our respective opinions are held irrespective of geographical location.
I travel regularly and happen to like flying through Heathrow
And that's fine. We are all free to make the journey choice which best suits our personal needs. There is no 'one-size-fits-all' right answer.
So, why should I not wish for it to be expanded just because I am from the North West of England.
Your geographical location should not be an issue at all. However, the extraordinary proposed cost to the taxpayer of developing LHR R3 should make you think twice. Merseyside is amongst those metropolitan areas which has been starved of large-scale transport infrastructure investment because the vast majority of state funding is being monopolised by projects located exclusively in the South-East.
If Manchester was the alternative to Heathrow
MAN is not the alternative to LHR. It has no role to play in serving passengers travelling internationally from the SE. But it is the most popular solution for fulfilling the international travel needs of people located in or visiting the North.
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!
MAN offers scheduled flights to thirteen US cities (including one announced but yet to launch). These are JFK, EWR, PHL, IAD, ATL, MCO, SFB, MIA, BOS, LAS, LAX, ORD and SFO. This is a very respectable portfolio of routes which compares well with offerings available from major airports in Continental Europe. It has given MAN the critical mass required to apply for US PDC which will bring added convenience to passengers. If the carriers mentioned above were to launch the routes you suggest they would find themselves entering an already very competitive environment, in many cases as the second carrier on the route. Airlines select MAN based upon the market dynamics there, not because of what they can / can't do at an unrelated airport.
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.
Hallelujah! At last a poster who
gets it!
It is used by people flying to/from the north who find it more convenient than Heathrow and pay a penalty for that
Some flights are more expensive from MAN, some are cheaper. Ground transportation costs vary according the the circumstances of each individual traveller. You cannot generalise in this way.
Even with this in it's favour it will never be able to attract the destinations that Heathrow can
As it happens, MAN offers a very large portfolio of destinations worldwide. And most major population centres not covered non-stop can be reached with one flight change over an existing major hub. For travellers within the catchment, MAN-LHR-XXX offers no discernible advantage over routing MAN-Overseas Hub-XXX. In fact, the latter is often a far more reliable option due to the unreliability of the Shuttle and stressful ground transfer arrangements at LHR.
London airports already contribute around £1bn a year just in APD
HM Treasury gets the money whichever UK gateway is used.
Because this whole argument about the spending is just a smokescreen
There are eighteen billion good reasons why it isn't.
Nowhere has Shed and co argued against the figure put forward by Tfl and questioned what it consist of.
GOTCHA!!! Remember those archived postings of mine which you can easily reference on this site? Well look again very closely. I routinely used Sir Peter Hendy's estimate of £10Bn public contribution requirement to allow for the possibility that TfL's then estimate of £20Bn was inflated for political reasons. I think that going with just half the highest quote available out there was extremely generous of me. This new £18Bn number has entered the fray much more recently.
If that was the real issue then we would all be arguing about and dissecting that
The contribution required from the taxpayer is
exactly the issue I've been arguing about throughout this R3 debate. Many on here are absolutely fed up of me labouring this point. Few would claim I hadn't done so!
They are all gladly using the highest figure put out in order to push their own agenda which is keeping their local airport as 'Gateway to the North'.
Afraid not. I routinely used Sir Peter Hendy's £10Bn estimate when £20Bn was the highest quote out there. And
you introduced MAN to the debate, not I. I simply corrected your spurious claims regarding public transport access there.
The north is a large place and people are sick and tired of having to travel to Manchester.
You may be, but this is a minority view in the extreme.
Shed himself has said repeatedly that he would prefer to fly from Man and change down route onto a connecting flight rather than travel to LHR
Correct. Frequent cancellations of the MAN Shuttle, the very slow duplicate security search on arrival at LHR and the stressful terminal transfer process make LHR an undesirable travel choice for me. However, I have consistently championed the right of each individual traveller to make their own journey choices, including in postings made on this thread over the last couple of days.
The National Express goes directly to T5 you know
You seem to harbour a burning hatred of National Express. I've actually used them from Heathrow Central to Bournemouth and Southampton, and from LHR T5 to Luton. They're absolutely fine. Just what is your issue with them?
He doesn't however believe those in other northern regions should have the same choice and connect at LHR.
Please quote where I've written anything remotely resembling this.
If there are enough passengers coming down from Newcastle for a flight to Salt Lake City then an Airline will fly direct. That is supply and demand. Nobody is dictating anything.
But if the cost of making that SLC link happen is a taxpayer contribution of £18Bn, they're better served by flying NCL-EWR-SLC instead. In fact, come to think of it ...
And finally, Prophead, can I remind you to debate me on what I actually have said rather than what you'd like me to have said. Please don't put words in my mouth. It is very poor form. Thanks.