I'm still aghast that nobody has suggested the taxpayer is stumping up for a runway where 25% of the passengers fly in then out with the sum contribution to the UK kitty being the opportunity to snatch a quarter pounder.
Aghast? You intentionally miss the point that a whole load of long haul routes are successful only because of the feed? This is true of airlines other than BA. This is why Delta, American, US Airways, NWA, and the rest of the list we all know so well left LGW for LHR. You continually cite connection traffic as a negative at LHR whilst championing flybe at your own local airport, MAN. Double standards bagso?
Bet you support Emirates flying three daily A380s to MAN and pretend you're unaware they do exactly the same thing to Dubai. But that's different 'cos that's big planes at your local airport?
LHR is not just another airport. It's a fundamental part of UK PLCs infrastructure which due to our own short sighted-ness in terms of greed and lack of transport strategy is wholly owned by a private company! So to say that simply because LHR is private they need to pony up enough cash on their own for what is something crucial to the UK economy is naive in the extreme.
Do you think all those Boeings and Airbuses would have been built without the taxpayer digging deep? Hardly!
How many jobs do all those annoying transfer passengers support? How many routes would be lost without them?
Why is MAG so keen to repeat that self same business model at MAN?
People being super selective isn't helpful, the Commission took a
holistic view and recommended a third runway at LHR. Boris Island was COMPREHENSIVELY rejected again, LGW has never been more than a bucket and spade leisure focussed airport, more so now than ever before, there are of course risks at LHR but LGW gives you more runway capacity with zero connectivity growth which as bagos claims is a BAD thing. So bad, it's the whole driving force behind the rebuild and redesign of a certain Manchester based airfield.....
#notbarton
This is not an official publication of the House of Commons or the
House of Lords. It has not been approved by either House or its
Committees. All-Party Groups are informal groups of members of
both Houses with a common interest in particular issues. The views
expressed in this report are those of the group.
The report was compiled with input by Daniel Moylan, until recently
Deputy Chairman of Transport for London and Mayoral Adviser on
Aviation. Cllr Moylan is currently undertaking a consultancy assignment
for Global Infrastructure Partners, lead investors in Gatwick Airport
Moylan is a millionaire Tory Boris wannabe clone who is anti Heathrow as one of his many homes is under the existing flightpath. Very close to Boris and working for GIP? Not credibly independent is it?
Mr Moylan has been an
anti LHR campaigner for many years, hence why he's suggesting it'll end up like Berlin Brandenburg.......yet another "adviser on aviation" with
ZERO industry experience.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...nt-a-new-runw/
Pro Gatwick peeps coming out guns blazing today! Theresa Villiers MP claims the Commission Report says :
A new runway at Gatwick would deliver broadly equivalent economic benefits, but at a fraction of the environmental, social and financial costs of expanding Heathrow
Actually it says the opposite, the bang for your buck expanding LHR was the clincher, the environmental challenges were
NOT a deal breaker if managed properly. Essentially Gatters is desperate for any road block to stop LHR expansion so they can change their own business model. GIP can sell Gatwick for way more if LHR remains constrained. They're a group of
venture capitalists after all, go figure why they're so keen to block another business expanding.
Gatwick Obviously