Firstly, I must remind occasional readers here that whenever a contributor domiciled in the NW makes a post, you immediately introduce Manchester Airport into the discussion
No, it's Bagso, who is well known and not "anyone". It's very easy to link him to being pro MAN as he's at least consistent.
Let us acknowledge that connecting traffic is a net positive at most airports. However, whilst it is nice to have, it is not essential. At a highly congested airport such as LHR, there is an argument that connecting traffic may be better directed elsewhere. The key point which you fail to draw attention to is the financial cost of facilitating that connecting traffic. There comes a point at which it does not make economic sense to do so. I would argue that the eyewatering numbers quoted in the case of LHR R3 place it very substantially beyond that threshold. The benefits of this particular LHR feed to UK plc is outweighed by the cost of provision many times over.
It's a piece of national infrastructure that's going to be costly but needs to be done. There are no easy answers here. As to your point of directing traffic elsewhere, they tried that with Gatwick, it failed once the regulatory environment changed. In a free market, this scenario is not a goer. I disagree with your view on the cost benefit analysis as do many others, so no meeting of minds. By elsewhere, be honest, youn mean MAN, and your "fair share".
Yes indeed. But consider this (because nobody seems to want to). The bulk of London's airport demand growth will come from the leisure sector. From Tenerife, Palma, Faro, Malaga, Ibiza, Barbados, Prague, Krakow. Not from niche long-haul business cities currently unserved by non-stop flights. Growth from these will be a modest proportion of the whole, despite the impression the decision-makers are urged to believe.
Yet again you willfully conflate London's capacity growth with hub capacity at our one national hub, a mistake other countries continue to find laughable.
It doesn't make sense to pay two thousand pounds for a two pound sandwich, however tasty that sandwich may be. Especially with scarce public funds required for more compelling investments distributed across the whole of the UK.
No one is suggesting this. Also, please stay away from Subway for your own sanity.
It is the growth in leisure traffic which is bulking-out the SE airports system. That is why LGW is an eminently suitable solution to the problem (subject to private-funding of development and carefully-scrutinised costs).
By all means build another runway at Gatwick, if people wish to fly from there then all good. However business and inward investment do not come in via Gatters in the same way they do at LHR. Your "solution" of allowing LHR to stagnate does not address hub issues and it's folly to claim it's a mere "nice to have". One cannot take that claim remotely seriously in such a ferociously competitive commercial environment.
Your core issue is you don't want any benefits of this to come via London, it's all predicated on coming in via MAN and your local airport, at which you work(ed) I believe?
It provides little change to airport capacity in its current form.
That's dumb surely?
two terminals and capacity for 90m pax per annum (more than LHR) at a projected cost of EUR7Bn.
You realise 7Bn Euro will buy a lot more in Turkey? It's the cost of doing business Shed, pretty basic stuff. The South East is a high cost place to be yet strangely popular (!)
It is suggested by TfL that the public contribution required for LHR support works alone falls between GBP12-18Bn.
Formerly run by Boris and Moylan? That TFL? Is that the TFL portion or did TFL do analysis on the M4 works and surrounding infrastructure? Again, politically charged stats if you see who is the messenger.
The Commission report was a good effort to be an honest broker and recommended LHR acknowledging higher costs but much higher benefits in terms of inbound investment. I won't bet too much on this, but it looks like LHR will get the nod on a free vote of MPs. Not before time.