Which puts UK PLC at a fundamental competitve disadvantage with our competitors, see AMS, CDG, FRA, ZRH also DXB, DOH,AUH etc. No one in the industry thinks that this should be the "prime concern".
Those who will be asked to foot the bill, such as Willie Walsh and many UK taxpayers, disagree with you. A LHR mega-airport would be wonderful to have if it could be provided affordably. The problem is it can't be.
Said the flyer when the first AA055 departed MAN-ORD in 1986. Seen Dubai lately?
New offerings are being added all the time (and I never mentioned MAN in this context, although it is true of that airport as well). You are right that AAL55 and DXB in some respects illustrate the point, however.
It's invalid to compare LHR with FRA? Good point, Germany still has ambition.....
Both have ambition. But their geographical locations differ. In the context of travel planning that matters quite alot. LHR also has a financial cost problem which FRA does not appear to share.
As head of IAG, he needs to do what's right for the IAG share price and artificially keep more competition out of LHR.
Well being asked to stump up towards the super-inflated cost of developing LHR on behalf of IAG's competitors isn't great for the IAG share price either. And BA's post-R3 inflated fares will erode their cost advantage going forward too. Higher operating costs, increased access for competition. What are you trying to do to British Airways?
It's a piece of national infrastructure that's going to be costly but needs to be done.
At the right price, ideally so. At many multiples of the right price, categorically not. There are more economically-viable solutions to provide for demand growth for air travel inherent to the SE.
By elsewhere, be honest, youn mean MAN, and your "fair share".
No, that's not what I mean and that's not what I have argued. Verify that by reading any and all of my archived PPRuNe postings on this topic. Note that I do acknowledge that I wish to see MAN prosper - why wouldn't I? - but I have never argued the SE capacity debate from that standpoint.
As to your point of directing traffic elsewhere, they tried that with Gatwick, it failed once the regulatory environment changed
I have never argued for air traffic distribution by government decree. As you say (and I agree) it doesn't work. The free market will decide optimal transit routings in the absence of a (cost-prohibitively provided) LHR option. In fact, the free market will decide even if LHR is available as a choice.
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.
You continue to conflate London's hub aspirations with the need to provide for the inherent growth of air travel demand within the SE region. Inherent SE demand must be provided for. Transfer traffic attracted at way beyond economic cost is a luxury which it doesn't make sense to pursue. Spending GBP18.5Bn directly plus GBP12-18Bn in publicly-funded support works to increase LHR throughput by just 50% is the laughable notion in this debate.
Also, please stay away from Subway for your own sanity.
Your best quote of the day! My one and only
Subway purchase was in Mexico about twelve years ago!
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".
Your "solution" of spending a combined sum of upto
36 Billion Pounds to increase LHR capability by just 50% is the true folly here.
One cannot take that claim remotely seriously in such a ferociously competitive commercial environment.
If it could all be delivered for five billion tops I'd agree with you.
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 would be so convenient for your case if I had argued on this basis, wouldn't it? My PPRuNe archived postings testify that I have never done so. Please feel free to quote them. I do, however, argue strongly in favour of an equitable distribution of public infrastructure spend across the whole of the UK, not just within the charmed SE bubble. The London & SE conveyor belt of multi-billion pound infrastructure enhancements spanning half a century are distinctly absent across the rest of the UK. I don't begrudge London these stunning showpieces, but I do call unapologetically for the rest of the nation to share fully in the largesse going forward. Starting right now.
It provides little change to airport capacity in its current form.
That's dumb surely?
You think that replacing obsolete time-expired terminal buildings with a new state-of-the-art replacement is dumb? I respectfully disagree. Future measures to accommodate growth based upon a sound business case will of course be welcome as well.
You realise 7Bn Euro will buy a lot more in Turkey?
Yes, that's why I quoted
high-cost New York La Guardia in the next sentence!
Again, politically charged stats if you see who is the messenger.
Can we at least agree that there is no shortage of politically-charged data in the media on both sides of this debate? It's reminiscent of the BREXIT campaign.
it looks like LHR will get the nod on a free vote of MPs. Not before time.
If so, I'll enthusiastically endorse taxpayer-funded refresher lessons in basic arithmetic for our 650 Westminster MP's. How many millions to each billion again, Minister?
Right. Time for my conflated breakfast / dinner / tea. Where the heck's my nearest
Subway?
Conflated eh ... see how I worked your favourite word in again, Skip! ;-)