LGW does not have "50 long haul routes" without counting all those once a week TCX and TOM beach destinations. For purposes of business long haul they have :
But Skip, you're missing the point here. TOM B788's and TCX A332's need to land on concrete runways just as CPA B77W's and BAW A388's do. This debate is about providing sufficient runway capacity to accommodate all flights serving London, regardless of whether we categorise the passengers onboard as business or leisure-orientated. LGW is absolutely fine for absorbing new leisure and no-frills traffic
which is by far the largest growth sector. EasyJet, Norwegian, Ryanair, Vueling, Jet2, Wizz ... these are the carriers mopping up spare runway slots in the SE. Long-hauls on new thin prestige business routes generally require one slot-pair per day, maybe less.
By all means allow LGW to expand but not at the cost of the airport that airlines and customers would prefer and the one which supports the economy wayyyy more.
You are once again wilfully ignoring the financial cost involved here. GBP12-18Bn in public funds for support works in the vicinity of LHR, plus the risk of underwriting the privately-funded multiple-billions doesn't support the economy. It drains resources from it to a devastating extent in the way misallocated capital expenditure is prone to do.
The sums involved are ruinous. They risk holing the economy, not supporting it.
LGW can provide the capacity needed to accommodate inherent SE demand-growth for air travel with considerably reduced risk to the public purse.