It's the central core of your argument Shed, you're the only one who can't see it, honestly. Continue to artificially constrain LHR to allow MAN and the regions to prosper.
I've called you out on this before, Skip, and now I do so again. All my PPRuNe postings on this topic are archived and available for any and all to reference. I invite you to re-read them and quote
any passage you can find in which I argue against LHR R3 from the perspective of protectionism towards MAN. Time to 'put up or shut up' on this nonsense. The problem with the LHR R3 proposal is the extraordinary costings associated with it, particularly those which will be drawn from scarce public funds. I have consistently argued the case on that basis. Finally, please explain my support for the LGW option (subject to strict cost oversight) if my agenda is to ensure that MAN alone can prosper.
Cost calculations at this level are not arithmetic
In this case I chose my wording carefully. A primary school class could quickly assess the chasmic value-for-money deficit presented by the crazy numbers associated with the LHR R3 proposals. "And by the way, kids, we plan to help pay for this with a large slice of your inheritance!" Let's hope that we have a sufficient number of MP's who can recognise the fiscal folly represented by this "investment opportunity". Then explain the concept of
opportunity cost and examine the investments which could instead be made with those same GBP12-18Bn in public funds.
Finally, Skip, you've been quite withering in your various ripostes towards
Bagso. But many times now he has posed his 'reasonable price point' question to you. A perfectly valid challenge. And you constantly evade providing an answer. How about facing up to the task this time? I'm sure many readers here await your response with interest.