Shed we have argued these points before and I am not going go through it again.
You just did. My post was a response to you doing exactly that.
If foreign investment is not as forthcoming then that is hardly a reason to cancel projects in the SE.
I have no desire to see worthwhile value-for-money projects cancelled in the SE or anywhere else. The problem lies with permitting one specific project at which the cost of provision vastly outweighs the benefits which will ultimately be delivered. And one which misallocates an enormous swathe of public investment resources in the process.
there is also an element of public funding required at LHR
That
element of public funding is actually 12 to 18 times the sum which has ever been invested in a single public transport infrastructure project in the UK regions.
My argument is for a hub. Yours is for an expanded LGW.
My argument is for a solution to the SE runway capacity shortfall which does not jeopardise the finances of UK plc. The hub aspiration only makes sense if the payback exceeds the cost of facilitating it by a worthwhile profit margin. Providing capacity for inherent SE demand-growth for air travel is the key issue here. LGW can deliver that.
If we do want to build a world class hub airport for a realistic amount then the only sensible option is LHR.
In what way does GBP18.5Bn private plus between GBP12-18Bn in public funding for enabling works constitute a
realistic amount for expanding LHR capacity by just 50%?
The AC can say what it wants, it is the airlines who will decide
So can we deduce that you have little confidence in the AC report as a whole, or is it just the sections which don't support your agenda which should be overlooked?