The only argument LHR is winning is the connectivity one. The economic, environmental, and regional connectivity arguments have been lost.
You say that, but time and time again it comes back to Heathrow.
Let's list the airlines who are pressing for a 2nd runway at Gatwick. : ?
This is politics now pure and simple. As a business analyst I am well used to the misuse of selective stats, I see it every day at work.
The cost benefit analysis favouring Gatwick has been rigged by inflating massively the TFL and local costs of supporting LHR infrastructure, most of which would need to be done anyway. Garbage in, garbage out. As for the environmental and noise nuisance, the future is 787s and A350s, which as a local are a fraction of the noise nuisance of the beloved "Queen of the Skies" -436 series.....
LHR is hugely problematic but if they don't press ahead they won't simply say, "Well it's LGW after all." We'll be back at square one only in a worse place. The sheer volume of jobs coupled with post Brexit need to show we are a trading nation will force the government to push ahead, even at the risk of Corbyn voting down the biggest jobs boost for his unions in generation.
You could probably do it but LHR would scream and ask for compensation as they won't make as much money from cheapo Brits transitting from the wilds as well-heeled foreigners
As I tried to explain, a small % of protected new slots is a small price to pay for a third runway and all that comes with it. It is perfectly manageable if done sensibly.
require a subsidy (like FlyBe now) to be used then it is a net cost rather than a benefit.
Flybe are subsidised on LHR-EDI/ABZ????