Trouble the government have is that they specified the need for one runway in the south east.

They have hitched their "one runway" waggon to LHR which their own figures now show to be the weaker case compared to LGW.If they press on and "decide" to approve LHR (is the weaker case) the government would be exposed to a Judicial Review which, if successful, would mean they have to start the process again from scratch.

I suspect they reason there is no way they can gat R3 through quickly because of the environmental issues so they are kicking the can down the road hoping it will go away - same as the idiotic (non-) decision on moving out of Westminster made yesterday

this really is a Govt drifitng without any course or anchor

I wa quoting Heathrow Harry.
I have no conception of how having lost out every single time in every review how LGW suddenly wins against LHR. The only thing it has that is compelling is the environment case surely. Business isn't even interested in Gatters, never has been.

There is a reason that LHR has always been in the frame for expansion. Against all alternatives (new places / expansion) the needle always swings back to LHR. There is a reason for that ... :hmm:

Ah, right. It appears to have come from yesterday's BBC report, rather than the Times article:

Heathrow third runway public consultation reopened

It's b*ll*cks, of course. :O

While Gatwick may maintain publicly that their R2 plans would go ahead even if Heathrow is also given clearance for R3, nobody seriously believes that, do they?

It's because the airport commission underestimated LGW's growth by a substantial amount. Business travel is only a relatively small percentage of overall travel volumes and does not dictate what is best for the U.K. As a whole.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/25/heathrow-doubts-new-analysis-shows-gatwick-expansion-better/

"And while it was originally forecast that Heathrow would bring greater economic benefits, new official analysis now states that Gatwick would deliver greater financial reward.

The earlier report, put out for public consultation earlier this year, claimed that Heathrow offered total benefits of between £59.2billion and £61.1billion over a 60-year period, outweighing the £52.4 to £53.7billion that could be gained from Gatwick.

But the latest analysis has flipped this on its head, with Britain set to gain up to £75.3billion from Gatwick, compared to just £74.2billion from the third runway option at Heathrow."

Germany f--ks up an airport project and delays it by about 8 years . we take 25 years to not build a runway.

It has to go to LHR because its the only hub we have and ever will have.
LGW is too far away and very hard to get to, LHR might be not be ideal but at least there are lots of diverse options for reaching it.

Maybe the government are doing it to divert attention from Brexit where they are even more useless where they have done the most hopeless job imaginable whatever your point of view on the issue

Yeah, the ROI is poorer when compared against a constrained LHR but LGW do need another runway and have done for many years now. We're running out of road to kick the can down now.

As I have said before: If Brexit goes ahead, the holiday traffic will diminsh from LGW and Heathrow - whilst never getting back to a sensible level of ops - will find less pressure. I sit to be corrected!

Yes, but it's an ill wind ...

Brexit could mean Yorkshire sees huge increase in number of flights to Heathrow

:O

That's a huge overstatement by any means, if anything one extra flight a day but a 'huge increase' is ridiculous, the same could be said said about most of the domestic destinations currently served from LHR with some of these including EDI recently having cutbacks to their schedules.

LEEDS !!!!!

Newquay Humberside and Liverpool are looking for flights before Leeds.

Before Leeds!

British Airways currently fly from Heathrow to Leeds/Bradford upto three times daily.

Promises that if Heathrow is expanded, more regional destinations will be served are meaningless - neither the airport nor the Government can tell airlines where they should or shouldn't operate. If they can make more profit flying to Lima than Liverpool, that's what they'll do.

The Airports Commission acknowledged this, suggesting that even with expansion the number of UK routes from LHR will remain static or even decline in future.

Perhaps the current FlyBe operation would make an interesting case study to inform the government about the so-called regional connectivity argument.

This is absolutely true and something our MPs seem oblivious to. Ultimatley the airlines decide and given Virgin failed spectacularlying it will be down to BA. There is no point having connectivity to a HUB if you don't actually have the ability to connect to the airlines serving it. The Virgin case was weak due competition, lack of frequency and a few number of spokes.

With reference to Flybe are they making any money?

I would have thought we would have had increased frequency by now and lots of PR about how successful the flights to Scotland are but the silence is deafening!

"LGW is too far away and very hard to get to,"

It has a Motorway and rail connection - in fact a better rail connection than LHR as you can travel right across London to get there NOW - not in a couple of years with crossrail

Plus places like Guidlford & Reading are also connected directly to LGW but not LHR

Yorkshire Post quote
"Plans to construct a third runway were approved in October last year.":=

So provide slots to regional airports, = oh not able to make a profit, lets see we can sell the slot ££££ or $$$$$ :ouch:

Is it illegal post Brexit to ring fence a % of slots for domestic routes?
i.e. JER, GCI, IOM, LPL, LBA and maybe even MME?
For the benefit of the third runway, HAL would likely not see that as a dealbreaker.
Not beyond the wit of man to work this out surely?

LHR's case for regional connectivity relies on an airline operating the route. If you ringfence the slot but they are either not used or require a subsidy (like FlyBe now) to be used then it is a net cost rather than a benefit.

The only argument LHR is winning is the connectivity one. The economic, environmental, and regional connectivity arguments have been lost.