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

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.

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.

Flybe are subsidised on LHR-EDI/ABZ????

Why would the stats be "rigged" in favour of LGW by a government that has hitched its waggon to LHR? If anything, you would expect them to bias towards LHR.

If LHR are willing to pay for it all, go ahead. What they are asking for is a massive government subsidy for surface access, and a commitment to underwrite the scheme.

In part this has been achieved by artificially closing down competition (i.e. preventing LGW runway 2) so that LHR can support its own finance by continuing to charge monopolistic prices to its airline customers who have no realistic alternative.

Great point, nailed it. In truth, Gatwick is not the realistic alternative to LHR. It could and should have been once upon a time but we are where we are now. Some fair points about the subsidy but the reality is that it's an oddity for the likes of LHR and LGW to be seen purely as private businesses. The privatised rail and energy firms by necessity get a host of public subsidy, mainly because there's a good arguement they should be publically owned. Both LHR and LGW are major parts of UK PLC infrastructure and will require public subsidy on some level on some points. The genuine argument for both airports is "How much?" TFL (a state body) have vastly inflated LHR costs in their world with the aim of getting a whole load of new money. Of course this is all politics.....

"This is politics now pure and simple."

it's envrionmental, planning and judicial ...... the courts will keep this in play for a generation

and the only bigger lobby than BA in Parlaiment is the lawyers............

BA don’t want a third runway Harry. Their market dominance would be diluted.
And the changes to planning law Osborne brought in make things much easier to avoid too much courtroom theatre. So, tricky but not as impossible as some would love to believe.

The argument still has to stack up. As things stand, it clearly does not. Unless something changes, runway 3 is a dead duck.

With regards to regional links and thus the whole purpose of hub: forget it. As I have said before, the 'do nothing' policy of the UK govts across the last 30 years have ensured that all the regions have been snapped up by KLM/AF, Lufthansa + other Euro carriers (inc FR) and, now, all the ME carriers are taking pax from the regions to THEIR hubs.

Whilst the Conservatives love to shout about letting the market work - here they have signally failed by preventing the market and, now, the market has gone elsewhere. LHR is doomed to remain the smallest and most insignificant of European hubs. Game Over (Brexit or not)

Is this true?

Heathrow typical passenger load is 78.5%. So almost 1/4 of empty seats. Suddenly 98.5% isn't all as it seems... https://t.co/WUgoJwt8tx https://t.co/UfCDZCZHXe

Extracted from The Times.

Definitely a Yes Minister
About turn in play.

As an aside I wonder if Lillian Greenwood will resign.

Even though she should be impartial she nailed her colours firmly to the mast by suggesting we

"get on and build Heathrow", hmmmmm
Somewhat premature as it was the first day of her appointment. Not much objectivity there then.

Even I thought the Head of the Parliamentary Transport Committee was supposed to be impartial, I was staggered that she made such a gung ho remark given her position.

Based on the latest data if there is not a reversal of that position to a more neutral view then she surely has to resign ?

It is one thing for MPs to make unqualified soundbite remarks but quite another for somebody of her authority and her position ?


The Local Government Technical Advisers Group vice chair John Elliott – who has given evidence to the Transport Select Committee in the past – welcomed Lilian Greenwood’s appointment. He said:

“We are hoping a little bit more attention is paid to challenge evidence and policy.”

We would all welcome that in what is becoming a fog in terms of who and what to believe.

The omni shambles doesn't end with the Transport Committee either.

The Transport Secretary says one thing whilst his department takes the contrary view and briefs against him. Incredible!

Have you data to establish that LHR is the smallest and most insignificant European hub? Last time I saw any report on this, it was still #1.

Possibly for UK regional airports feeding in, since much of the long haul business does now indeed find it's way on to one of the middle eastern carriers, or via FRA, AMS or CDG. It would be interesting to learn how much business from secondary airports in Europe and the middle east uses LHR to hub on to other (BA) services, or in the other direction with passengers from secondary north American airports using BA to hub into Europe.

I don't think it is #1 for regional PAX in the UK. I think it serves more worldwide destinations and has more interchange PAX.

I would have to agree with In Oban. The ammount of long haul taffic from the reigons of the UK using LHR has dropped over the last say 15 years, and continues to drain away. It is not just that LHR is not the best place to transit for some, but it is also served by BA which is no longer the go to carrier for every Brit going long haul, and especially if going East. The ME3 have put paid to that, and LH/AF/KLM are doing the same on other routes if you are not SE UK based.

It's still an incredibly strong proposition to market going West.

Even United who have a STAR hub at FRA have more flights out of LHR due to the much larger O&D market which also allows a swathe of connections onto LH FRA flights, I kid you not.
BA/AA is also an incredibly strong offering. Fed from both ends, they offer 23 US airports totaling 61 flights per day going into the USA.

In total it's :
Oneworld
AA 20
BA 41 US + 5 CA

STAR
AC 10
UA 17

Skyteam
DL 12
VS 17

So around 122 westbound scheduled daily transatlantic flights. Still #1 in that market by quite some way.

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/l...70101.html?amp

AND now The Evening Standard is briefing against Heathrow.

Quite so. It's not rocket science - Heathrow handles more transfer pax than any other European airport, by a long chalk.

The repeated argument of the 'hub' and its connectivity to most other UK regions is delusional...

You would be surprised the numbers of UK pax heading to AMS, FRA and CDG rather than trek to LHR. Personally speaking, I am one of them. I'd much rather use AMS in particular than mess around in the hell hole of LHR!

And in relation to Gatwick, it is repeatedly stated Gatwick is 'harder' to get to. Same can be said of LHR for anyone south of central London, east Surrey, Sussex, Kent and some of Hampshire. These are exactly the pax who also simply turn up at Gatters and board a quick short hop to the Continent to then catch their long haul flight. :cool::hmm:

It always puzzles me that posters who always use AMS or another continental hub are able to assert that LHR is a hellhole, contrary to user polls which rate T5 in particular very highly!