London Banter - View Single Post

tim..... · September 3rd 14, 08:10 PM posted to uk.transport.london

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:22:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
,
at 02:36:55 on Tue, 2 Sep 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Having lived through the "Third airport" debacle, where unless I'm
very
much mistaken the result was expanding the biggest existing
shortlisted
airport (and rejecting otherwise preferred but more expensive
builds), I
wouldn't be surprised to see Gatwick being chosen for the "next new
runway".

By that logic, surely Heathrow would be chosen?

Lots of local opposition, and much more expensive.

True, but also much, much more demand for it. Apart from Gatwick
airport itself, not many people are demanding a second runway there.
Pretty much the entire business community and airline industry want
Heathrow to expand.

That's because they've all bought into the fiction that it will mean
there is space for daily flights to Ulan Bator (insert list of other out
of the way places that only 3 people a week want to travel to) thus
increasing the trade that we do with um, Mongolia.

Frankfurt already has direct flights to Ulaanbaatar. If there's enough
business to justify flights from London, why shouldn't they be offered?
If
not, they obviously won't be. The point is that the market should decide,
without artificial restraints.

But IMHO the extra capacity wont be used this way. It'll be used to
increase the number of flights a day to NYC from 30 to 60 to no-ones
benefit except BA/AA/Etc

That's your fantasy, not what the market is telling us. If there was a
market for a lot more NYC flights,

like this you mean:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...cus-on-US.html