"tim......" wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Neil Williams wrote:
Recliner wrote:

Exactly. Heathrow is oversubscribed, while Stansted struggles for business.
The customers want more capacity at Heathrow area, not east or northeast of
London.

No, they want extra capacity at the main London airport (with lots of
airlines and passengers) which happens to be Heathrow. If Heathrow closed,
it wouldn't be any more.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, not an overriding desire to visit Slough
on holiday.

Businesses (including company head offices, caterers, hotels, air freight
companies, airline offices, people who need to travel a lot, etc) have
located around Heathrow, and they want the main London hub to remain in the
area.

This is a tiny percentage of the total demand for air travel.

There are just as many businesses at other locations around the country
who would quite happily have the airport somewhere else.

I don't think that we should be lead by (random) Company X saying "we
must have the main airport 10 minutes away". That's a silly way to make a decision

It also has much better transport links than other London airports.

Only because it's the closest, but it is that very closeness that makes
it the most unsuitable for expansion.

So who would pay for the move and the new transport infrastructure, given
that the airlines, the suppliers, the workers, the owners of Heathrow, the
customers and the workers don't want it, wouldn't support it or pay for it?
Unless the replacement hub airport was a very long way away from its
customers, out in the estuary, it would simply annoy a new set of
neighbours without benefiting anyone with a business interest. The private
sector would pay to enhance a much-in-demand Heathrow, but why would it
fund a Mirabel-on-Thames white elephant?