On Tue, 7 May 2013 19:11:01 +0200, "tim......"
wrote:


"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"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

Dunno

Who paid when Munich moved.

Who paid when HK moved?

I don't think the German and Hong Kong governments would want to pay
to move London's hub airport. And neither would the British
government.