In message , at 21:22:23 on Wed, 3 Sep
2014, tim..... remarked:

Doesn't this simply show that "Virgin" airlines is just Delta (was
Singapore Airlines) with a subsidiary that happens to pay a lot for an
iconic branding. Just like Virgin Media is NTL paying slightly less
for the same.

I don't care

But what I do care about is that it helps to prove my prove my point,
that if you have all of the infrastructure required to operate extra
flights to the US, in competition with 6 other airlines, or to obscure
parts of the Far East competing with no-one ...

Except I do agree with Recliner that there's been massive new
competition on the Far East routes, and as well as Singapore throwing in
the towel from that direction, the new buyer is clearly interested in
feeding more customers to its own domestic routes.

the extra flights to the US win hands down.

(The fact that the parts of the Far East Virgin have pulled out from
aren't actually obscure, is even more compelling IMV)

I hear Recliner's point that there is obviously extra demand from
airlines to fly these flights from LHR and that if they were allowed to
do so the costs of the expansion would be paid for easily.

But what I don't buy, is all is nonsense that the extra runway will
help the general economy by providing frequent flights (and hence
possibilities of new trade) to (/from) dozens of new (new world)
locations - cos it wont.

It already is, so the only effect of a new runway will be "more of the
same", rather than "stuck at the current amount".

On the other hand, if Gatwick gets the runway, expect Heathrow flights
that don't generate transit (aka hubbing) passengers to be displaced by
ones which do. The result being that Heathrow will become even more
hub-orientated, even if the number of flights a day remains the same.
--
Roland Perry