What that article says about Manchester is interesting too, especially the way it’s developed as a continental-style rail hub in a way Heathrow hasn’t.

Britain’s problem is due to a combination of historical accident and strategic decisions not made in the 70s and 80s. we’ve ended up with Britain’s major hub in a location where it can’t be expanded without demolishing vast amounts of homes and businesses.

One question that need to be asked is if we need an international hub in Britain, why does it need to be in London at all? And why is Stansted operating well under capacity?

I am not convinced passengers want to fly via hubs, but many are willing to take the inconvienience of going via a hub in order to save some money. Direct flights often cost more due to lacking economies of scale.

Airlines exist which exploit the less popular airports and the lower prices they offer. However taxes like APD now make up such a large proportion of the ticket price that the scope for a minor airport to offer a significant saving has been wiped out.

IAG have pretty much sunk the Boris Island proposal simply by stating they will stay at LHR unless and until it is closed. I cannot see any government closing LHR simply because they want to force all the flights elsewhere. The shareholders of HAL will demand compensation as will the airlines, all of whom would have to make tens of thousands of people redundant.

So if there is to be any growth it has to be focused on the existing airports.

But note that “if”. Can we make better use of what there is?

I think we will have to devise new ways to use the tarmac we have because the demand is here now and the extra runway will take years to be ready.

Of course when the runway becomes available it will be saturated exactly as the existing runways are. The demand is such that the increase in supply will make very little difference.

Failure to increase the supply of slots at LHR or LGW will not end the world as we know it. Given the polution generated, it might even save it!

LHR is no longer the world’s busiest international airport. What difference do this make to most residents of London?

Does there really need to be more capacity in the area?

As for airport capacity, according to Adam Bienkov’s piece for Politics.co.uk there’s no shortage of runways in the south-east of England, and the only airport with capacity issues is Heathrow. This is really about Heathrow’s desire to compete with places like Schipol and Frankfurt as long-haul transfer hubs rather than airports serving London itself. Bienkov proposes improving transport links to the region’s smaller airports and use their spare capacity to take short-haul traffic away from Heathrow.

Heathrows’s problem is London’s suburbs have expanded westwards since it first opened, and is now surrounded by built-up areas on all sides. Expansion will mean demolishing vast numbers of homes and businesses.

For London, substitute NYC. Same thing. (And I would wager that’s part of what’s made the suburbs around NYC uninhabitably expensive over time as well.)

Also, from what I understand about ATC technology, we wouldn’t NEED more tarmac on the ground if the ATC systems currently in use weren’t horrendously antiquated pieces of trash. But that’s another rant…