Why Not Gatwick Rather Than Heathrow?

[sandyRoe]

It's not far from London, has good rail links, and the pollution it caused would harm less people.

[mushroom25]

because as a hub airport, the number of connections available falls well short of the equivalent at heathrow.

[Old_Geezer]

Unsure they couldn't manage it if they had a mind to.

With teleconference and future fuel issues it may be there's less demand in the future for flights anyway. But if they need more capacity then why would locals need to put up with a deteriorating situation ? Build new in an unpopulated area if the investment is worth it.

[bhg481]

It always intrigues me why governments don't make more use of teleconference facilities. The Climate Conference in Paris has involved lots of travel for "important" people (and their teams) to get them all into one place (terrorist haven), where they need expensive security to keep them safe. Teleconferencing would remove all that and the associated greenhouse gases.

[Togo]

Exactly OG. What with the recent 'European' developments there is every reason to reason that there may be less demand for flights as people decide not to holiday in the trouble spots of Europe and Asia.
bhg makes a very valid point regarding new technology negating the need to fly the quangos around the world at great expense.
Now a couple of shiny new runways for the R.A.F. would make sense.

[beegeebee]

Why not utilise the old R.A.F. Manston in Kent, it has the necessary length of runway, is close to the Euro rail line to give fast access to the capital?

[Old_Geezer]

It is the use of the airport as a hub rather that a London access point, bgb. But if London access can be kept to existing airports hubs could be sited almost anywhere.