Originally Posted by
NickB
I think you are missing my point, which was replying to the statement by DV that this is an attempt at revenue generation masquerading as environmental concern. My point was that the reasons that might have motivated BAA do not matter one jot. Who cares WHY BAA put forward the proposal?
What matters is whether it is likely to achieve its purpose and whether it is a reasonable way of achieving it or not. What goes through the dark recesses of the minds of BAA execs is, imo, irrelevant in assessing this.
Agree entirely. It follows the example already set by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer.
To add, BAA has a long uphill road to take before it can proceed with its expansion plans for LHR. Tackling traffic management in and around the airfield is just one of many hurdles it needs to clear.
Whether BAA actually implements this charging policy is one thing, whether it gets to retain the income is quite another. One thing I am certain of, the local authorities surrounding the airfield will be expecting a share of the revenue. It may be help BAA's campaign to lock in political support for T6 and the third runway.
If BAA is to secure statutory consent and avoid a lengthy public inquiry, it will need a multi dimensional strategy.