Both, they will demand changes to compsny policy if necessary to ensure that jam is in constant supply. Commercial organisations have no other purpose other than to generate the maximum possible return to their investors.

The A380 will however only help where the extra capacity over a 747/777 would avoid an extra rotation and only where frequency on a particular route is not an issue,

Thats been the case ever since business class flat beds and premium economy became a “thing” in the early 2000s. This has been further exacerbated by the shift to the “big twins”. I remember looking at data in early 2011 (back when I was in the airport industry) and wasn’t surprised to see the decline in pax per flight given these factors. This ultimately becomes a problem for an airline like BA when operating from LHR. At some point you have to increase a/c size

When did/is Chek Lap Kok get/getting an extra runway?

As any good business should be doing, why would you want to take any more financial risk than you have to?

I also agree it has a place, I just feel that its commerial appeal is less than what a lot of passengers would like it to be.
It would be interesting if fares on a flight were set according to the cost of operating the particular aircraft on that flight. I suspect the complaints on here about the 747s and 777s may be tempered

You point regarding engine improvements is extremely relevent, part of EK’s change of heart was the long standing negotiations with RR regarding Trent 900 improvements which could not be resolved. I feel that this and the Trent 1000 issues with the 787s will force RR to up its game and may even lead to a new engine platform.

HK$141b or US$18b https://m.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/ec...authority-plan

The objection I have as a HK Permanent Resident and taxpayer (we don't have "citizens", a PR is equivalent), and I believe I am not alone here, is that the 3rd runway is enabling traffic that is not carrying local residents i.e. transit for our Air Flow Controlled northern neighbour and O&D of the southern Guangdong catchment area.
Even our visitors (other parts of China or otherwise) do not come in this way (far more by High Speed Rail or bus).

So this is another project where we're building infrastructure for the Mainland in lieu of taxes.
I do admit Airport Authority is funding a third of it thru levies on current passengers (transit, catchment and local all sharing)
But they also fudged a third of the funding by approporiating dividends on the existing infrastructure instead of paying it to general revenue (to avoid having to go to Legco to get it properly appropriated) (the remainder third is loan financing).