The comparison between Gatwick and Oslo is valid. To say otherwise is to lump Gatwick in the same category as our UK local authorities, Highways Agency etc. For them, it is quite reasonable to argue that it would cost too much and not be cost-effective to have the plant on hand to keep our roads clear. Particularly as there are thousands and thousands of miles of motorway, roads and lanes. Also, their funding comes from public funds.
Gatwick on the other hand has significantly less in terms of real-estate to keep clear of snow. Gatwick's prime objective is to let aircraft land and take-off safely. Not shopping malls and the 'retail experience'. They are privately owned and can take a view - profits for shareholders or invest in the infrastructure and get more/better snow clearing equipment.
I would be very interested to have a comparison between the numbers, types, age, efficiency etc of snow clearing equipment between Oslo and the UK's second largest airport. Or even between Gatwick and smaller Scandinavian airports.
The fact that the new chairman Gatwick Airport Ltd (GAL), Sir David Rowlands, was a former Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport (DfT) has nothing to do with the current Transport Ministers' stance of 'do nothing', of course.
Even if you take a much tinier airport in Finland, Rovaniemi, smaller place, one runway instead of three. They don't have the budget that Helsinki does, but did you ever hear of the Santa charters in December all being diverted away because of snow ?
I don't buy your argument, Jason, for two reasons. Gatwick is providing a public service. Whether or not they should ever have been sold off is a moot point and another topic for discussion perhaps. I have plenty of woodworking kit that I bought and rarely use but when I do, it's because it's the best thing to use at the time. My clients didn't pay. I did because I believed in the investment. Clearly Gatwick do not.
