Scenario 3 'High Growth' is the only one which includes the vital element of the runway extension. Scenario 2(b) would also deliver your 'mission statement' IF it included the runway extension. 2(b) would also have the advantage of reducing the amount of Green Belt swallowed up.
To achieve 2 mppa under 2(b) without the extension is extremely optimistic and unachievable in my opinion. I worked in the airline industry all my life until retirement in senior positions and I know that the current runway declared distances, particularly the landing distances, will not enable any airline to offer a substantial route network by virtue of the performance requirements of aircraft now in service. The extension planned will fully overcome this problem yet without opening up the possibility of very large aircraft being operated commercially with the noise implications that might have.
The safety enhancement offered by the runway extension scheme is considerable as it would enable the RESA at the end of 06 to be increased from the bare minimum of 90m it has now to the recommended length of 240m. This is not emphasised in the Report and should be.
As far as increased noise is concerned, I can understand residents' fears so they should be fully addressed. Noise data should be published offering a comparision betwwen the old B737-200/BAC1-11 for example and aircraft such as the EMB195,A319 and Q400. Aircraft will continue to become quieter and although frequency of departures will obviously increase, overall noise levels should not grow significantly. I would add that my elderly mother lives in Anne Boleyn Drive and I would in no way see her subjected to a significant noise increase and I am confident that will not be the case.
Standing still or having no runway extension is simply not an option if the aims of the JAAP are to be realised.