Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport

Written by Derek Done and published in Marlow Society's Response to the Third Runway consultation on Thu 28th Feb 2008

Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport

A major part of the argument for going ahead with the third runway hinges upon the results of a cost benefit analysis of the alternatives, but crucial elements of this do not seem to be available, either in the documentation supporting the 2003 White Paper 'The Future of Air Transport' that supported the principle of a third runway, or in the study purporting to provide support for this policy published as recently as November 2007 - 'Framework for Evaluation of the 2003 Air Transport White Paper Policies'. This latter document is highly detailed and technical, and has not been in the public domain long enough to allow for it to be reviewed and its conclusions assessed by potential objectors, nor does such consultation appear to have been provided for. Also there are many issues that were not properly addressed in the 2003 White Paper, where the decision to support a third runway in principle was announced. These are:

· Why is it uncritically accepted that continued expansion of the air transport industry is essential in order to secure increased employment and economic growth, when many of the problems of the South East region are those of over-heating rather than economic stagnation? Aviation policy has to be seen as part of broader UK economic strategy.

· Even were it to be accepted that the UK needs a growing civil aviation sector, that does not have to mean expansion at Heathrow. The fastest growing sector of the industry at present consists of low cost carriers whose growth has taken place at other airports.

· From a sustainability perspective, if competing airports, either UK regional airports, or continental airports such as Paris Charles de Gaulle, are more able than Heathrow to accommodate growth, especially where we are talking about growth to meet international transfer passenger movements, then that might be the preferred option.

· Although benefits to such passengers were not included in the economic assessment, proponents of a third runway frequently emphasise the need for Heathrow to be a 'hub' airport on the basis that transfer traffic is needed in order to support a route network that serves an ever increasing number of destinations. However, passengers who change planes at Heathrow contribute nothing to the UK economy except revenue to British Airways, and Spanish-owned BAA. They also add to pressures on the environment, creating more of an impact than direct point-to-point passengers, since their journeys involve two take offs and two landings.

· The loss of such international transfer passengers, were it to occur in the absence of a third runway at Heathrow, might also be considered a benefit, releasing capacity to be used to meet demand from passengers originating in, or destined for, the UK.

· There are around 20 flights a day from Heathrow to Manchester. The train should be able to provide a realistic alternative for point-to-point traffic, but not, of course, for transfer traffic, but, if more international flights operated into Manchester, the number of Heathrow - Manchester flights could be reduced.

· The North is under served particularly with long haul flights. Flights serving the regions outside the South East tend to have lower yields and to be less profitable, but it is interesting to compare the situation with the USA where Delta has more transatlantic traffic out of Atlanta than JFK, not all of it transfer. Regional development policies need to encourage more regional air services.

· In the seventies a continuing increase in aircraft size was seen as being inexorable, but subsequently competitive pressures contributed to the move towards smaller aircraft, as service frequency became a weapon in the competitive battle. However, there now seems to be a return to larger aircraft, at least on long haul routes. This should have a largely beneficial impact in terms of a reduction in the need for additional runway capacity.

· The argument that an additional runway must be built to enable more people living in the South East to fly (i.e. where demand exists) is a circular argument. Good communications are needed to serve the needs of existing businesses, but it is also true that businesses move to areas offering good communication. This then requires more infrastructure and so on. If a major airport were to be built elsewhere demand would grow around it. The best place might be in a deprived location but with good links to key centres such as London.

· The air travel demand forecasts do not take full account of the full effect of factoring into fares and freight rates all compensation payments, such as those related to purchase of land and property, and the costs of meeting environmental targets. These costs should be calculated according to the principle 'the polluter pays', whether the incidence of such costs falls initially on airports, airlines, aircraft manufacturers or end users. All environmental costs should be taken into account, not just costs related to CO2 emissions and noise pollution. Examples include costs attributable to road congestion, visual pollution, the destruction of natural and built heritage and the impact on the health of the populations affected.

· The cost of 'necessary' road and rail infrastructure has been taken into account in the assessment, but it appears that no account has been taken of the environmental impact of additional traffic, unrelated to the airport development. It is not clear why the generally accepted conclusion that additional roads generate additional traffic is assumed not to apply in the case of road infrastructure aimed at improving access to airports. There is nothing to prevent such roads being used by non airport related traffic.

· The third Heathrow Runway Option is proposed despite assurances given at the time of the Terminal 5 Inquiry that a third runway would not be considered at any time in the future. The British Airways case for T5 included an assurance that although additional terminal capacity was required, additional runway capacity was not, since aircraft were getting larger. Both assurances have proved worthless.