This House would build a third Heathrow runway to maintain its position as a hub airport

Put simply Heathrow is at the limits of its capacity so there needs to be expansion. Heathrow is already at 99% capacity and running so close to maximum capacity means that any minor problem can result in large delays for passengers. London’s major rivals have four-runway hub airports Paris, Frankfurt, even Madrid[1] this means these cities have much greater capacity as they can take up to 700,000 flights a year compared to Heathrow’s 480,000.[2] Britain does not want to be left behind, crumbling in the dust. These airports therefore clearly have the capacity to take flights that would otherwise be going to Heathrow. Heathrow needs to expand to maintain its competitiveness so that the airport retains its position the most popular place to stop-over in before catching a connecting flight.  Colin Matthews, the chief executive of Heathrow (formerly BAA) has argued that Heathrow’s lack of hub capacity currently costs the UK £14billion.[3] Heathrow is in danger of falling behind continental rivals in Frankfurt and Amsterdam.

[1] Leunig, T., ‘A third runway? Yes, and a fourth too, please’ The Times, 2012, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3559188.ece

[2] Lundgren, Kari, “Heathrow Limit Costs U.K. 14 Billion Pounds, Airport Says”, Bloomberg, 15 November 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-15/heathrow-limit-costs-u-k-14-billion-pounds-airport-says.html

[3] Topham, Gwyn., ‘Heathrow must be expanded or replaced, airport chief announces’ The Guardian, 15 November 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/15/heathrow-issues-hub-airport-decision-warning

It is not as simple as considering that Heathrow is at capacity so everything will go to competitor airports. So far it is simple alarmism to warn of traffic going to European competitors, John Stewart (chairman of HACAN, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) points out that the airport already has more departure flights each week to key global business centres than its two closest rivals in Paris and Frankfurt combined.[1] Heathrow being at capacity may encourage other forms of transport, for example encouraging passengers to take the train rather than the plane to Edinburgh, Paris, or Brussels. Secondly it is not always simple just to change hub. As a transfer point if moving airport it would be necessary to change dozens of flights to enable the same transfers not just one or two. And finally of course Heathrow’s expansion is not the only way to deal with excess demand at Heathrow, numerous other options have been proposed from the ‘Boris island’ airport, to linking Heathrow and Gatwick by high speed train.[2]

[1] Topham, Gwyn, ‘Airline chiefs slam government for blocking Heathrow expansion’, The Guardian, 25 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/25/airport-chiefs-government-heathrow-expansion?INTCMP=SRCH

[2] BBC News, ‘Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link’, 8 October 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15227879

Expanding Heathrow would ensure many current jobs as well as creating new ones. Currently, Heathrow supports around 250,000 jobs.[1] Added to this many hundreds of thousands more are dependent upon the tourist trade in London which relies on good transport links like Heathrow. Loosing competitiveness in front of other European airports not only could imply wasting the possibility to create new jobs, but lose some of those that already exist. Expansion of Heathrow would also be building a vital part of infrastructure at a time when British infrastructure spending is very low as a result of the recession so helping to boost growth. Good flight connections are critical for attracting new business and maintaining current business. This is because aviation infrastructure is important for identifying new business opportunities. The UK’s economic future depends on trading not just with traditional destinations in Europe and America but also with the expanding cities of China and India, cities such as Chongqing and Chengdu.[2] Businesses based in these cities will be much more likely to invest in Britain with direct flights.[3]

[1] BBC News, ‘New group backs Heathrow expansion’, 21 July 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3081745.stm

[2] Duncan, E., ‘Wake up. We need a third runway’. The Times, 2012, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3520054.ece

[3] Salomone, Roger, ‘Time to up the ante on roads and airports’, EEF Blog, 2 April 2013, http://www.eef.org.uk/blog/post/Time-to-up-the-ante-on-transport.aspx

The business community is far from united in its supposed support of a third run-way. Surveys suggest that many influential businesses in fact do not support expansion. A letter expressing concern was signed by Justin King the Chief Executive of J Sainsbury and BskyB’s James Murdoch.[1] Therefore to conflate the business community as one voice calling for expansion is misguided. We should also remember, when considering the alternatives to Heathrow’s new run-way such as a new runway at another London airport or a completely new airport, that these would likely have a similar economic impact as the Heathrow expansion would. If it is the connections that matter to bring in business and tourists then so long as the connection is with London it does not matter which airport the connection is from. There may even be less need for the airport to be a hub airport if we are focused on benefits to London as Bob Ayling, former British Airways Chief Executive stated Heathrow should be focused on passengers that want to come to London not simply as a transfer point, he said that a third runway could therefore be “a costly mistake”.[2]

[1] Osborne, Alistair, ‘Kingfisher chief Ian Cheshire questions Heathrow runway success’, The Telegraph, 13 July 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/5818850/Kingfisher-chief-Ian-Cheshire-questions-Heathrow-runway-success.html

[2] Stewart, John, ‘A briefing on Heathrow from HACAN: June 2012’ http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/downloads/myths.pdf

Flying is critical for business. Heathrow is well located for the people that will pick up the bill funding its expansion. People need to be able to get to their homes and work easily from the airport otherwise it is impractical. According to the Civil Aviation Authority 25% of business passengers start their journey within 30 minutes of Heathrow, far more than any other airport.[1] This demonstrates that the demand for Heathrow’s services from the local area is real and pronounced. Heathrow is closer to London than its rivals Gatwick and Stansted and has better transport links through the Piccadilly line and Heathrow Express. A new airport could potentially be closer, but finding space within the M25 for a large airport without attracting the same kind of opposition that expanding Heathrow has would be next to impossible

[1] Leunig, Tim, ‘A bigger and quieter Heathrow is the answer to our aviation capacity problem’, The Spectator, 5 October 2012, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/10/a-bigger-and-quieter-heathrow-is-the-answer-to-our-aviation-capacity-problems/

Location is a relatively unimportant issue when talking about ‘hubs’. In hub airports an important proportion of passengers and cargo is only passing through; it arrives to the airport by plane only to leave it again by plane without even reaching the city. As a result for these passengers the links to the city do not matter. Even for those going into London the location of the airport itself is not an issue per se, rather the length of time to get into the center of the city is. In which case wherever becomes the new hub should have new transport links built or it should be built at a location that has, or will have, good transport connections such as to the North West of London where the High Speed 2 railway will run.[1]

[1] Leftly, Mark, and Chorley, Matt, “IoS exclusive: Secret plan for four-runway airport west of Heathrow”, The Independent, 2 September 2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ios-exclusive-secret-plan-for-fourrunway-airport-west-of-heathrow-8100772.html

Put simply Heathrow is at the limits of its capacity so there needs to be expansion. Heathrow is already at 99% capacity and running so close to maximum capacity means that any minor problem can result in large delays for passengers. London’s major rivals have four-runway hub airports Paris, Frankfurt, even Madrid[1] this means these cities have much greater capacity as they can take up to 700,000 flights a year compared to Heathrow’s 480,000.[2] Britain does not want to be left behind, crumbling in the dust. These airports therefore clearly have the capacity to take flights that would otherwise be going to Heathrow. Heathrow needs to expand to maintain its competitiveness so that the airport retains its position the most popular place to stop-over in before catching a connecting flight.  Colin Matthews, the chief executive of Heathrow (formerly BAA) has argued that Heathrow’s lack of hub capacity currently costs the UK £14billion.[3] Heathrow is in danger of falling behind continental rivals in Frankfurt and Amsterdam.

[1] Leunig, T., ‘A third runway? Yes, and a fourth too, please’ The Times, 2012, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3559188.ece

[2] Lundgren, Kari, “Heathrow Limit Costs U.K. 14 Billion Pounds, Airport Says”, Bloomberg, 15 November 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-15/heathrow-limit-costs-u-k-14-billion-pounds-airport-says.html

[3] Topham, Gwyn., ‘Heathrow must be expanded or replaced, airport chief announces’ The Guardian, 15 November 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/15/heathrow-issues-hub-airport-decision-warning

It is not as simple as considering that Heathrow is at capacity so everything will go to competitor airports. So far it is simple alarmism to warn of traffic going to European competitors, John Stewart (chairman of HACAN, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) points out that the airport already has more departure flights each week to key global business centres than its two closest rivals in Paris and Frankfurt combined.[1] Heathrow being at capacity may encourage other forms of transport, for example encouraging passengers to take the train rather than the plane to Edinburgh, Paris, or Brussels. Secondly it is not always simple just to change hub. As a transfer point if moving airport it would be necessary to change dozens of flights to enable the same transfers not just one or two. And finally of course Heathrow’s expansion is not the only way to deal with excess demand at Heathrow, numerous other options have been proposed from the ‘Boris island’ airport, to linking Heathrow and Gatwick by high speed train.[2]

[1] Topham, Gwyn, ‘Airline chiefs slam government for blocking Heathrow expansion’, The Guardian, 25 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/25/airport-chiefs-government-heathrow-expansion?INTCMP=SRCH

[2] BBC News, ‘Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link’, 8 October 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15227879

Expanding Heathrow would ensure many current jobs as well as creating new ones. Currently, Heathrow supports around 250,000 jobs.[1] Added to this many hundreds of thousands more are dependent upon the tourist trade in London which relies on good transport links like Heathrow. Loosing competitiveness in front of other European airports not only could imply wasting the possibility to create new jobs, but lose some of those that already exist. Expansion of Heathrow would also be building a vital part of infrastructure at a time when British infrastructure spending is very low as a result of the recession so helping to boost growth. Good flight connections are critical for attracting new business and maintaining current business. This is because aviation infrastructure is important for identifying new business opportunities. The UK’s economic future depends on trading not just with traditional destinations in Europe and America but also with the expanding cities of China and India, cities such as Chongqing and Chengdu.[2] Businesses based in these cities will be much more likely to invest in Britain with direct flights.[3]

[1] BBC News, ‘New group backs Heathrow expansion’, 21 July 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3081745.stm

[2] Duncan, E., ‘Wake up. We need a third runway’. The Times, 2012, http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3520054.ece

[3] Salomone, Roger, ‘Time to up the ante on roads and airports’, EEF Blog, 2 April 2013, http://www.eef.org.uk/blog/post/Time-to-up-the-ante-on-transport.aspx

The business community is far from united in its supposed support of a third run-way. Surveys suggest that many influential businesses in fact do not support expansion. A letter expressing concern was signed by Justin King the Chief Executive of J Sainsbury and BskyB’s James Murdoch.[1] Therefore to conflate the business community as one voice calling for expansion is misguided. We should also remember, when considering the alternatives to Heathrow’s new run-way such as a new runway at another London airport or a completely new airport, that these would likely have a similar economic impact as the Heathrow expansion would. If it is the connections that matter to bring in business and tourists then so long as the connection is with London it does not matter which airport the connection is from. There may even be less need for the airport to be a hub airport if we are focused on benefits to London as Bob Ayling, former British Airways Chief Executive stated Heathrow should be focused on passengers that want to come to London not simply as a transfer point, he said that a third runway could therefore be “a costly mistake”.[2]

[1] Osborne, Alistair, ‘Kingfisher chief Ian Cheshire questions Heathrow runway success’, The Telegraph, 13 July 2009, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/5818850/Kingfisher-chief-Ian-Cheshire-questions-Heathrow-runway-success.html

[2] Stewart, John, ‘A briefing on Heathrow from HACAN: June 2012’ http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/downloads/myths.pdf

Flying is critical for business. Heathrow is well located for the people that will pick up the bill funding its expansion. People need to be able to get to their homes and work easily from the airport otherwise it is impractical. According to the Civil Aviation Authority 25% of business passengers start their journey within 30 minutes of Heathrow, far more than any other airport.[1] This demonstrates that the demand for Heathrow’s services from the local area is real and pronounced. Heathrow is closer to London than its rivals Gatwick and Stansted and has better transport links through the Piccadilly line and Heathrow Express. A new airport could potentially be closer, but finding space within the M25 for a large airport without attracting the same kind of opposition that expanding Heathrow has would be next to impossible

[1] Leunig, Tim, ‘A bigger and quieter Heathrow is the answer to our aviation capacity problem’, The Spectator, 5 October 2012, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/10/a-bigger-and-quieter-heathrow-is-the-answer-to-our-aviation-capacity-problems/

Location is a relatively unimportant issue when talking about ‘hubs’. In hub airports an important proportion of passengers and cargo is only passing through; it arrives to the airport by plane only to leave it again by plane without even reaching the city. As a result for these passengers the links to the city do not matter. Even for those going into London the location of the airport itself is not an issue per se, rather the length of time to get into the center of the city is. In which case wherever becomes the new hub should have new transport links built or it should be built at a location that has, or will have, good transport connections such as to the North West of London where the High Speed 2 railway will run.[1]

[1] Leftly, Mark, and Chorley, Matt, “IoS exclusive: Secret plan for four-runway airport west of Heathrow”, The Independent, 2 September 2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ios-exclusive-secret-plan-for-fourrunway-airport-west-of-heathrow-8100772.html

The high population density of the area around Heathrow means it is not an ideal location for a bigger airport. It makes sense to increase capacity in an area with lower population density instead of trying to do so within a location that is constrained by adjacent urbanized areas. Expanding Heathrow airport would mean increasing the problem of noise for the about 700,000 people living under the flight path. According to the HACAN report the Department for Transport only accepts that noise is a problem if a community is subjected to over 57 decibels of noise over the course of a year according to a 1985 Government study. In which case only the boroughs of Richmond and Hounslow would be affected. However this does not tie in with Londoner’s experiences. BAA says that 258,000 people are currently affected by high noise levels but the local community believes the real number is more like 1 million people affected.[1] Any argument that states that noise levels will not increase is flawed at best and outright fraudulent at worst, clearly a large expansion in the number of flights will increase the amount of noise and possibly the numbers affected.

[1] Johnson, Tim, ‘Approach Noise at Heathrow: Concentrating the Problem’, HACAN, March 2010, http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/reports/flight.paths.report.pdf p.12

An additional run-way would not necessarily result in a large increase in noise pollution as this would depend on where the runways are located. If the runway was established to the West of its current location incoming planes would cross over areas not occupied by as planes would fly over the M25, the Poyle industrial estate, the Wraysbury reservoir and part of Stanwell Moor. On the other hand all the runways could be moved to the other side of the M25 and closely spaced potentially reducing the noise level over what it is at the moment even with three or four runways.[1] Therefore the noise complaints argument is overstated. No airport will ever be silent but with proposals to increase the number of airbus A380s, which are half as noisy as the 747 when taking off and only produce a quarter of the noise when landing, the noise argument really does lose a lot of credit.[2] We should also remember that a third runway will ease capacity problems so potentially allowing the first and last flights to be at more sociable hours than is currently the case.

[1] Leunig, Tim, ‘A bigger and quieter Heathrow is the answer to our aviation capacity problem’, The Spectator, 5 October 2012, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/10/a-bigger-and-quieter-heathrow-is-the-answer-to-our-aviation-capacity-problems/

[2] Heathrow Media Centre, ‘Heathrow set to more than triple its A380 fleet by 2020’, 25 October 2012, http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/Press-releases/Heathrow-set-to-more-than-triple-its-A380-fleet-by-2020-348.aspx

Expanding Heathrow will directly contribute to climate change and make it impossible for the UK to stay within the EU legal limits. The EU has established limits on the levels of harmful pollution and the UK has signed a commitment to reduce Green House Gases by 80% by 2050 and also to emit no more CO2 in 2050 than it did in 2005. However, building a third runway would be enabling and encouraging greater number of flights which would result in Heathrow becoming the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the country.[1] Attempts by the government to weaken pollution laws by lobbying Brussels would enable the third runway but at a deeply nefarious price, that of human health, currently fifty deaths a year are linked to Heathrow but with expansion this would go up to 150.[2]

[1] Stewart, John, ‘A briefing on Heathrow from HACAN: June 2012’ http://www.zacgoldsmith.com/downloads/myths.pdf

[2] Wilcockm David, and Harrism Dominic, ‘Heathrow third runway ‘would triple pollution deaths’’, The Independent, 13 October 2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/heathrow-third-runway-would-triple-pollution-deaths-8210058.html

The former Labour government when considering expansion made it clear that environment would be taken into account when considering the construction of a third run-way so there would be environmental restrictions to make sure that this is not an issue.[1] However not expanding Heathrow also contributes to CO2 emissions; with so little spare capacity flights are often delayed due to any small disruption on the ground leaving planes circling above London increasing their emissions. Building more runways anywhere else would have a similar environmental impact to the expansion plans.

[1] The Labour Party, ‘A future fair for all; The Labour Party Manifesto 2010’. 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/12_04_10_labour_manifesto.pdf

A study conducted by the NEF revealed that the cost of expansion will outweigh the benefits by at least £5billion.[1] London has six airports and seven runways meaning that London already has the best connections globally. Together, London airports have a greater number of flights to the world’s main business destinations than other European cities, despite serving less ‘leisure’ destinations than Paris’s airports.[2] The solution to making air travel efficient lies in increasing the size of planes and filling them up rather than running half empty flights on small planes, something which is particularly prevalent on short haul flights. Short haul flights could also be re-directed to alternative airports such as Gatwick, City airport, Luton and Stansted so as to free up more space at Heathrow.

The expansion case also assumes ever increasing numbers flying, yet passenger numbers dropped for the first time in the wake of the recession,[3] and eventually technology may reduce demand for business travel. There are also other restrictions aside from runway capacity that prevents more flights, for example the UK has an agreement with China that restricts the UK to 62 flights to China per week.[4]

[1] New Economics Foundation, ‘A new approach to re-evaluating Runway 3’, 19 April 2010, http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/grounded

[2] Stewart, John, ‘No economic case for expansion’, November 2011, http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/briefings/Heathrow%20economic%20expansion%20leaflet.pdf

[3] Rutherford, Tom, “Air transport statistics’, House of Commons Library, 4 July 2011, SN/SG/3760, p.4 www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03760.pdf

[4] HACAN, ‘BAA challenged on claim that it is lack of runway capacity at Heathrow that is limiting flights to China’, airportwatch, 14 November 2012, http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=1530

London has a lot of runways in total because it has a lot of airports however Heathrow is the only one that has the benefit of being a hub airport as each of these existing airports only have one or two runways. Suggestions that short haul flights should go to other London airports misses the point of a hub airport which is that there should be quick transfers – something that would not be possible if the passengers from the feeder services have to cross London from one airport to another and there is not the demand to use larger planes on these routes.[1]

Of course we cannot be certain that passenger numbers will keep going up in line with predictions and long term trends. However we can be certain that the numbers using UK airports won’t go up if we don’t provide the capacity to enable them to come.

[1] Thomas, Nathalie, ‘Heathrow rejects Gatwick rail link plan’, The Telegrapoh, 29 October 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9641105/Heathrow-rejects-Gatwick-rail-link-plan.html