Morning:
9°c
Comment: Heathrow: now for new ideas
Evening Standard25.06.08
The new chief executive of BAA, Colin Matthews, has a hard task ahead of him as he sets out the case for a third runway at Heathrow. London First is entirely justified today in branding the appalling customer service at the airport as inadequate for a capital city - but BAA can no longer present the runway debate as a straight choice between what business needs and environmental concerns.
The Competition Commission has decided that it is BAA's near monopoly of airports in the London area - it owns Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted - that is part of the reason for poor service. It has yet to rule on whether a break-up of the company is needed. The Conservative leader David Cameron, meanwhile, has pointed out that providing adequate airport capacity means a better Heathrow, not necessarily a bigger one.
London First believes business travellers would pay more for better service at Heathrow, and that a new regulatory framework - possibly leading to a cut in flight numbers at Heathrow - is required.
This newspaper has argued that runway space at Heathrow could be freed up by planning for the airport to become the premium-priced choice for direct business travellers to and from Britain, rather than trying to attract transfer passengers, who contribute almost nothing to the UK economy.
The near-two-thirds of Heathrow users who are not business travellers could be encouraged, through the pricing of landing slots, to use other London airports or the successful new rail links to destinations such as Paris and Brussels.
These wider-ranging solutions to the problem of inadequate capacity do not suit BAA or BA. But the millions of residents in and around Heathrow who will be affected by increases in noise and pollution from a third runway should not have to suffer just because these two companies cannot adapt. BAA's efforts to rig the evidence over environmental impact did it no favours but it has done well today to admit that it made mistakes over the opening of Terminal 5.
However, the Competition Commission has said the T5 debacle will affect its final decision on whether to recommend a break-up of BAA. The company has more to do if the public is to believe BAA is entitled to expand as it wants.
Reader views (1)
The health implications of an expanding Heathrow must stop this mad scheme in its tracks. Only greed can put this decision ahead of the appalling air quality rates for London (no matter how often the DoT and BAA re-sight sensors to try and reduce the levels). We have expanded at an incredible rate for Businesses in London (its tax stupid that makes them leave) without a bigger Heathrow and it is clear that replacing UK domestic flights and flights to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam with high speed rail would free up more than enough capacity. This growth also destroys the limited sense of calm that London and Windsor and Slough have - noise actually leads to heart attacks and deaths (currently 100) so what price the expansion of a monopoly position - presently it seems BAA, BA and NuLabour think asthma for your kids and 100 heat attacks a year due to noise is a price worth paying - Ruth Kelly would happily see that figure rise to 200 if bigger planes and a doubling of capacity is rammed through against the overwhelming opposition of Londoners. A new airport built like Schipol in an area chosen to reduce human misery - same Charles de Gualle is the solution along with high speed train links. To continue expansion at Heathrow is to say people are not important only BAA shareholders and BA pressure.
- Christian Ball, London, UK
