Morning:
6°c
This great city can only take off again with a third Heathrow runway
Jo Valentine12 Jan 2009
MANY believe a Government decision on a third runway is imminent this week. Demonstrations against expansion certainly are. One thing is for certain: this is one Government decision that has inspired passionate emotions. But those should not blind us to the seriousness of the economic questions at issue.
We have seen protesters chained to railings, aeroplanes and the roofs of the Houses of Parliament in a bid to stop expansion. The Mayor has indicated that he may mount a legal challenge against the Government if it gives a third runway the go-ahead.
Equally, the aviation industry has been vociferous in pressing its case. The issue has polarised opinion and sparked fiery debate. This is democracy in action. But what has been most remarkable is not the extent of the debate but its changing context.
The past year has seen the economic backdrop shift dramatically. This, in turn, has changed the way we think about London's future. The term "competitiveness" has moved from being a boardroom buzzword, with little real bite, to a starkly Darwinian issue: survival of the fittest. The recession has brought a new relevance and urgency to UK competitiveness. Once the downturn is over, what will help London pack a stronger punch in the fight for global business?
You can be sure that international rivals - New York, Dubai, Shanghai - will be gloving up now, investing in their strengths and assets early, in preparation for the upswing. For London, expanding Heathrow is a vital part of the solution. Quite simply, London has, since its beginnings as a trading power, relied upon its links with the outside world. It is the trading capital of the world. But the global downturn is affecting everyone. Any sign of weakness on London's part could see the UK knocked out of the ring, with other countries stepping up to claim our title.Without access to its world markets, London could lose its crown.
As business becomes more and more global, it needs to fly to meet customers, clients and suppliers. And, as exciting as hologram videoconferencing is, it still can't beat the good old-fashioned handshake.
In the coming years, business will need to travel to wherever the deals are to be made. But won't the recession dampen the demand? The same question was asked of Crossrail in the early Nineties, when London hit recession and the population dropped. The response: Crossrail was cancelled. London's population later went on to boom, as did the numbers using the Tube. The lesson learned? Never plan infrastructure in a downturn, or else London will suffer from the same short-sightedness that has led to over-packed Tube trains now. Any halt to the inexorable rise in demand for business travel looks temporary. Flights may be down this year - but we have to plan for demand in 2020, when this recession is long over. For that, UK business needs a fit-for-purpose Heathrow.
London First's members are united in their concern for London's competitiveness and, specifically, how to restore Heathrow to gold standard. The UK's premier airport risked becoming the UK's number-one embarrassment, with business travellers actively choosing routes via European centres rather than risk the dreaded "Heathrow Hassle".
Terminal 5 has improved the experience but there's no escaping the fact that partly as a result of Heathrow now being full to capacity, the passenger and the environment are both getting a raw deal. How to balance the needs of the environment and the economy so that both, not just one, are addressed?
A London First study published last year concentrated on what the Government, regulators and airport owners could do in the short term to improve Heathrow's service to passengers. Short-term improvements depend on giving one body the responsibility of reducing queues inside the terminals, providing proper incentives to maintain airport facilities to the standard expected by passengers and, more controversially, creating capacity headroom in terms of number of flights, therefore reducing delays.
What about the longer-term route to world-class passenger experience at London's premier airport? Reform of regulation won't be enough. Heathrow is full. The history of airport expansion - unfulfilled promises and strategic decisions left to wither - has bequeathed us airports in London that are creaking. Whether it's the fault of regulation, Government policy or failure to invest, there is simply not enough airport capacity in the South-East. Expansion is part of the solution to restoring Heathrow to the world-class aspirations of its passengers. But the backing of London's business leaders for this long-term solution does not come unconditionally. It is based on seeing short-term improvements which - if made - will pave the right path to a bigger Heathrow. Long-term support is based on short-term conditions. First, we must reform regulation to put the passenger first. Biting penalties and effective incentives are part of the answer to promoting high-quality service, especially in queuing, delays and terminal comfort.
Second, we must not sweat the assets to a standstill. We should use "mixed mode" - allowing take-offs and landings on both runways - first and foremost to reduce delays and eliminate planes stacking in the air, not to increase flights. There should be no new flights until we have seen a level of performance that compares with the best in Europe.
Third, we should adjust slot rules so that flight numbers don't just ratchet back up again to 99 per cent of capacity. If delays, noise and air pollution levels are breached, flight numbers should be limited and be able to fall. Again, this requirement comes ahead of any new flights.
Fourth, we should set a new ratchet - downwards - on noise and air pollution so that in time the local environmental impact diminishes. The competitive case for London goes beyond the convenience and comfort of air travel. It includes quality of life.To reiterate: while regulatory reform on its own won't be enough to transform the quality of the Heathrow passenger experience, neither will unfettered expansion.
London's business leaders are not in favour of a third runway in some dogmatic, evangelical way. We want what is best for business in London, now and in the years to come.
To stay ahead of our rivals, we need to box clever and play to our strengths - our access to international trade. London needs a world-class airport, a 21st century bridge to its markets. London's business leaders will continue to support the case for a third runway if the short-term conditions set out here are met.
Ministers must steel themselves against opposition and press on and make this critical decision. And the Government, BAA and all parties must commit to a new chapter for Heathrow. Only then can we be sure that a third runway will deliver the world-class airport London and the UK deserve.
Baroness Valentine is chief executive of London First.
Reader views (24)
NO it needs to be taken back into Government control. It then needs to be made into a travel gateway rather than a shopping mall where the emphasis is on getting you to spend lots of money rather transiting you through to your plane. The over the top security measures that were introduced in a knee jerk reaction need to be changed and a quicker flow through to departures is required. Thats all.
- Duncan Walker, Lucky to live in Thailand, 13/01/2009 11:22
Report abuse
What planet are you coming from, Jo Valentine? Certainly not planet Earth. We are travelling on a satellite of limited surface area (25 million square miles), with a passenger list growing exponentially and an inhospitable environment looming. Children born today will be facing a challenge just to survive, where the value of the FTSE and whether London has as large an airport as Berlin will be the least of their concerns. Think a bit more long-term, Jo.
- Phil Jones, London UK, 13/01/2009 10:22
Report abuse
London does NOT need a third runway at Heathrow . . . That's simply a lot of nonsense!
If Britain's economic future is truly so desperate and dependent on more commercial air traffic then this should be "shared out" throughout the regions across Britain rather than favouritism being shown to Heathrow. After all, why shouldn't other regions in Britain be allowed to prosper?
- Fraser, Telford Park, 13/01/2009 00:37
Report abuse
All this talk about "competition" amongst airports is rubbish.
Just BAA and their mates trying to get their noses into more troughs.
Most flights are simple - you want to go to Athens, to take the plane to Athens. You want Paris, to go to Paris.
It's not going to affect London if some passengers can't change planes at Heathrow for Dublin to Singapore, or New York to Cyprus.
- Alex Mckenna, Manchester, 12/01/2009 22:42
Report abuse
It was just the same with the Munich Airport: Its third runway has just been decided against environmental interests and the protests of the neighbours. But there�s a strong competition among Europe�s airports, and to stop it could mean being the loser.
- The Bavarian, Bavaria/Germany, 12/01/2009 19:39
Report abuse
No.
- Marke, Houston, Texas, 12/01/2009 17:57
Report abuse
Quite apart from aircraft noise and environmental pollution there is a far more serious concern arising from Heathrow expansion.
According to Boeing, in the last 10 years 38% of all hull-loss commercial jet aircraft accidents in the world occurred during initial climb or landing approach. They also quote the hull-loss accident rate for commercial jet aircraft as 1.1 per million departures.
BAA gives the capacity of Heathrow, with a third runway, as 720,000 movements per annum – or 360,000 departures.
Statistically, therefore, a commercial aircraft WILL experience a hull-loss accident during climb from or approach to an expanded Heathrow within 7 years.
And this is accidents only, before any possibility of terrorist activity.
Third runway – no thanks!
- D Warren, London, UK, 12/01/2009 17:55
Report abuse
Air travel is a declining business - oil effectively runs out in 30 years - so why on earth are we even considering airport expansion. Only highly fuel efficient planes will be around for long haul, short flights will be a no no replaced by high speed trains already in evidence in France and Japan. New Labour are incapable of recognising the obvious so no doubt this nonsense will be whipped through the Commons.
- Tony Gee, London, 12/01/2009 17:09
Report abuse
Amsterdam has five runways. But it is not hemmed in by three other major airports like Heathrow. And if we are all part of Europe, what's with the identity crisis?
- Peter Seekings-Foster, Mildenhall, Suffolk., 12/01/2009 17:06
Report abuse
Keith - why is it you ignore the fact that the operation of this airport is CURRENTLY poisoning people are are you saying that anyone who lives downwind of an airport (basically ALL Greater London) its just tough we should die and shut up? Perhaps we could take an enlightened view and move to a purpose built 24/7 airport that would be good for business?
- Christian Ball, London, UK, 12/01/2009 16:05
Report abuse
What amazes me is how so many people still seem obsessed with the need to fly-I've been in the aviation business myself and remember the 'golden age' of flying when it was regarded as a special event to take a flight, security was unobtrusive, staff were polite; now most airports in the world, and particularly Heathrow, are one's worst nightmare, and the planes are packed sardine tins with stale recycled air to breathe. Other forms of transport beat short-haul flying hands-down-so just why is it that some people just want more and more cheap flights-to nowhere...
- Jon Kent, Hertford. UK, 12/01/2009 15:58
Report abuse
Agree 100% Heathrow a third and Gatwick a second ASAP. Don't let loonies like Zac Goldsmith destroy business in London. As for Boris's fantasy island, a bigger joke than Foulness/Maplin.
- David, London UK, 12/01/2009 15:47
Report abuse
If ever an airport was in the wrong place Heathrow is it.
It should never have been allowed to grow to its present size. Time for some new thinking. The site would offer great opportunities to build housing.
- M Wilkinson, London UK, 12/01/2009 15:36
Report abuse
Dear Jo, This is not really a third main runway, it will be much shorter than normal and rather oddly, aircraft will not be able to taxi to the main airport but stay marooned to the north of the A3. Surely a top spot in barmy airport design.
- Jack Spratt, Richmond, England, 12/01/2009 15:15
Report abuse
If there really is a need to expand airport capacity then this is the time to do what other great cities have done and buils a brand new airport in the Thames Estuary. Then Heathrow can be closed down - it was never planned to be a major airport and just grew because it happened to be there.
- Nick Grainger, London, 12/01/2009 14:41
Report abuse
oh dear. Has nobody given any thought to long term planning in this country? Presumably the government have been aware for many years that Heathrow is a messy and inefficient airport. Would it be so wrong of me to expect a government to research the long term transport, environmental and economic factors and plan for the best solution for the country years in advance of a claimed need? Heathrow will continue to get worse (especially if it gets bigger) as issues such as its location and its woeful transport links will only become more exposed problems with a higher number of users. If the government has not thoroughly researched the case for a new airport, or expansions to stanstead or gatwick then heathrow expansion should be shelved. I can imagine that if BAA could sell Heathrow to housebuilders (nice new west London residential areas in pace of heathrow) it could afford to build the worlds best airport on the outskirts of London with a new high speed rail link. If only the idiots in charge had started thinking about all this 5 years ago...
- Ag, The Village of London, 12/01/2009 13:53
Report abuse
With lies like these what price truth, transparancey and integrity. I have bnever read such a load of garbage. The health implicatiosn from noise and pollution alone are enough to can this but no, BAA/BA have polluted our politics to such an extent they can even get this through - if you care about people then please tell your MPs that this must not be allowed to happen for Humanities sake and for the Human Rights of people.
- Christian Ball, London, UK, 12/01/2009 13:36
Report abuse
I used to fly commercially, and have been based at both Heathrow and Gatwick; it is the latter that needs another runway (and more apron space).
The problem with increasing capacity at Heathrow is the surrounding transport infrastructure. The place is an expensive nightmare to get to.
The workload needs to be properly shared between LHR and LGW, but to do this effectively passenger transfer facilities need to be vastly improved. It is quite ridiculous that these two airports, which have been in operation for over 70 years, have no direct connection between them other than the world's largest car park (the M25).
As for the objections of local residents; sorry, but I have no time for objections to aeroplanes from people who have decided to buy houses next to international airports.
Finally, with regard to the objections put forward by the eco stasi; every single prediction made by these harbingers of doom has proven to be wrong. The phenomenon formerly known as "global warming" (name changed due to the rather inconvenient revelation that the planet isn't actually getting any warmer) is far from proven to be anything other than naturally occurring cyclic change (but you can't tax that, can you?). In any event, the emissions created by aviation don't even register on the scale compared to those of the industrialising nations in Asia and the Far East.
- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster, 12/01/2009 13:33
Report abuse
What a load of rubbish. Heathrow is not full, it's just badly managed.
Airlines use Heathrow to fly excessive numbers of small planes to the same destinations; BA alone send 11 small planes to Frankfurt each day. Airlines must be forced to consolidate to fewer, larger planes to make proper use of the existing runways.
Heathrow is over-used for domestic flights. On an island as small as the British mainland, there's no need for anyone to take a flight to get around. As most of the carbon emitted from flying is produced during take-off and landing, these short flights are incredbly un-environmentally friendly for the distance that they cover and should all be replaced by decent high-speed trains.
No matter how many runways and terminals Heathrow has built for it, it will always be a terrible airport to use. It's very badly served by public transport (either an hour by packed tube from Central London or a pricey £15.50 train ticket) and impossible to reach by road, thanks partly to the M4 bus lane.
Boris Johnson is right; if we want a world class airport, the best thing we can do is rip Heathrow up and start again. Hong Kong had the same dilemma and took the right decision to close their overcrowded city airport and replace it with a new one on reclaimed land with a high-speed rail link. The result is a world-class airport; efficient, spacious and easy to get to.
- Liz, London, 12/01/2009 13:09
Report abuse
On one hand she is right - we need a proper 21 Century airport - the trouble is Heathrow will never be able to fulfill that need. Tokyo, Hong Kong, Seoul, Osaka and Nagoya all have 24 hour a day airports out in the ocean with unlimited potential expansion. Even if heathrow does get the 3rd runway, what happens when we need the 4th, 5th etc .... if Brown wants to create jobs and take the tought decision for business, he should look at ultimately replacing Heathrow with an airport in the Thames estuary. Only then can we truly compete and overtake our rivals ...
- Sam, London, 12/01/2009 12:58
Report abuse
I don’t think I’ve ever read a less-convincing begging letter in my life.
Response 1: Every single argument for a 3rd runway could be answered by building an aiport on reclaimed land in the Thames estuary, bringing long-overdue development to that region.
Response 2: Building a 3rd runway at Heathrow will not improve the experience for the people who board their flights at Heathrow, so why should we want it?
Response 3: Building a 3rd runway, despite the attempts to convince us otherwise, will inevitably lead to increased pollution in London, both in terms of air and noise.
Response 4: It is blatantly clear to pretty much everyone that a 3rd runway would increase revenues for BAA, the airlines and other interested parties, but not for the average Londoner.
- St, London, 12/01/2009 12:57
Report abuse
I think this is another example of government not listening to the people.
Why not build an airport in the Thames estuary - its been done at Hong Kong and in Japan - why not here? It would create more jobs and mean less people living under a flight path! The mess that Heathrow is could be got rid of!
- Peter, London, 12/01/2009 12:36
Report abuse
I'll assume that Baroness Valentine lives under a flight path or even in London....? The business case for this expansion looks less and less compelling as the recession cuts travel, long-term rises in fuel prices make flying less economic and advances in technology make physical travel less relevant. The much vaunted economic impact is confined to BA and BAA's shareholders. BAA's under-investment has caused most of their current problems and that is due to their debt burden, which is doubly crippling now. Democracy in action would be the government listening to the people not unelected quangos! If the case is so clear let's have a referendum.
- Mark, London, 12/01/2009 11:27
Report abuse
What a load of twaddle!
In the same paragraph: "Never plan infrastructure in a downturn" and "we have to plan for demand in 2020".
"Heathrow is full". No, it's not. BA is doing its best to use up capacity by cancelling international routes from the regions and forcing passengers to transit via Heathrow. It's moving flights from Gatwick to Heathrow. And still there's spare capacity which is increasing as more flights are cut back.
It's noticeable that Jo Valentine now compares London with New York, Dubai and Shanghai, when until recently it was Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. Why? Because research published today by HACAN shows that in 2007 a combined total of 139 million passengers used Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City airports compared with 88 million who used all of the Paris airports, London’s closest European rival. In fact the research reveals that more people used London’s airports in 2000 than used all the Paris airports seven years later in 2007.
The capacity is there to keep London competitive. Granted, Heathrow is a mess which has been developed by BAA as a shopping mall rather than an airport and should be sorted out. But not by adding unnecessary capacity.
Jo Vaentine should check with her masters in the aviation lobby before spouting such rubbish.
- Neil Anderson, London, 12/01/2009 10:55
Report abuse
