Morning:
8°c
London's airports hit by passenger fall
Jonathan Prynn, Consumer Affairs Editor14 Jan 2009
THE number of people using London's airports has dropped over the year as a whole for the first time since 2001.
Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted all saw falls in passengers last year as the economic downturn deepened. Heathrow was down 1.4 per cent, Gatwick 2.8 per cent and Stansted six per cent compared with 2007.
The last time passenger numbers were down for a whole year was eight years ago when the 9/11 attacks scared millions off air travel. The previous big dip was in 1991 during the first Gulf war.
Today's figures show the fall in passenger numbers accelerated towards the end of the year at Gatwick and Stansted. Last month, compared with December 2007, Gatwick was down 13.8 per cent and Stansted 13 per cent.
Environmental campaigners seized on the figures, claiming they undermined the case for a third runway at Heathrow.
John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: "With airport passenger numbers coming down and Eurostar becoming more successful, the case for high-speed rail makes any further aviation expansion ever more irrational."
Airport operator BAA insisted that the falls were a cyclical blip caused by the recession and that "passenger volumes will recover".
But aviation experts said there was mounting evidence that the long-term trend was pointing towards slowing passenger growth.
The Gatwick figures for December are partly due to the collapse of charter airlines as well as the Open Skies agreement with the US, which saw routes transfer from Gatwick to Heathrow. This artifically boosted Heathrow.
The Stansted figure was the result of lower demand for flights to European destinations because of the weaker economy and the strengthening euro. London City airport, which serves the financial community, also saw sharp falls late last year.
The Civil Aviation Authority statistics show that some of the most popular destinations have seen a massive loss of traffic.
In November the number of passengers travelling between Heathrow and Paris was down 16 per cent on 2007, Heathrow to Brussels by 10 per cent, Heathrow to Frankfurt by 15 per cent, Heathrow to Dublin by 12 per cent and Stansted to Frankfurt Hahn down by 23 per cent.
Flights between Gatwick and Alicante were down by 14 per cent, Heathrow to Rome by 10 per cent, Stansted and Rome Ciampino by 17 per cent. Heathrow to New York JFK was down by 17 per cent. Many other routes have been scrapped. BAA said: "Long-term prospects for growth remain good and passenger volumes will recover."
Reader views (24)
third runway not needed then
- Nick Sloan, welwyn england, 15/01/2009 04:00
Report abuse
Nice of some of you to offer Heathrow as a private airport for the rich and politically connected. Maybe us peons should just be banned from traveling anywhere.
- Trunk, US, 15/01/2009 02:37
Report abuse
I visit home once per year. last year, went through Heathrow for the last time EVER.
It really gives the impression that absolutely NOBODY has any idea what they are supposed to be doing. When you ask or, heaven forbid, complain, the staff are downright rude. I don't think they are naturally rude people, just made that way due to incompetent management putting them into pressure situations which they are not prepared for or comfortable with.
It is time to put the greenback culture in reverse and BAA need to get real with their expectations of people.
Solution,???
Obviously, first get rid of management from the top down, retaining only those who have "real" vision, common sense and intelligence.
Second, programmes to empower the staff to do a better job. Oh yes, please, that does not mean american style "have a nice day"
CUSTOMER SERVICE.....means solve a problem and be polite, in that order.
Ray jarvis
expat, usa.
- Ray Jarvis, Marlborough, MA, USA, 14/01/2009 21:55
Report abuse
I left the UK, fed up with being treated like a terrorist everytime I fly in and out. I can remember 2 hour security waits in heathrow, delayed flights, overcrowded departure lounges etc.
The only airport i will use is london city. Heathrow, if i have a choice when flying internationally, i will avoid changing at this airport, and select frankfurt, zurich or amsterdam instead as a hub.
flying is not fun anymore, cramped seats, poor service, etc. i think it is true to say, i have reduced the amount i travel considerably, because it is more comfortable to stay put.
- Matthew, luxembourg, 14/01/2009 19:39
Report abuse
Having recently flown over from Duesseldorf I couldn't help but noticing how bedraggled, behind and unfriendly UK airports and their staff are. Add to that the sheer inconvenience of air travel these days (check-in 2 hrs prior to flight, luggage restrictions/penalty fees, security check incl. belt off, shoes off,no liquids etc. etc. it doesn't come as a great surprise that nobody wants to fly any more.
- Viola, London, UK, 14/01/2009 18:30
Report abuse
With all the bright ideas about London’s airports, it is surprising how biggest problem people miss is how do you get in and out of them. The journey times in and out of London’s airports are longer than the majority of the flights taken from them.
While some may argue more use of trains to get there, they miss the point the greatest majority of people flying are not coming from central London (the only place the trains run from) but everywhere else in the country.
Like everything in the UK, the airports are organised half-cock and not part of the whole. One of the reasons for the UK’s failures, is all building is without consideration of the infrastructure. Given the extra runway at Heathrow is to create an extra 65,000 jobs, where would they live and how would they get to work.
- Ian, Reading, England, 14/01/2009 16:53
Report abuse
I flew 9 times last year, mainly to Canada and USA both from Gatwick and Heathrow. I found both airport security staff absolutely abysmal, not only being herded like sheep but their aggressive behavior appalling. Terminal 3 internally is like stepping back 30 years. Gatwick South is not a lot better until you get air side and then it is always full and large queues even to get a coffee. They should look at Calgary, Edmonton in Canada and Dallas Fort Worth, Portland Oregon in the USA to see how it is properly with helpful and friendly staff.
Why on earth did AA move from Gatwick and why doesn't a scheduled Canadian carrier fly from LGW. No I won't use BA as their customer service on board leaves a lot to be desired, once bitten twice shy as they say. Looks like I will be flying into Europe to get my long haul connections in future, will even save some money as well.
- David, West Sussex, 14/01/2009 16:47
Report abuse
One reason why passenger traffic through Gatwick has declined is that most US airlines no longer use the place. We `are lumbered with Heathrow.
- Alan Preen, McLean, Texas, USA., 14/01/2009 16:26
Report abuse
Peter, of London; you mention in your sensible comment of Heathrow becoming a business park and airport for small jets only-well can I remind all readers that there used to be a perfectly suitable runway for business jets at Hatfield, Herts-close to London and motorways; but...yes...the Government allowed the runway to be torn up and built over...now, they want to destroy farmland and housing for more runways. Where is there any sense of long-term planning? Or is it because someone sees a megga profit to be made?
- Jon Kent, Hertford. UK, 14/01/2009 16:05
Report abuse
To Sarah from Singapore.
You obviously can't have had much experience travelling with BA or you would know that being rude and off handed to passengers is par for the course with them.
Also, why on earth are you spending your money to go to a cold, clapped out, shoddy run, over priced violent island?
- Mel Barrows, Tenerife. Canary Islands., 14/01/2009 15:53
Report abuse
I suppose the economic crisis and weakness of sterling are major deterants to foreign travel, but last year I travelled from Gatwick to Spain, maybe 5 times. The experience of taking your shoes off, being bodily searched, shouted at by security staff to keep moving and not carry any sharp objects was dehumanising. You have to turn up 2 1/2 hours early at the airport to ensure you can make your flight, which typically only takes 1 3/4 hours to your destination. If I could travel easily by train I would do it everytime. Air travel has turned into a nightmare, a very unpleasant experience, where every traveller, even with 2 or 3 children, is made to feel like a terrorist. Until they get their customer relations right and make travellers welcome I can only see this trend in volume of passengers declining.
- Bondy, london, 14/01/2009 15:36
Report abuse
The clear and honest comments about BA and BAA are true. They have become the worst of service companies not nice to be customer and if you have a choice...
But anyhow Heathrow is in the wrong place - should be east end somewhere industrial area - true but now we have many times no choice to use the dump.
- Georgie, Islington, London, 14/01/2009 15:03
Report abuse
Heathrow's location was based on getting fighter planes airborne for action in WW2. Its time to rethink the current circumstances and locate a new site in the Thames estuary. Heathrow can then become a lesuire/retail/business park and an airfield for small jets.
- Peter, london, 14/01/2009 14:39
Report abuse
Sanjay
I agree with your comment that people who choose to live near the airport have to expect a certain amount of noise of pollution.
However what has got very little publicity is the fact that once runway lternation ends, there will be 2 steams of aircraft flying at around 4,000 feet from 20 miles out from the airport. Hundreds of thousands of extra people will get the level of noise currently enjoyed by areas such as Richmond and Kew for 18 hours each day.
- Ian, London, 14/01/2009 14:34
Report abuse
I am flying to the UK this week, you wouldn't know BA actually wanted business from the incredibly rude way I was treated when booking my ticket with them.
Expect fewer passengers unless people start being nice to visitors.
- Sarah, Singapore, 14/01/2009 14:01
Report abuse
In response to Sanjay's comment - not everybody who lives close to Heathrow chooses to do so. There are tens of thousands of people in social housing in that area who experience exactly the same levels of noise and pollution as owner-occupiers who are far more mobile in terms of choosing where to live.
- Jimmy, Fulham, 14/01/2009 13:56
Report abuse
The way the increasingly out-of-touch pro aviation expansionists talk, the UK will collapse if the third runway at Heathrow is not built preferably immediately. Very odd if our economic survival depends on a strip of tarmac, presumably to enable more transit passengers to spend money in BAA owned shops. If this is the case, why don't we just make the UK into one large shopping bazzar, rather than doing the sensible thing and trying to get back to manufacturing like we used to do.
- Jon Kent, Hertford. UK, 14/01/2009 13:45
Report abuse
Paul,
I live near Heathrow too... I understand your concerns. However, you chose to live by the airport... as did I... as did most of the people around the airport... Honestly, what did you expect?!
You expected the government to scale down the airport based on Paul and others moving in?!
- Sanjay, Hounslow, UK, 14/01/2009 13:00
Report abuse
Thank goodness we have intellects such as Dave from London to lead the way with imaginative pollution reducing strategies, such as building to increase pollution in one arena, and reducing in another.
You are a true genius
- John Bloomfield, Twickenham, 14/01/2009 11:59
Report abuse
We are going through an ecomonic crisis.
What we must not be is short sighted. Investment is required and the extra runway at heathrow is a necessity, let get on with it and expend our engery constructively in reducing emissions in other areas.
- Dave, London, 14/01/2009 11:21
Report abuse
So there is a drop in passengers and yet they are insisting that another terminal and runway be built at Heathrow. I am assuming then that there will be an increase in aircraft flying from Heathrow despite fewer people being on those planes? How is that financially viable or justifiable?
I live under one of the Heathrow flight paths. I can wipe the black droplets of used fuel off my car and watch up to 4 planes be backed up in the sky coming in to land. Unfortunately, i do not earn enough money to live somewhere that isn't so noisy or polluted but it's frankly offensive, insulting and ludicrous that more aircraft are going to be using Heathrow with less people on them.
- Paul, Hounslow, UK, 14/01/2009 10:40
Report abuse
Must be time to build another runway then, to cope with all the people who won't turn up to fly.
- Neil, london uk,, 14/01/2009 10:40
Report abuse
Air travel is sustained by the absence of any tax on aviation fuel. When the Aviation Industry eventually looses this environmental subsidy airport development will be forced to consider the econometrics of this subsidized, inefficient mode of travel.
- Brian Edmonds, Farnham Surrey, 14/01/2009 10:19
Report abuse
At last! An hosest account from the Standard about City Airport. Even though its only 1 line , The Standard consistenetly ignores any stories about London City Airport. Nothing to to with thier partnership with the Eros Card and London City Airport of Course!!
- Dp, East London, 14/01/2009 09:49
Report abuse
