Heathrow’s future - The right side of the argument

Nov 6th 2008
The British government is set on letting Heathrow airport expand. It should think again
GORDON BROWN is never happier than when he believes he has forced his political opponents on to “the wrong side of the argument”. That is why he clung so stubbornly to his policy, finally foiled, of introducing 42 days’ detention without charge of suspected terrorists long after it had become abundantly clear that there was little operational need for it. What seemed to matter most to the prime minister was that the opposition Conservatives could be portrayed as putting wishy-washy concepts of civil liberty before national security.
Mr Brown is at it again now on a different issue. Before the end of the year it is almost certain that the government will approve the expansion of London’s Heathrow airport, making possible a third runway and a sixth terminal. This time he senses an opportunity to condemn the air-headed Tories for naively putting greenery above the economy. A bigger Heathrow, he will claim, is crucial to Britain’s prosperity. In fact his case seems as vapid and noxious as a jet-engine’s exhaust.
Playing politics with planes
Nobody doubts that, as things now stand, the world’s busiest international airport is full up. Because Heathrow’s two runways operate at close to capacity, even the smallest hitch can cause flight delays. Airlines want more capacity at Heathrow: scarce take-off and landing slots have recently changed hands for up to £30m ($48m) apiece. It is hardly surprising that BAA, the airport’s operator, would like to expand its most valuable property, or that British Airways, with more than 40% of Heathrow slots, thinks its own growth prospects are inextricably linked to those of the airport. But other claims made for enlarging the airport are specious or misleading.
The main one is that Heathrow must get bigger if London’s—read Britain’s—economy is not to take a hit. It is too soon to know how severely the economic downturn will pare passenger numbers. But more than a third of travellers coming into Heathrow are transfer passengers, up from just 9% in the early 1990s. True, they could be seduced away by hub airports on the continent with more capacity: Amsterdam’s Schiphol, say, or Charles de Gaulle in Paris. But so what? International transfer passengers who never leave the airport are useful to the airline industry, but they are of little wider economic value. At the margin, they may make some unpopular routes viable and increase frequency on others, but the notion that they play a vital role in connecting London with the rest of the world is not supported by the evidence. As the number of transit passengers has grown, the number of routes served out of Heathrow has actually contracted, from about 230 to 180.
If the economic case for expanding Heathrow is nothing like as compelling as the government pretends, the environmental arguments against remain as strong as ever. Because it is located in built-up west London, Heathrow already makes more people miserable than just about any other big developed-country airport. BAA and the Department of Transport have tried to show that adding a quarter of a million flights will not increase noise and local air pollution. Opponents reckon they have colluded in making up optimistic projections about the speed with which airlines will change to yet-to-be-built clean, quiet aircraft. Expanding Heathrow also sits oddly with the government’s new commitment to cutting greenhouse-gas emissions by 80% by 2050.
But the biggest reason why Mr Brown should hold off deciding Heathrow’s future is that the government’s own Competition Commission ruled in August that BAA’s monopoly of London airports should be broken up. Anticipating a direct order, the airport operator has already put up Gatwick for sale. Any new owner is likely to seek permission to build a second runway there to compete with Heathrow for business. That would give London plenty of new capacity at a lower environmental cost than expanding Heathrow. If Mr Brown wants to be on the right side of this argument, he should acknowledge that circumstances have changed and act accordingly.
Korte Nederlandstalige samenvatting:
“De argumenten vóór uitbreiding lijken even vluchtig en schadelijk als de uitlaatgassen van een straalmotor.”
“Het is niet verwonderlijk dat BAA, de exploitant van de luchthaven, zijn belangrijkste bezit graag zou willen uitbreiden, of dat British Airways, met meer dan 40% van de starts en landingen op Heathrow, denkt dat zijn eigen groeiperspectief onlosmakelijk verbonden is met dat van de luchthaven. Maar andere argumenten voor uitbreiding worden te mooi voorgesteld of zijn misleidend.”
“Internationale transit-passagiers, die de luchthaven niet verlaten, zijn nuttig voor de luchtvaartmaatschappijen, maar hebben verder weinig economische waarde. Wellicht maken zij enkele onpopulaire routes levensvatbaar of verhogen zij de frequentie op andere routes, maar de stelling dat zij een essentiële rol spelen om Londen te verbinden met de rest van de wereld wordt niet door bewijzen ondersteund.”
“Terwijl de economische argumenten om Heathrow uit te breiden dus al helemaal niet zo overtuigend zijn als de regering doet voorkomen, blijven de milieu-argumenten tégen nog altijd even sterk. Omdat Heathrow gelegen is in de stedelijke agglomeratie van West-Londen, wordt meer mensen het leven onmogelijk gemaakt dan bij welk ander vliegveld in de westerse wereld dan ook.”
“BAA en het Ministerie van Verkeer hebben trachten aan te tonen dat een kwart miljoen meer vluchten niet zal leiden tot meer geluidsoverlast of milieuvervuiling. Tegenstanders vermoeden dat zij onder één hoedje hebben gespeeld bij het opstellen van optimistische prognoses over de snelheid waarmee de luchtvaartmaatschappijen zullen overgaan op schonere en stillere vliegtuigen, die overigens nog gebouwd moeten worden.”
“Een uitbreiding van Heathrow verdraagt zich ook slecht met het nieuwe voornemen van de regering om de uitstoot van broeikasgassen in 2050 met 80% gereduceerd te hebben.”
Lees ook de reacties op dit bericht
Vertaling (nou ja…) van het volledige artikel: door Google translate
Geplaatst door Gerard uit NULL
En Schiphol claimt steeds dat BV Nederland om zal vallen als de transferpassagiers worden geweerd. Non-argument van Schiphol kennelijk. Zullen we Alders even bellen dat hij z'n werk over moet doen?