You are here: Home » Comment »

Why “Boris Airport” won’t work – and Labour should back Heathrow expansion

October 14, 2012 8:19 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

When Boris Johnson speaks about building a £50b three-runway airport to the east of London, he assumes that the airlines currently operating through Heathrow will happily divert to his shiny new one in Kent. The question is why would they?

Heathrow works well because it is a hub for connecting flights. All Boris Johnson is proposing is extra runway space, not the guarantee of more connecting flights.

If a flight from America cannot get a connection to Russia, then they’ll carry on flying through Heathrow. If the Russian airline can’t connect to America, then they’ll continue to route through Heathrow. Without some mechanism to cause the airlines to simultaneously switch to the new airport, we’ll have a £50bn white elephant on our hands.

Can you imagine fluffy Boris Johnson scooting around the world trying to persuade 86 different airlines that they should simultaneously switch to Boris Island? I was once involved in a housing chain with 11 other buyers, and that was difficult enough, but 86 airlines with 69 million passengers a year would be a nightmare.

That’s why routes are a sticky commodity. If they were fluid, then why haven’t the airlines all switched their business to Schiphol or Frankfurt, where spare capacity exists?

76,500 people work at Heathrow and that’s just two runways. 320 companies are there. Are we going to relocate this number of people from one part of the country to another? If they refuse, will we force them to move? Has fluffy Boris thought about this?

Previously, one of the main objections to Heathrow expansion was concern of global warming. At the time, the British public were in the middle of a discussion on how to lower our carbon footprint, so the idea of more air traffic was unpopular. Since then, the argument has refined.

We now realise that expanding Heathrow doesn’t increase the number of flights, as Gatwick and Stansted currently run under capacity while Heathrow bursts at the seams. All we propose is to ease the flow of existing traffic. In fact pollution will be reduced if Heathrow has a third runway, not simply due to incoming flights no longer having to circle, but in Schiphol the runway is so far from the airport that planes have to taxi, on their jet engines, for twenty minutes to get to the terminal.

The legitimate objection to Heathrow expansion is from residents who don’t want the noise. It is legitimate, but is it a big enough objection to affect such an important infrastructure decision? It is the comparative advantage of London and the south east that we are at the geographical centre of the world. We need to build on our strengths not sideline them. Being a world’s meeting place is a gift, not a burden.

Ed Miliband is undecided on this issue. I think this is a mistake. There are just as many votes from people employed by this airport, and the economy around it, as there are votes against the expansion. The common good to the wider economy and the nation is sufficient to outweigh the legitimate concern of residents regarding the noise.

Our policy should be to favour Heathrow expansion.

Related posts:

  1. The government’s case for Heathrow – building Britain’s transport infrastructure
  2. An airport in the Thames Estuary is a distraction, not a solution
  3. Heathrow: why I’m anti the antis
  4. Why I’ve resigned over the third runway
  5. Heathrow cannot be left to wither as a sacrifice to the environmental lobby – a third runway is imperative
  • http://twitter.com/tomfollett Tom Follett

    Absolute piffle. The entire point of the third runway is to increase capacity. Just because global warming has slipped down the news agenda doesn’t mean it no longer exists. As for replacing heathrow with boris island, Berlin managed to replace it’s 4 disparate airports with a central one just fine. Offered a brand new terminal, free of time limits on engine noise and a dedicated high speed rail line, it shouldn’t be particularly hard to get firms to move. At the end of the day the government could just revoke their license and force it. 

    Those ‘residents’ are not just a few reactionist NIMBYS. Much of west london already has significant noise levels from approaching planes throughout the day. Even more flights, on a flight corridor further to the north of the existing one will only make this worth. Out capital city deserves better than continual fudging because governments are incapable of looking beyond the next election.  

  • externalities

    Please read the following report (ignore what website it’s on!) which agrees that Boris airport is a terrible idea but offers a better, quieter Heathrow alternative to a third runway: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/bigger-and-quieter-the-right-answer-for-aviation

  • itdoesntaddup

    Surely the idea would be to close and redevelop Heathrow for housing and distribution centres, etc.?  Yoou wouldn’t keep it as an airport.

  • robertcp

    I have not heard any convincing reasons why 5 airports around London is not enough.  As you say, Gatwick and Stansted are under capacity.

  • Brumanuensis

    A better idea: expand Birmingham Airport – http://www.publicservice.co.uk/news_story.asp?id=20736

    • Brumanuensis

      Also:

      “It is the comparative advantage of London and the south east that we are at the geographical centre of the world”.

      Given that the Earth is an ellipsoid, how exactly is this true? [pedantic]

    • Brumanuensis

      If Heathrow’s biggest strength is that it is a hub airport, why not simply redirect all domestic flights to Stanstead and Gatwick – where as you say, there is spare capacity. Not a panacea, but something to be considered before building a third runway.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001102865655 John Ruddy

    Heres a thought. We dont back Boris Island. We dont back Heathrow expansion. Instead, we stop subsidising air travel.

    • John Reid

      Great here’s another Idea, why don’t we put out letters saying we’re a bunch of Loonies and we don’t deserve to win ever again,as that has about much  of a sensible approach to dealing with problems as the one where we need to have more space  to  land planes

      • John Ruddy

        Why do we need more space? Why are these planes landing? Mostly, its to transfer passengers who may – or may not – spend a little money in the duty free shop and pay the airport operator a small charge.

        I dont think our economy would crash if we deterrd some of these people.

        Dont forget, air travel is one of the most highly subsidised forms of transport.

    • Chilbaldi

      here’s an even better idea – we stick our heads in the stand and see British business suffer and the UK losing trade as a result of it being a transport hub. All because of those nasty big businesses.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    Why can’t some of the non-business orientated, short-haul flights be shifted to Stansted or Gatwick?

    And does Britain really benefit from being an offshore ‘hub’ given that users of Heathrow will never step outside Heathrow while here. The owners of Heathrow may benefit, but how about everyone else?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    Why can’t some of the non-business orientated, short-haul flights be shifted to Stansted or Gatwick?

    And does Britain really benefit from being an offshore ‘hub’ given that users of Heathrow will never step outside Heathrow while here. The owners of Heathrow may benefit, but how about everyone else?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    Why can’t some of the non-business orientated, short-haul flights be shifted to Stansted or Gatwick?

    And does Britain really benefit from being an offshore ‘hub’ given that users of Heathrow will never step outside Heathrow while here. The owners of Heathrow may benefit, but how about everyone else?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    Why can’t some of the non-business orientated, short-haul flights be shifted to Stansted or Gatwick?

    And does Britain really benefit from being an offshore ‘hub’ given that users of Heathrow will never step outside Heathrow while here. The owners of Heathrow may benefit, but how about everyone else?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    Why can’t some of the non-business orientated, short-haul flights be shifted to Stansted or Gatwick?

    And does Britain really benefit from being an offshore ‘hub’ given that users of Heathrow will never step outside Heathrow while here. The owners of Heathrow may benefit, but how about everyone else?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    Why can’t some of the non-business orientated, short-haul flights be shifted to Stansted or Gatwick?

    And does Britain really benefit from being an offshore ‘hub’ given that users of Heathrow will never step outside Heathrow while here. The owners of Heathrow may benefit, but how about everyone else?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Homfray/510980099 Mike Homfray

    Why can’t some of the non-business orientated, short-haul flights be shifted to Stansted or Gatwick?

    And does Britain really benefit from being an offshore ‘hub’ given that users of Heathrow will never step outside Heathrow while here. The owners of Heathrow may benefit, but how about everyone else?

    • DanMcCurry

      76,500 employees benefit.

    • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

      “he owners of Heathrow may benefit, …”

      Nail on the head, mate.

  • AlanGiles

    “”Previously, one of the main objections to Heathrow expansion was concern of global warming. At the time, the British public were in the middle of a discussion on how to lower our carbon footprint, so the idea of more air traffic was unpopular. Since then, the argument has refined.”

    No, it hasn’t. What this means in the pusillanimous world of politicians is that enviromental matters have slipped down the top ten of the public’s worries because at the moment they are more exercised by recession, unemployment and the apparent inability of government (any government) to deal with it.

    This complacent view – the ostrich-like attitude, doesn’t “refine” the very real matter of global warming, however much people like Mr. McCurry hopes  it does.

    As a couple of other posters have pointed out, by your own admission, Gatwick and Stansted are under capacity, and at least a complete village woukld not have to be destroyed to increase their use – which is not the case with Heathrow.

    But if you want to lose votes in West London – and at the same time earn the undying gratitude of people like former Labour MP Clive Soley who has been agitating for a third Heathrow runway for years, to please his business friends – go ahead.

    • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

      Well said, Alan. Corporate interests have managed to downgrade the global warming debate following the University of East Anglia data hacking event – even though involved scientists were cleared of malpractice by subsequent inquiries.

      Today ‘sensible’ opinion declines mention of environmental considerations – even Ed forgot to mention the environment in his conference speech. And for the Tories the matter only warrants mention as detoxifying spin.But it isn’t going to go away. There’ll be no ‘get out of jail’ card if we persist on the present course.

    • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

      Well said, Alan. Corporate interests have managed to downgrade the global warming debate following the University of East Anglia data hacking event – even though UEA scientists were cleared of malpractice by subsequent inquiries.

      Today ‘sensible’ opinion declines mention of environmental considerations – even Ed forgot to mention the environment in his conference speech. And for the Tories the matter only warrants mention as detoxifying spin.

      But global warming isn’t going to go away. There’ll be no ‘get out of jail card’ if we persist on the present course.

  • Daniel Speight

    It’s about time there was a new divi-up of the landing slots at Heathrow to make it a bit more logical to use as a hub. Better transport between the three London airports would help and more flights from provincial airports to foreign business destinations. If Emirates can serve Newcastle, Birmingham and Manchester why can’t British Airways serve more foreign destinations from them also. There must be a demand as otherwise Emirates wouldn’t be doing it.

  • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

    76,5oo current employee beneficiaries (according to your figures). But no one would surely link opponents of expansion to the redundancy of those yet to be employed?

  • John Ruddy

    Err… how much business would “suffer”? If our international competiveness depended on how fast you can get through customs at Terminal 5, we’re screwed.

  • Jeremy_Preece

    If I understand it correctly, the issue is whether we need to have several airports or just one really big airport, probably in London.
    If Gatwick and Standstead are under used it is because it does not work to have different airports. In order to have the world’s biggist airport, it is necessary to be able to connect from one flight to another in the same airport.
    As for domestic flights, then it is also necessary that business traffic can connect directly from the UK central airport to catch a plane to any UK airport. The knock on effect would be to make all of the UK accessible. Using road and rail links between airports in order to continue a flight would seem to be the option that has negative effect on airlines wanting to use the airports.

    I think what is needed is proper debate about:
    1. Do we want the UK to house the hub of the world’s international flight traffic? Or do we for other reasons (such as environmental considerations) rather not have the traffic. Do we want or need the business?
    The bottom line for this question is whether there needs to be a central hub somewhere (which I think there does) and decide that if that is to be, do we want it in the UK or do we want to give it to another country?
     
    2. If yes, do we want to expand Heathrow, or do we want to build a new airport or expand another airport so that it becaomes as big as Heathrow with the extra runway? If we develop another airport then it will result in the downgrading and downsizing of Heathrow – would we be happy for that?
    And if we go down the new airport/develop another airport route, then we probably want to build a new airport that has further potential to expand to meet as yet unpredicted future needs.  

    3. Another key element of a central hub, is that it must also plug into road and rail links for the country.

    4. On a totally different issue, can anyone else out there tell me how it can possibly be right that to take a second class rail trip from London to Scotland is more expensive than flying?  

  • Brumanuensis

    It is by Tim Leunig, which inclines me to look more favourably upon it than most Policy Exchange reports.

  • Brumanuensis

    I’ll just enter Monbiot’s views to the discussion: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/sep/28/expanding-uk-airports-runways

    Not intended as a full endorsement, by the way.

Latest

  • Comment Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    By Mike Ion

    Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising [...]

    Read more →
  • News Seats and Selections Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    The Labour Party have this afternoon suspended the selection process for Falkirk, after concerns were raised about “membership recruitment”. We understand that Ed Miliband was “keen to act swiftly” as the selection process was due to formally begin on Sunday. An officer of the party – yet to be confirmed – will investigate. A Labour spokesperson told us this afternoon: “We have suspended the start of the selection process of the Falkirk parliamentary seat. Concerns have been raised about membership [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Seats and Selections Unions Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    By Paul Wheeler

    It is interesting to see that the Labour Party is returning to the vexed issue of its parliamentary selection process. The changes may be well and good.  But maybe we should be asking a bigger question – are we  witnessing the end of working class representation in Parliament? When the Labour Party was first founded it was more simple. Then the explicit  aim was to secure working class representation, and specifically organised labour, in Parliament. Inevitably it became more complicated [...]

    Read more →
  • Local Government News An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    Earlier this week we brought you a decidedly dodgy bar chart from the Tories, but it seems that they’re not the only party in Camden adopting dubious use of bar charts. Step forward Camden Lib Dems, with this classic of the dodgy Lib Dem bar chart genre (courtesy of Theo Blackwell). Even by the pretty shoddy standards of the yellows, this is a corker:   Update: Haringey Lib Dems might want to work on their bar charts  maths too (via [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Modern life is rubbish – We need to put Work and Home at the heart of everything we do

    Modern life is rubbish – We need to put Work and Home at the heart of everything we do

    By Mark Ferguson

    “Work and home is what One Nation is about – family life, how people live everyday life.” That’s what Jon Cruddas – the man who will in all likelihood write Labour’s next manifesto – told the Guardian the party’s policy review is focused on. And it sounds so simple – doesn’t it? Critics will say it’s too simplistic a definition (and they’d be right – I’m cherry picking here), but it’s also a brilliant example of the distance between most [...]

    Read more →