Member News
ePolitix.com Stakeholders give their views on plans to add a new runway at Heathrow airport.
Party Response: Liberal Democrats
Susan Kramer, who leads the Liberal Democrats' campaign against the expansion of Heathrow, said: "This decision was the big test of Gordon Brown's commitment to the environment - and he has failed.
"This utter hypocrisy proves that the government's green rhetoric simply cannot be believed. Ministers have changed the planning rules to stifle the voices of local residents and they have ducked a debate and vote in Parliament.
"The refusal to have a proper debate and vote in the House is a sign of absolute cowardice."
Stakeholder Response: Campaign to Protect Rural England
The Campaign to Protect Rural England's Andrea Davies said: "This decision makes a mockery of ministers justification of recent controversial planning reforms, which they suggested would improve local democracy and help tackle climate change.
'The noise blight effects of airport expansion could be felt in the very near future; this will have a negative impact on the lives of thousands of people living near Heathrow, threatening their health and the tranquillity of their environment."
Stakeholder Response: London First
Baroness Jo Valentine, chief executive of London First, said: "Business needs to fly. London's economic recovery, as the leading centre for world trade, at least partly depends on access to high quality, reliable air travel. Inclusion of aviation in international carbon trading arrangements will provide incentives for development of cleaner aircraft.
"A third runway, with tough conditions on environmental performance and passenger service, would allow London once again to confidently boast about its access to global markets."
London First has called for the following measures to accompany expansion at Heathrow:
1. Put the Passenger first
Regulation should be modernised to drive up service quality, reducing queues and flight delays and maintaining and improving terminal 'fabric'.
2. Don't sweat the assets to breaking point
Use of mixed mode, as well as a new runway, should be used first and foremost to reduce delays and restore breathing space at Heathrow, not to increase flights.
3. No new flights until delays reduce
There should be no new flights at Heathrow until its performance matches that of other rival European hubs
4. Introduce a ratchet down on air pollution and noise
Cap noise and air pollution levels, with an independent body to measure them.Lower this cap over time to encourage technological innovation and minimise the impact on the local environment. Allow the ratchet to remove as well as add flight slots, depending on delays and air and noise pollution levels
Stakeholder Response: Unite
This response is submitted by Unite the Union, the UK's largest trade union with 2 million members across the private and public sectors. The union's members work in a range of industries including manufacturing, financial services, print, media, construction, transport and local government, education, health and not for profit sectors. The Civil Air Transport (CAT) membership of Unite, is currently split between two Trade Groups. Together they are the largest trade union representing employees employed in the United Kingdom (UK) aviation industry. These Trade Group represents workers in all areas of civil aviation.
The union's current membership includes 85,000 members working within Civil Aviation trade groups.
At present Heathrow is the largest single site employer responsible for 172,000 jobs and around 7 per cent of UK Gross Value Added Product.
Heathrow is also running at over 99 per cent of capacity resulting in long delays for departing and arriving aircraft. On average every other aircraft is left in one of the four holding patterns around the airport going nowhere for eight and a half minutes. Departing Aircraft can be sat in a queue on the taxiway for up to 20 minutes.
No other airport in the UK requires as many holding areas.
It is estimated that by opening up both runways to operate as if they were separate airports in their own right and allowing simultaneous arrivals and departures on both, over 330,000 tonnes of CO2 could be saved every year.
Mixed Mode operations would immediately end the misery of cascading delays and cancellations that strike this airport whenever even the most minor of problems occurs. It would however not stop the problems that occur when one runway goes out of action.
Expanding Heathrow's infrastructure will not mean more emissions.
Before any additional flights would be allowed, the airport would need to increase the amount of ground support services and hence no additional flights would be possible until 2015 at the very earliest.
The additional capacity created by this switch to mixed mode would make it possible to add additional flights without increasing the overall carbon footprint of the airport. Any new runway and terminal capacity would not be ready to open until 2020 at the very earliest and by then newer quieter cleaner burning aircraft will be available.
Despite technological advancements there needs to be additional external pressure on the industry to reduce its footprint. Limiting capacity availability to an environmental limit results in cleaner aircraft being purchased which in turn reduces the overall impact of the industry.
Heathrow's operator BAA is already calling for an independent ombudsman to ensure that emissions do not exceed current levels.
Expansion other European hub airports is ongoing without any sign of a limit of this nature.
Major airports are economic engines driving the economies in their surroundings and further afield. The same applies in terms of the employment market.
Prospering airports not only create jobs at the airports themselves but also in the regions around them. Economists and employment market researchers therefore speak of a "multiplier effect": Every job at the airport creates one – or even several – other jobs somewhere else.
Over 100,000 jobs are to be created at Frankfurt as a result of expansion for example.
At Heathrow it is estimated that for every 1,000 jobs gained or lost at Heathrow approximately 570 indirect jobs will be created or lost, and 270 induced jobs gained or lost, resulting in a total of 840 jobs gained or lost.
Terminal 6 construction, with the addition of the new runway and additional ground support services, will probably create a similar number of jobs as those required for Terminal 5 if not more. Terminal 5 averaged about 8,000 jobs at any one time, with over 50,000 individuals working on the site at one time during the construction process.
These new services and the staffing of Terminal 6 will probably require another 15,000 to 16,000 staff.
The benefits of Heathrow expansion extend way beyond the South East Region. In terms of connectivity from UK cities to a hub via their local airports Heathrow is lagging behind and now being surpassed by five European rivals.
Amsterdam 22
Paris CDG 18
Frankfurt * 13
Munich 12
Madrid * 8
Heathrow 9 [* = new runways built or being built]
All of these rival airports are already serviced by a high speed rail link and are growing rapidly as they capture the business that cannot be accommodated at Heathrow.
Business requires good connectivity to the global market in the easiest and swiftest and most reliable mode possible. The resulting economic benefits of connection to the worlds busiest international hub cannot, therefore, be underestimated
If expansion does not go ahead
Heathrow cannot continue to operate indefinitely as already we have seen companies relocate due to difficulties in getting to destinations via Heathrow. If plans to expand are stopped then the fear is that Heathrow will go the same way as the London Docks.
If Heathrow then reverts to becoming just another feeder airport for the European hubs, then staffing levels will drop dramatically.
It is estimated that as many as one in every three jobs could be lost at Heathrow. Additionally at present London has four airports feeding rival European hub airports. It does not need another.
In the long term therefore there is a real prospect is that one or more of these other London airports will close.
Around Heathrow the airport is the principle source of employment. Consequently despite the actions of the local boroughs, there is considerable support for expansion.
| Local authority | Number of people in employment | Total employed at Heathrow | % employed at Heathrow | Ratio employed at Heathrow |
| Ealing | 142,700 | 5,312 | 3.7% | 1 in 27 |
| Hillingdon | 120,400 | 8,254 | 7.7% | 1 in 15 |
| Hounslow | 107,200 | 10,695 | 10.0% | 1 in 10 |
| Slough | 59,700 | 3,015 | 5.0% | 1 in 20 |
| Spelthorne | 45,700 | 5,240 | 11.5% | 1 in 9 |
| Total | 475,700 | 32,516 | 6.8% | 1 in15 |
The effects on the local economy are closely linked with what happens at Heathrow. If staff levels decline to the levels predicted, the local economy will be devastated.
The Mayor's Island Airport Proposal
On the face of it the idea of creating an island airport in the Thames does appear to be an attractive alternative to expansion at Heathrow but there are a few hurdles that stand in the plans way.
Staff – if the airport was built where would the staff come from to operate it. Heathrow's two runways are operated 18 hours a day requiring 172,000 people.
The proposal suggests a 24 hour airport with four runways. Where are the staff to come from and where will they be housed, where will their schools be built and what about the economy of West London if Heathrow closes.
The Thames is now home to four major wind farm projects all of which interfere with aircraft landing systems and radar. The site chosen is also only a few miles from the Kentish Flats farm resulting in a physical barrier to landing or departing aircraft.
The area is also a bird life reserve raising not only the problem of bird strikes but also ecological concerns. Then there is the environmental and financial cost of creating an artificial island and sighting an airport on it together with the surface connections and support structure.
Noise travels far further over water than it does over land and hence it will mean that all the coastal towns of the estuary will be blighted, relocating the problem as opposed to tackling it.
The mayor's plan suggests that access will be by ferry and High Speed Rail link. To move the current passenger levels just by High Speed Rail would require a minimum of 13 trains an hour.
The location chosen is so close to London City and Southend airports that operations out of these airports would be severely restricted. It is also further out of London than London Stansted.
There have been four major studies into the proposal and every one has come out against an airport in this location.
Surely Boris Johnson knows that this proposal this is a red herring yet he continues to plough London Assembly money into it.
Joint general secretary Derek Simpson said: "There can be no further delay in the modernisation of Heathrow, the UK's only international hub airport. Heathrow should be the jewel in our crown but it is falling behind world class standards.
"We know that the expansion of Heathrow is not an easy decision. People are concerned for the environment and their quality of life. But we sincerely believe that Heathrow's modernisation is the only way to reduce aircraft emissions and cut disruption."
"Only modernisation at Heathrow will keep Britain on the global transport map and stop our cities and industries losing out to our competitors in Europe. Now of all times we need to seize the opportunities to create more jobs and preserve this country's status as a world-leading economy. We cannot hope to achieve either if we choke-off investment in Heathrow and turn our leading airport into a museum piece."
A High Speed Rail Link would not remove the demand for a third runway
If you connect Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds to the high speed rail network it would not remove the need for the additional capacity at Heathrow.
Even if all the passengers from these locations took the train to Heathrow rather than flying, it would only reduce the number of passengers by 3 percent. Such spare capacity would last less than a year due to current demand.
High speed rail networks in France typically carry just 25 percent of capacity. In 2007 2.2 million passengers flew to Paris from a London airport despite the provision of high speed rail. Another 798,420 flew to Brussels and 443,000 flew to Lyon.
The three promoters of high speed rail; Atkins, Green gauge and ARUP all agree that a high speed rail link could not provide the modal shift necessary to rule out the need for a third runway.
It is in the nature of a high speed line that the route is as straight and level as possible, which creates considerable disruption to those who live in its path, not to mention the environmental and ecological impact during its construction.
Heathrow needs a high speed rail connection as well as a third runway. This will reduce the tendency of passengers to travel to the airport by private car.
All rival European hubs are already connected to the high speed rail network and this is just another example of where Heathrow is suffering from under investment. It is not a question of high speed rail or Heathrow, we need both.
Transfer Passengers add to the UK economy!
The costs of providing long haul flights to the worlds developing economies are only marginally profitable. If there was not some element of transfer passenger traffic to fill the seats on a regular service it would not be financially viable. If the service diminished to a weekly or biweekly service it would reduce the level of passengers utilising that route and the route to Heathrow.
While traveling through Heathrow the average passenger does not just sit in the lounge, they take the advantage of visiting the various gift shops a café's provided.
On domestic routes, transfer passengers can make up over 75 percent of the passengers on the flight.
It is therefore vital that transfer passenger numbers are encouraged and not blamed for filling up the capacity of Heathrow.
London has six runways why do they all have to be at one location?
It is true to say that in and around London there are six runways spread over the five major London airports. Having these runways spread over five separate locations does mean that they are no good for hub operations.
The nature of a hub is that it becomes the focal point in a number of connecting services. A passenger would not choose a flight to one of London’s airports, collect their luggage, haul it for over an hour on public transport to then catch another flight from another London airport to their final destination if they can simply walk between terminals and have their luggage moved for them.
Heathrow is vital for the UK economy not just the South East
The benefits economically of a UK hub are felt throughout the UK not just in the South East.
According to Derek Simpson: "The UK's economy, workers and passengers need our government to look to our future. Unite says grasp this once in a lifetime opportunity to secure the UK's biggest world class airport and give the green light for the third runway. This will support jobs now and create work for tens of thousands of workers hit hard by this recession."
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.