• Home
  • About

Evan Sparks's Aviation Policy Blog

A wonk's-eye view of everything in the sky.

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« TSA in spat with Europe over passenger data?
Happy Valentine’s Day! »

The London Times’s (air)field of dreams

February 13, 2008 by Evan Sparks

If you build it, they will come.

This sort of wishful thinking too often infects policymakers seeking to improve and expand air travel systems. Sometimes, unfortunately, they choose the most expensive option: building an entirely new airport. As I’ve written earlier, this does not happen very often (at least not in developed countries, but check out all the crazy airport construction going on in the UAE). Developing a brand-new airport is a multibillion-dollar project requiring decades of planning, permissions, environmental mitigation, NIMBY lawsuits, and more. The easier course is to expand capacity at existing airports, although this is not always possible. But it is certainly cheaper in the long run than building white elephants like MidAmerica St. Louis Airport or Montreal’s ill-conceived Mirabel International Airport. Mirabel reflects many of the problems with the new-airport concept: it must be built far away from a city center to avoid extensive legal challenges; transit links are often an afterthought; the local market for and technological aspects of air travel may change dramatically; and travelers may hate the airport. A new airport may require regulatory protection, like the Wright Amendment for Dallas-Ft. Worth, the perimeter at National for Washington Dulles, and the international flight rules at Mirabel and Dorval (now Trudeau).

Against this inauspicious history comes the Times of London with a leader arguing for a new airport for London in lieu of expanding Heathrow. The paper writes that Heathrow is too central, too congested, too miserable, and that it cannot be suitably expanded.

Therefore, says the editorial:

There is a simple and affordable solution. A new airport could be built on artificial islands in the Thames estuary, away from the overcrowded city but close enough to be served by fast transport links. . . . There is a proposal on the table, an £11 billion scheme to build an airport on reclaimed land near Cliffe in Kent and Canvey Island in Essex. Money is no reason to reject it; the third Heathrow runway will cost £13 billion. Heathrow can never be a sustainable solution to Britain’s 21st-century needs. A new airport in the Thames estuary just might.

The Times leaves out several considerations which would undercut its case for a new airport. First, technical concerns: airports built on artificial islands may be treading water eventually. (Osaka’s Kansai Airport is slowly sinking.) The weather on the North Sea, where the Thames Estuary empties, is famously foul, with more fog and wind than locations further inland.

Second, although the statement “Heathrow can never be a sustainable solution to Britain’s 21st-century needs” is correct, it neglects London’s four other airports: Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, and City. City is small and restricted, serving business travelers almost exclusively. Gatwick, located south of town, is large (in fact, the world’s busiest single-runway airport) and serves many international destinations in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and North America. Stansted, north of the city, is a hub for low-fare carriers in Europe but boasts a few long-hauls. So does Luton, although that airport has traditionally been, like Gatwick, a hub for charter flights as well.

london-airports.jpg

What the Times misses is that both Gatwick and Stansted are excellent expansion prospects. In fact, the UK government white paper on air travel recommends a second runway for Stansted and possibly for Gatwick after a no-expansion planning agreement expires in 2019. (The white paper specifically rejects Cliffe as a potential new airport site.) With modern facilities and room to grow at other London-area airports, why would the Times propose a brand-new boondoggle?

Third, the Times‘s proposal reflects a basic lack of understanding of the airline business. For an aviation policy blogger, I write a lot about the airline business. That’s because policy and regulation have to relate to the industries they affect. One of the key reasons that expansions at Heathrow and Gatwick are appealing is that those airports are connecting hubs for British Airways and other major airlines. Connecting hubs require all flights to arrive and depart from the same airport. (I am always amused to read stories suggesting that the New York-area Stewart International can relieve traffic from Newark and JFK — not likely!) London’s multiple airports work now because of the heavy origin-and-destination traffic — that is, people traveling to and from London, not through it en route to somewhere else — of such a large city. But the BA hub operation requires a single major airport, and Heathrow is that hub. I doubt the British government would ever be so foolish as to do as Canada did with Mirabel and require all international flights to serve it while domestic flights served Dorval. But since the true need in London is increased hub capacity, building a brand new airport in the Thames will not solve the problem.

Building new airports is a huge challenge and process. Our policymakers should always be thinking about ways to expand our air travel system, but they should be aiming at policies that work in practice, are cost-effective, meet real needs, and cooperate with airline business models. The Times‘ s proposal is not the right solution to London’s air travel problems.

Time for a new airport [The Times via Towers and Tarmacs]

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

Posted in Evan's Fiskings | Tagged airports, europe | 2 Comments

2 Responses

  1. on February 13, 2008 at 11:24 pm Elwin Wickham

    We landed and departed from Gatwick in June 2007. I last visitied in 1975. Truly I don’t think anything has changed in the 32 years in-between. Definitly there is a need for additional capacity.

    When we visited Windsor we wondered what the Queen thought of all the large aircraft from Heathrow passing so low and close to the castle. Expanding Heathrow probably is not high on her wish list.


  2. on February 14, 2008 at 8:24 am Evan Sparks

    There have been a lot of changes and expansions in capacity at Gatwick between your two visits. The North Terminal was opened in 1988, and the pier connected by a bridge high enough to accommodate a 747 opened in 2005. I mention my preference for Gatwick over Heathrow in this post from very early on in the blog’s history.



Comments are closed.

  • Recently on the APB

    • America vs. Europe: who overrates whom?
    • Scare headline not so scary in article
    • Crew rest and training, new ATC contract, and more
    • The solution to NYC’s airport woes?
    • And… I’m back
    • Nothing to see here
    • Let your left hand not know what your right hand is doing….
    • Evan around the web
    • This is just ridiculous
    • Liveblogging Randy Babbitt’s confirmation hearing
  • 2008 aerospace airports air traffic control alitalia american asia ata atsb australia pacific Aviation08 BAA british airways budget airlines business canada competition congress consumer advocacy continental delays delta Deregulation 2.0 dot emirates energy environment europe faa fedex general aviation geography health history humor iata icao klm korean labor latin america lufthansa media Merger Mania 2008 mergers meta middle east middle east/africa military misc. nationalism network airlines northwest open skies politics prestige regulation ryanair safety sarcasm security small communities southwest Southwest and the FAA space tax transit travel tsa united usa us airways virgin virgin america world
  • Archives

    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • April 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
    • December 2008
    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
    • December 2007
    • November 2007
    • October 2007
    • September 2007
    • August 2007
    • July 2007
  • Find me on Facebook!
  • Banner photo: Washington during landing at National Airport, November 2007. © Rachel Ayerst. Used by permission.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

WPThemes.


Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Evan Sparks's Aviation Policy Blog
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Evan Sparks's Aviation Policy Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Copy shortlink
    • Report this content
    • View post in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
%d bloggers like this: