Airport expansion plans condemned
Air travel is set to increase sharply
Proposals for up to three new runways at airports in south-east England have been condemned by environmental and residents’ groups.
Airport operator BAA put forward a shortlist of options including one new runway each at Heathrow and Gatwick, and one or two at Stansted.
Campaigners opposed to the expansion of Stansted accused BAA of wanting to “line its own pockets”, while those at Heathrow accused BAA of the “mother of all U-turns”.
BAA, which was responding to a government consultation, said the final decision still rests with ministers.
But it said the expansion is needed to cope with a predicted rise in the number of air passengers from 117 million a year now, to 300 million by 2030.
It advised against building a new airport at Cliffe in north Kent – an option being considered by the government – claiming it would be financially unviable and environmentally damaging.
‘Environmental vandalism’
Opponents to the expansion of Stansted Airport in Essex said BAA had abandoned a previous commitment not to push for more runways there.
Residents are strongly opposed to airport expansion
Norman Mead, chairman of Stop Stansted Expansion, said the proposals put at risk “homes that have existed for centuries – as well as ancient woodlands and important wildlife habitats”.
He added: “It would be environmental vandalism on an unprecedented scale.”
John Williams, spokesperson for BAA Stansted, said the airport has simply stated that extra runways are a technical possibility.
“These are not BAA schemes; the government has come up with these schemes, and has asked people to respond as part of the consultation, and we are responding to their consultation,” he said.
The completion of a second new runway at Stansted would depend on the success of the first to be built, BAA said.
‘Betrayed’
Near Heathrow, campaigners said they were dismayed at the suggestion a new short-haul runway could be built at the west London airport.
Unless we start planning ahead, then we’ll end up with the gridlock and decline that we’ve got on the railways
Mike Clasper, BAA
John Stewart, chairman of Heathrow-based pressure group Hacan (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) ClearSkies, said: “We feel betrayed and angry but equally as determined to fight on.
“This has to be the mother of all U-turns. For so long, BAA has reassured people that it would not be pressing for a third runway at Heathrow.”
The No Airport at Cliffe Action Group said that while it was “very nice” not to be included in the BAA plan, the group would fight on until the government categorically said there would be no airport there.
Passenger growth
Mike Clasper, who takes over as BAA chief executive next month, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme the new runways would be vital to meet increased demand.
BAA said the first new runway would be needed by 2011-13.
Mr Clasper said: “Aviation growth is critical to the national economy. More and more people want to fly.
“It’s become part of the public transport system and unless we start planning ahead, then we’ll end up with the gridlock and decline that we’ve got on the railways.”
‘Fundamental’
BAA’s proposals were well received by some members of the business community, which hopes airport expansion would contribute to growth in the South East.
“Our reason for that is that Heathrow Airport has been absolutely fundamental to the growth of economic activity,” said Frank Stroud, spokesman for the Thames Valley Chamber of Commerce.
Airlines also welcomed BAA’s proposals, with BA and Virgin Atlantic both stressing the need for a new runway at Heathrow in particular.
Plans under consideration by the government for airport expansion in the South-East include:
A third runway at Heathrow
Up to three new runways at Stansted
Up to two new runways at Gatwick
A new £9bn airport at Cliffe in north Kent
The consultation process – which is also looking at other areas of the UK – is expected to run until the end of June.
Transport Minister Alistair Darling is then due to outline his final decisions in a White Paper towards the end of the year.
By: Bhoy - 13th May 2003 at 00:01
well, with regards to GLA/EDI, GLA has the transatlantic links (CO to EWR all year round, AA/AC to ORD and YYZ respectively during the summer timetable), while EDI has the direct flights to Europe (LH to FRA, AF to CDG, etc, while almost all of GLA’s European flights have en route stops at either BHX or MAN).
It just dosen’t seem to make sense with regards to transfer pax.
By: mongu - 12th May 2003 at 21:18
Both airports need upgrading, especially rail links and associated infrastructure like hotels.
The major battle will be attracting long haul services to either airport, because relying on the Easyjets and Ryanairs to drive growth is not going to be viable forever.
By: Bhoy - 12th May 2003 at 19:36
BAA’s consultation papers are certainly big on the agenda today… This was in today’s Evening Times…
It doesn’t add up Mr Darling
by David Leask
Chief Reporter
A NEW report has shattered Government claims it would cost more to expand Glasgow Airport than its rival Edinburgh.
It reveals civil servants underestimated the cost of making Edinburgh Airport Scotland’s national hub by £400million.
The study, by the company which runs both airports, said the real costs would be £1.1billion for Glasgow and £1.3bn for Edinburgh.
The figures make a mockery of claims from Whitehall and Holyrood officials that developing Glasgow was a financial non-starter.
And they leave in tatters the credibility of Government aviation officials who backed Edinburgh Airport as the national hub.
Detailed evidence published today by BAA Scottish Airports shows it would cost £200m less to expand Glasgow than Edinburgh.
Just last year officials from the Scottish Executive and the UK Department for Transport wrote off plans to build a new runway at Glasgow as financially unsound.
In a major consultation document on the future of Scottish air travel, they said expanding Edinburgh only would make financial sense.
The paper, published in July, kicked off a battle between Glasgow and Edinburgh for the right to become Scotland’s hub – a major airport promising worldwide flights, tens of millions of pounds in new investment and thousands of new jobs.
UK Transport Secretary Alistair Darling said he believed Scotland needed to develop one of the airports.
Mr Darling, an Edinburgh MP, stressed he had an open mind on whether it should be Glasgow or Edinburgh.
His officials said it would cost £1.3bn to upgrade Glasgow to a new international hub, with a new runway and terminal.
But they calculated they could give Edinburgh the same treatment for just £900m.
Today BAA dismissed those figures.
In its official response to the original consultation paper, it said Glasgow’s costs had been exaggerated and Edinburgh’s underestimated.
The real figures, it said, were £1.1bn for Glasgow and £1.3bn for Edinburgh.
They come as a major vindication for Glasgow campaigners, led by City Council leader Charles Gordon, tourism chief Eddie Friel and Chamber of Commerce chief Duncan Tannahill.
They challenged the official forecasts, with the help of the Fraser of Allander Institute.
And the Evening Times last year revealed Mr Darling’s officials had forgotten to count the £10m cost of a new control tower at Edinburgh and had claimed land prices were four times higher in Glasgow than in Edinburgh.
Today’s BAA report says it will cost £110m to buy land to expand Edinburgh Airport, against a Government estimate of just £18m.
BAA has long warned Mr Darling not to rush any decision. The company’s Scots chief, Donal Dowds, has said land should be set aside at both airports for expansion.
He said today: “It is in Scotland’s long-term environmental and economic interests the right decisions are made for the right reasons.”
Glasgow Airport boss Stephen Baxter said: “This submission by BAA, and the clear points we have made to the Government, reflect this company’s commitment to Glasgow Airport.”
Airport insiders said the officials behind the original figures were pro-Edinburgh “zealots” – but they warned Glasgow still had a hard battle ahead.
In March, Iain Gray, the former Scottish Transport Secretary, gave the go-ahead to a top class railway to link Edinburgh Airport to all of Scotland’s main cities, including Glasgow.
But Mr Gray, who lost his Edinburgh Pentlands seat in this month’s election, was only prepared to spend a fraction as much on a second-rate rail link for Glasgow Airport.
Mr Darling will close the consultation at the end of next month and make a decision on the future shape of British aviation late in the autumn.
A spokesman for Mr Darling said: “We stand by the figures we published last year. If BAA has done further work in the last nine months and thinks its figures are better then that is something ministers will consider. That is the point of having a consultation.”
John Robertson, MP for Glasgow Anniesland, said: “We have known the figures were wrong for some time.
“Our feeling has always been there has been a bias towards Edinburgh because of the Scottish Parliament. These figures do not include the massive cost of Edinburgh Airport’s rail link, which must surely be another argument in Glasgow’s favour.”
A spokesman for Charles Gordon, Glasgow City Council leader, said: “The council and its partners made clear an economic case for the growth of Glasgow Airport. Now BAA seems to have found common ground with that case.”
City tourist boss Eddie Friel said: “We said the Government figures were nonsense from Day One. Now BAA has backed that up.”
A spokeswoman for the Scottish Executive said it was too early to discuss detailed differences between the BAA and Government figures.
She said: “All submissions will be considered, but it is worth bearing in mind the plans BAA has come up with for a terminal at Glasgow are different from those in the consultation paper.”
By: mongu - 12th May 2003 at 18:44
People will always object to any expansion of any airport anywhere.
I think BA asked the DOT to alter the site of LHR’s new short runway so as to preserve a 1,000 year old cemetery and a preserved wooden barn. So they’re not ENTIRELY insensitive.
Anyway, a related story from last month consists of the use of the very small number of night time slots at LHR:
“Plans to permit more night flights at Heathrow as long as airlines use quieter aircraft are being considered.
Officials believe the number woken up by pre-6am landings could be cut by more than 40 per cent if noise rules were changed to encourage newer aircraft.
At present, ministers are required to set a numerical limit on flights between 11.30pm and 6am, equating to about 15 at Heathrow. These are nearly all arrivals after 4.30am, widely unpopular because of their approach over the capital’s densely populated central area.
But a policy paper prepared by the department says the small number of night-time runway slots allowed tends to result in airlines filling them with their biggest aircraft, which are usually the loudest.
The most common early morning arrivals are 400-seat Boeing 747-400s, based on 1960s design. Under the Government’s quota count rules, these are four times noisier than the more modern Boeing 777s and Airbus A340s, which typically contain 300 seats.
A 747-400 landing on a westerly approach would wake 353 people, whereas two 777s or A340s would disturb about 198.”
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/14/nheath14.xml
Sign In
May 12, 2003 at 5:51 pm