After watching last night’s Newsnight; I’ve found myself asking whether Willie’s heart is still in a 3rd runway at Heathrow?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01n7q77/Question_Time_04_10_2012/
The question “Are we risking economic catastrophe by delaying expansion in the south east of England?” is raised at 52:17. My apologise to non-UK residents who will not be able to view the debate on iPlayer. But I have typed out a transcript of Walsh’s words (below).
Starting off in reply to one of the panellist’s comments regarding there being more to UK airport growth than just London/Heathrow
“Well there are 150 million passengers that don’t go through Heathrow in this country, so it’s not all about Heathrow. I don’t think we’re risking economic catastrophe, I do genuinely believe the future of the economy of the UK is being damaged as a result of the lack of hub capacity at Heathrow. It’s not a catastrophe but without question in 20 years time we will suffer as a result of it. I’m against this…”
Presenter: You want the third runway?
“No, no actually I don’t. I argued for a third runway, which was approved by the labour government back in 2009. I think the opportunity to build it existed at that stage. Quite honestly my view is we will never see a third runway at Heathrow, we will never see Borris Island, we will debate this issue and 30 years from now there will be people sitting here talking about a commission that was held that took 3 years; similar to the Roskill Commission that took place between 1968 and 1971 (3 years) and said we should do something about it. Nothing’s going to happen because there is no cross-party consensus to deal with this issue, there is no political will to tackle difficult issues and therefore nothing will happen. So, I run my business at a two runway Heathrow, I run it as best I can, I’ll be very happy and from my point of view we’ll try and do what we can to maximise the benefits that exist for British Airways at Heathrow.”
I’m of the impression Willie has given up wasting his time campaigning to the politicians for expansion, only for all the hard work to prove fruitless because the second another government comes into power the EMERGENCY STOP button is pressed on the plans.
I have no doubt BA will prove to be highly profitable with or without a 3rd runway. To deal with specific route capacity upgrades, larger aircraft can be used, rather than higher frequencies… 747s become A380s, 767s become 777s and A320s become A321s.
When it comes to network growth and new routes, BA just has to be more strategic with its limited slots. Low yielding or unprofitable routes will be traded with new ones to the Far East and Latin America.
By: Matt-100 - 6th October 2012 at 18:18
I’m sure there is enough capacity in the SE (and indeed the rest of the country) to cope with all of Britain’s expansion needs. The problem is all this capacity is spread out over a large area (LHR, LGW, STN, LTN etc.).
Passengers don’t want to get a flight to London, then get on 2/3 trains or a coach journey to another airport to continue their travels. They want a seamless connection at a single airport. If UK airlines are to remain appealing and competitive, a single hub has to be established.
Do you really think Emirates would be so popular if all their connecting passengers had to transfer from DXB to AUH?
I was originally against Borris Island, but now I see it as the only viable long term solution. London needs a 21st century hub airport and it needs one now! The problem I have with STN or Manston is, by the time you’ve got them up to (or exceeded) LHR standard in terms of commuter links/infrastructure – you might as well have put that investment into Borris Island and start a new.
Also, another thing that annoys me are the government imposed slot allocation restrictions at LHR. The government’s always telling us to take ‘greener’ modes of transport (such as the train) on short/domestic routes. So it really baffles why the government say x number of LHR slots must be dedicated to domestic flights? If airlines (namely BA) were allowed to freely allocate routes, surely this would ease some of the capacity pressures at LHR and also force more passengers to look at other modes of travel on domestic routes? Kill two birds with one stone… Although, whether BA would in-fact reduce its domestic services if given the choice is a different matter.
By: MSR777 - 6th October 2012 at 17:00
Never understood why they do not simply develop somewhere like Lynham as a civil airport etc, I know it’s future is still up in the air, but it would make sense.. There are plenty of ex military airfields that could be used, with transport these days a hour away from London is no hardship.
I am surprised that Manston has never been publicly touted for development. It has one hell of a runway, and is not a million miles from London. Would it be feasible from an infrastructure point of view, I wonder
By: Cking - 6th October 2012 at 16:29
There are two perfectly good runways at Manchester and runways at Birmingham, Glasgow and Standsted. You do not need to build another runway at LHR, you need to stop people traveling past under the utilized airports.
Rgds Cking (At Manchester)
By: TonyT - 6th October 2012 at 15:38
Never understood why they do not simply develop somewhere like Lynham as a civil airport etc, I know it’s future is still up in the air, but it would make sense.. There are plenty of ex military airfields that could be used, with transport these days a hour away from London is no hardship.
By: MSR777 - 6th October 2012 at 15:08
I think we need a government composed of politicians with some cojones, to sort this mess out, and there ‘aint too many of those around these days. I live within 7 miles of Stansted, with in laws just over its boundary fence, and I have a brother in law living just off Gatwick. What I have noticed during the many visits to both airports, is the great number of gaps in the number of take offs and landings at Stansted by comparison to Gatwick. Yes, I know that there are peaks and troughs in movements at most civilian airfields, but compared to the level of movements at LGW, the existing runway at Stansted, seems to be under utilised.
Personally, I feel that there will eventually need to be additional capacity at Stansted, and to me, that is the most logical solution to capacity problems at the London airports. Stansted needs to overcome it’s over dependence on the low cost sector, and needs to make itself a more attractive proposition to the major scheduled operators. I personally think, that until it does, then it’s on a hiding to nothing.
Sign In
October 5, 2012 at 7:58 pm