The only thing missing was the stamping of little angry feet and the throwing of toys out the pram as British Airways and Virgin Airlines delivered an economic doomsday scenario, should the Government have the temerity to refuse them a third runway at Heathrow Airport. (Technically, there are actually three already – so it’s a very clever ruse to call your application for a fourth runway ‘runway number three’).
If they didn’t get their ‘third’ runway – the world as we knew it, would end. They would not accept such a decision and even threatened to up sticks to the continent!
This bravura demonstration of ‘Heathrow or bust’ spoke volumes about where the big airlines’ real interest lies: in making money and not necessarily in making London or the country a better place.
And if you think it doesn’t affect you because you’re sitting in another part of London and not one of the poor b*****s in the south-west of London, don’t relax: who knows, there could be a stack near you! Even in Muswell Hill, well away from Heathrow in North London, complaints about noise from planes circling overhead has been a regular feature of my casework postbag over the years.
The big boys had come in to give evidence to the London Assembly’s Transport Committee, which is about to respond to the Government’s consultation on the provision of more air transport capacity in the south east of England.
Now, there’s nothing wrong with our airlines wanting to be profitable. I want them to be profitable – but it was pretty clear from the evidence they gave that Virgin and British Airways had perhaps not put their heart and soul into looking into alternatives. They seem to have their heart set on Heathrow, and that was largely that.
But the committee thinks otherwise. The congestion around Heathrow, both on the ground and in the skies, is overwhelming. Overcrowded skies cause noise problems and exacerbate the risk of delays to flight. And despite absolute denials of any risk to safety whatsoever, so many more planes flying around in the sky over one airport worries me.
Moreover, the transport infrastructure on the ground is already creaking and the roads so crowded that Mayor Livingstone is looking to bring in congestion charging around the airport.
On another tack, there is only about two per cent unemployment in the area that serves Heathrow. The economy is over-heating in west London and part of the airlines’ case for a third runway is the provision of 45,000 new jobs. Well – who’s going to do them? And the economic benefits that they all say would accrue from expansion at Heathrow might be of much more benefit in other areas of London. What regeneration potential there is should be better distributed.
Anyway, it will all end in tears. We can’t just go on this predict-and-provide model for the future. Air transport capacity needs to be managed and monitored – or the South East will be one big, polluted, noisy retail opportunity for others passing through our airports and our skies.
What the Assembly will be considering in its response to the Government is not simply the airlines’ bottom line but the real needs of London. Matching the economic benefits with environmental issues, regeneration and managing demand: that is the judgement of Solomon that is required but necessary for London’s future.
And please, please, please – save us from another interminable enquiry, the findings of which everyone knows from the outset. Terminal 5 was always going to be built. Ironically, during their evidence to that inquiry, BAA said there would be no need for a third runway in the future. Before the ink was dry on the determination, the first media spins for the third runway at Heathrow were being bowled.
The Government needs to listen to the airlines – but it doesn’t need to do what they say. After all, the last time the airline and airport industry promised doomsday over a major policy issue – over the changes in duty free rules – the day duly arrived, but there was no doom.
