tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/airports-commission-18369/articlesAirports Commission – The Conversation2015-12-11T14:07:13Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/378662015-12-11T14:07:13Z2015-12-11T14:07:13ZThe solution to London’s airport capacity crisis? Do nothing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105479/original/image-20151211-8326-791ftb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>London’s Heathrow airport is currently operating at <a href="http://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/airports-commission">98% capacity</a> – and the rest of London’s airports are set to be full by 2040. The debate over how to address this problem has been raging for years – but a workable solution has yet to be found. </p>
<p>Several strategies have been considered to help free up more space for air traffic – there have been proposals for an extra runway at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted, or even a brand new airport in the Thames Estuary. Following an <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf">independent report</a> by the Airports Commission in July 2015, Heathrow was recommended as the best candidate for expansion, with a new northwest runway to cater for an extra 35m passengers per annum. </p>
<p>But still the argument rages on. The Heathrow proposal has been met with vocal opposition from environmental groups, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35025797">key political figures</a> and <a href="http://www.stopheathrowexpansion.co.uk/about-us/">residents</a> who would be affected by the changes. Meanwhile, business groups including the Institute of Directors, the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce have <a href="http://www.standard.co.uk/business/business-news/heathrow-expansion-the-business-community-reacts-to-airport-commission-decision-10356803.html">pledged support</a> for the Heathrow expansion, as a way of protecting and promoting the UK’s economic interests. </p>
<p>Now, the UK government has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35062739">deferred its decision</a> on how best to increase London’s airport capacity until the summer of 2016, by commissioning a further study on the new runway’s environmental impacts. </p>
<p>Underlying all these discussions is the assumption that something must be done to increase London’s airport capacity. This is based on a traditional approach to transport planning, called “predict and provide” – wherein authorities try to estimate and cater for future transport requirements. But what if that isn’t our only option? </p>
<p>Indeed, when it comes to road travel, “predict and provide” has been largely abandoned by developed economies. These days the favoured approach is called “managing demand”. This method works on the basis that attempting to meet an ever-growing demand is impractical: instead, systems can be managed to encourage people to take more sustainable modes of transport. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105480/original/image-20151211-8304-43zk9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tight squeeze for traffic.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/134898965@N04/19960853932/sizes/l">Greater London National Park City Initiative/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, in the 1970s London’s authorities opted not to enlarge the road network to accommodate growing car ownership. Since then, London’s historic street pattern, as well as disincentives such as the <a href="https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge">congestion charge</a>, have constrained car use. Car traffic has <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/452923/future-cities-peak-car.pdf">not increased</a> over the past 20 years, despite a period of population and income growth. So the share of journeys by car has fallen, while investment in public transport – rail in particular – has met the mobility needs of inhabitants and visitors. London has thrived economically, culturally and socially despite the major capacity constraints of its road system. </p>
<h2>Constraining capacity</h2>
<p>So what would happen if we didn’t build another runway at all? For air travel, the answer lies within the market. Three–quarters of passengers are on leisure trips – and, even at Heathrow, <a href="http://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/company-information/facts-and-figures">70% of passengers</a> are tourists, or visiting family and friends. Yet the arguments for more runway capacity are largely about the need to allow for the growth of business travel: to help British business develop new markets overseas, to foster inward investment into the UK and to allow London to continue to develop as a world city.</p>
<p>The case for more airport capacity to support inbound tourism is weak. While London’s hospitality, entertainment and retail sectors would welcome more visitors, Britain has a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/271231/airports-commission-interim-report.pdf">negative balance of trade</a> in tourism: that is, British people abroad spend a lot more each year than overseas visitors to the UK. And, while London is the typical destination for first-time visitors to Britain, the capital is essentially a working city – you could argue that excessive numbers of tourists detract from the quality of life. So the promotion of inbound tourism might better focus on places outside the capital, which are accessible from regional airports.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=899&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105481/original/image-20151211-26763-qxtrpe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1130&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Taking care of business.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/23065375@N05/2247355466/sizes/o/">think panama/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If we decided not to build a further runway at Heathrow, the market would respond to this capacity constraint by accommodating the most valuable passengers through price increases. Business travellers would command priority, since they would be willing to pay for the convenience, connections and direct flights at Heathrow. The growth of business travel would displace leisure travel, both within aircraft on existing routes and between routes, where time is traded against money. </p>
<p>For instance, when I travel to India on a business trip for which others are paying, then if possible I would fly direct from Heathrow. But if I am on a holiday visit, paying out of my own pocket, than I may choose the cheaper alternative via a Middle East hub – the inconvenience of the change of aircraft would be acceptable because of the more attractive price on offer.</p>
<p>At present, both routes to India start from Heathrow. As passenger numbers grow, the airlines would serve the routes with larger aircraft. If demand grew yet further, then alternative departure points for leisure travellers would be offered at subsidiary airports such as Stansted, which <a href="http://www.stanstedairport.com/about-us/media-centre/press-releases/stansted-publishes-sustainable-development-plan-highlighting-the-growth-potential-of-existing-runway">has the capacity</a> to more than double its passenger throughput from 20m to 40-45m passengers per year without expansion. </p>
<p>The growth of business travel under the conditions of capacity constraint would be profitable for both the airlines and Heathrow airport. If profits were judged excessive, then regulatory interventions such as a cap on charges could be considered to prevent travellers from being exploited.</p>
<p>There is a case for an additional runway in south-east England, as argued by the Airports Commission. But if it proves too difficult to agree where to build it, then we could manage without. The market would give priority to business travellers, while the more flexible leisure travellers would take advantage of the cheaper, alternative routes offered by competing airlines. Managing the demand for air travel though market mechanisms is a viable alternative to building more airport capacity – especially where environmental concerns generate strong political opposition.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/37866/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Metz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As fierce debate rages over where to build London’s next runway, we may well be missing a trick.David Metz, Honorary professor, transport studies, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/443312015-07-07T15:41:15Z2015-07-07T15:41:15ZWhisper it – jet engines are getting quieter<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87524/original/image-20150706-986-1gqpvdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Run silent, run high.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Engine by Christian Lagerek/shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>With no sign of our appetite for air travel diminishing, we need to create quieter aircraft that are easier to live with. In fact, while those living near airports may beg to differ, data included in the Airports Commission report into a new runway for London shows a very significant reduction in aircraft noise over several decades. </p>
<p>The noisiness of an individual aircraft at departure and approach is described by its <a href="http://www.fican.org/pdf/aircraft_noise.pdf">Effective Perceived Noise Level</a> (EPNL). This is measured when the aircraft enters service, and is used to track noise improvements between successive generations of aircraft. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87507/original/image-20150706-1015-2dwxv8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87507/original/image-20150706-1015-2dwxv8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87507/original/image-20150706-1015-2dwxv8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87507/original/image-20150706-1015-2dwxv8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87507/original/image-20150706-1015-2dwxv8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87507/original/image-20150706-1015-2dwxv8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87507/original/image-20150706-1015-2dwxv8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Noise levels have, despite what some may feel, been falling.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Airports Commission/Crown Copyright</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As this <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/airports-commission">Airports Commission report</a> chart shows, EPNL has fallen since modern turbojet and turbofan engines were first introduced – roughly a halving of radiated acoustic energy per decade. This is a remarkable technical achievement – a 95% reduction in the sound power generated by aircraft jet engines since their introduction.</p>
<p>However, over the same period there has been an explosion in air travel and the number of flights and passengers has risen exponentially. The issue then is not whether aircraft are getting quieter, but whether they are doing so sufficiently quickly to compensate for the fact that there’s so many more of them.</p>
<p>The answer also depends upon how quickly older, noisier aircraft are retired from service. In the UK, the net effect has been positive – aircraft are becoming quieter at a rate that outweighs the increase in traffic and the Airports Commission expects this trend to continue.</p>
<h2>When air is too loud</h2>
<p>Aircraft noise is generated by turbulent flows of air over and around surfaces. This includes air going into and out of the engine, and air flowing around the airframe – fuselage, wings and other aerodynamic surfaces such as flaps, slats and landing gear.</p>
<p>What has brought about the continuing reductions in aircraft noise since the 1970s? The largest factor driving down aircraft noise has been a move towards higher and higher “bypass ratios” – originally sought after for greater engine efficiency, but which fortunately generate lower noise too.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87635/original/image-20150707-1311-ym90pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87635/original/image-20150707-1311-ym90pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87635/original/image-20150707-1311-ym90pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87635/original/image-20150707-1311-ym90pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87635/original/image-20150707-1311-ym90pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87635/original/image-20150707-1311-ym90pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87635/original/image-20150707-1311-ym90pc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lockheed Tristar, a classic airliner of the 1970s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jon Proctor</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The bypass ratio is the proportion of the air which enters the engine inlet but bypasses the turbojet and exits at low speed, in comparison to the hot, high-speed jet coming from the engine core.</p>
<p>This ratio has risen – all the air entering turbojet engines of the earliest airliners passed through the engine. In the turbofan designs of the 1960s and early 1970s this fell to around a third, while the engines powering large modern aircraft today such as the Airbus A380, Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 draw only a tenth of the air into the engine core. These engines have larger, more slowly-rotating fans with fewer blades – all features that reduce the aircraft’s noise profile.</p>
<h2>Quieter engines</h2>
<p>This process still has some way to run. Turbofan engines in smaller aircraft have lower bypass ratios than those in larger, wide-bodied aircraft, but development of new engines is underway for the venerable Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 families, and newer jets such as the <a href="http://commercialaircraft.bombardier.com/en/cseries/Technology.html">Bombardier CSeries</a> and the <a href="http://www.mrj-japan.com/">Mitsubishi MRJ</a>. Such narrow-bodied jets constitute 70% of the commercial fleet, so this will have a profound impact on noise levels as they replace older jets.</p>
<p>Better engines for larger aircraft are coming too, based on the same turbofan technology. Using a gearbox to uncouple the fan and the low pressure turbine will improve performance and reduce noise. A market leader here is the <a href="http://www.pw.utc.com/PurePowerPW1000G_Engine">Pratt and Whitney PW1000G</a> geared turbofan developed over the last decade and due to enter service, is anticipated to lead to larger, quieter and more fuel-efficient engines with bypass ratios approaching 15:1.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87661/original/image-20150707-1306-1s4qsaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87661/original/image-20150707-1306-1s4qsaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87661/original/image-20150707-1306-1s4qsaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=174&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87661/original/image-20150707-1306-1s4qsaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=174&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87661/original/image-20150707-1306-1s4qsaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=174&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87661/original/image-20150707-1306-1s4qsaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=219&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87661/original/image-20150707-1306-1s4qsaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=219&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87661/original/image-20150707-1306-1s4qsaq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=219&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Computer simulation of acoustic energy streaming out of a turbofan intake at different fan speeds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Z Rarata/University of Southampton</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other techniques to quieten engines include acoustic liners on the inner walls of the intake and bypass ducts which absorb acoustic energy, and improved aerodynamic fan design and outlet vanes. Both of these have been made possible by the power of modern computers to accurately simulate airflow dynamics – there is scope for further advances in this area.</p>
<h2>Quieter airframes</h2>
<p>Reducing airframe noise is more challenging. The use of flaps and slats and deploying of landing gear at approach are necessary to slow the aircraft while maintaining lift, but they all create additional noise. It’s hard to have one without the other. Perhaps the most effective means to ensure both will come from new, improved aerodynamic aircraft designs that can provide better low-speed performance without sacrificing fuel efficiency at cruise. </p>
<p>In the longer term, after 2050, completely new aircraft geometries that use blended wing designs, and even <a href="https://theconversation.com/morphing-is-one-way-to-make-aircraft-more-efficient-23683">morphing geometry</a> – aircraft that change shape – will potentially lead to major reductions in airframe noise, greater efficiency and improved environmental impact. All just as well, as by then there’ll be many more people still wishing to fly.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44331/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeremy Astley is a member of the Rolls-Royce University Technology Centre in Gas Turbine Noise. He receives funding from Rolls-Royce plc, the UK Technology strategy Board and the European Commission. </span></em></p>Shouldn’t we make aircraft engines quieter? It turns out they’re the quietest they’ve ever beenJeremy Astley, Professor of Computational Aeroacoustics, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/441642015-07-02T14:15:45Z2015-07-02T14:15:45ZBeyond Heathrow – what the Airports Commission missed out<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87028/original/image-20150701-27138-hq8xn9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gatwick.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/5123286372/in/photolist-8NJbxE-fmWYZ9-fmWXgQ-fmGN5i-fmGNQg-82UELP-fmWZC1-fmWZSS-fmGMEt-fmGP5t-ewhd3c-ewhddH-8zfWps-82XRB1-fmGMu4-85fxpV-85fxg8-82XLyS-82XPaQ-82UzZ4-82UMzH-6h4WZ7-719shU-fmWYdS-fmWWJN-fmWXaY-fmWXCm-dBnmqq-dBnmed-dBgTB8-dBnm5U-dBnmyW-dBgTMZ-dBnkLo-fmX11o-4jvxqU-bdwBPv-fmGL9P-yL5SE-5NnbTR-cWYUpu-cWYUaC-88AxhG-eTe4JY-fh97bL-ocpnZ-7NJWS4-7NX6tC-7NTpAi-ds73r4">Anders Sandberg/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After almost three years of work involving around £20m, the UK Airports Commission chaired by economist Sir Howard Davies <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf">published its final report</a>. After the evaluation, the commission made a “clear and unanimous” conclusion that a third runway at Heathrow should be built to increase UK airport capacity.</p>
<p>It was one of three options that had been shortlisted in the commission’s 2013 interim report:</p>
<ol>
<li>A new second runway at Gatwick</li>
<li>The extension of Heathrow’s northern runway to at least 6,000m – enabling the extended runway to operate as two independent runways</li>
<li>A third new 3,500m runway to the northwest of the current northern runway at Heathrow.</li>
</ol>
<p>All three were considered “credible options for expansion, capable of delivering valuable enhancements to the UK’s aviation capacity and connectivity”. Indeed, each of these options had different pros and cons from an economic, environmental and connectivity point of view. But Heathrow won the commission’s appraisal with the promise that it would add £147 billion in economic growth and 70,000 jobs by 2050.</p>
<p>The report highlighted the economic and strategic benefits of a new runway at Heathrow, which have been discussed <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-heathrow-got-the-nod-from-the-airports-commission-report-44149">here</a>. And, in many ways, the decision is not surprising. The question that the government actually asked the Airports Commission was to identify the option “for maintaining the UK’s status as an international hub for aviation”. Some may argue that this is a leading question, since currently the only existing hub in the UK is the one at Heathrow. So, in many ways, Heathrow was the only possible answer. </p>
<p>The areas that the report did not really engage in – beyond immediate economic considerations – will give ammunition to the politicians readying themselves <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11709288/Heathrow-third-runway-wins-over-Gatwick-live.html">to fight the recommendation</a>.</p>
<h2>What about the rest of the UK?</h2>
<p>One of the major issues facing today’s congested Heathrow is the limited service that the airport offers to the rest of the UK. Amsterdam and Paris have <a href="http://www.theitc.org.uk/docs/113.pdf">more flights than Heathrow to UK regional airports.</a> </p>
<p>Congestion and lack of capacity at Heathrow has forced airlines to increase their focus on long-haul routes and bigger aircraft and reduce flights to UK regions. As a result, three quarters of the connecting traffic from UK regions to Asia-Pacific and the BRIC countries <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.11.008">depend on hubs outside of the UK</a>. Adding another runway at Heathrow would open the door to more flights from the rest of the UK, but this effect might only be temporary until the capacity limit is reached again. Also, airport charges might increase as a result of the investment, which could be a disincentive for regional services.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87042/original/image-20150701-27118-w7usf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/87042/original/image-20150701-27118-w7usf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87042/original/image-20150701-27118-w7usf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87042/original/image-20150701-27118-w7usf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87042/original/image-20150701-27118-w7usf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87042/original/image-20150701-27118-w7usf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/87042/original/image-20150701-27118-w7usf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Amsterdam Airport Schipol services more the UK’s regions than Heathrow.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/mattewalp/2133547712/in/photolist-4fwZpo-5iVh9k-5Xi45-7N1E9-5iV1Za-55c7Kc-5XhCM-ZkBG-5XhNh-ZkBH-5XhWu-5iV4A8-5iV7ir-5iZrsq-5iZBME-kT7GrW-5DTUW-5DUaC-5DTXh-5DU6C-5DU8t-5DU3R-5DUcQ-8bVkhK-qAXJuJ-GMmWN-6qRFYC-4bsvbi-asA5dF-9h8feX-9hbnLw-2jQ6T-2jQ6S-asA5iR-nnqbxP-nBRShU-2jQ6V-2jQ6U-gRQE-mCz-6uAB5t-mCC-6VQrx2-6uzqxV-mCE-4hpFEv-b2oFKH-escUz-kCF-5iNAs4">Matteo Alparone/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To ensure that the benefits of expansion are felt throughout the UK, the commission suggests ring-fencing slots for certain regional routes using <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/internal_market/pso_en.htm">Public Service Obligations (PSOs)</a>. This is an EU provision allowing governments to give a carrier a subsidised monopoly on a route that is not commercially viable. </p>
<p>In order to deploy more PSOs, the commission suggests the government interpret the PSO regime more widely than at present. Currently, the government only considers the subsidy of an air service to the capital if it is the last remaining route from a region into any of London’s six airports. However, some EU Member States, like France, interpret the PSO provision on an airport-to-airport basis, which would give room for more PSO routes.</p>
<p>As with many of the recommendations, there are no guarantees that this would happen, especially in a context of decreasing public expenditure. Hence, this does not seem to be a solution guaranteeing the future long-term connectivity of UK regions via Heathrow. </p>
<h2>Limits of growth and resilience</h2>
<p>The focus of the report was on capacity and connectivity, but it failed to take into consideration debates that there have been on the limits to growth. Certainly, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2010.11.009">the atomization of air traffic increases operating costs</a> – but there could be a limit to the idea of economies of scale. </p>
<p>Some larger airports can operate under <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554503000164">decreasing returns to scale</a> – once they are passed a certain size, the benefits and efficiency that comes from being bigger ceases. Plus, the concept of airport capacity (the number of planes an airport can service) should probably be substituted by the idea of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.02.005">environmental capacity</a>, which takes into account the noise pollution airports cause and the impact they have on the communities around them. </p>
<p>This is why the report recommends a package of mitigation measures and conditions for the expansion. Suggestions to establish a legally binding “noise envelope”, a ban on night flights, have predictable respite periods and community engagement are indeed important measures that try to build trust between the airport and the community. Nevertheless, the conflict will be recurrent as flights over residential areas is intrinsically incompatible. The most cost-effective tool against noise annoyance is still land use planning.</p>
<p>Another factor that the report’s finding does not account for is the robustness of the wider air transport network when challenged by external events (such as poor weather, strikes or terrorist attacks). A single airport closure may affect the network’s overall performance. So, the debate is not only about what airport can deliver more connectivity, but what airport is more critical in terms of the delay imposed to the disrupted passengers when there is a scenario of closures. </p>
<p>Hence, although the commission went through protracted discussions that considered economic, social and environmental factors, in reality the debate has been centred on the economic and connectivity output perspective. It has lacked discussion on the relationship between the airport, London and the rest of the UK, and more effort could have been devoted to the analysis of system-wide resilience and robustness of the UK air transport network.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44164/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pere Suau-Sanchez does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Davies Commission recommended a third runway because they were focusing on immediate economic considerations. But there are other factors to consider.Pere Suau-Sanchez, Lecturer in Air Transport Management, Cranfield UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/441492015-07-01T13:44:01Z2015-07-01T13:44:01ZWhy Heathrow got the nod from the Airports Commission report<p>Seventy years since the first new full-length runway was built in the southeast of England, the government finally has a flight path for future airport capacity. After decades of consultation and deliberation, the Howard Davies Airports Commission report <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33340565">has made its recommendation</a>. The verdict – London Heathrow Airport should receive a third runway, with a second runway at Gatwick on the cards as well.</p>
<p>For far too long, a lack of policy around the future of airport expansion has thwarted development of the aviation industry – and the UK has been losing out to its European and global competitors. Based on the report, the government must now make a decision. A formal response is expected in the autumn.</p>
<p>Heathrow Airport is full, <a href="http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/company-news-and-information/airports-commission">operating at 98% capacity</a>. Gatwick is now the <a href="http://www.gatwickairport.com/business-community/about-gatwick/at-a-glance/facts-stats/">busiest single-runway airport in the world</a>. For both airports, every possible airfield re-design and every possible operational procedure has already been implemented to improve capacity by just a few more runway arrival and departure slots each year. The challenge is always to optimise capacity within strict limitations. Despite continuous growth, airline margins are constantly under pressure, and passengers require safe, secure, affordable and environmentally friendly travel.</p>
<h2>Follow the money</h2>
<p>There has been much debate on the issue of “deliverability” – that is, which UK airport can realistically build new runway capacity with the least environmental impact and the maximum economic benefit to the people it serves. But the key consideration for new capacity is market demand. What do customers want? </p>
<p>The customers here are not you or I, but ultimately the world’s airlines. A new runway will sit empty without airline demand. Airlines will only fly where they make money and Heathrow is the UK hub where airlines wish to fly. It is where they see yield – the opportunity to fill the front end of the cabin with high-fare-paying first and business class passengers. And where they can develop both domestic and international feed for their hub, through a growing network of alliances. Heathrow also allows them to develop air cargo, the oft forgotten but <a href="https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/Documents/economics/profitability-and-the-air-transport-value%20chain.pdf">critical element</a> of the global air transport business and an important component in the ability of airlines to break even.</p>
<p>Airlines have made it quite clear that if they cannot fly into Heathrow, they will take their business elsewhere – to European hub airports such as Amsterdam Schipol, Paris, Frankfurt, Copenhagen, where there is still capacity, or further afield to rapidly developing airport capacity in Turkey and the Middle East.</p>
<h2>The one hub rule</h2>
<p>Cities served by multi-hub airports <a href="http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/best-placed-for-britain_LHR.pdf">do not work</a>. Airlines need to consolidate their business at one airport, to maximise feed and economies of scale. Developing greater capacity at Heathrow opens up the market for new entrants and competition. It allows domestic feeder services to better serve markets in the north and south west of the UK, boosting air accessibility and economy in regional markets. It will also allow Gatwick to grow as a “point-to-point” airport for non-transfer passengers.</p>
<p>“Boris Island” – the idea backed by Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to build a brand new airport or second hub airport in East London was blown out of the water early on as far too expensive and unviable. Regional airports, including Manchester, Birmingham and Stansted were also evaluated in the report, concluding that much capacity is still available to serve their regional markets. More recent focus has been on which of selected airport options for new runway capacity would best serve air passenger and cargo demand, and drive the UK economy.</p>
<h2>Growing demand</h2>
<p>Despite economic recession, the world aviation industry has shown a pattern of continuous growth over the past few decades, and that growth is set to continue. According to Boeing, global passenger numbers are expected to reach <a href="http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/cmo/pdf/Boeing_Current_Market_Outlook_2014.pdf">nearly 7 billion per annum by 2026</a>. Airbus expects a <a href="http://www.airbus.com/company/market/forecast/">4.6% growth per annum for the next 20 years</a>, indicating that the amount of traffic will double within 15 years. </p>
<p>Supplying this growing demand is not just a problem faced in the UK. European flight body Eurocontrol released its <a href="https://www.eurocontrol.int/articles/challenges-growth">Challenges of Growth report</a> in 2013, detailing the constraints it has identified in the European air transport system between now and 2035. According to this, airport capacity crunch is set to cost airlines and airports in excess of €40 billion of lost revenues and €5 billion in congestion costs – per year – by 2035. </p>
<p>The wider economic impact estimated is far more dramatic. It is foreseen that by 2035, insufficient airport capacity will cost Europe €230 billion in lost GDP. Among the countries that will suffer the most from the airport capacity crunch are Turkey (27%), the UK (14%), the Netherlands (17%), Bulgaria (22%), Hungary (17%), Germany (11%), Poland (9%) and Italy (8%). The economic need to meet this is evident.</p>
<p>The UK can now start steps to compete with Europe and the rest of the word for its share of air traffic – let’s hope the process does not take another 70 years.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/44149/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jenni Fernando does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The key consideration for a new airport is ultimately market demand – what do customers want. And airport customers (airlines) want a Heathrow hub.Jenni Fernando, Senior Lecturer in Aviation Management, Coventry UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/401142015-04-20T13:37:26Z2015-04-20T13:37:26ZAirport wars heat up as political window opens for new runways<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78374/original/image-20150417-3235-2hb661.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Different flight paths, same goals. Heathrow and Gatwick.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/natspressoffice/13085089725/in/photolist-68A8R5-FAS3H-cxZujW-4JoUmz-34HqL7-kWhvig-66ydEr-drEfmd-8oUgv-8xCvgu-5NuWau-5WjL2R-ohgMxz-nY1p2s-2nBHW-CVTuP-aNP8DM-aNP9T6-4JoUJD-9kA1B9-betchF-pHGzSL-4JoUoD-6m7GyR-SVce-nLX6Y-pKygmg-8mfKLh-qwWbdK-aNP9WT-ofv26z-e9Roto-betcqH-aNP8S4-9b2cH4-gnaaHg-9qqLij-hsCEQT-663LTN-ddid26-ddicGX-qbNF7i-jKTmYW-4T7ik7-3feRP-981uVy-4Jt7W3-59zezw-fWJemA-ddipXt">NATS Press Office</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Unlike the looming election, the great British <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19570653">airport debate</a> has seemingly become a two horse race. Should <a href="http://www.gatwickairport.com/business-community/about-gatwick/at-a-glance/">Gatwick</a> gain a second runway or <a href="http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us">Heathrow</a> a third? In truth, either solution will still put Britain’s hard-won market leadership at risk. </p>
<p>Clearly more runway space will mean more annoying noise for local residents and possibly more pollution. But aircraft are getting quieter and cleaner as the industry responds to important environmental concerns – there is even a <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/150308-solar-impulse-flight-pilot-circumnavigate-world-piccard-swiss/">solar powered plane</a> circumnavigating the globe.</p>
<p>The radical solution is to ban non-essential flying, a position even the most ardent tree huggers see as untenable. The 70s Costa del Sol charters and the low cost carriers of the noughties have democratised air travel to such an extent it is hard to see it being limited by anything but global energy pricing and ratcheting taxation.</p>
<h2>World leading pioneers</h2>
<p>The UK has held a key role in aviation’s hundred-year history, remember <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/whittle_frank.shtml">Sir Frank Whittle</a> developed the first jet engines in Farnborough. Gatwick, usurping <a href="http://www.croydonairport.org.uk/The-Airport/The-History">Croydon’s grassy aerodrome</a> as an early out-of-city-centre airport, introduced the first flexible piers, using canvas tunnels in a <a href="http://www.gatwickaviationsociety.org.uk/history.asp">circular, beehive terminal</a>, and boasted the original glass-sided linear terminal building with jetways. Airlines operated by BOAC and BEA – the <a href="http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/history-and-heritage/explore-our-past/1970-1979">companies that merged to form British Airways in 1974</a> – delivered mail and civil servants to the colonies, helping to secure a crucial role for Britain in global trade that survives to this day. Part of London’s intangible attractiveness hails from its competitive network of direct flights to many points around the world. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78381/original/image-20150417-3220-1c39pu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78381/original/image-20150417-3220-1c39pu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78381/original/image-20150417-3220-1c39pu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78381/original/image-20150417-3220-1c39pu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78381/original/image-20150417-3220-1c39pu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78381/original/image-20150417-3220-1c39pu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78381/original/image-20150417-3220-1c39pu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78381/original/image-20150417-3220-1c39pu6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Heavy landing. A plane approaches Heathrow.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/antonioacuna/9526946820/in/photolist-fvS6nN-aNK6mD-nd2gZV-deBW6E-7WS5VJ-eyaVUj-gPiEm-n4dcVg-q9TzF-5viFRL-o1RDvv-aeUomX-2qZ1d-63xfFB-dx2KcW-4cBbxg-bwfXba-fHgWwt-5uUYV9-oKDkr-aNLqkZ-65Fd8-5hq7px-Y1RKD-6fSGWA-2LGkWB-7vH8mX-qF9TYo-rcP5Gb-6fSMGu-5hq6PT-fvCqep-e9yJ1q-aFUbBD-ehdaxX-qw2ThV-8n8nSq-nfpPD2-qh6Sem-nXqGJx-rtYTXE-qT1ZrM-pmf3xf-4UuQTZ-4KtfWD-jg7aAx-fPnLNa-bkJgqq-kWHm-8tkS59">Antonio Acuña</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lobbying groups such as <a href="http://www.takingbritainfurther.com/?utm_source=iC_PPC&utm_medium=cpc&utm_term=%2Bairport+%2Bcommission%7C27090964&utm_campaign=Generic&utm_content=google&OVMTC=Broad&site=&creative=55699484777&OVKEY=+airport++commission&url_id=27090964&device=c&utm_source=ic_PPC&utm_meduim=cpc&utm_term=+airport++commission&utm_campaign=3rd+Runway%3EOther+%3A+BMM&utm_content=google&kenshooid=5388">Taking Britain Further</a>, <a href="http://londonfirst.co.uk/our-focus/londons-airport-capacity/">London First</a> <a href="http://letbritainfly.com">Let Britain Fly</a> and <a href="http://www.backheathrow.org">Back Heathrow</a>, support runway expansion. They cite jobs, economic growth and our status on the global stage as the prime factors. Contrary positions are held by <a href="http://www.planestupid.com">Plane Stupid</a>, <a href="http://www.hacan.org.uk/resources/briefings/The-Case-against-a-Third-Runway.pdf">Hacan Clear Skies</a>, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/24/third-runway-heathrow-scrapped-baa">NoTRAG</a> and environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF. Detractors are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, property destruction, noise and air pollution and the existence of lower impact alternatives.</p>
<p>Heathrow is the world’s <a href="http://www.acl-uk.org/acl-international/newsArticle.aspx?id=168">second busiest</a> international airport behind Dubai, with Gatwick coming in at <a href="http://www.aci.aero/Data-Centre/Monthly-Traffic-Data/International-Passenger-Rankings/12-months">12th</a>, impressive given its single runway. Other European competitors, such as Paris and Frankfurt boast four runways apiece and Amsterdam a mighty six. Heathrow, through lack of capacity, has seen its footprint shrink, losing nearly two-thirds of its <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32163676">UK domestic network</a> from 17 to six, as operators concentrate on flying larger aircraft on more profitable, denser routes.</p>
<p>Perhaps surprisingly, Gatwick, <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8317662.stm">now under independent management</a>, has flourished and boasts the UK’s widest range of <a href="http://www.gatwickairport.com/business-community/about-gatwick/at-a-glance/facts-stats/">destinations</a>. Without expansion it is easy to see Heathrow becoming south east England’s airport, as the rest of the country is better served by high-frequency global connections accessed via the major European hubs. It is hard to envision even a two-runway Gatwick becoming a longhaul heavy hitter.</p>
<h2>A post-election problem</h2>
<p>What is clear is that the issue is deeply political. While Gatwick’s residential neighbours voted Tory in the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/13/boundary-changes-constituency-map">2010 election</a>, Heathrow flight paths cover constituencies held by the three larger parties (and the Queen). Only following the election in 2001 did Heathrow Terminal 5 get the go ahead. Eventually <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7294618.stm">opened in 2008</a>, the decision had been <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7269311.stm">in planning since 1985</a>. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/nov/20/publicservices.transport">Transport Secretary Stephen Byers</a> told MPs:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Terminal 5 is a lesson in how not to plan major infrastructure projects that are in the public interest.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78383/original/image-20150417-3249-1t4yxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78383/original/image-20150417-3249-1t4yxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/78383/original/image-20150417-3249-1t4yxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78383/original/image-20150417-3249-1t4yxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78383/original/image-20150417-3249-1t4yxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78383/original/image-20150417-3249-1t4yxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78383/original/image-20150417-3249-1t4yxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/78383/original/image-20150417-3249-1t4yxmw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Making a point. CBI chief Mike Rake.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/the-cbi/16296170668/in/photolist-qQ38wN-qQaxyT-qQ38MN">The CBI</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19570653">Airports Commission</a> believes there is a need for an additional runway in the south east by 2030. But the real answer is that both airstrips are needed, and probably another at Stansted too. Politically, this kind of honesty is toxic for politicians of all colours, hence the delay in the commission’s toothless recommendation until immediately after the election, five long years before the next one. Any recommendation is non-binding and if perceived to be too risky can be kicked into the long grass awaiting another commission. President of the Confederation of British Industry, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10192866/CBI-head-backs-third-runway-for-Heathrow.html">Mike Rake</a>, believes it’s a no-brainer: the Heathrow third runway should be built immediately and a second added at Gatwick. </p>
<h2>Tough call</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/airport-operator-baa-to-change-name-after-sell-off-8211350.html">split ownership</a> of the south east’s larger airports can only help drive more open and competitive evaluation of the choices. <a href="http://www.gatwickobviously.com/?gclid=Cj0KEQjwmLipBRC59O_EqJ_E0asBEiQATYdNh7TOYz_HfTc1D_U2CO4RYHrX_aEE_2F5O02-2_XCSc8aAuK78P8HAQ">Gatwick Obviously’s</a> campaign is crisp, fresh and underpins a reinvigorated vision for the nation’s often neglected second airport. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/13/gatwick-says-passenger-surge-underlines-need-for-new-runway">Gatwick claims</a> its expansion would be quicker, cheaper and face fewer environmental obstacles, helped by its more rural Sussex hinterland.</p>
<p>However, easyJet, Gatwick’s second largest airline, <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/gatwicks-biggest-airline-easyjet-calls-for-new-runway-at-heathrow-10013848.html">votes for Heathrow expansion</a>. CEO Carolyn McCall states: “Heathrow is in the best interests of passengers as it has the greatest demand.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the electoral stasis created by powerful pressure groups who want to champion their agendas is not helpful here. Willie Walsh, Chief Executive of British Airway’s holding company, <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/02/british-airways-heathrow-third-runway-lost-cause-willie-walsh">believes Britain’s politicans</a> lack the character required to approve Heathrow’s third runway. </p>
<p>Businesses seem to favour a third Heathrow runway as the optimal expansion option, however Gatwick benefits from fewer obstacles. I suspect the least worst choice may prevail over the optimal, after all it is always going to be a political, rather than a rational economic decision, and businesses do not get a vote. </p>
<p>We may have a five-year window to push through difficult – even unpopular – decisions, but it won’t have escaped anyone’s notice that a government of coalition and compromises is <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-britain-be-governable-after-the-election-39468">very likely to be in place</a> after May 7. And this will only make the required bold political leadership harder.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/40114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Before changing careers, Justin O'Brien worked for British Airways for 16 years and will draw part of his pension from them. </span></em></p>Once we’ve voted them in, politicians might just have the guts to make a decision on new flights capacity. But it is likely they will still dodge the decision we really need.Professor Justin O'Brien, MBA Programme Director, Royal Holloway University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/313882014-09-08T14:27:52Z2014-09-08T14:27:52ZBoris Island is sunk but it may help other airports expand<p>The Airports Commission has finally <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29021459">rejected Boris Johnson’s proposal</a> for a new international hub in the Thames estuary, reinforcing the expectation that Heathrow and possibly Gatwick will be given the go-ahead to expand their capacity. </p>
<p>This decision will not surprise many in aviation policy circles. “Boris Island” was never a realistic option. Too many factors went against it: it was the most expensive of the proposals on the table, it raised environmental and wildlife objections, it posed challenges for air traffic control, it garnered little support from either leading carriers or London’s business community – and it faced highly effective rival campaigns from Gatwick and Heathrow. </p>
<p>As the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/349518/decision-and-summary.pdf">Airports Commission concluded</a>: “We need to focus on solutions which are deliverable, affordable and set the right balance for the future of aviation in the UK.”</p>
<h2>Expansion agenda</h2>
<p>But it would be wrong to simply dismiss the Mayor of London’s campaign as a failed sideshow, or a wasteful <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/09/boris-johnson-owes-londoners-apology-wasting-public-money-over-airport-folly">airport folly</a>. Johnson’s very public support for a new international hub has played a significant, if largely unnoticed, political role in getting aviation expansion back on the policy agenda, following the coalition government’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/24/third-runway-heathrow-scrapped-baa">2010 moratorium on the building of new runways</a> in the south-east of England. </p>
<p>If nothing else, Boris’ passionate rallying calls and continuous drip-feeding of new initiatives, reviews and briefings has kept the issue of capacity resonating throughout Whitehall and the Westminster village. In the early months of the coalition government, his public support for aviation expansion was a lone voice among political leaders across the three major parties. Indeed, his persistent proposals for a new international hub did much to return the policy debate back to issues of airport capacity, the benefits for the UK of an international hub airport, and the international competitiveness and the connectivity of London. </p>
<h2>Sidestepping climate change</h2>
<p>In his campaign for Boris Island, the mayor of London also depoliticised the impact of aviation on carbon emissions and climate change. The <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2058322/Heathrow-third-runway-Thousands-join-protest.html">anti-expansion coalition</a> against Labour’s plans for a third runway at Heathrow brought together an alliance of local residents and climate change activists, combining the struggles against aviation with the fight against climate change. Johnson had supported this campaign. </p>
<p>His Thames estuary plan, however, for a new four-runway airport side-stepped the issue of climate change and strained the coalition by offering a divisive NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) solution to the dilemma of aviation expansion. In fact, the alternative of an estuary airport tested the allegiance of local residents to the common platform of “no airport expansion anywhere in the UK” that mobilised local residents from Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick, as well as environmental and climate change activists.</p>
<h2>Heathrow paradox</h2>
<p>It is this wider political fallout that is a significant element of the Boris island plan. In many respects it was an effective and necessary Trojan horse for supporters of airport expansion. </p>
<p>The appointment of Justine Greening, an opponent of Heathrow expansion, as transport secretary in 2011, appeared to put the issue of airport capacity to bed. And, like road building in the 1990s, aviation’s expansionist post-war regime had been stalled, if not defeated. Boris Island did much to loosen the lack of political support behind this nascent policy reversal. </p>
<p>Now, with the rejection of a Thames estuary airport, Boris Johnson’s proposals have served their purpose for the pro-expansion campaign. Paradoxically, the mayor of London’s efforts to offer an alternative to expansion at Heathrow may have made expansion at the international hub more likely. Almost by default, following the arguments used by the Airports Commission to reject Boris Island, expansion at Heathrow has become a more reasoned response to the issue of airport capacity.</p>
<h2>Democratic discussion</h2>
<p>In the longer term, the rejection of a Thames estuary airport has done little to build any wider political agreement. Labour attempted to engineer a policy settlement during the consultation for its <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100513020716/http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/air/thefutureofairtransportwhite5694">2003 Air Transport White Paper</a>. After this backfired, the coalition has retreated to the politics of expertise and technocracy to resolve this thorny issue. </p>
<p>But it remains doubtful whether the Airports Commission can generate an evidence-based consensus in a policy arena riven by competing values and interests, as Johnson’s own <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/02/boris-johnson-airport-commission-estuary-plan-ruled-out">strident reaction</a> to the rejection of his proposal demonstrates. Perhaps it’s time to look for new democratic means of resolving complex policy issues like aviation. </p>
<p>In the meantime, we need new ways of productively discussing the issue of airport expansion. This means reducing antagonism between the parties involved, while also enabling the emergence of competing policy coalitions. Only then can we build a genuine political consensus, which can generate a legitimate solution. Otherwise we will continue to be trapped in this cruel policy dilemma for another ten years.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/31388/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Airports Commission has finally rejected Boris Johnson’s proposal for a new international hub in the Thames estuary, reinforcing the expectation that Heathrow and possibly Gatwick will be given the…David Howarth, Co-Director, Centre for Theoretical Studies, University of EssexSteven Griggs, Professor in Public Policy, De Montfort UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/216592013-12-19T14:09:20Z2013-12-19T14:09:20ZNew runways to support leisure even as transport at home is cut<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38295/original/bxvtk9vb-1387456141.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Coming down to earth - just like house prices near airports.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steve Parsons/PA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The interim report of the Davies Airports Commission <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sir-howard-davies-airports-commission-air-travel-could-be-transformed-within-a-few-years--with-no-more-stacking-9010363.html">published this week</a> presents an in-depth analysis of aviation’s value to the UK economy and suggests the country will need a new runway by 2030, and a second by 2050. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/airports-commission-publishes-interim-report">The report</a> examines various future predictions and possible plans of action to cope with what could be a doubling of flight demand by 2050. Even with significant carbon emission limits and capacity constraints, the report estimates that by 2030 runways will be operating so close to their capacity that major reliability issues will emerge. Yet despite these strong words, the report will take another two years to come to a conclusion on which of the two contenders – Heathrow and Gatwick – will get extra runways. Shouldn’t we just get on with it?</p>
<p>I was fortunate to work in Parliament at the time the <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/air/">2003 Airports White Paper</a> was produced. I saw the reports and arguments that underpinned the last policy statement, which ultimately failed to achieve what it set out to. At the time it seemed clear that the majority business interest and the strongest economic case was for a third runway at Heathrow. Gatwick was then out of the question as there was a moratorium on further development until 2017. Expansion of Stansted was supported, although ultimately that seemed more like the option with the least collective opposition rather than one which had logic behind it and buy in.</p>
<p>The politics of expansion was huge then and it clearly has not diminished now, with the commission’s final report not due until after the next election (check the constituency maps near the airports for further details).</p>
<h2>Economic vs environmental concerns</h2>
<p>Those <a href="http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/press_centre/index.cfm?uNewsID=6949">against airport expansion</a> question the growth figures and the government’s proposals as a “predict and provide” approach. They claim it is inconsistent with our environmental commitments. This line of argument is important to explore.</p>
<p>The Davies report examines flight demand worldwide as well as in the UK. Demand for flights from emerging economies is growing (more than doubling in the past 20 years) and this is beyond the control of UK policy makers. Heathrow retains a globally leading status as an international hub airport, but faces competition from Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. </p>
<p>From an environmental perspective it doesn’t matter much if the demand is truly global (it matters of course for those under the flight path). So does UK Plc benefit more from having these flights going through London and making it a more accessible city than we lose from not having those flights? The report suggests it does and a failure to act will cost the UK economy between 48 and 65 billion pounds over the next 60 years.</p>
<h2>Demands of business vs leisure</h2>
<p>What about overall demand? The report relies heavily on models based on the past decades, with grown driven by rising disposable income. In London the average person takes 2.7 flights a year, almost double that of a resident of the West Midlands. From that it’s clear that there’s room for demand to rise not only with a growing population, but with growth from areas of the country where demand is currently low.</p>
<p>But dig a little further and you see that even in London, fewer one sixth of the flights are for business, with this being around one ninth for the whole of the UK. The real question is why we are travelling so much more for leisure or to visit friends and relatives, and whether this is sufficient to justify expansion. </p>
<p>If expansion is driven by the needs of business, then there is surely plenty of capacity to expand business use of existing flights by pricing some leisure trips out of the market. Any debate on proposals that would imply a significant environmental impact must include a discussion on changing patterns of business travel, and whether supporting leisure travel is the best use of resources. This is not just about which proposal brings about the most value, but what sort of society we want our transport system to support.</p>
<p>Are we also happy for a different logic to apply to aviation than to other parts of the transport system? This is also the week where <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25429562">further cuts</a> were announced to local authority budgets. The subsidised evening and weekend bus network <a href="http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/save-our-buses">continues to shrink</a> as we prioritise education and social care over transport. What are essential transport services for some are being lost, while we debate not whether, but where to expend resources that will mainly support leisure travel. That is something worth talking about.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21659/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Greg Marsden receives funding from Research Councils UK under the End User Energy Demand reduction programme. Full details of the funding are available at <a href="http://www.demand.ac.uk">www.demand.ac.uk</a></span></em></p>The interim report of the Davies Airports Commission published this week presents an in-depth analysis of aviation’s value to the UK economy and suggests the country will need a new runway by 2030, and…Greg Marsden, Professor of Transport Governance, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.