Branson: don't run Heathrow into the ground
30.06.08
In an article in the Times Sir Richard Branson, the founder and President of Virgin Atlantic, says that the economic - and environmental - case for a third runway at Heathrow Airport is overwhelming. Without it UK plc will be hit hard, he says.
Amongs the things Sir Richard says are (for the full article, click on the link above): In 1947, when commercial aircraft had just started using Britain's biggest airport, Heathrow had three runways. Now, only two remain, as room was needed to make way for Terminals 1, 2 and 3. More than 60 years later, we have to decide whether a third runway should be built at Heathrow.
But Heathrow has become a pawn in a political game. The decision should not be based on political point scoring or a kneejerk reaction to whoever shouts loudest, but on calm, detailed analysis of the facts. The most important of those is that our desire to travel - whether for pleasure or work - is set to increase over the next 40 years.
If a third runway isn't built at Heathrow, you can guarantee other airports will expand to meet that demand. The growth at Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Paris and Madrid, each of which already has three or more runways, shows little sign of slowing. Does the UK really want to shift the demand to fly - and the thousands of jobs that depend directly on the air travel business - to its European rivals?
More than a third of Heathrow's passengers are in transit - connecting from one airport to another via Heathrow. Some critics of BAA and Heathrow claim that an increase in such passengers is not in the national interest. They have missed the point. Transit passengers are one of the prime reasons why airlines fly to so many destinations from Heathrow. If these passengers disappear, so would the choice of routes and the frequency, forcing passengers from London to fly via European hubs to reach cities in Asia and Africa.
This transit traffic supports key routes, such as to Nairobi, Los Angeles and Bombay, giving greater opportunity for British passengers to travel there. And, of course, transit passengers, help to fill the planes: full flights are greener.
But, without a third runway, and with continued congestion at Heathrow, these passengers will want to transit via less-crowded airports outside the UK. If that happens, Heathrow's attractiveness would be dramatically reduced.
Without such a diverse network, Britain would find itself increasingly isolated as a trading nation. Exports would slow and headquarters would be moved to vibrant countries that are investing in new capacity and infrastructure. Global corporations will turn their back on London in favour of better connected cities. Tens of thousands of jobs will be lost to France, Germany, Holland and Spain.
There is also a sound environmental case for a third runway. If aircraft can land more promptly, hundreds of planes a day won't have to circle overhead for hours, each of them adding to emissions and noise levels. A new runway will reduce the dependency on the other two, particularly in poor weather conditions, when planes spend time on the ground wasting fuel, pumping out carbon emissions.
Delaying a third runway will not reduce net global greenhouse gas emissions; it will merely facilitate the growth of the continental European hubs, and even non-EU hubs outside the scope of emissions trading.
Let's imagine what air travel will be like in 2020, the earliest that a third runway could be operational. By then, many of the aircraft flying in our skies today will have been replaced. The next generation of planes will be even more advanced than the innovative aircraft that are now entering service, such as the carbon-fibre Boeing 787 Dreamliner and the Airbus A380. These aircraft are up to 30% more fuel-efficient than anything flying today, and up to 60% quieter. Just think what will be flying when a third runway is up and running.
Add to: del.icio.us | Digg it | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
