Opinion

Airports Commission presents UK with a Hobson’s choice for a future hub airport.

Alistair Lenczner

The opportunity to become Europe's key aviation hub has been spurned, says Alistair Lenczner. Plus AECOM's Chris Choa responds in defence of Heathrow.

Opportunity spurned - Alistair Lenczner

The Airport Commission’s elimination of the Inner Thames Estuary airport (ITE) as a shortlisted option effectively presents the UK with a Hobson’s choice for future alternative hub airport options: Heathrow or Heathrow.

Although Gatwick is still included on the Commission’s shortlist for airport options, not even Gatwick’s supporters argue that it answers the UK’s need for increased hub airport capacity. The hub airport debate was always Heathrow versus ITE.

"One has the clear impression that their premature elimination of ITE is because it is too big and ambitious for them to get their head around rather than for any individual “showstopper” issue having being identified."

In dismissing the ITE airport option, the Commission states that “to roll the dice on a very risky project, where delays and overruns are highly likely, would be reckless.”

However the Commission does not seem to consider it reckless to remove Heathrow’s only serious hub rival before they have been properly compared in all aspects. Unfortunately, the UK public and Government will now be deprived of knowing what a level-playing-field assessment between Heathrow and ITE would reveal on major issues such as surface access, environment impact (including noise) and cost.

Reading the Commission’s report, one has the clear impression that their premature elimination of ITE is because it is too big and ambitious for them to get their head around rather than for any individual “showstopper” issue having being identified.

Hong Kong should be thankful that such short-term and risk adverse attitudes weren’t so prevalent in the 1990’s to prevent the Chep Lap Kok airport project going ahead to replace the old Kai Tak airport. Hong Kong would not be the economic powerhouse it has become if it still had to depend on Kai Tak.  

"With the Inner Thames Estuary alternative removed, any Heathrow proposal will be seen by many as a “like it or lump it” answer to the UK’s hub airport needs."

Whilst the Commission says that any future government should make any final decisions on the hub airport choices, it asserts that any ITE option would be unpalatable to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a government “of any political colour”. Effectively, based on its own political judgement, the Commission has pre-empted any future Government’s decision on an ITE option.   

Whilst the Commission emphasizes many downsides to the ITE option, it seems blinkered to some significant advantages it could offer. 24 hour airport operation capability (which Heathrow could never offer) is a case in point. The Commission dismisses the potential night flight demand by referring to a report (from Heathrow) that shows that there are currently no scheduled night flights at Paris, Frankfurt or Amsterdam airports. However, it fails to point out (or realize) that these airports operate night flight restrictions.  

The success of Emirates Airways night operations at Dubai Airport shows how 24 hour capability can be very significant for global aviation connectivity. It seems likely that, given the chance, any 24 hour ITE airport would become Western Europe’s pre-eminent aviation hub for both passenger and freight flights.   

As the Commission focuses on the detailed issues that any Heathrow solution entails, we must wait to know their its findings on its real impact and cost.

However, with the ITE alternative removed, any Heathrow proposal will be seen by many as a “like it or lump it” answer to the UK’s hub airport needs.   

Alistair Lenczner is an independent planning consultant 

 In defence of Heathrow

Chris Choa says: Expanding Heathrow would build on strength not weakness