Heathrow expansion: the noisy money

Heathrow expansion: the noisy money

Details

 

Published on Tuesday, 30 September 2014 14:30

0inShare

With almost half a million yearly flights, Heathrow airport is one of the busiest airports in the world. Around 40% of the UK’s exports and imports, worth around £400bn, pass through the airport feeding the country’s economy every year. However, the economic benefits come at a price. Heathrow airport is the noisiest airport in Europe, exposing more than 4 times as many people to noise pollution as the second loudest airport does.

Obviously, a clash of interests have always surrounded the activity of the airport, but recently the tension has been especially heightened. Businesses claim, that the economy is hungry for increased connectivity and larger capacity, while local residents and NGOs dismiss it as lobbying. The options being proposed range from expanding Heathrow or Gatwick, to doing just about nothing; but if it was to expand, what implications would it carry?

Capacity issues

First of all, let’s take a look at the issue from the business perspective. Why should an expansion take place, and why is it this particular airport that has to expand? One of the most debated issues in the media is the lack of capacity to operate flights to the emerging new markets. Katja Hall, the Deputy Director-General of CBI, UK's premier business lobbying organization, has said that “if we are to spark new connections that drive trade, we need a solution that creates spare capacity at a single-site hub. While a hub is key to getting new routes started, at that point where emerging market opportunity turns into established trading partner, we need the means to move quickly to win new business. With Heathrow full and the UK slipping behind in the race for new connectivity, it is essential that the Airports Commission delivers a solution that addresses the ticking time bomb of our lack of spare hub capacity.”

No alternatives

Having a single hub is preferred over airport divisions, thus the support for airport extension at Gatwick is rather flimsy. “Back Heathrow”, a pro-expansion campaign, mentions that if Heathrow is not allowed to grow, new long haul flights will not go to Gatwick or other UK airports. The group claims that the routes and the associated business will simply use other hub airports in Europe such as Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt. The group is also dismissive of the idea that Heathrow and Gatwick could complement each other in daily operations. “Back Heathrow” representative has pointed out the previous attempts for the airports to co-exist: “Linking Gatwick and Heathrow is a nice idea, but it wouldn’t work […], because it has been tried twice before and it didn’t work on either occasion. Gatwick carries a tiny amount of freight compared to Heathrow (0.1 million tons in 2012 at Gatwick, compared to 1.5 million at Heathrow). This is because Gatwick is a point to point airport, heavily focused on short-haul holiday traffic. Heathrow is the UK’s only hub airport, and both passengers and freight rely on the hub model in order to reach their customers and suppliers. 86% of all UK air freight passes through Heathrow […] taking advantage of the global routes.”

The beneficiaries

A rather controversial claim opposing the expansion rests upon the assumption that the extension is only beneficial to the airport owners, and not so much for the local businesses or UK’s economy. A very sceptical position is taken by Ms. Sarah Clayton, the coordinator of AirportWatch, an NGO opposed to unsustainable aviation. According to her, the necessity for a third runway is something that has been put about by the airports and the airline industry, very effectively, for their own benefit. She also adds that “there really is no capacity crisis. The whole presumption of need for more runways is for the very self-interested beneficiaries in this industry. No runway is actually needed, but the foreign owners of Heathrow would like the extra profits. ”

HACAN, an anti-expansion campaign that represents people affected by Heathrow’s noise pollution, also doubts the reasoning behind the expansion, bringing up several research studies conducted since 2008. The leader of the campaign, John Stewart, who has already had a part in stopping previous Heathrow expansion plans, has said that “there has been no hard evidence produced that London economy will lose out if Heathrow does not expand as a hub to match Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol or Frankfurt. The reason for this is London’s importance to business people as a destination. This was emphasized in Transport Statistics Great Britain, […] which showed that, worldwide, Heathrow had the largest number of terminating passengers on international flights in 2010. An earlier report from the Dutch economists CE Delft made a similar point. In the economics of Heathrow expansion (2008) they argued that a third runway was not required at Heathrow because, for business as a whole, other factors, such as the vibrancy of London’s financial centre, were of greater importance than the size of Heathrow. Writing (about tax) in The Times, Camilla Cavendish spelt this out: London is attractive as a base to international companies because of our open economy, time zone and language.”

However, the opposing campaign, “Back Heathrow”, puts forward an idea, that “like any business that is not allowed to grow, Heathrow would have to cut jobs in order to remain competitive. The knock-on effects would be severe – the local economy is inextricably linked to the well-being of Heathrow and will suffer without the airport’s growth.”

All so quiet?

For various reasons, UK businesses and Heathrow airport push for the Heathrow expansion; however, it was never a popular subject on the politicians’ to-do lists, as it was a certain vote loss. The main issue is, of course, noise pollution. Although airport representatives and expansion supporters argue that the expansion would lead to a decrease in noise levels, AirportWatch coordinator Ms. Clayton tells that “when the airports say the number of people affected is reduced, that is simply dishonest use of language. Airports and the entire aviation industry are very duplicitous on the issue of noise. There is a relatively arbitrary noise level, of 57dB Leq, which is taken - with little basis in the reality of how noise is experienced by people - as being the level at which noise becomes significant. Or a significant annoyance, in the jargon. The reality is that a noise average, like Leq does not begin to measure the actual noise nuisance, as it is heard by people. By changing flight paths they may be able to change the lines of the 57 dB contour to include fewer people. But in practice, people exposed to - say - 50dB Leq are also experiencing a lot of noise. It may be very annoying, or distressing, to thousands. But […] only those within certain contours are counted. That does not measure all those exposed to noise, outside these contours. For instance, further to the east along the approach flight paths over London. Areas like Clapham are very noisy, out as far as Greenwich. But they are not included in these figures.”

One more obstacle

Finally, in spite of all the opposition, it is very likely that the expansion will happen, and it will, in fact, take place in Heathrow. This naturally raises a question of how long will a third runway serve until next one is required? CBI puts the line at around 2050. With this mark in mind, it is important to remember probably the strongest obstacle – the European Union has set certain requirements for carbon emissions in aviation. The Aviation Environment Federation tells that building even a third runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick would risk jeopardizing the UK's Climate Change Act by allowing for an increase in flights that would also increase emissions. “Building just one new runway […] would threaten the ability of the UK to meet its overall climate change target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the economy by 80% by 2050.” Ms. Clayton is more elaborately opposed to the idea, saying that “fitting even one more runway in the south east is difficult, within the UK's carbon targets. A second new runway in the south east is completely impossible, in terms of carbon emissions. Anyone even contemplating a fourth Heathrow runway is dangerously out of touch with the realities of aviation carbon emissions, and the UK's legally binding carbon targets.”

All in all, Heathrow airport is likely to witness an expansion, however, will it actually allow it to become a long-lasting hub for the UK? The competition is strong and opposition is active, thus there is a large chance to see the 2050 expansion take place in other airports, bringing forth the highly undesirable division of operations and loosening Heathrow’s position as the UK’s hub.

Image: Heathrow Airport