Is the possibility of a third runway at Heathrow really back on the agenda? Or has the penny just dropped with the government about the lack of air capacity in the south east. Rob Gill looks at how the coalition’s policy on airport expansion has shifted since it came to power
Airlines, airports and the wider travel industry have been pushing the message about the lack of air capacity around south-eastern England ever since the coalition government came to power nearly two years ago.
At times, it must have seen like they were banging their head against a closed door but a major sense of change within the government is now clearly in the spring air. After all, both Prime Minister David Cameron and chancellor George Osborne last week emphasised the capacity problem and their determination to find some sort of solution.
This week was meant to see the long-awaited publication of the government’s aviation strategy consultation document but now that has been delayed until the summer. Most major travel bodies, including ABTA and the GTMC, were surprised by this sudden postponement as there was no suggestion of it in recent talks with the Department for Transport. The DfT has come up with a convoluted reason for the delay although it is still promising to have “a final policy in place by next spring at the latest”. But reading between the lines, it seems clear that whatever was proposed in the strategy document did not cut the mustard with those at the top of government.
Travel and aviation groups have taken the delay in publication as a reason for good news – it’s not often a delay is greeted so warmly – and a sign of a possible further shift in the government’s aviation plans. Abta’s head of public affairs Luke Pollard called this a “carefully choreographed policy change on aviation” and showed that the government now “realises its outright ban on new capacity was a mistake”.
The government has already signalled a change of tune on expansion in the south east already from its position when it came to power. The coalition agreement thrashed out between the Tories and Liberal Democrats in May 2010 stated that they would cancel the third runway at Heathrow and refuse plans for additional runways at both Gatwick and Stansted.
But this changed during Osborne’s autumn statement in November when he said the government was “considering all options for maintaining the UK's aviation hub status" apart from a third runway at Heathrow. This continues to be the government’s official policy but last week’s announcement has set off a frenzy of speculation that further shifts are on the way with the third runway back on the agenda as a possibility.
Can the government really be ready to make such a major “u turn” on Heathrow? It still doesn’t seem very likely at this stage – particularly as transport secretary Justine Greening, whose Putney constituency is underneath the Heathrow flight path, has campaigned against the extra runway for years.
Greening hammered home the point during one of her first speeches after becoming transport secretary in October when she told the Airport Operators Association (AOA)’s conference that the “runway decision has been made, it’s done” and “it’s time to turn the page and write a new chapter in the story of aviation”.
London mayor Boris Johnson has also again stressed his opposition to expansion at Heathrow calling a third runway “an environmental disaster” and “it will not be built as long as I am mayor of London”. Although it has to be remembered that Boris is the middle of an election campaign and probably doesn’t want to upset all those potential voters in south-west London. There is also the hurdle of the Tories’ coalition partners, the Lib Dems, who remain implacably opposed to the third runway. It’s also worth noting that the Labour Party who supported the extra runway while in government has now also come out against it.
So if it’s not to be the third runway, what can the government do? Cameron last week talked up Gatwick as “emerging as a business airport for London” during his speech on improving the UK’s infrastructure. There has also been speculation over the weekend about the possibility of using RAF Northolt, which is around six miles from Heathrow, as an alternative to the third runway.
Long-term, the idea of a new hub airport in the Thames estuary – dubbed ‘Boris Island’ after its chief proponent Boris Johnson – will also be considered in the consultation. But BAR UK’s chief executive Mike Carrivick warned the government should not “sleepwalk into opting for a site in the Thames estuary” and all potential airport sites will “present significant challenges and require critical assessment”.
But whatever the merits and long-term necessities of a new hub airport instead of Heathrow, there remains the problem of what to do over the next 20 years or so. As BATA’s chief executive Simon Buck said: “The UK is losing business now and missing out on developing international links with growing world economies. It is simply not good enough to be fobbed off by the prospect of an expensive new airport in a remote part of the Thames estuary where nobody lives in 20 years time. By then, it will be too late.”
Has the government finally grasped the nettle that the day is already late in terms of adding capacity now? Cameron warned last week that its plans – when they are finally revealed - will be “controversial” which at least suggests that the government may be prepared to take tough decisions. Although given the delicate balance of the coalition, the chances of some sort of “fudge” or half-baked solution has to be high.
It’s interesting to note that Heathrow has over the last four months been running a trial allowing the airport to use its two runways for both landings and take-offs (known as dual use), instead of the usual practice of alternating runways. While this has so far been touted as a way of reducing delays (a second trial is planned during the Olympics in the summer) rather than adding flights, it could also be a way of increasing capacity. Although whether it would be acceptable politically is far less clear cut, as is any potential rise in night flights into Heathrow.