The battle for expansion rages on, and focus on the big issue remains essential
The government is due to release its summer consultation, or rather consultations, on the future of aviation in the UK. I say consultations, because both one on the framework for aviation and another on the options for additional capacity are expected.
These policy discussions are a product of aviation being big “P” politics and having the potential to be an issue that puts the coalition under severe pressure. Indeed, we at Cavendish have heard reports that this consultation was ready to go months ago but the transport secretary was called before the quad of Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and Alexander and told that, due to the recent local and mayoral elections, the issue would be parked until a less fraught period.
The current period may lack elections but is no less heated, with the various camps using these extra months to hone their arguments and soften up the government and media on these issues. However, the pro-aviation lobby needs to avoid a trap of its own making: that is, becoming embroiled in parochial conflict and neglecting to fight – and win – the more general pro-expansion argument.
Talking privately to those close to Transport Secretary Justine Greening, it seems that she is yet to be convinced on the bigger question – the need for extra capacity. This has to be addressed first.
Similarly, pro-aviation allies in parliament say that in order for the lobby to have a real impact on government, it needs to provide the evidence that supports the case and ensure there is a single message hitting the ears of government. The question remains over whether the disparate, competitive parts of the industry will take this on board.
Already we have seen BAA campaigning hard to have Heathrow included in the options consultation, Boris unashamedly pushing the Thames Estuary option, Birmingham airport starting its own campaign that the south-east is not the only location for more capacity, and Gatwick trumpeting the fact that its airport is not at capacity yet. All of these interests have talented teams in place and will be making use of their media and political networks to get their message across.
The danger here is that those concerned take for granted the need for expansion and get embroiled in internecine battles over where that should be located. Tempting as that may be, it must be hammered home to those involved in policy why additional capacity is needed and, importantly, illustrate and provide evidence on the impact of maintaining current capacity levels.
The opposition to expansion is too effective and savvy (see its claim that the UK has more links to China than the rest of the European hubs, for example) to take it for granted that the Department for Transport, Treasury and No. 10 have been converted to the cause. Those who are pro-aviation should remember to win the battle of ideas first before they start knifing each other over location. n