Thinking longer term on the runway debate

Based on the assumptions in the recent Airports Commission report, by the time a new runway is open for business we will already be well behind in planning for what comes next. Let’s seize this moment to avoid a winner and a loser in the Heathrow v Gatwick runway debate and instead create the longer term environment for growth for decades to come, writes Jon Phillips, former Communications Director of BAA Heathrow and strategic communications/stakeholder relations specialist.

In case you missed it, the Airports Commission report submitted 12 months ago only looks at passenger demand as far as 2030-40 and acknowledges that it will take at least 10 years to get a runway up and running once the Government has pronounced.  The Commission rejected the Boris Island concept as too costly and uncertain and has whittled down the various other options before concluding that whilst Gatwick has presented a ‘plausible case’ for expansion it favours one new runway at Heathrow on economic grounds as long as tough environmental conditions are met including a legal guarantee of no further runway development.

Despite the best of intentions, this report does not therefore provide the long term strategy we desperately need. Whilst it will hopefully deliver much needed capacity in the short-medium term what is also needed is a longer term masterplan for an industry so critical to our economic future.

The short term economic arguments of Heathrow’s role for London and UK plc have always been compelling, but Heathrow has also had to try and win over the sceptics that the environmental challenges can be overcome. To achieve this some major concessions and pledges have been made, but there is still a big trust gap with the community based on perceived broken promises from the past.

In simple terms, Gatwick’s challenge was the reverse. The environmental impacts of a two-runway Gatwick are nowhere near as controversial but its achilles heel has always been to be taken seriously as a contender to Heathrow's crown and to be able to demonstrate the wider economic benefit of expansion beyond West Sussex.

Both campaigns have made a good fist of it and the generic argument in favour of airport expansion has been nailed. But in making this an either/or decision, Heathrow versus Gatwick, a big opportunity to think longer term is in danger of being missed. Let’s change the argument by looking not just at airport capacity requirements over the next 20 years but over the next 50 years.

Back in the days when BAA had a monopoly on south east airports, the strategy was clear. Heathrow was the international gateway to London, Gatwick was the primary holiday airport for chartered airlines and Stansted was the overflow airport serving the low cost carriers. It wasn't a perfect system but between the three airports there was a plan that managed available capacity and served London pretty well.

Today, with the three airports under different ownership, each is competing toe-to-toe for airlines and passengers. That may be good for customer service in the short term but it’s rubbish for long term strategic planning of vital UK infrastructure.

Let’s just say, hypothetically, that the argument for the international hub airport serving London and the UK wins the day and Heathrow gets the political nod for a third runway. And let’s just assume that this time Heathrow’s community promises are kept and there are legal agreements enforced for no further expansion beyond R3. Heathrow’s status as a leading international hub airport is secured for a few more decades but what happens next? What happens to all those compelling arguments for expanding Heathrow today that will remain just as valid in 10-20 years time when the world is an even smaller place and demand for aviation is even greater? Under the current process Gatwick will have been prevented from expanding and long since reached its saturation point on its current single runway, left to fall even further behind Heathrow. And so, we will be faced with all the same arguments again in another 10 years.

Instead, we could show real vision, leadership and political boldness now and give the green light in principle to both runways: set out the tough environmental conditions to be met for both airports, make clear what government subsidy is available to assist with surface access and then let the market decide when and how to invest.

For this plan to work, two things need to happen. First, Government should add the ‘Heathwick’ fast rail service between Heathrow and Gatwick to its national infrastructure plan, so that passengers can transfer more easily between the two airports and provide more options for connecting traffic in the future. Second, the extra capacity created by additional runways needs to be managed as a strategic asset for the UK as well as for the benefit of airport owners and airlines. The CAA should be asked to develop new rules designed to maximise the benefit of scarce runway slots with airlines incentivised or directed to move between airports depending on whether they best formed part of Heathrow’s hub and spoke network of connecting flights or helped build Gatwick’s baseload of point to point business.

Government could then stand back and say ‘We have set a strategy for the next 50 years and paved the way for investment in runway capacity, that’s our role. Now its time for the aviation industry to respond.’ 

National policy requirements delivered by long term, responsible private sector investment. Wasn't that the idea behind privatising our national infrastructure?