News: Barrage of criticism for Stansted expansion plans
Flights > News > # 1177 (02/02/2007)
BAA’s latest plans for expansion at Stansted airport have been met with a barrage of criticism.
If given the green light, BAA will build a new runway and terminal at Stansted, enabling London’s third largest airport to increase its capacity by ten million passengers a year in 2015. By 2030, the airport authority hopes that with further improvements to facilities, Stansted will be capable of handling 68 million passengers per year.
Two sides usually at loggerheads with each other - airlines and anti-aviation protesters -both fiercely oppose the plans, although their motives could not be more different. Local resident groups and parish councils surrounding the airport site fear Stansted could develop into another Heathrow. Meanwhile, the airlines, led by Easyjet and Ryanair, claim the £2.2 billion project could be constructed for under half the cost.
Costs estimates have actually been reduced by since BAA’s December 2005 figure, but Ryanair, which accounts for 60% of Stansted’s passenger traffic, has labeled the project a “gold plated Taj Mahal”.
Ryanair chief executive, Michael O’Leary, said: “The plans are opposed by Stansted’s airlines, its passengers and the local community. This will lead to a doubling of the already high passenger charges at Stansted.
“At a time when a low cost efficient airport like Frankfurt Hahn can design and build a terminal with capacity for 15 million passengers for less than €100m, there is no justification for the BAA airport monopoly to waste £1.4 billion on a similar sized terminal facility.”
Easyjet boss, Andy Harrison, shared Mr O’Leary’s sentiments. He said: “The scheme is over-engineered and too expensive. It may be good for BAA’s shareholders, but it is not the right way forward for UK aviation and the travelling public.
For local residents, there is far more at stake than balancing the books. There are fears that such a significant expansion would lead to a massive increase in traffic on the already congested roads around the airport, as well as increase noise pollution. A spokesman for the Stop Stansted Expansion group said a second runway would be an environmental catastrophe if it went ahead, adding: “There are also serious concerns about the regional and local impacts which would result if Stansted was allowed to grow to handle more passengers than Heathrow today.”
BAA’s chief executive, Stephen Nelson, has brushed aside the mounting criticism.
“We are confident of delivering a development that’s fit for purpose – it will provide the increased runway capacity that the UK economy needs, good facilities for passengers and value for money for airlines. We have also worked hard to reduce the impact on the local environment,” he said.
Add to:
Related Airports:
Comment:
Bosses at Stansted airport face heavy criticism from two entirely different camps. On the one hand, the low cost airlines which use Stansted airport, and Ryanair in particular, do not want to see BAA constructing a hugely expensive facility, which they say is not necessary. On the other hand, local opposition groups simply do not want to see an airport that is already bursting to its seams, expand any further.
Meanwhile, our rudderless government talks about wanting to do everything it can to stop climate change, and yet appears desperate see a second runway at Stansted rushed through in time for the 2012 Olympics.
At Flightmapping.com, we are yet to be convinced that the potential merits of a new runway at Stansted justify the costs. Even if Stansted does take the majority of Olympic charter flights, it would be pure idiocy to rush forward the construction of a second runway to handle this temporary blip in demand. The transport network in London is very different to other Olympic cities such as Athens or Beijing, which are only served by one airport apiece. Of course, both cities have invested heavily in their airport infrastructure, as part of a long-term growth strategy, but London is currently served by no less than five international airports, not to mention the numerous other locations in the southeast of England, which are within a 100 mile radius of the Olympic site, several of which are perfectly capable of handling long-haul flights (Manston, Bournemouth, Birmingham etc). Worse still, rushing Stansted's expansion plans through to meet such a tightly defined deadline (unlike the opening of Wembley, the Olympics cannot be postponed) would only lead to a massive increase in costs, and other headaches.
Looking at the longer-term picture, there should certainly be plenty of opportunity for Stansted airport to expand its range of flights by making the best use of its existing runway, and building a second terminal. The airlines might complain about the cost of this facility, but comparisons with budget terminals like Frankfurt Hahn are not entirely relevant. British airports have already proven themselves to be much better at morphing into shopping malls than any of their European counterparts, and whether aimed at budget airlines or not, Stansted is no different here. Whilst we fully agree with the budget airlines that the construction costs of infrastructure developments such as runways and taxiways (if they are at all necessary), should be kept to a minimum, the cost of the terminal building itself should not be their concern, providing there are sufficient retail revenues to pay for it. Even for the small number of Brits who don’t consider shopping to be one of their pastimes, it is always preferable to use a bright, well designed terminal than some dingy cowshed.
To their credit, the Stop Stansted Airport Expansion group have at least given the economic arguments for a second runway a thorough going over, and found them wanting. The environmental pros and cons of Stansted airport expansion (yes, there are actually a few pros, but we’ll leave that for another time), will get their fair share of airtime, but there are still far too many unanswered questions. From Flightmapping.com’s perspective, a multiple terminal, multi-runway hub airport, lacks the very appeal which currently makes it so attractive to no-frills airlines.
The last thing any anti-airport opposition group should do if they want any credibility is play the nimby card, and suggest that Heathrow is still the most suitable location for transfer flights. Of course, to do so would sound grossly selfish, considering the numbers of people involved, but the economic case for reinforcing London’s status as a transfer hub is always going to be much stronger than it is for allowing more no-frills leisure flights from Stansted, many of which suck out far more from the UK economy than they bring in.
