News: Protestors slam Heathrow expansion plans
Flights > News > # 1208 (07/03/2007)
Campaigners protesting against expansion at Heathrow airport stormed a meeting yesterday (March 6) being hosted by transport secretary Douglas Alexander.
A group of Heathrow residents interrupted Mr Alexander’s speech at an international aviation conference in London.
The protestors fear a third runway at Heathrow could result in the airport doubling its capacity by 2030. Terminal five is due to open next year, and plans have been submitted for a new facility, ‘Heathrow East’, to replace the much maligned terminals one and two.
Hounslow Green Party member, John Hunt, said the government and the aviation industry must halt expansion, and urgently consider making cuts.
“Ten years ago, during the public enquiry into Terminal Five, we were assured that T5 would be the end of expansion. In particular, no third runway would be necessary.”
He added: “With a third runway the airport could eventually support up to 128 million passengers a year. Even at that level, Heathrow would only be satisfying some 70% of its unconstrained demand forecast in 2030.”
Add to:
Related Airports:
Comment:
It is always odd that these groups start demanding transparency from everyone else, but are rarely able to substantiate their own figures when challenged. Therefore, they have to resort to the usual rent-a-mob tactics, although questions have to be asked about how it was so easy for them to infiltrate conference, which was supposed to be about security!
Whilst we can sympathise with many of the sentiments that these campaigners express, we have repeatedly asked various anti-airport protest groups to explain their position on the anomalies that we see in the current aviation taxation regimes, but they do not usually want to respond to these challenges.
Meanwhile, they continue to trot out the same figures. These figures should be put in context.
Economic deficit
The economic deficit is essentially down to there being more UK visitors heading for sunnier climates, than there are international visitors coming to visit the UK. However, this is not a problem which can be easily solved by putting taxes up. As we have already seen, this immediately makes it more expensive for foreign visitors to visit the UK, thus increasing the deficit still further! Meanwhile, the recent increases in Air Passenger Duty mean that passengers taking flights within the UK are stung twice, further incentivising people to fly abroad. To add insult to injury, the government is proposing additional taxes on hotel bed nights, making domestic tourism within the UK even more expensive than it already is.
We're still waiting for the environmentalists' views on this one - answers on a postcard please!
Environmental costs
Most airlines are increasingly happy to discuss the environmental costs of flying, because the current figures from DEFRA show that they are almost always lower than the rates of Air Passenger Duty. Granted, the cost of carbon dioxide mitigation might well rise, but as we've already seen with oil prices, these costs can go down as well as up. The real gripe, which we think should be at the top of any environmentalist's agenda, is the fact that all additional monies raised from Air Passenger Duty are going directly into government coffers - there is no allocation of such funding (hypothecation) for environmental projects. However, we have tried engaging with several environmental groups (including extensive discussions with Stop Stansted Expansion), and they don't seem remotely interested in this issue. So who's really shortchanging the environment - the airlines, or the special interest groups which speak in its name?
Human costs
Beyond aviation's contribution to global warming, there have been very few conclusive studies which have shown a clear link between airports and major negative effects on human health. However obvious it might sound that living near an airport means more exposure to noise and air pollution, there is virtually no peer-reviewed scientific proof of this. Again, these human costs have to be balanced with the clear benefits which flying brings, not only in terms of economic benefit, but also in the opportunities it provides for taking holidays (stress reduction), and engaging in sporting activities. Environmental groups might well counter this claim by pointing out that flying itself is inherently stressful, and we'd certainly agree with them on that point! For the avoidance of security queues alone, we would always advise taking the train over flying, where this is a reasonable option, but unfortunately, for most destinations, this simply isn't realistic.
A rational debate?
We want a rational debate on aviation, and so do many airlines - Easyjet and Flybe in particular have called for this repeatedly. There is nothing rational about storming conferences - this is just childish attention seeking, which might win a couple of headlines, but which will not solve any problems. Air Passenger Duty at Heathrow alone, will raise in the region of £1 billion this year, but not a penny of this will go towards any kind of mitigation schemes for people living near the airport. Residents are faced with a ridiculous farce that the only way for them to get mitigation packages, is for airports to expand. Meanwhile, this particular area of the environmental debate continues to be led by the industry, with Thomsonfly backing a petition for Air Passenger Duty increases to be used on environmental projects, and Birmingham airport calling for the extra taxes raised to be used on public transport.
Environmentally friendly flying might sound like an oxymoron, but the simple reality is that people will continue to take cheap flights as long as they are available, and the environmental concerns are not going to go away. We don’t need much encouragement to attack the policies of Tony Blair’s government, but it is worth noting that the UK is still significantly further ahead than most other countries on these issues - but have any environmental groups ever recognised this? This debate is set to run and run, but who is really hiding?
