The London Debate: Gatwick airport
Contributors are not employed, compensated or governed by TD, opinions and statements are from the contributor directly
Yesterday saw us start our week-long series of articles questioning how the UK was going to combat the problem it is facing in the much publicised airport debate. The argument, we said, was between two main parties: Heathrow airport and the London mayor. That throwaway remark wasn’t totally correct – and we would like to apologise. The fact is that an answer to a problem this complex is rarely that simple – and there are a number of other stakeholders that are putting forward plans which are arguably far more realistic than those of Heathrow or Boris Johnson. It would be a glaring oversight by us not to mention the main ‘third party’ player in this game: Gatwick airport.
Now, before we start, it is important to stress one of the biggest obstacles that stands in the way of a Gatwick expansion and that is the 1979 legal agreement it has with the local community not to build a second runway before 2019. Whether six years is really an obstacle or not is another debate entirely, it all depends on how desperately the powers that be believe the UK’s capacity problems to be.
So, what are Gatwick’s plans?
In essence, Gatwick is proposing a ‘constellation’ system where Heathrow, Stansted and itself will all operate as two runway airports. These three main centres will be complemented by City Airport for business and then Luton and Southend for predominantly leisure. This, they say, will develop competition, offer more resilience to disruption, have less of an environmental (noise, air etc) impact than Heathrow’s third runway and could even be privately financed.
There is no denying that Gatwick’s plans make a lot of sense. For one, no airport would have to close (as with Johnson’s plans), meaning no mass redundancies; secondly, the development of a second runway at Gatwick is never going to create the political firestorm that a third would generate at Heathrow. The residents of west London would put down their pitchforks and Cameron could breathe a sigh of relief. The third, and arguably most important factor, is that a second runway at Gatwick is not going to cost GBP65 billion.
However, if the Davies Commission does elect to recommend a second Gatwick runway, then what happens to the much touted ‘hub’ status the UK so dearly desires? Well, it seems that the facts around the UK and its hub are perhaps a little exaggerated. According to the statistics released by Gatwick, 87% of the 134 million passengers who fly in or out of London are starting or finishing their journey there. That means that fewer than 15% are using the UK as a transfer point. Perhaps the much argued necessity of a mega hub to emulate that of Hong Kong or Dubai has been slightly overplayed after all…
“Our vision is to have three airports, competing with one another, being successful and serving London,” said Stewart Wingate, CEO London Gatwick.
“Connections are all about giving passengers a choice of where they can travel to. Gatwick is already the best-connected UK airport with over 200 destinations in over 90 different countries…[and] an environment which fosters competition means the airport can look at putting in place services that are better for the passenger.”
This is undeniably true and as one evaluates the case for a second runway at Gatwick, it starts to make a whole lot of sense. The big projects of Heathrow and the Thames Estuary have dominated the newspaper headlines because big projects always will. However, in times of restrained financial freedom, does the UK really need something with either the financial implications of the Thames Estuary or the environmental implications of Heathrow to contend with? Often, it would seem, the most obvious answer is the simplest.
Join the discussion at #LondonDebate
Read the arguments put forward by Boris Johnson and Heathrow here.
Comments are closed.