The London Debate: Boris Johnson
Contributors are not employed, compensated or governed by TD, opinions and statements are from the contributor directly
As we enter a vital week for the UK’s aviation industry, how much do you understand about the argument that is currently raging over what course the country should take regarding our airspace? Don’t worry if you’ve not been able to keep up with the debate, we’re here to help. Over a series of articles we will bring you the main points of all the major stakeholders and explain why it is so important the UK gets this right. There is a whole lot more at stake than you might think.
First things first though, what exactly is the problem? In essence it’s simple: Heathrow, one of the busiest airports in the world, is currently operating at 98.5% capacity – and demand is growing. Its European competitors have the room, infrastructure and permission to expand and by doing so will take connections from the UK and bring them to their own runways. At first this will mean a significant loss of revenue – the UK is estimated to already be losing around GBP1bn each year because of insufficient flight connections to emerging economies – a factor which will have far greater repercussions when those economies look to expand into regions it has established solid connections with.
So what are the options?
Arguably there are two main parties – although admittedly a number of smaller players too – who have the biggest say in what happens to the future of the UK’s airspace: Heathrow and the London mayor Boris Johnson. Both want very different things, the former, rather obviously is proposing an extension to its own site, while the latter wants to ditch Heathrow completely and move east, constructing a new hub. There is no room to expand Heathrow, the mayor says, and it is a blight on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Londoners already. To expand Heathrow would just expand the problem, and it’s not a solution that will last forever. However, despite their differences, both do agree on one thing; the current situation is unsustainable and something must be done.
Monday (15 July) saw London’s mayor put his ideas forward to a body which will advise government on its next steps. Heathrow will do the same on Wednesday, but what exactly is London’s mayor proposing?
The answer lies in not one proposition, but three. The first, which has received the most recent spate of media coverage, is the planned site on the Isle of Grain in north Kent. The four-runway hub would be built on the inner Thames Estuary, partly on reclaimed land, and connected to London via high-speed rail links, which would see passengers getting to Waterloo in less than half an hour. The project has been quoted (by the mayor) as being operational by 2029. It has a price tag of GBP20 billion although with additional projects – M25 expansion, rail links and expected future capacity increases – the figure rises to around GBP50 billion. Think that’s high? Opponents say a better estimate would be closer to GBP100 billion.
Johnson’s second idea, which he recently started to concede as being untenable, was the site nicknamed ‘Boris Island’ located in the outer estuary, on an artificial site similar to the likes of Hong Kong’s Chep Lap Kok airport. Johnson has himself admitted that the site is too far away from central London, however again the proposal is for a four-runway facility; something the mayor insists is integral if the UK wants to reach the emerging markets of the world. However any building work in the Thames Estuary will be subject to stringent environmental issues, which could cause a problem further down the line.
Johnson’s third proposal is an extension to Essex’s Stansted airport. Despite – or perhaps because of – its far more economic outlook, the third plan has received far less media coverage than its glossier competitors. However, like the other two, it would share government’s objectives to deliver jobs across London and Essex but without having to build an airport from scratch. A Stansted extension is by far the cheapest option, has none of the Estuary’s environmental issues and will build on existing infrastructure within an area which is not as densely populated as Heathrow.
So what would an adoption of Johnson’s plan mean for London?
Well it is important to remember that if any of Johnson’s recommendations were selected it would mean an end to Heathrow. There are a number of arguments against Heathrow’s closure, which will be discussed later in the week, however the biggest is the expected redundancies. To put it into context, the UK’s busiest hub currently hires 76,600 people directly and is responsible for another 11,100 people who deal with the airport’s surrounding economy. Would any government be willing to make job losses on that scale? The media is already comparing a closure of Heathrow to the pit closures of the 1980s.
This is not a simple debate however and Johnson’s proposals would come up with other benefits too. For one, the site where Heathrow currently sits would be turned into a housing development for 250,000 people, a major advantage considering London’s ‘housing crisis’; it would also solve the noise problem for residents under Heathrow’s flight path a factor which will only get worse if Heathrow is expanded.
At a City Hall press conference, when proposing his ideas, Johnson said: “Ambitious cities all over the world are already stealing a march on us and putting themselves in a position to eat London’s breakfast, lunch and dinner by constructing mega airports that plug them directly into the global supply chains that we need to be part of.
“Those cities have moved heaven and earth to locate their airports away from their major centres of population, in areas where they have been able to build airports with four runways or more. For London and the wider UK to remain competitive we have to build an airport capable of emulating that scale of growth. Anyone who believes there would be the space to do that at Heathrow, which already blights the lives of hundreds of thousands of Londoners, is quite simply crackers.”
Whatever you think the answer is to London’s airport debate, the very nature of the discussion means there are always going to be winners and losers. If any of Johnson’s plans are put forward we are unlikely to see any capacity increase until almost 2030. If the UK is losing GBP1 billion a year right now, what will that figure have risen to by that time? Is any MP likely to vote in legislation that may see job losses on that scale?
Daniel Moylan, the Mayor of London’s chief adviser on aviation, said: “Heathrow can never solve our problems and our studies show that we’re better off with a new site. The immense noise, pollution and congestion that would result from expanding an airport located in the heart of our suburbs would potentially devastate the greatest city in the world. Whereas the three potential sites for a new hub airport portray a compelling vision for the infrastructure, the economy and the international competitiveness that London and the wider UK could benefit from if we take the clear opportunities that are in front of us. A new airport would be accompanied by world-class public transport connectivity, it would have the resilience to withstand the worst the UK’s weather has to offer; and it would have the capacity to save you from being stranded in a never ending spiral of aircraft over the suburbs.”
Join the debate with the #LondonDebate hashtag on Twitter.
Read the arguments put forward by Gatwick and Heathrow here.
Comments are closed.