close
Alistair Lenczner, Useful Simple Projects

Davies sends Heathrow down development cul-de-sac in operational straightjacket

Sir Howard Davies' recommendations underline the fundamental weaknesses of Heathrow Airport as a global hub and highlights the continued absence of a longer term UK aviation strategy, says Alistair Lenczner.

It was probably no great surprise the Final Report by the Airport Commission came out in favour of a third runway at Heathrow Airport as its solution to airport capacity problems in the South East of England.

It is unfortunate that, in making its recommendations, the Commission failed to properly consider the long-term aviation needs of the country and that its recommendations could significantly compromise Heathrow’s attractiveness as an aviation hub.   

"In an age where the world economy demands increasingly round the clock facilities, making Heathrow closed for aviation for even longer than it is today has to be seen as a backwards step."

In trying to sell its clear recommendation that Heathrow should be used to solve the UK’s aviation conundrum, the Commission makes a series of caveats to try and appease those that might be affected by a larger and busier Heathrow. 

However the suggested list of conditions only serve to highlight a fundamental weaknesses of the Heathrow proposal: it can never become a 24 hour operational hub airport that can accommodate growth to the end of the century.

The Final Report includes some clear inconsistencies. For example, in trying to justify why the North West runway at Heathrow is preferred to the alternative “Extended Northern Runway” it states that the latter would allow 700,000 air traffic movements a year compared to 740,000 for the North West option. The Report points out that this 5.7% difference would mean “reduced economic benefits and a smaller route network at the airport”. 

Meanwhile the Commission proposes an extended night curfew at Heathrow that would mean that the operational hours each day would be reduced by some two hours. Although the resulting reduction in operational hours would mean about double the loss in daily aircraft movements that the rejected Extended Northern Runway would mean, the Commission seems happy the accept the loss of economic benefits on the basis that “night flights are very unpopular with local residents”.  

"Looking to the longer term, the Commission seems to stick its neck in the sand with regard to future proofing the UK’s aviation infrastructure for growth beyond 2050."

In trying to explain how the proposed extension of the night curfew until 6.00am would be accommodated,  the Report suggests that airlines would “re-time very early morning arrivals” to suit.

For airlines operating long-haul flights into London, no longer being able to land at Heathrow before 6am as they currently can (e.g the BA 026 flight from Hong Kong has a current scheduled landing time at 4.45am) would represent a significant additional constraint on flight schedules and would mean less choice for travelling passengers. 

Air freight also represents an important part of the aviation business. By imposing an extended night curfew at Heathrow, the airport will become less viable for air freight logistics operators where being able to move goods at night plays a valuable part in making an airport competitive. 

In an age where the world economy demands increasingly round the clock facilities, making Heathrow closed for aviation for even longer than it is today has to be seen as a backwards step.  

"If the Airport Commission hadn’t prematurely eliminated more visionary airport proposals, we might not have ended up with a Heathrow option that sends it into a development cul-de-sac wearing a tighter operational straight jacket."

Looking to the longer term, the Commission seems to stick its neck in the sand with regard to future proofing the UK’s aviation infrastructure for growth beyond 2050. 

Instead of stating how their recommended proposals would cater for likely long-term growth, the Commission suggests that a “fourth runway at Heathrow, that should be ruled out by government through legislation firmly and finally”. 

Apart from this seeming like wishful thinking, the Commission is effectively suggesting that we pour tens of billions of pounds into something that has no long-term value for future generations.         

If the Airport Commission hadn’t prematurely eliminated more visionary airport proposals, we might not have ended up with a Heathrow option that sends it into a development cul-de-sac wearing a tighter operational straight jacket.  

With Heathrow’s numerous problematic chickens now likely to come home to roost, perhaps we can expect more to see the virtues of an Inner Thames Estuary Airport. 

 

Alistair Lenczner is director of Infrastructure, Planning and Design at Useful Simple Projects