| Topic: | Re:Boris Island | |
| Posted by: | Michael Daley | |
| Date/Time: | 18/01/12 14:53:00 |
| The problem of LHR has always been short-term solutions- that how we got the airport in the wrong place and with limited future viability. The first question I would ask today is why did Blair insist on consultation on an estuary-located new airport not going ahead in 2002? We've lost a further decade. The case for a new airport in this location is very strong. Technically it's not that difficult (there are at least two recent examples); all major UK airports are privately owned already and the world is awash with liquidity needing an assured long-term real return- the airport would be financed without any trouble (as was the proposal back in 2002 killed by Blair). There will be no job losses- relocation yes- and indeed as the new airport would operate more runways and do so 24/7 in fact there would be many additional jobs created. During construction tens of thousands of jobs would be created too. It is true people in West London would find themselves at a modest disadvantage travel wise but no more so than East Londoners now. West London would prosper without aircraft blight not decline. Worth noting the centre of commercial gravity is going to be shifting eastwards in any event. The big benefit, and the overwhelming reason for a new airport, is competition and keeping the UK competitive relative to the EU alternatives. LHR is a very convenient near-monopoly. That's why it’s still there. I would have thought an airport operating 24/7 with say five runways and an unlimited number of operating airlines would offer the UK the prospect of significant competition- increasing customer choice and pushing fares down. It all adds up to a very good reason to stay in London, or to come here to do business. HS2 is a near term diversion- and probably won’t be built in any case. A decision there is effectively with the next government, so a go ahead on the new airport could be made without significant cost implications. Of course the continental airports will be up in arms inventing every reason under the sun why London cannot reinvent LHR. Not having a new airport here is the reason for their relative success. Finally, think of all that land at LHR. Is that 100,000 new homes or more? How many jobs come with them being built? This is a good idea for the UK with no losers (bar BAA and a couple of airlines and a few continental businesses) and should be supported. |