Airport shutdown has raised questions over resilience. Ian Taylor reports
Iata director general Willie Walsh led widespread criticism of Heathrow after the airport shut down last Friday due to a fire at an electricity sub-station, cancelling more than 1,300 flights.
Walsh suggested “a clear planning failure by the airport”, asking: “How is critical infrastructure totally dependent on a single power source?”
In fact, Heathrow takes power from three sub-stations and has emergency generators to provide runway lighting. It closed because of the time it would take to switch and restart multiple systems, with access to Heathrow by road, rail and London Underground shut off to prevent passengers overcrowding the airport.
The blaze which began at the North Hyde sub-station close to Heathrow after 11pm on Thursday ignited 25,000 litres of cooling fluid, burning through the night and into Friday. Heathrow bosses decided to close the airport in the early hours.
Chief executive Thomas Woldbye said he was proud of the response, noting: “The situation was created outside the airport. We had to deal with the consequences.”
However, National Grid chief executive John Pettigrew insisted the network was capable of supplying power to Heathrow throughout the shutdown as the other sub-stations worked throughout, noting: “Each sub-station individually can provide enough power to Heathrow.”
That led to accusations Woldbye was trying to deflect the blame.
However, an airport spokesperson insisted: “It would not have been possible for Heathrow to operate uninterrupted. Hundreds of critical systems across the airport required to be safely powered down and safely and systematically rebooted.”
Engineers reported they had restored the power supply to Heathrow by 2pm. Heathrow was satisfied its systems were reliable and safe by 4pm, when it announced plans to reopen from around 7pm.
The fall-out was complicated by the fact that airlines are keen to see a revision of Heathrow’s charging regime and a reduction in costs, and they want this before any go-ahead for a third runway which, under the current regulatory regime, would be part financed by increased charges.
If Heathrow mishandled the situation or can be blamed for under investment in back-up systems, it can only strengthen their argument.
Airline chiefs have reason to be annoyed. They are not liable to compensate passengers for the disruption but must pick up the bill for looking after people.
Heathrow bosses will be keen to shift any blame on to the power companies, which have already indicated they will respond.
The government announced an immediate inquiry by the National Energy System Operator (NESO) reporting to energy secretary Ed Miliband and transport secretary Heidi Alexander. Neso was set up as a nationalised energy system operator separate from the privately owned National Grid last September.
The investigation is due to report its initial findings in six weeks.
The energy secretary will be keen to demonstrate the robustness of the government’s energy policy having been sidelined in the debate over Heathrow expansion which he has previously opposed.
The resilience of the power supply, on which there are growing demands, may be the biggest issue. A consultant on power grids, UK Network Services managing director Simon Gallagher, suggested that every airport in the UK had the same “vulnerability” to National Grid faults.