It is a year until the Davies Commission on airport capacity reports to an incoming government following the general election next May.
So it was hard to create much tension in a debate on the issue at the Institute of Travel and Tourism (ITT) conference last week. But the session was revealing.
Former Labour transport secretary Lord Adonis introduced it by suggesting he had moved from pessimism to optimism on the outlook for UK infrastructure.
Speaking on the day the new Terminal 2 opened at Heathrow, Adonis said: “Things are looking up. Parliament voted 10:1 for the HS2 scheme, so you might live to see it.
“T2 opened and the bags are turning up, and there is a commission to look into options for airport capacity.”
Two of the three schemes Davies is considering were not presented – Gatwick and the Heathrow Hub proposal, involving a lengthened runway to allow dual-use by aircraft landing and taking off.
Instead, Heathrow executive director Jim O’Sullivan made the (latest) case for a third runway and architect Huw Thomas of Foster and Partners argued for a Thames estuary airport.
Davies has not entirely ruled out the estuary option – giving its proponents time to submit their case – but has not included it on his shortlist. This reflects the Commission itself – a deflection of a decision.
Gatwick still got a mention. O’Sullivan said: “We don’t object to Gatwick expanding. But the UK is a global hub and the place for that hub is Heathrow.
He went on: “We don’t want to compete with Gatwick. We want to compete with Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Istanbul, Dubai. We are dealing with global customers.
“When they decide where to put their next A380, they don’t choose between Heathrow and Gatwick. They choose between the UK and China or Latin America.”
O’Sullivan confided: “We’ve had Philippines Airlines waiting five years to operate from Heathrow. The international carriers we’re trying to attract won’t come to Gatwick. They wait for slots at Heathrow.”
Opposing an estuary airport, O’Sullivan said: “Two hundred top companies have bases around Heathrow. If they have to move, they won’t necessarily move to Kent. They can go anywhere.”
Thomas dismissed that concern, suggesting an estuary airport offered “an extraordinary opportunity for the westward growth of London”.
He produced a coloured map showing the population growth rate east of London dwarfs that to the west.
This is undoubtedly true, given the development of what was formerly London’s Docklands. But by arguing Heathrow could be turned into a new population centre, he rather nullified the idea.
Thomas advocated an estuary airport on two key grounds – noise and space. He said: “There may be quieter planes [today] but my ears don’t tell me they are quieter.”
He argued: “We’re not knocking Heathrow. But should we invest £15 billion to build a third runway? What do we do when we need a fourth?” Good questions.
Yet Thomas also made three key admissions. First, he conceded: “We will be taking habitat from birds.” This is not a small matter, not just on environmental but on safety grounds.
Thomas argued thermal expansion of the oceans due to global warming means “the habitat is under threat now” and an estuary airport would bring investment to save the birds by moving them.
Leaving aside whether the birds would agree to go, does ‘We’re going to lose the habitat anyway’ really sound like a strong case?
Second, Thomas said: “We have to close Heathrow.” This would not be an issue, he suggested, because of the time it would take:
“We have to move Heathrow but 20 years is a long period in people’s lives. They will have time to take career decisions” [ie move to the Thames estuary].
Third, he argued a new airport “would be paid for by passengers”. “There will be no state aid. [But] whatever decision we make will be paid for by passengers.”
That sounds like an argument for the cheapest option, which the estuary is not.
When Adonis gave the ITT audience a choice of Heathrow, Gatwick or an estuary airport, a small majority favoured Heathrow over the estuary, and Gatwick barely had a hand raised in its favour. This probably fits the Commission’s view.
If the writing is on the wall for the Gatwick option this would explain the increasing shrillness of Gatwick press releases, the latest of which arrived on Friday. “London Gatwick ‘road and rail ready’ for second runway by 2021”, it declared.
I’m sorry, but “a train to central London every 2.5 minutes by 2019”? I don’t think so – and neither does the Gatwick PR team.
Five pages into the same release we discover it will be 2030 before “up to 24 trains per peak an hour [run] from Gatwick to London”. (You can do the maths. But can someone explain ‘per peak an hour’?)
As for road access: “The airport will be road ready for additional passengers by 2012” owing to “a comprehensive upgrade programme for the lower half of the M25 and M23, including smart motorway use.”
Remember that next time you’re crawling nose to tail on the M25.
Back in the real world, Gatwick’s biggest airline customer, easyJet, declines to endorse a second runway at the airport since it knows passengers would pay through increased fares.
However, easyJet boss Carolyn McCall has confirmed the carrier would fly from Heathrow given a third runway – which sounds like an endorsement of Gatwick’s rival.
Over at Heathrow, its biggest airline customer – and Gatwick’s second biggest – British Airways insists it won’t quit the airport for another.
The conclusion seems pretty obvious, and my money is on Davies making it. But will the next government?