The Challenges and Impacts of Airport Expansion: A Critical Analysis

The provided content consists of academic articles and online resources that discuss various aspects of airport management, including runway slots, emerging aviation trends, airline and railway integration, commercial revenues, transformative political campaigns, and environmental impacts. The resources also touch on regulatory issues related to airport expansion, competition, and public health concerns. Additionally, there are news articles discussing the proposed Heathrow Airport expansion in London, highlighting nine key points and the challenges faced by airlines.

LONDON AIRPORT EXPANSION:
HEATHROW VS GATWICK

LITERATURE REVIEW
Changes in UK's aviation industry can allow the sector to continue to respond to these trends
and this can also change UK's policy obligations. Aviation industry accounts for less than 7% of
UK's overall carbon dioxide emission and air travel has an extremely high carbon cost as compared
to other sources. A prospering aviation sector is important to UK's residents and businesses and
about half of the population travel by air in last many years. The majority of flights are taken to visit
friends and family who live far away from the family (Griggs and Howarth, 2004). However, a few
people visit to different places for holiday and other purposes. Hence, it is evident that the leisure
travel is not only critical to aviation market but also it is significant for the entire economy of UK.
Aviation sector generates around £12 billion of economic output in the year 2014 and it employed
more than 116,000 workers for the same industry. It also provides a valuable source of government
revenue through collection of air passage duty and this consistently increases the revenue of
industry. But certain problems have been started due to effects of constrained airport capacity in
London (Jarach, 2001).
For many years, Heathrow is full and Gatwick is operating at more than 85% of its capacity.
Thus, it remains full at peak times. Therefore, this makes it more difficult for the airlines to operate
efficiently. On the other hand, long haul carriers are more reliant on the high volumes of demand
and this can only be achieved at the country's biggest airports. As a result, it creates high fares and
reduces the connectivity aspects. Increasing delays, cancellations and unreliability causes frustration
among customers. Thus, it has a direct economic impact on the airline and on the passengers.
Ultimately, it changes the productivity aspects of UK (Janic, 2004). Airport capacity constraints
affect the extent to which airlines can serve demand and this is also a significant barrier to entry for
new players. Hence, it can put pressure on the level of fares in the long haul market. Another crucial
consequence is the decline of domestic services from other areas of UK and this is an issue at
Heathrow where domestic destinations are getting priced out by more lucrative long haul routes.
There must be expansion in context to airport at London for more development and sustainability.
In the year 2013, UK Commission invited proposal to augment the UK's aviation capacity
where more than 50 options were accessed in detail and three schemes have been identified
properly by proper short listing (Howarth and Griggs, 2013). Several projects were accessed during
that period and a few were taken forward for further development and expansion purposes. The
commission also carried out detailed studies of the proposal for a new hub airport in the inner
Thames Estuary. The commission also determined five scenarios about the development of aviation
sector and all five aspects are carbon capped and carbon traded forecasts of future aviation demand.
2

This includes assessment of need where future demand is primarily determined by the central
projections for economic growth. Further, it includes global growth which sees higher global
growth in demand for air travel in the future (Forsyth, 2007). This is a combination of lower airline
operating costs. Relative decline of Europe includes growth of passenger demand in emerging
economies. Another segment is low cost where low cost carriers strengthen their position in the
short haul market. This is expected to capture a substantial share of the long haul market. Last
considerable aspect is global fragmentation in which protectionist policies are included which
seems decline in passenger's demand in all world regions.
Heathrow Airport plays a central role in maintaining London aviation market position as it is
the largest and most valuable in the world. It provides more than 70% of UK's long haul flights and
also carries more freight by value than all the UK's other airports combined. Providing new capacity
to the airport would support trade and it can also enhance the productivity (Givoni and Banister,
2006). Along with the same, it can cluster around the airport and thus, the overall economy can
experience long term growth. Heathrow expansion is seen as the best short term option to keep
Britain’s competitiveness with other European rivalries such as Amsterdam Schiphol and Paris
Charles de Gaulle. The subsequent airport is a bid employer; hence, it has direct effect on
businesses in the same country. The money to build new runway will be raised privately; hence, by
considering this aspect, the UK government has postponed its decision over the expansion of airport
capacity. It was supposed to decide by the end of 2015 and government thought to build a third
runway at Heathrow Airport to the west of London (Starkie, 2001). The government also decided to
build a second runway at Gatwick Airport to the south, apparently due to additional need of airport.
Demand for flights is expected to double by 2050 and according to a recent survey
conducted by the Confederation of British Industry with AECOM; nearly half of UK businesses
think that air transport is linked to their increasingly important emerging market trade partners. The
vast majority of UK businesses regarding expansion of airport capacity in UK's crowded South East
are essential because major number of clients is experiencing problems due to inadequate provision.
The airport commission was established by the Department of Transport in the year 2012 with the
mandate to set out the way in which UK can maintain its status as an international hub for aviation.
Most of the economists articulated that London needs to have an additional airport so as to secure
the country's status as a major economic power (Carruthers and et.al, 2011). Heathrow has
overtaken as the world's busiest airport, Dubai International and during that period, Gatwick and
Heathrow hosted more than 100 million travelers last year. Furthermore, airport expansion has been
a thorny issue since 1970's when the first Airport Commission's proposal for a new airport to the
north- east of capital was rejected by the conservative government. A new third runway at Heathrow
3

is the most expensive option and it might cost around £18.6 billion.
The independent Heathrow Hub's plan is to extend the existing northern runway; however
this can affect the overall budgeting aspects of the economy. Gatwick is thought to have suffered
most from the revaluation and this might also keep the cost on lower value. However, on the other
hand it can be said that Heathrow's expansion project will affect more than a million people due to
aircraft noise if the airport allows expansion in recent years. There is also the issue of pollution
which could increase in the coming years; hence the project might be opposed by many of the
project managers (Humphreys and Francis, 2002). Heathrow is said to offer the best prospects in
terms of bringing new jobs for local people and economic growth for the region. From the
viewpoint of several economics, it is apparent that there must be expansion of London airport so
that people can get the opportunity to travel from any place anywhere they want. At the same time,
expansion in the airport can augment the ratio of pollution as that would emit toxic carbon in the
environment. Business leaders broadly favor this by quoting that Heathrow can augment global
status of the airport while on the other hand, several other parties have articulated that the project
might consume huge financial resources.
Gatwick is the world's busiest single runaway airport; therefore the same should be
expanded for consumer convenience. This must include all routes so that all the major destinations
can be covered. Outside London, cities and regions across the UK would also acquire benefit from
access to the enhanced connectivity secured through expansion at Heathrow. Closest to the same
airport, the Thames Valley economy is a thriving agglomeration with specialism’s in information
technology and other financial services (Graham, 2009). Expansion will enhance the region's
international connectivity and it can also help to maintain the pattern of success. Access to
international connectivity will also be important in supporting regional economic growth and that
should include Government's evolving policy so as to create a Northern Powerhouse. International
connection of the country will enhance; hence it can create space at the airport for increased
frequencies and new links. During that time, Public Service Obligation could be used to support a
wide network of domestic routes at Heathrow. Hence, from the discussion, it is clear that the
expansion could generate positive results for the overall economy (Heathrow Airport expansion:
Nine things you need to know. 2015).
Protecting the local environment and communities is vital because aviation industry creates
pollution (noise, air and environmental pollution); hence the aviation industry is bound to consider
well being and health aspects of people (Walker, 2010). Thus, it can be said that over the coming
decades, the noise impacts of Heathrow can reduce because of the involvement of quieter aircraft
come into the service. These aircraft and flight paths are redesigned and improved; therefore it
4

might reduce the degree of pollution related issues. With the help of this expansion, the overall
number of flights would grow; but new approach and departure paths could enable the noise
impacts to be dispersed widely and as a result, this can decline impacts on individual community.
The aviation industry can ensure that the noise coming from the airport is minimum and it would
not cross the current levels. Additionally, expansion aspect would eliminate arrivals in the early
morning because that probably disturbs the community. Hence, that schedule can be changed. In
order to ensure appropriate results, a noise envelope should be created where by local priorities and
incentivizes effective measures can be mitigate the impacts arising from noise pollution (Tether and
Metcalfe, 2003). The expanded airport should also provide a level of funding for compensation and
noise insulation.
It has been observed that Gatwick's expansion have affected more people because of noise
pollution and its overall impacts. However, the impacts are still less as compared to the effects of
Heathrow. The number of people affected from the pollution has increased after the year 2010.
Hence, this depicts that Gatwick's can experience more issues related to effects of tranquility. Air
quality in UK has been improved over recent decades and these improvements are expected to be
continued in future as well. Even afterwards with the additional runway capacity in place, air
quality receptors around Heathrow would have implications for human health such as on schools,
residential buildings (Debbage, 2002). Hence, Heathrow expansion presents air quality challenge;
however in relation to the achievement of EU, air quality targets on Bath Road close to the airport's
northern perimeter. Any new provision related to the airport capacity should only be released when
it is specified that air quality around the airport will not delay compliance with EU limits. Thus, for
such purpose effective mitigation and compensation is required so as to address the impacts of
expansion on local villages and communities (Postponing the London Airport Expansion Decision
Was a Bad Idea. 2015).
The number of homes lost for either Heathrow scheme would be higher than required for a
second runway at Gatwick. Both the airports are expected to provide minimum compensation
requirements by offering property owners full market potential along with reasonable costs. Each
and every scheme might be impacting the facilities and heritage assets of the community and along
with the same it can create more environmental challenge (Starkie, 2002). On the basis of the
Commission's conclusion it can be said that environment impacts the expansion of Heathrow;
therefore prior starting the project it needs to be assured that it is not affecting the interest of local
community and society. Further, the commission's view is that with an effective package of
mitigation and compensation in expansion aspects at Heathrow can offer a solution to UK's aviation
capacity and connectivity. Important difference between the two shortlisted expansions at Heathrow
5

is that both have consumed different cost factors. The estimated costs is roughly around £3 billion
lower than those of the Northwest Runway option and this has also reduced the financial risk
concerned with the scheme (Stettler, Eastham and Barrett, 2011). Moreover, it would require the
loss of 243 homes as compared to 783 homes for the Northwest Runway option. Its impacts impact
has been seen on the community facilities like on schools and health centers. While these
advantages are valuable; there must be offset against a larger number of important areas so that to
extend the scheme performance (Heathrow expansion: no political will to build third runway, says
IAG boss. 2015).
It is very much significant to assure that that expansion at Heathrow delivers benefits to all
the nations and regions of the UK, as through that only, the expansion purpose can be fulfilled. A
new northwest runway is likely to protect domestic services in London so as to augment number
ODF passengers and this can also increase frequency of services on the thickest routes. However,
various things can be done to facilitate connections from the airports to an increased number of
domestic destinations (Boon and et.al, 2008). For the same purpose, the commission recommends
that the government should transform its guidance to allow the introduction of Public Service
Obligation on an airport to airport basis. This should be allowed to use to spread network of
domestic routes at the expanded airport. Therefore, HAL should implement additional measures to
enhance domestic connectivity and that should include reduced charges and start up funding aspects
for regional services. The primary responsibility for delivering the new runway at Heathrow is
expected to lie with the private sector scheme promoter. Nevertheless, a number of processes can be
added in the same aspect and where in central government and other bodies have to play vital role
for enabling this project. All the involved parties in the expansion project of airport have to manage
clear roles and responsibilities and that might be appropriate for setting up the Joint Oversight
Board (Starkie, 2012).
It has been identified that, the airport commission recommended that the proposal for a new
northwest runway in regards to Heathrow airport consist of significant package of compensation
and mitigation measures is been considered as the most strongest option for expanding the UK’s
aviation capacity (Airport expansion: What happens next. 2015). The view has been reached to a
comprehensive and integrated assessment which incorporates wide range of future outcomes in
order to manage and maintain carbon emission from the aviation industry. But the government body
or airport commission is in favor of Heathrow expansion because it would be feasible in terms of
both commercially as well as will be able to deliver improved reliability and resilience and
enhanced competition in the London Airport system (Airport expansion in London. 2015).
Considering these facts it is illustrated that, expansion at Heathrow Airport will assist in
6

providing a unique opportunity to change the way in which airport operates and it should enhance
the level of experience that visitors and customer will attain after acquiring attractive and innovative
services. In doing so, Airport Commission recommends various measures such as: A clear noise
envelope which was later accepted by various authors in their study as by the major turn over in the
noise pollution at Heathrow airport. Along with this, runway would help in predicting more
reliability and feasibility for the safety of customers and staff members (Heathrow Airport
expansion: Nine things you need to know. 2015). Lastly, Heathrow Airport Ltd (HAL) offered to
compensate to those who would lose their homes at full unlighted market value plus an additional
25% reasonable costs. In addition to this, government of UK will introduce a noise charge at major
UK airports so that they can ensure that airport users pay more to compensate local communities.
Moreover to this, independent aviation noise authority described below should advice on the design
of the charge and local people should be able to see clearly how funds are used (Heathrow
expansion: no political will to build third runway, says IAG boss. 2015).
Concluding, it can be said that a stable and predictable economic regulatory environment
will be vital as that ensure the most efficient financing arrangement for the scheme. Under current
market conditions, supportive measures from the government (likewise guarantee provision) are
must to include. Expansion will have impacts on the airport boundary and the government should
consider another dedicated body to ensure the efficient delivery of a project of this technical and
political complexity. Apart from this, government of UK has to agree the nature, scale and financing
aspects which are associated with expansion. This can also assist in acquiring funding contribution
from Heathrow Airport Ltd. Thus, from the discussion, it is evident that the delivery of new runway
would require substantial changes to London's airspace structure.
7

References
Boon, B. and et.al., 2008. The economics of Heathrow expansion. CE, Delft.
Carruthers, D. and et.al., 2011. Developments in ADMS-Airport to take account of near field
dispersion and applications to Heathrow Airport. International Journal of Environment and
Pollution. 44(1-4). pp.332-341.
Debbage, K. G., 2002. Airport runway slots: Limits to growth. Annals of Tourism Research, 29(4).
pp.933-951.
Forsyth, P., 2007. The impacts of emerging aviation trends on airport infrastructure. Journal of Air
Transport Management. 13(1). pp.45-52.
Givoni, M. and Banister, D., 2006. Airline and railway integration. Transport policy, 13(5). pp.386-
397.
Graham, A., 2009. How important are commercial revenues to today's airports?. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 15(3). pp.106-111.
Griggs, S. and Howarth, D., 2004. A transformative political campaign? The new rhetoric of protest
against airport expansion in the UK. Journal of Political Ideologies. 9(2). pp.181-201.
Howarth, D. and Griggs, S., 2013. The politics of airport expansion in the United Kingdom:
hegemony, policy and the rhetoric of'sustainable aviation'. Manchester University Press.
Humphreys, I. and Francis, G., 2002. Performance measurement: a review of airports. International
Journal of Transport Management, 1(2). pp.79-85.
Janic, M., 2004. Expansion of airport capacity at London Heathrow Airport.Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. pp.7-14.
Jarach, D., 2001. The evolution of airport management practices: towards a multi-point, multi-
service, marketing-driven firm. Journal of air transport management. 7(2). pp.119-125.
Starkie, D., 2001. Reforming UK airport regulation. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy.
pp.119-135.
Starkie, D., 2002. Airport regulation and competition. Journal of Air Transport Management, 8(1).
pp.63-72.
Starkie, D., 2012. European airports and airlines: Evolving relationships and the regulatory
implications. Journal of Air Transport Management, 21. pp.40-49.
Stettler, M. E. J., Eastham, S. and Barrett, S. R. H., 2011. Air quality and public health impacts of
UK airports. Part I: Emissions. Atmospheric Environment, 45(31). pp.5415-5424.
Tether, B. S. and Metcalfe, J. S., 2003. Horndal at Heathrow? Capacity creation through co‐
operation and system evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(3). pp.437-476.
Walker, G., 2010. Environmental justice, impact assessment and the politics of knowledge: The
implications of assessing the social distribution of environmental outcomes. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 30(5). pp.312-318.
Online
Airport expansion: What happens next. 2015. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-19570653>. [Accessed on 16th December 2015].
Postponing The London Airport Expansion Decision Was A Bad Idea. 2015. [Online]. Available
through: <http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2015/12/11/the-uk-governments-
decision-to-delay-airport-expansion-choice-is-a-mistake/>. [Accessed on 16th December
2015].
Airport expansion in London. 2015. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2015/08/airport-expansion-london/>. [Accessed
on 16th December 2015].
Heathrow Airport expansion: Nine things you need to know. 2015. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/heathrow-airport-expansion-nine-things-
you-need-to-know-10359040.html/>. [Accessed on 16th December 2015].
8

Heathrow expansion: no political will to build third runway, says IAG boss. 2015. [Online].
Available through: <http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/10/heathrow-airport-
expansion-build-third-runway-iag-willie-walsh/>. [Accessed on 16th December 2015].
9