It’s hardly surprising given last year’s major disruption due to snow that Heathrow hit the headlines again last weekend when it announced flight cancellations even before a single flake had fallen, writes John Barrington-Carver.
A common theme in the news was that European airports with as severe or worse winter conditions hardly missed a beat compared to the 40 per cent cancellation reported in the UK media. The tabloid Sun newspaper was “disgusted” and suggested BAA, which operates Heathrow, should shut down and hibernate in periods of bad weather conditions; the Independent was more moderate and said that Heathrow’s location makes it prone to fog and snow, but claimed that, since at times every airport could be defeated by these conditions, it would not make any difference even if the airport had a third runway.
Only the Daily Mail mentioned BAA’s explanation that as the airport’s two runways operate at 99 per cent capacity even the slightest delays can cause huge problems for the precise daily schedules that dictate landings and take-offs.
Not surprisingly BAA says more capacity can address this problem. More capacity is why those three and four-runway airports in Europe so praised in the UK press can handle weather-related delays because they have the extra landing and take-off slots needed to handle delayed flights.
How many times, even in good, weather have you heard the dreaded announcement: “This is the Captain speaking; due to the delay (for whatever reason) I am afraid we have lost our slot and there will be a while before we can take off”?
Last week-end, at least by cancelling flights in advance, passengers were given sufficient warning and the possibility of being rerouted (at best) or saved hours at the airport waiting for information and a possible seat out. However, it’s not an acceptable situation that the UK’s main airport is forced to shut down or cancel flights because it cannot handle the disruption of snow or fog
Unfortunately, the lack of political will to add a third runway at Heathrow is being dictated by local considerations rather than the urgent national need to ensure the UK’s future competitiveness and safeguard current and future jobs – not just around Heathrow but in the UK as a whole.
Yes we do need high-speed trains, but for the sake of 20 minutes’ travel time saved at a cost of £17 billion, would not just £9 billion be better spent on ensuring that Heathrow remains a key international hub with connectivity to the growing markets in Asia and South America?
The Boris Island airport as an alternative to Heathrow? I don’t believe so. Even if it gets past the considerable environmental hurdles the location presents there is still the matter of funding the estimated £40 billion cost. Also by the time it got to be built, the opportunities for the national economy and for job creation will have passed by the UK. Anyway, even if a Thames Estuary site were eventually to built, Willie Walsh says BA/IAG would not move there.
Here’s a thought. Surely Northolt makes a commonsense alternative opportunity to rapidly address the runway capacity problem around London? In the post-war years until 1952 it was London’s main airport while Heathrow was being built. With its road, rail and tube access to Central London and proximity to Heathrow it would be a natural location for a third runway.
It’s 1,687 x 46 metre runway is large enough to operate Airbus 320s and Boeing 737s and might take Heathrow’s domestic and short-haul flights. Perhaps the RAF could be persuaded to share Northolt? Even better, the MOD, ever seeking savings, has just announced that it is considering the sale of Northolt.
(Image: travels of a monkey)
