15 July 2010

Our man from the Ministry questions the CoalitionÃ¢â¬â¢s aviation policy

"The Farnborough Airshow 2010 gets underway on the 19th July and the inevitable focus will be on announcements of new jet orders for Airbus and Boeing.

Coalition Government Ministers will no doubt make approving comments about the deals, take credit for them and lament the orders that were lost to overseas manufacturers.

Important as these aircraft orders are for aerospace jobs in the UK and beyond, they represent only one, albeit significant part, of aviation’s contribution to our economic prosperity and wellbeing, both now and in the future.

Philip Hammond, the new Transport Secretary, acknowledges the contribution the aviation sector makes to the economy, but saving the environment appears to be his top priority.

Lets hope he surprises us, but the signs are ominous. He advocates an aviation policy favouring competition, but the overriding objective appears to be one of ‘restraint’. An apt definition of such a policy might be ‘Killing the goose that lays the golden egg’.

British airports are a genuine success story which should be praised and encouraged. There is no shortage of willing investors.

Liverpool John Lennon Airport is one of a number of UK airports owned by the Peel Group who last month sold a 65% controlling stake for £110.5m to Vancouver Airport Services. Expansion of transatlantic routes is high on Liverpool Airport’s agenda.

Bristol Airport is fortunate too. It has already been given expansion approval, albeit subject to 70 conditions. Similarly, Southend has been given the go ahead to expand. These small developments nevertheless offer the ability to create new wealth and prosperity.

Farnborough Airport, in Hampshire, represents in microcosm the dilemma Ministers face. Despite being the UK’s premier business jet airport, Farnborough’s future development and growth prospects hang in the balance.

The outcome of the recently concluded Public Enquiry over proposals to expand operations from its runway from 28,000 to 50,000 per year is anxiously awaited. It is not alone.

The expansion of Belfast City Airport has gone to a Public Enquiry, so like Farnborough, it’s economic development and the contribution it can make to our prosperity has been placed in doubt. So too has the expansion plans of Lydd Airport in Kent, which despite being accepted, have now been called in by the Government.

Meanwhile, as our economy teeters on the brink of a double dip recession, our elected politicians have kicked any immediate action on major airport expansion into the long grass. Yet it is these crucial developments that will genuinely impact our economic prospects for generations to come.

Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted have all had to halt their expansion plans following the announcement by the Coalition Government that they would reject new runways at all three.
In place of a coherent development plan for airport capacity enabling the continued expansion of major (as opposed to minor) airport development, we have a newly formed committee, ‘the South East Airports Task Force’, to pontificate on the future direction of Government Policy, whilst witnessing from the side lines the curtailment of an industry which is undervalued and inadequately supported, in favour of a green agenda that seeks reduced air travel by all means possible including taxing it out of existence.

The UK Coalition Government is in danger of fundamentally undermining one of the great UK success stories of the 20th Century. Lord King must be turning in his grave!

Contrast the current Government’s approach with that of Russian Prime Minister Putin who very clearly and unequivocally sees the true economic benefits of airport development. He has personally just hosted a major conference on the reconstruction of Russia’s Airports.

Consider too that the Indian State of Gujarat will alone get 11 major new airports to facilitate access to pilgrimage sites and to foster tourism.

Prioritising of environmental issues above the national economic interest in the UK is a serious threat to both our short and longer term economic wellbeing. It needs to be urgently reviewed and replaced by a pro aviation and airport development strategy.

* Do you agree with our man from the Ministry? Or, do you back the new Government's aviation policy? Send us your views by clicking on Add a Comment below.

Post your comment

Your Comments (7)

Yes to balance!

Keith I'm all for balance. Have you really ever read anything serious that claims "aviation is single handedly the cause of all global warming"? Supporters of all forms of transport should rapidly scale down their emissions *ahead* of the coming wave of legislation. Shipping operators, as you rightly say, have a huge responsibility here, but they aren't the subject of the article.

By Richard Trillo, Monday, July 19, 2010
Balance required please

It seems aviation is being blamed single handedly as the cause of all global warming, why is it that no mention is ever made about the huge contribution made to this problem by shipping. I have to admit, I don't know the figures but it has been said that globally, shipping chucks out more co2 than aviation ever does! At least aircraft engine designers are working flat out on creating much cleaner aero engines and sigificant advances have aleady been made on that, is this same effort being made by the shipping industry - I think not! At least when an aircraft is not in the air, most of the time it's engines are shut down. Check out the next ship you spot in a port anywhere in the world, whether cruise ship, oil tanker, container ship etc etc, they will all be spewing out huge volumes of fumes non stop 24/7 via their massive generators, dispite the main engines probably being shut down. Let's get some balance here!

By Keith Standen, Saturday, July 17, 2010
Environment, What Environment?

They are voting with their emotions not their heart. This coalition seems to go by headline grabbing decision rather than factually assessed ones. What a pity. They ought not to cry when airlines start serving more continental European destinations at the expense of the UK market.

By richard mandunya, Friday, July 16, 2010
Richard is right

Richard Trillo is dead right; it is unfortunate that so many people in the aviation and tourism industries still have their head in the sand when it comes to the environment.

By peter stone, Thursday, July 15, 2010
Well said Richard

I couldn't disagree with this article more....

By Luke Pegna, Thursday, July 15, 2010
hear hear

No I don't agree with your man from the ministry, but I do agree with Richard Trillo. Well said!

By Sarah Loftus, Thursday, July 15, 2010
Utterly blinkered

Thank goodness environment minister Philip Hammond's top priority is "saving the environment" (if it really is, let's see. . . ). That's the environment we all live in and depend upon. It's not some park behind a fence that someone is threatening to build over. If we don't cut back on carbon emissions across the board, and globally, there's going to be no "national economic interest" to worry about. And frankly if we can't move beyond narrow national interest issues to European and global ones, then we're going to be well and truly stuffed anyway (or our children and grandchildren will be) as countries devastated by climate change become no-go areas for business and tourism and millions of migrants with nothing left to lose head north and west into Europe. Nobody is going to remember or care about "UK success stories, how many airports the State of Gujarat built or the views on the aviation industry of that brilliant thinker Vladimir Putin. I support sustainable tourism as a route to poverty-reduction, but we have to find imaginative alternatives to this insane addiction to growth and global competition that is simply going to be the end of us.

By Richard Trillo, Thursday, July 15, 2010