Articles
If reports in the national press are to be believed, the government is set to make a controversial U-turn on plans for the expansion of Heathrow airport, with construction of a third runway on the table once again. The dogged persistence of the third-runway controversy highlights the fact that, in recent years, no political party has had the courage to deal with the thorny issue of the chronic lack of capacity at our major aviation hub.
The figures speak for themselves. Heathrow is currently operating at 99% capacity, meaning that any increase in the number of flights to nations with rapidly expanding economies such as Brazil, Russia, India and China can only be accommodated if other flights are removed from the existing schedules. The alternative solution for airlines would be to locate these services at rival hubs such as Paris and Frankfurt, reducing London’s role as an international city of business.
Also, with capacity so close to being exhausted, there is little room for manoeuvre. That means the merest threat of bad weather can cause operational chaos and passenger delay.
But is Heathrow necessarily the right place for large-scale expansion of aviation capacity? Critics would argue that the airport is already extremely difficult to get to from many parts of the country, suffering as it does from poor rail links and being located next to some of the most congested stretches of motorways. There is a strong argument that adding more runways with more planes and passengers to the mix could act to make Heathrow even more of a nightmare to get to, damaging Britain’s international reputation rather than enhancing it.
But what other options are there? Well, one idea is to build a completely new airport at a site in the Thames estuary. But the so-called Maplin Sands plan is more than 40 years old and is now 30 years too late. The idea of building an airport away from heavily populated areas, so reducing environmental impact, would seem to have a lot of mileage. But that point also acts as one of its main detractors: the location of the proposed Thames estuary airport is surely on the wrong side of London for most of the population and would require huge investment in high-speed rail links to make it accessible.
Also, what about regional considerations? Another airport in the South East would surely act to further unbalance our national economy and put even greater strain on an already overpopulated region.
No wonder successive governments have dragged their heels on the issue of airport capacity – there simply aren’t any easy answers.
And it doesn’t help that the debate around airport capacity involves so many groups with highly vested interests. Pro-aviation bodies are well-funded and employ slick public relations and lobbying firms, while anti-aviation groups often come armed with an over-simplistic mindset that fails to deal with the issues at hand. It’s hard to take anyone at face value.
That’s why it’s good to get technically literate people like engineers involved in this area of contentious debate – see our 8 Questions survey.
The decisions made now on airport capacity and location will affect many generations to come. It’s therefore essential that we get it right.
- Ready to take on a new engineering role in aviation? Give your career a helping hand and visit our engineering jobs board www.topengineeringjobs.com.