Delay and Diversions Needed

Written by Andrew Duff MEP and published in Hertfordshire (Herts) Mercury on Mon 5th Aug 2002

After being promised so much for so long it would be churlish not to welcome the publication of the government's statement on the future of airports in the South East. But what a bundle of half-truths and clichés it is!

The worst is: "Doing nothing is not an option". Why not? Governments are very good at doing nothing, and inertia might well be the very best policy at the moment as far as the future of air travel is concerned. There are several unknown factors about. Europe is in the middle of a period of radical restructuring of its airlines: others will follow where Swissair and Sabena have already gone. The dispute between the European Union and the USA over the opening up of the transatlantic skies to competition is far from settled. The impact of 11 September is still distorting trends. At Stansted, for example, whereas 13 million passengers were anticipated in the last twelve months, only 9 million have turned up.

Of course the British Airports Authority can put pressure on ministers to enhance its commercial prospects. But somebody should ask why it has to be airports in the South East of England that must always meet a forecast increased demand for air travel, especially when that demand is fuelled by tax breaks and public subsidies. What would happen to these wishful forecasts if the EU managed to impose a duty on air fuel? How will the planned expansion of nearby airports at Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Brussels and Paris affect demand in England? Is it really in the essential national interest that American tourists should fly in transit via Heathrow rather than Charles de Gaulle? Why should airline preferences to fly to the South East be respected when national regional development policy is to cool the over-heating of the region in favour of the North of England?

The truth is that neither the government's airports policy nor the cut-throat behaviour of the airlines - spot the difference! - meets the ecological principle that the polluter must pay. I frankly doubt that the latest proposals will pass the European Union's strict criteria for environmental impact assessment. Nobody can convince me that it is sustainable to fly anywhere for the sort of ticket prices that are now on offer by Easyjet, Ryanair, Go and Buzz - especially when most of those passengers are bussed for hundreds of miles to reach Stansted in the first place.

The suggestion of Cliffe, in the fragile Thames estuary, as the site for a sixth London airport (remember City and Luton) is clearly a blind for the choice of Stansted, where Mr John Prescott wants to build three more runways as well as an extra new 20,000 houses.

I am very much in favour of Stansted developing its potential as a first class international airport for the East of England. But this is not what the government is proposing. More delay and diversion is needed before we get our strategy for air travel right.