National embarrassment. Two words which have haunted Heathrow executives ever since the botched opening of Terminal 5 in 2008.
Few will forget that farcical day when what was supposed to be a celebration of private sector investment descended into chaos, with cancelled flights and delays in passengers recovering their baggage, all painfully played out in front of the world’s media.
It was a textbook lesson in how not to handle the launch of a major infrastructure project and Heathrow’s management, soon to be taken over by John Holland-Kaye, will be going to great lengths to ensure there is no repeat performance when the airport’s latest project, the new £2.5bn Terminal 2 building, opens on June 4.
Why should we care about a new terminal building? Aside from all of the consumer arguments about how it is intended to make air travel a less stressful experience, the opening of the “Queen’s Terminal” is symbolic for several reasons.
First of all, it replaces Heathrow’s first ever terminal, which was opened by a young Queen Elizabeth in 1955, back when Heathrow was called London Airport. The facility was considered state-of-the-art at the time, with roof gardens and a cinema, and represented a major step forward in Britain’s development as a global aviation powerhouse. When London Airport was opened to commercial passengers in 1946, those who could afford air travel were forced to wait in tents which were later replaced by prefabricated buildings. Hardly the lap of luxury.
Back in 1955, the Europa Building, which was later re-named Terminal 2, catered for 82,840 passengers a year. The new Queen’s Terminal has been built with a maximum capacity of 20m passengers in mind and will become the home of the Star Alliance group of airlines, which include Lufthansa and United but also carriers which connect Britain to emerging markets, such as Air China and Turkish Airlines.
This leads on to the main reason why we should be celebrating the opening of the new Terminal 2. Moving a bunch of airlines in the same alliance under one roof may sound administrative and dull but it will improve Heathrow’s competitiveness. The West London airport will become a more attractive place for passengers flying with Star Alliance carriers to connect to another flight. Connection times will be quicker – or so we are promised – and the hope is that Star Alliance members will increase the number of passengers transferring through Heathrow rather than at rival airports abroad.
Transfer passengers hardly sound exciting but they are playing a key part in the debate over where to build the next runway in the south east of England, which is entering a critical phase. They are at the heart of Heathrow’s campaign for a third runway. And, for that matter, they are also central to Boris Johnson’s argument for a new hub airport in the Thames Estuary, to the east of London. Both argue that hub airports, where airlines use transfer passengers to fill flights that wouldn’t be viable if they relied on local demand alone, improve Britain’s connectivity, particularly to emerging markets, which are of increasing importance to UK exporters.
Rival Gatwick, which is competing against Heathrow for an additional runway, down plays the importance of transfer traffic. Its chief executive, Stewart Wingate, points out that Europe is, and will continue to be, the UK’s biggest trading partner and therefore the greatest need in future will be for connections to the continent both for business and leisure purposes.
There is no argument that connections to mainland Europe are, and always will be, of vital importance to the UK economy but you only have to look at what is happening abroad to understand the value of transfer traffic.
As Heathrow busily prepares the Luis Vidal-designed Queen’s Terminal for its grand opening, over in Qatar’s capital Doha, officials will today be cutting the ribbon on Hamad International Airport, which has been billed as “the world’s newest state-of-the-art hub”.
The $15bn (£9bn) hub will replace the country’s current principal airport, Doha International, which will be phased out after the national carrier, Qatar Airways, moves its operations over to Hamad today.
Capable, eventually, of handling 50 million passengers a year, Hamad International is unashamedly targeting transfer traffic. With a relatively small domestic market, Qatar’s aviation industry is built on international passengers using Doha as a transfer and stopover destination. Some 85% of passengers passing through the old airport were on transfer and Hamad has been designed with these passengers in mind, with spacious lounges and facilities including a swimming pool and squash courts to help weary travellers pass away the time before their next flight.
The pursuit of transfer travellers has already paid off for nearby Dubai, which overtook Heathrow in the first three months of this year as the world’s busiest airport for international passengers. It was a moment airline chiefs such as Willie Walsh, the head of British Airways’ parent company, had long warned would arrive, as the Gulf countries poured investment into their airport infrastructure while politicians in this country dithered over runway expansion. It’s not only happening in the Gulf states either. Turkish Airlines is undergoing rapid expansion and in so doing is turning Istanbul into a major hub. And few will forget Amsterdam Schiphol’s cheeky advertising campaign in 2012, when it brazenly advertised one of its five main air strips as “Heathrow’s third runway”.
Last month, Sir Tim Clark, the president of Emirates airline, put the success of Dubai International Airport, down to “progressive” economic and infrastructure policies. Those words should be ringing in the ears of politicians in this country next week.
Following 50 years of inertia, the Coalition successfully delayed any decision over where to build the next runway in the south east of England by setting up the Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies. Despite initial frustrations among those in the aviation industry at having to engage in yet another inquiry over airport expansion, Sir Howard has been widely praised so far for the way he is handling the political hot potato he was passed.
The former Financial Services Authority chairman will make his final recommendations after the General Election but already there are concerns over whether politicians will uphold their side of the bargain. The Government has been woefully slow at responding to the Airports Commission’s interim recommendations – measures to make the most of existing capacity which were published in December. If it takes more than five months to respond to an interim report, what will happen when the really contentious work begins and politicians will be asked to back a runway location with which they may not agree?
Next week’s opening of the new Heathrow T2 will be a celebration of how far Britain’s aviation industry has come since December 16 1955, when Her Majesty inaugurated the airport’s first terminal. But it will be a stark reminder of the political dilly-dallying which is now causing Britain to lose its aviation crown.
.
.
.
Heathrow chairman, Sir Nigel Rudd, hushes hubbub over 24/7 airport comment by Heathrow board member
A Heathrow Airport Board member, Akbar Al Baker, recently said Heathrow should have 24 hour flights, planes should be allowed to fly all night, and that Brits make an “excessive” fuss about aircraft noise. This has hugely embarrassed Heathrow, which has been trying hard to claim a 50% increase in flights will result in less noise … square that one. Now, in response to the awkward and off-message remarks by Al Baker, Sir Nigel Rudd, chairman of Heathrow, said: “Mr Al-Baker’s views are his own and do not represent the views or policy of the Heathrow board or executive committee. We recognise that adding the flights Britain needs for growth must come hand in hand with reducing aircraft noise for residents. Round the clock flying from London is not an option. We take the concerns of local communities very seriously and have never argued for 24-hour flying.” Anti expansion campaigners were highly critical of the airport, and its need to urgently rush out reassuring comments due to the embarrassment caused by Mr Al-Baker putting his foot in it. Question is why Mr Al Baker was not aware that this, though revealing, was not a helpful or acceptable comment to make, from Heathrow’s point of view.
Click here to view full story…
Heathrow Airport Board member, Akbar Al Baker, says Heathrow should have 24 hour flights
One of the Board members of Heathrow Airport is Akbar Al Baker, who is the CEO of Qatar Airways and led the development of the new Doha airport. He is on the Board because Qatar Holdings bought a 20% stake in Heathrow in 2012. He has caused a storm of protest after claiming, with stunning insensitivity and demonstating a woeful lack of understanding of British democracy, that Heathrow should have 24 hour flights – ignoring the well-being of those overflown. The benefit would be that his companies would be more profitable. Akbar Al Baker said Britons make an “excessive” fuss about noise levels from aircraft flying over their homes” and home owners living under flight paths “wouldn’t even hear the aircraft” after a while.” He appears not to understand that in Europe, unpopular and damaging major developments cannot just be steamrollered through, as they perhaps can be in the Gulf States. Mr Al Baker thinks European airports should open 24 hours a day if they want to compete with the emerging Gulf hubs in Dubai and Doha. Though rapidly denied by Heathrow, which distanced itself from Mr Al Baker’s comments, it is indicative of a way of thought which people may fear is prevalent on the Heathrow board.
.
I have yet to be convinced of the benefit of having a transfer airport on British soil. No doubt it makes money for someone, and a lot jobs depend on it. But I could say the same thing about, say, the Common Agricultural Policy. The costs which such an airport imposes on society as a whole far outweigh these narrow advantages.
If the Dutch really want to pollute their crowded skies, if the French are determined to whisk foreigners from one aircraft to another, in the hope that they will buy overpriced goods in the airport on their way, let them do so; just because other people do it is no reason for us to compete.
.
.
Surely Dubai is successful because of its geographical location. It collects flights from all over Australasia and they fan out to destinations all over Europe. Flights from Australia can’t make Heathrow non stop, they have to refuel and Dubai is a convenient place. So you can’t really compare Dubai and Heathrow.
.
.
Once again the DT acts as a shill for Wee Willie Walsh and his ilk. An increase in transfer passengers has virtually no impact on GDP (they are, after all, only changing planes) but imposes enormous burdens in the form of noise pollution on all those who live on the West side of London.
.
.
It makes routes that would otherwise be unviable viable – and so makes business easier and smoother and therefore increases overall GDP.
.
.
Yep and if Heathrow are allowed to expand, road works and flight delays for years will cripple the economy ! To overload an overloaded airport ?
.
.
.