Heathrow telling Davies Commission it only needs a 3rd, not a 4th, extra runway. But won’t pay noise compensation.

The Times reports that Heathrow will tell the Davies Commission that it can remain as the world’s premier international passenger hub by building a third, but does not need a fourth, runway.  It is also saying that if it is allowed another runway, it will not pay for “noise compensation” for the extra numbers affected by aircraft noise. The Davies Commission  has already raised this issue, as one that needs to be addressed if thousands more households are to be affected by noise. The Commission has said that it will look at noise compensation programmes at other airports. Heathrow says job creation and the boost for the neighbouring economy from expanded Heathrow is more important than direct noise compensation for Londoners.  Heathrow continues to lobby to persuade opinion formers that Britain will lose tens of billions of pounds in trade if it does not have a massive hub, even larger than Heathrow now.  With even more tens of millions of international passengers each year.


  • Monday, November 26  (Times)

Heathrow ‘needs just one more runway to be international hub’

Heathrow has begun a lobbying campaign arguing that Britain will lose tens of billions of pounds in trade if it fails to allow investment in a so-called hub airport

by Robert Lea Industrial Editor


A spokesman said: “If the Government decides there should be expansion of airport capacity then we’d expect a fresh look at what can be done to mitigate the effects of expansion.”


So, what is a hub airport?

In short, it is an airport designed to attract incoming passengers who need to transfer to another flight to get to a destination not served by their own local airport. Typically, that might be regional passengers from, say, Edinburgh, who might need to a transfer to a flight to, say, China

If a hub is serving the international passenger market, surely it doesn’t need to be in the UK?

Right. Amsterdam’s Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle outside Paris and Frankfurt all fulfil the same function. Your China-bound denizen of Edinburgh could easily fly to one of those to make their transfer

Why, then, are we hung up on having a hub?

Because hubs bring trade. More London-based people would be able to go to more destinations, and vice versa. The alternatives of letting Amsterdam, Paris and Frankfurt be Europe’s international hubs is that all that trade will go to those countries

Why don’t we utilise Gatwick and Stansted as secondary hubs?

Because the point of a hub is that you can get from one flight to another quickly, at one airport

Article in the Times at http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/transport/article3611415.ece




See also an interesting article in the Times on infrastructure spending:

Philip Lachowycz: Viewpoint