The expansion of Heathrow is based on the rationale that we need a hub airport which is debatable as I'm not sure how much wealth is generated for the UK by having passengers change plane at Heathrow compared with those who are here to work, do business or visit on leisure. Transfer passengers make up over 1/3 of all passengers at Heathrow. If the lack of destinations is proving a hindrance to economic growth then I personally believe a punitive tax should be imposed on transfers through Heathrow and free up a third of capacity for new destinations.

However, assuming that a case for a hub airport can be justified, the Northolt option is a far poorer option operationally than a new runway at Heathrow as its like adding a extra bathroom to your house by building one in the shed that you already have at the bottom of your garden rather than building a new extension to attic, back or side of he house.

As for Heathrow itself, its questionable that it is a viable hub in the medium to long term. There is just no scope for further expansion beyond a third short runway, so we really should be investing in a site that has. The fact that Northolt is being considered is just a sign of desparation. I think connecting Northolt via a high speed link its an innovative idea but the practicality of making it work operationally and the fact its hemmed in by residential areas makes it happening a remote possibility. Of the existing airports only Stansted has the land for a 4 runway airport that will be capable of future expansion. Its far enough out of London to have flight paths that effect a relatively small number of people compared to the others.

The future of the Hub model is also questionable with Airbus and Boeing bringing out the A350 and 787 which are designed to enable airlines to offer more point to point services and the fact that regional airports these days already offer a wide and growing range of international destination.

Email