SSE NEWS ARCHIVE - July to September 2003

City - BUSINESS FOCUS – BAA's Clasper is in no mood to split with a White Paper in the offing, while critics are calling for BAA's break-up. But, as Edward Simpkins finds out, its new head has no time for such 'carping'.

If Mike Clasper, the new chief executive of BAA, tried to appear any more laid back about the manifold critics of the airports operator, he'd fall off his chair. The carping is, he says, entirely unfounded and much of it comes from those with their own vested interests.

When it was privatised 17 years ago BAA was handed Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports along with the three big Scottish airports, giving it a virtual monopoly on air traffic in and out of the UK.

Predictably, since BAA has made a mint out of its de facto monopoly, Clasper is dismissive of calls from airlines and the House of Commons Transport Committee for BAA to be broken up. He rejects the committee's claim that the shortage of runway capacity in the South East is largely the result of BAA's dominance.

The article speculates that a number of those responding to the Government's airports consultation have suggested that BAA's empire be split up into individual airport companies. It continues:

In July the all-party Transport Committee said BAA's structure was "ineffective and inappropriate", and concluded "in our view it would be more appropriate to break up its monopoly".

Clasper's rebuttal refers to BAA's three priorities: to provide a decent service to passengers and airlines, to manage a huge capital investment programme and to provide new runway capacity for the South East.

"These are the three agendas. An appropriate response [to the calls for break-up] would be to ask how well we are doing against those three criteria," he says. "If we are doing very badly then a desire to make change would have some sense. But if we are doing very well and the only argument is theoretical competition, then I'm not sure it has a lot of validity."

He argues that good service means above all an outstanding safety and security record. "It would be very difficult to argue that we are not at the top of the world game in aviation security and safety," he says.

Clasper adds that BAA interviews around 100,000 passengers each year on their experience of passing through the airports and that the response is overwhelmingly positive.

"At the end we ask a very basic question: 'Was the experience good or bad?' Around 80 per cent rate the airport experience as good or very good."

He claims that - if pushed - the airlines would have to admit that BAA does do a good job squeezing every last drop out of the constrained facilities available.

"Heathrow has the highest number of air traffic movements in the world from two runways," he says. "And Gatwick has the highest number of air traffic movements from a single runway in the world. So on all those daily measures of performance, we've got a lot of numbers that are very positive."

Meanwhile, BAA is pretty adept at extracting cash from passengers.

"If you look at it in another way, we are the second highest in the world in terms of retail turnover per square foot. That is another measure of people's response to space and the offerings of the airport."

BAA's investment record has also been closely scrutinised and Clasper claims it has saved the taxpayer billions of pounds. "If you look at the capital investment area then we have invested £1m a day every day since privatisation. That is an investment record in terms of new facilities that is phenomenal and bears comparison with any of the privatised companies.

"Moreover, we've been tested several times by the Competition Commission and the Civil Aviation Authority looking at whether we spent the money wisely and we've got a very clean bill of health."

The main project BAA is spending money on now is the new Terminal 5 at Heathrow, which will cost £9bn. He says that no rights issue of new shares will be needed to pay for the terminal.

"We think we can get that under the current business plan; we can fund that through debt." And BAA says its funding ability is one of the main arguments for keeping the company intact.

But many airlines carp that they are paying now through higher charges for expensive new Heathrow facilities that won't be available for another six years.

Clasper responds that the funding approach was agreed with the regulatory authorities after wide consultation. And it will avoid a "whopping day one price rise" when the new terminal opens. The Civil Aviation Authority twice and the Competition Commission once looked at it with enough detail to fill this room and 10 others and decided that the sensible response was a glide path into higher pricing rather than a one-off move."

Meanwhile, the focus over the next few months will be on where extra runways should be built around London.

Our Comment: Surely the wrong word here, not "where' extra runways should be built, but "Whether". No mention either of cross subsidies from Heathrow to Stansted which were certainly a factor in Stansted's development. Nor the question of the costs of new runways - the Government won't pay for them and neither will they pay for surface access infrastructure. Can BAA afford it?

They seek him here, they seek him there; in Estonia and Finistere. Eagerly pursuing all the latest travel trends, he's a dedicated follower of the no-frills mantra: Benevolence Begets Business. He is Bernard Berger, the director of new route development for Ryanair. And he does not so much pursue as set travel trends.

Mr Berger's job means that he knows Europe like the back of a Ryanair sick bag. His role over the next seven years is to find destinations for the 100-plus new Boeings that the Irish airline has on order, and to fill them with a number equivalent to the entire population of Britain: around 58 million people.

How does he do that, then? By poring over the air navigation charts at his office in Dublin, then trudging around Europe, checking out the places where Ryanair passengers may find themselves checking in.

A good place to start is by looking at the existing market for air travel. For example, travellers between western Poland and south-east England have to go via a third airport. By looking at the number of passengers currently flying from Poznan via Warsaw or Frankfurt to London, you can deduce if there is enough to fill a daily Boeing 737 from Stansted (there isn't, by the way). But existing demand is only one aspect of the no-frills equation.

The first question about a new airport for Mr Berger to address is: how simple and uncongested is it? A runway, a shed and a control tower is the optimum: "We need maximum efficiency at the airports we fly to", says the runway hunter. "We do not want to fly to airports where we have to taxi for 40 minutes just to take off."

Poznan fits the bill perfectly: there is more tumbleweed than traffic on the country lane that leads to the city's modest airport. And when you stop looking at airline schedules and start checking out the bus stations, it begins to look even better. Every moment of every day there are about a dozen coaches shuttling between the UK and Poland. It's one of the dreariest journeys in Christendom but, at half the fares charged by British Airways and LOT Polish Airlines, there are plenty of takers. Most of these weary passengers would switch at an instant to a cheap flight, if one were available. Then there is the car park at Schonefeld airport in east Berlin. When the flight from Stansted arrives in the German capital, it is instructive to count the passengers who head for the parking lot and climb into vehicles bearing Polish number plates.

I must stress that Poznan is just a convenient example, one of dozens of locations where Ryanair is reported to have shown an interest; gossip reaching the travel desk suggests that Mr Berger has been omnipresent recently, with airports along the Dalmatian coast of Croatia, in western Bohemia and western Scotland all rumoured to be next in line for a link to London.

While negotiations continue with airports across Europe, Ryanair's routes guru is not going to reveal the airline's latest targets. But the chances are that they are offering substantial sweeteners to persuade the Irish airline to land. What is in it for them? "Small regional airports are not going to grow with conventional airlines", says Mr Berger. "We can put their airport on the map, make their region an easier place to do business, and bring in tourists."

POZNAN IS not quite on a par with Prague as a city-break destination; the only British tourists I met there were rail enthusiasts intent on sampling Europe's last main-line steam train. But, says Mr Berger, "People will often pick destinations they would not otherwise have thought of simply because there is a flight there."

They will also buy second homes based on the ready availability of cheap flights. Indeed, thousands of people have bought properties predicated upon no-frills links - as an advertisement in this week's Spectator, of all places, for a villa in south-west France shows. "Ryanair 40 minutes", it promises.

"When we started flying Stansted to Carcassonne, there were huge guffaws all around the industry and around France about our flying to this insignificant airport", says Mr Berger.

"We were told: `You will never fill your planes. Oh, you are not really going to be flying in the winter, are you?' We have done all those things. We fly there twice a day in the summer and once a day in the winter - every day except Christmas - and we fly there from Brussels." Well, Charleroi, at least.

But perhaps Mr Berger will find himself working even harder over the next few months. This week, a French court rejected an appeal from Ryanair and confirmed that its service to Strasbourg must end on Tuesday. A £5-per-passenger subsidy from the local chamber of commerce made it unfair competition for Air France, the judge ruled.

THE CONTINENT'S political capital finds itself with no air link to the aviation capital of Europe - though French newspapers yesterday speculated that Air France flights from Gatwick to Strasbourg will be reintroduced by 20 October, in time for the next-but-one session of the European parliament. If pre-Ryanair fares are imposed, MEPs may be the only passengers.

RYANAIR IS nothing if not nimble, and has simply switched its flights across the German border - which is why today page four of this section tells you how to spend 48 hours in Baden-Baden rather than Strasbourg. Following the court's verdict, some have predicted the end of cheap flying as we know it. Surely Air France, the vindicated injured party in the court case, will chase around Ryanair's other French destinations, checking out the deals that have been struck with local authorities? Those who are tucked up in their pieds a terre in Gascony or Brittany can rest easy. Lawyers for the French national airline are no doubt studying the small print of Ryanair's deals with the airports at Biarritz and Brest, but the chances of a successful court case at other destinations is slim. Even in a nation where the judiciary has, in the past, appeared sympathetic to Air France, it could be tricky to prove unfair competition on routes the national carrier has shown no interest in flying.

Pat Dale

32 MPS have now signed this Early Day Motion. It is an excellent way by which MPs can publicly demonstrate their support or opposition to any proposals.

Sir Alan Haselhurst MP, who has the Stansted Airport in his constituency, cannot sign an EDM because as Deputy Speaker he must remain neutral with regard to Parliamentary debates. (He does, of course, forward all letters he receives to the Minister concerned.)

However, many more MP's constituencies will be affected by Stansted's expansion - as will those representing people who live near any of the UK airports threatened with another runway. Ask your MP what his/her views are, ask him/her to sign the EDM. It is a sensible expression of concern that all responsible Governments should observe. It puts air traffic on the same footing as other forms of travel and recognises that the present effects of unlimited aviation air pollution cannot be continued. Those who insist on their right to choose cut price air travel whatever the consequences should direct their energies towards promoting a more sustainable aircraft. The motor industry is having to meet the challenge, why not aviation?

THE EARLY DAY MOTION
That this House calls on the Secretary of State for Transport to develop an aviation policy that accords with national air pollution, sustainability and climate change targets and pays its full external costs; further calls on him to work at a national, European and international level to reduce and eliminate the tax concessions received by the aviation industry in the form of tax-free fuel and VAT-exempt products; believes that he should ensure that the countryside, biodiversity and heritage are safeguarded, that aircraft noise does not erode rural tranquillity and does not continue to annoy significant communities both day and night; and further calls on him to explore the potential of high-speed rail as an alternative to short-haul flights.

Pat Dale

The Government announced this week that it is to redeem the Special (or "Golden") Share that it holds in the airports operator BAA plc. Earlier this year, the European Court of Justice ruled that that the holding of the share was incompatible with Article 56 of the EC Treaty which prohibits all restrictions on the free movement of capital.

The Government will be complying with the Court's judgement. It has taken this opportunity to review the continuing need for the share and has concluded that, as circumstances affecting the economic and regulatory framework have changed considerably since the share was first taken out in 1987, the share can now be redeemed.

1. The Government has held a special share in BAA since the 1987 privatisation. The effect of the share is that Government approval needs to be obtained before any of the following four changes can be made to the ownership and structure of the company:

- BAA ceasing to have the right to control the exercise of over half the voting rights of any subsidiary owning an airport;

- proposals for winding up or dissolving BAA or a subsidiary owning an airport;

- disposal by BAA or any subsidiary of an airport or any part thereof;

- amendment of BAA's Articles of Association to vary the rights attached to the special share (in addition, any individual shareholding is limited to a maximum of 15% of the voting shares in the company).

2. In August 1999 the European Commission issued a Reasoned Opinion alleging that the BAA special share was in breach of two Treaty principles, the right of establishment (Article 43) and the right of free movement of capital (article 56). The European Court of Justice delivered its judgement on 13 May 2003 when it found that the holding of the share was contrary to the provisions of Article 56 of the EC Treaty.

3. The economic and regulatory framework has considerably changed since the share was taken out in 1987. Issues affecting anti competitive or discriminatory practices, which were key areas of concern at the time of BAA's privatisation can now be addressed through subsequent legislation without invoking the provisions of the share.

4. BAA operates seven airports in the UK - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Southampton, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen.

Pat Dale

A third runway at Heathrow airport could expose residents in parts of west London and Surrey to a serious flooding risk, it was claimed recently.

A report commissioned by campaigners opposed to the expansion of Britain's biggest airport suggests that massive gravel extraction to build new facilities would damage a natural sponge which soaks up ground water.

Heathrow is in the middle of a flood plain, where water from the Chiltern Hills flows into the Thames.

John Stewart, chairman of the pressure group Hacan ClearSkies, said: "The worst-case scenario is that if a third runway is built, there will be extra run-off water. If that's not dealt with, we could have significant flooding."

John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, will call for the government to carry out a detailed flood risk assessment.

Hacan's study suggests that the Thames, Colne and Spelthorne rivers could struggle to cope with heavy rain.

Pat Dale

Carol Barbone, Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign Director, explains:

Essex is the driest county in Britain and is forecast to become much drier in the future due to the changing climate. Airports are greedy users of water and on top of this the attracted development, if Stansted continues to expand - residential,industrial and commercial - would exacerbate the demand on our scarce local water supplies.

Options currently being considered by the authorities are desalination plants, long distance pipelines, the recycling of effluent and compulsory metering for households. The major concerns here are not about flooding but about water rationing if Stansted Airport is expanded. As home to some of England's finest agriculture land, there are potentially very serious implications for farming as well as for domestic households.

Our Comment: We fully appreciate that the pilots who fly the planes have all the frustrations associated with busy airports, delayed flights and all the risks associated with air traffic congestion. However, is the British Airline Pilots' Association really representing the situation, or is this another campaign backed by "Freedom to Fly"?

To mark the 100th anniversary of powered flight the British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA) which has 8,000 members and represents almost all of Britain's commercial airline and helicopter pilots, has launched a campaign to secure the future of civil aviation in the United Kingdom. From a series of press releases, please find below one on capacity shortage.

Over the next 20 years the number of passengers using Britain's airports is going to increase sharply. Government forecasts show that current annual passenger numbers – 180 million a year – will double. But even if it is only half of that, action has to be taken soon.

New runways, passenger and freight facilities and, crucially, better integrated public transport access to airports have to be constructed. If not, the numbers of people wanting to fly will outstrip capacity and the most likely scenario is that passenger numbers will be held down by steep fare increases, and we shall be back to the days when only the comparatively wealthy can travel by air.

Former transport minister John Spellar told Parliament that if airport capacity is limited to what we have at the moment, fares could rise by more than £100 per return journey.

The alternative, he said, will be that people will get over to mainland Europe and fly from a continental airport. Germany, France and Holland realise only too well the need to invest in new airport infrastructure and are doing precisely that.

That is why the British Government is now committed to increasing capacity. However, opposition is vocal and the Government may be tempted to trim back on what it knows ought to be developed.

Our Comment: Who said this? The Government has denied that a decision has already been made.

The threat of capacity shortage is a very real one and it is a threat not just to the civil aviation industry but to our national economy. One fifth of all UK exports, worth over £35 billion year, is carried by air freight and express deliveries are vital to many businesses.

Our Comment: No-one is suggesting that airport capacity should be reduced. The question of freight is not the same as the predictions concerning passenger demand. It is a separate issue and there is clearly much unused capacity existing today available for increased freight exports.

Britain's tourism industry could be damaged too. Two thirds of foreign visitors to Britain fly into UK airports, and the number of tourists continues to rise. But if there are capacity constraints, thousands of visitors will simply go elsewhere.

Our Comment: What about the fact that the majority of tourists travelling by air are outward bound UK tourists, spending money abroad with a net loss to the UK economy at the moment of about £11.8 billion. What do the cheap airlines do to actively encourage foreign visitors to come to the UK? Fewer foreign tourists came to the UK last year than in 2000 whereas the number of UK tourists going abroad increased by over 3 million during the same period.

THE FACTS

(Our Comment: According to the Association, presumably they are including all the construction jobs required to concrete over our countryside. These will only be temporary ones!)

*  At present some 500,000 British jobs are dependent upon a healthy civil aviation industry – 180,000 directly, 320,000 indirectly (but not including tourism).
*  Predicted airport growth could result in 235,000 extra jobs by 2030.
*  If passenger traffic moves to Frankfurt or Amsterdam or Paris many of these jobs will be lost.
*  Any curtailment on flights into the UK would threaten the 200,000 jobs in the British tourist industry.
*  Capacity shortage will also affect British people who want to fly: British citizens take nearly 37 million holidays abroad each year. Unless there is additional capacity many of them will not be able to do so.

Our Comment: Why do those advocating unlimited expansion always argue as though a failure to build more runways will result in less air traffic? There is plenty of unused capacity at this moment and no-one is pressing for airports to close.

Maybe people who want to fly will have to pay more for their air travel. Why not? Whatever the protests from Freedom to Fly, air tickets are today subsidised and the Government has officially agreed that the aviation industry does not pay for the heavy environmental costs that they inflict on us and our planet. The problems of low wage earners are not going to be solved by providing very cheap air fares. What would be Freedom to Fly's reaction if the Chancellor decided to give tax credits in the form of air fares? Would they regard this as fair taxation?

Pat Dale

Press Statement by BAA on 12 September

REGIONAL AIRPORTS ARE NO ALTERNATIVE TO DEVELOPING THE LONDON AIRPORTS

In response to the Government's proposals for more runways, Stop Stansted Expansion states "if airports in other regions are developed the pressure on airports in the southeast will be substantially reduced."

With nine out of ten air travellers journeying to Stansted Airport from addresses in Greater London, the Home Counties and East Anglia BAA asks Stop Stansted Expansion it to explain how this will happen.

BAA supports the development of airports in the regions and the greater choice that will bring to those living there.  Wherever possible passengers should be able to fly from the airport nearest to their home or place of work.  If there is sufficient demand airlines will provide the services their customers want at each airport.

The Government forecast expects regional airports to grow faster than those serving London, such as Stansted.  But regional airports cannot be an alternative when it comes to meeting the demand for air travel in the southeast of the country.  Is SSE expecting those from the southeast to go to other regions for flights?

In the past 12 months many low fare airlines have developed new routes from regional airports such as East Midlands and Leeds/Bradford.  But Stansted has not seen its growth affected by this increase in regional choice.

John Williams head of public affairs for Stansted said:

"The number of people travelling from the regions to the London airports to get flights is greatly exaggerated by SSE.  It is a myth that hoards of northerners are coming south to get cheap flights."

"The Government's growth forecast of just over three percent year on year is driven by future demand from London and the southeast.  If the London airports aren't developed to handle this demand is SSE suggesting people make longer journeys by road and rail to regional airports?  This is hardly sustainable."

Carol Barbone, our Campaign Director, answers for Stop Stansted Expansion:

"In trying to suggest that Stansted is a local airport, BAA is plucking figures out of the air and talking nonsense by implying that nine out of ten Stansted passengers are local.  The official Government statistics show that only 53% of passengers who used Stansted airport in the latest year for which figures are available are residents of the South East and East of England - and even this is an area which runs from The Wash in the North to the Solent in the South and right across to Oxfordhire in the West.

In addition to the official figures which contradict BAA's claim, anyone who has used Stansted Airport recently knows very well that people are travelling from all over the UK to take advantage of the cheap flights on offer.

Of course there is scope for better utilisation of regional airports.  It just so happens that BAA with its ownership of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Southampton monopolises the South East and wants to keep everything focused in the South East.

Almost two thirds of all UK air travel is concentrated on airports in the South East and only one third of the British population resides in the South East.   Of course there's scope to develop a better regional balance and that's what we hope the Government will do - regardless of BAA's propaganda."

Pat Dale

BAA commissioned a poll of MPs, carried out by Mori and reported by BAA as showing that a big majority of MPs were in favour of extra runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. However, a closer examination of the results shows that only 119 MPs were approached and that the response rate was 54%. We are not told how the MPs were selected though Mori would normally make a random selection, and did get a similar proportion from the different parties as the numbers in Parliament.

There were 74 Labour MPs, 30 Conservatives and 15 'Others' (Lib-Dems - why so amorphous?). The first question was not about runways - it asked them how important they thought it was to expand airport capacity in the South East of England. Only 23% thought it was 'very important', 49% 'fairly important', 17% 'not very' and 7% 'not at all'. 3% had no view. The biggest vote for 'very important' came from the Conservatives. So, less than a quarter believed that expansion was very important! Evidently the majority have not been convinced by the Government's forecasts!

Runways

The question asked in relation to each airport was whether they would strongly oppose, tend to oppose, neither oppose nor support, tend to support or strongly support an extra runway. In Stansted's case a second question was asked about two extra runways, and in Heathrow's question the runway was described as short, for short haul planes.

How did BAA present the overall results? They provided a series of bar charts showing the % strongly opposed, tending to oppose, stongly supporting and tending to support. This gave them between 47% and 54% of the MPs expressing support for one extra runway at each airport - BUT left out were the numbers of MPs who had no opinion either way, 26% for Heathrow and Gatwick, and 30% for Stansted with one extra runway.

It is therefore reasonable to claim that very nearly half the MPs either opposed having extra runways or had no views. The results certainly do not support BAA's claim that a majority of 3 in 4 MPs want extra runways! Most important - 44% opposed a second new runway at Stansted, 49% had no view and only 17% supported the idea.

This is hardly the kind of Survey that is likely to sway policy makers.

Could we describe BAA's press statement as "Sexed-Up"?

What Do They Say At Gatwick?

Brendon Sewill writes for the Gatwick objectors:

BAA MISLEAD THE GOVERNMENT

BAA issued a press release on September 8 about a poll of MPs views on new runways in the South East. Their Chief Executive, Mike Clasper, was quoted as indicating that the poll was designed to influence forthcoming Government decisions. Yet their use of the MORI poll was misleading.

The first question was "How important do you think it is that airport capacity in South East England is expanded over the next few years?" This does not actually mention new runways. Many people, and presumably many MPs, are in favour of expanding capacity by maximum use of existing runways. For example, BAA accept that there is scope for 40 or 50% increase in capacity at Gatwick with no new runway. Similarily at Heathrow, T5 will mean a big increase in capacity - with no new runway. And Stansted can double its capacity with no new runway.

It was therefore misleading to put the results of this question under a heading "MPs back new runways in the South East".

Another question was: "To what extent would you support or oppose "A second runway at Gatwick?" Only 12% of MPs said they would support it strongly, while 42% said they would tend to support it. Similar questions were asked about Heathrow and about Stansted. The exact results are not statistically significant: since only 119 MPs were asked, the inclusion of even one Gatwick MP could have made a 2% difference to the result.

It is also misleading by BAA to claim that MPs back new runways, and thus by implication that they support BAA's campaign for three new runways in the South East. All the poll actually shows is that about half of all MPs back the idea of one new runway in the South East.

Even that result needs to be treated with caution as it may be influenced by the free car parking offered by BAA to all MPs.

Pat Dale

Carbon dioxide emissions from domestic flights should be included in the UK's national climate trading scheme, a government-sponsored think-tank has concluded in a report on the environmental impacts of aviation.

The Commission for Integrated Transport rejects the need for new taxes on aircraft fuel, arguing that kerosene duty is "not an appropriate mechanism for internalising external costs". Instead it argues for a global cap on aviation emissions with the eventual creation of an international emissions trading scheme.

The commission says all flights within the EU should be subject to an "en route" environmental charge based not on distance but on carbon emissions, at a rate of UK £70 per tonne of CO2. The European Commission has previously rejected unilateral EU action as expensive and relatively ineffective in reducing emissions (see www.environmentdaily.com/articles/index.cfm?action=article&ref=7202).

There should be auctions for peak-time take-off and landing slots, plus an additional congestion charge, the Commission adds. Tradeable noise permits could be introduced, while separate instruments should be devised to cover condensation trails and nitrogen oxides (NOx), once their impact has been properly quantified.

The Commission says civil aviation accounts for almost 20% of Britain's transport CO2 and 5% of national carbon emissions. Demand is rising by 4-5% annually and fares are falling. The existing aviation charge produces UK£800m a year in revenue, barely half of the UK £1.4bn in external costs that the commission says the industry causes.

This Report makes very interesting reading and makes practical suggestions for meeting external costs. It is accompanied by a Research Report quantifying the external costs. They can be downloaded from the following site: www.cfit.gov.uk/aec/index.htm

Pat Dale

There has been a steady stream of aviation news during the last 2 weeks. BAA claims the biggest number ever of passengers flew from Stansted over the bank holiday. This has been confirmed by a number of local passengers who complained "it was just as bad as Heathrow!" BAA might pause to reflect that one of the attractions for passengers used to be the more relaxed atmosphere as well as the rural surroundings.

If Ryanair can persuade airports in Europe to pay them for bringing in tourists, perhaps Stansted can turn itself into a freeport or a shopping centre for aircraft enthusiasts and proposition Ryanair to bring tourists in from Europe as well as take them out. Provided of course, BAA sticks at 25 mppa and tries to retain the countryside airport image.

The prospect of a new airport on a greenfield site in the south of England is under fresh consideration by the government, which has asked for more details of proposals for international terminals in north Kent and the Severn estuary.

Two months after the end of a public consultation on airport expansion, the Department for Transport has written to the backers of projects widely considered "long shots", asking them for a deeper analysis by September of the cost of road and rail links, passenger numbers and the cost of infrastructure.

Among those included are a proposed site on the Hoo peninsula in the Thames estuary, known as Thames Reach airport.

Officials also want a closer look at a plan for an airport on the Isle of Sheppey, a proposal for expansion of Redhill aerodrome in Surrey and a new terminal on an artificial island in the Severn estuary.

Whitehall sources say although the ideas were originally excluded from consultation documents, the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, wants to examine them on the same basis as options for new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

The development confounds reports that Mr Darling has already made up his mind in favour of a third runway at Heathrow, although some in the aviation industry still believe he is merely "going through the motions".

A spokesman for the department confirmed that requests had been sent out: "We're helping them to develop their proposals so we can compare them on a consistent basis with the options we've put forward."

The proposed Thames Reach airport would include a £1.5bn road and rail tunnel under the Thames estuary, providing access to Essex.

The runways would extend into the estuary, avoiding problems with nearby birdlife which dogged the government's proposed Cliffe airport nearby.

The development of Redhill aerodrome in Surrey could turn it into a satellite terminal for Gatwick. And an airport on an artificial island in the Severn estuary, known as Severnside, would provide thousands of jobs for unemployed miners from the Welsh valleys.

An insider at one airport consortium said that at a late stage, the department had radically altered the way it was conducting the consultation.

Officials are said to be worried about a repetition of last year's high court challenge, in which a judge ruled that the government had acted improperly in excluding the possibility of expansion at Gatwick.

One source said: "The court case where they had to include Gatwick totally shocked them, and now they are clearly trying to avoid further challenges."

Mr Darling is to rule by the end of this year on where the extra aviation capacity should be provided. The Treasury is thought to favour Heathrow airport on economic grounds, after intensive lobbying by airlines led by British Airways.

The government could give the green light for longer term expansion of Stansted and for a second runway at Gatwick after the expiry of a legal commitment against expansion in 2019.

YOU may well be one of the hundreds of thousands who passed through one of London's airports this bank holiday weekend. The experience is likely to have been less than uplifting. A combination of overcrowded terminals, long queues to get through security and even longer corridors to the boarding gate are sure to leave you feeling in need of a holiday. And the cost of the car parking fees may be higher than the cost of your low-priced airline ticket.

The remarkable thing about London's three main airports is that they are all owned by one privatised company, BAA plc. Last year, 93.1pc of all the passengers that used the south-east's airports were paying charges to this monopoly business. Heathrow is seriously congested, resulting in one third of its flights being delayed. London's main hub is handling over 60m passengers a year, yet the terminals were originally designed to cope with a yearly maximum of 50m passengers.

Gatwick airport has the busiest single runway in the world. Indeed, it is now virtually impossible to obtain a landing slot unless one is prepared to part with significant sums on the (unofficial) secondary market. Stansted is also over-flowing with passengers. Earlier this year, Ryanair paid £15m to acquire the no-frills carrier, Buzz, from KLM. This takeover was driven by one simple objective - Ryanair needed more slots at Stansted. The bidder was quite prepared to shut down the loss-making Buzz, so long as it could retain its scarce slots.

Critics argue that BAA has done little to tackle the worsening congestion at London's principal airports. Since it was privatised, it has not built one new runway in the south-east. This lack of capacity has helped to fill up Gatwick and now Stansted. But such criticisms are not entirely fair, since it is the Government that must give final approval to the creation of new runway capacity.

Yet among the public corporations privatised over the past two decades, BAA stands out as the only monopoly that has managed to retain its dominant position in its own market. This has enabled BAA to generate healthy profits for its shareholders. In the financial year 2003, it made £538m in pre-tax profit. What is more, the company's shares trade at a significant premium to other publicly quoted airport operators, such as Frankfurt's Fraport. Compared with many traditional airlines, notably BA, the company's share performance over the past few years has proved far stronger. This robust financial performance has provided further ammunition to BAA's mounting number of critics.

Last month, the all-party parliamentary transport select committee published a report on aviation that was highly critical of the BAA. It concluded, "the dominant position of BAA means that the ownership structure of the UK's airports is deeply flawed". The MPs recommended the break-up of BAA's London monopoly and called for new runways to be provided by rival operators.

Airline bosses such as British Midland's Sir Michael Bishop and Virgin's Sir Richard Branson have also added their voices to the chorus of critics urging a review of BAA's hold on airports in the south-east. Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, is considering where to locate much needed new runway capacity in the south-east. By all accounts, he is determined to tackle the crippling congestion at our main London airports. He should use the opportunity to inject a new element of competition within the airport market. Why should BAA be encouraged to strengthen its monopoly position in the south-east?

Allowing greater competition within the airport sector in the south-east is likely to produce a range of benefits. If one splits up BAA, a separately owned Gatwick would have a greater incentive to compete with Heathrow. If sufficient additional runway capacity was created to accommodate the present pent-up demand, breaking up BAA would encourage greater price competition.

Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted could also compete on quality of service and innovation. For example, if environmental and legal considerations precluded development of a second runway at Gatwick in the next 20 years, a separately quoted company owning London's second main airport might be more interested in developing a Redhill airfield, an attractive option that could provide additional capacity for 35m more passengers a year.

Experience further suggests that competition is likely to generate a raft of benefits as yet unidentified. This is one of the remarkable merits of competitive markets: they create new opportunities. Before liberalisation of scheduled air services in Europe, who would have predicted Ryanair, the no frills carrier, would become the world's third most valuable airline? When it comes to building new runway capacity, airport operators should be encouraged to recoup their investment costs through establishing primary auctions for the slots created. This would act as a market mechanism for creating appropriate new capacity while preventing needless cross-subsidy. Secondary trading could provide the mechanism for encouraging free entry and exit into the civil aviation market.

Our Comment: Reform of the slot system may be desirable, but it's not going to pay for more runways whoever owns the airports. Intensive competition is not going to encourage a detached view over the need for expansion. The adverse impacts of any expansion have to be properly assessed at Government level. The issue of climate change is too important to be left to commercial pressures from the aviation industry.

Local campaigners from around Stansted Airport have launched a last-minute campaign to influence government ministers over the proposed expansion of airports in the South East.

Led by Uttlesford District Council, lobbyists delivered a book containing quotes from 50 organisations against development to the Department for Transport officials last week.

Council leader Alan Dean said: "Economically it is no, environmentally it is no, socially it is no. It is no on heritage and ecology. Surface access to Stansted scores a no. Other regions say no. Even the aviation industry says no to Stansted."

But Dean denied that he is leading a nimby campaign. "We have not promoted anyone else's back yard as an alternative to Stansted," he said. "We felt from the outset that there are bigger and more global issues at stake."

AIR fares will rise to a level where visits to relatives and friends abroad become "unaffordable" unless more runways are built, according to the statutory passenger watchdog.

The Air Transport Users' Council says flying will return to being the preserve of the wealthy if the Government bows to environmental lobbyists and decides against expansion in the forthcoming aviation White Paper.

It warns that shortages of runway slots and rising travel demand will combine to force up fares, with business travellers taking an ever larger proportion of the available seats.

The council, which is the main consumer voice in aviation, says that the pricing-off of less affluent passengers would impose a "broader welfare cost".

In a submission to the Transport Department, it goes on: "This would not simply be the foregone enjoyment of leisure travel. There would also be the emotional cost of not being able to visit friends and relatives overseas."

One study has suggested that short-haul fares from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted would double by 2030 if no extra capacity was created.

The consumer group's intervention is significant because the debate over runway development has been dominated by the conflicting arguments of business leaders and environmental campaigners.

The council urges that the White Paper, expected in December, should "state unambiguously" where new runways would be located.

It expressed a preference for Heathrow, to be followed by an additional strip at Gatwick or Stansted.

It calls on Alistair Darling, the Transport Secretary, not to be swayed by "exaggerated" claims from green campaigners about pollution.

Our Comment: Well, they would be worried about fares, but to suggest that warnings about pollution are exaggerated indicates considerable ignorance about the situation and a complete lack of consideration for those who might be affected by airport expansion. In the unlikely event of demand expanding to levels that would mean that only the wealthy could fly, perhaps a Regulator should be appointed, with responsibilities similar to those of the Rail Regulator. Air fares are now indirectly subsidised, if this is to continue then this would be a logical development.

Ryanair has admitted that one factor in it's ability to offer such cheap air fares is the fees it receives from European airports wanting to attract more tourists to their immediate area. However, public airports are not supposed to use public money for such purposes. The practice at Charleroi airport has been found to be illegal and an appeal has been made. Now the same complaint is being made at Strasbourg airport. Ryanair has declared that it will find another private airport near to Strasbourg, such as Baden Baden. However, there are disadvantages to passengers when small relatively unknown airports are used. Passengers may be faced with an hours or more coach journey to the place they wish to visit. This is not an attractive proposition for business travellers for whom time is more important .

The Financial Times commented in their Leader on the situation on August 29th - it appeared to commend the practice and suggest that perhaps it would be in order if public airports could pay a fee provided it did not outbid a private airport. Their suggestion was that attracting planes from congested airports to smaller ones might a sensible policy. If this meant that new runways are avoided in the UK perhaps it should be encouraged in the UK! How many Regional airports would be prepared to offer such a subsidy?

SSE's press notice (see this site) on the serious water situation that could arise in Essex if Stansted expansion went ahead has drawn a response from BAA. SSE calculated that the present water consumption was 12 million litres per week, which would rise to about 50 million if there was one extra runway, nearer to 110 million litres if the necessary houses and urban development was taken into consideration. BAA says that at the moment only 11 million litres a week are used. Not very reassuring!

Especially as they admit that water usage rose last year by 10.9%, and, although they can now collect and record consumption data, they have no action plan as yet for saving water. This is rather surprising as the application to expand to 25 mppa was made over 2 years ago and water consumption was raised then as one of the limiting factors.

Pat Dale

The Reports in the Sunday Times and the People that the Government had already made its mind up about the need for three new runways in the south-east were "absolute nonsense", one of those shadowy spokesmen for the Government is reputed to have said, followed by "The Ministers have not even seen an analysis of the responses to the consultation yet".

This raises the question, who introduced the rumour? This rumour was also backed up by a statement from an alleged government spokesman. As Norman Mead said to the press, "I think it is a sprat to catch a mackerel and a way just to test the water to see the response from the public".

In these days of public revelations about spin and counter spin over Government policies, we all become very suspicious of alleged government departmental spokesmen, and we have to remember that even more spin is produced by those who, for a variety of reasons, want airport expansion. We believe they are mistaken in their belief that such expansion is either urgently necessary or economically desirable.

 We can also be certain that the residents living round Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam and Frankfort airports would, if the pessimistic prognostications ever came true - and they were threatened by a mass exodus of flights of dissatisfied overcrowded passengers from the UK - respond in exactly the same way as we are doing, and demand that environmental limits be set on aviation expansion.

So, respond to such rumours and make your views known! A good start might be on the subject of NOISE COMPLAINTS. BAA have claimed (another spokesman) that SSE have been urging people to make complaints and the suggestion is made that many of them are unnecessary or incorrect.

We ask, how many of us have FAILED to complain because we know that BAA can't do anything about it, or it is not convenient to do so, or we do not always have a pen ready to note the time, or the time to rush to the telephone and make a complaint.

By definition, a complaint should refer to a noise incident that has annoyed us. It is generally accepted that a noise of over 70 decibels interferes with conversation/concentration. This is annoying. The responsible aircraft may at the same time, as far as BAA is concerned, be within the accepted parameters, i.e. within the flight path, at the right height, or not subject to any local agreements designed to reduce noise. It is still annoying to those who complain and it should be registered. Perhaps we should keep weekly diaries and send them in.

 It is impossible to operate an airport without creating a noise nuisance however good the rules and regulations. The argument is about what the limits of tolerance should be for any individual airport. Numbers of residents affected is important, but not the only factor.

The character of the local area is just as important. Society has chosen to preserve large countryside areas, not just to preserve agricultural land and wildlife and attractive villages, but also to provide places where everyone/anyone can enjoy the natural surroundings in relative peace and relaxation. This is especially important near London and other large cities. NIMBY should be replaced by NIABY - "Not in Anyone's Back Yard".

Pat Dale