Heathrow expansion would reduce number of flights, says secret study

Philip Pank

A fourth runway at Heathrow would significantly reduce the number of flights in the South East, according to confidential analysis that has been described as a “game-changer” by opponents of the airport’s expansion.

In a private submission to the Airports Commission, Nats, the air traffic control service, calculated “conflicting arrival and departure flows” and concluded that building a fourth runway in West London would reduce the combined capacity of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Birmingham, City and Southend airports by 9 per cent.

It would cut capacity relative to a three-runway Heathrow by 18 per cent because of the disruption to flight paths to the other main airports.

Those against Heathrow expansion said that the analysis, seen by The Times, was a “game-changer” in the debate over airport expansion as it undermined the long-term case for doubling the size of the country’s biggest airport.

Opponents, including Boris Johnson and local residents’ groups, claim that a third runway would be a “Trojan Horse” opening the way for another and subjecting more than a million people to unacceptable noise pollution.

The government-backed commission that will decide where to build the next runway has put two possible configurations for a third runway at Heathrow and a second runway at Gatwick on its shortlist. Sir Howard Davies, head of the commission, said that a third runway could be built by 2030 but it would be full by 2050.

The commission has excluded a fourrunway Heathrow from its shortlist, but the airport’s £31 billion blueprint for expansion includes options to build two new runways. In its submission, Heathrow said that a third runway would meet the demand for air travel to 2040 but that from 2030 a decision would have to be taken on a fourth. Mr Johnson said: “A third runway at Heathrow would be followed by a fourth as surely as night follows day, and if our air traffic experts believe that will result in less overall aviation capacity rather than more, then that is yet another starkly obvious reason why expansion at Heathrow is a total no-go.”

The Nats report, submitted to the commission last November, concluded that construction of a fourth runway would cut the maximum possible number of flights into the main airports to 1,550,000 from 1,680,000.

Flights at Gatwick, Stansted and Luton would be reduced by 50 per cent. London City would see a 25 per cent reduction.

John Stewart, chairman of the campaign group Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, said: “The fear locally must be that if demand does increase, a third runway will effectively become a Trojan Horse for a fourth runway. That is genuinely a new fact which could be a game-changer.”

The Nats analysis highlights the difficulties of turning Heathrow into a “megahub” airport, but also points to potential limitations of a new hub in the Thames Estuary. It could increase total airport capacity by just 6 per cent, because of the closure of Heathrow, City and Southend airports. However, if runways were tilted to run northeastsouthwest, the airport would increase total capacity by 24 per cent.

Supporters of the scheme say that Nats has underestimated the potential benefits because it assumes that a new hub would face the same constraints as Heathrow, operating between 06:00 and 23:00. Because far fewer people would be affected by noise, it could operate 24 hours a day, resulting in a far greater capacity increase, they argue.

Sir Howard will make his final recommendation three months after the 2015 election.