Archived press release

Baa demand for new runways reckless and irresponsible

12 May 2003

Airport operator BAA was today branded "reckless and untrustworthy" for claiming that three new runways were `needed' in the South East. The demand breaks repeated past promises from BAA, including those given at the Heathrow Terminal 5 Inquiry [1].

Friends of the Earth said that there was no evidence that more runways were essential for the economy. [2]. A recent re-run of the Government's own computer model has shown that, if the aviation industry were made to pay the costs of the pollution and damage it causes, no new runways would be needed anywhere in the UK [3].

Friends of the Earth also dismissed as a "sick joke" BAA's claim that its expansion demands were "responsible" and based on the "Government's own principles for sustainable development".

Paul de Zylva, aviation campaigner at Friends of the Earth said:

"Time and again BAA promised an end to expansion at Heathrow and even talked of Stansted as the `airport in the countryside'. Today, BAA's word has been shown to be worthless.

Even the Government's own computer model now shows that there is no need for any new runways. It shows that any rise in passengers can be met by better use of existing airports. BAA wants three new runways to boost profits. But there is no evidence that more aviation will be good for the economy. Even the aviation industry's own reports fail to prove a link between aviation growth and the nation's economic welfare.

These are just two of the many myths trotted out by a grossly polluting industry, hooked on £9 billion a year in public hand outs, and flying dangerously out of control. BAA is reckless and untrustworthy and its claims to be acting responsibly are a sick joke."

Notes

[1] BAA's broken promises

See: www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2002/20020819000107.html

• In 1997 BAA claimed that runway capacity at Heathrow was not a problem: "The problem at Heathrow is not the lack of runway capacity but shortage of terminal space…The inevitable overcrowding until T5 is built is likely to cause problems" (BAA News Release - BAA warns of potential "national crisis" 12th October 1997)

• In 1999 BAA again said that it did not want a third runway at Heathrow: "Additional runway ruled out forever whether T5 is approved or not" (BAA press conference 12th March 1999).

• In a `Dear Neighbour' letter to residents (April 1999) BAA's then Chief Executive, Sir John Egan, wrote: "We have since repeated often that we do not want, nor shall we seek, an additional runway. I can now report that we went even further at the (Terminal 5) Inquiry and called on the Inspector to recommend that, subject to permission being given for T5, an additional Heathrow runway should be ruled out forever. We said: `it is the company's view that the local communities around Heathrow should be given assurances, BAA would urge the Government to rule out any additional runway at Heathrow, and BAA would support a recommendation by the Inquiry Inspector in his report that the Government should rule it out. Indeed BAA invites the Inspector to make such a recommendation.'" BAA then goes a step further, not just saying that T5 does not "call" for another runway, but that it will not "lead" to another runway: "Our position could not be clearer, nor could it be more formally placed upon the record. T5 will not lead to a `third' runway."

[2] Economic need

The aviation industry's makes great play about its claimed contribution to the UK economy. Little meaningful evidence is ever produced to back up these claims. Indeed, the aviation industry's own report was unable to find a direct link between the development of aviation and the performance of the economy. The Contribution of Aviation to the UK Economy, by Oxford Economic Forecasting, said: "This does not mean that these additional jobs (from aviation) would not exist in the long run without the aviation sector" (page 15) and, "in the long run the overall level of employment is not determined so much by the level of demand from particular industries as by the supply or workers looking for a job." (page 42)

[3] Government's own computer says no new runways needed

In autumn 2002, Friends of the Earth, Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) and Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) asked the Department for Transport (DfT) to rerun the Government's computer model using different assumptions, namely:

• that aviation fuel should be taxed at the same rate as motor fuel (45.8p per litre), and;

• that all air travel should be made subject to VAT at 17.5%;

• that duty free is abolished on all flights;

• it was also assumed that APD would be abolished;

• that these changes should be phased in gradually between 2005 and 2025.

The total value of these tax measures amounted to £9.2 billion (at 2002 levels). The DfT agreed to rerun the model on these assumptions, and the results were produced in February 2003. The results were dramatic. They showed:

• the total number of passengers using UK airports would increase at a much slower rate from 200 million in 2000 to 315 million in 2030, compared to the official forecast of 501 million used as the basis for the regional consultations.

• there would be no need for any new runway anywhere in the UK in the period to 2030. Any new growth in passenger number could be accommodated within existing airport capacity including recent permissions to expand at Heathrow and Stansted. The rerun forecast for passengers numbers at each major airport in 2030 would be: Heathrow 85 million passengers per annum (mppa); Manchester 51 mppa; Gatwick 41 mppa; Birmingham 30 mppa; Stansted 26 mppa; and Luton 11 mppa.

For more, see: www.airportwatch.org.uk

If you're a journalist looking for press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.

Published by Friends of the Earth Trust