Archived press release

Heathrow Terminal 5: Why it must be the last airport expansion

26 March 2008

This briefing recounts the troubled history of the battle to build Terminal 5. It examines the climate change impacts of further growth and shows why further expansion of Heathrow isn't justified on economic grounds or necessary for the competitiveness of London. It also exposes how much of Heathrow's capacity is wasted on transfer passengers and flights to short haul destinations that are served by rail.

Friends of the Earth Transport Campaigner Richard Dyer said;

"Aviation is a one of the fastest growing sources of UK carbon emissions. If the Government is serious about tackling climate change the opening of Terminal 5 must mark the end of airport expansion in Britain. Further expansion of Heathrow would be environmentally irresponsible and isn't necessary for the economy of London. The Government must abandon its plans for a third runway and Terminal 6. It should invest in fast rail links and ensure that Britain's share of international aviation emissions is included in its new climate change law."

Terminal 5 - broken promises - a bit of history

Terminal 5 was opened by the Queen on March 14^th 2008 but it opens to passengers on Thursday March 27^th. It is the latest in a series of expansions to Heathrow and further growth is planned.

Terminal 5 cost BAA £4.3billion to build. It will allow Heathrow to handle 480,000 flights per year. It has 60 aircraft stands and will handle 30 million passengers per year, 40 per cent of all those using Heathrow. Initially, British Airways will be the sole user of the new terminal.

Friends of the Earth actively campaigned against the building of Terminal 5 at the public inquiry between 1995 and 1999. We said at the time that further expansion proposals would follow if permission to go ahead was given, despite claims by BAA in 1995 that there would not be a third runway. Those claims followed the 1980 Terminal 4 inquiry where the inspector gave the go-ahead on the condition that Government policy would not permit a fifth terminal or any other major expansion at Heathrow. The aviation minister at the time agreed.

Permission to build Terminal 5 and increase the annual number of flights from Heathrow to 480,000 was however granted by Stephen Byers, then Transport secretary, in November 2001. This followed the longest public inquiry in British history, lasting almost four years.

More expansion to come?

As far as BAA and the Government are concerned, T5 is not the end of the story. The Government's 2003 Aviation White Paper gave support to both a third runway and a sixth terminal which would enable Heathrow to handle more than 700,000 flights per year `subject to strict environmental conditions'. A public consultation on these plans has just closed and the Government will make a final decision this summer. In addition, BAA has publicly stated their view that a fourth runway and Terminal 7 may be required in future.

Climate change implications of airport expansion

Aviation is a fast rising source of carbon emissions. It currently represents 6.4 per cent of UK carbon dioxide emissions or 13 per cent of total climate damage. A study by the respected and independent Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in 2005 found that - even allowing for technological improvements - if current growth continues, aviation could use up the UK's entire carbon `allowance' by 2050. Departing flights from Heathrow alone are responsible for 18 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year or 3.1per cent of total UK emissions.

For the UK to play its part in preventing dangerous climate change, scientists increasingly agree that UK emissions must be reduced on a steady trajectory to at least 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Government says that emissions from aviation can rise if other sectors compensate by cutting theirs, but to date this has not been achieved. Since Labour came to power in 1997 total carbon dioxide emissions (including the UK's share of international aviation and shipping emissions) have increased. They have also risen in each of the last five years despite Government rhetoric on the urgent need to tackle climate change.

The Climate Change Bill and aviation

Following a successful campaign by Friends of the Earth, the Government is currently piloting its Climate Change Bill through Parliament. This will require the UK to significantly cut its carbon dioxide emissions (by at least 60 per cent - though the Government is now considering cuts of 80 per cent) by 2050. But bizarrely this target doesn't include the UK's share of international aviation and shipping emissions. This is rather like going on a calorie-controlled diet and ignoring calories from chocolate. Clearly if the Government is serious about tackling global warming it must be included.

The flawed economic case for further expansion

The Government claims that further expansion of Heathrow is essential for the UK economy. It argues that UK economic interests will be damaged if the airport isn't expanded in order to compete with other major European hub airports.

The Government estimates that the net economic benefit of building a third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow will be around £5 billion. But there are major flaws in the Government's case. Indeed calculations by Friends of the Earth show that the reality is that rather than creating economic benefits, expansion would lead to a £3 billion cost.

There are two major flaws in the Government's calculations which heavily underestimate the impact of Heathrow's expansion on climate change. Firstly, many negative impacts of the expansion have not been given numerical value, and so have not been taken into consideration. Secondly, strong policies to stop climate change must use a high price for carbon otherwise they won't work. The Treasury-commissioned Stern Review, on the economics of climate change, advocated a much higher carbon price than that used by the Government in its Heathrow calculations.

The Government claims that expanding Heathrow further "may well generate net tourism spending to the UK. This would be between £0.4 billion and £3.2 billion". But this seems unlikely. The UK currently runs a major economic deficit from flying, and is likely to continue to do so with airport expansion. Put simply, there are far more UK tourists and business people flying abroad for holiday and work than there are people visiting the UK. In 2004 this led to a net loss to the UK economy of £15 billion pounds.

The Government estimates that the difference between the number of passengers leaving and entering the UK is likely to increase in the future so the tourism deficit is set to increase if Heathrow expands further.

Competition with other EU airports

Heathrow is important for the business and tourism interests of London. However, these are - and will in the future - be served perfectly adequately without further airport expansion. The Government says that Heathrow is falling behind other European competitors because it offers fewer destinations than some of them.

But it would be fairer to consider all the airports that serve these cities when making these comparisons. London, through its five airports, serves many more destinations and passengers than its nearest rival, Paris.

What matters to people flying is that London is accessible, and not that it is a good place to change planes (35 per cent of passengers at Heathrow are transfers).

Passengers using European Cities Airports (2004) millions

In terms of destinations, London's airports have 530 routes, more than twice as many as Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt

In a recent London Chamber of Commerce survey 78 per cent of London firms said they are against expansion at Heathrow.

Only 1 per cent of members of the Institute of Directors think airport expansion is a priority.

Why London doesn't need more airport capacity

Rail is a viable alternative

Many planes leaving Heathrow are on short haul routes served by fast rail services. Rail often has much lower carbon emissions per passenger and is often as fast.

The most popular destination served by Heathrow is Paris (60 flights per day). Other short haul destinations with fast rail links served by the airport include Brussels, Manchester, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Glasgow, Leeds/Bradford, Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Teeside. In total at least 100,000 flights per year are on routes with a viable rail alternative. If passengers on these routes took the train instead at least 0.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year would be saved. A further ten European destinations account for an additional 100,000 flights per year, and all of these destinations could be reached by rail in a day. Together these European destinations represent more than 40 per cent of the flights using Heathrow.

Taking London's airports as a whole, six of the top ten most popular destinations have good fast rail links.

Changes in ways of working

Video conferencing is rapidly becoming a popular, time saving, low carbon alternative to business travel. 40 per cent of passengers using Heathrow are on business flights and the Government could be encouraging them to use video conferencing instead.

Conclusion - T5 must be the end of UK airport expansion

The opening of T5 must mark the end of airport expansion in the UK. Friends of the Earth believes that the Government's plans for further expansion are:

• irresponsible in the face of climate change

• based on a flawed economic case

• unnecessary for the economy of the UK

• unjustified when many flights could be replaced by rail

The environmental campaign group is calling on the Government to:

• cancel plans to further expand Heathrow and other UK airports

• include the UK's share of international aviation (and shipping) emissions in its Climate Change Law

• revise its economic appraisal methodology to factor in a more realistic cost of climate change

• work with rail and video conferencing providers to improve low carbon alternatives to flying

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