Londoners have been debating an expansion to Heathrow Airport for decades. Opposition has gotten so heated that a former mayor and later prime minister once pledged to lie down in front of bulldozers to stop it.
And yet, across all the years of theatrical debate, the case for adding a third runway to the UK’s busiest airport has only gotten stronger.
Could this British government finally be the one to get it done?
British Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves has promised to do so. To succeed where her predecessors have failed, she would need to once again make the case to the public — and show the competence and forbearance needed to see the project through.
Start with the basics. Heathrow Airport — which handles more than one-quarter of the UK’s exports by value, 60 percent of its air freight and more than 80 million passengers annually — is at full capacity and has been for decades. That congestion chokes commerce and constrains the country’s potential. It means fewer routes, higher airfares, slower logistics, weaker connections with other major cities and ultimately reduced economic growth.
It also hinders London in the fierce competition among global hubs for talent and trade. Long-haul flights, for freight and business passengers, are key to connecting markets in Asia, the Middle East and North America. China, France and the Netherlands have all expanded their hubs; Dubai now beats Heathrow in annual passenger traffic. By 2050, Heathrow might lose out on about 100 million passengers a year, with all the missed connections and opportunities that implies.
An expansion would not transform that picture overnight, but the benefits would be pronounced. A third runway would increase Heathrow’s capacity from about 480,000 flights a year to about 720,000, allowing total passengers to rise to perhaps 140 million. It would create, by one estimate, 100,000 jobs and boost GDP by 0.43 percent over two decades. Cheaper fares, fewer delays, improved supply chains and daily access to dozens of new markets would follow.
However, perhaps a more important benefit would be symbolic. After the self-harm induced by Brexit and following several recent public-works debacles, the UK badly needs to show that it can still act with ambition. An expanded Heathrow should not only widen the gateway to London’s intellectual and commercial assets, but also signal renewed confidence to wary investors after years of chronic indecision.
What are the drawbacks?
Noise and traffic are among the chief complaints, but as a government report found in 2015, prudent new measures — such as banning night flights, enforcing a “noise envelope” and establishing new traffic-management procedures — could mitigate many of those concerns and even mean improved quality of life for neighboring communities.
Opponents also cite environmental concerns. Yet aviation accounts for just 8 percent of the UK’s emissions, which in turn are a negligible fraction of global emissions. More to the point, rejecting expansion would simply divert flights to Paris or Amsterdam, outsourcing carbon rather than reducing it. Constrained capacity also means more planes circling, wasting fuel as they wait for landing slots.
It is worth emphasizing, finally, that technology is already mitigating such problems. Modern aircraft are quieter and more fuel-efficient than ever. Ground transportation, which accounts for a big portion of local emissions, is transitioning to electric. Advances in sustainable aviation fuel and other technologies might make air travel even cleaner. Enlightened policy — such as giving preference to airlines with lower emissions for landing slot allocations — can speed that transition.
All of which is to say that the case for expanding Heathrow remains overwhelming.
However, ultimately, the question is about more than economics. It is about whether the UK still wants to be an open and ambitious country, and whether London still wants to be the global city of tomorrow.
The British government should have a ready answer.
The Bloomberg Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
Liberals have wasted no time in pointing to Karol Nawrocki’s lack of qualifications for his new job as president of Poland. He has never previously held political office. He won by the narrowest of margins, with 50.9 percent of the vote. However, Nawrocki possesses the one qualification that many national populists value above all other: a taste for physical strength laced with violence. Nawrocki is a former boxer who still likes to go a few rounds. He is also such an enthusiastic soccer supporter that he reportedly got the logos of his two favorite teams — Chelsea and Lechia Gdansk —
RSS