baa back down (?) on heathrow expansion

the times report that baa have decided against submitting an application to build a third runway and sixth terminal and heathrow.

so, baa (the british airports authority, who own and run several (but not all!) uk airports and run naples airport) have decided against putting an application in to expand heathrow before the next election, and will not fight a tory government over the issue, should they come into power.

as with any surprise news relating to climate change (see: kingsnorth earlier this week), the following responses were experienced:

-> "AWESOME!";
-> "oh hang on, i must be missing something...";
-> "oh, what are other people saying about this?";
-> "okay, that's not as great as i first thought, but on the plus side...".

so, let's start from the beginning.


"AWESOME!"
GREAT NEWS! so baa are finally listening to what residents, local businesses, scientists and activists are saying! it's unnecessary, unwanted, will contribute to climate change and will ruin the surrounding area further.

"oh hang on, i must be missing something..."
wait. why mention the tories? what the times has actually reported is that baa told the tory party conference that they won't bully them into accepting it. the tories have held a strong, disapproving stance on heathrow expansion, but if they win by a landslide in the next election, there is no guarantee that they will not back down to the aviation lobby, just like the labour government did despite fervent opposition even within the party. there has been no indication of what could happen should labour remain in government (most likely, nothing, considering their fast track approval of expansion earlier this year). so why are baa doing this? in all likelihood, it probably means very little and they are just trying to keep the tories sweet to make likely further (possibly more controversial, who knows?) proposals easier to get approval for.

"oh, what are other people saying about this?"
there's currently very little available about this on the internet right now. thisislocallondon state geraldine nicholson from notrag (no third runway action group) as suggesting that the willingness of baa to back down show that there is no 'compelling case' for a third runway. this may be true, but even the notrag website's piece on it states that baa have asked the tories not to completely write off plans for expansion at heathrow.

"okay, that's not as great as i first thought, but on the plus side..."
so, whilst it might not be what we were hoping for (a definite decision not to go ahead with third runway plans), we should be wary of baa's motives in terms of keeping the tories happy, particularly considering their willingness to look into a new airport in the thames estuary instead of expanding the current sites in london.

ultimately, any delay of a project like the third runway at heathrow is a welcome one, the more delays occur the higher the chances of it being completely written off. with the guardian reporting this week that british airways will cut 1,700 jobs from heathrow alone, and with the bbc reporting that baa is looking into shutting its glasgow airport for several weeks during the winter as part of new cost-cutting measures, you do have to wonder whether there even exists such a demand for airport expansion.