The air is full of rumours about airports and runways. This state of affairs is likely to continue for several months as important reports are expected.

Demand for air travel is set to rise substantially over the next thirty years. This may mean as many as three extra runways in the south-east. Small wonder that every word spoken by the new Secretary of State for Transport is being minutely examined for hints as to where the new runways may be put.

In broad terms, the choice is simple. An additional runway could be put at the three existing airports, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

The alternative is a wholly new airport in the Thames Estuary. Either course of action is physically possible, but the impact on rural England of second runways at Stansted and Gatwick would be severe. And the people around Heathrow would probably say that they already bear a sufficiently noisy burden.

Yet whatever answer is found has to satisfy the needs of British civil aviation. It is an industry which makes a very large contribution to our economy.

If people are to be persuaded to fly with British airlines, they have to be given the range of easy connections that can be found at Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. Passengers will not expect to be bussed from one London airport to another when at these other European airports they can in some cases walk from one aircraft to the next.

The bold answer (albeit more injurious to birds than people) would be to go for a new airport in the Thames Estuary which could operate 24 hours a day. Sounds like Maplin all over again?

Well, it is a similar concept, but it is the only one which guarantees the future. In environmental terms, it is the least worst solution.

June 21, 2002 16:00