BIRMINGHAM - 4

[roverman]

White Papers

I have also posted this on the Manchester thread. It is relevant to both.

I've not heard anything of this 2011 White Paper except on this thread, but certainly the 2003 version needs updating, as its mantra of growth for everyone and new runways all over the place has patently floundered. Which is why we should not pay too much heed to the contents of such documents. If we go back to 1978 the White Paper declared MAN as a Category A International Gateway, along with just Heathrow, Gatwick and Prestwick(!). Unfortunately, BA weren't interested in anywhere but London, and a host of cosy bilateral agreements effectively barred airlines from serving MAN on long-haul routes. Years of campaigning by MAN and northern MPs eventually succeeded in removing some of these constraints to allow SQ, AA etc into MAN. BA played games with various long-hauls as spoilers before dumping them. As government regulation and ownership waned the markets took over. Everyone wanted a piece of the action at the newly open-skies Heathrow. Manchester lost many of its hard-won long-hauls in the scramble for Heathrow slots. And so the content of a White Paper is pointless unless it becomes policy backed by government action to bring about the stated aims. Manchester has never had any 'government assistance' as somebody claimed on this thread. MAN's development has always been on the back of operating profits and borrowing, although I will concede that being public-sector gave it access to some preferable financing arrangements.

The 2003 White Paper was a nonsense, representative of the whole flawed economic thinking of the Noughties. It was visibly toilet paper by 2007.

And so to 2011, if it is for real. Why are we so hung up about where London passengers should fly from? They have several big arports to choose from, and if they can't go direct they have a bewildering choice of connections. No-one is asking London/SE passengers to fly from Birmingham or Manchester. What we need is a national policy for air transport which provides the right range of services where they are required. We must stop comparing how far BHX or MAN is from London, it is not just about London, it is about the air transport needs of United Kingdom. If the London Airports are not to be expanded, which is current policy, then how do we accommodate growth for the UK's air travel requirements? A sensible answer is to stop people from outside the South East having to use the London airports, thereby freeing existing capacity at the London airports for use by 'local' passengers. Instead of saying 'we've only got 26 flights a day from London to New York, we need more because all those nasty northerners keep taking the seats', we can offer those people heading south on the M6 the chance to fly from Manchester and Birmingham, and perhaps Glasgow. This is not a new argument, it was around in the 1970s but keeps coming back because of the crazy 'winner takes all' market forces which have been allowed to run riot in this country and have brought it close to economic catastrophe. We must keep feeding the monster, we are told, 'so that we can remain competitive', and stop looking for another solution 'because the markets demand it'.

Any new White Paper on Airports must translate into positive action/intervention to support its central aims, otherwise it's just toilet paper again. A new paper will hopefully endorse current policy to cap the growth of the London airports, and provide active support to facilitate the use of spare/new capacity at the principal non-London airports to provide a range of services to serve the non-London market, with the secondary effect of freeing some capacity in the SE. The active support could take various forms, but include differential taxation (being considered), and conditions placed upon access to Heathrow such that beyond a certain frequency of service on any particular route there will be a requirement to serve another UK city. We already know that duplicating services from every small regional is not going to work, so I can't see the likes of Bristol and Newcastle getting many more routes than they have now. Manchester and Birmingham are the main players, with investment in ground transport infrastructure to make them easily accessible from around the country. GLA/EDI will service Scotland on a more limited range of routes. If all this makes our country 'uncompetitive' then so be it. and conditions placed upon access to Heathrow such that beyond a certain frequency of service on any particular route, there will be a requirement to serve another non-London UK city.

We already know that duplicating services from every small regional is not going to work, so I can't see the likes of Bristol and Newcastle getting many more routes than they have now. Manchester and Birmingham are the main players, with investment in ground transport infrastructure to make them easily accessible from around the country. GLA/EDI will service Scotland on a more limited range of routes. If all this makes our country 'uncompetitive' then so be it. A few big-wigs will have to relocate off-shore but at least our children will have some quality of life.