Gatwick

Early this morning protesters from Plane Stupid and Transition Heathrow scaled the Heathrow Park Inn Hotel and dropped banners saying “Any new runway would be Plane Stupid” and “Runner beans not runways” in order to show resistance to the Davies Commission’s consultation proposing a future runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick.

If Heathrow Airport’s proposal for a third runway went ahead, much of the village of Harmondsworth would be demolished, with the neighbouring villages of Sipson and Harlington also under threat. Over a million people living in London could be affected by long term noise and air pollution caused by this aggressive expansion. Heathrow are already exceeding EU air pollution limits, this is likely to increase not decrease with a new runway.

The Davies’ commission argues that an expanded aviation industry would still allow the possibility of the UK staying within its 2050 climate targets of an 80% reduction of CO2 (1), which is needed to prevent a climate catastrophe. This estimate relies on predicted technological change and the use of bio-fuels. Both are unproven and allow aviation to remain a special case, absolving the industry of any climate responsibility. We find this unacceptable.

Plane Stupid campaigner Charlie Smith said:

“The Davies Commission is a farce, it has not allowed for the possibility that the best option for the country and the planet is to avoid any further aviation expansion and seek investment in alternative means of transport. The Commission has prohibited a real debate about our transport future and as such encourages any future government to expand its aviation infrastructure thus sending us further along the road to climate chaos”

After a week in which we learnt that all the Gatwick bidders wanted a second runway we learn that none of them can even afford to buy the airport. Gatwick has turned into a 2-bed flat in Streatham, with buyers lying to get a mortgage and the owner hinting at conservatories and loft extensions.

Which presumably makes the credit rating agency, Standards and Poor's, a bit like the credit crunch in this over-stretched metaphor, shaking the property ladder and laughing as your chain collapses under the weight of its own bluster. They've refused to give any of the bidders an appropriate credit rating if they borrow more than £800 million - half of the airport's already reduced cost. Just last summer Gatwick was meant to cost £2 billion, but it's now down to £1.6 billion; today's news means it's likely to sell for even less.

BAA is clearly unhappy and trying to talk up the value; hence last week's scare stories about more runway potential. Returning to our metaphor, BAA wants buyers to think that Gatwick is a real fixer-upper, despite being poorly served by transport links and probably suffering from subsidence. An airport which can expand is worth more than one which can't, but it's worth nothing if your buyers can't afford it. S&P doesn't think much of these bids: one was described as "an aggressive financial risk profile characterised by relatively high debt leverage as demonstrated by an opening debt/RAB ratio of 54pc". I have no idea what that means, but it doesn't sound very good.

Perhaps now is a good time to remind BAA that Plane Stupid is happy to buy the airport, and that we'll close it and turn it into a newt sanctuary. Stopping all those flights is worth a fortune in carbon credits, and we'll give all the airport's staff jobs looking after our amphibian friends. BAA, if you're listening, just give us a call. Newts are cute and deserve a new home.

Isn't free-market capitalism great? Just when BAA was enjoying a few months of rest, after an annus horribilus which saw protestors against Heathrow's expansion sitting on planes, squatting their car park and prancing about on Parliament, along comes the Competition Commission demanding the airport operator sell two London airports ASAP.

Normally I'd be rolling about laughing, except that I made sure to read the fine print. One of the reasons the Commission wants BAA to split up is... it didn't expand airports fast enough. Apparently BAA should have issued a legal challenge against the cap on Gatwick expanding, as well as been more aggressive at Stansted.