Heathrow

God bless the Sunday Times. After exposing a whole host of nonsense from BAA (including how they tried to influence the Competition Commission's report), they've now discovered that BAA faked one of the central claims of the Government's case for expansion.

BAA were given the now-famous "strict, local environmental limits" by the Government, and told that expansion could not take place if either noise or pollution would breach these limits. When it became obvious that the runway would be way too noisy and polluting, they invented a new type of super-jumbo which was uber-quiet and non-polluting.

The plane was going to be so popular that by 2030 it would account for more flights out of Heathrow than any other 4-engined aircraft (including the Airbus A380 and other jumbos). But neither Airbus nor Boeing have any plans for such a plane; nor do engineers think it's even possible to build one. Even the Government was sceptical, but BAA told them there wasn't time to revise the data... so in it went.

What strange times we live in. First the Tory party decides it doesn't think Heathrow should expand (and then goes further, with vague comments about no expansion in the South-East), then business leaders demand BAA axes 5,000 flights to sort out Heathrow's chronic delays.

This is about the only sensible thing I've ever heard a business leader say. BAA likes to cry about how Heathrow is over-capacity, and therefore must expand right bloody now. But what sort of an argument is that? If Glastonbury announced that it was really overcrowded because they'd decided to let 30% more people in that it was designed for, would your first response be "expand the festival"? Doubt it - you'd demand they reduced the number of people there until it only had the number of entrants it was designed for.

Why do BAA think it's acceptable to over use the airport? If, as they are so proud of claiming, it was designed for 55million but currently handles 70 million, then why don't they just starting cancelling flights until we're back to 55million again? When people's homes are at stake (not to mention the climate) why should we let BAA artificially create delays to justify expansion. You may think Heathrow needs sorting out, but it doesn't need expansion. BAA must stop squeezing people into Heathrow as thought they were sardines.

Call me a softy, but I'm starting to feel sorry for the aviation industry. Last weekend we learnt that one airline a week is going out of business in the US, while oil prices have forced Australian flagship Quantus to ground some of its fleet. Then came the cherry on the cake: BAA, the UK's least popular airport owner, made a loss of £62 million in the first three months of 2008.

Quick to rustle up an excuse, the Heathrow bosses blamed the fiasco at T5, although seeing as this was entirely their fault, is a bit like saying "we're broke because we're crap" - not an excuse, but a reason. Apparently they were so determined to get the opening right that they spent £24 million on security and the like - presumably to keep out the scruffy protesters who flash mobbed them.

Sadly this loss just makes their selling Gatwick or Stansted all the more likely, increasing competition between airports and, as the Competition Commission made clear, increasing the calls for unbridled airport expansion - although if BAA keep losing money like this, they'll have to scale back their plans to bury Sipson under the tarmac...

At the end of this month thousands of people are gathering at Hatton Cross to oppose the third runway and airport expansion. We'll be there of course, but the marchers might have a very special guest: rumour has it that God will be joining them.

OK, so maybe that's an exaggeration: God may or may not be there (it is, admittedly, hard to tell), but the Archbishop of Canterbury has given his backing for the demonstration, sending a letter of support to be read out during the rally. The Archbishop's spokesman told the Evening Standard: "He acknowledges the strength of support (against a third runway). He is aware of the problems encountered by churches on the ground across London. He is trying not to fly if he can help it. He has not flown at all this year."

As Bob Dylan explained back in 1964, having God on your side does make things a bit easier. Flippancy aside, the coalition of the unlikely is growing stronger and broader every day. Even the Evening Standard, voice of conservative capitalism, has switched sides, with a recent editorial opposing expansion. Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Transport, is well known as to be deeply religious. Will the Archbishop's support for the campaign sway her?