LONDON'SHeathrow is the world's busiest international airport. It handlesnearly half of the passenger traffic between North America and Europe.It connects the City of London to the rest of the world. It is thefortress that guards the lucrative transatlantic business of BritishAirways (BA). In anticipation of this month's start of the “open skies”agreement between America and the European Union, other airlines arequeuing up to fly from it too.
YetHeathrow is also the world's most abhorred international airport. Itsuffers the worst flight delays and loses the most bags. Its endlesssecurity queues, rude staff and shoddy facilities plague passengers.Its owner, BAA, which also runs the two other main London airports,Gatwick and Stansted, is an object of much ridicule (see article).
Despitethe inevitable first-day glitches, the ￡4.3 billion ($8.5 billion)Terminal 5, which opened this week, will improve Heathrow for the 40%of passengers who fly with BA. But new terminals will not solve thereal problem: a lack of runways. Heathrow has only two, which operatewithin a whisker of full capacity. It cannot grow to meet demand. And,when something goes wrong, small delays become big ones.
TheBritish government thinks this frames the case for a third runway atthe airport. To the fury of local residents and green campaigners—andcheers from the aviation industry—it argues that Heathrow must expandif Britain is to have the competitive hub airport it needs. A decisionhas been promised before the summer. It looks like being the wrong one.
Withthe closure of Hong Kong's Kai Tak a decade ago, Heathrow ranks as theairport that does most harm to people living nearby. Thanks to itswesterly winds and the east-west axis of its two runways, about 2mpeople in West London and neighbouring towns endure noise, airpollution and the small, ever-present risk of a catastrophic accident.By relaxing operating restrictions on Heathrow's runways and addinganother, BAA reckons it can raise the number of flights from today'slimit of 480,000 a year to 720,000. BAA and the government think thatbecause aircraft are getting quieter and cleaner the extra flights willbe bearable. But that conclusion is disputed by the government's ownwatchdog, the Environment Agency.
Ifthe environmental externalities were the only cost of expandingHeathrow, you could perhaps mitigate them by charging airlines forpollution (a good idea, anyway). However, the other reason to doubt thewisdom of letting Heathrow go on growing—the constraint on spaceimposed by its location in London—is less easy for the government todispense with. Passenger-traffic forecasts suggest that, shortly aftera third runway opens, in 2020, Heathrow will be full again. BAA hastalked about a fourth runway, but not even the most ardent Heathrowexpanders can say where it would go.
对于希思罗的扩建，如果仅仅只有对环境的影响问题的话，你可以通过向航空公司征收污染费的方式来减轻压力（无论如何，这是个好主意）。但是，另一个质疑扩建希思罗机场明智与否的问题对于政府而言便不好解决了，那便是由于机场在伦敦的位置所造成的空间限制。根据客流量预测显示，在第三跑道建成不久之后，也就是2020年的时候，希思罗将再次达到饱和。BAA已经开始谈论第四跑道，但是即使对是希思罗扩张最积极的人也不敢说哪天可以实现。
Thegovernment thinks this hell is worth it: the British economy benefitsfrom having Heathrow as a competitive hub airport, because the moretransit passengers there are—they have grown from 9% of the total in1992 to 35% in 2004—the bigger the route network and the more valuablethe airport is to Britons. But Heathrow will never be a desirable hubairport, because of where it is. It will continue to be out-gunned byParis Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol and Frankfurt, all of whichhave twice the runway space, greater potential for expansion and bettersurface transport.
政府认为这些难题都是值得的：英国经济将会从希思罗变成枢纽机场的过程中受益。由于旅客数量越多，航线网络便越密集，同时对英国人的好处也越多，客流量比重已经从1992年的9%提升到了2004年的35%。但是，希思罗永远不会成为一个称心如意的机场，这是由于其地理位置决定的。它将会继续落后于巴黎戴高乐机场，阿姆斯特丹的斯希普霍尔机场和法兰克福机场，这些机场都拥有着两倍的跑道空间，更大的扩建潜力以及更便捷的水陆运输。
Onealternative is to start again. Time after time in country aftercountry, hub airports have been rebuilt farther away from city centres.In the 1970s Britain toyed with the idea of building a big new airportin the Thames estuary to the east of London. But the scheme wasovertaken by economic crisis, and the stranglehold of BAA and BA, bothof which have a lot invested in Heathrow, has prevented its revival.
Anew airport may yet be needed. But, in the meantime, there are ways ofmaking Heathrow better. It is crowded because it is too cheap forairlines to use and because BAA has been encouraged to stuff it full oftransit and leisure passengers who it hopes will spend money in itsshops. Business travellers, who generate the most value for the widereconomy, account for only a third of the airport's passengers.
Thissuggests a better solution to the overcrowding. First, the price forusing Heathrow should reflect the value and scarcity of its capacity.Second, any new capacity should be built at London's other airports.And, third, these airports should be set free to compete with Heathrowby breaking up BAA.
Highercharges would drive transit passengers to the hubs in continentalEurope. That would be no great loss. Although transit passengers helpBA and BAA, they do little for Britain's economy. If the route networkshrinks, the least-useful routes go first. In any case, because lots ofpeople want to fly to and from London, transit passengers are lesscrucial to maintaining Heathrow's route network than the governmentthinks.
Competitionbetween Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted would help too. Stansted, with asecond runway, would suck in leisure traffic. The new owner of Gatwick,much better placed to grow than Heathrow, would have good reason tobuild a second runway after 2019 (when an old planning agreementexpires), with the aim of attracting one of the big airlinealliances—and thus becoming a hub itself.
Suchchanges call for an overhaul of the way Britain runs air travel. Atpresent, the landing charges for Heathrow and Gatwick are fixed by theCivil Aviation Authority, which juggles desire for low prices with theneed for BAA to invest and make money. It should be told to thinkinstead about charging a full price for using Heathrow, and theresulting excess profits at BAA should be taxed. The incumbentairlines, the big losers, would have to accept that their slots wouldbe worth less and that they would pay more (which is one reason tophase in the change), but their passengers would gain a functioningairport. It is time for the British government to realise that it isnot its job to be the champion of the aviation industry.
