UK - Stansted Airport expansion gets go-ahead

According to the BBC, the UK government has today given the go-ahead for a major expansion at Stansted airport: "Airport owner BAA wants to increase passenger numbers from 25 million to 35 million a year and flights leaving the airport from 241,000 to 264,000 a year".

It is easy, far too easy, for the government to ignore Peak Oil, and the issue that almost everyone is familiar with, global warming / climate change, but how can it ignore the current meltdown in the financial markets and the grim forecasts for the UK economy?

Given the current state of, and the dire forecasts for, the UK economy, you might think that any decisions about major road / air expansions would be delayed for a year or two. But not according to this article from the BBC: Airport expansion gets go-ahead (Updated regularly. This is the original text):

Controversial plans for an expansion of Stansted Airport in Essex have been given the go-ahead by the government.

Airport owner BAA wants to increase passenger numbers from 25 million to 35 million a year and flights leaving the airport from 241,000 to 264,000 a year.

Objectors said an expansion would damage the environment but some unions said the proposal could bring new jobs.

Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon made the announcement in a written statement to Parliament on Thursday.

Environmental concerns

Stansted's managing director, Stewart Wingate, said the decision was "great news" for passengers.

He said: "We are naturally delighted that the Secretaries of State have granted permission for the next phase of growth at Stansted."

Planning permission for the expansion was originally refused on grounds of noise and environmental concerns by Uttlesford District Council in November 2006.

A public inquiry was held into the proposals during which BAA said there would be measures to control, manage and minimise predicted impacts on the local environment.

Members of the Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) campaign group have held a long-running campaign against the plans.

It is unfortunate that the BBC has decided not to discuss the number of airlines that have gone bust this year, and forecast for those to go bust over the next few months:

Global airlines in deep crisis, 26 already go bust: IATA

Another 30 airlines will go bust before Christmas, warns BA chief as 90,000 XL passengers figure out how to get home

Am I safe to book next year's holiday?

The UK government seems to be so detached from reality the big question is: how are these clowns going to deal with the more serious issues of declining supplies of oil and natural gas, and the UK's unreliable electricity supplies?

"Am I safe to book next year's holiday?". Only this afternoon I was checking times and prices for flights for a field excursion for my students, for dates which were pencilled in about 6 weeks ago. I found that on the dates in February 2009, the flights that had previously been listed, both outbound and returning had been cancelled. I presume this was because the airline - it should be "easy" for you to guess which - expected there would be insufficient demand for the (cheapest) midweek flights we had intended using. The dates we have now had to switch to are of course, more expensive. So maybe the answer to the question is, if you are rash enough to commiting to a holiday next year given the developing situation, "maybe", but don't bet your shirt (or job) on going on the actual dates you book for!

Re Stanstead and the main post - No it should not be expanded.

Doctorbob

So maybe the answer to the question is, if you are rash enough to commiting to a holiday next year given the developing situation, "maybe", but don't bet your shirt (or job) on going on the actual dates you book for!

If we all stop going on holiday and stop buying goods won't that just add to the downward spiral?
Why not splash-out and have the 'holiday of a lifetime'?
Spread the word, "Go for it", fill the planes up, then maybe you will be able to go on the days you booked.
[If the doomers are right it may be your last chance.]

Would it really be rash of you to consider going on holiday next year? How do you see your circumstances changing between now and then?

What is now underway has been forecast for at least a year on financial blog sites like The Automatic Earth (run by former Canada TODers). If you want the (?last big) holiday of a lifetime and have ready cash (not borrowed money) to hand, do it next year as that may well be the last chance, but doing it in the year just gone would have been better!

As far as buying goods is concerned, in way it's a good time to do it while everything is still available - indeed there are plenty of sales on! But what you should be buying is not "consumer junk", electronics, etc., but durable goods to last you many years if not decades. Again there are plenty of lists available of what you need for the future we are going into - see Sharon Astyk's site which is a mine of information on how to deal with where we are going.

Circumstances changing? Well, just for starters I'd expect UK unemployment to be going up at 100,000 per month in a year's time.

"If you want the (?last big) holiday of a lifetime and have ready cash (not borrowed money) to hand, do it next year as that may well be the last chance, but doing it in the year just gone would have been better!"

Mmmm - this brings to mind an excellent article I read at Medialens:http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/070206_in_the_spirit.php

P.S. I realised after posting that as the article was about Stanstead the assumed holiday was by plane - but perhaps your "holiday of a lifetime" may be by some other means.

Following this announcement 'benefits to the economy' were referred to in an interview - on BBC News 24 I recall. Maybe I'm missing something here but Stansted is mainly used by budget airlines with typically 75% to 90% of their passengers being UK citizens. On this basis the proposed expansion will facilitate between 7.5m and 9m to travel abroad taking UK currency with them (aviation tourism is currently estimated to contibute a net deficit of £19bn pa to UK trade balance). Furthermore many of the (relatively low paid) service jobs associated with the airport and local services will be filled by workers from Eastern Europe as opposed to UK citizens. On this basis I'm struggling to see how the UK economy is really going to benefit from this expansion - even the airport owner (BAA) and a major budget carrier at Stansted (Ryan Air) are not UK companies.

In short much of the so-called economic benefit of Stansted Airport expansion will hasten outflow of sterling from the UK....and I doubt financial services will be offsetting so much of this currency outflow from now on. The 'credit crunch' will not be confined to individuals and companies - it will impact whole nations' ability to borrow foreign currency as is already the case with Iceland. From the aspects of environment, energy depletion and economics the case for airport expansion is severely flawed and yet this Government continues to proceed apace with such folly, at Stansted, Heathrow and elsewhere.

Interesting couple of articles have appeared in the Scottish Herald the last couple of days.

35 more airline collapses predicted for 2008 forecasts another 35 airlines to go bust during this winter, but this time it is the Director General of the European Regional Airlines industry body saying it.

Scotland’s airports report 6.6% fall in passengers refers to Scottish airports. The article goes into more detail about statistics for each airport, but numbers of passengers seem to falling at all - Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh. 6.6% is a big drop for one year. The industry however remains optimistic in the face of decline:

"However, we remain confident the market will recover and that demand will return. In the meantime, we are continuing to promote Scotland as a destination and working with airline partners to support their marketing efforts."

And in today's (Sat 11th Oct) Financial Times: BAA passenger traffic falls as airlines collapse:

The number of passengers travelling through BAA's seven UK airports fell sharply last month reflecting the impact of weakening economic growth as well as the collapse of two airlines.

Overall passenger traffic declined by five per cent year-on-year in September, a rapid deterioration compared with the fall of 1.4 per cent in the first nine months.

Traffic volumes have been falling for six months in succession and have fallen in seven of nine months this year, as demand for air travel has slowed under pressure from weaker consumer confidence and higher fares caused by rising fuel costs. The downturn accelerated last month.

... None of the BAA airports escaped the downturn with traffic at Heathrow declining by 3.6 per cent year-on-year and Stansted passenger volumes falling by 4.7 per cent.

Makes you wonder if the UK govt announcement to go ahead with the Stansted expansion was deliberately done before the bad news about air traffic numbers came out.

Despite this negative headline, Cash crisis hits Aberdeen Airport for fifth month in the Aberdeen Press and Journal, the article is never the less upbeat about Aberdeen airport prospects for future growth.

Of course one of the aims of such announcements by government is to convey the illusion that the current economic crisis and recession is expected to be over within a couple of years, and that business-as-usual, economic growth and increase in air traffic will resume after a short while. They are probably right to assume that any announcement of refusing permission for new runways would be interpreted as an admission that a long and deep recession is ahead. The result would be to further intensify the panic over future economic prospects.

Sounds about right doctorbob.
I wonder if Stansted will turn out a vast version of a project in Penrith (Cumbria)?
Business plan of proposed mega shopping mall, one presumes, was to attract custom from elsewhere via longer distance motor traffic - started by demolishing large chunk of the town. Large hole in the ground with some concrete and steel abandoned last week as workers ordered off site.
I have been wondering about 2012 Olympics.

I was thinking the same. Although Stansted expansion has been given planning consent, what are the chances of it actually going ahead? Presumably the development will be with borrowed money, but what with yesterday's UK govt nationalisation of the banks, this may amount to a green light for lending to developments, such as Stansted, that might otherwise have not been able to raise the cash.

The same geos for the Aberdeen bypass (western peripheral route). It was costed at about £250M in 2005. Probably at least double that now, with Aberdeen City Council, which is in deep financial trouble at the moment, expected to come up with 5-10% of the cost. Starts next year, finishes 2011 or so, but I am doubtful it well ever get finished. Horses with carts don't travel well on modern roads anyway.