0:00:16 > 0:00:21Order, order, welcome and thank you so much for coming along today to
0:00:21 > 0:00:24answer our questions. Can I ask yourself the purpose of the
0:00:24 > 0:00:29recording to introduce yourself and to you represent.I am Jon Holland
0:00:29 > 0:00:35Kay, the Chief Executive of Heathrow Airport.I'm Emma Hill for, director
0:00:35 > 0:00:41for expansion at Heathrow.The case for a new Northwest runway at
0:00:41 > 0:00:44Heathrow seems primarily to me to be based on the need to maintain the
0:00:44 > 0:00:50UK's hub status. What evidence and is a specifically evidence is there
0:00:50 > 0:00:55to support the assertion that the UK will benefit from extra hub
0:00:55 > 0:01:01capacity?Thank you madam chair and thank you for the opportunity to
0:01:01 > 0:01:06speak to the committee. This is a great opportunity to get on and make
0:01:06 > 0:01:10sure that as you say, the UK remains one of the world's great trading
0:01:10 > 0:01:16nations by being at a heart of an aviation network. What is unique
0:01:16 > 0:01:22about a hub airport like Heathrow is that we can develop the long haul
0:01:22 > 0:01:25connections to typically business destinations that the UK needs in
0:01:25 > 0:01:30order to grow its economy. That's not just important for London, it is
0:01:30 > 0:01:33important for the whole of the UK that we connect all of Britain to
0:01:33 > 0:01:37the growing markets of the world and Heathrow as a hub airport is one of
0:01:37 > 0:01:42the most successful in the world, we have long haul services, regular
0:01:42 > 0:01:47throughout the year to over 80 long haul destinations. Until recently be
0:01:47 > 0:01:51with the best connected hub airport in the world until we were overtaken
0:01:51 > 0:01:56by Paris and that's evidence of how the trading benefits that we get
0:01:56 > 0:02:00with having a major hub can be whittled away if we don't invest in
0:02:00 > 0:02:03additional capacity because the airlines that want to come to
0:02:03 > 0:02:06Heathrow are choosing to go elsewhere and they are typically
0:02:06 > 0:02:11going to rivals in France. But Heathrow expansion brings is three
0:02:11 > 0:02:16things, first of all more long haul coming to the growing markets of the
0:02:16 > 0:02:20world, over 40 new destinations and that will make sure Britain remains
0:02:20 > 0:02:24of the global economy. Secondly the opportunity for more original
0:02:24 > 0:02:30collectivity to insure insure important UK markets such as
0:02:30 > 0:02:32Inverness, Aberdeen, Belfast maintain their connections but we
0:02:32 > 0:02:37can add connections to places like Newquay, perhaps to Liverpool,
0:02:37 > 0:02:41cities that are disconnected from the UK hub airport need to be
0:02:41 > 0:02:44reconnected to make sure everyone benefits from the Heathrow
0:02:44 > 0:02:46benefits from the Heathrow expansion. Finally, it's not just
0:02:46 > 0:02:52about people, it's also about trade and export. A third almost of all UK
0:02:52 > 0:02:56exports outside the EU go on passenger planes from Heathrow and
0:02:56 > 0:03:00yet many of those routes are at capacity. If we want to grow the
0:03:00 > 0:03:04economy and exports we need to have more hub connections from Heathrow
0:03:04 > 0:03:09and that will help to make sure Britain remains one of the world's
0:03:09 > 0:03:12rate trading nations, long cold destinations, domestic connectivity
0:03:12 > 0:03:18and exports are the key economic drivers for Heathrow expansion.One
0:03:18 > 0:03:22of the perceived benefits of hub airports is that it will make routes
0:03:22 > 0:03:27viable because you can pull in transfer passengers to make up those
0:03:27 > 0:03:38flights. Can you give us an idea of what proportion of passengers on the
0:03:38 > 0:03:40Saint roof at Heathrow are made up of international transfer
0:03:40 > 0:03:47passengers.On average transfer passengers make up about a third of
0:03:47 > 0:03:52all of our passengers and on the thin routes, and for the benefit of
0:03:52 > 0:03:56the committee, a thin route is a less heavily travelled route which
0:03:56 > 0:04:01is typically hard to make viable as a point-to-point route. A good
0:04:01 > 0:04:06example of that might be a market like Mexico City, it's the
0:04:06 > 0:04:11commercial centre of Mexico as you would expect, a city the same size
0:04:11 > 0:04:15as London, growing quickly, vital trading market, and on a route like
0:04:15 > 0:04:21that on average there might be 40-50% transfer passengers
0:04:21 > 0:04:26throughout the year, on some days it might be as little as 20-30%, on
0:04:26 > 0:04:36Sundays as much as 60-70% but what transfer passengers do is allow
0:04:36 > 0:04:39airlines to provide that service economically day in and day out
0:04:39 > 0:04:41throughout the year and that's exactly what business travellers
0:04:41 > 0:04:45from the UK need so that you can travel to your destination at any
0:04:45 > 0:04:50time to your convenience and get back again and for Mexico City,
0:04:50 > 0:04:53particularly, we have two flights a day from Heathrow, if you are
0:04:53 > 0:04:59travelling on a couple of days time, you can get to Mexico City with a
0:04:59 > 0:05:03choice of different airlines competing, fantastic service for
0:05:03 > 0:05:06British business not enjoyed by their opposite numbers in Italy or
0:05:06 > 0:05:11Poland or many other major European markets but is a significant benefit
0:05:11 > 0:05:16to UK businesses by having a leading hub airport here.Would you be able
0:05:16 > 0:05:20to send a data showing the proportion of international transfer
0:05:20 > 0:05:25passengers on some of the dinner routes routes that you have recently
0:05:25 > 0:05:29been able to add?We'd be happy to do that and I will write the
0:05:29 > 0:05:36committee separately on that.Thank you. Thank you. All the major cities
0:05:36 > 0:05:39are developing direct routes to other major cities all around the
0:05:39 > 0:05:47world. Surely that actually reduces the number of transfer passengers?
0:05:47 > 0:05:54It's an interesting example. What we typically see happening in global
0:05:54 > 0:06:00aviation, long cold destinations, network carriers that operate from a
0:06:00 > 0:06:08hub airport are growing the number of destinations that they serve, a
0:06:08 > 0:06:12good example would be Cathay Pacific, they recently started a
0:06:12 > 0:06:18four day a week service from Hong Kong to Manchester, fantastic
0:06:18 > 0:06:21conductivity for Manchester, exactly the right thing the UK needs and
0:06:21 > 0:06:24that's on the back of I think eight flights a day directly to Hong Kong
0:06:24 > 0:06:30every day of the year from Heathrow. And what we've been able to do is
0:06:30 > 0:06:37help to develop trade via Heathrow for Manchester businesses that is
0:06:37 > 0:06:40now being served directly. It's a very good thing to have had its not
0:06:40 > 0:06:47a substitute for hub connectivity. Hong Kong is one... Hong Kong to
0:06:47 > 0:06:50Heathrow is one of the busiest routes in the world, it's absolutely
0:06:50 > 0:06:53right other city should be able to develop a connection but I think it
0:06:53 > 0:06:57will be a long time before Manchester has a direct flight to
0:06:57 > 0:07:01Manchester City or to some of the secondary cities in China it
0:07:01 > 0:07:05desperately needs to trade with. One tailback time, Heathrow will be able
0:07:05 > 0:07:09to fill in that gap and make sure we are helping businesses in Manchester
0:07:09 > 0:07:18or Scotland or Belfast or the West to develop.And are you satisfied
0:07:18 > 0:07:24and can you provide sufficient evidence that the pattern is of
0:07:24 > 0:07:26passenger behaviour and business activity are not going to change
0:07:26 > 0:07:32significantly over the next 20-30 years and that you are satisfied the
0:07:32 > 0:07:36continuing need for a hub airport? We are confident in the continuing
0:07:36 > 0:07:40need for a hub airport and very often people talk about the new
0:07:40 > 0:07:48planes, the Boeing 787 and how they will change the economics. Look at
0:07:48 > 0:07:53who is buying those, they are mainly been bought I network carriers
0:07:53 > 0:07:56operating out of the hub airports, people like Cathay Pacific or
0:07:56 > 0:08:01Singapore airlines. They are helping to build the hub because they make
0:08:01 > 0:08:03it more viable to have secondary cities connected and that's what we
0:08:03 > 0:08:08need in the UK. The capacity for more flights from Heathrow to
0:08:08 > 0:08:12secondary cities around the world, cities in China we barely heard of
0:08:12 > 0:08:15but will be vital to the growth of the economy long-term and yes, we
0:08:15 > 0:08:22will see a growth in other cities in the UK having direct flights into
0:08:22 > 0:08:26other hubs around the world such as Hong Kong or Dubai, that figure a
0:08:26 > 0:08:30good thing but it does not substitute for having an expanded
0:08:30 > 0:08:33Heathrow because only an expanded Heathrow will make sure the UK
0:08:33 > 0:08:38remains at the centre of the global trading network and does not come a
0:08:38 > 0:08:43spoke to someone else's trading network.As an aside, I'm sure when
0:08:43 > 0:08:47you mentioned it Newquay and Inverness earlier you meant to
0:08:47 > 0:08:53include Humberside as well.I did indeed! I hope that fly beat will
0:08:53 > 0:08:57have a chance to speak to the committee because that's one of the
0:08:57 > 0:09:01important UK markets which is not currently served by Heathrow and
0:09:01 > 0:09:05they have mentioned it might be one they would open up.Thank you. I
0:09:05 > 0:09:09think one of my questions are specifically about the importance of
0:09:09 > 0:09:17hub because in the MPS we see all three expansion options offer a
0:09:17 > 0:09:22comparable boost to passenger numbers at the London and UK level
0:09:22 > 0:09:28and Heathrow offers a marginally more long haul connection, in 2013
0:09:28 > 0:09:34the north-west runway would offer 122 long haul destinations rather
0:09:34 > 0:09:42than 117 with no expansion and by 20 5024 rather than 122. That doesn't
0:09:42 > 0:09:50seem to suggest you might expect from a hub, that is only marginally
0:09:50 > 0:09:55more long haul destinations, isn't it?We correctly have just over 80
0:09:55 > 0:09:58long haul destinations, I think Paris is slightly ahead of us with
0:09:58 > 0:10:0386. If we can achieve 120 that makes you through the best connected in
0:10:03 > 0:10:07the world and Britain the best connected country in the world, that
0:10:07 > 0:10:11is a huge advantage for us as a trading nation.I understand that
0:10:11 > 0:10:18it's just the MPS predictable hundred and 17 x 2030 with no
0:10:18 > 0:10:23expansion, there'd only be an extra five with expansion.Without
0:10:23 > 0:10:29expansion of what we are likely to see was laid out with the Airports
0:10:29 > 0:10:34Commission he continued reduction by domestic routes and UK regional
0:10:34 > 0:10:39routes being replaced by long haul routes. That is not the right
0:10:39 > 0:10:45solution for the UK, we need to make sure all of the UK benefits from
0:10:45 > 0:10:46conductivity and only Heathrow expansion can deliver that but I
0:10:46 > 0:10:53would just point out the work that was done in terms of passenger
0:10:53 > 0:11:00demand by the TFT takes a conservative approach to the growth
0:11:00 > 0:11:04of passengers, but it clearly shows is that there is more urgent need of
0:11:04 > 0:11:09expanding Heathrow, the growth demand is there, I can see that
0:11:09 > 0:11:14myself. And it shows there is a significant higher level of
0:11:14 > 0:11:17long-haul flying from expanded Heathrow but what does not take into
0:11:17 > 0:11:22account by the economic benefits, the benefits of freight, inbound
0:11:22 > 0:11:27tourism, foreign direct investment and that significantly understate
0:11:27 > 0:11:30the economic benefit of the Heathrow expansion by over £100 billion,
0:11:30 > 0:11:35that's one of the big apps between the DFT analysis and the work
0:11:35 > 0:11:38originally done by the Airports Commission and just helps to
0:11:38 > 0:11:41underpinned the wealth of benefit that comes to all of the UK with
0:11:41 > 0:11:46Heathrow.But how confident can we be about that evidence when it
0:11:46 > 0:11:53doesn't appear in the MPS and it was withdrawn as not being sufficiently
0:11:53 > 0:12:00edible?I think the facts, if you take exports, the facts around that
0:12:00 > 0:12:04alone are compelling. Nearly a third of all UK exports outside the EU
0:12:04 > 0:12:09going through Heathrow, the exports from Heathrow in just 3-4 days is
0:12:09 > 0:12:13more the entire annual exports out of Gatwick Ahmed that gives you a
0:12:13 > 0:12:17sense of how we are different business models. If we want to grow
0:12:17 > 0:12:21the export economy we have to grow Heathrow but none of that value was
0:12:21 > 0:12:24taken into account with the DFT analysis and the desert at the can
0:12:24 > 0:12:30for the UK, that is why manufacturing organisations and
0:12:30 > 0:12:33export organisations are supportive of Heathrow expansion.Can I talk
0:12:33 > 0:12:39specifically about business travel because within the MPS, the
0:12:39 > 0:12:46importance of business travel is emphasised and that's part of the
0:12:46 > 0:12:51strategic case yet when we look at the numbers under all expansion
0:12:51 > 0:12:55scenarios including no expansion, the demand for business travel is
0:12:55 > 0:13:02the same, why?To give you some context, the mix of passengers
0:13:02 > 0:13:07travelling through Heathrow, around a third are business, a third are
0:13:07 > 0:13:10tourists and about a third are visiting friends and relatives. And
0:13:10 > 0:13:16I think the number she might be referring to are solely the business
0:13:16 > 0:13:24travellers, people as you would imagine, we are vitally important
0:13:24 > 0:13:28for the growth of the UK economy because very often they are the
0:13:28 > 0:13:31exporters doing the business deals that we are then exporting on the
0:13:31 > 0:13:36back. Tourists should not be underestimated, until recently there
0:13:36 > 0:13:43were more foreign inbound tourists coming to Heathrow and outbound
0:13:43 > 0:13:45tourists, that's unusual among UK airports, most have more people
0:13:45 > 0:13:50going overseas for the holidays and coming back again, Heathrow, we are
0:13:50 > 0:13:53the main port of entry for global passengers humming here to spend
0:13:53 > 0:13:59money and that's why the economic value of tourism which was not
0:13:59 > 0:14:03included in the DFT analysis is so important because bad flight from
0:14:03 > 0:14:06Mexico City will have business people on a comet will have some
0:14:06 > 0:14:09people visiting friends and relatives but it will have a lot of
0:14:09 > 0:14:13tourists from the bigger cities in Mexico coming here to enjoy the
0:14:13 > 0:14:18fantastic wealth of facilities here in the UK and that is hugely
0:14:18 > 0:14:24important to our economy.
0:14:24 > 0:14:28Business travel has been declining as a proportion of total travel at
0:14:28 > 0:14:33the airport. Would it be fair to say, do you think, that the Heathrow
0:14:33 > 0:14:37expansion is primarily for the benefit of leisure passengers?
0:14:37 > 0:14:46It is a mix of passengers. That is typically the case on any aeroplane.
0:14:46 > 0:14:49You can't from Heathrow, particularly with long haul, so you
0:14:49 > 0:14:53have a Saudi business or leisure route. Any plane will have a mix of
0:14:53 > 0:14:58all of those passengers on board. -- you cant from Heathrow, tickly with
0:14:58 > 0:15:04long haul, say you have a seriously business or leisure route. This is
0:15:04 > 0:15:08about as being able to go to a huge economy like China, some of their
0:15:08 > 0:15:12cities, to sell our goods, as it is for Chinese tourists getting access
0:15:12 > 0:15:17to spend many macro in the UK. It is important we have direct flights
0:15:17 > 0:15:21from places like China to motorists can hear more quickly, the easier we
0:15:21 > 0:15:28can make it for them to come to the UK, the more likely they will choose
0:15:28 > 0:15:31here instead of, say, France, which has had a disproportionate market
0:15:31 > 0:15:35share of tourists from China over the last few years.
0:15:35 > 0:15:41Is there evidence to support what you have just said? In terms of the
0:15:41 > 0:15:44forecasting it talks about the increase of 10 million terminating
0:15:44 > 0:15:50passengers per year by 2050, they are almost all leisure passengers.
0:15:50 > 0:15:55Is the evidence supporting what you have just said?Yes, I can happily
0:15:55 > 0:16:02write to the committee and clarify that. Inbound terminating passengers
0:16:02 > 0:16:07and inbound leisure passengers would be a very significant part of the
0:16:07 > 0:16:11value that the Heathrow expansion brings for the UK, and will be felt
0:16:11 > 0:16:16across the UK and in all the tourist destinations.
0:16:16 > 0:16:21Steve, you wanted to ask something? As you will be aware, considerable
0:16:21 > 0:16:27support for the Heathrow expansion has come because of the potential
0:16:27 > 0:16:32for domestic connectivity, thank you for specifically mentioning Newquay.
0:16:32 > 0:16:35Can you guarantee Heathrow will offer a minimum number of domestic
0:16:35 > 0:16:38connections if the expansion goes ahead?
0:16:38 > 0:16:41At this stage we cannot guarantee a minimum number of domestic
0:16:41 > 0:16:48destinations. The reason for that, it is not within our gift to all
0:16:48 > 0:16:55control. What we can do is make sure it is economic for airlines to fly
0:16:55 > 0:16:58domestic routes, I can talk about some of the actions we have taken to
0:16:58 > 0:17:04do that, and encourage the Government to change the way that
0:17:04 > 0:17:09public service obligation routes work so we have airport to airport
0:17:09 > 0:17:15routes rather than the current city to city. I think that is important
0:17:15 > 0:17:18because for markets like Newquay, Inverness, whether have a PSL, they
0:17:18 > 0:17:23want to make sure it is opening up the global connections that come
0:17:23 > 0:17:26from Heathrow, not just a connection into London. If I can touch on some
0:17:26 > 0:17:30of the things we have done to play our part in making domestic
0:17:30 > 0:17:35connections viable, over the last couple of years as a result of the
0:17:35 > 0:17:39engagement we have had with UK regions, we have reduced domestic
0:17:39 > 0:17:44charges by more than half so that the charges per passenger come down
0:17:44 > 0:17:51from around £30 to around £13, £14, a significant reduction to provide
0:17:51 > 0:17:55better value for domestic passengers. We have seen the
0:17:55 > 0:17:58benefits about, we have seen more flights added on the Inverness
0:17:58 > 0:18:01route, we have seen Floyd B of the competition and choice on Aberdeen
0:18:01 > 0:18:11and Edinburgh. -- we have seen FlyBe offer competition and choice. So we
0:18:11 > 0:18:15have seen a reduction in ticket prices, which is one of the main
0:18:15 > 0:18:19advantages of expansion on domestic airlines. We have reduced minimum
0:18:19 > 0:18:25charges so it is viable for operators with smaller planes like
0:18:25 > 0:18:28Flybe to serve Heathrow routes economically. I know they have been
0:18:28 > 0:18:35very pleased with the performance they have seen in Scotland.
0:18:35 > 0:18:40As you alluded to, some of these domestic routes are not always
0:18:40 > 0:18:44commercially viable or certainly very lucrative. If new slots are
0:18:44 > 0:18:48awarded to airlines and they effectively owned those slots, what
0:18:48 > 0:18:52is to stop them moving on to other more lucrative routes in the future
0:18:52 > 0:18:56rather than the domestic ones? This is where the piercer routes
0:18:56 > 0:19:04need to come in, to make sure that those routes are kept open. -- that
0:19:04 > 0:19:08is where the PSO routes need to come in. The last time I was in front of
0:19:08 > 0:19:11this committee we were talking about Brexit and what I mean for aviation.
0:19:11 > 0:19:16At the moment what is stopping Government from being able to make
0:19:16 > 0:19:23those changes around PSOs is we need to comply with EU rules. As we leave
0:19:23 > 0:19:27the EU there may be more flexibility to do what is right for the UK and
0:19:27 > 0:19:33make sure we can guarantee in perpetuity that markets like
0:19:33 > 0:19:36Newquay, Inverness, Belfast, Aberdeen have a permanent connection
0:19:36 > 0:19:40to the best connected hub airport in the world. That is important, as you
0:19:40 > 0:19:44will know, because businesses choosing to invest in those markets,
0:19:44 > 0:19:50and Inverness is a great example, need to have a confidence that
0:19:50 > 0:19:53whatever happens they can get to their international basis. In
0:19:53 > 0:20:01Inverness, until recently, we had Johnson & Johnson, a huge medical
0:20:01 > 0:20:07company with its worldwide research base, diabetes research base, in
0:20:07 > 0:20:10Inverness, with no easy way of getting to their base in the United
0:20:10 > 0:20:17States. BA have started serving that route, it is a fantastic connection
0:20:17 > 0:20:22and the planes are full. It is a perfect example of what we need to
0:20:22 > 0:20:31do in the long term for all parts of the UK.PSOs play an important part
0:20:31 > 0:20:36in ensuring that connectivity, but if those routes supported by the
0:20:36 > 0:20:39Government are specific to our ports, how would you answer the
0:20:39 > 0:20:43charge had basically gives Heathrow and unfair advantage above other
0:20:43 > 0:20:49London airports?If the piercer routes are specific to Heathrow? I
0:20:49 > 0:20:53am sure any of those airports would love to serve other London airports
0:20:53 > 0:20:58as well. -- if the PSO routes are specific to Heathrow. But forgiving
0:20:58 > 0:21:02all parts of the UK the confidence that they will have equal access to
0:21:02 > 0:21:06global markets, I think it is absolutely right that there should
0:21:06 > 0:21:12be airport to airport PSOs in place. The main benefit from the PSO is
0:21:12 > 0:21:16that it offers both certainty and a reduction in air passenger duty,
0:21:16 > 0:21:20which is quite a significant benefit. I should say that the
0:21:20 > 0:21:25discounts I talked about earlier would guarantee those for 20 years.
0:21:25 > 0:21:32We are also planning a £10 million development fund to help get new
0:21:32 > 0:21:39routes up and running. Having worked with a lot of UK airports we have
0:21:39 > 0:21:42developed a support package to make sure we can get some of these
0:21:42 > 0:21:48important routes up and running. Thank you for that. Thinking about
0:21:48 > 0:21:51the economic case, you have touched on this in previous questions, the
0:21:51 > 0:21:57Department's latest appraisals show there is not much in terms of
0:21:57 > 0:22:02economic benefit between the three schemes. How confident are you in
0:22:02 > 0:22:07those latest estimates and how robust they are from the Department?
0:22:07 > 0:22:14They show that they need at Heathrow is now and urgent. You would have to
0:22:14 > 0:22:20run out for another 60 years before Gatwick starts to offer more value.
0:22:20 > 0:22:23I suspect that most of us will be dead by then and most of our
0:22:23 > 0:22:27children will have retired and not happen benefits of the economic
0:22:27 > 0:22:32growth that we need to secure for their generation -- and not had the
0:22:32 > 0:22:38benefits of economic growth. When I started talking about this
0:22:38 > 0:22:42two or three years ago I was talking about a list of over 30 airlines who
0:22:42 > 0:22:47want to operate at Heathrow or expand at Heathrow, that has grown
0:22:47 > 0:22:51longer over the last three years and there is significant demand to
0:22:51 > 0:22:56operate and add connections to China, Asia, the Americas. As I
0:22:56 > 0:23:05mentioned earlier, it opens up the export growth for UK businesses,
0:23:05 > 0:23:08inbound tourism and foreign direct investment that are not even
0:23:08 > 0:23:21accounted for in the latest DFT assessments.Merge of this is based
0:23:21 > 0:23:26on being up to capacity within two years. -- much of this. This does
0:23:26 > 0:23:33not line up with your projections and plans for the runway. Can you
0:23:33 > 0:23:42say what you're phasing plan is, and what the timescale is?It would be
0:23:42 > 0:23:47pretty remarkable to get from a standing start to full capacity
0:23:47 > 0:23:52within three years. That is not part of the plan. Just to remind you,
0:23:52 > 0:23:57Heathrow is privately funded, we have to raise all the money through
0:23:57 > 0:24:00shareholders and open markets to fund the investment and we need to
0:24:00 > 0:24:07do that in a very planned way, they cannot put all the money in up front
0:24:07 > 0:24:14against uncertain growth and so we have to phased introduction of new
0:24:14 > 0:24:19capacity. We are planning to add new capacity to the airport in blocks of
0:24:19 > 0:24:25five to 10 million passengers by building on the existing terminals
0:24:25 > 0:24:31that we have today. That allows us to phase the cost of Heathrow
0:24:31 > 0:24:39expansion but it also of course means we are phasing our ability to
0:24:39 > 0:24:44take in new outlines and serve new markets. The exact speed at which we
0:24:44 > 0:24:49do that, we will have to finalise that as we develop our plans with
0:24:49 > 0:24:55the airlines. The new capacity needs to move in sync with demand. As said
0:24:55 > 0:25:00financing there is a very practical reason for that, to go through that
0:25:00 > 0:25:06kind of growth, to get up to full capacity, that is up to 40,000 jobs
0:25:06 > 0:25:11at the airports, a significant change. We cannot bring are not many
0:25:11 > 0:25:14people back quickly, airlines cannot buy unit of planes that quickly to
0:25:14 > 0:25:21get to full capacity, it has to be planned and phased and it is right
0:25:21 > 0:25:27that it is. That means that as the global economy grows and changes we
0:25:27 > 0:25:32can make sure we are adding new capacity to the markets that the UK
0:25:32 > 0:25:39needs to serve.And I think many of us understand that, that the two
0:25:39 > 0:25:44year timescale is unrealistic. But would you accept that if there is a
0:25:44 > 0:25:47phased approach to reaching capacity, it lessens the economic
0:25:47 > 0:25:51benefit over that time and does not reach the economic benefits as
0:25:51 > 0:25:57quickly as the projections?We will deliver the economic benefit as
0:25:57 > 0:26:03quickly as we can. The need is urgent and we need to provide new
0:26:03 > 0:26:08capacity as quickly as we can. If I can break down capacity into the
0:26:08 > 0:26:15different parts, a significant part of the change programme will be
0:26:15 > 0:26:23around clearing the land and building the new runway. Then there
0:26:23 > 0:26:27is the terminal capacity and public transport connections, they tend to
0:26:27 > 0:26:31take a bit longer. The new runway will be in relatively quickly and we
0:26:31 > 0:26:40will be building the other aspects as we forecast demands to come in.
0:26:40 > 0:26:44The exact phasing we will end up with will be something we will plan
0:26:44 > 0:26:51together with the airlines and the CAA, and we will not want to hang
0:26:51 > 0:26:56around, but equally we need to be pragmatic. I am sure you will have
0:26:56 > 0:27:02seen comments today from our biggest customer considering the price
0:27:02 > 0:27:05expansion, the more capacity we put in upfront, the higher the peak
0:27:05 > 0:27:11charge would be. So we need to phase our investment to make sure we can
0:27:11 > 0:27:15deliver the challenge we have been set of close to current charges with
0:27:15 > 0:27:19expansion. It is a slightly complicated answer,
0:27:19 > 0:27:23but we will be finalising latter over the next couple of years. What
0:27:23 > 0:27:27is clear is if we want to deliver the best economic benefit for the
0:27:27 > 0:27:31UK, Heathrow expansion is the only thing to do that.
0:27:31 > 0:27:36You have said one of the reasons for the phased expansion is because of
0:27:36 > 0:27:43the uncertainty around demand, yet previously I believe you have said
0:27:43 > 0:27:46the economic benefits of Heathrow are more certain and other schemes.
0:27:46 > 0:27:52What evidence do you have to support your case that it is more certain
0:27:52 > 0:27:58than the benefits of other schemes? I could point to the over 30
0:27:58 > 0:28:01airlines which want to operate newly at Heathrow, airlines like EasyJet
0:28:01 > 0:28:07who want to offer competition and choice, virgin, who want to expand.
0:28:07 > 0:28:11But there are lots of international airlines who want to operate out of
0:28:11 > 0:28:17Heathrow and cannot currently do so, airlines in China would love to fly
0:28:17 > 0:28:20services from primary and secondary cities in China into Heathrow but
0:28:20 > 0:28:28currently cannot. I would expect there would be an immediate step up
0:28:28 > 0:28:35in flights in the very short-term, and then a more steady of growth. We
0:28:35 > 0:28:40will finalise what that looks like over the next couple of years as we
0:28:40 > 0:28:44go through our business planning and funding process. There is very
0:28:44 > 0:28:49significant demand from exactly the kind of outlines that I think we
0:28:49 > 0:28:54would want to see, people who can offer domestic connectivity and the
0:28:54 > 0:29:02connections to the long haul markets the UK needs.
0:29:02 > 0:29:08In answer to a previous question I think you touched on this, the DFT
0:29:08 > 0:29:10approach to the economic case doesn't catch the full range of
0:29:10 > 0:29:15economic and efforts that the north-west runway would bring, can
0:29:15 > 0:29:20you go into that a bit more, what are the other benefits you don't
0:29:20 > 0:29:27think up inconsiderate?Thank you. Three main areas, foreign direct
0:29:27 > 0:29:35investment, there is direct academic evidence which shows that further is
0:29:35 > 0:29:40a direct flights between an emerging economy and the UK you get more
0:29:40 > 0:29:46foreign direct investment than if there is an indirect flights. In
0:29:46 > 0:29:48simple terms I suppose, if you have to go through Paris, fly through
0:29:48 > 0:29:54Paris to get to the UK from a major city in China then businesses are
0:29:54 > 0:30:00more likely to choose Paris as a base rather than to go to Bristol or
0:30:00 > 0:30:04Glasgow or London. Because it's just easier to get to. So having that
0:30:04 > 0:30:10direct connectivity has a significant impact on foreign direct
0:30:10 > 0:30:15investment and we can see that here in the UK, when you think of the
0:30:15 > 0:30:20number of Japanese and Korean companies in the 70s and 80s and 90s
0:30:20 > 0:30:23who started off with a European base in the Thames Valley and on the back
0:30:23 > 0:30:29of that develop significant manufacturing bases across the UK
0:30:29 > 0:30:32and created significant benefit for the UK economy, that is what foreign
0:30:32 > 0:30:36direct investment looks like an action and we need to make sure is
0:30:36 > 0:30:41the Chinese economy grows and the South American economy grows, the UK
0:30:41 > 0:30:45remains a location of choice for European basis and we get the
0:30:45 > 0:30:49investment on the back of that. Tourism is touched on earlier, the
0:30:49 > 0:30:54same economics, the easier it is to get to the more likely it is people
0:30:54 > 0:30:59will come, if you are a Chinese tourist and China is I think the
0:30:59 > 0:31:03biggest outbound tourism market in the world, you've only got a week of
0:31:03 > 0:31:08holiday, you don't want to be connecting through Paris and
0:31:08 > 0:31:14Frankfurt to get to the UK, you won't be able to get you want to be
0:31:14 > 0:31:18able to get here as quickly as possible. We want to see the
0:31:18 > 0:31:21benefits coming with that in all regions of the UK and finally
0:31:21 > 0:31:25exports, I touched on earlier, the easier we can make it for British
0:31:25 > 0:31:31exporters to get to global markets the cheaper and quicker it is to
0:31:31 > 0:31:34remain in a competitive and global world, all of those come with
0:31:34 > 0:31:39Heathrow expansion and they add over £100 billion to the assessment that
0:31:39 > 0:31:47was made by the DFT.If the conductivity benefits are broadly
0:31:47 > 0:31:53comparable across the different options how can the economic benefit
0:31:53 > 0:31:58for Heathrow we so much greater?If connectivity is the same? The
0:31:58 > 0:32:04quality of the connectivity is very different, so if you look at the
0:32:04 > 0:32:09number of additional long-haul flights that come with Gatwick
0:32:09 > 0:32:11expansion compared to Heathrow expansion at significantly lower,
0:32:11 > 0:32:16think about tourism or foreign direct investment the opportunity is
0:32:16 > 0:32:21more limited and if I give you an example of that. If Stewart Wingate
0:32:21 > 0:32:27from Gatwick were here he would tell you you can fly to Mexico from
0:32:27 > 0:32:31Gatwick, you can, you can fly to Cancun, fantastic if you want a
0:32:31 > 0:32:37summer holiday but that is not the business centre for Mexico nor is it
0:32:37 > 0:32:39the place you will get Mexican inbound investment or inbound
0:32:39 > 0:32:43tourism to the UK, that is what we deliver with two flights a day, day
0:32:43 > 0:32:50in and day out. That's a practical example of the difference of
0:32:50 > 0:32:53conductivity we can offer and they can offer and I've talked about the
0:32:53 > 0:32:58difference between exports. The kind of airlines that serve most other UK
0:32:58 > 0:33:03airports including Gatwick are typically low cost carriers, they
0:33:03 > 0:33:10don't have a car go, they want a quick turnaround, that is one of the
0:33:10 > 0:33:15reasons the cargo volume out of Gatwick is solo. For the network
0:33:15 > 0:33:19operators flying out of Heathrow it's a very different model. Freight
0:33:19 > 0:33:23is an important part of the value chain, particularly on the thin
0:33:23 > 0:33:27roots in the early stages of development, very often freight is
0:33:27 > 0:33:32what helps to subsidise the lower loads in passengers until the red
0:33:32 > 0:33:36gets well-established so it's an important part of the ecosystem.
0:33:36 > 0:33:44It's growing fast at Heathrow, over 10% growth in cargo last year alone.
0:33:44 > 0:33:48If you think about the UK trading routes 100 years ago, would have
0:33:48 > 0:33:52been shipped around the world out of Liverpool and London. Today its
0:33:52 > 0:33:59planes leaving Heathrow.OK, finally on the economic benefits, weren't
0:33:59 > 0:34:03the estimates of the wider economic benefits discredited by the
0:34:03 > 0:34:08Department and why do you think...I don't think they were at all. I
0:34:08 > 0:34:13think the differences between the Airports Commission work which
0:34:13 > 0:34:18showed the economic benefits of up to £211 billion and the more recent
0:34:18 > 0:34:22work that has been done by the Department for Transport which is
0:34:22 > 0:34:29using a more traditional and more limited model, the benefits for
0:34:29 > 0:34:31exports, tourism and foreign direct investment are clear for us all to
0:34:31 > 0:34:36see but they are not taken account of the DFT model so that model shows
0:34:36 > 0:34:39Heathrow is the right answer but it understates the benefits that only
0:34:39 > 0:34:46Heathrow can deliver and the work that Frontier economics has recently
0:34:46 > 0:34:50done shows that gap alone is worth another £110 billion so on top of
0:34:50 > 0:34:56the value that came with the DFT assessments so significantly
0:34:56 > 0:35:02understates the economic value for the UK.Can you explain why the DFT
0:35:02 > 0:35:07weren't confident enough to put that in the MPS.I'm probably not the
0:35:07 > 0:35:11best placed person to say that but I understand the Secretary of State
0:35:11 > 0:35:15will come here shortly and he might be better placed to explain why the
0:35:15 > 0:35:19DFT have done what they have done. The answer remains the same in both
0:35:19 > 0:35:26cases, Heathrow is the right answer for the UK, and in the text in the
0:35:26 > 0:35:29national Aussie statement, it recognises there are significant
0:35:29 > 0:35:33benefits to Heathrow expansion that come from foreign direct investment,
0:35:33 > 0:35:37tourism and exports.In terms of the total conductivity at UK level it
0:35:37 > 0:35:43isn't hugely different from the figures that are presented in the
0:35:43 > 0:35:49MPS between the different schemes and personal expansion. For example,
0:35:49 > 0:35:54the total number of long-haul destinations served at UK level they
0:35:54 > 0:35:59aren't hugely different between Heathrow expansion and Gatwick or no
0:35:59 > 0:36:11expansion.Just to make a couple of comments because it didn't occur car
0:36:11 > 0:36:16broke down my cargo capability and as John said very often when it
0:36:16 > 0:36:19comes to creating new routes the things that makes those new routes
0:36:19 > 0:36:24economic as the cargo capability but I just reiterate what John said, it
0:36:24 > 0:36:28is the quality of the routes and for those routes running which is really
0:36:28 > 0:36:33critical and that is where the GDP benefits come from so there are not
0:36:33 > 0:36:37just point-to-point routes there are routes which would bring huge
0:36:37 > 0:36:41economic value and I think that's a differentiating factor.You are
0:36:41 > 0:36:49saying the UK level, the long-haul destinations served, how am I
0:36:49 > 0:36:59missing the quality issue?I can't account for what might have been
0:36:59 > 0:37:01included in long haul connections with Gatwick but with Heathrow
0:37:01 > 0:37:07expansion we will see more routes to secondary cities in China, Asia, and
0:37:07 > 0:37:16in the Americas than we will have without Heathrow expansion and we
0:37:16 > 0:37:20would have if Gatwick were to expand and Heathrow were not to expand and
0:37:20 > 0:37:27that's because as we were discussing earlier, the model out of Heathrow
0:37:27 > 0:37:33helps to support the thin roots which aren't difficult to make
0:37:33 > 0:37:42viable for point-to-point airports like Gatwick and I think that's been
0:37:42 > 0:37:48borne out by what we've seen at Heathrow in the last 10-20 years and
0:37:48 > 0:37:56the actions of some of the long haul airlines.I think we ought to go on
0:37:56 > 0:38:02to look at scheme charges.Just to go back to one of Steve is
0:38:02 > 0:38:11questions. I accept the Department underestimated the economic benefits
0:38:11 > 0:38:17and economic impact of the growth of Heathrow but I was interested in
0:38:17 > 0:38:25what figure of 100 billion, was it... Impact? How did you calculate
0:38:25 > 0:38:30that figure because it's between 3-4% of the UK economy on one
0:38:30 > 0:38:37investment in London, that's quite an extraordinary figure?We are very
0:38:37 > 0:38:40happy to provide you with more details on that but in effect it's
0:38:40 > 0:38:47taking the benefits, the trading benefits you would get from cargo,
0:38:47 > 0:38:49foreign direct investment and tourism but if you look at that side
0:38:49 > 0:38:56of the economic equation as opposed to the simpler view of passengers,
0:38:56 > 0:39:01business or tourists or transfer... I accept that, I was interested in
0:39:01 > 0:39:06the actual justification of the figure, it's pretty startling.It's
0:39:06 > 0:39:09a value figure over 50 years, it's not an annual figure, it's a
0:39:09 > 0:39:16lifetime... Which is on a comparable basis to the numbers the Department
0:39:16 > 0:39:22for Transport calculated.Thanks. David Starkey who is on the
0:39:22 > 0:39:27commission fits in with what you said about facing, suggests it would
0:39:27 > 0:39:34be more sensible not to go straightaway for a 3500 metre runway
0:39:34 > 0:39:41but to start with a 2500 metre runway and wait some time for the
0:39:41 > 0:39:46extra 6% capacity that would be provided by the extra thousand
0:39:46 > 0:39:51metres. Do you think that sensible? No, I don't under is a couple of
0:39:51 > 0:39:58reasons for that. One is that one of the biggest issues for the local
0:39:58 > 0:40:06communities is respite from noise and to guarantee respite from noise
0:40:06 > 0:40:10for local communities you have to have a new runway which can take any
0:40:10 > 0:40:18size of playing and that allows you to have full rotation between the
0:40:18 > 0:40:23three runways. So we have to make sure we deliver the commitment to
0:40:23 > 0:40:28that and the respite from noise for local communities, it is one of the
0:40:28 > 0:40:32lives the proposal you describe is not that different to what was
0:40:32 > 0:40:36proposed back in 2009 and was rejected by the Conservative
0:40:36 > 0:40:42government when it came in. And it just won't work. And that's not even
0:40:42 > 0:40:46taking account of the challenges that would come with extending the
0:40:46 > 0:40:51runway at a later phase, once a runway as operating it's not... And
0:40:51 > 0:40:55working at height usage it's not easy to go back in and add a little
0:40:55 > 0:40:59bit more. Full-length runway straightaway is the best solution.
0:40:59 > 0:41:04That's a very clear answer, do you think generally they should be more
0:41:04 > 0:41:11flexibility in the MPS statement? Particularly around runway length,
0:41:11 > 0:41:19we proposed flexibility. -- NPS. It requires the runway to be at least
0:41:19 > 0:41:25three and a half kilometres long, we would like some flexibility to
0:41:25 > 0:41:29validate if that is in the Surrey, we certainly want a runway which
0:41:29 > 0:41:33will guarantee respite from noise, that will accommodate any kind of
0:41:33 > 0:41:38flame that anticipates his correctly anticipated to operate, the same
0:41:38 > 0:41:43time we don't want to take any more land that we need to or at two costs
0:41:43 > 0:41:47that we don't need to so we'd like to have flexibility around that but
0:41:47 > 0:41:51it the NPS says three and a half kilometres that is what we will
0:41:51 > 0:41:55build.You've launched a consultation on a cost that's two
0:41:55 > 0:42:01and a half billion less than the Airports Commission costs, 17 points
0:42:01 > 0:42:086 billion, what changes have been made to get that two and a half
0:42:08 > 0:42:12billion out of the scheme?Strangely I've been criticised today for
0:42:12 > 0:42:17reducing the cost of the scheme which is a very strange situation to
0:42:17 > 0:42:24find yourself in. Since we first developed our plan for the Airports
0:42:24 > 0:42:28Commission which is three or four years ago now, we have been working
0:42:28 > 0:42:34with the airlines to improve passenger service and to reduce
0:42:34 > 0:42:40costs and improve phrasing. And I should emphasise we're only talking
0:42:40 > 0:42:44about options at this stage, we haven't finalised a particular plan
0:42:44 > 0:42:47and that is what we are consulting on at the moment but the kind of
0:42:47 > 0:42:53things we think could yield such a significant reduction is not having
0:42:53 > 0:42:58a new terminal six between our current northern runway and the new
0:42:58 > 0:43:03Northwest runway but instead to expand our existing terminals five
0:43:03 > 0:43:08and two. And from a passenger point of view that's much easier to
0:43:08 > 0:43:14navigate the cars fewer larger terminals are generally better in
0:43:14 > 0:43:17passengers is that lots of small terminals, it's one of the big
0:43:17 > 0:43:21differences between ourselves and an airport like John F Kennedy in New
0:43:21 > 0:43:27York. But it's also means you don't have to have the baggage system
0:43:27 > 0:43:31connectivity and the people movers, the trains on to get you from one
0:43:31 > 0:43:36terminal to another and those are expensive to put in so by expanding
0:43:36 > 0:43:40existing terminals we can save on the cost of doing that. And the net
0:43:40 > 0:43:46saving from those and the terminal building itself is around two and a
0:43:46 > 0:43:50half billion pounds but what we've also done in getting to that net
0:43:50 > 0:43:54figure is to include the full costs of the changes that we need to make
0:43:54 > 0:44:03to the M 25.The full costs are in both schemes?The higher and lower
0:44:03 > 0:44:06cost? Only half of the costs were in the original scheme that we
0:44:06 > 0:44:09submitted to the Airports Commission, since then based on the
0:44:09 > 0:44:13feedback from the Airports Commission we included the full
0:44:13 > 0:44:17costs of change to the M25, two and a half billion pounds is a net
0:44:17 > 0:44:22figure on what we've said £3 billion and added a further £500 million or
0:44:22 > 0:44:27so of M25 costs.What about the removal of the Lakeside energy and
0:44:27 > 0:44:33waste plant?
0:44:33 > 0:44:38Yes, it is one of five... Seven, thank you, Major commercial uses
0:44:38 > 0:44:43that we need to displace. It is one we will need to get on with sooner
0:44:43 > 0:44:47rather than later and we are looking with the owners to make sure we can
0:44:47 > 0:44:51provide continuity of use, not just important for their business but
0:44:51 > 0:44:59also for slow and some of the other local communities that rely on it
0:44:59 > 0:45:07for their waste clearance. Including ours, we use it.
0:45:07 > 0:45:12You mentioned the comments this morning about control of costs and
0:45:12 > 0:45:18conditional support for the expansion for Heathrow based on
0:45:18 > 0:45:24cost. Can you make a firm commitment that landing charges will not
0:45:24 > 0:45:28increase, in real terms?At this stage I could not. We were given a
0:45:28 > 0:45:32challenge by the Secretary of State to deliver expansion at close to
0:45:32 > 0:45:35current charges. We have accepted that. It would be a mistake at this
0:45:35 > 0:45:43stage to make any guarantee around particular costs. When we would
0:45:43 > 0:45:46think about how much work still needs to happen, that we still need
0:45:46 > 0:45:50to go through a development consent order process, still need to
0:45:50 > 0:45:54finalise what the masterplan will be like based on the consultation we
0:45:54 > 0:45:59are currently holding, we cannot finalise those costs yet. But we
0:45:59 > 0:46:05completely get the concern from the airlines, we need to deliver good
0:46:05 > 0:46:09value for money with expansion, we need to keep prices close to current
0:46:09 > 0:46:14levels. If we can do that, by the way, it would be a remarkable
0:46:14 > 0:46:20achievement. If you were to go to Hong Kong airport, currently going
0:46:20 > 0:46:31Puncheon. -- currently going from two to three run race, their landing
0:46:31 > 0:46:35charges will double. If we can keep ours to what we expect, it would be
0:46:35 > 0:46:38a remarkable achievement. I do not know of any major infrastructure
0:46:38 > 0:46:43project in the UK or elsewhere that the first cost you, but comes down
0:46:43 > 0:46:47by £2.5 billion and you can't innovate without prices going up.
0:46:47 > 0:46:50That is a remarkable achievement. That is fantastic value for money
0:46:50 > 0:46:56for passengers but it is not just about the landing charges that we
0:46:56 > 0:46:59should be concerned, we should be concerned about the enterprise
0:46:59 > 0:47:03customers pay for their tickets. With more competition and trade on
0:47:03 > 0:47:09routes into used -- into Heathrow, the price will come down. If you
0:47:09 > 0:47:13want evidence, go to Scotland and look at what has happened to prices
0:47:13 > 0:47:17on Edinburgh and Aberdeen, they were monopoly routes for BA, now Flybe
0:47:17 > 0:47:23has come in offering competition, prices have come down not by a pound
0:47:23 > 0:47:29or two, but by tens of pounds. That is the value of passengers -- for
0:47:29 > 0:47:31passengers in the UK from more competition.
0:47:31 > 0:47:36Further down the line when the details of the planning application
0:47:36 > 0:47:41and costs are more certain, would you be willing to make a binding
0:47:41 > 0:47:49commitment to hold charges?There will be a point at which we will be
0:47:49 > 0:47:54able to do something like that. The reason I am hesitant is we're not a
0:47:54 > 0:47:58normal commercial organisation, we are price regulated by the CAA, so
0:47:58 > 0:48:06every five the CAA sets our landing charges. In the later settlement our
0:48:06 > 0:48:10landing charges coming down by 1.5% in real terms, people are seeing
0:48:10 > 0:48:18real reductions in the cost of using Heathrow. That is the way regulation
0:48:18 > 0:48:22works at the moment. I completely understand that some customers are
0:48:22 > 0:48:26anxious about how that might work and want a longer term commitment,
0:48:26 > 0:48:31and I have offered to them and offer again now that we are very open to
0:48:31 > 0:48:35having a more commercial arrangements between others which we
0:48:35 > 0:48:39are both happy with without having to go to the CAA, which is something
0:48:39 > 0:48:42we will work on over the next year or so.
0:48:42 > 0:48:47Can I just ask how realistic it is that you will be able to maintain
0:48:47 > 0:48:51landing charges are probably the same level? You have just referenced
0:48:51 > 0:48:56Hong Kong, saying they are doing a similar sized scheme and their
0:48:56 > 0:49:00landing charges are doubled. How can you be so confident you will be able
0:49:00 > 0:49:05to maintain or keep things on track in terms of cost and keeping the
0:49:05 > 0:49:11landing charges that a similar level?There are three things that a
0:49:11 > 0:49:16change. To give some context, in the original submission we made to the
0:49:16 > 0:49:20Airports Commission, at that time we were forecasting prices to go up by
0:49:20 > 0:49:26three or £4 a passenger. What we have worked on since then with the
0:49:26 > 0:49:31airlines is to reduce the overall cost of expansion, I talked about
0:49:31 > 0:49:35the £2.5 billion over -- earlier, to improve the phasing so rather than
0:49:35 > 0:49:40building big new terminals where you would have to build or nothing, to
0:49:40 > 0:49:44phase it into five or 10 million passenger blocks. We have become
0:49:44 > 0:49:49more confident about the growth in demand. The combination of those
0:49:49 > 0:49:52things allows us to be more confident that we can deliver
0:49:52 > 0:49:56expansion close to current charges. It is a much better position than I
0:49:56 > 0:50:01thought we would be in a year ago and shows the benefit of working
0:50:01 > 0:50:05closely with customers to deliver what is right for passengers and
0:50:05 > 0:50:12right to the UK. Based on previous expansions, like
0:50:12 > 0:50:17terminal five, how did that go in terms of the final outcome matching
0:50:17 > 0:50:22the estimated cost at the start? Terminal five and more recently
0:50:22 > 0:50:27terminal two were delivered on-time and on budget. Terminal five opening
0:50:27 > 0:50:33was messier than we hoped, it gives a sense that these are very
0:50:33 > 0:50:39complicated things to deliver. For most of the last decade, terminal
0:50:39 > 0:50:43five has been rated by passengers as the best airport terminal in the
0:50:43 > 0:50:49world, showing we know what we doing with building terminals. Everything
0:50:49 > 0:50:54we need to do over the last ten or -- next ten or 15 years, we have
0:50:54 > 0:50:59already done in the last ten or 15. Building the airfield and taxiways
0:50:59 > 0:51:03and some changes to rail links and roadways. We have done that with the
0:51:03 > 0:51:07terminal five expansion. We have a good track record.
0:51:07 > 0:51:11Heathrow is usually used as a benchmark for other major
0:51:11 > 0:51:15infrastructure projects in the UK. Thanks.
0:51:19 > 0:51:25Gatwick has spent a huge amount promoting their second runway, how
0:51:25 > 0:51:30much up with spent on promoting the third runway?Solely on promoting,
0:51:30 > 0:51:36the number I have in mind is £30 million.There is more than that
0:51:36 > 0:51:40that has gone into community engagement which I would not
0:51:40 > 0:51:43consider to be promotion, I would consider that as being a good,
0:51:43 > 0:51:51responsible business.And we do not see any of that back.
0:51:51 > 0:52:00Thanks. Now I will come to Hugh to ask about some of the skin delivery
0:52:00 > 0:52:04and risks associated. All the evidence we have heard so
0:52:04 > 0:52:06far shows what a complex infrastructure project this will be.
0:52:06 > 0:52:15With that in mind, I wanted to ask how confident you are at managing to
0:52:15 > 0:52:23withstand a legal challenge, which is bound to arise. With particular
0:52:23 > 0:52:26reference to the acquisition and relocation of property and
0:52:26 > 0:52:33infrastructure, the scope and funding of surfers access to make
0:52:33 > 0:52:39the model work, the issues and safety the complexity of airspace
0:52:39 > 0:52:45design and the air quality compliance and data. -- the scope
0:52:45 > 0:52:48and funding of surface access. So how confident are you you can
0:52:48 > 0:52:53withstand that legal challenge and still deliver by 2026?Very
0:52:53 > 0:52:57confident. We have spent a lot of time working on this. Our plan has
0:52:57 > 0:53:03improved through consultation with local communities, engagement with
0:53:03 > 0:53:08UK regions, businesses and unions and particularly recently by working
0:53:08 > 0:53:15with our lines. As I mentioned, we are not seeking to do anything in
0:53:15 > 0:53:19the next 15 years we have not done before, so we have a very good track
0:53:19 > 0:53:24record in doing this and doing this well. Will there be legal
0:53:24 > 0:53:27challenges? I am sure there will. There has already been talk about
0:53:27 > 0:53:35that. They shouldn't hold up the overall process and I think it is
0:53:35 > 0:53:39important that they should not do so. What we need to do is provide
0:53:39 > 0:53:45people with certainty. The many people who have been living with the
0:53:45 > 0:53:49possibility of Heathrow expansion for a long time, they need to know
0:53:49 > 0:53:54where they stand. I think we owe it to them to give them certainty as
0:53:54 > 0:53:59quickly as we can so they can get on with their lives. But we need
0:53:59 > 0:54:05certainty for the UK economy. Our biggest port, Heathrow is by some
0:54:05 > 0:54:10way our biggest port, it is at capacity. We are planning for a
0:54:10 > 0:54:14world where we will be leaving the European Union and looking to build
0:54:14 > 0:54:19our economic links all over the world. And the only option for doing
0:54:19 > 0:54:24that is Heathrow expansion. Businesses currently based in the UK
0:54:24 > 0:54:29all who want to locate themselves in the UK need certainty that this is
0:54:29 > 0:54:34the right place to back, there is no better way of showing our confidence
0:54:34 > 0:54:37is an outward looking trading nation than by getting on and expanding
0:54:37 > 0:54:43Heathrow.I appreciate that is the business case, I am interested in
0:54:43 > 0:54:49the legal case. I do not expect you to detail your affidavit on that
0:54:49 > 0:54:54front, but where the committee has taken evidence, it seems there are
0:54:54 > 0:54:58certain statements like no net increase in traffic which itself is
0:54:58 > 0:55:00predicated on the delivery of certain transport infrastructure
0:55:00 > 0:55:06projects. There are also issues around the numbers of people and
0:55:06 > 0:55:12households that would be affected by air pollution, which did not seem to
0:55:12 > 0:55:16stack up when those from the Airports Commission were challenged.
0:55:16 > 0:55:21In a sense, it has somewhat unravelled in front of this
0:55:21 > 0:55:26committee. Surely that will occur as well in court? Ultimately I would
0:55:26 > 0:55:31have thought it would be as much of a decision in Parliament when it
0:55:31 > 0:55:36comes to approving this scheme?I am sorry to hear that has unravelled in
0:55:36 > 0:55:40front of the committee.That would be my opinion.These are big topics
0:55:40 > 0:55:47which I am very happy to go into. If you takeone of those, no new cars
0:55:47 > 0:55:51on the road, which is linked to the question of air quality, air quality
0:55:51 > 0:55:55is really important not just for Heathrow and London but for the
0:55:55 > 0:56:05whole of the UK. We need to make sure that we are fully complying
0:56:05 > 0:56:12with EU our quality standards, which we will do. -- air quality
0:56:12 > 0:56:15standards. We have a triple lock which will make sure we can do that
0:56:15 > 0:56:21and make sure Heathrow expansion does not delay the UK's compliance
0:56:21 > 0:56:24with EU air quality standards. The first of those is to have a strong
0:56:24 > 0:56:29plant with a means that people do not need to get into their cars. The
0:56:29 > 0:56:34issue with air quality is not about aeroplanes, it is cars on the road.
0:56:34 > 0:56:38Where there are issues with air quality in the local area to the
0:56:38 > 0:56:42north of the M4, the vast majority of cars using the fall are not a
0:56:42 > 0:56:50airport related traffic. -- the vast majority of cars using the M4. Our
0:56:50 > 0:56:53plan does not rely on new infrastructure that is not yet
0:56:53 > 0:56:58committed, by which I mean Western rail access and Southern rail
0:56:58 > 0:57:05access. If we take the public transport upgrades already planned
0:57:05 > 0:57:11and is committed to, they represent a significant increase in public
0:57:11 > 0:57:17transport into the airport, not just for passengers but for people who
0:57:17 > 0:57:23work at the airport as well. This tends to be overlooked, half of the
0:57:23 > 0:57:31journeys to the airports are by people who work here. A significant
0:57:31 > 0:57:35proportion of the reduction in cars on the roads will be by changing the
0:57:35 > 0:57:39way in which people who work at the airport come to work. And we have a
0:57:39 > 0:57:43good plan behind that. But we also have a good plan with public
0:57:43 > 0:57:50transport for passengers coming to the airport. That includes things
0:57:50 > 0:57:56like the Elizabeth line which is coming in, but it also includes what
0:57:56 > 0:58:00we're doing with buses and coaches. We currently have the biggest bus
0:58:00 > 0:58:04and coach station in the UK, we will expand that to make sure we can
0:58:04 > 0:58:11serve more markets around the UK. Just recently we have been adding
0:58:11 > 0:58:14Mauritz from Bristol, with the megabucks coming in, to make sure we
0:58:14 > 0:58:19can connect all parts of the UK. -- just recently we have been adding
0:58:19 > 0:58:24more Brits from Bristol. We want to go from 42% of passengers coming to
0:58:24 > 0:58:29the airport by public transport by fifth -- to 50%, which is very
0:58:29 > 0:58:33achievable with what is currently in place. And from people who work at
0:58:33 > 0:58:41the airport from 35% to 50%, very achievable. The change for people
0:58:41 > 0:58:45who work at the airport, which will be a growing number, is backed by
0:58:45 > 0:58:49the work we are doing with our skills and employment commission,
0:58:49 > 0:58:53chaired by David Blunkett, which for the last year has planned how we
0:58:53 > 0:58:57prepare kids in local schools to be the pilots, engineers and
0:58:57 > 0:59:01accountants we need in the future. Kids from local schools can come to
0:59:01 > 0:59:05work by bus or bike without having to get into a car. We have a robust
0:59:05 > 0:59:15plan.Just before I lose the point, have you just said that even without
0:59:15 > 0:59:19Southern and Western rail access, which at the moment are not fully
0:59:19 > 0:59:23committed expenditure, that you will still be able to meet your pledge to
0:59:23 > 0:59:32have no more vehicles?
0:59:32 > 0:59:35It sounds like a big claim that if you look at our history that is
0:59:35 > 0:59:39exactly what we have delivered. We have increased the number of
0:59:39 > 0:59:44passengers, the number of important but we almost had no more cars on
0:59:44 > 0:59:49the road and we've seen a 20% reduction in emissions. We've got a
0:59:49 > 0:59:53good track record at doing this, we have done it before, we will do it
0:59:53 > 0:59:56again, we know what interventions we need and we have a robust plan but
0:59:56 > 1:00:02our second lock is that there are actions we can take that aren't
1:00:02 > 1:00:09taken into account yet which show that which would allow us to control
1:00:09 > 1:00:14the more polluting vehicles coming into the airport. We are consulting
1:00:14 > 1:00:18on the moment at the introduction of an emissions charging plan, it's not
1:00:18 > 1:00:22part of our base plan but we want to hear from local communities and
1:00:22 > 1:00:26other users what that would mean for them and if we were to introduce
1:00:26 > 1:00:30that as a way of putting a control on the kind of vehicles coming to
1:00:30 > 1:00:33the airport we know what we would need to do. But finally, our third
1:00:33 > 1:00:41lock is that phase the release of new capacity to the airport if we
1:00:41 > 1:00:44are in danger of not meeting are quality commitments and that sounds
1:00:44 > 1:00:48like a big thing to do but it's only the law, that is what we will do.
1:00:48 > 1:00:52But I should go back to the store twitches that we were talking about
1:00:52 > 1:01:00a triple lock plan with mitigation that we can use. This is in a
1:01:00 > 1:01:04situation where even based on the forecasts done by the DFT which
1:01:04 > 1:01:08themselves are very conservative, there is not an issue for error
1:01:08 > 1:01:11quality, change is already being planned will allow us to meet air
1:01:11 > 1:01:16quality limits, that is the DFT assessment, the assessment of the
1:01:16 > 1:01:20Airports Commission and a our assessment. So I don't believe we
1:01:20 > 1:01:24will need some of those other measures we propose but we have them
1:01:24 > 1:01:30at our disposal if we need them. Even in the event that you manage to
1:01:30 > 1:01:39repel the legal case is it really feasible to expect that given its
1:01:39 > 1:01:432018 now, we have the Parliamentary legal process to go through and 2020
1:01:43 > 1:01:48six would be a timeline that you could deliver?It's completely
1:01:48 > 1:01:53achievable and we need to do it, these are the early years of
1:01:53 > 1:01:57Wrexham, we need to be getting on with it and we have the experience
1:01:57 > 1:02:00of doing it and we will get on and make it happen. -- the early years
1:02:00 > 1:02:07of Brexit.Can I just add part of the reason we are in this process,
1:02:07 > 1:02:11when we were building Terminal five we ended up in quite a prolonged
1:02:11 > 1:02:16contentious process and that is when the planning act was introduced and
1:02:16 > 1:02:24the concept of development consent order came about and with that comes
1:02:24 > 1:02:26a very rigorous and transparent process that goes through a number
1:02:26 > 1:02:33of stages, we have just launched our first consultation, two public
1:02:33 > 1:02:38consultations, people will be able to contribute to al-Shabaab plans,
1:02:38 > 1:02:42three consultations on air space quality, we will have to file a
1:02:42 > 1:02:45development consent order application which will have with it
1:02:45 > 1:02:50a detailed environmental impact assessment, what I am trying to say
1:02:50 > 1:02:54is that the process itself is there to ensure that the evidence backs up
1:02:54 > 1:02:58the application we are making and we will have to meet certain thresholds
1:02:58 > 1:03:07along the way and that is a key target to reducing the risk. -- able
1:03:07 > 1:03:17to contribute to our plans.We know the NPS case is predicated on
1:03:17 > 1:03:21meeting this target and we know it's incredibly difficult to achieve, how
1:03:21 > 1:03:26concerned are you about your ability to overcome that?It's important,
1:03:26 > 1:03:32you are quite right, are space has not unchanged for over 40 years. If
1:03:32 > 1:03:35you fly into many airports especially in the south-east you
1:03:35 > 1:03:39will be delayed very often because of congested airspace and it's
1:03:39 > 1:03:43something, if I may say, Conservative governments --
1:03:43 > 1:03:49consecutive governments have put off. There is a process by which
1:03:49 > 1:03:52airspace change happens and it starts with a consultation to
1:03:52 > 1:03:55understand the principles we should apply, should we try to concentrate
1:03:55 > 1:04:02flights over the same area so as few people are affect it? Should we go
1:04:02 > 1:04:08over Boise, busy urban areas or quiet countryside were fewer people
1:04:08 > 1:04:14live, those are important principles and we are consulting on those. And
1:04:14 > 1:04:19for many people concerned about noise they see this as an
1:04:19 > 1:04:26opportunity to get airspace right because the space that was designed
1:04:26 > 1:04:2940-50 years ago was for an entirely different type of plane, did not
1:04:29 > 1:04:33take into account the technology available, very inefficient and the
1:04:33 > 1:04:43space change that we will be introducing will not just benefit he
1:04:43 > 1:04:45threw it will establish the principles for the whole of the
1:04:45 > 1:04:48south-east to change its airspace and the kind of things that might
1:04:48 > 1:04:52come out of that could be the opportunity to get rid of stacking
1:04:52 > 1:04:56that routinely happens over London and the south-east and would be a
1:04:56 > 1:04:59huge benefit for passengers, and people on the ground who are
1:04:59 > 1:05:02affected by that so this is an opportunity to get things right. And
1:05:02 > 1:05:12we want to get as much certainty not as possible -- certainty as possible
1:05:12 > 1:05:21because we want to do that as quickly as possible.Again we it not
1:05:21 > 1:05:26be another spoke enough wheels as it were? We know 25,000 landings each
1:05:26 > 1:05:33year which go on the wrong runway alternation so again, if you have
1:05:33 > 1:05:40airspace change in the mix as well is it incredibly difficult for you
1:05:40 > 1:05:44to evidence that it won't increase noise pollution is when you are
1:05:44 > 1:05:49already missing the target by 5% and airspace change throws at all...
1:05:49 > 1:05:52It's a great opportunity to get it right and currently some of the
1:05:52 > 1:05:58routes that planes have to fly are very difficult to be flown with
1:05:58 > 1:06:01today's technology. We need to change that and did something again
1:06:01 > 1:06:09we've been putting off for decades, we need to get on with it. And for
1:06:09 > 1:06:12people who've been concerned about noise in the past it's an
1:06:12 > 1:06:16opportunity to have their say on how things should be done that's never
1:06:16 > 1:06:21happened before. The consultation process we are going through will be
1:06:21 > 1:06:24the largest and most open but I think has ever happened any fur in
1:06:24 > 1:06:28the world, this is really pioneering stuff and it's an exciting
1:06:28 > 1:06:30opportunity. Many people who have been concerned about noise for many
1:06:30 > 1:06:36years welcome the fact we are now in proper conversation about how noise
1:06:36 > 1:06:41should be distributed and how we can minimise the impact of noise on the
1:06:41 > 1:06:47ground.Thank you, chirp. Thank you. I think we both want to return to
1:06:47 > 1:06:51that issue around surface access, we will come to you.Thank you. You
1:06:51 > 1:06:56mentioned earlier you can achieve a reduction in the number of people
1:06:56 > 1:07:00using their cars based on the current scheme is committed, what
1:07:00 > 1:07:05schemes are committed for a two runway airport as they stand at the
1:07:05 > 1:07:10minute, what additional surface access schemes would you bring
1:07:10 > 1:07:14online?In terms of real which I guess is the focus, Crossrail opens
1:07:14 > 1:07:20info next year, that will have a significant impact on connectivity,
1:07:20 > 1:07:25if you were coming from Cambridge it takes half an hour of the journey
1:07:25 > 1:07:32time, that's significant, those kind of changes make it easy for people
1:07:32 > 1:07:35to get out of their car and onto public transport. High-Speed two
1:07:35 > 1:07:42will be coming in around the time the new runway opens and as will be
1:07:42 > 1:07:45upgrades to the Piccadilly line, this is more than doubling the
1:07:45 > 1:07:49number of seats on public transport coming into Heathrow. Of course we
1:07:49 > 1:07:55want to go further, we want to see western rail coming in...Would you
1:07:55 > 1:07:59want that for a two or three runway... What I am trying to
1:07:59 > 1:08:04understand is what schemes are required to move from a two runway
1:08:04 > 1:08:09airport to three and where is the funding for that? What additional is
1:08:09 > 1:08:13required for a three runway?To be clear we don't need Southern Railway
1:08:13 > 1:08:16or western rail to meet our targets Indy three runway world. Do I want
1:08:16 > 1:08:23to see them in a two runway world? Absolutely. It's vital that we make
1:08:23 > 1:08:28it as easy as possible for people to get to the UK's airport by public
1:08:28 > 1:08:35transport and at the moment if you are in London or to the East, you
1:08:35 > 1:08:38have fantastic connectivity and it's only going to get better but why
1:08:38 > 1:08:42have we not invested in an integrated rail network that
1:08:42 > 1:08:46connects to the west and south as well? Ideally high-speed two would
1:08:46 > 1:08:55be through Heathrow as well, it will help to connect Manchester as well
1:08:55 > 1:08:59but we see it as an opportunity to have a proper integrated transport
1:08:59 > 1:09:03system and two runways or three we should have western and southern. I
1:09:03 > 1:09:09am pleased you like western rail access, as a south-west MP it would
1:09:09 > 1:09:14be good for our economy. There is a lot of scepticism about you needing
1:09:14 > 1:09:19those schemes to manage a two runway, let alone three, can you
1:09:19 > 1:09:23give us an assurance that the modelling shows that, a lot of
1:09:23 > 1:09:28people are sceptical and don't believe the figures around surface
1:09:28 > 1:09:32access that you present? We manage very well over a two runway world
1:09:32 > 1:09:35and we are drawing the public transport network. On Heathrow
1:09:35 > 1:09:39Express alone we had an 8% increase in people using it and that's
1:09:39 > 1:09:47because we have been using price at a discount to non-business
1:09:47 > 1:09:50travellers at quieter times. The right thing to do and we will keep
1:09:50 > 1:09:54on doing that, in fact if I can advertise, if you are travelling at
1:09:54 > 1:09:58the weekend you can book in advance for £5.50 on Heathrow Express, and
1:09:58 > 1:10:04has to value. There is action we are taking now that helps to drive that
1:10:04 > 1:10:11change. Cars fantastic value. Western rail access, but is going
1:10:11 > 1:10:14through their own process, the development consent order process
1:10:14 > 1:10:22starting later this year, that would open the door for that to be
1:10:22 > 1:10:28included in the next period of rail funding.It's very difficult to see
1:10:28 > 1:10:31how that will be included without a major fight from the government?But
1:10:31 > 1:10:35I think you could say that about any project from the government, money
1:10:35 > 1:10:40is tight and there is a lot to be done but what I think anyone in
1:10:40 > 1:10:44Network Rail would say is that it is unlikely you will get to the top of
1:10:44 > 1:10:49the list of funding for CP six without a ride at investment and
1:10:49 > 1:10:53that's what we are looking for. Within the costings we talked about
1:10:53 > 1:10:57earlier we included funding going towards western rail access so we
1:10:57 > 1:11:01will make a contribution, there is a formula that we follow for that that
1:11:01 > 1:11:10is in proportion to the forecast usage by Heathrow passengers and
1:11:10 > 1:11:15workers of course. That will help move western rail of the agenda and
1:11:15 > 1:11:19if the Secretary of State is here it's a great question to ask him
1:11:19 > 1:11:24because ultimately it will come down to him in many ways.Can I just jump
1:11:24 > 1:11:28in for a second? I want to come back on something you said around the
1:11:28 > 1:11:34proportion of people travelling to Heathrow by car because I think you
1:11:34 > 1:11:42said has increased but the figures I have in front of me, around 60%,
1:11:42 > 1:11:49around 2016 it's 61%, hasn't it been flat, there hasn't been an
1:11:49 > 1:11:54improvement in the mode share? People travelling to airport by
1:11:54 > 1:12:01public transport... By car. It would be the inverse. Significant changes
1:12:01 > 1:12:07we are seeing in public transport use for passengers is where we have
1:12:07 > 1:12:12had new capacity come in on rail schemes, so when Heathrow Express
1:12:12 > 1:12:17open but saw a significant change in nature, 10% of all usage, and that
1:12:17 > 1:12:23is increasing at the moment.It's people using rail rather than
1:12:23 > 1:12:28another form of public transport, that's not a help if we still have
1:12:28 > 1:12:3360%, 61% travelling to Heathrow by car, if we are concerned about
1:12:33 > 1:12:38congestion and air quality?If we look over at that period we have
1:12:38 > 1:12:48seen an improvement in public transport Wiltshire -- Road share.
1:12:48 > 1:12:52And the people have been getting out of their cars and you can...It's
1:12:52 > 1:12:59virtually flat in the last ten years...It's over 25 years, that
1:12:59 > 1:13:02takes into account the introduction of Heathrow Express which I think
1:13:02 > 1:13:06was 15 or 16 years ago, that might be before the period you are looking
1:13:06 > 1:13:09at but I can write to the committee separately to lay out how that has
1:13:09 > 1:13:16worked and if you find yourself in east London at the moment, it's not
1:13:16 > 1:13:20particularly easy to get to Heathrow if you want to come here. Of
1:13:20 > 1:13:24Crossrail Canary Wharf will be a little over 30 minutes and Stratford
1:13:24 > 1:13:29not much more than that, that opens up Heathrow to the whole of East
1:13:29 > 1:13:32London and that of course is a benefit not just to passengers but
1:13:32 > 1:13:36people who work at the airport, that's a really significant part of
1:13:36 > 1:13:44the journey coming into Heathrow. Interesting, on surface access
1:13:44 > 1:13:48visitors it's ten years it stayed flat, interesting picking up a
1:13:48 > 1:13:53question from earlier about landing charges, for that figure will be
1:13:53 > 1:13:56extrapolated against the same 25 year period, it would be interesting
1:13:56 > 1:14:01to get those figures.To be clear, what has happened to landing charges
1:14:01 > 1:14:06over a 25 year period?People have seen reductions in the cost of using
1:14:06 > 1:14:12Heathrow landing charges. A 10-year period 25 year period it would be
1:14:12 > 1:14:15interesting to see the same figures against those.We will be happy to
1:14:15 > 1:14:22do that and what that will show this at Heathrow landing charges declined
1:14:22 > 1:14:25before we started investing in Terminal five and if you tried to
1:14:25 > 1:14:29travel through Heathrow before Terminal five opened you will see
1:14:29 > 1:14:35the impact of the underinvestment. And the increase as we are investing
1:14:35 > 1:14:41and then they are coming down again.
1:14:41 > 1:14:46Can I ask you about your pledge that they will not be any greater
1:14:46 > 1:14:51landslide truck airport traffic in terms of today? Is that doable? If
1:14:51 > 1:14:56you are looking to double your freight from expanded capacity, so
1:14:56 > 1:15:00more trucks coming in and out and you are expecting 40,000 extra car
1:15:00 > 1:15:05parking spaces to be built, how does the surface access via, fit with
1:15:05 > 1:15:11that pledge of having no more traffic than you have today?We are
1:15:11 > 1:15:20looking at 40,000 extra car parking spaces. We all look at providing the
1:15:20 > 1:15:24car parking spaces. We won't have any more car parking spaces with
1:15:24 > 1:15:30expansion then we have today, so that shows we are doing what we said
1:15:30 > 1:15:35we would in terms of no more car is on the road. And if you were to look
1:15:35 > 1:15:41at the way freight works and parking works around Heathrow, it says it
1:15:41 > 1:15:49all. It is a haphazard develop Cummins development. If you were
1:15:49 > 1:15:53starting from scratch, you would do things differently. Rather than
1:15:53 > 1:16:00having lots of car parks scattered around the perimeter, let's build
1:16:00 > 1:16:05two big ones here were people need to be. That minimises the amount of
1:16:05 > 1:16:09driving round the airport, makes it better for passengers, more
1:16:09 > 1:16:16efficient use of space, and the same applies with coracle. If you look at
1:16:16 > 1:16:21the journeys freight is making around the airport, multiple
1:16:21 > 1:16:25handling through different organisations, it is incredibly
1:16:25 > 1:16:28inefficient and not competitive for the way exporters now need to work
1:16:28 > 1:16:34when you compare that with Frankfurt or Amsterdam, who are much more
1:16:34 > 1:16:40efficient. So part of the opportunity here is to simplify the
1:16:40 > 1:16:45way freight works in the report. That in itself will take vehicles
1:16:45 > 1:16:50off the road and gives us the space to have more goods coming in without
1:16:50 > 1:16:56more freight movement. This is not easy to do, none of it is, we
1:16:56 > 1:17:03wouldn't be here if it was. We have a good plan now and are working with
1:17:03 > 1:17:07the freight community, planning an entire redevelopment of the Heathrow
1:17:07 > 1:17:12cargo area to give us the capacity we need.In the airports commission
1:17:12 > 1:17:16study, it mentioned that might be necessary to introduce a charge for
1:17:16 > 1:17:23people accessing the airport of around £40 per car. If that the type
1:17:23 > 1:17:32of quantity you are looking for in terms of a parking charge?No, we're
1:17:32 > 1:17:37not. As I tried to explain earlier with our triple lock, this would be
1:17:37 > 1:17:43the second level. If we are in the world we were trying to constrain
1:17:43 > 1:17:47high emission vehicles going into the poet, and it's something we
1:17:47 > 1:17:53might look at and are consulting on at the moment.The costs of this
1:17:53 > 1:18:06work. We heard the previous session was that the cost for surface access
1:18:06 > 1:18:09could be over a larger range. What is your assessment of what it will
1:18:09 > 1:18:16cost?I can understand why it might have such large numbers being
1:18:16 > 1:18:21bandied around.I think 10-15,000,000,000 came from
1:18:21 > 1:18:30transport for London which was about all of west London's needs and that
1:18:30 > 1:18:33isn't Heathrow's responsibility, it is clearly something that transport
1:18:33 > 1:18:37for London are planning at the moment. I couldn't comment on
1:18:37 > 1:18:42whether those numbers are correct but I have heard it before. The 5
1:18:42 > 1:18:47billion that was referred to by the airports commission had a
1:18:47 > 1:18:55significant chunk to do with the M4 widening. We doesn't he agrees with
1:18:55 > 1:18:59the points because we felt the widening of the key part of an
1:18:59 > 1:19:05arterial road which potentially, already has some air quality issues,
1:19:05 > 1:19:11wasn't the right answer, so that is how we differ from them. From our
1:19:11 > 1:19:16point of view, at the moment we have about £2 billion in our costing four
1:19:16 > 1:19:28various aspects of surface access which includes roads as well as an
1:19:28 > 1:19:32estimate for rail. But we don't know what the cost of these rail schemes
1:19:32 > 1:19:36will be, so it comes with a healthy dose of risk attached because until
1:19:36 > 1:19:41we have the final business case for western rail, which we hope to get
1:19:41 > 1:19:46when they file their planning application early next year, then we
1:19:46 > 1:19:54will have a clear idea of the final cost and final benefit cost ratio,
1:19:54 > 1:19:57which for western rail is incredibly positive, one of the most positive
1:19:57 > 1:20:05that has ever been seen for Network Rail. We will then be able to start
1:20:05 > 1:20:11working with that methodology to understand what our contribution is.
1:20:11 > 1:20:14The evidence we've heard as a committee is quite contradictory at
1:20:14 > 1:20:24times in terms of surface access. It seems that national policy has
1:20:24 > 1:20:27changed but the national policy statement doesn't give much comfort
1:20:27 > 1:20:32that surface access improvements that Heathrow needs much of the
1:20:32 > 1:20:41aspirations that you have about 50% of people by 2030, 50 five by 2040,
1:20:41 > 1:20:50it doesn't seem to work but relies any lot of hope.At the moment, if
1:20:50 > 1:20:53you are coming from large parts of London or if you're coming from the
1:20:53 > 1:20:59Midlands or the north, you either have a complicated real journey or
1:20:59 > 1:21:05get into a car. HS2, Crossrail, Piccadilly line upgrade all change
1:21:05 > 1:21:10that situation for a large number of passengers. We shouldn't
1:21:10 > 1:21:13underestimate the significant impact that will come in, that's part of
1:21:13 > 1:21:17the purpose of making those investments in the first place, that
1:21:17 > 1:21:22people will use them. But will include people coming into Heathrow.
1:21:22 > 1:21:25We don't rely on western and southern rail access to hit our
1:21:25 > 1:21:31target but we think everything we have seen says there is a good case
1:21:31 > 1:21:38and we will contribute towards that. So you are expecting to contribute
1:21:38 > 1:21:44around £1 billion to the surface access upgrade at the moment.In
1:21:44 > 1:21:50total, we have £2 billion budgeted for surface access changes. That
1:21:50 > 1:21:56includes providing existing roads, the additional allowance for the
1:21:56 > 1:22:04M25, we've absorbed part of the 5 billion for that.As you've
1:22:04 > 1:22:08mentioned the M25, there has been very little evidence of costing to
1:22:08 > 1:22:12do without that we have been able to see as part of this enquiry. Do you
1:22:12 > 1:22:18have robust figures over how much are building the M25 will be? That
1:22:18 > 1:22:22is flashing a big warning light for myself in particular about how much
1:22:22 > 1:22:28it will cost. It seems like it will cost an enormous amount and the
1:22:28 > 1:22:34money doesn't seem sufficient.We are confident it is robust and have
1:22:34 > 1:22:37been doing a lot of work with highways England around the scheme
1:22:37 > 1:22:47design. We and they have quite a lot of experience with this. I shouldn't
1:22:47 > 1:22:52say that all costings are pinned down, but the right level of
1:22:52 > 1:22:55maturity at this stage of the process. There is a lot more work
1:22:55 > 1:23:01that we need to do. The first thing to do will be to finalise what the
1:23:01 > 1:23:06plan is and we will only be able to do that once we have completed the
1:23:06 > 1:23:10first consultation and come down to an individual scheme. Then we will
1:23:10 > 1:23:14be able to do far more detailed costing. But what we are proposing
1:23:14 > 1:23:19to do with the M25 isn't anything that hasn't been done in 1000 times
1:23:19 > 1:23:23before and hasn't been done at many other airports before. Charles de
1:23:23 > 1:23:28Gaulle have done something similar, plenty of airports in the States,
1:23:28 > 1:23:33this is not an unusual way of dealing with things. But we need to
1:23:33 > 1:23:38mature our cost of forecast of the next couple of years.It's very
1:23:38 > 1:23:46normal at this stage in a major piece of infrastructure to be at
1:23:46 > 1:23:53what is P easy costings. You have an 80% of ability of being in the range
1:23:53 > 1:23:58of what your costs are. But we need to go through the consultation, we
1:23:58 > 1:24:03need to get more views on how this scheme is going to shake up, and by
1:24:03 > 1:24:07the time we get a development consent order application, we will
1:24:07 > 1:24:16be closer to a P 50 costing, so there will be more clarity, the
1:24:16 > 1:24:20complete a business case. That still allows for some risk, more risk
1:24:20 > 1:24:25associated with the more risky aspects of infrastructure,
1:24:25 > 1:24:30potentially the M25, and you will have less risk associated with
1:24:30 > 1:24:33things we are very well experienced at building, like additional
1:24:33 > 1:24:39terminal capacity.One final question, I'm still a bit sceptical
1:24:39 > 1:24:46as to the surface access and what a 3-run win world looks like. -- three
1:24:46 > 1:24:57runway world. Can you reduce that surface access, would you be
1:24:57 > 1:25:01comfortable of that being a condition of releasing additional
1:25:01 > 1:25:08capacity? Similar to the locks around air quality that you
1:25:08 > 1:25:15mentioned earlier. That seems key to delivering a quality improvements.I
1:25:15 > 1:25:19think your right to tie the Spectator quality, it is the issue
1:25:19 > 1:25:25we are trying to solve. I go back to the starting point, such as the
1:25:25 > 1:25:30Conservative forecasting base shows that isn't actually an issue in air
1:25:30 > 1:25:36quality any more. The issues that we have that we are planning to take
1:25:36 > 1:25:41while take us beyond what has currently been built in. I would say
1:25:41 > 1:25:46that the triple lock on air quality is the important lock here.But it's
1:25:46 > 1:25:53a quality and congestion, so how much capacity the road network has,
1:25:53 > 1:25:58not just air quality.But it is particularly around air quality and
1:25:58 > 1:26:03I would encourage the committee to not overcomplicate what we are
1:26:03 > 1:26:09trying to achieve. We have a good plan, we've developed over a period
1:26:09 > 1:26:13of time. If you would like more clarity we would be happy to give to
1:26:13 > 1:26:18you. We will go through a full development consent order process.
1:26:18 > 1:26:21That and the national policy will provide us with legal commitments
1:26:21 > 1:26:26were signing up to around this. This may well be one of those areas. I
1:26:26 > 1:26:31would hope that if we haven't got the right clarity by the time we get
1:26:31 > 1:26:36there, which will be after we have the single plan, the detailed
1:26:36 > 1:26:43workings on the M25, and by which time we'll also know more about
1:26:43 > 1:26:48western rail access, which is your concern, I'd suggest that at the
1:26:48 > 1:26:52time when, if there are legal commitments we need to make, that is
1:26:52 > 1:26:58the time to make those.Can I just issue a little further on that
1:26:58 > 1:27:02point? You beat a very specific pledge that there wouldn't be an
1:27:02 > 1:27:06increase in land side airport related traffic. You saying that at
1:27:06 > 1:27:10this time you wouldn't be happy for that to be a binding commitment the
1:27:10 > 1:27:17MPS. I think air quality and congestion or links, but I think for
1:27:17 > 1:27:21a lot of residence and the surrounding area, it is congestion
1:27:21 > 1:27:26that they are anxious about and they are wanting to see that road show
1:27:26 > 1:27:32change in line with what you have pledged.Perhaps I can be clear on
1:27:32 > 1:27:47that. It is already baked into the NPS and I hope that while...But a
1:27:47 > 1:27:50binding commitment in terms of whether you would release capacity
1:27:50 > 1:27:59of those terms were not met.I would have to check how it is codified. My
1:27:59 > 1:28:02understanding is that the targets are codified, which means you have
1:28:02 > 1:28:07to meet them and that it is the air quality targets that are relevant to
1:28:07 > 1:28:12the release capacity. Which is the logical way of doing it because
1:28:12 > 1:28:16congestion might not just be a function of Heathrow, it would be
1:28:16 > 1:28:22quite hard to ascribe that entirely to Heathrow, whereas I think it is
1:28:22 > 1:28:24perfectly possible to ascribe Heathrow's compliance with the air
1:28:24 > 1:28:30quality targets.But in terms of airport related traffic, because
1:28:30 > 1:28:36we're not talking about traffic on was generally but how passengers,
1:28:36 > 1:28:40freight, workers arrive at the airport. So presumably, if you are
1:28:40 > 1:28:46saying that you think you can achieve 50% or better, then it's
1:28:46 > 1:28:48more reasonable to say you're confident enough for that to be
1:28:48 > 1:28:56binding in relation to capacity.I would want to see precisely what the
1:28:56 > 1:29:00infrastructure was. The commitments we have made are based on or plan.
1:29:00 > 1:29:04The plan can change between now and then, so it is absolutely
1:29:04 > 1:29:12appropriate to have commitments, but they would come of the DCO, rather
1:29:12 > 1:29:19than what we are talking about today.I want to ask one
1:29:19 > 1:29:21supplementary on the Wiltshire targets. When we heard from
1:29:21 > 1:29:27transport Forum London after previous session, they said a
1:29:27 > 1:29:36Wiltshire of 69% is required to meet your net increase in car traffic
1:29:36 > 1:29:38pledge.
1:29:44 > 1:29:50Your supplementary evidence, your modelling suggests were not going to
1:29:50 > 1:29:57reach that level until 2040. Could you give us more detail about how
1:29:57 > 1:30:01you arrived at that conclusion so we can make an objective decision,
1:30:01 > 1:30:06judgement on whether Transport for London is right for you right?Yes,
1:30:06 > 1:30:12we can and it might be, this might be something we can write to the
1:30:12 > 1:30:20committee separately on in terms of forecasts but I think the DFL
1:30:20 > 1:30:28forecast for us to get up to 148 million by is it 20...2050, rather
1:30:28 > 1:30:42than 2040 but that might be me misremembering...
1:30:42 > 1:30:46Paragraph to .5 of your written evidence.Sorry, I think I am
1:30:46 > 1:30:55getting confused, the DFL forecast put reaction was... The
1:30:55 > 1:30:58unconstrained forecast, we talked earlier in the session about when
1:30:58 > 1:31:01the traffic would come and our view is that there would be constraints
1:31:01 > 1:31:06on how the traffic arrives, whether it's about by ability, capacity
1:31:06 > 1:31:09available, what the level of actual demand is versus the supply of
1:31:09 > 1:31:16capacity so I think we are questioning the Transport for London
1:31:16 > 1:31:22148 million as they suggested but there's another issue, 69% Road sure
1:31:22 > 1:31:26they talked about, they have conflated in effect, staff mode
1:31:26 > 1:31:32share and staff Road share, we deliver the share targets across
1:31:32 > 1:31:38both of those.And one further question, Transport for London also
1:31:38 > 1:31:44said the public transport upgrades are there to meet general demand in
1:31:44 > 1:31:50the West London area. Not specifically for Heathrow. And that
1:31:50 > 1:31:56additional capacity will be required.I am sure they are not
1:31:56 > 1:31:58specifically for Heathrow but when you think about the growth that we
1:31:58 > 1:32:04are going to see in London and I think here we would have the same
1:32:04 > 1:32:11object as the mayor to make sure we keep London as a world city, where
1:32:11 > 1:32:15is that coming from? Business people coming to London, tourists coming to
1:32:15 > 1:32:19London? That's exactly the kind of traffic that an expanded Heathrow
1:32:19 > 1:32:27will be delivering, helping to meet the kind of commercial growth that
1:32:27 > 1:32:36London is going to see. It would... It should be entirely consistent
1:32:36 > 1:32:43with a consistent underlying growth plan.Thank you. Hugh, you wanted to
1:32:43 > 1:32:47come in.Thank you, cherub. It was in tyranny clear what you were
1:32:47 > 1:32:53proposing to do with the M25, is it tunnelling, rooting it further west,
1:32:53 > 1:32:57a shorter runway that doesn't go... It's the first two of those.Do you
1:32:57 > 1:33:04want to... I think the tunnelling and the bridging or the two options
1:33:04 > 1:33:09we think are the most logical when it comes to balancing cost
1:33:09 > 1:33:13disruption, deliverability and I think we are consulting at the
1:33:13 > 1:33:17moment to ask views on those things and I think tunnelling has some
1:33:17 > 1:33:22marginal benefits to it in terms of if you will get off-line and
1:33:22 > 1:33:28connected akin to the M25, the early analysis with highways England is
1:33:28 > 1:33:31that is the least destructive approach but we want to hear other
1:33:31 > 1:33:37people's views.Doesn't it come back to the legal point I made, doesn't
1:33:37 > 1:33:44that decision impacts of your other areas, such as car emissions, etc?
1:33:44 > 1:33:51And so therefore... Or costs? If you haven't made that decision yet
1:33:51 > 1:33:56doesn't it impact some of the other decisions you have made, for example
1:33:56 > 1:34:01cost fixing.There is very little difference in costs with those
1:34:01 > 1:34:06schemes so no, and from an emissions point of view it would not make any
1:34:06 > 1:34:09difference, I can't think of a reason why it would make any
1:34:09 > 1:34:14difference.One would be nearer the airport, would it not on the other
1:34:14 > 1:34:17would be much further away so therefore potentially if it's
1:34:17 > 1:34:19further west it would not have as much impact in terms of other
1:34:19 > 1:34:28emissions?If we can go back to the early question around emissions. The
1:34:28 > 1:34:34only area close to Heathrow that has any emissions issues is to the north
1:34:34 > 1:34:41of the Mfor and not the M25 and with the modelling that the Department
1:34:41 > 1:34:44for Transport has done, even with expansion there would not be an
1:34:44 > 1:34:48impact on beating air-quality standards. The closest point there
1:34:48 > 1:34:53might be a concern in London is the Westway which I think is 17
1:34:53 > 1:34:57kilometres away from the airport.It wouldn't make any difference
1:34:57 > 1:35:03whatsoever to the environment and environmental issues, which option
1:35:03 > 1:35:07you go for therefore it doesn't really matter?The location wouldn't
1:35:07 > 1:35:13affect that.But as part of the development consent order process we
1:35:13 > 1:35:18will go through a full environmental impact assessment and that will,
1:35:18 > 1:35:21that detailed work which will need to be done will be part of that and
1:35:21 > 1:35:25will be assessed by the planning inspectors.What is the cost
1:35:25 > 1:35:30differential between the schemes we have discussed, tunnelling versus
1:35:30 > 1:35:38drilling...We will write to the committee and let you know.On that
1:35:38 > 1:35:41specific point, tunnelling or bridging the M25, for that be part
1:35:41 > 1:35:45of the DCU process are an expanded runway or is there another process?
1:35:45 > 1:35:52Part of the DCU process.The other question just arising from this,
1:35:52 > 1:35:55arising from the previous set of discussions you talked again in
1:35:55 > 1:35:59relation to the questions about service access around the phased
1:35:59 > 1:36:04release of capacity which seems to always have been Heathrow's
1:36:04 > 1:36:08position, the fact that you would have to build the use of that
1:36:08 > 1:36:14capacity and you talked about it in relation to certainty around costs.
1:36:14 > 1:36:17Doesn't the phased release of capacity change the economic case
1:36:17 > 1:36:23that is presented in NPS given that those numbers around the present
1:36:23 > 1:36:25value are based on capacity being used within the first two years of
1:36:25 > 1:36:33the new runway being complete? How does it impact the economic case?I
1:36:33 > 1:36:36don't think it does materially impact the economic case. We are
1:36:36 > 1:36:43talking about the phasing over, the first 10-15 years and how quickly
1:36:43 > 1:36:53that dols. And what is clear that kind of connections that the UK will
1:36:53 > 1:36:58need, long haul connections, more domestic rows, which we will deliver
1:36:58 > 1:37:02during that time, is something only Heathrow expansion will deliver. --
1:37:02 > 1:37:10how quickly that built up. We would not be getting any of that with for
1:37:10 > 1:37:16example the expansion of Gatwick. Leaving aside the comparison issue
1:37:16 > 1:37:21in terms of looking at the economic case for Heathrow Northwest runway
1:37:21 > 1:37:26surely the economic case that is presented in the NPS is based on
1:37:26 > 1:37:31release of capacity and passenger benefits that flow from it further
1:37:31 > 1:37:36they are passenger or economic and you are saying the release of that
1:37:36 > 1:37:41capacity will be longer over a 10-15 year period, that will change the
1:37:41 > 1:37:45numbers and the economic case inevitably, won't it?The demand
1:37:45 > 1:37:51forecasts show a low case, medium case and high case and they show it
1:37:51 > 1:37:57from a passenger point of view not from a trade point of view, we are
1:37:57 > 1:38:03talking about releasing in quite small increments, in quite quick
1:38:03 > 1:38:06succession so I think are view is that there is not a material
1:38:06 > 1:38:10difference between what we are proposing, what we are proposing is
1:38:10 > 1:38:14to make sure we do this in a way that lines up with passenger demand
1:38:14 > 1:38:19rather than building something and then waiting for the demand to come
1:38:19 > 1:38:23which is a much more responsible way of developing the airport that
1:38:23 > 1:38:29allows us to keep our costs as low as possible whilst making sure we
1:38:29 > 1:38:33maintain great passenger experience, we deliver on our public commitments
1:38:33 > 1:38:39but not for shortening or delaying the significant benefits that will
1:38:39 > 1:38:44accrue to the UK from having the best connected hub...That sounds
1:38:44 > 1:38:47very sensible from the perspective of the airport, I'm just not
1:38:47 > 1:38:52convinced that's how the government have accounted, have made economic
1:38:52 > 1:38:58case in the NPS because it seems to rely on a very rapid uptake of
1:38:58 > 1:39:05capacity and surely that will change the numbers, won't it?That may be a
1:39:05 > 1:39:08question more for the Secretary of State, I can't really speak on the
1:39:08 > 1:39:13half of the Department for Transport.I think we are going to
1:39:13 > 1:39:17come onto Daniel's questions about air quality.We've already touched a
1:39:17 > 1:39:22bed and quality but I just want to press you on some things. The
1:39:22 > 1:39:25figures we have from the Department for Transport recent appraisal in
1:39:25 > 1:39:33October, 47,000 properties, concentrations of nitrogen dioxide
1:39:33 > 1:39:40will be higher, do you recognise those figures?Sorry, the point that
1:39:40 > 1:39:48you as, 47,000...47 thousand properties where the nitrogen
1:39:48 > 1:39:52dioxide concentrations are predicted to be higher? Is that what you
1:39:52 > 1:39:59understand?Are air-quality assessment that we have done to date
1:39:59 > 1:40:04has said that we are compliant with all of our air-quality obligations
1:40:04 > 1:40:09when it comes to expansion so we can expand Heathrow and do so within the
1:40:09 > 1:40:14quality obligations that the government has. By 2024 all of the
1:40:14 > 1:40:31local roads around Heathrow as John mentioned, but to -- the two nodes
1:40:31 > 1:40:34from our point of view we can meet the quality standards.I understand
1:40:34 > 1:40:38but the point I make is that there are impacts close to the airport and
1:40:38 > 1:40:42I think it's widely believed there will be impacts across London as
1:40:42 > 1:40:50well. As my colleague suggested earlier, the growing interest in
1:40:50 > 1:40:54air-quality, the more research is being done, views are moving on this
1:40:54 > 1:40:58and we have seen the government run into a series of problems with that
1:40:58 > 1:41:02quality plan, I understand your problem, you are working within the
1:41:02 > 1:41:06constraints the government sets of URI to stay you think you can be
1:41:06 > 1:41:10compliant with it, there is every possibility that as people work
1:41:10 > 1:41:13harder on trying to improve air quality those boundaries and
1:41:13 > 1:41:17parameters are going to change and what I would ask you, particularly
1:41:17 > 1:41:22given the issues raised, the questions we are raising around
1:41:22 > 1:41:27service access, what would you be able to do to improve requirements
1:41:27 > 1:41:32on our quality of the standards need to be raised?In a hypothetical
1:41:32 > 1:41:36situation where air-quality standards are reduced further, how
1:41:36 > 1:41:40would we be able...It's not be hypothetical than the government
1:41:40 > 1:41:45keeps getting knocked back in Court on an annual basis, really. What I'm
1:41:45 > 1:41:50suggesting to you is, people are becoming more concerned about their
1:41:50 > 1:41:55quality particularly in London, the mayor is having to do quite mad at
1:41:55 > 1:41:58things to address those under the same time you are basically saying
1:41:58 > 1:42:05you can just about probably, those are my words obviously not yours,
1:42:05 > 1:42:08what if we are pushing for higher standards over the next few years,
1:42:08 > 1:42:12what will you be able to do given that there are already concerns
1:42:12 > 1:42:18about being able to reach the current targets?And actually quite
1:42:18 > 1:42:21optimistic based on the focus that has been put behind quality. It's
1:42:21 > 1:42:26been an issue that has been there for a long time, it's one we have
1:42:26 > 1:42:30always taken seriously, we have taken actions as an airport to
1:42:30 > 1:42:33reduce the emissions from the airport and the emissions of people
1:42:33 > 1:42:36using the airport and I can expand on those if you would like. But the
1:42:36 > 1:42:44great thing about the focus that has come in recently is that it is
1:42:44 > 1:42:46really getting people to do something about it now. The
1:42:46 > 1:42:52government has set a target for no more diesel vehicles being sold,
1:42:52 > 1:42:57barely a day goes by without another major auto manufacturer announcing
1:42:57 > 1:43:02that they are going to be switching over to alternative fuelled
1:43:02 > 1:43:06vehicles. I suspect many people when they think about buying their next
1:43:06 > 1:43:09car will be thinking of an alternative fuelled vehicle or
1:43:09 > 1:43:12hybrid before they think of the diesel car. That's certainly what is
1:43:12 > 1:43:17coming through from some of the statistics from car sales. Things
1:43:17 > 1:43:21are changing more quickly than I think we would have expected a
1:43:21 > 1:43:25couple of years ago. I now drive an electric car, at Heathrow we have
1:43:25 > 1:43:29been converting all of our air side vehicles to electric, not just cars,
1:43:29 > 1:43:35but we've been trialling HGVs and buses, things that you would not
1:43:35 > 1:43:39have thought were possible a couple of years ago an now happening and I
1:43:39 > 1:43:44am actually optimistic, the focus now coming on to air-quality, we
1:43:44 > 1:43:48will see a significant shift in the kind of sleep that we have an free
1:43:48 > 1:43:52at Heathrow will take a lead in this. We have a good track record at
1:43:52 > 1:43:58doing so, the kind of actions that we can take on airports include
1:43:58 > 1:44:03making Heathrow side adopt a low emission zone by 2025, we are
1:44:03 > 1:44:12getting airlines convert from using diesel fuel to keep their cabins
1:44:12 > 1:44:17temperatures controlled, to provide power to move to electrical
1:44:17 > 1:44:22alternatives and maybe investing to allow them to do that but were not
1:44:22 > 1:44:26just working on the error side, we are working around the perimeter,
1:44:26 > 1:44:30we've just been installing new charging points for London Taxis in
1:44:30 > 1:44:37our taxi feeder part, we have the first hydrogen fuel station at
1:44:37 > 1:44:41Heathrow, that we install. As a lot that we can do and we will take a
1:44:41 > 1:44:45lead in this, it's important that we do. The great benefit we have is
1:44:45 > 1:44:51that Heathrow is the size of a city. And we have more control and
1:44:51 > 1:44:54influence how that city works over most normal city so it's absolutely
1:44:54 > 1:44:59right we should do first for other cities will do later. I am actually
1:44:59 > 1:45:05quite excited about the prospect for us taking a lead in improving air
1:45:05 > 1:45:10quality for the UK.
1:45:10 > 1:45:15Going back to one of the earlier poems as to when you would be
1:45:15 > 1:45:23prepared to see this is a binding condition, that period, between
1:45:23 > 1:45:272026-2030 that we were talking about, you were not prepared to
1:45:27 > 1:45:34suggest it would be tied into the NPS, it would be in the planning
1:45:34 > 1:45:39process, but are you prepared to make that commitment if the air
1:45:39 > 1:45:47quality issues are met?That is our triple lock and I think the
1:45:47 > 1:45:53development process is the right place to do that when plans are more
1:45:53 > 1:45:57detailed, when we are making binding legal commitments about the way we
1:45:57 > 1:46:05will operate the expanded airport and it's right we should do that.It
1:46:05 > 1:46:08seems there are maybe three interlocked things at that point
1:46:08 > 1:46:13alongside the triple lock, the air quality, the surface accents and the
1:46:13 > 1:46:16economics, and unless although Street comes together, they will be
1:46:16 > 1:46:24problems.There are lots of things we are trying to balance and we to
1:46:24 > 1:46:29deliver for the UK economy, passengers and airlines, the local
1:46:29 > 1:46:33communities and the investors who have put money in. We have a good
1:46:33 > 1:46:37plan that does although things. As we go through the planning process,
1:46:37 > 1:46:44we will lock up and down, have a single plan, detailed costings, an
1:46:44 > 1:46:47environmental impact assessment, we will know exactly what commitments
1:46:47 > 1:46:53we should be making and will be comfortable to locked into. And that
1:46:53 > 1:47:00is the great thing about the process, is a steady flow of getting
1:47:00 > 1:47:02more information, building consensus and coming down to a single plan
1:47:02 > 1:47:10that works for everyone. And I think air quality is one of the big issues
1:47:10 > 1:47:13we need to solve and that is why we have been upfront in proposing that
1:47:13 > 1:47:22triple lock that we have binding the Clemens around air quality. I'm
1:47:22 > 1:47:26optimistic around air quality, I think is a country we are getting
1:47:26 > 1:47:34our act together around it and Heathrow will take the lead. I went
1:47:34 > 1:47:37to charge my electric car the other day and all the charging points were
1:47:37 > 1:47:41being used. I wouldn't have thought that six months ago, but it's a sign
1:47:41 > 1:47:46of how things are changing.I think we're going to move onto the next
1:47:46 > 1:47:55issue, which is noise.You're talking about increasing the
1:47:55 > 1:48:01capacity of the airport by over 50% but bringing down air pollution.
1:48:01 > 1:48:07Does that because you are offsetting the pollution from aircraft against
1:48:07 > 1:48:12car vehicles which will become hybrids?Just to be clear, the issue
1:48:12 > 1:48:17with air quality is not the planes, it is the cars on the road. There
1:48:17 > 1:48:25are two points in... Heathrow currently complies with all
1:48:25 > 1:48:37standards. There are two points on the macro for up -- M4. Its cars on
1:48:37 > 1:48:43the road to the issue and then they are not Heathrow related cars.There
1:48:43 > 1:48:48are 50% more flights and you will not increase pollution from
1:48:48 > 1:48:54aircraft?The air quality measure won't be affected by the increase in
1:48:54 > 1:49:00aircraft. Aircraft currently is not a significant contributor towards
1:49:00 > 1:49:05air quality. The emissions disburse very quickly and a lot of those are
1:49:05 > 1:49:11at a higher level. I'm happy to send you the analysis on that.I would
1:49:11 > 1:49:17like to see that.The issue in air quality is car on the road and there
1:49:17 > 1:49:23is an issue in our local communities and it is through cars on the Mfor,
1:49:23 > 1:49:30not cars servicing Heathrow.I would like to see the figures on air
1:49:30 > 1:49:36pollution, I can't believe it's nothing.It's not nothing, but it's
1:49:36 > 1:49:42not significant.I can see why you're not doubling the pollution
1:49:42 > 1:49:53from aircraft.As I said, it is not a significant contributor.It says
1:49:53 > 1:49:56over 92,000 people will be affected by severe noise. How do you cope
1:49:56 > 1:50:02with that?The appraisal and sustainability and soon-to-be don't
1:50:02 > 1:50:06continue to make the improvements we have people for the 20 years. Our
1:50:06 > 1:50:10analysis says that 200,000 people will be taken out of the noise
1:50:10 > 1:50:19footprint.How have you done that? Basically, you have some prototype
1:50:19 > 1:50:25roots when we put our airports commission submission together and
1:50:25 > 1:50:32that looked at the difference noise footprints, so 60 decibels, 55, and
1:50:32 > 1:50:38you apply that to the area around the airport and you then apply the
1:50:38 > 1:50:42mitigations you are making, so how your fleets changes over time with
1:50:42 > 1:50:49technology, how you are operating, displaced specials on the runway, to
1:50:49 > 1:50:55keep the planes- for longer, and that's how we do the calculation.
1:50:55 > 1:51:07Budget to know what the Reds will be at, do you?We provide prototype
1:51:07 > 1:51:16routes.Are those the best to fit your argument?Not at all. As you
1:51:16 > 1:51:22would expect, to make a submission, they want an idea of the noise
1:51:22 > 1:51:25footprint and to do that you look at the runways, makes some are some
1:51:25 > 1:51:30gems about how you would use the runways and create some prototype
1:51:30 > 1:51:35flight paths. That can then create a noise envelope. This is a process
1:51:35 > 1:51:40the planning Inspectorate will go through when we submit our master
1:51:40 > 1:51:44plan with our environmental impact assessment, that will come with both
1:51:44 > 1:51:50detailed air quality and noise impact and mitigations. But we will
1:51:50 > 1:51:55have done the public consultation at that point on airspace, so by the
1:51:55 > 1:51:58time we make that file, we will have a pretty clear view of where those
1:51:58 > 1:52:05flight paths are.Will that be a binding commitment in the end the
1:52:05 > 1:52:09session work with around the noise envelope we well and that is
1:52:09 > 1:52:14something we are very comfortable with.It is the same as a terminal
1:52:14 > 1:52:20five planning commission and we met that obligation.Let's be released
1:52:20 > 1:52:25based on those targets?It's yet to be determined how the noise envelope
1:52:25 > 1:52:34will work.That's what bothers me as it is still to be defined. Coming
1:52:34 > 1:52:36from potentially a naive point of view, I thought those things would
1:52:36 > 1:52:44be sorted out upfront. You won the airport to be expended 50%. If I
1:52:44 > 1:52:48lived close to Heathrow Airport, I would want to know, what is the air
1:52:48 > 1:52:51pollution and noise pollution going to be before you start telling me
1:52:51 > 1:53:00the benefits around it.Absolutely not, and we spent the past four
1:53:00 > 1:53:04years going through quite a high level planning and investment to
1:53:04 > 1:53:07make the case more details. We have been to a significant local
1:53:07 > 1:53:11consultations which have helped us to improve our plans, understand
1:53:11 > 1:53:17what really matters to local communities. Guaranteed times when
1:53:17 > 1:53:21there is no noise, which comes out as one of the most important things,
1:53:21 > 1:53:27so we have built our plans around that. We have a good plan that is at
1:53:27 > 1:53:31the right level of maturity at this stage, but the development process
1:53:31 > 1:53:36itself as a way of making sure that as plans mature, the right questions
1:53:36 > 1:53:44are asked and answered and we come down to a consensus view.You talked
1:53:44 > 1:53:47about respite, people living under the flight path will have the
1:53:47 > 1:53:52respite reduced from half to one third of the day.That's not the
1:53:52 > 1:53:59case, I don't recognise that figure. What will it be?We are consulting
1:53:59 > 1:54:04at the moment. The principle is, how would people like to receive air
1:54:04 > 1:54:08respite. We wanted to be maximised and a number of different ways you
1:54:08 > 1:54:12could do it. You could have a consistent day of the week, time of
1:54:12 > 1:54:15day, there are lots of options around how you can deliver it and I
1:54:15 > 1:54:21think part of having the high-quality, transparent
1:54:21 > 1:54:23consultation is asking local communities, for whom this is a
1:54:23 > 1:54:28significant issue, we need to ask them what they think. It's
1:54:28 > 1:54:32absolutely appropriate that the infrastructure process and airspace
1:54:32 > 1:54:35process happen in parallel. This is a really complicated thing we are
1:54:35 > 1:54:40creating. I think it would be wrong to rush to conclusions to what the
1:54:40 > 1:54:46answer is without going through that diesels consultation process.I love
1:54:46 > 1:54:52that phrase, how people receive the respite. People are trying to live
1:54:52 > 1:54:59underneath airports, close to airports. Surely you have the same
1:54:59 > 1:55:04right to respite as anyone else, they say air quality. You seem to be
1:55:04 > 1:55:09squeezing these people and saying, use one good thing, but here is the
1:55:09 > 1:55:15price you have to pay.With three run pet ways, we can give
1:55:15 > 1:55:18guarantees, predictable respite which we can't at the moment.What
1:55:18 > 1:55:25is the guarantee?That you will get predictable respite. But I can tell
1:55:25 > 1:55:30you at the moment there's, I can't predict that if I don't know where
1:55:30 > 1:55:36the infrastructure is going to be precisely, how I'm going to use the
1:55:36 > 1:55:39infrastructure, but my alteration strategies. All of that is part of
1:55:39 > 1:55:43the consultation. I think you believe we are further through the
1:55:43 > 1:55:50process and we are.When will you be able to predict that?When we file
1:55:50 > 1:55:55our planning application in late 2020, early 2021, we will file it,
1:55:55 > 1:56:11which is the consenting process. The NPS is about the planning framework,
1:56:11 > 1:56:20at that point we will know when the flight paths are in 2020.6.5 hours
1:56:20 > 1:56:26for nearby commuters?We have made a commitment to a 6.5 for night flight
1:56:26 > 1:56:31ban as part of this process.For someone that does not love that
1:56:31 > 1:56:38close to an airport, what times I that? Currently the time at night
1:56:38 > 1:56:43without a scheduled flight is between 11:30pm and 4:30am,
1:56:43 > 1:56:50currently five hours. We are proposing to be going to 6.5 hours,
1:56:50 > 1:56:58between 11pm and 5:30am. It is a significant increase. As I mentioned
1:56:58 > 1:57:05earlier, it is absolutely right that we should consult on how airspace
1:57:05 > 1:57:09should work, that's a part of the process, but we have designed our
1:57:09 > 1:57:12plans so that planes are flying higher before the coming to land,
1:57:12 > 1:57:18that reduces noise. We are doing everything we can to minimise the
1:57:18 > 1:57:26impact on noise on local communities. They are proposing a
1:57:26 > 1:57:28very significant noise insulation programme for homes and schools in
1:57:28 > 1:57:33the flight path which would not only applied to the new flight path, it
1:57:33 > 1:57:37would apply to existing ones as well. That is up to 160,000
1:57:37 > 1:57:45buildings that would be insulated, a world leading level.So is that
1:57:45 > 1:57:53users pence per resident?£3000 per resident in the outer zones and in
1:57:53 > 1:57:59the inner zone BP the full cost per resident. It is a scheme that we
1:57:59 > 1:58:07have trialled.It's getting noisy out there, we better get double
1:58:07 > 1:58:13glazing? Don't be in your gardens. It goes much further than that. You
1:58:13 > 1:58:17raise the Arab question of quieter nights. We are taking action to
1:58:17 > 1:58:21deliver against that. The noise insulation is a significant benefit
1:58:21 > 1:58:24for people currently in the flight paths as well as the new flight
1:58:24 > 1:58:31paths. That helps to deliver quite a lots. But the extension of the time
1:58:31 > 1:58:36without her children flights is a very significant change and one that
1:58:36 > 1:58:41I think is unlikely to happen without expansion.You said £3000
1:58:41 > 1:58:50for existing flight paths.Let me clarify.You said £3000 for people
1:58:50 > 1:58:57within the 57 decibel noise. If you don't have flight paths, how do you
1:58:57 > 1:59:05know that?The scheme you are proposing will be for those closest
1:59:05 > 1:59:09to the airport. At the outer limit, 57 decibel is, we will be
1:59:09 > 1:59:14contributing £3000 to noise insulation for the home is not a
1:59:14 > 1:59:20real. In total, 160,000 homes surrounding the airport. Those noise
1:59:20 > 1:59:25envelopes will potentially flex depending on the precise nature of
1:59:25 > 1:59:29the infrastructure and the automation strategy that is pursued
1:59:29 > 1:59:35once we've been through the airspace consultation. At its bills so still
1:59:35 > 1:59:39broadly, the density population weather is very similar, so it may
1:59:39 > 1:59:43move slightly, but you can with some confidence predict how many homes
1:59:43 > 1:59:49will be affected. I do live under the flight path, so I do know what
1:59:49 > 1:59:56it's like to live in that local area. I can assure you guaranteed
1:59:56 > 2:00:00respite is an absolutely crucial thing for those people and getting
2:00:00 > 2:00:086.5 hours clear predictably clear of flights is an important issue. But
2:00:08 > 2:00:12so is not a situation as well, so the package we have put together we
2:00:12 > 2:00:15have done as a result with consultation with members of the
2:00:15 > 2:00:19local community so we are prioritising and investing in the
2:00:19 > 2:00:26very things that matter most to them.
2:00:26 > 2:00:33I want to come back with a respite period. At the moment, people have a
2:00:33 > 2:00:41respite period of half the flying day resulting from the switch. This
2:00:41 > 2:00:48will reduce to one third of the day with the North- west runway. Can
2:00:48 > 2:00:52confirm that is accurate. That is what it says in the NPS and you said
2:00:52 > 2:00:57something different in a few moments ago.It depends whether the respite
2:00:57 > 2:01:01is given as parts of the day or in another way which could be days of
2:01:01 > 2:01:08the week. It depends on how it is design. The community noise from, we
2:01:08 > 2:01:13did research with them, the first time a serious piece of work has
2:01:13 > 2:01:21been done on the type of respite we can deliver. -- Community Noise
2:01:21 > 2:01:28Forum. After that, we will be able to give you an answer. Right now, I
2:01:28 > 2:01:34couldn't be sure that is the outcome.The suggestion seems to be
2:01:34 > 2:01:38from the NPS work if they are saying it reduces from half a day to a
2:01:38 > 2:01:44third of the day, that seems to be left, however you split it up, less
2:01:44 > 2:01:49time when you enjoy respite from planes overhead.It depends where
2:01:49 > 2:01:54you are around the airport, it is a little bit more complicated. And
2:01:54 > 2:02:00handed use the runways. I think it is premature to be suggesting a
2:02:00 > 2:02:09specific amount of time. We can guarantee a predictable respite
2:02:09 > 2:02:13which we cannot do at the moment because of the way the two runways
2:02:13 > 2:02:17operate. Less people will be affected over all and we can
2:02:17 > 2:02:22guarantee respite for those...
2:02:26 > 2:02:29Airspace needs to change across the South East. Not just for Heathrow
2:02:29 > 2:02:38expansion. We mentioned a can it is that has been kicked continually
2:02:38 > 2:02:43down the road. What's the expansion does is create an impetus for
2:02:43 > 2:02:52solving and get on with the we need. The skies over the South East are
2:02:52 > 2:02:55going to become gridlocked. It is something that need sorting out. I
2:02:55 > 2:03:04think we will be the catalyst for making sure that gets done.
2:03:04 > 2:03:08Potentially, they could get kicked down the road again. As part of this
2:03:08 > 2:03:13process we are trying to make decisions, looking at the monetised
2:03:13 > 2:03:20costs are people affected by noise. At the moment, it feels at this
2:03:20 > 2:03:26point in the process we do not have clarity about noise and respite.
2:03:26 > 2:03:29Airspace changes something that has to go through a full consultation
2:03:29 > 2:03:39are happening in parallel... That process started. Ultimately it will
2:03:39 > 2:03:46be under the control of the...RE confident decisions will be made
2:03:46 > 2:03:54this time?Heathrow expansion is so important from a national point of
2:03:54 > 2:04:00view. If it becomes Government policy, airspace change will lead to
2:04:00 > 2:04:08happen. There will be an urgency to do it. -- will need to happen. We
2:04:08 > 2:04:15will need certainty. If we do not have the specialist guide to service
2:04:15 > 2:04:18additional fights we will not have a business case. We cannot start
2:04:18 > 2:04:26building. -- additional flights. Doesn't it rely on other airports
2:04:26 > 2:04:32also playing ball in terms of re-designing the airspace?That
2:04:32 > 2:04:35needs to happen anyway and that collaboration is taking place. There
2:04:35 > 2:04:45is a process, the Secretary of State will be able to say more, the chief
2:04:45 > 2:04:48executive of Nats has been asked to look at airspace across the whole of
2:04:48 > 2:04:54England, look at the forecast growth plans from all airports and look at
2:04:54 > 2:05:01accommodation. He will report back initially in May. That process has
2:05:01 > 2:05:04started and will be a vital part of the overall process.From your
2:05:04 > 2:05:07perspective, should the Government be doing more to provide assurance
2:05:07 > 2:05:12this is going to happen?The impression needs to remain --
2:05:12 > 2:05:17pressure needs to remain on so that it does not get kicked down the
2:05:17 > 2:05:26road. Whichever airport is expanded, this will need to happen. It would
2:05:26 > 2:05:33be outward expansion to cope with greater demand. This is an
2:05:33 > 2:05:41opportunity to bring it forward. It is something we are worried about
2:05:41 > 2:05:46everything we have seen so far the Government and elsewhere suggests we
2:05:46 > 2:05:52will be able to get the certainty at the time we need.
2:05:56 > 2:06:04Back to the levels. One quick question. 60 decibel is
2:06:04 > 2:06:13pre-packaged. 3454 decibels. At what point do you slide off the scale?At
2:06:13 > 2:06:22the moment, waiting to hear from the public as to whether they think we
2:06:22 > 2:06:29need to do more on that.Playing devil pass advocate. You said air
2:06:29 > 2:06:37quality is going to be fine, noise quality fine. Your commuting a
2:06:37 > 2:06:45community compensation package of 2.6 billion pounds. Why?The
2:06:45 > 2:06:50compensation package which I think the Government announced includes a
2:06:50 > 2:06:57lot of these measures. Within that, £700 million allowance for the homes
2:06:57 > 2:07:07and schools insulation. Also, it includes the compensation to local
2:07:07 > 2:07:16residents and businesses.That is compensation for sound insulation?
2:07:16 > 2:07:25This is for loss of property. £550 million built into that. An
2:07:25 > 2:07:30accumulation of those. It is part of the package that we have been
2:07:30 > 2:07:34negotiating as we have gone along to the airports Commission process,
2:07:34 > 2:07:40consultation, being held to account by the airports commissioners. That
2:07:40 > 2:07:47has led to that significant sum of money. An audience in magnitude
2:07:47 > 2:07:52larger than ten years ago when the original shorter runway was being
2:07:52 > 2:08:00considered at Heathrow. It is a world leading condensation package.
2:08:00 > 2:08:03You are the expert, where does this all and? We're going to get this
2:08:03 > 2:08:10done.They expand Heathrow, and then go back and expand Glasgow airport,
2:08:10 > 2:08:22Edinburgh airport, Stansted Airport, Luton Airport?That it is about what
2:08:22 > 2:08:27the economy needs. We need to get on with the Heathrow expansion and do
2:08:27 > 2:08:38it in the right way and quickly.The £2.6 billion package. If the noise
2:08:38 > 2:08:44insulation is based on estimated noise contours at the moment because
2:08:44 > 2:08:51not everything is certain, how can you have... Do you have headroom
2:08:51 > 2:08:54built on there? It seems to me you cannot have it fixed amount of money
2:08:54 > 2:09:07when you do not know fights pass, -- flight path is.Based on working
2:09:07 > 2:09:09assumptions we have made some conservative assumptions around the
2:09:09 > 2:09:14number of homes and schools we need to have some form of insulation and
2:09:14 > 2:09:19have come up with a budgeted figure based on that. As we go through the
2:09:19 > 2:09:26process, we will be able to refine that. In some case, we will need to
2:09:26 > 2:09:36know the flight path is before we can finalise that. -- flight paths.
2:09:36 > 2:09:39It will be linked to the number of homes and schools we need to
2:09:39 > 2:09:46integrate.And we do offer a noise insulation product today. We are
2:09:46 > 2:09:50familiar of dealing with the noise contours and the implications. It is
2:09:50 > 2:09:56an extension if you like of our existing practices.If it is as a
2:09:56 > 2:10:03result of the flight paths that emerge, more people impacted, that
2:10:03 > 2:10:11figure could go up?It could. It is important we keep people right. If
2:10:11 > 2:10:16individual members of the committee or the committee has time, noise is
2:10:16 > 2:10:21an important issue. Planes have been getting quieter. But it is quite
2:10:21 > 2:10:25hard to assess the impact of some of those changes, the impact of
2:10:25 > 2:10:32insulation, different locations around the airport. We have worked
2:10:32 > 2:10:41with a company who did a similar work for HS2 to monitor different
2:10:41 > 2:10:44noise, different mitigation, different planes. Using that as part
2:10:44 > 2:10:48of our consultation process. If the committee has time, we will be happy
2:10:48 > 2:10:57to show that with you. You can hear just how much the planes are getting
2:10:57 > 2:11:00quieter, the different quality of noise, and the impact of some of
2:11:00 > 2:11:06these mitigations. It is quite a material difference. Everyone hears
2:11:06 > 2:11:15noise differently. My response was a significant reduction with new
2:11:15 > 2:11:19planes and impact on the kind of insulation we happen talking about.
2:11:19 > 2:11:23The insulation is something we have been travelling in Hounslow and some
2:11:23 > 2:11:26of the other communities around the airport and is effective.Think it
2:11:26 > 2:11:33is right that noise is subjective. We know that the significant noise
2:11:33 > 2:11:37annoyance, the level at which that is considered to take place, has
2:11:37 > 2:11:43been reduced from 57 decibels to 54. Should people within the 54 decibel
2:11:43 > 2:11:47noise contour, should they be of the compensation?We want to learn that
2:11:47 > 2:11:53from the consultation. We have based our plans on the consultation that
2:11:53 > 2:11:57we did as part of the airports Commission process. It was an open
2:11:57 > 2:12:03and thorough consultation with lots of public meetings. We are currently
2:12:03 > 2:12:08holding 40 public events all around our local area and across London and
2:12:08 > 2:12:14the South East. We want to hear from people, what they want. We have got
2:12:14 > 2:12:20a plan that works for everyone. None of it is easy and we want to bring
2:12:20 > 2:12:23all this together to deliver the expansion right for the UK as
2:12:23 > 2:12:27quickly as possible.Based on the noise contours you are looking at
2:12:27 > 2:12:29the moment, if you did offer compensation to those who were in
2:12:29 > 2:12:36the area affected by 54 decibel is rather than just 57, do you know how
2:12:36 > 2:12:42many more people would be eligible? We can easily get back to you and
2:12:42 > 2:12:47quickly but I cannot today.I would appreciate if you were for work that
2:12:47 > 2:12:55to us.Paul? Need to be
2:13:00 > 2:13:09there is quite a difference between 54 and 57. People within the shrimp,
2:13:09 > 2:13:13if you were to play something at 57 decibels, they could definitely tell
2:13:13 > 2:13:21the difference between bat and 54. Why do you not, instead of accepting
2:13:21 > 2:13:28the standard, we should be trying to improve the environment but minimise
2:13:28 > 2:13:38the impact upon it. Why are we willing to accept those within 54
2:13:38 > 2:13:44decibel parameter?We should be doing everything we can to minimise
2:13:44 > 2:13:50noise. In terms of the measures as you may know if you have looked into
2:13:50 > 2:13:56this, there are lots of different ways in which noise can be assessed.
2:13:56 > 2:14:07I think the CAA argues one standard. And there is a different and lower
2:14:07 > 2:14:14standard. We have accepted the mea of London's standard. We have taken
2:14:14 > 2:14:21your challenge. -- Mayor of London. When we have developed this
2:14:21 > 2:14:25compensation plan. We have gone beyond what was required of us in
2:14:25 > 2:14:36developing this.And the amenity space. And climate. People want to
2:14:36 > 2:14:41use their garden in the summertime. Is there anyway, and I appreciate we
2:14:41 > 2:14:48have heard the indication that planes will be taking off, getting
2:14:48 > 2:14:55up to hat quicker and coming down... I do not talk from experience of
2:14:55 > 2:15:03flying and landing into Belfast City Airport -- I talk from experience.
2:15:03 > 2:15:09It is a drop out of the sky, a hard landing on every occasion. An easy
2:15:09 > 2:15:16guide because it is coming over the fields for miles as opposed over a
2:15:16 > 2:15:25city. It doesn't lead to a great passenger experience. I am just
2:15:25 > 2:15:32wondering how you going to ensure that whenever planes are taking off
2:15:32 > 2:15:38that are coming into land they are not coming into cause danger in
2:15:38 > 2:15:40relation to hitting the runway?
2:15:45 > 2:15:50Safety is the starting point for any airline operation, so that is never
2:15:50 > 2:15:56negotiable. I'm not familiar with the angles of the sound at Belfast
2:15:56 > 2:16:02city, the global standard is 3%. We have been running trials with
2:16:02 > 2:16:09British Airways, northern airlines at 3.2% and potentially up to 3.5%
2:16:09 > 2:16:13but that is, from a passenger experience point of view, a
2:16:13 > 2:16:18perfectly good experience. But it keeps planes flying higher over
2:16:18 > 2:16:24London. We are looking at whether that becomes the norm and we require
2:16:24 > 2:16:34all airlines to do that. Safety and passenger service are important. We
2:16:34 > 2:16:40need to do everything we can to minimise the impact of noise on the
2:16:40 > 2:16:45ground for both of the expansion and an all normal operation. One of the
2:16:45 > 2:16:49significant things that people addressed to me when I have spoken
2:16:49 > 2:16:53to the local community is about late running flights at night. These are
2:16:53 > 2:16:59after the curfew, because of a way departure. We have taken that
2:16:59 > 2:17:03feedback and have been working with the airlines. We have agreed a
2:17:03 > 2:17:07target to halve the number of late running flights over the next five
2:17:07 > 2:17:13years. In the first year we have registered by 30%. We were helped by
2:17:13 > 2:17:20the weather but that also took a lot of action by us and the airlines to
2:17:20 > 2:17:21deliver something that is understandably important for local
2:17:21 > 2:17:30communities. Part of my job is to make sure, where there are things we
2:17:30 > 2:17:33can reasonably do to reduce the impact of the report on local
2:17:33 > 2:17:39communities, then we should be doing those.What mechanism do you have to
2:17:39 > 2:17:43make sure you abide by the parameters you have been set down in
2:17:43 > 2:17:50the late flights? I'm wondering, from your perspective, if that's a
2:17:50 > 2:17:53job you have to police and how you're going to ensure that you meet
2:17:53 > 2:17:59those guidelines. Because I can mention one airport that within the
2:17:59 > 2:18:03last week has had an announcement over the last number of years of
2:18:03 > 2:18:10several thousand breaches of their restrictions.The reduction in late
2:18:10 > 2:18:14running flights is a voluntary measure and I wanted to be voluntary
2:18:14 > 2:18:23to show that we don't have to be forced to do the right thing. If we
2:18:23 > 2:18:27can reasonably do something which is important we should get on and make
2:18:27 > 2:18:31it happen, so that is exactly what we have been doing. I'm grateful to
2:18:31 > 2:18:35the support forum British airways and other airports in delivering
2:18:35 > 2:18:39against that important to 30% reduction in late running flights in
2:18:39 > 2:18:45the last year alone.Would you be happy to an except a mandatory
2:18:45 > 2:18:53rather than a voluntary agreement on that?Actually, I wouldn't, and the
2:18:53 > 2:19:02reason why is that in my view, and I've shared this with our local
2:19:02 > 2:19:05community groups, we need to have the flexibility for late running
2:19:05 > 2:19:11operations when we have significant disruption. If there is snow, bad
2:19:11 > 2:19:13weather, thunderstorms, we need to have a way of getting flights the
2:19:13 > 2:19:17way. But that should be a privilege and not a right and we should be
2:19:17 > 2:19:22doing everything we can to minimise the number of times when planes go
2:19:22 > 2:19:27late. 30% reduction in one year is very significant and just to give
2:19:27 > 2:19:32you some context, on average I think the previous year there were about
2:19:32 > 2:19:36350, so almost one a night. We have seen a significant reduction in
2:19:36 > 2:19:43that. That has been recognised by our local community, the community
2:19:43 > 2:19:50noise group. All I want to be able to do is say what we'll do, do what
2:19:50 > 2:19:57we say, and build up the trust that we can deliver an airport that works
2:19:57 > 2:20:03for the local community and works for the country as a whole.Do any
2:20:03 > 2:20:07members of the committee have further questions? If not, then
2:20:07 > 2:20:11thank you very much for answering our questions this afternoon. That
2:20:11 > 2:20:13can cause our station.