Were SNP MPs consulted on the backing for third runway?
AS the vote on the Heathrow third runway will be held in the Westminster Parliament, I wonder if our SNP MPs can tell us when they were consulted by Nicola Sturgeon on her commitment that they would vote for it, and on what grounds they made their decision, given that it will further tilt the balance of the UK economy to the south-east, and produce the negative environmental factors cited by Iain Macwhirter? (“So, what has Sturgeon been offered to back third runway?”, The Herald, October 27).
Or could it be that again they will do what they are told, as was the case with Ms Sturgeon’s instruction to vote against the future repeal of the European Communities Act, which tiestheUKtotheEU? Jim Sillars, 97 Grange Loan, Edinburgh. AS someone who has spent nearly 30 years in airport management, not only in the UK but in Europe and elsewhere, I believe I can speak with some authority as to how airports operate.
IwouldfurthersuggesttheSNP and all presently associated with or interested in developing route destinations to and from Scotland directly, should take with a great pinch of salt the offers made by the Secretary of State for Scotland. As Heathrow is a private company, David Mundell has no authority to offer landing or take-off slots at Heathrow. These decisions are made by a committee of airlines at the airport.
Furthermore, as has been seen in the recent past, airport operators are not shy in trying to persuade domestic airlines to give up their slots at Heathrow or Gatwick in order to make way for long-haul carriers who are better for the airports commercial revenue streams, and will be very important to the owners of Heathrow, who could be faced with a very large development bill. If I might be allowed to misquote an oft-used saying, “put not your trust in a prince”. Mike Dooley, 52 Auchendoon Crescent, Ayr. IAIN Macwhirter rightly asks what Nicola Sturgeon has been offered to back the third runway. He is rightly flabbergasted and cannot think of any explanation, but brain science gives an explanation. What Ms Sturgeon refers to as conviction politics is just an overdependence on emotional thinking.
In other words, her narrow vision is emotionally focused on independence, so she does not see the hypocrisy of claiming to be an environmentalist and backing this awful plan.
We don’t need conviction politics: we need people who will rub their eyes occasionally and wake up and smell the coffee, so that our grandchildren can continue to enjoy coffee, too. Andrew Vass, 24 Corbiehill Place, Edinburgh. ALISON Rowat invites us to comment on her article (“Principle is up in the air with SNP backing for third runway,” The Herald, October 26), so here goes. There are a number of competing arguments for airport expansion in the south east. Increasing demand is inevitable and the UK risks economic loss at a time we can least afford it if we don’t keep pace with our European neighbours. However the benefits to Scotland, while beneficial to some extent, are not overwhelming.
Alison Rowat writes that Heathrow has promised 21 extra daily flights from Scotland to London. I am intrigued as to how they can make such a promise since they don’t own any aircraft and it is not an airline. What it may do is offer extra slots for an airline to operate extra domestic services, but whether an airline – any airline – would use those slots for that purpose is another matter. Just watch the expansion into America and the Far East once the runway is operational.
Airlines, like any business, exist to make a profit and it was because British Airways could make more money elsewhere that BA reduced its Scottish operation and the late British Midland pulled out and the slots used elsewhere. Nobody forced them. Scotland-to-Heathrow flights primarily exist to provide onward connections, and with the advent of airlines such as Emirates, Etihad and Qatar, not to mention United, Delta, WestJet, Air Canada et al from Scottish airports, there is ever less demand for a Heathrow transfer.
Your columnist says we would be better lobbying for more flights to Europe from Scottish airports, without stating whom we should lobby. It’s not the Government that grants the rights; it is the airlines’ decision, based on demand and profitability. A look at schedules may surprise you; most major European cities and many more minor ones benefit by direct and inexpensive service from Scotland. London, as a destination in its own right, can be well served by its City airport, which provides unrestricted access.
Currently, there are also more than 20 trains a day from Glasgow to London, taking around four-and-a-half hours. When I were a lad in the days of black and white, there were three daytime and three overnight trains, all taking over eight-and-a-half hours, so flying was a big time-saver.
The point is that Britain as a whole needs a third runway at Heathrow, but the further north you go, the less the accrued benefit, and it is difficult to understand the SNP getting so enthused when there are more pressing problems. As to her last point about the SNP abandoning their principles I can’t understand Alison Rowat’s naivete. They are politicians, after all. Robert Buntin, G/f 1 Morland House, Longhill, Skelmorlie. I SUSPECT many reading about the SNP deciding to support a third runway at Heathrow will be surprised at the decision but the truth is Scotland’s future in aviation has been tied to the London airports for many decades ever since the British Aviation Authority was created.
Westminster decided to link the three London airports with Glasgow/ Edinburgh/Prestwick/Aberdeen. No other English airports were involved and over the years they prospered by not being controlled from London, most notably Manchester, which was owned by the local authority.
While Manchester was free to develop and operate a wide range of direct flights to multiple worldwide destinations, BAA management were intent on ensuring no similar development occurred in Scotland. Our airports were viewed as feeder routes for the London airports.
This was in the days before true competition on these routes. Fares were high, often costing hundreds of pounds, and of course BAA scored as Scots paid two lots of landing charges. So they were happy, as were the airlines as they got two fares rather than one. Then, Glasgow-London and Edinburgh-London were the busiest internal air routes in Europe.
Since the privatisation of BAA and the creation of the Scottish Parliament, things have improved slightly with some new direct routes being created, but as long as the airlines and airports score financially then there is little incentive to make the changes that are needed. This has been compounded by Air Passenger Duty as Westminster now also enjoys its cut, getting double tax from Scots who cannot get a direct flight from our own country.
Air travel is crucial for business and for one of our biggest industries, tourism. The lack of landing slots at Heathrow was resulting in the slots from Scotland to Heathrow being reduced as demand was increasing from abroad. Without additional capacity, that process would have continued to Scotland’s economic cost.
The Scottish Government is committed to building up direct flights. It plans to reduce passenger duty by 50 per cent to help make flying to Scotland more affordable. Now that Glasgow and Edinburgh airports are owned by different companies, competition should ensure that additional direct flights are created. These developments, however, will take time; in the meantime, ensuring that Scottish flights have available landing slots at Heathrow is a priority, and the Scottish Government was right to support a new runway.
What we really need, of course, is full control of aviation policy so we can create the range of flights comparable to those countries of similar size like Norway, Denmark or Sweden. But that will take full independence for our nation. Iain M. Lawson, 27 Ben Lui Drive, Paisley.