Heathrow: proof that the middle classes are pandered to by politicians and media alike?

Whilst the attention of the media and politicians is on Heathrow, something is stirring in East London.

When I first got involved in international youth politics, nearly twenty years ago, I discovered what I thought was a little gem, London City Airport, a new stolport (short take-off, landing) built on the east side of the new Docklands development. With ten minute check-in, business class seating and service for economy fares, it was ideal. Alright, it was tricky to get to, with the nearest station at Silvertown on the other side of a housing estate, but I liked it, especially as I wasn’t keen on airports. There weren’t many flights, but you could get to Paris and Brussels, and other destinations were slowly added.

Later, when my travel patterns changed, I stopped using London City, switching to Heathrow to take advantage of the range of direct flights to the US. I wasn’t the only one who had discovered London City though, and the numbers of passengers and destinations steadily increased. As a concession to local residents, the airport was closed at nights, and for twenty-four hours every weekend, and all was presumably well.

The decision to expand Heathrow has thrown into sharp relief the differences in response to airport expansion, however. Heathrow is, on the basis of its current user numbers, horribly overcrowded. Its runways run east-west, forcing flights to either take off or land directly over heavily populated west and central London. Noise and pollution are a blight on the lives of those who live under the flightpath.

London City Airport, whilst not suffering from overcrowding, has quietly extended its terminals, obtained a direct rail link via the Docklands Light Railway, and increased annual passenger numbers beyond three million. Its single runway runs east-west, forcing flights to either take off of land directly over heavily populated east and central London, and close to the skyscrapers of Canary Wharf. We hear little about the impact of noise and pollution, although the airport does tend to attract smaller, less noisy, less polluting aircraft.

The impact of the airport on the surrounding population is not something that has created a media stir, yet even quieter aircraft make noise, less polluting aircraft still pollute. The fact that Newham is notable for the lack of a vocal middle class (it is one of the country's most deprived boroughs) possibly explains that.

In October 2008, the London Borough of Newham resolved to approve the airport’s planning application, increasing the number of permitted flight movements from 80,000 to 120,000 per annum. There was little fuss, and little protest outside of those immediately affected. The council, something of a one-party state (54 Labour, 3 Respect, 3 Christian Peoples Alliance), appears to have simply waved the application through. Worse still, the recently published master plan for the airport envisages an increase in annual passenger numbers to a staggering eight million by 2030.

It is entirely reasonable for protestors to vent their anger at the Government and the owners of Heathrow Airport. However, we really need to take a holistic approach towards international travel. If Heathrow expansion is to be prevented, how do those wanting to, or needing to, travel get to their destinations? Do we object to the rise in passenger numbers generally, or just at Heathrow? What does that mean for Luton, Stansted and Gatwick, let alone Southend, Kent International, Biggin Hill and Farnborough, all of which are either expanding, or proposing to expand?