Start with the passengers

Why competing gateway airports better serve communities
The crux of the debate on airport capacity is whether the south-east should have one mega-hub airport offering the maximum number of connections, or whether the UK will be better served with two or three competing airports. It is my view that competition will provide residents and visitors with better service, greater economic impact and, critically, affordable access. We can learn from many major cities around the world, such as New York, Tokyo and Shanghai. A mega-hub is not a requirement for greatness. Affordable connectivity for residents and visitors is. 
 
Connectivity vs connections
The term connectivity is often heard in this debate, but its meaning is ambiguous. It is important to distinguish between connectivity, the UK’s accesss to the rest of the world, and connections, how an airline group optimises traffic flows across its network. 
 
Connectivity is what drives economic impact and societal interactions. The goal should not merely be about connections to the greatest number of points. Instead it should be about affordable connections and adequate capacity to the right destinations across the world.
 
Affordable connectivity matters
Affordable connectivity to destinations that people want to go to is of much greater importance than having the world’s highest number of destinations. What is the point of an exhaustive list of destinations, if the price for desired destinations is so high and the capacity so limited that only a fraction of potential travellers can actually use the service? 
 
Competition
Competition is the single strongest driver of price. The UK has used competition as its main policy tool for aviation. As an aviation economist, I recognise that the UK has led the world in instilling competition in international air transport. While the US was the first to deregulate domestic markets, the UK led the privatisation of airlines, negotiating the first open skies agreements, privatising airports, and ensuring competition between airports. In a bold policy move, the U.K. in 2009 required the breakup of BAA to ensure that not only would airlines compete with each other but that the airports would as well. Enabling a mega-hub would undermine this pro-competition policy. 
 
Connecting passengers, economic impact and risk
What about passengers that merely connect between flights in London but do not visit the UK? Some emphasise the need to maximise such connections and claim that only a mega-hub can do this. Connecting passengers can add the critical mass needed for viability of a number of routes. However, the economic impact of these connecting passengers is much lower than passengers who want to come to the 
UK. The business risk is higher too. 
 
Some airports with high connecting passenger ratios discovered that such traffic was risky and could move overnight to another hub. St Louis and Pittsburgh were high connecting traffic US airports, but their home carriers either failed or changed strategy. These airports saw their traffic plummet when carriers realigned networks and moved connecting traffic to another hub. Today, as carriers form large carrier groups, management may decide that from a network perspective, certain types of traffic are best connected from a different hub in the group’s network. 
 
Where is the growth?
The contemplated airport capacity increase will not be in place until well into the 2020s. By that time, the carriers 
currently operating at Gatwick and Stansted will have evolved their business models. When we look elsewhere in the world, we see low cost carriers (LCCs) whose business models include not only connections between a single airline’s flights, but also an increasing number 
of connections with other carriers. LCCs in the US, Canada, Australia and Brazil are good examples. 
 
Today many of the most profitable airlines are not the traditional full service network carriers (FSNCs), but the LCCs. This is the case in the U.K. In a recent study I showed that  FSNC traffic in London has fallen from 77 per cent in 1990 to 40 per cent today. Growth is highest at the LCCs. A policy that would only add capacity at the airport used by FSNCs will not support growth for the fastest growing carriers. 
 
London: the world’s largest air market
London is the largest aviation market in the world. Like other major cities, it can support multiple airports. Capacity growth should support competition between airports and carriers. Competing airports will better serve the region through affordable connectivity to where people want to go. 
 
Dr Michael Tretheway is an aviation economist. He is currently engaged as an advisor by Gatwick Airport 
Stansted airport. Photograph: Getty
Getty
Show Hide image

Pity the Premier League – so much money can get you into all sorts of bother

You’ve got to feel sorry for our top teams. It's hard work, maintaining their brand.

I had lunch with an old girlfriend last week. Not old, exactly, just a young woman of 58, and not a girlfriend as such – though I have loads of female friends; just someone I knew as a girl on our estate in Cumbria when she was growing up and I was friendly with her family.

She was one of many kind, caring people from my past who wrote to me after my wife died in February, inviting me to lunch, cheer up the poor old soul. Which I’ve not been. So frightfully busy.

I never got round to lunch till last week.

She succeeded in her own career, became pretty well known, but not as well off financially as her husband, who is some sort of City whizz.

I visited her large house in the best part of Mayfair, and, over lunch, heard about their big estate in the West Country and their pile in Majorca, finding it hard to take my mind back to the weedy, runny-nosed little girl I knew when she was ten.

Their three homes employ 25 staff in total. Which means there are often some sort of staff problems.

How awful, I do feel sorry for you, must be terrible. It’s not easy having money, I said, managing somehow to keep back the fake tears.

Afterwards, I thought about our richest football teams – Man City, Man United and Chelsea. It’s not easy being rich like them, either.

In football, there are three reasons you have to spend the money. First of all, because you can. You have untold wealth, so you gobble up possessions regardless of the cost, and regardless of the fact that, as at Man United, you already have six other superstars playing in roughly the same position. You pay over the odds, as with Pogba, who is the most expensive player in the world, even though any halfwit knows that Messi and Ronaldo are infinitely more valuable. It leads to endless stresses and strains and poor old Wayne sitting on the bench.

Obviously, you are hoping to make the team better, and at the same time have the luxury of a whole top-class team sitting waiting on the bench, who would be desired by every other club in Europe. But the second reason you spend so wildly is the desire to stop your rivals buying the same players. It’s a spoiler tactic.

Third, there’s a very modern and stressful element to being rich in football, and that’s the need to feed the brand. Real Madrid began it ten years or so ago with their annual purchase of a galáctico. You have to refresh the team with a star name regularly, whatever the cost, if you want to keep the fans happy and sell even more shirts round the world each year.

You also need to attract PROUD SUPPLIERS OF LAV PAPER TO MAN CITY or OFFICIAL PROVIDER OF BABY BOTTLES TO MAN UNITED or PARTNERS WITH CHELSEA IN SUGARY DRINK. These suppliers pay a fortune to have their product associated with a famous Premier League club – and the club knows that, to keep up the interest, they must have yet another exciting £100m star lined up for each new season.

So, you can see what strains and stresses having mega money gets them into, trying to balance all these needs and desires. The manager will get the blame in the end when things start to go badly on the pitch, despite having had to accommodate some players he probably never craved. If you’re rich in football, or in most other walks in life, you have to show it, have all the required possessions, otherwise what’s the point of being rich?

One reason why Leicester did so well last season was that they had no money. This forced them to bond and work hard, make do with cheapo players, none of them rubbish, but none the sort of galáctico a super-Prem club would bother with.

Leicester won’t repeat that trick this year. It was a one-off. On the whole, the £100m player is better than the £10m player. The rich clubs will always come good. But having an enormous staff, at any level, is all such a worry for the rich. You have to feel sorry . . .

Hunter Davies’s “The Beatles Book” is published by Ebury

Hunter Davies is a journalist, broadcaster and profilic author perhaps best known for writing about the Beatles. He is an ardent Tottenham fan and writes a regular column on football for the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 29 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, May’s new Tories