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

A new German law wants to force mothers to reveal their child’s biological father

The so-called “milkmen’s kids law” would seek protection for men who feel they have been duped into raising children they believe are not biologically theirs – at the expense of women’s rights.

The German press call them “Kuckuckskinder”, which translates literally as “cuckoo children” – parasite offspring being raised by an unsuspecting innocent, alien creatures growing fat at the expense of the host species’ own kind. The British press have opted for the more Benny Hill-esque “milkmen’s kids”, prompting images of bored Seventies housewives answering the door in negligées before inviting Robin Asquith lookalikes up to their suburban boudoirs. Nine months later their henpecked husbands are presented with bawling brats and the poor sods remain none the wiser.

Neither image is particularly flattering to the children involved, but then who cares about them? This is a story about men, women and the redressing of a legal – or is it biological? – injustice. The children are incidental.

This week German Justice Minister Heiko Maas introduced a proposal aimed at to providing greater legal protection for “Scheinväter” – men who are duped into raising children whom they falsely believe to be biologically theirs. This is in response to a 2015 case in which Germany’s highest court ruled that a woman who had told her ex-husband that her child may have been conceived with another man could not be compelled to name the latter. This would, the court decided, be an infringement of the woman’s right to privacy. Nonetheless, the decision was seen to highlight the need for further legislation to clarify and strengthen the position of the Scheinvater.

Maas’ proposal, announced on Monday, examines the problem carefully and sensitively before merrily throwing a woman’s right to privacy out of the window. It would compel a woman to name every man she had sexual intercourse with during the time when her child may have been conceived. She would only have the right to remain silent in cases should there be serious reasons for her not to name the biological father (it would be for the court to decide whether a woman’s reasons were serious enough). It is not yet clear what form of punishment a woman would face were she not to name names (I’m thinking a scarlet letter would be in keeping with the classy, retro “man who was present at the moment of conception” wording). In cases where it did transpire that another man was a child’s biological father, he would be obliged to pay compensation to the man “duped” into supporting the child for up to two years.

It is not clear what happens thereafter. Perhaps the two men shake hands, pat each other on the back, maybe even share a beer or two. It is, after all, a kind of gentlemen’s agreement, a transaction which takes place over the heads of both mother and child once the latter’s paternity has been established. The “true” father compensates the “false” one for having maintained his property in his absence. In some cases there may be bitterness and resentment but perhaps in others one will witness a kind of honourable partnership. You can’t trust women, but DNA tests, money and your fellow man won’t let you down.

Even if it achieves nothing else, this proposal brings us right back to the heart of what patriarchy is all about: paternity and ownership. In April this year a German court ruled that men cannot be forced to take paternity tests by children who suspect them of being their fathers. It has to be their decision. Women, meanwhile, can only access abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, and even then counselling is mandatory (thereafter the approval of two doctors is required, similar to in the UK). One class of people can be forced to gestate and give birth; another can’t even be forced to take a DNA test. One class of people can be compelled to name any man whose sperm may have ventured beyond their cervix; another is allowed to have a body whose business is entirely its own. And yes, one can argue that forcing men to pay money for the raising of children evens up the score. Men have always argued that, but they’re wrong.

Individual men (sometimes) pay for the raising of individual children because the system we call patriarchy has chosen to make fatherhood about individual ownership. Women have little choice but to go along with this as long as men exploit our labour, restrict our access to material resources and threaten us with violence. We live in a world in which it is almost universally assumed that women “owe” individual men the reassurance that it was their precious sperm that impregnated us, lest we put ourselves and our offspring at risk of poverty and isolation. Rarely do any of us dare to protest. We pretend it is a fair deal, even that reproductive differences barely affect our lives at all. But the sex binary – the fact that sperm is not egg and egg is not sperm – affects all of us.

The original 2015 ruling got it right. The male demand for reassurance regarding paternity is an infringement of a woman’s right to privacy. Moreover, it is important to see this in the context of all the other ways in which men have sought to limit women’s sexual activity, freedom of movement and financial independence in order to ensure that children are truly “theirs”.  Anxiety over paternity is fundamentally linked to anxiety over female sexuality and women’s access to public space. Yet unless all women are kept under lock and key at all times, men will never, ever have the reassurance they crave. Even then, the abstract knowledge that you are the only person to have had the opportunity to impregnate a particular woman cannot rival the physical knowledge of gestation.

We have had millennia of pandering to men’s existential anxieties and treating all matters related to human reproduction, from sex to childbirth, as exceptional cases meaning women cannot have full human rights. Isn’t it about time we tried something new? How about understanding fatherhood not as winning gold in an Olympic sperm race, but as a contract endlessly renewed?

What each of us receives when a child is born is not a biological entity to do with as we choose. It is a relationship, with all of its complexities and risks. It is something worth contributing to and fighting for. Truly, if a man cannot understand that, then any money wasted on a Kuckuckskind – a living, breathing child he could get to know – has got to be the least of his worries. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.