Morning call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Bobbing Obama leaves Putin holding the Syrian powder keg (Sunday Times) (£)

Obama achieved far more by the threat of force, than by using force, writes Andrew Sullivan.

2. The question that the Lib Dems are desperate not to answer (Observer)

The party is split in so many ways over whether it would prefer to govern with Labour or the Tories, writes Andrew Rawnsley.

3. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have put Russia back on the top table (Independent on Sunday)

World View: Deal in Geneva shows the Kremlin’s influence is at its greatest for more than 20 years, writes Patrick Cockburn.

4. The Lib Dems know their future lies in power-sharing (Sunday Telegraph)

One of Nick Clegg’s greatest strengths is his ability to think strategically. Thanks to him, no one can now claim that coalition governments are a recipe for disaster, writes Matthew D'Ancona.

5. Yarl's Wood affair is a symptom, not the disease (Observer)

Increasing numbers of vulnerable people are being denied redress under our criminal justice system, writes Nick Cohen.

6. Miliband should stop, wait and let the coalition fail (FT) (£)

The Labour leader should keep his head down and his party united, according to Robert Ford.

7. Two-state illusion (IHT)

The idea of a state for Palestinians and one for Israelis is a fantasy that blinds us, writes Ian S Lustick.

8. Clegg looks doomed but the cavalry are coming (Sunday Times) (£)

If Clegg can stay standing, the polls indicate his party are due a recovery, writes Adam Boulton. 

9. My veil epiphany (Observer)

Just what was Birmingham Met thinking of when it tried to stop women wearing the niqab? asks Victoria Coren.

10. Tina Brown leaves journalism in her wake (FT) (£)

The media’s most irrepressible trend-surfer was the editor who was always bigger than her cover stories, by John Gapper.

Cock-a-doodle-doo: the ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.
Show Hide image

A third runway at Heathrow will disproportionately benefit the super rich

The mean income of leisure passengers at Heathrow in 2014 was £61,000.

The story goes that expanding Heathrow is a clear-cut policy decision, essential for international trade, jobs and growth. The disruption for those that live around the airport can be mitigated, but ultimately must be suffered for the greater good.

But almost every part of this story is misleading or false. Far from guaranteeing post-Brexit prosperity, a new runway will primarily benefit wealthy frequent flyers taking multiple holidays every year, with local residents and taxpayers picking up the tab.

Expanding Heathrow is not about boosting international trade. The UK is only marginally reliant on air freight to trade with the rest of the world. Total air freight traffic in the UK is actually lower now than it was in 1995, and most UK trade is with Europe, of which only 0.1 per cent goes by air. Internationally, as much as 90 per cent of trade in goods goes by ship because transporting by plane is far too expensive. And in any case our most successful exports are in services, which don’t require transportation. So the idea that UK plc simply cannot trade without an expansion at Heathrow is a gross exaggeration.

Any talk of wider economic benefits is also highly dubious. The Department for Transport’s forecasts show that the great majority of growth in flights will come from leisure passengers. Our tourism deficit is already gaping, with more money pouring out of the country from holidaymakers than comes in from foreign tourists. What’s worse is that this deficit worsens regional disparities since money gets sucked out of all parts of the country but foreign tourists mostly pour money back into London. As for jobs, government estimates suggest that investing in rail would create more employment.

As for the public purse, the aviation sector is undeniably bad for our Treasury. Flights are currently exempt from VAT and fuel duty – a tax subsidy worth as much as £10bn. If these exemptions were removed each return flight would be about £100 more expensive. This is a wasteful and regressive situation that not only forfeits badly needed public funds but also stimulates the demand for flights even further. Heathrow expansion itself will directly lead to significant new public sector costs, including the cost of upgrading Heathrow’s connecting infrastructure, increased pressure on the NHS from pollution-related disease, and the time and money that will have to be ploughed into a decade of legal battles.

So you have to wonder: where is this greater public good that local residents are asked to make such a sacrifice for?

And we must not forget the other sacrifice we’re making: commitment to our fair share of global climate change mitigation. Building more runways creates more flights, just as building more roads has been found to increase traffic. With no clean alternatives to flying, the only way to meet our climate targets is to do less of it.

The real reason for expanding Heathrow is to cater for the huge expected increase in leisure flying, which will come from a small and relatively rich part of the population. At present it’s estimated that 70 per cent of flights are taken by 15 per cent of the population; and 57 per cent of us took no flights abroad at all in 2013. The mean income of leisure passengers at Heathrow in 2014 was £61,000, which is nearly three times the UK median income.

This is in stark contrast to the communities that live directly around airports that are constantly subjected to dirty air and noise pollution. In the case of London City Airport, Newham – already one of London’s most deprived boroughs – suffers air and noise pollution in return for few local jobs, while its benefits are felt almost entirely by wealthy business travellers.

Something needs to change. At the New Economics Foundation we’re arguing for a frequent flyer levy that would give each person one tax-free return flight every year. After that it would introduce a charge that gets bigger with each extra flight, cracking down on those that use their wealth to abuse the system by taking many flights every year. This is based on a simple principle: those who fly more should pay more.

A frequent flyer levy would open up the benefits of air travel, reducing costs for those struggling to afford one family holiday a year, while allowing us to meet our climate targets and eliminate the need for any new runways. It would also generate millions for the public purse in an efficient and progressive way.

We have to take back control over an airports system that is riding roughshod over communities and our environment, with little perceivable benefit except for a small group of frequent flyers.

Stephen Devlin is a senior economist at the New Economics Foundation.