The UK's hub airport isn't London Heathrow. It's Amsterdam Schiphol

Amsterdam, the UK's real aviation hub? Image: Getty.

BAA's campaign to persuade the world to expand Heathrow Airport has been based on one major assumption: that the UK needs a hub airport, and that Heathrow is it.

Look at the data, though, and there are six very big reasons to think that Heathrow isn't the UK's hub airport at all.

1. You can't get a train there.

You can get a train to Heathrow from just one UK city; London. You can get a direct train to Manchester Airport from almost every city in the north of England, a good chunk of north Wales, and the two biggest cities in Scotland. There's even a tram from Manchester Airport to most parts of Greater Manchester if you want to get a proper Eccles cake before you fly.

2. You can't fly there.

When I last checked you could fly to seven places in the UK from Heathrow. From Manchester you can fly to thirteen. How can Heathrow’ be a hub airport if you can't use it as a hub?

3. There's a better hub across the sea.

Manchester may be better connected to the UK than Heathrow but there's an airport that easily beats them both.

You can fly from Amsterdam Schiphol airport to a whopping 24 airports in the UK. You'll soon be able to get a train there from London, too.

They speak great English, the liquorice is delicious, the airport is efficient, and you can buy tulip bulbs and cheese while you wait for a connection.

4. The UK uses Schiphol not Heathrow to connect to the world.

The best option to fly to the world from most places in the UK is to fly via Amsterdam. The data proves it.

I used Google's QPX Express Airfare API, and looked for the "best" one-way flight, two weeks in advance, from 15 airports in the UK & Ireland to 17 airports I selected around the world. This is the script (PERL) that I used to do it. Here are the results in a spreadsheet.

In a huge majority of cases, the best option was a flight via Schiphol.

I also did a further search in which I asked Google to find slightly faster flights, even if they cost a lot more. These points are called Heathrow (fast) and Manchester (fast) respectively.

5. It's cheaper to fly to the world via Amsterdam.

A big airport with lots of flights means lots of competition: I wasn't surprised that the cheapest flights are from Heathrow.

What did surprise me was that flights from Manchester are just a few pounds more. In fact they're cheap enough to tempt almost all passengers from Liverpool, Leeds, and Sheffield to jump on a train to Manchester, and never expensive enough to push them to travel via Heathrow.

Guess where half of the flights from Manchester go via? Amsterdam.

6. It's quicker to fly to the world via Amsterdam.

The UK city with the fastest connections to the world?

Norwich.

That shouldn't surprise you by now, because it's the closest airport to Amsterdam. Of course you can get places a bit faster from Heathrow if you're willing to spend a lot more money – but it's not that much quicker, and certainly not quick enough to make it worth the whole of most of the UK to travel via the south east for.

Why does this matter?

This issue gets to the heart of what we must fix if we are to preserve the United Kingdom as a strong and united country. Most coverage of Heathrow's national role has come from the BBC (in London), the national print press (in London), and the Airports Commission (in London). This is leading to a lot of great answers, and some awful answers, to the wrong question.

The Airports Commission’s question boiled down to, “How can we keep the UK well-connected to the world via a hub in London?” But that's a very different question to, “How can we keep the UK well-connected to the world?”


Heathrow is a national asset, in the sense that the hub-and-spoke model of UK air transport with Heathrow at its core was cemented during an era of nationalisation. When the airport was privatised, it was sold well below its true value, because it was stuck with a system that pegs landing charges at well below the market rate: that, in effect, puts a cap on the amount of profits any new owner could make.

This is effectively a subsidy from the poor north of England (which shared in the costs of under-pricing Heathrow) to the rich south (which gets all the economic benefits).

That may be a sensible approach; I'm tempted by the argument that the UK was, and may even still be, best served by a single huge airport of global significance, than by seven medium-sized airports of no global note. This is the "dividend of Union" we started to discuss in the UK, thanks to Scotland's referendum.

But we must also discuss the other side of that dividend – and whether the bargain that parts of the UK away from the capital are making is being honoured.

Last week we learned that the electrification of Leeds’ critical, but slow and overcroweded, railway link to Manchester Airport will be indefinitely delayed. In the same month, the tunnelling for Crossrail, the UK’s huge investment linking Heathrow with central London, was completed and paraded in front of the world. There is an understandable feeling that the dividend of union is not currently well-shared.

For the past few months Heathrow has been spending a lot of the subsidy it gets from northern taxpayers on adverts in the north of England. I've seen them in Leeds, Manchester, and Liverpool. They've bought so many impressions in online local media that on one day recently I noticed that three of eight adverts in the Yorkshire Evening Post were adverts for Heathrow's expansion.

I think that Heathrow airport should expand. But I also think that London should decide. Like many in the North, I resent London telling me what to think. I doubly resent paying it to do so.

As a nation we need to be honest about what Heathrow represents and what kind of imbalances it causes. Far greater than the public spending its expansion will require in the already over-funded south is the imbalance in where the £100bn of predicted growth that it creates in the UK economy will accrue.

We know that the south will benefit far more than the north. That's fine. But we must acknowledge that, and redistribute those gains. That means far more southern money being invested in future growth in the north in return for northern sacrifices now. It requires the beginning of a much more respectful and honest debate about both the dividends and the costs of our current Union.

There's an outside chance I might be wrong

You can explain why in one word: freight.

Data about passenger flights is publicly available for a small fee; I spent less than £20 in API costs getting the flights data I present here. Data about freight is harder to find, and more expensive to buy. I can't afford it.

Someone who can afford it is Chris Giles at the FT and he thinks that "Heathrow holds key to UK trade revival". Chris is an excellent journalist and I don't think he's any more biased towards London, where he lives and works, than I am towards the north of England, where I live and work. He spent time looking at this and he thinks Heathrow is the answer.

Two points in his favour: Heathrow deals with the vast majority of the UK's air freight; the majority of that air freight travels underneath the seats of the wide-body jets that fly out of Heathrow airport. The small jets that fly between Amsterdam and the UK's airports carry less cargo.

He may be right, I'd love to have a chat about it, but until then here are three reasons why I disagree.

1. Economics. Yes, wide-body jets that fly long routes from Heathrow carry more cargo per person than the narrow-body jets that fly short routes from the UK's airport to connect to Amsterdam. But if the Heathrow approach was much more efficient, the cargo income would subsidise passenger income and it would be much cheaper to fly from Heathrow than from Manchester airport. I've shown that the difference is tiny.

2. There are lots of long-haul destinations from Manchester. Wide-body jets fly from Manchester to hubs in America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East from where cargo can be forwarded. Direct flights from Manchester to the world's largest cargo hub in Hong Kong started this year, and have been a huge success.

There are even huge jets flying from smaller airports like Newcastle and Glasgow direct to Dubai once or twice per day. When I heard the CEO of Newcastle City Council Pat Ritchie speak at last year’s Northern Futures conference in Leeds, she was overjoyed at the boost this had given her region's exports. She seemed like a very smart woman.

3. Moving air freight from most locations in the UK to Amsterdam or Paris is not much more difficult than moving it to Heathrow. For rail freight, the Eurotunnel connects the UK to Europe. For lorries there are regular ferries to Holland from Newcastle, Hull, and Harwich.

There’s a lot of politics when it comes to airport expansion. I think Heathrow should expand. I just think that London should decide and pay for it.

In any case, the North will still be travelling via Manchester – from an airport that receives much less government assistance than Heathrow, has attracted huge foreign investment to expand, and is desperate to help even more of the UK grow and prosper.

Tom Forth is an associate at ODILeeds and runs a small software company in Leeds called imactivate.

Images: author's own.

 
 
 
 

Jane Jacobs and Le Corbusier would agree on one thing: we need more social housing

Unite d’Habitation, Marseille. Image: Iantomferry/Wikimedia Commons.

Much has been written in CityMetric and beyond about the urban planning debates of the 1950s and ‘60s, that came to be characterised as a battle between master-planning and preservation. One side of the debate was personified by the father of modernist architecture, Le Corbusier, whilst the counter-argument was advanced by writer and journalist Jane Jacobs.

But when it comes to London’s housing crisis, aren’t there a few things that these two would actually agree on?

Jane Jacobs’ writing about the organic nature of self-organising communities, demonstrated, in her words, by the “intricate sidewalk ballet” of inner city neighbourhoods, should be required reading for anyone interested in how cities function. But today, Jacobs is increasingly invoked in attempts to oppose new developments of any kind. Her role in conceiving Manhattan’s West Village Houses, a low cost rented housing scheme built through New York State’s Mitchell-Lama Program, is unfortunately much less well known. It’s been suggested that if Jacobs were around today, she’d be working with New York’s housing activists. When her seminal work The Death and Life of Great American Cities was written, there were almost 2 million rent-controlled or rent-stabilised apartments in New York City; nowadays, there are fewer than half that number.

Le Corbusier, on the other hand, is too often blamed for drab high-rise blocks. But regardless of how well his followers across Europe interpreted his ideas, Le Corbusier’s vision for cities was about high quality residential blocks that also contained shops and leisure amenities and were surrounded by parkland – the original mixed use development if you like. His most famous building, Marseille’s Unite d’Habitation, consisted of 337 apartments with views of the mountains and the sea together with shops, a restaurant and a nursery school. The building was originally intended to be public housing, but the French government eventually sold off the flats to recoup costs. Alton West Estate in Roehampton and Park Hill in Sheffield are just some of the examples of Le Corbusier’s influence on the design of post-war council housing here in the UK.

Building homes for a serious business in post-war Britain. Under Attlee’s 1945 Labour Government, 700,000 new council homes were completed. In 1952, the largest architectural practice in the World was at London County Council, with 1,577 staff including 350 professional architects and trainees. These were the days of consensus, and very quickly Tory governments were actually competing with Labour governments about who could built the most council homes.

Some of the council homes built post-war have stood the test of time better than others. But what’s not in doubt is that building council homes on such a scale immeasurably changed the lives of so many families in desperate need of a decent, secure and affordable home. And so many of the post-war modernist high-rise blocks so despised by Jacobs quickly took on the organic self-organising traits that she held in such high regard and have become some of the most enduring and closely-knit communities in London.

Fast forward to 2019 and Right To Buy continues to decimate council housing stock, but perversely home ownership seems more out of reach than ever for so many. An entire generation is being forced to embrace long term private ting in a country that has some weakest protections for private tenants in Europe. Meanwhile, government spending on building new homes fell from £11.4bn in 2009 to just £5.3bn in 2015 – from 0.7 per cent to 0.2 per cent of GDP – and since then, the housing minister’s desk has been occupied by no fewer than six people.


So what would a comprehensive drive for new council and social housing on the scale of the 1945 government’s efforts look like in 2019?

Lubetkin, the architect responsible for Islington’s Spa Green Estate and Bevin Court, summed up the spirit of post-war council home building with his maxim that “nothing is too good for ordinary people”. It’s a vision that we’re trying to recreate through our own council home building programme in Islington.

One of the best opportunities for small council home building schemes is to expand upon existing communities. The vast majority of Islington’s new council housing takes the form of infill, construction on existing estates; in unloved spaces, in old garages, and in old undercrofts. These projects often involve landscaping and new amenities to enhance rather than reinvent local communities. We have built community centres and even rebuilt a library as part of council housing schemes. One Tenants’ and Residents’ Association had an idea for a new specialist over 55s block for the older residents of the estate who wanted to stay in their community.

But there’s a place for large-scale place making as well. When the Ministry of Justice closed Holloway Prison and announced that the site would be sold, Islington Council published a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on the site. We had one aim – to send a clear signal to the market that anyone who was looking at buying the site needed to be aware of their planning obligations. Most importantly, any development on the site needed to include at least 50 per cent genuinely affordable homes. The speculation around the site came to an end on 8 March this year when Peabody Housing Association announced that it had bought it. It has committed to going well above and beyond our planning requirements, by making 600 out of a total 1000 homes genuinely affordable homes, including 420 homes for social rent. We need to see more detail on what they are proposing but this is potentially brilliant for the borough. A local grassroots group, Community Plan for Holloway, have been instrumental in ensuring that the community’s voice is heard since the site was sold.

To recreate the scale of the massive post-war council home building programmes would require a Jane Jacobs inspired level of community activism combined with the architectural idealism of Le Corbusier. But it would also need the political will from central government to help local authorities get council housing built. And that, sadly, feels as far away as ever.

Diarmaid Ward is a Labour councillor and the executive member for housing & development at the London Borough of Islington.