T5 - Case Study

Background
BAA (British Airports Authority) proposed T5 in order to meet the demands of increasing air traffic.

Whos for it? Why?

The following supported the project; BAA, BA, Trade Unions, Major businesses, Airport workers There has been rapid growth in air travel a predicted 70% growth between 91-2013for Heathrow. A need to compete with Europe without T5 heathrow would risk losing its spot as No.1 airport in Europe, and if this didnt happen then there would be a risk of losing our business trading routes that use Heathrow. Heathrow employs 77,000 (which add 3billion to the local economy) people and T5 would add around 17,000 more jobs (excluding construction). Without Heathrow an estimated 1.5billion would be missed out on in the tourism trade.

Whos against it? Why?

The following were apposed to the project; many local communities, HACAN (Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise), many London borough councils Its only the 26th biggest industry in the UK, so its not really worth investing in. Because Airlines pay no VAT ( which is worth around 13billion per year) they dont pay anything to help noise and air pollution which they cause. The Uk may not get all the benefit, when transfer passengers travel the only us BAA shops, and fly on BA airlines, so the companies get the benefit. HACAN claim that noise pollution will be severe, T5 is an inappropriate development as it will cover hundreds of acres of wildlife habitat. The EU has set a carbon allowance which the UK is not allowed to cross this, however the UK has an exceptionally high Aviation emission level. Roads like the M25 will become heavily congested.

Result/ were the forecasts accurate

It cost 4.3billion, took 6 years to build, and employed 6000 construction workers. There was only a 10% increase in passengers not the predicted 60%.