PASSENGERS flying from Scotland could benefit from as many as 20 more flights to London each day with a brand new hub airport instead of a third runway being built at Heathrow, according to a new report.
A study by York Aviation and Oxford Economics concludes that a third runway at Heathrow would "do little to improve regional connectivity" and that a new four-runway hub on the Isle of Grain, is required.
The researchers estimate that additional connectivity brought about through the so-called "Boris island" option - favoured by the Mayor of London - would deliver economic benefit to Edinburgh of £451million in Gross Value Added (GVA), along with 2,590 new jobs by 2050.
Glasgow would gain around 2,620 new jobs and £358m in additional GVA.
The report states that without any new airport capacity in the south-east, Edinburgh would lose nine daily flights. If Heathrow added a third runway, Edinburgh would still lose four daily flights to London, however.
In contrast, creating a new hub would result in 20 more flights per day between Scotland and London than there would be under a third runway at Heathrow; Edinburgh Airport would have five more; Aberdeen two more, and; Glasgow three more, according to the report.
The report does not detail the potential benefits of expanding London Gatwick airport, the other alternative to a third runway at Heathrow
Liz Cameron, Chief Executive of Scottish Chambers of Commerce, said: "Air infrastructure solutions for South East England will be of little benefit to Scotland if we are not better connected to it."
The Mayor of London's chief advisor on aviation, Daniel Moylan, added: "The current expansion debate must not be allowed to become simply a matter of where to build a new strip of Tarmac in the south east.
"This is a decision that matters to the whole of the UK and it's ludicrous that Amsterdam Airport provides more than three times the number of UK regional connections than our so-called national airport. The report also nails the lie that a third runway would help the UK cities and regions that Heathrow has left behind."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article