From a competition perspective it would be perverse to entrench the dominance of Heathrow by expanding there
Another day, another runway submission. This time it's Gatwick, making the much-needed argument that we should remember the benefit of competition between airports. Good point. BAA's monopoly ownership of London's main airports was broken up because it was deemed to lead to under-investment, especially at those airports not called Heathrow.
From a competition perspective, then, it would be perverse to entrench the dominance of Heathrow by expanding there. And a new airport in the Thames estuary, replacing Heathrow, would have the same effect.
The Heathrow and estuary lobbies contend that only a "hub" airport will do since a single huge airport makes more flights to more destinations viable. Really? Gatwick's response is that the "hub" argument is much exaggerated. Only 13% of passengers to London's airports are transfer passengers, it says, so why are we allowing the obsession with a hub to dominate the debate?
Lord Davies' commission will have to chew over that question. But if a single super-hub is indeed unnecessary for a city the size of London, Gatwick is a logical choice for expansion. The noise pollution from adding a second runway at Gatwick would be substantially less than building a third at Heathrow. Construction could be completed sooner and the bill would be less – £5bn to £9bn is the claim.
The disadvantage of Gatwick is that it can't match the convenience of Heathrow – so add a substantial bill on top to improve the rail service. But greater competition and less noise is an attractive combination in a race where there is no perfect option. Gatwick deserves to be on the shortlist.