Appendix
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
AIRPORT ISSUES
We fully recognise the environmental concerns
of local residents who live near Belfast City Airport and we welcome
the very positive efforts of Airport management who reassured
us that "we are trying to work closely with the community
around us". (Paragraph 20)
The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition
of the environmental concerns of local residents who live near
Belfast City Airport and the positive efforts being made by the
airport to address the environmental concerns of local residents.
For its part the Department for Regional Development will continue
to interface with residents and BCA management, in relation to
its responsibility for noise issues.
An application to review the current Planning
Agreement at the Belfast City Airport is with the Department of
the Environment for decision. We also understand that leave has
been granted to Belfast International Airport to seek a judicial
review of the application. Whilst it would be inappropriate for
us to recommend a particular course of action on the issue, we
believe that a 'seats for sale' restriction is not a valid or
suitable way to manage the environmental impact of airport activity.
We urge the Minister for the Environment to ensure that a decision
is forthcoming as quickly as possible. (Paragraph 22)
The Committee's recommendations in respect of the
Department of the Environment's responsibilities are very helpful
and in line with current Departmental thinking and are to be welcomed.
The Department of the Environment is presently considering
a number of options on how best to progress the review and a Ministerial
decision is expected shortly.
It appears that the dependence of Belfast International
Airport on low-cost or no-frills airlines has increased its need
for greater passenger volume and the associated retail and related
spending. This is a situation that is brought into greater focus
against the background of the airport's planned substantial capital
expenditure programme. (Paragraph 25)
The Government notes the Committee's comments on
the growth potential, investment plans and need for greater passenger
volume, with associated retail and related spending, of Belfast
International Airport. The Government also notes the Committee's
recognition of the significant benefit enjoyed by Belfast International
Airport from the Northern Ireland Air Route Development Fund.
We fully recognise that there is a limit to the
number of destinations currently served from Dublin that may be
able to be offered from Belfast irrespective of support from the
Route Development Fund. (Paragraph 26)
The Government notes the Committee's recognition
of the competitive challenge of Dublin Airport to Belfast International
Airport, irrespective of the support from the Route Development
Fund for additional routes out of Belfast International Airport.
We urge the Minister for Regional Development
to consider what action can be taken to reduce the financial burden
of the City of Derry Airport deficit on the ratepayers in the
Derry City Council area, such as refinancing the loans or rescheduling
payments. (Paragraph 31)
As was pointed out in evidence to the Committee,
the loans in question were taken out at fixed rates that were
favourable compared to the then current market rates, and are
matched by corresponding loans taken out by the Northern Ireland
Consolidated Fund.
The early redemption of these loans would attract
a redemption penalty. This would be a cost to public expenditure
and could also result in State Aid issues. The Department of
Finance and Personnel can only set aside a redemption penalty
if it is content that such action will be beneficial to the overall
public finances of Northern Ireland, as opposed to only the benefit
of the relevant borrower. Setting aside the redemption penalty
would simply have the effect of transferring liability from the
borrower to the Northern Ireland Public Expenditure allocation,
that is, there would be a Public Expenditure cost.
The Government has already given substantial capital
support to the City of Derry Airport, which would otherwise have
added to the burden of the Derry City Council ratepayers, and
recently announced the decision in principle to provide further
funding.
We fully understand the importance of City of
Derry Airport for the North West region and we recognise that
its future rests on its ability to develop and expand to attract
new services. We therefore wholeheartedly welcome the decision
in principle by the two Governments to provide £10 million
for development and urge the Minister for Regional Development
to ensure that the outstanding conditions are addressed as quickly
as possible. (Paragraph 34)
We call on the Minister for Regional Development
to undertake the review of governance of the City of Derry Airport
as a matter of urgency. (Paragraph 35)
The decision in principle to provide funding to the
City of Derry Airport is subject to a number of conditions. One
of these is that satisfactory State Aid clearance is obtained
from the European Commission. This is being taken forward by
the Department for Regional Development and the Department for
Transport, which leads on United Kingdom air transport issues
with the European Commission. Once formal notification has been
made, the timetable for a response is a matter for the European
Commission.
As regards the other main conditions, these issues
are matters in the first instance for Derry City Council. Specifically,
as regards the question of governance, both the Government and
the Government of the Republic of Ireland have endorsed the conclusion
set out in the Report of the Steering Group established by the
former secretary of State.
The Steering Group Report identified a range of possible
options available to Derry City Council to improve governance
arrangements. Northern Ireland Departments will provide help to
Derry City Council as it addresses this matter.
'LEAKAGE' TO DUBLIN AIRPORT
We recognise that Dublin Airport, for a variety
of reasons, including in particular, the range of direct services
it has to offer, will continue to attract significant numbers
of passengers from Northern Ireland. Steps should be taken to
keep this 'leakage' to a minimum for the overall benefit of the
Northern Ireland economy. In the absence of reliable and up-to-date
information on passengers from Northern Ireland who use Dublin
Airport, and vice versa, we believe it will be impossible to measure
the impact of any policy measures aimed at addressing the issue.
(Paragraph 42)
We call on the Minister for Regional Development
to commission an urgent study to determine the number of passengers
from Northern Ireland who use Dublin Airport and those from the
Republic of Ireland who use the Belfast airports, and, equally
important, to carry out a detailed analysis of the factors which
influence those decisions. Following this, we urge the Minister
to consider what further steps can be taken to improve the competitiveness
of Belfast airports and to reduce the flow of passengers to Dublin.
We also urge the Minister to pursue with the Treasury what measures
can be taken to address the impact of the significant tax differentials
between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. (Paragraph
43)
The Government notes the Committee's recognition
that there are a significant number of people from Northern Ireland
who will continue to choose to use Dublin Airport because of the
range of services it can offer. The Government is conscious that
decisions about which airport to use are motivated by a range
of factors which may not be directly amenable to policy influences
such as the relative attractiveness of offers being made by airlines
and tour operators and currency exchange rate fluctuations.
As noted by the Committee, the Department for Regional
Development last tried to quantify the extent of 'leakage' to
Dublin in 2001. This was preparatory to responding to the national
consultation on The Future Development of Air Transport in the
United Kingdom - the precursor to the Air Transport White Paper,
The Future of Air Transport, published in 2003. There are currently
no plans to repeat this exercise.
However, officials from the Department for Regional
Development, the Department for Transport (London) and the Department
of Transport (Dublin) are in the early stages of investigating
the issues involved in Northern Ireland 'leakage' via Dublin,
its impact on passenger forecast modelling and whether there is
a need for a regional/all-Ireland co-ordination strategy. The
outcomes of this investigation will assist Government in developing
the necessary policy reactions to the 'leakage' problem and feed
into the planned review of the Air Transport White Paper in 2006.
The Government notes the Committee's comments on
Air Passenger Duty. The Government announced in the 2005 Budget
that it was freezing Air Passenger Duty, and will continue to
keep all aspects of Air Passenger Duty under review as part of
the normal Budget process.
ROUTE DEVELOPMENT FUND
It seems evident that adequate research was not
carried out before the Route Development Fund was introduced to
identify priority target routes based on clear business needs
and inbound tourism potential. The absence of such priorities
has resulted in funding being awarded in what appears to be an
ad-hoc and haphazard way. We are concerned that the start-up of
any new routes seems to be accepted by Government as an end in
itself and, although this may provide a social benefit for Northern
Ireland, it does not meet the stated objectives of the Fund. (Paragraph
47)
Contrary to the impression formed by the Committee,
the activities of the Route Development Fund have not been ad-hoc
or haphazard, but rather have reflected an interaction between
the core objective of the Fund and the reality of the aviation
marketplace. Moreover they have been directed towards securing
an economic, as opposed to a social benefit, for Northern Ireland.
The need to improve air access to Northern Ireland
was recognised as a strategic objective for Northern Ireland in
the Programme for Government (Northern Ireland Executive), the
Regional Development Strategy (Department for Regional Development)
and the Tourism Strategic Framework (Northern Ireland Tourist
Board). Notwithstanding this, prior to launching the Route Development
Fund in September 2003, considerable analysis of the market was
undertaken. This analysis considered those un-served routes most
likely to deliver benefits in terms of business users and inbound
tourists, the potential demand on each route, and the carriers
that might serve them. Therefore before the Route Development
Fund was launched, Air Route Development (Northern Ireland) Ltd.
had a clear understanding of the range of routes which it might
be possible to develop. In addition Invest Northern Ireland and
the Northern Ireland Tourist Board were consulted on those destinations
considered to be of greatest potential benefit, based on inward
investment and inbound tourism criteria, respectively.
A key principle of the Route development Fund is
that it must not discriminate between one sector of the market
and another, or one airport and another. Thus the fund must work
with the market (i.e. both airports and airlines) rather than
seeking to influence route development activity by focusing effort
in one sector of the market over another. This principle was,
and is, central both to United Kingdom Government policy and emerging
guidance from the European Commission.
Consequently in operating the Route Development Fund,
Air Route Development Ltd. could not pursue an explicit strategy
of targeting specific routes as to do so would have been to discriminate
against other routes which may not have been "targeted",
but which nevertheless promised economic benefit to Northern Ireland.
Recent growth in the market in Northern Ireland, like the rest
of the United Kingdom (and Europe) has been driven by low cost
and no frills airlines. Thus the routes that have developed from
Belfast by easyJet reflect entirely the market which that airline
serves and the network it operates. In all probability the airline
would have chosen to expand elsewhere had it not been for the
Route Development Fund investment.
As explained in evidence to the Committee, in respecting
the above principle, Air Route Development Ltd. has however sought
to maintain close contact with all the major carriers in order
to keep abreast of their route development plans and to identify
possible opportunities. For instance, Air Route Development Ltd.
identified that the market between Northern Ireland and the United
States was un-served and that a number of airlines - and Continental
Airlines in particular - were developing strategies of serving
United Kingdom and European regional airports to their respective
United States hubs. The Route Development Fund developed a highly
effective strategy which ensured that Belfast was included in
their strategic development plans, and resulted in Continental
commencing services in May 2005.
Air Route Development Ltd. also sought to interest
European network operators in developing routes from Northern
Ireland to a number of key business destinations and hubs in Continental
Europe. This included holding detailed discussions with airlines
such as Air France, Lufthansa, and SN Brussels. However, to date,
these airlines have not indicated a desire to serve Northern Ireland,
which again reflects the market in which Northern Ireland is competing.
Finally, with regard to the Committee's point that
new routes are seen as an end in itself, the development of direct
air services was an important strategic objective for Northern
Ireland. However each route was also appraised to assess its
net economic benefit to Northern Ireland. A number of other routes
were put forward which, although these may have offered a social
benefit, because no net economic benefit could be demonstrated,
investment was not made by Air Route Development Ltd.
From a business perspective the routes supported
by the Route Development Fund to continental Europe would appear
to fail to meet the objective of allowing a day's business to
be transacted, as in many cases they do not provide a minimum
of a daily service and, where they do, it would not be possible
to return later the same day. (Paragraph 50)
While it would be ideal to have double daily flights
on every route so as to enable day returns, it became clear in
discussions with airports and airlines that no carrier was prepared
to provide such services at this time. The market is simply not
robust enough to support it.
The ability to enable a day's business to be transacted
is only one of the criteria used to determine route investment.
A daily direct service still represents a major improvement over
no direct service at all. Independent economic appraisal confirmed
that single daily flights were likely to provide a net economic
benefit to Northern Ireland and it would have been damaging to
our efforts to secure new links to refuse funding purely on the
grounds that a day's business necessitated an overnight stay.
It also has to be recognised that the Route Development
Fund has transformed the whole aviation scene in Northern Ireland
by giving business people direct access to a whole range of destinations
which previously necessitated a much greater amount of time being
spent in travel.
We recognise the importance of developing new
routes to hub airports that provide alternatives to Heathrow.
However, the value of such connections is greatly reduced where
the airlines do not provide direct connections to onward flights.
The merits of giving greater priority in allocating Route Development
Funding to 'full service' airlines connecting to their hubs should
be considered. (Paragraph 53)
The value of onward connections and interlining is
fully recognised and is one of the factors that score positively
in the Air Route Development assessment framework. Amsterdam
was already served from Northern Ireland by easyJet prior to the
inception of the Fund, which prevented Air Route Development Ltd.
from approaching KLM. However significant efforts were made to
try and secure hub connections by means of Air France and Lufthansa.
Unfortunately neither carrier so far has been persuaded to introduce
services to Northern Ireland.
As explained in response to recommendation 10 above,
it is one of the key principles of the Route Development Fund
that public support is offered to all carriers on the same basis.
This point was emphasised in the European Commission's ruling
on the Manchester Airport case regarding incentives provided to
Continental Airlines in the mid 1990s. Had Air France been prepared
to introduce a new service to Paris, it would have been discriminatory
not to make the same support available to another airline, such
as easyJet. The fact that easyJet did take up an offer of assistance
on the Paris route reflects the trend in the aviation market across
Europe over the last number of years, in which all the growth
has been driven by expansion of low cost airlines.
It is not possible therefore within European Commission
rules to prioritise (say) a full service network airline over
point to point low cost airlines on a given route as to do so
would be discriminatory. In an ideal world a given route would
have both types of airlines serving it, however, the market in
Northern Ireland has, so far, been unable to sustain this.
We commend the use of the Route Development Fund
to support a new direct service from Belfast International to
New York's Newark International Airport, which is due to begin
shortly. This is a particularly welcome service which will provide
full interlining at an important east coast hub allowing onward
connections throughout the North American continent. (Paragraph
55)
Noted: the new service commenced on 27 May 2005 and
has been widely regarded as a major achievement in terms of the
operation of the Route Development Fund. In addition to providing
a direct service to North America, as the Committee has observed,
it will deliver significant connectivity benefits given that Newark
is also a major United States hub airport.
The success in securing this route is a result of
the combined efforts of many different public and private organisations
in Northern Ireland and would not have happened without the Route
Development Fund acting as a focus of concerted effort to secure
the service.
The absence of any specific economic targets means
that the only measure of success of the Route Development Fund
will be the sustainability of supported routes. This is not sufficient,
and we recommend that the way in which the scheme is currently
monitored, and the identification of appropriate targets be reviewed
urgently. (Paragraph 57)
As explained in the written Memorandum submitted
to the Committee, the need for improvement in Northern Ireland's
strategic transport links has long been a strategic priority for
Northern Ireland. The Route Development Fund has succeeded in
significantly improving those links, and by facilitating the growth
in in-bound tourism, as well as in other ways, is already making
a valuable contribution to the Northern Ireland economy.
As outlined in evidence given by the Department of
Enterprise, Trade and Industry to the Committee, the Route Development
Fund scheme is monitored closely. Each month airlines provide
confidential data to Air Route Development Ltd. setting out passenger
volumes, load factors and in-bound and out-bound flows. If a
service is not meeting its forecast level of (say) inbound traffic,
this information is fed directly to Tourism Ireland so that more
targeted and focused marketing effort can be made. For those
routes not yet launched, forward booking data is being collected
to provide an early indication of passenger flows and also to
assist in the development of the marketing plan. Thus investment
made by the Route Development Fund is co-ordinated with marketing
efforts by Tourism Ireland.
In this context it is noteworthy that the Northern
Ireland Tourist Board have seen a 63% increase in enquiries through
their website this year, compared with the same period last year,
with a large proportion of these enquiries coming from the United
States of America and the new European air access destinations.
There has also been a 59% increase in the number of French visitors
coming into Northern Ireland compared to 2003 when there was no
direct air service. This is reflected in the Northern Ireland
Tourist Board's regular surveys of airport gateways which are
also used to monitor the development of new services.
It will be clear from the above that extensive monitoring
arrangements are already in place. The Civil Aviation Authority
will be undertaking a detailed survey of passengers using Northern
Ireland's airports next year, which will provide further information
on the profile of passengers using the routes supported by the
Route Development Fund. As more information is gathered, quantification
of economic benefit (e.g. in terms of additional visitor numbers)
is refined and can be considered in future economic appraisals.
On the issue of appropriate targets, it is important
to understand that the decision to invest in a route, and by an
airline to launch a route, is based on the best available data
at the time that decision is being considered. Like any investment
decision, there is an element of risk, and a key principle of
the Route Development Fund scheme is that risk is shared between
the airline, airport and the Fund. The risk to the public sector,
in terms of investment, is relatively low compared to the level
of investment made by airlines when commencing a new service.
If mechanisms were put in place which resulted in
funding being withdrawn if non-route specific targets (e.g. job
creation at the airport) were not met, this would increase the
risk to airlines and act as a disincentive for them to start routes.
Indeed it would be extremely difficult to get airlines to commit
to start services in such circumstance.
Each funding decision is made using consistent investment
and economic appraisal criteria and only those proposed routes
which will deliver a measurable economic benefit to Northern Ireland
are supported. All routes being considered for support are subject
to independent economic appraisal, which inter alia considers
issues such as passenger traffic volumes, business journey time
savings, business linkages (including export and Foreign and Direct
investment opportunities) and potential tourism benefits. The
appraisal also follows Her Majesty's Treasury Guidelines and,
as noted below, the Route Development Fund scheme will be subject
to a post project evaluation in due course.
We take very seriously the warning that Route
Development Funding may distort the market and we have concerns
that, as more regions of the United Kingdom introduce Route Development
Funding schemes, its efficacy could be seriously diminished with
airlines tempted to switch routes to chase this support. (Paragraph
59)
So far there is no evidence in the United Kingdom
that Route Development Funds have distorted the market. In the
case of Northern Ireland, our analysis of the international market
in 2003 (when there was only one scheduled international service)
strongly suggests that the market was under-served and that limited
intervention could help resolve this issue. By implementing the
fund and working with the market, Air Route Development Ltd. have
ensured that Northern Ireland now has an international network
comparable to similar sized regions elsewhere in the United Kingdom
and Europe.
It also has to be remembered that it is a condition
of the Route Development Fund that any investment support is provided
for a limited period (3 years). Moreover it is not envisaged
that the Route Development Fund scheme will continue indefinitely;
indeed, as the Committee is aware that a review of the operation
of the Route Development Fund scheme was announced earlier this
year.
Since the introduction of the Route Development
Fund there has been a significant upturn in air services generally
throughout Europe, particularly by low cost airlines. We are
aware of some 25 new routes in Northern Ireland announced since
the launch of the fund with nine of these supported by the Fund.
It is difficult to assess how many of these supported routes would
have commenced without funding. While the overall aims and objectives
of the Fund are commendable, we have serious concerns about how
they have been applied in practice and believe that the maximum
potential economic benefit may not have been achieved for Northern
Ireland. (Paragraph 61)
The application of the 'additionality' test as part
of the investment appraisal process is specifically designed to
ensure that funding is required to secure a particular route.
Moreover there is no evidence to support the suggestion that the
maximum economic benefit may not have been achieved through the
operation of the Route Development Fund.
The Route Development Fund has to date invested in
nine routes comprising six international routes from Belfast International
Airport, two domestic routes from the City of Derry Airport and
one domestic route from Belfast City Airport. Apart from the
strategic value and economic benefit of the routes themselves,
these investments have delivered a range of other economic benefits
in terms of job creation and improved the prospects of growth
in the tourist industry. Moreover there can be no doubt, that
without the Route Development Fund, easyJet would simply not have
started routes from Belfast as the risk for the carrier would
have been too great.
Those routes that have been supported by the Route
Development Fund have all been independently appraised and that
appraisal demonstrated a net economic benefit to Northern Ireland.
Air Route Development Ltd. has sought both to maximise the economic
benefit that could be delivered through expansion of the network
of air services from Northern Ireland, while at the same time
minimising the cost to the taxpayer by limiting, through negotiation,
the amount of investment required to secure a particular route.
We recommend that, before any additional funding
is provided for route development, a thorough, robust and independent
review be carried out into the operation of the scheme to date
and its potential to contribute further to economic development
in Northern Ireland. (Paragraph 62)
A review of the operation of the Route Development
Fund scheme was initiated by Air Route Development Ltd. prior
to the commencement of the Committee's inquiry, using methodology
consistent with that used for a similar review in Scotland.
The terms of reference for this review have already
been shared with the Committee and it will be clear from these
that it entails a thorough and detailed examination of the operation
of the scheme, recent trends in aviation industry, regulatory
developments, bench-marking against other regions, structural
issues and an analysis of network gaps. It also involves sharing
best practice gained from the operation of other similar Route
Development Funds. The review is mainly a fact finding exercise;
a degree of independent rigour is provided by the involvement
of Professor Brian Graham of the University of Ulster who has
been tasked with quality assuring the review findings. Moreover
the findings of the review will be subject to close examination
by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and will
also be shared with the Department of Transport.
Arrangements will be made for the Committee to be
informed of the outcome of the review in due course. In accordance
with best practice, a further separate assessment of the overall
effectiveness of the Route Development Fund is planned later,
once the various routes have become fully operational and have
had the opportunity to bed down.
GLOBAL CONNECTIONS
We recognise the importance of passenger survey
data and would encourage the CAA to include Northern Ireland airports
in a further survey at the earliest possible opportunity. (Paragraph
66)
The Civil Aviation Authority has begun discussions
with interested parties regarding the scale and scope of the 2006
regional Airport Surveys. Detailed proposals are being sent to
Belfast International, Belfast City and City of Derry airports.
Surveys will proceed assuming an acceptable level of private
funding. The expectation would be that the Civil Aviation Authority
would run the survey between January and December 2006, with the
following levels of interviews for the airports in question:
- Belfast International - around
11,000 interviews
- Belfast City - around 8,000 interviews
- City of Derry - around 5,000 interviews.
The Civil Aviation Authority are unable to programme
this survey earlier due to the long lead time required for agreeing
finance, hiring and training interviewers, obtaining the necessary
security clearances and ensuring that the intended survey time-frame
is sensible and compatible with other surveys being undertaken.
We recognise the crucial importance for Northern
Ireland of maintaining access to Heathrow and the difficulties
in developing a mechanism to protect this service. We welcome
the continuing overall commitment to Northern Ireland by bmi,
and the reassurance that there is no immediate threat to its service
to Heathrow. However, we urge the Minister for Regional Development,
in conjunction with the Department for Transport, to explore and
develop contingency plans to protect the service. (Paragraph 68)
The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition
of the importance for Northern Ireland of maintaining access to
Heathrow and bmi's continuing overall commitment to Northern Ireland.
The tools available to the Government to protect
slots for Northern Ireland at Heathrow are limited. Under current
European legislation, it is only possible to ring-fence slots
that are used to service a route on which a Public Service Obligation
has been imposed. Before a Public Service Obligation is imposed
several important criteria must be satisfied, the most relevant
being the maintenance of an adequate service. The current understanding
of service adequacy, based on European case law, includes the
consideration of all air services between a city pair and not
two particular airports.
The Committee has recognised that Northern Ireland,
and Belfast in particular, is well served with air services to
the London airport system as a whole, and as such the existing
Public Service Obligation mechanism cannot be used to safeguard
access to Heathrow via Belfast for Northern Ireland.
A further option to safeguard Northern Ireland's
Heathrow access is to use slot allocation policy. Slot allocation
policy at congested airports is governed by a European Regulation,
which is underpinned by International Air Transportation Association
Scheduling Guidelines. The European Commission has recently consulted
on amending the slot allocation Regulation to introduce market
mechanisms into the slot allocation process. The Government's
response argued for a provision that would enable bodies other
than airlines to trade in slots. This would then provide a mechanism
for regional bodies to invest in access to that airport by 'holding'
those slots.
The European Commission has not yet responded to
the consultation and so there is still uncertainty as to how this
review will move forward. However, the Department for Transport
will continue to liaise closely with the Commission and other
Member States to ensure that any amendments to both this Regulation
and the Regulation governing the imposition of Public Service
Obligations recognise the importance of regional access to London's
hub airports.
In discussing this issue, it is also relevant to
consider the Government's policy in providing new capacity at
the South East airports as stated in the Air Transport White Paper
2003. This new capacity would reduce the pressure on the slots
currently used by regional air services and would be allocated
in line with the policy outlined in the governing slot allocation
Regulation at that time.
The White Paper supported the provision of a new
runway at Stansted in 2012 and also, providing that strict environmental
conditions can be met, a new short runway in 2015-2020 at Heathrow.
It is worth noting that this new runway will be unsuitable for
long-haul operations. Studies are also being carried out on whether
mixed mode operations can be introduced in Heathrow in advance
of a new runway, which might also provide new capacity from 2008.
Any policy developments regarding new capacity at Heathrow will
be announced in the Review of the White Paper in 2006. If the
decision is made that further runway development is not possible
at Heathrow, land for an extra runway has been safeguarded at
Gatwick.
The Government would wish to assure the Committee
that the Department for Regional Development and the Department
for Transport will maintain an active interest and involvement
in seeking to safeguard Northern Ireland's access to Heathrow.
We consider that the extent of potential connecting
benefits at other European hubs may be illusory if the onward
service from that hub is not flown by the main carrier or one
of its alliance partners. This point is made by the CAA in its
Regional Air Services Study. Heathrow will continue to be the
main airport enabling Northern Ireland passengers to make onward
global connections, although increasing congestion in the near
term may make alternative options, where they exist, more attractive.
(Paragraph 71)
The Government notes the Committee's comments on
the importance of Heathrow as the main airport enabling Northern
Ireland access to global destinations.
The Government is also mindful of the wider message
in the Civil Aviation Authority's Regional Air Services Study
that connections via other hub airports to certain destinations
could be quicker than connecting via Heathrow, and, in terms of
travel-time savings, could be valuable to the air traveller.
AIR FREIGHT
We recognise the growing importance of air freight
services to enable the business sector in Northern Ireland to
compete in the global market, and we commend the current study
by the CBI and Belfast International Airport. (Paragraph 75)
The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition
of the importance of air freight services to Northern Ireland
and their commendation of the joint CBI/Belfast International
Airport study.
| 
