Examination of Witnesses (Questions 208-243)
Q208 <Chair:
Welcome to this session of the Transport Select Committee. We've
come to Birmingham today to hear directly from you about what's
happening here and how you see priorities. Could I ask first for
you please to identify yourselves for our record? If you would
give your name and the organisation you're representing.
John Morris: My
name's John Morris, I'm from Birmingham International Airport
Ltd.
Lindsay Durham:
Lindsay Durham from Freightliner.
Martin Dyer: Martin
Dyer. I work for WSP, but I'm here representing the Birmingham
Chamber of Commerce.
Richard Winfield:
Richard Winfield and I represent Birmingham Forward.
Q209 <Chair:
What's the most important transport investment needed to support
the economy in this area?
John Morris: Well,
I would say this wouldn't I? Birmingham Airport.
Q210 <Chair:
Why is it so important?
John Morris: Because
of the job and economic generation that I believe it will bring
and because it is not just a regional asset; it's a strategic
national asset. If we understand what's happening in the South-East
with aviation constraints, Birmingham gives you a solution to
aviation capacity now. We have an airport infrastructure in place
today that can take 18 million passengers a year. At the moment
we're only taking 9 million. If we could divert some of that demand
from the South-East to Birmingham, for every million passengers
that we got through Birmingham Airport, we would create up to
1,000 jobs in the region, and that's just for starters.
Richard Winfield:
I would support what John says. We had three priorities: the airport
runway extension, New Street Station and London Rail. At least
they are knocking New Street Station down if they are not building
it, so that we assume it is going ahead. The potential for the
runway extension seems to be getting gradually closer. We have
had several questions, I am pleased to hear, about what would
happen without High Speed 2. Our third priority is really serious,
because the others are to do with economic generation; London
Rail is almost the opposite. If we don't have High Speed 2, we
will have to have Low Speed 3 because the London to Birmingham
rail system is desperately crowded and is soon to run out of capacity.
I've been lobbying, even before High Speed 2 was on the horizon,
that we do need another railway, in fact. So, effectively, our
highest priority is to protect London-to-Birmingham rail services,
and I think you can only do that by building a third railway.
Lindsay Durham:
In terms of moving more freight on the railway, it's really about
connectivity with our ports as more and more goods are being imported
and exported. It's not so much about local investment; it's about
investment from those core routes from the ports, particularly
out of Felixstowe. The upgrade of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton route
has started and is made up of three phases. The first two phases
are funded, but the final phase, which is to increase capacity,
is yet to be funded. Also, there are schemes to enable a diversionary
route from the major port in Southampton so trains can run reliably,
seven days a week, and schemes to increase train lengths so we
can make the best use of our rail network.
Q211 <Chair:
Mr Dyer, what's the most important transport improvement?
Martin Dyer: The
Chamber, like a lot of good business people, has adopted a balanced
portfolio. We've been strong advocates and supporters of the airport
extension and have lobbied hard on that, as we have with Gateway.
They have been very important for us. However, we could essentially
say that they are now ticks in the box because the progress is
such that we are nearly there. We've also been keen to increase
the capacity on the Midlands motorway system, as a part of the
national network but also as a fundamental part of the local network.
Many of our members are totally reliant upon good road networks
for their operations. In addition, we've supported a balanced
approach to cars and freight in conjunction with the rail system.
Then at a very local level, we worked hard with Centro on quick
wins to deliver small, localised, good value schemes to deliver
local improvements. So we don't have one big prize that we've
been after; we've been after this balanced portfolio.
Q212 <Chair:
So you look at a number of different things?
Martin Dyer: Absolutely.
Now, in terms of progress, a lot of those are done and at our
next meeting next week we are going to revisit where we need to
be going.
Q213 <Kwasi
Kwarteng: I'm very interested in what you said
about HS2. I'm going to ask you a question that was asked earlier.
If HS2 didn't happen, what would your main source of growth be?
HS2 has only been on the table for the last three years, what
were you thinking three years ago? What did you think the problems
were?
Richard Winfield:
If you go back five years, I was going to meetings and saying,
"We need the equivalent of a motorway system." When
I was young we had roads and I used to go to London following
lorries with 20 mile an hour signs and big trees hanging over.
We were poor in the 1950s and 1960s and we are wealthy now, and
we built a complete network of motorways in 30 years. What I was
saying then, and what I think applies now, is that we need to
do the same thing for railways. We've been rescued by Adrian Shooter
and Chiltern Trains, and they're about to rescue us again next
year by adding some more capacity. However, I've been to Network
Rail presentations—because they consult with us—at
least two years running, where they've shown us graphs of their
forecasts: low, medium, high and outturn. They were unable to
see that they were incapable of forecasting the rate of growth
and that's without the legal requirements we will have in the
future to reduce carbon.
We have two problems with the railways, I think.
One is that we have an inability to plan properly 30 years ahead
and that's in the context of the Treasury; but the second is that
we have an institutional problem in the railway industry in that
they don't actually believe in railways. We need to change that.
Hopefully it's changing, and I think High Speed 2 might have helped
to change that. But the evidence of the number of people on the
trains has been beyond the ability of the railway industry to
forecast. It's desperate. They were talking about running out
of capacity in 2020; it's looking more like 2014.
Q214 <Kwasi
Kwarteng: Eddington is mode neutral; what's your
view about that? It seems like you're going very hard for rail.
Richard Winfield:
I represent the business people and the professional people and
clearly, we move people; we don't move freight. We have a very
strong relationship with London and also places like Brussels
and so on. To a certain extent we can claim to be a back office
of London, so for us, that relationship with London is really
important in terms of moving professionals back and forth.
Q215 <Kwasi
Kwarteng: But in terms of mode neutrality, are
you backing rail?
Richard Winfield:
Rail. It is rail plus Wi-Fi; that seems to be the big issue. That
is significant because you can't deal with computer work while
you are driving a car. So rail is the chosen mode.
Q216 <Paul
Maynard: Our previous witnesses clearly had great
confidence in the Local Enterprise Partnerships to act as the
forge for transport investment and structural change. Do you share
their confidence in the Local Enterprise Partnerships to adequately
fulfil that role?
Lindsay Durham:
I think, as a transport company that moves goods nationally around
the company, we have quite a lot of concerns about localism. In
terms of developing new rail terminals, which are essential to
allow growth in rail freight, there has already been a major terminal
at Radlett that has been turned down, subject to appeal. This
was because of a lot of local opposition. I think that when the
decisions are made locally, it's very difficult for local politicians
and Councils to make decisions when there is a lot of local opposition,
even though there may be a lot of regional and national benefit.
I think we're very concerned that national benefits and regional
benefits won't be properly taken into account in terms of things
like building new rail freight terminals and also in terms of
investment. We have had a lot of support from Advantage West Midlands
and SEEDA in getting the gauge clearance work from Southampton
to the West Midlands, which is now under way and due to be finished
in the Spring. We're concerned that there won't be the understanding
of freight. People tend to understand passenger transport because
everyone uses it, but most people don't understand freight transport.
Therefore, because there's a lot of understanding, it will mean
that there aren't the investment recommendations coming forward.
Richard Winfield:
If I may apologise, we're sitting on the fence. The feedback we
have is that the business community is not convinced either that
the LEPs will really do anything, or that this LEP will really
do anything. What I would like to say though, is that through
the Business Improvement Districts, we've proved how business
can invest. You heard earlier about the bus rapid transit, which
is entirely a Business Improvement District and business-led initiative,
which is now integrated with the local authorities and so on.
So, business can deliver, but we're not yet sufficiently convinced
that the LEPs will work.
Q217 <Paul
Maynard: Perhaps specifically, therefore, to Mr
Winfield and/or Mr Dyer, what involvement have you had, if any,
in economic development planning which has been specifically linked
to the arrival of High Speed 2?
Martin Dyer: In
my former role, I worked very closely with the airport to make
the case for High Speed 2, in particular the case at the airport
and NEC. We relied heavily on a piece of work that was commissioned
with AWM on the M42 growth corridor. Now, the M42 is just a geographical
location rather than a transport entitlement, but that was a very
heavily predicated piece of economic planning which we used to
support the case that was made by the airport and by the NEC at
the time.
Q218 <Paul
Maynard: That was to argue the case, but since
you have known it's coming, has there been anything?
Martin Dyer: No.
Q219 <Iain
Stewart: A question to Mr Morris, if I may, regarding
your comments about the expansion of the airport and adding to
the airport capacity in the South-East. To what extent would you
be working in partnership with airports in the South-East to accommodate
future growth in air travel? Or is it a more competitive bid to
take away traffic that currently goes to Heathrow or the other
South-East airports?
John Morris: We
work in a competitive environment so we're obviously willing to
work in partnership with anyone, but you can understand that there
are certain commercial issues between airports. I think it is
a fact of life that airports in the South-East are going to fill
up, and where are you going to put that traffic? With HS2 coming
along, that puts you within 31 minutes of London to Birmingham
Airport and puts you in the equivalent of zone four of the Underground
map. While I will sit here and make the case for Birmingham, there
are other regional airports that can help satisfy that demand.
Certainly, we've been talking to other regional airports because,
as you might imagine, there's a bit of a lobby in the South-East.
We've been talking to other regional airports to discuss whether
or not they're of like mind. Obviously, they'll speak for themselves,
but I'm not speaking alone in this matter.
Q220 <Iain
Stewart: I'm presuming that HS2 is critical to
the plan. Are you concerned that it may not connect directly with
Heathrow?
John Morris: I
think that it's not right to say that HS2 is critical to the plan.
As I outlined, we have spare capacity now. Now, if we say it's
going to be 10 or 15 years until High Speed 2 comes along, I think
Mr Winfield's already pointed out some of the issues there are
on the London to Birmingham railway and there are some strong
issues over capacity. There are also some strong issues over journey
time. If the journey time between London and Birmingham Airport
can be reduced to a slightly more acceptable level, say, just
under an hour—59 minutes—rather than an hour and 10
minutes, we believe that starts to break psychological barriers
in terms of putting Birmingham into people's mindset, for want
of a better description. The challenge we believe within the next
franchise period, which starts in 2012, is to improve the journey
times. While the current franchise can tick the box for improving
journey times, journey times are only five to eight minutes faster
between London and Birmingham than they were in 1968. There have
been some tremendous journey time improvements between London
and the North-West, but Birmingham has really sat by the wayside
for a number of reasons that you may have heard about earlier.
We have an anomalous situation now where you can get from London
to Warrington 10 minutes faster than you can get from London to
Wolverhampton.
So we believe that there is a lot that can be done
between now and High Speed 2, but looking further out, we are
making preparations for High Speed 2. During the last Parliament,
Lord Adonis came to see us, and we did actually say that we were
quite interested in siting a future third terminal over the High
Speed Rail Station. This is because we believe that public transport
should be integrated and we do believe that aviation is public
transport, even though it receives no subsidy from the taxpayer.
So, we don't want to paint this picture where everything in predicated
on HS2, but actually HS2 will bring about a sea change in the
way things are done. The fact that the first part of HS2 comes
from London to Birmingham is excellent, but as you start to build
up a network that possibly links other airports, you start to
get the true network affect that we saw with the creation of the
motorways.
Q221 <Kelvin
Hopkins: First of all, I very much welcome what
Richard Winfield said about looking at railways the way that we
looked at motorways in the last 30 or 40 years, and investing
seriously in railways. He talked about having a new railway line,
but is it not as important to have new, dedicated freight railway
lines as well as passenger railway lines?
Richard Winfield:
It's all part of the same thing, isn't it? There's a lot of argument
about High Speed 2, but the great thing that people tend to forget
is that the London to Birmingham line will still be there. It
currently has lots of constraints in terms of passengers and in
terms of places where it can stop. I assume that exactly the same
applies to freight: if we can take some people off the traditional
railway line, we can release space, and it's the same with roads.
If you can take people out of cars then it releases space for
lorries.
Kelvin Hopkins:>
Lindsay and I have known each other many years and we've had these
conversations many times in private before. Would it not make
life much easier for the freight industry if there were dedicated
freight lines which were of a gauge to take full-sized containers
wherever you want to go, and also, not for your company in particular,
but for others, to take lorry trailers on trains with roll on/roll
off systems between the conurbations in Britain, notably Birmingham
and the West Midlands, but also through the Channel Tunnel to
Europe?
Q222 <Chair:
I will just add on to the end of Mr Hopkins' question there, which
is about new freight lines. How do you see the current situation
in terms of supporting more rail on freight if we didn't get those
new lines?
Lindsay Durham:
Starting with Kelvin's questions, we certainly support a rail
network that has gauge clearance that allows us to move transport.
I know in Europe there have been trials of moving lorries by rail,
but the key issue for rail is that you must be able to compete
on price with road. I think we are concerned that if you were
able to take lorries on trains in the UK, you've got the whole
lorry sitting there and not actually earning any money. I'm not
sure that that would be economically viable. However, we know
that there is a lot of opportunity for unaccompanied boxes and
freight. The key really is capacity. I think it's not actually
about a freight-only network; it's about a network with the right
capability that allows us to take the standard containers by rail,
enables us to run long trains and enables us to get good journey
times that compete with road. Overall, it really is about the
overall economics to compete with road.
Q223 <Chair:
You've expressed a concern about the Modal Shift Revenue Support
grant?
Lindsay Durham:
Yes we have. A budget was set by the previous Government for three
years starting from next April, and we know that next year's funding
is confirmed. We're still waiting for confirmation for the following
two years. I think it's particularly important in the West Midlands
area where there's £12 million worth of funding that funds
about 400,000 containers that currently move by rail into the
West Midlands that would otherwise move by road. So, it's critical,
particularly for this region. Ironically, it's where you have
the shorter journeys from the ports and the Channel Tunnel to
Birmingham that you most need the grant. However, the environmental
benefits that calculate the grant are lower because the road journeys
are shorter than the North-West or Scotland, for example. It is
critical. In the long term we would like to be free of any such
revenue support. Overall, we see it as being about the long-term
economics of road and rail. Things like Lorry Road Charging, for
example, could make the difference between the economics of rail
versus road that would enable us in the future to be grant free.
Q224 <Kelvin
Hopkins: As Richard Winfield has said, the pressure
on our existing railway networks is going to be higher and higher
and is going to be filled up with fast passenger trains which
don't mix very well with slower freight trains. Indeed, the existing
rail networks have tunnels that cannot be gauge-modified as it
would just be prohibitively expensive. A cheap, economical, dedicated
rail freight network, capable of taking lorry trailers, not lorries,
on trains long distances as operates in American and Canada is
desirable so that Birmingham could export its products to Dortmund
overnight by a lorry trailer on a train, or indeed by a full-sized
trailer or a Double Stack Container, which can get through the
Channel Tunnel. Isn't that bold approach much more sensible?
Q225 <Chair:
Ms Durham, would you like a bold approach?
Lindsay Durham:
Yes, build our own network. Ideally it is, but I think we're concerned
about the affordability of it. Is it realistic to expect such
a network? I think we think there is a lot that can be done to
the existing network to upgrade it. If there are lines with four
tracks then freight and the stopping passenger services actually
mix very well in terms of capacity. I think if there was a dedicated
rail line, we are just concerned about the affordability; not
just of building it, but also of running it. Who pays for it long
term?
Q226 <Chair:
So you're for improvements without building a completely new line?
Lindsay Durham:
Yes.
Q227 <Kwasi
Kwarteng: We are the Transport Select Committee
and obviously in issues of transport we get into the habit of
drawing up a wish-list in terms of things we want and the amount
of money we want. However, in terms of getting a feel for how
the locality works, I'd like to ask, what are you happy with now?
What do you think are the great successes in terms of transport
in Birmingham and the surrounding area? What are you happy with?
What works for you?
Q228 <Chair:
What's good about what there is?
Richard Winfield:
What is good is what the Victorians did.
Q229 <Chair:
Nothing since then?
Richard Winfield:
We have got to undo some of what's been done since then. It was
mentioned by the previous speakers, but we are fortunate that
we have actually got a very good local railway system. We would
definitely support what they were saying earlier in terms of the
campaign calls to bring some of the other lines back. So what
is good is that we have a good passenger railway system, and as
they were mentioning earlier, that is heavily used. Again, as
was mentioned earlier, in fact it is public transport use that
is driving the modal shift, rather than the restriction on car
usage, but that is something that we inherited. The other thing
that is good is the proposal for our bus rapid transit system,
which is a short-term or medium-term proposal that came from the
business community.
John Morris: I
think that there is willingness for people to work together. I
think perhaps planning is more joined up than it was even five
or 10 years ago. We have these redundant railways that can be
brought back into use; at least they haven't been built over.
There is now a willingness to look at all modes of transport and
not just look at them in isolation, in order to see what the best
solution is.
Richard Winfield:
The three males among us all work together on the same Committee,
which comes out of the business community.
Q230 <Chair:
Well, in that case I'm going to ask Ms Durham what she wants to
say.
Richard Winfield:
It proves that we are prepared to cooperate.
Q231 <Chair:
Well, it might prove a number of things but we won't go into that
just now.
Lindsay Durham:
I think the upgrade of the West Coast Mainline has resulted in
a very good, reliable line.
Q232 <Kwasi
Kwarteng: It is excellent.
Lindsay Durham:
There is a lot of capacity that has been built for both freight
and for passengers. I think there are three passenger trains an
hour from London, which is excellent service. I think although
there was a lot of pain during the building—and it is very
hard to upgrade a line while you're still trying to run people
and freight on it—I think now the result is very good. We
do need to start looking forward though, because it's estimated
that by about 2020 the capacity will all be used up. I think we
are concerned about the gap between 2020 and HS2.
Q233 <Kwasi
Kwarteng: You like this West Coast Line, then?
Lindsay Durham:
Yes. It's the core route for freight. It connects our major ports
and the Channel Tunnel to the conurbations. The West Midlands
is the key area for distribution in the country.
Martin Dyer: I'd
like to add that. The West Coast Mainline upgrade has been a significant
improvement with the additional capacity. We should also be quite
proud of the work the Chilterns have done in the West Midlands,
and particularly with the amount of investment that they put in.
The long franchise has been very, very beneficial, and with the
work they are doing now, I think that is quite exceptional. To
specifically answer the question, I think we have a few gems.
We have a lot of okay transport infrastructure and a lot of it
that's creaking on the edge. I think the worry and the concern
is the lack of a plan going forward and the lack of a long-term
plan and the funding that goes with it in some areas. To pick
up on that with one very brief example, we had a question earlier
about, "What do you do if HS2 doesn't happen?" We have
a problem if HS2 does happen. We have a problem with rail capacity
from 2020 until the time that the first High Speed 2 train runs.
So, in the Chamber we are worried about that gap.
Q234 <Chair:
So you're looking at rail capacity as the key problem?
Martin Dyer: It's
one area.
Q235 <Chair:
How important is tourism to the regional economy?
Richard Winfield:
It's very important, but not to us. You're speaking to the wrong
person, in my case.
Q236 <Chair:
Well, what about Mr Morris. Is tourism important?
John Morris: Yes,
it's part of the mix we have through the airport. I think perhaps
when we talk to colleagues from tourism one of the things that
galls us more than anything is that you have your stereotypical
American that flies into London, stays in London, but actually
goes to visit Chester, York and Stratford. They are all coming
in through Heathrow. Our argument is actually that we want to
try to rebalance the regional economy. We want to fly them in
to Birmingham, base them in Birmingham and then it's hopefully
an hour to London and an hour or so to York and Chester. This
is again one of the ways that the economy can be rebalanced by
taking those blinkers off.
Q237 <Chair:
It's interesting to hear you say that. Most of our witnesses talk
about London connections exclusively, but there is another part
of the world as well.
Richard Winfield:
Can I reframe the question to say "conferences"? Because
in that case, conferences are the equivalent of tourism and they
are very important for the business they bring, which is huge,
and also for the public relations and the profile that they build
for us.
Q238 <Chair:
So, the conference trade is important, Mr Dyer?
Richard Winfield:
That's for our main city centre business.
Martin Dyer: Yes,
as a former employee of the NEC group, I would say that. I guess
most of you have either been to the city centre in your conference
sojourns, or will be coming. It is a major part of our economy
that we ignore at our peril. Manufacturing is key; but tourism
and business tourism is fundamental to that. I also talk as a
resident of StratforduponAvon, so I would say that,
wouldn't I?
Q239 <Paul
Maynard: To Mr Morris, the most frequent criticism
I read of your airport is what they call the "tourism deficit",
whereby you have so many more passengers leaving the West Midlands
and taking their money out than you have arriving in the West
Midlands bringing their foreign currency in. How do you defend
that criticism?
John Morris: I
think that you have to look at these things in the round, and
Aviation produced something called the Oxera Report[3],
which you may or may not have studied, which goes into some of
the economic benefits of aviation. I can certainly reference that
to you later. I think that the point that I'd make is that aviation
is but one part of the economy; we'd love to have more visitors
here. One of the things that we're trying to do with our runway
extension is have those global links that will attract more people,
more business and more business tourism in through Birmingham
Airport, because we want to be another global gateway. That will
benefit things such as tourism and business tourism in the Midlands;
room nights, bed nights and that kind of thing. Again, it's another
reason why the service to London, even before High Speed 2, needs
to be so much better. Yes, it's a good service, but frankly, it's
not good enough. The journey time between Birmingham and London
as I say, is only between five and eight minutes faster than it
was in the 1960s. What has been done on other parts of the West
Coast Mainline is absolutely phenomenally good. Birmingham must
try harder. What we want to do is give people the option of coming
in through Birmingham, go to London by rail in one seamless journey
and vice versa. There will be some rub-off there, because it means
that people will spend one or two nights in Birmingham, and this
will start to benefit the tourism economy.
Q240 <Gavin
Shuker: Obviously, we've touched on the localism
agenda so far. It seems to me that many of you are talking about
national benefits as well as local benefits, but it occurs to
me that there may be some local opposition to some of the things
that you're talking about. Could you perhaps talk about how the
localism agenda conflicts with your own agenda in some ways?
John Morris: Clearly
not everyone wants an airport in their back garden. We went through
a process of planning and planning application to extend that
runway and we have that permission. We are the only airport with
significant permission to expand. We do hold our CSR and our community
values very closely. You might say, "He would say that wouldn't
he?" But the way in which I can demonstrate that is that
we actually got the planning consent for that development without
a public inquiry, which I think is quite a credit to those that
made the planning decision; that on balance we were going to be
for the good and not the bad. We never underestimate the relationships
that we have with our local people. We recognise that there are
some very positive things in terms of the importance to the economy,
but we have to mitigate the negative affects. Certainly when you
talk about HS2, we are very strong supporters of HS2, but we are
clear on the fact that we expect the mitigation for HS2 to be
as good and as thorough as the mitigation we went through with
our airport process.
Q241 <Chair:
Any other examples of potential clashes between local interests
and regional or national need?
Richard Winfield:
Not specifically, but part of our responsibility is to lobby,
and on the back of that is our responsibility to educate. Very
often, you find that opposition is actually based on prejudice
and ignorance. So, part of our active role is to constantly have
speeches from various people who are involved in things like HS2,
the railway station, the airport and so on, so that the business
community that we represent actually understands what the issues
are. I think when people understand the issues, very often a lot
of objection disappears.
Q242 <Chair:
Are there any strong views about the current appraisal process
for deciding major schemes and whether the criteria are right
or wrong?
Lindsay Durham:
I think we have some concerns. I understand from Norman Baker
there is likely to be a review out for consultation fairly soon.
I think we are concerned that the value of carbon is rather outdated
and not based on future predictions of fuel prices or the future
likely traded value of carbon, so that's one thing. One key area
that particularly impacts on rail schemes is that currently, if
you create modal shift by your investment, the lost fuel duty
income is actually knocked off the benefits of the investment
scheme. That actually rather encourages carbon positive schemes
which use more fuel than carbon negative schemes. If we're serious
about reducing carbon, I do think that's very important.
I think the other key thing is how you actually
value congestion, which has a big knock-on effect on the economy
and is a very vital part of creating value.
Martin Dyer: The
community I represent are very concerned about the extended planning
cycles that one goes through when one's running through the appraisal
process. It puts unacceptable costs into schemes. We've seen it
significantly in this area with the widening of the M6 up to Manchester,
the numerous appraisals that it went through, the massive costs
associated with that and at the end of the day, it's not going
ahead within the foreseeable future. So, it is the unacceptable
costs that come from those planning cycles, and I actually just
precluded altogether the uncertainty and the delays that go along
with this. Those are the concerns we have that affect our national
competitiveness.
Richard Winfield:
One addition. Throughout the 40 years I've been involved in transport,
there's been this problem about land value capture and how to
deal with it. The City Council was pushing for ADZs and now we
have the concept of the TIFs. That does seem to be a way that
we can actually get the private sector to contribute to public
sector investments, and we would be very much in favour of bringing
those in actively.
Q243 <Chair:
Thank you very much for coming in and answering so many questions.
Thank you very much.
3 What is the contribution of aviation to the UK economy?
Final report prepared for the Airport Operators Association/November
2009. Back
| 
