Response to the Airports

Commission’s Call for Evidence on Proposals for Making the Best use of Existing Capacity

in the Short and Medium Terms

1

Contents Page

Introduction 4

Generic Short and Medium Term Best Use Proposals 6

Capacity Issues Facing Business Aviation in London & the South East 8

Summary of the Results of the Capacity Modelling Assessment 10

Strategic Implications of Our Proposals 15

Concluding Comments 16

Appendix A: Capacity Modelling Results 18Appendix B: Business Aviation Facilities serving World Cities 22Appendix C: Movement Data by Airport 2002 – 12 23Appendix D: Road and Public Transport Journey Times in Minutes 24

Contact: Andrew Walters, Chairman Regional Airports Ltd Tel: +44 (0) 1256862059 Email: a.r.walters@btconnect.comc\o Biggin Hill Airport Terminal, Passenger Terminal, Main Road, Biggin Hill, Bromley, TN16 3BHwww.bigginhiIlairport.com

2

RESPONSETO THE AIRPORTS COMMISSION’S CALL FOR EVIDENCE ON MAKING BEST USE OF EXISTING

CAPACITY IN THE SHORT AND MEDIUM TERMS

BY LONDON BIGGIN HILL AIRPORT

17May 2013

3

Introduction

1. This submission to the Airports Commission’s ‘Call for Evidence on Proposals for Making the Best Use of Existing Capacity in the Short and Medium Terms’has been prepared by London Biggin Hill Airport (LBHA) and its principal shareholder Regional Airports Ltd (RAL) . Its focus is to demonstrate to the Commission the importance of factoring Business Aviation activity and Business Aviation only airports into its thinking on ‘Interim Measures’ for making optimal use of available capacity at existing airports serving London and the South East. In doing so we seek to build on our earlier responses to the Commission’s ‘Aviation Demand Forecasting’ and ‘Aviation, Connectivity and the Economy’ Discussion Papers, which presented evidence on:

The scale of current Business Aviation activity in the London airport system(approaching 100,000 movements and c10% of total air traffic movements), and the unique nature of the wide-ranging customer specific connectivity it offers (over 700 destinations served from LBHA in 2011/12, double the number to which there are scheduled services from the main London Airports).

The substantial efficiencies and productivity benefits Business Aviation’s flexible on-demand service offers to UK business, alongsideits role in supporting London’s status as Europe’s leading financial centre, host to many Global 500 businesses and an Alpha ++ World City1.

The significant economic outputs that are created by those who use Business Aviation (typically they are leading entrepreneurs, key decision-makers and senior executives or professional advisors whose average values of time is 10 times higher than those flying business class on scheduled airlines).

The need to ensure, in an increasingly congested airport environment in the South East of England, the quality of the Business Aviation infrastructure on offer to serve the UK’s capital city is competitive with that of its global rivals.

The importance of the Commission taking a holistic view, which both acknowledges and factors into its deliberations the future capacity needs of this non-scheduled component of the aviation sector alongside its larger full-scheduled, regional, low cost and charter cousins.

2. In short Business Aviationshould be part of the Commissions’ short, medium and long term agenda’s because it is material in scale in terms of air traffic movements, of significant importance to the efficient functioning of London’s economy (by ensuring better use is made of under-used airport assets while simultaneously allowing congested runways elsewhere to be used more efficiently), and offers connectivity that is regarded by its users as essential to “unlocking the highest value global economic opportunities for UK business2”.

1Status accorded to London by the Global and World City Network; there are only two Alpha++ cities – London is one, New York the other. 2AoA: Business Aviation Core Messages –BBGA Conference (March 2013)

4

3. With this in mindwe are encouraged by the recognition granted to General Aviation and Business Aviation in particular by the recent aviation policy document3published by the Government in March this year, which as we understand it, provides the over-arching frame of reference within which the Commission is expected to conduct its work.

“Business and general aviation connects many UK and international destinations that do not have, and are unlikely to develop, scheduled air services or other direct transport links. GA aerodromes can also complement commercial air transport and provide increased connectivity at important hubs such as London. ….. Ninety-six per cent of city pairs served by business aviation have no scheduled connection.” (Para 1.87)

“Given the importance of this GA network, while recognizing that in congested airports this may not be appropriate, we encourage airport operators to ensure that GA aircraft are able to continue to enjoy equitable access to their airports ….. “ (Para 1.88).

4. However, the commonly held view in the sector, and one which we share, is that the Government’s policy document needed to go further and set out a clear and defensible framework if the sector is to be able to plan and invest with confidence. DfT’s view that there is plenty of capacity amongst second tier airports in and around London, and that ‘market forces’ will ensure demand is appropriately allocated and catered for is faux naïve and ignores the sophisticated and expensive infrastructure that modern business aircraft, and their passengers, require and the difficulties of securing planning approval and funding to provide it in the absence of such a framework. Fundamentally, in seeking to avoid being too ‘dirigiste’, the resultant equivocation it has left is something of a vacuum in relation to key policy issues that need to be addressedif major developments required by the sector are to be processed quickly through the planning system andthe availability of airport and airspace capacity for Business Aviation in the short, medium and long term ensured.

5. There is, therefore, an important strategic gap in policy that we hope the Commission will step-up and fill. We welcome, therefore, its call for evidence on short and medium term proposals that could help to make “best use of existing capacity” the suggestions that follow will prove to be of interest.

6. This submission is inthree principal parts. The first explores a number of key generic propositions which we would like to see included in the Commission’s recommendations of how best use could be made of existing airport capacity in the South East. These include:

Support for Business Aviation as one element of the mix of aviation required to meet the economicneeds of London and the South East.

Removal of barriers (regulatory or otherwise), to commercial innovation and unrestricted in the Business Aviation sector.

Adoption of a fair but robust policy and regulatory framework to facilitate growth in Business Aviation demand.

3HMG: Aviation Policy Framework (CMND 8454), March 2013

5

Better co-ordination of airspace capacity Traffic distribution rules to be introduced to restrict Business Aviation at congested

airports in the South East once they have reached 85% capacity of scheduled capacity.

Closure of Northolt to commercial Business Aviation so as to avoid anti-competitive behaviour by its operator based on the use of a publicly funded asset.

The designation of two dedicated feeder reliever airports to serve London’s medium and long-term Business Aviation needs close to, or easily accessible from, the City’s key commercial centres as soon as possible.

7. The second is an examination of capacity issues likely to be facing the sector over the next 10-15 years under four scenarios for the future development of the London airport system and the implications in policy terms if growth in Business Aviation activity is to be accommodated given the substantive benefits it offers UK economy and the functioning of London as a globally important business centre and world city. This section draws heavily on modelling work undertaken by consultants working for Regional Airports Ltd, which is outlined in Appendix A to the submission. The third is a high level assessment of the strategic implications of the policy proposals set out in the preceding sections of the submission.

Generic Short and Medium Term Proposals

8. Turning to the first of these, we have seven propositions that we would like to see emerge from your report to the Government on Interim Measures in December:

Formally Accept Business Aviation as Part of the Aviation Mix Required to Serve London

9. The number of Business Aviation flights all over the world is forecast to grow faster than the scheduled airline sector. Business Aviation aircraft now fly as fast or faster and as high or higher than the scheduled passenger airliners. Modern business jets can fly non-stop between London and Beijing or arrive non-stop from South America. In today’s global business market, new economic models, such as NetJets and new aircraft types such as the Global 6000 and Very Light Jet (VLJ), are constantly emerging for use by both the private and public sectors to access difficult to reach markets or key development and business opportunities around the world.

10. So our first policy proposal is that there needs to be explicit recognition for Business Aviation as an important high value component of the range of types of aviation needed to serve a World City such as London and that consequently it is appropriate to develop a more detailed policy framework that will ensure it can be properly accommodated for than that offered by the APF.

11. All other major world cities do this, whether by providing specialist FBO facilities at an existing or new airport, or making specific separate provision at an alternate or ‘reliever’ airport as New York, Paris and Singapore have done. Many other capitalcities and global business centres are beginning to dedicate airport capacity close to their business areas

6

so that these flights can come and go quickly and easily. Their authorities have recognised that these specialist Business Aviation facilities play a small but vital part in their transport system and that squeezing non-scheduled flights into busy scheduled airline airports is neither as reliable nor safe as providing purpose designed and attractive airport capacity nearby(see Appendix B). As one of the world’s most important cities, withamongst the highest levels of Business Aviation traffic in Europe, London’s rivals would regard the absence of any kind of co-ordinated or coherent strategy for the sector with a combination of surprise and curiosity.

Remove Constraints on Commercial Innovation in Business Aviation

12. LBHA and RAL believe there is much to be learned from the American approach to General Aviation sector and Business Aviation in particular. The FAA has a policy of declaring such airports as capable of accepting any kind of traffic unless there are good reasons for imposing restrictions. This has the major benefit that there are typically no constraints on the kinds of services that can be offered from GA aerodromes and therefore few limits on the scope for commercial innovation as to how best to meet the kind of Business Aviation services the market is seeking.

13. We think this is an important principle to also see established in the UK, so that there is no temptation for planning authorities to seek to impose specific exemptions to the type of service on offer without a clear and robust justification and that the market will respond innovatively as a result.

Adoption of a Fair but More Clearly Defined Policy and Regulatory Framework

14. Through the auspices of the Airport Operators Association, many of the key players in the Business Aviation sector in London and the South East came together to consider what were their top priorities from Government. The conclusions were reported back to the British Business & General Aviation Association conference in March and included:

(a) A fair policy framework for BA sectoral growth, involving three components:

Promoting the value of Business Aviation to UK Business (using key messages discerned in Priority 1 above)

Pushing for a planning system/framework which enables BA to flourish Advocating a competitive tax regime compared to European competitors

(b) The introduction of proportionate regulation for BA in the form of:

Bespoke, dedicated security for outbound BA users Bespoke, dedicated borders for inbound BA users

15. We agree with our industry colleagues that such an approach would help to make London’s Business Aviation offer even more compelling and thus help facilitate growth in demand and better connectivity for London’s business leaders and those wishing to invest and trade in the UK, in the face of stiff competition from other major European cities.

7

Better Co-ordination of Airspace Capacity

16. Equally important in this regard is the reassurance that there is adequate airspace capacity to support any infrastructure investments the industry may wish to make to improve London’s Business Aviation facilities. We believe that the Olympic period, during which LBHA was allowed up to 21 slots per hour compared to the 4-6 it might use normally, shows that by adopting a carefully co-ordinated and managed approach to airspace capacity within the London TMA, there is plenty of scope for catering for additional movements from airports that have plenty of spare runway capacity – of which Biggin Hill is one.

17. NATS and CAA need to be encouraged to offer a similar level of engagement and certainty over long-term planning to London’s major Business Aviation airports so that they can again plan and invest with confidence to take spill traffic from other mainly scheduled airports as they become more congested.

Introduce Targeted Traffic Distribution Rules

18. The broad objective of these would be to restrict non scheduled flights at congested scheduled airline airports in the South East once they have reached 85% of their scheduled capacity. We believe evidence submitted by others will show that this is the optimum level of utilisation of declared capacity before significant perturbations that affect resilience and the lengths of delays, begin to be incurred.

19. The restrictions could take the form of minimum aircraft size limits on the number of movements of this type on certain days, or times of day, depending on how severe the schedule congestion has become. Alternatively it might only allow certain types of Business Aircraft to land. So for example at Heathrow, and probably within five years at Gatwick, one option might be to ban all Business Aviation flights save for those categorised as being for VIP’s using aircraft designated as Code D or larger.

Closure of RAF Northolt

20. Second, we believe RAF Northolt should be closed to commercial Business Aviation operations, not just because of the marginal impacts it has on Heathrow’s operation, but also because it creates unfair-competition through inappropriate use of a publicly owned and funded asset in a highly competitive market without a requirement to reflect the full cost of capital of providing the capacity that it is providing. And this ignores whether the MoD is using its assets optimally or realising appropriate value from its estate by continuing to keep Northolt open as an airfield, ostensibly for military operational purposes, even when there is pressure to reduce military and increase civilian flights. MoD should be asked to consider how its own requirements at Northolt could be met, even via a military enclave at another airfield, to avoid this increasingly untenable and market distorting situation.

Designation of Two Dedicated Feeder Reliever Airports

8

21. With the foregoing in mind, and the return to growth in the sector which is anticipated as the economy recovers (for which there are already signs) as we outline below, key decisions need to be made in the next few years about future investment. We believe, and the capacity modelling which we outline later in this submission clearly demonstrates, that this requires the designation of two specialist dedicated reliever airports for Business Aviation as has been done in New York, Paris, Chicago, Los Angeles, Singapore and other major World Cities.

22. We believe the US Reliever airport strategy for General and Business Aviation offers a good model to follow. To ensure that New York, London’s principal rival for the status of the World’s leading city, the two state Governments of New York and New Jersey, using the auspices of the Port Authority, designated a number of smaller airports around the city as Reliever Airports in order to provide attractive alternatives for operators instead of using the congested hub airports. These Reliever Airports receive positive policy support to be attractive alternatives to the busy hub airports and to meet local demand, wherever possible. This performs the valuable function of relieving pressure on the busy scheduled airline airports thereby improving the time keeping and reliability of scheduled services for the benefit of the travelling passenger. Each Reliever Airport is different – Teterboro is dedicated to just Business Aviation whilst Morristown, White Plains and others each have a mix of Business and other General Aviation, plus some public air transport services for the local community

23. This Reliever Airport strategy avoids a prescriptive approach to the types of flights permitted at the smaller airports and encourages innovation and investment. In the USA airports follow a guiding principle of the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) that airports should be flexible and expandable, able to meet increased demand and to accommodate new aircraft types.

24. We believe the same benefits would accrue, and the investment needed to ensure capacity of the right type and quality is available, if Biggin Hill and Farnborough (the only Business Aviation Airports of sufficient size and capability not also catering for commercial traffic), were to receive the same status in relation to London and that this should be one of the recommendations of the Commission in its report to Government on Interim Measures.

Capacity Issues Facing Business Aviation in London & the South East

25. Business Aviation is a non scheduled commercial air transport activity within the General Aviation sector andrepresents its most economically valuable component, with 135,000 air traffic movements across the UK in 2012. Of that number over half (around 80,000) were movements at London and South East airports, See Figure 1 below. This is the equivalent of an airport the size of Luton or of London City and Southend combined, and must, therefore, be a material factor in the consideration of runway capacity issues in the region.

9

Figure 1: Ten-Year Trends in Business Aviation Movements in London and the South East

Source: CAA Statistics

Figure 2: Year-by-Year Growth Rates for Business Aviation in London

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

-20.0%-15.0%-10.0%

-5.0%0.0%5.0%

10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%

0.8%

21.5%

-2.1%

17.3%13.8%

-8.8%

-15.4%

0.2% 1.7% 2.5%

London Business Aviation % Yearly Growth Rates

Source: CAA Statistics

26. Figure 1 illustrates the pattern of growth in Business Aviation4 serving London over the last 10 years. A period of strong growth between 2003-07 was followed by a sharp decline in the post banking crisis recession and a return to slow growth from 2010 onwards. Over the whole period growth has averaged 2.6% per annum whereas a similar best-fit line for the 10 years to 2007 would have shown an average annual growth rate of closer to 5%. This is reflected in the annual growth rates shown in Figure 2 and the airport specific data at Appendix C. The chart in Figure 1 also splits traffic between Inner London Airports (including London Biggin Hill, Farnborough and Northolt as well as the major scheduled airports), which between them currently cater for the vast majority of the Business Aviation traffic in the South East, and Outer South East Airports (i.e. Oxford,

4Includes Business Aviation and Air Taxi movements from CAA data

10

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 -

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

London Business Aviation ATM's(Linear - Total demand, CAGR @ 2.59% pa)

London Inner Outer SEastTotal demand Linear (Total demand)

Cambridge, Southend, Southampton and Lydd) which have much smaller share of an overall market in 2012 (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: Map Showing Principal Business Aviation Airports in Inner London and Outer South East

27. Although, as Figure 4 illustrates there is currently adequate capacity to meet Business Aviation demand within the Inner London airports (ie those in red in Figure 3), we have undertaken some forecasting and associated capacity modelling work which suggests this situation will deteriorate rapidly over the next 5-10 years as the main commercial airports around London fill up with scheduled traffic, effectively squeezing capacity for Business Aviation movements, as has already happened at Heathrow and Gatwick, and then more recently at London City (see Appendix C).

Figure 4

11

28.

Figure 5 indicates the level of demand we are forecasting moving forward, based on a combination of Eurocontrol projections out to 2018 and DfT growth rates for short haul business travel. The Central case assumes annual average growth of 2% from 2015 onwards, with the high and low projections assumed to be 0.5% higher and lower respectively.

Figure 5

Source: Consultants Forecasts based on Eurocontrol Bus Av and DfT Business Travel Growth Rates

29. This suggests demand of around 125,000 movements in inner and outer London by 2025, during which time available capacity at airports such as Luton, London City and possibly Stansted will have fallen, leaving an increasing capacity gap (see Figure 6).

12

HEATHROW

GATWICK

STANSTED

LUTON

LONDON CITY

BIGGIN HILL

FARNBOROUGH

NORTHOLT

Total inner demand

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000

2012 'inner London' Airport Capacity Analysis ATM's (CAA 2012 Data)

Commercial flights Business aviation & air taxis other THEORETICAL SPARE CAPACITY

20002005

20102015

20202025

20302035

20402045

20500

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

Total London Business Aviation demand based upon assumed growth rates

Low case Base caseHigh case Current demand

Figure 6

Source: Consultants Forecasts

30. Since we are firmly of the view, therefore, that as the demand for the high quality, on-demand access to and from these markets increases, the UK generally, and London as a leading World City in particular, needs to be able toprovide, as part of its portfolio ofaviation connectivity, a good quality Business Aviation offer if it isto function effectively as a major player in the global market place. This is especially the case while constraints on scheduled connectivity remain in place in the absence of new runway capacity.

Summary of the Results of the Capacity Modelling Assessment

31. This section of the submission considers the most likely outcomes for how this gap could be met under four different strategic scenarios. The results are provided in the form of a table and chart for each scenario in Appendix A as follows:

Max Use of Existing Capacity (Appendix A – Table A1 and Figure A1) Additional South East Runway Capacity Added at Gatwick and Stansted (Appendix A

– Table A2 and Figure A2) Additional Runways at Heathrow and Gatwick (Appendix A – Table A3 and Figure A3) Stansted 4 Runway Hub (2035) - Heathrow Movements Capped at 360,000

(Appendix A – Table A4 and Figure A4).

The Modelling Process

13

20002005

20102015

20202025

20302035

20402045

20500

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

08800.8645569856

22363.419007698537896.251097299

53987.745394854770291.4891518693

88513.8198690018

106527.273892253

123842.764907692

Additional London Business Aviation capacity required - 'Base Case'

London Demand additional capacity required

32. We have taken as our starting point runway capacities for each of the Inner London Airports from the recent DfT Aviation Forecasts documents and then used a combination of their 2013 Constrained Forecasts of scheduled movements for the Maximum use scenario and their 2009 scheduled movement forecasts for the other scenarios because the 2013 only provides data on the Constrained and Unconstrained cases. These inputs represent the commercial ATM’s in the Table A1-A4. To these have been added current dedicated cargo and other movements, which are assumed to remain constant, to leave a residual runway capacity (ie the gap between the estimated runway capacity at each airport under the different capacity scenarios and total demand in terms of ATM’s) available for Business Aviation.

33. We have then sought to allocate Business Aviation demand in the form of movementsto each airport based on a combination of demand of the following:

Existing levels of activity, which are used as an airport-by-airport baseline. Additional unallocated demand arising as a result of sectoral growth in line with the

central case in Figure 5 as shown in Figure 6. Geographical segmentation of demand, which is assumed to break down into Inner

London and one Outer South East blocks as follows:

- South and East of London (Biggin Hill, Gatwick and London City)- West of London (Farnborough, Heathrow, Northolt)- North of London (Luton and Stansted)- Outer South East (Oxford, Cambridge, Southampton, Lydd, Southend,

Manston)

Spill of Inner London demand to Outer South East Airports, which increases at 1.25% per annum to 2040 and then 1.5% thereafter (see Figure 7 overleaf).

Available capacity (and at some airports this declines over time as other types of movement increase), with constraints assumed to start biting at 75% and to be significant at 85-95%.

Demand preferences based on the current hierarchy of airports in which Luton, Farnborough and Biggin Hill are currently the top three ranked.

The closure of RAF Northolt, which is assumed under all scenarios except Maximum Use.

Figure 7Source: Consultants Forecasts

14

The Modelled Outputs

Critical to our strategic argument is that Heathrow and Gatwick have very few movements under circumstances where their capacity utilisation (i.e. levels of congestion) is very high. Luton and London City both lose traffic as they begin to fill up within established capacity limits with scheduled passenger traffic. This spill traffic is combined with gradually increasing demand and re-allocated substantially to Stansted when it gets extra runways, and to a lesser degree to Gatwick and Heathrow when they also get extra capacity. The principal release valves in all the scenarios are therefore Biggin Hill and Farnborough, whose movements increase significantly in each case. Where Biggin Hill out-performs Farnborough in terms of additional movements captured, this is usually because Heathrow has spare capacity, and therefore offers significant competition.

By 2025-35 depending on the scenario, Farnborough is reaching 90% of designated capacity in most cases, whereas Biggin Hill only reaches between 50-60% of available capacity. So given that demand will continue to increase in the last 15-25 years of the forecasting period, unless the movement limits are lifted at Farnborough (not an assumption we have made), then Biggin Hill (and Heathrow/Stansted if the latter is established as a x4 runway hub) remain the only release valves for future demand.

Strategic Implications of Our Proposals

34. If these modelled outputs offer a robust view of the future under different South East Airport capacity scenarios, and we believe they do, then the increasing importance of Biggin Hill and Farnborough in meeting the future needs of the sector is clear. If both airports are to be making the necessary investments to meet these enhanced roles they need a much clearer policy framework than currently exists, if they are to tackle the vicissitudes of the planning system and present business cases to potential investors to raise capital to undertake the necessary, airside, terminal and hangar developments. Without that clear framework, the evidence from the Farnborough Inquiry is that it is a

15

20022005

20102012

20152020

20252030

20352040

20452050

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Business Aviation Demand Forecast (Base Case) Inner London & SE Airports Market Share Profile

Assumes a 1.25% pa share shift from Inner to outer to 2040 & 1.5%pa shift onwards

Outer SEast DemandInner london demand

long, exhausting and expensive process to secure the approvals that are needed to support borrowing and future development.

35. The idea that market forces alone will generate the necessary environment for such large scale, long-term investment (in Biggin Hill’s case c£100m), as DfT have told us they believe, is at best a misjudgement based on a lack of understanding of the financing of the sector, and at worst wilfully naïve. We are extremely hopeful the Commission will not fall into this trap, and will recognise that this sector is both fluid and footloose, so is capable of relocating away from the UK and/or being deterred from coming to London.

36. The key to avoiding this, is to designate Biggin Hill and Farnborough as dedicated Business Aviation ‘reliever airports’ (as per the New York Model we outlined earlier), and recognise them as the primary growth points and international gateways for Business Aviation in London and the South East, thereby ensuring that capacity at the larger scheduled airports is ring-fenced for the passenger and cargo traffic they are much better suited to meeting.

Concluding Remarks

37. Clearly, we have undertaken a lot of work to underpin this analysis and submission and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss the Commission’s reaction to it, the conclusions we have reached and the short and medium term generic proposals, which support the core strategic reliever airport proposition we have set out. In the interim, we hope the submission will allow the Commission to understand the importance and scale of the issue and its interaction with its wider remit.

38. We believe Biggin Hill is the ideal business jet Gateway for London and an ideal Service Centre for this sector of aviation, as set out in our Vision for Biggin Hill Confidential Briefing Paper attached to this submission. We areready and willing to make substantial investments to deliver the enhanced facilities needed to achieve this. But before doing so we need a clear policy framework to emerge from the Commission’s Interim Measures work for the reasons we have outlined.

39. We stand ready to discuss the future needs of the sector and LBHA’s potential role in the fulfilling these at the Commission’s convenience.

40. Taking the headlines of the Commission’s Sift Criteria, we believe that these proposals are simple to implement and can be summarised as follows:-

Strategic Impacts of Designating LBHA a Business Aviation Reliever Airport and London Business Gateway

Type of Impact Biggin Hill Contribution

16

Strategic Fit: Immediately supports improved high value business connectivity for London.

Matches provision for BusAv at other leading World Cities. Enables more efficient use of capacity at main scheduled

airports.Economy: Bus Av passengers have a Value of Time on average x10 that

of Business Class passengers on scheduled airlines. Bus Av optimises the productivity of highest value business

executives, entrepreneurs and decision makers. Allows UK access to markets where scheduled services are

poorly developed. Supports London’s selection of Biggin Hill as a Strategic Outer

London Development Centre (SOLDC) Generates £230m GVA in the short term

Surface Access Minimal impact due to low passenger volume.Environment Activity remains within existing noise controls.

No increase in annual authorised flights Maintains open aspect provided by airfield.

People: Maintains over a 1000 existing jobs creates 930 new ones in five years.

Facilitates creation of highly skilled workforce locally and academy for apprentices and trainee engineers

Provides significant boost to local heritage.Cost No cost to government.

But, designation critical to securing private sector investment of up to £100m over 15-year period.

Operational viability Expansion of an existing facility with a lot of room for expansion.

Capability proven and tested for higher levels of activity during the Olympics.

Delivery Investment and optimisation subject to local planning approval and legal agreement with the London Borough of Bromley (nb, not to be unreasonably withheld); designation assists this significantly.

Also gives Bus Av operators and companies reliant upon it, confidence there is capacity for long-term growth.

Appendix A: Capacity Modelling Results

Maximum Use of Existing London Airports

17

Table A1

Max Use of Existing London Airports - 2025

Airport ATM CAPACITY

Commercial ATMs (Airport Master

plans / DfT)

Use of Runway Capacit

y

Commercial Pax (DfT Forecast)

Forecast Business Aviation (Airport

Masterplans)

Addition Bus GA

Compared to 2012

Other inc

Cargo &

Flying Clubs

THEORETICAL SPARE

CAPACITY

HEATHROW 680,000 476,500 100% 80 mppa 1,000 -770 2,000 500

GATWICK 442,000 253,000 99% 40 mppa 500 -1,556 5,000 1,500

STANSTED 272,000 243,000 99% 30 mppa 6,500 -51621,00

0 1,500

LUTON 157,000 125,600 90% 17 mppa 11,000 -8,113 4,000 16,400

LONDON CITY 120,000 111,600 96% 5.5 mppa 3,000 -2,856 615 4,785

BIGGIN HILL 125,000 0 53% 0 33,171 21,38132,47

4 59,355

FARNBOROUGH 50,000 0 90% 0 45,000 22,500 0 5,000

NORTHOLT 7,000 0 100% 0 7,000 1,000 0 0

Outer SE Airports 16,442 7,693Base Case Demand/Supply Equilibrium 173mppa 123,613 38,763 65,80

9 89,040

Source: Consultants Modelling

Figure A1

HEATHROWGATWICKSTANSTED

LUTONLONDON CITY

BIGGIN HILLFARNBOROUGH

NORTHOLTInner Demand

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000

Max Use of 'Inner London' London Airport Capacity - 2025

Commerical ATMs Forecast Business Aviation Other THEORETICAL SPARE CAPACITY

Additional South East Runway Capacity Added at Gatwick and Stansted

Table A2

Additional South East Runway Capacity Added at Gatwick and Stansted - 2030

18

Airport ATM CAPACITY

Commercial ATMs (Airport Master

plans / DfT)

Use of Runway Capacit

y

Commercial Pax (DfT Forecast)

Forecast Business Aviation (Airport

Masterplans)

Addition Bus GA

Compared to 2012

Other inc

Cargo &

Flying Clubs

THEORETICAL SPARE

CAPACITY

HEATHROW 680,000 476,500 100% 80 mppa 750 -1,020 2,000 750

GATWICK 442,000 375,000 88% 57 mppa 7,000 4,944 5,000 55,000

STANSTED 272,000 324,000 80% 45 mppa 22,750 15,734 21,000 94,650

LUTON 157,000 125,600 90% 19mppa 11,000 -8,113 4,000 16,400

LONDON CITY 120,000 111,600 96% 6 mppa 2,500 -3,356 615 5,285

BIGGIN HILL 125,000 0 53% 0 33,500 21,710 32,474 59,026

FARNBOROUGH 50,000 0 90% 0 44,750 22,250 0 5,250

NORTHOLT 7,000 0 0% 0 0 -6,000 0 7,000

Outer SE Airports 16,442 7,693Base Case Demand/Supply Equilibrium 207mppa 138,692 53,842 65,809 243,361

Source: Consultants Modelling

Figure A2

HEATHROW

GATWICK

STANSTED

LUTON

LONDON CITY

BIGGIN HILL

FARNBOROUGH

NORTHOLT

Inner Demand

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000

Additional SE Runways at LGW & STN - 2030 Showing Corresponding Spare ATM Capacity

Commerical ATMs Forecast Business Aviation Other THEORETICAL SPARE CAPACITY

Additional Runways at Heathrow and Gatwick

Table A3

Additional Runway at LHR & LGW – 2030

19

Airport ATM CAPACITY

Commercial ATMs (Airport Master

plans / DfT)

Use of Runway Capacit

y

Commercial Pax (DfT Forecast)

Forecast Business Aviation (Airport

Masterplans)

Addition Bus GA

Compared to 2012

Other inc

Cargo &

Flying Clubs

THEORETICAL SPARE

CAPACITY

HEATHROW 680,000 636,500 94% 99.8 mppa 2,000 230 2,000 39,500

GATWICK 442,000 358,731 85% 52 mppa 12,500 10,444 5,000 76,269

STANSTED 272,000 243,000 99% 30 mppa 6,500 -51621,00

0 984

LUTON 157,000 125,600 90% 19 mppa 11,000 -8,113 4,000 16,400

LONDON CITY 120,000 111,600 96% 6 mppa 2,500 -3,356 615 5,285

BIGGIN HILL 125,000 0 57% 0 38,750 26,96032,47

4 53,776

FARNBOROUGH 50,000 0 91% 0 45,250 22,750 0 4,750

NORTHOLT 7,000 0 0% 0 0 -6,000 0 7,000

Outer SE Airports 20,334 11,585 Base Case Demand/Supply Equilibrium 206mppa 138,834 53,984 65,80

9 203,964

Source: Consultants Modelling

Figure A3

HEATHROW

STANSTED

LONDON CITY

FARNBOROUGH

Inner Demand

- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000

Additional LHR & LGW Runways - 2030 Showing Cor-responding Spare ATM

Capacity

Commerical ATMs Forecast Business Aviation Other THEORETICAL SPARE CAPACITY

Stansted x4 Runway Hub (Heathrow Movements Capped at 360,000 ATMs) - 2035

Table A4

20

STN UK Hub by 2035 with 4 runways, LHR and LGW as Now but LHR Commercial ATMs Capped.

Airport ATM CAPACITY

Commercial ATMs

(Airport Masterplans

/ DfT)

Use of Runway Capacity

Commercial Pax (DfT Forecast)

Forecast Business Aviation (Airport Masterplans)

Addition Bus GA

Compared to 2012

Other inc

Cargo &

Flying Clubs

THEORETICAL SPARE

CAPACITY

HEATHROW 480,000 357,000 80% 55mppa 23,750 21,980 2,000 97,250

GATWICK 260,000 253,000 100% 40 mppa 1,500 -556 5,000 500

STANSTED 788,800 550,000 75% 90 mppa 15,500 8,484 30,000 193,300

LUTON 160,000 152,000 99% 21 mppa 3,000 -16,113 4,000 1,000

LONDON CITY 120,000 111,600 96% 6mppa 2,500 -3,356 615 5,285

BIGGIN HILL 125,000 0 62% 0 44,500 32,710 32,474 48,026

FARNBOROUGH 50,000 0 81% 0 40,500 18,000 0 9,500

NORTHOLT 7,000 0 0% 0 0 -6,000 0 7,000Outer SE Airports 24,662 15,913Base Case Demand/Supply Equilibrium 212mppa 155,912 71,062 65,809 361,861

Source: Consultants Modelling

Figure A4

HEATHROW

STANSTED

LONDON CITY

FARNBOROUGH

Inner Demand

-

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

STN UK Hub by 2035 x4 runways , LHR + LGW as Now but LHR Commercial ATM's Capped.

Commerical ATMs Forecast Business Aviation Other THEORETICAL SPARE CAPACITY

21

Appendix B: Business Aviation Facilities Serving World Cities

Appendix C: Movement Data by Airport 2002-12

22

Source: CAA Statistics

Appendix D: Road/Public Transport Journey Times to London in Min’sRoad Biggin Hill Farnborough Luton London City NortholtW1 Park Lane 68 70 57 38 42

23

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012London Inner 63,978 64,472 78,483 77,045 89,857 101,886 93,372 76,585 76,512 77,650 79,387

FARNBOROUGH 15,500 15,469 16,166 17,549 20,179 25,101 24,227 21,827 22,549 22,017 22,500 LUTON 14,928 15,690 24,233 20,783 25,265 29,034 25,130 18,359 19,257 19,063 19,113 BIGGIN HILL 7,221 6,975 9,507 8,579 10,901 14,277 13,970 10,148 10,002 11,295 11,790 STANSTED 9,683 9,277 9,131 8,318 8,898 9,263 8,772 6,299 3,559 5,151 7,016 LONDON CITY 2,184 2,731 4,317 6,467 8,240 8,638 6,475 7,018 7,376 6,534 5,856 RAF Northolt 7,306 7,534 7,493 7,400 7,552 7,377 7,139 5,905 7,000 7,000 7,000 LONDON HELIPORT 1,990 2,310 2,409 2,863 3,355 3,279 2,728 2,030 2,195 2,332 2,286 GATWICK 2,560 1,886 2,049 2,212 2,302 1,974 2,023 1,674 2,000 1,896 2,056 HEATHROW 2,606 2,600 3,178 2,874 3,165 2,943 2,908 3,325 2,574 2,362 1,770

Total demand YoY % Increase 1.8% 17.4% -5.4% 27.7% 20.3% -14.5% 22.5% 3.2% 3.6% 5.0%Outer SEast 4,284 4,363 5,121 4,843 6,184 7,442 6,365 7,799 8,046 8,334 8,749

OXFORD (KIDLINGTON) - - - - - - - 2,569 2,889 3,122 3,169 SOUTHAMPTON 2,649 2,744 2,953 2,650 3,099 3,354 3,008 2,486 2,554 2,764 2,650 SOUTHEND 1,487 1,090 1,737 1,785 2,258 3,162 2,815 2,302 2,060 1,396 1,981 LYDD - 223 236 45 307 265 233 178 195 517 630 KENT INTERNATIONAL 148 306 195 363 520 661 309 264 348 535 319

Total demand 68,262 68,835 83,604 81,888 96,041 109,328 99,737 84,384 84,558 85,984 88,136 Total demand YoY % Increase 0.84% 21.46% -2.05% 17.28% 13.83% -8.77% -15.39% 0.21% 1.69% 2.50%

Business Aviation (caa data)

EC Broadgate 65 83 62 25 48E14 Canary Wharf

62 98 77 1563

Heathrow T5 81 39 46 84 38Notes Postcodes: BH - TN16

3BH, Park Lane - W1K 1BE, Broadgate EC2M 2PP, Canary Wharf E14 5AA, LHR - TW6 2GA

Postcodes: FAR - GU14 6XA, Park Lane - W1K 1BE, Broadgate EC2M 2PP, Canary Wharf E14 5AA, LHR - TW6 2GA

Postcodes: LTN - LU2 9NT, Park Lane - W1K 1BE, Broadgate EC2M 2PP, Canary Wharf E14 5AA, LHR - TW6 2GA

Postcodes: LCY - E16 2PJ, Park Lane - W1K 1BE, Broadgate EC2M 2PP, Canary Wharf E14 5AA, LHR - TW6 2GA

Postcodes: NOR - HA4 6NG, Park Lane - W1K 1BE, Broadgate EC2M 2PP, Canary Wharf E14 5AA, LHR - TW6 2GA

Source AA Route Planner AA Route Planner AA Route Planner AA Route Planner AA Route Planner

Train and Taxi Biggin Hill Farnborough Luton London City NortholtW1 Park Lane 56 79 58 55 58EC Broadgate 58 78 59 50 58E14 Canary Wharf

74 90 79 33 63

Heathrow T5 91 94 85 90 88Notes Taxi airport to station.

3 mins + half frequency at station. Bromley South to Victoria for W1 and LHR. Orpington to London Bridge for EC and E14. Then 3 mins to taxi, except Tube to Paddington for LHR

Taxi airport to Farnborough Main station. 3 mins + half frequency at station. Waterloo, then 3 mins to taxi, except Tube to Paddington for Heathrow

Taxi airport to Luton Airport Parkway station. 3 mins + half frequency at station. St Pancras, then 3 mins to taxi, except Tube to Paddington for Heathrow

Walk to DLR airport station. DLR and Tube or Train. Walk from station.

Taxi to Ruislip Gardens Station. Tube and Train. Walk from station

Source Transport Direct Transport Direct Transport Direct Transport Direct Transport Direct

24