Essay on stakeholders regarding Heathrows Third Runway

INTRODUCTION
In January 2009, the British Government approved the plans of the British Airport Authority (BAA) to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport. It would take 10 years to build and finish but would result in a further 400 flights from Heathrow and an increase of 16 million passengers per annum. At first glance this proposal appears to be an excellent one but is this the case when all stakeholders are taken into account? Within this essay I will attempt to answer this by analysing and exploring the quantitative and qualitative data regarding environmental groups, local communities, employees, customers and BAA itself.

THE OWNERS - BAA
To begin I will look at the internal stakeholders. BAA are a large company who predominantly own a number of British airports, they are actively involved with sales of sites, purchasing of land, expanding etc. For BAA, the third runway meets the Government’s wishes to expand the UK’s airports to increase the country’s competitiveness and as Geoff Hoon MP (Transport Secretary) said ‘it is critical to this country’s long term economic prosperity.’ So not only will the runway benefit BAA financially, it will benefit the UK economy financially, which is essential in the current financial climate of the World.

EMPLOYEES
The Trade Union Congress have also backed the plans as it brings only benefits to employees at Heathrow as the third runway will create promotion opportunities for many. This creates a good relationship and a good atmosphere for the employees to work in.

ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS - GREENPEACE
Next I will look at the external stakeholders. Environmental group Greenpeace have greatly opposed the plans since they were first made public. They are greatly concerned with the implications of building a third runway. They claim the increased flights and use of more fuel will decrease the air quality of the surrounding area and that if the plans go ahead, Heathrow will become the single biggest CO2 emitter in the UK. However, the plans do meet the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and BAA have been given strict restrictions and guidelines which they have vowed to follow.
Greenpeace have decided to take physical action and have bought a piece of land in the middle of the land designated for the third runway. They are inviting fellow supporters to own the land with them; they hope this will create a ‘legal minefield’ for BAA due to the amount of owners. On their website they are inviting followers to submit plans and ideas to build something physical on the land to prevent construction or at least create difficulty when construction begins.
With regards to Greenpeace’s worries over the effects the new runway will have on climate change, a paper by Scaffetta and West (two environmental scientists) published in March 2008, showed the natural cycles of the sun were accountable for up to 69% of global warming. This shows CO2 emissions are not the largest contributor to global warming.

LOCAL COMMUNITIES
Another group of stakeholders, the local communities, share similar views with Greenpeace. The village of Sipson which holds over 700 homes will have to be completely demolished to make way for the third runway. To those living there, businesses and their heritage will be lost. Also, to further communities the increased noise may impact and decrease the value of their home and their quality of life.
However, the new runway will create over 65,000 new jobs which will be widely available to the local community and surrounding area. Potentially, villagers of Sipson could relocate not far from their original home and potentially get a new job to replace the one they had lost. Also, for businesses surrounding the airport i.e. hotels, B&Bs, restaurants, cafes, the increased footfall from the expanded airport could increase their customer intake and therefore their profits.
BAA strive to listen to all concerns and aim to provide solutions. For example, the company offers a ‘Home Relocation Assistance Scheme’. This allows any household that falls within the 2002 69 dB Leq noise contour over the current runways at Heathrow to relocate away from high levels of airport noise with financial aid. They will provide, to any eligible homeowner, a lump sum of £5,000 plus 1.5% of the sale price of the property (up to £12,000).

CONCLUSION
With regards to customers, the plan to build a third runway only benefits them. It will reduce overcrowding and delays at Heathrow which will improve their experiences within the airport. The plans will also allow them to have more choice of times and dates of flights and allow for more availability. Ultimately, the proposed plans will only bring benefits to customers. By appeasing customers, BAA’s brand awareness will increase positively.
In conclusion, the proposed plans are not in the best interests of BAA alone. The plans are in the best interests of the company, the customers, the employees, the government and the shareholders. The alternative (the alternative being no expansion of any kind) would not benefit these stakeholders as much as the third runway will. Even though there will inevitably be an increase in noise and air pollution and a village will be lost, when put to scale, more people will benefit from the completion of a third runway at Heathrow that won’t.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
- http://www.baa.com/portal/page/Corporate/BAA+Airports%5ECorporate+responsibility%5EIssues+and+our+approach%5EAirport+expansion/e7b5fe1037c6f110VgnVCM10000036821c0a____/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/%20responsibility
- http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/tags/heathrow
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7831962.stm
- http://www.airplot.org.uk/
- http://www.climatechangefacts.info