§ Mr. Soamesasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet reached a decision on the future of the scheduled helicopter service between Heathrow and Gatwick Airports; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. RidleyI have considered very carefully the Civil Aviation Authority's decision to grant British Caledonian's application to continue the Airlink service. I have also taken careful note of the evidence submitted to the authority, the transcript of the 16-day public hearing and the considerable number of representations which I received on the authority's decision.
Because of its environmental aspects, the authority notified the decision to me under section 17 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. I have to decide whether it would be appropriate for me to direct the CAA to revoke the licence it granted for the Airlink service in order to prevent environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter. As with my decision in 1984 on a previous Airlink application, I believe that in reaching my decision the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter has to be weighed against the economic benefits of allowing the service to continue.
The arguments for and against the service are very finely balanced. On the one hand I must take into account the degree of disturbance caused to those under the flight path. I am conscious that some of the environmental objections to the service are exaggerated. But, even allowing for this, it remains the case that disturbance caused by the Airlink service arouses widespread and genuine annoyance and causes some distress. On the other hand British Caledonian and other airlines earn significant 6W revenues from passengers making connections over the London airport system; and Airlink has in the past undoubtedly helped to attract such passengers to London.
I believe, however, that the helicopter service is no longer so critical for this purpose. In addition to the fast and frequent coach service which now operates, the completion of the motorway link between the two airports should also allow fast journeys by other forms of road transport. Between them these should offer transferring passengers a sufficient choice of speed, comfort, convenience and price. Moreover, in the absence of a helicopter link the airlines will no doubt concentrate on seeking to improve further the quality of the surface links between the two airports. I believe this should be possible. Although a scheduled helicopter service would expand the choice a little further, I feel that the various alternatives to the Airlink service should be acceptable to the majority of passengers wishing to transfer from Heathrow to Gatwick and vice versa. I believe, therefore, that when the availability of these alternative forms of transport is taken into account the environmental disturbance caused by the helicopter cannot now be justified.
I am therefore minded to direct the CAA to revoke British Caledonian's licence to operate the helicopter service. Before doing so, however, I am consulting the authority as required under section 6(2) of the 1982 Act. My officials are also writing to British Caledonian.
I am aware there can be no guarantee that adequate surface links will be maintained. I would therefore be prepared to look again at the need for a scheduled service, should the question come before me at some future date, if the speed, frequency or quality of the alternatives deteriorate significantly, or if a service could be operated with markedly less impact. The alternatives to the helicopter, however, would first have to be given a year or two to prove themselves.