With unstable fuel prices, this is no time to be expanding an airport: between 2007 and July 2008 aviation fuel doubled in price and the airline industry reported huge losses. British Airways responded by increasing the price of long-haul flights, mothballing some aircraft and cancelling orders for others. In July 2008 the price of oil reached the record level of $147 a barrel. At a conference in Istanbul in June 2008, the International Air Transport Association said it would cost its members $6.1 billion if oil traded at over $135 a barrel (which it has done and could well do again in the future). In 2008 24 airlines had gone bankrupt and more bankruptcies are expected by the industry. Expanding Southend airport now is like a bank telling you that subprime mortgages are a great investment for the future!



Another reason to question the economic viability of the expansion of Southend airport is the dependency such expansion has on governmental support in the absence of any tax on aircraft fuel or any VAT on ticket sales. This provides the industry with a significant government subsidy. In 2007 the World Development Movement (WDM) estimated that this subsidy amounted to approximately £10.4 billion per year. Projections for future aviation growth suggest that the size of this subsidy could rise to around £17.5 billion and some politicians have questioned whether we can continue to subsidise the airline industry to this level, particularly when there are more pressing needs. (This is nearly 850 times more than the UK's annual spending on flood defences- very important for us with memories of the 31st January 1953 tidal surge north sea flooding).



Most importantly for Southend as a potential holiday town airport expansion will impact severely on our local economy. This is supported by the experience of the Travelodge. Giving evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee inquiry on tourism, the company reported that inward tourism spending declined by 16 per cent between 1995 and 2002, while outward spending increased by 48 per cent. One of the main reasons for this, Travelodge said, was that the wider availability of cheap flights which meant more people were choosing to fly abroad for short breaks. Surely we would prefer people to come to Southend for their short breaks and spend their money here? Travelodge's figures indicate a tourism balance of trade deficit for the UK of £18 billion over a seven-year period. There are significant sums of money for a regional economy like Southend to lose should the airport expand. Travelodge's analysis suggests that a 10 per cent reduction in overseas flights by UK tourists by 2020 could boost tourism revenue within the UK, creating more than 30,000 jobs.



The environmental argument against expansion have been stated but are worth reiterating. The UK's aviation accounts for approximately 6.3 per cent of CO2 emissions and about 12.6 per cent of the UK's contribution to climate change and this makes up a greater proportion of the country's contribution to climate change than in any other major economy. This is a shameful legacy we leave future generations.



So there are sound economic reasons why objectors are making a lot of noise about opposing the airport expansion. In a world of more expensive and declining fuel, expansion makes no sense. Instead imagine more people taking short breaks in Southend, boosting our local economy and the workers of Southend airport employed in large scale offshore and inshore wind turbine production, or the development of offshore wave turbine technology, Southend the hub of a new renewable industry. This would be a legacy we could be proud of leaving our children instead of more flights, noise, pollution and wasted resources the airport expansion will leave them.