ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS

DERMOT MURNAGHAN: Now then, does London need another airport? If so, where should it go? It’s a debate that has gone on for years now and will go on for years more but as yet we haven’t heard from Britain’s air traffic controllers. Well we can reveal this morning that NATS, that’s the UK’s main air traffic control services, have finally been asked to contribute to the Davis Commission that’s examining the need for more airport capacity in the south-east. The Chief Executive of NATS, Richard Deakin, joins me now, a very good morning to you Mr Deakin. Well you have finally been asked for your thoughts, you’d have thought you’d have been one of the first organisations consulted given that you’ve got a deal with all the aircraft in the air.

RICHARD DEAKIN: Well we have now formally been asked. We have of course been involved in the debate around capacity from an airspace point of view for quite a while and that’s an important angle in the debate that we really do need to look at in some detail. It’s worth mentioning that at any one time we have about 700 aircraft over the UK in our airspace, that’s a lot of aircraft and of course the debate so far has very much focused on the visible nature of the capacity, the airports, whereas airspace is invisible and you can effectively think of the airspace challenges being one of three dimensional motorways in the sky.

DM: Well let’s frame it then, we can boil this down to either adding a runway or runways at existing airports or the Boris Island, an entirely new one. Start with that, Boris Island, could you deal with the increased capacity that would lead to and of course where the planes would be circling?

RD: Well all of the options have quite a few different challenges as you might imagine. The estuary airport has its own unique challenges, it’s a fair way to the east so approaching aircraft would potentially impinge into Dutch and Belgian airspace. There’s a lot of sea birds which could cause difficulties for aircraft on arrival and departure and all the departing aircraft would potentially head over the centre of London, so those are some particularly difficult issues that would need to be addressed, but as I say, all of the solutions potentially have their own difficulties.

DM: I mean is that a difference, you talk about departing aircraft heading over the centre of London, well of course a lot of arriving aircraft at Heathrow pass over the centre of London. In safety terms is there a difference there?

RD: No, not from a safety point of view, it really comes down to the noise, the visual impact. It’s worth mentioning that some of the technologies that are now coming on stream that we are able to have rather more specific navigation routes in so that you don’t have to fly aircraft in in straight lines, we can steer them around centres of population to make things quieter and all these technologies will certainly come into play in the debate as well.

DM: Well let’s cut to the quick, what’s the best option from NATS point of view for increased airport capacity in the south-east?

RD: Well that’s something that we’re going to be looking at during the debate but I think that the important thing is to recognise that from a UK point of view making a decision is really essential and from a NATS point of view we work in over 30 countries around the world helping other governments address exactly these issues and I think a lot of people are recognising that having an efficient transport network is really the oil to get the …

DM: But come on, you must know your systems, you must know the way it works, where would it be easiest for NATS to deal with the extra aircraft? Which airport?

RD: Well our starting point from an airspace perspective, which is of course just one of the pieces of the puzzle, is that we would like to make most use of existing capacity because of course if we have to change a lot, there is a cost involved but we are currently studying those options and we will of course work with the Commission to look at the pros and cons of all of them. At the moment those options are being considered, they’ll be narrowed down by the Commission and we’ll do an assessment in more detail of the practicality of …

DM: I’ll try one more time, you are being very diplomatic. I’ll rephrase it then, you could deal with a third runway at Heathrow could you?

RD: Yes, the third runway from an airspace point of view would be a good option. In fact there are other options to look at four runways, if we are going to plan ahead we should plan ahead for the future, we don’t want to have a debate again ten years after the new solution has been implemented but adding another motorway into the sky, if you like, coming into Heathrow could be workable, we could reduce the noise by moving the departure paths higher up and arrival paths around centres of population so we could look at the noise and the visual impact as well to reduce that.

DM: Last question I just wanted to ask you about your ownership structure, it’s quite complicated but BAA of course, a government stake and the airlines themselves. Privatisation has been shelved or a sell-off but the airlines are still saying they might want to offload part if not all of their stake. What would that mean then for the ownership of NATS?

RD: Well NATS is already a privatised country, the government own 49% of our shares and a group of airlines to which you refer there, own 42% and discussions are continuing as to whether or not any shares will be sold in that group so watch this space.

DM: The Germans are interested in a stake aren’t they?

RD: There are a number of organisations out there, the German Air Navigation service providers, the Irish Aviation Authority, commercial investors as well.

DM: Okay, Richard Deakin, very good to talk to you, thank you very much indeed.