Sir, The article by George Walden (Comment, August 14) is timely and intelligent. That BAA is in a mess, there can be no doubt, but it is not entirely the fault of the current management, which, against all odds, is doing its best to provide a good service and cope with the unpredicted calamities that continue to arise.

The problem began with the unjustified privatisation of BAA. BAA then shed 4,000 of its staff and, in the words of its employees, became a property company more interested in acquiring profitable enterprises, such as the Outlet Market in Ellesmere Port, than the provision of services to passengers.

It was argued that the 4,000, mostly porters, were surplus to requirements, but they were more than just porters: they were a flexible staff reserve who knew the airport and could be switched easily and quickly to emergencies and crises as they arose – not only baggage handling and terrorism but to snow clearance and runway blockages. From then on, expansion was only in the interest of increased profitability of all interested parties at the expense of the community, society at large and the future of this planet.

The popular solution is to break up BAA into smaller companies. While this may sound appealing to stalwarts of competition, the same inherent dangers will continue, if not worsen, by the ruthless desire to compete with each other by expansion, particularly against Heathrow.

Privatising the railways did not improve matters. In fact, because of the inevitable cost-cutting that privatisation leads to, serious accidents increased. Now, with so many companies operating, each with its own fare structure and conditions, it is confusing and alarming – and provides no better service.

Instead of simple “expansion” or “breaking up BAA” some lateral thinking is called for. It would be impossible, even if desirable, to return BAA to state ownership. The solution would be for the Government, or local authorities, to own the land and premises and for private companies to run the facilities, as occurs at Luton airport. There would then be public accountability in addition to private enterprise.

RONALD UNGER, Baldock, Herts

Sir, Why has no one suggested the reopening of RAF Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire as a civil airport? The position is ideal in that the site has two main railway lines passing within four miles and the M40 is about five miles away. The runways are complete and intact and the main runway is nearly 3km long. It would have the further advantage of being readily accessed from the Midlands, unlike Heathrow and Gatwick.

IAN THORNHILL, Warwick

Explore Letters

• Feedback