Alex Chapman

Below is a fresh cut of my favourite graph. Air trips per £million real GDP, with linear trend lines. The world has changed, but will the government catch up in time? /ends

If this question can be asked without any reference to the climate issue, then when we fold in the astronomical level of emissions (enough to wipe out the entire benefit of the Clean Power Plan in 5 years) then it should be an open and shut case. /3

"growth is from the likes of flights to the Greek islands and the Caribbean — up 77 per cent since 2019."

"if Heathrow’s growth is mainly direct leisure flights, how does it make sense to spend tens of billions on a third runway" /2

Heathrow’s investment plan punctures the third runway myth The airport has admitted the decline in business travel is permanent, and wants to spend £10bn raising passenger numbers by only ten million

The right questions getting asked. This week in the Times, Alistair Osborne punctures the myth that a third runway at Heathrow is "crucial for business". Why? Because of the CEO's admission that the "decline in business travel appears to be permanent.../1 www.thetimes.com/business-mon...

Yup, Lauren would have won easily. Curtis only showed up on the scene shortly before selection process kicked off many of us had no idea who he was. Lauren had massive support from all wings of the local party, not just 'the left'.

This just in. Kemi thinks the actions of Palestine Action at Brize Norton might have stopped a war crime...
Not sure she fully thought this one through 😂

You've heard of frequent flyers, but we've got some new research for you on the idea of ultra- frequent flyers.

Exciting work from my colleague @alchap.bsky.social where he makes a compelling case as to why this new class of flyers is not paying it's fair share of tax and how we can fix it. 👇👇

There's broad public support for net zero by 2050 & people are concerned about the impact of the climate crisis. So let's deliver net zero policies that benefit ordinary people rather than calling it into question. @alchap.bsky.social spoke to LBC News in light of Tony Blair's comments.

Quote from Alex Chapman, senior economist: Growing Luton will not deliver the economic growth the government so desperately wants. Business air travel has collapsed over the last few years and even the airlines admit it isn’t coming back. Instead, expansion at Luton will see another 8m UK residents taking their money overseas on holiday instead of spending it on UK high streets. This is even though the UK already has enough capacity for 300 million passengers to fly in and out every year.

🚨The government has given Luton airport approval to expand.

This is despite the fact that it will do very little to boost economic growth and will be devastating for our climate goals. @alchap.bsky.social responds.

somewhat tongue in cheek here but I saw this and was reminded immediately of @alchap.bsky.social talking about the negative impacts of air travel expansion

Daily Mail online headline: The great benefit con? Just 14% of people claiming disability cash can actually PROVE they are too ill to work - as total getting handouts nears 2.5m

Hi @davidtwilcock.bsky.social. I just wanted to flag that your Mail Online piece from Thursday is hugely misleading & seems to be based off a fundamental misunderstanding of the statistics

I'll explain why, then maybe you can retract the piece & issue an apology... 🧵1/6

Recommended reading on the smoke and mirrors government is using to build out a justification for austerity

What really happened at Gatwick? Gatwick Airport is getting a second runway. Or wait, is it? Prior to the government's announcement I spent a morning doing a pre-recorded interview for BBC news on the Gatwick Airport expansion.

I wrote a thing about what really went down in the Gatwick airport expansion decision. Refusal recommended, but it might go ahead? Economic growth? Techie post, you were warned. www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-r...

All the reasons why the Gatwick airport expansion is a mistake, in under 1 minute - from @alchap.bsky.social on @lbc.co.uk with @shelaghfogarty.bsky.social

Growth, but at what cost? | Streets Ahead

Had a great chat with @adamtranter.bsky.social and @lauralaker.bsky.social on the Streets Ahead podcast. All things transport, economics, growth, and yes, sorry, the 'Green Book'! Have a listen here: shows.acast.com/streets-ahea...

Growth, but at what cost? | Streets Ahead

Great to hear @alchap.bsky.social (surely one of the busiest ppl in transport at the moment?) on @podstreetsahead.bsky.social talking all things economics & transport. Agree with him that the Green Book doesn’t sit behind decisions like Heathrow - it is all politics.

Highly recommend a listen.

Airport expansion would wipe out carbon savings of government’s clean power plan Claimed growth benefits of expansion don’t stack up and will create major climate damage

statistic of the day:

approving the expansion of Heathrow, Luton and Gatwick airports would wipe out ALL the benefits of the government’s 2030 "clean power" target within five years of expanded operation, according to analysis by the New Economics Foundation (NEF)

neweconomics.org/2025/01/airp....

Alex Chapman, senior economist at the NEF, said: “It is very concerning that the chancellor appears to be basing her support for Heathrow expansion on a figure from a report commissioned by Heathrow airport. Even more worrying is the fact that the methodology they have applied is one that the Department for Transport has previously decided is not fit for purpose, and that the report uses forecast data supplied by the airport itself. Heathrow expansion represents a major threat to the UK’s climate goals and flies in the face of scientific advice. To ensure that the claimed economic benefits are concrete, assessments should be carried out by independent government economists following best-practice methodology.

👀The research Rachel Reeves used to evidence the benefits of Heathrow expansion was commissioned by Heathrow itself.

@alchap.bsky.social spoke to the @theguardian.com about why, with our climate goals at stake, this is such a big problem
www.theguardian.com/environment/...

NEF analysis identified a range of weaknesses in the economic case, since it was last fully appraised in 2015. Not least, the decline of business air travel, the surge in outbound leisure travel and the negative impacts on wider regions of the UK – all of which erode the potential growth benefit.

Heathrow expansion represents a major threat to the UK’s climate goals and flies in the face of scientific advice. To ensure that the claimed economic benefits are concrete, assessments should be carried out by independent government economists following best-practice methodology.

5. ...and that method just *happens* to result in costs about 80% lower than had they followed *the government's actual recommended approach*
6. Nor is it a good look for the *full* report to still not be in the public domain days after its numbers were shared with the nation by the Chancellor.

3. Nor does the study come across very "independent" when it uses forecast data "provided by Heathrow".
4. Nor does it look very "unbiased" when that consultancy uses a completely made-up method to calculate the scheme's biggest costs/downsides...

1. No, the Chancellor should not be basing a decision as climate-critical as this on a study commissioned by the airport themselves.
2. Yes, it gets worse when that very study applies a methodology that the government itself (the DfT) literally decided was not fit for decision making.

Reeves’s Heathrow third runway report was commissioned by London airport The chancellor is under fire after a study cited as evidence for expanding the terminal to boost the UK’s economic growth was ordered by Heathrow itself

I spoke to the Observer about the shoddy economics sitting behind Reeves' Heathrow announcement... and the article only covers the half of it... thread
www.theguardian.com/environment/...

The CGE modelling approach was used by the airports commission too but the DfT identifed a range of concerns and determined it was unfit for use in decision making. Strange then that Frontier have replicated it and Reeves has cited it.

The front cover of a NEF report titled "Forecasting a better future: The case for a 'bucket approach' to fiscal multipliers"

As the Chancellor reaches for growth there's one place she won't find it - OBR forecasts.

OBR multipliers devalue public spending and keep us in a doom-loop of austerity

Our new report offers a framework that flexibly embraces the positive potential of public spending

Text reads The government needs to explain how creating millions of flights carrying UK residents – mostly frequent flyers - abroad on holiday is going to help our economic security, said Dr Chapman. Encouraging households to spend their money overseas takes precious cash out of high streets and the domestic tourism economy in the UK’s wider regions, you might call it ‘anti-levelling-up’.

The government needs to explain the economic logic behind its decision on airport expansion - because the growth case for it just doesn't add up.

@alchap.bsky.social spoke to the @the-independent.com
www.independent.co.uk/news/busines...

So today the Chancellor has said that airport expansion is "good for families wanting to go on cheap holidays". This is her "growth" plan. Making it cheaper to go to (e.g.) a Spanish island. How about making it cheaper to get to Blackpool, Great Yarmouth or Torquay?

"Yes, and"
...more damage from climate hazards
...more regional inequality
...a smaller domestic tourism sector
...a bigger current account deficit
...more costly traded carbon prices
...higher land and energy prices
...more noise and air quality
Etc.

As the pandemic receded government literally said in its Tourism Strategy that it wanted to encourage UK residents to continue to holiday at home. What happened? And where is the voice of communities and economies all around Britain's coastline?