The ArgusThousands of jobs at Gatwick (From The Argus)

Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.

Thousands of jobs at Gatwick

The Argus: Thousands of jobs at Gatwick Thousands of jobs at Gatwick

Thousands of new jobs could be created at Gatwick as airport bosses explore ambitious expansion plans.

The airport is aiming to create 1,200 new jobs over the next ten years but said thousands more could be created over the next 30 years if permission for a second runway is granted.

Officials have begun preparatory work on the possibility of building a second runway that could see passenger numbers double to 80 million a year.

The legal process and construction period means that any proposed second runway would take at least 15 years and cost up to £5 billion.

But as part of Gatwick’s short-term expansion plans, bosses are aiming to add six million more passengers by 2021/22 which would create 1,200 airport jobs.

Campaigners say plans for a second runway would be a broken promise after bosses had previously said they were not interested in an additional runway.

Runway options

However, in a written submission to the Commons Transport Select Committee, bosses admitted that work has begun on “evaluating options” for a new runway.

An airport spokeswoman said several options were being explored in terms of a new runway with varying degrees of increased passenger numbers.

A 1979 legal agreement means that no new runway can be built before 2019 and any building project could take up to five years to complete.

Doubling capacity to 80 million would see Gatwick challenging Heathrow as the country’s busiest airport.

In the shorter-term, the airport told the select committee it can still expand with one runway by improving the efficiency of its operations and by encouraging the use of larger aircraft.

The site’s new management has increased the number of flights from 50 to 53 an hour.

Economic driver

Officials hope to increase this to 55 within two to three years, possibly including more early morning, midday or late evening trips.

Gatwick officials say a second runway would be a “huge economic driver” for the region, creating thousands of new jobs.

Of the 21,000 current Gatwick employees, approximately 7,500 live in Crawley and nearly 1,500 in both Horsham and Brighton and Hove.

Yesterday (December 10), the airport announced it had seen a 4.2% increase in passengers in November compared to a year ago, with 2.22 million people flying in or out in the month.

An airport spokeswoman said: “Our work will look into a range of issues including environmental, rail and road access, economic and other impacts and requirements.

“Noise impacts on local communities and the effect on air quality will be a key.

“This work will be submitted to the Airports Commission which was set up in September by the Government to tackle the future of airport capacity.”

Brendon Sewill, the chairman of the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, said: “Local councillors who have tended to think that a new runway would just mean some more jobs without much harm will now have their eyes opened. “To more than double the size of Gatwick would more than double the environmental damage.”

Talking point: Should Gatwick get a second runway?

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

The Argus: Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

The Argus: Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:22pm Tue 11 Dec 12

mustaphaLeeko says...

"Talking point: Should Gatwick get a third runway?"

What are these reporters smoking?
They haven't even got a 2nd runway yet!
"Talking point: Should Gatwick get a third runway?" What are these reporters smoking? They haven't even got a 2nd runway yet! mustaphaLeeko
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Tue 11 Dec 12

peebee9 says...

The 'thousands of jobs created' will probably be balanced out by people losing their jobs over the same period.
The 'thousands of jobs created' will probably be balanced out by people losing their jobs over the same period. peebee9
  • Score: 0

3:45pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

peebee9 wrote:
The 'thousands of jobs created' will probably be balanced out by people losing their jobs over the same period.
Well in that case they'll be needed won't they? Otherwise we're going to thousands of jobs short.
[quote][p][bold]peebee9[/bold] wrote: The 'thousands of jobs created' will probably be balanced out by people losing their jobs over the same period.[/p][/quote]Well in that case they'll be needed won't they? Otherwise we're going to thousands of jobs short. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Hoarder12345444 says...

Thats good. No doubt the eco mentalists will have their say!! I say build another run way here and at heathrow!! Has to be good for business to allow more planes in!! Good to secure jobs, airports employ thousands of people.
Thats good. No doubt the eco mentalists will have their say!! I say build another run way here and at heathrow!! Has to be good for business to allow more planes in!! Good to secure jobs, airports employ thousands of people. Hoarder12345444
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Tue 11 Dec 12

angrymonkey says...

2nd runway will be very good with more jobs and business for the area. Im sure the greens will moan as dont want to see the world thats if they got time after dealing with the big problem with pink bikes being sold to girls.
2nd runway will be very good with more jobs and business for the area. Im sure the greens will moan as dont want to see the world thats if they got time after dealing with the big problem with pink bikes being sold to girls. angrymonkey
  • Score: 0

5:40pm Tue 11 Dec 12

moonster says...

Build the runway sod the greens if Gatwick does not not build one someone else will and Sussex will loose out. its already a international airport and who really cares about a few more planes flying around. if you don't like aeroplanes flying by your house don't buy a house near an airport.
Build the runway sod the greens if Gatwick does not not build one someone else will and Sussex will loose out. its already a international airport and who really cares about a few more planes flying around. if you don't like aeroplanes flying by your house don't buy a house near an airport. moonster
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Sussex jim says...

How many of those jobs will go to the skilled people of 55+ who have recently lost their jobs but are expected to work to 68 or more? How many jobs will go to the 16-25 group who don't want to work as it interferes with their social life, now funded by benefits?
Most vacancies will probably be filled by persons from other EU countries to whom our minimum wage is a fortune.
When are we going to get politicians with the balls to sort this problem out?
Only one springs to mind: and she is too old to return.
Let's get out of Europe, and withdraw benefit from lazy fit young people who will not apply for jobs.
How many of those jobs will go to the skilled people of 55+ who have recently lost their jobs but are expected to work to 68 or more? How many jobs will go to the 16-25 group who don't want to work as it interferes with their social life, now funded by benefits? Most vacancies will probably be filled by persons from other EU countries to whom our minimum wage is a fortune. When are we going to get politicians with the balls to sort this problem out? Only one springs to mind: and she is too old to return. Let's get out of Europe, and withdraw benefit from lazy fit young people who will not apply for jobs. Sussex jim
  • Score: 0

6:03pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Roundbill says...

Sussex jim wrote:
How many of those jobs will go to the skilled people of 55+ who have recently lost their jobs but are expected to work to 68 or more? How many jobs will go to the 16-25 group who don't want to work as it interferes with their social life, now funded by benefits?
Most vacancies will probably be filled by persons from other EU countries to whom our minimum wage is a fortune.
When are we going to get politicians with the balls to sort this problem out?
Only one springs to mind: and she is too old to return.
Let's get out of Europe, and withdraw benefit from lazy fit young people who will not apply for jobs.
Did you just suggest we should bring back Thatcher?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Goon.
[quote][p][bold]Sussex jim[/bold] wrote: How many of those jobs will go to the skilled people of 55+ who have recently lost their jobs but are expected to work to 68 or more? How many jobs will go to the 16-25 group who don't want to work as it interferes with their social life, now funded by benefits? Most vacancies will probably be filled by persons from other EU countries to whom our minimum wage is a fortune. When are we going to get politicians with the balls to sort this problem out? Only one springs to mind: and she is too old to return. Let's get out of Europe, and withdraw benefit from lazy fit young people who will not apply for jobs.[/p][/quote]Did you just suggest we should bring back Thatcher? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Goon. Roundbill
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Tue 11 Dec 12

farang says...

blimey, I thought this was a discussion about creating jobs!
I was in my early 20s in 1980 and I do believe unemployment increased rapidly UNDER THATCHER!
What planet do you tory t**sers live on?
blimey, I thought this was a discussion about creating jobs! I was in my early 20s in 1980 and I do believe unemployment increased rapidly UNDER THATCHER! What planet do you tory t**sers live on? farang
  • Score: 0

8:41pm Tue 11 Dec 12

HJarrs says...

The actions of Gatwick Airport to reduce their environmental impact as described in Saturday's Argus are commendable, as are the efforts of much of the air transport industry. However, this will be undone at a stroke if airports like Gatwick are increased in capacity and extra demand created.

According to a number of sources it is looking like we are heading for 4 -7 degrees C of warming by 2100 unless we change direction radically over the next few years. An increase in air traffic would pretty much make it impossible for this country to meet its international obligations all to provide capacity for journies that are hardly necessary. Then there is the blight caused to those that live in and around the airports and on the flightpaths.

We are an incredibly clever species when we want to be, I am sure we can find other ways to provide gainful employment without destroying the environment that supports us.
The actions of Gatwick Airport to reduce their environmental impact as described in Saturday's Argus are commendable, as are the efforts of much of the air transport industry. However, this will be undone at a stroke if airports like Gatwick are increased in capacity and extra demand created. According to a number of sources it is looking like we are heading for 4 -7 degrees C of warming by 2100 unless we change direction radically over the next few years. An increase in air traffic would pretty much make it impossible for this country to meet its international obligations all to provide capacity for journies that are hardly necessary. Then there is the blight caused to those that live in and around the airports and on the flightpaths. We are an incredibly clever species when we want to be, I am sure we can find other ways to provide gainful employment without destroying the environment that supports us. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

8:27am Wed 12 Dec 12

ruberducker says...

HJarrs wrote:
The actions of Gatwick Airport to reduce their environmental impact as described in Saturday's Argus are commendable, as are the efforts of much of the air transport industry. However, this will be undone at a stroke if airports like Gatwick are increased in capacity and extra demand created.

According to a number of sources it is looking like we are heading for 4 -7 degrees C of warming by 2100 unless we change direction radically over the next few years. An increase in air traffic would pretty much make it impossible for this country to meet its international obligations all to provide capacity for journies that are hardly necessary. Then there is the blight caused to those that live in and around the airports and on the flightpaths.

We are an incredibly clever species when we want to be, I am sure we can find other ways to provide gainful employment without destroying the environment that supports us.
hugging trees wont pay the bills....you green supporters have had your go and we all no what a good thing that has had on our town,you have spent our money put up our council tax and ******-up the roads...we need more jobs. gatwick should be, and has been a very large contributor to our economy.who cares if you have to drive 60 miles a day to go to work---your paying the tax on the fuel..and yes we are clever species its called self preservation.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: The actions of Gatwick Airport to reduce their environmental impact as described in Saturday's Argus are commendable, as are the efforts of much of the air transport industry. However, this will be undone at a stroke if airports like Gatwick are increased in capacity and extra demand created. According to a number of sources it is looking like we are heading for 4 -7 degrees C of warming by 2100 unless we change direction radically over the next few years. An increase in air traffic would pretty much make it impossible for this country to meet its international obligations all to provide capacity for journies that are hardly necessary. Then there is the blight caused to those that live in and around the airports and on the flightpaths. We are an incredibly clever species when we want to be, I am sure we can find other ways to provide gainful employment without destroying the environment that supports us.[/p][/quote]hugging trees wont pay the bills....you green supporters have had your go and we all no what a good thing that has had on our town,you have spent our money put up our council tax and ******-up the roads...we need more jobs. gatwick should be, and has been a very large contributor to our economy.who cares if you have to drive 60 miles a day to go to work---your paying the tax on the fuel..and yes we are clever species its called self preservation. ruberducker
  • Score: 0

9:36am Wed 12 Dec 12

HJarrs says...

ruberducker wrote:
HJarrs wrote: The actions of Gatwick Airport to reduce their environmental impact as described in Saturday's Argus are commendable, as are the efforts of much of the air transport industry. However, this will be undone at a stroke if airports like Gatwick are increased in capacity and extra demand created. According to a number of sources it is looking like we are heading for 4 -7 degrees C of warming by 2100 unless we change direction radically over the next few years. An increase in air traffic would pretty much make it impossible for this country to meet its international obligations all to provide capacity for journies that are hardly necessary. Then there is the blight caused to those that live in and around the airports and on the flightpaths. We are an incredibly clever species when we want to be, I am sure we can find other ways to provide gainful employment without destroying the environment that supports us.
hugging trees wont pay the bills....you green supporters have had your go and we all no what a good thing that has had on our town,you have spent our money put up our council tax and ******-up the roads...we need more jobs. gatwick should be, and has been a very large contributor to our economy.who cares if you have to drive 60 miles a day to go to work---your paying the tax on the fuel..and yes we are clever species its called self preservation.
Ok, so you are firmly in the "can't afford to save ourselves" camp. Are you old? Then you will peg it before too much changes.

Many of us are going to see turbulent times ahead that will ultimately cost more than any short lived financial benefit from enlarged airports.I happen to believe that we do not have to stuff the future for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren etc to have a relatively prosperous lifestyle.

Many in B&H today will be waking to cold houses, expensive to heat, let alone damaging to the environment. We could, for example, spend similar sums of money used to build runways on renovating the housing stock to be comfortable and energy efficient. That would be a decent legacy for those of us not quite ready to croak and our kids and would create more local jobs than an airport would ever provide.
[quote][p][bold]ruberducker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: The actions of Gatwick Airport to reduce their environmental impact as described in Saturday's Argus are commendable, as are the efforts of much of the air transport industry. However, this will be undone at a stroke if airports like Gatwick are increased in capacity and extra demand created. According to a number of sources it is looking like we are heading for 4 -7 degrees C of warming by 2100 unless we change direction radically over the next few years. An increase in air traffic would pretty much make it impossible for this country to meet its international obligations all to provide capacity for journies that are hardly necessary. Then there is the blight caused to those that live in and around the airports and on the flightpaths. We are an incredibly clever species when we want to be, I am sure we can find other ways to provide gainful employment without destroying the environment that supports us.[/p][/quote]hugging trees wont pay the bills....you green supporters have had your go and we all no what a good thing that has had on our town,you have spent our money put up our council tax and ******-up the roads...we need more jobs. gatwick should be, and has been a very large contributor to our economy.who cares if you have to drive 60 miles a day to go to work---your paying the tax on the fuel..and yes we are clever species its called self preservation.[/p][/quote]Ok, so you are firmly in the "can't afford to save ourselves" camp. Are you old? Then you will peg it before too much changes. Many of us are going to see turbulent times ahead that will ultimately cost more than any short lived financial benefit from enlarged airports.I happen to believe that we do not have to stuff the future for ourselves, our children and our grandchildren etc to have a relatively prosperous lifestyle. Many in B&H today will be waking to cold houses, expensive to heat, let alone damaging to the environment. We could, for example, spend similar sums of money used to build runways on renovating the housing stock to be comfortable and energy efficient. That would be a decent legacy for those of us not quite ready to croak and our kids and would create more local jobs than an airport would ever provide. HJarrs
  • Score: 0

10:36am Wed 12 Dec 12

ruberducker says...

you can hardly call gatwick short lived,its been an airport since 1930,it employs thousands,many from brighton,who inturn spend there salaries in brighton and hove,and if they have more airlines flying in as a result of another runway,that will also increase the need for more staff.as for the impact on the enviorment,well industry's around the world like china are having a bigger effect than gatwick and the greens are making it worse due to the ever increasing impact of the lack of forward planing for our road network in brighton.
if your cold,put on a jumper & --go ride your bike:)
you can hardly call gatwick short lived,its been an airport since 1930,it employs thousands,many from brighton,who inturn spend there salaries in brighton and hove,and if they have more airlines flying in as a result of another runway,that will also increase the need for more staff.as for the impact on the enviorment,well industry's around the world like china are having a bigger effect than gatwick and the greens are making it worse due to the ever increasing impact of the lack of forward planing for our road network in brighton. if your cold,put on a jumper & --go ride your bike:) ruberducker
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Wed 12 Dec 12

farang says...

It would be of greater macro-economic benefit to spend the money on high speed (HS) rail systems, this would free up the slow-speed (SS) rail system, thus allowing road damaging freight to be transferred to SS rail.
The cost benefit would remain in UK rather than being off-shored.
Building extra capacity in airports just speeds up the off-shoring of UK incomes.
It would be of greater macro-economic benefit to spend the money on high speed (HS) rail systems, this would free up the slow-speed (SS) rail system, thus allowing road damaging freight to be transferred to SS rail. The cost benefit would remain in UK rather than being off-shored. Building extra capacity in airports just speeds up the off-shoring of UK incomes. farang
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Wed 12 Dec 12

ruberducker says...

farang wrote:
It would be of greater macro-economic benefit to spend the money on high speed (HS) rail systems, this would free up the slow-speed (SS) rail system, thus allowing road damaging freight to be transferred to SS rail.
The cost benefit would remain in UK rather than being off-shored.
Building extra capacity in airports just speeds up the off-shoring of UK incomes.
and just how would the goods get to the shops?
[quote][p][bold]farang[/bold] wrote: It would be of greater macro-economic benefit to spend the money on high speed (HS) rail systems, this would free up the slow-speed (SS) rail system, thus allowing road damaging freight to be transferred to SS rail. The cost benefit would remain in UK rather than being off-shored. Building extra capacity in airports just speeds up the off-shoring of UK incomes.[/p][/quote]and just how would the goods get to the shops? ruberducker
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Wed 12 Dec 12

farang says...

@ rubberducker - how do you think?
@ rubberducker - how do you think? farang
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Wed 12 Dec 12

ruberducker says...

farang wrote:
@ rubberducker - how do you think?
no please tell me,
so your goods get to lets say birmingham"the central hub"where all road frieght is at the moment..how if you have your train deliver to brighton would you get from the station to town.....thousands of vans or hundreds of lorrys...push bike?
[quote][p][bold]farang[/bold] wrote: @ rubberducker - how do you think?[/p][/quote]no please tell me, so your goods get to lets say birmingham"the central hub"where all road frieght is at the moment..how if you have your train deliver to brighton would you get from the station to town.....thousands of vans or hundreds of lorrys...push bike? ruberducker
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Wed 12 Dec 12

farang says...

@ rubberducker, you're on the right 'track'.
A lot of larger stores are on town/city fringes so there would be hubs.
If you didn't know companies such as Stobarts already use railfreight.
e.g in the case of Brighton the hub could be just north of Patcham, adjacent to the A23.
One of the confounding factors at the moment is the already congested SS rail system so HS rail would relieve that.
If you didn't know, much of Europe and US?Canada are using railfreight to hub and node systems.
I guess UK will just go creaking and groaning on for another century because the naysayers seem to be more persuasive.
I suspect you have a negative response to this idea.
@ rubberducker, you're on the right 'track'. A lot of larger stores are on town/city fringes so there would be hubs. If you didn't know companies such as Stobarts already use railfreight. e.g in the case of Brighton the hub could be just north of Patcham, adjacent to the A23. One of the confounding factors at the moment is the already congested SS rail system so HS rail would relieve that. If you didn't know, much of Europe and US?Canada are using railfreight to hub and node systems. I guess UK will just go creaking and groaning on for another century because the naysayers seem to be more persuasive. I suspect you have a negative response to this idea. farang
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree