You keep saying “No it’s not” and then describing exactly what most people would call “a single point of failure” and “a national security issue” in a lot more words.
> You keep saying “No it’s not” and then describing exactly what most people would call “a single point of failure” and “a national security issue” in a lot more words.
What are you on about ?
Its not a national security issue. Full stop. There are many other airports in the London area and elesewhere in the UK. Heathrow is a civilian airport, not a military one. 99% of air cargo to the UK does NOT come to Heathrow.
Its not a single point of failure either. Sure, for those TEMPORARILY affected it might feel that way. But businesses with contingency plannign will simply invoke their DR plans and go elsewhere ... flights will divert, people will WFH instead of going the offices, people will have to travel to a supermarket a little bit further away.
Also, regarding "single point of failure", see this website[1]... 62,000 customers affected but only 4,800 without power[1]. Not quite a SPOF then is it !
Also, you want guaranteed N+1 resilience at grid level, who do you think is going to pay for that ?
Most people would be happy with the grid sorting out its capacity issues at N level, one thing at a time my friend.
"National security site" is not a synonym for "military installation."
It means "critical infrastructure whose failure causes significant adverse effects."
The UK's main airport is absolutely that.
Your quote about 99% of air cargo not coming through Heathrow is made-up nonsense. The correct figure is closer to around 50% by volume and 70% by value.
> Heathrow carries over 50% of air freight and is a major hub.
Not denying it, but it does depend on what you're sending.
For example, if you send something by DHL, it has a significantly greater chance of going through East Midlands Airport than it does Heathrow.
Same for UPS and others. The bulk of their recent investments have been away from Heathrow.
The non-Heathrow sites have better road connections, and more importantly for air cargo, the noise abatement rules at non-Heathrow sites are more relaxed.
The other problem with Heathrow is that BA have their finger in the pies and they have too many slots, so that limits any growth on the independent freight side.
Heathrow has effectively hit its capacity limit. That may or may not change if they ever build the third runway.
Heathrow undoubtedly does the most air cargo. Sure express often comes into EMA on dedicated flights, but lots of freight comes in the hold of passenger aircraft, and that’s where Heathrow is king. The lack of passenger traffic is undoubtedly a key reason why EMA only does 1/5th of Heathrow’s air cargo, as as you have noted it’s ideally located to serve a lot of the UK.
>Heathrow is a civilian airport, not a military one.
Not saying this incident is or isn't a national security issue, but this is not really pertinent to whether an incident is classified as a national security issue.
National security encompasses much more than just military-related stuff. The "security" part of "national security" is using a broad definition of security (like "food security" isn't strictly about physically protecting food from damage).
