Scene of unrest

Recent political unrest in Thailand focused on airport demonstrations. In the wake of the ‘success’ of that uprising aviation correspondent Michael Sterling asks what this means for hard-pressed airport operators?

The opposition in Thailand last month flooded the country’s two main airports with supporters and cut off the country, causing untold damage to the tourism industry and the economy as a whole. It toppled the government.

Airports have always been a strategic asset to a country and a symbol of its prosperity. An airport terminal is often the first thing a visitor or potential investor sees when arriving. First impressions are important. But there’s a worrying trend too, that airports are becoming the focus for political protest and are highly vulnerable to this form of action. Security issues surrounding airports in the post 9/11 era only amplify the effectiveness of this protest.

For the same reason that airports are such prestigious and high visibility projects, they are also targets for political activism.

The Thai unrest was mainly peaceful, but it resulted in 300,000 travelers being stranded, leading some foreign governments to airlift their nationals out by military aircrafts. The opposition is threatening to continue its pressure on airports if it does not get what it wants in future, so a cloud of uncertainty continues to hang over Thailand’s airports.

The worry is that the success of the demonstrations in bringing about political change may inspire others around the world to do the same. While the size of the Thai demonstrations was surprising, there have been many smaller protests involving airports across the world in the last few years.

In the UK, this month, for example, the environmental group Plane Stupid broke into Stansted Airport, north of Londone. While 49 people were arrested for aggravated trespass and caught almost immediately, it still disrupted flights for five hours and focused media attention.

More worryingly, Plane Stupid says it is considering doing the same at London Heathrow, the country’s biggest airport by passenger numbers.

Airport authorities are taking these threats seriously as the organization has a history of direct action at airports. In September 2006 it blocked the runway at East Midlands Airport, and a year later protesters handcuffed themselves to check-in desks at Manchester Airport.

The increased focus on environmental issues and aviation is bound to make airports a target for similar demonstrations in future.

Environmental protesters set up a camp outside Heathrow this summer to protest against pollution from aircraft and the role of airports in increasing carbon emissions. Although on a smaller scale, this was strikingly reminiscent of the widespread anti-nuclear weapons protests at the US Airforce base at Greenham Common during the 1970s.

The terrorist threat to airports has long been known and authorities have poured millions of dollars to stop attacks and a repeat of the 9/11 attacks.

But now airports face a different danger, which threatens economic resources rather than safety and security. How many airports are well-placed to survive the economic consequences of a long blockade by demonstrators, such as we have seen in Thailand? While technology, such as thermal cameras and intruder sensors, will help to catch terrorist attacks, they will do little to stop a deluge of protesters entering public spaces at the world’s major airports.

The question for airport operators is, can you and should you ever prevent such occupations taking place?

There are currently no comments.