A flying lesson for Heathrow For many, the spectacular growth of Beijing, which mirrors that of the Chinese economy, is an indictment of the UK government's aviation policy or, as some would argue, lack of one. When the Coalition took office, one of its first acts was to ditch Labour's plans for a third runway at Heathrow. Since then, Frankfurt has opened a fourth runway and Berlin's new airport is months away from entering service. Critics fear ditching the third runway could prove a costly mistake. The feeling among airline executives in Beijing was that carriers could move some routes to better- connected airports with more runways and destinations. "It's like shifting a head office," said Calin Rovinescu, Air Canada's chief executive. Once the head office is shifted it never comes back. In China, when you see the speed at which economic decisions are made, you have to put into the debate whether the UK Government is moving fast enough. In Britain, the picture is confusing to say the least. Work is continuing on Crossrail, a £14.8 billion scheme that will link Canary Wharf and the City to Heathrow. But with question marks over Heathrow's future as a hub airport, Crossrail is in danger of becoming a very expensive railway line to a regional airport. Fears over the long term future of Heathrow have been heightened by whispers coming out of Whitehall that the solution to the surge in passenger numbers, which are predicted to rise from 211 million in 2010 to 335 million in 2030, is to start again and build a new airport in the Thames Estuary. More recently, George Osborne and David Cameron have been reported as willing to consider Heathrow again. It is all very confusing. At present, the Government is bowing to the wishes of environmental campaigners and those living under the flight path, who are less than enthusiastic about the prospects of more than 200,000 extra flights a year. Those under the flight path include the Putney constituents of Justine Greening, the Transport Secretary, whose opposition to a third runway predates her becoming a Coalition minister. Despite this, the Government still says it wants to consult the industry over how best to serve the country's aviation needs. The stance baffles Lord Adonis, Labour's last transport secretary. "They are having a consultation which is ruling out what the industry regards as the only viable option," he said. Having produced what it described as a "scoping document" last year, the Coalition will unveil a "long- term draft strategy document" this summer. At the same time it will issue a "call for evidence" on whether Britain should maintain its hub status, and how it can be done. This, in turn, will trigger a formal strategy next spring, which will go out for consultation. The aviation industry has been unimpressed by this blizzard of documents. Tim Clark, Emirates" chief executive, sympathises with the need to get the decision right, but warns that the procrastination cannot go on for ever. "It's such a political football and everyone puts it off until the next Parliament, so nothing gets done," he said. Michael O'Leary, the chief executive of Ryanair, regards the Government's aviation policy as a "joke" and believes the reluctance to grasp the nettle is costing Britain dear in terms of jobs. Critics cite the decision of Comac, Ryanair's Chinese aircraft manufacturer, to site its European headquarters in Paris, rather than in London. Charles de Gaulle has four runways offering direct flights to 232 cities, compared with 163 from Heathrow. Business leaders have warned that Heathrow could become little more than a branch line on the global aviation map. Dubai is already poised to overtake Heathrow as the world's busiest international airport by 2016. Further expansion will enable it to handle 90 million passengers a year, 20 million more than Heathrow. The consensus among senior aviation figures in Beijing was that expanding Heathrow is the only option. "If Heathrow wants to stay the vibrant and important world hub it has been in the past, you will need to put capacity there," said John Slosar, the chief executive of Cathay Pacific. Malaysia Airlines copes with the lack of slots at Heathrow by using its mammoth Airbus A380 to ferry passengers to and from the Far East. "We see London as important for historical reasons [and] it is better to invest in Heathrow," said Hugh Dunleavy, the carrier's commercial director. People may not like another runway, but when they bought their house, didn't they notice there was an airport there? Like many, he is sceptical at suggestions the Government can start again with an airport in the Thames Estuary. It would have to persuade carriers to buy into the idea, and few seem keen on upping sticks, which raises questions about whether "Boris Island" is a starter. Picking his words carefully, Mr Dunleavy adds. For airports to be successful, they need a large number of airlines operating there. Heathrow does have a lot of goodwill. Fernando Pinto, the chief executive of the Portuguese carrier, TAP, speaks proudly of Britain's historic links with his country. But he scarcely disguises his frustration at the headaches he faces operating from Heathrow. His planes, like many others, are often forced to go on a magical mystery tour of South East airspace until a landing slot can be found. "It takes a lot of time and it burns a lot of fuel and that is causing us problems," he said. He is also frustrated at the delay in rebuilding Terminal 2, which meant improving links with other Star Alliance members had to be put on hold. These things matter. As China powers ahead, Britain is still waiting for a solution.