希思罗机场何以沦为人间地狱？

    5月15日，英国国会召开一场会议，探讨希思罗机场的边境控制问题，会场铺着东方地毯，摆着饰以王冠纹章的椅子。内政事务委员会主席提出了第一个问题：“该现象是最近才出现，还是说已经持续了有一段时间？”维珍大西洋航空公司（Virgin Atlantic）的运营主管回答道：“主席先生，对我们和我们的乘客来说，数年来这一直是个问题。”

    乔恩•斯图尔特（美国脱口秀演员、电视主持人，擅长讽刺新闻事件与人物——译注）何在？他的英国同行呢？

    在英国，抨击希思罗机场与评论天气一样司空见惯。每日出版的小报特别擅长撰写关于“希思罗地狱”的头条新闻，简直形成了一种艺术。伦敦前市长肯•利文斯通曾于2007年发表著名评论，称希思罗机场将旅客扣为“囚徒”。传统上公众愤怒的对象很大程度是拥有希思罗机场的私营公司英国机场集团（BAA），因为它未能迅速实现机场设施现代化。如今，面对旅客们需在入境关口排上三小时长队的窘境，英国机场集团转而指责政府，称最近削减预算的决定和严格的护照检查政策乃是旅客经常在机场遭遇各种烦心事的真正原因。

    人们或许会觉得英国机场集团与政府双方都有兴趣展开合作——若希思罗机场运转顺畅，英国机场集团与英国经济都将受益——可是，相互推卸责任的政治风气，使这家私人公司与政府官员之间更常见的是互相指责。上个月，英国机场集团甚至在护照检查处发放传单，推卸自己的责任，并鼓励旅客向政府方面投诉。奥运会还有三个月就召开了，这场责任大战却方兴未艾，令英国首相戴维•卡梅伦和伦敦市长鲍里斯•约翰逊失望不已。告诉那些沮丧的旅客们一个肮脏的秘密吧：短时间内是不大可能有什么解决方案的。

    “希思罗问题”备受关注至少已有十年了。伦敦于2005年赢得奥运会主办权之后，英国机场集团就拿出了一套希思罗机场现代化方案，不过该计划遭到了媒体毫不留情的质疑——当时希思罗已经拥挤不堪，英国航空（BA）还经常爆发罢工。如今，尽管第五个航站楼已于2008年投入使用，希思罗机场两条跑道的使用率仍然高达99.2%。

    除了最近入境关口的乱象之外，背后隐藏的问题是：英国机场集团是否应该建设第三条跑道，以缓解承载能力不足的问题。该公司多年来一直就此游说政府，但效果不佳。尽管英国机场集团——其母公司为西班牙运输巨头法罗里奥集团（Ferrovial）——第一季度利润增长了15%，但其首席财务官指出，除非希思罗机场增加一条跑道，否则真正的增长无从谈起。

    这一立场并不出人意料，毕竟机场的主要收入来源就是飞机起降费，第三条跑道将会显著增加其利润。此外，法罗里奥集团四年前还拥有英国全部七个重要机场的所有权，但之后在英国反垄断部门的压力下卖出了其中三个。

    On May 15, the British Parliament held a meeting about Heathrow's border control problem, in a gilded room with oriental rugs and chairs emblazoned with the crown. Here is the opening question, posed by the chair of the Home Affairs Committee: "Is this a recent phenomenon, or has it been going on for some time?" The response, from Virgin Atlantic's Director of Operations: "This has been a concern to us and our passengers for a few years now, Mr. Chairman."

    Could Jon Stewart please come forward? Where is his British equivalent?

    In the U.K., Heathrow-bashing is as common as commenting on the weather. The daily tabloids have made an art out of writing "Hell at Heathrow" headlines. Former mayor Ken Livingston famously commented in 2007 that Heathrow was keeping its passengers "prisoners." Much of the anger, traditionally, has been directed at BAA, Heathrow's private owner, for not modernizing fast enough. Now, faced with three-hour immigration lines, BAA is pointing its finger at the government, blaming recent budget cuts and strict passport controls for the nuisance the airport commonly causes passengers.

    Although one might assume that BAA and the government would have interests in cooperating -- a well-run Heathrow benefits BAA as well as the United Kingdom's economy -- the politics of responsibility has created a nasty blame game between the private company and members of the government. Last month BAA even-handed out leaflets at passport control deflecting responsibility and encouraging passengers to complain. The fight is on, three months ahead of the Olympics, to the dismay of Prime Minster David Cameron and London Mayor Boris Johnson. And the dirty secret is that frustrated travelers shouldn't expect a resolution any time soon.

    The "Heathrow problem" has been scrutinized for at least a decade. When London won its bid for the Olympics in 2005, BAA produced a plan to modernize Heathrow, though even at the time the press roundly doubted it. The airport was bursting at the seams and BA strikes were common. Today, even with the opening of a fifth terminal in 2008, the airport's two runways still operate at 99.2% capacity.

    Beyond the recent chaos at immigration, the issue lurking in the background is whether BAA should build a third runway to alleviate capacity concerns. The company has been lobbying the government for years, to no avail. Although BAA, which is owned by the Spanish transport group Ferrovial, posted a 15% rise in first-quarter profit this year, the company's CFO says that real growth won't be achieved unless Heathrow adds the extra runway.

    That's not a surprising stance, given that an airport makes the bulk of its money from charging airlines landing fees. A third runway would increase its profits considerably, and at a time when Ferrovial, which owned all seven major British airports as recently as four years ago, has been forced to sell three of them by Britain's competition regulator.