Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

That the Grand Committee do consider the Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2026.

My Lords, airport slots are permissions that allow airlines to take off and land at specific dates and times. They are a valuable resource at capacity-constrained airports. The UK currently has nine such airports, including the main five London airports—Gatwick, Heathrow, London City, Luton and Stansted—as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds Bradford and Manchester.

These regulations are necessary in the context of the continuing conflict in the Middle East, which is creating disruption and uncertainty for the aviation sector and therefore for airline passengers. The Government have therefore designed a hand-back measure for slots for the summer and winter 2026 seasons, which will allow airlines to return up to 10% of their slots, if necessary, without losing the right to those same slots the following year.

The use of this hand-back does not need to link to fuel shortage, because there is no fuel shortage at present, as UK airlines have stated. However, the impact of the continuing conflict in the Middle East is more nuanced and wide-ranging. Airlines are facing longer flight paths, increased fuel costs and, in some cases, shifting passenger demand, particularly on routes affected by regional instability. These regulations provide flexibility to manage genuine operational challenges and reduce the risk of last-minute cancellations. There is therefore a need for intervention.

The developments in the Middle East remain unpredictable and continue to put undue pressure on the aviation sector. These pressures are completely outside the control of airlines, but are nevertheless having an impact on their ability to operate as planned. Without intervention, airlines would not be able to respond to known risks to their operations and passengers would be exposed to last-minute cancellations and disruption at the departure gates. These regulations respond directly to the uncertainty and operational impact of the Middle East conflict by providing limited, targeted flexibility, while maintaining the overall integrity of the slot allocation system.

My Lords, I declare my interests as a pilot, an honorary vice-president of BALPA, the pilots’ union, and a former director of an airport. I generally welcome these provisions but, of course, they are part of the assimilated law of the EU —quite conveniently so, in fact, in that we can make alterations of this kind to the slots system. I want to question the Minister a little on one or two aspects of this instrument.

As we know, and as is referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum, slots are a major asset of airlines. Sometimes, they are actually worth more than the whole of the rest of the airline put together, including its aircraft and all the rest. So they are enormously valuable. The allocation of slots is, therefore, a critical matter; of course, that also includes any slots that become available for reallocation.

The Minister referred to this being a temporary measure. I would like to get a confirmation from him. He said that it relates to the Middle East conflict, but he then spoke later about the jet fuel situation and so on. That is clearly a looming threat, I suppose, but it is not the main argument here. The main argument he is deploying is that the Middle East conflict means that a lot of airlines are no longer able to carry out their normal routes as they would like to do and that, consequently, the aim is to avoid the nonsense of having aircraft running without passengers, as it were, as has been the case in a number of instances.

I would also like the Minister’s comments on the question of airport designations. We are talking here—and it is referred to—about designating airports into three categories: “non-coordinated”, “schedules facilitated” and “coordinated” airports, which are those that have slots attached. In the case of Leeds Bradford, which is one of my local airports, these slot provisions will apply only to the summer season. I believe that that is the case there. Could the Minister confirm at what point the designations are reviewed or decided? I have discussed statutory instruments with this Minister before, and we seem always to discuss the same airports. The development of airports is a moving thing, so I just wonder how an airport becomes co-ordinated and eligible to have slots applicable to it.

The other point is that the allocation or reallocation of slots, as I said before, is very valuable. We are losing a few airlines at the moment—most of them to the freighting business—because of financial pressures. As I said before, slots really matter. What is the basis by which reallocated slots can go to new entrants? There are people hanging on here, desperate to get slots into some of our co-ordinated airports. At what level does this plan move to one in which these slots are available for reallocation?

I read that the co-ordinator organisation has only 40 staff, which is an amazing situation. Can the Minister confirm the status of the co-ordination organisation, which makes decisions about slots and reallocation? It seems an organisation almost outside the normal structures that we deal with when considering these matters.

Finally, I want to say that we have to be very careful when dealing with this subject. Although I understand and sympathise with what the Minister is suggesting—and it will certainly help in organising the routes and for the current financial position of the airlines that will benefit from it—I would not like to see this becoming a deterrence to airlines extending their business. One of the greatest things that this country has is the nature and status of those that provide air services.

My Lords, I welcome these regulations. This is a core part of the current responsibility of the department in difficult times internationally. It is absolutely the right thing to do to try to ease pressures on airlines in this environment, as the current geopolitical situation has made many routes much less viable than they were and led to cutbacks around the world in the number of planes flying at the time being.

However—and I think we will come back to this at greater length in debates on the forthcoming aviation Bill—that we are having this debate today indicates that this is a heavily regulated area. We inherited a lot of that regulation from the European Union, and I had hoped, and it remains my view, that this sector should be regulated less than it is. It probably should not need a debate in Parliament to enable an airline, in an international crisis, to take a decision to scale back some of its activities temporarily without the risk of long-term damage to its business. So, in my view, this debate should not need to happen but, in the context of the current laws, it is absolutely essential.

I have a particular concern that I want to raise with the Minister about the impact on some individual airlines. The choice of 5% or 10% does not make complete sense to me, in the context of an environment where the most affected routes are those through the Middle East. I will take a practical example: if an airline like Emirates had two flights a day to a UK airport, they would not currently be viable because of the geopolitical situation. The reality is that tourist numbers to the Middle East have dropped very sharply. I had an email myself today from a hotel in Oman that I stayed in some while back begging me to come back and offering me a good deal to do so, so there is no doubt that numbers have fallen sharply. It is therefore very probable that running two planes a day is not viable for the time being and you can afford only, in practical business terms, to run one plane a day. That is a 50% drop. But if you can only cut 5% or 10%, that does not quite work arithmetically. I am slightly concerned that the inflexibility of the numbers in this regulation will not fit with the practical reality facing a number of airlines, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments about that.

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend and the statutory instrument that he has moved. I understand entirely that it is designed to support a resilient aviation sector, and I just want to ask one question.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred, as indeed did my noble friend, to the example of 2022, when, as I understand it, there was a 30% hand-back of slots. I just want to ask, if the information is to hand: what happened afterwards, when the temporary provision ended? Did the slots go back in precisely the same way to the airlines that had them at the time? The reason I ask is because I am curious as to whether, in the current conditions, a 10% hand-back will result in these eventually being handed back to the same airlines. It may or may not be the case, but I would be interested if the Minister has anything he might be able to add on this.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this draft instrument and explaining its purpose, and for the advance meeting with his officials and the briefing they sent. As with all such measures, we need to look not only at the administrative detail but at the practical impact on passengers. Other noble Lords referred to the impact on the airlines themselves; quite a bit of my comment will be about the passengers and about the impact on the wider aviation sector and its sustainability.

These regulations amend the slot usage rules so that airlines at specified UK airports can return a limited proportion of slots for the summer and winter 2026 seasons. We understand the case for flexibility during a period of considerable uncertainty, including in particular the conflict in the Middle East. We do not want airlines to be incentivised to operate empty or near-empty flights simply to preserve the historic slot rights as described by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. That said, flexibility, in our view, must not come at the expense of passengers. Even where there is some notice, these changes, we fear, could still lead to cancellations with relatively little warning, causing significant disruption to travel plans. In a period when household budgets are under pressure and fares remain high, that could mean higher replacement costs for families, as well as losses on hotels, onward travel and other arrangements already paid for. I notice that train tickets is an example that is laid out in the fifth question of appendix 1 of the Department for Transport’s answers to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. That is a very good example of what I am talking about here.

My Lords, I had not meant to speak; I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for speaking out of turn. The noble Baroness’s questions have prompted two questions from me.

Flight cancellations have been trailed in the press for the past two months. I declare an interest because I am due to fly away in August and September, and I am sure that many families will have already arranged their holidays. We have not seen these cancellations yet. Can the Minister confirm that that is because these regulations have not yet been adopted and that, once they have been adopted, cancellations will happen?

My second question flows naturally from what the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about the impact on consumers. Obviously, the regulations before us give airlines the power to cancel slots for a temporary period and give passengers 14 days’ notice. Passengers used to be covered by the EU package directive, which is a different department. I do not know whether that is still the case, but it would be great if the Minister could write to me on that. He will know that, if your flight is cancelled in July, August or September, which make up peak holiday season because of the school holidays, the chance of you booking another flight for a price similar to the one that you originally booked is nil, so there are going to be huge oncosts. I do not know whether the department has an answer for that. Also, the chance of finding accommodation on an alternative date will probably be slim. Is the department aware that there will be some deeply unhappy families who might be affected in this way?

My Lords, I have cast my remarks mainly in the form of a series of questions. Before I come to the first question, let me just say that my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering has put her finger on a very important point. The effect of these regulations is to transfer potential costs that would fall on airlines to passengers and airports. There may be a very good reason why you want to protect the airlines in this way, but one has to recognise that that is the economic effect of what is happening. If you can cancel a flight with no penalty, the circumstances described by my noble friend will of course arise in relation to families. There are also problems for airports, because they have no revenue from that flight and other connecting flights are discombobulated, if I may put it that way, as a consequence.

It is true that they are given by these regulations a 14-day window in which to reallocate the flight. My understanding is that, when the instrument was first drafted and consulted on, they would not have been allowed to reallocate flights at all, so the 14 days are a concession to their interests. But, quite seriously, no large airline will decide to operate a service at 14 days’ notice, because it will not have any passengers. The passengers will not know about it sufficiently in advance, except in extreme circumstances. I want everyone to understand that this is what is happening: potential airline costs are being transferred to passengers and airports.

I come to my questions. The first has been answered already by the Minister, but it is important to repeat it, just to secure it as a starting point for what we are discussing. It was going to be: is it the Government’s position that there is or is not a fuel shortage? The Minister answered that on his own initiative right at the outset. It is the Government’s position that there is not a fuel shortage. So what is the logic for having this measure, which, as I say, significantly moves costs around the system?

The first reason, as I understood the Minister to say, is that something may happen and we need to be prepared. It is always true, of course, that something may happen and we need to be prepared. I am not disputing that, but the independent company that allocates slots, referred to by my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, already has emergency powers to create this sort of alleviation. No airline loses a slot because it cannot fly to a destination where there is a threat of being hit by a bomb. You do not fly, but you do not lose the slot; the alleviation comes with it because of the circumstances. No airline loses a slot because there is no fuel to put in the tank—that would be absurd. So this system already exists in many ways, and it is difficult to know what the Government are doing in setting this up.

Another reason was given which I regard as something of a chimera because I am not aware of any evidence to support it. That is, if this measure is not put in place, there will be a certain number of empty planes flying around, which we would all agree is an absurdity and not good for the environment or the economy. However, there is not any great evidence that that is happening and the slot system already has, as I say, flexibility that could help deal with that.