There's a serious point behind all this talk of Snowmageddon, and this is it

No longer would unhappy Ukrainians and perplexed Poles end up in Newcastle, as they did on Sunday night, and far fewer holidays and business trips would be wrecked before they began

Storm Caroline caused travel disruption for many across the UK

(Owen Humphreys/PA Wire)

Roughly every two or three winters, the national outcry is repeated: “If Canada/Russia/Norway can keep their transport networks going through the most punishing Arctic conditions, why does a temperate and compact nation like Britain grind to a halt with the first flurry of snow?”

The short answer: because the UK has the good fortune to be a temperate and compact nation. Sparsely populated northern lands must pour vast resources into connecting remote Arctic communities, and keeping the key elements of transportation flowing through the harshest winter.

In contrast, a country that quietly craves a white Christmas does not have a huge and continuing problem with low temperatures. So when a significant white advent occurs, things can start to unravel swiftly.

Heathrow epitomises the issue. Europe’s busiest airport is operated close to the edge, with little slack in the system. Storm Caroline’s intrusion in the early hours of Sunday morning brought torrential rain followed by snow and sub-zero temperatures. With these rare circumstances British Airways could not de-ice and dispatch its departing planes swiftly enough.

Delays built up while aircraft stands filled up, triggering a wave of diversions of inbound BA jets to unfamiliar locations such as Bournemouth, Cardiff and Liverpool. Passengers from Basel and Berlin flew halfway to Heathrow before their planes performed U-turns and headed back whence they had departed an hour earlier. By Tuesday morning an estimated 100,000 passengers were not where they wanted to be.

The solution – should travellers, transport providers and the Government want one – is easy to identify. Cut the schedules by 20 per cent to provide far more resilience. We would see cancellations due to storms such as Sunday’s reduce from several hundred to perhaps a few dozen. No longer would unhappy Ukrainians and perplexed Poles end up in Newcastle, as they did on Sunday night, and far fewer holidays and business trips would be wrecked before they began.

Yet apart from the environmental lobby, no one would buy a one-fifth fall in flying at Heathrow. Passengers would be faced with less choice and higher fares. Airlines would squeal and move assets abroad. And the Government would watch with horror as Britain disconnected itself still further from the world.

Almost all the time, Heathrow and Gatwick get away with extracting an absurd amount of capacity out of their runways. They are far more productive than any other airports in the world. But we have to accept that a cost of hyper-productivity is that things will occasionally get ugly. And when the sleet hits the fan blades, the aviation industry must treat passengers decently.

The European rules on passenger care during disruption are clear. Regardless of the cause of the problem, airlines must find hotel rooms for everyone, arrange transport and pay for meals, for as long as the disruption lasts. This duty goes way beyond what other transport providers are required to do – which is possibly why some airlines prefer to move this expensive burden to the passenger. Any weary traveller who decides simply to sleep on the floor of the airport terminal saves the airline a small fortune.

A new arrival, exhausted and confused, is hardly in a good position to start negotiating a hotel and arranging transport, which is why Europe insists the airlines should do it. The problem rests squarely with the enforcement of the passenger care rules.

Airlines do a great job at providing safe and affordable travel, and prosper when conditions are benign. Now they must be made to deliver when the operation breaks down – which will only be a matter of time.