Comment: City flying

As our story on the protestors planning to disrupt Heathrow's operations makes clear, a third runway and the ending of runway alternation at Heathrow face intense opposition from residents, fuelled by a sense that the Government has allowed its policy to be dictated by BAA. The Competition Commission has decided that BAA's near-monopoly of airports in the London area - other than City, which belongs to a group of financial institutions - is indeed part of the reason for poor service at Heathrow.

Heathrow is undoubtedly overstretched. However, this newspaper has argued that runway space there could be freed up if the airport became the premium-priced choice for direct business travellers to and from Britain, rather than trying to attract passengers en route to destinations elsewhere. Some of the flights to Paris and Brussels, which are now well served by rail, could also be dropped.

This model does not suit BAA and BA, but the millions of people who would be affected by the environmental impact of a third runway should not have to suffer because these companies cannot adapt their business to rely less on transfer passengers.

London First, meanwhile, has argued that an improved regulatory framework could elicit better service at Heathrow. As the Transport Secretary, Ruth Kelly, considers the result of a consultation which many in key west London marginal seats believe was flawed, she cannot afford to ignore these arguments.