Reader views (15)

 Add your view

All the people that moan about aircraft/airport noise i wonder if the airport was there before they moved in and do they fly when going on holidays ?

- Noel, Stansted, essex

I wonder if Mr Branson would be so keen if it meant he wouldn't be able to ever use his garden again and would have to keep all his windows shut no matter how hot it got outside. This is what expansion and mixed mode will mean for tens of thousands of Londoners.

Don't anyone be under any illusions here... it is the 250,000 people in the 57LEQ who are paying for this expansion through reduced house values, higher stress levels and reduced quality of life.

Enjoy my money Mr Branson.

- Rich, London

With escalating oil prices and peak oil forecast soon, think a tenfold increase in oil costs after the peak, the airlines will be struggling to get any aircraft off the ground. Heathrow will be deserted with extra capacity available, and that's without the folly of a third runway.
Of course, I forgot, aviation can all be run from peanut oil, or algae gases, rather than crude oil. Not!

- David Ede, Edinburgh, Scotland

Was it Christine Keeler who said 'then he would say that wouldn't he?'

- Paul, London

The idea that Richard Branson puts forward of the loss to the British economy if more flights use other airports is ridiculous. An extension of his argument is that the whole country should be built on as this will create more economic growth. He should just admit that he wants to make more money.
I remember Branson talking about the great threat that the world faced from global warming and damage to the environment. That is all conveniently forgotten about when by being responsible poses a threat to profitability.
He used to deserve our credibility and trust - no longer.

- Steve Chambers, Newport

Well said Franc - thousands of jobs are not worth the continued destruction of our environment. If "big business" really wants a third runway then let them (rather than the poor sods who live on the flight path) pay the full cost for it.

- Zady, London

The debate would be more meaningful if people considered the details of the argument and not just the headlines.

London may receive little direct economic benefit from connecting passengers is correct. But consider:
- Airlines operate a hub and spoke system (most destinations are only directly served from hubs, and hence to reach most geographic locations requires a connecting flight).
- People using Heathrow as a connection means London is operating as a hub
- Airlines make most sense to be based by their hub airports as that is the centre of their flight schedules
- International businesses have a general preferences to be near hubs as it is more convenient to take direct flights and there are more flight options

So if Heathrow loses its hub status (e.g. if airlines cannot get enough landing slots), it makes most sense for airlines to move their centre of operations and international business may focus their attention elsewhere - that's the real economic benefit, not cups of tea sold.

- A Paran, London, UK

Damian,

Glad your personal drama was resolved but tell me why you have the right ensure sky rocketing asthma rates and 'increased morbidity' for the 2 million plus near Heathrow to do so. I agree aviation should be allowed to flourish justy not at the price of asthma for our kids, heart attacks and strokes for our elderly and misery for millions of west Londoners with an unremitting noise environment. I think we can accommodate you and them without one having always to lose out. If France, Germany and The Netherlands can build new facilities that actually reduce human misery and pollution why can't we? Is it because it would break BAA monopoly and the 'special' place BA has at Heathrow. Why must 2 million peoples lives be made utterly horrific? I say again we can design a future for you and for me without this polarisation - it would be money much better spent than on the 2 week athletics meet that we are all going to have to fund!

- Christian Ball, London, UK

The suggestion that transit passengers are of little value to Heathrow because all they do is "drink cups of tea in the departure lounge" as suggested by lay commentators and implied by Mr Cameron is completely wrong. When a plane lands at Heathrow, irrespective of how many transit passengers are on board or not, it still pays landing fees and has to be refuelled and serviced by local Heathrow employees even if none of the transit passengers actually use Heathrow's shops and services (which they do in massive numbers). As a result every aircraft that lands and takes off at Heathrow directly and substantially contributes to the local and national economy and that is a demonstrable fact.

- Jeff Bronstein, Hobart, Australia

Lets face it the UK doesn't do transport.
In every area you look at, planes trains cars the roads and the tubes, we fail miserably in all departments when compared to our European neighbours.
Hands up who enjoys going through Heathrow? Even the new terminal 5 building, granted its nice and shiny, but do we really need to be given a tour and go up and down 20 escalators to get out of the building.
3rd runway why bother adding to the misery.

- Mr S. Port, London

This nasty and greedy old hippie only cares about money. Another runway will bring more pollution, noise and CO2 emissions. He is just another faux environmentalist with a big jet like Sting, Bono, Madonna and the other faux green frauds.

- Franc, West Palm Beach, FL USA

Heathrow? Third runway? Should get rid of the other two. Trains are the future not flying aluminium tubes, spewing out paraffin fumes, full of foul air of farting, cramped bodies lost luggage, landing at shopping malls.

- Albert Hall, hove, england

This is a first - I usually read Richard Bransons comments and realise why I'm not worth a packet like he is. But this time making more money isn't the only consideration - he is overlooking what most of us can clearly see. The infrastructure around LHR is already completely over stretched. LHR terminals are madhouses! The roads are full! LHR is really in the wrong place and an extra runway may help airlines but will make everything else at LHR much worse. Now, no-one really wants more air traffic in their own backyard, but practically any other airport would be a better choice for expansion than LHR. Better still, I'd prefer to see flying become more expensive so we all fly less. Do we all really need to fly abroad every time we have a break ?

- Andrew Garnett, Hemel Hempstead UK

Branson is completely right - the future of Heathrow should not be simply turned into a pawn in a political game. To all those who say we should just 'use the railway', and want to raise taxes and restrict air travel do they have any idea how much it costs to take a quick standard class rail fare from one city like London to another? When my uncle died, I had to rush up to Scotland. I was quoted the most extraordinary figure going by rail, into the hundreds of pounds to just jump on a train. For an inconvenient route, meaning expensive long additional journeys by cab or bus at the end. When I called a few airlines, I managed to get a flight for £60. Sorry but whatever the reason, those who are trying to restrict air travel growth are either saying we should force the price of air travel up so we all pay astronomic prices like the trains, and/or are suggesting we give yet more money to subsidise rail travel. Even then, we will still end up paying a fortune for what would amount to a public transport monopoly. On another occasion when I needed to go to Scotland urgently, I was of course again quoted those absurd fares, and couldn't get a flight...so I reluctantly drove all the way there and back in 48 hours.

- Damian Hockney, London, UK

I just wish that for once Richard Branson would say that he wants another runway at Heathrow so that his company will benefit. There is nothing wrong with any businessman doing all that he can to increase the value of his company. What is really annoying is when he talks about the damage to UK plc if provincial or foreign airports are used more frequently. This is just piffle.
Branson makes a very weak case and should get his facts right before trying to influence the public - passengers using Heathrow to connect with other flights bring no benefit to our economy except for sales of cups of tea in the departures lounge. Although Mr Branson is very good at generating publicity what he says carries no weight and should be challenged to put substance on the vague assertions that he makes to get headlines.

- Beth Williams, London

Add your comment