• Heathrow will be biggest and busiest airport in the world
• I challenge Brown to open debate, says Boris
• Green activists warn of 'almighty battle' ahead
• Commentary: Do we need the third runway?
• Heathrow Q&A
• Andrew Gilligan: A gift to the green movement
• Poll: Do you back a third runway at Heathrow?
• Blog: Is Cam's new man still in favour of 3rd runway?

Reader views (65)

 Add your view

Will the Labour Government reveal the impact that Heathrow airport has already been having on the rates of infant mortality in West London's electoral wards for the six-year set of ONS data 2002-2007?

- Michael Ryan, Shrewsbury

The choice is simple either get on and build a 3rd runway (something that should have been built years ago.) Or decide that Heathrow will no longer be a major world airport and allow global flights to move to continental airports.

There is no enviromental case as planes will still fly around the world the difference will be as we are an island more passengers and aircraft will have to fly to europe carrying passengers that currently use Heathrow.

The tories are either living a dreamland for political purposes or just like Boris cancelled schemes and then praised them when work started are just using this as a way to gain office.

The real question is why the government did not make a single announcement on plans for ALL Londons airports?

As for the high speed plans the High Speed line from St Pancras heads SOUTH while the line heading north has still to be electrified. St Pamncras is already full and its Euston which has the capacity for a High Speed line to the north which would build on the recent WCML project.

Anyway, the next High speed line should be extention of HS1 from Stratford to meet the East Coast Main Line at Welwyn. Thus allowing high speed trains to reach the north (as promised when the channel tunnel was built) in a fraction of the time and cost of starting from scatch at other locations.

- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex

Sorry but what battle? gordon brown has supressed the battle by refusing to accept discussion (and a vote) on the subject.

I suppose it's because he was not elected to be PM he feels he can do whatever he wants.

- Chaz, Perth, Australia

Heatrow expansion is a disaster a decision built on lies and broken promises. Does the government expect us to swallow another one, that this will not lead to increased noise and pollution, it shows utter comtempt to Londoners.

- William, Chiswick

Alongside the RSPB, Friends of the North Kent Marshes are wholly opposed to the construction of an airport anywhere in the Thames Estuary because of the immense damage it would cause to the area’s internationally important wildlife and the wider environment.The whole issue was exhaustively investigated between 2002 and 2005 in the Government’s Aviation White Paper. All the key players, including the aviation industry, contributed. The idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary was conclusively ruled out and upheld by the High Court. In addition to the unprecedented environmental damage and the resulting massive legal implications, the investigation found that an estuary airport did not make sense economically, would not meet the requirements of the aviation industry and presented a significantly higher risk of ‘bird strike’ than at any other major airport in the UK. It would potentially be the single biggest piece of environmental vandalism ever perpetrated in the UK.
note: Birdstrike
An airport in the Thames Estuary would be unsafe.

Even with an aggressive bird hazard management programme (i.e. shooting or scaring the birds away), the bird strike hazard would be up to 12 times higher than at any other major UK airport.

- Gill Moore, Cliffe Kent

Let all those "incadescent" celebs bring it on. Just because they think they may suffer a bit of extra inconvenience at the working mans expense they want to object to any form of progress. Compulsory purchase their stupid bits of land & lets have the riots now. Labour have messed up practi8cally everything these lastv 10 years so whats one more run way ay LHR. Im all for it...lets get it started.

- Happy Man, London

K Williams seems to miss the point many people living in london were not living under a flight path of a runway that had not been built yet............perhaps we should all have cystal ball searches when we buy our houses to check this on out K? Or am I missing something or is it you in fact demonstrating a crass thoughtlessness - if you live in Notting Hill or Shepherds Bush or Ealing or Maidenhead watch out K thinks you should have known a brand new runway was going to put flight paths right across your house in the most densley populated part of Europe using your powers of ESP.

- Christian Ball, London, UK

Fantastic decision. It will restore Heathrow as the world's greatest international airport at a time when other countries are spending billions to take the crown. A sensible and forward thinking economic move by Gordon Brown at a time when Britain is caught in a massive recession.

- Jeff, Hobart, Australia

K Williams. You obviously don't realise that some people have lived in Sipson/Harmondsworth & the surrounding areas for years, when Heathrow was just two farms. It only became used as an airstrip during WW2 and the airport followed from there. Not everyone moved near Heathrow quite a lot of people just stay in hillingdon because that is where their families are. My nan is 89 and has lived in the area all her life and remembers the original farm - She did not move near an airport - so get your facts right first!

- J Green, Middlesex

John Bloomfield build an airport in the Thames Estuary, Oh yes kill the wildlife, polute another area - great solution. Why don't we just built a 10 lane motorway from the M4 to the new airport, knock down all the houses so that we can make it faster for people to get there from the rest of the UK !

- Jack, Richmond

As an American living in Britain for the past 20 years this is the last straw. I'm so frustrated with this government. I thought they were better than my home country's government. But Gordon Brown has proven he is just another politician. Rather than invest in forward thinking efficient public transport schemes like rail he plays to the interests of big business and the unions at the same time. He could have taken a bold move and moved the UK forward as a leader in next generation technology. Instead Britain will invest billions in old ideas. Sad really.

- B.Johnson, Newcastle, UK

I live about 20 mins from Heathrow, right under the flightpath and everything. I say good on the third runway - it'll bring jobs and investment to the area. If you don't want to live near an airport, don't buy a house near an airport. Seems churlish to expect a whole airport to move just because you made a daft decision.

- K Williams, London

Heathrow is finished. They've basically put a cap on any extra flights before 2020 at the earliest. Besides, the runway will never get built, the Tories are opposed to it and have promised to scrap it and that's if the legal or direct action doesn't finish it off first. heathrow will dwindle and die and we'll see if we really did need the extra capcity to save the UK economy.

There's only one way forward and that's to build a new airport that is powered by green energy and forces the physically able onto high speed trains in order to access it and travel domestically.

- Rich, London

Bit like the war in Iraq this one - Nobody wanted it but the government went ahead anyway!

Clearly Mr Brown has been taking advice from Blair on this matter so just wait until 2020 when it's built, all the runways are in use all the time for reasons of economy and they are saying "Oh yes, but based on the (decidedly dodgy) evidence available at the time we really did believe that the UK would benefit ecomonically from the expansion of this particular airport and noise and pollution levels in the area would be drastically reduced..."

- Andi-M, London UK

I dont even live anywhere near Heathrow, but its as if this Government doesnt already have enough problems. Brown is a walking, talking accident prone disaster. Cant wait for the next chapter.

- Bondy, london

I welcome this decision. Unfortunately it does not go far enough to solve Heathrow's problems. Surely it would be more cost effective to build TWO new runways with associated terminal buildings. It is very short sighted not to do so.

- Harry Lauder, Edinburgh, Scotland

Frankly in this mad world there was little else the government could do. Britain requires a world class airport for it to remain in the forfront of finance etc.

- Peter, Camberley UK

This is obviously a very sensitive issue. It will definitely have some detrimental affects particulaly to local residents and businesses in the local area. However, in the grand scale of things Heathrow, as a major world transport hub, is in desperate need of additional runway usage as it runs at almost full capacity during its hours of operation. The fuel wastage and unnecessary emissions because of holding times on the ground and air is absolutely enormous. (just 1 Boeing 777 will burn a tonne of fuel when in the holding stack for ten minutes!)This ssue needs to be adressed and there must be a precondition that with the third runway, this massive wastage issue is addressed.

- James Proctor-Pearson, London, UK

Why can London not get a decent modern airport? Heathrow was built a long time ago in the wrong place and it is clear that the Spanish owners will not and cannot provide a decent service. We need a new airport far away from the city centre where people live but properly connected to central London. Well done Boris Johnson for supporting London - as usual Crash Gordon is letting us down...

- Jacqueline, Hampstead, London

Oh how they bleat how they cry. It was always going ahead but you seemed to live in this world where civil servants listen to you.

We've been lumbered with a multi billion pound railway line we have to pay for (not you Nimbys) that we don't want as it is of no benefit to us.

The nimbys in Gatwick will be next god preserve us

- Duncan, Kebt

I would very much like to see that man Hoon explain to my kids why they should have asthma for the sake of the nation. I thought Labour had its roots in protecting people from inhuman working conditions, shame they stick two fingers up to all of us with respect to our living conditions. I am truelly gob smacked and will fight this every step of the way - bring on the election and bring it on tomorrow lets get rid of these barbaric people who never address peoples concerns this is utterly anti-democratic.

- Christian Ball, London, UK

If the photo attached to this report is connected to the HR announcement it just shows how many of our 600 plus elected MP's care about the electorate's views. GB and Co. are hell bent upon bulldozing through every policy the electorate do not want. Why? The rubbish they spout to justify their actions just doesn't wash.

- Thorrun, Brentwood UK

Where is the High Speed 2? This should be given priority over a new runway. I will believe the announcements about High Speed 2 when I see a budget. This doesn't go far enough. High Speed 2, 3 etc are crucial for the UK. They are more important than a new runway.

- Jules, Paris, France

Excellent decision from the Labour Government they will get my vote in the next election as they are the only party concerned about London's future, everyone else should leave and move to the country if they don't like it.

- Paul Hopkins, London, England

Its seems odd that all the NIMBY's to the west of London who don't want, or think the rest of us need, a third runway are entirely happy to suggest a new airport, with even greater capacity, be built in the Thames estuary. And why should we have a general election over this so that people in the Hebrides can have their say?
Get a grip people, with increasing population it stands to reason airports, like train services, need to grow.

- Steve Woolmer, Gravesend UK

Yes I would like to know too how many flights Emma Thompson has taken this year

- Charles, London

Was this not put to the popular vote and everyone was against building more on Heathrow?! So why is Crash Gordon still putting this through, against the people's wishes?? Strange. Anyhow Heathrow is a clear disgrace for travellers and failure should not be getting rewarded.

- Steveo, London NW1

I thought Gordon Brown was going to allow Parliament to decide when important issues arose. Nothing resembling a debate in the House of Commons has happened. I feel very disappointed that the government have been influenced by BAA and other powerful lobbying companies whilst once again the public are ignored.

- Brian Denton, London

Les Rosbif!

Please Mr Johnson don't build this runway, we want businessmen to come to Paris, bringing their money and jobs with them especially in the current economic climate. If possible could you also cancel Crossrail,

N Sarkozy

- N Sarkozy, Paris, France

Dave, London

I believe the idea was to close two or three of the current airports and build one international airport in the Thames Estuary.

Though whilst more can be done to reduce polluting emmissions from aircraft, it seems nothing can be done to prevent puerile emissions from certain London based Standard readers

- John Bloomfield, Twickenham

I have voted Labour in the last six General Elections but they speak with forked-tongue on the environment which is our most important issue. If anyone doubted it before they really are now finished as a governing party.

- Keith, London

"It will generate £5.5 billion a year more for the economy, according to government estimates"

Is this the same government that as recently as March 2008 was estimating that we would avoid recession and were best placed to ride out any economic downturn?

Their estimates are worth slightly less than a 3-year old's drawings on a fridge.

- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland

This is, for once, an excellent decision of the Government. Fewer delays and chaos for passengers and London gets the world class hub airport that it deserves.

- John-Paul Buck, London, UK

So in one breath Hoon is telling us that it is ok to build a third runway at Heathrow and increase Co2 from more flights.

Yet with his other face he tells us to get out of our cars and reduce our energy consumption, with hikes in taxation to make sure we do. The reason being to reduce co2 emissions.

Either increased Co2 emissions matter and we should not be building a third runway or they don't and if so scrap the pointless green taxes.

You can't have it both ways Mr (Buff) Hoon.

- Adam, Harrow, UK

Good on you Boris, you're obviously in touch with the popular mood. And if anyone begrudges £15,000 just ponder ken's record on litigation. he spent over £11,000,000 on failed litigation, which is 7000 times more than Boris is going to spend, and Boris is doing it for the public benfit

- Jeremiah, London

I lived in Richmond for 30 years of my life. For 6 years, my bedroom window view was parallel with the Chertsey Road towards the Old Gas Works as Mortlake. On a good evening (smog permitting), I could see at least 7 planes in a row stacking up to turn over and make final approach. That was 20 years ago. For all you people who don't live in London and go on about it being good for the nation, think about the people who have to put up with living with the place. And as for being good for the nation, how is it going to help the unemployed in Wales or the manufacturers in the North. It won't. It will just poor more more revenue into the govenment coffers (from which we in the south will never benefit from) and raise a false economy in the South with a short term boost in construction and employment, just when the government need it.

- Moved Abraod, Sweden

I challenge all those who oppose the 3rd runway, including Emma Thompson, to declare how many flights they have taken in the last 3 years not just from Heathrow but from all airports. I always suspect the social motives of the rich and famous. The opponents have mutually inconsistent reasons. Shifting air traffic to another airport near London does not reduce CO2 emissions. Also the noise pollution will be shifted elsewhere. Relocation of some people from their current homes will happen whatever new infrastructure is developed, whether rail or new run way. Fewer people will die from aircrafts crashing near Heathrow in a year than on the roads in a month.

- Nat, New Malden, UK

In 100 years, London has substituted one form of pollution for another all in the name of 'financial expansion'. If this 3rd runway goes ahead, the increase in carbon emissions, noise, traffic and other pollution-making activities will increase to dangerous levels and in the name of what? How many of those who support a thid runway actually live under a flight path? Here in Newham, we were assured that when the City Airport was opened that there would be limits on air traffic etc.
During its history, the flight number has increased and will increase again. All that needs to happen is for the airlines to grease the palms of councillors, politicians and other local dignitaries to get their plans through, without any thought to the poor devils who have to put up with the increase in pollution and noise. If this all sounds very sinister, well, that's because it is.

- Joannie, London, England

Why can't they build a new runway...on top of an existing runway? It is not beyond the wit or expertise of structural engineers, in 2009, to conceive of a huge runway, on stancions and pylons, set above a current runway, about 30 meters above the older tarmac. Such a new take-off and landing platform would be accessed by spiral-ramps, and would be 'set-forward' of the current runway, by about a third-length. Planes would land on the lower runway, arriving for touchdown at the clear-air third, and planes would simultaneously take-off, in the same forward direction as the landing-planes, from the upper tier.

Perhaps, for safety from cross-winds, the new upper runway could be 'pivoted' so that it 'set' or moveable, through the centre, to look like a tarmac 'X' shape, from a bird's eye view. And Sipson could be saved!

- Kj, London, UK

Maybe these so called celebs should use other modes of transport to get to the Oscars? Rowing boat or not go at all.

Heathrow runway 3 must go ahead immediately. Instead I daresay it will take decades. In the meantime Britain will become a third world power with a third world city.

- Alastair J S Adams, Worcester Park, Surrey

What about using Farnborough? Its almost unused except for a few private jets. Or Stanstead or Gatwick?

- Jim, London

I would like to see the details regarding the high speed rail link. In agreeing for the sake of argument, the third runway will happen, what impact will the rail link have on the environment, current services and cost?
Will the rail link be completely new build? If so, are we to see the destruction of areas of natural beauty?demolition of homes? (presuming part will be above ground) or will it follow the line of current routes.
St. Pancras - will the new express train service be to the detriment of services already using the station?
There appears to be scant information on this promise. Is it just that? a hollow promise acting as a sweetener to try to minimise the extent of discontent from those who oppose the third runway?

- Keith Grey, islington, UK

Well done the government on taking a tough but necessary decision. Anyone who uses Heathrow on a regular basis will know just how over-crowded it is. For once, Boris has got it wrong.

- Rick, London, UK

Scott you're talking utter rubbish. I live underneath the stacking system for Heathrow and am not far from Biggin Hill Airport. Why should people have to move home to accommodate another runway we do not need? Already flights are taking off and landing every one minute 30 seconds. Why do we need another runway at Heathrow. The more planes in the air the greater chance of an accident. The noise alone is horrendous, but I assume from your comments you neither care nor live near an airport!

- Sue, Orpington,,Kent

The Thames Estuary feasibility ia a very good idea. It worked in Hong Kong. It is so obvious that to have all these planes approaching across water rather than over London is sensible not only for noise pollution but an accident etc.

- Douglas Macdonald, LONDON

It is not just the villages around Heathrow it is vast swathes of central London that have been devastated in the past 10 years by the increase in flights. When I moved to Battersea many moons ago there was an occasional flight overhead which was acceptable. Over the past decade this has increased to the point where I am awoken every morning at 5am and sometimes earlier when the rotation is over London. In the summer a plane is coming over every minute. There is no peace.

It is also, as pointed out by another poster, completely insane in this day and age to have planes coming into land over the most densely populated conurbation in the land. Absolute insanity.

When you also consider that Heathrow itself is a total cesspool run into the ground for the sake of retail profits rather than developed and improved in order to make the experience of travellers more enjoyable and easier then why should we possible trust the BAA and their demands?

Last but not least we are probably past peak air travel now anyway given the economic crisis and future price of fuel. With flight numbers already dropping this is probably a complete white elephant.

We already have City, Stanstead, Gatwick and Luton. lets use these more and keep flights away from central london.

- Bruce, London

It is not just about CO2 emissions: it is about Quality of Life, or rather the lack of it for millions of people that would result in three quarters of a million flights flying over central London. It is totally intolerable, unsafe and a truly miserable decision by a unelected PM: this decisoon was so important and will blight so many lives that a referendum should have been asked of Londoners.
I also agree with the frist opinion: what about the obvious safety issues that no one addresses: how can flying so mnay flights over a densley populated world capital be allowed in the 21st century?
The sooner an election is caled the better: the Tories need to stick to their promise that they will rescind this decision as the first thing they do in power.

- Themis Avraamides, London UK

Good stuff Boris. To paraphrase another great leader, if this runway comes to pass, then never will have so much been owed by so few to so many. The population of the South East will be inconvenienced for decades for the sole purpose of increasing the wealth of the airlines and BAA. The people of London want a new airport in the Thames estuary, of that I am convinced. Any Briton has travelled to one of the new transport hubs around the world must cringe, as I do, when they return to Heathrow and particularly if they drive back in to town along the incomprehensibly bad main road – why is there a speed restriction of 40mph on a dual carriageway away from houses?

The Government has refused to listen to us and, whilst I am certainly no environmentalist, I will probably go down and join in the direct action needed to stop this.


- St, London

I am opposed to the new runway at Heathrow, but am also opposed to a new airport in the Thames Estuary. This is impractical at a time when sea level rises are predicted and will do untold damage to wildlife as the Thames estuary is an internationally important site for birds.

We need to just make better use of existing airport capacity and reduce demand for flights by taxing aviation fuel and offering alternatives. If we don't, this increase in air travel will cost the earth.

- Carol, London

Scott, London; this runway is needed, but not necessarily at LHR. Gatwick, Luton and Stanstead all have only one runway.
You are right when you say that most other major cities have airports with multiple runways. However, the overwhelming majority of these airports are very much younger than 70 odd years, not situated in the middle of built up areas and are well serviced by road and rail.
Regardless of the arguments for and against this project, Geoff Hoon has just announced that it will go ahead. The democatic process has, once again, been completely sidestepped by NuLiebour. There is not even going to be a Commons vote on the issue; it will go ahead by Politburo diktat.

- Keith Lonsdale, Doncaster

Everyone is talking about the green issues, what about the safety issues of flying over London?

I flew into London last night from Munich with BA. The plane approached Heathrow directly from the east. I could clearly see the Houses of Parliament, London Eye and all the major landmarks just below us.

What happens, God forbids, if it came down over central London? The devastation will be infinitely worse than the Twin Towers in New York.

In the 21st century, we have no business over-flying a densely populated area. The Thames estuary is a natural choice like in Hong Kong.

The government is being driven by big business, it is time we put a stop to this outrages plan.

- V Tan, London

Anyone ‘with experience’ will tell you that £15,000 worth of legal advice in matters of this nature (from legal advisors who know what they are talking about) will get you around 5 hours of their time.... So what’s the point in wasting tax payers money?

- Ade, London

Boris tell us how you are going to stop it. List the powers that you have to stop the run way.

- Alex Lisinge, Putney London

Again good on Boris!! The constituents are against this bad airport in a bad location. Boris stands up for the consituents! He is properly elected by the people, unlike Gorden Brown. That explains the difference of character I think/

- Georgie, Islington, London

Why does everything take so long to build in this country? Boris' idea is by far the best and most imaginative solution, but stands no chance as, even if the process was started now, an estuary airport would probably take 20 - 25 years to build. In contrast Hong Kong International took less than eight years from conception to completion.
As it is laying a strip of tarmac at Heathrow will probably take nearly twice as long as the entire Hong Kong project.

- Steve, London

The problem with Boris - and I'm all for stopping the 3rd runway at Heathrow - is that he wants to build an airport at Cliffe, Kent which will destroy a beautiful natural wildlife area home to thousands of birds. Stop ALL airport expansion. Enough is enough!

- Judith C, London, England

So, the people who would get work from this, construction, retail, airport staff, local investment etc what about them then? Why stop people working just to save a few houses that to be frank are already under a flightpath so why are they complaining, I bet magically they would move if the comp was upped.

- Rob, London

As pointed out before, what we are waiting for is for David Cameron to announce that one of his first actions as PM will be to put forward a bill revoking all approvals relating to the third runway, and since those involved will know of this they cannot expect any compensation. But will he make such a pledge? Somehow I doubt it. IOW in reality he will be very happy to see it being approved now so he can pick up votes under false pretences.

- Tonyb, Melbourne, Australia

This mantra that 'Heathrow is needed for business' is rubbish. The economic case for expansion is built on research paid for by the aviation industry. Only 40% of passengers at Heathrow are using it on business. Furthermore a large proportion of passengers are transfering through the airport - they are not stopping, i.e not pumping any money into the wider UK economy. The runway is never going to happen and business will not miss it.

- David Lewis, London

I bet lawyers throughout London are rubbing there hands with anticipation of bubbling Boris handing them massive wedges of our taxes. I don't mind him political point scoring against the government, but doing it with £15,000 of OUR cash just shows why the Tories must never be trusted.

- Nj, London

Looks like London will become a 'Labour-free zone' after the next election because of this crass decision by Brown.

- Doug Watt, london e14

It's needed end of!

It's sad that various villages will have to be flattened, but they already live in a flight path, so can't really complain about noise. They'll get a nice package to up sticks and move - probably to a nearby place.

If other major cities already have three & four runways, then it shows how behind we are, and anyone who's flown out of Heathrow in recent years will tell you just how much expansion is needed, and sooner rather than later!

- Scott, London

Here we go, wasting money.

The decision has been made. Of course there are environmental concerns but their is carbon trading.

How stupid, building a new airport in the Thames Estuary. Polute another area, have everyone from the North Midland and West somehow meander through London to catch a flight. Is this a serious proposals.

As for Heathrow's neighbouring towns they are heavily populated by ppeople employed, directly or indirectly, by the airport but you have a vociferous minority who pretent to represent their neighbours.

Stop wasting time and money and get building.

- Dave, London

I notice that lately the Cabinet has been holding sessions in various parts of the country. Why don't we invite its members to meet any morning between 4-30 a.m. and 8 a.m. at any location within 10 miles of Heathrow? After a few minutes they might begin to understand why hundreds of thousands of Londoners are against this dire project.

- Alex, West London

The new runway should not be built,the new jobs,and revenue should come to The Netherlands.

- George Kweckle, Amsterdam

Add your comment