Tonight:
5°c
A major cut in the “excessive” stacking of aircraft in the skies around Heathrow was today demanded in return for a third runway.
A cross-party committee of MPs said the extra capacity must be used to bring more peace to thousands of people plagued by circling jets.
In a keynote report, the transport committee called on the Government to set targets to reduce the number of planes queuing up to land. At present, with two runways, Heathrow is operating at 99 per cent capacity, which results in delays and queues.
“A third runway at Heathrow, if built, offers a real opportunity to add resilience into the air traffic management system and to help reduce excessive stacking,” said the report. “If a third runway is built, the Government should create a framework for setting targets to eliminate excessive stacking.”
Stacking occurs when there are not enough landing slots for the number of planes. Pilots are told to fly in circles until their turn to land.
The MPs said some stacking was inevitable but in Heathrow's case it was “routine” and had “negative environmental impacts”.
Ministers gave a go-ahead in principle to the third runway in January, subject to planning permission and environmental targets. But the project is being fiercely opposed by climate change campaigners and residents who fear being blighted by noise and traffic.
The Conservatives say they will axe the expansion if they win the next general election, claiming that capacity could be freed up by shifting domestic passengers onto high-speed rail.
Committee chairman Louise Ellman said: “If a third runway at Heathrow Airport is built, then the Government should set targets to cut stacking.”
The same report urged ministers to curb noise levels and aircraft numbers over beauty spots like national parks.
“Tranquillity is a key factor in sensitive areas such as national parks,” said Ms Ellman. “Current guidance appears to allow unchecked increases in aviation activity over these areas.”
Ralph Smyth, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, said: “With ever more people holidaying in England this summer, the proposal to limit flying over sensitive parts of our countryside such as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty have not come a moment too soon.”
The MPs were also concerned that safety would be harmed by new powers being given to the European Aviation Safety Agency covering aerodrome safety, air navigation services and air traffic management.
Reader views (10)
I would like to know who gave permission for planes to start landing at Heathrow from 6 in the morning. Workmen are not allowed to start until after 8 or 8.30. There are always a few planes landing before 6 too. Are they fined and where does this money go?
I don't care about extra planes at heathrow, what I cannot understand is that one of the world's busiest airports has a flightpath over millions of people. Build a new runway - but build it north to south PLEASE!
- Rex Lombardo, london, 01/08/2009 06:22
Report abuse
dont want to see any airports expanded in b isles enough is enough the world is noisey enough as it is. havent traveled by air for 8 years now ive realised ive all i need in b isles. who needs that travel abroad holiday nightmare
- C May, bromley, 01/08/2009 05:22
Report abuse
Why are they still so set on enlarging Heathrow when they cannot even manage this airport why reward them with even more passengers?! Their service is bad and Heathorw should be closed. BAA should not get another chance they have constantly failed with their UK airports. I also like to have a new London airport further away from the London city centre that is what the majority thinks. We do not need Crash Gordon's "dream team" telling us otherwise.
- Jacqueline, Hampstead, London, 01/08/2009 05:22
Report abuse
Londoners have had enough of flights across their airspace and don't want a 3rd runway. Put it somewhere else.
- Dhan Raj, Basildon, 01/08/2009 05:22
Report abuse
The new runway will just mean more flights. Like another lane on the motorway it will improve congestion for a few years but will soon fill up, returning us to the same problem but with more planes stacking over London.
Promises will be made to restrict capacity to 80% or 90% but these promises will be broken as we approach these milestones, with Airlines and Airport owners saying that business will go overseas if they can't grow to meet demand.
We've heard it all before and the answer remains the same (environmental issues aside). Bite the bullet and build a new airport out of town.
- Rich, London, 01/08/2009 05:22
Report abuse
The only way forward for London is to have a new airport. The Thames estuary is the right ecological location not in Heathrow which is old and too close to the city centre. It has to be there and away from most of the population and the green areas of London. Heathrow cannot be expanded with their current management by BAA it is just awful.
- Caroline, Islington, London, 01/08/2009 05:22
Report abuse
Rod, The World Health Organisation has been pretty clear in terms of its investigations into noise pollution and the effects it has on human beings. This is no green stunt and its not about global warming, its about asthma rates, premature death, premature and underwieght babies and serious impacts on mental health. These are the elephants in the room no one at BAA the DFT or BA will talk about. BBC editorial policy is clearly in favour of government policy and is not interested in these very real health implications. Aviation and people should not mix and the idea that a new runway that will increase flights by 100,000 will somehow benefit the environment when the fuel saved would amoiunt to say 4% of the fuel of the extra flights is palbable nonsense. The pollution form the planes and the noise will have huge serious impacts and thats really scary - especially as no one at the DFT ever addresses the health implications of flights over densely populated areas. This is stacking up (forgive the pun) into a 21st Century tobacco lobby type debate with serious clash actions winging there way to the aviation lobby and government for its toading avialtion policy. I read with mirth Lord Adonis state he was a Christian in a press article last week - funny - I thought the truth was a central pillar of that faith - not it seems if you are a NuLabour Christian.
- Christian Ball, London, UK, 01/08/2009 05:22
Report abuse
Stacking for Heathrow is done around four beacons just outside NW, NE, SW and SE London. Within a three-tier control system comprising take-off & and landings, approach & departures and en-route - each involving three different control operations.Plus those you are handed over to when leaving our own congested airspace.
An extra runway at Heathrow is just another blip (or spanner) in the works.
- Peter Seekings-Foster, Mildenhall, Suffolk., 01/08/2009 05:22
Report abuse
Yes I agree with the impact of stacking, environmentally unfriendly, more noise etc etc. I have, like many, spent much time doing the same - circling round and round, guessing where we are from the London landmarks to stop the boredom.
I don't see any proof that a third runway actually gives more airspace, unless the extra capacity is sited a fair distance from the existing runways, causing many additional passenger journeys on the ground.
Can Joe Murphy please detach himself from the debate and give FACTS, so we have more chance of deciding yes or no for another runway, away from the emotional, political and financial forces.
- Rod, Epping, UK, 01/08/2009 05:22
Report abuse
Surely one of the purposes of a third runway would be to reduce the stack, or would it result in another stack being created? If I remember correctly, the last time I flew into Heathrow, the aircraft were stacked up over the Solent. I don´t see how that would affect the environment and the people living near Heathrow.
- Graham Rodhouse, Helmond, Netherlands, 01/08/2009 05:22
Report abuse
