Tonight:
9°c
So is it victory? Sensational weekend reports that the British Airports Authority has abandoned its bid for a third runway at Heathrow remain unconfirmed, and indeed denied by the company.
But the indications are clear, as is the Tory promise to rescind the bid. The time-honoured pledge that Heathrow would not grow was reneged on by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
Now it might be reasserted, and the threat of jet-scream lifted from hundreds of thousands of London residents.
Recession, which means poverty, is yielding ever more green linings. Kent's new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth has been halted. Iconic skyscrapers are withering on the drawing board.
The extravagant Crossrail project is again in doubt. But nothing is greener than opposition to millions of tons of concrete being poured over Harmondsworth meadows so that more jumbo jets can roar over anywhere in London with a W in its postcode.
Heathrow has been a textbook case of rotten government ever since it became the main London airport in succession to Croydon after the war.
Two runways were eventually built and a categorical promise given to those under the flight path that this was enough "for all time".
The promise was given again with the approval of Terminal 4 in 1978, when an absolute cap of 275,000 flights was added.
Since then every promise has been broken. Terminal 5 was added and the cap revised upwards to 480,000 flights.
When the new terminal was supposedly about to open in 2006, the Labour Transport Minister, Ruth Kelly, was totally captured by the Big Carbon lobby of BAA and the national carrier, BA, and by "predict and provide" planning.
She claimed that the capital's economy needed a third runway after all, but that it would be small and its flights would only be to the west over countryside.
Three years later her successor, Geoff Hoon, reneged on that. He said he would allow not just a third runway but a sixth terminal and a new cap of 700,000 flights. The whole saga has been one of corporate and political mendacity.
Londoners should never believe a word from an air industry executive or a minister for planning. They lie.
With an eye to the main chance, the Tories have opposed the third runway at Heathrow and warned BAA not to sign contracts for a project they will stop.
Boris Johnson has added his pennyworth (or billions-worth) and revived the once-dead idea of a £9 billion airport on an island in the Thames Estuary.
His deputy, Kit Malthouse, has even discovered that it can be built without public money - and doubtless used for landing flying pigs.
The concept of responsibility has simply evaporated from public life. For better or worse, new runways do not feature in the Mayor's new transport strategy announced yesterday.
Those old enough to have lived through the horrors of "London's third airport" in the Seventies will recall that anything to do with airports is horrible.
The infrastructure is massive - and energy-guzzling.
The congestion and noise pollution is extensive and opposition is certain to be bitter. That is why the biggest new airports these days are built by dictators.
Back in 1973 the then Tory government decided to put a third London airport on Maplin Sands at the mouth of the Thames Estuary in Essex.
It now seems a visionary option, but then it was dismissed as too far away and a threat to (and from) birds. Airlines demanded somewhere closer.
Stansted was chosen instead, with added pledges not to expand Stansted or Gatwick, in addition to Heathrow.
These non-expansion pledges have been honoured while that to Heathrow has been broken. Honour in business is a matter of profit.
Hoon, who gave permission for the Heathrow third runway in January, now has egg all over his face. Those who live by subordinating long-term planning to short-term profit tend to die by it.
London airport planning is a victim of classic British government cynicism. On any showing it is in a mess.
The Thames Estuary airport could conceivably be London's version of Hong Kong's new Chek Lap Kok airport, the most costly modern building project on earth.
But with London government still trying to swallow the Olympics and having, against its better judgment, to continue planning Crossrail, the idea of another so-called lumpy project consuming money and political energy is more than anyone can bear.
Assuming the Government does not impose swingeing taxes on air travel, demand will continue to rise.
In which case there is little alternative to pricing Heathrow out of its current overcrowding and into sanity by removing the bulk of its UK tourism flights and dumping them ever farther from the capital.
Two thirds of Heathrow's users are leisure travellers and their presence in west London is hardly a personal or commercial necessity - let alone "vital to London's economy", as aviation lobbyists chant.
I might be annoyed to be denied Heathrow's convenient half-hour drive to my front door but I cannot honestly expect that this convenience should be at the expense of the amenity of hundreds of thousands of west London residents. Tourist destinations should be served from elsewhere.
If green policy is to mean anything it must curb mobility. Curbing will be in part by congestion, as practised daily on the streets of London. But mostly it will be by price.
For burning carbon by internal combustion people must be charged sufficiently to make them go by muscle-power or not at all - or at least go from outside London.
Heathrow is essentially an urban airport imposing severe external costs on its city. It should be made very expensive to use.
It would be good to know if the Government agrees.
Reader views (9)
stop flying peeps, simple 
- Pam, London
Not allowing Heathrow to expand is effectively telling BA and Virgin Atlantic that they cannot grow as airlines - but Lufthansa and Air France/KLM can, because their hubs have additional runway capacity being added. It is classic British whinging and moaning sacrificing jobs and progress NOT for the environment, because aviation growth will happen at Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt and Munich, but because of a luddite attitude to noise (with ever quieter planes) and business.
Heathrow serves so many destinations because of transfers, without the ability to grow, it will become 2nd and 3rd rate, and no other London airport even approaches being a hub. In essence, if you rely on flights for business, the denial of Heathrow expansion makes London less attractive over time.
- Libertyscott, East London
The free ES is getting the message over, the best things in life are free...oops! except that, to take 120 children from their very noisy school near Heathrow to a quiet natural place for a day costs about the same as one return flight to New York-First Class!!Thanks for the wisdom Simon Jenkins, lets have some more funds from BAA for kids who all need P&Q, like fresh air and space to be, as stated by DfT in The White Paper 2003, Ch3,23:"airport operators should endeavour to provide...funding for school trips away from the noisy environment - especially where the loss of amenity outdoors may be severe." Lets see it happen NOW. The Aviation Environment Federation is supporting a "Soundscape Project" to give children one first class day in peace and quiet....for a change. Support and enquiries welcome.
- Julia Welchman, Richmond,Surrey ,UK
The third runway at Heathrow will be built.Whatever Cameron and co are saying now.Their big business backers will insist on it.Anyone who worked on terminal 5 will tell you everything is in place for terminal 6.
- Colin, barking essex
Great insoight into Heathrow. London City Airport in the Docklands has a similar story. This airport was built in 1987, adjacent to homes and schools and they told residents there would be no expansion and n JET planes.
Flight were limited to 30,000 per year and exclusively for business travellers and using small 30 seater planes. Yet the airport has broken its promise about not expanding and it is now operating 100 seater regional jet planes which are much noisier then the propeller planes that used to operate from the airport.
The airport recently got approval to expand from 76,000 to 120,000 flights per year. That is 1 flight every 90 seconds. Did they bother to think about residents and school kids?
Many of the flights are short-haul to Stratford International with international rail is an option.
At 120,000 flights this will be the same as Luton airport. The airport is a blight on the local area and it has impacted on generation. The airport costs more jobs then it brings. See failed projects such as the £500 Royal Docks business park and £1.5bn Silvertown Quays which has been shelved. The airport has the politicians on it side.
Boris has double standard, he does not want expansion at Heathrow because of noise, but he is quite happy that other communities suffer with noise.
London City Airport has the cheek to blame residents for living near airport, but it is the airport fault for localting itself in a residential area.
- W.L., Docklands
"...Two thirds of Heathrow's users are leisure travellers and their presence in west London is hardly a personal or commercial necessity - let alone "vital to London's economy", as aviation lobbyists chant.."
So, the leisure industry is not of any importance to London's economy?
- Rick, London, UK
It is somewhat disappointing that Londoners who voted for a new Mayor got more of the same ignorance and contempt for the wishes of Londoners. Boris along with ousted Ken and Brown supports Crossrail, a £16bn+ scheme benefitting the City. Most of the contract money being awarded to US companies like Bechtel. An Evening Standard poll revealed there was no support for it but Boris like the ousted Mayor continues to support Crossrail, fails to tackle pollution harming the health of Londoners and of course, supports an estuary airport. Like the ousted Ken an apologist for the banks. By the way, the UK asset sale is the exact amount as guess what, Crossrail! Guess who benefits??? out of touch politicians will end up OUT
- Val Keller, London UK
Excellent article.
In east london we have the same problem with London City Airport.
Promise after promise to the people around the airport has been broken.
London City Airport currently fly jets over the most densely populated area in the UK. Broken promises of no bigger jets lie littered over the area like the PM10 particles that cover our homes. No consistant noise readings have taken place in nearly a decade. Even boris showed concern over this but still gave his blessing. Boris knows he has no votes in Newham , a labour stronghold for a decades. So he is quite happy to move the noise and pollution to us.
London City airport promised jobs yet they failed to even meet their Section 106 agreement on jobs. Its all spin spin spin.
Politicians do not value the lives of the people of East London. They are more concerned with keeping the Hedge fund owners happy. Boris this week gave the ok for Columbus Tower right in the LCY flightpath. Why? Cash for Crossrail. Which gives one message to businessess - Mayor For Sale.
- Darren, East London
Alongside the RSPB we 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. An airport in the Thames Estuary (not just at Cliffe) was conclusively ruled out and this decision 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 ‘birdstrike’ than at any other major airport in the UK.
What Boris Johnson and Kit Malthouse are proposing is environmental vandalism on a grand scale!
- Friends Of The North Kent Marshes, Rochester Kent
