Reader views (14)

 Add your view

Sarah and Tim - You are frankly scarey in your blind and inhuman statements - I think you'll find Tim that Richmond, Wimbeldon, Ealing, Chiswick and Brentford were all in place before Heathrow as was small city called London but don't let a small fact like that get in the way. Sarah - as an apologist for aviation you need to address the REAL health costs of Heathrow you people never do - the price is PREMATURE Deaths - that is, if you don't get it, people dieing younger than they would otherwise do because of Heathrow, its Asthma rates unrivalled in Europe for our children, its education ruined - 100,00 children can't actually work outside or have windows open in summer, its the unquantified harm all the aviation exhaust fumes have on 2 million Londoners as jets pass overhead every 90 seconds, its noise unremittoing andf constant for 2 million people, its the inability to be outside for half a day every day for 2 million people. Yes I think Sarah I'll take the humans over your 'economic jobs'. By the way Heathrow is not a net contributor to our economy - if you factor in the zero rated aviation fuel and the 16 billion GBP tourism deficit aviation is helping such wealth out of our economy. Jobs are not at threat for expansion in a new purpose built airport - but they would have to move and as all the BAA PR contributions never tire of pointing out we can all do that!!

- Christian Ball, London, UK

BAA a useless organisation if ever there was one. There is an old saying that has stood the test of time and that is "you must learn to walk before you can run".
In the case of Heathrow, fix the place first so that it works then start thinking about another runway and not before.

- Mr S.Port, London

Hardly surprising considering that R3 really equals taxpayers money being used to build BAA a major asset. I would say that an extension to my kitchen was a necessity for London's economy if I thought saying so would lead to the government paying for it.

What's really needed is a totally independent study, beyond the influence of DfT, politicains, BA and BAA. Although I already suspect it will find that the economic argument for expansion is overrated.

- Rich, London

I thought only 25% of business users supported the third runway.
Surely the first thing to do is divert many of the tourists to Gatwick.
Heathrow does not need to be a greater "hub", for those flying in and out after a cup of coffee.

- Michael, London, UK

This is one of those situations when you have to make a tough call between environmental concerns and what makes sense for the economy. If we wanted to save the environment we would have to close down thousands of businesses that provide jobs and keep our economy afloat. That just isn't realistic.
Heathrow cannot stand still. Either it is invested in and grows, and competes with other hub airports in Europe, or it becomes a backwater airport with infrequent services and connecting flights through other European airports. Big businesses such as GSK will simply uproot and move close to those hub airports.
I live right under the flightpath and all of my neighbours work directly or indirectly for the airport or for companies that are only in the area because of the airport. Without a bigger Heathrow West London will be a very quiet place indeed and we'll all have plenty of time to enjoy the quiet times as we won't have any jobs!
Cameron is just trying to appease voters who live in Barnes, Richmond, Chiswick, Windsor. People like me in fact - but I'm not buying it! I'd prefer to have a job thanks.

- Sarah, London, UK

Quality of life for people living around Heathrow? Can anyone remember that the area around Heathrow, when it was already the main airport for the UK, was all pasture land? The people who live near Heathrow today CHOSE to live near one of the biggest international airports in the world!

For the greater good of the economy and the country (note: the affects of not building the third runway will be felt well beyond London), we should build the third runway.

With respect to the environment, people will still continue to travel by air regardless of whether it is built. However, they will not travel as efficiently because of the lack of a robust hub and spoke system, resulting in MORE emissions if the runway isn't built.

- Tim, London

Now they can spend the money that would have gone on the third runway to upgrade Heathrow to be one of the best airports in the world instead of one of the most run down!

- David, Teddington

Well BAA would say that wouldnt they. If BA and BAA were allowed to expand Heathrow there would be further blight across the London areas that fill Mr Walsh's business seats and earn much of the UK's income. I've already moved my business fares from BA as a result of their role. Anyone with any care about climate change, quality of life in our capital, congestion, noise and pollution should hope Brown is routed to ensure Labour's runway wont get built.

The mayor's idea of moving this blight away from the city is probably the least bad option but any larger airport could be made a white elephant as increasing fuel costs and climate change are likely to mean less travel soon after anything is completed.

It certainly seems at last that the lies of BAA BA and the government on almost every aspect of Heathrow expansion have caught up with them. We must keep our nerve in the knowledge that if we win and another european airport takes more market share they will end up with a small advantage in a noisy dirty polluting industry and Londoners from cradle to grave will enjoy a better quality of life, a better nights sleep and more productive days.

I can live with that and only a few paid lobbyists really believe that London is great because of Heathrow. The reverse is true - whatever advantage it has it owes to London.

- David, City of London

If Mr Forster and BAA were fully committed to the 3rd runway plans, then why don't they start buying properties from the people who are in desperate need to move and who's lives have been blighted for the last 7 years.
Put your money where your mouth is Mr Forster!

- Jim, Heathrow

Me thinks BAA might be a little too accustomed to the Spanish airports attitude of having queues of aircraft flying just hundreds of metres above crowded beaches almost 24/7 at some times in the year.

The vital difference is that most people beneath those flight paths put up with such inconvenience because they are only there for a limited time like two weeks, whereas people living under Heathrow flight paths are being expected to put up with more polution and noise the whole year.

I doubt many BAA Execs. live beneath any flight paths anywhere, let alone throughout the year.

- Ken.H, Harrow. UK

Heathrow is BAA's major cash cow. Why would they care about a sensible aviation policy that involves making use of existing spare capacity at other non BAA airports? Let's just tarmac West London and increase the pollution for profit! Heathrow has only bucked the trend of decline because they've been steadily moving services there from Gatwick during the recession. Given that they are being forced to sell Gatwick, the competition commission really should have been on the ball and protecting that asset from BAA's pillaging.

- David, London

the first story in the Related articles says it all:

"Passenger numbers are still dropping says BAA"

So, really need that 3rd runway then.

- Poj, Chelmsford

Hmm. I think the only business that will suffer a disaster without the third runway is BAA. I think everyone else can manage just fine.

As point of fact, Luton seems to have tons of extra slot capacity, as does Stansted. As a pilot myself, I know there are significant lengths of time during the day when both airport runways appear complete unused. Why not use this additional capacity rather than spending billions on another runway at Heathrow?

- Stuart Robb, London, UK

Well they would say that, this Spanish owned business has a significan profit interest !!!

- James, City of London

Add your comment