The government says Heathrow must grow to cope with the huge surge in air travel.
A third runway, sixth terminal and thousands more flights over the capital have been proposed.
Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly says “aviation plays an essential role in the UK’s economic growth” and the airport must expand.
British Airways estimates that an expanded airport could be worth 9-10 billion pounds a year to the economy.
But they face fierce opposition from environmental campaigners and many people who live under the flightpaths leading to Heathrow.
Opponents say the expansion would be an environmental disaster, increasing noise, pollution and environmental damage.
Campaigners say the growth in air travel has to be checked.
- Do you support the government’s airport expansion plans? Do you think Britain’s airports need to grow? Would it help your business?
- Or do you oppose the proposals? Do you worry about the effects on the environment? Do you live under the flightpath?
- Would you take fewer flights to help the environment?
Send us your comments.
Trackback
5 comments so far
Utterly ridiculous to add yet more to the Heathrow site…what the UK needs is a structured strategic plan that increases capacity to regional airports that are then linked with proper and up to date transport links, e.g. high speed rail links. Why a tourists needs to land at Heathrow, when they could land at Cardiff or Birmingham and arrive in the center of London in less than an hour on a high speed link is beyond. The time has come to think strategically, think out of the box and come up with more sustainable long term plans than simply increasing capacity at an already congested region.
- Posted by james scottI think a decision needs to be made. Does the government want London to remain as the European/International strength or are they willing to allow it to move to a country who will be more suited? A country where immigration is welcomed, travel [air] is accepted and where the nation speaks as one! When environmental adversities are at stake - all parties need to unite and make a decision that will be beneficial to the health of country, literally and not just financially!
- Posted by Neil DoyleOnce you have all parties playing by the same set of rules [environmentally] in ensuring future sustainability i.e. Life - then the debate should begin. To start it before that is being knocked-out before you walk into the ring.
I am in favour of air travel but things which are happening with regards to travel do not make sense.
Manufacturers are now producing double decker planes to carry more people, so why would another runway be necessary.
The Government is intent on introducing a list of questions to be answered before travel can take place, surely this will have a detrimental effect on the travel industry, so again would another runway be necessary.
Earlier in the year I was at Prague airport traveling back to Heathrow with Czech airlines and within 15 minutes of this flight there was another flight from Prague to Heathrow by Britsh Airways. The Czech flight I was on was less than half full.
Surely if the carrier services co-ordinated their efforts then there could be a reduction in the flights and thus a reduction in damage to the enviroment and again why would another runway be necessary.
David
- Posted by David WellsI live right beside a train line, and if I complained or my neighbours complained about the night train we would be told to move. That’s the reality.
I feel its unfortunate but the community’s that live near Heathrow are in this sistutation but they need to work with Heathrow or move, because losing London as economical hub is not affordable, petrol has just gone over 1 pound a 1 litre (and that is linked to tax). if London is not a strong economic city we will pay more to live in the UK, So the lives of 60 million against even 1 million is a real issue. Airport growth yes its an issue and it has to be dealt with via new technology. But lets nots forget that the cars driving on the M25 and the roads near Heathrow contribute just more pollution than a plane.
Fact A380 produces less emissions per person than a family car, and in aviation fuel costs is forcing airlines to buy more fuel efficient planes.
- Posted by markOn the face of it, expansion of Heathrow is not desirable, certainly not environmentally. However, Ruth Kelly and the government do recognise that Heathrow is comparable with Frankfurt, Paris or Amsterdam and not Bristol , Birmingham or Stanstead. Whether we like it or not the business world, particularly the financial world is a key stakeholder in a nation’s economy and has great influence over the drivers for success. Having a world class airport is seen as one of those drivers (at least at present). No one can say with certainty that leaving Heathrow as it is will have a detrimental effect on the city of London but do we want to take that risk? I would therefore support the plans of Heathrow to build a third runway and a sixth terminal should the detailed case be proven.
Having stated the above, the government supported the better use of existing airport sites in it’s White paper. This must be done in parallel so as to provide benefits to all of the economy and to prevent an over domination of Heathrow in the domestic aviation market. This would be aided by better transport links between airports and cities
- Posted by Kevin