Comments on: Decision time at Heathrow

By: Ron

Ron — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:01:47 +0000

Banning Domestic flights? ONly someone with shares in Virgin or GWR would say that. £340 first class business ticket from London to Birmingham *BY RAIL* only £185 by plane. I haven’t flown anywhere for ten years so intend to use up my allowance in an orgy of needless flying, and then be ferried to the Airport by Hummer, whilst towing an Elephant, which will be killed and eaten and tusks used to make Umbrella stands, Like the Good Ole days.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:48:26 +0000

The decision was entirely predictable and another sign of the mind-numbing lack of imagination which is stifling the country.

Anyone looking just a few years ahead can see that there is no future whatsoever for domestic flights within the UK mainland, but there is a desperate need for better railways. The correct action now would be to build a new transport hub at Heathrow, together with the new high speed rail lines proposed by opponents of the third runway, then to ban domestic mainland flights and free up the existing runways at Heathrow for foreign flights.

A sustainable solution for the future benefit of the whole country, instead of a white elephant built for the narrow interests of an industry which is being overtaken by new technology.

By: Jimmer XXX

Jimmer XXX — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:10:21 +0000

Ownership of your house and the land it stands on means nothing to this Socialist Government. At the same time it is allowing foreign companies to buy up British businesses. As I understand it, BAA is Spanish-owned (correct me if I am wrong) so are the inhabitants of the area to be destroyed by the Third Runway a victim of Spanish Practices?

By: Sean Carter

Sean Carter — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:56:37 +0000

People are obsessed with nothing ever changing. Well get over it as the world is changing. This was once the proudest country in the world, but people have lost site of that. We need to embrace change and then help those people as bet we can, not fight everything for the sake of it. Would people prefer we get rid of all progress and go live in mud huts again.

By: Mark Crutchley

Mark Crutchley — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:37:47 +0000

Having just approved a climate change bill with a legally binding objective of cutting our emissions by 80% by 2050 the government now proposes to expand Heathrow and thereby virtually guarantee failing to meet those emissions targets. Is there any intelligence at work here?
We Britons are already the most intensive fliers of any nation and our environment, both locally around Heathrow and globally, cannot take further increases in our demand for aviation. The economic case too is spurious with only the narrow interests of British Airways, Ferrovial (BAA) and construction companies standing to gain, while for most businesses this is an irrelevance as demonstrated by a recent poll on the issue.

By: srj

srj — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:16:16 +0000

As far as this creates more jobs whats the big deal?
People who protest need to get a job and let be what is decided.
If we need another runway, We need another runway.
I’m sure they havent decided to build out of boredom

By: Neil Cochrane

Neil Cochrane — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:13:31 +0000

The Thames Estuary airport is not a good option. The 340-odd offshore wind turbines will interfere with radar to say nothing of the millions of birds in the area who will dramatically increase the risk of a hull loss incident.

Heathrow should get one more runway but that will likely be the last one. After that, a new UK hub will be needed, linked into high-speed rail to the entire island as well as Europe. At best, this is a stopgap, though one which is badly needed.

By: Roger Potter

Roger Potter — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:50:41 +0000

I find it unbelievable that the tories should oppose a the expansion of Heathrow when both business leaders and trade union leaders say it is so important to our economic wellbeing.
Shouldn’t David Cameron join the Green party?Or is this just another example of opposition for the sake of it?

By: john in cheshire

john in cheshire — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:32:36 +0000

As my name implies, i live in cheshire. However, wherever anyone lives in the UK, the decision on Heathrow will have long-lasting consequences. In my opinion, anyone with half a brain can see that a third runway at Heathrow is a stupid decision, which will only benefit a minority of vested interests. If we believe in the future of the UK, then the Thames estuary option is the only one that should be considered. The decision then is not if, but when. Once the cretins in central government have been persuaded, then other decisions; such as a high speed rail network throughout the UK, incorporating the new airport, can be developed.

By: Peter Dawkins

Peter Dawkins — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:27:02 +0000

I do not agree with having a third runway at Heathrow. Not only do I think it would wreck the environment even further, create an even worse jam-up than we already have, and be contrary to the EU (and UK) environmental targets and laws, but it also seems completely wrong for BAA to break its word, given when allowed to build Terminal 5, and for the government to support that. It makes it all lies, lies, lies, greed and stupidity, not dissimilar to the cause of the banking crisis we are now experiencing. I also think an airport in the Thames Estuary is perfectly feasible and a good solution.