I used to live in that area. The thing that always gets to me is the statement “Heathrow is built surround by Towns”, no it is not. The towns grew to service Heathrow and general expansion. Heathrow has been one of the world’s largest airports for years, so why do people say I lived here 10..20…..30 years and it is not fair… why.

The airport was there it is not new, do not buy a house near it. Those under the flight path for the new runway I have some sympathy for but for most people I do not. I could never understood why we built a 4th London Airport (stansted) when it would of been better to expand the orginal airports.

Report this comment

I’m impartial to this, mainly because I holiday in this country and always drive to my destinations, although I do feel for the people who live in the area.

I agree on cutting internal flights and improving the rail networks but I also think the road networks should also be looked at as well. Getting to the South West of the country is a nightmare by train, and by road at peak times.

It will primarily help tourism in London. Some people may venture further out, but the majority won’t, so the benefits are going to be limited to certain areas (London and connecting airports).

Completely agree on the air passenger duty point, but just think – double the number of flights will double the amount of duty that the government gets!

Report this comment

I had travelled to London for the WTM and taken a trip to Hull to visit friends. I went to hull by Bus and came back by train. My opinion is that while the train service is reasonably ok, it’s priced high and the station does need improvement. The Bus service was much better than most other places I’ve seen.

Report this comment

[...] links: New York Times, The Guardian, Darren Cronian/Travel-rants.com, [...]

Report this comment

I am agin this runway. But not agin a new airport. Heathrow replaced Croydon, which had had its day… Now, the pundits say that Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc all have in place/ are getting at least 4 full blown runways and that Heathrow need a third runway to compete – to maintain its position etc., etc., waffle, waffle.

We know that the third runway is not a third runway, but an add on little bit… it does not take a great leap to see that 2.75 runways will never be able to compete with 4…

So, what we need is a world class airport of at least 4 – at least 4 – runways and that will not fit – so Boris Johnson’s plan is not all that daft after all!!

(Interestingly, runway 3 is located to the north, near the Mike 4, not further south. In this way, only people’s homes are destroyed and uprooted, rather then moving it further South, where a full size job would fit, though would entail demolishing a lot of business premises and of course, er… Waterside)

Hence the pressue groups name “Flying Matters” er.. and people don’t, we presume..

Report this comment

London needs a brand new world class airport. The land at Heathrow is far too small for the airport that London deserves.

Report this comment

I’m a bit torn on this one.

London deserves a world class airport. Any runway or airport development should be good for the economy.

However, from a green perspective, it doesn’t make sense.

Nick’s got a good point about the towns around the area having emerged to service Heathrow in the first place, but it doesn’t just have an impact on them. Where I live, Kensington, is being impacted (not just houses but the council claims that a number of schools are going to suffer an unfeasiblelevel of noise) and the area is clearly a lot older than Heathrow.

Report this comment

I think it’s a completely rubbish decision. They were only given permission to build the fifth terminal on the basis there would be no third runway. How quickly they’ve reneged.

The decision is a disaster for the environment and it won’t help the economy one bit either. Firstly, because we’re talking about Heathrow trying to remain competitive for transit flights. The only organisation to benefit from this is BAA since transit passengers don’t actually spend any money in the UK, beyond possibly a cup of coffee. Secondly, because by the time it’s built, it’s quite likely that environmental concerns will mean aviation is no longer a growing industry.

Then there’s the issue of flight noise etc. If they need to expand London’s airports, and I’m not convinced they do, it would be better to expand one of the other airports, or build one in the Thames Gateway to replace Heathrow.

Report this comment

With the doubling of many of the departure taxes at heathrow this summer, the extra runway will not be necessary as people will choose to transit other more reasonably priced way points. Other airports have bought up the surrounding land years before it was going to be needed, why was same not done here BEFORE these homes were built? NOTHING is fully thought through when it comes to Heathrow and advanced planning.

Report this comment

In response to Caitlin’s comment regarding transit passengers I would just like to mention that although it may seem we don’t benefit from these passengers directly, it is in fact due to their high numbers at Heathrow that the airlines can offer so many direct flights to destinations around the world.

Direct flights are far better on the environment than flights with multiple take-offs and landings, and important for uk business. I think it’s easy to oppose the third runway at Heathrow but one look at the bigger picture reveals some compelling reasons to support it.

Report this comment

That’s a bit of a personal attack. I commented on your post as an individual not as a website and never suggested that I was in favour of the third runway or against it. I was simply commenting on the importance of transit passengers to the Heathrow operation and the need to retain them where possible.

Yes, I am sure there are lots of reasons to oppose the third runway on a local level and like yourself ‘I haven’t read a great deal of comments from the local community’. I do think however that the debate is much more complex than many opponents care to realise. Why have the areas around Heathrow grown so big? I’m sure that can largely be attributed to job opportunities created by the airport.

Report this comment

This “jobs” thing is a total red herring. The jobs will go to any airport. The argument is that a new London Airport must compete with AMS, CDG, FRA and others. Now, if they have 4 FULL SIZE runways apiece already and ample space to increase size if required, then Heathrow as it stands will never be able to compete. The hub argument also fails because the only people Heathrow can “hub” for is BA – and BA only own BA. It would not be able to hub for, say AA, UA, NW, DL or other American Airlines because LHR cannot compete as LHR only has/ will have 2.75 runways against AMS, CDG and FRA who have, as said, 4 (or can get 4 or even more). Lufthansa own, more or less, Swiss, Austrian, a hand in SK as well as being well on the way to trousering British Midland and possibly even Virgin which Lufthansa could or would hub through Frankfurt (FRA) or even Munich. Air France and KLM AND NorthWest all hub through the open 4 runways at AMS and CDG – so what’s left for BA – who have already tried to get their paws on QF (failed) AA (failed) IB (failed)…..? If London is to get anywhere, it needs a world class (I do hate that phrase!) 4 or more full size runway airport – and that simply will not fit the present west London site, ergo what Boris proposes is very sensible and leaves the much maligned residents of Sipson and surround in peace. We cannot see the wood for the trees, methinks.

Report this comment

@Stephen Chapman So transit passengers lead to more direct flights and direct flights are better for the environment? That’s a bit of a circuitous argument! The transit passengers are, by definition, not taking direct flights. It’s no better or worse for a Parisian to transit through London than a Londoner to tranist through Paris (for example). Obviously, it’s more convenient to me as an individual if I get to be the one who flies direct instead of the Parisian, but the environmental outcome is the same.

Report this comment