Campaigners vow 18-month battle against Heathrow expansion after Davies Commission reports third runway is preferred option

Surrey Comet: Opposition: Boris Johnson speaking against Heathrow expansion Opposition: Boris Johnson speaking against Heathrow expansion

Heathrow campaigners vowed to keep fighting after the Davies Commission released its interim report today, revealing a new runway at the airport was a preferred option.

The report revealed three immediately shortlisted options of a third runway at Heathrow, lengthening an existing runway at Heathrow or a new runway at Gatwick - with an estuary airport in Kent to be considered at a later date.

The commission said one new runway would be needed in London and the south-east by 2030 and in the next 18 months it will assess whether that runway should be at Gatwick or Heathrow.

Campaigners said today’s announcement was the “trigger to 18 months of intense campaigning against Heathrow expansion”.

Lord True, leader of Richmond Council, said: “This is a report that deserves to be binned, completely failing to consider any visionary alternative to the problem of Heathrow.

“Earlier this year, the residents of west London gave a resounding ‘no’ to Heathrow in the referendum held by this borough and the London borough of Hillingdon.

"More than 140,000 people turned out with 80 per cent of our residents saying they would not accept any expansion at Heathrow.

“We have made it abundantly clear to both the bosses of Heathrow and the Government that expansion is off the table, it would further blight the residents of this borough with incessant noise and we will use all measures available to us to block any proposals.

“We expect the Prime Minister to keep his oft-repeated election promise – ‘No ifs, no buts, no third runway’.”

John Stewart, chairman of Hacan, which represents residents under the Heathrow flights paths, said: “Although Davies’s proposals focus less on Heathrow than had been rumoured, there is little doubt they will act as the trigger to 18 months of intense campaigning against Heathrow expansion.

“A new runway will increase planes from 480,000 a year to 560,000. There is no way overall noise levels will decrease.

“The scale of the opposition will be so great that we believe that they are politically undeliverable and should have been dropped at this stage.”

The commission dropped the option of a new runway to the south of Heathrow, largely because of the difficulties posed by reservoirs.

Vince Cable, MP for Twickenham, said: “The Davies Commission interim report has put Heathrow at the front of its thinking which is questionable economically, damaging environmentally and probably undeliverable politically.

“My strong view is that the Davies review should not decide to press ahead with Heathrow options and I will be making that view known in the strongest terms.

“I fully support the need to improve UK business links with airports in the emerging markets of Asia which is important for jobs, but this could be achieved more quickly by reforming and reallocating airport slots; by building up point to point services; and by strengthening the capacity of UK regional airports.

“Such is the impact of noise on hundreds of thousands of people in London that pushing ahead with Heathrow expansion is almost certainly the worst option for expanding airport capacity.”

The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has spoken out against the expansion of Heathrow and continued his push for the estuary airport, dubbed Boris Island.

He said: “A new airport in the inner estuary is the only credible hub option left. By keeping it on the table, Davies is saying you have a choice - between a damaging U-turn or a radical new vision for expansion.”

The commission, led by Sir Howard Davies, will also consider a new airport in the Isle of Grain, north Kent but said it did not believe the two new runways that airport would have would be required for the foreseeable future.

Sir Howard Davies said: “Decisions on airport capacity are important national strategic choices and must be based upon the best evidence available.

"The commission has undertaken a fresh, comprehensive and transparent study of the issues.

“This report is the product of extensive consultation, independent analysis and careful consideration by the commissioners.

“The UK enjoys excellent connectivity today. The capacity challenge is not yet critical but it will become so if no action is taken soon and our analysis clearly supports the provision of one net additional runway by 2030. In the meantime we encourage the government to act on our recommendations to make the best of our existing capacity.

“The commission will now focus on the challenge of appraising the three options, further assessing the case for a new airport in the Thames Estuary, and delivering a robust final recommendation to government in summer 2015.”

The report rejected plans to expand Stansted and plans for a new runway at Heathrow which would lead to the demolition of the town of Sipson.

A final report is due by summer 2015, two months after the general election.

More to follow.

Comments (36)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:52pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Culverin says...

Heathrow should never have been offered as an option to Davies - we were pledged no expansion of Heathrow, Cameron was unequivocal.

This government is so used to betraying groups of voters that it's simply water off a ducks back. The future for West London is one of greater noise, greater pollution and greater risk from malfunctioning aircraft (BA038 on 17 Jan 2008 - coming down short of the runway was due to sheer skill from the pilot and sheer good luck, next time we may not be so lucky).

This sounds like Directorships all round after politics for those currently in power.
Heathrow should never have been offered as an option to Davies - we were pledged no expansion of Heathrow, Cameron was unequivocal. This government is so used to betraying groups of voters that it's simply water off a ducks back. The future for West London is one of greater noise, greater pollution and greater risk from malfunctioning aircraft (BA038 on 17 Jan 2008 - coming down short of the runway was due to sheer skill from the pilot and sheer good luck, next time we may not be so lucky). This sounds like Directorships all round after politics for those currently in power. Culverin

1:24pm Tue 17 Dec 13

kingstonpaul says...

London's airports actually more than enough of spare capacity to take us into the middle of the century without further expansion.
The problem is it's not at Heathrow.
London's airports actually more than enough of spare capacity to take us into the middle of the century without further expansion. The problem is it's not at Heathrow. kingstonpaul

1:40pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Leo SW15 says...

It's not the expansion I'm against, it's the flight path!

If Heathrow is expanded then the flight path needs to be changed. It is ludicrous that anyone can find it acceptable that an airport with as many arrivals a day as Heathrow has, can have planes flying right up the guts of London, the most heavily populated of the Greater London area.

Expand Gatwick, it is in the countryside and less people will be affected.
It's not the expansion I'm against, it's the flight path! If Heathrow is expanded then the flight path needs to be changed. It is ludicrous that anyone can find it acceptable that an airport with as many arrivals a day as Heathrow has, can have planes flying right up the guts of London, the most heavily populated of the Greater London area. Expand Gatwick, it is in the countryside and less people will be affected. Leo SW15

2:08pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Ricademus says...

I live under the flight path of Heathrow. These people who are forever moaning about Heathrow have to realize that they moved near the airport in the first place, they wasn't forced to move near the airport, it was their choice.

Heathrow is getting busier every week and without more and more airplanes in the air, it is only a matter of time that there will be a mid-air collision, it is not a matter of sooner or later it might happen it is a matter when it happens and I think it will be sooner rather than later.

Do these people go abroad for their holiday? I bet they go by plane when and if they do, would they like to be in a mid-air collision? I bet they wouldn't. They would be leaving family and friends behind, What about the debris field hitting the ground below the collision? It would be spread far and wide, most probably killing more people and they would be leaving more families and friends behind. Then there's the fire brought on by the fuel, which is highly flammable and it is hard to put out without the proper facilities, which the government is cutting back on, closing the fire stations, getting rid of our heroic firefighters.

So, before you start saying NO to the Heathrow expansion, or any other airport in the south east, think of the consequences. I know we all don't want something like this in our backyard, but it has to be done, before there is any avoidable deaths, it won't be just one or two, it will be in the hundreds.
I live under the flight path of Heathrow. These people who are forever moaning about Heathrow have to realize that they moved near the airport in the first place, they wasn't forced to move near the airport, it was their choice. Heathrow is getting busier every week and without more and more airplanes in the air, it is only a matter of time that there will be a mid-air collision, it is not a matter of sooner or later it might happen it is a matter when it happens and I think it will be sooner rather than later. Do these people go abroad for their holiday? I bet they go by plane when and if they do, would they like to be in a mid-air collision? I bet they wouldn't. They would be leaving family and friends behind, What about the debris field hitting the ground below the collision? It would be spread far and wide, most probably killing more people and they would be leaving more families and friends behind. Then there's the fire brought on by the fuel, which is highly flammable and it is hard to put out without the proper facilities, which the government is cutting back on, closing the fire stations, getting rid of our heroic firefighters. So, before you start saying NO to the Heathrow expansion, or any other airport in the south east, think of the consequences. I know we all don't want something like this in our backyard, but it has to be done, before there is any avoidable deaths, it won't be just one or two, it will be in the hundreds. Ricademus

2:29pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Culverin says...

@ Ricademus

You seem to misunderstand that Heathrow development means more aircraft, and therefore, more chance of mid-air collision.

Have you already forgotten the newsreel of BA038 in January 2008 crashing before the runway? It's only thanks to the skill of the pilots on that flight that it didn't come down on the road and houses only metres away.

That's presumably one of the reasons that Cameron said "No ifs. No buts. No third runway" at Heathrow airport. There's nowhere else in the World that risks aircraft flying in over the most populated area of its capital city.

Surely if the government can't commit to such a simple pledge how are we ever going to get to grips with greater hazards like global warming?
@ Ricademus You seem to misunderstand that Heathrow development means more aircraft, and therefore, more chance of mid-air collision. Have you already forgotten the newsreel of BA038 in January 2008 crashing before the runway? It's only thanks to the skill of the pilots on that flight that it didn't come down on the road and houses only metres away. That's presumably one of the reasons that Cameron said "No ifs. No buts. No third runway" at Heathrow airport. There's nowhere else in the World that risks aircraft flying in over the most populated area of its capital city. Surely if the government can't commit to such a simple pledge how are we ever going to get to grips with greater hazards like global warming? Culverin

4:57pm Tue 17 Dec 13

surboSam says...

Why are people holding back progression, the airport has been there longer then most people have lived in their houses in Richmond and the other local areas, if you don't want to live under a flight path don't buy a house near an airport!!
Why are people holding back progression, the airport has been there longer then most people have lived in their houses in Richmond and the other local areas, if you don't want to live under a flight path don't buy a house near an airport!! surboSam

5:27pm Tue 17 Dec 13

buggsie says...

More 4am flights going over our Wandsworth homes - no thank you. Certainly not flights going over at that time and all day long when I bought my Battersea by the river flat 34 years back.
More 4am flights going over our Wandsworth homes - no thank you. Certainly not flights going over at that time and all day long when I bought my Battersea by the river flat 34 years back. buggsie

6:37pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Sparkythecat says...

Stansted completely off the radar and there's plenty of room there. There must be some very influential people living in the area.
Stansted completely off the radar and there's plenty of room there. There must be some very influential people living in the area. Sparkythecat

9:13pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Twickenham Bob says...

Well Zac has just lost his seat at the next General Election
Well Zac has just lost his seat at the next General Election Twickenham Bob

7:52am Wed 18 Dec 13

dellboy twick. says...

those who say it's our own fault for moving into this area should remember the statistics; heathrow has expanded from 27 million passengers in the late seventy's too 69.9 million in 2012. Terminals 4&5 built, T2 having a 1 billion refit. Things have changed, the only reason for expansion is profit , the cost to us is increased noise, pollution, road and rail traffic
those who say it's our own fault for moving into this area should remember the statistics; heathrow has expanded from 27 million passengers in the late seventy's too 69.9 million in 2012. Terminals 4&5 built, T2 having a 1 billion refit. Things have changed, the only reason for expansion is profit , the cost to us is increased noise, pollution, road and rail traffic dellboy twick.

12:36pm Wed 18 Dec 13

DB says...

dellboy twick. wrote:
those who say it's our own fault for moving into this area should remember the statistics; heathrow has expanded from 27 million passengers in the late seventy's too 69.9 million in 2012. Terminals 4&5 built, T2 having a 1 billion refit. Things have changed, the only reason for expansion is profit , the cost to us is increased noise, pollution, road and rail traffic
I agree. I think it is ridiculous that the residents are supposed to have expected the airport to grow to many times it's original size. Perhaps doubling would have been ok, but going up from 70 million?

Clearly I am biased, but the whole thing doesn't seem to have been thought through. I am sure I heard that the estuary hub proposal involved actually closing Heathrow! WHY? Why on earth can't we have Heathrow as it is now and another hub to start taking on the extra demand as it comes.

We will be here again in 20 years time having the same arguments at this rate.

Heathrow as it stands shows exactly why having one hub is a bad idea. There are only two ways of getting there from central London which are either slow or exhorbitantly expensive and once you get there, all of the services are so overwhelmed that it takes too long to get on to your plane.

They need to build all of the extra infrastructure before they build they new runways in my opinion just to bring it back to working properly at it's current capacity.

Heathrow is my nearest airport geographically by quite some margin, but I always choose to fly from Gatwick or even City because thet overall experience is much quicker, cheaper and less hassle.
[quote][p][bold]dellboy twick.[/bold] wrote: those who say it's our own fault for moving into this area should remember the statistics; heathrow has expanded from 27 million passengers in the late seventy's too 69.9 million in 2012. Terminals 4&5 built, T2 having a 1 billion refit. Things have changed, the only reason for expansion is profit , the cost to us is increased noise, pollution, road and rail traffic[/p][/quote]I agree. I think it is ridiculous that the residents are supposed to have expected the airport to grow to many times it's original size. Perhaps doubling would have been ok, but going up from 70 million? Clearly I am biased, but the whole thing doesn't seem to have been thought through. I am sure I heard that the estuary hub proposal involved actually closing Heathrow! WHY? Why on earth can't we have Heathrow as it is now and another hub to start taking on the extra demand as it comes. We will be here again in 20 years time having the same arguments at this rate. Heathrow as it stands shows exactly why having one hub is a bad idea. There are only two ways of getting there from central London which are either slow or exhorbitantly expensive and once you get there, all of the services are so overwhelmed that it takes too long to get on to your plane. They need to build all of the extra infrastructure before they build they new runways in my opinion just to bring it back to working properly at it's current capacity. Heathrow is my nearest airport geographically by quite some margin, but I always choose to fly from Gatwick or even City because thet overall experience is much quicker, cheaper and less hassle. DB

2:52pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Concerned_Resident says...

Lying politicians?! Well I never!

Cameron in opposition = "we will stop Heathrow expansion - end of story".

Cameron in charge of the government = speaking to his big business friends and stabbing every single voter in the back.

The man is a piece of low life, lying slime. His latest thing? He cannot believe that so many in the House of Lords have their snouts in the trough. Sure, we believe you, Dave! Let us not forget how he was a very close friend with the likes of Rebekah Brooks, that litmus test for honesty. Oh yes and that one of his closest advisers was selling access to him... Like he didn't know about that. The sooner this parasite is out of number 10, the better.

I may not be a fan of Zac Goldsmith or Boris, but at least they are sticking to their promises to oppose Heathrow expansion.
Lying politicians?! Well I never! Cameron in opposition = "we will stop Heathrow expansion - end of story". Cameron in charge of the government = speaking to his big business friends and stabbing every single voter in the back. The man is a piece of low life, lying slime. His latest thing? He cannot believe that so many in the House of Lords have their snouts in the trough. Sure, we believe you, Dave! Let us not forget how he was a very close friend with the likes of Rebekah Brooks, that litmus test for honesty. Oh yes and that one of his closest advisers was selling access to him... Like he didn't know about that. The sooner this parasite is out of number 10, the better. I may not be a fan of Zac Goldsmith or Boris, but at least they are sticking to their promises to oppose Heathrow expansion. Concerned_Resident

4:04pm Wed 18 Dec 13

jeremyhm says...

Concerned Resident: this was an independent commission. https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/speeches/m
embership-and-terms-
of-reference-of-the-
airports-commission. No decision has been taken, and will not be until 2015. I suggest you hold your comments until a decision has been made, and then you can decide whether "every single voter" been stabbed in the back.
Concerned Resident: this was an independent commission. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/speeches/m embership-and-terms- of-reference-of-the- airports-commission. No decision has been taken, and will not be until 2015. I suggest you hold your comments until a decision has been made, and then you can decide whether "every single voter" been stabbed in the back. jeremyhm

4:34pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Culverin says...

“My strong view is that the Davies review should not decide to press ahead with Heathrow options and I will be making that view known in the strongest terms".

It's so reassuring to hear the above words of Vince 'Nuclear Option' Cable.

If push comes to shove we can always rely on him to do what Nick Clegg tells him to. Vince has been more loyal to the government than any other MP sitting, when given the choice to support his constituents or his party, it's party all the time. Next up is the Lobbying (or more accurately gagging) Bill which doesn't stop the Lobbyists and PR spivs from throwing all they've got at government - it just halts charities, trade unions and, more importantly in this case, campaign groups so we will be massively restricted from campaigning in election year/airport year

Of course, The Liberal Democrats are keen - got to silence the students that were betrayed on fees. Wouldn't want them ruining their chances of power again.

Still, the impressive Zac Goldsmith certainly has principles so we might have hope yet even if Boris is still talking about fairy tales in the middle of the Thames. Why aren't more politicians independently minded like Goldsmith?

I hope he doesn't move to UKIP.
“My strong view is that the Davies review should not decide to press ahead with Heathrow options and I will be making that view known in the strongest terms". It's so reassuring to hear the above words of Vince 'Nuclear Option' Cable. If push comes to shove we can always rely on him to do what Nick Clegg tells him to. Vince has been more loyal to the government than any other MP sitting, when given the choice to support his constituents or his party, it's party all the time. Next up is the Lobbying (or more accurately gagging) Bill which doesn't stop the Lobbyists and PR spivs from throwing all they've got at government - it just halts charities, trade unions and, more importantly in this case, campaign groups so we will be massively restricted from campaigning in election year/airport year Of course, The Liberal Democrats are keen - got to silence the students that were betrayed on fees. Wouldn't want them ruining their chances of power again. Still, the impressive Zac Goldsmith certainly has principles so we might have hope yet even if Boris is still talking about fairy tales in the middle of the Thames. Why aren't more politicians independently minded like Goldsmith? I hope he doesn't move to UKIP. Culverin

7:35pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Twickenham resident says...

They won't stop until they have got their way and it will happen. Who's really pulling the strings eh.....?
They won't stop until they have got their way and it will happen. Who's really pulling the strings eh.....? Twickenham resident

9:42pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Concerned_Resident says...

jeremyhm wrote:
Concerned Resident: this was an independent commission. https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/speeches/m

embership-and-terms-

of-reference-of-the-

airports-commission. No decision has been taken, and will not be until 2015. I suggest you hold your comments until a decision has been made, and then you can decide whether "every single voter" been stabbed in the back.
If you believe that, you're truly naive. Only days ago, certain ministers were known to be interfering with the 'independent' report. And is something truly independent when the person leading on it has been hand picked by the rotten-to-the-core establishment, is a known stalwart of the party and has had what I imagine to be a fairly restrictive brief to start with? I think not.
[quote][p][bold]jeremyhm[/bold] wrote: Concerned Resident: this was an independent commission. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/speeches/m embership-and-terms- of-reference-of-the- airports-commission. No decision has been taken, and will not be until 2015. I suggest you hold your comments until a decision has been made, and then you can decide whether "every single voter" been stabbed in the back.[/p][/quote]If you believe that, you're truly naive. Only days ago, certain ministers were known to be interfering with the 'independent' report. And is something truly independent when the person leading on it has been hand picked by the rotten-to-the-core establishment, is a known stalwart of the party and has had what I imagine to be a fairly restrictive brief to start with? I think not. Concerned_Resident

9:09am Thu 19 Dec 13

jeremyhm says...

If I am "naive" you are cynical. It is elementary that one should base one';s opinion on the FACTS.
If I am "naive" you are cynical. It is elementary that one should base one';s opinion on the FACTS. jeremyhm

9:29am Thu 19 Dec 13

captain_shamrock says...

Twickenham Bob wrote:
Well Zac has just lost his seat at the next General Election
I think you're right. The Lib dems are pushing strongly on this.

Read this Robin Meltzer article.

"Heathrow: As the Conservatives’ brief flirtation with anti-expansion comes to an end, the Lib Dem fight continues"

link: http://goo.gl/Lpo2HO


.
[quote][p][bold]Twickenham Bob[/bold] wrote: Well Zac has just lost his seat at the next General Election[/p][/quote]I think you're right. The Lib dems are pushing strongly on this. Read this Robin Meltzer article. "Heathrow: As the Conservatives’ brief flirtation with anti-expansion comes to an end, the Lib Dem fight continues" link: http://goo.gl/Lpo2HO . captain_shamrock

11:39am Thu 19 Dec 13

twickersargyle says...

Can people please stop saying that residents have no little right to object because the airport was there before they were? A new runway creates new flightpats (with planes going over every 90 seconds) over areas that were not affected (or hardly affected) by aircraft noise before and may be 10 or miles away. In the case of the likely NW runway, this will be places like Ealing, Osterley and even Chelsea.
Can people please stop saying that residents have no little right to object because the airport was there before they were? A new runway creates new flightpats (with planes going over every 90 seconds) over areas that were not affected (or hardly affected) by aircraft noise before and may be 10 or miles away. In the case of the likely NW runway, this will be places like Ealing, Osterley and even Chelsea. twickersargyle

1:26pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Sparkythecat says...

Can't agree more twickersargyle. I've lived in the Borough of Richmond all my life. The airport has definitely been there all that time, but the size of it and the number of daily flights bear no resemblance to it in my childhood days, it is also very different for those moving to the area 20 or so years ago. When we have been promised on so many occasions that there will be no further expansion at Heathrow I think everybody has every right to object if they wish.
Can't agree more twickersargyle. I've lived in the Borough of Richmond all my life. The airport has definitely been there all that time, but the size of it and the number of daily flights bear no resemblance to it in my childhood days, it is also very different for those moving to the area 20 or so years ago. When we have been promised on so many occasions that there will be no further expansion at Heathrow I think everybody has every right to object if they wish. Sparkythecat

2:38pm Thu 19 Dec 13

kingstonpaul says...

So to all you opponents of Heathrow expansion, can we all take it that you never fly, and that if you do, you make a point of using an airport well away from London?
My general sense is that the burghers of affluent SW London have done pretty well out of the proximity of LHR, whether it's been in pursuit of their business and/or leaiure interests. And this nonsense that being under a flight path reduces the value of your home, oh yeh. Putney, Barnes, Richmond, Kew, Twickenham, Teddington - sure, property blight!
So to all you opponents of Heathrow expansion, can we all take it that you never fly, and that if you do, you make a point of using an airport well away from London? My general sense is that the burghers of affluent SW London have done pretty well out of the proximity of LHR, whether it's been in pursuit of their business and/or leaiure interests. And this nonsense that being under a flight path reduces the value of your home, oh yeh. Putney, Barnes, Richmond, Kew, Twickenham, Teddington - sure, property blight! kingstonpaul

4:52pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Sparkythecat says...

Yes, kingstonpaul we do fly perhaps once or twice a year and not always from Heathrow - not every day, not every week, not even every month. Of course, being in Kingston you must really be troubled by planes flying overhead all hours of the day and quite a lot of most people's night time. I might not have read all these comments properly, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember anyone but you mentioning property prices. However, you forgot to mention Hounslow, Whitton, Isleworth, Brentford, Ealing ....
Yes, kingstonpaul we do fly perhaps once or twice a year and not always from Heathrow - not every day, not every week, not even every month. Of course, being in Kingston you must really be troubled by planes flying overhead all hours of the day and quite a lot of most people's night time. I might not have read all these comments properly, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember anyone but you mentioning property prices. However, you forgot to mention Hounslow, Whitton, Isleworth, Brentford, Ealing .... Sparkythecat

8:36pm Thu 19 Dec 13

Concerned_Resident says...

jeremyhm wrote:
If I am "naive" you are cynical. It is elementary that one should base one';s opinion on the FACTS.
I can live with being cynical :)
[quote][p][bold]jeremyhm[/bold] wrote: If I am "naive" you are cynical. It is elementary that one should base one';s opinion on the FACTS.[/p][/quote]I can live with being cynical :) Concerned_Resident

8:07am Fri 20 Dec 13

dellboy twick. says...

kingstonpaul wrote:
So to all you opponents of Heathrow expansion, can we all take it that you never fly, and that if you do, you make a point of using an airport well away from London?
My general sense is that the burghers of affluent SW London have done pretty well out of the proximity of LHR, whether it's been in pursuit of their business and/or leaiure interests. And this nonsense that being under a flight path reduces the value of your home, oh yeh. Putney, Barnes, Richmond, Kew, Twickenham, Teddington - sure, property blight!
checking comments no one has mentioned house prices except you. It seems you are supporting profit at any cost, and are far enough away from any flight path( so far) to not have to worry. as to whether the "burghers"? profit from heathrow, do any local councils get a direct payment from BAA? it would be interesting to know
[quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: So to all you opponents of Heathrow expansion, can we all take it that you never fly, and that if you do, you make a point of using an airport well away from London? My general sense is that the burghers of affluent SW London have done pretty well out of the proximity of LHR, whether it's been in pursuit of their business and/or leaiure interests. And this nonsense that being under a flight path reduces the value of your home, oh yeh. Putney, Barnes, Richmond, Kew, Twickenham, Teddington - sure, property blight![/p][/quote]checking comments no one has mentioned house prices except you. It seems you are supporting profit at any cost, and are far enough away from any flight path( so far) to not have to worry. as to whether the "burghers"? profit from heathrow, do any local councils get a direct payment from BAA? it would be interesting to know dellboy twick.

8:49am Fri 20 Dec 13

sfocata says...

I wish them luck. The whole thing is based on the ludicrous quest for economic growth at all costs. We need sustainability, not growth, and the projections for air travel needs are simply not sustainable on any level (environmental damage, fuel use, public mobility).

The only sensible option in the airport inquiry would have been "none of the above". All options involve driving more congestion into the south east, sucking all economic life from the rest of the country and turning this region into a vast sterile car park.
I wish them luck. The whole thing is based on the ludicrous quest for economic growth at all costs. We need sustainability, not growth, and the projections for air travel needs are simply not sustainable on any level (environmental damage, fuel use, public mobility). The only sensible option in the airport inquiry would have been "none of the above". All options involve driving more congestion into the south east, sucking all economic life from the rest of the country and turning this region into a vast sterile car park. sfocata

4:28pm Fri 20 Dec 13

jeremyhm says...

dellboy - FYI "burgher" = citizen of a borough, according to Chambers Dictionary
dellboy - FYI "burgher" = citizen of a borough, according to Chambers Dictionary jeremyhm

11:30pm Fri 20 Dec 13

dellboy twick. says...

jeremyhm wrote:
dellboy - FYI "burgher" = citizen of a borough, according to Chambers Dictionary
thanks for the info, I was thinking more of the burghers of Calais, the leading citizens IE the council.
[quote][p][bold]jeremyhm[/bold] wrote: dellboy - FYI "burgher" = citizen of a borough, according to Chambers Dictionary[/p][/quote]thanks for the info, I was thinking more of the burghers of Calais, the leading citizens IE the council. dellboy twick.

5:48pm Sun 22 Dec 13

metis says...

sfocata wrote:
I wish them luck. The whole thing is based on the ludicrous quest for economic growth at all costs. We need sustainability, not growth, and the projections for air travel needs are simply not sustainable on any level (environmental damage, fuel use, public mobility).

The only sensible option in the airport inquiry would have been "none of the above". All options involve driving more congestion into the south east, sucking all economic life from the rest of the country and turning this region into a vast sterile car park.
Without growth - you dont remain static, you decline because the airport does not exist in a vacuum but in a dynamic changing world.
If what you are proposing is 'managing demand' , which rather suggests the mechanism to do this is by increasing the price of air travel.
A little bit elitest dont you think?
[quote][p][bold]sfocata[/bold] wrote: I wish them luck. The whole thing is based on the ludicrous quest for economic growth at all costs. We need sustainability, not growth, and the projections for air travel needs are simply not sustainable on any level (environmental damage, fuel use, public mobility). The only sensible option in the airport inquiry would have been "none of the above". All options involve driving more congestion into the south east, sucking all economic life from the rest of the country and turning this region into a vast sterile car park.[/p][/quote]Without growth - you dont remain static, you decline because the airport does not exist in a vacuum but in a dynamic changing world. If what you are proposing is 'managing demand' , which rather suggests the mechanism to do this is by increasing the price of air travel. A little bit elitest dont you think? metis

8:01am Thu 26 Dec 13

dellboy twick. says...

metis, your growth sounds more like a ponzi scheme, it must have more and more money coming in to work. This gives the false illusion of paying out a dividend, which is not profit. This planet and it's resources are finite do we have to wait until nothing is left before the truth dawns?
metis, your growth sounds more like a ponzi scheme, it must have more and more money coming in to work. This gives the false illusion of paying out a dividend, which is not profit. This planet and it's resources are finite do we have to wait until nothing is left before the truth dawns? dellboy twick.

1:09pm Thu 26 Dec 13

sfocata says...

metis - at some point, demand control is going to have to happen, as distasteful as it is. As dellboy twick points out, the resources are finite. And to be fair, air travel already is elitist. Cheap flights have steadily been saddled with more and more awkward compromises every since they became common (and that's only 15 years or so). Choice and convenience are still only for the rich.

But what I was originally talking about was the need to broaden our use of resources nationally. It's not just about the air travel, but also the knock-on effects in terms of house prices, air quality, traffic congestion... concentrating airport expansion on the SE will (just like HS2) strip economic power from other regions, adding to the unsustainable situation in the SE.
metis - at some point, demand control is going to have to happen, as distasteful as it is. As dellboy twick points out, the resources are finite. And to be fair, air travel already is elitist. Cheap flights have steadily been saddled with more and more awkward compromises every since they became common (and that's only 15 years or so). Choice and convenience are still only for the rich. But what I was originally talking about was the need to broaden our use of resources nationally. It's not just about the air travel, but also the knock-on effects in terms of house prices, air quality, traffic congestion... concentrating airport expansion on the SE will (just like HS2) strip economic power from other regions, adding to the unsustainable situation in the SE. sfocata

7:51pm Fri 27 Dec 13

metis says...

dellboy twick. wrote:
metis, your growth sounds more like a ponzi scheme, it must have more and more money coming in to work. This gives the false illusion of paying out a dividend, which is not profit. This planet and it's resources are finite do we have to wait until nothing is left before the truth dawns?
I am talking about free market capitalism, without which you wouldnt have cars, areoplanes, I-pads, flat screen tv & every other invention. You would still be living in a cave. I am not sure which planet you live on but the one I live on relies on mans ingenuity to find new resources (nuclear power) and finds ways to use known resources more effectively. (increased fuel efficiency in cars etc). To say resources are finite is very disingenuous and that malthusian outlook has been proved wrong time and time again.
[quote][p][bold]dellboy twick.[/bold] wrote: metis, your growth sounds more like a ponzi scheme, it must have more and more money coming in to work. This gives the false illusion of paying out a dividend, which is not profit. This planet and it's resources are finite do we have to wait until nothing is left before the truth dawns?[/p][/quote]I am talking about free market capitalism, without which you wouldnt have cars, areoplanes, I-pads, flat screen tv & every other invention. You would still be living in a cave. I am not sure which planet you live on but the one I live on relies on mans ingenuity to find new resources (nuclear power) and finds ways to use known resources more effectively. (increased fuel efficiency in cars etc). To say resources are finite is very disingenuous and that malthusian outlook has been proved wrong time and time again. metis

8:12pm Fri 27 Dec 13

metis says...

sfocata wrote:
metis - at some point, demand control is going to have to happen, as distasteful as it is. As dellboy twick points out, the resources are finite. And to be fair, air travel already is elitist. Cheap flights have steadily been saddled with more and more awkward compromises every since they became common (and that's only 15 years or so). Choice and convenience are still only for the rich.

But what I was originally talking about was the need to broaden our use of resources nationally. It's not just about the air travel, but also the knock-on effects in terms of house prices, air quality, traffic congestion... concentrating airport expansion on the SE will (just like HS2) strip economic power from other regions, adding to the unsustainable situation in the SE.
A command economy is more than distasteful - it it abhorrent. Look at North Korea, Venezuela where even toilet paper is unavailable!, or East Germany before the wall came down.
Air travel, techie stuff even fridges, infact all modern day comforts were only afforded by the rich when they were first invented. Modern production methods and other improvements aided by free market capitalism has made them available to ordinary folk and improved peoples lives no end.
I dont want Heathrow to expand for purely selfish reasons but Im not sure what the answer is. The IEA seems to have some good ideas though;
http://www.iea.org.u
k/publications/resea
rch/de-politicising-
airport-expansion
[quote][p][bold]sfocata[/bold] wrote: metis - at some point, demand control is going to have to happen, as distasteful as it is. As dellboy twick points out, the resources are finite. And to be fair, air travel already is elitist. Cheap flights have steadily been saddled with more and more awkward compromises every since they became common (and that's only 15 years or so). Choice and convenience are still only for the rich. But what I was originally talking about was the need to broaden our use of resources nationally. It's not just about the air travel, but also the knock-on effects in terms of house prices, air quality, traffic congestion... concentrating airport expansion on the SE will (just like HS2) strip economic power from other regions, adding to the unsustainable situation in the SE.[/p][/quote]A command economy is more than distasteful - it it abhorrent. Look at North Korea, Venezuela where even toilet paper is unavailable!, or East Germany before the wall came down. Air travel, techie stuff even fridges, infact all modern day comforts were only afforded by the rich when they were first invented. Modern production methods and other improvements aided by free market capitalism has made them available to ordinary folk and improved peoples lives no end. I dont want Heathrow to expand for purely selfish reasons but Im not sure what the answer is. The IEA seems to have some good ideas though; http://www.iea.org.u k/publications/resea rch/de-politicising- airport-expansion metis

11:09pm Fri 27 Dec 13

dellboy twick. says...

metis your free market economy is the cause of our austerity. Those inventions you quote caused real growth, anything else is false IE a ponzi
metis your free market economy is the cause of our austerity. Those inventions you quote caused real growth, anything else is false IE a ponzi dellboy twick.

12:33am Sat 28 Dec 13

metis says...

dellboy twick. wrote:
metis your free market economy is the cause of our austerity. Those inventions you quote caused real growth, anything else is false IE a ponzi
Austerity caused by interference in the market by governments, central banks, fiat currency, overborrowing - all sending out false price signals therefore causing mal-investment.
[quote][p][bold]dellboy twick.[/bold] wrote: metis your free market economy is the cause of our austerity. Those inventions you quote caused real growth, anything else is false IE a ponzi[/p][/quote]Austerity caused by interference in the market by governments, central banks, fiat currency, overborrowing - all sending out false price signals therefore causing mal-investment. metis

9:52am Sat 28 Dec 13

dellboy twick. says...

metis wrote:
dellboy twick. wrote:
metis your free market economy is the cause of our austerity. Those inventions you quote caused real growth, anything else is false IE a ponzi
Austerity caused by interference in the market by governments, central banks, fiat currency, overborrowing - all sending out false price signals therefore causing mal-investment.
so. it's interference from our elected body on an un- elected group that is only interested in it's profit margin. The US economy is trillions in debt and has a greater hold over it's free market. Always someone else's fault, never the free market!
[quote][p][bold]metis[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellboy twick.[/bold] wrote: metis your free market economy is the cause of our austerity. Those inventions you quote caused real growth, anything else is false IE a ponzi[/p][/quote]Austerity caused by interference in the market by governments, central banks, fiat currency, overborrowing - all sending out false price signals therefore causing mal-investment.[/p][/quote]so. it's interference from our elected body on an un- elected group that is only interested in it's profit margin. The US economy is trillions in debt and has a greater hold over it's free market. Always someone else's fault, never the free market! dellboy twick.

8:09pm Sat 28 Dec 13

metis says...

The US is a mixed economy heading towards a similar socialist/welfare economy like ours. We too are trillions in debt. You in fact state that the US has a hold over its 'free market' which is rather a contradiction in terms; if they have a hold over it then its not free !!! Probably the best example of a truly free market would be HongKong under the stewardship of John Cowper-thwaite in the 1960s.
The US is a mixed economy heading towards a similar socialist/welfare economy like ours. We too are trillions in debt. You in fact state that the US has a hold over its 'free market' which is rather a contradiction in terms; if they have a hold over it then its not free !!! Probably the best example of a truly free market would be HongKong under the stewardship of John Cowper-thwaite in the 1960s. metis

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree