This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/11/third-runway-heathrow

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Never mind a third runway – what Heathrow needs is managed decline Never mind a third runway – what Heathrow needs is managed decline
(about 2 hours later)
Never take a fact from a lobbyist. Heathrow runways have nothing to do with “vital British business”. The idea that spending a staggering £18bn on one runway is economically essential is ludicrous. The economy has far more need of better roads to ports, more commuter trains or cheaper electricity. That they lack the glamour of an airport should not be the issue.Never take a fact from a lobbyist. Heathrow runways have nothing to do with “vital British business”. The idea that spending a staggering £18bn on one runway is economically essential is ludicrous. The economy has far more need of better roads to ports, more commuter trains or cheaper electricity. That they lack the glamour of an airport should not be the issue.
A full 80% of London’s airport capacity serves one industry: foreign leisure travel. That industry is, overwhelmingly, Britons going abroad, and is thus negative to the balance of payments. Business export travel is a trivial part of the sum.A full 80% of London’s airport capacity serves one industry: foreign leisure travel. That industry is, overwhelmingly, Britons going abroad, and is thus negative to the balance of payments. Business export travel is a trivial part of the sum.
If this whole argument were really about something “essential”, Heathrow would cancel its 20% of domestic flights and discontinue all tourist destinations. If more capacity were really so vital, then the market would have spoken. London’s unmentioned “third airport”, at Stansted, would be bursting. Instead, it is half empty. Northolt lies almost unused. Not much essential here.If this whole argument were really about something “essential”, Heathrow would cancel its 20% of domestic flights and discontinue all tourist destinations. If more capacity were really so vital, then the market would have spoken. London’s unmentioned “third airport”, at Stansted, would be bursting. Instead, it is half empty. Northolt lies almost unused. Not much essential here.
Even Britain’s premier airline, BA, has deserted the case for Heathrow. The whole argument is over the profits of the British Airports Authority (BAA). But we should remember that Stansted is below capacity because of a decision of the last Labour government to stop BAA from growing the airport to the same size as Heathrow. That decision was compounded when Cameron, in 2011, agreed the lunatic sale of Stansted to Manchester airport. Even Britain’s premier airline, BA, has deserted the case for Heathrow. The whole argument is over the profits of the British Airports Authority (BAA). But we should remember that Stansted is below capacity because of a decision of the last Labour government to stop BAA from expanding the airport to the same size as Heathrow. That decision was compounded when David Cameron, in 2011, approved the lunatic sale of Stansted to Manchester Airports Group.
Related: Heathrow third runway decision put off until at least summer 2016Related: Heathrow third runway decision put off until at least summer 2016
In a rage, lobbies for BAA and Gatwick have since conspired to butcher Stansted. Ideally located, north-east of London on the Docklands-Cambridge corridor, all it desperately needs is a high-speed rail link into London.In a rage, lobbies for BAA and Gatwick have since conspired to butcher Stansted. Ideally located, north-east of London on the Docklands-Cambridge corridor, all it desperately needs is a high-speed rail link into London.
The days of deciding on infrastructure through “predict and provide” should be over. If not, we would be building 100 hospitals and a dozen motorways. The desire for more foreign travel is understandable but nonessential. An extra hour on a holiday via Stansted or Gatwick hardly jeopardises the economy.The days of deciding on infrastructure through “predict and provide” should be over. If not, we would be building 100 hospitals and a dozen motorways. The desire for more foreign travel is understandable but nonessential. An extra hour on a holiday via Stansted or Gatwick hardly jeopardises the economy.
Meanwhile flying noisy jets over congested cities is antediluvian, and deliberately generates severe ground pollution. Heathrow should be phased out or – like, City airport, confined to predominantly business destinations. Meanwhile, flying noisy jets over congested cities is antediluvian, and deliberately generates severe ground pollution. Heathrow should be phased out or – like City airport – confined to predominantly business destinations.
Air travel should be discouraged not encouraged, and airlines dispersed closer to their markets across Britain. As for more capacity, if is really needed, then use Stansted and Gatwick. They harm fewer people.Air travel should be discouraged not encouraged, and airlines dispersed closer to their markets across Britain. As for more capacity, if is really needed, then use Stansted and Gatwick. They harm fewer people.
Why cannot Cameron and his pusillanimous transport secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, see this?Why cannot Cameron and his pusillanimous transport secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, see this?