I live in Thanet in Kent where there is a great airport Manston begging to be used! it could serve 3 million people in the region easily and has great access. I am at a loss as to why it is not used?

Nathan, Ramsgate, Kent

I share your view that BA's business model is outdated. By focusing only on Heathrow as a hub and spoke operation, they are losing out in the UK home market to other more nimble operators..As an example, the North of England represents a huge market and most rational people prefer not to transit LHR for all the usual reasons. As a result, for example, from Manchester, Singapore airlines operates a (Full) daily flight to Singapore and US carriers operate 6 daily US flights, compared to one BA flight operated using a tired old aircraft. Another example would be Emirates, another quality carrier which now operates from DXB into Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester, Birmingham in addition to the London airports.
Beyond these direct flights, other European carriers are also pinching business in BA's backyard by shuttling connex traffic to AMS/CDG/ZRH/FRA etc out of other regional airports.
In my view, BA should take care of its home market as its first priority.

Philip Townsend, Bali, Indonesia

The noise argument is not ridiculous. If you would like to relocate everybody who lives within a 30 mile radius of Heathrow, where would you put them?
I lived in Windsor a few years ago because i went to a nearby university, does the decision bound by course requirements mean i should then be subjected to the noise as well? have you ever lived near Heathrow? have you ANY idea of what you are talking about? Every 30 seconds or so the Tv is drowned out and the house rumbles. If you are on the phone, forget it, you have to wait til the plane has gone. if you are in the garden on a sunny day the planes actually cast shadows and the air is thick with jet fuel. Now when i go to stay with friends i cannot believe how much worse it has become. It is unbearable and unacceptable and never seems to stop. To say that people who live where they live should be forced to give up jobs, friends and essentially their lives as they know them to allow for more noise and pollution is just ignorant

jack, Leeds,

To Shep and others not fully grasping the issues, I didnt move to a flightpath I live in Camberwell SE London.. The third runway will move the flight path of untold aircraft over my house and thousands of others.

Frank, London, Great Britain

If capacity is a problem at Heathrow, move all the freight traffic somewhere else. This would free up air slots & ground space for an additional terminal without increasing the number of take offs & landings

Richard, Thame, Oxfordshire

I don't understand why everybody slates of expansion plans at Heathrow. People complain maybe having to loose their home for the third runway, well the airport has been there for more than seventy years so why did people move near the airport? Most likely because it was cheap. Yet now they expect the development of what could be a very nice airport just because of the whole 'not in my back yard' rubbish.

There is a desperate need for exapansion, Heathrow and the UK aviation economy, which is the single largest employer in this country. This is because the current two runways are so congested regional flights to the likes of Leeds, Durham and Inverness are no longer viable. Connecting passengers are forced to connect via Paris CDG/ Amsterdam etc. This is disasterous for the UK, there is millions in lost trade that is going into the pockets of foreigners.

We have T5, so why the hell not the third runway!!

Charlie, Leeds Bradford flight path, (Yet I dont complain when a plane goes over me!)

The noise argument is ridiculous. If you don't want to hear aeroplanes - don't live on the flightpath. There's no point in moving to Kew and then complaining that the planes are flying over your house. Heathrow's been growing for the past 50 years - how many of the flightpath residents can remember there being no noise?

Shep, Lincoln, Earthquakeshire

Heathrow the only E-W airport?

I guess LAX doesn't count then..

Chris, High Wycombe,

too bad Federal Express wasn't founded until 1971.

Fred Smith, Memphis, TN, USA

What the hell has the third runway at Heathrow to do with the USA. It was you lot who tried to stop Concord flying to the States because you had not built it.

Also I see it is the USA through the Drudge Report who Has leaked the News about are prince Harry serving abroad. I am not surprised as you will now kill him with so called friendly fire as you have done to our UK troops in the past.

D.Shrewsbury-Addy, weymouth, uk

I am a Brit currently living in the States. Big picture here people!!! It is way past time that we stopped thinking in terms of Britain only. We compete on a WORLD stage and it is time we acted like it. If we do not expand Heathrow, we will lose yet another world-class opportunity and cede ground to CDG in Paris or Schipol in Holland and once again, the small minded nimbys will cost this country. How many of them moved to the Heathrow area BEFORE it was built? Very few, I would wager. Shut up and give this great country of ours a chance to be world class! We should all be proud of British Airways, the finest airline in the world.

dave maclaren, stephens city, virginia, usa

'Heathrow is the only main urban airport that lies on an east-west axis relative to the city it serves' - er, apart from Birmingham and Edinburgh and Belfast International.

Agree that Heathrow is too big, but it is certainly better located than either Gatwick or Stansted for most of us having to travel down to London for an international flight.

Personally, I think ex-USAF Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire would make a good location for a major airport serving the South Midlands, the Western Home Counties and of course one of England's major tourist centres, to relieve some of Heathrow's congestion.

Paul, Coventry,

The most important point is that the growth of Heathrow is only "needed" to allow it to "compete" with Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt as a place for people to change planes. Yet Britain (and particularly the South East) is a small and overcrowded place which is spectacularly unsuited for such a purpose. And as the article points out, this brings almost no benefit to the nation. The government seems in thrall to BA, due to some lingering history of the "National Flag Carrier" concept.

For anyone outside London wanting to travel long haul, it is almost inenvitably preferrable to fly from a regional airport and transfer somewhere in Europe than bother with Heathrow. Air France serves more UK regional airports than BA! There is no reason to change this state of affairs, and with the Open Skies agreement, BA can fly from Paris or Frankfurt or anywhere else.

Ban transfers at Heathrow altogether, and then it could happily serve its genuine purposes as a transport service for London.

Nick, France,

Ben - globally aviation makes up 1.7% of CO2 emissions and even if industry was to do nothing it would still be just 3% by 2050.

See www.sustainableaviation.co.uk

Please cite your sources when you say "aircraft's contribution to global warming is so small as to be completely irrelevant."

Ben Kenney, Kingston, Canada

Sue Collins, South Ockendon, Essex

Has it occurred to anyone, given the rising risk of flooding to central London, that builing an enormous island in the middle of the Thames Estuary is probably a bad idea??

As the author correctly states, wind is predominantly from the West and hence aircraft noisily departing from Heathrow do not have to route directly over London which must surely be a good thing.

The argument must surely be to upgrade the facilities thus alleviating the problems, not to leave the place to decay to nothing. Moreover, I think a geniuine point has been missed - Gatwick has no more capacity to offer and there is no space for another runway to be built. Stansted IS being developed, but nimbyism there is causing significant delays in the construction of a second runway.

Let's be realistic - Heathrow is the busiest international airport in the world, in a country with some of the strictest planning regulations and IT IS here to stay. Let's embrace development of it into a world class airport.

Bob Houston, Cleveleys, UK

Worst airport in Europe, no doubt about that. In common with all so called public services post Thatcher airports have become another way of ripping off the traveller who has no alternative. You can add this to the most expensive and inefficient trains in Europe. Spain has comparatively wonderful airports, Ferrovial wouldn't dare to be responsible for such awful facilities in their own country. So long as London remains the centre of the universe, those of us in the more farflung regions of the United? Kingdom are forced to transit through LHR, splitting up the traffic to the other airports will not improve that situation, I was recently charged GBP 18 for an hours bus ride LHR to LGW, recommended transfer time 3 hours. Any time I can I choose to use Amsterdam or Paris for transit. Anyway, no one who smokes chooses to transit through LHR, after enduring hours of non smoking flying the BAA has ensured that there is nowhere for a quick drag in the transit areas.

Dave, Aberdeen,

Airtravel contributes estimated 2-3% to global carbon emissions. Global emsions contribute X% or 0.000X % ?? to global warming. Even if you wipe out all airports and decommission all planes the observable result WILL be negligable...

Plane Stupid, Stevenage,

I dont agree with your logic, except for breaking up BAA's strangle hold on airports, but I am pleased it's not a 'saaaaave the environment' cry.

Arthur, Newcastle,

Please cite your sources when you say "aircraft's contribution to global warming is so small as to be completely irrelevant."

Ben Kenney, Kingston, Canada

One other issue worth mentioning is public transport access to the airport - the tube is extremely crowded and the Paddington Express is not part of the unified TfL service , which means it is overpriced and ( I have read ) underused . This latter section should be rectified by HM Govt - we cannot have businessmen ratttling around on half empty express trains while tube passengers have faces in each others' armpits . To add insult to injury the other branch of the Piccadilly line to Uxbridge is half empty - perhaps a one-runway airport should be built at Denham for these trains to go to .

Ian Speed, Isleworth Middx, UK

Others have pointed out glaring geographical errors. I'll chime in with some historical ones. Federal Express did not exist in the 50s. Also they got started delivering cancelled checks using Lear jets with limited range. Fred Smith Vietnam War era pilot its founder was clever and became rich but his ideas did not inspire the big US airlines. The hub and spoke system was developed by United, American, and others to leverage their repsective local dominance, Chicago, Dallas etc. The idea that point-to-point route architecture seems to be superior is apparently corne out by Suothwest's and Ryanair's success. When many easily verifiable facts in an article are simply wrong it is hard to buy the conclusions. Conceptually reasonable but don't you have some helpers around tthe office to assist you and check on some facts?

Mark, Washington, DC USA

something funny people administrators politicians has a fixed idea related to facts surronding them. planes are getting bigger larger and carry more passanger. airports should not surrond population density areas and built in sucha way for transport distance directions of air cuurrent and types of planes use

sangaralingham, oshawa canada l1g7j8, canada/ontario

The Estuary Airport idea is a complete non-starter. Quite appart from the fact that the weather - i.e. fog, would cause havoc, it would be totally isolated. Not everyone who uses LHR lives in London, thus the whole high speed rail link idea would only really be of use to people living in London, such as journalists, who by the sound of things, may well live under the current flight path - oh how cynical of me! While LHR is far from the best airport in the world, it is a very long way from the worst. I'll not argue with you about breaking up BAA and introducing more competition though, that's rarely a bad thing!

Simon, Reading, UK

Thames estuary is still on an East-West axis relative to London and it's no use saying that aircraft can turn before they reach East London.
That's what they would have said in 1945 about Heathrow. Build an airport in the estuary and London will migrate towards it. We'll have all the same overflight issues we have now with Heathrow except now the airport will be bounded to the West, the prevailing take-off direction. Also, such an airport would be less central to the rest of the country which, I feel I need remind you, DOES EXIST.
Build a new airport by all means, but put it near to the junction of the M1 and M25 with feeder from the M40, with a train station with lines (not just a line) to the North, Midlands, Wales, South West, East Anglia and - oh yes, London. Then put planning restrictions on all the people who want to build houses near the airport, for their own good.

chris Lee, Melbourne, England

With all the diatribes here and in the other commentaries concerning the sad state of Britain, can we make a case of privatising the whole lot into the hands of one of Ms Harman's much-lover dictators? At least it would solve the overcrowding - we'd all be in the US/Canadian/Aussie/NZ immigration queues instead of hanging around NuLab's fiasco-land.

KR, Stockport,

Sigh, nobody in there right mind would voluntarily transfer
at Heathrow to go anywhere, besides all the others reasons stated
by many others in this forum, they will inevitably lose your
luggage. That trick they sometimes even manage on point to point
connections.

Any time an EU business meeting is announced for or near
London the whole office here omits an almost simultanuous groan.
This, prior to suggestions for scheduling the meeting somewhere else,
ANYWHERE else.

As others have stated it is near enough the worst disaster airport
on the planet. Having worked near Egham/Winsor/Ascot for about 10
months a few years back I can also testify to the noise, traffic
congestion, delays, cancellations etc. ad nauseum which make one slowly
but surely hate the place.

One point the article perhaps did not address directly was the affect
the new Open Skies agreement will have on Heathrow. Not only will there
be less arguments for hub and spoke airports but the number of point to
point connections in general which are increasing already and will increase
further with Open Skies and increases in the distances modern aircraft can
fly, will inevitably strengthen the autor's arguments. Heathrow has almost
been on it's last legs since the early 1970s, time perhaps to take a loaded
12 bore and put the poor animal out of it's misery ?

Well done. Very good article. If only your government would listen......

Dave

Dave, Munich, Germany

Bravo, a great article which hits ome nails on the head. Heathrow is in the wrong position, always has been always will be.

First and formost it is the most destructive force of community in west london, damaging people health, sanity, wealth, quailty of living.

People must come first not money, not BAA and not government officials lining their pockets, or securing non-executive board positions for when they retire.

I really doubt that west london has the ground capacity to deal with such an addition. I really doubt my sanity can deal with any increase in plane noise.

No end to Runway Alternation
No introduction of mixed mode (infact remove it from early mornings!)
No third runway, no 6th Terminal

And if you really must have at the cost of the environment put it in the Thames Estuary.

William Barrett, Chiswick, London

The creation of an international airport on the Thames estuary, able to operate 24/7 without bothering anyone, could be done. Hong Kong has most recently shown this to be possible. If such a project were required in the US it would be done, and done quickly and efficiently.

It will not happen in the UK. There is no will to achieve. No ‘can do’ spirit. No commitment to excellence. These have all been replaced over time with exhaustion, despair, incompetence, rot, make do and mend. Whitehall is simple a bed of flab to perpetuate itself.

Ubi, Edinburgh, UK

We seem to be planning on the basis that past trends will continue into the indefinite future (rather like generals planning for the last war, not the next). In 2020 oil could be $300 a barrel and short haul flights to London from places like Manchester or Paris a thing of the past.
Anyway, has has been pointed out already, the area around Heathrow is choked with traffic already, it would be madness to add to it.

paul, sheffield, UK

Who wants to fly into the Thames Estuary? How do you get to southern, northern or western England from the Thames Estuary? If we have to have a large, national airport it would be better sited right in the middle of England, with modern road and rail links to principal cities. Only Londoners imagine that everyone wants to fly simply to London.

Harry Collier, Malmesbury,

A hub airport can work fine, but it needs to be well designed (not badly evolved), and it doesn't need to be that near a major City.

The solution is simple: A new, well designed hub airport with 4 runways by the Thames Estuary. (This is due East of London, but taking off planes can turn before they get there). This would be linked to both CrossRail and High Speed 1.

Then reduce Heathrow to one runway and make it a small regional airport with a single terminal (T5).

Alex , Tunbridge Wells,

I agree, pull it all down and start again. Developing Birmingham and Manchester would also help. I have colleagues who fly into Heathrow from Europe and take a car up to meetings in the midlands / north because (a) all they know is Heathrow and don't know the others exist - London is England to them, or (b) there aren't enough reasonbly timed business flights (in and out in a day) into these airports.

Johnny , The Shire,

Your 'experienced airline pilot with Souhwest Airlines' is talking through his fundament. He's used to flying small aeroplanes from long runways. Big, heavy, long-haul aeroplanes need to take-off and land into wind. Trust me, I flew them.

Phil , Christchurch, UK

Even if climate change is "a load of hot air", Peak Oil is not.

In case no one's noticed oil doubled in price last year for the very simple reason that it is a finite resource - like uranium! - for which there is exponential increase in demand.

Most flights are for the purposes of tourism, not trade, and despite R Branson's recent gimmick, airliners need oil, and will continue to do so for forty years. Bywhich time the oil economy will be a receding memory.

Tom MacFarlane, Thornton-Cleveleys, Lancashire, UK

Anatole, these are good reasons for not exacerbating the congestion at Heathrow. However, you appear to have overlooked the biggest reason against expansion: Open skies will allow more flights direct from mainland European airports to the US. BA is already setting up a Euro offshoot to fly direct to US cities. As London loses its financial weight we will see more air traffic from these new routes and any further Heathrow capacity could prove expensively superfluous.

Steve Marchant, Broadhempston, UK

The answer to this is obvious.

1) Gatwick airport should be delegated to DCAA (Civil Aviation Authority of Dubai) or similar. Since it appears they are much more competent at running high profile projects than the folk in the UK.

2) Luton airport should be delegated to an authority in the US. This will encourage more connections to the USA (which as we all know is our best ally...)

3)Heathrow should be granted the third runway albeit with no financial burden being placed upon the taxpayer.

The gameplan of all this is that BAA will now realse that the 'new' competition will gladly redevelop the old airports and may steal passengers from heathrow hence a third runway will probably not even be required by time they finish their due diligence.

Come on Labour, its not rocket science!!

Aaron, Vancouver, Canada

It's been pointed out below, but how can you trust the analysis of man who can't even use a map? JFK is due east of Manhattan, O'Hare is north of central Chicago but lies due west of large residential districts. Journalists and politicians are the only people in the world who can get away with complete ignorance of the facts and not suffer professionally!

MDHinton, sieradz, Poland

The Maplin Sands proposal was not rejected purely on grounds of cost. The area is a major bird sanctuary and breeding ground : besides the general desirability of this there would be significant bird-strike dangers. Part of the area has also been used as a munitions testing site for well over 100 years and the cost of making it completely save would be prohibitive. It is also awkward to get to from anywhere west and north-west of London.
Think of the increased congestion on the M25 : at least with Heathrow airport situated where it is the traffic congestion is relatively local.
A final point : prevailing wind. Taxi-ing to face into the wind for take-off was indeed necessary for the underpowered piston-engined planes of the past but modern jets generate sufficient lift to take off independent of wind direction - or so an experienced airline pilot with SouthWest Airlines tells me !

David Thomas, Slough, Berks UK

Its fairly obvious Heathrow is an obsolete location, blighting not only west London but also Windsor etc with noise. There should be a new airport in the Estuary, with a link to the high-speed line to Kings X and a fast boat to the City.

michael clarke, london, uk

Its Greenpeace who are plane stupid. With a monopoly rip-off on Eurostar prices, who can deny the attraction of Easyjet?

michael clarke, london, uk

ummm... isn't the Thames estuary to the East of London?

botogol, London,

The regulator (and most of society) sees public transport as something that is fundamental to the way of life, on the same level as water, gas and electricity, i.e. infrastructure. But running it under public management is usually inefficient and expensive. So letting the private sector run it reduces government debt and risk, and hopefully because of commercial pressures it is run more efficiently.
BAA is in a non-competitive situation domestically as it owns all the main airports, but, on a European scale it is trying to compete with Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris, etc., and this gives it some potential for market growth. However, when you go back to the infrastructure arguement then you have to say, who gives a damn about whether someone travelling from New York to somewhere in Europe other than UK, goes via Amsterdam or Paris, instead of Heathrow !

M Wright, Pau,

You understate the matter of "transferability" at Heathrow. To transfer there is something to avoid for most and impossible for some. While point to point hops is possible in little Europe, transferability is a concern for intercontinental travellers.

Changi in Singapore is a role model. Transfer there is a breeze. I don't think all aspects of travel can be accomodated in one airport in London. But one airport there should be done with transfer passangers in mind.

Roland Larsson, Jakarta, Indonesia

Non sequitur?
Mr Kaletsky writes: "The reason why this hasn't happened is obvious: BAA owns Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and has every incentive to stifle, rather than intensify, competition to Heathrow." But if BAA owns the competition - Gatwick and Stansted - any 'loss' at Heathrow should be more than recouped at the two other airports.

J Smithx, Salisbury,

Heathrow is and in my 35 year flying experience has always been the most unpleasant airport in the world, and I MEAN the world.

I realise that the bright people that run Heathrow think that after an 8 or 12 hour flight the only thing you really need is a mile walk to the immigration area.

The immigration area is a DISGRACE. I once had to use the "other" line as I was travelling with a non-EC national and it's an insulting and poor start to a visit to UK.

But it's lucky it takes so long to get through immigration as it masks the inefficiency of the baggage handling system. Even after waiting 55 minutes at immigration the bright people can't organise a system that gets my bag on a carousel.

And don't get anyone to meet you in a car and allow them to park in the short stay car parks as these can take up to an hour to get out of.

And when you do get out you are treated to a further rest on the M25.

The quicker we get the Singapore Airport Authority running Heathrow the better.

David, Dubai, UAE

BA can use Heathrow as a transit point if it wants, but people from places such as India will avoid using BA because we need a visa to transit, even if we just sit in the plane without getting off.

PK, Bangalore, India

Well said AK.

Gatwick is closer in terms of time to parts of london than Heathrow - for example 30 mins to Victoria and about 40 mins direct to London Bridge for the City.

However, it is already tatty and very unfriendly to users. For instance, arriving at the main terminal by local bus entails getting off at the back, going up steps used by smokers, through a back entrance, all up steps with no lift!

Some of the railway stations have no elevators, ticket machines are often broken, and it is congested.

It was a fatal mistake to put all main airports into one company. there should be competition.

Moving walkways are frequently broken, and inadequate. The parking is atrocious and expensive.

The taxis are operated by a monoply supplier with all that entails.

The mian hall is disorganised with too many shops - etc etc

Until we grasp the nettle and have a completely new faacility like KL, or Hong Kong we will have problems. In he meantime the strangle hold of BAA must be broken.

Michael Corby, London, England

"As an expat I get a tingle flying over London and into Heathrow "

I cant believe that someone enjoys flying into Heathrow! It is one of the worst airports in the developed world - greedily handling far more passengers than it was built for, treating them like cattle, full of delays (BA especially), and overpriced (try buying an orange juice). I now refuse to go to through Heathrow on business trips to the UK, and try to fly point-to-point, even if it means staying an extra night somewhere. In that sense Heathrow is making me spend my money in Britain!

Mark, Munich, Germany

As an expat I get a tingle flying over London and into Heathrow after a year abroad. I even enjoy the ride into town on the Tube. Gatwick and Stanstead? Nah, just not the same... Keep LHR open!

N, Bangkok, Thailand

Ryanair fly directly to your destination? News to me!

Lux Aeterna, MANCHESTER,

But how's America going to get its Airstrip 1 if not by Heathrow expansion?

R.Taylor, London,

Chicago's O'Hare airport is directly west of Chicago. Chicago stretches for 30 miles north and south with the conurbation easily reaching the airport. But I agree, Heathrow is a poor location for an airport. But I do enjoy the view of London everytime I fly directly over the city centre.

Scott, Aliso Viejo, California

Well argued piece. But I would be interested to know whether AK lives near the heathrow flightpath, (as I do.)

A, Kew,

Excellent points. The government should establish a target date for the closing of Heathrow Airport - say 2025 - and work toward the establishment of the replacement airport in the Thames Estuary by that date. Meanwhile, Stansted and Gatwick Airports can be improved and enlarged. If it were guaranteed that there would be no third runway at Heathrow, perhaps opposition to one or two new runways in the other airports around London could be assuaged. Imagine a beautiful new park (with residential and commercial parcels) where LHR is now.

Tim Carmell, Sanford, ME

Remarkably cogent arguments and a very well-written article!

Jennie, London,

JFK is as East of NY as it gets. I suggest you turn the map you are looking at through 90 degrees!!

Vic, Teddington,

Anatole writes a clear incisive piece as always. Two points to add however in the argument against further expansion. First, the surrounding road congestion by further expansion at HR would be truly devastating. Already, we regularly find the approach roads locked solid at peak times - M3, M4, M25, etc. I have often been stuck in these and unable to reach my departure terminal in time. There is zero space available for significant further road expansion in this region.
Secondly, Anatole is wrong on the environmental impact in the medium and long term - aircraft pollution is scientifically much more damaging than ground level pollution, and is set to reach 25% of our emissions in the next 30 years - to say nothing of the local environmental pollution - noise, dirt and traffic - that is just too significant to brush aside.

J E Farrington, Newcastle upon Tyne,

Anatole Kalesky is right about Heathrow but there is one other aspect that overides all others... what about beginning to consider 'quality of life'. Already, noise is insufferable for many, transport is overloaded and the quality of life for those around Heathrow is becoming decidely unpleasant. Progress is one thing but is not the ultimate goal.

Don Bunce, Turin,

The people who complain about the protesters using direct action to campaign against a third runway at Heathrow should remember what happened with Terminal 5.
Years were spent on a public enquiry that cost millions which eventually delivered it's verdict - don't build Terminal 5.
This decision was ignored by the government who said "We're going to build it anyway".
So much for democracy!!!!

GJB, SLOUGH (very near Heathrow), BERKSHIRE