Heathrow is full. Those three little words send sober people into paroxysms. The worried wealthy of Holland Park, Chiswick and Kensington, realising that they may be under the flight path of the proposed third runway, are thronging to protest meetings. Green groups slam the Government's consultation, soon to end, as a sham. The four mayoral candidates for London have taken out full-page adverts declaring their opposition. Business leaders outdo Greenpeace for apocalyptic language, claiming that the airport is “critically important to economic prosperity” and making dire predictions that firms will flee abroad. “Heathrow can either decline or develop,” says Future Heathrow, a business lobby group. “It cannot stay as it is.”
That this last statement is manifestly untrue has not stopped the Government succumbing to the hysteria. Some of Ruth Kelly's Cabinet colleagues are incredulous that the air industry is being licensed to undermine other policies. Like a woolly mammoth that missed the Ice Age, the Department for Transport trundles on with its goal of doubling UK flights in 25 years, despite the many authoritative reports that show that this will make it impossible for Whitehall to meet its climate change commitments.
Forget joined-up government: while the Environment Secretary urges retailers to phase out old-fashioned light bulbs, and the Treasury dubs air travel so evil that passengers must pay more tax, Ms Kelly blithely waves forward flights, runways and the roads that connect them.
There has always been one rule for the air industry and another for the rest. While the Treasury defends petrol taxes partly on environmental grounds, the airlines continue to pay no tax on fuel. The EU is imposing standards on car manufacturers that have them screaming, but it cannot touch the air lobby. The DfT dropped its “predict and provide” approach for cars years ago, recognising that the creation of roads led inexorably to more traffic and that environmental considerations made rationing essential. But it continues to predict and provide for the air industry, refusing to consider that demand should be curtailed.
The double standard has led to a rash of broken promises on Heathrow. Terminal 4 was approved in 1978, subject to a cap on annual traffic movements of 275,000. Two years later BAA recorded 287,000 movements, and 376,000 in 1990. When Terminal 5 was approved in 2001, the planning inspector and BAA stated that a third runway would be “totally unacceptable”, and set a new cap of 480,000 movements. But by 2003 a White Paper aimed at 700,000.
The justification is the importance of aviation to the economy. It would be foolish to argue that air travel is not important to business. But some of the mythology is misleading. The growth in air traffic is overwhelmingly from leisure travel, not business. More than 80 per cent of international travellers at UK airports, and 60 per cent at Heathrow, are holidaymakers. Outbound tourism outstrips inbound, creating a whopping £18 billion balance of payments deficit. Only this week, the Travelodge chain of hotels called for an end to unfair tax breaks for budget airlines, which it said were “the single biggest cause of decline in traditional [UK] tourism resorts”.
It is one thing to treat the air industry as a special case, it is quite another thing to distort the facts. And here the Government's collusion with the industry is a problem.
Take the greenwash first. Ministers repeat the mantra that “Heathrow's expansion will only go ahead within strict environmental limits”. But they know full well that the absence of legal standards on noise leaves communities defenceless. New EU air-quality standards had looked like an insuperable hurdle to a third runway, but are being fudged with ropey claims that road traffic emissions will fall. Two weeks ago the Advertising Standards Authority ordered British Airways to withdraw the claim, made by its CEO in an e-mail to Executive Club members, that the third runway would reduce carbon dioxide emissions because aircraft would no longer have to waste fuel queueing to take off or land. This flatly contradicted Whitehall models, which assume that the new runway will raise CO2 emissions by 2.6 million tonnes a year from the 200,000 extra flights.
Secondly, take the arguments about capacity. BAA's figures demonstrate clearly that Heathrow is not full. Not remotely. The appendix to the government consultation on the third runway states that 67 million passengers used Heathrow in 2006, and that this could rise to 122 million if a third runway were built. But it also shows that 95 million people could use Heathrow if “maximum use were made of existing runways”.
At one stroke we are looking at a con, perhaps the greatest ever perpetrated on the British people by the DfT. For BAA itself is telling us that 28 million more people could use Heathrow without a new runway and without breaking the cap on flights.
How? By using larger planes and filling more seats. Jeff Gazzard, of Airport Watch, says that if Heathrow were not allowed to expand, it could spur the airline industry to invest more rapidly in larger aircraft like the A380, on which some are already hedging their bets.
Bigger planes would not solve climate change, although they would reduce local pollution. The point is that we have been told that Heathrow is full when it is not. That kind of distortion suggests that the DfT has ceased to function as an arm of government and has become a mere subsidiary of BAA.
Whats more worrying is the fact that T6 is already in the pipeline.
TB, Surrey,
What Heathrow needs is for T1, 2 and 3 to be rebuilt in a form similar to Munich airport.
Stephen, London, UK
BAA can't run an airport with two runways, what makes them think that they can run one with three? Airports receive an enormous, unsustainable public subsidy by not being charged for environmental noise, pollution and safety risk. When this subsidy is ended air traffic growth will cease.
Brian Edmonds, Farnham, UK
Not only is Heathrow full, but so is the South East. Let's start campaigning for no more homes.
This country never builds infrastructure before development, so the South East is already too full.
Maybe instead oif ever increasing subsidies to the less well off, we let economic forces do the job government can't. If labour costs go up due to the migration of the less well paid then employers will have to pay an economic wage for those they really need in the South East. We have been exposed to world market forces but don't like all that it means.
poor
William, Sevenoaks, UK
Given that many of the travellers are overtaxed Brits either trying to leave the country all together (the brain drain) or take what little is left of our pay packets and spend it overseas where we might get something for our money, surely basic economics suggest making it easier to export ourselves and our money is not terribly bright. Not only is Gordo strangling the economy he is letting all our cash leak out as well. Genius.
TC, london,
Heathrow needs to expand, and any expansion it does get is going to add little to the 2% of carbon emmissions that aviation creates in the world. If anything, it will reduce it because currently aircraft are sent to holds for upwards of an hour in order to wait for a landing slot. With a 3rd runway a lot of this will stop.
When are people going to get over the fact that the media have led them on to thinking aviation is so incredibly bad for the environment? There has never been much of a campaign for people to stop using cars for journeys that could easily be walked. Road transport produces over 5 times the amount of emmissions that aviation makes. Every generation of aircraft averages out with fuel efficiency gains over 20%.
Another thing that should be brought to peoples' attention is that to match the CO2 footprint per person of most aircraft, you need at least 2 people to be in a car. 70% of car journeys are made alone. Go figure.
Jack, Maidenhead, UK
No Expansion at Heathrow, An No end to runway alternation.
Runway Alternation is a lifesaver for many, let me assure you that when the planes are not flying overhead many people take a sigh of relief.
Heathrow is in the wrong place.
Heathrow Expansion will affect Climate, Road Traffic, Noise,
Pollution, Bad health, and much more.
New Planes are not that much quiter that old planes only 3db to paople on the ground.
The consultation is a sham and fixed, nothing anyone says will affect the result. This will need mass action and a judicial review to even remotely have a chance.
Noise will increase by over 1/3rd from current levels, be non stop, and affect many more people.
Save My Sanity, Save the planet, write to Ruth Kelly today, and any MP you know.,
William, Chiswick, London
Why do we all need to fly so much? I thought video conferencing would do away with the need for so much business travel. Or is a business trip abroad for executives a nice little jaunt away from the office with the opportunity to pick up a few duty frees?
When are the people with second homes abroad going to realise that the cheap flights they currently enjoy are morally wrong? I'd like to see the end of the £10 flight. Their bargain buy of a desirable property in a 'new property hotspot' such as Bulgaria is going to seem a lot less of a worthwhile investment if they can't get there and the locals move in as squatters.
S Morley, Hove, UK
The other lie is that quieter aircraft will mean that all this can be achieved with no increase in noise. What this really means is:
1. Quieter and larger aircraft will lead to [let's say] a halving of aircraft noise.
2. If we let this happen then people will resist having the noise increased again.
3. So let's double the traffic quick, before anyone notices that they could have had a quieter life.
We need free trade in aircraft movements. If it is true that Schiphol can offer more aircraft movements at less human cost than Heathrow, then Schiphol should do it. We are all Europeans now.
Joseph Bruno, London,
The desire to promote air travel is perhaps one reason for the policy of refusing to expand rail capacity and allowing fare increases well above the rate of infltaion. Railways must not be allowed to compete with air travel in the 'up to 3 hours' bracket.
Frank Upton, Solihull,
How quickly things would have been put in a different light if the recent incident at Heathrow had turned out differently. Had the plane fallen short of the runway, there would have been massive loss of life. We have been fortunate in the UK to have been spared a major air accident over densly populated areas. It's time to look at alternative locations, and take the safety of the general public into serious consideration.
Ron, Milton Keynes, Bucks
No Joe from Scotland MOST people are not travelling for work they are travelling for holidays. WHY do people in this country think they have a God given right to a foreign holiday every single year, and sometimes two? When you see the deprivation of people living in other countries, and the effects of global warming, the selfishness of people in this country is some kind of sick joke.
Claire James, Ruislip, England
inside heathrow airport, nobody can hear you scream!
bruce, apt, france
Lets have a third runway, somewhere other than Heathrow
lets say around 50 miles North of London.
Include a high speed mag-lev train system and dedicated motorway, problem solved!!! Heathrow itself is a blight on the landscape and should have no more local development.
Bleriot, Croydon, England
Let's step back a moment, folks. I'm all in favour of reducing CO2, but that requires more capacity, not less. Less stacking and probably smaller engines and slower flight.
Furthermore, we're British, we're not Eastern European. We don't restrict access by queuing, we restrict access by price. Let's raise money from the airlines and spend it on facilities - the same way every other kind of development works. What's wrong with us when it comes to this subject?
Andy Dyer, London, UK,
Anyone who has travelled through the shambles that is heathrow airport knows that a third runway is desperately needed. Sitting on the tarmac for 3 hours waiting in a queue to take off and circling above london for an hour waiting to land are all common occurances at heathrow.
jennifer, London,
To join the campaign against you can join any of the major green groups that are against it, but the most dedicated, with an honora ble record of opposing LHR expansion is HACAN whose details you can get from a google search.
Rupert, London, UK
Oh come on. If “Heathrow can either decline or develop...It cannot stay as it is†is apparently "manifestly untrue", then I cannot allow Ms Cavendish to get away with "the creation of roads led inexorably to more traffic" as being an ipso facto reason never to build roads. I'm fed up with people spouting this rubbish. Yes, road-building encourages some to use the roads rather than public transport (= small increase in traffic) but it also, by reducing congestion, alleviates travelling misery for millions- especially when our rail system is skeletal and gag-inducingly expensive. It's also green: since stop-start queuing dramatically increases car emissions, road building, by enabling cars to travel at more constant speeds, would even be good for the environment.
Jonathan, London, UK
By the time the runway is ready people will finally have woken up to climate change and will be flying less. So the expansion is not only environmentally damaging, it is also unnecessary.
Dr Richard Milne, Edinburgh,
NIMBY'ism in pure form. Bah!
Frederick Davies, Oxford, UK
Simple. Don't build any more airports. Make the cost of flying higher. This will reduce emissions and keep money in the UK (by keeping holiday makers here) and eventually reduce the number of flights needed.
We don't really need to fly anyway. It's a luxury!!! With the digital age now in full swing the need to travel for business has dramatically decreased.
Traveling to foreign parts for my holidays is a revolting prospect. Why would I want to see that many obese bright pink chavs?
Besides I could always take a cruise if I wanted to risk skin cancer in the sun.
The UK is a great holiday destination. That's why so many tourists come here
E.R.Mann, Warwick, U.K.
It only goes to show! You can have all the spin about global warming and reducing the nation's carbon footprint. But if big business wants to make more money, such issues take a back seat! Tackling the crisis that faces us all couldn't be further from the minds of those people whose only concern is to line their pockets with more money!
Tom Jackson, London, UK
The British public HAS been led to believe!!! HAS been!!! 'The public' is a singular noun. Can you imagine a french journalist writing 'le public sont...?'
When will the Times put out a circular to its journalists advising them to master the principal tool of their trade - the English language? It are starting to really gets my goat.
George, La Rochelle, France
Peak Oil is a reality. The only question is, when will it really start to bite? When it does, air travel - which can't operate on any other form of energy - will start contracting. It's about time people, and governments, took their heads out of the sand.
Dave, Wrexham,
This governmet, if it continues to proceed with this utter madness, will very clearly show the people of this country it does not care a jot about their welfare or our environment.
These plans benefit BAA and airlines profits THAT IS IT.
Take the time to read the detail of consultation - it is a complete insult. 100s of thousands of extra planes but no extra pollution or noise it's a miracle!!! No it is based on a report by the ex chief exec of BA (impartial?), much irrelevant science that suits, leading questions and some claims and arguements that simply beggar belief that people will fall for them.
Levelling villages and schools, destroying quality of life for hundreds of communities and hugely increasing CO2 pollution - Great call!!
Good job we are considering banning patio heaters!
grant, london,
You are partly right. However, it is the airlines not the airport or the dft that sell tickets on a plane, and decide upon the aircraft that they use at the aiport. To an extent this can be influenced by the airport, but ultimately if an airline wants to fly a half-empty flight with high yielding pax at the front end of the place, then neither the airport nor the Government can stop them.
Heathrow is full for airlines wanting to obtain slots. The only way to obtain slots is by buying them - something that airlines do not need to do at Heathrow's European competitor airports. This is where the UK economy could miss out, as airlines from gorwing and emerging economies such as China, may deam the millions of pounds required to obtain just a single slot, too much to bear.
Michael, Birmingham,
Some of the commentors need to consider that the soon-to-open terminal 5 will greatly improve the passenger experience at Heathrow. Camilla's argument is that Heathrow does not run at the full capacity of the runways not that it does not exceed the reasonable capacity of the passenger infrastructure.
Heathrow is only the 14th busiest airport in terms of take-offs and landings. Most of the airports with greater traffic have only two runways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_airports_by_traffic_movements
More generally Camilla points out that an increase in flights worsens our appalling balance of payments crisis. I say crisis because it will eventually either ruin stirling or push up interest rates, possibly both.
In April I am going on a stag do in Eastern Europe, if flights were more expensive I would not bother. We would probably go to somewhere like Newcastle and have just as good a time. It would be better for our economy if we did.
Steve, London, England
While I agree with the sentiment that Heathrow is a terrible place to have an airport much less expand it I don’t see anything wrong with expanding the aviation sector. In relative terms aviation produces very little green house emissions, totally out of proportion with the amount of anti aviation campaigning there is.
In terms of CO2 output if we went 100% nuclear in power generation and converted all road transport to batteries over the next 20 years we could fly as much as we wanted without emitting nearly as much CO2 as today.
Contrary to this article aviation is highly regulated in terms of emissions and noise and is self regulated in terms of CO2 in that fuel efficiency is the number 1 concern for engine manufacturers and airlines when buying new aircraft.
The maxim that building new roads will only increase traffic flows is also rubbish, if this were true all roads would be permanently congested. It is only true when the road in question is already heavily congested.
Dan Robertson, Derby, UK
Adia
No Camilla isn't saying that -Heathrow feels full because the terminal facilities are clearly inadequate for 67m passangers when they were designed for half as many. Develop the facilities and you can expand the capacity without an extra runway. The runway argument is a red herring.
Alex, Manchester,
I'm not opposed to expansion of air travel. But broken promises are just what we've come to expect from politicians - a very untrustworthy bunch.
Elizabeth, Windsor,
Whats needed is less concentration on flights using London airports as a hub and having more direct flights from local airports. For trips to many European destinations from Scotland two connecting flights are required resulting in time wasting and additional pollution. Direct flights would reduce the congestion at LHR, LGW and STD and the need for the third runway at Heathrow.
Bill, Kilwinning, Scotland
Heathrow is just awful, as is Gatwick. The new airports in Asia make our airports look like goo. Can we not just bull doze everything and build something nice.
Farrukh, Woking, UK
The pressure on Heathrow could be reduced if more flights were available from regional airports. Although I live only half an hour from Manchester Airport, I often have to travel to Heathrow for a flight abroad. If I take an internal flight to get there, the effect is doubled.
Howard, Macclesfield,
Paul, there isn't any Peak oil mate. Just becuase the "Shell" guy said it is, it's within his interests to make you belive there is peak oil and that is a contributing factor to the price of oil.
The price of oil (black gold) is set by the Billderberg group every year at there meetings. It's been the same since the 60s.
Do you know there is over 70% tax on the petrol we buy at the pump? that is the main reason why petrol costs so much!
One of these $100 (£50) barrels fills 4 cars mate.
Since we invaded Iraq we are at something along the lines of 1/3 of the capasidy they can output, this is a contributing factor to the price of oil.
Also that the price of oil is mainly sold in Dollars and the US on the verg of a reccesion, there currency is about to collasp, soon to be replaced by the Amero.
Also, Iran and Russia recently stopped trading all there oil in dollars and now trade in Euro's, this is another factor.
Look into the issue's my friend.
Andy, England,
The 2M Group is an alliance of 12 local authorities concerned at the environmental impact of Heathrow expansion on their communities.
http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/Home/MyWandsworth/Newsextra/2mgroup.htm
Samantha, London,
Heathrow's the biggest planning disaster in the UK's history. Why dont they just relocated it?! Other countries have done it and has been beneficial for everybody
Jolyon Poole, Godalming, Surrey
If the transport network in the UK was up to par with the rest of Europe then you could expand Manchester Airport instead.
The problem is that its so tricky and expensive to get from Anywhere to London by any means that people really have one choice - fly straight into London.
Phill , Heswall, England
Paul of London should read the article correctly. He would then see that the £18 Billion is a balance of payments figure and already takes into account the £17 Billion in respect of incoming passengers. The actual figure in respect of outgoing passengers is £35 Billion and increasing annually.
Peter - Suffolk
Peter Gowan, Kersey, Suffolk
Is Camilla joking? Can she seriously make the point that her argument revolves around Heathrow not actually being full? Anyone (and I do mean anyone) who has flown through Heathrow will know it is straining at the seams. I cannot believe the writer hinges her debate on the idea that we could squeeze a few more thousand through the airport, or that some of the readers have taken her seriously!?
Adia, London,
I have no doubt BAA will get their runway.
Unfortunately, it's in the very nature of our society that things, especially business, are not allowed to 'stand still', that they must be seen to "progress" constantly. Sadly, this seems to be the case whatever the costs may be and it has scary consequences for the environment. How else can you explain our collective lack of action over climate change for the last 10 - 20 years?
Dan, London,
We need this runway and many more like it - How else are we going to get the CO2 levels up enough to avert the next ice age which is now due?
Frank, Marseille, France
How do I join he campaign against a third runway. I live in Ealing, right under the flight path, and we are already inundated with day and late night flghts - the latter even though I believe flights should not go on beyond 11pm and before 7am. If the recent BA crash had happened just one minute earlier, it would have been a terrible disaster for west London.
Pat Robinson, Ealing, London
I have lived in West Drayton for 22 years with Heathrow Airport on my door step. I have no objection to improvements to Heathrow as long as they are valid and improve the environment. I do not agree that 3 villages, 3 achieving primary schools, increase in traffic and pollution is acceptable. We already have a very high rate of asthma as we live in what they call the Triangle, Heathrow Airport, M4 & M25. The accident recently was a wake up call, if BAA continues with a Third Runway we might no be so lucky next time, it could have been down onto our houses.
Julia, West Daryton, England
Even the boss of Shell says that Peak Oil will be with us by circa 2015 - after which the cost of fuel will rocket. This alone will reduce the demand for flights making the extra runway a white elephant. While we can run cars and trains on electricity using existing technology, oil based aviation fuel cannot be substituted for anything that's anywhere near as cheap.
In any case any money would be better spent expanding capacity in the midlands and north UK to save 2/3rds of the population having to drive to a car to the traffic choked SE England/Heathrow.
paul newbold, sheffield, UK
"Capacity"?
Oh yes, banning smaller aircraft (which will make many routes unviable) and cutting the safe margins to the bone.
Comparing an essentially saturated transport system, such as the roads to air travel is also ridiculous in the extreme.
Leon Wolfson, Oxford, UK
I'm so glad that Heathrow is where it is, about 450 miles away. I have no intention whatsoever of going there.
David Leslie, Perth, Scotland
Where is it written that London, and England as a whole, can only revolve around one airport and that airport must be Heathrow?
Heathrow has grown organically, or to be more honest, as one afterthought upon another. Heathrow is crowded and horrid because it was never designed to cope with what we throw at it.
Options:
1. Develop Luton, Gatwick and Stanstead further and spread the load - Heathrow is not an attraction in itself
2. Build an all-new super airport, with dedicated transport links - no-one travels to an airport unless it is to work there, or to travel so the notion that Heathrow needs a COngestion Charge is only precipitated by the fact that the infrastructure cannot cope with the traffic we throw at it - which the Govt. wants to grow. Nonsense.
PB, London, UK
Dont worry.
Air Traffic will reduce dramatically over the next two decades as Peak Oil begins to bite.
Then this white elephant will be a fantastic roller skating park
mike core, Aberdeen, Scotland
Hong Kong faced an even more pressing space problem when faced with the need to expand the old Kai Tak airport. The outgoing British administration had the foresight to see that a radical solution was needed. Rather than trying to bolt-on more runaways, buildings and infrastructure - it reclaimed land from the sea around Chek Lap Kok and built a truly world-class airport, completed shortly after the 1997 handover to China.
Can we not do the same in the Thames estuary ? The arguments for a brand-new purpose built airport to handle the massive future passenger volumes (well away from population centres) are compelling !
Rob Oliver, Sutton, Surrey
Heathrow has the problem that it became a airport when only the leisured classes travelled.
The better airports in the world all tend to have one characteristic - they are all recently built.
So unless someone is willing to shell out for a totally new airport - and go through the hordes of environmentalists / NIMBY's and other folk to build one, we are going to be stuck with Heathrow
To that end why don't we find out why people are travelling through Heathrow - as opposed to using Heathrow as a start or end point of their journey.
I suspect it comes down to a number of factors
a) no option - to go from A to B they have to travel via LHR
b) cheaper - it's cheaper to travel from A to B via LHR
Both these problems are easily solvable but would require soemone to admit that LHR as a transit airport is not doing many people any favours
Alan, Edinburgh, UK
Of course Heathrow needs more runways and it's terminals redeveloped delays on the ground are the cause of all the planes having to hang around in the air over London
As for the idea that our major airport should move to the East Coast of Kent/Essex/where ever, it would be in the back end of nowhere and of no use to anyone
Andy, Glos, UK,
You are so right, all we ever get from this government is loony left propaganda. I sometimes think the fools actually believe their own hype.
D Case, Newquay,
If the UK tried to tax aviation fuel then all airlines would fill up abroad rather than on the ground in the UK. This common practice is called tankering fuel. Carrying this extra fuel into the UK adds weight and therefore drag and therefore emissions of each aircraft into the UK. The Chancellor would also see a drop in the tax take from the fuel suppliers in the UK who currently fill aircraft tanks. So the UK taxing fuel is a non-starter and every pilot knows this. Odd that the author never asked any.
Heathrow has less than half the runways of their German, French, Italian and Spanish counterparts. This country is in the mess it is because NIMBY's and Greenies make building the houses and roads and infrastructure that we need impossible in the UK. All to preserve empty fields owned by subsidised farmers whilst China build hundreds of coal fired power stations.
Its madness and its ruining this nation.
Ben Davies, Gloucester, UK
Pete Reading -They don't pay tax on fuel because this was an international agreement established under the Chicago Convention, levying one on UK airlines would just make them less competitive than foreign airlines.
EasyJet can do it for peanuts because they seek to compete by flying as full as possible to minimise cost per seat.
BA charges a fuel surcharge as and when the price of aviation fuel increases. Just as your local garage puts the price up.
The UK needs to take a proper approach to airport planning. The Southeast needs a new airport to be built over the next 15 years on the Essex Coast or Thames Estuary which when opened will be twice the size of Heathrow and Gatwick. Both of those could then both be progressively closed and their land sold off to pay for the new airport. That way you have safer air travel as planes land from the sea not in the wind over millions of people and the UK keeps an industry that employs so many people instead of losing it elsewhere.
Julian, Lavenham, Suffolk
Heathrow's capacity can be increased by using both the current runways for both takeoffs and landings at the same time.
Road and air travel capacity must be expanded at least in line with immigration. Otherwise people simply cannot get to work and do other essential journeys.
However there are many other airports around London that could take at least short haul flights, such as North Weald, Farnborough, Dunsfold, Biggin Hill.
What short-sighted policy allowed the closure of good airfields at Hatfield, Wisley, Bovingdon, Greenham Common to name but a few?
James Dowling, London, UK
Why the fixation with using Heathrow all the time anyway? Every time I have used Heathrow I have found it extremely stressful and crowded. I would much rather travel Gatwick or London City as they are the next closest to me.
Jane, Tonbridge, UK
Wayne,a man of my own heart,let us hope our domain doesnt have to suffer as they do in SLOUGH !!
Why not a move to Southend ,Manston ,Folkeston,or other Coastal airport.
Derek Bevan, Huntingdon/Cambs, England/UK
While there may be no tax paid on aviation fuel, passengers know only too well that there are plenty of other governemnt taxes added to the cost of their ticket. Long haul flights from the UK for instance, attract £40 per ticket Air Passenger Duty in Economy Class and £80 in Business or First Class. Sadly, this money appears to be swallowed up by the Treasury with few benefits, environmental or otherwise, to show for the travelling public.
Keith Hodgkin, Manchester, UK
It strikes me that if the third runway does not go ahead and the number of seats is therefore limited, it will result in airlines committing a greater proportion of seats per aircraft to business passengers. Hence the only people inconvenienced would be those leisure travelers who will have less economy seats available, which is no bad thing.
The discussions always relates to business benefits to the country. This can be solved quite easily with replacing economy seats with business seats. I often wonder how things will pan out if there is a deadly flu epidemic that wipes out 1/3 of the population ... that would solve a lot of problems!
Martin, Maidenhead, UK
spot on. for those of us who keep an eye on these things, the DfT's attitude to flying is irrational. it's a blind spot (for whatever reason) to them. not just in predicting and providing as you say, but also the lack of 'smart measures' to make the most of what capacity there is.
one thing that particularly grates - it's that car and commercial vehicle drivers will have emission standards forced on them - i.e. they will have to pay more - to allow for the growth in plane emissions.
andy p, st albans, uk
The reason that the airlines do not pay VAT on fuel is because they export the fuel as soon as they take-off! No country in the world (as far as I know) pays tax on fuel for exactly this reason.
Imagine the rediculous situation where one airline at Heathrow pays tax on fuel ie. BA or Virgin and all the foreign airlines that continue to fly into the same airport through the same airspace using the same fuel for the same ticket price. How long do you think that they would last?
I expect that you will now be thinking that if that is the case then why do trucks pay the tax? How would you be able to tell where the truck actually goes to after buying the duty free fuel?
What about ships? Do they pay tax on fuel?
Airlines are the cash cow that everyone wants to kill but at the same time we all go onto the internet and lok for the cheapest deal for our trip-wether its for business or pleasure.
andrew heathcote, bournemouth, uk
Does jeff gazzard know what he is talking about?
The number of flights depends on the number of airports served from heathrow,and the frequency.There are very few destinations that have multiple daily flights that can be lumped togeather.
If the demand from say airport A is for 200 seats,then using a 500 seat aeroplane is rather negative.
ernie, nanning, china
Why does everyone in the UK HAVE to travel through LONDON!!!! Why can't we develop Birmingham, Bristol,Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow etc. so that overcrowded expensive London can be bypassed by travellers from the regions? It's crazy to fly from Manchester or Glasgow to the US that you have to fly to London to catch a plane that flies back over Manchester and Glasgow. The real cuplrits are BA and the Government who refuse to allow landing rights international airlines at regional airports.
George, Glasgow, UK
Camilla Cavendish writes:
".....More than 80 per cent of international travellers at UK airports, and 60 per cent at Heathrow, are holidaymakers. Outbound tourism outstrips inbound, creating a whopping £18 billion balance of payments deficit. Only this week, the Travelodge chain of hotels called for an end to unfair tax breaks for budget airlines, which it said were “the single biggest cause of decline in traditional [UK] tourism resortsâ€......"
And she conveniently leaves out that inbound tourism into the UK brings in £17billion into the economy, and that's besides the demotic tourists that use airports to travel within the UK
.
Following the logical extension of Camilla Cavendish's argument I suppose we can force more and more people to either drive cars or be packed into crowded trains on the limited Eurostar network, if they wish to travel abroad. Or Maybe Camilla Cavendish has it in mind that people are only "allowed" to travel overseas based on a rota system, if at all.
Paul, London,
It is obvious the author has not used Heathrow to any extent. This disgrace to international air travel is one, of the many, reasons I will never return to England. And yes, I am an expat and yes i have been back several times, and each time made me groan. A once fine country on its way to third world status.
Peter Coates, Melbourne, Australia
In all this discussion, I haven't seen any mention of the problem of transit passengers. Their contribution to the economy is minimal and they only benefit two businesses: the airport company and the airline. And yet they pay much less airport tax then passengers actually arriving or leaving from Heathrow. Did you know that it is actually significantly cheaper to fly to Amsterdam and then from there to the Far East in business class via Heathrow and back again (no need to physically go to Amsterdam on the way back if you don't have any luggage) than it is to fly directly from Heathrow? You can check for yourself on the BA website if you don't believe me. This is largely because of the heavy airport tax on business class, which doesn't apply to transit passengers. So why not make the tax more for transit passengers instead of less? Let the people going from America to Asia transit somewhere like Dubai where there is plenty of space, instead of blocking up the airport on a crowded island
Jonathan Bell, Jakarta, Indonesia
The UK is full of foreign residents who require ever larger airports so they are able to frequently fly back to their hearts home countries.
Nulabour care not one iota about global warming, only about dividing and ruling a non country.
wayne, huntingdon, cambridgeshire
has the writer been through Heathrow?
has she ever experienced the chaos that is heathrow?
has she ever been stuck on tarmac for 4 hours at heathrow because of the queues for takeoff? or for 3 hours because there is no where to park the plane at a gate?
george livingstone, London,
The rules of supply and demand will kick in eventually. By 2020 the amount of fuel China uses is predicted to exceed supply and this will make flying very expensive so less planes.
Most people traveling are like me and doing so for work and I have already reduced my flights by 50% by working from home.
If the cost of flying were higher then more companies would welcome their employees working from home with a massive reduction in costs both economic and environmental.
Fantastic article showing the spin and lies from the lobby groups and the duplicitous behavior of our government.
joe, Edinburgh, Scotland
It is really apparent to us who now live in other countries that England needs a social revolution, not an armed or bloody one, just a refusal by the English people to put up with this government any longer. Widespread civil disobedience.
Unfortunately the Conservative opposition all pretty much went to the same schools so they won't be all that much better, but may be just a little.
Tom, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada.
Pete
actually the fact that they pay no tax means that the effect of changing oil prices is proportionately greater than for car drivers - since for us most of the cost of fuel is actually tax. Its unacceptable nonetheless that they should pay no fuel duty.
JR, Llandeilo,
Heathrow seems so crowded. I was wondering how the runways can ever be repaved when both are needed to be in constant operation. And when there is an accident, like the recent BA Boeing 777, a runway can be taken down for several days. I tend to think a third runway would help provide more safety.
Dennis O'Brien, Reston, VA, USA
A frank discussion with any professional pilot will convince you that the problem of air travel congestion has nothing to do with the number of travelers or the number of seats available, but everything to do with the area of available concrete on the ground.
Rick Hepner, Salt Lake City, USA
Well said, excellent, clear article that sums up the main arguments brilliantly.
Claire Moran , London ,
I'm amazed-they pay no tax on fuel!!!
No wonder easyjet can do it for peanuts.
And BA has the bloody cheek to charge a fuel surcharge.
pete, reading, berks