Sir, Camilla Cavendish says that Heathrow is not full and that instead of building a third runway BAA and BA should put more passengers on bigger planes (comment, Jan 31).

Heathrow’s two runways, which already operate at 98.5 per cent of capacity, reach their limit of 480,000 flights this year. By comparison Heathrow’s European competitors all operate at about 75 per cent of capacity. Regular travellers will know that this lack of runway capacity is already having three main effects. First, more than half of Heathrow’s arriving aircraft are held in stacks, causing delays and pollution. Secondly, minor events such as fog can cause significant disruption as there are no spare slots into which to delayed aircraft can be scheduled. And thirdly, the number of routes served by Heathrow is declining, cutting off vital links to British regions.

None of these problems can be solved by putting more passengers on bigger planes.

Growth at Heathrow is not being fuelled by leisure travel. Forty per cent of Heathrow’s passengers are travelling on business, and that proportion is predicted to grow with a third runway. But the implication that other reasons for flying are somehow frivolous or unnecessary is wrong. Thirty-three per cent of Heathrow’s passengers are visiting friends or relatives — an indication of the important social role that airports play in a global economy. Telling the 184,000 Americans who live and work in the UK that they can no longer go home for Thanksgiving is likely to damage Britain’s competitiveness every bit as much as restricting business travel.

It is fine to be for or against a third runway, but we shouldn’t pretend there is no choice to be made. We can plan for our future in the way other European countries have done, or we can duck the difficult decisions and face a decline in our competitiveness.

Stephen Nelson
Chief Executive, BAA

Willie Walsh
Chief Executive, British Airways

Sir, On the subject of Heathrow, very little is written about the proposed abolition of the practice of runway alternation, which gives those living near or under the existing flightpaths a respite from aircraft noise at some period in each day.

It is proposed that in three years’ time this practice be abolished in order that more aircraft can land and take off. The effect of this will make life for those living under the flight path very difficult, with an aircraft passing overhead every 90 seconds from 5am until 11pm.

Although the current consultation document does make reference to this, it does so in such oblique language that it is dificult to respond to the point. Those who will be affected by these measures need to understand their full implication and make representations to their MP.

Gillian Jenkins
London SW13

Sir, Camilla Cavendish makes the assumption that 67 million people want to use Heathrow. Actually, many of us would prefer to have additional services from local airports such as Bournemouth and Southampton, which are underused.

Lawrence Fullick
Bournemouth

Sir, Ms Cavendish might like to think of the tens of thousands dependent on Heathrow remaining a hub airport. It is why a majority of people living in the 12 local authority areas around the airport are in favour of expansion as shown in the recent Populus poll.

Lord Soley
Campaign Director, Future Heathrow

Explore Letters

• Feedback