Sir, Anatole Kaletsky is misguided in the four arguments he makes against Heathrow expansion (Comment, Feb 28).

The case for a new national hub airport in the Thames estuary was considered at length by the Government during the consultation that preceded the 2003 Air Transport White Paper. It was rejected because of the very high capital costs (including new road and rail links to London) and negative impact on wildlife.

Allowing London’s existing airports to compete with each other might or might not provide an effective way of determining which should have extra runway capacity. However, this process could take many years — and would probably confirm that the market’s choice was Heathrow. The CBI, the City, London First and other business groups have all expressed this view.

The argument that transfer passengers bring no economic benefit to Britain is mistaken. A substantial proportion of these passengers are from northern England and Scotland taking connecting flights through Heathrow to win or safeguard business for their regions. Without transfer traffic, many long-haul routes from Heathrow would not be viable — reducing its global network of direct routes to the distinct disadvantage of the capital’s businesses.

It follows that British Airways’ business model is the right one for an airline where a large part of revenue comes from long-haul flying. But irrespective of airline business models, Heathrow — which is the most congested and delay-prone airport in Europe — is in desperate need of expansion.

Willie Walsh
Chief Executive, British Airways

Sir, Anatole Kaletsky is wrong to suggest that aviation’s impact on climate change is “completely irrelevant”.

Flying is responsible for between 4 and 9 per cent of the global climate change impact. Taking into account the effect of emissions released at altitude, then flights originating from UK airports account for 13 per cent of the UK’s impact. Aviation is also the fastest growing source of emissions.

If we let the number of flights grow as predicted, then all of the UK’s emissions allocation in 2050 will be used by airlines. No other sector of the economy will be able to emit any CO2; hardly a realistic prospect.

Benet Northcote
Chief Policy Adviser, Greenpeace UK

Sir, Anatole Kaletsky misses one overriding reason why Heathrow’s continued expansion is foolish. That is that Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted are not London’s airports, but Britain’s. Every day hundreds of thousands of people migrate up and down the country by car, plane or public transport getting to or from Heathrow and Gatwick, which for most people are located in a distant corner of the islands.

There is a no-cost alternative to expanding Heathrow, and that is to encourage traffic at the under-used Prestwick Airport in Scotland. For any passengers in or north of Manchester and Leeds — more than one third of the population — it is much easier to reach. But using it would, of course, reduce the profits of BAA and BA.

Patrick Malone
Bodmin, Cornwall

Sir, Anatole Kaletsky lives on a different planet if he thinks it realistic — with our archaic planning regulations and bird fanciers — that there is any chance of an airport and high-speed rail link being built in the Thames estuary before 2070 — one only has to look at Crossrail and the Channel tunnel link.

Our air travel needs cannot wait for pipe dreams.

Peter Rhodes
London NW6

Explore Letters

• Feedback