Sir, It is important to understand that many individuals in the business community do not believe that the rationale put forward for the third runway at Heathrow is sufficient to justify the Government’s recent decision.

The benefits to business are unclear and unproven. We see little benefit in Heathrow’s increased reliance on transfer passengers. A new runway comes with no guarantee of securing a greater number of international destinations or domestic connections. Indeed, the most recent capacity increases at Heathrow that came as the cap on flight movements was raised resulted in exactly the reverse — that is, an increase in the number of frequencies between certain already well-served high-density international city pairs and an overall continued decrease in the number of destinations served by Heathrow. We have no reason to believe this trend would not simply continue with the addition of a further runway.

In a recent independent survey of small and large businesses (Continental Research, November 2008), 95 per cent of businesses — said a third runway would make little or no difference to them.

Alternatives to a third runway have not yet been adequately explored. We cannot accept that the only way to improve the passenger experience of those using Heathrow is to add an extra runway and increase flight numbers massively. Insufficient money has been invested over the past 15 years in transforming the Heathrow infrastructure on the ground to reduce congestion and delays caused by the outdated alignment of buildings, jetties and parking areas. Additionally, new high-speed rail links directly connecting Heathrow to Scotland via the Midlands and the North of England will also clearly have an enormous impact in releasing significant capacity at Heathrow. All this has yet to be fully understood. At the same time the Government must reforecast all the growth assumptions made by BAA, the owner, and the airlines to take account of the significant recent falls in passenger volumes as a result of economic decline and fuel-price volatility.

The quality of life impact is too important to ignore. The Government has already admitted that air quality in the Heathrow area breaches EU standards. The increase in movements and ground transport from a third runway would put people’s health further at risk. Climate change cannot be ignored and our approach to transport must reflect the seriousness with which we take our Climate Act target to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. In addition, we must avoid the increased noise and safety issues resulting from an rise in the number of aircraft passing directly over a densely populated city such as London.

We recognise the business need for air travel and that strong air links between the UK and the rest of the world are required, but the business case for the third runway simply does not stack up. Moreover, millions of people in the UK oppose the new runway. They are our customers and our colleagues. The business community must take account of the strongly held views of those living in the broader community in which we operate.

To say that all those from the business community support the third runway is wrong. It is a misconception and one that we wish to put right. Today we are calling upon the Government to rethink their decision and begin the detailed work to address the real questions regarding the future of aviation in the UK, the competitiveness of our country and the challenge of making it a better place for people to live and work.

Martin Armstrong, Russell Chambers, Ian Cheshire, Jeremy Darroch, Charles Dunstone,

Sir Roy Gardner, Justin King, Howard Leigh, David Levin,

Jon Moulton, James Murdoch, Dominic Murphy, Lord Young of Graffham

Explore Letters

• Feedback