Front Page stories Archive
- Third Runway Issues
- What's happening at Heathrow Airport
- Consultation Issues
- 2M people affected
- BAA and Airlines
- In Parliament and Politicians
- Community Stories
- Other Stories
Stop Heathrow Expansion
NoTRAG joins the biggest ever coalition against Heathrow expansion
Get the latest campaign news and add your name to the on-line petition.
- Third Runway Issues
- Confused CBI supports pro-runway adverts in Press
- Economic argument for third runway is hammered yet again
- Rail union says third runway "unnecessary"
- Housing warning confirms insanity of destroying homes for runways
- New rail link proposals make Third Runway development even bigger
- Ex BA boss opposes third runway at Heathrow
- Time to make Heathrow BETTER, NOT BIGGER
- Conservatives announce opposition to expansion
- M25 in third runway's "crash zone"
- Mass rally at Westminster hailed a huge success
- Hypocrite Darling tackles Climate Change by supporting airport expansion
- Ken Livingstone gets behind the fight to save Heathrow villages
- Candidates for Mayor give their views on the runway
- Expansion to blight the education of over 100,000 children
- 100 politicians join battle against Heathrow runway
- Pilots call for an even longer third runway
- Top of Page
- What's happening at Heathrow Airport
- Terminal 5 fiasco continues
- "The Economist" says expanding Heathrow will not solve its problems
- Terminal 5 Flash Mob brighten up miserable day for T5
- Terminal 5 opening is "a sad day for residents"
- Residents urged to join Terminal 5 Flash mob
- Lucky escape as plane crash lands at Heathrow
- Another security weakness exposed as man scales Heathrow fence
- Top of Page
- Consultation Issues
- 2M people affected
- BAA and Airlines
- Pressure for Gatwick to get next new runway
- Lufthansa takes over bmi to get lucrative Heathrow slots
- Walsh throws a wobbly over Tory plans to scrap a third runway
- Passenger numbers down but airlines still demand expansion
- BAA now "a lonely voice" wanting a third runway
- Pilots with poor English blamed for near collision at Heathrow
- Government to examine the economic regulation of UK airports
- Senior BA pilot exposes "a world of casual racism"
- Unhappy BA customer's T5 song is a surprise hit
- Where's Willie?
- BA and BAA, April Fools?
- BA postpones move of long-haul flights to T5
- British Airways threaten legal action to halt strike
- British Airways' tactics lead to fear for BA pension scheme.
- BAA won't rule out a fourth runway if a third runway goes ahead
- Airlines warned of a bumpy ride in 2008
- CAA caves in to BAA demands to raise landing fees
- Top of Page
- In Parliament and Politicians
- Government admits taxpayers will face massive hidden costs of third runway
- Over 100 MPs sign latest Early Day Motion against Runway
- Transport Select Committee to hold inquiry into aviation
- Hilary Benn interview confirms Cabinet rift on third runway
- Tories warn firms not to get involved with runway plans
- MPs question government plans for third runway
- Conservative to scrap third runway in favour of high-speed rail
- Plan for Heathrow expansion is "dead in the water"
- Ruth Kelly announces Heathrow decison delay
- Public being misled by ministers says Government adviser
- David Cameron attacks plans for a third runway
- MPs slam Government over collusion with BAA on Heathrow Consultation
- Top of Page
- Community Stories
- Other Stories
- "No Third runway" campaigner is Britain's No 1 environmentalist
- Panorama exposes fantasy "supergreen" Jumbo jet in pollution figures
- Thousands Make a NOise against Heathrow expansion
- NoTRAG Chair writes article on voting for London Mayor
- Brian Paddick, Lib Dem mayoral candidate, speaks out on expansion
- Mayoral candidate Boris Johnson visits Harmondsworth
- Executive jet crashes onto housing estate near Biggin Hill
- Is Britain to become the No 1 Climate Criminal?
- New report gets to the heart of the pro-expansion argument - MONEY !
- Sparks fly during Radio 4's 'ANY QUESTIONS' in Cranford
- The Times reports on "The Great Heathrow Con"
- Local vicar shocks residents with insensitive leaflet
- Top of Page
Stop Heathrow Expansion
NoTRAG joins the biggest ever coalition against Heathrow expansion
Get the latest campaign news and add your name to the on-line petition.
Confused CBI supports pro-runway adverts in Press
Despite having urged businesses to tackle climate change and being aware that the UK cannot meet EU environmental targets, the Confederation of British Industry has supported adverts in the national press 15th Sept) calling for a third runway at Heathrow.
The advertisement, placed by Future Heathrow (a group funded by the aviation industry) shows the logos of numerous companies and indicates that 100 businesses are behind this call for a third runway to be built "within strict environmental standards". Among those backing the project are Hilton Hotels and Severn Trent plc.
Presumably the CBI and the companies mentioned are ignoring the CBI's own report, issued last November, which said: "UK industry must take climate change seriously and fundamentally change its approach to reflect green concerns."
Air quality monitors around Heathrow show pollution levels already above the EU limits due to imposed in 2010. Noise levels also cause concern, with no prospect of significant developments in aviation design to alleviate the environmental damage.
CBI Director General Richard Lambert, who has been giving pro-runway quotes to the press, seems unconcerned. The CBI website shows that the week before the advert he was enjoying the CBI annual dinner in Scotland before putting his carbon footprint to the back of his mind and zooming off for a beano at an office opening in Delhi. Lambert then boasted that he would be "hitting the conference circuit" in Bournemouth, Birmingham and Manchester.
Let's hope politicians take what he says with a huge pinch of salt. For example, in June 2008 the CBI didn't believe a recession was inevitable. U-turning in August, Lambert told The Observer, "The CBI, along with most other forecasters, has been consistently over-optimistic about the economic outlook over the past 12 months." However, he then predicted that energy costs should stop pushing up prices some time in the New Year, reducing the rate of inflation.
Perhaps the jet-setting Mr Lambert is still wearing his rose-tinted sunglasses?
Economic argument for third runway is hammered yet again
The Government’s economic case for expanding Heathrow airport is flawed and should be independently reviewed, according to a report launched on 23rd July.
Independent international research body The Stockholm Environment Institute was commissioned by Friends of the Earth to examine the UK Government’s economic justification for allowing Heathrow airport to expand.
The Government’s case for expanding Heathrow rests on an evaluation of the economic benefits of providing more flights at cheaper prices to an increasing number of people and weighing this up against an evaluation of the "dis-benefits" from expansion, such as an increase in carbon dioxide emissions.
When the Government weighed up the arguments, it came down in favour of Heathrow expansion but the report found three major flaws in its assesment of the benefits:
- The passenger demand projections are uncertain - for example they rely on fares falling because the cost of oil per barrel is predicted to fall from an assumed $65 in 2006 to $53 in 2030. Oil is currently around $130 a barrel and experts predict it will not fall below this before the end of 2016.
- Benefits to foreign passengers changing planes in the UK are counted as a benefit to the UK economy - but this is against HM Treasury guidance on project appraisal. In 2005 nearly 30% of Heathrow passengers were travellers simply changing planes.
- It assumes ‘doing nothing’ is the only alternative to airport expansion – but there are plenty of alternatives with less environmental impact like switching short haul passengers to rail travel, investing in video conferencing or limiting transfer passengers.
Friends of the Earth's aviation campaigner, Richard Dyer, said: “The Government’s economic case for Heathrow is fundamentally flawed, based on assumptions which are often highly speculative and biased."
“If it wasn’t for this economic sleight of hand, the case for airport expansion would collapse."
Rail union says third runway "unnecessary"
A third runway at Heathrow would be "unnecessary" if there was serious investment in rail, according to a study commissioned by the Rail Maritime and Transport union (RMT) and released on 25th June.
The report, Who Says There Is No Alternative?, says tens of thousands of new jobs would be created and air pollution levels would fall if planned investment at Heathrow airport was switched to new high-speed rail lines. This travel alternative could drastically cut short-haul flights, boosting the economy and leading to new jobs.
It seems the RMT is leading the way, as the first union to look for environmentally acceptable alternatives to Heathrow expansion. (Most airport workers must wonder why their own unions appear so unconcerned by the high pollution levels that their members have to endure.)
The new report shows that where high-speed rail links have been opened there has been a significant switch from air to rail, and warns that the UK is in danger of being left behind as countries like Spain reap the benefits of massive rail investment.
The report's release followed an announcement by Network Rail of a study into the prospect of opening new high-speed lines.
RMT general secretary Bob Crow said at his union's annual conference in Nottingham: "This report shows that high-speed rail can provide a win-win solution for the economy and the environment. Paris remains Heathrow's top destination and there are as many flights leaving for Edinburgh as for New York, and if we provide a viable, fast and sustainable alternative to short-haul flights the case for Heathrow expansion would evaporate."
Hayes and Harlington MP John McDonnell, chairman of the union's parliamentary group, said: "This report proves conclusively that there is a rail alternative to Heathrow expansion and undermines totally the argument for a new runway and sixth terminal. It should provide the basis upon which the government thinks again."
Housing warning confirms insanity of destroying homes for runways
Ministers are "very unlikely" to achieve housing targets, the UK's chief advisor on home building has warned. Professor Stephen Nickell said that, unless conditions change, the target of three million new homes in England by 2020 will not be met. To get to this target, the housing industry needs to be building 240,000 homes a year, a figure that few think they can achieve this year.
With the construction industry unable to meet current targets, it is insanity to plan to destroy at least 700 homes in Sipson and make many more uninhabitable. Home owners forced out by a third runway development, would be given NO assistance to find a house. They face the prospect of having to move a great distance to locate property within their price range during a housing shortage. According to the DfT, the government will do nothing to help because these people are the responsibility of BAA.
Although Hillingdon Borough would be obliged to find homes for council tenants, the borough already has 2,000 people on its waiting list. Private tenants cannot expect any help from the local authority.
Should the government decide that a third runway can go ahead, it will be aware that it is condemning many people to the misery of homelessness. In addition, BAA will face years of conflict with residents and campaigners. Building deadlines will never be met, causing construction costs to soar.
The only decision a rational government can make is NO THIRD RUNWAY.
New rail link proposals make Third Runway development even bigger
BAA and the government are meeting with an engineering group to discuss making the proposed Heathrow development even bigger, with a new link to the national rail network and the Channel Tunnel, according to a Daily Mail report on 28th May.
The article states that, "If agreed, the scheme, designed by engineering group Arup, would replace the possible (sic) sixth terminal building..."
Travellers, it claims, would be able to arrive at Heathrow from Leeds and Manchester by rail in less than two hours. Arup also envisages building on the Great Western main line - making the airport accessible to the west, the south-west, Wales and the Midlands - and a link with the Channel Tunnel.
The Arup plan would include a 12-platform station with extra terminal capacity for checking-in baggage. This new "Heathrow Hub" would be built 3.5km north of the current Heathrow boundary, on the site of the proposed sixth terminal. Inevitably this development, which would already totally destroys Sipson village, will require a greater land take threatening surrounding areas of Harlington, West Drayton and Harmondsworth.
Despite this, the report claims "the scheme is likely to impress critics of the 2,200 metre runway" because it would be "more environmentally friendly".
While attempting to soften up opposition to Heathrow expansion by cutting emissions from cars, the plans seem to ignore the massive increase in flights at Heathrow proposed under the expansion plans. Destruction of the Heathrow villages and the suffering of people under flightpaths has also been totally disregarded.
Arup says it is in discussion with BAA, local councils and the government and expects a decision on the proposal to be made before the results of the consultation on Heathrow expansion are announced later this year.
Ex BA boss opposes third runway at Heathrow
While current aviation bosses continue their attempts to justify a third runway at Heathrow, former chief executive of British Airways, Bob Ayling, is free to give his view - that expanding Heathrow would be a "costly mistake".
Bob Ayling, who headed BA from 1996-2000, told The Sunday Times (4th May) what campaigners against expansion have said for a long time, that Heathrow expansion is "against Britain's economic interests".
In the Sunday Times article, Ayling states that BAA is pursuing a flawed business model that has contributed to the bankruptcy and near collapse of numerous US and European airlines, and has turned the airport into "a national disgrace".
Ayling also warned, "An expanded hub at Heathrow might not even be beneficial to British Airways. Transfer traffic in its own right is loss making."
He continued, "What Ruth Kelly and the government do not see is that transfer passengers, for whom such a hub would be built, spend no money in Britian, at least little beyond the value of a cup of tea."
Time to make Heathrow BETTER, NOT BIGGER
The British and International media are being kept busy with almost daily news stories about Heathrow airport and Terminal 5 - and all of them are bad news.
Passengers have been unimpressed by huge baggage halls and cavernous departure areas; they haven't been thrilled by the shops or excited by feeble, souless neon artworks. What travellers wanted was a quick, relaxed, trouble-free passage through the airport. What they got was an experience to put them off Heathrow for life.
BA and BAA executives have admitted they can't cope with their own schedule for T5 and, having crowed about it being on budget and on time, now have to own up that it was unready on opening day and, weeks later, is still struggling.
Disgruntled passengers have added to the damaging publicity by relating their miserable T5 experiences: presenter Nick Ross; record producer George Martin, singer Kim Wilde (who lost essential stage costumes) and supermodel Naomi Campbell (who lost her luggage and her temper).
If BA can no longer provide an acceptable service for even its first-class passengers, who provide the biggest profit, is there any point in seeking expansion? BAA has already forced businessmen to look for more reliable alternatives to Heathrow.
If Heathrow wants to improve its shoddy image it needs to get better, NOT bigger. An announcement of further expansion at the airport will have passengers holding their heads in despair - and taking their business elsewhere.
Opening day - Flashmob and "teething troubles"
Passengers and pilots on the T5 fiasco
Pictures of T5 chaos and a Monty Python song - they were made for one another
What really happened to T5 baggage?
Conservatives announce opposition to expansion at Heathrow
To coincide with the debate on Heathrow expansion (initiated by the Lib Dems) in Parliament, The Evening Standard on 2nd April 2008 carried the headline: "Tories change course to fight expansion at Heathrow".
Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers has said that the case for a third runway has not been made. She said the Government should look at alternatives such as greater use of high-speed rail links before sanctioning further growth at the airport.
This represents a significant hardening of the party line although it falls short of what blighted residents need - a permanent ban on expansion at Heathrow.
The Standard's leader suggests, More trains, less strain: “The Conservatives’ announcement today that they oppose a third runway at Heathrow will put new pressure on ministers to reconsider their preferred expansion option."
"Aside from the growing anger over the noise and pollution involved, the Tories have concluded that the Department for Transport has failed to make the economic case for a new runway, although they do not rule out expansion permanently……. Plenty of capacity could be freed up by reducing services to destinations such as Paris and Brussels…instead of clinging to the biased evidence provided by the airport operator BAA and BA, Transport Secretary should show she is listening to what concerns London’s voters.”
Read the full articles: Tories to fight Heathrow expansion
More trains, Less Heathrow strain
Ministers are out of touch over Heathrow Airport
M25 in third runway's "crash zone"
The enormous danger of building a third runway near urban development at Heathrow, particularly the M25, is highlighted in The Sunday Times on 13th April.
In January, the BA38 from Beijing suddenly lost power (for reasons still not revealed) over homes on the approach flightpath to Heathrow. It soon became clear that it only managed to land without loss of life due to the extraordinary skill of the pilot. This shocking near-disaster reopened the debate on safety at Heathrow.
Had this aircraft been attempting to land on the proposed third runway it would have crashed into the tower of Harlington church, almost certainly causing a massive death toll as the surrounding area includes homes and a primary school. At the other end of the proposed runway is the ever-busy elevated section of the M25/M4.
DfT maps for the public consultation did not include information on the public safety zones, areas at highest risk of an accident. Hillingdon Council has now calculated where these zones will be, information not disputed by the DfT. It has emerged that the elevated section of the M25/M4 comes within this "crash zone". Transport Secretary, Ruth Kelly, appears to see nothing wrong with approving a runway which increases the risk to residents and air passengers.
Geraldine Nicholson, Chair of NoTRAG, told The Sunday Times: "It's ridiculous to put a runway so close to a major motorway junction and residential areas. They are wanting to put this runway in one of the most built up areas in Britain and we're being told that they haven't even yet carried out a detailed risk assessment. It's crazy."
The Civil Aviation Authority has also raised safety concerns, as revealed in documents made public under the Freedom of Information Act. The CAA has queried the safety of air traffic for a third runway due to flights for RAF Northolt and also whether takeoffs in the same direction every 60 seconds on the two existing Heathrow runways would breach international safety standards.
Is this government waiting for fatalities on a huge scale before it sees sense regarding further expansion at Heathrow?
Mass rally at Westminster hailed a huge success
Around 3,000 people turned up to support the Stop Heathrow Expansion rally at Central Hall, Westminster, on Monday, 25th February.
The rally got off to a rousing start when Harmondsworth band, Pig Earth, brought those inside the hall to their feet with their campaign song, No Third Runway.
The two-tiered hall plus the choir benches were packed, with as many as 200 people unable to find seats. The venue opened an additional hall for those prepared to sit on the floor and wait for speakers to repeat their main-hall addresses.
New Leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, joined MPs including Vince Cable, Justine Greening, Peter Ainsworth and John McDonnell to condemn the proposals for airport expansion. Referring to the Consultation response form, he said: "Where is the box that simply says no, no, no?" He continued: "Illness, stress, congestion, climate change - how can the government claim that these add up to a good idea? They add up to a disaster and it's got to be stopped."
Environmentalists and campaigners also received raptuous applause from the audience. Some of the most passionate speakers were those at the end. Leo Murray of Plane Stupid explained why his group uses direct action to get the climate change message across - hinting perhaps at his protest two days later from the roof of the Houses of Parliament.
NOTRAG's Geraldine Nicholson, who had a major role in organising the event, spoke of the devastating effect on a vast area including the total destruction of Sipson and parts of Harmondworth and Harlington villages. With spirits high, and relieved that his brave move of booking the hall was justified, John Stewart of HACAN made sure that the message was clear - campaigners are not going away. Unless Heathrow expansion is ruled out completely, the fight goes on.
Relive the rally experience with the 'Pig Earth' campaign song
View 'Stop Heathrow Expansion' here
BUDGET NEWS - Hypocrite Darling tackles Climate Change by supporting airport expansion
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alastair Darling, had MPs rolling with laughter when he announced his plans to fight Climate Change by taking action against - plastic bags!!!
While claiming that his government is "at the forefront of international action" on tackling climate change and insisting that "we need to do more and do it now" to prevent "catastrophic" consequences, he had little to offer except a tax on supermarket carrier bags. Gordon Brown has been featured in the Daily Mail for supporting their anti-bag campaign.
Darling went on to say that government departments such as "Transport" needed to do their bit on emissions, but focused on the usual suspects, with more measures to tax car drivers. Then it was back to taxing cigarettes and alcohol - making it even more attractive for Brits to grab a cheap flight to Europe for stag nights and holidays!
He mentioned that aviation was a growing industry but, rather than worrying about its impact on the environment, he confirmed the government's support of expansion at Heathrow and Stansted. There were no measures to boost public transport.
Adam Price MP, Plaid Cymru pointed out that this was a budget for the wealthy, such as people with second homes.
Vince Cable, Lib Dem responded that nothing whatsoever has been done about the energy companies.
London Mayor Ken Livingstone gets behind the fight to save Heathrow villages
On 18th February, London Mayor Ken Livingstone took the bus to Sipson to confirm his wholehearted support for the No Third Runway Campaign and pledged: "We'll be with you right to the end."
After watching a presentation showing the devastation that would hit the area, the Mayor offered practical support to fight Heathrow expansion.
Earlier, Mr Livingstone had taken a walk down Sipson Road through the village that would be totally wiped off the map. After a brief photocall outside the 400-year-old pub, the King William IV, he crossed the road to the hairdressers.
The business, run by life-long resident Jackie Clark, opened last year; a positive move in an area suffering extreme blight.
His next stop was Jackie's grandfather John Clark, at 96 the oldest resident; fighting fit and determined to stay in his home into his 100s.
On the way back to the home of NoTRAG secretary Linda McCutcheon, Mr Livingstone met Lesley in the front garden of her home - festooned with placards against the runway and a focal point for film crews highlighting the campaign to save the villages.
Posters also covered Linda's front fence, an unofficial village noticeboard, which provided the backdrop for the Mayor's final comment to the press: "On every test - environment, economic and quality of life - the argument for expanding Heathrow has not been made and I don't believe it ever can."
NoTRAG meets with Ken Livingstone
Candidates for Mayor give their views on the runway
The current London Mayor has made his view clear on Heathrow expansion, having pledged to fight the proposals with local protest groups.
Whereas, not so long ago, PM Tony Blair commented that raising air fares was not a vote winner, it now seems that facing up to the aviation industry could help candidates in the forthcoming Mayoral elections. So what do other candidates think?
The other frontrunners, Boris Johnson (Con), Brian Paddick (Lib Dem) and Sian Berry (Green) are united against Heathrow expansion, with Boris calling it, "Crazy".
So who do the media go to for a contrast? The BBC (18th Feb) went to Damian Hockney, the One London candidate.
This man talks about Heathrow being in "relative decline" and warning that "business will go to Hong Kong and Dubai". However, his main argument seems to be that most people living around the airport want expansion.
So Mr Hockney relys on information from BAA. If he cares to look at the questionnaire used in last year's poll, he will notice there is no mention of the total destruction of a vast area, including the entire village of Sipson.
Perhaps Mr Hockney should take a leaf out of Ken Livingstone's book and pay the residents a visit. If the poll can be trusted, he is guaranteed a warm welcome!
Expansion to blight the education of over 100,000 children
Research carried out by the Evening Standard has identified 114 schools in west London which will suffer from serious noise levels if the proposed airport expansion is approved.
Some of the schools already suffer noise pollution from aircraft but are facing louder and more frequent disturbances.
A BAA spokesman said: "...future flightpaths are purely indicative at this stage. However, we recognise the impact our operation has on the local community and are committed to investing in schemes to minimise the affects of aircraft noise."
So certain schools might get some soundproofing - fine, providing your children never want to open a window or go outside! And what about the toxic air pollution?
Read the Evening Standard article with map and list of schools
100 politicians join battle against Heathrow runway
As London Mayor Ken Livingstone visited Sipson, the campaign against expansion continued to gather support.
In a separate move, 100 MPs, MEPs and councillors from across London put their names to a petition opposing the proposals.
The petition, which has cross-party support, was organised by Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Richmond Park.
Pilots call for an even longer third runway
Give us a longer third runway and a sixth terminal; give us more holiday pay; give us security that our pay levels are safe or we go on strike! Seems it's been a demanding fortnight for the British Airline Pilots Association.
BALPA are expecting the DfT to bow down to their demands for a longer runway, saying that this must be agreed before construction work begins.
(NoTRAG has always campaigned on the basis that the aviation industry will push for a full-length runway of 4,000 metres not the 2,000m first proposed or the 2,500m stated in the Consultation.)
Not surprisingly, BALPA's answer to climate change issues is emissions trading - buying the right to pollute.
British Airways pilots, not known for being poorly paid, have also announced that they intend to strike. They fear that BA will bring in lower-paid pilots "from outside" to work for its new OpenSkies subsidiary and this will ultimately affect the pay and conditions of BA mainline pilots.
With money still uppermost in their minds, BA pilots also took their company to the Employment Appeal Tribunal to demand that it base its pilots' holiday pay on average overall earnings and not just on basic pay. On 28th February, the pilots won their case - with BA seeking leave to appeal.
The Dft should remember that BALPA exists for the sole benefit of its 9,000 members, almost all either commercial pilots or flight engineers. This elite group does not have to consider the implications of expansion for other sectors of the population, such as the 100,000 plus children whose education will be adversely affected by noise following Heathrow expansion.
The Terminal 5 fiasco continues
As flights continue to be cancelled and with the number of bags lost by 31st March standing at 28,000, the Terminal Five fiasco grinds on.
BA's Chief Executive Willie Walsh may have owned up to his company's role in the Terminal 5 fiasco but BAA have refused to give interviews. On Saturday, the situation at the airport was so bad that the press were asked to leave. An ITV reporter had to resort to using film footage taken with his mobile phone. He revealed the true state of the terminal without the public relations gloss.
BAA has bragged about the Terminal being completed on budget and on time. However, the film showed what passengers have already noticed: lifts not working, signs on open wiring warning of dangers from 400 volts, loose cables on walkways and workmen in yellow hard hats everywhere.
Despite this, the government sees nothing wrong with Spanish BAA's monopoly of Britain's major airports and is keen to reward the company for its incompetence by granting permission for further expansion at Heathrow.
UPDATE: On 31st March it was announced that the Olympic torch would NOT be taken through Terminal 5 as originally planned. As BA share prices slumped, tourist and business organisations expressed concern about the damage that the T5 fiasco has done to Britain's reputation. Aviation Minister, Jim Fitzpatrick MP told parliament that passengers at Terminal 5 had "an unacceptably poor travel experience", which was putting it mildly. It is expected to take up to a week to return the 28,000 bags currently in temporary storage.
Saturday, 5th April was due to be the start of a full programme of flights. In fact, BAA accepted the blame for a computer problem with the baggage system that resulted in another 14 flights being cancelled. Loss of income caused by T5 problems currently stands at around £16 million. This week also saw the first arrest of a passenger who, having paid a first-class fare, felt she got a second-rate service. When told BA had lost her bags, Supermodel Naomi Campbell lost her temper and got arrested. Worldwide headlines of the incident can only force the BA share price to fall even further.
"The Economist" says expanding Heathrow will not solve its problems
Chaotic scenes at Terminal 5 have highlighted the problems at Heathrow. Even before this latest shambles, influential publication, "The Economist", had reached the opinion that there should be no further expansion at Heathrow.
When answering every "Heathrow Hell" complaint, the aviation industry and British government try to claim that increasing passenger numbers will actually solve the problem. "The Economist" looks at the expansion arguments and concludes that, "A third runway and a sixth terminal are not the answer to the congestion."
Terminal 5 Flash Mob brighten up miserable day for T5
As Terminal 5 filled up with passengers on its first day of business, hundreds of "Flash mobbers" in Stop Airport Expansion T-shirts entertained passengers unhappy with their Terminal 5 experience.
The peaceful Flash Mob event in International Arrivals brought a fun atmosphere to the cavernous space near the exit for arriving passengers. BAA staff and police simply looked on and allowed the event to pass without problems.
The large number of media representatives covered the Flash Mob event but were gradually distracted by the increasing number of passengers spilling into the hall from arriving flights and complaining of their experience of the new baggage collection system.
Incoming passengers were having to wait approximately an hour to reclaim bags, while reports were filtering through of seven flights leaving Terminal 5 with no baggage on them at all. British Airways passengers landing in Paris were distressed to discover that their bags were still in the UK.
British Airways Chief Executive Willie Walsh had said the facility "will transform the customer experience" - but he did not say that this would take it from appalling to diabolical.
At around 4pm, the Terminal was packed with long queues of people waiting to check in. As a result, check-in operations were suspended. At this point about 34 flights had been cancelled with others suffering delays. By 6pm it was reported that some passengers had had to wait four hours for their bags.
Furious passengers claimed that they were given little information about the situation and had only been supplied with water during their marathon wait. Passengers spotted the media, in the Terminal to record the historic opening, and were keen to vent their anger at being treated "like cattle".
BA blamed the glitches on staff, who were not familiar with the new equipment.
BBC reported that "Heathrow Hell was back" and that the situation looked "grim" well into the evening.
BAA and BA spokespersons had refused requests to appear on the News bulletins at 6pm.
Update: In the evening, Gareth Kirkwood, BA Director of Operations read a statement to the Press. He sincerely apologised to customers and said, "we always knew the first day would represent a unique challenge because of the size and complexity of the move into Terminal Five." He then stormed off refusing to answer questions about BA's failure to run its operations on the opening day.
BA Exec and stranded traveller talk about T5 chaos
Personal views of T5 on opening day
Terminal 5 opening is "a sad day for residents"
Campaign group HACAN has branded Heathrow Terminal Five, which was opened by the Queen on 14th March, as yet ‘another broken promise’ and called the opening "a sad day for residents".
John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN, said, “If governments had kept their promises, Terminal Five would never have been built".
In 1980 the Public Inquiry Inspector gave the go-ahead to Terminal Four on the condition that “there will be neither a fifth terminal nor any other major expansion of Heathrow.”
The Government of the day agreed with him. Lord Trefargne, the Aviation Minister, said, “The Government conclude that the idea of a Fifth Terminal should not be pursued.”
During the Public Inquiry into Terminal Five, the longest in UK history lasting nearly four years, BAA gave an undertaking that a fifth terminal would not lead to a third runway. In its newspaper, Heathrow News, it wrote in capital letters, “BAA has said repeatedly THERE WILL NOT BE A THIRD RUNWAY.”
When Terminal Five was given the go-ahead in 2001 the Government agreed with the Public Inquiry Inspector, Roy Vandermeer, that there should be a limit on the number of flights using Heathrow of 480,000 a year.
Within nine months the Government had come up with proposals for a third runway. The plans for a third runway and more flights on the existing runways, subject of a recent consultation, would lead to over 700,000 flights a year using the airport.
Before the opening, John Stewart said, “This is a sad day for residents. The Queen will be unveiling another broken promise rather than a sparkling new terminal. The pall of deceit and collusion will hang over the entire proceedings.”
He continued, “HACAN is not opposed to good terminal facilities for passengers. But Terminal Five was never about that. It was about creating enough terminal capacity to allow BAA to bring more flights into the airport.”
The opening takes place less than a week after newspaper revelations that BAA had colluded with the Department for Transport over the recent consultation into further expansion at Heathrow.
The Quotes:
“If they decide to permit T4, the Secretaries of State should reiterate that it is the Government’s policy that there will be neither a fifth terminal nor any other major expansion of Heathrow.” Public Inquiry Inspector Sir Ian Glidewell
“The Government conclude that the idea of a Fifth Terminal at Heathrow and a second runway at Gatwick should not be pursued. This effectively limits expansion at these airports.” Aviation Minister Lord Trefargne the House of Lords, 14th February 1980
“For months now BAA has been accused by highly vocal, yet minority groups such as HACAN, of not telling the truth about a third runway. BAA has said repeatedly Terminal 5 did not require and would not lead to a third runway. BAA has said repeatedly that it was pressing the Secretary of State to rule out a third runway. BAA has said repeatedly THERE WILL BE NO THIRD RUNWAY……..What now of those who claimed BAA was not telling the truth? Will they perhaps show a little humility and accept that the company does listen and can actually help local people argue their case?” Heathrow News (a paper produced by the airport) February 1995
Residents urged to join Terminal 5 Flash mob
Residents in areas affected by airport expansion have received leaflets through their letterboxes urging them to join a "Flash mob" on the opening day of Terminal 5 - 27th March.
The leaflet gives the Wikipedia description of as a Flash mob as "A large group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual action for a brief period of time then quickly disperse."
Participants at the Terminal 5 event are being asked to simply turn up at International Arrivals (ground level) and reveal their Stop Airport Expansion T-shirts at exactly 11am. They can then disperse, and have a wander around or have a coffee before leaving.
It's an event that's sure to brighten up the day for everyone at Terminal 5, that rather dull warehouse-style structure built to process passengers seeking an escape from polluted Britain.
Organisers note that Heathrow has a mass of byelaws. However, it is not considered a crime to wear a T-shirt so, as long as people are not demonstrating, they will not be breaking the law.
More details and how to order a special T-shirt
Residents and passengers have lucky escape as plane crash lands at Heathrow
Shortly before 12.45pm on Thursday 17th January, a British Airways Boeing 777 crash landed short of the southern runway. With the wheels torn off by the landing onto grass, the aircraft ploughed through the mud to the tarmac where it skidded to a halt.
This major incident was attended by so many fire crews that flights at Heathrow had to be halted. Prime Minister Gordon Brown was on a taxiing aircraft at the time of the crash and therefore was among those passengers at Heathrow affected by the disruption.
Eye witnesses on BBC News 24 commented on the incident. Neal Jones, who holds a private pilot's license, watched from the airport and knew immediately that the aircraft had a problem: "The pilot was banking very hard, at about 45 degrees, to try to get into the airport. The undercarriage and wing flaps were down but the noise seemed louder than usual. It was very low over surrounding houses and did a sharp left to try to get into the field. The pilot's done an awesome job."
Taxi Driver John Rowland was on the perimeter road and noticed that the plane was louder than usual. He felt that the aircraft was extremely close to the roof of his taxi and "just missed the perimeter fence".
A major catastrophe was averted by the fact that the aircraft missed the nearby homes, road and car park.
British Airways supports the building of a third runway but NO RISK ASSESSMENT has been carried out to examine the dangers of flying an increasing number of aircraft over the built up areas around Heathrow. Those in the plane, and on the ground, realise they have had a lucky escape.
Willie Walsh, Chief Executive of BA, has praised the crew for their handling of the emergency but has not commented on the risk this flight posed to people living nearby. An airport worker has told the press that the aircraft had problems over the Hounslow/Feltham area. The Department for Transport, which has seen no need for a risk assessment at the airport for the current consultation, has announced an inquiry into the crash.
Another security weakness exposed as man scales Heathrow fence
Only a month after Greenpeace protestors draped a "No Third Runway" banner over an aircraft at Heathrow, a man has been arrested after climbing a perimeter fence and strolling towards the northern runway.
This latest breach of security is particularly embarrassing for BAA as it comes on the eve of the T5 opening by the Queen, when security had been increased.
The man was wearing a rucksack, which police destroyed using a controlled explosion.
This latest incident reveals just how difficult it is to secure the perimeter of an airport sited in an urban area. While action has been taken to reduce the risk from travelling passengers inside the airport, Heathrow's security fencing has proved to be vulnerable. There are also issues of possible attack from nearby residental areas, a weakness exposed by the IRA in the 1980s when they attempted to fire a missile at aircraft from a hotel on the A4.
With security for the existing airport proving problematic, BAA is seeking to massively increase the size of the airport. Dft documents show some homes in Harmondsworth would be right beside the perimeter fence and others would be only metres away across a road.
The security risks of the third runway development have not been assessed.
Update: Speaking after the security breach, Gordon Brown said: "I'm satisfied everything is now being done to ensure that security at Heathrow is intact." A 27-year-old man, Ketheeswaran Uthayakumar, has been charged with aircraft endangerment. The man was reported to be a Tamil asylum seeker of no fixed abode.
ITN Report including amateur footage
Harriet Harman says accusations of BAA/DfT collusion
are "utter nonsense"
Taken from Hansard, the official record of comments in parliament:
Justine Greening (Putney)(Con): May we have a debate, finally, on Heathrow expansion? According to reports in the Sunday newspapers, the Environment Agency says that the expansion could lead to increased morbidity and mortality rates around the airport. Papers that I have obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show possible collusion between BAA and the Department for Transport. Is it not time that the Secretary of State for Transport had the guts to come to the Chamber and debate the matter with Members of the House?
Ms Harman: The accusations of collusion are utter nonsense. The Government’s position is to support a third runway at Heathrow in principle, provided that strict local environmental and noise conditions are met. If the Hon. Lady was at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions half an hour or so ago, she will have heard the issue being raised and the House being reminded that all decisions on adding capacity at Heathrow will be taken independently by BAA.
Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge)(Con): May I echo the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) for a debate on Heathrow in Government time? Serious allegations were made in The Sunday Times about collusion with Department for Transport officials and, possibly, Ministers. If the Leader of the House is so confident that they are rubbish, is it not about time that the Secretary of State for Transport came to the House and we were allowed a proper debate, or even an oral statement? So far we have had nothing.
Will the Leader of the House also confirm what I think she said a few moments ago—that the responses will be examined independently by BAA?
Ms Harman: I can save my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the necessity of coming to the House by reaffirming to the hon. Gentleman that the accusations of collusion are utter nonsense, and that that is the Government’s position.
So Harriet Harman has finally confirmed what many already knew - it is BAA, not the government, who makes the decisions about airport expansion.
A group of MPs, including John Randall MP, wrote to Ruth Kelly asking for a meeting to discuss the collusion claims. So far Ms Kelly has not responded.
Consultation venue hit by AIRFIX demo
On Friday, 25th January 2008, Greenpeace volunteers took over a flagship DfT exhibition on Heathrow expansion to warn the public that the consultation is fixed.
The two-day exhibition, at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in Westminster, marked the end of the exhibition's tour. While specialists involved in the proposals were on hand to answer questions from the public, 20 Greenpeace volunteers entered the venue and removed their jackets to reveal T-shirts emblazoned with the words: "THIS CONSULTATION IS FIXED - ASK ME WHY".
The campaigners also handed out 'AIRFIXED' kits. The boxes looked like the classic AIRFIX toys, but showed airliners flying over a flooded London. Inside was a 'Consultation Collusion Kit' in which the boss of BAA and Prime Minister Gordon Brown fit together to fix the public consultation.
The kit includes copies of secret Whitehall documents released under the Freedom of Information Act that show the extent of the extraordinary collusion between Labour and BAA.
Greenpeace aviation campaigner Anna Jones said: "BAA wrote parts of the consultation document and the company is working hand in glove with the government to get a third runway built. Labour has no intention of listening to the huge numbers of Londoners who don't want Heathrow to grow."
"Gordon Brown says this is a comprehensive consultation but it doesn't even consider the massive climate impacts of Heathrow expansion. He claims he's serious about global warming but this fake consultation proves that's nonsense."
See the BAA and Brown AIRFIX kit
Read the DfT and BAA 'risk list' of threats.
Read Gordon Brown's speech to the CBI on November 26th 2007.
Read Ruth Kelly's speech to the Aviation Operators Association.
Shocking new evidence that "CONSULTATION WAS A FIX"
More shocking documents have come to light which prove that the DfT and BAA manipulated calculations to hide the environmental impact of a third runway, The Sunday Times reveals on 9th March 2008.
When the third runway was considered dead in the water because environmental targets could not be met, it seems that David Gray, a senior official at the DfT, received an email (9th Feb 2007) from BAA that suggested the government dump the calculations and "reforecast" using new figures supplied largely by BAA.
David Gray and the other participants in the confidential meetings were aware of the collusion. The minutes, obtained by Justine Greening MP under the Freedom of Information Act, have many of the names blacked out. Also large sections are obscured or removed to conceal information from the public. For example, one surface access expert Michael Jackson, presented a paper (HPB (07) 05) to a meeting but comments on this have been completely blanked out. Jonathan Moor from the DfT states that the Consultation "should avoid going into detail on potential road schemes."
Sections relating to the impact of a new M4 Spur on the village of Harlington are hidden and it is clear that the DfT were worried about residents learning the true impact of roads and the pollution generated by extra road traffic.
Jonathan Moor of the Dft, was clearly aware of the dangers of the public discovering what was being discussed. The minutes of the meeting he Chaired on 12th March 2007 begin: "Dft reminded the Board of the need to manage communication and be careful about the circulation of sensitive documents."
Again, it is Jonathan Moor who suggests manipulating the predicted fleet mix to include less polluting aircraft.This information would then be given to outside experts for modelling - to produce the result required to indicate that pollution targets can be met. It was also decided that figures should be compared with 2002 (when Concorde was flying) rather than more recent figures for 2005, which were available.
The individuals in these meetings should be called to account for their actions. Jonathan Moor for example was clearly aware of the damaging effects of pollution levels on the people forced to live with the runway. He was also aware that if the DfT could "prove" that environmental targets would be met, this would result in the total destruction of Sipson and parts of Harmondsworth. The day before the launch of the Consultation, Mr Moor made it clear that the government would do nothing to relocate the people forced from their homes as they were the responsibility of BAA. How can government officials manipulate figures to ensure that people's homes and communities are destroyed and yet wipe their hands of any responsibility for the aftermath?
Is this going to be a tactic adopted for other major projects? The British people deserve an explanation. Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly and Jim Fitzpatrick, the Aviation Minister, should stop refusing to visit the area they want to wipe off the map and face their critics.
Even The Environment Agency is critical of the Consultation and says that the case for a third runway is not made.
Campaigners know that the case can NEVER be proved. The government should announce, once and for all, that there should be NO FURTHER EXPANSION AT HEATHROW.
The Sunday Times on 9th March revealed yet more shocking documents exposing the collusion between the DfT and BAA.
Senior Civil Servants and Consultants sat in meetings with BAA employees and discussed how to produce figures to indicate that environmental targets could be met. Thus ensuring a third runway would be built.
These people knew that their actions would result in thousands being removed from their homes and even more living with damaging levels of pollution. They were happy to deceive residents who asked questions at consultation venues.
This "Con"sultation has cost the taxpayer a fortune. The documents reveal the DfT did not want the figures in the minutes.
What does the British government intend to do about these revelations?
Gordon Brown should announce NO FURTHER EXPANSION AT HEATHROW
Consultation ends with Parliament rooftop protest
Five protestors marked the end of the Dft Consultation on 27th February by getting onto the roof of the Houses of Parliament and unfurling two large banners.
Photo by permission of PLANE STUPID
The protestors, from climate action group Plane Stupid, entered the building as members of the public. but were able to slip through security and enter a lift to the roof.
At 10am, after dropping the banners down the side of the building, the group made paper aeroplanes out of confidential Whitehall documents that reveal BAA was so closely involved in drawing up the consultation documents that the process is a sham.
Protestor Richard George, communicating with TV and radio reporters via a mobile phone, said: "I'm standing on the roof of Parliament because the democratic process has been corrupted. The aviation industry has taken full advantage of a weak Prime Minister to get the Heathrow consultation fixed. It doesn't even consider global warming, despite everything Brown has said about the environment and despite the massive impact that aviation has on the climate."
He continued: "This Prime Minister doesn't even have the courage to ask Londoners the very simple question, do you want a third runway? Instead his government published a consultation document full of gobbledygook and industry spin. Now the consultation is over we can safely ignore the fixed result and get on with the job of stopping this new runway being built."
At 12.30pm, after Prime Minister's Question Time was underway, the protestors peacefully left the roof. Police are investigating how the three men and two women evaded tight security.
Third runway a major health risk says Lord Smith
A third runway at Heathrow would be "very detrimental" to Londoners' health, according to the new head of the Environment Agency (EA), Lord Smith of Finsbury.
Lord Smith said the government had lost track of green issues and said a new runway would fail EU air pollution limits.
In an interview with the BBC's Tom Edwards aired on 6th October, Lord Smith said that the evidence was weighted against expansion.
"I hope very much that the government will not go ahead with the third runway at Heathrow," he said.
"All the studies we've done in the Environment Agency of the likely impact of air quality on west London are very detrimental."
Lord Smith continued, "If the third runway goes ahead, if we get that extra both air and ground traffic that will arise out of that, then it is absolutely certain that nitrogen dioxide levels will go way beyond what they ought to be for the sake of human health."
The DfT has stated that expansion could not go ahead unless local environmental conditions be met. However, Lord Smith said he was aware that the government could ask to be allowed to breech the EU regulations by showing they had a plan to reduced pollution. He did not feel that building a runway demonstrated that.
Lord Soley, paid by the aviation industry to support a third runway, appeared deeply troubled when giving his BBC lunchtime news response. He said that the runway was not due to be operational until 2017 and "people are working their socks off, almost round the clock, trying to get air pollution levels down".
Lord Soley admitted that west London air pollution was already at high levels but blamed road transport. He then quoted pollution hot spots - corresponding with roads linking Central London to Heathrow. In desperation, he then indicated that health would be just as affected by unemployment claiming, "closing the airport down is a major threat now". Something not born out by BAA's investment of billions of pounds into the redevelopment of Heathrow East.
Islington joins 2M - while Spelthorne out in the cold
The strong opposition to expansion at Heathrow continues to grow with Islington joining the 2M group and Surrey Council stating their opposition to expansion.
However while the 2M group, representing two million people, is heading towards becoming 3M, Spelthorne council has come out in support of a third runway and sixth Terminal.
Spelthorne's support of airport development could lead to the area being suggested for projects that other boroughs would be likely to oppose such as freight depots, park and ride provision and road schemes.
The 2M group comprises the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Merton, Richmond and Wandsworth. Authorities outside London include Windsor and Maidenhead, Slough and South Bucks.
New guide reveals grim future for two million residents
Residents who want to discover how they will be affected by proposed flightpaths, can now access a new guide on the 2M website.
The 2M Group, representing two million people affected by Heathrow expansion, is an alliance of 12 local authorities concerned at the negative impact on their communities.
The new noise guide on its website explains how each area is likely to be affected by the dramatic increase in flights.
There are also maps predicting the new flightpaths, which reveal that some places (including Southall, Kensington and Chelsea) will be overflown for the first time.
This makes the website essential for residents who have not seen the full Department for Transport Consultation document.
The 2M group comprises the London Boroughs of Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kensington and Chelsea, Merton, Richmond and Wandsworth. In addition to the boroughs of Slough, Spelthorne, Windsor and Maidenhead and South Bucks District Council. (The boroughs of Harrow and Brent are affected by expansion but have not yet joined the 2M group.)
Discover how flightpaths affect you
Pressure for Gatwick to get next new runway
Companies interested in buying Gatwick Airport are being enticed by its owners, BAA, with the possibility of the chance to build another runway - ahead of Heathrow or Stansted.
BAA is suggesting in a memorandum to potential bidders that a new runway could be positioned a kilometre south from the existing one, with the loss of 300 homes. BAA says that land has been safeguarded and gives details of how the expansion could increase maximum capacity at Gatwick from 45 million passengers a year to 80 million; 67 million people used Heathrow last year.
The Competition Commission effectively endorsed the idea on 17th December and called on the Government to amend its aviation policy.
It said that the Government was undermining competition and preventing operators from responding to the market. It said: “[The Government] should ensure that the aviation national policy statement does not unduly constrain this market and should give consideration to the ambitions of the new owner of Gatwick airport, including the possibility of a second runway after 2019.”
BAA signed an agreement in 1979 with West Sussex County Council pledging not to build a new runway for 40 years. What are such agreements worth?
Manchester Airports Group, one of the bidders, believes that the terms of the agreement would allow the planning process to be completed by 2018 so that building could start in 2019. A new runway and terminal would open in 2022 or 2023. A German bidder, Hochtief AirPort, has told the commission that it wants the 2019 agreement overturned to allow construction to begin even earlier.
Lufthansa takes over bmi to get lucrative Heathrow slots
German airline Lufthansa is taking over UK carrier bmi, it was announced on 29th October.
Industry analysts believe Lufthansa was keen to take over bmi's lucrative flight slots at Heathrow. The deal, which will go through within the next three months, will make Lufthansa the second-biggest carrier at Heathrow, behind British Airways.
Lufthansa already had a 30% stake in bmi (formerly British Midland) and is buying the 50% stake owned by retiring bmi Chairman Sir Michael Bishop for a reported £318 million.
Walsh throws a wobbly over Tory plans to scrap a third runway
British Airways chief executive Willie Walsh slammed Tory plans to replace a third runway at Heathrow with a high-speed rail network and described the party's aviation policy as "all over the place".
Speaking at the Institute of London Insurance on 1st October, Walsh said high-speed rail would not solve capacity problems at Heathrow and claimed that Tory airport policy was riddled with inconsistencies. He said, "The latest idea that a rail link from Leeds and Manchester to Heathrow would be an adequate substitute for a third runway beggars belief."
Walsh is pinning his hopes on David Cameron buckling under pressure from businesses with a vested interested in airport expansion. Ideally, he wants a high-speed rail link to be "complementary" to air travel and not a replacement for it. If such a rail link was built, Walsh pledged to scrap the airline's domestic services to Heathrow.
During his speech, Walsh attempted to convince his audience that the demand for air travel would continue to increase. Yet, only a few days earlier he had appeared on Bloomberg Television in the US talking about the inevitable decline in premium business travel due to the credit crunch. A little warning to shareholders that the luxury of air travel is one of the first things to go when belts are tightened.
Disregarding Willie's wobbly, Stephen Hammond, the shadow transport minister, said BA was "not a disinterested party" in the debate and rejected Walsh's claim that choosing high-speed rail over airport expansion will be bad for the economy.
"We are disappointed that Mr Walsh has taken that attitude. We have spent a year working with leading railway and funding experts and we know that it is fundable. It stacks up in economic and environmental terms."
Passenger numbers down but airlines still demand expansion
A fall in passenger numbers is forcing airlines to cut flights, or consider cutting them, yet they still continue to insist that Britain's aiports need more runways.
On 17th July, Budget airline Ryanair announced it will cut about 250 flights from Stansted this winter in an effort to offset higher fuel and airport costs. The airline said that this would mean 900 job losses at the airport. So who needs another runway at Stansted when this is the second year that Ryanair has cut ?
Despite carrying 900,000 less passengers and trimming it's fleet from 36 to 28 this winter, Chief executive Michael O'Leary remained upbeat. No doubt hoping that fuel prices soon plummet.
Meanwhile, British Airways warned that it would also need to cut capacity this winter. Speaking at Farnborough Air Show, BA Chief Executive Willie Walsh said it was "absolutely certain" that fuel costs will push ticket prices up. He also pointed out that most airlines have hedged against the fuel rises so current prices don't reflect the $150 a barrel fuel price. Walsh estimated that fuel rises would really "kick in" in 12-18months.
Walsh was keen to emphasise that this was not just a British Airways problem: "The industry is going to have to face up to significant changes." British Airways had previously forecast a 2-3% growth in its business but Walsh admitted that growth will now be "non-existent".
Press reports also indicate the return of the "ghost flights" at Heathrow. These are flights which are run virtually empty because airlines fear that if they don't use their slots they will lose them. The Times has singled out bmi as one airline planning to run ghost flights in the autumn.
BAA now "a lonely voice" wanting a third runway
As BAA's latest Chief Executive, Colin Matthews, prepared to make his first major speech on 25th June, Radio 4's Today programme pointed out to him that he was "a lonely voice" wanting a third runway.
Mr Matthews claimed he was not a lonely voice but struggled to argue his case in the face of business cooling on the idea of expanding Heathrow.
London First, a business lobby group, is about to publish a report that says the focus should be on improving Heathrow before even contemplating a third runway. The report will suggest that Heathrow could reduce the number of flights or use operational changes to release the pressure on the airport.
The Radio 4 interviewer noted that prominent figures, including London Mayor, Boris Johnson, are against expansion at Heathrow and have put forward alternatives. Mr Matthews countered this by saying Heathrow expansion would be cheaper; He was clearly not considering strong protests that Heathrow is sited in the wrong place, saying: "Heathrow is where it is."
While Matthews trotted out the old predictable lines about needing more capacity, it was pointed out that, as BAA has a monopoly in Britain, it was hard to take his partial view seriously. According to Matthews, this is why it is important that the elected government should have a clear policy. Shame Matthews hadn't thought about the strong possibility of the Conservatives winning the next election, a party that would block plans for a third runway.
With his argument slipping away, Matthews couldn't name a single supporter but expected the CBI to have "a clear voice on that topic".
Matthews then quickly changed the subject to the one he had attempted to introduce throughout the interview - transfer passengers. He believes Heathrow needs transfer passengers (who just change planes at the BAA airport but don't stay to spend money in Britain) because they help fill planes. Without Heathrow acting as a hub airport for these passengers passing through, Matthews claims the UK would not, for example, have a direct link with India's IT capital, Bangalore. He sees this as important.
That will be an interesting discussion topic for all those likely to suffer the pollution and environmental devastation of airport expansion - both in the UK and in India.
Pilots with poor English blamed for near collision at Heathrow
Polish pilots flying near Heathrow, almost caused a mid-air collision due to their poor English, an Air Accidents Investigations Branch (AAIB) report revealed on 12th June 2008.
The LOT airlines Boeing 737, with 95 passengers and crew on board, lost its way in the skies around Heathrow after leaving the airport bound for Warsaw.
Unfortunately, the co-pilot keyed in the wrong co-ordinates into the Flight Management System, similar to a car's sat nav, which caused it to fail.
As a result, the Polish co-pilot (who was flying) took the jet in the wrong direction. Several times he went in the opposite direction to the one given by air traffic controllers because he could not understand the English instructions.
After heading northwards to Uxbridge and Watford, he attempted to return to Heathrow. At one point he passed so close to another aircraft that the other pilot was forced to change course - officially a "Short Term Conflict Alert".
Twenty-seven minutes later, the 737 returned to Heathrow via Slough.
English is the universal language of aviation yet only 15 out of the 800 Polish pilots flying internationally have passed the language test, according to The Times. BBC News reported that the deadline for compliance with the language test was March 2008 but Poland is unlikely to be able to comply until 2011.
In the meantime, the British government believes it is appropriate to increase flights over the capital city - then add a third runway to boost air traffic even more. How many near misses does there have to be before Gordon Brown sees sense and calls a halt to any further expansion at Heathrow?
Government to examine the economic regulation of UK airports
Transport Secretary, Ruth Kelly announced at lunchtime on 22nd April that the government will review the economic regulation of UK airports.
The announcement followed the release of interim findings by the Competition Commission, which were extremely critical of BAA's domination of airports in
south-east England and parts of Scotland. Not surprisingly, the watchdog felt that BAA "may not be serving well the interests of either airlines or passengers". The Commission's full report is due in August.
The government's review will look at how to improve customer service, boost investment and deal with environmental concerns. The government will also be examining the role of the aviation regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority.
In television and radio interviews, the new Chief Executive of BAA, Colin Matthews, skirted the issue of poor BAA service. However, on Radio 4 he said that if BAA service did not improve it would not have a leg to stand on.
Senior BA pilot exposes "a world of casual racism"
If British Airways' reputation hadn't taken enough knocks lately with the T5 fiasco, the UK's flagship airline made front page news on 26th April when a senior BA pilot revealed startling levels of casual racism at the company.
The Independent story explained that Captain Doug Maughan, a pilot for 28 years, decided to go public with his complaints after struggling to persuade BA's management to take racism among its senior staff seriously.
Captain Maughan claims to have emailed BA's chief executive, Willie Walsh, without success. He cites incidents in which offensive language was used, including derogatory remarks and insults aimed at Saudis, Asians and even Scots.
The revelations come after Nigeria's President, Umaruk Yar'Adua, ordered an investigation into an incident at Heathrow on 27th March when 136 economy passengers were turned off a BA flight to Lagos. A large number of passengers had complained about the treatment of a distressed Nigerian passenger who was being deported. Twenty uniformed police officers were required to regain control of the situation.
Robert Fisk, writing in the same paper, commented that BA is an airline so haughty that it regards its own customers as an inconvenience. In fact, he says that the only honour he would like from BA was a life ban (already given to some Greenpeace activists, Salman Rushdie and Naomi Campbell), just in case he is "ever tempted to fly on their wretched aeroplanes again".
Unhappy BA customer's T5 song is a surprise hit
T5's baggage chaos provided unhappy BA customer, Tim Soong, with the perfect opportunity for some light-hearted revenge - and some unexpected celebrity.
Tim and his friend, Andy Baynes, wrote a song which echoed the frustration of thousands of passengers who have been forced to wait in long queues to check in and then found that their luggage hasn't reached its destination.
The duo even managed to film a video in Terminal 5 to accompany the song and posted it on YouTube. Before long the film was receiving 1,000 hits a day, prompting coverage in the press and on TV. The interest has given Tim the chance to explain his grievances.
Tim and his girlfriend, Sokha, flew with BA last year to get married in Italy. Sokha, a fashion designer, had spent many weeks making her unique dress so, when the couple arrived in Italy minus their luggage, Sokha was, in Tim's words, "in hysterics".
Having felt compelled to stay in a hotel near the airport to wait for their bags, the couple spent hundred of pounds and had a stressful wait until the dress finally turned up the day before the wedding.
Mr Soong claims that he is still waiting for the compensation he was promised. In the meantime, his song is proving that you can lose your luggage without losing your sense of humour.
Where's Willie?
Like Wally, the book character who is hard to find amidst a mass of people, BA's Chief Executive Willie Walsh was hard to find in Terminal 5 on Friday morning, 28th March. On the second day of business, those people who had been forced to spend the night on the hard Terminal floor were joined by passengers arriving for their delayed flights. Twenty per cent of scheduled flights had already been cancelled due to disastrous problems with the baggage system.
Morning news programmes, such as Radio 4's Today Programme, could not unearth Willie Walsh to answer the continuing criticism of the company which had spent six months working on the details of the opening. BAA has stated that their own extensive trials had involved 50,000 volunteers.
With excuses such as staff not being able to find parking (Don't BAA claim that workers are local and can travel by bus?) and check-in staff not understanding the equipment (despite extensive training), there were clearly questions to be asked.
When a tired Willie finally appeared he described the Terminal 5 fiasco as "not our finest hour" and admitted BA "got things wrong". Passengers could also expect "some cancellations tomorrow" as problems continue.
Tory leader David Cameron said the "humiliating" events could hamper the case for further expansion at Heathrow.
Campaigners and air passengers will want to know how any government, either Labour or Conservative, could support increasing flights and development at the airport when even the Chief Executives admit that they can't handle organising the airport as it stands. Teething troubles? In the care of BA and BAA, this is one baby that is likely to have painful problems for many years to come.
BA and BAA, April Fools?
With the Terminal 5 fiasco fresh in people's minds, it has been particularly difficult to spot the true Heathrow-related April Fools jokes this year.
How about the idea of a petting zoo at Terminal 5 to relax stressed passengers? Or the news that the baggage tracks at Terminal 5 have a kink in them to avoid ancient ruins discovered during excavation of the site?
Then there's the story that BA are so swamped with baggage that they are sending most of it to be sorted in Milan - by road! There's also the rumour that BAA's new Chief Executive Colin Matthews was appointed to start on April Fools day as an
in-house joke because only a fool would take on the job. Which ones are true?
Despite fairly convincing on-line news reports, the first two are hoaxes.
Amazingly, the third story in The Times appears to be true. British Airways are packing the bags into trucks to travel the 812 miles to Milan. It is hoped that the baggage can be returned to passengers before they arrive home. Otherwise they may be lost again and need to return to Milan for another sorting!
Only BAA executives can answer the last one. Certainly Stephen Nelson stayed as Chief Executive long enough to welcome the Queen to the official opening on 14th March. Two weeks later, BAA turned down repeated requests for interviews during the Terminal 5 fiasco.
With the predicted "teething troubles" still causing considerable pain for travellers, where is Mr Matthews with assurances that problems are being resolved? Seems he is not foolish enough to think that anyone still believes BAA promises.
BA postpones move of long-haul flights to T5
British Airways and BAA have finally accepted that they will not be able to cope with the planned transfer of almost all of BA's long haul flights from T4 to T5, planned for 30th April.
On 11th April, the airllne and BAA admitted that the move would have to be postponed until June. Neither company could give an exact date.
BA's Chief Executive, Willie Walsh, has said it was clearly a very sensible decision as staff needed time to learn from the experiences of staff currently working in the new 4.3bn terminal.
Walsh called the T5 opening day "a disaster" but has promised that T5 would run smoothy when passenger numbers at the terminal double in the summer, following the rescheduled move.
Critics have wondered why staff were not sufficiently trained in advance of the T5 opening and why BAA had not stress tested the baggage system to see if it could cope with the expected volume of luggage.
During a BBC News 24 interview, Walsh said that he was ultimately responsible for the decisions that led to the T5 chaos and that he apologised for the experiences of passengers, which were "disappointing".
BAA said it regretted the postponement of the move, which was a joint decision with BA. The decision will have an impact on those airlines making plans to move into Terminal 4 when BA long-haul flights transfer to T5.
No executive at BA or BAA will lose their job over the continuing Terminal 5 fiasco. New BAA Chief Executive Colin Matthews has not been giving press interviews, leaving Willlie Walsh to face the music alone. Shareholders should be asking about the inevitable financial consequences of recent events at Heathrow. Should they be ask to sink more money into a sixth terminal?
British Airways threaten legal action to halt strike
"We will not be bullied, we will not be brushed off, we will persevere." This was the strong talk from the latest victims of aviation bosses who are threatening to use an injunction against people who might affect their profits.
This time the legal action won't be from BAA against campaigners fighting to save homes and the environment. The threat came from British Airways against its own pilots, who are worried about their pay levels and job security.
On hearing the news, there were wry smiles on the faces of NoTRAG members who had been threatened with a totally unjustified injunction from BAA before last summer's Climate Camp.
On Saturday, 15th March a thousand pilots even showed their anger at BA's behaviour by taking direct action with a march to BA Headquarters.
Seems airline pilots have more in common with anti-expansion campaigners than they realised.
A thousand BA pilots march to BA HQ
British Airways' tactics lead to fear for BA pension scheme.
British Airways' latest attempt at drumming up some pro-expansion responses to the DfT Consultation has provoked an angry reaction from BA pensioners who received a leaflet that implied that their pensions were at risk without a third runway at Heathrow.
The 4-page "Heathrow Expansion Special" leaflet was sent to all retired staff, even those living abroad, to persuade them to support the expansion proposals. The back page featured a coupon with a pro-expansion statement, to which pensioners could add their name and address and send to Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly.
To encourage pensioners to complete the coupon, the leaflet was short on facts and instead focussed on the opinions of people connected to the company. One of the featured quotes is from Sigrid Mapp, Chairman of the Liaison Council (a group representing the interests of all BA pensioners to the BA Board). It has prompted worried pensioners to question whether their retirement funds are safe.
Sigrid Mapp says: "As pensioners, the security of our pensions depends directly on the long-term success of British Airways, and that again depends on the success of Heathrow."
Fearful pensioners have been querying the statement and discovering that, for at least 32,678 members of the Airways Pension Scheme (APS), this is totally untrue as their money is secure. Even members of the new pension scheme (NAPS) do not need to worry that the fund that has already accumulated will disappear if Heathrow expansion plans do not go ahead.
Concerned BA pensioners can contact: Mr Dayne Markham, The Association of British Airways Pensioners (ABAP) - email: daynemarkham@hotmail.com. This association acts as a watchdog for BA pensioners but staff may be unaware of its work as it is not permitted to advertise in the company's magazine for retired staff, "Touchdown".
UPDATE: Anger at the BA tactics is spreading. A packed anti-expansion public meeting at Hillingdon's Civic Centre on 31st January heard from an audience member concerned that BA were now targeting vulnerable pensioners in it's latest desperate attempt to influence the Consultation.
John Randall MP told the audience it was "emotional blackmail of the worst kind".
The Evening Standard takes up the story
BAA won't rule out a fourth runway if a third runway goes ahead
BAA told the London Assembly on 22nd January that it could not rule out further expansion at Heathrow - in addition to the third runway and sixth terminal in the current proposals.
The assembly's environment committee met to consider the environmental impact of the proposals detailed in the DfT Consultation due to end on 27th February.
Expansion plans include removing respite agreements, massively increasing flights and road traffic and destroying an area north of the Heathrow, including the entire village of Sipson.
However, this was clearly not enough for BAA Chief Executive Stephen Nelson who, unlike his predessors who have assured residents that each expansion would be the last, would not give an undertaking that BAA would not make further demands.
Airlines warned of a bumpy ride in 2008
"Fasten your seatbelts. There is likely to be turbulence ahead," said Giovanni Bisignani, head of IATA, which warned in early February that it sees growth in international air traffic slowing to 5 percent in 2008 from 7.4 percent last year.
The International Air Transport Association, which represents 240 airlines (or about 94 percent of international air traffic), said global air passenger traffic growth slowed to 4.3 percent in January from 6.7 percent the previous month.
Airlines should brace themselves for a bumpy ride in 2008 as the US slowdown is seen hitting profits, despite robust cargo demand in emerging markets, the head of industry body IATA warned.
"January traffic results show that we could be at a turning point. A month's data is not enough to define a trend. However, the sharp shift in demand growth patterns makes it clear that the US credit crunch is negatively impacting air travel," Bisignani said in a statement.
On 26th February, Bisignani warned industry profits would slide in 2008. "We are an industry out of intensive care but we are still sick," Bisignani told reporters.
Reuters News Agency reported that the air industry has been struggling with record-high fuel prices and overcapacity. In addition, the strong euro had also had a negative impact on European airlines.
But global air freight growth rates held up in January as the booming economies of China and India helped the world economy to weather a slowdown in the United States.
CAA caves in to BAA demands to raise landing fees
The Civil Aviation Authority is to allow BAA to significantly increase its landing charges at Heathrow and Gatwick airports.
BAA wanted a substantial rise to fund investment and improve standards but opponents of the increases consider that BAA is being rewarded for failure. BAA's owner, Ferrovial, is known to be struggling with massive debt and has been frequently criticised for poor performance.
Charges at Heathrow are likely to go up from £10.36 per passenger to £12.80 in April. At Gatwick the £5.61 charge is likely to rise to $6.79. The man with the job of trying to justify the increases is BAA's Tom Kelly, formerly Tony Blair's spokesman.
Government admits taxpayers will face massive hidden costs of third runway
The cost of replacing public buildings made unusable by a third runway will have to be met by taxpayers, according to a letter sent by a government department to a concerned parent.
The concerned parent, who happens to be Geraldine Nicholson of NoTRAG, wrote to The Department for Children, Schools and Families to discover what would happen to her three children if Heathrow School were demolished.
"It is for each LA (local authority) to make sure there are sufficient school places to meet the needs of the population and to provide good quality education in the most cost effective way." replied Alice Hickey from the Public Communications Unit on 21st November.
This leaves taxpayers in the local authorities affected with a huge bill for rebuilding schools rendered unusable by a nearly 50% increase in flights and an increase in noxious pollutants.
Hillingdon and Hounslow boroughs are likely to face the biggest bills. In Hillingdon, seven schools are under immediate threat. The Ofsted-acclaimed school Heathrow Primary will be bulldozed for the runway while Harmondsworth Primary , William Byrd Primary, Cherry Lane Primary, Pinkwell Primary, Longmead Primary and Harlington Community School will be unusable due to high pollution levels and intolerable noise.
The Department for Transport has already confirmed that Ferrovial, the Spanish construction company that owns BAA, is under no obligation to rebuild.
NoTRAG has challenged the Government to supply it with figures showing the full cost of Heathrow expansion – this means factoring in the impact on ALL schools into its cost analysis.
Figures should also include the cost in relation to housing and health.
Over 100 MPs sign latest Early Day Motion against Runway
By the end of the year, 106 MPs had signed a motion asking the government not to proceed with the plans for a third runway at Heathrow and to hold a Commons vote on the subject.
Martin Salter, MP
The Early Day Motion was put forward on 17th December by Labour MP Martin Salter and was quickly signed by 80 MPs, 40 of them Labour.
For many years, BAA said that a third runway wasn't needed or wanted at Heathrow but, after being given approval for Terminal Five, suddenly changed its policy and now claims that an extra runway is vital.
Martin Salter MP said opposition to the runway had hardened since the last such motion - signed by 38 Labour MPs - in October. "There is widespread concern that much of the good work that the government has done on environmental issues could be undermined by this single decision," he said.
Labour MP Andrew Slaughter also said there was "ever-growing opposition to Heathrow expansion and a clear view among many MPs that the government should go back and look at alternatives".
Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants to have his cake and eat it - backing a new runway "in principle" while claiming to be interested in the environmental impact.
Details of the motion and who has signed it
Transport Select Committee to hold inquiry into aviation
The House of Commons Transport Committee announced on 19th December that it will conduct an inquiry into the future of aviation.
The inquiry will focus on the economic, environmental and infrastructure issues - answering the the following questions:
1. What is the value of aviation to the UK economy? What are the roles of the London and regional airports? What competition do they face from abroad?
2. Is the current aviation infrastructure adequate for the needs of UK business and individuals and how should it be developed? What are the implications of future passenger trends and possible mergers in the airline industry?
3. To what extent can rail provide an alternative to short-haul flights?
4. What costs does aviation impose on society and the environment? What are the implications of climate change policy—in particular the Climate Change Act 2008—for the aviation industry and infrastructure?
5. What is the impact of taxation on the aviation sector nationally and regionally? Are passengers adequately protected from the collapse of airlines?
6. What is the impact on the aviation sector of changes in the security environment?
The Committee has undertaken a number of inquiries into various aspects of aviation during the current Parliament. It will draw on the evidence submitted to those inquiries but doesn't plan to cover the same territory again in the new inquiry. Relevant reports published by the Committee in the current Parliament include:
Use of air space (inquiry ongoing); The opening of Heathrow Terminal 5 (HC 543 of Session 2007-08); The future of BAA (HC 199 of Session 2007-08); Freight Transport (HC 249 of Session 2007-08); Transport Security: Travelling without fear (HC 191 of Session 2007-08); Passengers' experiences of air travel (HC 435 of Session 2006-07); The work of the Civil Aviation Authority (HC 809 of Session 2005-06).
Interested parties have been invited to submit evidence by Monday 23 February 2009.
Hilary Benn interview confirms Cabinet rift on third runway
With reports of a continuing Cabinet split over the third runway, Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, gave an interview to the Sunday Times (14 December) that confirmed Ministers are at odds over the likely decision to give the go ahead.
Hilary Benn, MP
At no time during Benn's 45-minute interview with reporters, did he give a word of support for the runway. He warned that Heathrow's plans should be rejected unless noise and air pollution are dramatically cut. Campaigners against the runway know this can't be done with current technology and air travel at current levels.
Benn confirmed this view when he told The Sunday Times that Britain’s biggest airport had a “problem” with air quality even before the construction of the proposed third runway. He cast doubt on claims that new technology could solve the pollution concerns and said failure to cut emissions was “not something that we can contemplate”.
NOTRAG NOTE: Hilary Benn, like other Ministers, knows a third runway will be an environmental disaster. As Environmental Secretary, he can hardly support it. Benns talks as if he is the only Labour politician determined that the government will honour its commitment to reach EU pollution targets by 2015. If the government gives the go ahead for a third runway, will Benn resign?
Other Ministers should be prepared to speak out on the runway to show that posts such as Energy and Climate Change Secretary (Ed Miliband) aren't just window dressing.
Harriet Harman, the Commons leader who represents Camberwell and Peckham in south London, knows that more aircraft noise will devastate areas of London. She only seems interested in the impact on the ballot box.
David Miliband, the foreign secretary, and John Denham, the universities secretary, are also said to have doubts. Let's hope they find the courage to say something despite the meddling of Lord Mandelson, the business sectretary.
And, while communities wait to discover the fate this government has planned for them, they can be sure of one thing - Hazel Blears, Communities Secretary, won't be lifting a finger to help them.
Tories warn firms not to get involved with runway plans
The Conservative Party has warned firms not to get involved in any plans for a third runway at Heathrow.
In a briefing to transport correspondents on 13th October, Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers made it clear that if the Conservative Party won the next general election they would stop a third runway going ahead."
Ms Villiers warned, "Anyone getting involved in any contract for a third runway should be very, very careful." She continued, "We will not consider ourselves bound by any decision taken by this government."
The Conservatives are proposing a high-speed rail line linking London St Pancras, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. This would cut Heathrow flights by 66,000 a year, or 30% of the planned capacity of the third runway.
MPs question government plans for third runway
There are indications of a shift in government thinking on the third runway following news reports on 28th October that a growing number of Labour MPs have serious doubts about the plans.
The reports follow a commons motion urging ministers to rethink plans for a third runway at Heathrow. Of the 50 MPs who quickly signed the motion, 23 were Labour MPs.
John Grogan, the Labour MP who tabled the motion, said that ministers knew they faced years of protest and argument over the controversial plans for Heathrow. It seemed unlikely that Gordon Brown would want to push ahead with such an unpopular development and risk a revolt by his own MPs in the run-up to an election.
The motion: That this House urges the Government to rethink its plans for a third runway at Heathrow Airport and to give full consideration to alternative solutions;
regrets the Government's heavy reliance on data supplied by the British Airports Authority (BAA) in assessing the case for expansion and notes the likely forthcoming break up of BAA's ownership of three of London's airports following the investigation by the Competition Committee;
believes that the consultation paper Adding Capacity at Heathrow Airport was deeply flawed, as it paid insufficient regard to the costs of air and noise pollution in the surrounding areas and the commitment to curb carbon dioxide emissions to tackle climate change;
regrets the fact that provisions to improve high speed rail lines from Heathrow to major cities have not been fully explored, along with the potential of other UK airports to handle more long haul flights;
and urges the Government to initiate a consultation on a new national planning policy statement on the theme of airports and high speed rail.
The government's 2003 aviation White Paper, said it supported Heathrow's development subject to strict air quality and noise level targets being met and as long as public transport access could be improved.
Environmentalists know that the targets cannot be met yet the government has refused to drop the idea of expanding Heathrow. However, on Tuesday the government agreed to include aviation emmissions in its commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050.
If the government wants to show that it is serious about tackling emissions, it has to say no to further expansion at Heathrow - not now, not ever.
UPDATE: By 1st November, 105 MPs had already signed the commons motion. More than a third are Labour MPs.
Evening Standard names doubting ministers
Daily Telegraph blog says runway plan is "the height of insanity"
Conservative to scrap third runway in favour of high-speed rail
The Conservatives' plan to oppose a third runway at Heathrow and to invest in high-speed rail, was announced by Shadow Transport Secretary, Theresa Villiers, in her speech at the Party conference on 29th September.
John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN, said, “We warmly welcome this announcement. It is a bold plan fitting for the 21st Century.”
A study carried out by HACAN in 2006 revealed the potential that exists for high-speed rail to become an alternative to short-haul flights. It showed that over 100,000 flights a year, out of a total of 475,000, serve destinations where rail could become a viable option.
Stewart said, “High-speed rail has the potential to cut the number of short-haul flights using Heathrow, so freeing up space for the more long-distance flights from the fast-developing economies of China and India without the need to expand the airport.”
He added, “Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly is muddying the waters when she claimed, as she did last week, that, even with high-speed rail, the number of passengers using Heathrow would soon be back to current levels. What she failed to say is that, if there were fewer short-haul flights, it is possible to carry more passengers on a reduced number of flights. Flight numbers is what matters.”
There is evidence that the economic benefits of investing in high-speed rail would be much higher than investment in expanding Heathrow. According to Government figures a third runway would generate £5 billion over a 70 year period. A recent study by the engineering consultants WS Atkins found that a high-speed rail network linking London and Heathrow to the North of England and the Midlands would bring benefits of more than £30 billion over a 60 year period.
Stewart added, “The Conservatives realise that business is not clamouring for a third runway. What they desperately want is a better rather than a bigger Heathrow. This announcement today is good for business, good for the environment and good for local residents.”
Plan for Heathrow expansion is "dead in the water"
After Hayes and Harlington MP John McDonnell stated on 8th July that the plan for Heathrow expansion is "dead in the water", the pressure on the government to admit it is propping up a dead duck has increased.
This has included some difficult questions from local MPs and an Editorial in The Guardian describing the standard of official thinking on expansion as "feeble".
During parliamentary questions on 8th July, Mr McDonnell MP responded to Ruth Kelly's announcement of a delay to the expansion decision by asking what she planned to do for his constituents who are suffering continued blight. "I have families with young children living in overcrowded accommodation in my constituency who cannot sell their properties. Lenders are no longer lending to people in my area, blighted by Heathrow, to enable them to purchase and sell properties." He suggested dropping the "madcap scheme" but asked if, in the meantime, Ruth Kelly would meet a delegation of local MPs and consider the introduction of an emergency blight package to compensate people affected by the Government’s delay in their decision-making processes.
Yet again, Ruth Kelly would not agree to meet and tried to hide her department's incompetence in not looking at the impact on the "demographic groups and equalities in the boroughs likely to be affected by any change" when it put together the public consultation. "However, I shall pass on (the) comments about the detriment that his constituents are facing to those involved in the consultation, so that they can think about how best to improve the situation locally."
Perhaps Ruth Kelly should talk to Jonathan Moor at the DfT who told NoTRAG on 21st November 2007 that the government planned to do NOTHING for local people because they are the responsibility of BAA.
Uxbridge MP, John Randall, used Prime Minister's question time (9th July) to point out that Ministers, including the Prime Minister, had repeatedly said there would be no further Heathrow expansion unless proposals met strict environmental limits. He asked why, given this, the government is asking for a derogation on air quality because it cannot meet the air quality controls around London.
Standing in for the PM, Harriet Harman avoided answering. She said Ruth Kelly had reminded her that "we have set out a range of issues, including carbon emissions and air quality, in a number of detailed technical documents for public scrutiny and consultation."
In fact, NoTRAG asked the "experts" on air quality at the public Consultation if they could explain the calculations that had achieved some of the bizarre conclusions on pollution. They could not. A written request got no response.
So Ms Harman and Ms Kelly STOP AVOIDING THE QUESTIONS - tell us exactly how more roads, 25 million more vehicle journeys and a massive increase in flights can result in LESS air and noise pollution for people currently surrounded by open fields? If you can do it you don't need to ask for exemption from new EU limits.
End of the Runway - Guardian Editorial
Ruth Kelly announces Heathrow decison delay
To no one's surprise, Ruth Kelly announced on 8th July that the decision on expansion at Heathrow has been delayed. The Department for Transport had previously indicated that a decision would be made this summer.
Ms Kelly said there was still work to be done in assessing the 70,000 responses from individuals and organisations to the Consultation into expansion, which ended on 27th February.
For once, Ms Kelly is right - there IS still work to done. This is because the Department of Transport did such a poor job with the public consultation that it would leave itself open to legal challenge if it did not undertake further work before announcing a decision.
Lawyers, acting for HACAN and some other campaigning groups, wrote to the DfT to ask why an Equalities Impact Assessment had not been done. Seems the DfT are rushing around trying to put that right.
The EU air pollution limits are also giving the DfT a headache. A huge number of the consultation responses will have expressed doubts that the EU legal limits could be met - even the Government's own environmental advisors, the Environment Agency, were not convinced.
The government clearly has to find some more plausible predictions of future air quality before it can risk announcing an increase in flights and a third runway development. A decision Transport Minister Jim Fitzpatrick had said in November was "right and necessary".
Ruth Kelly now says that a decision would be made "before the end of the year". (NoTRAG asks which year? Haven't people's homes been under threat for long enough?)
John Stewart, Chair of HACAN said, “We regard Ruth Kelly’s statement as merely an attempt to try and forestall any legal challenge. It is a sign that the Government’s case for expansion remains very shaky indeed.”
Meanwhile, John McDonnell, MP for Hayes and Harlington observed, "This delay demonstrates that the plans for Heathrow 3rd runway are floundering badly. Gordon Brown is now completely isolated on this issue, and it is increasingly obvious that the plan for the expansion at Heathrow is dead in the water”
Public being misled by ministers says Government adviser.
The government’s adviser on air quality has warned that ministers are “pulling the wool” over the public’s eyes to justify building a third runway at Heathrow, according to the Sunday Times on 6th July.
Mike Pilling, professor of physical chemistry at Leeds University who chairs the government’s expert group on air quality, said the public were being misled over claims that Heathrow’s expansion would not cause unlawful and dangerous levels of pollution.
The Sunday Times reports that Pilling, who helped to devise the Department for Transport’s rubric for measuring future pollution around Heathrow, said a key recommendation to consider a range of future scenarios was disregarded. He said Kelly’s final conclusion that a third runway would not cause a significant increase in pollution was unreliable.
Kelly had previously pledged that the airport would be expanded only if it did not breach European Union pollution limits. “They mustn’t pull the wool over our eyes,” Pilling said last week.
His comments confirm what campaigners have been saying since the Department for Transport launched its consultation into expansion at Heathrow. Experts provided by the DfT at the public exhibitions were unable to explain how some of the pollution figures had been achieved. Making a written request for a breakdown of the calculations used, also failed to obtain answers.
The government seemed to base its predictions on optimistic assumptions, such as the development of cleaner engines and the speedy replacement of current airline fleets.
The Sunday Times article says that the public backlash has forced Ruth Kelly, the Transport Secretary, to postpone her decision on expansion, which was due this summer.
The newspaper had previously revealed how the DfT and BAA collaborated to “fix” the environmental figures by selecting the data most likely to get a positive result.
Recently the Environment Agency warned that the DfT’s case is not “sufficiently robust” to conclude that pollution levels will not breach the legal EU limits. The agency said that more consideration should have been given to variations in traffic emissions, background air quality and climate change.
The National Trust has now joined those opposed to expansion - and to plans by Nats, the air traffic service, to redraw routes to ease congestion. Under the plans, some of England’s most tranquil areas will be spoilt by aircraft noise.
Serge Lourie, leader of Richmond council, told the Sunday Times that the Heathrow consultation was "an utter disgrace" and that if the DfT was now going to start rewriting the impact assessment, they should have a new consultation.
However, Sipson residents have had enough of "con"sultations and want nothing less than a firm decision against further expansion at Heathrow.
David Cameron attacks plans for a third runway
In a speech on 16th June, Conservative leader, David Cameron, attacked plans for expansion at Heathrow and accused the government of faking the case for a third runway at Heathrow to score political points:
"Why on earth are they so hell-bent on pressing ahead with a third runway at Heathrow without a proper and rigorous analysis of whether we need it? Just like their approach to 42 days detention, this is about political positioning, not getting the substance right. Gordon Brown says a third runway for Heathrow is vital for the future of our economy - that we won't be able to compete without it.
"But if you get behind the headline, his argument falls apart. For example, the case for a third runway is based on Heathrow as an even bigger hub airport with a massive increase in the number of transfer passengers. The economic value of transfer passengers is hotly disputed. And there are so many examples of the hub model going wrong.
"It contributed to the bankruptcy of almost every US airline that has gone out of business over recent years. And it contributed to European failures like Sabena as well. Why? Because passengers are people, not statistics.
"Faced with airport inefficiencies like missed connections, lost baggage and delayed flights, passengers will vote with their feet and go elsewhere. After the recent fiasco at Terminal 5, there must be severe doubt about whether the Government and BAA are even capable of managing the expansion of Heathrow to cope with over 700,000 flights a year by 2030.
"I think the whole country can agree that the most important priority for Heathrow is making it better, not bigger - and yet Gordon Brown is pig-headedly pursuing a third runway just to try and prove a political point. What a ridiculous way to plan for the future.
"The Heathrow argument is not one where you have the economic case on one side and the environmental case on the other. There are now increasing grounds to believe that the economic case for a third runway is flawed, even without addressing the serious environmental concerns. The important decisions for our economic competitiveness - and for ending the national embarrassment of the state of Heathrow are the competition issues around BAA, looking at how our airports are managed, and seeing what can be done to make them better.
"If we get those decisions right, as part of a serious long-term strategy for renewing our transport infrastructure, we can go green while strengthening our economy."
PM faked the case for third runway claims Cameron
Cameron: I won't back Gordon's great Heathrow con
Evening Standard Comment on Cameron's Blue/Green Charter
MPs slam Government over collusion with BAA on Heathrow Consultation
Heathrow MP John McDonnell has called for an independent Public Inquiry into the Consulation on plans to expand the airport after MPs lined up in a House of Commons debate (3rd April) to slam the Government over collusion with BAA when drawing up the consultation.
MPs forced the Aviation Minister, Jim Fitzpatrick, to admit that the Department for Transport had received a stagering 70,000 responses to the consultation. Previously, he had only admitted to 18,000.
Lib Dem Transport Spokesman, Norman Baker, who opened he debate initiated by his Party, likened BAA to "some fiendish drug addict" with the Government "its willing dealer".
He congratulated Justine Greening, Conservative MP for Putney, on her Freedom of Information request, which showed "that the unsatisfactory initial results led to executives from BAA being given unrivalled access to Whitehall and confidential data so that they could select alternative input data for environmental predications until they got the right results."
Justine Greening told the Commons: “The freedom of information results that I have obtained clearly show that BAA was so involved with modelling the air pollution and noise that there was a BAA forecasting team. BAA also sat on the Heathrow project board. I do not remember being invited to sit on that board as a key stakeholder and local MP. BAA was involved with the DfT in developing joint lines to take to deal with media and press inquiries. That is fundamentally wrong.”
The Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, Theresa Villiers, echoed the criticism of the Government: “I do not know whether the Secretary of State thinks that cosy meetings at BAA headquarters to "reforecast” and fix the figures to get the answer that is wanted are a proper way to conduct the planning process.”
John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, whose constituency includes Heathrow, put down an Early Day Motion calling for no decision to be taken on a third runway and 6th terminal until an independent Public Inquiry into the recent consultation process has been set up and has reported.
McDonnell said in the debate: “For many people out there, the message that comes across loudly is that this place is becoming good enough only for climbing on the roof and hanging their banners, and useful for nothing else.”
Former Environment Minister Michael Meacher said: “I think that there must be accountability for such behaviour. I assume that no Minister was directly involved in the massaging of these data, but I believe that leading civil servants, including David Gray who appears in all the documents, should be disciplined and, if necessary, removed, which is what I believe would occur in any other sector of employment.”
Michael Meacher has written to the EU Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas, to ask him to investigate the Government’s handling of the consultation since a crucial part of the consultation concerned whether the EU legal limits on air pollution would be exceeded if expansion took place.
John Stewart of HACAN said, “We totally support the call for an independent Public Inquiry. The grilling Ministers were given in Parliament shows this issue of collusion between the DfT and BAA will just not go away.”
Grave concern over threat to Cherry Lane Cemetery
Over 500 people packed into a public meeting on 1st October to discuss the growing concern over proposals to put a dual carrageway through Cherry Lane Cemetery as part of the third runway development.
While many people had to be turned away due to lack of space, 1,200 added their signatures to the petition against the proposals.
Speakers, including John McDonnell MP, Cllr Keith Burrows and Geraldine Nicholson from NoTRAG, explained what was being done to fight the government plans. The cemetery includes a large children's area, military graves and a memorial to workers killed during a wartime bombing raid.
The meeting was organised by Cherry Lane Against Development (CLAD), a group set up by Natasha La Mothe whose father is buried in the cemetery.
In reponse to Willie Walsh's criticism of the Conservative Party for refusing to back a third runway, Natasha said: "Everyday in the papers we read about the economy but we never read about all of the contributions to the local and national economy that, we, as hard-working people make, and the contributions of those before us made."
"Such statements by Willie Walsh make us faceless, nameless and irrelevant. Such statements put profits over humanity, and reduce our efforts and values to nothing. However, we do have faces, we do have names, we do have values and we are not irrelevant, and most importantly, we make up the economy and play an understated and underrated role in that."
"The economy will not prosper under these proposals, though the profits of a few will, and this will be at the physical, psychological and financial expense of thousands of people."
Together, for all that we and those before us have contributed to our economy, communities and to our values, and especially for those 32 War Heroes buried at Cherry Lane Cemetery who defended our rights to live peacefully in our homes, to learn in our schools, to contribute to the wealth of this country, we owe it to them to do everything that is humanly possible to keep our children in their schools and our community in their homes. Our local businesses will flourish and our loved ones at Cherry Lane and Harmondsworth cemeteries will rest in peace."
UPDATE: Local newspaper, Hillingdon Times, printed the following BAA quote on 9th October: “BAA have no plans to disturb graves or inhibit access. At this stage any drawings that have been produced are purely indicative.”
We all know not to trust BAA assurances; not so long ago they said T5 wouldn't lead to them asking for a third runway. Take a look at the wording: "no plans" (well, nothing officially submitted YET); "at this stage" (we aren't telling you what we really intend to do in the near future); "purely indicative" (if pushed, we'll publish maps that might trick the gullible - we don't intend to be held to them). Be in NO doubt - CHERRY LANE CEMETERY IS UNDER THREAT FROM MAJOR ROAD DEVELOPMENT.
What Willie Walsh said - and some public reaction
"No Third runway" campaigner is Britain's No 1 environmentalist
John Stewart, NoTRAG committee member and long-time campaigner against road building and aircraft noise, has been named Britain's No 1 environmentalist by The Independent on Sunday newspaper.
The newspaper's 12th October edition lists 100 people who are making a difference - John Stewart topped the lot. The Queen, who is apparently hot on climate change, only just made it onto the list in 100th place. Prince Charles, better known for grabbing headlines on environmental issues, was number 5. Even "folk hero" Sir David Attenborough only reached 25th on the list.
John, who works tirelessly for HACAN, has been an invaluable help to NoTRAG. For all the work he is known for on the No Third Runway campaign, there is a hundred times more that goes on behind the scenes; Not just trekking out to the Heathrow villages for meetings and events but also providing constant support, so vital during the toughest times.
For sheer commitment and hard work (and on an income far smaller than most of those mentioned on the list), it is unlikely that any anti-airport expansion campaigners could imagine someone more deserving of this accolade.
As the award does not come with a massive Nobel-Prize-sized cheque, perhaps John Steward's raised profile will help boost funds for his campaigning.
Independent on Sunday interview
Panorama exposes fantasy "supergreen" Jumbo jet in pollution figures
We've heard of ghost planes, that run empty or with virtually no passengers, now Panorama reveals that BAA used a non-existent "supergreen" 747 plane when calculating its air pollution predictions.
BAA's Mike Forster claims that it was reasonable to assume that by 2030, when a third runway would be fully operational, aircraft would be much less polluting.
However, Panorama has contacted leading aircraft manufacturers to discover that a "supergreen" aircraft is not even on the drawing board. Therefore, there is no chance of such a plane being part of airline fleets in the next 20 years. The government assured residents that Heathrow expansion would not go ahead unless pollution targets could be met. This information demonstrates the tactics that are being employed to create figures to enable a third runway to be built.
Transport Minister Jim Fitzpatrick was asked about the collusion with BAA and the use of its discredited figures. Mr Fitzpatrick promised, "We have checked and double checked the figures. These are NOT BAA figures, these are ours."
We'll take that as a guarantee that the government's own pollution projections DO NOT include figures from non-existent "supergreen" aircraft. Otherwise Mr Fitzpatrick must surely expect heads to roll - including his own.
Times Online article on the use of virtual aircraft
Thousands Make a NOise against Heathrow expansion
Large and Loud - Gordon are you listening?
Thousands gave a resounding NO to expansion at Heathrow at the Make a NOise event on Saturday, 31st May. After a week of miserable, wet weather the sun burst out for the carnival march. Someone up there must like the Stop Heathrow Expansion campaign!
To the beat of samba rhymns and jazz bands, the marchers left Hatton Cross and made their way to Sipson Memorial Recreation Ground to form a massive human NO.
Hayes and Harlington MP, John McDonnell led the choreographed crowds - flipping sheets of paper to animate the giant NO for the cameras on the "cherry picker".
It had been a long day for some, with people travelling to Sipson from all over the country. There were also supporters from anti-expansion campaigns in France, Germany and Greece.
When the NO disbanded, there was the chance to stroll through the village to enjoy the marvellous weather at one of the pubs, listen to the bands on the main stage or have fun at the children's funfair.
Thank you to everyone who came to Sipson to support the village and to highlight the need to tackle climate change. Together we will make government ministers say, NO THIRD RUNWAY.
NoTRAG Chair writes article on voting for London Mayor
With the election of London Mayor taking place on 1st May, Geraldine Nicholson, Chair of NoTRAG, has written an article for New Statesman magazine (24th April) to explain what the front-runners are saying about Heathrow expansion.
With all four of the candidates for the main political parties being against the runway, how do you choose who to vote for?
Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly may be refusing to visit the villages under threat, but Ken Livingstone, Boris Johnson and Siân Berry have all made the journey to see the area for themselves. Brian Paddick showed his support by addressing the packed Stop Heathrow Expansion Rally in February; he even stayed to repeat his speech to many of those who could not get into the main hall.
Having read what the four main candidates have to say on Heathrow expansion and personally spoken to them, Geraldine is well placed to summarise their views.
Londoners can expect to get a Mayor who opposes Heathrow expansion. If cynics think candidates might be contemplating a Brown-style U-turn once elected, they can be assured that campaigners and thousands of angry residents will be ready to remind the Mayor of their pre-election pledge.
UPDATE: Have you received your booklet on the candidates from the Greater London Returning Officer? It includes the manifestos of 9 of the 10 candidates (each having to pay £10,000 towards costs, which may explain why Winston McKenzie, the independent candidate, is not included).
Four million people, most of them Londoners, will be affected by increased noise if expansion goes ahead, so which candidates listed Heathrow as a major issue?
Boris didn't; he wants to save green spaces but forgot about those in and around Sipson. Ken didn't; he mentions gas guzzlers on the road but forgot to mention those in the sky. Brian Paddick states his oppositon to Heathrow and includes a picture too! Siân Berry points out that she opposes all airport expansion in London and South East. While Lindsey German of Left List says a firm "No to the third runway at Heathrow".
The BNP, UKIP, The Christian Choice and English Democrats don't put the environment as a priority so, not surprisingly, make no mention of Heathrow.
Of the candidates for the London Assembly, one has stated that he is FOR Heathrow expansion - Damian Hockney, Leader of One London.
Read the full New Statesman article
Brian Paddick, Lib Dem candidate for London Mayor, speak outs against Heathrow expansion
All four of the main candidates for London Mayor are against further expansion at Heathrow.
Ex-police officer Brian Paddick, the Lib Dem candidate, attended the Stop Heathrow Expansion rally in February and says there is no evidence that expansion at Heathrow is needed: "We need more trains.. we don't need more planes and more runways."
Hear what Brian Paddick has to say
Mayoral candidate Boris Johnson visits Harmondsworth
Boris Johnson MP, the Conservative candidate for London Mayor, visited Harmondsworth village on Thursday, 20th March.
His whirlwind visit to the village was part of his campaign tour, which on Thursday afternoon included Staines, Uxbridge and Ruislip.
Boris, who is against further expansion at Heathrow, had asked to meet members of NoTRAG and to see the site of the proposed runway.
Hillingdon Council Leader Ray Puddifoot and Richard Barnes MP, headed the walkabout with NoTRAG's Geraldine Nicholson. Between chatting to residents and local politicians, Boris even squeezed in a quick group photo and a phone interview with a London radio station.
All four main candidates oppose Heathrow expansion so, whoever is elected Mayor in May, NoTRAG is assured of some influential support.
Executive jet crashes onto housing estate near Biggin Hill
A Cessna jet carrying five people crashed into a housing estate near Biggin Hill at approximately 3pm on Sunday, 30th March.
Eye witnesses have described how the aircraft flew extremely low over the estate, with the engine noise indicating that the plane was in difficulty. One eyewitness claimed to be close enough to see the terrified faces of the passengers.
Those on the ground who witnessed the crash have praised the pilot who appeared to be trying to bring the aircraft down on a grassed area or in nearby woods. The housing estate is close to open parkland but, due to the fine weather, this was busy with people. There is also a large hospital close by.
People described how the aircraft appeared to be "banking" to avoid houses but clipped a roof on one home on the edge of the estate and burst into flames. The owners of the home, which has been burnt to a shell, were away on holiday at the time.
Reports indicate that the aircraft was full of fuel, having experienced problems soon after take off from Biggin Hill. The Cessna pilot then attempted to return to the airfield. The passengers in the chartered aircraft were travelling to France.
Again, it seems that the skill of a pilot, has avoided considerable loss of life on the ground when an aircraft has got into difficulties. In a built-up area like that around Heathrow, and with some aircraft being designed to carry over 500 passengers, how long will it be before a major disaster? How many warnings are needed before the government announces no further expansion of Heathrow airport?
Is Britain to become the No 1 Climate Criminal?
In the wake of the exposure of more evidence that the DfT Consultation was fixed, Mark Lynas in the Guardian (12th March) examines "this truly shaming moment for Gordon Brown's government" and suggests that Britain is taking over from the US as the No 1 Climate Criminal.
Lynas comments that while Brown is making speeches about the need for emissions targets, Ruth Kelly and the Department of Transport are doing their best to break them with airport expansion. Campaigners like Greenpeace, Plane Stupid and those fighting to save Sipson (NoTRAG) are put forward as the people who could end up being the country's saviour by forcing the government to keep its promises.
UPDATE: While the British government continues to set a poor example to the world, US film makers tackle the climate change issue head on. Producer Leonardo DiCaprio also narrates, The 11th Hour, the latest feature film to scare the pants off cinemagoers worldwide. Is your flight, meat-loaded diet or 4X4 gas guzzler really necessary? Who can save the planet from a climate catastrophe?
New report gets to the heart of the pro-expansion argument - MONEY !
There was a Valentine's Day launch for a major new report, which gets to the heart of the pro-expansion argument by looking at the economics.
The report, published by independent research and consultancy firm CE Delft, undermines the core of the Government's case for a third runway by questioning the economic "evidence" put forward. It also offers a viable alternative to expanding capacity.
In justifying a third runway, the Department for Transport cite a study by Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF), which was part-funded by BAA. The new report, "The Economics of Heathrow Expansion", criticises the methodology used by OEF.
Speaking at the launch, the former transport minister and candidate for Mayor of London, Steve Norris said: "The Government is pushing ahead with plans for a third runway without really understanding what that means for the economy. It seems that the OEF report is fundamentally flawed and that by relying on it the Government are misleading us over the need for a third runway at Heathrow."
"We are often told that a third runway is essential for the Capital's economy but this report shows those benefits have been overstated by the Government and the aviation lobby. How can we compare the cost of valid alternatives, such as high-speed rail, if we are over-estimating the value of more runways?"
CE Delft's main criticisms are:
OEF incorrectly assess the impact on direct, indirect and induced employment and therefore the additional runway's contribution to GDP.
OEF does not account for economic activity which would happen without aviation.
OEF predictions on business travel, critical to the calculation of economic benefit.
OEF estimates of the economic impact, many of which are seen as "implausible".
OEF estimates are often upper limits, so they indicate maximum economic impact and not the most likely outcome.
HACAN's John Stewart said: "What the CE Delft report clearly shows is that it is essential that the Government should not rely on propaganda promoted by vested interests. We are not asking that they should wholly rely on the CE Delft report. What I do say is that we need a proper independent study into the economic impacts of airport expansion and that greater transparency in the consultation process is necessary for the public to have full confidence in the conclusions reached; something that is sadly lacking at the moment."
Sparks fly during Radio 4's 'ANY QUESTIONS' in Cranford
The Panel's responses to a question on Heathrow expansion, sparked an angry reaction from the audience of Radio 4's current affairs programme 'Any Questions', broadcast live from Cranford Community School on Friday, 8th February.
Several NoTRAG members joined the audience, which was largely made up of local residents. Everyone listened politely to two debates before hearing a question about flightpaths and whether the panelists would move house if they were in the questioner's position with flightpaths to front and rear.
Inayat Bunglawala, Assistant Secretary-General at the Muslim Council of Britain, trotted out the BAA line of Britain needing more capacity and therefore more runways. He looked stunned when he was without a single supporter. After shouts from the audience, he admitted that he had already moved out of London and was living in Luton, although he didn't say if he was close to the airport.
By contrast, Susan Kramer, Lib Dem MP for Richmond Park and an anti-expansion campaigner, recieved loud applause and cheering when she advocated protest.
Jim Knight, Minister of State for Schools and Learners, showed his ignorance by raising the economic issue without having studied the facts. He was also clearly not interested in the 100,000 children around Heathrow whose education is blighted by aircraft noise as he'd like to give them an even bigger hub airport to compete with other polluters.
As the crowd shouted for an answer, Mr Knight struggled - but presenter Jonathan Dimbleby had pointed out that he was brave to come on the programme at all because Ruth Kelly and Jim Fitzpatrick had been invited and refused.
David Willetts became increasingly uncomfortable as the audience showed its contempt for the answers from the men on the panel. The Shadow Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, was appointed by David Cameron to carry out a review into why a Unicef study ranked Britain last in measuring the well-being of children. Yet he wasn't bothered about children around Heathrow either and suggested everyone had to just put up with extra roads and airport runways. He also happened to mention that his London house was under a flightpath - so, of course, he could just move to his other one! Lucky old David! Perhaps he could rehouse one of the families from Sipson.
The Times reports on "The Great Heathrow Con"
Camilla Cavenish demolishes the BAA argument that a third runway is essential and questions why the government has such a cosy relationship with the aviation industry.
Local vicar shocks residents with insensitive leaflet
During public meetings in December, residents asked why Reverend Marion Smith, of St Peter and St Paul's Church, was not involved in the No Third Runway campaign. Now the vicar has printed a statement on her Christmas information sheet, which has led to criticism for its insensitivity in ignoring the plight of thousands of residents.
It refers to the proposed runway being "slightly longer than first suggested" and says that no properties in Harlington will be lost.
It also indicates that the only impact on Harlington will be noise.
There is neither mention of the massive devastation to nearby villages (including the total destruction of neighbouring Sipson) nor any complaint about the third runway itself, or the huge increase in flights proposed before any runway is built.
Rev Smith just hopes people will sign a petition against the 500 metre EXTENSION, "as it is not what was previously suggested by BAA".
She intends to write to the Prime Minister, but only to ask for a map of the proposed runway "to be supplied to everyone" as it was omitted from the DfT Summary document.
Residents who have followed the NoTRAG campaign are shocked that the local vicar has disregarded the plight of over 2,000 people in Sipson. Even the children at William Byrd School, where Rev Smith is a governor, are forgotten. Recent public meetings have shown that the impact of air pollution and new road systems will render many homes in Harlington unusable.
UPDATE: In "The Heathrow Villager" (12 Jan 2008) Rev Smith responded to a letter by one of her critics. Having taken no part in the anti-runway campaign, the Reverend has apparently sent a letter to the Prime Minister and started a petition, although neither are aimed at saving the church as she states that it is not under threat.
She also assures the writer that she is "fully aware of the situation". So much so that she makes another assurance: "even the latest plans would not mean any houses in Harlington would be lost".
As no one in the government or BAA will give this assurance, and maps have indicated that major new roads will be needed in the area, it is baffling that Rev Smith is so confident. Residents look forward to her explanation. Rev Smith has refused to meet with NoTRAG members who would be happy to provide her with information.
Details of proposals still available
