Reasons for No 3rd Runway (Heathrow)
Will it Bankcrupt Heathrow?
Can Heathrow afford the 3rd Runway? The CAA are seriously worried about this. If cost escalate - its the tax payer who will pick up the bill. ie. you and I will pay instead of our tax going to schools, the NHS, etc.|
Net debt £13.8billion
Annual Revenues £2.9billion
Capex & Interest £800million
Operating costs £1.1 billion
Profit 2017 £700million
If heathrow raises its leverage, it will jepardise the investment grade credit rating
Needs £7billion for 1st stage to put 12 lanes of M25 into tunnels
Grayling to put 25,000 extra flights on the two (full?) runways in 2022 totalling 505,000 flights a year.
Heathrow is not operating at 99% capacity!
- Heathrow is NOT full. Heathrow has 2 runways - one for landing, one for take-offs. (it used to have 6 runways, till hey were turned nto money making carparks!) People have been brainwashed by Heathrows marketing machine into believing Heathrow is full - just because heathrow quotes Friday evening rush hour where a few flights leave 40 seconds apart! You will get this rush-hour even with a 3rd runway. Check the boards for yourself. Here is a peak 6am to 7am example - just 22 flights leaving heathrow, that is NOT one flight every 40seconds!
- And quoting Heathrow - each flight on the average is just 66% full. So every 3 flights to New York, one flight is empty!
- Business flights are dropping rapidly, business-people use alternatives like Skype & conference calling.
- Heathrow does not need a new runway. Not now. Not in the future.
2. 36,000 people will lose their jobs if the 3rd Runway goes ahead.
Over 180 businesses are within the 3rd runway footprint, including:-
Approxiamtely 3000 people are currently employed in businesses in Longford, Harmondsworth and Colnbrook (which may be bulldozed), and we all know, when businesses re-locate, they very seldom take their minimun-wage workers with them, resulting in mass layoff's.
Using Heathrows method of calculating statistics, 3000 actual current jobs equates to 6000 support/feeder jobs in Greater London, and 12,000 actual current UK jobs that support those companies - that will be lost should the 3rd Runway go ahead. And if we read heathrows very small invisible print, they add "by 2060" - so using heathrows method of calculating new jobs, we will loose 36,000 jobs if the 3rd Runways is built.
- Europes largest detention center in Harmondsworth
- Colnbrooks gigantic recycling plant
- British Airways headquarters at Waterside
- 3 massive airport hotels - Thistel Inn, Sheraton & Premier Inn
- as well a DHL Aircraft food preperation center in Colnbrook
- Harmondsworth Junior School, etc.
CE Delft's report says that, if Heathrow did not grow, people would find jobs elsewhere. In other words, it would not result in any significant unemployment.
3. Aircraft noise produces dumb kids.
- If you can hear a plane flying overhead and have a kid - the noise will affect that child's concentration. Drill down and read the 2006 UK Reach (Road traffic and Aircraft Noise and children's Cognition & Health) report.
- Heathrow Blight will affect the re-sale value of properties surrounding the 3rd Runway in Colnbrook, Brands Hill, Langley, Iver, West Drayton, Sipson & Harlington - because no kids are allowed to live within the 70 decibel limit of the runway - and these villages will deteriorate to minimum-wage-workers/asylum-seekers rooms - just like the current blighted Longford Village on Heathrows northern boundary.
- A quarter of a million people would be under a flight path for the first time. A new runway inevitably means new flight paths. Many people could get planes flying overhead for the first time for possibly as many as 13 hours in one day. And there is no such thing as a quiet jet engine!
- Current noise problems around heathrows boundary should have been solved decades ago, and is not dependent on any 3rd runway! Heathrow invest and solve the problems now.
4. 9 people will die in London today from Air Pollution
Heathrow is getting away with exceeding European maximum air pollution levels by over 3 times the deadly legal limit!
9 people will die in London today from Nitrogen Dioxide air poisoning. Just because they breathe deadly polluted air; that's 3000 people who die every year in London from heart and lung conditions. Heathrow airport alone is Britains filthiest, dirtiest air polluter:-
This Nitrogen Dioxide data is collected minute-by-minute by heathrow right on its Northern boundary in Longford Village. 8 humans die every month from deadly air pollution on Heathrows Northern boarder in the villages of Hayes & Harlington - yet heathrow and their directors say they are not to blame.
- its 470,000 planes with jet engines pollute the air.
- Heathrows 3 power stations pollute the air
- Cars, taxi's & busses transporting 70 million passengers and their friends and relations pollute the air
5. A third runway will not generate £210 billion for the UK economy by 2060
Howard Davies used highly suspect, incomplete, slanted forcast models to arrive at this figure.
see:- CE Delft's report says the Oxford Economic Forecasting(OEF) reports of 1999 and 2006 that Heathrow used, significantly over-estimates the economic benefits that expansion at Heathrow will bring (over 70 years). The London economy will not suffer if Heathrow does not expand. CE Delft's report casts doubt upon the Government's estimate.
More business people and tourists fly into London each year than fly to any other city in the world. Most have no preference which airport they use. This trend will continue whether or not a third runway is built at Heathrow. The Airports Commission, while favouring Heathrow, still called Gatwick a credible option.
6. The 3rd Runway is politically undeliverable. Our leaders oppose it.
There is now an organised cross-party Coalition Against Heathrow Expansion:|
- Labours Mayor Sadiq Khan (MP for Tooting) opposes it on the grounds of:- aweful air quality, noise and inadequate infrastructure.
- London MPs, council leaders and transport chiefs launched attacks on Heathrow's third runway plans today saying it is undeliverable and would waste years in courtroom battles.
7. 15% of Brits make 70% of the flights
Over half the UK population dont ever fly.
70% flights are made by 15% of the population - the wealthiest (ABC 1's social class) - usually to their 2nd/3rd homes in tax free havens. To them, flights are completely tax free. The rich pay less than 20p/liter of jet fuel. You and I who travel by car on hoilday, pay £1 /liter fuel. The 3rd runway is just for that rich 15% of the population who live mainly in London's green suburbs and Kensington/Chelsea/Surrey.
8. Local businesses are against the 3rd Runway
- Check out these Links to articles against Heathrow
- Neil Kevern's local business - Kevern Builders and Decorators - Harmondsworth
- Nickies Hairdressing - Simson
- 5 Bells Pub and Resturant - Harmondsworth
- Willie Walsh, chief executive of International Airlines Group (IAG) which owns Iberia, Air Lingus & British Airways opposes the 3rd Runway. He says "A third Heathrow runway is 'an outrageous vanity project' by Heathrows management.
- Taking a return trip from Edinburgh to Ibiza, each passenger will pay an extra £150 to pay for the 3rd Runway's Carbon tax
- economic case for expansion is also unravelling.
TfL believes Heathrow have underestimated the cost of dealing with these extra journeys to the airport by a staggering £15bn. The Government has told heathrow to pay for this cost. Heathrow currently refuses.
The £147 billion that the Davies Commission said the 3rd Runway would bring to the national economy over 60years is likely to be way too high (HACAN report), & if Carbon Trading is in place it would fall to £67 billion However, if building, noise and emission disbenefits are included it would fall to benefit the nation by just £11 billion by 2060! (AirportWatch report). And if you read the AEF study, the Davies Commission and Heathrow used the wrong, half-complete, unproven model, and instead of generating money, Heathrow will cost the nation a whopping £9 billion!
9. There is no "Safety Zone" round the proposed 3rd Runway!
British Airways 2008 crash at Heathrow
You cannot scoop out 3 ancient villages from the middle of a densely populated city like London, and build a new airport (Terminal 6 and Terminal 6b) and runway (3rd Runway) - with the runway pointing at London's city center and houses lining the end of the runway! There is no "Safety Zone" round this mad proposal.
- A 3rd runway would increase the chance of a plane crashing on landing or departure by 60%.
This shock finding was hidden in the final report of the Airports Commission - It found the chance of a crash at a 3-runway Heathrow would be around one every 16 years, compared to roughly one in every 26 years without expansion.
- There are hundreds of houses and a large junior school within meters of the end of the proposed runway! There is no place for an emergency landing if there is a bird strike, engine failure, bad weather or pilot error.
- In the past five years, there have been 260 emergency or urgent landings at Heathrow, roughly one per week, as a result of problems such as engine failure, fuel shortages.
- Every jet arriving and departing from the proposed runway will have to clear the chimney pots of the houses at the end of the runway in Sipson village.
- As a plane picks up speed, it gets to a point where it is going too fast to safely stop before reaching the end of the runway - so it has to commit to taking off. If anything were to happen to the plane (bad weather, bird-strike, engine failure or pilot error) between then, and reaching a height to enable the plane to circle and glide back to the runway... well, the plane would have to undergo an emergency landing. There is no "Hudson River" at Heathrow. You are putting a 3rd runway in the densely populated city of London. The 3rd runway points to the city center.
Its a disaster waiting to happen. There are good reasons why airports are build out in the countryside, where there are farms, lakes, swamps - away from the population.
- Planes slide off runways and over-shoot - just google the amount of large planes that have crashed on runways this year - its frightening. See Halifax airport (29th March 2015), Hiroshima airport (14th April 2015), Taipei crash (on 4th February 2015 killed 35).
- Seven years ago in Jan 2008 flight BA38 from China missed the end of Heathrows South runway and crash landed at Heathrow. Everyone survived, but if that same accident were to happen at the end of the proposed 3rd Runway, that plane would have landed in Heathrow Primary School!
- Accidents happen - last week on Saturday 22nd August 2015 a Hawker Hunter Jet crashed killing 11 people down the road at Shoreham airfield. And a few weeks before that, on the 31st July 2015, 4 people were killed at Blackbushe airport in Hampshire - just a few miles down the road from Heathrow - where a private plane overshot the runway and crashed into a auction car park.
- Brand new planes will always fly into Heathrow; by 2030 there will be "Drones" - pilotless planes flying passengers into Heathrow - all disasters waiting to happen.
10. Heathrow 3rd Runway would require atleast 783 homes to be demolished.
The Highland Clearances are still regarded as one
of the most shameful episodes in Scottish history.
"an enforced simultaneous eviction of all families
living in a given area".
It would destroy 3 ancient Villages, their communities, a large school, at least 783 homes and atleast 180 businesses including three gigantic hotels, British Airways Waterside Headquarters, Europe's largest detention center in Harmondsworth, a massive new recycling/waste incinerator and over 250 buisnesses. Longford Village will be totally wiped off the face of the earth, along with northern Colnbrook and little would be left of Harmondsworth. Sipson homes would be within centimetres of the airport perimeter. One street of more than 60 houses is surrounded on three sides by the airport perimeter fence! Heathrow has recognized that up to 4,000 in total might need to be bought up because the current plans leave too many people uncomfortably close to the new runway.
There are no plans to rehouse any of the people displaced by airport expansion - let alone guarantee jobs for the approxiamte 3000 people currently employed in businesses in Longford, Harmondsworth and Colnbrook. Heathrow are going to make a massive fortune out of our misery. Demolishing our houses will unearth a pure Gold mine in Landing-Fees for Heathrow's Directors and their foreign owners. Heathrow will still pay minimum wages to their employees and contractors.
a. Air Quality
Heathrow is the only major UK airport where air pollution levels remain stubbornly above EU legal limits. The Airports Commission says that, even with cleaner planes, Heathrow would find it "challenging" to meet the EU limits if a third runway is built. The Commission's own analysis found that, by 2030, with a third runway, Heathrow's Bath Road would have the worst NO2 concentrations of any location in Greater London. A lot of the air pollution in the Heathrow area comes not from the planes but from the car traffic. Even Heathrow has admitted that drastic measures - such as a congestion charging scheme or a banning of diesel vehicles on the surrounding motorways - might be required if the legal limits are to be met. Yet the Airports Commission have not modelled such measures - and so have no way of showing if they'll be effective. Despite cleaner planes and cars coming on-stream, legally, Heathrow may not be able to expand due to the increase in air pollution that more cars and an extra 250,000 flights would bring to London by 2026.
- On average, a plane lands at Heathrow every 90 seconds
- There is a 2% increase in passengers compared to 2014 - 2% more car journeys, 2% more pollution?
- A 3rd runway would bring in around 260,000 extra flights a year
- Air Pollution levels in parts of West London already exceeds the European legal limits
- A 3rd runway would make Heathrow the biggest single emitter of CO2 - the climate change gas - in the UK
- Desiel emits 10 times more deadly nitrogen Dioxide than gasoline. see www.transportenvironment.org
2. It would create an appalling noise climate for many people.
Heathrow Airport, by a colossal margin, is the largest noise polluter in Europe. It currently affects over 720,000 people from noise at levels that cause significant annoyance.
Up to 1,000,000 people could be affected if Heathrow is expanded.
A new runway means a new flight path. It would be just north of the existing flight path. Sipson, Harlington, Heston, Brentford, Bedford Park and Hammersmith would be in the front-line. As would Langley and Eton. Already 750,000 are impacted by aircraft noise from Heathrow. Astonishingly, that is 28% of all people affected right across Europe. Just think what could happen when the number of planes increases by 250,000 a year.
Heathrow would subject up to one million Londoners to noise levels well beyond WHO guidelines;
World Health Organisation (WHO) research
has demonstrated the harmful effects of excessive noise, particularly on the vulnerable - children, the elderly, those with underlying cardiovascular and mental health conditions. The WHO's key guidance documents links noise pollution above 55 decibels Lden with, among other effects, aggressive behaviours; stress hormones, high blood pressure levels, reducing helping behaviours and hindering child development. Aircraft noise effects on cardiovascular health, sleep disturbance, annoyance, psychological well-being, and effects on children's cognition and learning,
- A plane lands at Heathrow every 90 seconds
- 725,000 people are exposed at 55 decibels Lden, that is, 28% of all people impacted by aircraft noise across Europe. Gatwick airport have offered to compensate every house that has a jet flying overhead, with £3 a day (pays their council tax). Heathrow should do the right thing NOW, and compensate every person now, who is disturbed by a jet engine noise!
- A 3rd runway would bring in around 260,000 extra flights a year
11. It will damage the climate irrepairably.
the last barrel of fossil fuel on Earth will be burned in an aircraft because it is more difficult to convert aircraft to biofuels,
In 2050, Britain is allowed to make 160 million tons of CO2. Planes taking off from Heathrow will account for 55% of that. The Government will close/ration other UK airports, to give their carbon emmissions to heathrow.
The Kyoto Agreement does not include aviation CO2 emmissions. The Climate Change Act , and therefore the Government's Committee on Climate Change, ensured there is no explicit target for a reduction in aviation emmissions. There is a target for the country's reduction in overall emissions by 2050.
If a 3rd runway was built, Heathrow Airport would become one of the biggest sources of CO2 - the climate change gas - in the country. Each jumbo jet can take off with 140 tons of fuel (one house full), and every evening, one jumbo takes off every 40 seconds - and burns 10tons of fuel every hour.
If aviation growth continues unchecked, by 2037 the industry will be resopnsible for all of the carbon that the UK can safely emit. Failure to prevent climate change will see atleast one billion people suffer water shortages, 40% of species made extinct and sea level rises threatening London by the end of the century. Aviation burns 205 million tons of Kerosene a year!
Siberia is 9.5 million square kms - the size of the USA - temperatures have risen 3'c in last 10 years - melting the permafrost - releasing deadly greenhouse methane gas - and methane is 23 times more reactive than CO2, its an explosive/flamable, deadly accelerant - a timebomb thats going to accelerate global warming, destroying the delecate balance between life and atmosphere - we are changing it. We are warming the atmosphere. Global warming is pushing the world onto an irreversable path of extreme warming up to 200'c.
12, A 3rd runway - not just a local problem
A 3rd runway would decimate the villages but, on a wider level, it would do nothing for the planet. Aviation is the fastest growing contributor to CO2 which causes climate change. To have any chance of stopping serious climate change we must cut our CO2 big time.
Heathrow say they will close down their power stations... and draw their power from further afield!
Carbon Dioxide in the air - burning all that cheap oil in the 1900's, we boosted carbon dioxide to 315 parts per million; today in 2015, carbon dioxide averages out at 385 parts per million; when we get to 400 parts per million we will irreversibly raise the global temperature above 2'c. Today in 2015 at the houses of Parliament in London its 419 parts per million! We have subterranean oil - but burning it all will be lethal. In 2035 electricity demand will double. eg every house in Dubai needs air-conditioning...
In 2009 the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) advised the Government that the total annual emissions from aviation in the UK (domestic and international) should be no higher in 2050 that they were in 2005. The level was 37.5 MtCO2 (million tonnes CO2)
If a plane flew from London to Sydney - and used 25tons of fuel - would Britain claim all CO2 emitted? And for the return flight? Or should Britain just claim the CO2 produced from fuel loaded at Heathrow?
Aviation, because it is so dependent on fossil fuels, gets off more lightly than any other industry. A third runway would mean that aviation would struggle to meet even its more lenient target.
The governments Committee on Climate Change (CCC) chief executive David Kennedy has already warned that the cost of long haul flights would need to rise by up to £200 to curtail demand and stay within the UK's carbon emissions targets.
Aircraft emit gasses high into the atmosphere, there are other non-CO2 impacts, such as cirrus formation. Science is still uncertain, but these effects could as much as double the overall climate impact of the CO2 alone.
13. Transport Congestion
Richard De Cani, TfL's director of strategy and policy, told the London Assembly's transport committee that a Third runway at Heathrow 'could lead to unprecedented congestion on scale not seen before' on London's road, rail and tube networks.
Transport for London estimates improvements needed to cope with extra demand would cost up to to £20bn
Crucially, the officials also estimated it would cost £15bn to £20bn in investment to build the new rail links required.
TfL says the Aviation Commission did not:-
- take into account freight and those trucks would have a huge impact on surrounding roads.
- use the maximum capacity of the runway in its modelling
which will cause gridlock on our roads as we cope with an additional 25 million road journeys.
The M25 between junctions 14 and 15 (Heathrow to the M4) is the busiest section of motorway in UK and part of the M25 would need to be put in a tunnel if a new runway is built.
Transport for London have concluded that Heathrow have underestimated the cost of dealing with excess passengers using transport links to an expanded Heathrow by a staggering £15 billion. Heathrow Airport will pay for any new runway, and has recently been told by the government, that as it will be profiting from increased passengers, that Heathrow must pay for all the surface access improvements and maintenance/upkeep there after.
More planes = more passengers = more car traffic. Although public transport will improve when the likes of Crossrail opens, the motorways and local roads around Heathrow will continue to have big traffic problems. Heathrow are so worried about the situation that they are saying a congestion charging scheme may need to be brought in.
And we must remember car traffic will increase anyway across West London even without a new runway because of all the new developments that are likely to come on-stream such as the RAF Uxbridge site with 1300 new dwellings, the Southall gasworks site with 3700 new homes and, above all, the planned Park Royal City development with its 12,000 new homes.
- Heathrow say they they will slap on a massive congestion-charge to any car/truck driving near Heathrow, while turning the area (M25/M4/A4) into an Ultra-Low emission Zone - only hybrid or zero emission (battery driven) cars/trucks/busses allowed near Heathrow and the workers/passenger carparks (what minimum wage worker will be able to afford the £50,000 battery driven car?).
14. The Regions
- The Airport Commission Report says a 3rd Runway will reduce domestic flights from Heathrow:-
1990 - Heathrow served 19 UK destinations
2015 - Heathrow served 7 UK destinations
2030 - Heathrow will serve 4 UK destinations... do you know why? Because in 2050 the UK allocation of Greenhouse gasses will be 37.5 million tons of CO2 - most of which will be allocated to Heathrow to encourage a reduction in domestic flights. (see Davies Report)
- The number of domestic airports linked to Heathrow would fall from 7 to just 4.
- Looking at the Airports Commission's passenger forecasts, it appears that there would be no overall increase in the number of UK passengers, flights or destinations if Heathrow expands. Instead, the expansion would take business from other UK airports and in particular the regional airports. In short, the effect of Heathrow expansion would be to centralize existing activity, and give Heathrow near-monopoly advantage.
- This raises serious doubts about there being any benefit to the UK economy brought about by Heathrow's expansion - not only because of the lack of any growth but also because of the significant negative impact on the regions.
- 50 SNP MP's - will they vote with the Conservatives to demolish 3 ancient villages in London to build a 3rd Runway? Imagine the uproar in the Scottish Parliament if English MP's were to support expanding Edinburgh Airport and demolish Fyfe and 4000 homes because of noise pollution?
15. Case against the Hub airport:
Heathrow can never be that hub
In order to remain a 'world city' and one of the centres of the global transport system, London needs a hub airport with multiple runways and capable of operating day and night. You cant expand Heathrow in a piecemeal fashion, such as the 'sticking plaster' Davies Commission proposal, or to relax the night time exclusion of flights or to allow any degradation of the environment which would come from such expansion.
Let's not forget that when Terminal 4 was built, Heathrow assured the public that there would be no more expansion then along came Terminal 5 and once again we were told there would be no more expansion. In the same if a third runway is built, how long before there is demand for the fourth, fifth or sixth runways, despite the Davis Report ruling out a fourth runway. Also, how will a new runway overcome concerns over air and noise pollution that have been cited?
- Growing numbers of experts believe a mega-hub at Heathrow is unnecessary and would inhibit competition and restrict choice.
- In 2008 David Cameron said; 'The economic value of transfer passengers is hotly disputed - after all, they often spend only the price of a cup of coffee in the UK'.
- In 2009, David Cameron said: 'There are now increasing grounds to believe that the economic case is flawed.'
- David Cameron later promised that if he were to become prime minister there would be no new runway at Heathrow, 'no ifs, no buts'.
- Former Chief Executive of British Airways Bob Ayling told the Sunday Times in 2008 that a third runway would be 'a costly mistake.. against Britain's economic interests'
- Paul Kehoe, chief executive of Birmingham Airport said: 'Other countries, such as Germany, have a 'multi-hub' airport model - they link their major airports with high-speed rail, and spread the economic activity. They do not stick to the old-fashioned model of just one major airport.'
- The geography and the rise of Middle East hubs (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha, and including Istanbul);
- The current and likely future capability, particularly in terms of range and cost, of new generation aircraft (B787, A350 et al) which can fly further and more efficiently;
- The strategies of the home-based airlines such as British Airways;
- The strategies of competitor airlines (and airline and airport combinations) and;
- Changing traveller behaviour and the increasing demand for point-to-point services.
16. Heathrow is poorly used:
Extraordinarily, a 3rd runway would add just 12 international routes by 2050.
- The Commission concedes that a 3rd Runway will provide no more than 12 additional long-haul destinations by 2050.
- Heathrow has the terminal capacity to accommodate at least another 20 million passengers a year.
- Of the top 10 destinations, by number of flights, only one, New York, is long haul. The rest are European or British destinations.
- On average there are 38 daily flights to Amsterdam, 36 to Frankfurt, 35 to Paris, 35 to Edinburgh, 29 to Manchester.
- Business trips are less than 20 per cent of the London passenger total. Airport expansion is for the 15% of wealthy frequent flyers who take 70% of our flights.
- Heathrow has 990 departure flights each week to the world's key business centres. That is more than its two closest rivals, Charles de Gaulle (484) and Frankfurt (450), combined.
- • More passengers fly in and out of London than any other city in the world. Paris, our nearest European competitor, is in 5th place.
- London has 7 runways - more than all other European cities except Paris which has 8.
It is unable to provide the fourth, fifth and sixth runways that an optimistic Britain needs for the future.
At this rate - the world is going to run out if oil before todays generation reach old age.
17. It would exacerbate the risk of flooding.
A third runway would be built over 5 rivers and would also involve concreting over Harmondsworth Moor which acts as a kind of giant sponge for rainwater.
There is a clear alternative to Heathrow expansion - maximising competition between the three main London airports - Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick, not least by investing in surface transport links to and between them.
Paris has 70? flights a day - yet is connected by an under utilised fast rail service.
Won't Heathrow close down if it doesn't get a new runway?
The answer is as firm NO. Heathrow itself is quite clear on this. Heathrow will remain as a successful and busy two-runway airport. The only threat to Heathrow would come from a big new Estuary Airport, which the Davies Commission has already ruled out. There is no other threat to it.
The only group suggesting that Heathrow will close is Back Heathrow, which has been set up and funded by the airport. Press reports state that it has already received a six-figure sum for set up and running costs, including widespread mail shots, questionnaires and opinion polls. It looks as if Heathrow has set up the group to distance itself from various discredited tactics used in previous campaigns - such as making promises that can't be kept. Back Heathrow's assertion that the airport risks closure without expansion has led to many airport workers feeling they must support an increase in noise and pollution in order to keep their jobs.
Heathrow Airport, always a poor use of land (Heathrow: 63 jobs per hectare, Docklands: 2,250 jobs per hectare)
Heathrow can expand - within its own footprint. It has the plans to build Terminal 6 at Hatton Cross - infact its aready demolished that old hangars in preperation to build terminal 6 there. Heathrow is just chancing its arm in asking for all the free land and 3rd runway - cause it isnt going to happen!
Airports Commission's flawed terms of reference meant its recommendation of a destructive new runway was inevitable, say rural campaigners
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) condemned today's decision of the Airports Commission to recommend a third runway at Heathrow .
If it is ever built, the proposed Heathrow north western runway would:
- Destroy 694 hectares of Green Belt and 60 hectares of woodland;
- Wreck tranquillity in parks and gardens with impacts likely to spread into the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;
- Destroy up to 4000 homes and require up to 70,800 new homes to be built by 2030, with many more being required afterwards - all in an area of acute housing pressure;
- Produce 54.6% of the UK's aviation carbon emissions in 2050.
Ralph Smyth, transport campaign manager at the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), comments:
"The recommendation today for a third runway at Heathrow casts a dark shadow over a wide swathe of the south east. Besides the destruction of much of the ancient village of Harmondsworth to make way for the new runway, a much wider area is at threat. On top of the almost relentless din of jet engines, runaway development and traffic would shatter the remaining fragments of tranquil countryside in the south east, already one of the most densely overflown areas in the world.
Dave Cameron - - did the right thing.
The prime minister has made a decision to suspend flights to and from Sharm el-Shake as he has taken seriously the potential threat to the lives of British citizens. He has listened to the intelligence and made the best judgment he can given the evidence before him. I trust he will listen to the intelligence here and make equal sound judgment to protect the health of residents at home. Pollution and noise are a proven threat to life around Heathrow and he must not increase the risk by breaking his "No ifs, no buts, no third runway" promise.
Low cost airlines like Easy Jet will have to add atleast £150 to the price of each of their tickets from heathrow to pay for the doubling in landing fees & carbon trading fees.
Heathrow expansion could lead to 17million extra vehicle journeys in the heathrow area.
18. Howard Davies financial links to Heathrow
Is this the same Howard Davies who had to resign on the 3 March 2011 as the Director of the London School of Economics (LSE) citing "two errors of judgement"??
Davies accepted £1.5 million from Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi to give his son Saif al-Islam Gaddafi a PhD degree for a dissertation amongst a cloud of allegations that the thesis was ghost-written and/or plagiarised? Its said Davies also organised a future income of £2.2 million from Gadaffi for the LSE to "train" other Libyan officials?
In December 2010, did Davies appear in a video linkup organised by himself and the corrupt Harvard-based Mormon society and addressed Muammar Gaddafi as "Brother Leader" who received an LSE cap previously given to Nelson Mandela??
And then he was trusted with the Airport Commission report???
And now we hear...
- Is this the same Howard Davies who since 2003, held membership in the advisory board of the China Banking Regulatory Commission, and, since 2012, chaired the Advisory Board of the China Securities Regulatory Commission. As you can see... who owns 10% of Heathrow Airport?? China Investment Corporation! Who recommended the new airport goes to Heathrow? Howard Davies...
You join the dots. As if thats not enough...
- Is this the same Howard Davies who in 2009 Davies was appointed as advisor to the Investment Strategy Committee of the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore? Two years later he joined its International Advisory Board. - And as you can draw the lines... Government of Singapore Investment Corporation owns 10% of Heathrow Airport??!
- In 2010 he became a non-executive Director of Prudential plc, and Chair of the Risk Committee. Prudential Assurance just happened to go on a spending spree and spent £300million through its subsidary M&G Asset management, so Prudential is now incharge of Heathrows property management and will directly benifit from the development of the land North of Heathrow into hotel complexes / housing should his recommendation of the 3rd Runway go ahead.
- 2013? Howard Davies resigned from GIC Private limited Board (one of the companies that own Heathrow!) on being appointed to the suposedly independent Airports Commission!
- Sir Howard Davies took up his position as Chairman of Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) on 1st Sept 2015, getting paid in shares and £370,000. His interests in RBS had not appeared as a Declared Interest on the Airports Commission website, and he failed to declare his links to GIC and Prudential. Heathrows auditors are RBS...?
On the 1st March 2016, Sir Howard Davies's Royal Bank of Scotland announced a - £2 billion loss... so looking at every figure in Sir Howard Davies highly suspect Airport Commission report - we can see why they are so suspect - he said the 3rd runway will bring £214 billion into Britain - it turns out the 3rd runway will do the opposite and bleed Billions out of Britain - his underestimate of up to £15 billion putting the M25 highway in to tunnels; his creating 180,000 new jobs - what a joke - in 2008 the three giant new Terminals 5, 5b and 5c only created 3,000 mostly minumum wage jobs! So the two new smaller automated Terminal 6's wont even create half that number of new jobs!
- In 1997 Davies was appointed Chairman of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and while on his watch the gigantic pension company Equitable Life imploded with the birth of 'light touch' regulation taking place?? We dont yet know the FSA's contribution to the HBOS debacle! Decisions made in the early days of the FSA, when banking supervision was wrenched away from the Bank of England, made hugely fertile ground for the banking crisis that would cost the country so dearly.
- From 1985-86 he was Special Advisor to Chancellor of the Exchequer conservative Nigel Lawson. Who is for Heathrows 3rd runway now? conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer Osborne!
PM David Cameron has set banned Anti-Heathrow Cabnet Ministers like Zac Goldsmith, Boris, etc from sitting on his Airport Expansion Advisory Committee... but he has put the exact opposite PRO-HEATHROW people incharge!!!
Heathrow's former Director of Media and Public Relations, Simon Baugh, is now Group Director of Communications at the Department for Transport and is preparing for the imminent government announcement that could mean a new runway for his former employer. Simon Baugh- From promoting a third runway for Heathrow to advising Ministers in advance of the airport expansion announcement...
20. High Cost of Expanding Heathrow
- x Amount for the building
- £4-£15 billion to bring in M25 / M4 /Bath roads
- x Amount for new tunnel Cross rail / HS2 links
If you borrow £30 Billion, interest rate at y% is x, income from British Airways passengers...
21. It would face massive opposition
There would be opposition not just from local residents but also from environmentalists, many local authorities, politicians from all parties as well as some businesses and trade unions. When the last Government tried to build a third runway, it was defeated by this coalition. Huge rallies attended by thousands of local people, cross-party political activity, eye-catching direct action, all backed up by sound arguments saw of the plans for a third runway
22. Won't increase destinations
The Airports Commission report says Heathrow's connectivity to regional airports will decline from 7 to 4. The 3rd Runway will increase the international cities connected to Heathrow by just 12.
23. New Runway Failures
Berlin Brandenberg Airport. Should have opened in 2005, now its a £3billion bill with 30,000 unresolved problems including the fire saftey system.
Japanese - farmers wouldnt sell/move out
Toronto Central - space is for farming and feeding Toronto's
Vienna 3rd Runway dismissed on Environmental grounds.
Munich Airports 3rd Runway - Munich Airport Looks for Third Runway to Open in 2022, legally challenged in court by several local environmental and resident groups http://www.airlinesanddestinations.com/destinations/munich-airport-looks-for-third-runway-to-open-in-2022/
The 3rd runway would be:-
1. Politically undeliverable
2. Heathrow is NOT full to capacity!
3. Businesses are against the 3rd Runway
4. There is no "Safety Zone" round the proposed 3rd Runway!
5. It would require communities and 783 homes to be demolished
6. Detrimental to Health a. Air Quality b. Noise
7. It would damage the climate irreparably
8. Horrific Transport Congestion
9. Heathrow links to the regions would fall from 7 to just 4 uk airports
10. Case against the Hub airport: its an ancient, obsolete idea
11. Heathrow is poorly used: the 3rd runway will just be a tax subsidised foreign owned monopoly.
There are alternatives: Increase competition and links between londons 3 airports. Create green jobs.
You can read the top 10 reasons to oppose a 3rd runway on the website of HACAN, our sister organisation:-
Heathrow's Lies - a reality check. (.pdf file)
HACAN - Alternatives (.pdf file)
Greenpeace - Case against heathrow expansion (.pdf file)
1. Law Number 1: The Government is there to protect me!
Go to any court. The Government is there to protect its citizens.