Heathrow third runway 'will be a costly error'

From the Daily Telegraph website, 5th May 2008

The former head of British Airways has called for an end to Heathrow expansion plans, claiming that the Government's proposal for a third runway will prove a "costly mistake".

Rob Ayling, the former BA chief executive from 1996 to 2000, claimed building another runway was based on a flawed model that had already contributed to the collapse of airlines in the US.
He said Heathrow was a "national disgrace" and was like a Third World airport.

Mr Ayling also said that the third runway was being driven by the airport operator BAA with Government support, and would be counterproductive and "a classic exercise in misguided central planning".

The plans are for a "hub and spoke" centre for transfer passengers.

The model, Mr Ayling said, was pioneered in the US in the 1970s by Federal Express, which used it for transporting packages before it was adapted by airlines.

"People are not parcels," he wrote in an article published at the weekend. "Missed connections, lost baggage and delayed flights created inefficiencies that contributed to the bankruptcy of almost every US airline."

Mr Ayling also warned that "transfer traffic in its own right is loss-making".

Return to the This Is Longford website

Snowy Longford

This morning Longford woke up to lying snow for the first time in years. Here are some photos of the village.

I also shot some video:

Return to the This Is Longford website

What did go wrong at Terminal 5?

From the BBC News website dated 28th March 2008

Seventy flights have been cancelled in the last two days as teething problems at Heathrow Airport's new Terminal 5 caused chaos. But what actually went wrong?

The problems appear to be due to a combination of factors.

Some were technical, involving glitches with the sophisticated new baggage set-up, which is designed to handle 12,000 bags an hour.

But other issues were more mundane. Employees arriving for work, for example, could not find their way to the staff car park.

BA has said "initial teething problems" with car parking, delays in getting staff through security screening and staff familiarisation had resulted in a backlog of baggage which meant severe delays and flight cancellations throughout Thursday.

The first warning signs came as early as 0400 GMT on Thursday when passengers began to arrive, only to be confronted with the same problems as the staff in trying to find somewhere to park.

The road signs were apparently not clear outside the terminal, and people said they were given wrong directions once inside.

But that was only the start of their problems. All the check-in desks were apparently closed at 0400 GMT, leaving passengers no option other than to form a queue.

Then, when one was finally opened, the resulting rush was "chaos" according to one would-be flyer.
Warning signs

The first flight arrived at T5 from Hong Kong at 0442 GMT, slightly ahead of schedule, but its passengers faced a delay of about an hour to collect their bags.

The problems began to mount and by 0630 GMT a queue of about 300 people waiting to board flights had formed, another passenger said.

As the morning wore on, some passengers had to wait up to two-and-a-half hours to collect their suitcases from baggage reclaim.

An underground conveyor system had become clogged up, according to the BBC's transport correspondent Tom Symonds.

This was being blamed on staff failing to remove luggage quickly enough at the final unloading stage.

Further technical faults also meant seven flights also had to leave T5 without luggage on board.

Check-in suspended

By Thursday lunchtime the cumulative effect meant BA had to cancel 20 flights.

By early afternoon, a queue of more than 100 people whose flights had been cancelled, stood in line to try to get away on other flights or get refunds.

To make matters worse, the luggage belt in one part of the departure lounge failed.

At about 1630 GMT, all check-in at the new BA Terminal 5 was suspended because of further problems with the baggage system.

Long queues were also building up around that time at the fast-bag drop desks, where passengers leave their luggage after checking in using computer terminals.

By about 1700 GMT, BA suspended the checking in of all luggage going into the hold.

This meant passengers already at the airport had the choice of either flying with just hand luggage, getting an alternative flight or claiming a refund.

By the end of T5's first traumatic day, a total of 34 flights had been cancelled and a lot of passengers had been left stranded, either for a flight or even for their bags.

The knock-on effect continued to be felt on Friday with more cancelled flights but for BA the negative publicity will have an effect for a lot longer.


Return to the This Is Longford website

How to fix Heathrow

The following is from The Economist website dated 27th March 2008:

How to fix Heathrow

LONDON'S Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport. It handles nearly half of the passenger traffic between North America and Europe. It connects the City of London to the rest of the world. It is the fortress that guards the lucrative transatlantic business of British Airways (BA). In anticipation of this month's start of the “open skies” agreement between America and the European Union, other airlines are queuing up to fly from it too.

Yet Heathrow is also the world's most abhorred international airport. It suffers the worst flight delays and loses the most bags. Its endless security queues, rude staff and shoddy facilities plague passengers. Its owner, BAA, which also runs the two other main London airports, Gatwick and Stansted, is an object of much ridicule (see article).

Despite the inevitable first-day glitches, the £4.3 billion ($8.5 billion) Terminal 5, which opened this week, will improve Heathrow for the 40% of passengers who fly with BA. But new terminals will not solve the real problem: a lack of runways. Heathrow has only two, which operate within a whisker of full capacity. It cannot grow to meet demand. And, when something goes wrong, small delays become big ones.

The British government thinks this frames the case for a third runway at the airport. To the fury of local residents and green campaigners—and cheers from the aviation industry—it argues that Heathrow must expand if Britain is to have the competitive hub airport it needs. A decision has been promised before the summer. It looks like being the wrong one.

Up in the air

With the closure of Hong Kong's Kai Tak a decade ago, Heathrow ranks as the airport that does most harm to people living nearby. Thanks to its westerly winds and the east-west axis of its two runways, about 2m people in West London and neighbouring towns endure noise, air pollution and the small, ever-present risk of a catastrophic accident. By relaxing operating restrictions on Heathrow's runways and adding another, BAA reckons it can raise the number of flights from today's limit of 480,000 a year to 720,000. BAA and the government think that because aircraft are getting quieter and cleaner the extra flights will be bearable. But that conclusion is disputed by the government's own watchdog, the Environment Agency.

If the environmental externalities were the only cost of expanding Heathrow, you could perhaps mitigate them by charging airlines for pollution (a good idea, anyway). However, the other reason to doubt the wisdom of letting Heathrow go on growing—the constraint on space imposed by its location in London—is less easy for the government to dispense with. Passenger-traffic forecasts suggest that, shortly after a third runway opens, in 2020, Heathrow will be full again. BAA has talked about a fourth runway, but not even the most ardent Heathrow expanders can say where it would go.

The government thinks this hell is worth it: the British economy benefits from having Heathrow as a competitive hub airport, because the more transit passengers there are—they have grown from 9% of the total in 1992 to 35% in 2004—the bigger the route network and the more valuable the airport is to Britons. But Heathrow will never be a desirable hub airport, because of where it is. It will continue to be out-gunned by Paris Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam Schiphol and Frankfurt, all of which have twice the runway space, greater potential for expansion and better surface transport.
One alternative is to start again. Time after time in country after country, hub airports have been rebuilt farther away from city centres. In the 1970s Britain toyed with the idea of building a big new airport in the Thames estuary to the east of London. But the scheme was overtaken by economic crisis, and the stranglehold of BAA and BA, both of which have a lot invested in Heathrow, has prevented its revival.

A new airport may yet be needed. But, in the meantime, there are ways of making Heathrow better. It is crowded because it is too cheap for airlines to use and because BAA has been encouraged to stuff it full of transit and leisure passengers who it hopes will spend money in its shops. Business travellers, who generate the most value for the wider economy, account for only a third of the airport's passengers.

This suggests a better solution to the overcrowding. First, the price for using Heathrow should reflect the value and scarcity of its capacity. Second, any new capacity should be built at London's other airports. And, third, these airports should be set free to compete with Heathrow by breaking up BAA.

Higher charges would drive transit passengers to the hubs in continental Europe. That would be no great loss. Although transit passengers help BA and BAA, they do little for Britain's economy. If the route network shrinks, the least-useful routes go first. In any case, because lots of people want to fly to and from London, transit passengers are less crucial to maintaining Heathrow's route network than the government thinks.

Competition between Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted would help too. Stansted, with a second runway, would suck in leisure traffic. The new owner of Gatwick, much better placed to grow than Heathrow, would have good reason to build a second runway after 2019 (when an old planning agreement expires), with the aim of attracting one of the big airline alliances—and thus becoming a hub itself.

Slowly does it

Such changes call for an overhaul of the way Britain runs air travel. At present, the landing charges for Heathrow and Gatwick are fixed by the Civil Aviation Authority, which juggles desire for low prices with the need for BAA to invest and make money. It should be told to think instead about charging a full price for using Heathrow, and the resulting excess profits at BAA should be taxed. The incumbent airlines, the big losers, would have to accept that their slots would be worth less and that they would pay more (which is one reason to phase in the change), but their passengers would gain a functioning airport. It is time for the British government to realise that it is not its job to be the champion of the aviation industry.

Return to the This Is Longford website

The folly of runway 3

The following article is taken from the online version of The Times newspaper:

The deeper you delve into the process that is likely to result in a third runway at Heathrow, the murkier it gets. Today we reveal the extent to which BAA, the airports’ operator, colluded with the government to fix the evidence and ensure that Heathrow’s expansion would get the go-ahead. Officials at the Department for Transport were guided by BAA experts on how to strip out from their consultation document damaging data on the environmental impact of a third runway at Heathrow.
A government with a penchant for dodgy dossiers showed its colours again with the document that went into the public domain on the case for expanding capacity at Heathrow. Data on the impact of a third runway were repeatedly altered, giving the impression that its effect on noise and pollution would be negligible. Figures for carbon emissions were massaged down by the crude device of excluding incoming international flights from the calculations. BAA was effectively given a veto on the contents of the consultation document, being allowed to rewrite it.

This would be shocking enough if BAA was still a nationalised industry but it is not. BAA was privatised more than 20 years ago. It is owned, not by British shareholders, but by Ferrovial, the Spanish conglomerate. The government owes BAA nothing but it is bending over backwards to help it.

If this was not worrying enough, the Environment Agency’s as yet unpublished response to the government’s consultation document on Heathrow should be. The official watchdog on environmental issues says that when it comes to a key measure of the airport’s future impact on air quality, measured by emissions of nitrogen dioxide, the government’s evidence is not “sufficiently robust”.

The effect on air quality as a result of Heathrow’s expansion “will result in increased morbidity and mortality impacts”, in other words more illnesses and early deaths in areas unlucky enough to be under the Heathrow flightpath. Once the decision to expand the airport is made it will be too late to prevent these effects, the agency warns. As a result, it says, “there are arguments for postponing irreversible investment decisions in the face of uncertainty”.

These concerns, coming from an official environmental watchdog, blow a hole in the government’s apparent belief that it can pursue a green agenda and also preside over the irresponsible, environmentally unfriendly expansion of Heathrow. As we have argued before, it is not too late to reconsider alternative options for additional aviation capacity in the southeast, notably a new airport, suitable for the 21st century, in the Thames estuary to the east of London.

Ministers seem so beholden to BAA and Heathrow that they have closed their minds to the alternatives, whatever the cost to the environment and the quality of life. We owe it to future generations to reverse this folly.

Return to the This Is Longford website

A new bus route serving Longford

A new bus route is coming to Longford to serve the new Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport.

It is pencilled in to start on or around 22nd March and is the route 423. It will travel between Heathrow Terminal 5 to Hounslow via Western Perimeter Road, Longford village, Bath Road, Harlington Corner, Hatton Cross and route H23. Operated by London United on existing H23 contract. It will run every 20 minutes Monday to Saturday daytimes, 30 minutes evenings and Sundays.

Return to the This Is Longford website

A letter from BAA regarding the transit system works

The following is the text of a letter which will be sent to all Longford residents in the next few days:

Dear Resident,

We are writing to let you know about the works that need to take place on the Personal Rapid Transit system over the coming months adjacent to N3 car park to the south of Longford Village. I have attached an updated fact sheet explaining the scheme (previous fact sheets were sent to all residents in August 2006 and April 2007 and are available on request).

Some of the work will need be done at night. The reason for this is that we need to lift sections of the guideway onto the steel supporting structure and the crane needed for this - because of its height - can only work when the airport is on night time operations.

We will ensure that we do everything we can to minimise noise while we are working and we will ensure that all lighting is pointed away from nearby houses.

Please note that all of the works are weather dependent. If we have to delay the programme then we will pass the information to the editor of the Longford website to communicate to residents.

Programme of works

Monday 18th February: moving medium crane in to position on site
The crane, accompanied by two support vehicles, will be brought in on the night of Monday 18th February from the eastern end of the village and up the track next to the King’s Arms pub.

Monday 18th February – Monday 17th March: construction of the PRT guideway
The crane will be in operation during the night period (8pm – 4am) erecting the guideway.

Friday 7th March moving medium crane off site
The crane, accompanied by two support vehicles, will be moved off site and out of the eastern end of the village.

Monday 7th April: moving large crane in to position on site
In order to bring the crane in a section of wall in front of Heathrow Lodge will be removed and later re-instated. This has been agreed with the owners of the lodge. The crane will access the site from the eastern end of Longford Village.

Monday 7th April – Monday 14th April: construction of the PRT guideway
The large crane is necessary to lift the sections of guideway that will span the Western Perimeter road and Duke of Northumberland river in order to connect the two sections of track on either side of the Western perimeter road. This will be undertaken during the night period between 8pm – 4am.

Friday 11th April: moving large crane off site
The crane, accompanied by four support vehicles, will be moved off site and out of the eastern end of the village.

April – September 2008: fit-out
Once the track has been erected there will be further fit-out works which will involve installing the handrails, the surface of the guideway and the communications equipment which will drive the vehicles.

The majority of these works will take place during daylight hours. However some works will be undertaken at night.

2009: opening the scheme to passengers
We expect to open the PRT scheme to passengers in 2009, and will open it to Longford residents once we have been operating the scheme for 6 months.

If you have any questions or queries please do not hesitate to contact me or a member of my team on 020 8745 5791 or at heathrowcommunityrelations@baa.com.

Yours sincerely,


Sarah Porretta
Community Relations Manager
BAA Heathrow

Return to the This Is Longford website

Extend Heathrow deadline call

Councils fighting plans for Heathrow expansion have called on the Government to extend its consultation beyond the end of February.

The call came after 2M leaders wrung an assurance from transport minister Jim Fitzpatrick that he would send out copies of his department's consultation document to residents excluded from the first distribution.

Many residents in parts of Hammersmith and Fulham and Wandsworth have not received any information about the plans for a third runway and all-day flights.

Even in Hounslow, which is right next to the airport, not all households were sent a copy.

Speaking on behalf of the 2M Group, Hounslow Council's cabinet member for aviation Barbara Reid said:

"The minister conceded that Heathrow expansion was a matter that would concern all Londoners. He agreed that people outside the immediate area should be able to comment on the proposals.

"Following pressure from the 2M Group he agreed to order a fresh distribution of consultation material to any postcodes that had been overlooked.

"This could run to tens of thousands of people as communities in all parts of the capital realise that they are entitled to be included in the consultation.

"The Government allowed only the minimum three months for consultation. As things stand it will close on February 27. That is simply not long enough for a consultation of this complexity - especially when the Plain English Campaign has described the wording as 'atrocious.'

"With so many people about to receive this information for the first time it is only fair that the consultation deadline be extended - at least for another two months."

The minister also confirmed that Transport Department ministers would not be attending any of the public meetings being staged by councils and campaign groups across south and west London.He said that attendance at the meetings 'would not bring extra information to light.'

Mr Fitzpatrick was also pressed on whether he would order an independent study of the claimed economic benefits of expansion. He said that the current assessment would be externally reviewed but declined to provide information to the boroughs on how this process would be conducted.

Hammersmith and Fulham leader Stephen Greenhalgh added:

"Many people think the Government has rigged the consultation to give it the answers it wants. The mainstay of its case is the economic argument which is based largely on material provided by the aviation industry. If they are now going to subject this to external scrutiny it is vital that this is done openly and the local authorities fully involved."

Return to the This Is Longford website

10 reasons to stop Heathrow expansion

From Greenpeace

1 - Heathrow is already Europe's largest airport: adding a third runway will mean a 70 per cent increase in flight numbers and resulting rises in climate change pollution. It's crazy to be paving the way for such big increases in greenhouse gases when we should be doing all we can to reduce emissions.

2 - We'll miss our climate change targets: the plan for Heathrow is one of 20 airport expansion plans across the country. Scientists have warned us that allowing these to go ahead will significantly undermine the UK's ability to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets and stop the worst effects of climate change.

3 - It's unnecessary: almost a quarter of flights from Heathrow are to destinations less than 500 km away and already well served by train. Substituting these flights for train services would reduce the need for extra capacity at Heathrow and have significant environmental benefits, as train travel does ten times less damage to the climate than flying.

4 - The current growth in air travel has damaging effects on the UK economy: 67 per cent of passengers traveling on flights from UK airports are UK residents. This means fewer people holidaying at home which is contributing to a £17 billion annual tourist deficit in the UK.

5 - A third runway will cause 750 homes to be demolished: this means displacing thousands of people and removing an entire village - Sipson in the London Borough of Hillingdon.

6 - Building a third runway will mean more noise pollution across London and the South East: an extra 900 flights day will go overhead.

7 - It will increase local levels of dangerous nitrous oxide (NOx) pollution: NOx is linked to increased instances of asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis and Heathrow is already in danger of breaching EU limits on NOx levels.

8 - British Airways is putting profit before the environment: along with others in the aviation industry, BA is denying the impact its industry is having on the climate and is pushing for a third runway at all cost.

9 - The aviation industry is dictating government policy: New Labour operates a revolving door with companies like BA and has allowed the industry to shape policies which have massive implications for the environment.

10 - Airport expansion is unpopular: 70 per cent of people in the UK are opposed to building bigger airports.

Return to the This Is Longford website

London's mayoral candidates agree on one thing

From the Comment is Free section of the Guardian Unlimited website dated 19th January.

You know something strange is afoot when four politicians from conflicting corners of the political spectrum find themselves in agreement, and even more so when it comes in the middle of a hard fought mayoral campaign.

Yesterday, instead of spending their energy fighting each other for the support of Londoners, all four candidates - representing Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and the Greens - have joined forces to fight the expansion of Heathrow. In an advert published this morning in several
newspapers Ken Livingstone, Boris Johnson, Brian Paddick and Sian Berry slam the government's plan to almost double the number of flights in and out of Heathrow.

And they're not alone in their opposition. A recent opinion poll showed that over 70% of people are opposed to aviation expansion.

Recent research found that a fifth of the total flights from Heathrow are to places that could be easily reached by train. If these flights were cut, flight numbers at Heathrow would be at the level they were at in the mid-1990s and we wouldn't need a third runway.

When you also consider the huge impact a third runway would have on Londoners - with more noise and pollution, and villages paved over - it's hardly surprising that the mayoral candidates put away their differences for a moment and spoke with one voice.

Return to the This Is Longford website

London United

All four leading candidates for the forthcoming London mayoral election have joined forces to fight Gordon Brown's push for a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

Return to the This Is Longford website

Plane crash warning against expansion

Local environmental campaigners have issued a stark warning in the wake of yesterday's plane crash at Heathrow Airport.

Nic Ferriday spokesman for the west London branch of Friends of the Earth, claims the group highlighted the risk of such crashes for people living under the flight path, during an enquiry into the building of Terminal 5 in 1998.

Mr Ferriday, who lives in Ealing, said a proposed third runway at the airport would increase the risk of fatalities.

He said: "We have been saying for 10 years that the Government must take account of the 'societal' risk of a crash at Heathrow.

"This is the risk of fatalities on the ground if an aircraft crashes. The risk is proportional to the number and size of aircraft and the population overflown.

"This means that Heathrow is by far the most dangerous airport in the country.

"Each expansion, such as Terminal 5 or the proposed third runway, increases the risk further."
If a third runway is constructed at the airport large parts of Ealing, Acton, Hanwell, Greenford and Southall will be directly under the new flight paths.

Mr Ferriday added: "By huge good fortune, nobody was killed on this occasion. But there could hardly be a more dramatic reminder of what might happen next time.

"If the aviation industry, British Airways, BAA and the government continue to lobby for Heathrow expansion and a third runway, it will show in the starkest terms how they put profits of the aviation industry above the safety of West London residents."

Return to the This Is Longford website

Accident to Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM

The following is taken from the website of the Air Accidents Investigation Branch:

Accident to Boeing 777-236, G-YMMM at London Heathrow Airport on 17 January 2008 - Initial Report Initial Report AAIB Ref: EW/C2008/01/01

Following an uneventful flight from Beijing, China, the aircraft was established on an ILS approach to Runway 27L at London Heathrow. Initially the approach progressed normally, with the Autopilot and Autothrottle engaged, until the aircraft was at a height of approximately 600 ft and 2 miles from touch down. The aircraft then descended rapidly and struck the ground, some 1,000 ft short of the paved runway surface, just inside the airfield boundary fence. The aircraft stopped on the very beginning of the paved surface of Runway 27L. During the short ground roll the right main landing gear separated from the wing and the left main landing gear was pushed up through the wing root. A significant amount of fuel leaked from the aircraft but there was no fire. An emergency evacuation via the slides was supervised by the cabin crew and all occupants left the aircraft, some receiving minor injuries.

The AAIB was notified of the accident within a few minutes and a team of Inspectors including engineers, pilots and a flight recorder specialist deployed to Heathrow. In accordance with the established international arrangements the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the USA, representing the State of Design and Manufacture of the aircraft, was informed of the event. The NTSB appointed an Accredited Representative to lead a team from the USA made up of investigators from the NTSB, the FAA and Boeing. A Boeing investigator already in the UK joined the investigation on the evening of the event, the remainder of the team arrived in the UK on Friday 18th January. Rolls-Royce, the engine manufacturer is also supporting the investigation, an investigator having joined the AAIB team.

Activity at the accident scene was coordinated with the Airport Fire and Rescue Service, the Police, the British Airports Authority and British Airways to ensure the recovery of all relevant evidence, to facilitate the removal of the aircraft and the reinstatement of airport operations.
The flight crew were interviewed on the evening of the event by an AAIB Operations Inspector and the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Quick Access Recorder (QAR) were removed for replay. The CVR and FDR have been successfully downloaded at the AAIB laboratories at Farnborough and both records cover the critical final stages of the flight. The QAR was downloaded with the assistance of British Airways and the equipment manufacturer. All of the downloaded information is now the subject of detailed analysis.

Examination of the aircraft systems and engines is ongoing.

Initial indications from the interviews and Flight Recorder analyses show the flight and approach to have progressed normally until the aircraft was established on late finals for Runway 27L. At approximately 600 ft and 2 miles from touch down, the Autothrottle demanded an increase in thrust from the two engines but the engines did not respond. Following further demands for increased thrust from the Autothrottle, and subsequently the flight crew moving the throttle levers, the engines similarly failed to respond. The aircraft speed reduced and the aircraft descended onto the grass short of the paved runway surface.

The investigation is now focussed on more detailed analysis of the Flight Recorder information, collecting further recorded information from various system modules and examining the range of aircraft systems that could influence engine operation.

[My Comment - It is so lucky that the failure of the systems in this flight that happened 2 miles out did not result in the plane coming straight down. 2 miles out on the approach over London into the southern runway would be somewhere over the densely populated area of Hounslow!]

Return to the This Is Longford website

Airliner crash-lands at Heathrow

A British Airways passenger plane has crash-landed short of a runway at Heathrow Airport, ripping off part of its undercarriage. All 136 passengers and 16 crew escaped from the British Airways flight BA038 from Beijing. Thirteen people have been taken to hospital with minor injuries.

The aircraft came down some 200 metres short of the southern runway apparently after losing all engine power and avionics, forcing the crew to glide the last part of the landing.

It does not bear thinking about should a third runway be built in the crook of the M4 motorway as planned. An aircraft dropping short of the runway is liable to hit the motorway causing massive loss of life and blocking one of the major routes in and out of London for days if not weeks while recovery takes place.

Return to the This Is Longford website

New transport system for Heathrow

Work has begun on a new transport system to move passengers around Heathrow Airport. The Personal Rapid Transit System will be on trial at Terminal Five for a year before any decisions are made on rolling it out across the rest of the airport.

Return to the This Is Longford website

Heathrow expansion - Harlington's "army of ordinary people"

Sipson has always been considered to be the ultimate victim of this particular expansion, not least because the whole village is set to disappear under Terminal Six. The biggest displacement of people in the UK since - as local MP John McDonnell pointed out - the Scottish clearances.

Return to the This Is Longford website

Heathrow protesters let fly

An army of campaigners has been assembled to mobilise millions of people against the expansion of Heathrow.

The campaigners claim the plan makes a mockery of Britain's pledge to be a world leader on climate change, and will mean increases in noise for residents of west London and parts of the Home Counties. They say the consultation is a "farce".

The scale of the opposition means the Government is facing probably the biggest grassroots fight against a major infrastructure project.

Return to the This Is Longford website

Labour MP John McDonnell accuses Government of Betrayal over Heathrow Expansion Plans

Taken from the NoTRAG website

Labour MP, John McDonnell, whose constituency includes Heathrow airport, has accused
the Government of betrayal over its announcement today that it will back a third runway and
sixth terminal at Heathrow.

John said ”The Government has betrayed the communities that will be devastated by this
massive expansion of Heathrow airport and betrayed all those who believed the Prime
Minister’s promises this week to tackle climate change. The Government’s proposals go well
beyond the plans set out in the original aviation white paper and will double the size of the
airport. This will result in the forced clearance of up to 10.000 people from their homes with
the demolition of whole communities, homes, schools, and churches. People feel betrayed
on every count. “

“Betrayed because the Government promised a short runway, but they have now come
forward with a full length runway with a sixth terminal wiping out even more homes and
communities.”

“Betrayed because it has now been revealed that BAA has been allowed to dictate the
Government’s drafting of the consultation paper. The credibility of the consultation document
has been rendered laughable by the Government’s argument that a doubling of the size of
the airport will have no impact on increasing air and noise pollution and climate change.”
“Betrayed because the consultation has been curtailed and fixed in advance by the
Government is refusing to even have a consultation exhibition in Sipson, the very village they
acknowledge will be demolished.”

“Betrayed because in the week Gordon Brown made his main speech on climate change his
government announces an expansion of aviation which will undermine any attempt to meet
emission reduction targets and is to introduce new planning legislation to prevent local
people having an effective say in the planning process to determine this expansion
proposal.”

“I warn the Government that it now faces against it the biggest environmental campaign that
we have seen in our history, which will permanently destroy its environmental credentials.”

John McDonnell MP
22nd November 2007

Why not now visit the NoTRAG website?

Return to the This Is Longford website

Heathrow Consultation Roadshows

The two nearest roadshow locations to Longford for Heathrow Expansion are listed below. More locations and dates can be found on the DfT website.



Exhibition: West Drayton
Date: Monday 10 December
Venue:Novotel London HeathrowJ4/ M4 Cherry Lane West Drayton Middlesex UB7 9HB
Opening hours: 10.00 am – 8.00 pm
Public transport:Heathrow tube station (Piccadilly line) West Drayton mainline train station Bus Stop no. 222
Shuttle bus provision: Sipson and Harmondsworth to West Drayton: Running every 30 mins. Route time is approx 15 mins.
Harmondsworth: King William IV Pub, Harmondsworth Lane
Sipson: The Plough Pub, Sipson Road
West Drayton: Novotel London Heathrow
Directions:Map
Parking:120 spaces available. 30 prepaid tickets available. Car park attendants will provide visitors with tickets to avoid personal payment.



Exhibition: Colnbrook
Date: Monday 14 January
Venue:Sheraton Heathrow Hotel Colnbrook Bypass Harmondsworth West DraytonMiddlesex UB7 0HJ
Opening hours: 10.00 am – 8.00 pm
Public transport:Heathrow tube (Piccadilly Line) Bus Stop: Hotel hopper from T3. Free buses to Bath Road stop ‘Hatch Lane.’
Shuttle bus provision: Sipson and Harmondsworth to Colnbrook: Running every 30 mins. Route time approx 15 mins.
Sipson: The Plough Pub, Sipson Road
Harmondsworth: King William IV Pub, Harmondsworth Lane
Colnbrook: Sheraton Heathrow Hotel
Directions:Map
Parking:236 spaces. 30 prepaid tickets available. Car park attendants will provide visitors with tickets to avoid personal payment.

Return to the This Is Longford website

Noise Pollution After Expansion

Return to the This Is Longford website

Blighted lives in Heathrow's path

Jack Clark is 95 and has lived in Sipson, Middlesex for 80 years. In all that time, he has fallen out with just one neighbour - BAA.

Read the rest of this BBC News article.

Return to the This Is Longford website

Problem: Heathrow's in the wrong place

In politics, as in life, you have to know when to stop digging. Once a fundamental mistake has been made, no amount of cosmetics, new initiatives or improvements can overcome the basic tragic error. This is nowhere more true than on the issue of Heathrow.

Terminal 5, the third runway, Crossrail, the OFT inquiry into BAA's monopoly — all of them are misguided political attempts to gloss over the massive, catastrophic flaw that dogs Heathrow and means it will never, ever be what Britain wants and needs it to be.

After decades of aviation misery, campaigning and protest, it is time to face the truth and admit the problem: Heathrow is in the wrong place.

Read more of this article from The Times.

Return to the This Is Longford website

Angry of Harmondsworth

The following is an article in its entirety taken from the Guardian Unlimited blogs:

At a packed meeting yesterday afternoon, the combined forces of the anti-Heathrow expansion movement heard something they'd always suspected. The consultation, due out today, will be a sham. The government has made its mind up; like it or not, Heathrow expansion is going ahead.
We had gathered to meet with aviation minister Jim Fitzpatrick, in a final face-to-face before the launch of the latest consultation on the third runway. Plane Stupid, of course, was not invited, but I snuck in to hear just what Fitzpatrick (coincidentally also environment minister for the Department for Transport) had to say.

The government is launching a "full and open consultation", not on demand for the third runway itself, but on whether the third runway can be built within "strict local environmental limits". The public is not being asked whether it wants a third runway, but whether Heathrow can expand without affecting noise levels, nitrous oxide and traffic levels around the airport. Of course, the decision is a foregone conclusion: the DfT and BAA have been colluding together to make damned sure it'll get the go-ahead.

There's a good reason why they aren't asking if we want expansion. The latest Mori poll shows that 70% of people don't want a third runway, and only 22% of London firms support the runway, according to the London Chamber of Commerce.

Conveniently, keeping the strict environmental limits "local" means that there's one huge elephant in the room: carbon dioxide emissions. In the four and a half years since the white paper was published, aviation emissions have taken centre stage in our anti-expansion arsenal. The World Development Movement recently calculated that emissions from the third runway alone will be the equivalent of those emitted by Kenya. The consultation will contain "data" on emissions, but critically no questions or opportunities to comment on the climatological impact of expansion.
It was all too apparent that those most affected by expansion - local communities and the developing world - are being left out of discussions. Of the 11 "roadshows" laid on for people to debate nitrogen oxide levels with government experts (remember, they can't oppose the runway, just whether it will be "green" enough), not one will take place within the villages set to face the 'dozers if the runway goes ahead. Sipson, Harmondsworth and Harlington residents will be bussed to nearby roadshows, as "there wasn't a suitable location" available.

When asked where the government plans to re-house those unlucky enough to live under the proposed runway, the minister and his officials looked uneasy. "That's for BAA to decide," one ventured. "They claim it's not their problem," the residents replied. The civil servants fell silent, shuffling in their chairs.

By this point, tensions in the room were running high. The minister, clearly uncomfortable at the barracking he was getting, scribbled a quick note to his secretary: "In two minutes call me a lift pls". He then jumped up, said he'd been paged, and darted out of the room, leaving his officials to face the music.

In the face of the climate science, in spite of the nitrous oxide levels, regardless of the noise impact on almost two million people and straight over the homes and communities of Sipson and Harmondsworth, the government will press ahead for expansion. All that stands in the way are the two million people affected by increased noise, the five million members of Airport Watch, the growing army of environmentalists, the direct action movement and two small villages grown sick of years of abuse at the hands of BAA.

Bring it on!

Heathrow Expansion Plans To Be Announced

Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly is expected to announce plans today for a third runway at Heathrow Airport and comment on a possible sixth terminal.

Return to the This Is Longford website

Consultation on Heathrow flights will finally be launched

From the Evening Standard website, This Is London, dated 12th November 2007.

The long-awaited consultation into Heathrow's expansion will be launched at the end of this month, it emerged today.

If accepted, the proposals could see a huge increase in the number of flights over London's skies within two years.

The consultation was pledged earlier this year but was reportedly delayed amid concerns the environmental case for expansion had not been made.

The first stage of the consultation will look at increasing the number of aircraft using the two existing runways. Ministers want to see if the airport could still meet environmental standards if it changed to "mixed mode" where both runways would be used simultaneously; one for planes to take-off, the other to land.

The second stage of the proposals involves building a third runway. If these plans were adopted the number of flights would rise from 480,000 to 720,000 by the end of the next decade.

Heathrow is now operating at 99 per cent of its permitted capacity, with 477,000 flights scheduled this year.

If the new runway gets the green light the airport would have to meet strict standards on noise, air quality and local public transport. A new runway would not open until at least 2015, but if the consultation recommends changing to "mixed mode", residents under the flightpath could notice the frequency of planes increase within two years.

Campaigners fear the consultation will be a sham, with information presented in a way best designed to make the case for expansion. The Evening Standard revealed this summer that Department for Transport officials and BAA are holding near weekly meetings to discuss the consultation.

Last week it was disclosed ministers were planning to use the year Concorde was last in service as a benchmark for noise levels, making it easier to claim there will be no rise in noise pollution as a result of expansion. Protesters say BAA needs to solve the airport's overcrowding problem before enlarging it.

Return to the This Is Longford website

Aviation industry tricks

The following is a direct lift from The Guradian website by a conbtributor called Richard George. It exposes the tricks used by the aviation industry in compiling questions for consultations.

Call me a cynic, but I'm willing to bet the upcoming consultations on expanding Heathrow airport don't halt the government's madcap plans to lay tarmac all over west London. It's not that I don't trust the public to make the "right" decision; more that whenever the aviation industry asks the questions it gets the result it wanted, even if it contradicts every other survey.

Pro-expansion lobby group Future Heathrow recently published a Populus survey which shows surprising support for Heathrow expansion. They polled 1,000 residents from the west London boroughs that comprise the 2M group, and discovered 56% supported ending runway alternation (switching the runway used for take-offs at 3pm, to give locals respite from aircraft noise). This contradicted last year's ICM poll by the Mayor of London, which found only 26% supported ending alternation? Begging the question: why did the industry survey get the results it did?

Getting the right answers means asking the right questions, and this is a textbook example. Although describing how switching runways reduces the noise impact on local communities, the questionnaire makes no reference to ending alternation. It only asks residents if they support "the more efficient use of Heathrow's existing runways so that more flights could take off from, and land at the airport," a phrase couched in positive-sounding terms designed to elicit support. The ICM poll explained the full effects of switching, and made clear that "mixed mode" would mean an end to runway alternation and an increase in noise. No wonder fewer people supported it.

It's not the first time the industry has asked questionable questions. In 2005 residents of Uttlesford, Essex, were surprised to be door-stepped by Populus, asking (pdf) about the expansion of Stansted airport. Those who took part were asked a number of questions designed to generate false positives from even the most oppositional resident. "Even my interviewer acknowledged that the questions were not neutral," said one participant. "I used to work in marketing and I know a distorted questionnaire when I see one," said another.The survey started simply enough, but rapidly became unnecessarily confusing. "Do you agree or disagree that BAA has come to the right decision in choosing the preferred option (Option A in mixed mode - the eastern central parallel runway) for the location of a second runway at Stansted?" asked one question, despite not explaining what the other options were or how "the preferred option" would impact those unfortunate enough to live near the airport.

The fun continues: "If you disagree with BAA's choice, is there another option you think we should have preferred?" followed by a list of incomprehensible and unexplained options (option B in mixed mode, option B in segregated mode, option C in mixed mode, etc). Participants were asked to rate them on a scale of one to six, requiring exceptional recall of the complicated proposals and the comparative effects of implementing them.

To be fair to BAA, they did consider some of the impacts of expansion: while "thinking about some of the benefits of a second runway," residents were asked to rate suggested positive outcomes from one to five. No reference was made to negative impacts of expansion. Also notably absent from a question on the "environmental effects" was any reference to climate change or CO2 emissions, although "landscaping around the airport" was covered, relieving many who were concerned about a dearth of rhododendrons.

The survey concluded by asking residents to consider five statements, and to agree or disagree with them. Normal practise is to mix up some positives with negatives, but BAA instead chose five fantastic statements about the benefits of expansion. Most galling was the suggestion that "a second runway at Stansted will improve the area in which I live," again those polled complained that there was no option to disagree with the expansion; just statements about it. After local residents objected publicly to the manipulative poll, BAA surprised everyone by going on the offensive. Communications director Mark Pendlington mocked the Stop Stansted Expansion campaign, justifying their decision not to include a "no runway" option by declaring: "the government's aviation white paper stated the first new runway should be built at Stansted," and using a reference in the white paper to overall reductions in emissions as a rationale for ignoring climate change.

Unfortunately for BAA, their excuses didn't wash; local newspapers railed against the company, and people who had previously sat on the fence began siding with the anti-expansionists. The same is very likely to happen with Heathrow. Two million people in west London will be adversely affected by noise and pollution should the third runway get the go ahead and they are going to be very angry if they feel they are being manipulated.

Return to the This Is Longford website

New hint of a third runway as Kelly says Heathrow 'must grow'

Ruth Kelly gave the clearest hint so far the Government will give the green light to a third runway at Heathrow.

The Transport Secretary said the expansion of the airport was "vital" for maintaining Britain's international competitiveness and securing jobs.

Her comments came as the aviation minister Jim Fitzpatrick promised an investigation into the breaching of night flight limits at Heathrow.

Return to the This Is Longford website

BAA calls for long runway at Heathrow

BAA has begun lobbying for a full-length new runway at Heathrow ahead of the expected launch next month of a consultation document on expansion of the London airport.

The move represents a switch for BAA, which has in the past advocated only a short extra runway, suitable for the small aircraft used on short-haul flights.

A full-length strip (Heathrow’s existing runways are full-size at about 4,000 metres) would allow more flights by larger, long-haul aircraft.

BAA declined to comment, but industry sources confirmed the change in policy. “They are pushing hard on a full-length runway which I find difficult to understand. I think it is because they think, possibly rightly, that getting any new runway at Heathrow is going to be a monumental battle, so they may as well go the whole way,” said one executive.

The government is expected to publish a consultation document on the expansion of Heathrow next month. This will cover proposals for more flights on the airport’s two present runways, and for a third runway.

Both plans are expected to be bitterly opposed by local residents and environmental groups. Heathrow was last month the scene of a “climate camp” at which green campaigners gathered to protest against aviation’s contribution to global warming.

The consultation is the result of a government white paper on the future of air transport issued four years ago. It said that while there was an economic case for expanding Heathrow, it could not proceed until local air-pollution issues were addressed. Stansted was chosen as the location for the southeast’s first new runway.

Return to the This Is Longford website

Officials help ‘rig’ Heathrow runway air quality

From the Gulf Times website