When Heathrow had six run­ways

Harefield Gazette - - OPINION -

THE Heathrow Saga goes on. Lo­cal politi­cians and en­vi­ron­men­tal groups jump on the band wagon all plan­ning to use pol­lu­tion to go to court to try to block it.

Mis­guided and not un­der­stand­ing that most of the pol­lu­tion is from the cars, buses, trucks and the big diesel trains both sides of the air­port.

Planes use paraf­fin (kerosene) not diesel or petrol. At one time over half the coun­try used paraf­fin heaters in the win­ter. Why didn’t half the coun­try die from paraf­fin pol­lu­tion?

It just shows the Anti-Heathrow­ists have not done their home­work.

Heathrow used to have six run­ways and the third run­way is only re­plac­ing one of the four run­ways that were pre­vi­ously lost to ter­mi­nal build­ings and taxi­ways. I am old enough to re­mem­ber when there was noth­ing but fields and a few houses. Well over 80% of the houses near Heathrow did not ex­ist when Heathrow first came into be­ing in the 1930s.

A ma­jor­ity of peo­ple do not re­mem­ber the mighty Brabazon that use to take off and land at Heathrow, with its eight en­gine con­tra- ro­tat­ing pro­pel­lers. It could be heard up to three miles from the air­port. Not to men­tion the pol­lu­tion it pumped out then.

If the politi­cians re­ally cared about the villagers near Heathrow they would have re­built their vil­lages in other parts of Hilling­don, where there more than enough land to do so. Is it more of a case of “bums”on votes with lo­cal politi­cians.

As much as I agree that Heathrow should ex­pand, but at the same time Gatwick should also be al­lowed to ex­pand. This would en­sure that both air­ports would not ex­pand too much too fast and run out of ca­pac­ity again, or some­one will start look­ing to re­place all six of Heathrow’s run­ways. MR WIL­LIAM C F PIERCE Mase­field Lane Hayes

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.