Do we need a third runway at Heathrow?
WHY are we at the mercy of the green lobby with the courts halting a third runway at Heathrow because the Government has ‘unlawfully’ failed to assess the impact on climate change? Not expanding Heathrow means we will abandon our prime position in Europe by giving air travel benefits to our competitors in France and Germany. It’s the end for the economy if crackpots can challenge every infrastructure project. Can I catch the last plane out before the lights go out?
MICHAeL J. COLe, Wolstanton, Staffs.
THE court ruling on Heathrow expansion is welcome news, not only at a time of international climate crisis and domestic flooding, but also given the Government’s expressed wish to invest in the whole of the UK. The New Economics Foundation reported that the regions could lose £43 billion due to a third runway, while the South-East would be blighted by air and noise pollution. As an added bonus, we can show world leadership at the UN climate change conference in Glasgow.
TOM GReeNWOOD, London Se8.
THERE is a cheaper way to increase passenger capacity at Heathrow than building a third runway. Move freight to a purpose-built terminal on a greenfield site near a motorway.
DAVID VANSTONe, Peterborough, Cambs.
WOULDN’T it make more sense to allow runway three to go ahead? Surely if the Government and aviation industry were fully committed to carbon-free aircraft, the courts could restrict the new runway to electric planes only. This would put more urgency into developing this technology.
M. FINNIS, Barton-upon-Humber, Lincs.
NICOLA Sturgeon finds herself between a rock and a hard place over Heathrow. Does she stick to what is accepted SNP policy for an expansion that she says will be of immense importance to Scotland, or does she virtue-signal her newfound green credentials and side with the climate campaigners? Will she abandon her commitment to expanding air-travel the same way she reneged on her promise to respect the 2014 referendum result?
PHIL JOHNSON, Bishopton, Renfrewshire