The UK needs a hub to rival Schiphol, not just a third Heathrow runway

SIR – In deciding to build the third runway at Heathrow, we have once more ducked the question of how to achieve a world-class hub airport in the United Kingdom. The enlarged Heathrow will not, for all time, be the solution.

In the not-too-distant future, we’ll be crying out for another runway there, and we’ll also be faced with increased numbers of highly dangerous aircraft flying over central London. One day, as well as losing out commercially, there will be a disaster.

A proper competitor of Charles de Gaulle, Schiphol or Frankfurt, with good communications, is required now. This is the time to bite the bullet, otherwise we shall be overtaken and increasingly disadvantaged.

Neale Edwards

Chaffcombe, Somerset

SIR – Why is the argument Heathrow or nothing? Surely, if Gatwick is prepared to embark on a planning application with the attendant surveys and inquiries, we should allow both schemes to run in parallel. The sole proviso should be that no government money is spent.

John Lavender

Port Erin, Isle of Man

SIR – It is disingenuous of the Secretary of State for Transport to claim that there has been prevarication on the subject of a third runway at Heathrow for nearly half a century (Comment, June 25).

The position of the airport operator at the Terminal 5 Inquiry was that there should be no additional runway. As recently as April 1999, the Chief Executive of BAA wrote to local residents stating that an additional runway should be ruled out for ever, adding that “T5 will not lead to a ‘third’ runway”. I do not recall the government contradicting this position at the time. It is hardly surprising that many local residents are sceptical and untrusting.

If the third runway is to be built, the Secretary of State acknowledges that there will have to be tight conditions on that expansion. If he is unwilling to recognise previous commitments, it does not augur well for future promises made by the Government, regulators and the airport operator.

Peter Havelock

Former Head of Environmental Research, Civil Aviation Authority Southsea, Hampshire

SIR – Rather than a third Heathrow runway, why not move RAF Lyneham to St Athan, near Cardiff, and use Lyneham, with a high-speed train to London. Less cost and disturbance.

SIR – The Foreign Secretary had promised his constituents “to lie in front of the bulldozers”.

Those who relied upon that promise should ask: did he mean lie as in “prostrate himself ” or as in “indulge in a terminological inexactitude”.

I know which one my money is on.

Stephen Wallis

Billericay, Essex