The following comments are from members of responsibletravel.com when asked the question: ‘Do you think the British Government should approve plans for a third runway at Heathrow?’
To read a press release from responsibletravel.com on this issue click here.
“ They should provide a better service for the other large airports in the country i.e Gatwick, Luton, Midlands etc so as to cater for the needs of people living outside London. “
“ Heathrow airport is such an important Hub for the entire world not only UK “
“ Why should people who have worked hard all their lives lose their homes to build this. There must be some elderly folk who thought they would be spending the rest of their lives in the place they thought was home to now find themselves having to find somewhere else to live will they get proper compensation to rebuild their lives I don’t think so. Not with the credit crunch being the way it is all to put more money in the government coffers. “
“ At this time we need to be innovating and seeking clever solutions. The third runway is a lazy and backward looking decision. “
“ Hola amigos In Spanish we will say: “por supuestisimo que no”, something that you can traslate as “obviously a big no? I am involve in a group in Ronda (malaga) fighting againt Andalucia Goverment and the Mayor of Ronda trying to stop a big coplex of Villas, Golf courses and Luxury hotels to be builded in an UNESCO special reserve area just in the Ronda nearby. Today, actually is has been a bad day because the Tibunal Superior de Justicia, the highest Supreme Court of law in Andalucia ha said: GO AHEAD; IT IS FINE TO DESTROY THE ENVIROMENT. I do not know what are your thoughts about that, but down here, we think that someone is going to get rick ilegaly by speculating…. and the irst ones are going to be the politicians. That is the way things are happennig down here. Thank you for asking. Anja y Gonzalo “
“The Government needs to be investing heavily in rail networks, bicycle routes and internal infrastructure rather than the billions intended for Heathrow. “
“ For the simple reason that “growth” is not always a good thing. It would also make international flights less dependent on a single hub. Decentralize, and create greater stability. “
“ i think the era of cheapflights is coming to an end and demand will sink when flying becomes more sensibly priced “
“ hola amigos de viajes responsables grasias por ayudar a promover el turismo responsables en el mundo y poder ayudar a conservar la selva . pedimos que nos sigan ayunda a promomer el turismo responsable en la amzonia de ecuador la selva de pavacachi. saludos cordiales Raul Tapuy Vargas 090410875 www.earthfoot.org www.earthsessions “
“ Being involved in International Tourism then we realise the need for improved facilities from our largest airport to keep it competitive with its other European competitors and to make international travel easier for our citizens. The number of destinations flown to from London has dropped over the past few years and is now below our European competitors. The Carbon footprint issue will be improved to some extent by the new runway enabling aircraft to land on the ground more quickly and down from their multiple holding circles around London. Obviously the Carbon footprint issue has to be addressed and this project won’t get the go-ahead until that has been proved. Our overall Carbon footprint will not be improved by just relocating this Runway to another site either in The Thames Estuary or anywhere else in this country or even to Schiphol, Frankfurt or Paris. Carbon footprints are a Global responsibility not just a Heathrow area one. The airport has been there since before 1947 three runways had been completed and work on another three – subsequently abandoned as unnecessary – was going on. A new, permanent building arose in the central area at the start of the 1950s, replacing the tent. It has taken people who live in the area a long time to realise they didn’t like the noise and congestion although they obviously do like the work and the opportunities it affords them together with until six months ago the tremendous asset value of their homes. Anyone who bought a house next to an airport back in the 1950’s would be in their late 70’s by now and may have a point to make anyone who has bought a house in the vicinity since 1960 must have know they were locating to a place near a very busy airport. Today London Heathrow International Airport has superb rail and road links to London and other parts of the country. (more still to be built too). In 2001 Heathrow received approval to build another passenger terminal, the construction of which started in 2002. Terminal 5 was opened in March 2008 but will be fully complete in 2011. To compete with European Hubs like Schiphol and Frankfurt extra capacity is required. The Tories strangely are arguing against the business case just because they want to oppose any Labour party proposals. Not previously known for their Green credentials they find themselves in a very strange position of now disagreeing with Business and supporting as they would referred to them until the blue turned green 2 years ago, as do-gooding busybodies or liberal minded lefties or even out of work trouble makers. Obviously the Lib-Dems and the Friends of the Earth have always taken this view and therefore at least cannot now be classed as hypocrites. I think the expansion benefits far out weigh the objections raised by bigoted nimby objectors! “
“ Enough airports in this country, the government have no interest how ‘green’ we want to be in the future. “
“ It is appalling that the government are putting economy before the environment. Why do these people refuse to acknowledge the fact that if we continue in freefall the world has no future? “
“ The decision to give this plan the go-ahead suggests a misjudgement over making sustainable choices for the future. Ultimately, the money that would go into such a project should instead be concentrated on improving the energy efficiency of the aviation provision we already have at Heathrow, and perhaps encouraging public incentives for those who could legitimately make use of alternative, and less harmful, modes of transport. It seems both poor taste and spin to use the economy as an excuse for the investment; capitalising on public fears for the immediate financial future should not outweigh our concerns for our environmental long term future. The decision also fails to reflect a changing travel industry that has become more self-conscious, and interested in the alternatives to previous bad habits encompassed by air travel. While we cannot, and should not, do away with air travel completely, this is not an excuse for failing to engage the public’s interest in seeking alternative means of travel, and sustainability. “
“The economic benefits may not be over looked with environmental disadvantages. Surendra Gehlot www.mandore.com surendra_skg@yahoo.co.in “
“We are Eco-friendly hotel-we say no to more British pollution!! As a new airport needs to be built for trade and the British economy, it should be on the coast, so aircraft pollution is not overland as far as possible. It is very sad that commonsense is always over ruled by cost. How can Britain fulfill its obligation to cut green-house emissions, if it continues to increase pollution by increasing aircraft and traffic numbers. “
“ To be honest i dont know enough about this issue but if safty and efficiancy is enhanced by a third runway then prehaps its a good thing. If the airport cant handle the traffic they will just shift the problem eleswhere, i presume that as heathrow has been there for as long as we can remeber and has served UK well ist should continue to do so for the future. I use heathrow regularly but doent live at the end of a runway so only see the good side! “
“ I am very against the proposal for a third runway at Heathrow. More hypocrisy from our government who talk the talk on the environment but never walk the walk. We as individulas are supposed to change our behaviour, but in my view this is a drop in the ocean if industry and government don’t change their thinking and practise and lead by example. Why don’t we put the money into fast domestic train links between all the major British and European cities. This is how people want to travel but we cant. If we did this then we’d cut down on short haul flights which cause the main problem and people would feel better about long haul flying which is less damaging and more likely to help the poorer regions of the world like Africa where tourism is proving itself as a positive influence on governments. What places like Africa need is trade not aid. Guy lankester From Here 2 Timbuktu Ltd. “
“ I think we should not build a third runway. Before you do try to optimize the use of existing ones. “
“ It would be totally foolhardy to build a third runway at Heathrow, as it goes against the grain of any sensible policy to arrest climate change. We could do with fewer aeroplanes, and should do our utmost to diminish our carbon footprint. John Rowlands john_rowlands@tiscali.co.uk “
“ Despite the fact that most traveller use the airport to get to our place and assuming that the government strongly motivates the extension in favour of these travellers’ as well, we most naturally think, that in this time, where all crisis’s are about to meet it is outrages to expand air traffic. We would support focussing on clean (bio) fuel and zero impact on the environment. After that it could be time to think about growth again but let’s hope that at that time there will be a new awareness that makes people feel good wherever they are.. Thanks for sharing Theo & Inge “
“ 1. too london centric -we live in Scotland, and feel disadvantaged with lack of any great transport out (incl railways) and the additional costs incurred 2. lots of capacity around the country’s other airports so should use that instead 3. green agenda… 4. health issues nationally, locally to Heathrow, the ‘cost’ of people’s enjoyment of life, living close by with more aeroplanes 5. the argument that it stimulates tourism is negated by the number of brits who holiday abroad – fair enough to have one international holiday or so a year, but all these cheap short haul flights for a weekend break are a nonsense. “
“ With 5 London airports surely the extra capacity could be taken up through these other airports. This would stop the local residents suffering and BAA could concentrate on getting what we already have at Heathrow running efficiently. Bar terminal 5 i don’t know many people who think Heathrow is a decent, well run, efficient airport. “
“ I’m strongly against the idea of UK airport expansion, and would favour a rapid cessation of all internal flights with a correlating expansion of rail capacity “
“ I have lived near airports most of my life – and Heathrow. I feel that a third runway should be contained in the area of Heathrow, rather than raping another part of the countryside. There has been mention of an air terminal in the Kent estuary. No thanks. Kent has done its bit with the Channel Tunnel, and we have the prospect of the Kent International Gateway. Heathrow has been well established for many years and the ancillary businesses are collected in that area. And therefore any further required expansion should be kept there. “
“ Given the very fact that Heatrow has soo much traffic to handle it sems unavoidable to be in need to create a third runway; also in so much that travelling by air remains popular. “
“ I find it appalling that the government supposedly backs all these eco-lifestyle measures to safeguard the environment then wants to increase air travel above the country by x-percent by adding another international runway (can’t remember the figure but I know it’s a lot). Of course it will be ‘good’ for commerce, business, tourism, industry, but when is the government going to put its money where its mouth is? Short-term rather than long-term gain? Personally, if another runway meant less business for us as a result (and actually I don’t think it will affect us) I think that’s more than a reasonable price to pay to not increase air pollution even more than we have it already. What gets me is the hypocricy of it all. Does that answer your question? “
“ Whilst there may be economic benefits which would emanate from the construction, operation and increased traffic resulting from a third runway I am concerned at the impact on not only the environment in the “green” sense but particularly about the infrastructure, both road and rail. As a result I have leant towards a “no” vote. “
“ Hi, This is a tricky one. Personally, I am FOR an extra runway, but AGAINST extra flights. I know that is not the choice being offered, which is an extra runway PLUS extra flights. I believe that Heathrow desparately needs an extra runway just to cope with the number of flights it has at the moment. Heathrow gets a lot of stick when there are delays, but no other airport in the world operates at such tight margins of error (98% capacity) and any tiny problem therefore inevitably causes delays. Meanwhile, nearly all other airports have plenty of flexibility, runway space and time to absorb small problems without affecting schedules. I think Heathrow actually does a very good job at running the airport at such constant high capacity, but is in a no-win situation. Consumers and the media complain (loudly!) when there are delays at the airport, but still expect all the flights to run within a shorter time-span during the day, and with no extra runway space. In summary, I don’t think there is a need for expanding the schedules and flights operating out of Heathrow, but do think they need an extra runway to cope with what they have at the moment (there are environmental impacts from the building of the runway yes, but this would not add any extra noise or air pollution from extra flights). The alternative is to move slots from Heathrow to Gatwick, Stansted or other airports, but this then causes problems with internal and international connecting flights. It is important for the UK to have one large hub airport and we would lose out in employment and economic terms if we didn’t have one. Ralph Foulds, Uncover the World “
“ I believe we should have small airports, it is the end of the age of massive expansion and such mega structures…… definately no too much pollution and is not the way we are headed with travel…. more trains please. Amanda “
“ This is typical of the ‘Business as Usual’ attitude of the government in the middle of a climate and energy (not to mention economic) crisis . They’d be thinking of redecorating the banqueting suite on the Titanic, AFTER someone had shouted ‘Iceberg Ahoy’… “
“ We are all doing enough already, to destroy our wonderful planet without making conscious decisions to cause more damage! “
“ Although it probably makes sense economically and it will provide jobs in the short and long term – enough’s enough. In 10 years’s there will be a 4th runway and it goes on…. You need to draw a line in the sand and look at other ways of bringing people in and out of the country for business and holiday purposes and to encourage cheaper and more cost effective forms of travel ie: Train. Improve and update the rail service to accomodate the numbers…. Or look at building other terminals to exisiting regional airports that wouldn’t ruin the surrounding area. I think Heathrow has enough traffic coming in and out – divert it somewhere else and improve the rail links…. Having lived in Richmond – it’s noisy enough! “
“ Although it would undoubtedly create many thousands of jobs, I cannot see how a third runway is consistent with the targets to reduce carbon emissions. I think we should be aiming to reduce the number of flights, not increase them. “
“ Effective measures must be taken to combat climate change, and approving an expansion of aircraft capacity sends the wrong message and will have an impact far into the future. Measures such as restricting the type of aircraft when airlines apply for new landing slots will have no effect if the total number of flights increases. “
“ Being the busiest airport in the world – and yet only two runways (and 5 Terminals) is crazy. Some bad weather means lots of circling flights (not environmentally friendly) because they are operating at capacity. There is no room to space out the flights any more. So from a safely point of view we all feel that a third runway would be adventageous. Of course we would not be saying that if we lived in the area and we would like the regional airports to be used more. Many of our customers are forced to use Heathrow because there is no alternative. So if the third runway makes Heathrow safer and does not mean more flights – then we are in favour. “
“ Mankind is entering a critical period its history “Peak Oil”. The money that is going to be spent on a new runway would be better spent on developing a strategy for our transition as a society of moving from abundant energy to less energy. The 3rd runway at Heathrow will provide a short term solution and then fall into redundancy as less and less people are able to afford the cost of flying. Costs that will continue to rise and rise as oil becomes more difficult to extract. Finally the day will come when it costs a barrel of energy, to extract a barrel of energy from the ground and that will quite simply be the end of cheap air flights and our problem will go away. The mayhem and destruction that a new runaway will inflict on people living under the new flight paths is unfair, unjust and irresponsible of us as a society if we let it go ahead. “
“ I do not have enough information to comment on this… I think it depends on a lot of factors, and environmental impacts play a big role… however, if the opposition to it is only about lowering air travel, and reducing carbon emmissions, that is not the only issue regarding the environment at the moment.. There are far greater issues with regards to the environment and responsible travel than just carbon emissions from air travel… Unfortunately, the media only takes up issues that are sensational and the public catch up on that…!!! “
“ there are sufficient London airports and runways – a re think on serving regional airports and transit passengers is needed. To build further on “green” land is an outrange. How can Gordon Brown talk about meeting “our enviromental targets” yet indicate that they will approve a 3rd runway? “
“ I think they should build the proposed airport further down the thames estuary and reorganise the flights coming into london so regional flights use that one and keep heathrow as an international hub. Alex “
“ While BAA runs the airport it will never offer what is required to London or the country. London has many airports, lets see serious expansion to other areas of the country. I’m not keen on air transport, but unfortunately it is a necessary evil in many ways. “
