Forum Topic

Heathrow Expansion Plans

Whilst this important issue is now front page on this website I am surprised there is no specific discussion going on - so lets kick it off with a bit of this:- Images of the projected noise footprint 2020- various documents citing reasons not to expandcan be found on the Brentford Community Council website at:www.BrentfordCC.org.ukWhat do you think fellow residents of Brentford?

Stephen Browne ● 6398d39 Comments

This is what the UK should be doing, investing more in a fast train network to take shorthaul business from the planes; instead of expanding Heathrow."France unveils super-fast train - BBC Tuesday, 5 February 2008  New high-speed train  French President Nicolas Sarkozy has attended the launch of a new high-speed train made by engineering giant Alstom. The AGV (Automotrice Grande Vitesse) train will travel at up to 360km/h (224mph), powered by engines placed under each carriage, the company says. The absence of locomotives at either end allows it to carry more passengers. Alstom compares the AGV - successor to the TGV - to the world's largest passenger plane, the Airbus A380, in terms of importance and innovation. "That we are here today is testimony to the courage of Alstom, because during its worst period it decided not to sacrifice its research and development," Mr Sarkozy said in front of the new train at Alstom's rail test centre in La Rochelle, western France. See more details of the AGV design In 2004, Mr Sarkozy, then finance minister, intervened to save Alstom by partially privatising the company and blocking a takeover by Germany's Siemens which wanted to dismantle the French giant. "We need to entrench a simple message in people's minds: industry is not over, industry is essential for the economy of a rich nation as much as an emerging nation," Mr Sarkozy said at the launch. World record The new AGV trains are set to travel 1,000km (600 miles) in three hours, which is "a new stage in the competition with the airlines", said Alstom's Executive Chairman, Patrick Kron, at the ceremony. With an engine under each carriage, the AGV - which translates as "high-speed railcar" - is unlike the TGV, which has engines only at the back and front. It was also built using Alstom's own funds rather than as a joint venture with the state rail firm SNCF as the TGV was. The TGV's maximum speed currently is 320km/h. But a modified TGV achieved a world rail speed record for a train on conventional rails last April, reaching 574.8km/h. The AGV's new engines are more energy-efficient and the innovative multiple-unit design allows more passenger space, Alstom says. It also reduces maintenance costs, the company says. The Italian operator NTV has already bought 25 of the AGV trains, and will run them on the Italian high-speed network at a speed of 300km/h in 2011. Automotrice Grande Vitesse, AGV Power is distributed along the train in the wheel trucks or bogies rather than being concentrated in the front and rear cars.Distributing power under the carriages frees up 20% extra space for passengers. The AGV can carry between 300 and 700 people seated.The AGV weighs less than its rivals which reduces its power consumption. It consumes 30% less energy than a TGV. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7227807.stm

Duncan Walker ● 6382d

Ryanair is showing how their "stuff them in sell them cheap" approach is very sensitive to oil prices. This illustrates that the Heathrow Expansion business model is flawed in terms of the price of oil they have used, which is well under what it is now and it will continue to rise.What is needed now is for the Government to slap on the true VAT charges on aircraft fuel, plus an environmental pollution tax and truly make these airlines wince and cut back on cheap flights.See in this report how Chief executive Michael O'Leary is so agressive and dismissive of the environmental effect his 'pollution subsidised' airline.http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/feb/04/ryanair.theairlineindustry?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront"Ryanair warns high oil prices could slash its profits by 50% next yearFiona Walsh and Dan Milmo guardian.co.uk, Monday February 4 2008 Budget airline Ryanair warned today that profits could fall by up to 50% next year on the back of high oil prices, declining consumer spending and the weakening pound.Chief executive Michael O'Leary said the European airline sector faces the possibility of a "perfect storm" of higher oil prices, poor consumer demand, weaker sterling and higher costs and there is now "a significant chance" that profits in 2008/09 will decline."At our most optimistic, a combination of flat yields and $75 oil would see profits grow by 6% to approximately €500m, but at our most conservative, if forward oil prices remain at $85, and consumer sentiment/sterling weakness leads to a 5% reduction in yields, then profits in the coming year could fall by as much as 50% to as low as €235m (£175m)," he said.Shares in Ryanair tumbled more than 10% on the stark profits warning, falling to €3.21. Rival budget airlines were also hit, with easyJet down by 6%.But the Ryanair boss later told journalists at a press conference in London that he would welcome a recession, as it would allow the airline to keep its prices low and would also depress fuel costs across the industry.Asked if he was concerned about the chill that appears to be spreading across the sector, he said: "Not a lot. In many ways we would welcome a chill or something even colder."We would welcome a good, deep, bloody recession for 12 to 18 months. "One, it would lead to lower fares and, two, it would expose the regulatory scam that is going on over here," a reference to the group's long-running argument with the Civil Aviation Authority over airport charges.O'Leary also claimed that a recession would put an end to the "environmental bullshit among the chattering classes that has allowed Gordon Brown to double air passenger duty. We need a recession if we are going to see off some of this environmental nonsense."He dismissed fears that an economic downturn would lead to lower passenger numbers for the group, saying he expects growth to continue at double digit rates. But profits will be hit as the airline slashes prices to maintain demand.O'Leary's warning on profits came as the group, Europe's largest low-cost airline, reported a worse-than-expected 27% fall in third-quarter profits, to €35m (£25.54m).The Ryanair boss described it as "creditable performance in very adverse market conditions", and said he still expects profits for the current year to be ahead by around 17.5% to €470m"

Duncan Walker ● 6382d

Wandsworth Council Response - PUBLIC TRANSPORT27. The public transport assumptions are scarcely credible. While the consultation document says the share of passengers using public transport would go up from 36.2 per cent to 41.2 per cent by 2030, this would be equivalent to 38.2 million bus, tube and rail passengers by 2030 – double the current number. The numbers of road users would also double to 53.4 million.

Duncan Walker ● 6383d

Wandsworth Council Response - NOISE24. The consultation document fails to take into account the results of the latest noise attitudessurvey contained in Attitudes to Noise from Aviation Sources report (ANASE). This research was commissioned in 2001 by the then Transport Minister, Mr Bob Ainsworth MP, following the Terminal Five decision. The Minister said it would ‘underpin’ future Government policy on aircraft noise. Six years later the study’s findings were finally published – but only after pressure from the 2M Group which had insisted on the report being released prior to the current consultation. It showed that the same proportion of people who were previously annoyed at 57 decibels were now annoyed at a much lower level of around 50 decibels. The 57 decibel figure dates from the only previous social study (ANIS) which reported in 1985. If the Government were applying the results of ANASE it would draw a new 16-hour average noise contour based on the new 50 decibel threshold. This would include an area of some 2 million people around the Airport – compared to the 250,000 people within the current boundaries. By refusing to adopt ANASE, the Government can claim that the noise area affected by expansion will not increase. The Government’s response is that ANASE contained a number of flaws particularly on the monetary cost of noise nuisance. For these reasons it has not assessed the aviation noise impact in the current consultation and will continue to rely on equivalent calculations used for other forms of transport noise. The Council’s view is that it is simply not credible to claim that a study which took a team of international experts six years to complete at a cost of £1.5 million does not provide more robust and up-to-date information than the previous Government-funded study which is now 22 years old. Furthermore, as stated above the Council’s own studies on annoyance, and its experience of registered aircraft noise complaints in Wandsworth entirely supports the ANASE findings.

Duncan Walker ● 6383d

Wandsworth Council Response - CLIMATE CHANGE23. On climate change in particular the Government is sending mixed messages to the public.It is difficult to see how its stated objectives for achieving emissions reductions can bereconciled with its policy of further expansion at Heathrow. There is no assessment of the climate change impact of the extra 3 million tonnes of CO2 emissions produced by the third runway. The quite practical options of substituting much of the short-haul flights with investment in an improved high speed rail network to augment the new Channel tunnel/St. Pancras capacity have not been included and evaluated. The aviation industry, which is exempted from VAT on fuel, is also allowed to pass its emissions on to other sectors which will have to make their own reductions to pay for aviation expansion. Therefore the ‘polluter pays’ principle is not applied evenly and fairly to aviation. It is also difficult to see how effective emissions trading can be when it is restricted to commercial flights within the EU.

Duncan Walker ● 6383d

Wandsworth Council Response - CLAIMED ECONOMIC BENEFITS25. The claimed economic benefits of expansion are at the heart of the Government’s case. Butmost of the figures relied on in the consultation document are those obtained from previous studies paid for by the aviation industry. The Council believes that, while the economic benefits to BAA may be substantial, more work needs to be done to establish the impact on the wider economy. It has therefore consistently pressed for an objective and independent cost benefit analysis. The Government should now commission a fully independent study which takes into account the £9bn subsidy the aviation industry receives from its VAT exempt status and the £18bn tourism deficit which results from higher spending by UK visitors abroad. The new study should also assess the impact of not providing the extra 222,000 flights from Heathrow and instead cost the benefits to the economy of those passengers either making their journeys from other airports, travelling abroad by rail or staying in the UK. As part of this process it would look beyond Heathrow to the capacity provided by all five London airports. It would also look closely at the economic benefits generated by the estimated 35 per cent of travellers who are simply changing flights at Heathrow and not leaving the Airport. The claims for extra jobs created by expansion would also be tested. This currently estimates an extra 8,000 on-site and 2,000 off-site. But with the west London economy already buoyant there is no assessment of who might take up these jobs. This is particularly relevant at a time when the Statistics Commission (December 2007) has confirmed that 80 per cent of new jobs in the last 10 years have been filled by migrants. The whole issue of secondary costs and investment necessary to sustain an expansion of Heathrow requires investigation and financial evaluation e.g. the costs of extra housing, schools and other infrastructure to support the claimed extra jobs.

Duncan Walker ● 6383d

The leader of Wandsworth Council concludes very strongly against the expansion:Wandsworth Council Response - COMMENTS OF THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL29. The Leader has been consulted and believes the Council has an overriding duty to protectthe quality of life of local communities – both now and in the future. He considers the economic case for expansion to have been framed solely in terms of what works best for BAA. He considers that the Council should urge the Government to launch a properly independent study of the full economic impacts of expansion and to bring forward without delay proposals for the break-up of the inefficient and anti-competitive BAA monopoly.He also considers that the Council should call on the Government to support the Private Members Bill put forward by the MP for Putney – the Environmental Protection (Airports) Bill - which outlines plans for an independent regulator of the aviation sector that would break once and for all the cosy relationship that has persisted for years between the DfT and the industry.30. The Leader further considers that, in the context of growing concern about climate change,and indeed the Government’s own emerging policies in this area, the current consultationprocess is an anachronism. Instead of relying on major industry figures to stress the totallyunproven business benefits of expansion there should be a transparent and inclusive approach that is more questioning of the claims made by the industry and more open to new ways of managing demand. In particular he considers that the 2003 White Paper is now out of date and should be reviewed as an urgent priority with considerations given to climate change objectives, new high-speed rail alternatives including the recently opened line from St. Pancras and the use of economic instruments to ensure a more level playing field between aviation and other forms of transport.31. Finally he considers that the most pressing impact for Borough residents will be the loss ofrunway alternation that will lead to an extra 60,000 flights a year on the existing runways.He urges the Council to support a continuing programme of publicity and informationincluding public meetings and newsletters to make residents aware of how they canrespond to the threats posed by the Government’s expansion plans. He also recommends continued joint working through the ‘2M Group’ of local authorities with support for appropriate action through the courts if, following joint studies and legal advice, it emerges that the councils and other campaign groups have reasonable grounds for judicial review of any aspect of the consultation document.

Duncan Walker ● 6383d

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000297/M00002854/AI00008112/$PaperNo08118airportnoise.docA.ps.pdfThis is an excellent response (16/1/08) by WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL  to the Government/BAA proposal to expand Heathrow. It answers each of the questions set by Government in the consultation document and clearly identifies the distorted information and the flaws and deficiencies in the Government's argument mainly supplied mainly by BAA themselves!It recommends to the council that Wandsworth Council should join with authorities in the 2M group http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/Home/MyWandsworth/Newsextra/2mgroup.htm to obtain its own studies and expert evidence.I think this is the way to stop the expansion, by getting independent objective analyses of the Business Case for expansion, which can identify the economic model and also the impact on people, and environment. This should then be used to:1. Challenge the Government legally in the courts 2. Emphasise the loss of support for any politician and party supporting the expansion3. Show to the world that the UK Government is not serious about damaging the Environment with its subsidy of pollution (noise; air quality; )4. Illustrate the Government’s inability and seriousness to forge and implement an integrated Transport Strategy, where less polluting forms of transport such as trains are invested in.5. Highlight how the Government/Transport department is in the pocket of the airline industry.The report is well worth reading in full to see their response to each Government question, but here I have drawn out in the following replies some of their points on key impact areas.

Duncan Walker ● 6383d

DaveIf this thread, which is about an extremely important issue for Hounslow residents, is to be sidetracked into an inane party political squabble then I will not play any part in assisting you in that process.  This will be my final response to you on this thread until or unless you start to debate sensibly.Your silly and unwelcome interjections undermine all the good work which is being done by Councillor Cadbury and other colleagues of yours.I have no doubt they would not wish themselves or their party to be associated with your ludicrous behaviour, and that they will post here to confirm this.It is engaging in debate with you which has led me to believe in reincarnation.  Nobody could possibly have attained your level of stupidity in one lifetime.

Phil Andrews ● 6383d

If you are going to be a bit of an idiot Steve.. a very un-educated one at that may be you should write to the Daily Express, may be they will understand you.

Dave Hughes ● 6383d

Think about it - what future is there for a Hounslow There does not seem to be one since you are selling everything off so you can fix Chiswick town halls roof,What a shame...The Tories are so inclusive they are now getting upset that there pretty pictures include SWP supporters.........What you going to do rip up all them pictures because they dont show white Tories up in arms....oopps a bit late for that now!!!!

Dave Hughes ● 6383d

Dear Mr Hughes Could you possibly start your own thread for those who wish to comment on your incomprehensible rant about??????? This thread was started as serious and intelligent debate for those with some basic intellect and is being read by our friends in Putney, Barnes, Chiswick, Twickenham, Richmond and Hammersmith and anyone who is interested in gleaning more information about the expansion of Heathrow.  To use issues like this for petty politics makes Hounslow the laughing stock and is beneath contempt.

Steve Taylor ● 6383d

DaveWith due respect this kind of thing is really unhelpful when we are discussing the proposed expansion of Heathrow.  If the parties and groups around Hounslow do not demonstrate total unity on this subject and degenerate instead into silly political point scoring then the pro-expansion forces are going to walk all over us.Think about it - what future is there for a Hounslow Labour Party when there is no longer a Hounslow?This is why it is unfortunate that your MPs have decided to host their own "rival" conference rather than support the local authority event, to which whatever they might try to claim to the contrary they were invited.  The campaign may now be being led by a Conservative councillor, Barbara Reid, but she and all the rest of us have gratefully and very publicly acknowledged the huge contribution which was made in the past, and is still being made, by Councillor Ruth Cadbury and others members of the Labour Group in Hounslow.Can you and yours not just put your petty (and in your case virtually incomprehensible) slogans and mantras to one side just this once and climb on board the public campaign against the further expansion of Heathrow airport?

Phil Andrews ● 6383d

Well I saw a very funny picture in the LGC magazine on the back page, The LGC magazine is a council in house sort of mag, well on the back cover was a loads of people with the posters who just happen to be SWP rent a mob, whats this yes SWP has the tories gone so far left now they have a deal with the SWP to make it look like there are a lot of people to launch the Council NO campaign. What will Bowen and the mob think of next communists to deliver this years budget at the council.

Dave Hughes ● 6383d

Jane Davison on the Chiswick Forum has pointed us to this excellent document:Wandsworth Council have prepared a good document, available here:http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000297/M00002854/AI00008112/$PaperNo08118airportnoise.docA.ps.pdf

Duncan Walker ● 6384d

Jim Lawes ● 6385d

"And where is Hilary Benn's house in North Chiswick in relation to the flightpath?"About 600 metres north of the 3rd runway flight path.

Richard Jennings ● 6390d

No, I haven't started yet - and probably won't use the document to respond. I think it is overcomplex and invites people to make divisive choices, the results of which may then be misconstrued. People yesterday were saying that on-line responses may be even worse giving no chance at all of going "off-piste" with their views on airport expansion and forcing them to answer all questions in a very structured way.(Haven't tried it myself)"To what extent do you agree or disagree that a third runway can be added within air quality limits, as set out in the White Paper without further measures ?"is a particularly difficult question for me. Currently I don't know. I have a nice fat pack of the supporting technical documents and I have turned the pages over of most of them. I chatted to different experts at the exhibitions at Hounslow, Brentford and Central London seeking each time to get a bit better understanding of how the insuperable problems in 2003 have been waved away to make it a non-issue in 2030. I had hoped that Hounslow's air pollution man, Rob Gibson, who was a member of the air quality team working on the "Project for the Sustainable Development of Heathrow" to study how to model emissions from the airport would help. But, and it may be unkind and unfair to report it, but when, at Tuesday's Civic Centre meeting, I asked him how the magic wand had worked to make the problem vanish, he shrugged his shoulders and said he didn't know. He said it was his professional job and area of expertise but reckoned that it would take two months work to do a proper study from what was given. I think he said that Hounslow was collaborating with others to engage consultants to carry out the evaluation.(Mentioning this conversation with Rob to the air quality suits at the Westminster exhibition yesterday I got the impression that they were genuinely shocked and somewhat hurt that he had not accepted the report at face-value. "Well if he hasn't got the information he needs, he has only to ask us......" At least I was told that the information I wanted wasn't in the Defra National Air Quality Strategy annexes (as one expert had told me at Brentford) but was on the National Air Emissions Inventory website. I don't think they liked my views on the difficulty the documents gave in trying to answer the consultation question. Still I was nowhere near as good as the lady before me who had the DfT economists squirming on the compatibility between Defra's Climate Change agenda and aviation expansion.... And where is Hillary Benn's house in North Chiswick in relation to the flightpath ?)

Tim Henderson ● 6391d

Page 8----------------------------------------------------------Started filling yours in yet?

Jim Lawes ● 6393d

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Lawes ● 6393d

---------------------------------------------------------

Jim Lawes ● 6393d

Page 4-----------------------------------------------------------Page 5-----------------------------------------------------------

Jim Lawes ● 6393d

Page 2----------------------------------------------------------Page 3----------------------------------------------------------more pages to follow later!!

Jim Lawes ● 6393d

Many "dwellings" (homes?) in the Borough have apparently not received the 8 page consultation document.It accompanied a letter from the Department of Transport addressed to the "Occupier" saying that they ""support in principal the development of a 3rd runway, but only if strict enviromental conditions can be met"""As a resident living near the airport we want to hear your views""I, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, hope you will find time to participate in this important consultation by registering your views. They really do count"---------------------------------------There is criticism of the style of the document and the language used.. not "plain English" How will you be filling in the forms. And what about other adults in your "dwelling"?

Jim Lawes ● 6393d

On the Chiswick W4 forum now.

Trevor Clarke ● 6393d

TrevorIf you could post your fine message onto the Chiswick Forum thread started by Paul Stedman..24 messages so far..that would  be helpful to others who are co-ordinating campaigns in W4.

Jim Lawes ● 6393d

Whoops, just seen that I was thinking I was on the Chiswick forum and it is Brentford! Sorry. But everything said applies equally to both areas. :)

Trevor Clarke ● 6393d

Thank you Jim and Steve for your complimentary comments. Similar to Jim for the Hounslow meeting, I sat through the early hours of Saturday morning putting the meeting account together from memory.Looking at the various threads here and on the Brentford forum, I can see a lot of party politics that may get in the way. Circumstances are different I know, but it will work against the area if the Heathrow expansion is used as a hammer to add to the bashing. Treat Heathrow as a unique case and bury the hatchet with your MPs. For the greater good, even if it is through gritted teeth!In Richmond, the greatest emphasis of all was on the importance of unity and in Richmond and Twickenham they are determined to do that, with Heathrow becoming the bond that has brought about a unique collaboration between the two main political parties for the area, Lib Dem and Conservative, both the Council and the MPs.If I use the collective term of Hounslow, knowing that includes Chiswick, Brentford and Feltham, the Richmond Borough can learn some useful things from your campaigning, and you may learn a few useful things from Richmond too. (e.g. Your NO card and banner campaign, which made for a great picture at the Hounslow meeting). Richmond Council is calling on all of its 'influential' residents (Lords, Ladies, media and showbiz people) to help with the campaign, exert their influence, and generate publicity. Such people also reside in Chiswick, I understand! (Ant and Dec are high profile). Sharing ideas and linking with the other boroughs is what is needed but until now, it seems that even under the umbrella of the 2M Group, most areas are acting in isolation, which is good news for the government and BAA. While watching my son play football at Lampton School in Hounslow on a Sunday morning, we see and hear at close hand what it is like to have a plane coming in to land, or taking off, every 90 seconds right above you. And I think, what must it be like for the teachers trying to teach and the pupils trying to learn at this school, for five days a week?! And for the people who live in the block of flats next to the playing field, seven days a week, night and day?It should be compulsory for Ruth Kelly, Jim Fitzpatrick. and DfT officials to live in somewhere like Hounslow for at least a week, and visit places like the schools while doing so. In my humble opinion.

Trevor Clarke ● 6393d

I would agree Ann Keen has yet again demonstrated her contempt of her constituents serious concerns about the expansion of Heathrow. However is this not the norm for this Labour Government after all if you can start a war without asking or taking in to account the views of the people you can certainly expand an airport. As for the voters all running out at the next election and voting forMs Macleod I think she may have to do more than speak at a couple of meetings where she was sure of support for the anti expansion view.

Robert Ayres ● 6393d

It was noteworthy that Ann Keen MP for Brentford and Isleworth once against distinguished herself by her absence from both the Chiswick and the Hounslow meetings-as did her husband Alan, MP for Feltham and Heston. Although Mrs Keen says she is opposed to the Labour Government's present plans to expand Heathrow she has in the past supported all previous Heathrow expansions. Nor does she have a strong record on opposing night and early morning flights. If in fact she lives in Covent Garden, that is understandable as she is not as affected by them as we are !As a Parliamentary Under Secretary at the Department of Health, and therefore a very junior member of the Government, she will not be able to vote against the Government's proposals unless she is prepared to lose her job.That's unlikely.Mary Macleod, the Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, in contrast was at both meetings. She spoke at the Hounslow meeting and strongly opposes the plans.Let's hope we have a chance to elect Mary as our MP so she can vote on the issue before the plans are approved by Parliament.

David Giles ● 6394d

I hear that Isleworth are to have a Heathrow Meeting soon ..and hopefully that can include Brentford residents as well.Unless of course Brentfordians feel up to hosting their own meeting.?  Mrs Keen MP must surely would attend that one!

Jim Lawes ● 6394d

Indeed an excellent report by Trevor Clarke on www.richmond-online.co.uk

Steve Taylor ● 6394d

Trevor,That was splendid reporting of the Richmond meeting which you posted onto the Richmond on-line website..and I urge all those concerned to read it!www.richmond-online.co.ukEven more people need to attend these meetings and get involved and know the arguement against Expansion. The "NO" camp had a meeting in Hounslow tonight attended by some 300 locals..but sadly some 10,000 others didn't make it!-----------------------------------------------------www.richmond-online.co.uk

Jim Lawes ● 6395d

Does it matter what people tell this MP she always votes with her party. Will we get a referendum on the new European treaty no just wait and see how she votes on this. So given her and her Governments record do you really think that they will stop the expansion of Heathrowno they will see more money comming in for them to squander and Heathrow will expand. Look on the bright side there will be a lot of opportunities for eastern european ear plug sellars in Brentford

Robert Ayres ● 6396d

Thanks for the information Steve - sounds like they are a bit undecided still. Hopefully enough constituents will make it clear what they've decided themselves.

Ian Douglas ● 6396d

Ruth Cadbury posted this on 2/12/2007 on a different thread:"Ann and Alan Keen's position - released this week:"Over the years we have campaigned consistently for the reduction of night flights at Heathrow and to safeguard the Cranford Agreement.  We will do everything in our power to ensure that the Cranford Agreement is upheld".  [Mixed mode could not go ahead if the agreement is upheld]."We will be carrying out an extensive consultation on the Heathrow expansion proposals with our constituents over the coming months . . . and pass our findings to the Department of Transport for inclusion in the Heathrow Consultation process.We are opposed in principle to the third runway.  However we require more economic information from the Airline Industry and from the Department of Transport "Hoping that clarifiesCllr Ruth CadburyLB Hounslow - Deputy Leader"

Steve Taylor ● 6396d

I looked on Ann Keen's website and it's very vague about her own position on Heathrow (i.e. absolutely no position is stated). Anyone know what her views are?

Ian Douglas ● 6397d

Just to draw your attention to a record of the meeting in Richmond on 18 January at www.richmond-online.co.uk The main point is that it needs a unified approach to have any chance of succeeding in stopping the third runway and prevent the ending of runway alternation. Oh, and it was mentioned that apathy is what the government are hoping for to get their way. Yet if they felt it may harm their election chances, this may cause them to bottle out of it.    Lord Clive Foley revealed that 'Future Heathrow' which is pushing for additional capacity and a third runway, has the support of all the unions except UNISON and most of the business community. It also means that they are very well funded. Despite being in a minority of one in the hall, he still had an air of confidence at the end, which told its own story.

Trevor Clarke ● 6398d

OK, apologies, so now I know why I don't attempt to embed links in this site...Go tohttp://www.brentfordcc.org.ukand the item is on the Home Page...

Stephen Browne ● 6398d