Will Hutton’s otherwise excellent article was let down by the confusing argument on Heathrow. Clearly,
London and the south-east are home to 469 global companies not because of Heathrow, since Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt also have well-connected airports. Companies base themselves in the UK because of other matters: English, access to the EU, a benign tax policy etc (“Vital Heathrow expansion must not be held up by craven politics”, Comment).
Heathrow may be a “hub airport”, but that is not its main business, since two-thirds of its 75m passengers per annum start or end their flight in London. Only a third of them transfer flights and do not leave the airport. Otherwise there would be little argument about the impact of extra road access traffic that a third runway would bring.
More importantly, by all the usual measures of environmental impact, if Heathrow was a factory it would have been closed years ago. Its noise footprint is large, hence the opposition from local MPs, and the air pollution generated by land side links kills and makes ill a significant number of residents.
After the Paris climate change agreement we need to reduce CO2 emissions. Unless aero engines improve efficiency by a quantum, this must mean less flying in the future, which is already being shaped by internet access and other ways to communicate that do not need personal travel.
Professor LJS Lesley
Liverpool
Will Hutton’s review of the disgraceful delays in the building of a third runway for London excludes one critical point: billions of pounds have already been invested at Heathrow and to exploit that investment fully we need a third runway.
The decision to commit to Heathrow was made in the 1970s when a plan to move the operation to Maplin Sands in the Thames Estuary was abandoned on “environmental grounds”. To walk away from Heathrow at this late stage would be an act of political vandalism. This decision will define David Cameron’s premiership; if he flunks it he will for ever be known for his weakness.
Richard Leveton
Ferryside
Carmarthenshire
Will Hutton’s acceptance of the Heathrow lobby’s mendacious and self-interested propaganda is absurd. Air travel is split more or less evenly between hubs and point-to-point services; hubs are not the sine qua non. “Connectivity” is no longer dependent on executives hopping from plane to plane – a lot of it is carried out by electronic means. The Davies Commission did not deal adequately with the health, pollution or climate change issues. Heathrow is not crucial to freight operations. Its principal trade is tourism and trips to see friends and family.
The aviation companies want the government to pay for improvement to surface transport (rail and road) – that means our money. Aircraft noise is associated with hypertension. We should put up with all that while aiming at a maximum 1.5C rise?
A serious government would invest in less toxic travel modes. It would also reduce the several forms of subsidy commercial aviation enjoys, which would help with the first steps towards the management of demand.
Christopher Williams
London W5
Will Hutton’s justification for Heathrow’s expansion couldn’t be clearer. We urgently need a national airport hub for economic growth. Boris Johnson’s estuary airport would be on the wrong side of London, requiring extra transport infrastructure. Further delay in upgrading Heathrow because of objections from the wealthy west London suburbs is holding the national economy back.
As for multimillionaire Zac Goldsmith, his threat to cause a by-election by resigning over the issue smacks of blackmail. As a candidate for mayor, Londoners might consider just whose side is he on.
Bill Newham
Manchester
