POLL: Should a third runway be built at Heathrow Airport?


  • Community Manager
  • 5995 replies

Members of Parliament are voting on whether to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport.


Opponents of Heathrow expansion have attacked the scheme on environmental, noise and financial grounds, with some making the case for an alternative expansion scheme at Gatwick airport.

The Government has made the following five pledges.

- No cost to taxpayers
- 100,000 jobs
- Guaranteed benefits for the UK including internal flights and rail links
- Environmental protections
- The ability to fine Heathrow or ground aircraft if the airport breaks its own promises over the scheme

What do you think? Is the 3rd runway a good idea or not? Where else could the extra runway go?

Where is the best place for a new runway?


27 replies

Userlevel 7
Badge +9
This is one of those trick question polls.
Due to infrastructure being so heavily biased towards london the only logical choice is heathrow as its a business driven decision with no government cost.
The best choice would proberly be a new airport altogether (boris island style maybe?)but the 100'S OF BILLIONS this would cost the government building road and rail links make it unaffordable to current government finances.
Isn't it ironic @Jon1 that the day MPs voted in favour of building the 3rd runway at Heathrow, the Government also turned down the tidal lagoon project.

😕
Userlevel 7
Badge +9
Yes i do see how ironic that seems on the surface. But dig down and heathrow expansion is all private sector money no cost to tax payer but the 1.3billion subsidy wanted by the tidel plan is a lot of dosh in anyones eyes. Especially as the same amount of wind power would only cost 400 million.
Dont get me wrong its a great idea but the cost has some how got to come down to make it financially viable.
Good points there @Jon1 :rolleyes:
I see what you're saying about private investment more appealing than taxpayers' money.
Personally I wouldn't mind if my taxes were (partly) spent on renewable energy. Would you?
Userlevel 6
I believe there are too many planes in our skies as it is without encouraging more, this is above London on a Sunday morning;

Userlevel 7
Badge +9
I never see planes that BIG over my house.
That's a lot of aeroplanes.
Can you guess (without Googling it!) how many aeroplanes are in the air at once around the world at any one time?
Userlevel 6
10,000?
dgilbert2;15688:
10,000?


Spot on! (When the USA is 'awake'. A little less when they're sleeping)
Userlevel 7
Badge +8
10009 when the Red Arrows are displaying 😂👍
Userlevel 6
Who could forget the Red Arrows on here @Bev LOL
Userlevel 7
Badge +8
Absolutely! I won’t let ya! 😂😂😂👍
Userlevel 7
Badge +10
I guarantee no one will forget this.. entirely inappropriate, but hilarious..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpMnl06Gy1c
Bev;15740:
Absolutely! I won’t let ya! ������������������ ��������
Should the Heathrow expansion decision be brought back to Parliament in light of recent climate concerns?

In this BBC article if we're going to hit the CCC's net zero emissions target aviation expansion is not an option..

But then, even if airlines offer the option to pay a little extra to carbon-offset the flight, less than 1% of us choose to take it anyway, so are people really that concerned? 😕
Userlevel 7
Badge +9
Airport expansion in it self is not a problem in my eyes as if flying was banned to help the climate there would be uproar.
The solution could be a compulsory charge on flights,fuel,energy (add to list as required) to offset the carbon footprint by 125%
@Jon1 good solution! I think a carbon-offsetting charge on flights could help though I'm sure that would still cause an uproar :rolleyes:.

But when people are looking for budget airlines and the cheapest price, even a £5 or £10 charge could put people off (and so if compulsory, it'd have to be made very clear how much is going towards offsetting and exactly where that money is used) ... would that charge put you off/ would you be willing to opt-in to pay it?
I vote for Boris Island.

No, I am not an out and out Boris fan but Heathrow whilst the obvious business choice is in the wrong place being south west of London. This requires planes to fly across London to reach it. Boris Island would be away from London with planes only having to fly over the Thames estuary. In theory the only complaints would be from birds as no one lives in the estuary itself. There would therefore also be no pollution added to Londoners.

On a more green aspect I don't personally fly - not that I have a phobia I just don't want to spend the money on that. I am not a member of the snowflake generation going on multiple holiday flights per year. (And then complaining I have no money.)

I would also point out there are already some taxes in the form of Airport Passenger Tax. Although this has been increased several times well above inflation and was introduced under false pretences it still does not cover the CO2 costs. Some people may still be unaware that airplane fuel is not subject to tax unlike the poor ordinary motorist filling up with petrol. (Not filthy diesel, they deserve to be taxed off the road.)

I also severely doubt the claim that Heathrow expansion will not have a cost to the tax payer. Who is going to pay to move the M4/M25 junction? Who is going to pay for a presumed extra stop on the Piccadilly line for the new terminal for the new runway? I can't see BAA paying in full for either of these.
jelockwood;29457:

On a more green aspect I don't personally fly - not that I have a phobia I just don't want to spend the money on that.


Woah that's a pretty big step @jelockwood! When was the last flight you took? :rolleyes:
How do you get around to go on holidays instead of flying?
Nataly;29642:
Woah that's a pretty big step @jelockwood! When was the last flight you took? :rolleyes:
How do you get around to go on holidays instead of flying?


Staycations. 🙂 However I do occasionally travel on business, less so in my current job.

(Apart from anything else the whole checkin and queueing these days is less pleasant than it used to be for obvious and sadly necessary reasons. I could not afford myself to go to the pointy end of the plane nor do I get that privilege when business travelling. To call it cattle class is a misnomer. Cattle get more space.)
@jelockwood The Guardian actually just published an article about people who've given up flying (link here) and Swedish 'flygskam' - maybe you could join the British 'flight free 2020' pledge:rolleyes:

I guess peoples' main argument against staycations would be the British weather?
Latest news on this 3rd runway.
Heathrow Airport have revealed their design for the runway and expansion of new terminals etc.
They reckon it'll be finished by 2050 (if they get the go-ahead).
In response to criticisms about carbon emissions, the plan also outlines a new low-emission zone, which means if you drive to the airp0rt in a high-polluting vehicle, you'll be charged more.... That seems a bit strange (ironic?! 😕) to me.

Here's the BBC report on the plans.
Some breaking (and, I admit, unexpected IMHO) news. It's being reported that the Court of Appeal has upheld a claim that the Heathow Airport third runway is illegal.

The reason it's been ruled illegal by the court of appeal is because ministers did not adequately take into account the government’s climate change commitments.

I wonder what will happen now?
Userlevel 7
Badge +8
That is surprising, I posted on another forum that it was hypocritical of the government to support an extra runway, with all the extra pollution caused by both the construction and use of the runway, when the same government set a date for the banning the sale of ICE vehicles to combat that very same pollution
Userlevel 7
Badge +9
Well im guessing gatwick airport will be quietly dancing in the streets. But then again how is the enviroment impacted less by building a second runway at gatwick ?

​​​​​​​we may yet end up with Boris island airport in the thames estuary.
Duppy;49151:
it was hypocritical of the government to support an extra runway, with all the extra pollution caused by both the construction and use of the runway, when the same government set a date for the banning the sale of ICE vehicles to combat that very same pollution


Excellent point @Duppy
Interesting dilemma for a pro-business Government.
I wonder how long before the aeroplanes are electric? That would make West London a little less noisy.....

Reply