Picking Heathrow plan "like choosing between Ripper and Strangler", campaigners say

Richmond and Twickenham Times: Flights: Not popular with residents Flights: Not popular with residents

Heathrow’s plan to consult residents on which option they prefer for a third runway had been criticised by a campaign group.

Heathrow will ask residents their preference between extending the northern runway – the Heathrow hub option, or adding a new runway north of the northern runway – an option put forward by the airport.

The hub option, put forward by former Concorde pilot Jock Lowe, would mean arrivals and departures could use the northern runway simultaneously, which campaign group Hacan said would mean all-day flying for people under the flight path.

Hacan chairman John Stewart said: “Heathrow Airport has never liked the Heathrow hub option and I suspect this is a way of putting pressure on the Airports Commission for it to be ruled out.

“But for residents it is like being asked to choose whether you preferred being murdered by Jack the Ripper or the Boston Strangler.”

A Heathrow spokesman said its own third runway option would provide respite for residents, unlike the hub option.

The spokesman said: “We believe that respite from noise remains important for local communities and we plan on asking people for their views directly early in 2014.

“We know that the people that Hacan represents oppose a third runway, but there are many others who support a third runway and will want to have their say on how it should be built and operate.”

The Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, which is also looking at a second runway at Gatwick, will publish its final report next summer.

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:02am Mon 6 Jan 14

Concerned_Resident says...

Still one big stitch up, in spite of all this 'consultation'.
Still one big stitch up, in spite of all this 'consultation'. Concerned_Resident

1:14pm Mon 6 Jan 14

kingstonpaul says...

Pathetic comparison. The Ripper and Boston Stranger brought death to their victims. Even the fetid, deranged imaginations of Hacan supporters are surely not suggesting that runway options are a matter of life and death?
Using this kind of emotive garbage to grab a sensational headline merely patronises anyone with an IQ in excess of 5. From now on, I for one will not take seriously any further pronouncements from this rabble.
Pathetic comparison. The Ripper and Boston Stranger brought death to their victims. Even the fetid, deranged imaginations of Hacan supporters are surely not suggesting that runway options are a matter of life and death? Using this kind of emotive garbage to grab a sensational headline merely patronises anyone with an IQ in excess of 5. From now on, I for one will not take seriously any further pronouncements from this rabble. kingstonpaul

2:45pm Mon 6 Jan 14

DB says...

kingstonpaul wrote:
Pathetic comparison. The Ripper and Boston Stranger brought death to their victims. Even the fetid, deranged imaginations of Hacan supporters are surely not suggesting that runway options are a matter of life and death? Using this kind of emotive garbage to grab a sensational headline merely patronises anyone with an IQ in excess of 5. From now on, I for one will not take seriously any further pronouncements from this rabble.
Agreed. I am firmly against any further development of Heathrow, but it is hardly a life or death situation!
[quote][p][bold]kingstonpaul[/bold] wrote: Pathetic comparison. The Ripper and Boston Stranger brought death to their victims. Even the fetid, deranged imaginations of Hacan supporters are surely not suggesting that runway options are a matter of life and death? Using this kind of emotive garbage to grab a sensational headline merely patronises anyone with an IQ in excess of 5. From now on, I for one will not take seriously any further pronouncements from this rabble.[/p][/quote]Agreed. I am firmly against any further development of Heathrow, but it is hardly a life or death situation! DB

4:35pm Mon 6 Jan 14

Culverin says...

Whilst Hacan's use of language is melodramatic, it doesn't detract from the fact that both parties in government ruled out any further runways at Heathrow for good.

Once again, we've been lied to by this administration and the consequences of that lie will be hugely disruptive to our lives from both a quality of life and a financial consideration.

@kingstonpaul can enjoy insulting the residents affected all he likes but it's not going change things one iota. It just shows the sort of chip he's got on his shoulder if that's all he can offer the discussion.
Whilst Hacan's use of language is melodramatic, it doesn't detract from the fact that both parties in government ruled out any further runways at Heathrow for good. Once again, we've been lied to by this administration and the consequences of that lie will be hugely disruptive to our lives from both a quality of life and a financial consideration. @kingstonpaul can enjoy insulting the residents affected all he likes but it's not going change things one iota. It just shows the sort of chip he's got on his shoulder if that's all he can offer the discussion. Culverin

7:46am Tue 7 Jan 14

dellboy twick. says...

the metaphors used are more about the evilness of choices, not actual death. A community will be destroyed along with peoples homes.
The proposed increase in traffic will not be of benefit to London, it couldn't absorb the increase, so is likely to be through traffic, profit for the airlines and heathrow
If there really is that amount of business floating around with nowhere to go, an air port would have been built ages ago.
All they are doing is the same as our supermarkets, poaching trade off each other with no overall benefit to the rest of us.
the metaphors used are more about the evilness of choices, not actual death. A community will be destroyed along with peoples homes. The proposed increase in traffic will not be of benefit to London, it couldn't absorb the increase, so is likely to be through traffic, profit for the airlines and heathrow If there really is that amount of business floating around with nowhere to go, an air port would have been built ages ago. All they are doing is the same as our supermarkets, poaching trade off each other with no overall benefit to the rest of us. dellboy twick.

12:22pm Tue 7 Jan 14

csmudger says...

Any expansion of Heathrow must be good for the local community.
It is after all the biggest associated employer in the area, bringing lots of business and employment opportunities.

Any person who has moved into the area over the past 40 years, must have been aware of Heathrow, so they would have moved knowing that expansion was always on the cards
Any expansion of Heathrow must be good for the local community. It is after all the biggest associated employer in the area, bringing lots of business and employment opportunities. Any person who has moved into the area over the past 40 years, must have been aware of Heathrow, so they would have moved knowing that expansion was always on the cards csmudger

1:13pm Tue 7 Jan 14

kingstonpaul says...

Culverin wrote:
Whilst Hacan's use of language is melodramatic, it doesn't detract from the fact that both parties in government ruled out any further runways at Heathrow for good.

Once again, we've been lied to by this administration and the consequences of that lie will be hugely disruptive to our lives from both a quality of life and a financial consideration.

@kingstonpaul can enjoy insulting the residents affected all he likes but it's not going change things one iota. It just shows the sort of chip he's got on his shoulder if that's all he can offer the discussion.
I was insulting the cretins responsible for the puerile comparison, not residents.
As for the inanity of your quip about 'chip on the shoulder', what exacty is this chip on the shoulder you refer to? I live underneath the flight path out of the airport, so have a vested interest in the future of the airport. The only chip I harbour is when the debate is conducted in sensationalist and patronising tones.
And I don't think that civilisation would have got to where it is today if, over the course of two thousand years, there hadn't been some changing of minds about the big issues of the day.
And for your further edification, I rather back the arguments in favour of more regional development of airports. My concern is that that airport expansion in London will be at the expense of the provinces, widening further the social and economic divdes that split the UK into London and The Rest.
[quote][p][bold]Culverin[/bold] wrote: Whilst Hacan's use of language is melodramatic, it doesn't detract from the fact that both parties in government ruled out any further runways at Heathrow for good. Once again, we've been lied to by this administration and the consequences of that lie will be hugely disruptive to our lives from both a quality of life and a financial consideration. @kingstonpaul can enjoy insulting the residents affected all he likes but it's not going change things one iota. It just shows the sort of chip he's got on his shoulder if that's all he can offer the discussion.[/p][/quote]I was insulting the cretins responsible for the puerile comparison, not residents. As for the inanity of your quip about 'chip on the shoulder', what exacty is this chip on the shoulder you refer to? I live underneath the flight path out of the airport, so have a vested interest in the future of the airport. The only chip I harbour is when the debate is conducted in sensationalist and patronising tones. And I don't think that civilisation would have got to where it is today if, over the course of two thousand years, there hadn't been some changing of minds about the big issues of the day. And for your further edification, I rather back the arguments in favour of more regional development of airports. My concern is that that airport expansion in London will be at the expense of the provinces, widening further the social and economic divdes that split the UK into London and The Rest. kingstonpaul

9:54am Wed 8 Jan 14

dellboy twick. says...

csmudger wrote:
Any expansion of Heathrow must be good for the local community.
It is after all the biggest associated employer in the area, bringing lots of business and employment opportunities.

Any person who has moved into the area over the past 40 years, must have been aware of Heathrow, so they would have moved knowing that expansion was always on the cards
40 years ago a computer room was the size small bungalow, run by a team of technicians, within 10 years the size of a computer was equivalent to an under the counter fridge running off a 13 amp. plug.
A lap top now has the power and capabilities beyond the dreams of 40 years ago.
If you could accurately predict the future you could rule the world.
So no, i don't think we could guess the the expansion of aviation.
[quote][p][bold]csmudger[/bold] wrote: Any expansion of Heathrow must be good for the local community. It is after all the biggest associated employer in the area, bringing lots of business and employment opportunities. Any person who has moved into the area over the past 40 years, must have been aware of Heathrow, so they would have moved knowing that expansion was always on the cards[/p][/quote]40 years ago a computer room was the size small bungalow, run by a team of technicians, within 10 years the size of a computer was equivalent to an under the counter fridge running off a 13 amp. plug. A lap top now has the power and capabilities beyond the dreams of 40 years ago. If you could accurately predict the future you could rule the world. So no, i don't think we could guess the the expansion of aviation. dellboy twick.

12:52pm Wed 8 Jan 14

Windsorian says...

In 2009 BAA were forced by the Competition Commission to sell both Gatwick & Stansted plus either Glasgow or Edinburgh; it was deemed that single ownership was not in the public interest.

In their submission the the Airports Commission, the new Gatwick owners (GIP) put forward the concept of a constellation of 2 runway London airports, with each of them competing for a fair share of the expanding aviation industry.

The latest Heathrow "consultation" appears to just be a ploy designed to prevent any other London Airports from having second runways built.
In 2009 BAA were forced by the Competition Commission to sell both Gatwick & Stansted plus either Glasgow or Edinburgh; it was deemed that single ownership was not in the public interest. In their submission the the Airports Commission, the new Gatwick owners (GIP) put forward the concept of a constellation of 2 runway London airports, with each of them competing for a fair share of the expanding aviation industry. The latest Heathrow "consultation" appears to just be a ploy designed to prevent any other London Airports from having second runways built. Windsorian

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree