|
Advantages
- More capacity is needed- air travel is predicted to double by 2050 and Heathrow will not be able to cope without a 3rd runway. It runs close to 100% so with increase in demand the expansion is vital.
- The airport experiences delays, it needs the extra capacity to reach levels of service at competitors otherwise it will be overtaken by rivals in Europe.
- The Expansion will boost the economy, BAA says the 3rd runway will be worth £7billion a year to the economy.
- Richard Lambers- CBI director general-'there is a firm consensus among our members that a third runway will play a huge role in the future of the UK economy.
- Tens of thousands of jobs will be created in construction in the short term and business+toursim in the longer term.
- The future Heathrow pro-expansion group, made up of businesses, trade unions and aviation firms, say a 3rd runway is vital for trade and tourism, and to secure the future of an airport employing 72,000 people.
- Lack of expansion threatens London's position as a global financial and trading capital of the world, destroying international links Britain was built on.
- Supporters claim it is bital for Britain's economic growth and future prosperity. It is necessary to secure London's status as a 'hub' as it is at risk of European competition, especially Paris and Frankfurt airports.
- The risk of not building the runway is that passengers will use direct flights to destinations, forcing them to change planes elsewhere. Currently Heathrow connects directly to 187 destinations.
- Supporters argue that lack of capacity at Heathrow is forcing airlines to choose between keeping connections to existing destincations or giving them up to secure new routes. Recently Leeds-Bradford lost their links to Heathrow as airlines shuffled slots.
- Air India chose to base its European hub in Frankfurt because it couldn't secure slots at Heathrow.
- Lambers also says 'Heathrow must defend its status as a global hub. Competition from European airports is fierce and London must not become the end of a branch line.'
- Business groups fear Heathrow is losing ground to rival airports in Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdam which each have four runways in 2012.
- He also says (commenting on environmental impacts) 'Providing the environmental conditions are met, and the aviation industry continues to improve fuel efficiency a third runway will put us in a stronger place when the economic upturn comes by providing greater capacity and better access to key markets.
- One of the arguments against is the environmental impacts, however by 2020 new technology will mean quieter, less polluting planes.
- Pollution caused by the airport will be closely monitored, meeting targets is a condition of the expansion.
- If the runway was not built, there would be no cut in emissions, flights would simply move to other European airports. CO2 would not be reduced, merely transferred elsewhere.
- Many environmental groups are against the expansion due to increased noise and air pollution. Geoff Hoons told MPs that strict measures would be put in place to limit noise and emissions, he claims airlines using the new runway would be required to use the newest, least polluting aircraft.
- Opposers have suggested alternatives such as a new airport in the Thames, however Geoff Hoon, transport secretary, says lack of infrastructure, and lack of finance make the project prohibitive.
- The government say there will be a initial cap on extra flights to about half the original proposal, 120,000 a year instead of 220,000 per year. It also says that only the cleanest planes will be allowed to use the new runway and there will be a new aviation emissions target, that levels in 2050 will be lower than those in 2005. It admits that nitrogen dioxide levels at Heathrow are higher than the EU limit, however the limit is met by lower car emissions.
|
Disadvantages
- Passenger numbers are down due to recession, but arguments say we should not base decisions on this but look ahead to future upturn in demand.
- The expansion of Heathrow will destroy 700 homes including the whole village of Sipson. It will also affect the surrounding areas including Harlington and Harmondsworth. Also a huge amount of green belt land will be lost.
- Many of the residents have taken part in campaigns & protests to stop the further expansion of the airport.
- Alison Lee, the assistant head teacher of the primary school in Sipson, says although she is to have a neutral opinion on political matter, the whole school would have to be closed, and it would be a waste of a highly subscribed school with a good reputation.
- Health of Londoner's at risk.
- A Greater London Authority (GLA) report suggested Heathrow would even now breach the EU regulations on levels of Nitrous Oxide, extra flights would worsen this.
- Green campaigners have been backed by the Environment Agency, which said a new runway would fail EU polllution limits of nitrogen oxide levels - produce acid rain.
- The GLA study also found that the airport would breach noise pollution limits as a result of the extra flights.
- Heathrow needs to work on reducing not increasing emission, Heathrow generates 50% of UK aviation emissions, this makes 6% of total emisions according to Department for transport figures. .
- With a 3rd runway, Heathrow's contribrution to overall UK emisions would rise significantly by 2050, some calculate as much as 50% the total.
- Groups such as (HACLAN)- Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise and No Third Runway Action Group, have protested against the proposal because of excessive noise and it will destroy communities.
- The expansion will have a huge impact on the locally, a 3rd runway would increase noise hugely, an extra 200,000 flights.
- Transport infrastructure could not cope, the infrastructure around Heathrow already struggles and extra demands would worsen this.
- The 2M group (12 local authorities) claim that the project is focussing on the economic benefits and ignoring the enivronmental costs. It says that carbon emisions will double by 2050 if the governments assumptions on the development of new, environmental friendly aircraft prove incorrect.
- Opponents say hundreds of homes will be exposed to more noise from new flight paths. However the government has commited not to enlarge the area which the average noise exceeded 57 decibels, the level considered an irritation. It says this can be done, even with a 3rd runway as newer aircraft are quieter and will get priority. It insists no extra flights will be allowed until the Civil Aviation Authority is satisfied with noise and air quality conditions have been met and not breached, and legal action will be considered if such limits are breached.
- Economic costs have been overstated, It will cost £12billion with a return of £17billion over 70 years.
- Many passengers brought in would only be in transit, according to former BA boss, Bob Ayling, they wold spend little or nothing in London, only boosting airline profits.
- According to Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the government, the runway over time would be seen as a 'white elephant' and they would regret the desicion.
- It willl be a long time before investment in it were rapid, demand for flying will have falled away as pressure to reduce emissions increases and competition from other forms of travel grows.
|
Comments
No comments have yet been made