Have we dont these idiots yet?

[DodgyAgent]

[r short term financial gain by a Spanish company, is of little or no benefit to the UK economy,.

So what is wrong with "profit" short or long term? Do you suggest they do it for financial loss? presumably you dont work for anything other than profit? or is it one rule for you and another for everyone else.

The desirability of a third runway is well documented and the case for a third runway at Heathrow as opposed to gatwick or building a Boris Island has been considered ad infinitum. The economic case has been studied for a long time.

[BrilloPad]

I bet some undercover policeman has done all the female "idiots" to use your term.

[Bacchus]

If you are going to make sweeping cliches about the negative effects of flying in and out of our capital city then I am afraid you are going to be challenged. If flying is so dangerous and harmful and "dumb" as you call it then why are we doing it at all?
You are not going to have it both ways. Either it is a dumb and dangerous activity or it is not or it is somewhere between. If you are going to follow the "dumb" argument then explain why have it at all. Or are you just being lazy?

I have to assume that you are trolling because it's easier than believing that anyone could be so obtuse.

But just in case... I have nowhere said that "flying is dumb", nor have I questioned people flying in and out of the capital, I have questioned the wisdom of flying over the capital and other densely populated areas, and pointed out that Heathrow isn't, on the whole, about people flying in and out, it is about people passing though, that is what a hub airport is. This has almost no benefit to the UK economy, and I believe that expanding it will bring a lot more "no benefit" along with a proportional increase in the risk, and I provided internet links to support why I believe this. The people who are clammering for the expansion do not have the best interests of London at heart.

You made a fatuous one line response about living in mud huts. One of is "just being lazy"...

[DodgyAgent]

I have to assume that you are trolling because it's easier than believing that anyone could be so obtuse.

But just in case... I have nowhere said that "flying is dumb", nor have I questioned people flying in and out of the capital, I have questioned the wisdom of flying over the capital and other densely populated areas, and pointed out that Heathrow isn't, on the whole, about people flying in and out, it is about people passing though, that is what a hub airport is. This has almost no benefit to the UK economy, and I believe that expanding it will bring a lot more "no benefit" along with a proportional increase in the risk, and I provided internet links to support why I believe this. The people who are clammering for the expansion do not have the best interests of London at heart.

You made a fatuous one line response about living in mud huts. One of is "just being lazy"...

If your argument is about Heathrow being nothing more than a hub then fair enough.

[Lifelongontractor]

Addional Capacity

the Davies Commission has rejected Boris Island, and different permutations thereof as being, among other things, simply too expensive (tax-payer portion: £30-£40b).
Heathrow comes with restrictions (eg legal guarantee not to build a 4th runway, no night flights) which are inconsistent with a 2030 hub airport
Gatwick can only be extended to 2 runways and Stanstead / Birmingham have also been rejected by Davies Commission
Enough committees and commissions. Someone needs to just make a decision. My personal preference is a new 4-runway airport outside London. £147bn in economic growth and +70k jobs outweighs the investment in infrastructure / relocating wildlife

[VectraMan]

and pointed out that Heathrow isn't, on the whole, about people flying in and out, it is about people passing though, that is what a hub airport is.

I was wondering what the numbers were and eventually found this:

What makes a hub airport, and why they're important - Your Heathrow

Some 26 million transfer passengers, or 37% of our total number, passed through Heathrow in 2013

So most are starting and ending their air-journeys at Heathrow. But not many people would be upset to lose the 37% to Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle.

[darmstadt]

Blame Labour, Maplin Sands could have been the new airport...

The Maplin airport project was abandoned in July 1974 when Labour came to power...

[BrilloPad]

Blame Labour, Maplin Sands could have been the new airport...

That would have upset the good people of Essex. Both of them.

[NotAllThere]

...
So most are starting and ending their air-journeys at Heathrow. But not many people would be upset to lose the 37% to Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle.

Have you ever flown through Charles de Gaulle. Quite possibly the worst airport in the world.

[AtW]

Isn't it just another Cameron U-turn, promise the voters one thing, get voted in, renege: David Cameron 'will not break promise' on opposing new Heathrow runway, sources claim - Telegraph

Why won't all those who oppose Heathrow airport boycott any flights from it and use Gatwick instead?

Or just walk.

Simples.