Third runway at heathrow official

[swamp]

But it would cost a fortune, undoubtedly go several times over budget, probably take at least 10 years longer to build than originally forcast, and by the time it goes live almost certainly not be fit for purpose.

So I can't understand for the life of me why this government hasn't already started doing it.

There would also be stacks of contract work. Lots of renewals, delays, spec changes, long lunches...

[HeliCraig]

Try learning to read eh? You will note the inclusion of the word "apparently" in my post. The media report polls that suggest the majority of people are against it - you may or may not believe the media, or indeed the polls - since it all depends what the questions are. But if those polls are true (and I happen to believe they are....and this government have a long history of doing the exact opposite of what most people want) - my opinion is perfectly valid.

So before getting on your high horse and making yourself look like an idiot, try actually reading what people post?

Did I strike a nerve there? Thats quite an aggressive reply, especially as I never said your opinion was any less valid than anybody elses.

I just asked if you could offer any evidence to back up the assertion which you made, even if you did enclose it in caveats. Again you haven't provided any.

Google, being my friend, does. Typing in "heathrow airport poll" returns a Guardian poll where 76.5% of people say that it doesn't need a third runway - so perhaps your statement is correct. As you say though, much depends on how and of whom the question is asked.

Now, I didn't get on any high horse; just posed a question. I don't need to get on one to look like an idiot - genetics have seen to that for me! I might suggest though, that throwing around insults (my ability to read, and calling me an idiot) at people who challenge you doesn't lend any credence to your argument!

[PM-Junkie]

Oh wonderful, another one who takes pot-shots at opinions without bothering to get off their butt to research the subject themselves.

Well, here are the three first pages when I google the subject. And yes there are similar polls expressing the opposite view, but the predominant view SEEMS to be that people are against it, hence using the world "apparently".

http://www.newstatesman.com/polls/1392

http://www.metro.co.uk/polls/results..._answer1=13673

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-climatechange

[Cyberman]

This shows the real hypocrisy of Labour. Increase taxes on everything to attempt to reduce global warming, and then on the other hand develop airports to encourage more air travel and thus global warming.

[BrilloPad]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829676.stm

blah blah blah...we need another runway...lest our economy collapse...blah blah blah

Will the runway affect cybertory's house? Imagine if prices were ONLY to rise by 5% this year!

[MPwannadecentincome]

The Thames Estuary is in the arse end of nowhere. No roads, no rail, no nearby towns or cities apart from East London and Docklands, which already has its own airport.

The Thames Estuary airport is the dumbest idea since the Burmese government moved its capital from coastal Rangoon to Pyinmana, a malaria infested jungle hell-hole, apparently to avoid attack by the United States.

They probably thought the same when they built the new Hong Kong airport.

It doesn't matter what is there now - in fact the less the better the new airport will get built quicker and the best train line and roads can be built as well.

The advantage of more hours to land and take-off with less noise restrictions etc I think outweighs the fact that it is a bit further away.

[thelace]

Only problem is not enough people were using these services when they were there - BMI cancelled their flights from Manchester as they were not profitable.

Newcastle were going to get direct flights to the New York. They were pulled before the 1st one took off.

I was gutted.

[Cyberman]

They probably thought the same when they built the new Hong Kong airport.

It doesn't matter what is there now - in fact the less the better the new airport will get built quicker and the best train line and roads can be built as well.

The advantage of more hours to land and take-off with less noise restrictions etc I think outweighs the fact that it is a bit further away.

Seriously though, in these times of global warming and economic depression, do we really need another airport ? It just seems ridiculous to me. Why not expand the channel tunnel etc and use fast trains if we really need more capacity to Europe.

[BrilloPad]

Seriously though, in these times of global warming and economic depression, do we really need another airport ? It just seems ridiculous to me. Why not expand the channel tunnel etc and use fast trains if we really need more capacity to Europe.

I dont think the depression will last forever. 5 years time this will all be a distant memory. passenger growth will grow year on year again.

[MPwannadecentincome]

Seriously though, in these times of global warming and economic depression, do we really need another airport ? It just seems ridiculous to me. Why not expand the channel tunnel etc and use fast trains if we really need more capacity to Europe.

Well its not just going to Europe is it.

I think building a new airport in the Thames Estuary is the way to go - then raze Heathrow to the ground - oh look suddenly lots of space to build new houses, flats, shops!