So, there we have it—officially from British Airports Authority, the people (Spanish now, I believe) who run Heathrow. Just a few years ago they welcomed wholeheartedly the news that there would be no third runway at Heathrow. I quote from their official newspaper: "A third runway would have meant the destruction of 3,500 homes and directly affected 10,000 people. In our eyes that was clearly unacceptable."

It needs to be pointed out that this categorical assurance was given at a time when BAA were relentlessly pushing their planning application for Terminal 5.

The newspaper continued: "BAA has said repeatedly THERE WILL NOT BE A THIRD RUNWAY." (Their capitals, not mine…) "What now," the paper continued, "of those who claimed BAA was not telling the truth.?"

So, who's telling the truth now?

It's a pity about the recent protests against BAA. The protestors have got their raison d'être all wrong. They shouldn't be attacking BAA and Heathrow because of climate change. Carbon footprints? Bah! Carbon emissions? Bah, humbug! A recent correspondent to the Fulham fans' website (so it must be true) pointed out that 96% of these so-called carbon emissions come from the oceans. Man contributes 1%. (And we don't even know whether 'carbon' is causing climate change. Where are all the global warming nutters who told us that this summer would be one long hot drought.)  Turning your telly to off instead of standby won't save the planet one iota. It won't do it any harm, either. What is sad is that you see and hear young children brainwashed with all this carbon nonsense. "Oh, we must cut down on our car journeys and recycle bottles to save the planet," they spout parrot fashion. By all means recycle bottles to save resources and fuel. But don't think that reducing carbon (whatever that actually means…) contributes to global climate change.

Anyway, the reason that there should be no third runway is a human one, not a planetary one. BAA now want not only a third runway ("which will mean the destruction of 3,500 homes and directly affect 10,000 people"), they also want an end to 'runway alternation'. Hundreds of thousands of people live near Heathrow and are affected by the planes landing and taking off. There are two parallel runways at Heathrow, and runway alternation is an acknowledgement of the great noise and disruption caused by planes landing and taking off. So, for half of every day planes only land on one of the two runways, and only take off from the other one. However, at 3pm planes swap runways and land on the other one and take off from the other. This gives those most affected by the noise a life-saving break from continual noise, and is thus a godsend to those living near the airport. BAA want to allow planes to take off from and land on either runway at any time of the day. Which would mean no respite at all for local residents.

Protest against any expansion of Heathrow and its operations on the grounds that it will seriously impair the quality of life of thousands of people.

As I write this, planes are taking off in an easterly direction because of the wind direction (they usually take off and land in a westerly direction). At times it is pointless to try to concentrate on a wireless or tv programme because of continual noise interruptions. Whitton is a couple or so miles from the end of the runway. Planes taking off are at full power and heavily laden, so make most noise in those moments and can only rise slowly in the air. (See photo at top of this page.) Next time you take off in an easterly direction from the south runway at Heathrow on your way to America (probably at about 11.30pm), please remember these Ashwater Press premises within touching distance below you and remember all the people whose sleep you have prevented or disturbed.

How dare BAA (and the government behind them**) think that their business aspirations should be placed way above the reasonable expectation of a reasonably peaceful life for a million people. We had a patronising BAA spokesman on the wireless during the week of protests. He said quite indignantly that protestors should not be allowed to disrupt life for passengers. OK. But it's all right for BAA passengers to disrupt life for local residents. Of course.

** The government is now in the process of changing planning law, ostensibly to make it easier for you and me to put up a new porch, but really to help out big businesses, such as BAA. The new laws would outlaw lengthy planning enquiries and make the presumption of the outcome to be in favour of consent to the application. Nice one, government. We little people know our place, and if not, you will soon tell us.

 BACK TO THE MENU PAGE