From:- Hylton Garriock (personal capacity) In Brief - I live alongside Heathrow in Longford Village, which will be bulldozed if the 3rd runway goes ahead.
Summary:-
+++
Should anything go wrong, if a plane were to overshoot due to bad weather, bird-strike, engine failure or pilot error – it would land in the houses of Sipson, or the village/Barn of Harmondsworth, or M40/houses and school in Brands Hill/Langley.
As a plane picks up speed, it gets to a point where it is going too fast to safely stop before reaching the end of the runway - so it has to commit to taking off. If anything were to happen to the plane (bad weather, bird-strike, engine failure or pilot error) between then, and reaching a height to enable the plane to circle and glide back to the runway... well, the plane would have to undergo an emergency landing.
There is no "Hudson River" at Heathrow. You are putting a 3rd runway in the densely populated city of London. The 3rd runway points to the city center. Its a disaster waiting to happen. And we are going to hold you responsible should anything ever happen.
There are reasons why airports are build out in the countryside, where there are farms, lakes, swamps - away from the population. Even Heathrow's Northern runway has a "Safety zone" of car parks round the immediate runway, lakes, farm land and swamps at either end.
Planes slide off runways and over-shoot - just google the amount of large planes that have crashed on runways this year - its frightening. See Halifax airport (29th March 2015), Hiroshima airport (14th April 2015), Taipei crash (on 4th February 2015 killed 35).
Seven years ago in Jan 2008 flight BA38 from China missed the end of Heathrows South runway and crash landed at Heathrow. Everyone survived, but if that same accident were to happen at the end of the proposed 3rd Runway, that plane would have landed in Heathrow Primary School!
Accidents happen - last week on Saturday 22nd August 2015 a Hawker Hunter Jet crashed killing 11 people down the road at Shoreham airfield. And a few weeks before that, on the 31st July 2015, 4 people were killed at Blackbushe airport in Hampshire - also just a few miles down the road from Heathrow - where a private plane overshot the runway and crashed into a auction car park.
Brand new planes will always fly into Heathrow; by 2030 there will be "Drones" - pilotless planes flying passengers into Heathrow - all disasters waiting to happen.
You cannot scoop out 3 ancient villages from the middle of a densely populated city like London, and build a new airport (Terminal 6) and runway (3rd Runway) - with the runway pointing at the city center and houses lining the end of the runway! There is no "Safety Zone" round this mad proposal.
+++
Ive not counted the businesses that are run from the 783 homes that will be destroyed, nor have I included any of services that are used by the 3 villages that will be bulldozed, for example - postmen, milkmen, Pub & shop deliveries... and unlike heathrow I havent included any supporting jobs to those busineses round the country that will be lost!
As for Heathrow's lies about creating 180,000 jobs... I notice that Heathrow was also made to replace its posters on the 2nd February that said Heathrow would create 180,000 jobs, with new posters using the greatly reduced figure of 120,000. No one blinked an eyelid at loosing 60,000 jobs overnight. And now it appears the 120,000 jobs are grossly over stated and will include everyone retiring and being replaced at the airport by 2060! Todays Evening Standard newspaper (2nd Sept 2015) Quotes Heathrows Chief executive saying even fewer jobs "a third runway offered the huge prize of 40,000 new jobs"! The new 3rd Runway will only create 2 jobs - one person to mow the grass eight times a year, and another person to change the light bulbs and paint the stripes on the runway every year! A new automated Terminal 6 will create fewer jobs than Terminal 5 - which employs approximately 4000 mostly minimum wage shop assistants, baggage handlers, guards, cooks, cleaners, etc
So do not think for one minute that Heathrow will solve any of the countries unemployment problems.
+++
Double-glazing/insulation does not stop the violent vibrations emitted from powerful jet engines that are accelerating full-bull past the school and over the houses at the end of the proposed runway. My whole house shakes each time a fully loaded jet (new or old) takes off every night. Those children and residents will be affected - and no amount of "Adobe huts" or double glazing will compensate for learning difficulties children will experience. Planes are NOT getting quieter. They may carry more passengers for the same amount of noise, but the brand new double-decker A380 makes just as much noise thundering past my flat as an old 747 jumbo jet! Imposing 250,000 extra flights over London every year is a non-starter.
+++
Heathrow hoodwinked the people who prepared the report leading to the Davies Commission investigation. The Davies Commission did not start with the question of "Is a new runway actually needed?". Heathrow does not need a new 3rd Runway. Heathrow lies! Its propaganda has brainwashed everyone into believing a new runway is good for the country.
There is no need for a new runway. Not now. Not in 2030. Before this Terminal6 / 3rd Runway proposal way proposed, Heathrow was quite happy to expand within its own boundary, and build a new terminal down at Hatton Cross – in fact Heathrow has even demolished ancient hangars in preparation to use their own land to build a new terminal down at the Hatton Cross (South East) corner of Heathrow.
Even the head of Britains biggest airline (Willie Walsh) is against the 3rd Runway, and has said "A third Heathrow runway is 'an outrageous vanity project' by the management of Heathrow Airport Limited!
I bet the figures Heathrow is pumping out about the 3rd Runway bringing £211 billion to the British Economy are all lies. In fact in February 2015 it appears the Davis Commission made Heathrow pull down their advertising posters and use the new figure of £111 billion. By 2030, flights from Heathrow will produce Britains entire carbon allowance. So, Heathrow will have to do massive "carbon Trading", and if this cost to the country is included - Heathrow might make the country £11 billion by 2060. This week (24th August 2015) HACAN say "Davies has got his sums wrong" and even that figure is grossly exaggerated - see:- http://www.hacan.org.uk/blog
As for Heathrow being 99% full. What rubbish!
Look at this mornings Departures. Between 6am to 7am - there were 22 departures - that is not one departure every 40 seconds! From 7am to 8am there were 32 departures - still nowhere near one every 40 seconds. From 8am to 9am there were 33 departures. In fact you could easily double capacity on the runway between now and 2060 and still have plenty of space/time/capacity! Heathrow simply shows its rush hour figures on a Friday evening when it queues the planes 7 in line... and says its 99% full!
Heathrow are conducting a "time spacing" trial instead of distance based landing which will mean even shorter time required between takeoffs/landings. New radar being installed at Heathrow means less delays/cancellations in bad/foggy weather.
Heathrow is NOT 99% full, and never will be. Using Heathrows own figures - each plane is on average, only 66% full. That means for example, for every three planes flying to New York - one is totally empty. There is plenty of spare capacity at Heathrow to last till the Earth runs out of fuel.
+++
+++
America gave up developing HUB airports in the 90's. Its an ancient idea that stifles competition. For example, British Airways does not have to fly to New York once every 2 hours. Given half a chance, an airline from another part of the country could have scheduled flights to New York.
Transfer passengers going through a Hub, bring nothing to Heathrow nor the country. If 40% of British Airways passengers in the morning are "transfer" passengers - they do not pay airport/departure taxes, they dont spend any money while running to their connection. Heathrow and the country get nothing out of them, except their noise and pollution.
And on top of that, as Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of Parliament's Public Accounts Committee found out - Heathrow does not pay any Corporate tax. Like Amazon and Starbuck's, Heathrow avoided paying £234 million worth of taxes last year. Its giving nothing to the country what so ever. No wonder Heathrows marketing department are in over-drive, trying to cover everything up.
The Davies Commission said that even if the 3rd Runway goes ahead, only 12 new overseas destinations will be created by 2050. So Heathrow will not be the answer to opening up new global markets – in fact heathrow is probably causing further misery, pollution and destruction in those 12 cities with them having to build new airports!
The frightening statistic that the Davis Commission is keeping well hidden from the British public is if the 3rd Runway goes ahead, the number of domestic airports linked to Heathrow would fall from 7 to just 4.
A Hub airport has to accept flights arriving and departing through out the night to/from destinations on the other side of the world. The Davies Commission stipulated that a condition of the 3rd runway was to ban all arriving and departing flights from 11:30pm to 6am (as they are supposed to be banned now... until 6:15am!) But Heathrow will never accept this, and even today their CEO is trying to wriggle round this point and demanding 120 flights be allowed. Enough is enough. As David Cameron promised: No if's, No But's, No Third Runway.
+++
With regards to the deadly poison Nitrogen Di-oxide. EU Law allows for 40 particles per square meter of air. Heathrow is regularly measured exceeding 150 particles. See the air-measuring station in my local park maintained by "Ricardo-AEA" Http://www.HeathrowAirWatch.org.uk/data/graphs (choose "Nitrogen Di Oxide", "Heathrow Green Gates" for up to the hour measurements)
When the air-measuring station records figures exceeding 150 micro-particles, Heathrow does not suddenly switch off all the diesel car engines, jet engines and power stations to reduce this figure! No. The reason the shown graph is reduced is because the wind changes direction, or the deadly Nitrogen Di-Oxide rises into the atmosphere and misses the measuring station, etc.
The fact is, that Heathrow continues to exceed European maximum allowance throughout the entire day, and restricting diesel cars/trucks, creating a congestion charge, only allowing zero-emission battery cars into the airport, closing down its power stations and getting electricity from far away, or getting passengers to use public transport - will not reduce the NO2 levels to legal EU limits. The deadly polluted air from Jet planes will continue to kill Londoners even without the 3rd Runway. Never mind another quarter of a million flights a year that the 3rd runway would bring in. Asbestos and smoking was never considered to be lethal, just as little is known about Nitrogen DiOxide today.... but as we accumulate more knowledge and tests, we are going to be shocked to find out how many deaths it is causing. Heathrow Airport Limited cannot be allowed to get away with walking all over people’s right to breath fresh air!
+++