TIM Johnson is right in his assessment that the Heathrow third runway will not deliver on regional jobs and connections (Letters, June 20) and that the SNP should vote against it. However, he errs in suggesting that all Heathrow expansion is necessarily bad for Scotland.
The ludicrously high cost of the third runway will result in a likely doubling of passenger fees to £40, which will be added to ticket prices. This would make many connections to Scotland’s airports uneconomic for both passengers and airlines.
But our independent and alternative proposal to extend Heathrow’s northern runway would deliver the same economic benefits but it would be quicker, simpler and quieter.
It would also be at least £6 billion cheaper and would keep passenger fees flat, making regional routes far more viable than with the third runway.
Our scheme could also be constructed in phases, meaning that, if adding limited extra capacity threatens environmental targets, it can be paused or halted.
We urge the SNP to vote against the Heathrow third runway today and hope that our own commonsense solution will prevail.
Jock Lowe,
Director, Heathrow Hub,
London.
THE public’s belief in the statements of politicians was somewhat shaken by the judgment on fracking in the Court of Session. The notification of the absence of Boris Johnson at today’s vote on the third runway at Heathrow gives that sore-tried belief another resounding jolt (“MPs to vote on third runway at Heathrow ... but without Johnson”, The Herald, June 22).
Here was the man who was so opposed to this project that he would “lie down in front of bulldozers”.
The Prime Minister, who has clearly been in agreement with the arrangements for Mr Johnson to spend some time abroad rather than voting against the third runway and having to resign his government position, must have had her tongue firmly stuck in her cheek when gilding the lily and describing her Foreign Secretary, the arch Brexiter, as “the living embodiment of global Britain”. Really?
Ian W Thomson,
38 Kirkintilloch Road,
Lenzie.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here