For a link to the consultation and our response document, please see our RHC Davies Responses page.
The next six months will be critical to the challenge of Heathrow’s expansion proposals, short-term proposals and night flights. We are keen for more people to help develop the arguments and promote the campaign. The issues include noise, pollution, surface access, project financial viability, safety etc. No particular expertise is necessary as guidance is available from an experienced RHC team but interest in gathering evidence, or technical issues, aviation, the law, economics, finance or journalism would be most useful.
If interested, please get in touch. You can email us at firstname.lastname@example.org
On Tuesday 3rd February Richmond MP Zac Goldsmith, eight other MPs, and campaigners against Heathrow expansion including Peter Willan of the Richmond Heathrow Campaign staged a protest at 10 Downing Street.
This was to remind the Prime Minister of his statement before the 2010 election, when he said “no ifs, no buts, there will be no 3rd runway”.
John Stewart, chairman of HACAN, said:
“We are deliberately targeting Downing Street because the decision about a new runway will be a political one. This event once again demonstrates the cross-party nature of the opposition to a 3rd runway.”
More information about this event can be found
on the AirportWatch website.
The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Heathrow and the Wider Economy has issued its third report, analysing the claimed benefits of Heathrow expansion.
The report asks:
1. Can the Commission please explain its recommendation for an additional runway, increasing capacity by up to 260,000 flights, when there is current spare capacity of over 3,000,000 flights across the UK?
2. Will the Commission be recommending any changes to the current Government subsidies to air travel, which create an unjustified cost to the taxpayer?
3. How will the Commission incorporate the significant bias of Heathrow towards leisure and transfer flights in its recommendation?
4. What view does the Commission have on the anti-competitive nature of expansion of Heathrow?
5. Does the Commission agree that expansion of Heathrow could create no additional airport capacity, operating within Carbon limits?
6. Can the Commission explain why it has put forward a proposal to expand Heathrow that requires Government Financing, contrary to current regulations?
The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Heathrow and the Wider Economy has issued its second report, covering the Impact of Heathrow Airport’s expansion on the number and distribution of UK passengers and destinations.
In summary, the APPG reported that:
1. Examination of the Airports Commission’s passenger forecasts suggests that on any reasonable assumption there would be no overall increase in the number of UK passengers, flights or destinations as a result of Heathrow’s expansion. Instead, the expansion would be fed almost entirely by re-distributing growth from other UK airports and in particular theregional airports.
2. This raises serious doubts about there being any net benefit to the wider UK economy brought about by Heathrow’s expansion - not only because of the lack of any incremental growth but quite possibly due to a significant negative impact on the regions and the overall efficiency of the UK economy.
3. Connectivity was examined in terms of the number of destinations and service frequency with special mention of international transfers. These represent a large incremental addition to Heathrow’s forecast passenger demand and this report raises doubts about their value to the UK economy.
In December 2013, the Airports Commission chaired by Sir Howard Davies released its interim report shortlisting the options that would be considered to meet future UK aviation needs. The three options were:
In September 2014 the Airports Commission
announced that the Inner Thames estuary airport proposal had not been shortlisted due to its very high financial and environmental costs.