BA CEO Willie Walsh has come out a blazing against the Conservative Party's opposition to a third runway at Heathrow Airport.
"I want to know, if the Conservatives don't want to build a third runway, how are they going to position the UK economy to compete on a global scale in the future?..."We will look back years from now and say, what a disgrace. We expect governments to have policies that are coherent. I don't see this as coherent."
Dead right Willie. The policy is a mindless kowtowing to the anti-growth luddites of the environmental movement, as well as residents of West London who want their property values enhanced by the removal of Heathrow.
Curiously, Steve Ridgway, Virgin Atlantic's CEO agrees of course. Since it hinders both BA and Virgin Atlantic from growing. Although we shouldn't forget how eager Sir Richard Branson is at pushing environmentalism. This is what happens when you realise those you try to appease are uninterested in you.
Conservative spokesperson Theresa Villiers has said "We are absolutely convinced that the environmental costs of runway three, in terms of air pollution, noise and carbon emissions, significantly outweigh the alleged economic benefits"
Because you're idiots. Who gives a damn whether or not you think there are economic benefits. You are politicians, interfering with the private sector, trying to make money by providing services and therefore providing employment.
You don't create money, you seek to spend other peoples.
Get the hell out of the way of a foreign owned private company investing in new infrastructure in the UK that the taxpayer need do nothing about.
Throw off this pandering to both NIMBYism to win electorates in west London, and neo-Marxist environmentalism. Otherwise some of us will find enough reason to throw our votes away on an alternative.
"I want to know, if the Conservatives don't want to build a third runway, how are they going to position the UK economy to compete on a global scale in the future?..."We will look back years from now and say, what a disgrace. We expect governments to have policies that are coherent. I don't see this as coherent."
Dead right Willie. The policy is a mindless kowtowing to the anti-growth luddites of the environmental movement, as well as residents of West London who want their property values enhanced by the removal of Heathrow.
Curiously, Steve Ridgway, Virgin Atlantic's CEO agrees of course. Since it hinders both BA and Virgin Atlantic from growing. Although we shouldn't forget how eager Sir Richard Branson is at pushing environmentalism. This is what happens when you realise those you try to appease are uninterested in you.
Conservative spokesperson Theresa Villiers has said "We are absolutely convinced that the environmental costs of runway three, in terms of air pollution, noise and carbon emissions, significantly outweigh the alleged economic benefits"
Because you're idiots. Who gives a damn whether or not you think there are economic benefits. You are politicians, interfering with the private sector, trying to make money by providing services and therefore providing employment.
You don't create money, you seek to spend other peoples.
Get the hell out of the way of a foreign owned private company investing in new infrastructure in the UK that the taxpayer need do nothing about.
Throw off this pandering to both NIMBYism to win electorates in west London, and neo-Marxist environmentalism. Otherwise some of us will find enough reason to throw our votes away on an alternative.
2 comments:
Mandelson, with Brown and Labour cronie/BBA director Tom Kelly et al have ridden rough shod over the whole approval process for the third runway and completely disregarded public approval (89% against by the way). The whole thing stinks and those involved quiet clearly corrupt.
The Tories have made it clear that expanding the world's busiest airport over one of the world's most densely populated areas is both morally and logically corrupt. The expansion 'flies' in the face of such overwhelming reason and opposition that I'm truly baffled that it is going ahead. What was that Labour 2003 White Paper all about? Nothing but lies and deceit. I wonder if Brown will join his Labour crony Tom Kelly as a BAA Director once he's out of office. Hmmmm... stinks doesn't it?
It's was quite clear that Heathrow had grown to it's logical conclusion and should demand continue a new airport such as the estuary proposal should be found. No one in their right mind thought that whole villages would be levelled and the quality of life for millions would be disregarded and Labour White paper promises torn up to pigheadedly expand further. With Tom Kelly working for BA and Brown riding roughshod over logic and reason the whole thing stinks, do you really think the people should lay down and take it? I'm not suggesting there is no increase in capacity, but perhaps in a safer more logical location. And have you given any thought to the rest of the UK's airports and the impact in the forms of restrictions Heathrow's expansion will have. Brown ceratinly hasn't, but then only BAA has engineered backroom fiddles that ensure Labour are over a barrel.
Millions will suffer under the Heathrow flight path. I do hope Labour doesn't have the gall to press ahead with it's 'green tax' road pricing schemes after this (not that I see them winning the next election).
Locating a new airport or developing an existing one in a less densely populated area (which is pretty well anywhere else) shows consideration for the quality of life of millions. What's the bet you don't live under the flightpath? Show a little compassion and understanding and appreciate this is not all about CO2, or big business, but people and quality of lives.
Francy:
1. I live in Fulham, so that deals with your last accusation.
2. What is morally corrupt about allowing a private company to expand its business? Your hyperbole is nonsense. One village goes, one currently bounded by a runway and the M4. Hardly a surprise though surely, especially when two new terminals have been built or under construction in the past few years.
3. Who will pay for an estuary airport? The property owners expecting the windfall in property values from closing Heathrow? Who pays to relocate the thousands of businesses that locate adjacent to Heathrow? Why did not expansion opponents oppose Crossrail connecting to Heathrow?
Yes, I don't see those who want it shifted offering to collaborate and borrow tens of thousands of pounds to help fund an estuary airport.
A third runway can be financed without any taxpayer money, a new airport would need new money, and those who benefit from closing Heathrow ought to pay. I wouldn't, I live in Fulham fully aware of Heathrow. It is not as if it is new, and airliners are far quieter today than they were 30 years ago.
Other UK airports are irrelevant. None of them are hubs, they are almost all served by low cost carriers than simply fly to secondary airports in Europe, mostly useless for business traffic. None of them offer bases for BA, Virgin Atlantic and BMI to service the premium London direct and European transit traffic they all rely on to give London the highest international connectivity of any city in Europe. No Heathrow expansion will benefit Air France/KLM and Lufthansa which serve regional airports to connect to their European hubs. In other words it damages UK business and employment.
Finally, if you don't like Heathrow, there is a simple answer. Move. In spite of Heathrow, property values in London have appreciated so much since the airport was built, it is hardly an onerous burden.
Show a little compassion? No. I'm sick of this mealy mouthed vested interest bullshit. Closing Heathrow would be a windfall for some and a disaster for others. Have a bit of personal responsibility, either pay for Heathrow to move (and for those reliant on it to be compensated), or move.
Post a Comment