I remember reading about T5 - was it in Gullibles Travels ?

wills, Soton , UK

It's simple really..you set a cost figure on the life /lives of those who will be killed on the motorway when a multi-ton jumbo lands on top of them suffering only slight damage to its undercarriage. Set repairs to the aircraft against the cost of a new jumbo and all the litigation and hassle you've avoided from the hundreds and hundreds of passengers and/or their relatives and it's really quite cost effective to squash a few motorcars. .So long, that is, if you can sleep sound of a night after the first "unfortunate and unforeseeable accident" takes place.
This is nothing new. Governments make this sort of assessment all the time (see costs involved in the war in Iraq/Afghanistan).

E.L. SORDO, Ecclefechan, Highland

Sorry Jeremy of Crawley but Gatwick has the main London-Brighon railway line in the Public Safety Zone instead of Heathrow's M25/M4 complex and crashing on a commuter train will have the same negative effect!
In any event any 2nd runway development at Gatwick can hardly be called sustainable.

Anthony Lloyd, Charlwood, Surrey

If there are so few cargo flights out of Heathrow, why is so much space taken up with cargo?

Richard Aylward, Thame, Oxfordshire

Maybe now is the time to bring forward the plans for a second runway at Gatwick. This would alleviate the problems of overcrowding at Heathrow and give the South East (Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hants & London south of the Thames) a far better & sustainable answer than a totally new build or further developments at Heathrow.

Jeremy, Crawley (by Gatwick), UK

@Richard Aylward

There are probably no more than 4 cargo flights a day out of Heathrow. Getting rid of them would be a drop in the ocean. The rest of the freight Heathrow handles comes in the cargo holds of passenger carrying airliners.

Adam Spink, Southampton,

A Third runway - Yes its a must for Heathrow.

More movements ie Flights - No No No, if a third runway makes it better all the good, if it just brings more flights ( AKA Profits for the BAA ) then its a no brainer, it wouldnt help it would just make a bad thing worse.

Peter, Aldershot, UK

The expansion of Heathrow Passenger Traffic.

It would not be necessary to add a third runway to Heathrow if the freight traffic was moved to another airport. This option would be much cheaper in all respects as:-
No additional land would be required at Heathrow.
No increase in air traffic at Heathrow.
No additional pollution around Heathrow.
No significant delay in the expansion of passenger traffic at Heathrow.
No need to build a new airport in the Thames estuary.
No need for additional public transport to & from a new airport.
No negative environmental impact due to an additional airport.
The cargo facilities areas could be rebuilt to provide an additional passenger terminal at Heathrow.
There is a connecting tunnel already available to access the new terminal.
Airfreight traffic could be relocated to others around the country
which would reduce long distance road transport needs
Most regional airports are adjacent to the motorway network.

Richard Aylward, Thame, Oxfordshire

Expanding Heathrow is madness - there's only so much you can cram on a small site and terminal 5 has shown how desperate things are there.

Much better to move the airport to somewhere like North Kent - you could have all aircraft approaching / leaving from over the North Sea (relieving the thousands of people suffering from noise blight). It could also tie in to the new rail link into St Pancras.

Lots of countries have moved airports because there existing flagship sites couldn't cope, including Hong Kong and Bangkok. It would solve a lot of problems for us and give us something to be proud of.

Rob, Birmingham, UK

The third runway at Heathrow is now a dead duck. The airport is too big already and it is time the politicians bit the bullet and gave approval for a new airport in the Thames Estuary. The near disaster with the BA 777 also underlined the vulnerability of the surrounding population to the possibility of a freak accident killing hundreds or even thousands.

Plus how can this Labour government hit motorists with swingeing tax rises in name of the environment and then allow further expansion at Heathrow?

This decision was shirked in the 70's and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Heathrow can never compete with other major European airports due to space constraints. The only sensible option is to build a brand new airport which can allow a 24 hour operation, also the associated aircraft noise and pollution will have a minimal affect on population centres.

Edna Burbridge, Engreve, France

Can't the BAA authorities see for themselves that the whole area around Heathrow is already so congested that making another runway and adding more planes will just make it worse. The roads are not getting any bigger, plus the risk to the motorway near Heathrow is just making it a more crazy idea. I have been writing repeatedly to focus on expanding other airports in the UK than just putting all the planes in one delicate basket which is on the verge of collapse.

Ashwin, Bristol,

Well Ben from Oxford ... A new airport is going to take at least 25 years to complete so given that Heathrow is the worlds busiest airport NOW & the fact that it operates at 100% capacity NOW & because it operates at 100% capacity the least little thing forces it into chaos - so, all in all ... what do you suggest for NOW? A third runway is the only option to relieve the airport & give it a lifeline when something goes wrong - All the other major European airports have 3, 4, 5, 6 runways & London is the financial & business capital of Europe & the worlds busiest airport - surely if any airport should have numerous runways it should be Heathrow? For just now that is the only option.

Andrea, New York City, NY

Another use for an airport out in the Thames would be to double as a second Thames barrier, as for the moaners who say its not in London it wouldn't be that hard to connect to the high speed 1 rail track then its only 20/25 from St pancras (and at heathrow at the moment it can take that long to get from the plane into a terminal).

Dan, London, England

It really would be far cheaper to start afresh out in the Thames Estuary. Hong Kong can manage it yet we just make excuses!

Paul Davis, York, uk

Another nail on the coffin of the utterly ludicrous idea of expanding Heath Row Airport.
Heath Row was once a nice hamlet, demolished for the placement of the airport- it was close to what is now Terminal 3. An airport built in a suburban location just is not sustainable- it wasn't ever meant to be this big.
A long term viewpoint must be taken- the idea of a modern airport being built in the Kent Marshes/ Canvey island with planes taking off over the North Sea surely makes more sense. One only needs to see what was done (with British engineering and architecture nonetheless!) in Hong Kong where the airport was moved from inner city Kai Tak to out of town Chep Lak Kok, with planes taking off and landing from over the sea, to realise what is readily achievable with some serious planning. Rather than investing in more sub-standard infrastructure for a woefully outdated suburban airport that really can't expand; Heathrow should be wound-up - as should our short- termism planners.

Ben, Oxford, UK