They should be and should have.

The A312 Hayes By Pass is an almost constant jam southbound from about 06:00 (first Heathrow day shift?) through to quite late. When I come home at about 17:00, northbound, the southbound is always jammed from Bulls Bridge roundabout right back to Ossie Garvin and often beyond.

Same journey, when I drive along the M4 towards J3, eastbound, there is always an almost 'wall' of vehicles joining the M4 from the Heathrow junction and that section is often very slow to crawling.

I can only tell it as I see it and more runways and passenger numbers is only going to make it worse.

I see myself as a bystander as within the next 2 years I've decided to retire early so the traffic won't be an issue. No more will I need to get up at 04:45 to be out of the house by 05:30 to avoid the By-Pass jam.

_________________
Lets be careful out there !

I understand. As I say, that's up to the council and development team to come up with a solution to that. Irrespective of that, Heathrow still needs another runway.

No it doesn't...

Made my arguments up there ¬....

Still waiting to hear a good argument as to why it needs one (over and above corporate reasons)

Just because you don't think the argument is a good one it doesn't necessarily make you right though, does it?
An airport is a business, it grows. If BAA wants to bring in more business and jobs and therefore fund a new runway, that's good news.
Alternatively Heathrow could close (with loss of jobs, reducing value of homes in west London etc) and the taxpayer could fund a £43bn+ new airport in the estuary (like that's gonna happen)

What kind of argument are you waiting for? Of course Heathrow expansion is based on business and the economy (which will also be job related) What do you expect it to be based on?

I also see where you are coming from -

But for Heathrow to expand it needs to attract customers. If you need to allow extra hours to get there then it's going to fail as people go elsewhere more accessible. I just don't see why Heathrow can't stay as is and also have a smaller Boris island.
As well as road congestion, if Heathrow expands you are going to get air corridor congestion.

I still think this Heathrow closure is the Heathrow bosses, presumably on bonus, chucking their toys out of the pram

_________________
Lets be careful out there !

Lets take a step back for a moment shall we..

Alternatively Heathrow could close!!
For this to happen a political decision (at the highest level) will have to be made to build an alternative somewhere else. If there is will be spend £43 billion they will do it. (HS2 is coming in for a lot of criticism of late) who is to say it will still happen? Labour are already speaking in veiled terms of cancelling the project if they get to power in 2015.

The project itself is attractive because of the shot in the arm it gives to GDP and the wider economy. Once the chips go down they will say well if HS2 is not feasible what about a new airport (other countries have done it) Clearly they know they cannot go on expanding LHR forever and sooner or later will have to make this decision.

Reduction of the cost of housing in the London and the SE is not necessarily a bad thing. Those workers you keep going on about on or close to average wage can barley afford to buy currently without putting themselves into eye watering levels of debt. I say this as a property owner who fears his kids will never be able to afford to get on the ladder (as we did) unless the madness is reversed.

Loss of jobs is of course a concern it always will be but this would be a project spanning many decades from planning to opening you could be looking at thirty years.

Lets not forget the sort of job losses we are talking about are not unprecedented. A decision was taken in the early 1980's to close a lot of the coal mines because they were uneconomic and this resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. Many of these areas have

In any event modern employment law stipulates that any jobs transferred from point A to point B have to be offered to the persons currently undertaking those roles. Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. TUPE 2006 lays down the rules so LHR employers would not only have to offer to transfer their employees but to offset the costs of training new staff would likely offer re-location expenses. From what I read of these pages many would bite your arm off at a chance to move away from West London with a guaranteed job at the other end and employer assistance to move. No doubt if a new airport is to be considered they will also be building new towns to house those who would work at the facility.

Clearly there is a misinformation campaign underway scare tactics if you like saying jobs are at risk unless the airport is allowed to expand. Not always the case though is it that the full picture is put across.

Heathrow, like any other business - and individuals, has to live within the real world if it is to survive. Any serious expansion plans for Heathrow must take into account the future economic reality. And a major airport should be taking the global economy into account because its very business relies upon global travel and transportation of goods. And many of these goods passing through Heathrow are imports that are doing the UK's balance of payments no good at all. It is interesting that the UK's balance of payments figures no longer routinely appear in the press or the media – why not? These days the mention is always of GDP, but the important figure is the balance of payments. While our balance of payments continue to favour imports – and they do, the national debt can only continue to deteriorate towards national bankruptcy.

Just a brief glance across some of today's press clearly shows that the economic situation is not looking very healthy. In fact, the David Cameron tells the the City and the business world that austerity is here to stay indefinitely: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... state.html Continuing austerity for ordinary folk will not provide the confidence, or the disposable cash, to spend on passing through what must be the world's most expensive and unpleasant airport.

A small sample of the economic stories in today's press, as shown below, does not suggest that 'disposable cash' is going to improve any time soon. In fact, the future outlook for a revived free-spending populous looks increasingly unlikely. Wage freezes have become the norm; pensions are being wiped out; and the costs of essentials such as water, energy, transport and food show no sign of getting any easier – on the contrary, the LibLabCon political decisions favour continuing price inflation that will run ahead of wages, and austerity will become the permanent norm.


Here are a small sample of economic bad news from today's press.
Energy bills to sky-rocket over next 17 years:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... years.html
&
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... years.html
&
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/442724 ... ill-misery

Very few people have significant savings:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... vings.html

Future investment in energy uncertain says Dong:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... -dark.html

Savings under attack:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... avers.html

Banks remain in trouble:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... -boss.html

Property bubble fears:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... fears.html

Food banks on the increase:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/patr ... n-food-aid

No significant investment has been made in the UK's road network over recent years, largely due to the UN's Agenda 21 plan to restrict private travel and “save the planet” from the essential plant food CO2. The public transport system is quite incapable of meeting the needs of a modern population – let alone a population that is rapidly expanding because of the LibLabCon's political decision to invite the whole world to live in the UK. This expanding population is also suppressing the UK's wages with cheap labour, which must have a knock-on effect on disposable income available to spend on passing through Heathrow. Against this backdrop, what reason is there for Heathrow expanding?

If Heathrow is permitted to expand, then the only rational conclusion that can be drawn is - it will not be for the benefit of the indigenous British population, it must have other purposes that cannot be admitted to by the political elite.

I bet if labour do get in they won't cancel HS2. Remember the Tories were so against airport expansion and when they got in they cancelled all the proposed additional runways that labour had decided to grant airports like Stansted, Gatwick etc The Tories got in and cancelled it all and now have decided to listen to the fact that LHR needs a new runway or London needs a new airport. A U turn some might say. I'd imagine that Labour being so against HS2 will also turn in to a U turn should they get in. The political side is all about votes sadly which is why the whole Heathrow runway and new airport for London thing has gone on for longer than I've been around!

The housing value dropping is somewhat debatable in a way; I understand your concern for your kids but a lot of home owners don't like their house value declining.



Yeah I remember, it ran down a few areas and left a lot of people in a bad position. A lot have never forgotten about that and Thatcher/tories hated for it. Whether they were uneconomic or not I suppose is debatable in a way (not discussing it here as it's an argument the miners have had going on for years so we won't solve it on here obviously)

They might be legally inclined to help workers move if a new airport in the estuary was built but I think there is a bigger factor in all this really. You're not asking individuals to move, you're asking whole families which is quite a big task and many won't be able to take it up. I suppose those that don't like the new runway idea at Heathrow could move instead? I expect that idea to be disliked though. Although as BAA is a private company they should be footing the runway/expansion bill rather than the tax payer.
They might build new towns etc if a new airport was built but considering the huge uproar over the idea of Heathrow having a new runway I can't imagine how difficult it would be to build a new airport and a few additional towns too!



Yeah you're quite right about that. It needs to meet the demands for its customers (airlines and passengers) otherwise they'll go elsewhere and that won't be good for the business (airport) and west London. As I said before in a previous post new routes and airlines are adding to Heathrow frequently so for the passengers using these airlines things obviously aren't so bad for them. Perhaps they are richer or perhaps their companies have paid for their ticket, does that really matter though if it's bringing in business? At the airport I fly from we frequently have a businessman and his family visit in a rather nice Bombardier Global Express. He flies in from across the pond as his business (a food related one) operates in the USA and here too. No one is bothered about his wealth, just grateful for the business his aircraft and business brings.



But even if one can't afford to fly British Airways it doesn't necessarily mean they won't benefit from Heathrow expansion. If a persons job is directly or indirectly influenced by the airport they will still benefit.

I'm not being mean in asking this, I moved away from Southall in 2000 and visit my dad there for a week or two yearly (I do visit Heathrow multiple times throughout the year though) but I'd like to know, apart from Heathrow what does West London have as a major employer? If the airport closed and made way for a new airport in the estuary (causing hotels/haulage firms and other airport reliant companies to move/close) what else would west London have? Again, I'm not saying this to be spiteful, I am asking a genuine question. I seem to recall that Nestle were moving north?

Looks like you fly by hot air balloon?