Theresa Villiers vows to stop third runway at Heathrow

It appears that Gordon Brown has avoided a Cabinet rebellion on his go ahead for a third runway (R3) at Heathrow by requiring airlines that will use it to be only the newest and least polluting aircraft.

Speaking on the Today programme (listen again here), Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers said those requirements are worthless.  She told Radio 4 listeners that Labour had made many promises before that have not been kept.  She noted a promise by Stephen Byers a few years ago to limit flights to 480,000 a year but for that promise to be broken within a year.  She also noted that the Government was seeking derogations from EU laws on air quality.  Ms Villiers vowed that a Conservative government "absolutely will cancel these plans" and had the capacity to do so because there was "no chance of the planning process being completed" by the time of the next General Election.

Theresa Villiers' position is strongly supported by London Mayor Boris Johnson but it is said that there is strong opposition within the shadow cabinet and from backbenchers including Graham Brady, John Redwood, David Wilshire and Ian Taylor.  Mr Taylor wrote the following recently:

"For both good and ill, Heathrow will continue to be the major British airport. Presently Heathrow's runways are full and the consequences of this include delays, failed connections and missing bags. Furthermore if ground capacity for landing and take-off is not improved, the nuisance from over-flying because of 'stacking' will get worse (and stacked aircraft are certainly not environmentally friendly). One issue which requires further investigation is how to improve surface access to Heathrow by road and rail. The bus links from Reading and Woking are important but more strategic planning is needed. Meeting the environmental challenge requires sensible strategies as opposed to transient tactics. Decisions should be guided, but not blinded, by environmental conscience."

> On Platform today Nick Cuff makes the case for expanding airports other than Heathrow.
> Iain Dale backs R3

12.30pm: Speaking on Radio Two's Jeremy Vine show Boris Johnson predicted that the legal and environmental objections to a third runway would be "insurmountable".  He dismissed the Government's decision as "pointless political machismo" engineered by Peter Mandelson.  Heathrow was a planning error from the 1940s and it was wrong to expand upon that failure.  He discussed the possibilities of expanding other airports on London's perimeter including Manston but also building a new airport in the Thames Estuary.  He challenged Gordon Brown to debate the issue with him.

Comments

[Man in a Shed]

Theresa Villiers has painted us, and even more so herself, into a corner on this one.

This matters as R3 is needed, and Heathrow is the beating heart of one of the most important areas of the country.

[onnalee]

I thought Theresa was excellent on the Today Programme this morning. I liked her straight answers and her references to specific and relevant broken promises of this Government.

Everytime a Conservative is on air they should make references to the ineptitude of this Government with specific examples and hard data relevant to such discussions. The media will not do it for us. The media will not hold them to account. We have to continue to remind the public of their gross incompetence and dishonesty.

For example, when the Conservatives next talk about how disgraceful it is that Brown ruined the most successful private pension positions in the West by raiding the pot by £5bn p.a. I want to hear not only criticism of such actions but also a promise to repeal such a ruinous tax.

[smallbluething]

If we're going to return to economic growth and create jobs we will need an international hub airport. Surely ruling out all growth of aviation in the South East is economic madness?

[Forlornehope]

A high speed mag-lev running between Heathrow and Gatwick would allow the two to be run as one airport. The increased flexibility would eliminate, or at least postpone, the need for new runways at either.

[Edward Huxley]

Not a fan of hers but she is dead right. Same applies to the Airtrack rail link to the south west of Heathrow which could close local level cossings for up to 45 minutes every hour from 5am to midnight! Tunnels and bridges have been ruled out.

We don`t want them, don`t need them and can`t afford them.

A certain vote winner here for the Tories.

[RichardJ]

This is not the result of the free market but of government intervention. Free markets don't involve forcing people to sell their land or funding large projects with large sums of confiscated money (taxation). If we want another terminal it should be funded privately and the funders should be prepared to pay people more to part with their land. After all, if this is going to bring in so much money then the funders should easily be able to recoup their initial losses.

Shockingly enough not everyone opposed to these proposals is a member of the Green lobby.

[Peter]

I don't know the detailed arguments but to rule out expansion of our airport sounds batty to me. Also it will damage the government's 'green credentials' and exceed EU air pollution regs, so it can't be all bad.

[Legal Eagle]

Following the recent debacle over the West Coast mainline and this country's poor record for running efficient railways, what confidence can the public possibly have that Ms Villier's "high speed rail link" will be anything of the sort?

[David XL]

Heathrow is a disgrace by design. It's an embarrassment. We need a fresh start. We need a brand new airport with a design that is well thought out. Put some competent people in charge for a change.

How long would it take to build a third runway? How long would it take to build Boris-air?

Once the third runway is built, we'll be stuck with it.

[Mark Fulford]

What's to stop the airlines from simply shifting their newest planes to R3 slots -- meaning a higher %age of old planes on R1 and 2 but no overall improvement?

[Richard]

I could not hear the article on the Today Programme as a plan was flying over my Berkshire home.

At present the level of noise generated by planes taking off and landing at Heathrown is just about acceptable, a 50 - 70 per cent increase on current levels of traffic would make living where we do unbearable.

A third runway must be stopped. As Iain Martin writes in today's Daily Telegraph, the coalition fighting this is diverse and huge. I am not an environmentalist or an eco warrior, but I love the village where I live and I want a decent quality life for me and my family and friends.

[Onnalee]

I think Boris Island in the Thames Estuary is a fantastic idea. It would reduce flights over high density, residential England and improve the quality of life for huge swathes of our population. We could then have a state of the art, efficient new London Airport which, when coupled with first class transport links would economically position us well for the remainder of this century. Tinkering around the edges with Heathrow is delaying the inevitable whilst making so many of our citizens lives even more intolerable in the process.

We need to be visionary and courageous.

[Edward Huxley]

Yes Onnalee, Boris Island is a great idea and instead of burning it or burying it inland, our rubbish could help to build it. Worth considering anyway.

[Sally Roberts]

Editor - how about inviting Boris to write something for us setting out his ideas?

[Carline M]

My evidence is a bit anecdotal but, as someone who flies in and out of london more often than the average person, I notice that fog is as often a reason for delayed landing at Heathrow as backed up planes.

developing other airports has to happen. so I hope the tories don't push 'green' reasons too much here or we'll just look stupid.

although I like the result of villiers argument I prefer the way taylor makes his argument.

[Carline M]

My evidence is a bit anecdotal but, as someone who flies in and out of london more often than the average person, I notice that fog is as often a reason for delayed landing at Heathrow as backed up planes.

developing other airports has to happen. so I hope the tories don't push 'green' reasons too much here or we'll just look stupid.

although I like the result of villiers argument I prefer the way taylor makes his argument.

[TV fan]

Theresa is a hero. Save England from the greedy wreckers!

[CityBoy]

I can never work out why people who buy houses near airports or under flight-paths seem to think that they have some sort of implied warranty that traffic volumes will never, ever increase. Think about it and build the risk into the price you are willing to pay for the property in the first place.

Christ alone knows why we have decided we are against this. I assume it is because there are seats nearby we need to win, and this is an easy way to get the NIMBY vote. Good politics, but some of the stuff Villiers is coming out with is pure cant.

That said, if this is going to make money and makes commercial sense, why are BAA not funding it?

[Scott Carlton]

No, No, No to a third runway at Heathrow!! Once again we have a London centric policy from a London centric government. How about the rest of the United Kingdom? Why not invest in other smaller airports to accept more airfrieght, or to take shorter haul flights out of Heathrow to remove the stacking issue. Surely putting all your eggs into one basket with one airport is a bad idea?!

John McDonnell Labour MP's outburst this morning was fully justified!! Need more Labour MP's to break ranks from the Labour Whip.

[tru tory]

can't beleive all the luddites pretending to be tories. Of course we need a third runway - that is want the market - otherwise known as all us consumers and businespeople want.

what business is it of a government, let alone a so called tory party, to deny us this freedom?

[voice of the north]

hello this the north speaking, remember us? we hear that some of you down south are a bit fed up with all that economic activity. if that's true, can we have some? we might even start voting tory again.

[Scott Carlton]

Hear hear voice of the north, its bad enough in Nottinghamshire, where I am from, and thats reflected in only two of the constituencies in the county being held by the Tory Party. I personally believe a targeted UK wide tranport policy could bring economic prosperity back to the UK.

[CityBoy]

Scott Carlton/Voice of the North

The problem is you say this, but I bet you'd be the first to kick off if it was suddenly decided you were getting a big airport a few miles from your homes.

[Steve]

Not in our Backyard Jock!

Why doesnt Broon and the laughably titled "UK" Government have it built in Scotregion?.

Because the "UK" Government and Broon has virtually no say over Scotregion (or Wales or N Ireland)

Just cover England under concrete, its 'only England' after all, Broons own country and environment is safely protected by its own Government.

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/2070/frontnotinourbackywardoz7.jpg

[Edward Huxley]

tru tory obviously doesn`t live in the area affected. What`s so wonderful about maintaining Heathrow`s position as one of the world`s busiest airports? What about the poor residents of Sipson, under a permanent planning blight and unable to sell their homes? They and the rest of us who already suffer from the overcrowded skies and roads don`t matter. We do have votes, however.

Godon Brown`s got it wrong- again.

[Sally Roberts]

"we might even start voting tory again."

Ay up, Voice of the North! I believe quite a few of you already are - and even more will when they hear about proposals for high speed rail links!

[Jack Stone]

Boris Island is complete nonsense. Enviromentally and politically.
Also have you tried to get from the Thames estuary to London by car or rail its a nightmare.
If transport links were improved this would mean yet more enviromental damage.
Think your lose seats if you back a Heathrow third runway its nothing compared to how many you would lose if Boris island was ever built.

[Sally Roberts]

Jack Stone doesn't want it - yet another argument in favour of Boris Island!!

[Scott Carlton]

City Boy,

I understand where you are coming from on this, however please don't stereotype everyone as being advocates of Nimbyism. I actually live next to an ex-RAF base that is part of a proposed site for a Eco-Town. This includes much of the surrounding countryside.

And yes I am acutally against that for many reasons, however as part of the discussions over it I have suggested that the site is used as a wind/solar farm. Something not many people would do.

I would be an advocate of expanding the local train line that runs just under 1/4 mile away from my house, alongside expanding Nottingham East Midlands to take more freight.

[Iain]

" can never work out why people who buy houses near airports or under flight-paths seem to think that they have some sort of implied warranty that traffic volumes will never, ever increase "

Cityboy, I presume your house is near to a road, so you wouldn't any issues if it was turned into a mortorway, after all its a road, you should have realised that traffic would increase!

The fact is the people living around the airport were given undertakings by Government about the limits of Heathow's expansion, and not just the Government for the T5 enquiry said that the T5 development should be the limit of Heathrow's expansion.

These undertakings should have some meaning shouldn't they. A Government's word should be worth something shouldn't it?

[David XL]

The market wants a great airport that can make the country proud. Heathrow is an embarrassment worldwide.

[Norm Brainer]

Boris Island is complete nonsense. Enviromentally and politically.
Also have you tried to get from the Thames estuary to London by car or rail its a nightmare.

Yes, it's easy - There have been many upgrades in the past few years, and most of them lead to ghost towns as the area is in need of much renovation which an airport could bring.
There would be new technologies so that the airport can operate faster and less annoying for passengers and then can also run ekranoplane links to Schiphol, Newcastle and Edinburgh.

But as Sally says, if you're against it (or rather say you are just for attention) then it's a vote in favour.

[anon]

I wished I owned a house in Sipson. I'd love to have someone without a chain pay me over the odds in cash for a house in today's property market!

[Ron Sushkind]

A great decision by the Government, one any self-respecting party of business should be ashamed to oppose.

Iain Dale is spot on about this:
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/01/government-gets-it-right-on-heathrow.html

[David T Breaker]

Heathrow is a badly designed mess in the wrong place, expanding it on the grounds that it's already our hub is like Brunel widening canals instead of building the Great Western Railway. R3 isn't even a full lengh runway!

What is most disgusting however is the state use of compulsory purchase powers to destroy an entire community of 800 houses, including I understand 100 listed buildings, a graveyard and very nearly a church. What happened to an Englishman's home is his castle? Aren't we meant to be a free property owning democracy rather than a Stalinist regime?

Thank goodness the Conservatives are opposing this terrible plan. No one has the right to treat people like this. This runway isn't free Market, it's socialist intervention for BAA over private individuals!

[gnosis]

This expansion is going to cost in the order of 7-8 billions pounds but boris' island will cost in the order or 40 billion,if you were a company who was willing to help keep our air ports going well into the 21st century which would you see as the most viable option?
I for one do not want to lose out to the french or the germans and i don't mean that in any sort of xenaphobic way i mean it in a common sense business way.

[Iain]

"A great decision by the Government, one any self-respecting party of business should be ashamed to oppose."

What's good for business isn't necessarily good for the country, and what isn't good for the country can in turn be very bad for business.

Tell you what there's a bit of spare space going unused in the centre of London, lets turn that into a helicopter airport, that will be good for business. So what if its Hyde Park, so what if it destroys the living environment of the local people, so what if it makes London an even more unpleasant place to live, its only what's good for business is what counts, or may be just possibly that is a real lousy bit of logic.

PS Its interesting to note that even on Parliament Green where politicians are interviewed that the background noise to their interview is the wine of jets on their approach to Heathrow. Anything west of there gets Heathrow’s noise pollution , even supposed refuges like Richmond park that has SSI's to protect it can't be enjoyed without the incessant noise from Heathrow’s jets, but Ron Sushkind doesn’t care for only what is good for business is what matters, and no doubt thinks it was a bad day when heavy industries were moved out of our cities.

Airports are the modern equivalent to the smoke stack industries of the past, and should be treated as such, and just as we moved the smoke stack industries from our cities, so we should cite airports where they do the least damage to living environments.

[Scott Carlton]

Anon at 14.14 posted:

"I wished I owned a house in Sipson. I'd love to have someone without a chain pay me over the odds in cash for a house in today's property market!"

I find your comments completely disrespectful to those that live within Sipson, and the surrounding area. These sort of opinions are not useful to the dicussions being held on this topic. Please have a little thought for those that are going to loose there homes in a community that they still want to live.

[Iain]

"This expansion is going to cost in the order of 7-8 billions pounds but boris' island "

Only because Heathrow is protected and doesn’t have to pay for the damage it does to the environment. If this third runway gets the go ahead, will Heathrow pay compensation for the blight it brings to hundreds of thousands of people ? Of course not ,it gets to annex and exploit peoples living environments for free. If it had to pay the true cost of its activities Boris’s island would look a very cheap prospect by comparison.

[Iain]

"What is most disgusting however is the state use of compulsory purchase powers to destroy an entire community of 800 houses"

David T Breaker I would question whether compulsory purchase can be used. In the past the planning enquiry gave democratic legitimacy for the state to compulsory purchase properties for the public interest. But now we have Brown's rigged planning process, this can't be considered public or democratic , which as it denies the individual from defending his interests, it must surely make any attempt to compulsory purchase property as against common law.

[MartinW]

I, too, was pleased to hear Theresa Villiars being so straight and forthright on the 'Today' programme. Would that other Conservative spokesmen showqed such a lack of equivocation!
As for the longer term, I believe tha Thames estuary must be considered as a top option for the main London airport. Wildlife is certainly a consideration. But birds thrive in Jamaica Bay right next to JFK, and it seems certain ours in N. Kent will be similarly unaffected.

[Jean Smith]

Unless the Government applies the requirements to all three runways, these conditions are worthless. What is to stop the then new, low in pollution planes taking the slots on runway three and more of the older type planes using runways one and two? This would increase the air traffic and also increase pollution on runways one and two, as at the moment we have a mix of both old and new planes using these runways.

[Jack Stone]

People here near the Thames Estuary don`t want Boris`s airport because of the noise and the increased traffic it will bring. Airports blight peoples life and anyone who wants them near there home is an idiot.
We should be doing all we can to try and encourage less air transport not more.We could make a start by encouraging a switch from air to train in this country. Trains are the answer to air pollution not more planes.

[HF]

Theresa is doing the right thing. The muddled oligopolists at BAA and BA should not be allowed to pollute all these fields and houses.

Heathrow does not work. Start again in the Thames estuary. Boris is right.

Flying over central London is foolish.

[Malcolm Dunn]

I hope Theresa Villiers succeeds. BAA in particular has been less than honest with the public. I am very sceptical about all their claims that the economy will collapse if a third runway is not built. They made exactly the same claims about Terminal 5.
We've seen significant falls in passengers last year. Is this solely down to the economic climate or are people becoming more conscious of the enviromental damage caused by air travel?

[Jake Bryan]

This is certainly the right decision presuming that a Thames Estuary airport is on the cards- 'the market' might be demanding extra landing space, but the fact is that if a truly free market had operated in the 1950s Britain's hub airport would have been nowhere near Heathrow. It was always a terrible location, and unless we morph into a Chinese style dictatorship significant expansion is impossible.

It seems curious to me that the Labour government, desiring to create a highly developed 'Thames Gateway' has not itself been actively in favour of the idea of an airport in the estuary- it is surely one of the only ways to ensure the long term viability of the area as a community.

[David T Breaker]

One of the top comments on BBC Have Your Say reads: "Appalling Decision. The only time in my life I have even considered voting Conservative just to get this reversed."

[RichardJ]

"what business is it of a government, let alone a so called tory party, to deny us this freedom?"

What business is it of government to force people to sell their land and confiscate our money to fund this project?

If the market wants this then it would be entirely privately funded and wouldn't rely on compulsory purchase.

[wtf]

Steve, presumably if a new airport was to be built in Scotland you'd be complaining about that as well, ranting and raving about how it showed contempt for England, etc...

Do you ever contribute anything to this site other than anti-Scottish hatred?

[Steve Foley]

As a worker in the Aviation Industry I was delighted that the Third Heathrow Runway has been given Government approval but irate that it will take until 2015 for work to begin and it would not be finished until 2019. I can accept that a major civil engineering project such as this could take 4 years to complete but not that there would be SIX YEARS for the work to commence on site. No wonder we are the laughing stock of European countries such as the French who would have such an important scheme such as this off the drawing board and in construction far sooner than this.

I am also disgusted by the opposition to this project by the Conservative Party, once the party of Industry and Commerce. I am sure that those who depend on their livelihood on Heathrow will bear this in mind at the next General Election. I do wonder what Margaret Thatcher would have thought of this , her once proud party putting aside a much needed improvement to our Premier Airport to pander to a few NIMBYS and the Greenie Meanies?

Living in Reading West I will suffer a double whammy as Labour MP Martin Salter, always a man to jump on any bandwagon, has set out his stall against the Heathrow Expansion. Unless the Tory PPC takes a different line from that dreadful Villiers woman it really doesn't matter who I vote for. A pity as I would otherwise have voted Tory in this marginal constituency and I know others who think likewise.

[Jim Carr]

Villiers is in cloud cuckoo land. If she stops a third runway, Heathrow will die as a hub; the traffic, along with the economic benefit will move to France or Holland, who will not turn it away.
We need all the economic help we can get, not Greenpeace-addled fools like Villiers regurgitating the economics of the green madhouse.

[Mark]

What would the land that Heathrow presently occupies be worth ? The money raised by disposal of this land could go to building a purpose built hub transport system. What happens when Heathrow needs to expand in the future ? 3 runways enough ? not really. It will need to expand if it wants to keep up with European hub airports that will undoutably expand when required.

[Jono]

@Jack Stone: "Boris Island is complete nonsense. Enviromentally and politically.
Also have you tried to get from the Thames estuary to London by car or rail its a nightmare.
If transport links were improved this would mean yet more enviromental damage.
Think your lose seats if you back a Heathrow third runway its nothing compared to how many you would lose if Boris island was ever built."

No, it's you that's talking (total) nonsense. East London, post-Olympic games, will be well-connected, prosperous (we hope) and booming. A new airport ala Hong Kong (the world's best) is the most exciting idea to come out of a politician's head in years - and the best solution to the Heathrow debacle. The whole of London, with HS rail links from the west and a superb new international airport in the east really would have the best transport system in the world. It would be fantastic for London and a great boon to the nation.

Finally, closing Heathrow in less than a decade will then be feasible and not just utterly desirable, as the new airport reaches full capacity. A vast tract of precious land in the west would then be ready for redevelopment with ready-made infrastructure. A lot of it could be 're-greened' and quickly.

T5 would be a good supermarket.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

When do we see the results of Boris' feasibility study into his excellent Island airport?

Planes flying over one of the most populous places on earth at the rate of one every 50 seconds (and will get worse) is to court disaster somewhere down the line.

Just because the RAF put a tent in a grassy field to co-ordinate 3 small airfields for D Day does not mean that 60 years later it is the right place for the world's busiest airport.

Someone has to say stop. They should have said it long ago.

I'm delighted Boris has the strength of mind to look for the best long term option for this country and for London - 24/7 operations and 4 runways.

[Big Dave]

Forget the Climate, the Economy, the Jobs. 700 families forced to sell their homes by the government? Absolutely Disgusting. If the bulldozers ever start rolling on this bad joke you can bet I will stand with the good people of Sipson to defend their Homes from these cretins.

[AJJM]

I would love to see the Brown Clown try to take on Boris. Boris would biff him!

[Jack Stone]

Lindsay. So Boris Island is the best option for London because it takes the problem out of London.
Boris is Mayor of London he isn`t Mayor of Essex. Thank God!!!

[Lindsay Jenkins]

Jack, you will by now know of the downed aircraft in the Hudson. Planes flying over London have nowhere to go if they have to do a forced landing.

I wrote only a couple of hours ago that it was only a question of time - not psychic I can assure you - but when you watch the TV pictures from Manhattan it should make anyone think.

And those passengers had a very good pilot who appears to have done a text book landing on water - not easy.

[tears of a clown]

I propose a study to see if Bojo the Clown is a serious, long-term, strategic decision. I rather think that he will be found wanting.

[pp]

At least discussion here will be free and open - unlike labourlist, where full censorship is in operation. I thought it would take a bit longer before labours natural instincts for concealment and supression of discussion to kick in - but there you go.

[Treacle]

Nice of Jack Stone to confirm his troll status:

"think your lose seats if you back a Heathrow third runway its nothing compared to how many you would lose if Boris island was ever built." (sic)

'You' not 'we'; thanks Jack, back under your bridge.....

[Paul Biggs]

Villiers is talking nonsense, but it's her job to do as vacuous Cameron says.

This quote is really embarrassing nonsense:

The Shadow Transport Secretary, Theresa Villiers, slammed Labour for approving plans for a third runway at Heathrow.

She warned it would inflict devastating damage to the environment and to the quality of life of millions of people - and described it as a “a bleak day for our environment and for those of us that care about safeguarding it”.

Really?

[IRJMilne]

Regardless of our view on Heathrow expansion in particular, ruling out any airport expansion is an insane policy.

[anon]

Regardless of our view on Heathrow expansion in particular, ruling out any airport expansion is an insane policy.

Posted by: IRJMilne | January 16, 2009 at 10:52

You've hit the nail on the head!

[Super Blue]

IRJMilne (and anon subsequently),

"Regardless of our view on Heathrow expansion in particular, ruling out any airport expansion is an insane policy."

There is some ambiguity in your post. Do you mean that ALL expansion must be ruled in or SOME?

If you mean that we need a little more expansion, I agree completely. If you mean that every particular airport ought to expand, I don't.

[James Maskell]

I can understand the opposition to the plans when the Cameron project was getting started and the environment really was the big Tory issue. Now it just feels like they painted themselves into this and are now stuck with it. I didnt agree with Graylings arguments on QT.

Im not convinced by the Tory case against it and am minded to go with the Government here, minded since I havent read the full reports etc.

[Friends of the North Kent Marshes]

Alongside the RSPB, Friends of the North Kent Marshes are wholly opposed to the construction of an airport anywhere in the Thames Estuary because of the immense damage it would cause to the area’s internationally important wildlife and the wider environment.The whole issue was exhaustively investigated between 2002 and 2005 in the Government’s Aviation White Paper. All the key players, including the aviation industry, contributed. The idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary was conclusively ruled out and upheld by the High Court. In addition to the unprecedented environmental damage and the resulting massive legal implications, the investigation found that an estuary airport did not make sense economically, would not meet the requirements of the aviation industry and presented a significantly higher risk of ‘bird strike’ than at any other major airport in the UK. It would potentially be the single biggest piece of environmental vandalism ever perpetrated in the UK.
Bird strike
An airport in the Thames Estuary would be unsafe.
Even with an aggressive bird hazard management programme (i.e. shooting or scaring the birds away), the bird strike hazard would be up to 12 times higher than at any other major UK airport.The governments own birdstrike hazard report from the 2003 SERAS study stated that "It is difficult to envisage a more problematic site anywhere in the UK''

[David James]

I'm sure the authorities at Schipol,Frankfurt,and CDG are delighted that
Heathrow has decided to patch itself up yet
again.