The Government has announced plans for significant development to the country's airports including a new runway at Heathrow. Stansted airport is also set for expansion, and will get a new runway which will cater for 46 million passengers a year.
Subject to meeting environmental standards an additional runway is planned for Birmingham airport.
However the plans have angered many environmentalists who oppose airport expansion and have called for an air "congestion charge".
Do we need more airport expansions? What does this mean for air travel in Britain? Send us your comments.
This debate is now closed. Thank you for your e-mails. The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
 |  As usual, everything focuses on the south east  |
As usual, everything focuses on the south east. Oh well, I suppose we won't suffer the excess pollution, loss of environment (in all senses of the word) and the increased congestion. On the other hand, businesses in the north of England and Scotland won't get any boost and people up here won't benefit from basic essential communications, let alone cheap holiday flights. That wouldn't be so bad if there was an adequate bus/train service at reasonable prices - the current costs are out of many people's pockets.
Jen, Scotland
Airports bring much welcome jobs and investment to the host towns. Additional visitors mean more revenue, not just for the airport but for hotels, restaurants etc. Those who complain and fight against airport expansions tend to be those wealthy enough to live in villages, who seek to protect their idyllic country lifestyles yet are, themselves, quite happy to fly off on their holidays over other people's homes!
Mark H, UK
Expand the airports! It's all good for the economy, an living here under Heathrow's shadow, the planes fly past so low and so often, you hardly notice them any more - and the new terminal is still under construction!
Gareth Rippingale, UK
My heart goes out to those losing homes, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If the UK (mostly Heathrow) doesn't expand it will lose the traffic to mainland Europe airports and that will lose the UK huge amounts of revenue. Luckily, it's not currently possible to outsource Airports to India!
Andy GM Wood, UK (London)
| What we need are more trains and buses at cheaper prices |
What we need are more trains and buses at cheaper prices. Business can be conducted with less travel in these high tech times. Holidays can be taken here in the UK - it's still a great place! Conclusion: no, we don't need airport expansion.
Phil, UK I don't know what it is like to have loads of aeroplanes coming over head but it must be loud for the people but I see it as a brilliant idea it will open new pathways through the midlands.
Robert Fogg, Derby
No Stansted expansion. The airlines don't want it, most locals don't want it and the rail and road connections are so bad, the passengers won't be able to get near it (remember that the Government is not funding access route improvement). Further, why should people have a right to fly? Restrict the number of flights and if there really is the demand, fill up bigger planes on the same number of runways.
Toby Braddick, Herts - UK
As more and more things are taken away from us (increasing petrol prices, unusable public transport) the rise of the budget airline was at least one way our quality of lives was improving. People who could never before have afforded a foreign holiday were able to get away from Britain's decaying sea side resorts. But, as Basil Fawlty said, this will soon be "yet another avenue of pleasure closed off" once the Government "reduces demand" by sticking some stealth taxes on flights.
Clarky, GB/France
I wonder how many of the people who are complaining about extra runways intend to fly abroad on a holiday over the next few years? Do they assume they can fly but everyone else should not be allowed to? Cut through the pointless and irrelevant and think about these two simple questions. Do you ban people from flying or do you let them choose how they spend their time and money? If you let them fly do you make lots of airports all over the country or do you make a smaller number of bigger airports.
John, Fleet, Hants
| Few people 'need' to fly - it is currently a highly subsidised luxury |
I am neither a tree hugger nor a Stansted/Heathrow resident so have no vested interest. I do think that before increasing capacity, we should remove the subsidy and make air travel pay its way - then calculate the required capacity. I suspect that people holidaying in this country would more than subsidise any loss of airport 'revenue'. Few people 'need' to fly - it is currently a highly subsidised luxury.
Craig, UK If I lived near Stansted, I wouldn't be too worried about the noise. Instead, I'd be taking advantage of all those cheap flights as often as I could!
Gerry Noble, Salisbury, UK
Yes, we need airport expansions, because the population is growing, the airline services will be use more, the global tendency of the world, will make people fly often to distant places. All this will have to be dealt in advance, to save time consuming delays and poor handling of increasing numbers of passengers.
Dr. Jose Nigrin, Guatemala
This is madness. On the one hand the government force more airports upon us and further overload our skies, and on the other hand they refuse to build new roads to take existing traffic! They're even threatening to put tolls on the roads to the new airport. It must be silly season, I guess.
Andrew Howlett, Manchester, England.
The majority of people in this country want more runways, so we get more runways. That's democracy, live with it.
David Russell, Glasgow, UK
| When are governments and big business going to wake up to the fact that we live in a world of finite resources and limited space? |
When are governments and big business going to wake up to the fact that we live in a world of finite resources and limited space? The constant pressure to keep on expanding airports and air traffic is typical of a depressingly myopic attitude that is helping to bring about the destruction of the very biosphere we depend on.
Marcus, Poole, UK We do need to improve and expand UK airports, however, this has to be done in a manor that protects wildlife and does not continue to focus on current airports. New sites must be found to balance the effects of the airports on the people who live around them
Jason Thompson, Berkshire
No, Les, the times are not changing. It's the same old world as we've had for the past 50 years: more concrete and tarmac justified by dubious arguments about economic growth. Progress will come when politicians start to stand up to business interests.
David, Farnham, UK
Whilst airports are a focal point for environmental problems, these need to be balanced against the need people have to travel. The UK needs these airport extensions urgently...
Jonathan, Derby
Its about time that air travel paid its way, rather than being indirectly subsidised - that way the fares would reflect the cost and the demand would drop and all this expansion wouldn't be necessary.
Chris J, Chelmsford, England
The times are changing and we must all change with them.
Les, UK
| Surely we should be questioning the safety of these expansion plans |
All of the comments so far seem to focus on the ground level impact of these expansions. When you drive towards Heathrow and see the planes stacking for landing and then hear about the burden on air traffic controllers and the number of near misses, surely we should be questioning the safety of these expansion plans. Surely more planes in the sky will mean that these problems will just get worse?
Karen, Reading, UK Why not build new airports close to the beaches so any noise pollution will be drowned out when the planes are taking off and landing over water I'm sure any infrastructure can be built to allow link up to road and rail all over the country
Doug, Liverpool
The government needs to look at more innovative ways to expand airports. I quote examples in Japan and Hong Kong where airports are built out at sea and a high-speed rail link ferries air passengers to and from the mainland. I believe this is the future for airports. Flattening villages and relocating people to expand runways and air terminals is the cheap and environmentally unfriendly way to do it. The SE of England is so over-crowded already, the last thing we need is for Heathrow to expand. Flights needs to be evenly distributed amongst the four major London airports and rail links improved and made more affordable.
Brenda Lyall, Bedford, UK
Are all these journeys necessary? No, many are for executives who want to look busy and people who think that a weekend abroad (i.e. 12 hours after taking out all the travel time) is somehow going to impress. Get a life
Mark, Glasgow, UK
As someone who will lives under the flight path for Heathrow, my opinion is that you have to build airports for better or worse where people and industry want to use them. And that means the best place is Heathrow. Next resolve environmental issues such as noise and pollution and transport access to make it work. There is far too much hysteria in West London from NIMBYS people who do not understand their prosperity depends on the industry attracted by Heathrow generating wealth. Those same people will be the first to complain if their jobs and pensions are ruined. It does not make sense for the rest of the country to see the air industry go the same way as the car or shipbuilding industry.
John, Chiswick, London
Airport expansions - a prerequisite for economic growth. However, airport expansions need more than runways - we need bigger and better feeder roads and a shed load more parking. I find parking at Standsted is often more expensive than my return airfare, and travel to Heathrow/ Gatwick is painful due to the under capacity of the motorway network.
Jezz Carey, Huntingdon, UK The proof that airport expansion is not required is the same reason why Concorde can now be viewed in a museum.
KH, Bristol
I cannot believe airports are being expanded. The majority of flights within the UK could be replaced by an efficient and more environmentally friendly train service. Flights to some destinations in Europe could also be replaced by the train. And to fly into Stansted or Luton is not 'cheap', it costs at least �20 on the train to get into London. Many travellers forget this cost. As for jobs, we will run out of these fossil fuels used to power the planes, then there will not be job security.
Sarah B, London UK
I grew up and still work around Heathrow and I am saddened by the way places I knew as a boy are being built on in the name of 'progress'. It's a sorry state of affairs when green, unspoilt land has to justify its existence to avoid being concreted over in the name of profit.
Russell, Surrey, England
There is already an airfield that is capable of taking the largest aircraft that are in use today. It is also the airfield that would be used if ever the 'Shuttle' could not land in the USA. It is Elvington near York. Instead of taking more and more valuable land to 'extend' runways, why not utilise Elvington?
B.W. Moore, UK
Whilst I feel that there is a good case for expanding airports, I can't help but think how I'd feel if someone in the government told me I had to move out of my house in order for them to build a new runway. I think I'd be quite upset about it really......
Ben, England
| I am all for airport expansion - it was inevitable really but why not Edinburgh or Glasgow or up north? |
I am all for airport expansion - it was inevitable really but why not Edinburgh or Glasgow or up north? As a frequent traveller, I am sick of having to pay extra for my flights because they're diverted through London and I'm equally as sick of having to spend hours waiting for connecting flights especially on the return home from a long-haul when I want to get home. Those of you that live close to Stansted - I feel your pain but surely this was on your mind when you bought your homes?
Lorna, Edinburgh Air travel has brought enormous global economic and cultural exchange for its first 100 years. Runway expansions and additions to existing airports are an incredibly tiny percentage of land consumption, but if they enable us all to get to know one another more often, more cheaply then with care and environmentally sensitive planning, they should proceed. Put it all in perspective folks and get over the NIMBY syndrome.
Allan Tweddle, West Virginia, USA
Instead of cramming more capacity into areas that are clearly not capable of such expansion, why doesn't this country actually build something new? A new centrally positioned 'hub' could include new high speed rail links to all major cities and efficient road links for public transport. This would solve the problems of noise as it would not be near an established community and could be placed such that flight paths did not go over major areas of population.
Garfield, Staines Nr Heathrow
| Great news, the new runways will create new jobs and allow more access to the world to a lot more people |
Great news, the new runways will create new jobs and allow more access to the world to a lot more people.
Ramesh Mavar, Slough, UK Oh look, more South East England centred policies, that's a shocker!!!
Gerry, UK
Another runway at Birmingham is pointless when there's a full size runway down the road at Coventry - at which there are plans for a passenger terminal!
Mike, UK
Just stand by and watch for the greatest show of organised civil disobedience this country has ever seen. Still no one is listening!
Al, London, UK
| We always seem to live beyond our means in terms of money, roads and now airports |
I am surprised that many people think airport expansion is a good idea. We always seem to live beyond our means in terms of money, roads and now airports. No matter how much expansion is done there will always be more people wanting to use them. My major concern is that this is a never ending proposal that will eat all the beautiful English countryside that so may tourists come here to see (which is of much economic benefit).
Trudy, London, UK
Aeroplanes must be much more economical to run than trains as the fares are so much lower. Why not rip up railway tracks to facilitate more runways- this would also save the government millions bailing out ailing rail firms!
Al, UK
Those with the money to travel as and when they like must think it's their lucky day - the rest of us will be continuing to subsidise their holidays to their villas abroad! And they'll be escaping the pollution and devastation of the environment too!
J F M, LONDON, UK
I am sure anyone complaining about the new runways do go on holiday and do use air travel. Most problems in any country are caused by overpopulation and this is compounded in the UK by the fact that we are only a small island at the end of the day.
Andy, Lancashire, England On what should be a clear day the sky is covered with cloud from vapour trails at Stansted - climate changes begin right up there in the subsidised gas guzzling aircraft that will further blight our skies. What will our grandchildren think of us? I don't fly and survive so can most other people and so should they if they and the government are serious about the planet.
Sue Hood, Witham, Essex
Why is it always those that have taken advantage of the tiny house prices near airports, that are the first to moan about them?
Craig, London, UK
| The projected growth in air travel is pure fantasy |
To me, the projected growth in air travel is pure fantasy. At that rate, within another few decades, most of the world's population would be permanently airborne! It will only take another hi-jack or two, or more dramatic evidence of climate change, to which air travel contributes massively, to stop the expansion in its tracks.
John Thurman, UK Please concentrate on local airports; this would ease traffic congestion around major airports. Save extra travelling by road just to find over expensive car parking at major airports!
Tony, Bristol, England
We must now know that the greenhouse effect is a fact. Therefore, can the people who favour more air travel please tell me how this is possible without burning more fossil fuel, generating more greenhouse gasses, and heating up the world causing environmental disaster?
Robert W, South Yorkshire, UK
| Let's build what is required now and for the future - with a sense of urgency, too |
We need economic growth and job security. So, let's build what is required now and for the future - with a sense of urgency, too. Expand the regional airports. Let's not repeat the same contra-intuitive argument today as we did in the 1950's when Leeds-Bradford Airport was condemned to be an utterly useless airport on the locals' refusal to permit runway lengthening.
Mr McHeap, London Ryanair and the like prove that flights don't need to cost a month's wages, how about now starting to improve the in-flight environment? Sitting in cramped conditions with the view to a tiny TV screen blocked by some lumbering behemoth's head is excruciatingly miserable, especially on a long flight. Surely removing just one row of seats in a cabin and creating a bit more legroom can't be that difficult? Come on, people - the world is changing; change with it.
Jason Miles, Reading, UK
| There is no way that anyone should have their house or village knocked down to make way for further airports |
There is no way that anyone should have their house or village knocked down to make way for further airports. No mention was made of RAF Finningley which was granted planning permission recently to open as an airport. The base is already there as is the runway, nothing needs knocking down, it could comfortably serve many areas.
Chris Fountain, UK I live close to Stansted airport and I think the decision to expand the airport was the right and only sensible choice. It will bring in a vast amount of money into the region. The infrastructure is in place and it is easy for most people to get to.
Liz, Essex
They've just spent millions building the super fast railway to the channel tunnel. Why not build a new airport with two runways somewhere along the way to utilise this fast link to London. The airport would be on the south east side of London and compliment the spread of airports around the city.
Richard Philips, London UK
Richard Phillips of London seems to sum it up - that all major airports must be for the benefit of Londoners, who don't care how inconvenient that makes it for the rest of the country.
Andy C, Dorchester, UK
| I have lived near Brentwood in Essex for most of my life and don't appreciate people telling me to move |
I have lived near Brentwood in Essex for most of my life and don't appreciate people telling me to move if I don't like the noise from Stansted. In the last couple of years the noise level has got ridiculous - this summer, if you had the windows open, you couldn't hear the TV when a plane was going overhead. When I moved here Stansted was a shed in a field. We get more noise than when we used to live under Concorde's flight path, next to the Great Western Railway and the Thames. And what would happen if this runway was planned to go through an MP's house? Don't think there'd be a runway...
Sandy, UK
We need airports to grow all over the country and whilst the need to protect the environment has to be considered, without a growing economy we will not be able to sustain environmental improvements already made. Regional airports are at the heart of most economic revivals and the needs of the many outweigh the views of a few vocal and influential tree huggers.
Mick Milner, Keighley West Yorks England
| There would be no need to expand Southern airports if other big city airports could have direct flights to key regions and countries |
There would be no need to expand Southern airports if other big city airports could have direct flights to key regions and countries. To go to the US from Newcastle I have to go via London. To go to Greece I have to go via London or another European city. If London wants smaller airports, it needs to give the rest of the country some of these direct routes.
Liane, UK
Wonderful idea - please put another 2 terminals at Heathrow and grow the transport infrastructure to match. It'll keep the value of my property sky-rocketing so that when I retire I can sell for a small fortune and move away from this congested hell hole called the southeast.
Brian, Farnham UK
I believe that we should improve the internal transport system before we expand airports. How about sorting out the rail network.
Owen Turnbull, Sai Kung, Hong Kong
| It's getting as busy up there as it is down here. Stop moaning and get constructive |
To be perfectly honest, why moan about any expansion? We moan about expanding roads yet more people are flocking into the country and using our roads, creating more traffic so why not expand? It's the same with air traffic and it's getting as busy up there as it is down here. Stop moaning and get constructive.
Mari, Dorset, UK
Well if London doesn't get what London wants - the whole country will collapse - right. Who are all these extra seats for? Business travellers should make more use of modern technologies such as video conferencing - it would save their companies a fortune and therefore they would be able to keep other jobs in the UK rather than outsourcing to India.
Jesse, UK
There are far too many short haul flights, e.g. London to Leeds and Manchester. If we had a decent high speed rail network which reached airports, and if we had an equitable and coordinated fares structure, many of these flights would be unnecessary. Neither the airlines nor the traveller is meeting anywhere near the environmental cost of air travel - what are the implications of the projected growth on greenhouse gas emissions?
Bill Hunter, Huddersfield, England
| I suspect the projections of increased air travel are plucked out of the air to justify airport expansion |
Possibly we need more airports or runways but I suspect the projections of increased air travel are plucked out of the air to justify airport expansion. What we don't need is the destruction of more listed buildings on the Essex/Hertfordshire border: Mordor at the expense of the Shire.
Pete Davis, Kenley, UK I live directly under the flight path of City Airport in London. From 7am till 11pm planes fly over every 5-15 minutes. It doesn't bother me one bit. People who complain should not have bought homes in those places in the first place. Nimbyism is very hypocritical and ignores the obvious fact that if you want to fly abroad, you need airports.
ML, London, England
We are all suffering because the road network has failed to keep up with increases in traffic volumes. Let's not make the same mistake with air travel. A proportionate investment must be made in air traffic control though.
Christian, Birmingham, UK What a good idea! If you live in a small over crowded country, try and concentrate everything in one small area. I'm sure I saw this in top tips in Viz. Does this mean we're going to end up with an ariel M25?
Simon, London
I live close to Stansted Airport, but I am more than happy for the airport to expand. When I moved here I knew the airport was there AND that it would grow in the future. How many local campaigners do not use the airport either for business or leisure flights? Probably very few! So what does that tell you about them?!
Steve Daly, Saffron Walden, England
Wouldn't it make more sense to expand Luton? Close enough for people to get into London, yet accessible from the North of the country. The argument that more capacity is needed at London because people are flying from there ignores the fact that many people in the north are having to travel to Heathrow in order to fly to their destinations, not through personal choice, but because it is dictated to by the airlines!
Richard Speight, Barnsley, UK
Stansted isn't handling enough planes presently to recoup the cost of building it anywhere in my lifetime. This is nothing but an exercise in stupidity so that the rich can get richer still. It would also be a safe bet that most of those defending the expansions are those set to profit by it. Pathetic.
Dan M, UK
Wonderful how many ways people can get annoyed about this. Fat cats will get fatter, marshes will get smaller, yobs will go to Magaluf and someone would prefer a canal holiday! Most of us like the freedom that convenient cheap air travel offers. More runways yes, but possibly more airports also. Greater decentralisation and resist the big airlines desire to do everything from Heathrow.
Iain Johnstone, Glasgow, UK. If we get rid of all our airports and got to the French ones, within a very short time England will become a 3rd world country dependent on others for handouts of food and water. What a short sighted opinion, Air expansion is part of the global economy. Live with it, embrace it, and profit from it.
Simon Longstaff, UK
Shouldn't we be improving the internal transport system before we think about expanding airports? People will arrive in the country in a shiny new airport terminal, then face delays and overcrowding on the country's under funded railway and congested road infrastructure.
Phil, Cambridge, UK
| If we don't get more airport capacity around London then the simple fact is that business will look elsewhere |
If we don't get more airport capacity around London then the simple fact is that business will look elsewhere - we will see economic downturn in the UK, job losses and more - then what will the environmentalists say?
Dave Handley, UK The current Stansted to London rail link is running at capacity as it also ferries people from commuter towns to their offices every day. I wonder what the government's plans are to get all these people using the new expanded airport into the centre of London are?
Paul, London
I am an Air Traffic Controller - nobody asked us if this is possible ? Everyone that is clamouring for more capacity in the Southeast has no grasp of the main issue involved in this! There is no airspace left. Take a reality check, it wouldn't matter if you put in 5 extra runways there is simply no room in the stacks above!
This shambles is a result of 30 years of total aviation mismanagement, which has resulted in total UK demand being forced into the London. The vested interests are to expand ....London....
What about Manchester which actually wants these flights and has the room?
Holly, UK
Face up to it - you can't keep adding bits onto existing facilities. Why don't you bite the bullet and build a monster airport similar to Hong Kong's International Airport on Lantau Island? Away from major population centres, can you imagine one of the new 500 seaters falling on London? The 500 seater planes should mean fewer aircraft movements, not more.
Brian, Australia
| Looking after the planet is far more important or the time will come when we won't be travelling anywhere - except into oblivion! |
The time has come to say "No"! We don't want more of the country under concrete nor do we want all the dreadful consequences of pollution - especially in areas where existing levels are already literally "sky-high". We shouldn't always expect to get to places instantly. Looking after the planet is far more important or the time will come when we won't be travelling anywhere - except into oblivion!
L J Hudman, London What happen about Glasgow? It's the biggest city in Scotland, Just now it's the biggest airport in Scotland, and it has more international dentations than Edinburgh! Why are there not getting it? Because of the �400 building called the Scottish Parliament.
Jeremy Bailey, Helensburgh UK
By concentrating the investment in infrastructure in the south east of England, the government is only going to increase the levels of road and rail congestion, pollution, housing crisis in the area as the demand for all of the above increases.
Colin Smith, UK
It can't work to keep expending airports. As other stupid projections of growth in capitalist systems don't work, this won't. By 2030 the UK population is expected to increase to 65m. But then 30% of the population are over 60. Also, if every airport in Europe keeps expanding who will want to use all these airports?
Clemens, UK
How long is the Crude Oil going to last? If it's only another 5 to 10 years, with the last 5 years showing massive price inflation, then what's the point? It's only a matter of time before we can't afford to fly, just before there's no more fuel to do any flying whatsoever! I wonder if these things are considered before they plough up a marsh land that's 25,000 years old!
Matt Downes, UK
| Great, more pollution, noise and expanses of tarmac. Just what the country needs. |
Great, more pollution, noise and expanses of tarmac. Just what the country needs. And all so that the 18-34 yob class can continue to go to Magaluf for next to nothing to disgrace themselves and the name of our country.
Dave Knott, London, UK I have a job which supposedly involves international travel. For the last three years I have done as much as I can via video conferencing, with the result that I have only had to fly on business once, unlike my colleagues who still travel at least once a month. The business has not suffered and I am more productive as a result.
Steve, Gillingham, UK
| With Gatwick on my doorstep threatening a second runway, I think the issue is - when do we stop. |
With Gatwick on my doorstep threatening a second runway, I think the issue is - when do we stop. They will expand now for the short term and in 20 years time another airport will need expanding. Can't they do what Hong Kong did and build them offshore.
Si Browne, UK Compared to many other major international airports Heathrow's dingy crumbling corridors and worn carpets are frankly embarrassing. London needs a world class airport with a brand new state-of-the-art design. Heathrow is an ancient relic which should be replaced.
Phil, Newcastle, UK
Not at the moment. Expanding air travel will be at the expense of sorting all the problems with cars and other modes of public transport. Any subsequent expansion must be on the condition that airlines pay full fuel duty.
James Richards, Edinburgh
We absolutely need more airports, so here is my idea: why not just flatten all buildings on the Isle of Wight, and establish a tunnel/bridge to the mainland. We could then replace Southampton with a motorway junction which gives ease of access to all corners of the compass and hey presto!
Robert, Oxford
Airports in the North of the country need to be expanded and people offered the chance to fly to an increased range of destinations without either having to fly via London, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam or else suffer a long car journey and traipse down to Heathrow or Gatwick. When will the Government and airlines wake up to the fact that not everyone lives in the south of the country?
Ant, York, UK
| Yet again the fat cats get their own way. |
Yet again the fat cats get their own way. The government are fast becoming just an admin organisation for the big business boys. The war in Iraq, even further expansion at Heathrow - many suffer as a handful of fat cats get even richer. What's next?
Tim, UK To all the "environmentalists" - the planet will be absolutely fine! I can't say the same for humans - but hey - it was our own doing!!
Penny, UK
| If you do not like it then move to a part of the country where the expansions will not affect you. |
If you do not like it then move to a part of the country where the expansions will not affect you. No one forces people to move next to an airport. Plus I do not think that you will really know the difference anyway.
Nina, UK
I have been a regular air traveller for 25 years and the increase in volume during that period has been dramatic - given that the volume will increase as we continue to expand the global market place, the country must be prepared to cater for further expansion. Without it we will be unable to position ourselves correctly.
Martin Rayson, Freckleton, Lancashire
I flew into Newcastle airport recently and was amazed at how efficient and clean it was. Stansted is like going into another world, it is great as it is. Heathrow should be bulldozed and started again. The place stink's of smoke.
Annie, Northampton
| I was horrified to learn that the airport expansion schemes were now focussing onto Stansted again. |
Being a resident of Essex, I was horrified to learn that the airport expansion schemes were now focussing onto Stansted again. How can we conserve the environment, when the word 'progress' seems to be more important.
Kelly, Essex Airport expansion is an inevitable fact of life for any nation that wishes to continue to develop and improve. However, the plans must be part of a wider strategy to improve all aspects of the transport infrastructure for the whole of the country.
John Warburton, Wakefield, England
| All airport expansion must be accompanied by new mainline nationwide rail-links. |
All airport expansion must be accompanied by new mainline nationwide rail-links within each airport, especially Heathrow, in order to give the anticipated huge increase in airline passengers and staff numbers a real alternative to road travel and gridlock.
Mike Sheppy, Feltham UK The French are already expanding Charles de Gaulle so why not get rid of all London's airports and spend the money improving the rail link, then we get massively reduce air/noise pollution.
Mark, UK
I'd like to protest against the expansion of Stansted. I feel that we will not have any villages left soon, and that the older, rural lifestyle of counties should be protected not polluted. Build more runways at Heathrow in a busy, enormous city like London where the extra housing, traffic, pollution and tourism will go relatively unnoticed.
Dan Statham, Tiptree, Essex, UK
Last time I flew was 1980 when I went to India. Before that it was 1973 when I went to the Canaries. For me they could shut all the airports - I'd much rather go on a canal holiday, or visit some of the wonderful places in the UK.
John, Chesterfield, England I wonder if we are going down the same route as the roads, i.e., build more roads to ease congestion, we then get more traffic, so we build more roads to take the increased traffic and so we build more roads and so on ad infinitum.
Michael, UK
| I live very near to Manchester airport and support it's expansion very strongly. |
I live very near to Manchester airport and support it's expansion very strongly. If I travel I don't want to have to travel to London to start. I also get more noise pollution from the West Coast railway line and that is 24 hours a day.
Ian, Stockport I would expand Heathrow to four or five runways. Expanding Stansted is OK but travel between the London Airports is a pain. �18 from Gatwick to Heathrow? Give me a break.
J Davies, UK
What will we do with these runways when the oil runs out in 30-50 years and air travel becomes a thing of the past?
Nick, Watford, Herts
| Why are cargo, presidential, executive flights using Heathrow? |
Why are cargo, presidential, executive flights using Heathrow? If these aircraft used military or ex-military airbases it would reduce air traffic in an already busy airspace.
A Ledger, Reading Economics dominate our lives and projects are either given the go ahead because it makes sense economically or not if they don't. We have to put the selfish attitudes that have come to the fore over the past 20 years behind us and take collective responsibility for a better environment, and if that means we earn less so be it.
Tim Cockerill, Bristol
I notice that people living near airports have commented that the environmental damage caused by aircrafts does not affect them. How can you possibly justify such a comment, or foresee the future? I have heard that planes are one of the biggest causes of pollution and ozone depletion, and that short-haul flights are less fuel efficient, per person, than driving an empty car.
Adam, Bangor (Gwynedd)
| I'd like to ask that everyone who is against improving the airport infrastructure avoids flying for the rest of their lives so that the rest of us still can. |
I'd like to ask that everyone who is against improving the airport infrastructure avoids flying for the rest of their lives so that the rest of us still can. Any volunteers?
Chris, Bristol I do a lot of international Travel, with work and believe that it's a good thing to be expanding Airports. People do complain about aircraft noise who live close to airports but to be honest, I lived under the flight path for Birmingham, for many years and was never affected by noise pollution.
Steve Brown, Telford Shrops
The NIMBY in me says "Yeah, great, let Stansted and its environs be blighted". The northerner in me says "Yet more evidence of the north / south divide." The holidaymaker & businessman in me says "Why not Manchester - it's closer to me (but not too close - see NIMBY)." The pragmatist in me thinks "It wasn't 5 minutes ago that we were all being told of the dramatic fall in demand for flights leading to airlines going bust and people staying at home. The whole business is too fragile to spend so much money on it." The sceptic in me thinks "The government will do what the hell they want, so does it matter what I think anyway ?"
Steve, Warrington, UK
| Would it not be better to put the runways where the demand is? |
Would it not be better to put the runways where the demand is? Heathrow does not have enough runway capacity to meet current demand. If it is not expanded from its current 2 runways, then passengers will start using Charles de Gaulle with its 4 runways, and gain jobs at the expense of the UK.
Andy, Bristol,UK I am a frequent business flyer and avoid Heathrow like the plague. It is a heaving mess to get in or out of, it should be flattened and the whole job started again. When you compare Heathrow to other major airports like Paris C d G and Chicago O'Hare it looks like it was built by Blue Peter and Lego from a cunning plan designed by Baldrick. Give me the regional airports like Stansted, Luton and Birmingham any day.
George Hollis, Cambridge, England
| Let's face it: if we don't expand our airports, France's Charles de Gaulle airport will become Europe's transatlantic hub. |
Let's face it: if we don't expand our airports, France's Charles de Gaulle airport will become Europe's transatlantic hub - and we don't want that do we? You can't expect your economy to grow without the infrastructure to support it. We should welcome airport expansion but attach environmental restrictions to the rules of operation.
Graham, Tonbridge, Kent The environmental argument has been hijacked by a small number of grasping homeowners who, in reality, have only their own financial self-interests at heart. Many thousands of jobs rely, directly and indirectly, upon the expansion of London's airports and it seems to me outrageous that Britain's future economic prosperity is being jeopardised by a pack of whinging "NIMBY" Luddites.
Brian, London, UK
For travel over 200 miles it's much better to fly than go by any other form of travel. Less than that it's better to drive - so where does this leave the railways? Dead that's where - and good riddance. More planes, more roads & less trains please.
Mike, UK
What about airports in the north of England? A former RAF base on the outskirts of Doncaster is currently undergoing the transformation into a commercial airport. This will provide a real alternative to travelling to Manchester Airport. It makes much more sense to bring an existing runway back into use rather than constructing from scratch.
Chris Cowan, S Yorkshire, UK This argument about keeping up with demand is nonsense. The Airlines are creating their own demand by giving away flights for the price of a newspaper.
George O'Reilly, Ware, Hertfordshire
| As an occasional traveller through Stansted it has always irked me that there is no rail link to the north, the only option is to London. |
As an occasional traveller through Stansted it has always irked me that there is no rail link to the north, the only option is to London. If they expand the airport (which I think is a good idea) I hope the improve the rail links as well.
Andy D, Luxembourg So what if it's inconvenient to travel to Heathrow. So what if air travel gets more expensive. So what if big business doesn't make as much money. So what if it costs a few jobs in the long run. It's about time we considered the future of the planet instead.
Keith, UK
| You could squeeze a few more flights into Heathrow if they operated their runways more efficiently, but what's the point? |
You could squeeze a few more flights into Heathrow if they operated their runways more efficiently, but what's the point? The terminals and infrastructure can only just cope now. There are however, many underused regional airports that would benefit from development. Why doesn't the government look at this and 'spread the load' across the country instead of concentrating an already saturated South East?
Mark Smith, Leeds I remember during the fuel protests the government telling motorists that cutting tax on fuel wasn't possible as it would lead to more environmental damage and less funding for hospitals, schools etc. We now have the same politicians telling us that taxing airlines for the fuel and pollution they cause won't happen because it's not good economically. Surely some double standards here?
John, Liverpool
I live in Essex and it would be really easy to get my family or friends to take me and pick me up. But in 20 years of living here, I have NEVER had the option to fly from Stansted, instead having mostly to go to Gatwick - which I consider to be the worst to get to from where I live. Why can't we take Hong Kong's example by building an airport out of sight, and linking it to a major city via a fast train?
Sandy, UK
| Whenever I travel by air I try and fly from Stansted. Why, because it's a small, compact airport and as a general rule you can get in and out quickly. |
Whenever I travel by air I try and fly from Stansted. Why, because it's a small, compact airport and as a general rule you can get in and out quickly. It's not unusual for me to be on the train back into London within 10 minutes of landing, even with baggage. Personally I think they should keep Stansted as it is, and build more, smaller airports at strategic locations around the UK.
Chris, London/Essex No more expansion is needed in the south east because Schiphol's recent massive investment programme has seen new runways built that can accommodate additional capacity not only for London, but also for the remainder of the UK. This allows, for example, British passengers to fly intercontinental, with a change of planes of course, and enjoy the services and facilities at the world's number two ranked airport.
Barry Freeman, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| Why - as ever - does London get everything, including larger airports? Birmingham airport could use the expansion, which would be of greater benefit to the country because of its central position. |
Why - as ever - does London get everything, including larger airports? Birmingham airport could use the expansion, which would be of greater benefit to the country because of its central position. We already lose out on all the economy routes by big companies such as those offered by Easyjet.
Melissa, Birmingham Echoing Melissa, Birmingham, the majority of the UK population doesn't live in the Southeast. Yes we need airport expansion, no Stansted is the wrong place - try somewhere further north and more accessible to most of the UK. Finally it means that unless the military free up more airspace to civilian air traffic UK airspace will become a congested M6 in the sky!
Andrew Taylor, Nottingham, UK
| We cannot continue 'expanding to meet demand'. The only people who gain from airport expansion are the airline companies. |
We cannot continue 'expanding to meet demand'. The only people who gain from airport expansion are the airline companies. I would call on the British people to make a stand against this kind of corporate bullying and boycott air travel for 6 months. People should realise that boycotts are the only way of stopping these corporate monsters.
Leon, London, UK Unfortunately, the Government has again missed the point; the most pressing need is not runway capacity per se, but capacity to support a global network. We must ensure that the regional airports have sufficient capacity to serve their populations, but they are none of them using all their current capacity - only one airport is, and that is Heathrow.
Martin Chalk, Ruislip, England
Firstly why is it London Stansted? It's nowhere near London! Secondly, why aren't we expanding other regional airports, other countries have an airport at all their major cities. Britain on the other hand doesn't. I live not far from Stansted but most flights I have to travel to Gatwick, how daft is that!
Martin Mace, Cambridge, England Expanding Heathrow makes much more sense economically than expanding Stansted. Stansted has been chosen purely for political grounds - as it means less lost votes for Blair. Outrageous!
Matthew North, Stansted Mountfitchet, Essex
This country is lagging far behind the rest of the world in airport provision. We need another international airport in the south east of England, another in the Midlands, one in the north, one in the south-west, one in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, plus large regional airports as well. If you travel through Europe you are always seeing such facilities
Owen Matthews, Cardiff, Wales
Not at the sake of our countryside
Gillian Le Bon, London, UK
The arguments about stopping people flying are the same as those driving. When whingers say that people should fly less, what they mean is that other people should fly less, not them.
Paul , Farnham, UK
NO, we most certainly do not need any substantive airport expansion. The damage to quality of life, now and long into the future, far outweighs any added value. This is not just my view, it is the conclusion of the Government's own Sustainable Development Commission and The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, along with many other respected research and policy bodies.
Peter Morgan, Solihull, West Midlands Airport expansions are not needed in England, we have enough as it is. We should reduce the number if airports and make the ones we keep bigger, other wise you are just wasting valuable space especially in London.
Mark Smale, Nottingham
Lives ruined by noise and pollution, acres of land concreted over, ancient buildings destroyed, and all so that the wealthy middle classes can go skiing for �1. How does enabling people to fly abroad cheaply for their holidays help our economy?! We should be controlling demand through green taxes, not giving in to the greedy desires of the aviation industry.
Will Duffay, Welling, Kent
Answer to Q1: Yes. Answer to Q2: Yes. Answer to Q3 More choice for travellers, less congestion on M25 as we all steam south to Gatwick or west to Heathrow
Alister Gourlay, Woodbridge UK
| Once all the middle classes have moved to their holiday villas in Spain we should remove all links back for them. Build on the existing runways! |
Once all the middle classes have moved to their holiday villas in Spain we should remove all links back for them. Build on the existing runways!
Colin Harrison, England I think people are living in the ancient times when they moan about anything and everything that is needed to make this country go forward. It's inevitable that the environment would suffer, that was the case when people first built airports, they all protested, but where would we be now without the airports?
Alex Walke, Hemel Hempstead, UK
Many people on low and modest incomes have had the opportunity of foreign travel over the last decade of so. It is essential that air travel is not restricted to a privileged elite by restrictions on the supply side.
Graeme , Edinburgh, UK
I'm totally sick of these environmentalists whingeing on about congestion charges. Unless we expand our air infrastructure in line with other western world countries, we will fall behind economically. Aircraft manufacturers are working on ways to make aircraft more environmentally friendly. But opposing expansion is not the way, and will harm the UK economy without a doubt. Hooray to the Stansted expansion - I'm an Essex boy, and it's going to be so much more convenient than the trek to Heathrow.
Andy Roberts, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex I don't agree with the opinion that we should have an aviation air/increased fuel tax. It may well be fine for the airlines to afford to cover the cost, but what about us pilots who have to pay at least �40,000 personally for our training, it would rocket the cost even further, and then who would be there to fly you all on holiday?!
David Taylor, Halesowen, UK
Has anyone asked air traffic control if they will be able handle this expansion in air travel.
D Smith, Weymouth
The right airport should have the best transport system right into the heart of London. Stansted does not - it's 90 minutes away from the centre of town.
Nikolai, Edinburgh
| Heathrow is too big now. Any money should be spent on improving the transport links around it, and not on more runways, which will lead to bigger traffic problems |
Heathrow is too big now. Any money should be spent on improving the transport links around it, and not on more runways, which will lead to bigger traffic problems. Areas other than London need better air facilities, and Stansted has the capacity and infrastructure to support an additional runway. It is also (slightly) more central.
Mike G, Peterborough, UK Instead of expanding airports, we should invest heavily in improving our railways. A lot more money should also go into finding environmentally friendly aviation fuels, and ways to reduce pollution by aviation.
Paulina Smid, London, UK
A big resounding yes! It's a fact of life that air travel is becoming more and more popular. If the UK is to continue being a world hub of business and leisure pursuits then we must improve our transport facilities (both rail and air). If we are to continue receiving tourists then it is imperative that a new runway is built.
Ben Bailey, London, UK
I think the main question we should be asking is whether or not the government is actually being realistic in its views on air travel expansion. Do they really think that so many more people will want to travel by air and that such an expansion is economically and environmentally sustainable in the long terms? I live close to Stansted and have even worked up there in the past. I know that the new jobs being created by t by the airport would mostly just be poorly paid, low skilled casual positions. The area isn't prospering from the airport as much as Mr Darling would like to make out.
David Rodgers, Bishops Stortford, UK
| Fantastic, I could be able to fly to Florida without going all the way to Gatwick. Well done its about time |
Fantastic, I could be able to fly to Florida without going all the way to Gatwick. Well done its about time.
Kevin, England Air transport is public transport, just like rail transport. Why are all the environmentalist so upset about this issue? I don't see them demanding more tax on bus and train fares.
Dave Brown, Bishop's Stortford (near Stansted Airport), England
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
