YES

Lord Soley of Hammersmith, campaign director, Future Heathrow

Heathrow is in decline, relative to its continental competitors. The two current runways at Heathrow are full. By this I mean that they are operating at 98.5 per cent capacity. That is why even a minor weather event can cause unreasonable delays—there is simply no spare runway space to increase aircraft movements and clear a backlog.

The global economy is linked by hub airports. Frankfurt can now fly you to 307 destinations compared to Heathrow's 180. Frankfurt is proud of its central position in the emerging European market and makes much of the city's vibrant financial sector together with the European Central Bank.

So does any businessman or economist think that Britain should be without a premier hub airport? Of course not. If we don't have a third runway at Heathrow we will have to create a new hub airport elsewhere. This may be what some people want. But people who argue for such a move always have difficulty when it comes to saying what happens to the 72,000 jobs currently on the airport and the 100,000 dependent on it remaining a premier hub airport. They also don't tell us where the housing and infrastructure for any new hub airport will go.

Of course the aviation industry has to rise to the challenge of global warming, as all industries have, but moving flights from Heathrow to continental competitors or another UK hub will not reduce emissions. We need more intelligent answers.

The emerging European market is connected by hub airports and high- speed rail links. We have allowed ourselves to fall behind in transport infrastructure. It is time to catch up. Delay will damage the UK economy.

NO
Richard Dyer, transport campaigner, Friends of the Earth

Good air links are important to the UK economy, but we already have them. London is already exceptionally well served by air services. The five airports that serve London serve more destinations and passengers than its nearest rival, Paris. We should remember that the French government has abandoned further airport expansion. On top of this, 35 per cent of passengers passing through Heathrow are there to change planes. These people are not spending money in London or bringing value to our economy. Expanding capacity to cater for these passengers  will have a negligible impact on GDP.

A recent survey revealed that 78 per cent of London businesses are against further  expansion of Heathrow.

The costs of the resulting climate change must also be considered in any assessment of the economic benefits of expansion. If the government had used the cost of carbon from the Stern Report in their assessment, the economic case for expanding Heathrow falls to pieces. In fact, it shows a £3bn loss.

And there are practical alternatives out there. Instead of flying to meetings half way across the world, businesses can help cut carbon emissions by using video conferencing—an increasingly practical, popular, time-saving and low-cost alternative to air travel.

Rail is also a viable alternative to many flights from Heathrow, offering productive travel time and with up to 90 per cent less carbon emitted per passenger. It is ludicrous that 20 per cent of planes leaving Heathrow serve UK or near-Europe destinations, where excellent, fast rail services exist. The most popular destination from Heathrow, with 60 flights a day is Paris, easily reachable on Eurostar.

The government should take action to make greener travel options accessible and affordable for everyone. It must also comprehensively review the carbon price it uses for the economic appraisal of development proposals, such as the third runway at Heathrow, because there are serious implications for climate change. And ministers must include the UK's share of international aviation and shipping emissions in its new climate change law. Not doing so is like going on a diet and not including the calories from chocolate.