« Previous | Main | Next »

Airlines, protesting and Heathrow

Eddie Mair | 17:44 UK time, Wednesday, 1 August 2007

What do YOU think?


  1. At 05:45 PM on 01 Aug 2007, kevin lister wrote:

    Your representitive from the airport said that new aircraft are being introduced that are cleaner than previous ones. There is no way that an Airbus A380 can be called clean.

    He also suggests that environmentalists should work with industry. This will not happen, too many people in the world want the aviation industry to be curtailed or shut down.

  2. At 05:46 PM on 01 Aug 2007, Matt wrote:

    Non essential travel by air is the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to reducing emissions and we should be radically scaling it back while we attempt to tackle address emissions from the things that really matter - heating, lighting, food transportation etc

    This is a crisis that is happening right now and is going to get progressively worse a lot more quickly than previously thought.

  3. At 05:47 PM on 01 Aug 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Eddie, that was a terrific interview with Craig Logan.

    I still don't have the slightest sympathy with BAA and their ill-conceived and too-wide-ranging injunction, but that lad was slippery as a politician and his reluctance to rule out illegal or irresponsible behaviour was quite worrying.

    Well done on calling him out on his sniggering.

  4. At 05:50 PM on 01 Aug 2007, Greg wrote:

    Ken Livingston seems to chase whatever news story suits him. Yesterday he was saying how important Heathrow was for London's business future and criticising BAA for doing a bad job. Today he says BAA is 'out of its head' in trying to prevent people causing disruption at Heathrow. Which side is he on?

  5. At 05:52 PM on 01 Aug 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    A group of the Climate Camp folk are stopping at our community woodland this Sunday night cycling from Glasgow to Heathrow. I shall have the pizza oven hot and the beer cold and we'll give them some moral support in their project.

    The Earth will breathe a sigh of releif the day the last airport closes forever.

    Our modern way of life depends upon an unsustainable practice called hypermobility, by which we are considered to have a higher standard of living the greater the proportion of our lives dedicated to being in transit.

    Standard of Living is directly proportional to lifetime mileage? How stupid is that?

    There's no place like home


  6. At 06:03 PM on 01 Aug 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    @5 Ed I wrote: "Standard of Living is directly proportional to lifetime mileage? How stupid is that?"

    Standard of Living is indeed directly proportional to lifetime mileage: the more you have rushed about, the lower your standard of living measured in happiness-hours rather than in purchasing power.

    Constantly moving about the place is not indicative of a high standard of living, it indicates dissatisfaction with where you are. Fidgetting is more likely to indicate fleas than contentment.

  7. At 06:37 PM on 01 Aug 2007, Phil Adams wrote:

    We are used to government double-talk on the question of human rights, being lectured on the need to erode hard-won democratic safeguards as a means of protecting our liberal democracy.

    So it should have come as no surprise that the British Airports Authority, which we all owned at one time, should now act as though it owns all of us.

    The BAA has applied for an injunction to ban the Camp for Climate Action demonstration planned at Heathrow from August 14 to 21, which, because of the broad nature of its terms, could conceivably place restrictions on over five million people.

    BAA solicitor Tim Lawson-Cruttenden insists that his client is only interested in targeted those who behave unlawfully.

    In that case, why not leave it to the police to deal with people who break the law rather than criminalise a vast swathe of people who are doing nothing more than peacefully expressing their point of view?

    The issues of a new Heathrow terminal and a third runway are vitally important.

    They touch on questions such as the future of existing communities in the area of the airport, the seriousness of the government's commitments given over climate change and the inexorable concreting over of growing areas of south-eastern England.

    On the other hand, there is the need to provide jobs for the growing population.

    All of these questions ought to be debated fiercely and openly.

    They should not be crushed under the boot of an injunction issued in reponse to a request from an organisation that puts private profits before the public interest.

  8. At 06:39 PM on 01 Aug 2007, Brian Christley wrote:

    As the vast majority of those flying off for their two week holiday this summer will be staying in hotels, using local transport and eating in restaurants, they will, in spite of the 0.5 percent of the aircraft aviation fuel their seat required, be responsible for releasing less CO2 than if they stayed at home. So when they are greeted at Heathrow by the ‘rent a conscience’ climate change protesters they can reply “why not join us and help save the planet?”

  9. At 07:47 PM on 01 Aug 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Brian Christley @ 8, why does eating out and sleeping in a hotel use less energy than eating at home and sleeping in one's own bed? Even if the hotel bedroom uses neither air conditioning nor heating, is it really using all that much less energy than a house in England? I can see that maybe using local transport (or being close enough to the beach to be able to walk to it) uses less energy than commuting to work, but taking a holiday without taking the plane would still eliminate the commuting.

  10. At 08:08 PM on 01 Aug 2007, Owen Whatalizard wrote:

    Yes we know it is the school holiday season, the supermarkets overstocked with non-locals, the major roads running freely and now a festival at Heathrow called "Camp for Climate".
    The first thing the police should do is get the number of the giggly child you interviewed, who was obviously not content with walking up and down wearing a sandwich board for his little protest.
    Get a summer job protest boy and pay some national insurance.

  11. At 08:12 PM on 01 Aug 2007, David Mann wrote:

    Here in East Anglia, two recent news items give some cause for hope regarding the growth of Airport traffic :

    1. Flybe have announced the withdrawal of their regular routes from Norwich to Malaga and Alicante, citing Norwich Airport's £3 passeger departure levy as the reason passenger numbers have dropped. (Norwich Airport is operated by Omniport-not BAA and is charging all customers a £3 levy (administerd by NCP) to pay for "improvements" at the airport).

    2. Mr O'Leary from Ryanair has announced that he is withdrawing 25% of his services from London Stansted this winter. citing BAAs excessive landing charges and poor customer service. Large queues at Security mean that his flights sometimes leave without all their passengers - this leads to delays for customers (as other peoples luggage has to be off-loaded from the flight) and costs to Ryanair (of whom I'm not a fan at all by the way) as their tight turnround times go out of the window. Ryanair are putting some of their fleet into warm store over the winter as it's cheaper than operating from Stansted.

    It seems to me that it only needs BAA (and other airport owners) to continue to provide a bad service and be greedy for the number of departures to fall away - no new runways needed!

  12. At 11:02 PM on 01 Aug 2007, Molly wrote:

    I couldn't believe my ears when I heard Craig Logan giggling like a naughty schoolboy caught with his fingers in the jam.
    Brilliant interview, Eddie- a joy to hear him reprimanded!


  13. At 11:16 PM on 01 Aug 2007, Molly wrote:

    Oh no!
    Meant to comment on 'Glass box'.


  14. At 08:25 AM on 02 Aug 2007, Fearless Fred wrote:

    Time for me to add my tuppence worht. I couldn't do it yesterday , as I was waiting for a flight back to the UK....

    I'm a regular flyer, but I think BAAs actions are ludicrous. To attempt to ban people from holding peaceful protests is against all that could be considered to be "British" (a term we're all supposed to be using, I believe). The scope of where BAA wanted the ban boggled the mind. They need to understand that people feel strongly about this issue, and have the right to protest in the strongest possible way about it. Instead of spending the money on your lawyers in the High Courts, BAA, please spend it on increasing the number of functioning metal detectors at each of the terminals, as well as more staff to work in Security. This is where you need to invest time and effort...

  15. At 08:30 AM on 02 Aug 2007, Anne P. wrote:

    Did wonder whether the giggler was just hyped up and nervous at the occasion - but quite right to ask him what was funny, Eddie. He certainly wasn't doing his cause any good which is a pity. All the publicity over the injunction is probably going to bring in far more demonstrators who will want to cause trouble.

    BAA have really shot themselves in the foot over this. I heard a representative on WATO (I think) trying to claim that it was just an over legalistic interpretation of the words that resulted in suggesting that members of the National Trust would be stopped from travelling on the tube.

    So who wrote words that could be interpreted thus, if not intentionally? Far too much legislation eroding civil liberties without adding poorly written injunctions.

  16. At 09:30 AM on 02 Aug 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Travels witn Condi.

  17. At 09:30 AM on 02 Aug 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Brian Christley (8),

    "As the vast majority of those flying off for their two week holiday this summer will be staying in hotels, using local transport and eating in restaurants, they will, in spite of the 0.5 percent of the aircraft aviation fuel their seat required, be responsible for releasing less CO2 than if they stayed at home."

    Just how do you reckon staying in hotels, etc., results in reduced carbon output? It's a palpably ridiculous idea. Consumption reduces conservation, war is peace, freedom is slavery, truth is lies.....borrowing increases saving.

    Anne P, I agree. Idiots (and power freaks) in charge of wordprocessors!



  18. At 11:19 AM on 02 Aug 2007, Chris Ghoti wrote:

    Ed 1 @ 17,

    In the context of energy use, 'power freak' takes on a whole new meaning.

  19. At 12:33 PM on 02 Aug 2007, Vyle Hernia wrote:

    Well, as I've probably said on the Frog before, rising temperatures should mean I use less gas to heat my home, resulting in a reduction in my carbon footprint leading to global cooling.

    As for providing hot pizza and cool beer to cyclists, how much energy will that use? And if they drink enough beer, they may not reach Heathrow. They'd be better off hiring a coach, especially if it rains (as it usually does in Britain).

  20. At 12:56 PM on 02 Aug 2007, Ed Iglehart wrote:

    Vyle (19),

    The pizzas will be cooked with wood cut from sustainable forest and the beer will be cooled in the spring.

    Rising temperatures may mean you'll need airconditioning, which uses even more energy than heating...


    Energelicious, eh? To the fourth power!

  21. At 02:51 PM on 02 Aug 2007, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:

    Ed (20):

    The pizzas will be cooked with wood cut from sustainable forest and the beer will be cooled in the spring.

    That's an awful long time to be waiting for a beer...

  22. At 03:15 PM on 02 Aug 2007, DI Wyman wrote:

    SSC (21)

    yeah.....but with Ed's global warming caused by his pizza oven......Spring will be on Sunday afternnoon between 2.30 and 4.15 behind the bicycle sheds....

    ....all welcome....


This post is closed to new comments.

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.