Eco-smug Christmas travel

I have every sympathy with the thousands of passengers who will find themselves stranded by the BA unions' strike vote today. A couple of years ago, we found ourselves caught up in the chaos of a fogbound Heathrow as we got ready for a Christmas trip to Bavaria. Most BA flights to Munich were cancelled. Though our flight did take off, the lack of information, masses of woebegone passengers and shambolic airport management made us vow to avoid Heathrow - and BA - before Christmas in future. So, making the same trip next week, we have taken the eco-friendly option and booked via Eurostar and Deutsche Bahn, stopping in Cologne en route. But, we are due to fly back from Munich by BA - on January 3rd.

Plane Stupid just acts plain stupid

Tom Harris is spot on in puncturing the pathetic pomposity of Plane Stupid in its justification for Leila Deen's common assault on Peter Mandelson yesterday. The idea that people put themselves above the law simply because they oppose a new airport runway is absurd.

The notion that they have some sort of right to break the law because they have decided despite evidence to the contrary that "nobody" (apart from weary travellers, London business and many airport workers, I suppose) is in favour of a third runway at Heathrow is the mob politics of fascism. As Tom points out, Ms Deen has the right to express her views in the ballot box or in many forms of non-violent protest.

What further evidence do the police need to prosecute this woman?

Getting climate change priorities right

A big setback to the anti-Heathrow expansion alliance of Tories and Labour left-wingers comes today from Jim Hansen, director of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, according to today's Observer. Aside from those opposing the extra runway for fear of residents' objections, there has been an unfortunate whiff of self-righteous sanctimony from those who want to limit flying to those who can afford business class to get to awards ceremonies but don't want ordinary people flying off on holiday.

Now, Hansen, a strong critic of George Bush's disinterest in the climate change issue, has rejected efforts from Heathrow campaigners to sign him up to the anti-runway cause. According to the Observer, he said:

"The number of runways you need for your airports depends on their traffic. You don't want to be so restrictive that you end up burning more fuel because planes are having to circle and wait to land because of lack of runway space. Coal is 80% of the planet's problem. You have to keep your eye on the ball and not waste your efforts. The number one enemy is coal and we should never forget that."

Liberal posturing on Heathrow

Sam Coates has an hilarious leak from the Liberal Democrats showing not only that the sanctimonious transport spokesman Norman Baker doesn't think much of his colleague, the one-time Mayoral candidate Susan Kramer, but that the party's policy on Heathrow is nothing more than a cynical piece of electioneering. Who'd have thought it of the Lib Dems?

The right decision on Heathrow

The government has taken a brave and correct decision on the expansion of Heathrow. On a personal level, the experience of the effect of a bit of fog on the schedule or spending an hour circling because of a backlog is a pretty poor advertisement for our most important hub airport. And hardly a great contributor to the environment. I do try to use the train or fly from Bristol when I can, but for international flights outside Europe Heathrow has to be endured.

The idea that the most important airport in Britain should be allowed to continue operating in its current manner is extraordinary. The notion that someone charged with representing the interests of all Londoners should oppose the new runway is bizarre. And, as Iain suggests, the moans from the likes of Emma Thompson would have a little more credibility if she gave up her international flights to attend luvvie parties in the States. Perhaps similar self-denying ordinances could be followed by all opponents of the new runway.

No other country in the world would spend so long agonising over whether to build an extra runway in an airport as important as Heathrow. Indeed, it is preposterous that it will still take the best part of a decade for the runway to be built. Of course, we need to ensure that modern low carbon aircraft are used and environmental concerns dealt with. And we need to get on with building better rail links (perhaps Greenpeace could use its efforts to help the government cut through the planning inquiries to get those built since it is telling us to use the train not the plane).

But not building a third runway at Heathrow will not stop people flying; it will just cost Britain business.

And having heard the promises of Tory transport spokeswoman Theresa Villiers that a Tory government would tear up any contracts for a new runway, I can see why Iain is so worried about the sanity of his party. Next time you are plagued by delays in the air or on the ground at Heathrow, just remember that the Tory policy is that you should continue to endure such misery. It is for your own good, after all.

Heathrow's third runway makes sense

News that Gordon Brown is ready to approve the third runway at Heathrow is good news. Anyone who has had to endure the delays caused by its absence knows why. The contrast with the Tories could not be clearer; they believe that the airport's many international transit flights could be replaced by a high speed rail link to the North. Of course, a high speed rail link may make sense too as would more regional direct flights, but neither is a serious alternative; yet this is the level of logic at which the supposed alternative government operates. With five terminals at one of the world's busiest airports, it is simply ludicrous that a third runway is being blocked by local campaigners. If Britain is to recover its economic strength, it needs this sort of decisive leadership which puts the national economic interest first.

Preparing for government?

Whatever the merits of high speed rail links, the idea that Heathrow can survive without another runway is pure madness, as my former colleague Tom Kelly has clearly impressed on Iain Dale. Do Cameron's Tories ever use the same airports as the rest of us?

And much as one would welcome a council tax freeze, the idea that it will be paid for from a cut in PR spending is for the birds.

Given that George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, has also said that they would force Bradford and Bingley and Northern Rock into bankruptcy, rather than supporting the government's nationalisation, perhaps someone could explain how exactly this lot are ready for government?

An airport to be proud of (sic)

Returning to Heathrow from Munich last night, we were greeted amidst the building site that it Terminal 1 by posters proclaiming that BAA is 'working towards an airport we can be proud of'. The terrible grammar is not the only thing wrong with this corporate guff. We left Heathrow on December 23 and were fortunate enough to find, amidst the fog, that our flight was only thirty minutes late departing (other flights to Munich had been cancelled that day). But spending a few hours in the airport before being allowed into the Departures lounge was like entering hell. There was no attempt to provide coherent information. There were no clear queues for check-in or baggage drop desks. Trolleys blocked the limited space between desks and shops. Thousands of people aimlessly wandered about not knowing what was happening. On our return, we faced confused baggage return carousels, lengthy EU immigration queues and being forced to pay £15.50 for the ghastly Heathrow Express listening to video exhortations to passengers to visit Bognor Regis (I jest not) as the train meandered slowly past 'signal problems at Hayes' into Paddington, having apparently cancelled the rather better value Heathrow Connect.
We are told that Terminal 5 will be the answer to all our prayers. I'll believe it when I see it (though where possible I shall use non-BAA run Bristol instead). Meanwhile, is this really the great welcome that our visitors are promised?