I am against expansion of Heathrow Airport in this area. Stansted is underutilised. There is also an express train to London Victoria from Stansted. It is much cheaper than the Heathrow Express. My husband and I are confident that the Government will make the right decision. So confident that we are buying the house next door in Sipson
M
Mr.L.watts
12 years ago
I do not want to loose my Home. I have lived here for nearly 50yrs, I am in my 80th year , were are my wife and I going, we would not get a Mortgage, perhaps they are hoping that by 2030 we will have popped our clogs, so that the business people can have an easy ride. It is an absolute disgrace what they are proposing, this applys for all of the other proposals, I think that the Mayor of London is very near the right Idea
G
georgina cox
12 years ago
we have small children and we do not want the extra noise pollution and air pollution that this will result in. it is not hard to find a flight so i do not understand why more planes are required.
P
paul davies
12 years ago
no to the demolition of sipson village
C
C.D.Parren
12 years ago
relocate..follow Hong-Cong's example
S
Sheri Belsey
12 years ago
it seems that the decision has been made although other sites arebetter suited
C
C. Masciocchi
12 years ago
No to Heathrow expansion
J
John Coates
12 years ago
No more road vehicle pollution and traffic congestionin Heathrow area !
S
suzannematthews Matthews
12 years ago
Far too noisy already.
A
Anonymous
12 years ago
NO TO HEATHROW EXPANSION
F
Frank Forde
12 years ago
NO to 24 Hour flights!
A
Anonymous
12 years ago
For the sake of everyone under the flight paths, stop this madness now.
A
Anonymous
12 years ago
No third runway!!!!
C
Christne Hurley
12 years ago
No no no please not over heavily populated areas of London
M
Mrs. Hilda Graham
12 years ago
There must be a better way!!!
H
Hermien Bonthuys
12 years ago
Strongly against expansion. Awoken every morning 5am with no chance of falling back to sleep with landings every 30sec. Many thanks for fighting for this.
A
Alan Geal
12 years ago
The devil is in the [missing] detail. I recommend peering into the dark corners of the Airports Commission Interim Report Appendix 2. The sparsity of rigorous analytical detail and absence of clear comparative schedules/data is clear. Here, what is not said is more significant than what is (see p.23, the last 2 items) - 'bury it in the details' evidently remains an active motto for the [proxy] Civil Service. Some notes: (1) What is the legal/planning status of the "earmarking" of land by a commercial entity? (2) How can the mere reiteration of an environmental/engineering constraint on a proposal be given as a reason for rejection of that proposal when it is rigorously allowed for and costed in the design? (3) How would a proposal which could "impact on the competitiveness" of existing airports "reduce the competitiveness" of the airport system? An proffered answer: whatever the [airports] question, the answer is Heathrow...
P
Paul. Montgomery
12 years ago
sORRY TO HAVE USED THE WORD KNXB, BUT i FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS AND YOU ZAC HAVE GOT THIS RIGHT STAND YOUR GROUND,
Build Boris"s Airport NOW
I am against expansion of Heathrow Airport in this area. Stansted is underutilised. There is also an express train to London Victoria from Stansted. It is much cheaper than the Heathrow Express. My husband and I are confident that the Government will make the right decision. So confident that we are buying the house next door in Sipson
I do not want to loose my Home. I have lived here for nearly 50yrs, I am in my 80th year , were are my wife and I going, we would not get a Mortgage, perhaps they are hoping that by 2030 we will have popped our clogs, so that the business people can have an easy ride. It is an absolute disgrace what they are proposing, this applys for all of the other proposals, I think that the Mayor of London is very near the right Idea
we have small children and we do not want the extra noise pollution and air pollution that this will result in. it is not hard to find a flight so i do not understand why more planes are required.
no to the demolition of sipson village
relocate..follow Hong-Cong's example
it seems that the decision has been made although other sites arebetter suited
No to Heathrow expansion
No more road vehicle pollution and traffic congestionin Heathrow area !
Far too noisy already.
NO TO HEATHROW EXPANSION
NO to 24 Hour flights!
For the sake of everyone under the flight paths, stop this madness now.
No third runway!!!!
No no no please not over heavily populated areas of London
There must be a better way!!!
Strongly against expansion. Awoken every morning 5am with no chance of falling back to sleep with landings every 30sec. Many thanks for fighting for this.
The devil is in the [missing] detail. I recommend peering into the dark corners of the Airports Commission Interim Report Appendix 2. The sparsity of rigorous analytical detail and absence of clear comparative schedules/data is clear. Here, what is not said is more significant than what is (see p.23, the last 2 items) - 'bury it in the details' evidently remains an active motto for the [proxy] Civil Service. Some notes: (1) What is the legal/planning status of the "earmarking" of land by a commercial entity? (2) How can the mere reiteration of an environmental/engineering constraint on a proposal be given as a reason for rejection of that proposal when it is rigorously allowed for and costed in the design? (3) How would a proposal which could "impact on the competitiveness" of existing airports "reduce the competitiveness" of the airport system? An proffered answer: whatever the [airports] question, the answer is Heathrow...
sORRY TO HAVE USED THE WORD KNXB, BUT i FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT THIS AND YOU ZAC HAVE GOT THIS RIGHT STAND YOUR GROUND,
I get regularly woken up at 5am.