Heathrow air crash

It is somewhat ironic that last Thursday's crash at Heathrow coincided with the meeting on the proposed airport expansion, which I attended along with several hundred other residents.

Someone at the meeting claimed that had we had runway alternation at Heathrow the plane would have crashed on London. I'm against runway alternation but this claim is wrong - it would just have crashed at the other end of the runway.

To argue that the potential risk of a crash - though a legitimate fear - is grounds alone to scrap Heathrow expansion is actually an argument that air travel shouldn't take place at all. I don't share that view.

However, there is an indirect argument which I think is far stronger.

The disruption caused by this accident, while inevitable, goes to whether a world class capital like London should rely so heavily on one major airport. If other regional airports - in particular Gatwick - were expanded to meet the capital's needs then on the rare occurence where accidents, or indeed fog or other extreme weather conditions force delays at Heathrow, far less inconvenience would ensue.

Of course, residents around Gatwick oppose expansion there too. The job of government is to make the best strategic decision. Thursday's accident doesn't change that one bit. Nor does it change the overwhelming economic, security and environmental arguments the government itself put forward when terminal 5 was approved: that Heathrow is big enough and busy enough already.