YP Letters: Who really benefits from Heathrow plan?

HEATHROW expansion is a classic case of a Government deciding on the wrong solution to an inadequately understood problem (The Yorkshire Post, October 26).

England’s South-East already has adequate airport capacity. Stansted in particular is underused and transport links between these airports and to the rest of the UK are often poor.

The Spanish company owning Heathrow saw value in a “hub and spoke” operation designed to extract the most cash from passengers in transit.

They mounted an expensive lobbying campaign targeting Northern and Scottish MPs and businesses knowing that few London and South East MPs would back them.

These lobbyists used misleading figures for jobs that could be created if Heathrow expands. The figure of up to 11,200 jobs possible in Yorkshire is fanciful, to say the least.

Even worse , “hub and spoke” airports are an outdated concept. They are “hell on earth” for passengers. That’s a key reason why airlines like Ryanair expanded, using the potential of point to point operations.

That’s aside from the environmental impact. On my last visit to London in September, I was appalled at the pollution levels which more flights can only worsen.

And London is one of the few world cities (Leeds is another) where most flights approach directly over the heart of a built- up area.

If it comes to a vote, it looks as if the Government will have to rely on the ever unprincipled SNP to get it through the Commons – an English airport determined by Scottish votes.

We’ve been sold a scheme that’s of minimal benefit to Yorkshire and questionable value for the UK.

From: Chris Gallacher, Normanby Road, Middlesbrough.

THERESA May has given green light to the expansion of Heathrow at a cost of £18bn. Apart from the issues surrounding this decision, it follows on increased spending in the South-East and London that is portrayed as being of benefit for the whole country.

However, my real grievance is where is our share of the pot and growth? The Government seems hell bent on spending on any, and all, infrastructure projects that will help the capital, but cannot find money to improve our region.

How long have we wanted and needed our roads, railways and airport developed? Far too long is the simple answer.

What we need is a Barnett Formula for the North-East and one way to provide it would be to cancel the one given to the devolved government of Scotland. A by-product of this would make them realise how well looked after they have been in comparison to this region.

Meek request for a non-job

From: Steve Ayton, Bradford.

I WOULD like to offer myself as a candidate for the (as yet non-existent) Bradford Council post of “Liaison Officer to the Meek and Inoffensive” with regard to the forthcoming Tour de Yorkshire event.

I feel that a special effort should be made to welcome visitors to our fine city, but fear that we have little experience in dealing with such a group in the numbers in which we predict they will attend.

Actually, I likewise have absolutely no experience in such a job, but that situation has never seemed relevant to other council appointments, and as I am sure such a post would carry a minimum of a six figure salary.

We don’t want US healthcare

From: ME Wright, Harrogate.

READER George Marsden tells of an American visitor who expressed surprise at not being charged for treatment for her broken ankle in Edinburgh 
(The Yorkshire Post, October 
25).

“This wouldn’t have happened in the States”. Certainly not, as a recent TV programme on President Obama’s vilified attempts to introduce universal health care demonstrated. In the US, feeling the wallet takes precedence over feeling the pulse. Have Jeremy Hunt and his acolytes grasped that, no matter how much a minority shareholder-based system might secretly appeal to them, infecting the NHS in this way would ensure their swift and painful political death?

Autumn, but I won’t watch

From: Peter Hyde, Driffield.

THE pleasure of watching Autumnwatch is spoiled by far too much time being taken by the presenters yapping on about this and that and not showing footage about wildlife, Chris Packham being the most guilty of the three.

There must be an awful lot of footage available, but is not shown due to the inordinate amount of technical explanation about the mouse maze.

The repetitive coverage of the fitting of a recorder to the eagle was another boring section. Eventually I just switched off, being bored to tears.

When word views collide

From: Hugh Rogers, Messingham Road, Ashby.

I HAVE some sympathy with Elizabeth Baker (The Yorkshire Post, October 26) but I have to point out that an “inanimate” object, e.g. a car, cannot, of itself, be a “perpetrator” as Ms Baker suggests. It is also perfectly possible for a pedestrian to run into a car.

I do not see how that could be anything other than a “collision” By the same token, I am sure that anyone who has driven into a tree would describe their experience as a “collision” – or as my dictionary defines it – a “violent impact”, whatever anybody else’s view of it might be.