Heathrow

While everyone has been laughing at BA boss Willie Walsh and his unfortunate boasting about T5 moments before it all went tits-up, Flying Matters campaigner Davy Lewy was running his mouth off about the glory of T5.

In an interview with the Toronto Star just before it all went wrong, Lewy got carried away, telling the journo that we should "[R]ejoice that as of today, with the launch of Terminal 5, the chances of losing your luggage have been greatly reduced."

Ha ha ha! I hope that's some consolation to the thousands who ain't flying anywhere, thanks to BA and BAA's failure to fix the baggage handling system in time for the big day...

While activists and residents across West London gear up for the mother of all battles over Heathrow's third runway, across the Channel dutch environmentalists are trying to block Schiphol's seventh! In an arms race to rival the cold war, the three main airports - Heathrow, Schiphol and Frankfurt - are all competing to out-expand each other.

Schipol may have six runways, but it carries 32% less passenger traffic, making it the twelth biggest international airport. Unlike Heathrow, which got privatised a while back, Schiphol is still owned by the Dutch government. Of course, like all governments, the Dutch seem to think that climate change doesn't apply to airports, and are plans to make Schiphol twice as big.

The decision on expansion is being taken on the 27th of March (this Thursday) - coincidentally the same day T5 opens and we pop down and flash mob it. Rest assured that campaigners won't go down without a fight - activists from across the Netherlands have already been taking action, including a runway invasion back in 2006. Watch the skies...

Some very odd comments from a government Minister last week. Conservative MP Justine Greening spoke about the extraordinary collusion between the DfT and BAA, and demanded a debate in the House of Commons about the third runway. Harriet Harman replied that "The accusations of collusion are utter nonsense" and that "all decisions on adding capacity at Heathrow will be taken independently by BAA".

While it's normal for the inner circle to ignore all the evidence laid before them (seriously, did she even read the Sunday Times article?), her second comment was decidedly strange. Was she suggesting that BAA will take the decision as to whether to expand Heathrow or not? If so, what was the consultation all about? Or did she mean to say all decisions will be taken "independently of BAA", or "independently by the Government"? Or was this just a shocking display of just how right we were when we called Parliament 'BAA HQ'?

If the Government thought the end of the consultation marked the end of hostilities, then they're in for a shock. Bolstered by growing militancy across West London and the UK, local councils are upping the ante. With talk of a judicial review of the consultation being banded about like cheap tickets at a Ryanair sale, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead are taking on night flights.

The councils, backed by the Greater London Authority and a host of other West London boroughs, are seeking to challenge the government in the courts over the legality of the current night flight regime, which they say is noisier than allowed, and therefore illegal. It doesn't stop there though; according to Richmond council's leader, Serge Lourie, "This challenge is another important step along the road to our ultimate goal - a total ban on night flights."

Night flights are strictly limited - in theory - but in practice this leads to more and more airlines rushing to get in before the deadline, causing more noise in the process. With BAA under fire from all sides, and the DfT desperate to pretend it didn't collude with the Airports Authority over the consultation, pressure is growing on Ruth Kely to reign in the industry. Will she rise to the challenge? Doubtful, but perhaps the courts will do what Ministers are too afraid to do - just say no.