Search questions

• Question by: James Cleverly
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

James Cleverly AM MP: In your explanation as to why Atlanta and O’Hare are able to have almost double the air movements that Heathrow has, we are at 400,000 and something and they are at 800,000 and something air movements. Is that right?

• Question by: Andrew Boff
• Meeting date: 08 September 2015

Andrew Boff AM: Sir Howard, could you tell me how many domestic destinations will be served by Heathrow by 2030?

• Question by: Kit Malthouse
• Meeting date: 18 June 2014

Kit Malthouse AM: I just wanted to ask about this suggestion of shifting the number of night flights and opening this window from 5.40am to 6.00am. Presumably you are anticipating that the first touchdown would be at 5.40am, which means that the approach would be in the 15 to 20 minutes before that. Of course, that is when much of the noise pollution is occurring. For instance, I live in Islington and we get planes over us at the moment at about 5.40am or 5.45am because they are wheels-down at 6.00am. Have you taken into account that actually what you...

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

So you are telling the Assembly that, simply based on the information that you held in your records, on the assumption that all of your records were complete, you were able to come to a conclusion with regard to what Brenda Stern said, that as far as you were concerned there is no case to answer? Would not the obvious thing for you to have done have been to go to the source of the allegations? Is that not an elementary thing to do? Why did you limit your investigation just to the material which you say that you hold?

• Question by: Bob Blackman
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

So are those the records that the LDA has of email traffic and other aspects?

• Question by: Tony Arbour
• Meeting date: 16 January 2008

So you are telling the Assembly that, simply based on the information that you held in your records, on the assumption that all of your records were complete, you were able to come to a conclusion with regard to what Brenda Stern said, that as far as you were concerned there is no case to answer? Would not the obvious thing for you to have done have been to go to the source of the allegations? Is that not an elementary thing to do? Why did you limit your investigation just to the material which you say that you hold?