These protesters were hardly going to say yes, were they? At least you're not (yet) claiming to be the 99% or that "London" says no.

Putting aside the usual hysterical and inaccurate statements concerning the inevitable expansion of Heathrow it is good to see the reasons why it is needed.

The principal argument stated in favour of expanding Heathrow is to enhance the economic growth of the UK. As the UK's major hub airport, Heathrow is able to attract many transfer passengers and so is able to support a very wide range of direct flight destinations at high frequencies. It is therefore the world's busiest airport based on number of international passengers. Heathrow's connectivity helps London and the South East compete with other European cities for business investment, which in turn produces economic benefits for the rest of the UK. Should Heathrow's connectivity decline compared to London's European competitors, the UK would fall behind.
The clear argument is that Heathrow is on the brink of suffering a decline in connectivity. Heathrow’s runways are now operating at around 99% capacity, which increases delays when flights are disrupted, and risks competing European airports gaining destinations at Heathrow's expense. Experts in the field estimate that building a third runway would allow Heathrow to increase its connectivity, bringing £5.5bn of economic benefits over 2014-2080. However, the British Chambers of Commerce estimates the economic benefits are £30 billion for the UK economy over the same time scale and has also stated that for every year the programme is delayed, it costs the UK between £900 million and £1.1 billion.
Despite the fall in passenger numbers caused by the global recession demand will increase again when the recession ends.
Some of the capacity added to Heathrow by the addition of a third runway could be used to re-instate or improve flight connections to UK cities. Several cities have seen their connections to Heathrow reduced or lost over recent years as airlines have reallocated the airport's limited capacity to more profitable long-haul flights.
A third runway would increase Heathrow's resilience to disruption, and so reduce emissions from aircraft waiting to land.
Construction would provide up to 60,000 jobs. Operating the expanded Heathrow would create up to 8,000 new jobs at Heathrow by 2030, with multiplier benefits to west London.
BAA believes that the proposed North South High Speed Rail link joining with Heathrow will funnel more passengers to Heathrow, putting further pressure on capacity and boosting the case for a new landing strip - with increased demand in particular for long haul flights.

I think we all appreciate that additional capacity is required the problem is where. At first I saw the Heathrow extension as a "necessary evil", not something I wanted to see happen but like a new railway line or town being built part of the price we pay for the life we live. Of late however I have come to the opinion that the so called 'Boris Island Airport is the logical choice.

Demand for flights is increasing. The current prediction is that by 2030 aviation travel will increase in the UK from 180 million passengers to 500 million passengers. The new airport will be able to meet the predicated demands.
Noise pollution will be minimal, as the airport will be situated in a non-residential area.
The airport will be fully accessible by road and rail. The developers propose that it will be connected to London by a high speed rail service and also linked to the A249. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link could also be used to connect passengers to the airport.
The new airport will need no public investment. TEACO have already secured funding from private investors.
Recent estimates suggest that the airport would create between 100,000-200,000 jobs.

Expansion of Heathrow and Stansted will create further noise pollution. Campaigners against both airports note that this has a massive impact on communities surrounding the airport, including children's learning at schools and disrupting sleep patterns.

Stop Stansted Expansion argue that increasing the size of Stansted Airport to a similar size to Heathrow would have a devastating effect on the local communities, changing the lifestyle and feel of the area forever.

There maybe no need for a new runway at Stansted or Heathrow. The Guardian noted that passengers using the airport had decreased by 6% last year. The campaign group Airport Watch state that flight and passenger numbers are steadily decreasing at Heathrow airport. BAA blames the recession.

To construct new runways at Stansted and Heathrow, many listed and residential buildings would have to be knocked down. Expanding Stansted Airport would result in the loss of 13 listed buildings and 73 homes. The campaign group Stop Heathrow Expansion state that the consequence of a new runway would be the loss of 750 homes and local schools.

Boris Johnson believes the best solution to our increasing aviation demands is an offshore airport. Boris Johnson writes in his blog, 'There are plenty of people - an increasing number of passionate enthusiasts - who believe we can find a site in the Thames Estuary that presents a minimal threat to bird life, or north Kent marginal seats, and which is nowhere near an unexploded munitions ship, and that could be connected to London by high-speed rail'.