Local Heathrow MPs slated the campaign as "a con" on the grounds that it's funded by the airport (though I thought that was common knowledge) and, more seriously, that it allegedly represents itself as "the voice of the silent majority of west London residents in favour of Heathrow expansion" and seeks to portray the widespread support for the continuing existence of Heathrow as equating to a vote for R3.
Dear old John McDonnell, he's been banging on about the subject for years, unlike those "Johnnies come lately" Zac and Justine.
Strange position for John to take bearing in mind (1) the number of airport workers in his constituency and (2) most of his constituents are not under the flightpath and won't be with rwy 3.
Several elementary errors in the debate. Two examples:
(1) comparing today's situtation with "Roskill", "Roskill" was about a "third" London airport, a role now taken by LTN and STN, not about expanding or replacing LHR;
(2) the statement that LHR managers now want 5 rwys, no, it's still 3 with an option for a 4th, the map shows 3 potential sites for 1 and/or 2 new rwys.