Dear Editor, Your strong headline (‘Bring on battle’ Post, August 6), perhaps overshadowed the facts of the piece, which were generally well argued.

However, if you will permit me a clarification, this is not a battle between transport modes, it is about people having choice, based on various criteria.

Birmingham-London might seem a ‘no brainer’ for rail, but in other markets it is clear that air and rail will be complementary.

The ‘either/or’ argument is far more subtle than generally presented; indeed my intended comment was that the environmental argument between the modes is not as clear-cut as some would have you believe!

The important thing for the region is to have an excellent and integrated regional transport system, with international and global links.

Both rail and air have vital parts to play in our future economic development, and that is why we support HS2.

Our vision for the ‘Birmingham International Hub’ would plug the wider region into HS2 through a new network of local and regional services, by train, bus and coach. It would provide a portfolio of international air and rail travel, as well as maintaining high-speed links to the city centre.

It would generate thousands of extra jobs in the region and it would support the implications of AWM’s study Realising the Potential of the M42 Corridor – that the airport (with a potential runway extension) and the NEC, together with key industries along the M42 axis, and with HS2, are key to closing the regional productivity gap.

(The study is now available at bit.ly/corridor)

We must all work together to make this happen. The alternative to providing these important international and global links is that the world will pass our region by, and that jobs will go elsewhere.

John Morris

Head of Corporate Affairs

Birmingham International Airport