Three matters are troubling me this evening.....

[flecc]

The whole story about the urgent need for expansion at Heathrow is fiction; a myth put about by selfish, greedy people in high places in order to line their own pockets and those of their friends. It's all smoke and mirrors and there are no facts at all which could possibly compel any reasonable disinterested party to accept that any expansion required to ensure we can deal with growth, should it occur, needs to be at Heathrow. The greatest legal brains in the country accepted that.

It's important to know the difference between a fact and a politician saying that it is imperative or essential that something happens yet providing no information or evidence to support the contention. Politicians are always saying, "The fact of the matter is...." when what they really mean is that they have no idea, are out of their depth... but will keep saying something meaningless because if they say it for long enough, some idiot is bound to believe it and while they're pontificating, no-one else gets a word in edgeways so they need not face any more difficult questions.

The insults come thick and fast Indalo, but in truth you are being more the politician that most of them, your arguments clearly founded on a hatred of the tory party rather than facts.

My views on Heathrow expansion predate the construction of Stanstead Airport, something I was strongly opposed to, so have nothing whatsoever to do with any current tory MP's thinking. This also shows that my views can be entirely contrary to theirs.

The reason why Luton isn't considered is that it was ruled out long ago since the terrain isn't suitable for expansion. And as for the Lords ruling, they have a terrible record of getting major issues wrong in modern times and this issue is not one of law but of knowledge of the subject. The House of Lords is an undemocratic body which we would be well rid of, and in connection with this they have lost their legal function to the Supreme Court.

 

[bode]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Luton airport, more recently re-christened London-Luton which suggests some sort of proximity. Re-christened is probably a tad non-PC these days however I shan't correct it! Once again, in terms of time, it isn't very far removed from the times between the other London airports and central London. I'd guess though that Luton is probably the least likely candidate of the four London airports for expansion should the need for such ever be demonstrated satisfactorily.

I live 7 miles from Luton Airport as the non-stacking crow flies, and can see its lights on the horizon fom my upstairs study window (though fortunately the flight path is at right angles to my line of sight, so very little noise). Naturally, it is always our first choice to travel from when possible (we have been known to be in our house within 45 minutes of touching down). Equally naturally, we are very glad that expansion seems unlikely. Nimby? Moi?

 

[flecc]

I live 7 miles from Luton Airport as the non-stacking crow flies

I owned a bungalow at Caddington in the Luton Rural District for 31 years Roger, though I only lived there once for a few weeks. Aircraft noise didn't seem to be troubling, some did pass overhead, but whether coming or going I know not.

 

[indalo]

The insults come thick and fast Indalo

Oh spare me Flecc! I made no insults towards you or any contributor to this lightweight and rather innocuous thread. If you choose to interpret something I wrote as being insulting to you, then perhaps you ought not to take these matters so personally.

One of your contentions is that those who have chosen to live near Heathrow should suffer all the blight. I think those people would find that very insulting! The people who chose to live near Heathrow made a judgement based on available information at a given point in time that the level of noise was tolerable. It is the proposal to vastly increase the amount of noise which changes perceptions from what is tolerable to something intolerable. If you wish to be democratic, shouldn't the blight be distributed more equally? After all, the people who live near the other airports had to make a similar judgement.

I'm sure the views you express Flecc would be different were you still living close to Heathrow today and I'm inclined to think you are being a little disingenuous with your contributions to this thread. One thing is for sure though; your interpretation of what constitutes a fact is poles apart from my understanding.

Indalo

 

[flecc]

When two of my friends moved to Barnes under a flight path in the early 1960s I thought the aircraft noise was excessive then, chiefly because the aircraft back then were very much noisier. Since then an ever increasing number have adopted bypass jet engines with very large reductions in noise, despite the planes getting much larger. We've also lost the ridiculously noisy Concorde.

The truth is that noise levels have been continuously reducing and sound proofing grants ever increasing. Those are the sort of truths I understand.

Nor is the opposition anywhere near universal, over 76,000 people work at Heathrow and live in the area, and their views are rather different.

I do live alongside Biggin Hill which handles 16,000 commercial flights a year, almost all jets, and we have two incredibly noisy* air shows each year, so close that I don't have to leave home to watch them. Added to that are several very active private flying clubs and numerous helicopter flights, many of the latter two types passing low over my home, so I'm no stranger to aircraft noise. I'm a tolerant person though and we don't have an obsessive anti-airport organisation whipping up feelings, despite one of the jetliners crashing into a row of houses recently, fortunately with the residents absent so only those on board were killed.

* Military jet noise dwarfs that from civil airliners, since they are about performance, don't use bypass jet engines and do use afterburner boost which multiplies the noise levels.
.

 

[shemozzle999]

I hope I am not clutching at straws, just trying to present the case that the extension would not provide the most efficient answer to the immediate problem.
It was admitted that the development could initially only operate at just over 50% capacity and I suspect that is because no one really knows how it would work until after it has been built.
Any initial cost saving by choosing the Heathrow expansion route would be soon negated by the long term inefficiencies of long term under capacity operation.
I know the area well, too. I was born and bought up in the Hayes area, indeed , I still have relatives who work at Heathrow.
The area around the airport has laid bare of development for many years and offered some relief to the surrounding communities to the North and East of Heathrow, not the case if the proposed development was to ever come to light, it would be right on their doorstep.

The proposed development:

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/media/pdf/g/1/heathrow_consultion_map.pdf

As to facts and history it has been well documented here:

Expansion of London Heathrow Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you feel I have insulted you in anyway it was not my intention and I apologise.

 

[flecc]

There are strong arguments on both sides shemozzle, something I've always appreciated, so ultimately it comes down to one's judgement on the pros and cons.

It's an issue which provokes strong feelings on both sides and I recognise that views are so entrenched, it's not one in which minds are going to be changed by rival presentations. I do however see value in revealing all aspects of the argument since blinkers are too often worn where such contentious issues are concerned.

I've made my long held views clear and I hope shown they are independently held and not politically influenced.

P.S. Just seen your edit, no I'm not in any way insulted or even irritated by your views, on the contrary they've been stimulating and interesting.

 

[bode]

This, from the Wikipedia entry, is why I would feel inclined to oppose Heathrow expansion:

"Building a third runway at Heathrow will expose hundreds of thousands of residents in certain parts of N.W. and N.London to sustained high levels of aircraft noise for the first time. Current West London residents are also subject to noise throughout the day (often at 2-minute intervals from 4am). Flights over Paris are banned for a number of reasons including quality of life. West London has large green spaces, many gardens, and riverside areas which would benefit from a reduction in noise pollution from aeroplanes."

As a one-time resident of West London, I can well imagine the impact on these densely-populated areas of the capital city. There was a scheme in the 60s to build an airport at Maplin Sands in the Thames estuary (minimal population in the vicinity). It's a shame it never went ahead.

 

[JuicyBike]

What about just building half a runway?

 

[flecc]

What about just building half a runway?

STOL aircraft are rather inefficient, using too much fuel on take off and greater use of reverse thrust on landing.

 

[JuicyBike]

Um, it was a tension relief joke there Tony... Not my best admittedly...

 

[flecc]

I knew Bob, indeed I first thought of an answer about half aeroplanes, but I sometimes like to find something serious from such posts to answer as a mental exercise and a form of humour. It misfired I think!

 

[shemozzle999]

Bring the Islander back into production? although it would not make it non-stop to China.

 

[flecc]

The Handley Page Heracles did, and went on to Australia in each trip. It did take a week though!

 

[Davanti]

When I travelled to South Australia in 1960 it took 25 flying hours and 5 stops ... how long does it take now?

 

[shemozzle999]

You have brought back a vivid memory with your mention of Handley Page.

I was very nearly associated with Handley Page - back in '69 when they were building the Executive Jet.

My job interview, in an old prefab building at the old Radlett Aerodrome, was prematurely interrupted for five minutes and I was invited by the interviewer to watch a Victor Bomber that had been converted into a refueller, taxi and takeoff.

He did warn me not to stand to close to the windows.

I fully understand your point about how engine noise levels have improved, because the roar I heard that day as it left the ground and then proceed to go immediately throttle wide open into a near vertical climb to adhere to the local noise level restrictions will remain with me.

A received a letter from them offering me a position in the Company, but it came with a catch, I had to find, I think - it was forty odd years ago, £3millon as they had just announced they had gone into liquidation.

The HR Departments in those days had a sense of humor.

Memories:


Handley Page Victor Very Low Pass - YouTube

 

[Davanti]

... received a letter from them offering me a position in the Company, but it came with a catch, I had to find, I think - it was forty odd years ago, £3millon as they had just announced they had gone into liquidation.

... and did you stump up and accept the job?

 

[flecc]

A received a letter from them offering me a position in the Company, but it came with a catch, I had to find, I think - it was forty odd years ago, £3millon as they had just announced they had gone into liquidation.

At least your job title would have been saviour, putting you in extremely exalted circles!

 

[shemozzle999]

... and did you stump up and accept the job?

No, unfortunately at the time my coffers were relatively empty, but I did manage to secure a lowly position with Lord Weinstocks Company and with a few others help grow his "Cash Mountain"

 

[indalo]

...and up at Manchester....

BBC News - Homes to get Manchester Airport runway compensation


Indalo