Heathrow Expansion

[Burwood]

Derek Smith said:

Burwood said:

Hilarious http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/11/average-of-...

49% or 25,000 complaints originate from TEN people.

25000 complaints. You really should get locked in a padded room.

And loving this quote. John Stewart, chairman of the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (Hacan) said: “I would expect complaints to rise, certainly initially, if a third runway was built.

Also in that report is a promise that fewer people will be affected by noise after the expansion. How's that? By knocking down their houses?

When I was on holiday very recently, our hotel was near the flight path of an airport. I noticed just how much quieter the new jets are. I'm afraid that if they don't like the noise, they should leave. Everyone knew it was going to be a FO airport from as early as 1945. This tells me these idiots moved there when it was noisy. Regardless, the economy for the many not the few prevails

[mko9]

I lived about 1 mile off the end of the runway for Washington-Reagan for about a year. No 747s or other really large aircraft go in there, but the noise was not a problem, even for my 1yr old infant. I doubt many, if any, of the complainers bought property near Heathrow before it was a major international airport. I don't really have any sympathy.

[Pesty]

Boris you fkng spoon

And people on here think he’s some sort of second coming.

[djc206]

aeropilot said:

I see someone's not bothered to read any actual facts about the LHR 3rd runway/LGW 2nd runway....

I don’t think it should be a vs. Give them both runways. By the time the Heathrow 3rd runway is built (if it ever is) all the slots will have been sold and the inner holds will once again be full of aircraft circling for no reason beyond political indecision and a complete lack of foresight.

[bitchstewie]

So Boris is dishonest (no real surprise there) and May is too weak to sack him (no real surprise there).

[KTF]

I agree. They should build a third at LHR and a second at LGW at the same time. Long overdue at both of them.

[BlackLabel]

There isn't a solution that keeps everyone happy however if expansion at a particular airport creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and generate billions for the economy then there comes a point where the greater good of the nation trumps the concerns of West London NIMBYs who are against expansion.

[Pesty]

bhstewie said:

So Boris is dishonest (no real surprise there) and May is too weak to sack him (no real surprise there).

Why would she sack him? He’s done what she wanted took the opportunity to be out of the country so he has a “excuse” not to vote they way he said he would. I don’t think she will need to now, this will be a bail in his coffin.

I don’t know if it’s a good or a bad thing that’s not my issue here. When a politician makes such a strong point of saying he will vote what his constituents want then conveniently fks off that’s a problem.

Just a coincidence that others were offered the say get out I’m sure.

[bitchstewie]

Pesty said:

Why would she sack him? He’s done what she wanted took the opportunity to be out of the country so he has a “excuse” not to vote they way he said he would. I don’t think she will need to now, this will be a bail in his coffin.

I don’t know if it’s a good or a bad thing that’s not my issue here. When a politician makes such a strong point of saying he will vote what his constituents want then conveniently fks off that’s a problem.

Just a coincidence that others were offered the say get out I’m sure.

Yes sorry, the "too weak to sack him" was more a reference to his repeated gaffes/statements.

[FredericRobinson]

Regiment said:

For crying out loud, just ram this thing through and fast track it. All these people have done is delayed the inevitable and caused so many year of delay and money to spent on review after review. Ram it though and bulldoze he houses.

As long as they wait just long enough for Boris to lie down in front of the bulldozers

[Halb]

bhstewie said:

So Boris is dishonest (no real surprise there) and May is too weak to sack him (no real surprise there).

she'd rather have him on the inside pissing inside, than on the outside pissing inside.

[Jonesy23]

Halb said:

she'd rather have him on the inside pissing inside, than on the outside pissing inside.

That's more than enough discussion of Boris's bedroom habits.

[vonuber]

mko9 said:

I lived about 1 mile off the end of the runway for Washington-Reagan for about a year. No 747s or other really large aircraft go in there, but the noise was not a problem, even for my 1yr old infant. I doubt many, if any, of the complainers bought property near Heathrow before it was a major international airport. I don't really have any sympathy.

I'm on the flight path to Heathrow, albeit a few miles away. It's bloody noisy at all times of day.

[joestifff]

Being up North I don’t follow all this expansion plan. But what has got me interested is that they plan to basically wipe out a village or two. A quick visit on Rightmove shows houses still for sale and recent sales. Why’s this? People trying to make money from it?

[djc206]

vonuber said:

I'm on the flight path to Heathrow, albeit a few miles away. It's bloody noisy at all times of day.

Except for the 6.5 hours a day when it’s not really open?

[richie99]

Halb said:

bhstewie said:

So Boris is dishonest (no real surprise there) and May is too weak to sack him (no real surprise there).

she'd rather have him on the inside pissing inside, than on the outside pissing inside.

Maybe they could find a series of remote foreign places he can stay in for the next year. Or 10 years.

[Ian Geary]

I'm intrigued...what do the complainants expect the airport to do exactly...?

Not let planes take off? Ask them to take off more quietly? Spread the planes out so less take off each day? None of them are really compatible with running a major airport.

My council (along with others) has a red file for serial complainants... it is genuinely a case of mental illness in some cases, like a hoarder-er, but directed outwards instead of inwards.

I moved to less than 2 miles from Gatwick 7 years ago...do I complain about aeroplane noise? Well, yes, but that's not the point.

I knew what I was doing, and I take the downside along with the upside of being in a prosperous (but not necessarily the nicest) corner of our country.

I think Gatwick shouldn't get the only expansion 'cos it's the wrong side of London, but wouldn't be too bothered with some expansion here. However, I think the country really needs to sort out the north / south divide.

Heathrow ideally needs to be moved up a bit more, perhaps in the join between M40 and M1 (though maybe the Chilterns are a bit too bumpy for a runway) or at least away from the 10m population city, and where there are still good links to the West and North.

It would cost a hell of a lot, but at what point do you decide to stop chucking money at a sub-optional situation before giving up?

[dcb]

BlackLabel said:

There isn't a solution that keeps everyone happy however if expansion at a particular airport creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and generate billions for the economy then there comes a point where the greater good of the nation trumps the concerns of West London NIMBYs who are against expansion.

There is more to it than that. West London is already pretty affluent and the
M25 from M40 to M3 is already one of Europe's most congested roads.Making a
already very bad situation worse doesn't sound like progress to me.

If I were in charge, I'd be developing regional infrastructure in a variety of local airports.
Each could be done piecemeal, in serial or parallel. A billion £ here and there
to develop the provinces.

This would lead to reduced journeys to Heathrow, spread the wealth about,
reduce pressure on the M25.

M25 already worth avoiding most times of the day, adding a runway
at Heathrow will cause significant extra aggro for years.

In you are going to put all your eggs in one basket make sure it's
a good basket. Heathrow isn't it. It's already a hotspot and putting
in another runway will make it hotter.

[Willy Nilly]

dcb said:

BlackLabel said:

There isn't a solution that keeps everyone happy however if expansion at a particular airport creates hundreds of thousands of jobs and generate billions for the economy then there comes a point where the greater good of the nation trumps the concerns of West London NIMBYs who are against expansion.

There is more to it than that. West London is already pretty affluent and the
M25 from M40 to M3 is already one of Europe's most congested roads.Making a
already very bad situation worse doesn't sound like progress to me.

If I were in charge, I'd be developing regional infrastructure in a variety of local airports.
Each could be done piecemeal, in serial or parallel. A billion £ here and there
to develop the provinces.

This would lead to reduced journeys to Heathrow, spread the wealth about,
reduce pressure on the M25.

M25 already worth avoiding most times of the day, adding a runway
at Heathrow will cause significant extra aggro for years.

In you are going to put all your eggs in one basket make sure it's
a good basket. Heathrow isn't it. It's already a hotspot and putting
in another runway will make it hotter.

IIRC the Heathrow's attraction is that it is a hub airport. People want to get off one plane and onto another so adding capacity elsewhere won't' help. The lack of runway is meaning that airlines are switching to Schipol so Heathrow is loosing out.

[LHRFlightman]

Ian Geary said:

I'm intrigued...what do the complainants expect the airport to do exactly...?

Not let planes take off? Ask them to take off more quietly? Spread the planes out so less take off each day? None of them are really compatible with running a major airport.

My council (along with others) has a red file for serial complainants... it is genuinely a case of mental illness in some cases, like a hoarder-er, but directed outwards instead of inwards.

I moved to less than 2 miles from Gatwick 7 years ago...do I complain about aeroplane noise? Well, yes, but that's not the point.

I knew what I was doing, and I take the downside along with the upside of being in a prosperous (but not necessarily the nicest) corner of our country.

I think Gatwick shouldn't get the only expansion 'cos it's the wrong side of London, but wouldn't be too bothered with some expansion here. However, I think the country really needs to sort out the north / south divide.

Heathrow ideally needs to be moved up a bit more, perhaps in the join between M40 and M1 (though maybe the Chilterns are a bit too bumpy for a runway) or at least away from the 10m population city, and where there are still good links to the West and North.

It would cost a hell of a lot, but at what point do you decide to stop chucking money at a sub-optional situation before giving up?

The complainants all want one thing, not in my back yard. They also want the latest navigation standard, Performance Based Navigation, undone. This is like asking car manufacturers to stop selling cars with ABS.

Ain't gonna happen folks.