Climate Change Kills Third Heathrow Runway.
Discussion
LHRFlightman said:
Do you understand why both runways are used for arrivals between 6-7? Because if you did you'd know that with a 3rd runway at the very worst you'll have 1 week in 3 with NO ARRIVALS at all, and possibly 2 in 3 depending upon the restrictions placed upon the airport.
In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
What's 27R? Interested as I spend quite a bit of time in Richmond and live about a mile north of the flightpath in Chiswick. In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
truck71 said:
LHRFlightman said:
Do you understand why both runways are used for arrivals between 6-7? Because if you did you'd know that with a 3rd runway at the very worst you'll have 1 week in 3 with NO ARRIVALS at all, and possibly 2 in 3 depending upon the restrictions placed upon the airport.
In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
What's 27R? Interested as I spend quite a bit of time in Richmond and live about a mile north of the flightpath in Chiswick. In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
Hackney said:
Scuffers said:
Derek Smith said:
Scuffers said:
up, depressing isn't it?
Britain, a once proud country with the best engineering in the world reduced to pathetic hand-wringing and Nimbys
Is either Heathrow or Gatwick in your backyard?Britain, a once proud country with the best engineering in the world reduced to pathetic hand-wringing and Nimbys
Heathrow has been there for 100+ years and as a major airport since WW2, nobody can possibly live there that was there before it was.
Buy a house under the flightpath, live with the noise.
How many of the people affected actually work for or around heathrow?, would you rather they just closed it and went somewhere else (and throw some 250,000 people out of work?)
You're suggesting there was an airport at Heathrow before the first powered flight!
Do you realise the argument that "you bought a house there, so tough" is absolutely insane?
Yes, people have moved there since the airport was built, which gives them less right to complain about current noise levels etc.
But they have every right to be unhappy about increases to noise, no. of flights, earlier starts and later finishes to the airport day. Of course they do!
and "no but so what?" as an argument? Do you realise how ridiculous that is?
"Just build it so what?..... live near the airport? Good heavens no, are you quite mad?"
If you're so happy that people should live with the consequences of a new runway, may I suggest you house-swap with someone who will see the value of their house drop, the noise and actual pollution increase etc, etc
Come on, you realise you'd be helping to "just get it built"
It's funny how all those decrying the nimby argument aren't facing a f
king runway being built in their backyard. Idiots.Some people actually buy houses near an airport / airfield, (because often, they get them cheaper, than they would if built away from the facility) and `then' try to get the airport/airfield in question shut down.
The airport was there long BEFORE many people moved into the Heathrow area (it was a tiny village when the airfield started) If you don't like aeroplane noise, then don't buy a house near an airport, or just b*gger off somewhere else where there isn't an airport, but don't be surprised if you cannot find a well paid job in the area.
Blaster72 said:
truck71 said:
LHRFlightman said:
Do you understand why both runways are used for arrivals between 6-7? Because if you did you'd know that with a 3rd runway at the very worst you'll have 1 week in 3 with NO ARRIVALS at all, and possibly 2 in 3 depending upon the restrictions placed upon the airport.
In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
What's 27R? Interested as I spend quite a bit of time in Richmond and live about a mile north of the flightpath in Chiswick. In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
In which case I'd disagree with the statement made by LHR Flightman that the aircraft are barely audible- you have to raise your voice in conversation when they pass. I walked across Richmond Green at 730 last night and the lack of noise was noticeable as the aircraft were landing in the opposite direction (I think they switch mid afternoon). I'd agree the modern A380's are much quieter than the older 747's etc but they are still chuffin noisy at what I'd guess is a few thousand feet.
Other than being a total nimby my biggest objection to Heathrow expansion is the infrastructure would need huge improvement in an area that is already space challenged. Putting cost to one side, trying to squeeze more transport links between the A30/M4 will be tricky although not impossible.
If it were my decision I'd choose the Thames Estuary solution, it's the only strategy that can be designed to cope with required capacity in the South East. As others have said a third runway at Heathrow would almost seem to be standing still.
Scuffers said:
0000 said:
I'd imagine with all the money lost to talking about the third runway they could've built a fourth by now.
Ain't that the truth...The lack of runways make our airports a backwards joke but worse are these pathetic, buck passing debates and findings after findings leading to everyone delaying their decision until after the next election.
It will be interesting to see what Cameron does now, he said no third runway at Heathrow and many of his senior politicians are against it.
truck71 said:
Blaster72 said:
truck71 said:
LHRFlightman said:
Do you understand why both runways are used for arrivals between 6-7? Because if you did you'd know that with a 3rd runway at the very worst you'll have 1 week in 3 with NO ARRIVALS at all, and possibly 2 in 3 depending upon the restrictions placed upon the airport.
In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
What's 27R? Interested as I spend quite a bit of time in Richmond and live about a mile north of the flightpath in Chiswick. In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
In which case I'd disagree with the statement made by LHR Flightman that the aircraft are barely audible- you have to raise your voice in conversation when they pass. I walked across Richmond Green at 730 last night and the lack of noise was noticeable as the aircraft were landing in the opposite direction (I think they switch mid afternoon). I'd agree the modern A380's are much quieter than the older 747's etc but they are still chuffin noisy at what I'd guess is a few thousand feet.
Other than being a total nimby my biggest objection to Heathrow expansion is the infrastructure would need huge improvement in an area that is already space challenged. Putting cost to one side, trying to squeeze more transport links between the A30/M4 will be tricky although not impossible.
If it were my decision I'd choose the Thames Estuary solution, it's the only strategy that can be designed to cope with required capacity in the South East. As others have said a third runway at Heathrow would almost seem to be standing still.
el stovey said:
Heathrow needs four runways now, Gatwick needed a third runway ten years ago.
The lack of runways make our airports a backwards joke but worse are these pathetic, buck passing debates and findings after findings leading to everyone delaying their decision until after the next election.
It will be interesting to see what Cameron does now, he said no third runway at Heathrow and many of his senior politicians are against it.
I think any politician promising something will not stop them. It is an inconsideration. The lack of runways make our airports a backwards joke but worse are these pathetic, buck passing debates and findings after findings leading to everyone delaying their decision until after the next election.
It will be interesting to see what Cameron does now, he said no third runway at Heathrow and many of his senior politicians are against it.
el stovey said:
Heathrow needs four runways now, Gatwick needed a third runway ten years ago.
The lack of runways make our airports a backwards joke but worse are these pathetic, buck passing debates and findings after findings leading to everyone delaying their decision until after the next election.
It will be interesting to see what Cameron does now, he said no third runway at Heathrow and many of his senior politicians are against it.
I would guess he will do nothing as he doesn't want to offend Boris, May and co. The cancellation of the railways upgrade shows how little the government cares about infrastructure and this will be no different. The lack of runways make our airports a backwards joke but worse are these pathetic, buck passing debates and findings after findings leading to everyone delaying their decision until after the next election.
It will be interesting to see what Cameron does now, he said no third runway at Heathrow and many of his senior politicians are against it.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Ps. the numbers denote the runway heading (in this case 270 degrees, or due West) and at large airports with parallel runways whether the Left hand, or Right hand runway is to be used.
Thanks, useful when engaging in conversation with those in the know. The BBC website has got an aerial simulation of the flight path into the proposed third runway, it runs quickly so is difficult to establish exactly what the impact would be.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33349948
truck71 said:
Blaster72 said:
truck71 said:
LHRFlightman said:
Do you understand why both runways are used for arrivals between 6-7? Because if you did you'd know that with a 3rd runway at the very worst you'll have 1 week in 3 with NO ARRIVALS at all, and possibly 2 in 3 depending upon the restrictions placed upon the airport.
In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
What's 27R? Interested as I spend quite a bit of time in Richmond and live about a mile north of the flightpath in Chiswick. In Richmond, when the aircraft are landing 27R they are barely audible. On the new runway that won't be heard at all.
In which case I'd disagree with the statement made by LHR Flightman that the aircraft are barely audible- you have to raise your voice in conversation when they pass. I walked across Richmond Green at 730 last night and the lack of noise was noticeable as the aircraft were landing in the opposite direction (I think they switch mid afternoon). I'd agree the modern A380's are much quieter than the older 747's etc but they are still chuffin noisy at what I'd guess is a few thousand feet.
Other than being a total nimby my biggest objection to Heathrow expansion is the infrastructure would need huge improvement in an area that is already space challenged. Putting cost to one side, trying to squeeze more transport links between the A30/M4 will be tricky although not impossible.
If it were my decision I'd choose the Thames Estuary solution, it's the only strategy that can be designed to cope with required capacity in the South East. As others have said a third runway at Heathrow would almost seem to be standing still.
Pan Pan Pan said:
There has been an airfield at Heathrow for 85 years, so, not far off a 100 years of flying in that area. If people don't like aeroplane noise, then don't by a house near an airport.
Some people actually buy houses near an airport / airfield, (because often, they get them cheaper, than they would if built away from the facility) and `then' try to get the airport/airfield in question shut down.
The airport was there long BEFORE many people moved into the Heathrow area (it was a tiny village when the airfield started) If you don't like aeroplane noise, then don't buy a house near an airport, or just b*gger off somewhere else where there isn't an airport, but don't be surprised if you cannot find a well paid job in the area.
Heard a woman on the Radio yesterday bought a house under the flight path didn't realise how noises it would be! So basically an idiot. If you buy any house you go back a few times at different times of the day and maybe look into the sky. She had also been given new double glazing paid for by the airport! And was still complaining. Some people actually buy houses near an airport / airfield, (because often, they get them cheaper, than they would if built away from the facility) and `then' try to get the airport/airfield in question shut down.
The airport was there long BEFORE many people moved into the Heathrow area (it was a tiny village when the airfield started) If you don't like aeroplane noise, then don't buy a house near an airport, or just b*gger off somewhere else where there isn't an airport, but don't be surprised if you cannot find a well paid job in the area.
Get it built.
Blaster72 said:
Yes, all airport planning is led by this vital piece of work 
Correct. Before any major piece of infrastructure is built at an airport the planners sit down with a variety of terrorist groups to establish where they are going to target next. Apparently a third runway will put Battersea power station at risk even though Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, The Houses of Parliament and The Thames barrier appear to have been ignored to date. NicD said:
Oh yes. the 'truth'.
How about this. At two minutes to six most mornings, instead of two lanes of 'quiet' (compared to Concorde) planes on full flaps, gear down, we will get three. So that will be an 8 mile wide swathe of London suffering.
Terrific.
You knew there was an airport nearby. Why did you buy a house there?How about this. At two minutes to six most mornings, instead of two lanes of 'quiet' (compared to Concorde) planes on full flaps, gear down, we will get three. So that will be an 8 mile wide swathe of London suffering.
Terrific.
Pan Pan Pan said:
Ps. the numbers denote the runway heading (in this case 270 degrees, or due West) and at large airports with parallel runways whether the Left hand, or Right hand runway is to be used.
:sexist mode on:The main reason why there are so few female pilots is the whole problem of parallel runways.
:sexist mode off:
Pan Pan Pan said:
There has been an airfield at Heathrow for 85 years, so, not far off a 100 years of flying in that area. If people don't like aeroplane noise, then don't by a house near an airport.
Some people actually buy houses near an airport / airfield, (because often, they get them cheaper, than they would if built away from the facility) and `then' try to get the airport/airfield in question shut down.
The airport was there long BEFORE many people moved into the Heathrow area (it was a tiny village when the airfield started) If you don't like aeroplane noise, then don't buy a house near an airport, or just b*gger off somewhere else where there isn't an airport, but don't be surprised if you cannot find a well paid job in the area.
The other maths genius said it had been there for 100 plus years.Some people actually buy houses near an airport / airfield, (because often, they get them cheaper, than they would if built away from the facility) and `then' try to get the airport/airfield in question shut down.
The airport was there long BEFORE many people moved into the Heathrow area (it was a tiny village when the airfield started) If you don't like aeroplane noise, then don't buy a house near an airport, or just b*gger off somewhere else where there isn't an airport, but don't be surprised if you cannot find a well paid job in the area.
It's actually been there since 1929 (86 years)
16 years is quite a lot to be "not far off" - I'm 43 but I'd prefer people didn't refer to my age as "not far off 59"
By coincidence, 16 miles is how far I live form Heathrow, so technically I'm "not far off" from Heathrow, although not in the flight path.
Here endeth the maths lesson, unless someone else decides 86 > 100+
onyx39 said:
Not sure if this has already been posted, but there was a NIMBY on Radio 2 yesterday lunchtime who was moaning about the noise.
She was "horrified", when she moved to Richmond IN 1993, where she still lives...
If it's that bad.....
Yes Richmond must be awful. Full of upmarket shops and restaurants, the green, the theatre, two cinemas, the river with its promenade, londons largest royal park, easy access to the west end, multi million pound houses, excellent train links.She was "horrified", when she moved to Richmond IN 1993, where she still lives...
If it's that bad.....
Richmond is horrid, she should move to somewhere quieter, Gravesend maybe.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3146581/Ca...
Putting aside that that article says that this LHR runway report cost a ridiculous £20m to compile, and that Boris is likely to just ignore it anyway, even at that cost.
The article talks about introducing a £20-£30 tax for being dropped off at the airport (including by taxi). No no no! Why does this country always want to use the stick and not the carrot. Why not focus on making the public transport to the airport so good and so efficient that nobody wants to go by car/road!
(I'm aware that some airports such as Luton already have a dropoff charge although as far as I know none are as high as £20 and they're all for the purposes of the privately owned airport squeezing a few more quid out of their customers rather than to put cars off).
Putting aside that that article says that this LHR runway report cost a ridiculous £20m to compile, and that Boris is likely to just ignore it anyway, even at that cost.
The article talks about introducing a £20-£30 tax for being dropped off at the airport (including by taxi). No no no! Why does this country always want to use the stick and not the carrot. Why not focus on making the public transport to the airport so good and so efficient that nobody wants to go by car/road!
(I'm aware that some airports such as Luton already have a dropoff charge although as far as I know none are as high as £20 and they're all for the purposes of the privately owned airport squeezing a few more quid out of their customers rather than to put cars off).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff