Heathrow runway protestors- constructive or obstructive?

Home Forum Chat Forum Heathrow runway protestors- constructive or obstructive?

Viewing 37 posts - 1 through 37 (of 37 total)
  • Heathrow runway protestors- constructive or obstructive?
  • RudeBoy
    Member

    Protestors buy up Heathrow land

    Tricky one, this, for me. Whilst I admire the efforts and sentiments of the protestors, and believe that anything to try and reduce global pollution and damage is good, I also think they are p1ssing in the wind, somewhat.

    Increased pollution, noise, villagers losing homes, wildlife damaged- all bad.

    More flights available, cheaper costs, increased tax revenue, thousands of new jobs created- all good.

    Whilst I do think that greedy land developers should be shackled somewhat, this must surely be balanced by the benefits to thousands, if not millions, of people, over time. The needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few.

    Of course, the onus should be on the aircraft manufacturers, to design and build cleaner, quieter planes. But I’m sure they are doing this.

    What are the options? Build more airports in other parts of the UK? Develop some of the smaller ones?

    But one thing strikes me, through all of this; I bet the likes of Emma Thompson don’t ride a pushbike everywhere, to ‘reduce pollution’….

    NIMBY. Well, it isn’t, so I don’t really need to care, do I?

    Premier Icon piedi di formaggio
    Subscriber

    Build a network of ‘super tunnels’ all over the world and use bigger versions of those things they use to move cash around in Tescos – all powered by air, so pretty green (except for digging the tunnels, the ‘cars’ and making the air move).

    Should be easy – what could possibly go wrong? The excavated soil / rock, etc can even be used to combat the effects of global warming by raising land levels.

    It’s a winning plan – no need to thank me!

    RudeBoy
    Member

    But have you considered the impact of terrorism?

    Sorry.

    Here, let me help you get this bonfire started again…

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    More flights available, cheaper costs, increased tax revenue, thousands of new jobs created- all good.

    Many deaths caused by global warming, exacerbated by the extra flights – pretty bad, I’d have thought.

    What are the options? Build more airports in other parts of the UK? Develop some of the smaller ones?

    Fly less.

    IanMunro
    Member

    Good on em. Hopefully they’ll be a website where I can buy a bit of the land. It’s a complex business, and they’re may be valid reasons for building a new airport, but after hearing a spokesman for the proposed expansion tell a series of blatent mistruths on the radio a week back, I’m for anything that screws the feckers over.

    aP
    Member

    I live 8 miles from Heathrow and when I moved there we were still under the impression given under oath in the T5 planning enquiy that there would be no further expansion of Heathrow.
    Its madness to put an incredibly busy airport in such a place as to adversely affect 6 million people every day for a very few people.
    The 3rd runway proposals are still to demonstrate that improvements can meet current EU environmental requirements without a “80% reduction in aircraft emissions” which apparently will happen within 10 years. I’m not convinced, and the amount of fuel dumping which happens over west London which is also illegal is ridiculous.

    surfer
    Member

    Th EU enviromental requirements are pre requisite I understand, judging by the debate last night. If they are not reached the expansion wont take place.

    G
    Member

    The simple fact is that the whole debate is utter crap. The real, the one, and the only issue is population. Regrettably, telling people to stop shagging tends to preclude politicians from staying in power so it doesn’t get a mention, except, interestingly in China, where of course, as we all know they are an evil regime without a care of any sort for the environment, human rights, or anything else…. right ?

    So in this context, a small population that flies everywhere will have virtually no impact on the environment, whereas a huge population all of whom fly occasionally will. Likewise a small population consuming resources hell for leather has little impact…… get the picture?

    So going all the way back to the actual thread, the way forward is for all of these protestors to be voluntarily speyed, thus making a real, lasting and ongoing contribution to the worlds environmental issues in a positive way.

    Sorted.

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    So in this context, a small population that flies everywhere will ahev virtually no impact on the environment, whereas a huge population all of whom fly occasionally will, likewise a small population consuing resources hell for leather has little impact…… get the picture?

    That works if you’re going to allow each country to pollute the same amount. That seems a rather less fair way of doing it than a per person calculation.

    RudeBoy
    Member

    I live just a couple of miles from London City Airport. an airport built to accommodate the needs of business in Docklands. Not to serve the local resident community. Most of the people who use City Airport live nowhere near it.

    LCA is built right next to a densely populated area. The ‘consultation’ with locals was basically ‘look, you lot are poor, can’t afford expensive legal campaigns, so therefore will have to just shut up and keep quiet’.

    The risk of a plane crashing into a densely populated area is far greater than anywhere else in Britain. There risk to local people from terrorism is far greater.

    But it’s not all bad. There have been jobs created, and transport links to serve the airport have had to be built to serve local people, too. So, good and bad, really. The planes are fairly small and quiet, and don’t fly late at night.

    Asking people to fly less is pretty pointless. All of you can choose to fly virtually whenever you wish to. And enjoy cheap flights to all sorts of wonderful places. Or do you only holiday in Widnes, and walk or cycle everywhere?

    I think environmental issues must be addressed, and the truth be made much clearer. ‘Fuel dumping’ sounds very alarming.

    But it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical of people like Emma Thompson, to be protesting about the damage to the environment, when she jets around the globe far more than any of us.

    And I bet she drives a big 4×4, too…

    aP
    Member

    I don’t fly (or to be more corect not since April 2001), or drive a 4×4.

    Premier Icon thepurist
    Subscriber

    I used to work in air traffic research and we looked at a 3rd Heathrow runway back in the mid 90s. It’s not a simple case of more runways = more flights, as the airspace over the south of the UK is massively busy and operates at or near capacity a lot of the time. You’ve got Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, City and a bunch of private airfields all delivering/receiving traffic in a relatively small piece of airspace. Once en-route the airspace is divided into sectors, with each controller responsible for managing the traffic in their sector, and they have to be able to do this safely even if the fancy machinery goes pop and their just left with voice comms. As a result there’s a maximum capacity for the airspace which is determined by the controller’s workload, and even in the 90s they were running at or above capacity and we were looking at ways to restructure the airspace so that capacity could be increased. To help this there are procedures in place that define normal exit and entry conditions between the sectors, as well as standard arrival and departure routes for all of the runways at all of the airports – basically a 3D maze of routes where you can’t tweak one thing without changing a lot of others.

    So to add capacity you need runways for departure & take off plus an airspace structure that allows the controllers to manage the airspace safely with the increased amount of traffic. AIUI BAA are the ones pushing for the runway, but the CAA (NATS) and indirectly the controllers will be responsible for determining the airspace structure around this and therefore the safe level of traffic that can be handled. If that level of traffic isn’t *very* different to the current level, then the new runway is pretty pointless. But you and I will never know the findings of the various bits of work that are (hopefully) going on about this.

    Of course you also need capacity for the increased number of planes on the ground – before T5 Heathrow was suffering from congestion at the terminal gates and as a result lots of planes were embarking/disembarking away from the terminals etc.

    surfer
    Member

    I will be vacationing in Runcorn this year!

    G
    Member

    That works if you’re going to allow each country to pollute the same amount. That seems a rather less fair way of doing it than a per person calculation.

    Doesn’t matter who does it. I don’t think global warming respects national boundaries, but that response does demonstrate the futility of all the arguments, and the reason why collectively, we, the human race will nto be able to sort the issues out.

    RudeBoy
    Member

    Surfer- I went to Warrington, for a wedding, once.

    Never again.

    surfer
    Member

    Unfortunatley the first one to take a principled stance will be hugely disadvantaged financialy in relative terms. This means it possibly wont be tackled until it is too late.

    surfer
    Member

    Ahhhhh Warrington, playground of the rich and famous!

    Premier Icon piedi di formaggio
    Subscriber

    Security on my tunnels – don’t worry I’ve got Bruce Willis lined up to do security.

    So, if the airspace is full (or just about) what would happen if the airspace over London is closed again if there is a airbourne terrorist threat? Where would everybody go?

    aP
    Member

    Gatwick and Stanstead

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    Doesn’t matter who does it. I don’t think global warming respects national boundaries, but that response does demonstrate the futility of all the arguments, and the reason why collectively, we, the human race will nto be able to sort the issues out.

    I get what you meant now – I thought you were justifying us flying a lot because there are lots of Chinese who fly a little, but I’d got that wrong.

    Of course, the best thing would be a small population that didn’t fly much 🙂

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    The Heathrow protests are not posh people telling poor people they can’t fly: George monbiot: Flying Over The Cuckooís Nest

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    so you bought a house at Heathrow and you don’t like planes tough turds for not thinking about it

    I support the protestors every step of the way. Not much useful happens just because of a few peaceful Nimby’s. We need protestors. I think they do a fantastic job, they take risks they feel worthwhile, they get in the press, and eventually the Government begins to take notice.

    They do have influence, it’s undeniable. Just look back at the history of environmental protest all over the world, and consider how things might have been without.

    If I were less cossetted by my own comfortable lifestyle, family and job, I’d be out there with them.

    aP
    Member

    Actually, I knew about the planes because I’m not dim, however at the time there was record of a sworn statement under oath that there would be no further expansion.
    Amazing how there’s been no suggestion of that gent going to prison for perjury isn’t it?

    jwt
    Member

    Ekranoplans thats the answer, no need for runways,and global warming with give them the advantage in destinations available…………..

    Premier Icon miketually
    Subscriber

    so you bought a house at Heathrow and you don’t like planes tough turds for not thinking about it

    Because air traffic hasn’t increased at all within the last few years?

    Premier Icon MoreCashThanDash
    Subscriber

    Can anyone explain to me why we have to increase capacity at Heathrow – if(!) global warming is correct half of London will be underwater by the time it’s finished, so we actually need to look at moving more stuff away from the capital.

    How does a third runway stack up with the governments green agenda anyway? And how much will air traffic drop in the next 5-10 years if the recession is as bad as they reckon? Could the costs not be better spent upgrading the rail network to reduce the volume of UK flights and integrate better through the Chunnel?

    And don’t get me started on people buying houses near airports and then being upset by the noise, how dumb is that? I was brought up on RAF bases, spent 5 years in Crawley (next to Gatwick), now live under the East Midlands flight path – planes now are quieter than they ever were, and subject to far more control, so get over yourselves!

    RudeBoy
    Member

    I agree with swadey. I think that the other UK airports, such as Glasgow, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham and Liverpool should be developed to take a bit of the pressure off London. I’m sure the residents of these areas would probably not agree with me, though..

    As for noise, ****’s sake. Come and live here! I put up with trains, planes, cars (live 100m from a motorway), and noisy bloody ASBO kids. And no, I can’t just move away, because I can’t afford to.

    Earplugs.

    As for the pollution, I live in one of the most polluted parts of London. I’d quite like to live in a leafy suburb.

    -m-
    Member

    Can anyone explain to me why we have to increase capacity at Heathrow

    Part of the argument is, supposedly, that Heathrow’s existing runways run at so close to capacity much of the time that if there are any problems (e.g. bad weather) then the knock-on effect on schedules is massive. I am sure that this does result in planes circling over central London more than is necessary, as well as being diverted to other airports, so maybe there is an environmental justification after all 😉

    There is a counter-argument that the airlines (and particularly BA) should focus their high-revenue business traffic at Heathrow, and move lower revenue ‘leisure’ traffic, and transit traffic that only lines BAA and BA’s pockets (rather than that of the greater economy), to London’s other airports. This would enable Heathrow to continue operating without an increase in capacity, and without the wider economy being impacted that greatly. Such an effect could (in theory) be encouraged through market forces by creating a greater differential in costs for airlines for using Heathrow. The counter-counter argument (mainly by BA) is that it would lose transit revenues as a result and some services would be affected.

    aP
    Member

    The biggest issue for is the almost certain ending of runway alteration as this won’t be dependent upon the 3rd runway.
    Also the slow but insidious removal of the 4 hours of night quiet by BAA – some of those particularly nasty planes which fly in from east Africa every morning at 4 am sound like B52s on final approach and chuck out about the same amount of unburnt Jet-A.
    I’m just waiting for Richard Cox’s book to become real..

    Trimix
    Member

    I support the protesters, but dont rate their chances sadly. Big business will cause the gov to do whatever makes business a profit. Global warming is for the next political party to worry about, not the current one – sadly.

    But at the end, the real cause is too many people for the planet. Stop breeding FFS. Ive had the snip, so now the rest of you need to do the same.

    Its a simple solution that needs to be taken seriously. Each one of us is responsible to the rest of us for using up rescources.

    TandemJeremy
    Member

    I think the point aP makes is a crucial one – the planning enquiry for T5 said that no new runway would be needed – altho it was obvious to most of us that T5 was going to mean pressure for a new runway.

    trailmonkey
    Member

    Of course, there is an argument to suggest that if we put the same amount of investment as the Heathrow project into developing our existing transport infrastructure, then airports like BHX and Manchester etc could be utilised and passengers could then be transported the relatively short/quick journey to London by rail. Even better, we could stop being so London-centric and develop the facilities of other cities to lessen the need for the whole world to fly into London everytime they visit or do business here.

    5thElefant
    Member

    They’re they the unfortunate fallout from the end of the cold war. Now they don’t have bombs to ban they’ve found a new target for their teen-angst.

    They should take a leaf out of the Buddhist Monks protest handbook.

    robdob
    Member

    Errrr, move north. Don’t see many planes in Yorkshire. Riding is better. Tea and cake is better. Stuff cheaper. Less southerners. It’s all good. 😉

Viewing 37 posts - 1 through 37 (of 37 total)

The topic ‘Heathrow runway protestors- constructive or obstructive?’ is closed to new replies.