Heathrow third runway…

Try telling that to the 1,000,000 or so poor souls who live under the flight path…..

Have a bit of consideration!

The vast majority of them, (unless i am missing something?) actually chose to buy a house near one of the busiest airports in the world. You cannot then complain that the aircraft are noisy.

Its like people who buy houses near motorsport venues then complain that its noisy at weekend.

Just be done with it, tarmac over a few villages and lets move on.

Planes are getting quieter
Most people under the flightpath moved in knowing there was an airport there.

The vast majority of them, (unless i am missing something?) actually chose to buy a house near one of the busiest airports in the world

Or perhaps they chose to live in their hometowns. The ones they grew up in.

Stoatsbrother – Member
Planes are getting quieter
Most people under the flightpath moved in knowing there was an airport there.

Rick Draper – Member
The night ban is ridiculous and just as much of a penalty to current markets as a third runway would be a benefit to emerging markets.

people live where they can afford to live they also dont appreciate that a plane every 90 seconds even in the distance can have a large effect on your mental wellbeing, the noise levels can also vary greatly depending on cloud cover, wind direction etc

night flights would be horrendous for the people living nearby

children near noise pollution blackspots have higher blood pressure, faster heart rates and lower attainment in school
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240882/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21537105
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17869340

and jet engines dump a huge amount of pollutants around the airports
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es5001566

Where are these people supposed to move to? I imagine they’ll be given market value+ but even then take out 1000 homes from the existing stock in an already pressurised market and see what happens. Especially if they want to stay in the locale and go to the same job/schools etc.

It’s just ludicrous.

Stupid thing won’t let me edit properly!

Rick, 2 things:

1. Put yourself in their shoes…

2. Its not a few hundred houses, it’s the homes of over 750,000 people who’ll face even more disturbance (24/7 if you had you’re selfish way!) – many of whom probably can’t afford to move away.

You really need to be more compassionate.

I thought that there was a housing crisis?

Only amongst the young who don’t vote. Hence it doesn’t really matter 😉

The vast majority of them, (unless i am missing something?) actually chose to buy a house near one of the busiest airports in the world.

Or maybe that’s all they could afford?

And a new runway means that people who weren’t that close to the flightpath suddenly will be.

No one is saying people shouldn’t travel, I love traveling but there are alternatives that should be explored to help reduce the need to travel so much.

Hah.. but in order to do that you’d have to have way more control over things than current governments have. You’re talking about the revolution that we’re waiting for.

After trying to enjoy a nice relaxing time next to the river in Windsor a few years back and realising very quickly this wasn’t going to happen due to all the planes overhead I do have sympathy for anyone under a flight path.

I still have no idea why anyone would want to pay extra for a house in Windsor, you couldn’t pay me to live there. Even worse I experienced it closer to London in Isleworth and I couldn’t believe how bad it was, how do people ever sleep or relax?

So what do people propose doing then if some are so dead against airport expansion?

Aiport expansion is a must. I would add runways/capacity to Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Birmingham and Manchester.

China and Asia are building massive amounts of capacity and buy many aircraft, any environmental arguments against UK expansion are pointless.

Our trains are rubbish, expensive and poorly maintained. It took us 10 years after it opened to get a fast train through the eurotunnel and it’s more expensive to take the train than fly to Paris.

FWIW I live under the Heathrow flightpath, have done so for most of the last 25 years.

Planes are getting quieter
Most people under the flightpath moved in knowing there was an airport there.

Yes the A380 on take off is noticeably quieter than a 747. But, since the flightpath involves coming in from the estuary across London or from Berkshire, with stacks in places like Surrey, should people who have lived in these parts have to simply put up with aircraft noise because they currently live within 30miles of an airport?

Our trains are rubbish, expensive and poorly maintained. It took us 10 years after it opened to get a fast train through the eurotunnel and it’s more expensive to take the train than fly to Paris.

Privatisation for you.

So what do people propose doing then if some are so dead against airport expansion?

Nothing.

China and Asia are building massive amounts of capacity and buy many aircraft, any environmental arguments against UK expansion are pointless.

All of them? Every single environmental argument?

How about why does Asia building airports mean that they want to fly to London?

In some ways HS2 linking Manchester, Brum & London negates some of the has to be Heathrow crap.

Heathrow is pointless at this point. The only way the new runway and its extra road traffic could meet air pollution limits is to ban all airport parking, dropoffs and driving within the area. Park and ride from Hertfordshire anyone?

BAA’s serious proposal to keep within emissions targets last time the 3rd runway was proposed was to bury the M4 in a tunnel and pipe the pollution elsewhere!

Nothing.

Mr Sensible 🙄

Not that I have much of an opinion either way but I thought one of the reason call me Dave is getting his knickers in a twist is because the houses that will be flattened and many of those affected belong to affluent, elderly types who probably vote Tory. If this is the case then they should be able to afford to move. Not that they should have to……….

To those saying LHR is easy to access for the majority of the country… Have you ever looked at a map?

It need to be a hub airport (internation hub airport not uk hub) and being a international hub airport it would make much more sense to be by one of the most important international cities in the world. Not next to Manchester. When people say heathrow has better acess to the rest of the country the are coparing it to LGW and Boris island.

When people say heathrow has better acess to the rest of the country the are coparing it to LGW and Boris island.

Choosing between getting to Gatwick/Heathrow or other for the rest of the country is like asking if you want your balls stamped on, smacked with a baseball bat or lightly sauteed.

It is shameful that our main international airport isn’t on a main railway line linked to the rest of the country.

Even that hateful Paris CdG airport has a TGV station, all of the Netherlands can be easily accessed from Schipol etc.

A 3rd runway should come with conditions attached to link it to the rest of the country via HS2.

The NIMBYs will just have to lump it. Maybe just chuck them a load of cash as compensation. In the long term NIMBYs are inconsequential, people will move, populations will shift as jobs and infastructure change where is desirable to live. But if we just block everything and live in the past then the country as a whole will slowly but surely become a more crap place to live. So we just need to politely tell them where to go, and offer a little sweetener to ease them on their way.

When people say Heathrow has better access to the rest of the country….

…they mean the bits actually worth accessing from a business pov, ie the SE of England and London in particular .

But more sensibly, I agree, Schipol really craps all over LHR as both a hub airport and a nice place to travel from – never going to compete with such an interagted system as that 🙁

A 3rd runway should come with conditions attached to link it to the rest of the country via HS2.

The NIMBYs will just have to lump it. Maybe just chuck them a load of cash as compensation. In the long term NIMBYs are inconsequential, people will move, populations will shift as jobs and infastructure change where is desirable to live. But if we just block everything and live in the past then the country as a whole will slowly but surely become a more crap place to live. So we just need to politely tell them where to go, and offer a little sweetener to ease them on their way.

Completely agree on your 1st point.

On your second though, it’d be a brave politician who treats a million people so lightly as “chucking them a bit of cash……”

Nimbys they maybe, voters they are….a little bit of reality is needed here…bulldozing a village & insulating homes against noise isn’t the full picture of what’s required to make this happen..

they mean the bits actually worth accessing from a business pov, ie the SE of England and London in particular .

It’s a bit of a self fulfilling profecy though isn’t it.

Business want to be where it is easy to access, people want easy access to where businesses are.

That is why political interest and short termist thinking needs to be avoided on big infrastructure decisions like this. It may be a bit flipant to say “chuck the NIMBYs some cash” but we really need to resist making sub-optimal decisions due to a small but powerful lobby group acting purely in their own self interest.

Over the course of generations these considerations will seem minor and perverse, populations will shift, comunities will grow and morph to take advantage of new infrastructure. But if that new infrastruture is compromised, overly expensive or not fit for purpose then we will all suffer in the short and long term.

I hope they build it today then my plane coming back would not be delayed