3rd Runway do we need it?

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

No Names No Politics.Just sensable opinions please.

I think this country is to small to keep on putting Profit before people.

Germany only has trees in the way of there next runway,France the same,loads of room,Dubia allready has six.Whats wrong with the thames estuary site,i know, the weather,i find it difficult to understand with all the technoligy that we still close the airport for fog,or bad weather.maybe we are not so clever as we think.We will never keep up with european airport expansion.3rd one now whens the fourth.No doubt the thought of jobs will sway people to think its a good idea,especially at the moment,these people will of course not be losing there homes,there history and there whole reason of being what they are where they are.

So i am against it,it looks like it could be a long fight,it may even see a change of government.Now if 10.000 of us are buying 1 acre how much land do we get.:-D

[Chrisg]

In a word NO

[les freathy]

Thought we were in a tight credit crunch whos got the money to fly off the 3rd runway to be honest 99% are holiday makers and fewer of them can afford it these days so i think its a load of wind and piss by BAA especially when Manston and Lydd in my area have no work so transfer some of the smaller work to these airfields and the old crap about road net works to these is a thing of the past or a myth by those who wi**** to be. Wheres my golden steel toecap boot

[N.O.S.]

You've got about 2 feet by 2 feet available CW - just enough to stand on. What are you going to do with it? You'll only need 8 feet of 6ft high steel galvanised pallisade fencing to make it secure - about £66 worth :-D

 

You could argue the exponential rise in air travel in recent years has been due to cheap fuel and cheap tickets with the rise of budget airlines. Does anyone really believe this increase in demand will continue unabated?

 

Are we really just going to get more and more wealthy, and have increasingly more leisure time?

 

 

If you have the time to fly somewhere you generally don't have the money. If you have the money you generally don't have the time....but I've been wrong before :confused:

[HotBed]

we dont need a 3rd runway, all those extra planes burning all that lovely fuel it will just run out quicker and there wont be any left for my lorry @ 7 mpg :-D

 

regards

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

we dont need a 3rd runway, all those extra planes burning all that lovely fuel it will just run out quicker and there wont be any left for my lorry @ 7 mpg :-D

 

regards

Sissy. Boat 0.85 mpg:-D

[Marmite!!]

Go for it I say...:coffee:

 

Quote:

 

Each year, London's Heathrow International Airport handles 471,000 aircraft movements and attends to the needs of 63.7 million passengers.

Since its opening in 1946, it has served as one of the worlds largest and busiest airports, and is currently used by around 90 different airlines.

Over the last few years, there has been much controversy and debate over whether a thrid runway should be built at the site just outside London, to help the airport cope with the increasing amount of flights that it deals with each year.

 

The Advantages of a Third Runway at Heathrow

 

• It has been projected that, in the next 20 years, that air passengers will double, and Heathrow, which is the world's busiest airport is already operating at its maximum capacity.
  
• Most other major international airports, have at least three runways. The extension would put Heathrow on a par with the other major airports such as Charles de Gaulle in France, Schiphol in the Netherlands and Frankfurt airport in Germany.
  
• The third runway means that Heathrow may have to deal with 220,000 more flights each year, but these extra flights mean an extra £9 billion would be contributed to the UK economy.
  
• The building of another runway is a huge construction product that will create thousands of new jobs and there will be more jobs created once the runway is actually completed.
  
• Many people have been worried about the increased noise levels that the extra flights will causes, but, by 2020 when the runway will become operational, quieter plans will have been developed.
  

 

[Snapper]

NO.

 

There's a lot better use for the money, whether you're into bridges, hospitals, aircraft carriers, new towns or wind farms.

 

MB

[Marmite!!]

NO.

 

or wind farms.

 

MB

 

 

Aren't they a danger to low lying UFO's though :nono: & there are plenty of them that they are trying to ban too... (wind farms, not UFO's)

 

Edited January 15, 2009 by Marmite!!

[No Signals]

On the radio this morning I heard a man from the BAA justify the need for it by saying it was needed for 'if you wanted to fly to LA to attend the Golden Globes Award'. (or words very much to that effect) Somehow I think that was not the best reason he should have chosen to quote.

 

However, it probably was the deepest most meaningful he could find.

 

Glad I live Oop North.

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

Go for it I say...:coffee:

 

Quote:

 

Each year, London's Heathrow International Airport handles 471,000 aircraft movements and attends to the needs of 63.7 million passengers.

Since its opening in 1946, it has served as one of the worlds largest and busiest airports, and is currently used by around 90 different airlines.

Over the last few years, there has been much controversy and debate over whether a thrid runway should be built at the site just outside London, to help the airport cope with the increasing amount of flights that it deals with each year.

 

 

 

The Advantages of a Third Runway at Heathrow

 

• It has been projected that, in the next 20 years, that air passengers will double, and Heathrow, which is the world's busiest airport is already operating at its maximum capacity.

• Most other major international airports, have at least three runways. The extension would put Heathrow on a par with the other major airports such as Charles de Gaulle in France, Schiphol in the Netherlands and Frankfurt airport in Germany.

• The third runway means that Heathrow may have to deal with 220,000 more flights each year, but these extra flights mean an extra £9 billion would be contributed to the UK economy.

• The building of another runway is a huge construction product that will create thousands of new jobs and there will be more jobs created once the runway is actually completed.

• Many people have been worried about the increased noise levels that the extra flights will causes, but, by 2020 when the runway will become operational, quieter plans will have been developed.

 

Now i know where the primeminister got his speach from:-D was i dreaming i thought we were being asked to ,get out of the car,get on your bike.Fly less.I supose the extra 9 billion would be handy to bail out another bank.

call me old fashioned but i am of the opinion if the lips are moving we need to be suspicious of what is being said.

Edited January 15, 2009 by catweazle (Banned Member)

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

Windfarms,in the bin with the 3rd runway,there not even made here so no jobs created there.:-D

[Marmite!!]

This one didn't need a runway... only just happened, this A320 landed on the Hundson river after hitting a flock of birds... all 153 on board rescued:sweat:

 

[gritineye]

Now if 10.000 of us are buying 1 acre how much land do we get.:-D

 

I heard on the wireless (remember those?) that this will not work because of some clause slipped in somewhere that allows them to circumvent this tactic very easily, can't remember how though.

 

I'm against the vapor trails are almost blocking the sun already!

[Adam Elsdon]

Dont know much about BAA and commercial airfields, but why expand something that is surrounded by urban area, why not put the investment into the other airports like Stansted and Gatwick, looks like the government riding slip shod over everybodies opinion in some mad panic!

 

Thankfully i moved away from the South East years ago, just a bunch of nutters pointlessly screwing each other over for a fast buck!

Sorry about the generalisation! :-D

[ArtistsRifles]

I understand the logic behind the request for the 3rd runway - BUT as we've been taxed almost beyond what is bearable in the name of cutting emmissions and saving the panet I do not see why we need to ecourage yet more use of ecologically "dirty" machines, IIRC the emmissions from one 747 flight would cover all our motoring for 1 year.

 

So I too say No.

[Marmite!!]

.

 

I'm against the vapor trails are almost blocking the sun already!

 

That's good isn't? don't they keep telling us the Sun's bad for us :rolleyes:

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

I heard on the wireless (remember those?) that this will not work because of some clause slipped in somewhere that allows them to circumvent this tactic very easily, can't remember how though.

 

I'm against the vapor trails are almost blocking the sun already!

Years ago to reduce rd building people lived underground in the areas ear marked for development,it held things up for so long by the time they were winkled out the politics had changed so it had some success.

My fears are ordinary people are once again being put in a position to act probably illegally as it looks like the the only option to stop this is at the next election.This year is the one sited as being the year we must start to do something about the contribution we make to lower poloution from our activities.i am not a great believer in everthing we are told about global warming ,but that aside you dont need to have been on university challenge to realise we must be more responsable.Not only should we not build any more neither should the rest of Europe.People should be aware that maybe you may have to wait for a flight.carry on the way we are and there wont be anywhere worth flying to.As the problem seems to be to many people wanting to many things,very big brother,but how about

population control.i know lots of people who never should of had kids.

I remember being told when the Computer and the web are up and running

Business flights would decreas due to video conferencing,The rush hour on the trains would be less people could work from home.These same people tell me we now need a 3rd runway.Dont forget the old african saying.

If you wish to swallow a coconut first you have to asertain the size of your asre.I think they want the coconut but they wont have a clue as what to do with the siht that follows.:-D

[Marmite!!]

Scrap 2012, that will save a few bob & cut down emmisions with less tourists flying in....

[Guest catweazle (Banned Member)]

Scrap 2012, that will save a few bob & cut down emmisions with less tourists flying in....

Absolutely :tup::

[Tony B]

It has also just been announced that BMI are pulling there Channel Island Heathrow service , two years after with much fanfare re-instating it, reason cost and no customer's. Remeber that BAA is now partly owned offshore. Local European flight journeys can now be achived quicker and cheaper by high speed train from London. There is also Gatwick, with the ongoing chestnut of a SECOND runway. Most jobs at Airports are low paid unskilled. Having worked at Heathrow and Gatwick, including being there during building of Terminal 4 that was going to cure all ills. Forget it, regardless of what has been said, the area around Heathrow the infrastructure just won't take any more. Roads overcrowded, public transport a joke. Notice an entire villiage, has to go to make it fit.

[AndyFowler]

Is it me or are the silent majority being ignored once again ! It must already be unbearable living under the flight paths of Londons many airports ! Politicians l hate em all ! I could rant more but this is not the place ! :argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh:

[AlienFTM]

Haven't flown for nearly 30 years. No need or desire to. Holidays in the UK, pumping my money back into our own economy.

 

I don't personally NEED it it. Do I WANT it? Different question. Much harder to call but I think the answer must still be NO.

[N.O.S.]

If you replaced all the new passenger planes with a giant fleet of old Dakotas, you'd soon see how many really need to fly

 

Hughie! Ralph!

[john fox]

as one in whose backyard this place exists and am therefore qualified to vote, I actually voted don't give a T.

I bought my house in the full knowledge of the flight paths and with personal experience of what that meant on the day of viewing (they are about 1,500 ft up when they go over me). The airport brings jobs to the neighbours and affects my house price accordingly.

 

I detest anyone who now acts/votes as a NIMBY, if you don't like it MOVE, if you can't afford to move then that probably explains why you could only afford a house near the airport in the first place so :-X.

 

as I understand it we need to expand Heathrow because of the need to compete with the near continent airports who are taking transit passenger trade away from us.

Yes the newer aircraft and a fall in domestic flights will free up slots, but the fact remains it is the transit trade which is the key factor in this argument, and they need more slots to cope with more demand for better connections so those proposing development of provincial airports elsewhere in the UK are just plain wrong and miss the point, but I accept that the case for developing LHR rather than LGW is not so clear cut.

 

PS as we drive green machines :nono: we can hardly take the side of the tree huggers on this point either