"nightjar" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote:
"Oliver Keating" wrote...

So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:

One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population
of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current
ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet
pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones.

And Gatwick may get one if Heathrow doesn't. 'Tis an absurd waste of
money to preserve what is effectively the status quo, when the
alternatives are just as good!

This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

That's a rather pessimistic figure - I hope the percentage will be much
HIGHER due to more use of renewable energy for electric power and land
transport!

These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve
that sort of level of growth.

I'd classify these as major expansions (even though more capacity could
be achieved with minor expansons).

The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people.

The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has been
there longer than they have.

There are many exceptions (Her Majesty included) but I don't think
that's the point. Many more people would be inconvenienced by the noise
from an extra runway.

There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion
comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not
essential for the general operation of our society.

A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful
operation of our society. However, according to Newsnight, the main growth
area is now in the middle-to-high income bracket travellers.

Even if you assume overseas holidays are essential, there's no need to
build more runways at the main airports. England has HUNDREDS of disused
and underused runways, many of which are suitable for conversion to
airports.
...
As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of
once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth
paying.

What would you regard as a price worth paying?

Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I
will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one
long weekend in France each month as well.

My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another
runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they
handed it over.

I wasn't aware there were ever plans for Heathrow to have nine runways.
Where were the other three going to be?

I think Heathrow's better off as it is. It will be possible to more than
double the number of passengers simply by using bigger aircraft! Another
runway would have serious safety implications if there's a missed
approach on the center runway.