On Apr 16, 3:01*pm, Adrian wrote:

Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can.

If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's
that simple.

Yes, I'll cheerfully accept there might still be the odd resident who
hasn't moved since Heathrow opened. 64 years ago. (Did you know
Heathrow had six runways in the late '40s?)
Angry man! Calm down dear.

Not at all angry.

Funny, you sounded like a spluttering self-righteous so and so to me.


Anyhow, large swathes of London are affected by aircraft noise,
including areas quite far away from Heathrow.

Umm, yes, and?

So don't live in London is basically what you're saying? Right.

Anyway, I can't quite connect your outburst to the two sentences of
observation in my original post.

"Basil Jet" wrote in message

Changing the subject slightly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway
says "Runway designations change over time because the magnetic poles
slowly drift on the Earth's surface and the magnetic bearing will
change. When runway designations do change, especially at major
airports, it is often changed overnight as taxiway signs need to be
changed and the huge numbers at each end of the runway need to be
repainted to the new runway designators. In July 2009 for example,
London Stansted Airport in the United Kingdom changed its runway
designations from 05/23 to 04/22 overnight."

Yes, that happened at Heathrow many years ago. I think what is now 09
was 08 back then (or was it 10?).

Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can.

If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's
that simple.

Yes, I'll cheerfully accept there might still be the odd resident
who hasn't moved since Heathrow opened. 64 years ago. (Did you know
Heathrow had six runways in the late '40s?)

Angry man! Calm down dear.

Not at all angry.

Funny, you sounded like a spluttering self-righteous so and so to me.

Not at all the intent.

If you wish to assign any tone of voice, then "tired of whinging fools"
is probably closest.

Anyhow, large swathes of London are affected by aircraft noise,
including areas quite far away from Heathrow.

Umm, yes, and?

So don't live in London is basically what you're saying? Right.

No, not at all.

Just don't moan about the things which are inherently London, and were
predictably so when you moved there. It's like buying a house looking
onto say the A1/A406 junction, then complaining about there being lots
of traffic noise. Or buying a house next to a village church then whinging
about the bell-ringing. Or buying a house on the lane between a dairy
farm's yard and grazing then whinging about cow**** on the road.

All of which people do. Regularly. It's certainly not a London thing.

Anyway, I can't quite connect your outburst to the two sentences of
observation in my original post.

Simple.

Only a fool would buy a house under the flightpath to one of Europe's
busiest airports then complain about aircraft noise. "Enjoy it whilst you
can" certainly sounds like a complaint to me.

Recliner wrote on 16 April 2010 15:34:33 ...
"Basil wrote in message

Changing the subject slightly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway
says "Runway designations change over time because the magnetic poles
slowly drift on the Earth's surface and the magnetic bearing will
change. When runway designations do change, especially at major
airports, it is often changed overnight as taxiway signs need to be
changed and the huge numbers at each end of the runway need to be
repainted to the new runway designators. In July 2009 for example,
London Stansted Airport in the United Kingdom changed its runway
designations from 05/23 to 04/22 overnight."

Yes, that happened at Heathrow many years ago. I think what is now 09
was 08 back then (or was it 10?).

Yes 09 and 27 were 08 and 28. The runways are currently 092º and 272º
magnetic.

--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In message , Adrian
writes

If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's that
simple.

Since I know of nobody who actually enjoys aircraft noise, are you
suggesting that the 2 million people affected by noise from Heathrow
should be rehoused so that a quarter of London can be depopulated?

Yes, I'll cheerfully accept there might still be the odd resident who
hasn't moved since Heathrow opened. 64 years ago. (Did you know Heathrow
had six runways in the late '40s?)

The number of aircraft movements since then has increased many times,
particularly since the proliferation of freight flights during the
1980s. For many, the night quota system introduced in the 1990s was the
final straw - the last scheduled flight arrives at Heathrow at 11.30pm
and the busy early-morning period starts at 4.55am. Less than
five-and-a-half hours sleep is not enough, especially since the night
quota allows for a number of flights even during that precious period of
calm.

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's that
simple.

Since I know of nobody who actually enjoys aircraft noise, are you
suggesting that the 2 million people affected by noise from Heathrow
should be rehoused so that a quarter of London can be depopulated?

Not at all. Those people voluntarily chose to live there since the
aircraft noise was a fact of life.

Why did they do that? Because the aircraft noise made _that_ house, in a
location of _that_ type, cheaper than it would have been if it wasn't for
the aircraft noise.

They bought the house cheaper, or a better house for the same money, than
if the aircraft noise was not there.

Now that they've forgotten about the benefit side of that particular cost/
benefit equation, they want to ignore the cost side, too. Tough. Life
don't work like that. You made your bed, now lie in it.

The number of aircraft movements since then has increased many times,
particularly since the proliferation of freight flights during the
1980s.

~25yrs ago.

For many, the night quota system introduced in the 1990s

~15yrs ago.

was the final straw - the last scheduled flight arrives at Heathrow at
11.30pm and the busy early-morning period starts at 4.55am. Less than
five-and-a-half hours sleep is not enough, especially since the night
quota allows for a number of flights even during that precious period of
calm.

I lived in the NW quadrant of the M4/M25 junction for several years since
that night quota introduction. I've since lived directly under the
flightpath of Luton airport, roughly a mile from the eastern end of the
runway - since that airport's proliferation of cheapies.

I've been there, done that.

Surprisingly, when I moved to each of those, I was well aware that it
wasn't actually a rural idyll. I found you tuned the planes out quickly.

For those who find they can't ignore them, and the resulting period of
sleep insufficient, I'd suggest they consider moving house - just like
those for whom changes 15-25yrs ago were "the final straw" presumably did.

Oh, look. They might have to pay a bit more to get an equal house. Just
like they would've done when they moved in.

On Apr 16, 3:59*pm, Adrian wrote:
[stuff]

You've made a ****load of assumptions. I've got a lot on this weekend
but I'll be back to respond properly when I can.

In message , Adrian
writes

Paul Terry gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

If you don't like it, don't buy a house under the flight path. It's that
simple.

Since I know of nobody who actually enjoys aircraft noise, are you
suggesting that the 2 million people affected by noise from Heathrow
should be rehoused so that a quarter of London can be depopulated?

Not at all. Those people voluntarily chose to live there since the
aircraft noise was a fact of life.

But the noise was considerably less back in the 1970s, when I bought my
house.

Why did they do that? Because the aircraft noise made _that_ house, in a
location of _that_ type, cheaper than it would have been if it wasn't for
the aircraft noise.

Bollox. Houses in Richmond are among the most expensive in the country.

Now that they've forgotten about the benefit side of that particular cost/
benefit equation, they want to ignore the cost side, too.

You've made the error of thinking that your equation is correct.

--
Paul Terry

Mizter T gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

[stuff]

You've made a ****load of assumptions. I've got a lot on this weekend
but I'll be back to respond properly when I can.

Please do.

I'm sure there must be somebody in the area who's had no opportunity at
all to move house since the end of WW2, and can still hear the planes.
Can I trust you'll introduce me to them? I'm sure they'd be a fascinating
person to chat to.

Mizter T wrote:
Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can.

It must be amazing :-) Just like olde tymes.

But -- I'm coming over in exactly 2 weeks, so please clean up that ash!!!

rc