Basil Jet wrote:
On 16/04/2010 14:08, Mizter T wrote:
Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can.

Good time to sell that Hounslow house.

Basil Jet, they're allowing you out and about?

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?)

But didn't that have to do with wind direction and the strength of
engines? it's not as if they were all in constant use.

Adrian wrote:
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.

I live in Manhattan over a busy Avenue. I get fire engines, ambulances,
police cars screaming into the night. I also get private garbage trucks
humping onto the pavement (they growl as they do this) at 1 and 4 a.m.
and then grinding down the trash propelled into them by banging cans.

I also get leaf blowers and snow blowers depending on the season; car
alarms and angry honking drivers. Then there are the news helicopters
every time there's an event like a parade up Fifth Avenue or a Marathon.
And the private tourist helicopters and the spluttering little hobby planes.

Punchline: I live in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in America.

Solution: Keep the windows shut, run the air conditioner for white noise.

What? I can't hear you.

:-)

rc

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

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.

Did it come as a great surprise to you, back then, that aircraft
movements would increase?

Have you had no opportunity in the intervening 35 years to move?

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.

"among".

Compare Richmond prices with an equivalent area, with equivalent
transport links and proximity to central London, but without the aircraft
noise.

Or, let's put it another way, what d'you think would happen to Richmond
house prices if the aircraft noise stopped tomorrow?

In article ,
(Adrian) wrote:

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.

My parents moved into their house in Putney in 1950. Heathrow wasn't an
important airport then. When I was a kid aircraft noise wasn't the problem
it became because there were very few jets.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Mizter T wrote

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


Had a nice walk (Ripley/ Pyrford), could still hear the M25.

One light aircraft from Fairoaks too.



--
Mike D

On 16/04/2010 19:32, redcat wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:
On 16/04/2010 14:08, Mizter T wrote:
Rather nice, isn't it! Enjoy it whilst you can.

Good time to sell that Hounslow house.

Basil Jet, they're allowing you out and about?

If anyone else had written that, I'd ponder its meaning.

On 16/04/2010 17:55, Richard J. wrote:
Recliner wrote on 16 April 2010 15:34:33 ...
"Basil wrote in message

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.

Doh!

In message , Adrian
writes

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

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

Did it come as a great surprise to you, back then, that aircraft
movements would increase?

Yes. In fact, air travel was declining rapidly after the 1974 oil
crisis: BEA and BOAC had been forced to merge, many routes were
abandoned, and the Bermuda II agreement meant that many transatlantic
services had to use Gatwick rather than Heathrow.

It was not until the late 70s that cheap flights (often using larger,
noisier aircraft) began to have an impact, and passenger numbers started
to increase rapidly.

Have you had no opportunity in the intervening 35 years to move?

Why should I be forced out by the inconsiderate behaviour of others? Do
you normally penalize the victim?

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.

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

"among".

Exactly. Your claim that house prices under the flight path are cheaper
is not born out by the facts, except in the immediate vicinity of the
airport.

--
Paul Terry

In message , at 06:57:18 on Sat,
17 Apr 2010, Paul Terry remarked:
It was not until the late 70s that cheap flights (often using larger,
noisier aircraft) began to have an impact, and passenger numbers
started to increase rapidly.

The only problem with that argument is that very few charter/low-cost
flights use Heathrow - it's almost entirely full service airlines.
--
Roland Perry