In message , at 10:25:08 on Tue, 11 Oct
2011, d remarked:
You have to wonder just how many more flights will be needed to
satisfy the future demand for air travel.

Who knows, thought its not written in stone that supply always has to
fulfil demand. Sometimes someone has to step in and say enough is enough
no matter what vested interests it ****es off.

There are only a certain number of aircraft in the world, and they are
built at a very finite pace. That, and the obsolescence of old aircraft,
is a natural limiter, irrespective of the number of runways.

To that extent it's very similar to the UK railway system, in terms of
the number of trains that can be run.

(Yes, I'm aware of planes stored in the desert, but these days the
majority of airlines increase their fleet by buying new and efficient
aircraft, it's not worth using the old ones).
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

Aircraft emissions are overall slightly greenhouse negative


That sounds interesting, but could you explain what that means in
simple, non-technical English?

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:26:36 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
Who knows, thought its not written in stone that supply always has to
fulfil demand. Sometimes someone has to step in and say enough is enough
no matter what vested interests it ****es off.

There are only a certain number of aircraft in the world, and they are
built at a very finite pace. That, and the obsolescence of old aircraft,
is a natural limiter, irrespective of the number of runways.

True , but given the lifespan of an average commercial airliner I suspect
they can be built a lot quicker than they're obsoleted these days.
Anyway , have a look at http://www.flightradar24.com to see the shear
numbers of aircraft in the sky already over europe. Personally I think its
quite enough given the precarious state of the enviroment at the moment.

B2003

d wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:34:04 +0100
Bruce wrote:
wrote:
You have to wonder just how many more flights will satisfy the aircraft
lobby.


You have to wonder just how many more flights will be needed to
satisfy the future demand for air travel.

Who knows, thought its not written in stone that supply always has to
fulfil demand. Sometimes someone has to step in and say enough is enough
no matter what vested interests it ****es off.


My point was that the aircraft lobby has very little to do with how
many flights are operated. That is more likely to be dictated by
customer demand. The aircraft lobby, whoever they are, are probably
not in the business of operating empty flights, except of course when
take-off/landing slots need to be maintained.

The main driver of demand appears to be the low cost of air travel.
What would choke off demand very effectively is an increase in the
cost of tickets, via an increase in the cost of fuel, taxation or some
levy on carbon emissions, or any combination thereof.

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:41:35 on
Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Bruce remarked:
The proposal for a second runway is a little over 1km to the south of
the existing one, with the new (third) terminal between the runways.

There is no proposal for a second runway. Legally, there can be no
such proposal until 2019.

There has been a proposal since at least 2005 (I've been quoting from
the BAA documents). No doubt the new owners considered such proposals
before buying - it would be an insane leap in the dark not to.

What they can't do is *start building* until 2019. I originally thought
they couldn't apply for planning permission until 2019, but it's not
even that.


That is what I thought too. I researched it in some detail in the
1990s as I lived in an area of Sussex that already had quite a lot of
aircraft noise and would have had more if the changes had gone ahead.

It was quite clear at that time that a second runway could not even be
considered before 2019. I wonder when that changed, because a lot was
written and said about it at the time to reassure people who were
concerned that they might be affected.

I'm not sure exactly what is the status of the current government
review of airport capacity in the south east, but I fear that it will
be the usual superficial, short term study that politicians adore.
What we really need is a Royal Commission.

The last one we had produced the Roskill report. Its recommendation
for a new airport at Cublington, near Aylesbury was not accepted and
the Tory government of the day (1971) chose Maplin Sands (Foulness),
which was later rejected in favour of developing Stansted. However the
wealth of high quality objective research that was commissioned for
the report has informed airport policy ever since.

It is that kind of depth and breadth of research that is needed now,
and unfortunately it looks like we aren't going to get it. Instead,
far reaching decisions are likely to be made on a short term whim, and
HS2 has shown how a thoroughly daft idea can gain the most enormous
political momentum, all for the wrong reasons.

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:41:16 +0100
Bruce wrote:
My point was that the aircraft lobby has very little to do with how
many flights are operated. That is more likely to be dictated by
customer demand. The aircraft lobby, whoever they are, are probably

And customer demand is partially driven by advertising on the part of the
holiday companies and airlines. They're not merely bystanders in the process.

The main driver of demand appears to be the low cost of air travel.

Agreed.

What would choke off demand very effectively is an increase in the
cost of tickets, via an increase in the cost of fuel, taxation or some
levy on carbon emissions, or any combination thereof.

Well aircraft fuel should certainly be taxed. I see no reason why airlines
should have some special status over other transport operators.

B2003

In message , at 12:36:09 on
Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Bruce remarked:

Aircraft emissions are overall slightly greenhouse negative

That sounds interesting, but could you explain what that means in
simple, non-technical English?

It means that if you add up the greenhouse contributions of the
emissions it's slightly negative. Although you can probably find people
who disagree. Greenhouse politics is a bit like that. "Often in error,
but never in doubt" [of their being correct] as someone said.

Some of the contributions a SO2 reflects heat as well as the
contrails. The engines burn some atmospheric Methane, but nitrous oxides
react with it as well, so there's another reduction in greenhouse
effect.

Looking at growth, air transport is increasing at 4% a year globally,
but set against that there's a 2% per annum increase in fuel efficiency.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:58:47 on
Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Bruce remarked:
What they can't do is *start building* until 2019. I originally thought
they couldn't apply for planning permission until 2019, but it's not
even that.

That is what I thought too. I researched it in some detail in the
1990s as I lived in an area of Sussex that already had quite a lot of
aircraft noise and would have had more if the changes had gone ahead.

My information is from 2005, so post-dates your research. Maybe 2019 was
redefined, but it's currently the limit on building work, not planning.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:40:13 on Tue, 11 Oct
2011, d remarked:
Who knows, thought its not written in stone that supply always has to
fulfil demand. Sometimes someone has to step in and say enough is enough
no matter what vested interests it ****es off.

There are only a certain number of aircraft in the world, and they are
built at a very finite pace. That, and the obsolescence of old aircraft,
is a natural limiter, irrespective of the number of runways.

True , but given the lifespan of an average commercial airliner I suspect
they can be built a lot quicker than they're obsoleted these days.

Air travel is growing 4% a year, but counteracted by a 2% overall
increase in fuel efficiency.

Anyway , have a look at http://www.flightradar24.com to see the shear
numbers of aircraft in the sky already over europe. Personally I think its
quite enough given the precarious state of the enviroment at the moment.

Today it's still a drop in the ocean, with most carbon footprint coming
from industry, space heating and motor vehicles.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:59:25 on Tue, 11 Oct
2011, d remarked:

And customer demand is partially driven by advertising on the part of the
holiday companies and airlines. They're not merely bystanders in the process.

And if the airlines didn't advertise, customers would soon forget that
it's sunnier in Greece and Jamaica and go back to freezing to death at
Skegness.
--
Roland Perry