CJB wrote:
On Monday, 3 June 2013 07:08:44 UTC+1, Offramp wrote:
Very Keynsian.

I notice that Ferrovial is also involved with Crossrail. They are
notorious for part-owning Heathrow and promoting its vast expansion to
the detriment of the life=style and well-being of at least 2 million
residents of London and surrounds.

Vast expansion??? Heathrow has fewer runways than any other major hub
airport in the world and is bursting at the seams. Many London residents
either work at or use Heathrow regularly, and so benefit from it, and would
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

--
Spud

On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:01:14 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

Presumably, as a potato farmer, you have no interest in increasing the
UK's exports?

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:19:31 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:01:14 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

Presumably, as a potato farmer, you have no interest in increasing the
UK's exports?

99.9% of the UKs exports go by ship. And I'm afraid if you've fallen for the
"more businessmen from china will fly into london" BS put out by the vested
interests then more fool you. London is far better served for airports than
ANY other city in europe (heathrow, gatwick, luton, stansted, city, southend)
and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

--
Spud

On 03/06/2013 11:51, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:19:31 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jun 2013 10:01:14 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:33:53 -0500
Recliner wrote:
benefit more from its expansion. As a Londoner, I certainly want it to have
another runway, both for my own convenience and because it would benefit
the city and the country as a whole.

Also as a Londoner, you can speak for yourself. Anyone who thinks the economy
will be rescued by an extra runway at an airport is living on a cloud higher
than any 747 can reach.

Presumably, as a potato farmer, you have no interest in increasing the
UK's exports?

99.9% of the UKs exports go by ship. And I'm afraid if you've fallen for the
"more businessmen from china will fly into london" BS put out by the vested
interests then more fool you. London is far better served for airports than
ANY other city in europe (heathrow, gatwick, luton, stansted, city, southend)
and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

Add Biggin Hill and Lydd to those. BH is actually inside the London
boundary.

On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:

and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

And the reasoning behind these statements is what?

--
David Cantrell | Cake Smuggler Extraordinaire

Blessed are the pessimists, for they test their backups

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:00:03 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:

and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.

And the reasoning behind these statements is what?

Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky? Apart from looking vile, for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see. Not to mention
all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Plus I'm currently working virtually right under the heathrow flight path and
its not much fun. Thank god I don't live here.

--
Spud

In message , at 11:45:42 on Tue, 4 Jun
2013, d remarked:
Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky? Apart from looking vile, for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see. Not to mention
all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Wrong on two counts. The ice reflects the sun and cools the earth, and
the jet engines draw in and burn methane, which is a much more powerful
greenhouse gas than CO2.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 11:45:42AM +0000, d wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:00:03 +0100
David Cantrell wrote:
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 10:51:54AM +0000, wrote:
and frankly there are enough bloody planes in the skys over london as it is.
We don't need any more.
And the reasoning behind these statements is what?
Look out the window right now. Can you see that smeary haze where there should
be blue sky?

No. I see a coupla contrails, and some very light cloud.

Apart from looking vile

No. That's not vile. This is vile http://poetry.rotten.com/meat-grinder-ii/.
I think you meant "a little bit unpleasant", although I disagree with
even that.

for all that ice from the vapour trails
you can see theres just as much CO2 released that you can't see.

A whole 2% of anthropogenic CO2 production. Even if we could magic it
all away, the power stations that release 15 times as much would still
be there, so I refuse to care about the 2%. I especially refuse to care
when that 2% is actually caused by something useful and is very hard to
get rid of without getting rid of the useful. By comparison, the 30%
vomited out by power stations is easy to get rid of. The technology
exists right now, and we know how to do it. It's just that NIMBYs and
tree-huggers don't like nukes. But replacing fossil fuel power stations
with nuclear ones is, I think, far easier to do than magicking away air
travel, and so on the rare occasions that I do something Environmental,
it's with that aim in mind.

Not to mention all the other pollutants being shoved into the stratosphere.

Meh. Again, fix the power stations if you give a ****.

Plus I'm currently working virtually right under the heathrow flight path and
its not much fun. Thank god I don't live here.

My grandparents lived right under the Heathrow flight path. I noticed
when I visited. I noticed for a few minutes, and then it was just
background noise, no worse than that from people walking past in the
street talking to each other, just the occasional rumble. I get more
noise in my flat from trains whizzing past a few hundred feet away, and
I assure you, it causes no hardship whatsoever.

I'm sure that it's really bad under the part of the flight path that is
really close to the ground - the last coupla kilometres or so - but
otherwise it's irrelevant. If it was relevant further out, then Kew
Gardens, which is directly under the flight path, would be a blighted
hell-hole. It isn't. Therefore you are either exaggerating, lieing,
or are one of the very few people in a very small area for whom it is
a real issue. Expanding Heathrow will make that last category bigger,
but the scale of the problem is nothing like that which the tree-huggers
say it is. There are certainly not millions of peoples' lives ruined
by the airport nor will there be. Not even hundreds of thousands.

--
David Cantrell | London Perl Mongers Deputy Chief Heretic

It wouldn't hurt to think like a serial killer every so often.
Purely for purposes of prevention, of course.

I think you need to read posts more carefully before you respond to them with
such venom. He wrote that an extra runway "would benefit . . . the country"
which is something most sensible people agree with. Transforming the
economy will take more than any one project or policy, as George Osborne is
slowly and painfully learning.