On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:39:16 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:23:19 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:57:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:34:25 on Mon, 26 Sep
This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by
now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it
is now

SSE is sill going strong, as are the campaigns against a second runway
at Gtwick and a third at Heathrow.

The airspace in the SE is already some of the most congested in the world.
When was the last there was a blue sky over london on a clear day? We don't
need or want any more air traffic. Too bad if people can't take a flight with
24 hours notice. Instant gratification is something children expect, not
adults.

The vapour trails you see are from high flying aircraft, nothing to do
with London airports. Many of the air routes from Europe to North
America are visible from London.

I know, but its all still controlled by NATS. From watching the Skies Over
Britain programme on the BBC recently its obvious they're already close to
their limit. I can't so how even more aircraft will help. And thats before
we get onto people - like me - who live under airport flightpaths who are
sick of the constant drone of airliners overhead. Though the low flying
choppers are even worse but they're much less frequent.

--
Spud

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:27:27 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:23:19 on Mon, 26 Sep
2016, d remarked:
This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by
now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it
is now

SSE is sill going strong, as are the campaigns against a second runway
at Gtwick and a third at Heathrow.

The airspace in the SE is already some of the most congested in the world.
When was the last there was a blue sky over london on a clear day? We don't
need or want any more air traffic. Too bad if people can't take a flight with
24 hours notice.

You need just as much capacity for people booking flights months in
advance.

Not necessarily. People who can't find a last minute flight to go on a w/e
break probably won't rebook for a few months ahead, they'll either not bother
or just go somewhere else using another method of transport. Anyway, the fact
that budget airline fares are still so low indicates there isn't a capacity
issue for the airlines at the moment. Supply & demand etc etc...

--
Spud

On 2016-09-26 13:35:29 +0000, d said:

I know, but its all still controlled by NATS. From watching the Skies Over
Britain programme on the BBC recently its obvious they're already close to
their limit. I can't so how even more aircraft will help. And thats before
we get onto people - like me - who live under airport flightpaths who are
sick of the constant drone of airliners overhead.

Did you move there before the airport opened?

If not, that wasn't a very good selection of property, was it?

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:44:35 +0100
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-09-26 13:35:29 +0000, d said:

I know, but its all still controlled by NATS. From watching the Skies Over
Britain programme on the BBC recently its obvious they're already close to
their limit. I can't so how even more aircraft will help. And thats before
we get onto people - like me - who live under airport flightpaths who are
sick of the constant drone of airliners overhead.

Did you move there before the airport opened?

If not, that wasn't a very good selection of property, was it?

ITYF most of London is affected by the noise from aircraft in a stack or
on takeoff/approach to heathrow. They pass over my house at 4-5000 ft and
they're still bloody annoying. In august it was almost one every minute.

--
Spud

In message , at 13:41:37 on Mon, 26 Sep
2016, d remarked:

The airspace in the SE is already some of the most congested in the world.
When was the last there was a blue sky over london on a clear day? We don't
need or want any more air traffic. Too bad if people can't take a flight with
24 hours notice.

You need just as much capacity for people booking flights months in
advance.

Not necessarily. People who can't find a last minute flight to go on a w/e
break probably won't rebook for a few months ahead, they'll either not bother
or just go somewhere else using another method of transport.

I don't know anyone who flies for leisure at the last minute, especially
on low-cost airlines - because those fares are the very highest.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:29:18 on Mon, 26 Sep
2016, d remarked:
I know, but its all still controlled by NATS. From watching the Skies Over
Britain programme on the BBC recently its obvious they're already close to
their limit. I can't so how even more aircraft will help. And thats before
we get onto people - like me - who live under airport flightpaths who are
sick of the constant drone of airliners overhead.

Did you move there before the airport opened?

If not, that wasn't a very good selection of property, was it?

ITYF most of London is affected by the noise from aircraft in a stack or
on takeoff/approach to heathrow.

Thus you are not affected by the ones at 30,000ft. Next contestant
please!
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 15:36:27 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:29:18 on Mon, 26 Sep
2016, d remarked:
I know, but its all still controlled by NATS. From watching the Skies Over
Britain programme on the BBC recently its obvious they're already close to
their limit. I can't so how even more aircraft will help. And thats before
we get onto people - like me - who live under airport flightpaths who are
sick of the constant drone of airliners overhead.

Did you move there before the airport opened?

If not, that wasn't a very good selection of property, was it?

ITYF most of London is affected by the noise from aircraft in a stack or
on takeoff/approach to heathrow.

Thus you are not affected by the ones at 30,000ft. Next contestant
please!

I didn't say I was directly affected, though seeing a natural blue sky over my
house just occasionally would be nice. But the point was about more airport
capacity in the SE which means more takeoffs and landings.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 15:36:27 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:29:18 on Mon, 26 Sep
2016, d remarked:
I know, but its all still controlled by NATS. From watching the Skies Over
Britain programme on the BBC recently its obvious they're already close to
their limit. I can't so how even more aircraft will help. And thats before
we get onto people - like me - who live under airport flightpaths who are
sick of the constant drone of airliners overhead.

Did you move there before the airport opened?

If not, that wasn't a very good selection of property, was it?

ITYF most of London is affected by the noise from aircraft in a stack or
on takeoff/approach to heathrow.

Thus you are not affected by the ones at 30,000ft. Next contestant
please!

I didn't say I was directly affected, though seeing a natural blue sky over my
house just occasionally would be nice. But the point was about more airport
capacity in the SE which means more takeoffs and landings.

I suspect Brexit will be given as one of the reasons for expanding
Heathrow, on the basis that we need more longhaul trading links to
partially replace some potentially lost EU trade. Heathrow is seen as the
preferred choice for wide-body, longhaul flights, Gatwick for shorthaul
narrow-body flights.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 15:31:30 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
I didn't say I was directly affected, though seeing a natural blue sky over
my
house just occasionally would be nice. But the point was about more airport
capacity in the SE which means more takeoffs and landings.

I suspect Brexit will be given as one of the reasons for expanding
Heathrow, on the basis that we need more longhaul trading links to
partially replace some potentially lost EU trade. Heathrow is seen as the
preferred choice for wide-body, longhaul flights, Gatwick for shorthaul
narrow-body flights.

The ulimate problem is the SE is too crowded so lots of people will be
affected by the extra noise and finding any land for expansion anywhere is
going to be viciously opposed. Quite understandably IMO. We've already got
6 large runways (8 if you include northolt and biggin hill) in and around
the London area. With *proper* transport links that should be more than
enough.

--
Spud

wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:57:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:34:25 on Mon, 26 Sep
This would have been in 1980, all arguments would all be forgotten by
now and London's airport provision would be in a better place than it
is now

SSE is sill going strong, as are the campaigns against a second runway
at Gtwick and a third at Heathrow.

The airspace in the SE is already some of the most congested in the world.
When was the last there was a blue sky over london on a clear day? We don't
need or want any more air traffic. Too bad if people can't take a flight with
24 hours notice. Instant gratification is something children expect, not adults.

If having the whole of Europe available to me at (less than) 24 hours
notice makes me a child - **** it, I'm loving my childhood. My mother (in
her 70s) bought a globe recently so she can stick a pin in all the places I
WhatsApp her from that she couldn't even conceive of visiting in her
lifetime. I have absolutely no guilt about this - my generation has the
opportunity to embrace the world and our lives are immeasurably improved
for it, and if it upsets a few nimbies who object to seeing a contrail, so
be it.

Alas, the next generation in Britain will have had many of those
opportunities taken away from them by Brexit. I'm glad I emigrated when I
did - ration cards and hiding from the rest of the world never seemed that
bucolic to me, but whatever floats your boat...