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.

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

Umm, yes, and?

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.

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.

On 16 Apr 2010 13:31:34 GMT
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.

That would be most of london then.

B2003

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.

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

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?

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" wrote in message
...
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
I'm sure there are people who actually enjoy it. I certainly went through a
phase where standing under the departure end of the runway at Gatwick was
considered a cool way to spend an afternoon. It just wouldn't have been the
same without the 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?

I think he was suggesting the ones who didn't think they could stand it
shouldn't have moved there in the first place. When I lived near Gatwick
(see below) there were indeed times when I was 'affected' by aircraft noise.
Now I live in Hove, where I'm 'affected' by things like police sirens and
helicopters, late night revellers etc. If I found it intolerable I suppose I
would have to consider moving to a house in the rural middle of nowhere.
Trouble is that if everyone did that the rural middle of nowhere would get
awfully crowded - and it's a long way to the shops.

I know people who wouldn't even consider looking at a house if it was
anywhere near a railway line ("couldn't stand the noise") and yet were quite
happy with a house on a busy road. I know someone else who has the M20 and
HS1 at the bottom of his garden. No one is forcing him to live there, and he
definitely has the means to move to places that are both a *lot* quieter and
closer to his work in central London. He has been in this house for at least
15 years and shows no sign of moving. Just about anywhere in SE England has
its pros and cons. You choose what matters to you and pay your money
accordingly.

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
OTOH the aircraft are a lot quieter. I grew up in a house about 3 miles west
of Gatwick. In the 1970/80s you definitely knew about it when aircraft were
taking off in that direction. By the late 1990s when my parents moved away
the aircraft had gained a lot more height by the time they got to us and
they were a lot quieter anyway.

DAS