So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3322277.stm

This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people.

There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion
comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not
essential for the general operation of our society.

While many people are quite aware of the environmental impact of road
traffic, air travel has got off scott free, essentially the attitude towards
airport expansion is rather like the attitude to road expansion 50 years
ago.

I think some serious questions need to be asked, specifically whether this
really is necessary, and what the costs and benefits of increased air
travel.

As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of
once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth
paying.

Of course, airlines are big industries, and like any big industries, they
have the money to sway the opinion of the Government of the day.

Parties should be funded by general taxation, not through "donations" - but
this is perhaps an issue for another time

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:

One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population
of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current
ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet
pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones.

This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve
that sort of level of growth.

The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people.

The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has been
there longer than they have.

There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion
comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not
essential for the general operation of our society.

A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful
operation of our society. However, according to Newsnight, the main growth
area is now in the middle-to-high income bracket travellers.

....
As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of
once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth
paying.

Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I
will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one
long weekend in France each month as well.

My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another
runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they
handed it over.

Colin Bignell

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:06:13 -0000, nightjar wrote:

The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has been
there longer than they have.

I live under the proposed third runway flightpath, at present I cannot hear
a single plane. How could I have guessed that a 3rd runway was on the
cards, especially when the 5th terminal inspector placed a flight cap on
the airport?

Not that it matters, as BAA can never meet the NOX limits. Even with super
clean planes behind current technical abilities, they will blow the figure
on cars travelling to the airport alone. Unless they can persuade everyone
to take a bus (ho ho ho) they don't stand a chance, Heathrow will become
very unpopular fast when it costs £10 to go down the M4 spur.

Of course given the number of Labour MP's in the West London area you might
think the government already knew this.

Steve

"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote in message
...

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:

One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population
of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current
ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet
pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones.

This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of
all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve
that sort of level of growth.

The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people.

The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has
been
there longer than they have.

There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most
expansion
comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not
essential for the general operation of our society.

A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful
operation of our society. However, according to Newsnight, the main growth
area is now in the middle-to-high income bracket travellers.

...
As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of
once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth
paying.

Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I
will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one
long weekend in France each month as well.

My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another
runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they
handed it over.


And of course if one is "only" travelling as far as the South of France one
doesn't have to fly does one?

"nightjar" wrote in message . ..
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:

One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population
of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current
ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet
pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones.

Pollution levels do not include CO2 , they usually are only NOx , CO , and SO2
which are a lot easier to meet. And how is it useful for the bulk of the
population? You think that Fred the bus driver needs to go to an important
business meeting in franfurt every other week?


This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve
that sort of level of growth.

Even if its 20% and not 40% , it doesn't matter. Its increasing , thats the
problem. It should be decreasing.

There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion
comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not
essential for the general operation of our society.

A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful
operation of our society.

Holidays may be nice , but they're hardly essential. Ask any farmer. Besides
which there are plenty of ways to travel without using an aircraft.

Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I
will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one
long weekend in France each month as well.

Bully for you. And when you wonder why england in 30 years is like the south
of france (and southern europe is a semi desert) and all the mative faunu is
dying perhaps you can explain to your kids that it was partly down to the
selfishness, indifference and extravagance of people like yourself.


My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another
runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they
handed it over.

You're a bit of an arsehole arn't you?

B2003

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message ...
So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3322277.stm

This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people.

There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion
comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not
essential for the general operation of our society.

While many people are quite aware of the environmental impact of road
traffic, air travel has got off scott free, essentially the attitude towards
airport expansion is rather like the attitude to road expansion 50 years
ago.

I think some serious questions need to be asked, specifically whether this
really is necessary, and what the costs and benefits of increased air
travel.

As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of
once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth
paying.

Of course, airlines are big industries, and like any big industries, they
have the money to sway the opinion of the Government of the day.

Well said. Pity no one in government really gives a toss about the enviroment
and they'll be too old to care when the consequences really start to take
effect. Somehoe I don't think our grandchildren will look back on our generation
with much affection.

B2003

"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3322277.stm

This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

And it's put directly into the upper atmosphere which has more of a
detrimental effect than if it were released at ground level.

There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion
comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not
essential for the general operation of our society.

Exactly. Much of the air travel expansion in the last few years has been
with the budget airlines. These are typically short hops which, if there
was a sufficiently good high-speed rail network, would be unnecessary. In
addition, if these short hop flights were removed from airports there would
be the space available for long-haul flights without the need for airport
expansion.

While many people are quite aware of the environmental impact of road
traffic, air travel has got off scott free, essentially the attitude
towards
airport expansion is rather like the attitude to road expansion 50 years
ago.

Indeed. Take, for example, no tax being placed on aviation fuel. Wasn't DB
(German railways) going to sue the EU or something for letting aviation fuel
stay untaxed? I can't remember...

I think some serious questions need to be asked, specifically whether this
really is necessary, and what the costs and benefits of increased air
travel.

This question should be asked of *all* forms of travel. Do we really to
travel as much as we do? The problem is, more capacity creates more demand,
which then outstrips capacity, so more capacity needs to be provided. We
blatantly can't carry on like this forever, so a government somewhere along
the line has to limit the demand, either passively by letting congestion put
people off, or actively by using tolls or price increases. One simple way
to do this to alleviate the rush-hour peak is to give tax incentives to
companies who let people have more flexible working hours to try to spread
the rush out.

Sorry this has turned into a rant! :-)

Angus

"nightjar" nightjar@insert_my_surname_here wrote:
"Oliver Keating" wrote...

So, massive expansion planned for Heathrow, Stanstead and Luton:

One new runway for the least useful airport for the bulk of the population
of SE England is hardly a massive expansion. Luton gets to use its current
ruwnay a bit more and Heathrow might get a new runway, if it can meet
pollution levels that it cannot achieve with the current ones.

And Gatwick may get one if Heathrow doesn't. 'Tis an absurd waste of
money to preserve what is effectively the status quo, when the
alternatives are just as good!

This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

That's a rather pessimistic figure - I hope the percentage will be much
HIGHER due to more use of renewable energy for electric power and land
transport!

These minor expansions will not give anywhere near the capacity to achieve
that sort of level of growth.

I'd classify these as major expansions (even though more capacity could
be achieved with minor expansons).

The noise from Heathrow airport alone affects some 1 million people.

The majority of whom would have been born after it was built, so it has been
there longer than they have.

There are many exceptions (Her Majesty included) but I don't think
that's the point. Many more people would be inconvenienced by the noise
from an extra runway.

There is no "need" to have massive expansion in air travel, most expansion
comes from people going on budget holidays, i.e. things that are not
essential for the general operation of our society.

A lot of people would argue that holidays are essential for the successful
operation of our society. However, according to Newsnight, the main growth
area is now in the middle-to-high income bracket travellers.

Even if you assume overseas holidays are essential, there's no need to
build more runways at the main airports. England has HUNDREDS of disused
and underused runways, many of which are suitable for conversion to
airports.
...
As far as I can see, being able to go on holiday twice a year instead of
once is nice, but the environmental damage is a price that is not worth
paying.

What would you regard as a price worth paying?

Nobody is forcing you to take two holidays a year if you think that, but I
will continue to take my usual three and I have a target of at least one
long weekend in France each month as well.

My personal view is that it is a pity that Gatwick did not get another
runway and that the RAF never finished Heathrow's nine runways before they
handed it over.

I wasn't aware there were ever plans for Heathrow to have nine runways.
Where were the other three going to be?

I think Heathrow's better off as it is. It will be possible to more than
double the number of passengers simply by using bigger aircraft! Another
runway would have serious safety implications if there's a missed
approach on the center runway.

Aidan Stanger wrote:

snip

Another runway would have serious safety implications if there's a
missed approach on the center runway.

Rubbish!

They currently use one for takeoffs and one for landings - how would the
situation be any worse with a third runway?


--
MrBitsy

Angus Bryant wrote:

This seems deeply concerning. If air traffic growth continues at it's
present rate, then in 50 years time air travel will account for 40% of all
CO2 (greenhouse gas) emmissions.

And it's put directly into the upper atmosphere which has more of a
detrimental effect than if it were released at ground level.

I've heard this claim an awful lot, but not an explanation as to why.
What effect does CO2 have in the upper atmosphere that it does not have
at ground level?