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

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:01:22 +0000, Steve Peake
wrote:

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?

perhaps because the plans for the third runway were drawn up years ago.
It didn't take a rocket scientist to anticipate that one day there was a
chance they might come to something.


--
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 15:13:16 +0000, Lansbury wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:01:22 +0000, Steve Peake
wrote:

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?

perhaps because the plans for the third runway were drawn up years ago.
It didn't take a rocket scientist to anticipate that one day there was a
chance they might come to something.

I'll repeat myself, why would a 3rd runway be needed while there was a
flight cap in place?

Steve

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:17:50 +0000, Steve Peake
wrote:

I'll repeat myself, why would a 3rd runway be needed while there was a
flight cap in place?

and it what legally binding agreement is a flight cap imposed?

--
Lansbury
www.uk-air.net
FAQs for the alt.travel.uk.air newsgroup

"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?

"Cast_Iron" wrote in message
...

"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?


No, one doesn't.

Eurostar to Lille, then TGV direct to Avignon, and Montpelier or Marseilles.
183mph almost all the way.

Colin

Eurostar to Lille, then TGV direct to Avignon, and Montpelier or
Marseilles. 183mph almost all the way.

How come when a train does 183 mph, everyone's all like "woohoo, this is the
best thing ever, trains rule"... but when a car does 183 mph, everyone's all
like "what an irresponsible, dangerous thing to do, why won't you think of
the children?!?!?!?"

"Chris Jones" wrote the following
in:

Eurostar to Lille, then TGV direct to Avignon, and Montpelier or
Marseilles. 183mph almost all the way.

How come when a train does 183 mph, everyone's all like "woohoo,
this is the best thing ever, trains rule"... but when a car does
183 mph, everyone's all like "what an irresponsible, dangerous
thing to do, why won't you think of the children?!?!?!?"

Because trains are pretty safe at 183mph whereas cars are pretty
dangerous.

--
message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith.
Enjoy the Routemaster while you still can.

Robin May may be my name, but Robin is my first name.