On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 14:30:29 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:


On Nov 6, 9:37*pm, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 04/11/2011 17:12, Roland Perry wrote:

Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. *The claim for
Borisport is that it will operate 24/7.

Why should that be a worry? *If you compare the noise created by an
airport now to that say 20-25 years ago then they are almost silent
and getting even more quiet year on year.

Are they ********.


You might think that, the facts say otherwise.

Page 45 of the pdf

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...throw-2010.pdf

That only goes back 12 years, go back to the mid 80's and the
improvement in the noise signature seen today is staggering.

--

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 07:59:32 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 06/11/2011 21:37, The Other Mike wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 04/11/2011 17:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In , at 16:59:33 on Fri, 4
Nov 2011, Graeme remarked:
There's no reason to suppose that flightpaths from an estuary airport
would be routed over central London at all.

There's also no reason to suppose they won't be.

To reduce the noise.

Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. The claim for
Borisport is that it will operate 24/7.

Why should that be a worry? If you compare the noise created by an
airport now to that say 20-25 years ago then they are almost silent
and getting even more quiet year on year.



Total nonsense.

If you can't tell the difference between the noise an airport makes
now and what it did 25 years ago then either you are too young to have
been around 25 years ago or you really ought to get your ears tested!


--

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:00:05 +0000
The Other Mike wrote:
That only goes back 12 years, go back to the mid 80's and the
improvement in the noise signature seen today is staggering.

Except there are probably 3 times as many plane movements now which rather
offsets any reduction in engine noise.

B2003

In message , at 11:02:14 on Mon, 7 Nov
2011, d remarked:
That only goes back 12 years, go back to the mid 80's and the
improvement in the noise signature seen today is staggering.

Except there are probably 3 times as many plane movements now which rather
offsets any reduction in engine noise.

Heathrow was operating at 35% of capacity 12 years ago? Pull the other
one.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:05:47 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:02:14 on Mon, 7 Nov
2011, d remarked:
That only goes back 12 years, go back to the mid 80's and the
improvement in the noise signature seen today is staggering.

Except there are probably 3 times as many plane movements now which rather
offsets any reduction in engine noise.

Heathrow was operating at 35% of capacity 12 years ago? Pull the other
one.

I was talking about compared to the 80s when air traffic control systems
were a lot more primitive. Probably 3 times is overstating it but its still a
lot more than back then.

B2003

On Nov 4, 9:40*pm, Bruce wrote:

There is huge demand for cheap charter flights to/from Gatwick, and
they take off and land throughout the day and night. *In summer, the
airport is almost at busy at night as in the day.

Interesting. LTN has a lot of charters and holiday flights as well,
and no longer closes completely from 0000-0600 like it used to - but
there is only one flight between those hours, an 0130 to somewhere in
eastern Europe (Wizzair).

Neil

In message
, at
03:43:25 on Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Neil Williams
remarked:
LTN has a lot of charters and holiday flights as well,
and no longer closes completely from 0000-0600 like it used to - but
there is only one flight between those hours, an 0130 to somewhere in
eastern Europe (Wizzair).

There's the inbound flight too.

Five out of the seven last flights in the evening are Wizzair too (but
the last is a fairly early 9.05pm) and twelve out of the first thirteen
morning arrivals are Wizzair (having taken off at around 6am). I bet
there's a bit of a crush at immigration at 7.45am.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:31:17 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:05:47 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:02:14 on Mon, 7 Nov
2011, d remarked:
That only goes back 12 years, go back to the mid 80's and the
improvement in the noise signature seen today is staggering.

Except there are probably 3 times as many plane movements now which rather
offsets any reduction in engine noise.

Heathrow was operating at 35% of capacity 12 years ago? Pull the other
one.

I was talking about compared to the 80s when air traffic control systems
were a lot more primitive. Probably 3 times is overstating it but its still a
lot more than back then.

It is quick and easy to go back to 1990 with verifiable sources

But this shows further back to 1986 (but their source is unknown)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lo...Statistics.png

But ignoring that graphic the number of aircraft movements per day has
remained static at below 1300 for the past decade

Column 177W
http://www.publications.parliament.u...00323w0004.htm


2010 454,823 aircraft movements
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport...ments_2010.pdf

2010 65,881,660 Passengers
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport...to r_2010.pdf

1990 390,372 aircraft movements
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport...ments_1990.pdf

1990 42,950,512 Passengers
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/80/airport...to r_1990.pdf


So that is 53% more passengers over the past 20 years from 1990-2010,
with 16.5% more 'total' aircraft movements, (not all of which are
passenger aircraft) The vast majority being operated by more modern
aircraft, which like it or not, are significantly quieter than those
around in the mid 80's - 12dB is typical, sometimes it's more, and
that is a HUGE reduction.

Compare a screamer like a DC9 that British Midland used to use in the
early 90's into Heathrow to the Fokker 100 that replaced it in the
late 1990's. The 747-100/200 compared to a 747-400, or a
737-100/200 compared to 737-NG. How about a BAC 1-11, compared to a
A318, or a 727 compard to an A320.

The sooner they start building that thrid runway the better and in
parallel build Boris Island.


--

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:57:06 +0000
The Other Mike wrote:
The sooner they start building that thrid runway the better and in
parallel build Boris Island.

Why? Why exactly do we need more aircraft movements (and spare me the ********
"business" reasons, they're specious at best, downright lies at worst)?

B2003

"The Other Mike" wrote

If you can't tell the difference between the noise an airport makes
now and what it did 25 years ago then either you are too young to have
been around 25 years ago or you really ought to get your ears tested!

It may be quieter, but it's nowhere near quiet enough to be acceptable.

Peter