"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

One of the pax who shared the shuttle bus with me from PRG two months ago
shared the info that he had booked at some random hotel via Hotwire [1].

I surmised that he had booked at the last minute and asked what fare he had
paid and it wasn't that much different to the one that I had paid booked on
two months notice.

I note that I can book same for tomorrow for 33 quid returning a week later
for 41. (plus luggage etc etc)

tim

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?

Neil

I live under one of the routes into London City, (in Thurrock) & I've
no idea what height the 'planes are flying, but they are quite
noticable.

(I've flown into LCY just once & it was easy to recognize my
home..........)

We bought the house in '85, probably before LCY was planned.

I feel for anyone living under a flight-path into a major airport.

DC

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 2016-09-26 18:50:17 +0000, David C said:

I feel for anyone living under a flight-path into a major airport.

I do, but if the airport was there when they bought it (not yourself),
they don't really get to complain - the price was probably cheaper as a
result. It's like people who move next to pubs and complain when they
are noisy.

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

Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-09-26 18:50:17 +0000, David C said:

I feel for anyone living under a flight-path into a major airport.

I do, but if the airport was there when they bought it (not yourself),
they don't really get to complain - the price was probably cheaper as a
result. It's like people who move next to pubs and complain when they
are noisy.

And modern planes are likely much, much quieter than the planes than were
the norm when the property was bought.

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:30:07 +0100
Neil Williams wrote:
On 2016-09-26 18:50:17 +0000, David C said:

I feel for anyone living under a flight-path into a major airport.

I do, but if the airport was there when they bought it (not yourself),
they don't really get to complain - the price was probably cheaper as a
result. It's like people who move next to pubs and complain when they
are noisy.

If someone moves next to a quiet village pub, then some years later its
license gets upgraded to a 1000 head nightclub they have every damn right
to complain about the noise.

--
Spud

On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:36:01 +0300
Clank wrote:
wrote:
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.

You sound like a cheap voiceover for a holiday company. How exactly is your
life "immeasurably improved" by being able to go anywhere with 24 hours
notice? Give us some details. Something concrete, not "Oh , I just love
watching the sunrises over blah blah blah".

Alas, the next generation in Britain will have had many of those
opportunities taken away from them by Brexit.

What opportunities? Britains visit and work in loads of countries around the
world that are not part of the EU. Why will the EU suddenly be off limits after
Brexit?

Also future generations will hardly thank us for ****ing up the climate. I'm
not speaking as some ranting hippy, I travel for pleasure too. But the idea
of moderation and waiting for something seems to have gone out the window.
People expect instant gratification and sod the costs, they're someone elses
problem. Right?

I'm glad I emigrated when I

I'm fairly glad you did with the ******** you spout.

did - ration cards and hiding from the rest of the world never seemed that
bucolic to me, but whatever floats your boat...

Oh dear, poor little confused ex-pat. Better go have some more sangria eh?

--
Spud

On 2016-09-27 08:27:19 +0000, d said:

If someone moves next to a quiet village pub, then some years later its
license gets upgraded to a 1000 head nightclub they have every damn right
to complain about the noise.

Indeed, but not, as is common, if one moves next door to a nightclub or
busy pub.

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

On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:51:54 +0100
wrote:
Back to aviation there was an elderly couple in the Midlands on some
programme the other day , they had bought their house under the
flightpath to East Midlands knowing that it was a regional airport
but never anticipated it becoming to become a major freight Hub with
flights well into the early hours of the morning.

It always amazes me how aviation almost always seems to get a free pass when
it comes to noise pollution. Sure, they may move flight paths occasionally
to **** off another town or village but ultimately its still the same ****. If
a B road was then to a motorway or a branch line which was upgraded to a main
line with an express train once every minute, no one would be at all surprised
if locals complained. Yet if an airport suddenly decides it wants to almost
double the number of flights going in and out to create value for shareholders,
sorry , I mean "for the good of the nation", local residents are just supposed
to put a sock in it and get on with it. Talk about double standards.

Its about time aviation fuel was taxed so airlines had to start operating in
the real world. If some go bust tough ****. Free market and all that.

--
Spud

Mizter T wrote:

On 25/09/2016 12:16, Recliner wrote:
There's a short item in today's Sunday Times that suggests that the
government is favouring the Heathrow Hub option:
http://www.heathrowhub.com

This is cheaper than the third runway, needs much less land (and very few
properties will be affected), will be much quicker to build, and will not
increase the noise footprint nearly as much. The scheme as proposed (not by
HAL) also includes a road-rail interchange on the M4 and GWML (and possibly
an HS2 spur), immediately to the north of the airport, with a direct light
rail link to the terminals. However, I think that's really a separate idea.

Crucially, BA is backing this scheme, rather than the third runway:
http://news.sky.com/story/ba-owner-s...cheme-10319759



Interesting. Especially given that the Heathrow Hub proposal was
rejected by the Airports Commission.

If Heathrow is the government's choice then it's still going to face
some almighty opposition, though perhaps given the whole Heathrow
question has been going on for so long - a 'war of attrition' if you
will - maybe some of that opposition could fall by the wayside.

Poyle would be razed under the scheme - much of the area is a trading
estate, though there are some residential streets south of Bath Rd that
would have to go. (As would the current T5 Pod Parking!)

More Heathrow rumours:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...e-in-parliame/

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Mizter T wrote:

On 25/09/2016 12:16, Recliner wrote:
There's a short item in today's Sunday Times that suggests that the
government is favouring the Heathrow Hub option:
http://www.heathrowhub.com

This is cheaper than the third runway, needs much less land (and very
few
properties will be affected), will be much quicker to build, and will
not
increase the noise footprint nearly as much. The scheme as proposed (not
by
HAL) also includes a road-rail interchange on the M4 and GWML (and
possibly
an HS2 spur), immediately to the north of the airport, with a direct
light
rail link to the terminals. However, I think that's really a separate
idea.

Crucially, BA is backing this scheme, rather than the third runway:
http://news.sky.com/story/ba-owner-s...cheme-10319759



Interesting. Especially given that the Heathrow Hub proposal was
rejected by the Airports Commission.

If Heathrow is the government's choice then it's still going to face
some almighty opposition, though perhaps given the whole Heathrow
question has been going on for so long - a 'war of attrition' if you
will - maybe some of that opposition could fall by the wayside.

Poyle would be razed under the scheme - much of the area is a trading
estate, though there are some residential streets south of Bath Rd that
would have to go. (As would the current T5 Pod Parking!)

More Heathrow rumours:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...e-in-parliame/



That's hardly a surprise, it will be carried by labour votes

tim