Scotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1083 times:
While I can understand the folk living under a flight path are upset, they should remember that their economic well being comes from that very same airport. By and large, Hounslow and the surrounding area has grown as LHR has grown.
Even if you froze all expansion plans and left LHR as it is, you would not alleviate their noise problem, would you? It would still be there.
As to negative economic benefit. Tell that to pilots, engineers, and all support staff who work there.
Zonky From New Zealand, joined Nov 2004, 432 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1074 times:
I don't believe they're so upset about the current noise problem- rather the plans by the airport to again tear up existing agreements- pursuit of new runway (ruled out by T5 planning enquiry....), mixed mode use of runways.....
re: economic benefit: It remains nonsensical to many that Av-gas remains tax free.
Scotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1066 times:
I can think of nothing more appealing for Gordon Brown. To get his hands on tax money raised from an aviation fuel tax. Just marvel at how big government can grow with all that money! He must be drooling!
As it is, I think the government does pretty well out of the taxes they already charge airlines and passengers.
LHR27C From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 1279 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1023 times:
Using mixed mode at LHR would enable some increase in movements, and frankly is the only way to expand at all if a third runway is denied and everybody doesn't want to use A380s. However the increase is not all that great. One of the key benefits would be the ability to reduce taxi times by using the runway nearest to a parking stand.
The fact remains that LHR is Europe's busiest airport and it handles considerably more traffic than some other airports which have many more runways and more available land. I don't know another airport anywhere which is so desperately in need of a 3rd runway, and for all the complaints in that article opening a 3rd runway (this would be 2000 metres in length north of 27R/09L) could reduce the noise impact on residents at a given time because there are more runways to alternate around.
BAA has also said, if 3rd runway permission was given and compulsory land purchase necessary they will buy houses from residents where the 3rd runway is planned at prices before it was announced, enabling residents to move away from the noise.
Currently, aircraft land on one runway between 4am and 3pm and take off from the other the rest of the time and then vice versa for a week at a time
This is incorrect, up to 7am both are used for arrivals, but maybe best to keep quiet on that .
Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned forever skyward
Sponsor Message: 
From New Zealand, joined Nov 2004, 432 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 89 posts, 
.
Printer friendly format 
