Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK Govt. Bows To Irrationality Over Night Flights  
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5326 times:

Government in night flight U-turn

Plans that would have boosted night flights at three major UK airports have been dropped by the government.

The government had wanted to replace the current limits on the number of planes that can land between midnight and 6am with a noise quota.

It had argued that quieter modern planes meant more stringent noise limits could be set.

This averages out at about 16 a night.

More at BBC NEWS Online




How ridiculous. Passengers prefer night flights into the UK, especially from Asia and Australasia. For shame on the House of Lords.

[Edited 2006-07-26 19:41:10]


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
43 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5292 times:

Im with them on this, they have to take into consideration those surrounding the airports.

User currently offlineAGreatWayToFly From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 42 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5264 times:

But surely, those people knew that there would be noise when they bought a place next to an airport. IMHO, if the airport was there first, it should be able to have as many flights as it wants, whenever it wants.

User currently offlineDemoose From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 1952 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5251 times:

This decision has nothing to do with passengers, it's to do with the lives of those who live under the flight paths to major airports.

I can see why they have rejected the decision to go ahead with the noise quota system, though i've always taken the view that people who choose to live around an airport should expect noise disturbance. (I know some people don't have a choice.)

Mark



Take a ride...fly across the sky
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4112 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5234 times:

I guess it is safe to say that NIMBY's live anywhere in the world and not just here in the USA.


DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5684 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5215 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Im with them on this, they have to take into consideration those surrounding the airports.

Watch out, you could be accused of siding with the dreaded NIMBY's (or even being one yuorself)! Oh My!

Seems very few here realize that most people don't think aviation is "all that" and that noise from airplanes is actually annoying.

A strange concept to us, I know.

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineTuRbUleNc3 From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 519 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5181 times:

Quoting AGreatWayToFly (Reply 2):
But surely, those people knew that there would be noise when they bought a place next to an airport

Exactly.

Why buy a pad very close an airport then complain about noise?
NIMBY's will be partying in their little groups now they have heard that

And yes, id love to live very close to an airport, regardless of the noise


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5155 times:

Quoting AGreatWayToFly (Reply 2):
But surely, those people knew that there would be noise when they bought a place next to an airport. IMHO, if the airport was there first, it should be able to have as many flights as it wants, whenever it wants.



Quoting Tugger (Reply 5):
Watch out, you could be accused of siding with the dreaded NIMBY's (or even being one yuorself)! Oh My!

I could do, except in this case the NIMBYs purchased their houses (in the vast majority of cases) when there was an agreement in place with Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead that there would be no night flights. That has been a public agreement for decades, and now certain people want to change it with no regard for the other side of the table. Are the NIMBYs really so wrong this time?

Yes the airport was there first (well, technically for a lot of these homes it wasnt, the villages surrounding the airports havent suddenly sprung into existence), but so was the law limiting night flights - that was a positive for the NIMBYs and perhaps a reason why they accepted living there, why should it arbitrarily be taken away?


User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5126 times:

Well, I live in Clapham and moved here on the understanding that yes, there is aircraft noise, but it varies by time of day and is limited between 11pm-6am. I'd be very pissed off if the latter in particular were to change.

User currently offlineDemoose From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 1952 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5126 times:

Reminds me of a funny story a guy I worked with at MAN told me,

Woman from Knutsford rings up Manchester Airport...

"'Yes hello, i've just paid £300,000 for my new house and I don't like the fact that the noise of the aircraft is affecting the price of my property and I want to know what you are going to do about?"

Reply: "Well i've just bought a terrace house in Manchester for £50,000 and I had the sense to check it wasn't near an airport first....bye bye now"

Mark



Take a ride...fly across the sky
User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5684 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5026 times:

The problem is the public can/will win ulitimately because they elect the people who make and change the laws. Piss off enough people for long enough and their voice grows to the point where they elect representatives that are hostile to the airport (or whatever). That is why all airports try to work with the people surrounding them to some degree, whether or not the airport "was there first".

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5026 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 10):
That is why all airports try to work with the people surrounding them to some degree, whether or not the airport "was there first".

To all intent and purpose tho, with the London airports the people were there first - which is why there are laws on nightflights and limitations on expansion. Promises made by governments past.


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5684 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4972 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 11):

Agreed.
I am definitely saying that too many in this forum write off the public's complaints about aviation as whining or (my favorite) NIMBY's when for as far as I know the "public" has been here for centuries and flying just marked its centennial.

I think too many think that because somebody moved to an area near an airport they should have no say, when the exact opposite is true: The people who live in the area have the most to say and they say it loudly.

Flying is special to a very limited portion of the population. Most don't care, don't realize that it can be a vital economic engine, can't afford to fly (much), and are sometimes terrified (of flying or having a plane crash into the neighborhood) of it. This may not be sensible to some but I find that quite often humans are not very sensible.

The fortunate thing is that aircraft are getting quieter. Which goes a long way to ameliorating most of the public's concerns.

Tug

[Edited 2006-07-26 22:27:32]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25459 posts, RR: 86
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4910 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Singapore_Air (Thread starter):
How ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?

Why should airlines be allowed to land or take off when they feel like it, without consideration for the rest of the community?

I can't imagine why anyone would want to arrive at (say) LHR at 3 in the morning.

Most (respectable) hotels don't rent their rooms by the half night.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4795 times:

I can see where everyone comes from however:

1) I sympathise with those living under flight paths. I would like to see some financial and tangible assistance given to them to move to more appropriate locations to live.

2) No one wants to arrive at LHR at 0300h. However, airlines would like to arrive between 0500 and 0700 from the East and I suppose from the West too. SQ0322 is Singapore Airlines Limited's most popular, lucrative and profitable SIN - LHR service. It is also arguably SIA's most or near most profitable flight in the network. This seems to be down to the time of arrival. An airline based in Hong Kong operates two HKG - LHR services that arrive within 35 minutes of eachother (0545h / 0620h) and I presume they are making good yields because of it with their transit passengers to LHR.

3) It would be interesting to see what financial opportunity cost there is to the economy with regards to the restrictions of night arrivals at LHR.

4) While I wouldn't champion this, it however conceivably an arguable point:

"It is logical. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."






Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4733 times:

What about daytime flights affecting night workers?

User currently offlineScotron11 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 1178 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4638 times:

While respecting folks right to have a good nights sleep, I wonder what would be the outcome if they moved LHR somewhere else, in the middle of nowhere?

I believe some heritage society recently recommended the same so that LHR could become a giant housing estate.

I guarantee, for which I will provide signed copies, that if that was to happen, no matter where it was, you would have people living around it within a year. And within 20 years you would have the same folk shouting for restrictions on movements.

Then again, with the mess that is LHR, maybe they should do just that, creating a truly first class product in half the time versus the consultations on a 3rd runway presently.

Oh, but I forget, this is the UK, not the US, Europe or Asia!


User currently offlineCXA330300 From South Africa, joined May 2004, 1565 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4602 times:

While I do feel sorry for the people who live under flight paths, making them move would be very difficult logistically. So would switching the flight times. So maybe the status quo is a good thing.

Speaking of night flights, why does the irrational situation exist where all UK-SA flights are in the evening and so are all but one SA-UK flights? It makes connections a pain in the ar5e from North America and Northern Europe.



The sky is the limit as long as you can stay there
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4518 times:

Quoting Scotron11 (Reply 16):
While respecting folks right to have a good nights sleep, I wonder what would be the outcome if they moved LHR somewhere else, in the middle of nowhere?

If you find a 'middle of nowhere' in the UK, please let us know.


User currently offlineGr8Circle From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 3116 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4377 times:

Quoting TuRbUleNc3 (Reply 6):
Why buy a pad very close an airport then complain about noise?

Remember that people who buy houses near an airport buy them with the understanding that there will be night curfews on flight ops....

Quoting AGreatWayToFly (Reply 2):
IMHO, if the airport was there first, it should be able to have as many flights as it wants, whenever it wants.

How about using the same argument for nuclear power plants or coal/oil fired plants that spew thick smoke over the neighborhood....or garbage dumps, etc.....all these facilities serve a purpose to society, just as airports do....yet, they are often required to move or close down so that people living in the vicinity are not affected.....

Quoting TuRbUleNc3 (Reply 6):
And yes, id love to live very close to an airport, regardless of the noise

Easier said than done....I have lived close to (not even under) the flight path of an airport like BOM, when it was not even half as busy as it is today.....I still remember the deafening noise we would have to encounter all through the night....


User currently offlineB6sea From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 340 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4363 times:

Quoting Tugger (Reply 12):
Agreed.

I think too many think that because somebody moved to an area near an airport they should have no say, when the exact opposite is true: The people who live in the area have the most to say and they say it loudly.


The fortunate thing is that aircraft are getting quieter. Which goes a long way to ameliorating most of the public's concerns.

I agree with you, but not in a blanketing way. I think that it's similar to the government in the sense of checks and balances. The NIMBYs keep the airport in check and the Airport has an obligation to serve its region not just the NIMBYs, so good things happen for both. However, DO NOT buy a house near an airport and complain about how there is airplane noise unless you want to sound like a COMPLETE idiot. Also, in most places I can think of, the area directly surrounding the airport is never very desirable anyway.

-Chans


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2821 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4347 times:

Quoting Gr8Circle (Reply 19):
How about using the same argument for nuclear power plants or coal/oil fired plants that spew thick smoke over the neighborhood....or garbage dumps, etc.....all these facilities serve a purpose to society, just as airports do....yet, they are often required to move or close down so that people living in the vicinity are not affected.....

Well not nuclear power plants since they don't generate noise, smell or air pollution.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8345 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4296 times:

This is a situation will not be resolved in the short term, but can be improved on over time.

Passenger jets do make noise, but have improved significantly since the days of the 707. The key is to have continued improvements in the future, not only by government decree, but also by motivation - and a chance for increased landings at LHR and other airports with a similar problem can be a strong motivator.

There is also a need to legitimately address the problems faced by people living near the airports. Unfortunately it's rather important that people get a decent night's sleep. Having sleep apnea I know what it's like not to get decent sleep night after night - if nothing else it's a major cause of auto accidents.

To address the community some airports (SYD, I believe, is one) that provided "noise proofing" for homes in the impacted area. New sound reducing windows in the homes are a major aid, as are other forms of noise insulation.

By addressing the problems on both fronts LHR could probably have a reasonable increase in night traffic over time.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7649 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 7):
I could do, except in this case the NIMBYs purchased their houses (in the vast majority of cases) when there was an agreement in place with Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead that there would be no night flights.

I know that flights into LHR between 2300 and 0600 local are severely restricted in numbers. Currently one is scheduled at 2305 and fourteen between 0500 and 0600. No aircraft arriving early is permitted to land before 0600 and there is a twenty minute gap in scheduled arrivals at this time to allow early arriving aircraft to land. So the restrictions are very strictly enforced. (By the way three of the fourteen flights are from HKG - all 744s - namely BA026 (0505 hrs), BA032 (0535 hrs) and CX251 (0545 hrs) with just two on trans-Atlantic service, namely BA212 from BOS (0515 hrs) and UA958 from DEN/ORD (0555 hrs).

However I did not realise there are night time restrictions at LGW. Certainly there are many arrivals (and departures) during every night there.

I've just checked the ACARS for LGW for 23 July at
http://www.lhr-lgw.co.uk/gatwick/jul06/jullgwmore06/mlgw230706.htm
and I count 50 movements between 0000 and 0600 hrs and they are spread not that unevenly right through the night. Do you know what the restriction is?


User currently offlineDemoose From Canada, joined Mar 2001, 1952 posts, RR: 23
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4258 times:

MAN today put its Night Noise Policy out for consultation. Basically from next year 747-200's will be banned from flying between 11pm to 6:30am and 747-400's will be banned too, apart from those scheduled to depart during the day which are running late. So that'll not really affecting much at all, as PIA, Air Atlanta, Cathay and Dragonair are the only regular operators of these aircraft, non of which depart at night (usually).


Take a ride...fly across the sky
25 Post contains links RichardPrice : Movements restrictions: Summer - Heathrow 3250 Gatwick 11200 Stanstead 7000 Winter - Heathrow 2550 Gatwick 5250 Stansted 5000 Noise restrictions (200
26 Post contains images B747-437B : For S06, Gatwick is restricted to 11200 movements with a QC of 9000. The biggest restriction kicks in for W06 though where movements are cut from 520
27 BHXFAOTIPYYC : I have a couple of friends that live near STN. They have neighbours who are right under a main flight path, which was OK until a couple of years ago b
28 Scotron11 : If you find a 'middle of nowhere' in the UK, please let us know. So, what do you propose? A "no vacancy" sign? Please divert all your traffic to CDG,
29 VV701 : Many thanks for the data and the link.
30 WildcatYXU : Well, people in vicinity of a nuclear power plant are trying to do exactly the opposite - conceal it. Few years ago, when I was still living in Picke
31 Post contains images Gr8Circle : Radiation certainly doesn't cause any of those and it's quite apparent that's what I'm talking about....
32 Glom : They don't release any of that either. At least not anything remotely important. Coal fired power stations release more.
33 Par13del : A previous poster said the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, its simplistic but who are the few and the many? How important is aviation
34 LTBEWR : You have people who live 5-10 miles away from major airports, and under the landing/holding patters who complain for years to their politicans about c
35 Gr8Circle : Uh-oh...you're either not getting the point or have decided not to get it!! I'm referring to the fact that some environmental groups argue that the p
36 Glom : But they're wrong. Airports do generate noise. Fossil fuel power stations do generate pollution. Dumps do smell and are a contamination risk. In thos
37 B747-437B : For all those excuses, Heathrow's current constraining factors are artificial in nature - namely the hard cap on movements, the lack of mixed-mode op
38 VV701 : This is accurate and perfectly correct except for one thing, LHR will never loose its 'hard cap' which is 480,000 movements a year (against the curre
39 Leskova : As you say yourself later... First of all, profitability of airlines serving an airport is not a consideration in these matters, the people living ar
40 Gary2880 : we have this wonderful councilor in Aberdeen. always moaning about the airport, he lives inches from the visitors parking apron. if i'm not mistaken t
41 Glom : But Aberdeen has hardly any activity going on and it's mostly RJs and turboprops.
42 B747-437B : "Never" is a rather strong word. It would take another public inquiry for it to be revised or overturned, but it will happen eventually.
43 RichardPrice : Personally I think the best thing to do is this: 1. Upgrade LHR LGW and STN to two runways each 2. Install a dedicated highcapacity and highfrequency
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
BA To Take Over Swiss Flights To Basle And Geneva posted Wed Jan 28 2004 15:53:37 by RJ100
Philippine Govt. Wants To Take Over PAL Completely posted Sat Jun 1 2002 17:59:58 by Trickijedi
Ryanair Demands UK Govt To Relax Airport Security posted Tue Aug 22 2006 11:24:00 by Carnoc
EC Takes Greek Govt. To Court Over State Aid posted Thu Apr 27 2006 17:58:13 by BuyantUkhaa
Why No No Frills Airline Night Flights From UK? posted Sat May 28 2005 12:21:11 by Orion737
UK And India To Further Increase Flights posted Wed Apr 13 2005 18:17:18 by Airish
4 Redeye Flights Return To ATL Last Night posted Wed Feb 16 2005 13:35:43 by DAL7e7
JAT To Take Over Air Bosna Flights From Sarajevo?! posted Fri Sep 26 2003 13:21:45 by Sobelair
UK Govt Going Mad Over Security posted Sat Jul 6 2002 15:06:34 by John Walton
Alcohol To Be Banned On Flights To/from The UK? posted Sun Apr 21 2002 21:33:49 by SAS23