NQYGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2126 times:
Quoting NIMBY (): Objectors include nearby residents concerned about noise, traffic and light pollution from landing lights.
There are concerns too that de-icers used on the runway could get into the river system and harm fish – an issue planning officers’ say “must be resolved”.
Sorry couldn't resist, but I do wish the best for the airport though. People shouldn't really be allowed to get in the way of this development. They seem to have this policy that they think every new'ish airport is going to turn into there own little Heathrow.
Cornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 55 Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2111 times:
Ah yes the green lobby putting their oar in. Given that "sustainability" is such a buzzword these days, some people tend to forget that it also covers economic sustainability - and this is somthing that Carlisle badly needs.
I'm fighting much the same battle elsewhere in the UK, where you've got the vast majority massively in favour of the airport but a small minority, many from outside the area who seek to stop something that would benefit so many people. Ridiculous.
Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
Orion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2049 times:
Unlike Coventry, which I was opposed to, NEMA and BHX on the doorstep, I am in favour of Carlisle. for a start they are proposing regional turboprop flights and its not yet another greedy TOM doiung yet more sunshine routes which are available from MAN oir BLK.
Orion737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2025 times:
Exactly and I approve of those regional turboprop flights, ideal for increasing commerce or getting people up tot the lakes for weekend. No more bloody sunshine routes from anywhere, please, too many already, despite the rain and wind.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3325 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1946 times:
These environmental protestors really need reigning in. Some of the things mentioned in the News & Star, are so obviously irrelevant to anyone with knowledge of the area, that it beggars belief. e.g. Impact on the Solway Firth, this is to the West of Carlisle, the airport is 5 miles East; too many car parking spaces, thus not encouraging people to bike there, the local population consists almost exclusively of cows and sheep, The nearest edge of Carlisle is 5 miles away, the other side of the M6.
Unlike many airports, which have been overtaken by housing estates, and Industrial areas, this one sits in open country, where few if any people will be seriously affected.
Rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3015 posts, RR: 7 Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1892 times:
For what it's worth, before all of you damn environmentalists to hell, the issues raised in the article are worth considering. I have been to the city and region as a tourist. Not getting their by air was part of the tourism draw -- the area is natural and historic.
Of course, I don't know the specifics, or the location. Even without knowing that, I still say that it may well be possible to develop and airport while addressing the environmental and historic culture concerns. That the environmental concerns are brought up insures that any development that takes place will make efforts to minimize the impact. The other extreme is that purely business decisions will sometimes run roughshod over everything else, incuding the neighbors, and that has happened. Checks and balances are good. If an airport can be built that strikes a good compromise, the tourism industry may benefit, and people like me may choose to fly there instead of hike (like I did), drive, or train. But, don't be expecting a huge windfall. Sounds like a few J41 flights a day will add, what, an extra couple dozen tourists at most? Compare that to how many actually prefer to get there by other means, it's a relative drop in the bucket.
You dismiss environmentalists as if their concerns are on the far fringes of society, while in fact the large majority of the general public think that environmental protection is a legitimate and desirable pursuit. The concerns aren't trivial, the environmental and cultural resources are important for your country, Europe, and as an example that I know about them, the world. I'm far less likely to know Carlisle as a regional center for cargo flights and aviation employment. Think about that.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3325 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1862 times:
Quoting Rampart (Reply 10): Of course, I don't know the specifics, or the location.
Precisely - as I posted above, anyone who knows either, instantly realises that the vast majority of the objections are totally groundless. Whilst here on A net we are interested in the aviation aspects of this development, aviation is only a minor part of the proposals. The major part is the provision of new headquarters for Eddie Stobart Ltd, the UK's most high profile road haulage company,and a sister company that specialises in railway construction. They are major employers in an area which is short of decent jobs, and have already been messed about once by a local council, who sold them a site for a new headquarters, and then objected to them building on it!!
Rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3015 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1835 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 12): Precisely - as I posted above, anyone who knows either, instantly realises that the vast majority of the objections are totally groundless
In all my dealings with large developments, there is always, always, an environmental impact. I know nothing about this project in particular, but am 95% certain that some environmental impact will be had. It may not be as extreme as feared. On the other hand, I doubt that the "vast majority of the objections are totally groundless". History and environmental regulations back me up. It's probably somewhere in the middle.
From what you all write and from the article, it sounds like there will be significant incursion onto farmlands and open space, some of which might be quite close to preserved environmental easements. 10 miles distance from a major water body is nothing, so there will be potential impact to the water quality, not to mention certain impact to the immediate watersheds. Part of my work is in dealing with cultural heritage, so the Hadrian's Wall issue is a bit of a concern; it may not be a problem, but I'd want it looked at. Incorporation of energy and resource saving technologies into the project design is a great idea. Those are just a few examples, and I'm scratching the surface. All this can take place while still fostering development and economic growth. Many businesses already choose to meet in the middle and work with, not against, the environment. Do you think there might be some meeting in the middle on your part?
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3325 posts, RR: 3 Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1827 times:
Quoting Rampart (Reply 13): From what you all write and from the article, it sounds like there will be significant incursion onto farmlands and open space,
Totally untrue Its a virtually disused WW2 airfield, which has been slowly deteriorating since 1945. It was a typical three concrete runway airfield of the period, complete with dispersed sited for aircraft parking and accomodation. There will be little if any need to enlarge the boundaries, as modern airports of this scale only need one runway, leaving the remainder of the area for infrastructure.
Rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3015 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1764 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 14): Totally untrue Its a virtually disused WW2 airfield, which has been slowly deteriorating since 1945. It was a typical three concrete runway airfield of the period, complete with dispersed sited for aircraft parking and accomodation. There will be little if any need to enlarge the boundaries, as modern airports of this scale only need one runway, leaving the remainder of the area for infrastructure.
Clearly I'm not up on the particulars, thanks for those clarifications. Sounds like reasonable re-use of an existing site, not that it would have zero environmental impact. All I'm saying is that the environmental concerns are worth the concern, as well as the economic ones. Maybe they'll look good if they convert some unused land back to open space. Meeting in the middle.
We've had a similar debate here in New Jersey, over suburban Morristown Airport that sees quite a bit of executive traffic. It's built in a swamp 50 years ago, no changing that, but expansion is tricky because of the regulations since the airport was built. A recent project was to expand the apron for a corporate client. It would fill into existing wet land, and local environmentalists as well as federal regulators raised concern. As they should. One compromise I saw was that the developer would rehabilitate a nearby tract to a viable ecology. That can work, sometimes, if done right. Then there is also the concern for increased noise. I think the project would have allowed for an additional half dozen jets to park. I don't have much sympathy for new residents who move into an area near an airport and then complain about the noise. It's one thing if they build a new airport on top of them, but that isn't the case usually. Still, airports need to strive to be good neighbors.
Humberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4913 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1594 times:
Quoting Gkirk (Reply 7): Flights would likely be Eastern J41s to STN, BHD and DUB
Does Carlisle have enough premimum business demand to support Eastern?
Quoting Orion737 (Reply 11): I want to get carlisle open and Coventry closed. Just coz I hate TUI not because I am an environmentalist. i like Eastern though so carlisle can open
Coventry is more than TOM. There's Wizz Air and plenty of freight which has been flying there since way before TOM. And I would take a moment to think of the staff at Coventry. Not very sensitive or considerate. And making decisions on what airports you wish to see open based on airlines seems wrong IMO. I know you dont like LoCo's so should PIK be clsoed since it is mostly FR (passenger wise)? Because thats exactly what your saying about CVT
There seems to have been a lot of local opposition to this, which is baffling because the facility is already there, and the most it'll ever amount to is a few Stobart freight flights and a handful of daily London/Isle of Man, and possibly Belfast flights. Hardly an environmental catastrophe!
I was up in Cumbria yesterday and Carlisle is a long way from Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow.