Flyingfox27 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10418 times:
Hopefully they dont do what protesters did at Bangkok!
I had an idea, put the protesters or threaten them with putting them on the no fly list.... and when we get a bad couple of Summers, see them moaning and complaining that they cant get a decent sunny vacation, hehe.
Group51 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10170 times:
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 3): I hope these idiots are in the buildings when the buildings are demolished.
In the UK, murdering peaceful protesters is generally frowned upon.
The government here wants to have an international agreement limiting aviation's emissions. They are hoping that blockers to these sorts of agreements will 'go away' on Tuesday. Without such agreement, the third runway is...difficult to understand in terms of politics. It has little political support, is not part of a wider low emission strategy and is democratically unpopular. Ho hum.
I would support it if was part of a package of electric cars, trains and insulations etc. But it isn't. Bad politics.
Af773atmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2656 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10029 times:
Will new homes be built for Sipson residents or will they be on their own when the third runway is built. Maybe make a deal to build new homes for them and if these new homes are close to the third runway install windows that reduce noise made by planes. Although the protestors probably won't agree.
Veeseeten From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9893 times:
What irritates me most about all of this, is the apparent legitimacy lent to such action by David Cameron's support for the anti-third runway campaign. I am completely furious with his blatant pandering to the green lobby. 18 months is a long time in politics, but barring a complete u-turn before the next election, I absolutely will not vote for him, despite having been notionally Conservative in the last few elections.
RoyalAirMaroc From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 187 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9862 times:
How about the LHR circling/holding times over London ? Doesn't that increase Co2 emissions ? Wouldn't a 3rd runway decrease that ? Doesn't getting to the airport for a meaningless protest increase co2 emissions ?
Life is a Journey, One Which I hope will include alot of Flights !! =]
Thestooges From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9779 times:
What I think is so funny about all of this is that, if Heathrows real role was to get X amount of passengers from point A to B then it wouldnt need to expand at all. Unfortunately Heathrows actual role is to get a large amount of those passenger to their destination in first and business class cabins, which are very heavy and take up A LOT of space in an aircraft and also to make sure there are numerous flights each day to certain destination to cater for business travellers who require such frequencies.
If you took all the people flying out of Heathrow and put them all in A-380's configured only in economy class configuration then you would probably only have half the amount of flights. So instead of 10 flights to say Frankfurt, you would have only 2. And the whole operation would make a lot less of an environmental impact.
But then again, its all these people who pay ridiculous amounts of money to fly in those first class cabins and to fly on one of the numerous flights to Frankfurt that are actually putting a decent amount of money into the UK economy. And thats what everyone who supports the third runway is really saying, that it will provide more capacity for more flights with more massive first class suites to bring in more ultra rich tycoons from all over the world who will come to London and spend enourmous amounts of money and that the runway will also provide even greater frequencies to major business centres all over the world which will allow more businessmen to come and go more efficiently from London who will create new business ventures and have succesful business meetings etc etc. . and that all of this will in turn be a huge benefit to the local economy.
It all sounds a bit much like trickle-down-economics to me. Yes it might in fact help the economy and make everyones life in the UK better, but try explaining that to the people of the towns being demolished. It wouldnt be an easy case to explain "Hey, a lot of people are going to make a lot of money from this, but you unfortunately are going to lose your homes". I hope if they are in fact evicted, that they are compensated very adequately, because if not, there are going to be a lot of people laughing all the way to the bank, and it definitely wont be any of them !!!
In the end of the day its all coming down to one thing . .. money . . ..at least 5 Billion pounds of it per year !!! And whether thats a good thing or a bad thing, well, thats for you to decide . . . .
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9673 times:
If the decision is made to proceed with the expansion of LHR, and the homes are purchased (I refuse to say these people have "lost" their homes if they have been paid for them!) to be demolished to allow for an expansion of the airport, then part of the master plan for building needs to be an analysis of how possible protests will be undertaken, and what the appropriate response should be.
Contingency plans need to be made for every conceivable phase of the operation, especially for the protestors' emotional phase, where they attempt to appeal to the public in hopes of turning opinion to their favor. Those in charge must be ready to combat their tactics, or they will stand to lose both public opinion as well as massive amounts of money from overruns and delays. Also, those in charge will need to study the tactics of "urban guerilla" protestors from incidents that have occured around the world (to find the balance of what is "too much" and what is "too little). For example, G8 summits usually attract large groups of incindiary fringe groups (anarchists), and law enforcement has learned from both good and bad events what works and what doesn't.
This is going to be messy no matter how it is dealt with - and the builders need to always take into account both public opinion and how fast mass communication works in today's world. Protestors will do their best to provoke a backlash against the expansion in hopes of horrifying the public from the "overreaction to peaceful protestors". Those in charge must not let this happen - good preparation and an emotionless response must be paramount in this project.
I do not condone violence, nor do I believe a government should be able to run roughshod over individual's rights. My personal opinion is that given the necessity of a modern international airport to the economic well-being of a country and its economy, allowing everyone to squabble and say "I don't care where you build it, just build it somewhere else!" and postpone the hard decisions in the name of appeasing voters damages the long-term economic viability of a country.
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21477 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9379 times:
Quoting SpeedBirdA380 (Reply 4): "A group calling itself the Climate Suffragettes smashed glass doors at the London offices of the Department for Transport (DfT)in protest at the Government's go-ahead for Heathrow's expansion."
"Activists behind an annual climate change camp threatened to close down Heathrow in an early sign of direct action aimed at stopping a controversial third runway being built.
Leaders of the annual event will meet later this month to discuss future demonstrations, including some which they warned would be aimed at shutting the airport down completely."
For everyone who believes that the "climate change" lie/propaganda is harmless and/or believes the goals of those pushing it are just (socialist redistribution of wealth to poorer nations via taxes and limits on the 'rich'), I hope it's a wake up call.
When you brainwash children into believing a lie and tell them that it's their responsibility to protect X Y or Z, you will eventually bread violence and a zealotry that is hard to control or reverse.
When you enlist children before they can form rational opinions or understand the science of your lie (or lack of science), you create just another religion of extremists like so many that came before it.
Despite all the "evidence" you see on the news and in false commercials from the WWF and Sierra Club, arctic ice is at 30 year norms, earth temperature has been falling and is cooler than it was a decade ago, polar bears are thriving, etc. and yet CO2 output continues to increase around the globe. Something doesn't add up, and it's the crappy, unscientific models we are telling our children are gospel as toddlers, and then conveniently failing to educate them with enough science to ever question it.
So I say the UK, which has been a nation at the forefront of this global lie, and SRB, who has help further this lie around the world, are reaping what they have sewn. Violent protests, crippling of industry, and a slow but steady decline as a nation. Which is exactly what developing nations and regions around the world were hoping for. And unfortunately, the USA is next...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7403 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 9304 times:
The argument that there is any relationship between the increase in the number of air passengers and the number of available runways seems to me to be fallacious.
In June 1958, more than a half a century ago, Queen Elizabeth flew into LGW in a de Havilland Dove to inaugurate the single metaled runway at that airport. That runway replaced a grass air strip first opened in 1930 and first licensed for commercial flights in 1935. At the time of the opening of the LGW runway the relatively new LHR airport, inaugurated in 1946, was operating with three active runways.
Since the opening of the LGW runway we have lost the original third runway at LHR and gained a new runway at LCY. Apart from the LCY runway no other new metalled runway has been built in the southeast of England since the LGW runway. Yet with a net increas of zero in the number of metalled runways in the southeast of England since 1958, air travel to and from the region over those 50 years has grown virtually exponentially. Then hardly anyone flew commercially. Now the majority fly and not irregularly. So to link the number of passengers flying and to link the amount of carbon emmision to the availability or non-availability of new runways seems to me to be at best an extremely tenuous argument. Will any of us decide to make an air trip purely on the basis that LHR has three and not two runways?
If there is no third LHR runway then people from the southeaast of England will find another way of reaching their chosen destination. They may chose to travel to airports such as SOU, BHX or NWI instead of flying direct to their destination from LHR. There they might take a flight to another European hub airport such as AMS, CDG or FRA that all have at least twice as many runways as LHR. And from their chosen hub they will take a second flight to their destination. This is little different to what you have today today if you live in the northwest of England or in Scotland. Do the Scots or Mancunians chose not to fly to certain cities because there are no direct flights to them from GLA/EDI or MAN?
If people fly to an alternative hub rayther than use LHR it would result in the creation of more pollution than would have occurred if they could have used LHR. Their ground journey to their chosen airport would be usually longer creating more CO2 emissions. They will take two flights with four sets of taxiing and two climbs that will considerably increase carbon emission levels over those created by a single flight. So if we have no new runway at LHR I believe the amount of pollution created by airline passengers travelling to or from the southeast of England will be higher than it would if the runway was built.
If you disagree with the preceding arument I think you will need to accept an alternative argument, namely that large numbers of people will elect not to fly because they cannot fly from LHR even though they could from an alternative airport. This seems to me to be unlikely.
And is air travel such a 'dirty' mode of travel? Here it is instructive to note that the London vehicle congestion charge of £8 for a car was to be dropped last September to £0 for cars with a CO2 emission below 120mg/Km (although the plan was dropped as a cost saving measure). This reduction was to reward to those driving 'environmentally friendly' cars. On the other hand long haul flights create an emission of approximately 110mg/Km/passenger. As the vast majority of cars on the roads in London have a driver and no passenger it is clear that the focus of the active environmentalist should be on reducing car journeys and increasing car sharing and, above all, the use of public transport and not interferring with commercial aviation.
Yes the above argument will not apply to many short haul flights. But the emissions of most cars on the road today are well above 120mg/Km. So it is still environmentally more friendly to fly from London to Manchester than to get into a car with average emissions and drive instead. However the train would be a better bet, but probably not by as much as environmentalists would like you to think. Just as the construction and maintenance of a new runway has an environmental penalty so does the construction and maintenance of a railway track. For example manufacturing the iron rails and the concrete sleepers has a significant environmental cost.
Heathrow From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2005, 978 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8890 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 16): If there is no third LHR runway then people from the southeaast of England will find another way of reaching their chosen destination. They may chose to travel to airports such as SOU, BHX or NWI
one problem: BA. BA is almost completely run out of LHR, and they offer the most destinations to anywhere in the world from Brtiain. Then you add in all the people who fly BA and connect in LHR. It's the same reason why STN and LTN aren't used.
Quoting VV701 (Reply 16): European hub airport such as AMS, CDG or FRA
Skyteam, Skyteam, Star Alliance
This whole thing is ridiculous. Aviation of course contributes to air ploution, but is far from being a major player in it. They should come out to YMM where the diesel trucks run all night long in the winter!
AApilot2b From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 572 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8848 times:
The same "flash mob" individually drove to Heathrow in their autos polluting as they went. These people are a waste of breath! They are flaming idiots and blazing hypocrites that have never had a thread of common sense pass through their puny little brains. Once they have bullied their way through government and effectively held progress hostage, these same people will blame the government and look for a handout when their economies collapse and jobs go to China.
In everything there must be a balance. Unfortunately, these people are extremists and balance is lost to the wind.
WarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8852 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 8749 times:
Quoting AApilot2b (Reply 19): The same "flash mob" individually drove to Heathrow in their autos polluting as they went. These people are a waste of breath! They are flaming idiots and blazing hypocrites that have never had a thread of common sense pass through their puny little brains. Once they have bullied their way through government and effectively held progress hostage, these same people will blame the government and look for a handout when their economies collapse and jobs go to China.
In everything there must be a balance. Unfortunately, these people are extremists and balance is lost to the wind
I am not into mob mentality, but the local people do have a right to protest the uprooting of their lives and homes and families for the sake of so called progress. I do not think the addition of a third runway will rescue the economy in Great Britain or anywhere else. Maybe the people should wake up and protest their jobs going to China and everywhere else. that may do more to rescue the economy.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
Still carbon based. It would reduce reliance on fossil fuels, but would still contribute to CO2 concentrations.
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 20): I am not into mob mentality, but the local people do have a right to protest the uprooting of their lives and homes and families for the sake of so called progress.
They have the right to demonstrate in a lawful manner, not to illegally disrupt the lives (and rights) of other citizens. Get a permit and do it according to the law. I don't understand why the UK law enforcement agencies do not enforce their own laws. Arrest these jerks and give them a stiff fine, or even some jail time.
If I am trying to go through LHR and one of these self-centered, delusional, a-holes tries to physically stop me from my legal right to reach my flight, I will fight back.
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 8066 times:
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 20): Maybe the people should wake up and protest their jobs going to China and everywhere else. that may do more to rescue the economy.
Not just the economy, it is emergent economies with massive comparitive growth thaty are the major sources of CO2 emissions. I would like to see what would happen to these 'protestors' if they tried anything like their protests in the PR China, where power stations spout untold amounts of CO2 and other delightful substances into the air in such quantities that make annual emisiions by the world's airline wholly insignificant.
If these morons, who no doubt generated a fair amount of CO2 in travelling to LHR, perhaps they should boycott cheaply produced manufactured goods from China or India. Alternatively why don't they travel to the rainforests of South America and protest at those burning down huge areas of forest?
Compulsory purchase orders for property are not exactly new, they have been involved in almost every major civil engineering project in the UK for many years. I can't imagine many, if any at all, of those affected bought their houses before Heathrow opened. If you buy a house next to an airport ..well this kind of thing has to be a possibility to be considered at the time.
EDICHC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7158 times:
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 21): They have the right to demonstrate in a lawful manner, not to illegally disrupt the lives (and rights) of other citizens. Get a permit and do it according to the law. I don't understand why the UK law enforcement agencies do not enforce their own laws. Arrest these jerks and give them a stiff fine, or even some jail time.
Quite, protest if you must but do so without disrupting the lawful activites of others. What these jerks forget is that not everyone is waltzing off on holiday or on business trips. Most of us are ordinary people, often travelling to see relatives perhaps for the first time in many years. Sometimes these trips are made under very distressing circumstances, i.e to visit a gravely ill relative or attend a funeral. You take a full 747 say on the Kangaroo route I would bet that at least a dozen people on average on each flight are travelling for some upsetting reason. But do these a*****es care about that? No only their pathetic and misguided political points are important to them.
What really annoys me is the like of Emma Thomson an over-rated and frankly mediocre actress who is shooting her mouth off in this 'protest' yet how many times does she fly between LHR & LAX on less than necessary trips? Any of these celebs are nothing more than hypocrites.
: The last time I counted FRA had only three runways. And one is used for take-offs only.
: This is what I don't get. When main roads are widened etc etc, what's in the way gets CPO'd. Yet wherever you are you hear "How is it legal for the g
: I don't care if these people want to protest peacefully and lawfully, but if they ever do anything to disrupt people going about their lawful business
: # 4 is on the way, a legal obstacle was removed this week. With some bitter pills like a ridiculous night curfew which is not workable for airlines.
: As long as the NIMBYS can appeal on appeals against appeals against other appeals that again appeal the appeal to appeal against the original decision
: Agreed, and far too much 'say' on whether we can give this lot the thrashing they so richly deserve.
: What utter nonsense. LHR, like any airport, is a facility to allow the airlines to provide the services their customers want. Supply meets demand, et
: Seriously these protesters need to get a life. Do they not have jobs to go to? Or families to attend to? I wonder just how many of them do fly, a larg
: I always wonder how those hippies get so many days of from their "job" to protest. Ever since that wall came down lots of full time activists had noth
: I can't believe the government haven't granted mixed mode. That would be a far cheaper way of expanding airport capacity. All you need is to get NATS
: Mixed mode has been ruled out for the time being, there is enough collateral damage from the thrid runway decision already and they clearly didn't wan
: There are serious security concerns raised by protesters like these at airports, especialy if they enter secure areas. It distracts the limited number
: I realize it's an aviation site, but seriously... They don't want a runway built and they are voicing their opinion. If Acme corp decided to build a p
: "NIMBYS"?? The runway is going to TAKE AWAY their "BY"s - not to mention their houses, their shops and in many cases their businesses - basically, th
: The last five or six times I have flown into Heathrow, it has been busy, and we have been holding for at least 30 minutes, one time it was nearly an h
: I bought a home near STL in 1999. About 2 miles south of the main terminal. I am 3 miles from some of the neighborhoods that were cleared for the new
: N.I.M.B.Y. I wish we where a bit more french about this. If they want to build a new high speed rail line, motorway or any major civil engineering pro
: Well Sipson etc have been around a few HUNDRED years longer than Heathrow. Many of the residents have also been there longer than the airport. It's a
: OH come on. How many of the residents are older than LHR? And they are being paid for their properties (I''ll bet at above market rates as well). The
: I can see it from both sides as a person who has lived under the LHR flightpath for 15 years before I left West London. The TV often had to be turned
: For some this is true, but I doubt most of the protesters who want to infringe on my right to move freely have any connection to Sipson at all, or ev
: Spot on . If that were the case then it would be a bit more understandable. I wonder how many from Sipson were even there.
: It wouldn't surprise me if very few of the flashmobbers were from Sipson. There seems to be an ample supply of rent-a-protesters around these days th
: From reports from people there, they made a bit of noise around the Zone A area, a few people got a bit rude. Not as many showed up as expected, and t
: Have no fear, if I ever see them they will truly find out the meaning of the word 'rude'....
: HIGHLY unlilkely. "Compulsory Purchase" compensations are rarely, if ever, at full market rates.
: Just looked up my old local paper and they are still writing the same stuff about LHR. Just a different battle. http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtime..
: If you have been living there since before the airport maybe but its been there 60 years not 15. What to do with the protesters? Charge them, prosecu
: The villages have been there alot longer if you know the area?? Alot of elderly residents still live there and families have homes that have been pas
: Who would have thought that people on an aviation forum are against those that protest against LHR expansion. This epitomises the entire aviation and
: There are other airports to fly through... Hell-HR is in no way the centre of the universe. It sucks anyway, is congested and it is a pain to reach b
: Its alot better since the terminal moves. Have noticed a huge improvement myself. Was there less than two weeks ago. The last 4 experiences have been
: Im not against anyone protesting against a LHR expansion. They can protest all they like. I feel a lot of sympathy with those who will lose their hom
: Ah, ok if we are talking about people affected by the new runway sure they deserve proper compensation. Yes I do know the area.
: They are comitting an offense, they should have to deal with the consequences. I'm on record as not supporting the 3rd runway BTW.
: One of the papers the other day, could have been the Mirror or Mail, had a little section of an elderly lady who is 80 years old and did a sob story o
: Hi, point taken. Comment was just an example. Was just trying to tackle the issue of progress and it's impact on the environment. As far as I can see
: I recall last year when I was travelling LGW on a weekly basis. When I stood on the platform, (which is at least as close to the runway as the houses)
: Research has shown that planes are less of a noise nuisance than trains. Planes tend to be loud for a short period of time...i.e. only when they are
: Do you have a source for these claims? Certainly they seem to be at total odds with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This Act of Parlia
: First of all, I respect the rights of those protesters who live in Sipson who believe this runway expansion to be unfair. I believe these individuals
: Evidence to support this? My understanding is that Compulsory Purchases legally must meet current market rates. In addition there are additional sums