Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Are The NIMBY's The Biggest Threat To Industry?  
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 2
Posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7138 times:

Overall safety is not an issue ( the accident rate is extremely low and is improving almost every year ), the fuel/oil prices are not an immediate threat ( and when the prices rise, the shock can be absorbed by fees) , and the bird flu is just a bad memory from long time ago. All this threats to the industry seems to be under control, but there is one threat that, at least in my view, is gaining strenght and adepts all over the world ( with the only exception of some countries under undemocratic governments ) : NIMBY's. Probably the most notable examples of how deep can be the effect of this are LHR and FRA, but certainly there are many more cases of airlines, airports and traffic, being seriously affected by this social phenomena.

Are this organizations the biggest threat to the industry in the near-mid term ?
What do you think ?


Regards.
G.-


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
134 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2818 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7124 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

I'm not sure they're a threat to the industry as much as a pest. It always amazes me that the same people who complain about the noise are the same ones who complain about having to connect somewhere. Not to mention if you move somewhere near an airport you have no right to complain. The government has to put their foot down at some point and say sorry but we are just hurting businesses and preventing employment opportunities.
My favorite story of an anti-NIMBY was my buddy's dad. A couple years ago he was a senior VP at Pratt Canada and he lived near Montreal airport. His wife told me one weekend he was sitting outside watching the planes coming into the airport and a guy came up and asked him to sign some petition to change the approach path to the airport. He started laughing and told the guy the whole reason he picked the house was he loved watching the planes. Then told the guy he was dumb for buying a house next to an airport when he hated the noise. Oh how I wish people would have the common sense to move elsewhere.
Blue



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15810 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7061 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Are The NIMBY's The Biggest Threat To Industry?

They're only a threat locally. For every place that resists growth and progress there will be another, more opportunistic and visionary, place that will welcome them with open arms.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6824 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 7042 times:

I'd say they're definitely a threat to general aviation. In fact I live just where aviation had its infancy (parallel to the Wright Brothers, and for some even before their first flight) and one of the early airports is now houses, another is under constant threat from the mayor, a third that is still bordered by fields and quite active (LFPN / TNF) is seeing more houses being build in its immediate vicinity, making me fear the worst, and the fourth is not going anywhere but of no use to GA since it's a military base, home of the presidential aircraft.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6876 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Are this organizations the biggest threat to the industry in the near-mid term ?

A provocative thought: Are they aviations blessing?

Where would we be if airports had expanded "without limits"? I fear most airlines would be stuck with a very large number of small planes flying with such frequency there would be no profitability.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26011 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6814 times:

The industry is it own biggest internal threat.

The industry needs to police itself from areas as diverse as consumer protections, the manner customers are handled to things like environment issues and being a good neighbor in the communities it operates.

Its only when the industry does poorly, and brings the bad press upon itself that things like government responds.

For external threats, biggest is the global economy. Simply put as the economy goes, so goes the industry.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinefrmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1732 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6802 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
The industry is it own biggest internal threat.

I quite agree. Far fewer industries are destroyed by external causes than by internal.



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6824 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6740 times:

What about buying lots of farmland around future airports (and renting it back to farmers) so that there will be no NIMBYs long term ?


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9657 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6681 times:

Yes, they are, but only in combination with weak politicians who do not understand the business. Not the airline business and not business in general. Weak politicians making populistic decisions that cater to a minority of selfish people who bought cheap houses near an airport and all of a sudden have noise they "never expected".

New runways, where the best solutiuon, the one with the least impact was chosen, with all information on the table, with all democratic procedure open, public. No reasonable objections cam but now since the runway is in operation a minority cries loud to close it again.

The damage here in FRA has been done with a unworkable night curfew between 11pm and 5 am, No one wanted to have night oeprations like in daytime. But a few needed cargoi flights are needed. The worst case was that flights, fully loaded and despatched off block had to return to the gate because of reasons the airline has no influence on. Just because it was 23h01 the flights could not start anmd 500 pax were stranded.

Carriers brought forward departure times, latest long distance block time at FRA is now 22h15 and 22h30 for short haul and then we have a moron of new mayor at FRA who advocates the curfew for 22h00 to 06h00. That would kill FRA as a hub

This nightcap really thinks that the (all) citizens switch of the lights 22h00 sharp and snore happily until 06h00 when they have to, by decret of the mayor, wake up. Oh holy simpleness.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineCPHFF From Sweden, joined Aug 2011, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6633 times:

The 2 biggest threats to the industry imho:

1) Fuel prices
2) Passengers who expect to always fly across Europe for € 99 r/t



Detroit is bankrupt. Don't forget to thank UAW folks!
User currently offlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6515 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6496 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
It always amazes me that the same people who complain about the noise are the same ones who complain about having to connect somewhere

Wher did you get that info from?


User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6467 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
I'm not sure they're a threat to the industry as much as a pest.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 3):
I'd say they're definitely a threat to general aviation.
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 8):
Yes, they are, but only in combination with weak politicians who do not understand the business.

I'm with you in all of this to be honest. One of the things that I found really annoying and disturbing here in my home country, is that every NIMBY association happily rejects all kind of projects, but no one, I repeat, NO ONE, propose an alternate way to solve the problem. One clear example : every one wants electricity, but at the same time, there are complains about EVERY single way of generation for that electricity.... Coal ? Too dirty. Wind Power ? Visually unfriendly. Nuclear ? Too Dangerous !! Hydraulic ? Too disruptive... How on Earth can you deal with this people ??????
Regarding Airports, please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but both LHR and FRA are OLD airports, and were constructed and developed many years before the surrounding homes.... so, you bought a house near an airport, but you don't like the noise ? Well, then you are a big .......................-
Is like buying a home next to a Pig's Farm and complaining about the smell... What did this people around LHR and FRA expect ???? "Electric" mute planes ?
Ok, Rant off, I feel better now ....     

Regards.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinejumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 868 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6406 times:

I'd be interested to know how many of the people who criticise NIMBY's for opposing unrelenting airport expansions actually live close to an airport or under a flight path?

What right do people who don't suffer from airport activity have to criticse those who object to seeing the value of their homes and the quality of lives reduced - or worse still, their homes destroyed, to satisfy the desires of airport planners?

NIMBYs may be an obstacle to aviation development - but then they have every right to protect their lives from the interference of others.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9657 posts, RR: 31
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6387 times:

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 12):
actually live close to an airport or under a flight path?

well, I do. Right underneath TABUM departure route. i get everything from regional to A380s. Usually at evenings starting around 8 pm till closure. Plus, I have an inbound route from the west which turns into the landing pattern east of FRA. Plus a helicopter route bypassing the terminal area.

If that's not enough, Erbenheinm AAF whoich sends traning flights low leveöl over the A3 Autobahn, but I can usually just see them, the Aiutobahn is too noisy and the distance is 3 km.

Enough to quaalify?

Infrastructure must be adapted to the public requirements from time to time. Flying is not for fun, it is an essential service to the national economies.

There is a story our late mayor liked to tell about a farmer in the 1870s or so, when the railway line was built and the prospectors lined out a right of way which went right through the farmers barn. Now, the farmer said, over a glass of apple cider in the local pub. "They must not think that every time a train comes I run out and open the barndoor" "They" had news for him.

.,



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6375 times:

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 12):
I'd be interested to know how many of the people who criticise NIMBY's for opposing unrelenting airport expansions actually live close to an airport or under a flight path?

What right do people who don't suffer from airport activity have to criticse those who object to seeing the value of their homes and the quality of lives reduced - or worse still, their homes destroyed, to satisfy the desires of airport planners?

Your point of view is valid ONLY if the homes are there BEFORE the airport, and then a mayor , or aviation authority, decides to build the facility next to your house. But I insist, in many, many cases, probably the vast majority, Airports were there well before the people who decided to move there. Those who want a cheap house because is next to a dumpster, must be prepared to deal with the smell, the rats, the insects and the vagabond dogs, or should wait, save more money, and buy a house in a better place. Simple like that.


Quoting PanHAM (Reply 13):
Quoting jumpjets (Reply 12):actually live close to an airport or under a flight path?

well, I do.

Me too. I live under the departure path usually taken by the Chilean AF's F-16 in their daily flights for training, positioning or whatever. I can tell you a F-16 fighter jet is " a little noisier" than a 77W or A346, by the way.
I want to live in a country with well trained pilots ? Yes. If we go to war someday ( never say never ) they will fight for me and risk their lives doing that, so I don't complain about loosing some lines of the movie because one of that pilots is training over my head. Life is not only about my rights, its about my responsibilities too.
I can bet you all of this NIMBY's fanatics will made a big scandal if they must travel 50 miles by road to reach an airport situated in a place where "nobody is affected".

Rgds.
G.

[Edited 2012-10-25 06:31:05 by SA7700]


80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlinejustinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6322 times:

Don't you guys think Emirates is the biggest threat to industry?  Smile

I am not joking...They are kind of using predatory pricing strategy.

[Edited 2012-10-25 06:16:42]

User currently offlineGonzalo From Chile, joined Aug 2005, 1992 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6261 times:

Quoting justinlee (Reply 15):
Don't you guys think Emirates is the biggest threat to industry?

I am not joking...They are kind of using predatory pricing strategy.

They are in position to do all that precisely because their home-base is in a country where there are no NIMBY's trying to impose curfews to night ops and all kind of restrictions that can affect the airline and Hub strategy of EK.
If EK should face the same challenges that BA / LHR and LH / FRA has to deal with every day, they will be probably a much smaller and "harmless" airline, but that is not EK fault, their are taking advantage of a situation ( created and tolerated ) in the UK / Germany....Just my opinion...


Rgds.
G.



80 Knots...V1...Rotate...Gear Up...DC-3 / EMB-110 / Fairchild-227 / Ab318-19-20 / B732 / B763
User currently offlineRichcandy From UK - England, joined Aug 2001, 728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6223 times:

Hi

This is not an easy question to answer and this is just my view.

I find it unpleasant to think that houses that are maybe 300 years old and villages and churches that are maybe 1000 years old might get demolished so that a runway can be built.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 11):
Regarding Airports, please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but both LHR and FRA are OLD airports, and were constructed and developed many years before the surrounding homes.... so, you bought a house near an airport, but you don't like the noise ? Well, then you are a big .......................-

I don't disagree with what you are saying, however how would you feel if you were told that the home you have spent most of your life paying for is going to be demolished so that an airport can be extended? Yes you would get cash for it but you have then got to find a new home, in a area where there is a shortage of property. Your going to get cash and most likely be ok, but what about those who are first time buyers or closer to the bottom of the chain. They just get pushed out. A few years ago in London a lot of homes were bought by wealthy Russians, now my understanding is that wealthy Greeks are buying up the city as money is safer in overseas property than Greek banks. The average salary is London is around £30,000 per year. If you and your husband/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend are both earning that then you have little chance of being able to buy a studio apartment even 40 mins out of town.

I am not saying that nothing should ever be build, but I just wonder if the airline industry needs to be smarter. Maybe rather than using aircraft like 737's and 320's to operate a route 10 or 11 times a day, switch to larger aircraft and have less flights. Or start looking at opening hubs in smaller cities. After all if you are flight say BA from NYC to FCO does it matter if you change at LHR or just for example GLA?

As I said just my view.

Alex


User currently offlinePMUA787 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 6223 times:

I was always puzzled by the NIMBY's around PAE that were trying to block scheduled service there. You have the biggest assembly facilities for all of Boeing's widebody aircraft and the ATS Maintenance facility that does heavy checks for WN and AS among other airlines. What's the big deal with some additional flights with some QX Q400's and a couple of G4 MD-80's or soon to be A319's or B757's to Hawaii? These same NIMBY's also probably complain about the drive to SEA as well.

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6186 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 14):
Your point of view is valid ONLY if the homes are there BEFORE the airport,

Are you prepared to take that argument full way? The houses where there first so the airport should know there will be people living there. That villages grow so over time there will be more people living there? Or that the airport should not be allowed to expand above what it was when the people moved in?

It is a very stupid argument that only makes sense if you have a one sided view.

I'm not against expanding airports but it is ridiculous to think that it, or anything else, can expand without constraints.


User currently offlinejumpjets From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2012, 868 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6162 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 19):
I'm not against expanding airports but it is ridiculous to think that it, or anything else, can expand without constraints.

As someone who lives east of Heathrow in an area full of property built in the 1930s when Heathrow as we know it didn't exist I entirely agree with the sentiment. As a late arrival to the area I don't claim any great right to [and indeed don't] object to runway 3 etc but my elderly neighbours who have been here for 60 years certainly do have such a right.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6150 times:

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 12):
I'd be interested to know how many of the people who criticise NIMBY's for opposing unrelenting airport expansions actually live close to an airport or under a flight path?

I live in the flight path of NAS Oceana, and i can tell you that anyone around a commercial airport has no idea what actual unfettered jet noise sounds like.

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 12):
What right do people who don't suffer from airport activity have to criticse those who object to seeing the value of their homes and the quality of lives reduced - or worse still, their homes destroyed, to satisfy the desires of airport planners?

NIMBYs may be an obstacle to aviation development - but then they have every right to protect their lives from the interference of others.

They need to protect their lives by living somewhere else if it is that big of an issue to them.


User currently offlinetonystan From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 1445 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6133 times:

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1):
He started laughing and told the guy the whole reason he picked the house was he loved watching the planes. Then told the guy he was dumb for buying a house next to an airport when he hated the noise

That made me laugh. About 7 years ago when I used to live directly under the LHR flight path in Windsor I had some NIMBY arrive at the door with a petition to prevent any further expansion of LHR and mixed mode runway operations. I asked the lady when she herself first moved to the area. She proudly proclaimed that she had been living there since 1982. At which point I asked her how long after that LHR was opened. She suddenly looked all perplexed and said "but it has been here since the war"! To which I said..."Exactly....now arent you a fool to move in next door to an already established major airport". She started babbling about this and that, I then asked her how many runways LHR used to have to which she had no idea and I told her that there was far more runways in the past then there are today which was the real disgrace....needless to say she disappeared with her tail tucked between her legs and didnt even see her pop into any of the neighbours!



My views are my own and do not reflect any other person or organisation.
User currently offlinejcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 537 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6111 times:

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 12):
I'd be interested to know how many of the people who criticise NIMBY's for opposing unrelenting airport expansions actually live close to an airport or under a flight path?

I did for the better part of my life. I'll be more than happy to post an address so you can google and see it was about 1.5 miles from the end of 28R at ORD. Growing up when winds prevailed a certain way, we had arrivals landing every 30 seconds and let me tell you, if it wasn't for ORD, I wouldn't be where I'm at now in my life.

For me, I'd rather fight against a porn shop being intown or a liquor store being built close to a school over expanding an airport.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6074 times:

Quoting Gonzalo (Thread starter):
Are The NIMBY's The Biggest Threat To Industry?

No for the simple reason that the greatest supporters of unlimited expansion often live no where near an airport. How may politicians have you heard proclaim that the would be happy to live next to a nuclear power station or reprocessing plant, safe in the knowledge that it would never be built in his constituency. He supports the industry one hundred percent because they know it will not affect him adversely (it usually is a he but a she might act the same way). They can best be described as NIMBYS because they favour expansion knowing that it will be somewhere else and affect someone else. Clearly NIMBY does not necessarily translate to being opposed to expansion but just to who pays the environmental and/ or social price of that expansion.

Quoting cmf (Reply 4):
A provocative thought: Are they aviations blessing?

I like this thought and it is not just limited to larger aircraft with lower frequencies but innovations that lead the aircraft to have lower noise (and other) emissions. Would these occur if there was no imperative? Given that many industries only respond to costs, would they not simply concentrate on fuel efficiency (in itself desirable) while ignoring other factors like noise? Do we not all benefit form such improvements in technology?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 8):
that cater to a minority of selfish people

That argument might hold water if it is assumed that investors are entirely selfless. Investors are purely driven by the desire to improve society and benefit their fellow man. In reality this is rarely true. I don't mean that they are predisposed to be anti-social. far from it. But many, if not all, investors in any industry seek to make a profit. Nothing wrong with that. To most it doesn't matter whether they make a profit from selling airline tickets, cars, guns or beer. That being the case, how can we assume that they are any less selfish than those who oppose limitless expansion and an absence of regulation? As a shareholder I want the best dividend or improvement in share value that I can get, otherwise I can always put the money in bonds or fixed term investments if they yield better results.


25 type-rated : This happens a lot. Especially around ORD. When ORD was built way back when the entire area around it was farmland. Soon after subdivisions popped up
26 Gonzalo : I can say exactly the same for ( your ) opposite way of thinking. They want good service on board, low fares, top notch airplanes, a good frequency f
27 Post contains images Quokkas : This assumes that all NIMBYS are the same people. They are not necessarily so. Advocates of nuclear power will cheerfully oppose coal because of the
28 Post contains links Gonzalo : Oh well, that was not my intention, I was only trying to point out that the ones complaining about "the problem" ( no matter if it is an airport or a
29 PPVRA : Every right, actually. And the people who own the airport have every right to protect their livelihoods from the interference of others. He has no ri
30 gegarrenton : Correct, and that is the trade off. It still doesn't give any credence to aforementioned people bitching.
31 PanHAM : Without investors there would be nothing, few people can realise their ideas without money. But that's not the case here, at least not with Fraport w
32 cmf : Then you're making the same mistake twice. That is packing the problem in a box that is so small it doesn't contain more than a small fraction. To us
33 Gonzalo : Rgds. G.
34 lewis : It happens every day. There are lots of things being constructed that require houses to be torn down and people relocated, from roads to freeways to
35 cmf : So you are reducing the problem to just a tiny part of the total.
36 Post contains images mayor : Then they probably should have realized, when they were house shopping, that the area beyond their neighborhood, surrounded by fencing and with all t
37 cmf : The airports should have realized that when they generate noise outside their property they will be slapped with restrictions... It isn't/shouldn't b
38 PPVRA : Values are entirely subjective and vary all the time. When the 737 MAX comes out, it will have an effect on the value of 737NGs - by no means has Boe
39 FWAERJ : With the declining service at some regional airports, some NIMBYs also are calling for the complete shutdown of regional airports close to a major cit
40 ltbewr : One NIMBY issue is how many airport owners or operators are being extorted by local governments to spend millions to 'sound proof' schools for example
41 rwy04lga : So did I. I bought a house that's 40 seconds from the TDZ and 1000 feet off the extended centerline of LGA's runway 04..... ....and I grew up to dail
42 cmf : Don't see how this is related to the text you quoted when stating it. Correct. Yet that is what so many people here insist it should be. Stating whoe
43 PPVRA : It's an analogy. It's not about who was there first, it's about not dictating how others use their property and vice versa.
44 mayor : There probably wasn't a noise problem, in a wide open area like they were then, when the airport was first built. BTW, how do you restrict noise from
45 cmf : How does it explain "no such thing as a right to the VALUE of something"? I'm all for this. But that is not what is happening when people state that
46 RIXrat : I would like to chime in and say follow the money. If, hypothetically, for instance, LHR or FRA management throw up their hands and decide to relocate
47 mayor : Yes, it's serious......is this???......."You make sure to own all property affected" Just to make sure your airport isn't encroached upon, do they bu
48 cmf : You asked for how it is done. That is one option. An option that is used a lot. Can't be used everywhere but that is a different issue. You need to s
49 FlyingAY : It seems to me that the discussion is full of black-and-white extreme opinions. However, the fact is that people needs airports and airports are place
50 Post contains images Gonzalo : Are your propositions serious ? Let's see... So we should notify Airbus and Boeing to stop all the factories... from now on, only VTOL planes are all
51 cmf : Failing to acknowledge well established methods to reduce effects of noise and other forms of pollution is extremely ignorant. I find your unreasonab
52 Aesma : Well, it's affordable BECAUSE THERE IS AN AIRPORT ! Are they trying to do a real estate operation by buying cheap, make the airport leave and sell fo
53 n729pa : If you don't like the sound of planes going over, you don't live under the flight path then do you. If we'd had Nimby's in the 19th century, would the
54 PanHAM : Years ago, DUS bought houses in Lohausen. The city part which borders direct to the airport perimeter. The airport rented some of the houses but to bu
55 gegarrenton : Then you know! I actually pine for the days of F4's and F14's. The new F18 Super Hornet's are excruciatingly loud. I don't miss the A6's though, they
56 frmrCapCadet : This will always be a political problem. Fair to complain. Fair to complain about the complaints. Fair to complain about the complaints to the complai
57 mayor : Reasonable discussion means realizing that the other side might have a valid opinion. I see none of that from you. There will always be NIMBYS.......
58 sovietjet : It's very simple. 1) If you move under the flightline next to an airport which has been there for a long time BEFORE your house was there, and then co
59 Post contains images lightsaber : NIMBYs constraining development hurt the entire region's economic growth. But there will be airport growth. There are 400 runways under construction w
60 PanHAM : we do not have this "nowhere " in Germany. Even if, as you rightfully said, the area would be crowded in 10 to 20 years. I have seen the development
61 brilondon : The biggest threats to the industry, I think are lack of capital, poor management with fuzzy vision, and the over capacity diluting the demand for air
62 mayor : And SLC........part of the north end of the airport is grazing land for cattle.
63 jsnww81 : There does seem to be some truth to this. If you watch footage shot at US airports back in the 1960s and 1970s, it really is remarkable how shallow t
64 tdscanuck : It's not very simple. 3) You move under the flightline next to an airport and are happy with the state. Then the airport doubles the flight rate. 4)
65 Post contains images sovietjet : All things you should've considered before moving under the flightline
66 mayor : I'm sorry, but unless you don't realize that the airport is there, at all, all these things can happen at any airport and to expect things to not cha
67 tdscanuck : Of course you should consider them. But it's totally unrealistic to think that, as the homeowner, you bear *all* the responsibility for changes that
68 mayor : I think what I'm getting at is, if there is already an airport next door or a factory or a neighbor that has rock parties in the wee hours, it seems
69 mandala499 : I don't like NIMBY's... the extreme ones who want closures or crippling handicaps to the airport (which is effectively, the same thing but on a diffe
70 Quokkas : As this is an aviation forum I am not surprised that many are in favour of unrestrained use and expansion at airports. "I live under the flight path a
71 PanHAM : you should see what the opponents of airport expansion think about "freedom of speech". Just look up some local on-line forums, if anyone dares to be
72 Post contains images Quokkas : Sadly, this is true and it occurs in many debates. Instead of a rational argument based on sound economic, social or other considerations there is an
73 sweair : The problem is with modern people that they believe everything around them should be changed for their needs. The centre of the universe. There are ac
74 gegarrenton : I just don't see anyone making that argument. I see a several folks who are making the opposite extreme argument, but not that. The whole premise is
75 PanHAM : at least the flight could depart and an A380 climbing out over Botany Bay really is not such a nuisance. In the 80s and 90s I often stayed at the air
76 9VSIO : I think the planners of Changi Airport were very wise in situating the airport with flightpaths out to the sea, where there would be no one to annoy!
77 Post contains images Gonzalo : Don't claim the victory so soon my friend, I heard a rumor about a fishermen association starting to complain about the fish getting scared by the no
78 cmf : You see none of that from me? I have advocated balancing the needs of all sides. I have objected to the argument that whoever is at a place first may
79 strandedinbgm : No. Poor management and the price of fuel are.
80 ltbewr : One other area restraining expanision of airports and creating new ones used by NIMBY's is enviromental demands and regulations. That includes from no
81 sweair : Well I am sick of the type of people that make up the NIMBYs, they are so full of it it sickens me. No to everything that they don't like, their need
82 gegarrenton : But those people aren't in this thread. It's a strawman argument you are using to rant on.
83 mayor : Exactly how is this done when there is noise generated on approach? It may not be as noisy as departures, but the NIMBYS still object to it. Even on
84 FI642 : May I add cannibalisation to that list. There are only a finite number of passengers and freight. Killing competition for six extra passengers, and m
85 Gonzalo : ALL noise would be contained inside airport property ?? Are you kidding me ?? Almost every modern airplane flying today, taking off with FLEX MODE, i
86 PanHAM : Wrong comparison. You are responsible for yourself to make it to the gate in time. The airline depends on a number of suppliers, agencies egulations
87 Post contains images mayor : Wow, that must be deafening. The NIMBYs in the area will probably want to have them rounded them up and have them moved.
88 Post contains links cmf : So you behave like you claim they are doing. Is it a two wrongs makes it right kind of thing?? I objected to your statement that the first to an area
89 m404 : No. The number one threat overall is simple economics. Fares are increasing but the average income is decreasing. How to keep filling aircraft profita
90 Gonzalo : Or maybe he is just a big ignorant. Or he understands how ridiculous is his statement, but is confident in the ( sad ) fact of that statement giving
91 mayor : Why don't YOU tell me how this is done on approach, when in most cases, that happens way beyond the airport boundaries? Just a hypothetical situation
92 cmf : So after all these posts you have finally come around from: But I also disagree with your statement that the majority should prevail. You need to hav
93 cmf : Why don't you backup your statements? Instead of trying to change tense The same way they have reduced noise up to now. a) By using equipment that ge
94 737tdi : In most cases this is just untrue. I will speak to what I know. Dallas Love Field. This airport has been here for generations. About World War 1. I h
95 PanHAM : I return this compliment. Of course you can be delayed because of traffic or whatever. But that is ypour presonal responsibility, whereas an airline
96 FlyingAY : So let's see, I'm totally responsible for myself even when my suppliers (taxi driver, transport operator etc.) screw up, but when the suppliers of th
97 PanHAM : read your conditions of contract. Close out of cut off time is shown on the BP. If the airline delays for reasons she can control the airline has to
98 Gonzalo : Again, that is true only when the claim of both sides is fair and legitimate. When both positions in a dispute have fair and legitimate rights to def
99 gegarrenton : You seem to have issue with not using a strawman as the basis for your rants. Please state where I said that "the first to the area have the right to
100 FlyingAY : You implied that manufacturing of goods moves out of Germany because FRA has a curfew. That's what I questioned. Since you have 45 years of experienc
101 PanHAM : Glad to. Manufacturing as well as the flow of spare parts of certain items are streamlined and tailored to the availability of flgith connections. Pe
102 Post contains links and images cmf : Since you brought up DAL I took a quick look at it. I did not find any pictures from WW 1 but I found http://digitalcollections.smu.edu/cdm/ref/colle
103 PanHAM : Thats why LH scheduled all intercont flights latest 22h15 block time. We all know, at least should now, that there are circumstance beyond the contro
104 mayor : We're talking about two different groups of people, here. I'm saying that if you buy or build, next to the airport, after it's established, you get e
105 Post contains links cmf : There are circumstances outside individuals control but for them you say read the contract. I say "read the contract" to companies and individuals. I
106 Gonzalo : There is a small, tiny, little difference... if I show up late to my flight ( because whatever reason ), the only one screwed is me. If an airline or
107 sovietjet : Perhaps all passenger jets should now take off and land "Afghanistan style" i.e. a spiral path departure and land. Boy that would be a fun flight at l
108 Post contains images cmf : I'm saying that airports and people need to be good neighbours. You're simplifying too much. You are saying that people moving in close to an airport
109 gegarrenton : No, you obviously aren't, look below. Unless my name changed to Gonzalo without me noticing, you haven't remotely responded to a point I have made. A
110 cmf : There rarely am I the only one screwed. So are everyone I traveled to see. What if I was going to talk in front of thousands of people, not common bu
111 gegarrenton : Still a swing and a miss. It would be a lot better if you would just admit I never said that. Given your responses, I am not even sure you know you a
112 Post contains links sovietjet : Really? Let's take a look. I have looked up noise data from here: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...e_emissions/aircraft_noise_levels/ Obviously
113 cmf : I know that more often than not the person bringing up strawman is the person who has a point that can't be argued for. Your whole argument is withou
114 Post contains images sovietjet : So basically, since you have no argument you just dismiss mine. OK. Mind if I ask you what is "acceptable noise"? I provided numbers, so I'd like to
115 cmf : No I dismiss it because it is a bad argument. The sum of your argument is that because it is better today everything is fine. Transposed to the extre
116 AirframeAS : I think the biggest threat NIMBY's are, unfortunately, are to themselves. Big hypocrites they are, I tell ya...... They cry about one thing, yet they
117 sovietjet : Why? Like I said, I only looked up those numbers to show you that this: was wrong... Yes, I do think that is OK. The thing is, you will never reach a
118 Gonzalo : With your analogy in mind, there is no such thing as ZERO Risk. There is always some risk of being killed by a nurse during a small and "irrelevant"
119 mayor : NO, I am saying that people are stupid to move or build next to an established airport or even a racetrack, like the example I gave before. The racet
120 tdscanuck : Why are we myopically fixating on dB? Frequency, hours of operation, and flight routes have at least as much to do with it (probably more) as the abs
121 Post contains images Quokkas : Please PanHAM. You can't have your cake and eat it. Your retort to cmf about a passenger being late was basically "too bad, read the contract, it's y
122 Post contains images Gonzalo : Nope....what I'm saying is, the impact of "me" loosing a flight just cause damage to me, and maybe to the people waiting for me in the destination, e
123 Quokkas : Same here. Debate is vital. As I have stated previously, I support the healthy growth of aviation. If I didn't, I wouldn't be in this forum. However,
124 PanHAM : You provided yoy statistics for September onbly. I have provided the yoy statoistoics for jan to Sep. by ADV, told you several times, seems still not
125 tdscanuck : Just as it is not fair for people to move next to an airport knowing the laws in place and then, *AFTER* they move there, have the laws changed under
126 PanHAM : That is not their job. If a ruling "makes new law", the parliament can always clarify that. The way is that either the executive or the legislation b
127 Gonzalo : There is a cost for the 99.5 %. They pay much higher rents ( or "tag" prices) for their homes "noise free" in better places. And there are a large po
128 tdscanuck : On that grounds, even people that predate the airport have no basis for complaint...they moved near a whole bunch of vacant-ish land. Building an air
129 Post contains images sovietjet : Let's take it back even further. I think the native americans should be complaining that the white men from England built stuff on their land
130 PanHAM : there is always a basis for complaint for someone. We have currently a similar issue with railway lines in the narrow Rhine Valley. The railway exist
131 YULWinterSkies : As a straight answer to your question: no. Rock bottom yields are the biggest threat. NIMBYs are people and have a right to voice an opinion, and nego
132 tdscanuck : N. America has lots of uncontrolled railway crossings (i.e. they can't be closed and don't have any lights). Running across those with a train withou
133 PanHAM : it is the most perishable product in the world, it expires once the doors are closed, 20 minutes before it starts getting produced. Yield management
134 brilondon : Courts do not make law, the can rule whether the law is constitutional or applicable in the particular situation, but they cannot make law. We give t
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...
Storm Bring Tornado Threat To The USA Midwest posted Sat Apr 14 2012 08:38:53 by readytotaxi
Are These The First 2 767-300ER's To Be Scrapped? posted Tue Aug 18 2009 05:44:08 by 76er
Will The "new" LTU Become A Threat To AUA? posted Sat Feb 18 2006 07:09:22 by Beaucaire
NZ New Product A Threat To QF (The Australian) posted Mon Nov 7 2005 23:19:24 by Pilottim747
Are The NH 744's Eventuallygoing To Be Phased Out? posted Tue Sep 20 2005 09:32:06 by Ktachiya
How Are The New Airtran Routes To IND, CLT Doing? posted Wed Jun 1 2005 18:31:41 by Quickmover
What Are The Chances Of UAL Mainline To MDW posted Sat Apr 16 2005 21:13:24 by GalvanAir777
Where Are The First 738s For AS Going To Go? posted Tue Jan 4 2005 18:49:19 by BCAInfoSys
What Are The Cheapest Days To Fly? posted Fri Dec 31 2004 16:11:28 by Clickhappy
Suicide Bomber On Aircraft Is The Biggest Threat posted Sun Sep 5 2004 20:53:45 by Eugdog