Jiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 815 times:
Anti-noise protesters opposing the planned new Heathrow Terminal 5 project marched on Downing Street on Saturday.Hundreds of spirited protesters chanted slogans urging a ban on night flights and stopping the T5 plan as they marched from Whitehall to Parliament.
Hacan ClearSkies, which represents residents who live under the west London airport's flight path, delivered a petition to Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Competing in Europe
They stressed they will seek an urgent judicial review on the Government's decision to approve the £2.5bn project this week.
BAA, which owns Heathrow, expects to build the terminal by 2007 and flight movements to increase by 8%.
It says 16,500 jobs will be created or protected by the project. BAA also argues that the terminal is necessary to compete with rival European airports.
But protester Alison Wilson, from East Sheen, south-west London, said the new terminal would dramatically increase the number of flights residents had to endure.
"I am absolutely appalled at the Terminal 5 decision. There are already plenty of planes coming into Heathrow, she said. "We are constantly woken up by flights landing at 5.30am in the morning and in the summer we have to keep the windows shut to stop the noise."
Group chairman John Stewart said the march was also taking place to put pressure on Transport Secretary Stephen Byers to ban night flights from Heathrow. "This terminal will mean at least 20 years of increased noise, pollution and danger," he said.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 11948 posts, RR: 37 Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 786 times:
Sad people; they actually brought along recordings of jet aircraft; I wonder if they drowned out their own speeches!
If they react like this to T5, I wonder how they'll react to R3 (a decision which I strongly suspect has already been taken, despite the plans for a white paper and "public consultation"! As the immortal Sir Humphrey would say, you never have a public inquiry unless you've decided in advance what its findings will be).
It's a courageous and realistic approach by the gov't and I hope they continue to push for growth.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, RR: 80 Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 768 times:
What I find most objectionable is how these people say that they represent everybody. And the BBC lap it up, a report about T5 said that 'local resisdents won't like it'. Well I'm a local resisdent, and surveys have shown that there is a clear majority in favour of T5.
Worse, HACAN draw a lot of their most infuencial support from people in the very wealthy town of Richmond, the sort of people who have several foreign holidays a year, and/or regulary fly on business.
Also, most local authorities around LHR were against T5, and spent MY council tax money on their campaigns.
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 766 times:
And the alternative would be...........?
Heathrow grinding to a halt (it's already bad now!). MORE holding above London! (Move noise for those underneath Bovingdon, Lambourne, Ockham and Biggin. More holding on the ground at Heathrow with engines running (it's already averaging 30 mins for departure, 20 mins for arrivals). The airport will literally run out of gates. When that happens potential flights just won't happen. This, combined with the fact that people don't want to fly into an airport where they're constantly 1-2 hours late due to the lack of space will mean that the whole of the economy of the south of England will suffer. Would you put a big office with employees flying regularly in London with it's massive delays in Heathrow, or put it in Paris, with the beauty of Charles de Gaulle? ANY flight from Heathrow now takes too long to leave the ground. You have to cope with horrendous traffic, inadequate tube and rail links, poor terminals and congestion. In 10-15 years Heathrow will grind to a halt, and starting to build a new terminal/runway THEN will make NO difference.
How dare these people speak for the residents who live near Heathrow?! Most of the residents who live near Heathrow actually WORK AT THE AIRPORT, and a new terminal/runway will be benificial to them! Those that live near the airport but don't work their.....why the fuck would you move next to the world's busiest internation airport?! They then have the nerve to complain about the noise!!
Heathrow needs a new terminal and 2 new parallel runways. If it doesn't get them, kiss "world's busiest international airport", British Airways and the south's economy good bye.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, RR: 80 Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 759 times:
You won't see two new runways at LHR, if it took all that time and money to get approval to build on a disused sewage site within LHR, imagine how long it would take to get approval for runways.
Possibly a new runway at Maplin Sands off the Essex coast, as originally proposed in the early 70's.
Not ideal, it would need fast road and rail links to London, but might be politically viable post 2010 when runway capacity will run out.
777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 757 times:
Yeah, remember how long it took for MAN to get approval for 24L/06R? I remember being there in the late 80s/early 90s and there were displays up in (then) terminal 1 domestic talking about how by 1994 there was gonna be a brand new runway. Not to mention that MAN is realitivly rural -- a runway north of 27R/09L at Heathrow will require BAA to buy 80 houses. Ah well, in 2010 i'll just take the Eurostar over to Paris and fly from there.
Aamd11 From UK - Wales, joined Nov 2001, 1038 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 750 times:
I say Screw people who live their. They have a choice. Living in that area of london is very expensive. if they moved a few miles away they would benifit in two ways. Cheaper housing, and less 'noise'
Many of them may even work at, near for the airport or other related activity. If they dont ike the noise what keeps em there in the first place???!?! Explain that...
T5 is the best thing for Heathrow since T4, and a Thrid runway could soon be on the way.. A 3rd runway is neede as much as the new BA terminal itself.
Virgin and those a T3 complain that their terminal should be updated to cope with the A380, then do it, but BA will be the sole user of T5 and T4 will see no change in Activity, im just curious as to what happens to BA traffic at the other terminals, Florida at T3, and Euro flights at T1!!!
I know that as a short term solution to transfers, BA will shift som Long hauls to T1 in 2003, such as New York!!
But the underlining point is BA, LHR have a long future which has been extended by the construction of T5, and i saysod anyone who is against it, move to somewhere where they used ancient aircraft such as russia! That will be a change from the exteremly quiet 777s and new aircraft... to silly noisy, dirty a/c such as IL-62s, IL-86, IL-76, Tu-154........
Greenjet From Ireland, joined Aug 2001, 924 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 745 times:
Maplin Sands would not be ideal for an airport. Because it's located by an estuary it would be prone to fog and frequent bird strikes. Also by the time the infrastructure is built they could easily have built a new runway at LHR and probably at a lower cost.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12701 posts, RR: 80 Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 734 times:
You're right about Maplin's technical problems, but it will be political factors that decide where a 3rd runway will be, and Maplin looks attractive. Would the fog be any worse than LGW stuck in that valley?
I understand that BA will move all their operations to T5, so A380 operators like Virgin could use T4. T4 was not designed for the A380, predating it by more than a decade, but anticipated larger aircraft than the 747.
55 years on, with hindsight, building an airport so near to a sprawling, expanding population centre was not the best idea, but no one predicted the explosion in air travel then.
Having lived around LHR since the age of 5, I remember how noisey the 707/DC-8/DC-9/737-100 & 200/VC-10 and worst of all, Trident aircraft were. It's galling to hear the NIMBY brigade claim that noise has increased.
Greenjet From Ireland, joined Aug 2001, 924 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 727 times:
Since 1974 movements at LHR have increased by 60% while at the same the number of people affected by noise has dropped 20%. The protesters accuse air traffic of being a big contributor to the greenhouse effect through emissions but if that's their argument then why do these people drive round in cars which is the main source of greenhouse emissions in the modern world?! Jet engines are becoming more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient all the time but these people can't see that. Don't they realise that if T5 and a new runway is not allowed then there's a good chance that the British aviation industry could suffer in the same way as the British shipping and car industries? CDG, AMS and FRA are all waiting to displace LHR.
Instead of Maplin maybe the government should look at somewhere like Southend and develop it.