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.-

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

The 2 biggest threats to the industry imho:

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

.,

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]

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Quoting tonystan (Reply 22): "Exactly....now arent you a fool to move in next door to an already established major airport"

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 and the NIMBY action started. Duh, didn't you know when you bought your house and being so close to a large airport that there might be the possibility of low level aircraft flying over your house?

When I was growing up in the 50's we lived in an area that was few short miles from MDW. We'd see low flying DC-6's, Constellations, etc. over our house/yard. But nobody ever said anything about it. We just knew the airport was close by and that's part of what you get for living there.

Quoting cmf (Reply 19): It is a very stupid argument that only makes sense if you have a one sided view.

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 for their travel, a flag carrier wearing proudly their national symbols..... but they don't want the airport expands, because is "noisy".... Grow Up !!! It would be more smart from their part if just sell the house and move to a farm in the middle of nowhere. It's very quiet over there.

G.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 11): One clear example : every one wants electricity, but at the same time, there are complains about EVERY single way of generation for that electricity

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 dangers of lung disease and pitfalls, while ignoring meltdowns. Coal miners may oppose wind generation pointing out the high costs of producing the sails, etc. In every walk of life there are people with conflicting interests.

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

This ignores the question of why people live near to an airport in the first place. Not everyone can afford to purchase a greenfield site in a prestigious location. Housing affordability, where a persons job may be, access to other resources, proximity to family and a host of other factors may play a part. It also ignores the fact that in most instances no one was ever asked in the first place and no one could ever predict the extent to which aviation has become successful. Yes people make choices but those choices are often made within external limits. Should those people's views be discounted simply because they don't accord with your own? In a democratic society everyone is entitled to express an opinion. Where they live does not make it any more or less valid than any one else's though it may influence it..

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 16): 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

I will ignore the part about predatory pricing and simply point you in the direction of various ASAs that allow for punitive action if that occurs as it has nothing to do with NIMBYism. However on a general note, EK is an airline that is perhaps more than many others bound by all sorts of restrictions imposed outside of the UAE. One simple reason is that they offer no domestic flights. That means that every single flight they operate is governed to a major extent by the laws of other countries. People complain about middle of the night transfers in Dubai, ignoring that it is largely a result of the ban on night operations in Europe and 24/7 does benefit European carriers who can time their departures to avoid the curfew. DXB is not alone in that. We also see a lot of night time transfers in SIN, HKG and BKK for the same reason.

EK"s aircraft are subject to the same noise and other emission standards as every other aircraft at FRA, JFK, HKG or CPT. This means that like at a number of airports in other countries, including my own local airport (three kilometers from where I live) nighttime operations do not impose additional noise beyond daytime limits imposed in other countries. Despite this, Dubai Airport does maintain noise monitoring and has banned certain aircraft that fail to meet noise standards from operating. Additionally EK has experimented with different departure and approach angles to see whether this will reduce the impact of noise and one of the considerations of moving to DWC was that it would not be in the centre of town.


Edited to change angels to angles.  

[Edited 2012-10-25 09:10:12]

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 27): This assumes that all NIMBYS are the same people.

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 nuclear plant ), are in most cases absolutely useless when you ask them for "the solution". It is very easy and comfy to say NO for a project, because affect your interest, and leave the problem unsolved for all the rest of the society or community. That is precisely what I find extremely selfish about this people. How many people use every year LHR or FRA ? Millions !!! How many neighbours are "seriously affected" by the "horrible noise" ? 1000 ? 3000 ? I just found unacceptable that the caprice of a 0,01 % of the population can affect the overall benefit for the whole city. If they feel so disturbed by the fact that there are an airport close to their home, sell the house, live and let live. Otherwise, shut up and allow the immense majority of the people to use the airport in the more convenient way.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 27): Not everyone can afford to purchase a greenfield site in a prestigious location. Housing affordability, where a persons job may be, access to other resources, proximity to family and a host of other factors may play a part.

Err.... yes, that is basically the way the market fix the pricing for almost everything in life... If you have 2.000 dollars you can have a Chinese city-car with a seat belt, and if you have 200.000 dollars you can have Mercedes or a Porsche with 8 airbags, and maybe eject-able seats if you want. So what ? What are you suggesting ? The only way of having an airport that doesn't affect "anybody" ( poor or rich ), is putting the airport in the middle of nowhere 60 or 80 miles away, and the very same people screaming about the noise will then complain about how far is the airport and all the time they lost driving from there....

If you don't believe me, just read some of the replies here and see for your self :

Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR? (by Gonzalo Aug 21 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Rgds.
G.

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?

Every right, actually.

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 12): NIMBYs may be an obstacle to aviation development - but then they have every right to protect their lives from the interference of others.

And the people who own the airport have every right to protect their livelihoods from the interference of others.

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 20): 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.

He has no right other than the right to his property, which he should never be compelled to sell by the government. There is no such thing as a right to the VALUE of something.

[Edited 2012-10-25 11:01:55]

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 27): This ignores the question of why people live near to an airport in the first place. Not everyone can afford to purchase a greenfield site in a prestigious location. Housing affordability, where a persons job may be, access to other resources, proximity to family and a host of other factors may play a part.

Correct, and that is the trade off. It still doesn't give any credence to aforementioned people bitching.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 24): That argument might hold water if it is assumed that investors are entirely selfless. I

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 who finance the complete 7 billion extension program, which includes the new runway, the A+ pier and T3 from cash flow and bank loans.

The airport is a money machine with 50% of the income from retail. It's a PLC and although the major shareholders are the state of Hesse and the city of Frankfurt, they are just that, sharehoolders. The company is run like a private corporation.

This is quite remarkabe for a piece of public infrastructure, which, not too far ago, would be an expensive department of the municipality, needing, like public transport, millions in subsidy each year in most European countries. The change in attitude has much to do with the EU and liberalisation of business in general.

So, here we have no investors. OTH, investors would be stupid if they give their money to others without expecting a return on their investment., that would be like people going to work each day without expecting pay.


.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 26): I can say exactly the same for ( your ) opposite way of thinking.

Then you're making the same mistake twice.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 26): They want good service on board, low fares, top notch airplanes, a good frequency for their travel, a flag carrier wearing proudly their national symbols..... but they don't want the airport expands, because is "noisy".... Grow Up !!! It would be more smart from their part if just sell the house and move to a farm in the middle of nowhere. It's very quiet over there.

That is packing the problem in a box that is so small it doesn't contain more than a small fraction. To use your own words - GROW UP !!!

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 28): I was only trying to point out that the ones complaining about "the problem" ( no matter if it is an airport or a nuclear plant ), are in most cases absolutely useless when you ask them for "the solution". It is very easy and comfy to say NO for a project, because affect your interest, and leave the problem unsolved for all the rest of the society or community.

But you are doing the same. You say they should move but then you expand everything so it encroaches again. Few of those you group as NIMBY's are not for total ban. yes there are some but they are a small vocal minority. Most want limits. Don't be noisier than this. Limit pollutants.

It isn't much different from how you can't blast the stereo past specific times in many towns.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 28): If they feel so disturbed by the fact that there are an airport close to their home, sell the house, live and let live. Otherwise, shut up and allow the immense majority of the people to use the airport in the more convenient way

Move the airport to that place then...

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 29): There is no such thing as a right to the VALUE of something.

Please explain.

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 30): Correct, and that is the trade off. It still doesn't give any credence to aforementioned people bitching.

For some that is the reason. For others there are many other reasons. It isn't as simple as you try to make it.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32): Move the airport to that place then...

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 28): the very same people screaming about the noise will then complain about how far is the airport and all the time they lost driving from there.... If you don't believe me, just read some of the replies here and see for your self : Could An "Artificial Island Airport" Replace LHR? (by Gonzalo Aug 21 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Rgds.
G.

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?

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 train tracks. The reality is that it always makes more sense to relocate a few people instead of cancelling the project as a whole, or changing the plans until the problem shifts to people that don't bitch as loud.

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 33):

Not only that, but within most metropolitan areas, it is easier to move a few hundred families than a whole airport. Moving an airport also involves creating NIMBY problems somewhere else and to people who never took the decision to move close to an airport. Why is that more fair?

Quoting Gonzalo (Reply 33): Rgds. G.

So you are reducing the problem to just a tiny part of the total.

Quoting jumpjets (Reply 12): NIMBYs may be an obstacle to aviation development - but then they have every right to protect their lives from the interference of others.

Then they probably should have realized, when they were house shopping, that the area beyond their neighborhood, surrounded by fencing and with all the shiny airplanes, is PROBABLY and airport and "may" be noisy.  

Quoting mayor (Reply 36): Then they probably should have realized, when they were house shopping, that the area beyond their neighborhood, surrounded by fencing and with all the shiny airplanes, is PROBABLY and airport and "may" be noisy

The airports should have realized that when they generate noise outside their property they will be slapped with restrictions...

It isn't/shouldn't be a one way street.

Quoting cmf (Reply 32): Quoting PPVRA (Reply 29): There is no such thing as a right to the VALUE of something. Please explain.

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 Boeing wronged 737NG operators nor should Boeing be restricted to upgrade their 737 line by court order.

Quoting cmf (Reply 37): The airports should have realized that when they generate noise outside their property they will be slapped with restrictions... It isn't/shouldn't be a one way street.

Every investment carries risk, even in housing. It shouldn't be a one way street.

With the declining service at some regional airports, some NIMBYs also are calling for the complete shutdown of regional airports close to a major city.

I can name two examples:
-If you look at the Toledo media, people are commenting that TOL should be shut down. The low flight levels (>5 departures per day) with high fares coupled with the proximity to DTW (a 45-50 minute drive from downtown) and the BAX hub closure are often cited as reasons to shut down and redevelop TOL.
-Even with five times the departures of TOL, there are some here in Fort Wayne that think FWA should be shut down. These people tend to see FWA as a underserved, expensive airport compared to IND (2.5 hours away, and they probably blindly use it even if choosing FWA is cheaper in the end). But even if FWA lost all commercial air service, where would the 122nd ANG, FedEx, UPS, business jets, and nearby businesses go? FX, 5X, and most of the bizjets would be too big for Fort Wayne's other airport SMD (Smith Field). And even if they could land at SMD, it would overwhelm the property.

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.
In the USA and probably in Europe too in some areas, NIMBY's probably include those who own homes affected by airport noise and have have collasped in value are fearful that airport ops noise may make it more difficult to sell or get back the stupid money they bought if for.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 1): the whole reason he picked the house was he loved watching the planes

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.....

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 21): 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.

....and I grew up to daily takeoffs of F-4s at MacDill AFB.

Quoting tonystan (Reply 22): 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!

Bravo!!

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 38): 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 Boeing wronged 737NG operators nor should Boeing be restricted to upgrade their 737 line by court order.

Don't see how this is related to the text you quoted when stating it.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 38): It shouldn't be a one way street.

Correct. Yet that is what so many people here insist it should be. Stating whoever was there first has every right, unless it is someone other that the airport or airlines using it where who was first doesn't count.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 40): 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.

Why is it unreasonable that you are required to compensate people for what you do that affect them on land owned by them?

Quoting cmf (Reply 42): Don't see how this is related to the text you quoted when stating it.

It's an analogy.

Quoting cmf (Reply 42): Correct. Yet that is what so many people here insist it should be. Stating whoever was there first has every right, unless it is someone other that the airport or airlines using it where who was first doesn't count.

It's not about who was there first, it's about not dictating how others use their property and vice versa.

Quoting cmf (Reply 37): The airports should have realized that when they generate noise outside their property they will be slapped with restrictions...

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 going from your property, across a line, to someone elses property, SAFELY?

Quoting cmf (Reply 42): Correct. Yet that is what so many people here insist it should be. Stating whoever was there first has every right, unless it is someone other that the airport or airlines using it where who was first doesn't count.

It may not be a case of who is right and who is wrong, but more a case of stupidity of someone that would buy a house, with a major airport so close by. It happens in more areas than just airports, too. Where I lived in Illinois, was one of the first drag strips in the midwest, Oswego. For years and years it was just surrounded by farms, but ever so slowly the housing developements started to come in. After awhile, those people started to complain about the noise, which was only on Sundays, just during the summer, even though they KNEW the drag strip was there when they moved in. Eventually, they managed to get it closed.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 43): It's an analogy.

How does it explain "no such thing as a right to the VALUE of something"?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 43): It's not about who was there first, it's about not dictating how others use their property and vice versa.

I'm all for this. But that is not what is happening when people state that people who moved in after the airport have no rights.

Quoting mayor (Reply 44): There probably wasn't a noise problem, in a wide open area like they were then, when the airport was first built.

Or rather there was much less traffic so the noise was a few times per day and rarely during night time. Even though each individual time may have been louder.

Quoting mayor (Reply 44): BTW, how do you restrict noise from going from your property, across a line, to someone elses property, SAFELY?

Is this a serious question?

- You make less noise so it doesn't cross your property
- You make sure to own all property affected
- You only generate noise during acceptable hours.

Well established methods.

Quoting mayor (Reply 44): but more a case of stupidity of someone that would buy a house, with a major airport so close by

But that isn't the sum of the problem. You have people who live at the same place as their families have lived for generations. People who have lived there since the airport was a fraction of it's current size.

If people moving into an area close to an airport must accept the airport might expand then the airport must accept that villages and cities will expand. It is a stupid argument because it does not consider things from more than one side.

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 to a less populated area, guess who will be the camp-followers. Areas surrounding airports are not high-income real estate, and good chances are that people who work at the airport are those that live around it. If the airport vanishes, somehow, they will follow it to the new location.

Quoting cmf (Reply 45): Is this a serious question? - You make less noise so it doesn't cross your property - You make sure to own all property affected - You only generate noise during acceptable hours. Well established methods.

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 buy up 3 or 4 counties in each direction, just to make sure?
I'm sure that when ORD was originally expanded, in '59 or so, the planners had no idea that things would be so constricted there, in the future. I'm willing to bet that at least 50% of the growth around O'Hare has occurred AFTER 1959, the start of the jet age. Matter of fact, ORD is much quieter now than when I worked there in the 70s.....back then it was just loaded with Convair 880s, B707s, BAC 111s, etc. and yet people just kept building. When did the realtors bring their customers around to look at the houses......3 am? Or were the customers just oblivious to the noise? Or did they just think that they could get the airport to quiet things down, someday?

Quoting mayor (Reply 47): Yes, it's serious......is this???......."You make sure to own all property affected"

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.

Quoting mayor (Reply 47): do they buy up 3 or 4 counties in each direction, just to make sure?

You need to start thinking practical instead of extremes.

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 placed on land within the boundaries of cities, which consists of people who in democracies are free to decide what can be done within their boundaries.

I don't think it's reasonable to label people as NIMBYs if they demand more quieter planes. I'd say the main reason why new planes are getting so much more quieter is the fact that there have been people demanding more quiet operations - and that is a good thing!

I don't think it's reasonable to demand total closures or relocations of large airports that are placed in far away places. People need connectivity within reasonable distance.

People take the risk that an airport will expand and there will be more noise (why did you buy a house next to an airport that will grow?). It's also a risk that the city will expand and the airport must adapt to the new conditions (why did you build the airport next a city that's growing?). I don't think we should go to extremes on either end and a healthy discussion between the parties is in order.

However, in the modern economy the airport owner/investor has so much more power, that maybe we need some extreme "NIMBYs" to achieve even the goals of the more liberal home-owners. I don't currently see that there are such an extreme moves in the horizon that would warrant the title "Biggest threat to industry".