AIBU to have no sympathy for Heathrow runway debates

[NotForSale]

As the population increases surely another runway is needed to fulfil demand?
The biggest/ only argument I've seen against another runway is noise pollution. Is it just me or is that a 1st world problem? There's people who live in slums/ Calais camps/ overcrowding/ damp/ desperate poverty and quite frankly a bit of extra noise is the least of their worries.

You have presented no evidence in favour of your assertions, Empress . Do you have any? If not, why make those assertions?

Does anyone even remember that thing last year when all the countries got together in Paris and agreed that massively reducing our use of fossil fuels needed to start asap. Otherwise the melting ice in the Arctic and Greenland and the Antarctic that's already happening now, that's going to accelerate, and the sea level rise ain't going to be pretty. Let alone the effect of agricultural productivity falling so we won't be able to feed the world's population.

So they all patted each other on the back and then Theresa May has basically gone "Ha ha we didn't mean it. Fuck you Bangladesh, fuck you Africa, fuck you India and fuck you future generations. We're going to let aviation grow and grow and emit more and more CO2 because we don't give a shit about any of you." So yeah, it's screwing over lots of people in London but if you live anywhere and have kids, this decision is screwing over them too. Can you tell I'm quite angry about this?

Couldn't agree more, Rose .

But I think climate change is another one of those issues where people just stick their heads in the sand, rather than tackle a difficult issue.

Probably for the best Chardonnay :)
Yello a 3rd runway won't solve any of those problems but it does give it context.

The more I think about it the madder I get. Refuelling stops will only benefit Heathrow. Connections ditto because as a passenger it's no more of a deal to connect in Schipol than at Heathrow. Maybe I'm missing something.

You're not missing anything, Mary , the only body who benefits from this is Heathrow and its overseas owners. Hence why they lobbied so hard for it.

OP how about the 'context' that a third runway at Heathrow will directly contribute to climate change that will cause people to lose their homes and livelihoods and some quite literally starve to death?

Here's an example. Droughts are becoming more frequent in Southern Africa because of climate change. Madagascar is one of the worst affected places. Three years of drought in a row and 850,000 people are currently suffering "alarming levels of hunger" and 20% of the population are on the brink of famine. This is what climate change looks like and this is the context for decisions we make about our infrastructure, our CO2 emissions here in the UK.

Correction: "20% of the population of southern Madagascar" m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_580dbb32e4b0a03911ed7540

Gosh, Rose , you're not going on about facts, are you?? Dear me, fancy expecting those to inform the debate!!

I refute your fact. I once went to Africa and I didn't see any starvation or drought. So there.

Also my mate is from Africa, and he isn't affected by starvation. So it can't be affecting anyone else in Africa.

Yello

"Also those (really tired for example) who keep saying it's terrible this is happening to them, why not build it to Birmingham or the North etc, that's just classic NIMBY trying to hide behind arguements of capacity. Surely if it'still so awful it's not acceptable for anyone."

I don't live near Heathrow, live closer to Luton and the extra planes would go over my house. Noise is nowhere near as bad with Luton airport because the aeroplanes go over a lot more farm land. As far as I know even cows and sheep don't do GCSE French. It's not nimbyism it's better planning..

I was privilaged in that I attended a private school. However there were several state schools that were in close proximity to my school. I imagine that their children also lost marks in the same exam. The state school kids probably did worse as their schools didn't have double glazing. The state school kids would have lost more lesson time over the years from deafening noise.

The poor suffer more from aircraft noise. They have less choice about choosing areas to live. They find it harder to afford housing with good noise insulation.

I used to work in Education and I know one of our state schools near Heathrow had Triple Glazing !!!! Yes, it was very noisy in the playground when Concord came over! Aircraft are a lot quieter now.

I live near the proposed HS2 line. I live in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with a proposed massive railway through it with trains every 6 minutes. Other people get motorways and fracking. Sadly, if this country wants to be "open for business" restricting air travel in and out of London is not a way forward. We already have too few routes to China from here. Brexit was always going to mean Heathrow expansion as Gatwick is not a business airport and neither is Luton. Relatively poor communication with London too as neither have the underground.

Heathrow is already busy. People who live near Heathrow already have noise pollution. Lots of people who live around Heathrow work there. Post Brexit we have no option but to allow business to expand or we might as well give up. The peaceful countryside where I live will be shattered by 200 mph trains every 6 minutes - I expect MNetters will be traveling on those trains and buying air tickets for their holidays. Outrage will pass when the next holiday comes around.

The peaceful countryside where I live will be shattered by 200 mph trains every 6 minutes - I expect MNetters will be traveling on those trains and buying air tickets for their holidays. Outrage will pass when the next holiday comes around.

Yes, that will happen, there will be a disconnect. We were guilty of the same behaviour when they improved the A34 going down to Southampton. There used to be horrible bottlenecks; the road was upgraded and we sailed through what used to be one of the bottlenecks. Then we realised that this was Twyford Down we had just driven over, about which there had been numerous protests. The protesters lost, and we were enjoying the fruits of their losing, so we felt a bit guilty for being hypocrites.

Surely in real terms Brexit if anything means lower demand for flights. Holidays abroad will be more expensive for us, although tourism to the UK might rise a bit because of the weak pound. Lots of international businesses relocating away from London to EU countries... A new runway is not going to un-fuck our economy, it will just be another nail in the coffin for the attempt to halt catastrophic climate change. The only thing that gives me hope is that with all the legal challenges etc it might not happen.

Anyway, just hoping the OP might come back today, I'd be interested to know whether they are as happy to sacrifice climate change legislation at the altar of aviation expansion as they are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of those under flight paths or made ill by air pollution.

As I said I'm under the new flight path, dh is a bit pissed about it, but I grew up in hayes so meh, wont notice it after a while. I find it a bit worrying t bb at they are trying to null the cranford agreement...

Peregrina I think as consumers it's hard (impossible?) not to enjoy the fruits of destruction or exploitation of some sort or another! Even the most caring person is propping up some horrendous supply chains. So that's why the big decisions made by governments - workers' rights, environmental protection, animal welfare, supporting renewable energy or coal power stations and new runways - are important, because generally consumers will just go for what is convenient.

All these arguments saying the global population is expanding so we need another runway is utter tosh. What we NEED are far more companies to stop sending their staff willy nilly on planes to the other side of the world for a meeting or 2. There is such a thing as video conferencing.
I used to live in a town near Heathrow. First day we moved in, and the planes started flying over around 4am, I woke in utter shock, sat bolt upright and was convinced it was about to crash through the roof- such was the HORRIFIC noise. Once one starts, they all follow in quick succession, you lie there tossing and turning in pure misery. It made far more sense to base in Gatwick where far far fewer people per square mile are affected by this.

The m25 around Heathrow is a total disaster, traffic around Gatwick is so much less. For that reason alone I struggle to understand why Heathrow was an even slightly good idea

Well anyone who lives north west would have to drive past Heathrow anyway. Gatwick is a ridiculous place for a national airport as most people live north of London.

Getting to Gatwick can be an utter nightmare if you get stuck in traffic on the M25. In early morning or late at night it's a 90 minute journey for me. During the daytime, outside peak hours, it can take 4 hours, although three is the more usual. Woe betide you if you are trying to get a flight and there is an accident.

I never understand why flight paths don't follow motorways where possible. All airports are near motorways. Not many people live by a motorway. I use the M11 frequently and all planes cross it, never track it.

Ditto Stansted peregrina. M25/M11 is not worth the risk of missing your flight.

The M11 goes more or less N-S doesn't it? Planes have to land into the wind, and the prevailing winds in this country are westerly, so planes at Heathrow tend to land by overflying London.