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.

Is climate change a first world problem too, op? Because last time I looked poorer nations were disproportionately affected by it.

Yabu. I accidentally rented a flat under the flight path - I didn't notice the planes during the day but the last one at night was after 11pm and the first one rumbled overhead at 4.30am every morning. I'd signed a 6 month contract and I counted down every single day.

I feel immensely sorry for people who bought their homes not expecting this to happen to them. Sleep deprivation is definitely not a "first world problem"

I may be being very dim here, but I just can't get my head around this decision.

How on earth can it be decided that demolishing homes in an already overcrowded city to build an extra runway is a valid idea? Heathrow can't expand - there's no land! What kind of cock thinks "but we want to anyway so let's just knock down some houses. The peasants will get over it." 🤔

Seems very medieval. Not a "first world" way to behave at all.

Yesterday 21:00 ninenicknames

YANBU - it's called evolution

No, that would be us growing wings that would.

Op, UABU. The companies expected to use it aren't keen. Heathrow are keen on the money, but that's all.

Agree with the other poster, if it has to be London focus on Gatwick or Stansted. Or as HS2 is coming through whether we want it or not why can't Birmingham be an option
for development and create more jobs there?

This government obsession with tearing people out there homes for fancy faster transport links to willy wag at other countries is something where we should have sympathy for the affected, rather than a suck up up buttercup attitude.

Tiggy Howard Davies, who chaired the Airports Commission that recommended Heathrow, also Chairs Prudential, who bought up something like 300 homes around Heathrow not long before he published his report. The investments included a hotel near the proposed third runway and cargo depots.....

Many vested interests want the £ from developing Heathrow. Unfortunately, it will benefit neither local residents, nor the country as a whole.

Sorry, that meant to say properties, not homes, as it includes the commercial properties mentioned.

10 years the villagers have had this hanging over their heads and now another 10 years while it's in the making. 20 years in an unenviable position. A little bit of sympathy wouldn't go amiss.
An interesting point made yesterday was that to make sure their eco/green etc targets are met the government will possibly impose a tax on infrequent flyers (families on their annual holiday to you and me) so a double whammy for the average family who live near Heathrow
Regarding the freight argument, why does this facility need to be at Heathrow?

London Heathrow is, I believe, the only major airport in the world where the entry flight path is over the city

The flightpath to Frankfurt airport is over the city - in fact you fly over it twice - you fly across the city and then turn round and fly back over the city to land.

Disclaimer: the last time I flew into FRA was in 2004. But it was the case then.

I think expanding Gatwick would have been more sensible.

This government obsession with tearing people out there homes for fancy faster transport links to willy wag at other countries is something where we should have sympathy for the affected, rather than a suck up up buttercup attitude.

Willy wagging, that's it.
I would only add "And previous governments" to that.

What a pleasant empathetic person you are OP!

On the morning this was announced, there was fuel spillage on the M4, bringing the motorway heading to LHR to a total standstill for 4 hours. Imagine this scenario when there is even more traffic heading to the airport than there is now.

What people also don't realise is that for BAA, it's not the 3rd runway they are really after, it's the 6th terminal they also want to build - which would be the size of Gatwick north terminal. Madness.

There's a comparison of current and proposed flight paths on the BBC website. There will be houses nowhere near the current flight paths that will have constant air traffic over them if the third runway goes ahead. There's no way of predicting that when they bought!

Are people's houses getting demolished? Omg

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

This decision doesnt affect me in the slightest but I despise attitudes like yours OP about just because there is someone somewhere worse off in the world then it shouldnt matter - so so what if noise pollution is "first world problem", it still affects people and can have a severe impact on peoples mental health and quality of life. But is that ok because there are people in the world "where noise would be the least of their problems"?
No of course its not, what an ill thought out argument.

I support it and would support expanding Gatwick too. We need more capacity and I rather like flying.

700+ houses, a pub and primary school Mozfan. Nothing on the plans re building a new school either.

Apparently 800 houses will be demolished.

What the?

How is it allowed to get permission to take people's houses away? I don't understand

Yes, it's the terminals and the shops.
Shops and transit passengers matter, people don't.

"700+ houses, a pub and primary school Mozfan. Nothing on the plans re building a new school either."

Its in an area where there is a desperate shortage of affordable housing and schools. It is really the poor who are going to suffer for the benefit of the rich. Immigrants and those on benefits are going to lose the only where they can afford to live

I would favour an airport tax system that encourages people to use airports that are under capacity. For example if flying from Luton or Birmingham or stansted was significantly cheaper then people would use those airports for their holidays.

Heathrow is the nearest airport for a lot of London and there is no moviations to travel a little further to Luton or stansted.

I can understand why people don't want it. I also think we need more airport capacity. Not providing it is the modern equivalent of letting the harbour silt up.

Heathrow has been there for generations. No one can say they didn't realise there was an airport nearby when they bought their home.

That said Boris Island would have kept everyone happy. I guess it was just unaffordable.

I'd rather be bought out and have my house demolished than to be on the new closest edge, get nothing, and watch the value of my home fall.

What if you don't want to sell them your house? How can they force you?

Compulsory purchase order.

Chardonnay beat me to it

compulsory purchase orders.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/compulsory-purchase-and-compensation-booklet-1-procedure

In reality people often do not get anything like a market value payment. (never mind all the issues around ripping up communities and removing people forcibly from their homes).

It is a terribly terribly sad and distressing situation for so many people