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.

Compulsory purchase order Mozfan. And they are ruthless. HS2 is coming through my town. A friend of mine came home to find two complete strangers in her back garden, they'd pulled a bench to her fence and unlatched her side gate, and were taking photos and measuring her plot.

That was the first notice she had, they hadn't bothered any other contact other than the initial 'your house may...' letter that had gone out 2 years previous to the entire village. She asked them to leave and was treated appallingly.

I'm sort of on the fence with this. I used to live in that area and relations of mine still do. People have benefited from the noise, traffic etc making the areas comparatively affordable. And almost everybody there has been there for less time than the airport. And it provides huge amounts of employment locally. And you really do get used to the noise and it's probably not sensible to move there if it bothers you that much.

I do sympathise but at the same time I do think people are being a bit disingenuous pretending that they didn't realise all this was an overwhelming possibility when they moved there. I'm afraid I think that the benefits to the economy as a whole outweigh people's concerns and support the development. I sympathise but that sympathy doesn't extend to thinking it should stop.

I think living in London as a whole means you sometimes have to trade off inconveniences like noise and traffic for the immense benefits living in London brings. And most of those come from London being an international city.

I also think we need more airport capacity. Not providing it is the modern equivalent of letting the harbour silt up

No it isn't. This is ripping up all the harbourside houses to make a bigger one, the silting up option would be reducing capacity - and harbours silt up when not used. Heathrow is being used way too much already. Why does everyone keep trotting out this mantra that we need more planes landing and taking off all the time - why do we "need" that?

What the fuck? I can't believe they're allowed to do that...

I'm afraid I think that the benefits to the economy as a whole outweigh people's concerns and support the development.

What benefits will Heathrow bring? How much? Who will benefit?

People have benefited from the noise, traffic etc.

I think it's crazy - I like a pp's idea of using HS2 to put the hub in Birmingham.

To whoever said we haven't got the climate for onshore wind farms - ever been to Scotland?

Our population has increased and is increasing. We need more capacity to maintain the same standard.

Why is the airport better in Birmingham than west of London? Someone, somewhere will be inconvenienced by the downsides of living near an airport.

The only way to avoid this is to site an airport near the water's edge.

As I said, where I live HS2 is coming through. We've plans for a wind farm set to go ahead too. And we're just having to put up with it, because it benefits others (I'm actually pro wind farm). But even I think the extra runway at Heathrow is a dick move and the costs outway the benefits massively.

We don't need any more capacity in the middle of one of the most densely populated cities on Earth.

What is the standard you think needs maintaining?

As far as I'm concerned any population, increasing or not, need proper living standards, and that includes clean air and good sleep.

The standards you are talking about only serve the big business.

Because umpteen billion years ago the plan was to develop Birmingham airport. The plans are already placed for the infrastructure and although controversial in Birmingham ....would be less costly and provide work.

The problem with london is it is a victorian city being dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. There are currently a few major water, power and sewage infrastructure projects underway at the moment, once they are complete whole sections of London will be able to be raised and replaced with high density housing.

Those extra humans are going to need a third runway to take the expanding population and travel requirements of a modern city. Destroy 700 houses and rebuilding a motorway to create this expansion is worth it. The homeowners effected only constitute ~0.01% of the population of London.

We actually live where we do because my dh needs to get easily to Heathrow. He is in favour of expansion as he is sick of circling London for twenty minutes every time he returns while the airplane waits it's turn to land. Personally I think it's a short sighted decision ironically given how long it took them to make it. It's going to add a lot more congestion to an already congested area. Why do we have to keep centralising everything in this country? Why can't we increase capacity in Birmingham or Manchester for example? What happened to the idea of the northern powerhouse?
I also worry that the huge amount of traffic in the skies above where we live is a safety hazard.

Our population has increased and is increasing. We need more capacity to maintain the same standard.

Same standard of what? Pollution, noise and traffic chaos?

I love the way people seem to think we can sustain continuing massive population growth by flying more planes around our densley populated capital - at what point do you think we might have to stop it? Or is any level of population density and plane movements fine as long as you can talk vaguely about progress and "being an international city"

So do you want to reduce the population or just let transport infrastructure wither?

" 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?"

Totally agree, with HS2 theres no reason they cant put more focus on Birmingham - its a decent airport with plenty of room around it to expand.

Our population has increased and is increasing.
How about the government try to manage it to make sure the growth is balanced across the country? This is just encouraging the south east to get more and more densely populated.

I still don't understand, if it's okay for Birmingham, why isn't it okay for Hillingdon?

It amazes me that they think post Brexit there will be any need for it.

A number of banks and other businesses have already announced they are leaving the UK.

Heathrow is a dreadful airport and should be avoided at all cost.

for those affected by this decision.

Interesting idea Best. People tend to follow the jobs. How would you encourage/coerce businesses to move out of the Southeast?

So do you want to reduce the population or just let transport infrastructure wither?

Or you can do what the government wants let the population wither by depriving them of clean air and sleep and then import a new population.

Also, Heathrow being developed as hub, so serving interconnecting passengers, with no benefit for London or indeed its population.

Most of the population isn't being deprived of sleep or clean air as a result of airport expansion. It is a very, very small portion. That is the problem. An overall good has a disproportionate cost in a tiny minority.

Ok, what is the good? And who is it good for?

even though you seem to think millions of people in London is a small portion

For example if flying from Luton or Birmingham or stansted was significantly cheaper then people would use those airports for their holidays.

That's assuming all airports serve all destinations. They don't. We are in Scotland - although the range of destinations served by Glasgow and Edinburgh has increased in recent years if you want to go anywhere outside Europe or a main tourist destination like Orlando, you have to take at least two flights. So that means often a short flight to Heathrow or Gatwick first. From Glasgow we have very limited options for flying to Heathrow or Gatwick as BA have a monopoly so if a Heathrow expansion means more flexibility for us to get connecting flights then I'm all for it. Flying Easyjet to Luton and then trying to get yourself across London for a flight out of Gatwick or Heathrow is just impossible.

Also as other people have pointed out, if everyone was desperate to fly to Manchester, Newcastle or East Midlands, these airports would be busier. They're not. People want to fly to the London area. Heathrow is well-connected to central London by road, rail and tube and is the best-known UK airport.

I also know that the company which looks after air traffic in the UK is doing a LOT of work about flightpaths and cutting stacking times as much as possible to try to cut noise and air pollution and help airlines arrive on time and save fuel.

As for the "well nobody needs to fly anyway" argument from the Luddites - should we all give up our cars, bikes and trains and go back to travelling everywhere by horse and cart?