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.

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

Because Birmingham airport is not in the middle of the actual city.

YANBU. Has to go somewhere IMO and its best to put it where the surrounding infrastructure is already in place. Heathrow is also more convenient than Gatwick for most people.

I always find it quite funny when people dismiss things as first world problems as I grew up in a country that unofficially lost its third world status about 10 years ago and I find that what's happening in London horrifying.

Also I used to live v close to an emergency hospital and wasn't best impressed when they added a helicopter pad even if I acknowledged it was desperately needed.
And was also pissed off at the ambulances that occasionally woke me up. Did I just suffer from first world problems in a third world country ?

So, why is endless air travel expansion good and who benefits from it?

With numbers to back it up, please.

I'm incredulous that Heathrow only has 2 runways tbh, when Schipol has 6.

But also there are very good environmental arguments for not expanding air travel.

Boris Johnson has said he will lie down in front of the bulldozers if the Heathrow expansion happens.
I am prepared to bet five whole British pence that he won't do this. Any takers?

It's long overdue but, I wish they'd gone with the Thames gateway option.

People want all the trappings of modern life, but aren't willing to make any sacrifices to get it. They want to be able to go on holiday to far flung destinations for a relatively reasonable price, to be able to buy goods made abroad without waiting for months, to watch film and TV shows that could only be produced by flying people and equipment all over the world etc.

And the aviation people (im sure that's their official title) will have weighed up everything and decided that Heathrow is the best because ultimately that s what most people would want and it will be the best decision economically.

Its a bit like when people berate the big supermarkets for causing the death of the high street. If they cared that much they just woukdnt shop there, but the convenience and value is just too much to resist.

The report said that after a 3rd runway at Heathrow no more capacity would be needed until 2050. Another runway at Gatwick and Birmingham would just not be needed

OP, which flight path do you live under?

Agree Tiggy, they should start building runways at both Gatwick and Heathrow now.

I really feel for those living there as there is absolutely no way I would. Their views should be paramount.

I think people are being a bit silly to talk about improving other airports. Heathrow is a major hub, lots of people come in, change planes and go out. No matter how much you 'improve railways' nobody wants to fly in to Birmingham, leave the airport, get a train to Gatwick, re go through all security etc, then get a second plane (or miss it due to train delays) and ditto for freight. Having one 'big hub' airport with lots of connections is always going to be more of a draw than a bunch of smaller less well connected airports across the country.

I absolutely understand why people don't want it however. It's terrible that people are losing their home or have it drop in value.

I know people have talked about 'NIMBYism' but I never know how nimby type problems can be solved. It's always unfair to make one small group of people suffer for a big infrastructure project, but if we never allow such projects to go ahead we suffer as a country.

The thing is the same people suffering with this have suffered M25 works, cross rail, Heathrow hub, HS2 is due to start at some point, M25 again due to HS2, M4 widening is about to start soon.
It is never ending and is having a huge detrimental effect on the quality of air, wildlife and general quality of life.

Has to go somewhere
No it doesn't

Also as other people have pointed out, if everyone was desperate to fly to Manchester, Newcastle or East Midlands, these airports would be busier. A bit chicken and egg. I fly a few times a year EMA to Dublin for work. It is quicker and cheaper for me to that than visit our London office by train. I fly to our US HQ near SFO evey other year - I hate having to go to London for these flights and often go from MAN or BHX

The new M4 spur road for the new runway/terminal is destined to go through the middle of the cemetary my parent are buried in, which will result in them having to be exhumed. Not even just the living who have to move out of the way.

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

It amazes me that a remoaner can find a downside to any given issue and immediately attribute it to Brexit.

Heathrow is a major hub, lots of people come in, change planes and go out. as a pp said, we should leave this to Shipol or CDG - it surely isn't worth blighting most of the London area to pick up a few scraps of passing trade from planes?

Exactly, was.

Why do we want these scraps? I've said it before on here but I obviously need to say it again. Heathrow and its offshore owners will be the ONLY ones to benefit from this. Business flights have been declining for years and are projected to continue to do so. What Heathroe is after is to cement its status as a hub to get more cargo planes stopping over to refuel. There will be no revenue flowing to the Exchequer from this, as Heathrow accounts in such a way as to make sure the UK entities post a loss. Profits are siphoned offshore and UK Plc sees hardly any.

We will pay a minimum of £17 billion to develop the infrastructure to support the third runway. Heathrow will pay £1billion. Yet they will continue paying dividends to offshore parent companies and shareholders. While Londoners and those in the South East die prematurely in ever increasing numbers.

But hey, as long as the likes of Luna can shave an hour or so off their holiday journey once a year, we should all just put up with the poor health, incessant noise, premature deaths and astronomical cost, I guess.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/26/heathrows-third-runway-public-bill-hidden-tory-mp-stephen-hammond-taxpayer-cost

There are people seriously affected by airplane noise. I am not so sure that people in Richmond and Hounslow are. I worked for years in Hounslow and wasn't bothered. A best friend lived in Richmond. I never noticed the noise when I visited her. Actually, I noticed how nice Richmond was, much nicer than I could ever afford. I wonder why your average semi in Richmond is over a million pounds if they are blighted by pollution and noise?

They aren't. They are convenient to the airport but not compromised by it. There are a group of residents blighted by living very close to the airport, but the net is not nearly so wide as you claim.

Also, Heathrow is not in the middle of a city as some have claimed. It is on the suburban edge of a city. It is nearly 20 miles as the crow flies from Charing Cross (the traditional centre of London.)

If we wish to remain part of the world economy and have jobs and growth, we must maintain our infrastructure. Airport capacity is part of that. Heathrow is best placed to serve the population as it is actually distributed throughout the UK.

Of course there will be Nimbyism, special pleading, and special interests. For me, the only debate should be where to draw the line for compensation and how much to compensate. Some people are truly and disproportionately affected, but fatuous arguments should be disregarded!

Words, all empty words and envy to whoever lives in the nice houses in Richmond.
Not a shred of factual evidence to back up your suggestion that Heathrow is best placed for expansion.