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.

Starling some people get used to the noise, though they tend, in my experience at least, to be those who work long hours and are often out socialising. Many people, myself included,don't get used to the noise, partly because it peaks and troughs, instead of gently buzzing constantly, like, for example, a motorway. And also, I think, because 110 decibels is incredibly loud. There are few sounds to match it in the urban environment. Possibly an ambulance siren, if you were standing right next to it. The noise has increased dramatically over the years I have lived here, and the concentration of flight paths - which was imposed without consultation - allows NATS and Heathrow to boast that fewer are affected by noise. Unfortunately, those that still are (in the high hundreds of thousands in the case of Heathrow) get far more noise, far more frequently, with little or no respite. It's awful

Sorry Estelle I simply don't believe that a million people are routinely disturbed by plane noise related to Heathrow. I have already said that I believe there are people who are but it beggars belief that it is a million or more.

Heathrow has been there for several generations. It is ridiculous to say that everyone was in a bucolic setting and then boom! and airport was dropped on them. Give me a break.

The sensible parameters of the debate are

1. who will have a significant material change in their conditions due to airport expansion?
2. are they being compensated adequately?

All of London is clearly not affected. Not even all of West London is affected.

Yes, Manchester does have excess capacity but it's mainly because airlines aren't using it as long as the Heathrow expansion was on the table.

If they said no to Runway 3, Manchester would've been at maximum capacity, most likely.

Adding another runway to Liverpool could mean transatlantic flights from Liverpool, which would just be fantastic. Liverpool is a massive tourism area and let's not forget, at one point it was the one of the biggest docks in the world for passengers. It would be lovely to have a Liverpool to New York route again. My granddad worked for Cunard and it would be lovely for Liverpool to be a port (even if it's for planes) again.

"
All of London is clearly not affected. Not even all of West London is affected."

I think that it's quite likely that millions are affected by aircraft noise. It's not just those in the direct flight path, but those who live under the rotating stacks of planes. The amount of noise depends a bit on the way the wind is blowing.

I lost marks in a GCSE French exam because Concorde flew over during my GCSE listening exam. It may have cost me an A grade. It's not fair.

I dread the chaos on the M25 while this work is done. I want more done to promote airports in other parts of the country. For example different bands of air travel taxes for less popular airports.

I would like more research into making aeroplanes quieter.

The sensible parameters of the debate are

1. Why do seem to have a constant need to expand airports and create more and more climate-changing emissions at the same time we claim we're concerned about climate change.
2. How much is enough (or too much?) 5 runways, 6? How many daily flights?

I dread the chaos on the M25 while this work is done. I want more done to promote airports in other parts of the country. For example different bands of air travel taxes for less popular airports.

Agreed about the M25 - no-one ever seems to factor in the crazy extra congestion and delays while works are going on.

As for promoting other airports, since a lot of this is supposed to be hub traffic (i.e. people who don't even leave the airport) how about promoting CDG or AMS and let them have the noise?

I imagine that this report was commissioned before Osborne's had his idea of a Northern Powerhouse? I still think that expansion at Manchester would have been a better option, although my parents' old house was under the flight path. It didn't seem to cause too much disturbance though.

There is this childish ego thing of politicians wanting THEIR country to have the biggest airport in the world. It's like playground talk or super pushy mums.

A best friend lived in Richmond. I never noticed the noise when I visited her.

So glad your occasional visits to a specific place in Richmond can speak for the entire borough.

It depends on the direction of the wind. I live a couple of miles from a railway line. Most days I hear nothing, but some days the trains seem quite loud. In a previous house, about the same distance away, I could sometime hear the announcements from the platforms if the wind was in a particular direction.

All of London is clearly not affected. Not even all of West London is affected.

IT IS NOT A WEST LONDON PROBLEM!!!

Look at all the west wind (70% of time generally) landing lines north east and south east! I live under one of the north east zone sand it is FUCKING NOISY and yes I am shouting because it is FUCKING ANNOYING AND NOISY.

Like, I like over 20 miles from Heathrow and the planes come over 90 seconds to 3 mins on the west wind landing pattern. And I can not have a conversation outside when they are overhead. And it disturbs TV watching inside.

God how are people so stupid that they don't get it is actuall an issue affecting the entire of london as in not a specific borough or geography but also one that is localized as in are you under an east/west take off route or an east/west landing stack and decent route?

It depends on the direction of the wind.

The landing and take off patterns are different depending on different wind directions. Not sure the same wind blowing noise to/away applies when the plane is overhead like with a railway.

Agree Yello. People don't have a clue.

?? Empress why does it 'beggar belief' that a million people are affected? What research have you carried out to come to this conclusion? As it happens, I mentioned in my post that the number ran into the high hundreds of thousands at the moment (it's just over 750,000 currently, in fact), though who knows how many will be affected if they get the third runway (estimated currently to be roughly another 250,000). You can see actual figures here and here . You may also wish to note that these figures do not cover everybody who is disturbed by noise, as the threshold at which noise is considered to be a nuisance is thought to be set too high. So actually, a million is not an over-the-top estimate at all.

As for the hyperbole about the area affected by Heathrow noise not having been a bucolic setting; of course it wasn't, and nobody is saying that. In fact, if you care to read my posts, you will see that the noise has changed considerably over the years. It would be like you buying a house in between two small residential streets, that over the years were transformed into a motorway going right through your back garden. With no consultation. Or compensation. For either the noise, or the detrimental health effects of the resultant pollution.

One point I agree with you on is that those affected should be adequately compensated. It will be a cold day in hell if that ever happens. Those who are badly affected by Heathrow now are already not compensated. You will remember I explained in previous posts that we suffer 90-110 db noise. Now if you have any clue at all as to how loud that actually is (as opposed to just 'believing' it's not too loud, because that would beggar belief ) then, if you are a reasonable person, you would be expecting we would get some form of compensation, right? As you suggest should happen. To, for example, fit triple glazed windows and sound insulation. Well, what do you suppose we get? Might it surprise you to know we get nothing? That's right. Nothing, for noise levels that are almost exactly twice the level at which the powers that be believe noise becomes a nuisance. So what do you expect will be given to those affected by the third runway?

Tbh, when I first read your post, Empress, I was a bit annoyed that you would come on here and spout opinions on what you 'believe', on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever, with clearly not even a cursory Google to check a few facts/see if your gut feelings on the subject bore any relation to reality/the actual facts. Having had time to consider while writing this post, I actually welcome your comments, because in a way you are absolutely right, of course. What sane, rational person would ever believe, in 21st century Britain, that we could be in a situation where hundreds of thousands of people are subjected to such ridiculous, health-damagingly levels of noise every day (never mind the pollution)? And that this would not only be deemed ok, but, rather than put a stop to it, we would give the green light to inflict even MORE of it on the population. And make them pay for it through their taxes. Give me a break!

Your response actually demonstrates perfectly just why this is such a ridiculous decision.

And don't get me started on the pollution. How many more people do you want to die prematurely each year because of the extra pollution, Empress?

Everyone's environment is changing because of the increasing population. Everyone finds life more crowded and congested. No one likes simple car journeys taking longer, less parking on their street etc. It's not just people living near airports experiencing change. Perhaps we should create a two children only policy and slam the door on all immigration? If not, then maintaining adequate infrastructure for a modern society is crucial if we want to maintain our standard of living. This goes beyond just airports. Have you ever lived in a city with a population in the millions without first world conveniences? It's deeply unpleasant and the economic affects are obvious.

Is this actually what's it's like? 😮

Those power lines....

There Yes I lived somewhere where they may even have been lower. And I worked shifts.

Empress I am not suggesting we do not invest in infrastructure for the future where/if it is needed. However, we do NOT need extra capacity at Heathrow. Currently, Stansted operates at 47% capacity, Luton at 49% and Gatwick at 88%. There is plenty of capacity in the SE, should demand stay static, or even increase by a large margin.

Furthermore, expanding any of these airports - or even building a new one at a more sensible location - would affect far fewer people, if it really was needed, though the evidence is far from convincing.

It is not a given that demand will increase to anything like the levels Heathrow proclaim they will. Business flights are falling, and are predicted to fall further. Brexit should mean less immigration if, as Mrs May tells us, we will 'take back control'. I see quite a lot of people parroting the Heathrow/Gatwick line that more capacity is needed, without having any inkling that this is just self-serving propaganda that has been churned out by the airports for their own ends.

Currently, a large proportion of flights are taken by 'binge fliers'; a small proportion of relatively wealthy people who fly multiple times per year, while most people fly once or twice, if at all. Why should people on the ground die needlessly so these people can have another stag weekend in Tallinn, or shave an hour off their journey by flying to Edinburgh, instead of taking the train? Why should people die prematurely because Heathrow's owners want to hive off more tax-free profits by turning West London into Airstrip One for freight stopovers?

When you talk about modern conveniences, do you understand how Sir Howard Davies proposes air pollution should be mitigated? His proposal is that air travel should be taxed so heavily that it becomes so expensive that demand falls dramatically. Therefore only the wealthy will be able to fly. So not very convenient for everyone else. The irony that this fall in demand means a new runway would not, after all, be needed, appears lost on him.

Air pollution is causing 40,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. How 'convenient' is that for those affected?

How would you feel if it was a member of your family?

There yes, it is that bad very near to the airport. I get noise peaking at 110 decibels and I am 16 miles from the airport. Heaven alone knows what the decibel level is like there. The poor sods living there must wish they were deaf.

Agree with Yello. Much ignorance of the true state of affairs, it would seem.

How the fuck did you bring immigration into the discussion Empress?
Ran out of facts and going for the easiest emotionally convenient accusation?

Oh hang on, facts were never your strong suit in this to start with..,,

These sorts of threads are always full of special pleading from special interests. The game is to cherry pick and dive into all the minutia arguing every point endlessly and patrolling the thread remorselessly. Comments are made that millions of people, millions, are affected, when it is obviously untrue to everyone who lives in London. Comments are made that more airport capacity is not needed in the Southeast, despite Heathrow operating at full capacity and the population of London having increased by a million people since the turn of this century.

Its obvious that we need more road capacity, more sewer capacity, more schools, more doctors, and yes more airport capacity.

There are people who are disproportionately affected by Heathrow expansion and we should focus on making sure that they get the best deal possible. The airport expansion is for the common good and the people making a personal sacrifice should be compensated generously. I am not so bothered by people living in chi chi parts of West London having a moan. (It's common sense that these areas would not be so desirable and expensive if they were truly blighted by air traffic.)

That's an odd statement Empress. The airport doesn't affect me at all. A new runway would probably make my personal journeys better. It's not about special pleading - it's about cost benefit and I don't think this adds up. All the costs accrue to ordinary people (including those who live in chi chi bits of London as well as the vast majority who don't). All the benefits go abroad to the owners of Heathrow etc.

I'm sure you are the only person talking about 'millions'. The original post that stated numbers affected said high hundreds of thousands.