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.

Tbh I always thought a second runway for Gatwick was the better choice. It would affect fewer people and make the (single runway!) airport more resilient to incidents. Expanding LHR doesn't make much sense to me - but it's a Tory government making the decision so not a lot of logic is used anyway.

Empress you repeatedly ignore facts in your posts, and post based on ideas such as 'everybody knows' and what you 'believe', with not a shred of evidence to back your assertions. Then, when confronted with the actual facts, you ignore them, and start sniping about 'chi chi' bits of London. You have completely ignored the information I gave you about the spare capacity at Stansted, Luton and Gatwick. Why?

You seem to be letting your envy of people you perceive to be better off than you get in the way of any critical or reasoned thought.

Even if you think that better off people deserve to die young and suffer unnecessary illness and disability for their crime of being able to afford to live in Richmond why do you think the less well-off should be collateral damage?

Do you realise how many people under the flight path live on social housing and are not able to move? Hammersmith and Fulham, for example, has lots of social housing amongst the more affluent streets. Why should those people suffer intolerable noise and an early death just so Heathrow can make more money, when there is already ample spare capacity at Luton, Stansted and Gatwick?

Even if you think that better off people deserve to die young and suffer unnecessary illness and disability for their crime of being able to afford to live in Richmond confused why do you think the less well-off should be collateral damage?

I don't think any of these things. I just dispute that everyone you claim to be blighted is actually blighted. I believe house price averages are an objective measure of wether a neighbourhood is blighted.

Then you are failing to think properly around the issue. House prices are affected, as the properties directly under the flight path tend to be cheaper than those a short distance away. In addition, Heathrow is one issue amongst many factors in an extremely overcrowded area where property is scarce, and many people are desperate to get a foot on the ladder and are prepared to overlook very large drawbacks to do so.

The air pollution issue is also very much under-understood among the general public, currently. You can't see it. You may not even realise that your heart attack has been caused by it. You may think it must be a load of old hooey given the government sees fit to breach the legal limits for pollution for the year before we are even halfway through January every year. But it WILL be affecting you. And what happens when this is more widely publicised?

In any case, your post smacks of jealously again. Are you thinking people should suck up the blight on their lives because you think they are coining it on their house? You do realise moving elsewhere in the SE is often just as expensive, and you will likely still be affected by aircraft noise and pollution? Having spent tens of thousands on moving. And been moved from your friends and family and potentially with a longer and more expensive commute.

You have failed to respond to my point about spare capacity at the other SE airports. I would be interested in knowing why you think Heathrow should expand when there is so much spare capacity at the other airports.

Oh and it's not a matter of who I 'claim' to be blighted. The figures I quoted haven't been made up by me! They are official figures drawn up by bodies such as the CAA, who actually know what they are talking about, and gather real and robust data to compile them. Not peole who make blind assertions on what they 'believe' while ignoring facts that are inconvenient to them.

If Luton was expanded I would get more aeroplanes over my house. However I still think that increasing flights from Luton makes more sense. Luton has spare capacity. It's not that far from London. It would be good if there was a fast non stop trains between Heathrow, gatwick, stansted and Luton. Maybe a system where luggage does not have to be re checked in for connecting flights.

Really that is a good idea. Luton would need to sort out its ridiculous passport control queues though!

Luton needs more investment. The area could also do with the additional jobs.

There needs to be better investment in transport between all the London airports. If there was a fast trains direct from Luton airport into London and direct trains to other airports then connecting flights would be easier.

I often flown from Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted when I would prefer to fly from Luton.

Yes, I agree with you that Luton would be the sensible candidate, if indeed expansion is warranted. If only we had a sensible government.

I would vote for Manchester myself - much better for the North and Scotland, better for North Wales, not much different to London for South Wales and the West Country and then run HS2 there to connect.

Arguments like 'the aeroplane noise made me loose marks in my gcse french' really do not encourage anymore sympathy from me!! That's so shockingly privileged!!
Anyway, I agree with Estelle that expansion has compromises. I have to park half a mile away from where I work and have parked outside my own house perhaps once a year. Should I be compensated as it's got worse since I moved in? Of course not. It's a trade off for the increased population and shops and conveniences nearby etc.Same with Heathrow. The increased runway is a trade off for the advantages of being in London that simply isn't available in the rest of the country.
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.

Er, Not , why is it 'incredibly privileged' to not want to lose marks during an exam because of excessive noise? It's not just the privileged who sit exams, you know!! I would have thought it was more important for those less privileged to not have their education impacted by wholly avoidable, unnecessary noise.

OP, do you have some sort of perception that everyone in London lives in a bubble of privilege or something? You really couldn't be further from the truth. As for the notion that taking GCSEs and wanting to pass them is "shockingly privileged", words fail me.

The notion that everybody who lives in London is privileged or chi chi and must be made to pay for it is bizarre. And heaven forbid they decide to do something as decadent as French GSSE.

What are the advantages of being in London? Paying more for housing, transport, no appointments at the Gps, horrendous rush hour, traffic jams, terror alerts, noise and pollution. It's only paradise though in your eyes, seem though the green glass of envy.

Every single post in support of the runway is all about privilege, house prices, chi chi places to live and not a scrap of evidence why we need more capacity and why to should be built at Heathrow.

Of course gcse marks are important, but is that comparible to Calais/ crappy life chances? Nope. It is extremely privileged as it pressumes education, literacy, family support, intelligence, gender equality, sufficient health to attend school, sufficient wealth to go to school (not just getting there but the fact of not having to go to work), English as a 1st language to be learning French gcse, decent transport links to get to school, job opportunities that make the gcse have any value etc etc.
If you don't think that is privileged then perhaps you need to go on one of these planes and see the world.

Of course we assume education, family support, literacy etc

That's honestly pretty much a given in Western Europe. I'm not sure making this set of assumptions undermines anyone's case against the third runway.

It may well be 'privileged' compared to developing countries, but so fecking what? It's not privileged in the developed world, it's a basic right. To argue we should therefore put up with any shitty treatment from tax-dodging companies like Heathrow and its owners, and lump a new runway there is no need for, is an absolutely nonsense argument.

I will say it again. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A THIRD RUNWAY AT HEATHROW BECAUSE THERE IS ALREADY AMPLE UNUSED CAPACITY ELSEWHERE IN THE SOUTH EAST.

FFS. It's all set out in my previous posts, with links to information to back it up. Maybe try reading it and use actual evidence to inform your opinion.

Every single post in support of the runway is all about privilege, house prices, chi chi places to live and not a scrap of evidence why we need more capacity and why to should be built at Heathrow.

You are willfully misinterpreting this. The point is that neighbourhoods you claim are blighted by the airport are in fact thriving and very desirable.

WTF are you on about?

What has Calais have to do with this?
how is a new runway going to solve the problems of all those who have made crappy life choices?
It is extremely privileged as it presumes education, literacy, family support, intelligence, gender equality, sufficient health to attend school, sufficient wealth to go to school (not just getting there but the fact of not having to go to work), English as a 1st language to be learning French gcbse, decent transport links to get to school, job opportunities that make the gcbse have any value etc etc.
So by having the runway built you want all these people to have these so called privileges removed?
And this will bring prosperity and world peace how? By punishing the ones you see as privileged?

Blimey.
I fail to follow your thinking process.

I give up.

This is ridiculous.

Estelle, I don't pay much attention to your facts. You know why? While you are making intricate arguments, they seem to be missing some essential "truthiness." I am not saying that you are purposefully mendacious or malicious, but you are so biased that you can only see your own point of view and become irate when others' don't share it. I'm not really interested in the finer details of what I see to be an essentially wrong argument in the first place.

Yes, some people would be badly affected by airport expansion and should be generously compensated. And yes, we need airport expansion in the Southeast and yes Heathrow is the most sensible place to have it based on the way population is distributed and the secondary transport links that we already have.

NotForSale

I hope you never complain about anything at all in your life.

Given that, you know, children are being bombed in Syria, people are dying of cancer in England, people are starving to death in Africa etc

What a stupid argument you make. I fucking despair that people are so bereft of basic comprehension, research, analytical skills and reason.

Going ahead with a 3rd runway and subjecting more people to more noise, will not save children from bombs in Aleppo. Nor will it help improve literacy in Sudan.

I don't think sitting a french GCSE is exactly the height of privilege, in the UK. Which is where we are actually, you know, talking about. Because Heathrow, believe it or not is in London which is part of the UK. We aren't talking about Syria, or Africa, or anywhere else.

Bet you;re the kind of person that when a friend says they stubbed their toe and it hurt says "It can't have hurt because I broke my leg and that is worse".

Chardonnay you said 'Paying more for housing, transport, no appointments at the Gps, horrendous rush hour, traffic jams, terror alerts, noise and pollution'. That's the reality of population expansion. Building or not building a runway will not change that. Can you explain how you think no additional runway would change this? Can you also say how you think it's OK somewhere else but not where you live?
I appreciate explaining why possibly loosing marks on a French gcse due to an aeroplane was slightly off the original topic but it amazes me the fundamental differences in privilege. That's all it has to do with the runway as another poster brought that up and if I remember stated 'that's not fair' (complete with foot stamping??) Could she not have just asked for the question to be repeated?
And to clarify Chardonnay I said Crappy life chances. Very different to crappy life choices.

I'm sorry NotForSale but I can't make head or tail of what you are saying, what you actually are trying to say and why you are saying it.

And that despite my being so incredibly "privileged" that I also speak French and German.

I give up.

Empress they are not MY facts. They are THE facts, based on data, collated by unbiased bodies.

Frankly, if you are prepared to show yourself up by rejecting evidence in favour of some moronic feeling of 'truthiness', and clinging stubbornly to your existing prejudices, there is no point me engaging with you.

Do you not see how stupid you are making yourself look by accusing somebody of bias when they have arrived at their conclusion on the basis of fact and evidence, while you are going purely on gut feel? YOU are the biased one, because you are doggedly clinging to an opinion despite having been presented with an abundance of independent evidence that it is wrong.