HEATHROW AIRPORT expansion has been given go ahead - 3rd runway etc

[RTKangaMummy]

.

Can I ask what did anyone expect buying next to an airport? 25% above value is a pretty sweet deal.

I ca't help thinking its a decision to boost the economy and send a strong 'open for business' message post-Brexit.

There isn't the local capacity. M25, M4, M3 and the Piccadilly Line will be hell.

Whole communities will need to find new homes.

Bring on the By-Election!

But value at what point in time? After the value has dropped through the floor following the runway announcement?
What about the people in West Drayton and Slough- will anyone offer to buy them out at a premium price?

It is a LUDICROUS decision. Air pollution is already way over limits. People are dying because of it. A lot more kids are autistic because of it. Noise pollution even tens of miles from the airport is immense. And then there's the danger element of thousands of planes flying over the most densely populated part of the whole country.

On top of all that (as if it wasn't enough!), we will pay BILLIONS for the privilege. Infrastructure costs such as alterations to the M25 are projected to cost £18billion, and likely much more. And how much of that will Heathrow's tax-dodging owners pay? A grand total of £1billion. The taxpayer will pay the rest. That's £17billion.... And then Heathrow's owners will pay profits in dividends out to offshore parent companies and pay us no tax on them. And the government is selling this stitch-up to us as a brilliant deal for the UK.

Write to your MP.
Write to your council.
Write to the Transport Secretary.
Write to the Mayor.

I think Heathrow is situated in too-densely populated an area for a third runway to be viable. I actually believe that it would be better for the UK to knock airport expansion on the head altogether and let Schipol or Charles de Gaulle become the main hub.

I am, however, looking forward to Boris fulfilling his promise to lie in front of a bulldozer on the day they start building. Every cloud....

The extra runway will decrease noise and pollution

Noise will be reduced because less time will be spent in the stack. Less out of hours operation will happen as small delays can be absorbed more easily.

Pollution and fuel use will also be reduced by less stack time.

A positive way to approach it would be to ask for a reduction in flights between 23:00 and 06:00 (currently 5800 allowed per year).

How is noise over Hounslow going to be reduced because there is less time spent in the stack?

And how will pollution become reduced because of reduced stacks if there are double the flight movements?

Please don't insult us with these ridiculous suggestions.

There wont be double the movements Heathrows projected traffic for 2024 is 499,000 an increase of 19,000 so 4% increase not 100%

Noise will be reduced because aircraft wont be going round over your head waiting for a landing slot. Pollution is reduced for the same reason, aircraft engines are not optimal at lower levels, so the faster they get in the less fuel they burn.

At the moment if 1 runway goes out of action at Heathrow delays build up and flights run into the night because capacity drops by 50%, if you have 3 runways and one is out of action you only lose 33% so delays are less.

This is such a stupid decision. I fly about once a month back to the UK from NYC. It is really hard to fly direct to Manchester from NYC. BA wants to fly everything from NYC into London and then have passengers take the commuter plane up to Manchester. Consumers do not want that but accept it because sometimes it is the only way to get to our destination.

What is needed is a proper review of who is flying into which airports and consideration given about directing customers to less frequently used airports. There is no reason why Liverpool airport couldn't take more flights to and from the Americas region. Also, flights to Birmingham are often half full. Why not offer passengers a free train fare to their final destination. I think we have enough airports. What we don't have is proper planning of long haul flights which is why Heathrow gets congested.

This is such a stupid decision. I fly about once a month back to the UK from NYC. It is really hard to fly direct to Manchester from NYC. assuming when you say NYC you mean JFK, American Airlines, Delta and United all do daily flights from Manchester to JFK.

cdtaylor do you work for the Heathrow Propaganda Comms Team?

Without wishing to be rude, what you have written is arrant nonsense. The pollution reduction from less time spent in the stack (if that even happens) is minimal. Likewise noise. Most people affected by noise are NOT hearing noise from the stack. They are suffering extremely loud noise from aircraft on the final descent or from takeoff. To give you an idea, I live 16 miles out from Heathrow, qualify for no noise mitigation payment, yet suffer 90-110db every 90 seconds (with noise rising and falling from this in between -there is never no noise) for 19 hours per day.

Noise blights lives and causes mental health problems. The pollution we already suffer ends thousands of lives prematurely each year, causes serious health conditions like asthma, heart attacks, strokes and dementia, causes kids to lack concentration in class and causes autism in some children. That is just a few of the adverse effects. There are more.

The mitigation you mention is extremely small beer in comparison, if it is true at all. If you do not work for Heathrow, might I suggest you acquaint yourself with some unbiased information? There is plenty to be had on the net.

Personally, I like Boris Island but I appreciate it's probably so expensive as to be undeliverable.

So how will the poor sod in Hounslow or Chiswick have reduced noise because of the stacks?
A simple question.
Also, you say the flight movement will go up by 4%. A whole runway just for a 4% increase then?
Utter nonsense.

Is the nats in your user name in fact NATS?
That would explain the ridiculous propaganda.

Perhaps the answer is to move the hub to Manchester airport and move Heathrow down to a 1 runway feeder.

From what I've read it sounds like those in the area where their home will be bought out automatically will be better off than those in the area where their house can be sold for compensation but not until the runway is built.

If there are legal challenges then it could still be many years still until the runway is completed and in the meantime thete will be many with nearly worthless homes but not able to get compensation. At least those in the line of the bulldozers will be able to have some kind of closure and move on with their lives.

For everyone supporting the new runway, go live in Chiswick, Richmond or Hounslow. You will know how terrible the quality of air/life is. You can not open the windows, you can not sleep, no hanging out the washing... It is dire! This is just going to make things worse. I feel for everyone living on the flightpath.

Ah, Chardonnay I had missed the 'Nats'. It all becomes clear. How on EARTH is Nats allowed to change flight paths - and concentrate them - willy nilly, with no regard for the lives of those on the ground, with no legal requirement to take the interests of citizens into account? It's scandalous and they do an appalling job. Appalling.

Private Eye makes some interesting points. Post-brexit, with all these companies apparently leaving the UK, we may have less demand for air travel - which is a good thing if anyone gives a damn about the future.

They also say that if Gordon Brown had given the go-ahead in his time, the runway would now be well under construction for the projected traffic levels of the pre-2008 boom.

if we really do need more flights (and I'm not convinced, there always seemed to be a space when I wanted to fly into or out of Heathrow) then there are underutilised airports in the Midlands and further north. And an existing fast train line from Birmingham (as an example) into London. Given that the Heathrow Express only goes to Paddington, there really isn't much in it for transfer times.

The big thing is apparently to make Heathrow a hub. This means people land and leave, spending almost nothing and doing no business while in the UK. The point of that escapes me.

Meadows I live in Hoboken and work in central NJ. For me to get to JFK can take up to 5 hours so I fly from either Newark or Philly. From Newark there are very flew flights to non London locations in the UK. There used to be 3 flights a night to Manchester, now there is only one. That plane is full and numerous times now I have been forced into taking a connecting flight through London, the alternative being to fly via chicago or fly to Birmingham and take the train (with an extra cost of train plus car service as I need to be at Bham airport for 6am on my return). I would happily fly into Birmingham instead of Manchester if they had joined up the train service so I could get from Crewe to Bham airport for 6am without fail.

So many people in Europe think JFK is the NYC airport. Newark is far closer to Manhattan and has better connections to other US locations than JFK.

Apologies if anybody has already mentioned this, but I just saw this news report and was horrified, it states that they want to bulldoze 783 houses to make way for this runway: uk.yahoo.com/news/uk-decide-airport-expansion-proposal-081313761.html

I really hope this isn't true. How can it even be legal to force people to sell their homes because the government wants the land? This smacks of the whole 'Land Grab' issue they have in Spain.

Is this an attention grabbing headline without basis or could this actually happen to the people who live near Heathrow???

It is a LUDICROUS decision. Air pollution is already way over limits. People are dying because of it. A lot more kids are autistic because of it. Noise pollution even tens of miles from the airport is immense. And then there's the danger element of thousands of planes flying over the most densely populated part of the whole country.

^^this.

and all the fucking mps who are rubbing their greedy trotters in glee, I bet NOT ONE of them lives in a flight path.

they have no fucking idea.

yet now the ''green loonies'' and health freaks are being targeted, cos you know, moneys more inprtant than peoples health.

and if I was in the area they want to bulldoze Id stage a sit in and not move from there.

and quorn some people have no choice where they live, especially council housing. Do you say the same to people who live in places where flooding is frequent?

why are my posts coming out the same colour as the OPS? its usually a different colour?

of course, Heathrow also has no real train connection to anywhere other than into London. Gatwick is on the main network but no direct service to other cities.

Birmingham has its main train station a 10 minute hop from the airport station, and both are on direct lines to London. Not so familiar with Manchester airport but again, Manchester has links to other places.

suspect our government cannot work out that people might want to land somewhere other than London.