Heathrow expansion - response

[Nemesis]

http://www.spab.org.uk/html/media-centre/press-releases/press-release/BuiltHeritageUnderSeriousThreatJointResponsetoHeathrowAirportConsultation.html?ContentID=84&PHPSESSID=9bed9bb55f64055e8d340772256bfe52

BUILT HERITAGE UNDER SERIOUS THREAT: JOINT RESPONSE TO HEATHROW AIRPORT CONSULTATIONPress Release Archive ADDING CAPACITY AT HEATHROW AIRPORT



CONSULTATION RESPONSE FROM THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL AMENITY SOCIETIES

This joint response has been submitted by The Ancient Monuments Society, The Civic Trust, The Council for British Archaeology, The Garden History Society, The Georgian Group, SPAB, The Twentieth Century Society, The Victorian Society.

1. Introduction

The Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies consists of the national amenity societies which by law must be notified of all applications that involve the demolition of listed buildings in England and Wales. It also includes the Civic Trust and the Garden History Society which must be consulted over certain works to historic gardens and landscapes. This response is the collective view of the Joint Committee, though individual societies may also be submitting their own more specific comments.

2. Response

• The consultation starts from a clear presumption in favour of further expansion at Heathrow. The Aviation White Paper in 2002 asked if it was possible to expand the airport’s capacity while minimising environmental damage. In the case of the extraordinary potential damage to the heritage we said confidently that it was not. This remains our view. Indeed this disastrous outcome is now worse than in 2002 because of the proposed sixth terminal – the need for which was categorically denied at the time. The Heritage Impact Assessment in the consultation document acknowledges that additional capacity “would generate high adverse impact on heritage”.

• We are very concerned by possible damage - both direct and indirect - to the 102 listed buildings, monuments, archaeological sites, historic settlements and landscapes identified in the consultation that could result from the proposed construction of a third runway, sixth terminal and associated taxiways, roads and ancillary structures. The lack of detailed information on the precise siting of the runway and related developments because they are “indicative” is particularly worrying as a variation could easily increase the risk to sensitive areas.

• The sheer scale of the possible damage to sound, legally protected, historic buildings and sites at Heathrow (as at Stansted) is without postwar precedent, and should be wholly unacceptable as it would be under any other commercial or private development.

• Under planning law proposals for the demolition of listed buildings or those seriously affecting scheduled sites are normally only granted consent under exceptional circumstances; and almost never when the building is in a sound condition as is the case of those identified as at risk.

• Many of the existing buildings and structures, particularly those in Sipson, that are likely to be affected will not be listed but nevertheless form a valuable part of the overall historic environment.

• The scope for ameliorating the effect on the historic environment by dismantling and re-erecting a small proportion of the most important buildings is extremely limited, and will almost always be both technically and philosophically highly problematical. It is not a serious option and should form no part of the discussions.

• The historic environment is a finite resource that cannot be renewed once it is lost. It is wholly wrong to sacrifice buildings that may be 800 years old for the comparatively short term expansion of an activity that is unsustainable in the long term.

• The whole basis of the proposals is misconceived - that of uncontrolled growth in demand for air travel, and commercial pressure from airlines and airports for further unjustifiable expansion. We believe many of the arguments for unchecked expansion put forward are weak.

• Even if a case for further expansion could be made, it is quite clear that Heathrow is in the wrong location. It would be a terrible betrayal of future generations to jeopardize the ancient settlements in the vicinity by a short sighted compounding the original mistake.

• The proposals for a third runway in the RUCATSE report of 1993 were rejected principally because of the environmental damage they would have caused. The latest proposals are just as serious for the historic environment (and more so in some locations) and should also be rejected. The Government should be thinking more radically about proper longterm solutions that do not depend on destroying our precious heritage.


3. Heathrow’s Historic Environment


(i) The area to the north of Heathrow is a quite remarkable and special historic survival so close to the centre of London and engulfed by more recent development. It also includes individual historic buildings of great importance, including one - Harmondsworth barn - which is one the finest examples anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is an area rich in historic interest that merits special measures to protect its sensitivity. Instead we have proposals that would jeopardise most of its historic value, and which would be unthinkable if any equivalent form of commercial or private development were proposed.

(ii) The consultation rightly recognizes that the current airport site and the proposed area of expansion lie within an area of high archaeological importance, with human activity dating from prehistoric times. The pattern of landscape and settlement probably changed little from the Mediaeval to post-Mediaeval period. In spite of the growth of surrounding suburbia, an extraordinary semi-rural enclave still survives. The proposed expansion would lead to substantial archaeological disturbance, the Heritage Impact Assessment concedes, and could affect 38 undesignated sites within the smaller study area. The maximum area of expansion contains an additional 32 sites, while a further 55 lie in the wider corridor, as do three scheduled ancient monuments.

(iii) The consultation refers to 102 listed buildings within the study area, though the document is factually wrong in referring to the churches affected by their former alphabetical listings. The two most significant churches at risk – Harlington and Harmondsworth – were relisted as Grade I and Grade II* respectively some years ago. We hope that similar mistakes have not been made elsewhere.

(iv) Because the location of the third runway, sixth terminal and associated taxiways and ancillary works are only “indicative” the four listed buildings said to be facing complete demolition are not identified. However they would appear to be three in Sipson, including a former Mediaeval hall house, now the King William IV pub; and neighbouring Lanz farmhouse, a late 17th or early 18th century timber framed house revamped in the 19th century. A listed but much altered late 18th century house would also seem to be doomed. To these must be added 700 other properties in Sipson which are to be erased to make way for the new terminal. Several of these are unlisted but are of clear historic interest.

(v) The most important casualty of the third runway is likely to be the tower, if not the whole, of Grade I listed St Peter’s Church, Harlington. This lies immediately underneath the main approach to the proposed runway. The recent crash landing of a Boeing aircraft short of an existing runway emphasizes its vulnerability. St Peter’s is a Norman church, with 14th century chancel, 15th century tower and 16th century porch. The churchyard is famed for its yew trees and tombs, one of which is listed in its own right. Though Harlington falls just outside the indicative boundary of the airport the new M4 spur road threatens several listed buildings which would be uncomfortably close to it. Most at risk is likely to be Elder farmhouse, identified in the list description as 16th century or earlier with an 18th century front, and slightly further away the Pheasant pub, also Grade II, and listed as 18th century.

(vi) Harmondsworth at the west end of the site is a wholly unexpected survival, an almost secret remnant of an historic Middlesex agricultural enclave, now marooned among suburban sprawl and marginal farming. As well as the Grade II* Norman church, it is renowned for one of the finest 12 bay tithe barns in the country, a scheduled ancient monument, with its surrounding former Manor farmhouse and farmbuildings. Other listed buildings in danger include the early 18th century Harmondsworth Hall; the Grange of 1675; the 17th century Five Bells Inn; 16th century Sun House; The Crown (18th century); The Gable Stores (19th century); a K6 telephone box; Acacia House of 1725; the 19th century former Vicarage, and the handsome brick Lodge. Unlike previous plans the proposed runway will now be sited just north of Harmondsworth, missing it by a short distance. In theory this will permit the central core of the hamlet to survive, recognizing its historic importance and value. But the eastern end will be wiped out (22 per cent of the conservation area) with the demolition of one listed building. The plan is unclear but the most likely candidate seems to be a house of about 1600. But demolitions aside it is hard to see how any of the remaining buildings will be usable or have any sort of sustainable future because of their proximity to the runway. The noise alone will make them untenable. Accidental damage will always be a concern.

(vii) Apart from the areas close to the airport it is important to remember the consequences for other historic buildings and sites on the new flight paths resulting from an extra runway. Buildings of supreme importance such as Chiswick House will find it increasingly hard to operate as a public heritage site because of the huge increase in noise from low flying aircraft.



3. Listed building/Scheduled monument consent

(i) Air travel is a commercial operation and the pressure for expansion has come from airlines
and airport operators. In any other circumstances listed building or scheduled monument
applications to damage large sections of statutorily protected heritage assets for commercial
gain would be rejected out of hand, and rightly so. Consent is almost never given for
demolition of buildings that retain their historic integrity and interest.

(ii) In addition dozens of unlisted older buildings within conservation areas, or which are
integral parts of the local historic environment, appear to be in danger and should not be
seen as dispensible.

(iii) Noise and other forms of pollution are likely to jeopardise the continued use of and care for many more historic buildings over a much wider area. Blighted by airport expansion, the future of previously much loved structures in the vicinity may be put in doubt, with the erosion of their historic character and possible deterioration as the longterm outcome. This largely falls outside the planning system but over time this insidious process can be as destructive as more direct threats.

4. Amelioration

Reference has been made in previous plans to the possibility of relocating some of the listed buildings facing outright demolition - the implication being that if the most important ones can be "saved" by this method, the loss of others may be acceptable. We reject this most strongly, and suggest it would be wholly mistaken to regard this as a serious answer to the heritage threat.

Relocation can take two forms - the most technically difficult, expensive and least common is by undermining the building and lifting it whole to a new site. What is much more usually meant is dismantling the building and re-erecting a replica using a proportion of the materials salvaged from the original. On the face of it this may seem easier with timber-framed buildings, but the loss of historic fabric and identity is inevitable however carefully it is done. Equally important is the removal of the structure from its historic context and setting, inevitably destroying the link between it and its historic site, and in the process seriously diminishing its value and interest.

5. The Need for Radical Thinking

The Joint Committee of National Amenity Societies must leave judgments about the real need for airport expansion and the best ways of achieving a sensible transport policy to those better qualified to do so. However we would like to make the following points:

(i) In rejecting all the runway options that result in serious damage to heritage assets we are not
opposing the need for economic development. Rather we urge the Government to think
more radically about more imaginative ways of creating a long term, sustainable transport
policy that is achievable without destroying large numbers of historic buildings and sites in
the process.

(ii) The absurdity of using "predict and provide" as a basis for planning transport policy is self-
evident and does not need arguing. It also seems clear that completely unchecked growth in
air travel bears far too high an environmental price. The Government should acknowledge
the need for some control - whether through fiscal measures, the reduction in subsidies, the
rationing of airport capacity, or in other ways.


The UK's historic building, monuments, sites and landscapes are a finite and constantly eroding resource. We must value them and protect them. Their loss should not be seen as the inevitable consequence of progress. Once lost they cannot be recovered. The Consultation Document concedes the scale of the damage to the heritage resulting from the proposal. The Government should recognise that this is too high a price to pay, and think again.

 

[Nemesis]

PRESS RELEASE

ISSUED BY STOP STANSTED EXPANSION 29 February 2008



SSE CONDEMNS FALSE POLLUTION DATA PROVIDED BY BAA TO PUBLIC INQUIRY



Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) has written to the Government Minister with lead responsibility for determining the outcome of BAA's planning application for increased throughput on the existing runway condemning BAA for making false claims at last year's Public Inquiry.



The move follows the airport operator's eleventh hour admission that the pollution impacts of its plans would be far more serious than it originally claimed. BAA has now been forced to admit that EU pollution limits would be exceeded over an extensive area including Hatfield Forest which is nationally designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a National Nature Reserve.



In a letter to Hazel Blears, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, SSE points out that if the true position had been provided to the Public Inquiry, the debate on the air pollution effects of the proposed development would have assumed a radically different complexion.



The letter also notifies Hazel Blears that SSE is taking legal advice on the implications of the new pollution data and the options available in the event that the Secretary of State fails to treat the matter with the seriousness it deserves. In the meantime SSE has written to BAA with an urgent request for full disclosure of all of the supporting data relating to its revised projections.



At the start of the Public Inquiry, the Inspector identified the effects of increased air pollution from aircraft and surface traffic on nearby woodlands as one of the key issues facing the Inquiry. BAA sought to neutralise this issue by providing projections showing that pollution limits would not be exceeded in Hatfield Forest. However, this claim has now turned out to be false.



In the course of the Inquiry, experts giving evidence on behalf of Uttlesford District Council, the National Trust, Friends of the Earth and SSE all questioned the credibility of BAA's projections for air pollution. BAA dismissed all their evidence insisting that its own projections were 'robust', 'conservative' and represented a 'realistic worst case scenario'.



Since then, and in anticipation of its second runway application, BAA has been forced to admit that it systematically underpredicted the levels of nitrogen oxide pollution. Crucially, the revised data show that EU pollution limits for the protection of vegetation would be exceeded not only in Hatfield Forest but also in East End Wood, on the opposite side of the airport, also nationally designated as a SSSI.



"Once again this is a case of BAA understating the damage that would be caused by its expansion proposals," said SSE Campaign Director Carol Barbone. "To add insult to injury, BAA is now making the preposterous claim that the breach of pollution limits to which it now admits is of no real significance compared to the alleged benefits of its expansion proposal."



BAA agreed during the Inquiry that the relevant EU pollution limit for the protection of vegetation was appropriately defined and that it was not necessary for other parties to prove that actual damage would ensue if the limit were to be exceeded. However, after it became clear that the relevant limit would be exceeded, BAA has cynically reversed its position. It now argues that the breach is unimportant because no party provided evidence to the Inquiry that harm would ensue.



SSE's letter to the Secretary of State also contains a reminder that a key issue which emerged at the Public Inquiry was ”the level of trust which can be placed in the documents produced by BAA for this Inquiry”. One of the reasons for this, highly relevant to BAA's understatement of the air

pollution impacts, was BAA's 30 percent understatement of the additional road traffic which would result from its proposal. BAA initially claimed its projections were based on CAA data and the true picture only emerged after very extensive research and probing by SSE.



Carol Barbone concluded: "If BAA cannot get its facts right on an issue as important as local air quality, what confidence can local residents have in any of its figures?"



The Inspector delivered his confidential report on the Inquiry to the Secretary of State in January and the Government had been expected to announce a decision by Easter. A delay now seems inevitable and it is anticipated that BAA may now take the highly controversial step of submitting its planning application for a second runway before the Secretary of State has even decided whether or not to allow further expansion on the existing runway.



ENDS



NOTES FOR EDITORS



1. LETTERS



Copies of SSE Letters to Hazel Blears, Secretary of State for Communities (also sent to Ruth Kelly, Secretary of State for Transport because the decision will be taken by both Secretaries of State) and to CMS Cameron McKenna BAA's Legal Advisers are available online at http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com/air_quality_representations_2008.html.



2. LEGAL CONTEXT



EU Directive 96/62/EC on ambient air quality assessment and management (The Framework Air Quality Directive) obliges member states to "take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the limit values" and EU Directive 99/30/EC (The First Daughter Directive) sets a limit value for oxides of nitrogen of 30 micrograms per cubic metre as an annual mean. This was embodied in UK legislation in the UK Air Quality Limit Values Regulations 2001 where Section 3.1 states:



"The Secretary of State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that throughout England in each zone concentrations of relevant pollutants in ambient air ... do not exceed the limit values set out in Schedule 1 from the dates specified in that Schedule" (i.e., for oxides of nitrogen, 30 micrograms per cubic metre as an annual mean with effect from 19 July 2001).



BAA claims that Hatfield Forest is not protected by the legislation because it is within 5km of a motorway. However, the legislation does not exempt such areas from the need for protection but simply states that areas within 5km of a motorway are unsuitable for sampling air quality levels.



3. HATFIELD FOREST



Hatfield Forest is of national and international significance as a rare surviving example of a medieval royal hunting forest. It is recorded in the Domesday Book and belonged to King Harold before passing to William the Conqueror. It extends to some 1000 acres and is the largest public open space in North Essex. It has been owned and managed by the National Trust since 1923.



4. STANSTED AIRPORT



Stansted currently handles 23.6 million passengers per annum and is capped at 25 million by a planning condition. BAA's expansion proposals for its single runway sought unlimited passenger capacity and an increase in air traffic movements on the existing runway. In addition BAA is expected to submit its long delayed planning application for a second runway at Stansted in the next few weeks.





FURTHER INFORMATION



SSE Campaign Office

01279 870558

info@stopstanstedexpansion.com

http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com



“Our Community – Our Responsibility”

 

[Schoolmarm]

Grrrrrrrrrr :evil:

 

[pandora]

I probably fall into the category of 'the enemy' to those who oppose the expansion of airports, as I work as an airline pilot.

There is a massive problem with aviation and it's ever-increasing growth at the moment. I work out of Heathrow airport, and it is becoming a nightmare place to work, because it runs at 98% capacity (as compared with approximately 60-70% capacity at the other 3 of the 'big 4' airports in Europe - Schipol, Charles de Gaulle and Frankfurt. These airports handle the same number of aircraft movements per day, but they have more runways. And believe me, they are much more civilised places to operate into and out of.) At the moment at Heathrow it takes about 20-30 mins from starting engines to take off, burning fuel all the time. But this is as nothing compared to the phenomenal burning of fuel while airborne in a holding pattern waiting to land. The only way that more aircraft can arrive into Britain is if there is more runway space for them to land on, and unfortunately we are a small and ancient island nation, making it difficult to find ANY half mile wide by 3 mile long bit of spare land for the runway and the space needed to park the extra aircraft on too. Where there are airports already is the logical place to start, as these places frequently have the infrastructure to get passengers there in place already, and more importantly, seem to be close to the places where people want to fly from.

Now before I get shot down in flames for presenting the other side of the argument, I will state my position, in capital letters so it isn't skipped over; I DON'T WANT TO SEE AN INCREASE IN AVIATION, BUT WOULD PREFER TO SEE A RATIONALISATION OF THE TRANSPORT FACILITIES WE ALREADY HAVE. The problem we have is amplified by the price cutting of flights that has gone on in recent years. Think about it - 15 years ago how many people would have had a long skiing holiday, a quick weekend in the Alps, a stag night in Dublin, a stag night in Las Vegas, a beach holiday in the Maldives, a long weekend in Biarritz for some surfing - this is a typical list of trips for my husband's friends in a year. I myself don't travel away on holiday so much - I am sick of the sight of the airport by the time my hols come around (I have holidayed in Lincolnshire for the last 3 years :lol: ) It is all down to the price of flights coming down.

I think that consumers need to be encouraged to think a bit more about the actual cost of their extra flights. I used to be amazed (but not any more) when people used to comment to me about how expensive my airline was - after all, Ryanair can fly you to Spain for 50 pence! This, in my opinion, is just plain wrong. Starting with the immediately apparent costs - a Boeing 737 costs about £45 million and uses about 6 tons of aviation fuel on a round trip to Spain. It is crewed by a pair of pilots that have cost over £100k to train, and has a massive infrastructure of other staff from loaders to refuellers to loo cleaners to to engineers to keep it ticking over. Looking a bit further, the 737 needs somewhere to take off and land on, somewhere to park, somewhere to be maintained. It will make noise as it flies over these places. You need to be able to store the fuel for it somewhere, and you need a passenger terminal. You need roads and carparks, train lines and stations so that the passengers can get there. It goes on and on.

Because we are an island nation we are restricted for space, yet have a greater need and desire than say, the Germans, to fly out if we are to explore and leave our country behind for a while. (We can't drive over our borders.) The low-co airlines have given the average Briton this ability. We also have an increasing number of foreign nationals living and working in Britain who wish to visit home regularly too.

Now I am not saying all of the above is RIGHT. But if the way that this country behaves is to continue - and many people believe it is a good thing - then to put it simply, we need more runways. It does not matter where we put the runways; if we put them in built-up areas there will be buildings demolished. If we put them in the countryside there will be unique habitats destroyed. The only way to prevent this is to stop the British public from travelling. And unfortunately it will be political suicide to whichever party decides to put the kibosh on cheap holidays for the great unwashed!

 

[Nemesis]

I profoundly disagree with much of what you say, but can't really be bothered to waste time arguing.

The part I do agree with is that we need to fly less, but that will happen when we run out of oil.

 

[pandora]

I have merely stated a bunch of facts which are apparent from my experience in the avation industry on a day-to-day basis. I am not sure which bit you profoundly disagree with and can't be bothered arguing with.

I could trawl through some of your 7479 posts made on this forum to see whether you have stated an informed opinion on avation, or whether you just cut and paste a lot, but frankly I can't be bothered.

 

[Nemesis]

In general, I find arguing on this forum isn't worth the bother and time - better to put energy into opposing things where they might just have some effect. We have 'done' the aviation industry in the past and doubt that there's much more to say.

I profoundly disagree that we need to carry on expanding this industry.

I 'cut and paste' to keep those interested informed.

Here's the latest on the SSE campaign, just released, remembering that this forum is for those with an interest in period buildings (many of which will be flattened if this expansion goes ahead):

PRESS RELEASE

ISSUED BY STOP STANSTED EXPANSION 17 March 2008



STORM FORCE OF OPPOSITION LINES UP TO CHALLENGE BAA PLANS



A storm force of opposition to BAA’s plans for an airport bigger than Heathrow at Stansted is being lined up as Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) prepares to stage a major rally on Wednesday 2 April in Bishop’s Stortford.



The event, to be held at the Rhodes Centre, South Road at 8pm, will be an important opportunity for the community and its allies to reaffirm commitment to fighting the airport expansion proposals which would have far-reaching implications.



Chaired by Hertford and Stortford MP Mark Prisk, SSE speakers Peter Sanders (Chairman) and Carol Barbone (Campaign Director) will be joined at the rally by Parliamentarians and peers, council leaders and representatives of special interest and environmental groups.



To date, some 15 speakers have confirmed that they will be attending to vocalize their opposition to BAA’s plans, including the Conservative Shadow Aviation Minister Julian Brazier MP, Labour peer Baroness McIntosh, Christopher Beazley MEP, Lord Hanningfield and Caroline Lucas MEP. The National Trust, Woodland Trust, CPRE and Greenpeace will also address the rally. Messages of support from Harlow MP Bill Rammell, who will be out of the country on that date, and the Liberal Democrat Transport Spokesman Norman Baker MP are also expected. Saffron Walden MP Sir Alan Haselhurst will provide the closing address.



If BAA's plans for a second runway at Stansted were to be approved it would be the UK's biggest airport development project since the Second World War. Over a thousand acres of unspoilt countryside and ancient woodlands would be bulldozed, cutting a swathe through the heritage-rich villages of Molehill Green and Broxted, but the effects of BAA’s proposals would be felt across the region and beyond.



Speaking ahead of the event, SSE Campaign Director Carol Barbone said: “The level of opposition to BAA’s plans is unprecedented as we prepare to fight – and overturn – its wholly unsustainable proposals.”



Admission to the rally is free. A number of seats are available for advance reservation and can be obtained by contacting SSE on info@stopstanstedexpansion.com or 01279 870558.



ENDS



NOTE TO EDITORS



The full list of acceptances to date is as follows:



· Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall

· Julian Brazier MP, Shadow Transport Minister

· Sir Alan Haselhurst MP

· Christopher Beazley MEP

· Dr Caroline Lucas MEP

· The Lord Hanningfield, Leader, Essex County Council

· Cllr David Lloyd, Deputy Leader, Herts County Council

· Cllr Jackie Cheetham, Deputy Leader, Uttlesford District Council

· Douglas Kent, Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

· Lawrence Wragg, CPRE East of England

· (name to be confirmed) Friends of the Earth

· Anita Goldsmith, Greenpeace

· Ed Pomfret, The Woodland Trust

· Keith Turner, The National Trust

· (name to be confirmed) Stop Heathrow Expansion



Messages of support are expected from:



· Bill Rammell MP

· Norman Baker MP

· Tim Yeo MP

· Geoffrey van Orden MEP



FURTHER INFORMATION



§ Stop Stansted Expansion Campaign Office: 01279 870558 or info@stopstanstedexpansion.com

§ http://www.stopstanstedexpansion.com

§ Media inquiries to Carol Barbone: 0777 552 3091 or cbarbone@mxc.co.uk

 

[pandora]

Well done - another cut and paste.

Did you actually read my post, or couldn't you be bothered but felt you had to answer anyway? Nowhere did I say that I agree with the expansion of aviation. In fact this is what I wrote;

I will state my position, in capital letters so it isn't skipped over; I DON'T WANT TO SEE AN INCREASE IN AVIATION, BUT WOULD PREFER TO SEE A RATIONALISATION OF THE TRANSPORT FACILITIES WE ALREADY HAVE.

I even put it in big letters so that it wouldn't escape your attention, although it does seem that you couldn't be bothered to read even the big letters.

Now FWIW, even though I know you won't read it, I AM very interested in period properties, and I have put a lot of time and effort into sympathetic repair of mine (see - I didn't restore it. I've even been on the SPAB course!) I am so enthusiastic I even limewashed a room while in early labour. I found this forum because I wanted to ensure I did the best possible thing for my cottage. When I first found it, this site didn't have a Nemesis (funny choice of name, that.) It was full of people discussing best treatment for beams and how to make the best lime plaster. Now you seem to spam this site with every bit of press release you can lay your hands on and frankly it pees me off. There - I've said it now. Yes, you have posted nearly 8000 posts and I've posted less than 20 in the same timeframe - I have managed to use the search option to find out what I need to know most of the time and only posted questions when I haven't been able to find a previous forum user's answer, to avoid clogging up the site.

You come across like the bore in the local pub for local people, especially with this sentence;

We have 'done' the aviation industry in the past and doubt that there's much more to say.

You have started a thread, someone (me) replied, you didn't like the bits of the answer you read, and have resorted to 'boooooring, been there done that, can't be bothered to discuss it with you.'

Anyway. Back to making a very nice repair of the brick floor I have in my pantry. I am far to busy doing my own little bit for period property to come even close to the amount of drivel you have posted on this forum.

 

[Nemesis]

Trolling? Or just someone who recognises a pub bore as they are a pub bore?

Look - we have done the aviation industry to death on this forum. If you read it regularly you must know that. The forum is limping along these days and I doubt most people with sense are particularly interested in rehashing old arguments. I do know several who read the links etc I post, ask me to carry on, as indeed do others post information and links and that's why I post 'em - a sort of information gathering and dissemination. It keeps the site going. If you don't like it you don't have to read anything I post you know - it's not obligatory.

I've been posting here for years. Nemesis - name of a roller coaster. As with many others, for a bit of fun when the forum changed a long while ago I decided to change my posting name.

I suggest that you read the regulations of the forum - which I think you have broken.

I did think airline pilots would be cool of head, but it seems not.

 

[Pford75]

Pandora - FWIW, there are others with the same experience. I'm a regular business traveller (by regular, I mean at least 1 long-haul flight a week) and I too have a different view on airport expansion.

I agree with you that the real problem is price (basic economics dictates that as price falls, demand rises). But frankly, no gov't has the guts to put a proper levy on the cost of flights to reduce demand. (See the repeated Chptr 11's in the US and gov't subsidies the world over).

Those who complain about air traffic seem to forget the impact that it has on every aspect of our lives...not just groceries...the computers we use, global companies who we rely on for many of the major commercial advances etc.

I respect the right of others to hold a different view to me and I don't spent every waking minute trying to 'convert' those who disagree with me....live and let live.

Not every flight is a package holiday to benidorm....but like it or not....those who rail against the airports almost certainly rely on air transport for the goods and services which they consume on a daily basis.

 

[Pford75]

I suggest that you read the regulations of the forum - which I think you have broken

People in glass houses........ :wink:

 

[Nemesis]

You know, when I saw your name as browsing the forum just now I thought - how er - fortunate.



Anything new to say?

 

[Pford75]

Anything new to say?

Of course...what would you like to talk about?

 

[Nemesis]

I meant had you anything new to say about airports - nothing so far - I've posted two news items. Some may be interested.

 

[Flyfisher]

In all the hoo-hah about the official opening of LHR T5 the other day I read that it cost £4.5bn and will handle 30 million passengers per year, to anywhere in the world. Contrast that with the £6bn cost of a 109 km high-speed train link for around 8 million passengers per year, to anywhere in the world as long as it's Paris or Brussels.

The widely touted 50p flights of the budget airlines are largely marketing spin. Sure, if you book far enough ahead and outside school holiday periods you can get lucky, but there are only one or two seats at that price. Quite clearly the budget airlines make enough, on average, to maintain their operations and cover all the considerable costs that Pandora rightly mentioned. Otherwise they'd go bust.

Economics matters and people are generally savvy enough to make the right choices for their particular circumstances, which is probably why flying is so popular. After all, no one is forced to fly or to spend hours of their life commuting to work in a car - they choose to do so, presumably because it's the best option.

Find a 'better' alternative and people will flock to it, but I don't think that social or economic engineering will push the aviation genie back into the bottle.

 

[Nemesis]

Glad I don't spend every waking moment etc...

 

[biffvernon]

Thanks for your interesting and informative post, Pandora.

You say it's hard to find room for another runway anywhere on our little isle, but what is an insiders view of the under-used capacity at many of our regional airports? I often drive past my nearest one, Humberside, and rarely see an aircraft. I notice that Robin Hood Airport, near Doncaster and Sheffield, had 68,000 passengers in February, but there must be capacity for many more. I believe it has one of the longest runways in Europe (ex-V-bomber base).

Surely, rather than all the disadvantages with building new runwaus at Heathrow, Stanstead or Gatwick, better use could be made of the existing regional airports. Or am I missing something?

(Of course we could build a new airport in the Thames Estuary - at least the folly would be hidden when sea level rises. )

 

[skier-hughes]

The widely touted 50p flights of the budget airlines are largely marketing spin. Sure, if you book far enough ahead and outside school holiday periods you can get lucky, but there are only one or two seats at that price.

I booked 5 for myself, wife, son, sister in law and friend in one batch.
2 for father in law and his wife
2 for mother in law and her partner
My Uncle in law (?) booked 5 for his family

All at 4p out to Belfast and various return, from £1 to our £9 from Dublin.
Over the Spring bank holiday period.

Graham

 

[Moo]

What about all those taxes and other sundry add-ons? They've doubled the price of a low-cost trip to Paris for us.

 

[skier-hughes]

Of course there are the taxes, but these have to be paid anyway, although it always surprises me that they vary from airline to airline :roll:
Still a lot cheaper than any other way of getting to his wedding.......