Opposition to the turd runway seems to be growing but of course the
hypermobile motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup are all in
favour of it because they don't care about the environment or noise or
pollution or fossil fuels and are themselves a part of the problem.

"The battle over the expansion of Heathrow airport, which would see
the number flights at the airport increase from 480,000 to 700,000, is
hotting up. While the Government is in favour of expanding the airport
with the addition of a third runway and possible sixth terminal,
opposition to the new runway is mounting, even within its own ranks.

A debate on the new runway was called yesterday after around 50 Labour
MPs backed a Parliamentary motion opposing expansion. Many have
environmental concerns, while others in marginal constituencies
surrounding Heathrow fear that its local unpopularity could be enough
to lose them their seat at the next general election. Outside
Parliament, local residents already driven mad by the constant drone
of planes flying over their homes gathered to protest about the
Government's apparent determination to go ahead with the third
runway..."

More
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...y-1012237.html

Doug <jagmad> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

> the expansion of Heathrow airport, which would see the number flights
> at the airport increase from 480,000 to 700,000

No, you cretin, it'd see the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE flights expand. That's the
whole point. The airport is currently at the absolute limit. The
slightest problem means that there's huge delays, causing circling, re-
routing and other wastes of fuel. Because there's absolutely no slack.

Runway utilisation is currently scheduled at north of 98% at Heathrow.

Having more runways available - Schiphol, by comparison, has five - would
give flexibility to change flightpaths according to prevailing wind -
which would reduce the noise to those living under them, reduce fuel
wastage, and generally benefit EVERYBODY apart from a handful living in a
concrete wasteland between an airport, an industrial estate and a
motorway. Gawd knows why they're so attached to the place - it's not
exactly the Cotswolds. I reckon they're trying to maximise the compulsory
purchase prices - and who can blame 'em?

On Nov 12, 7:45 am, Adrian <toomany2> wrote:
> Doug <jag> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > the expansion of Heathrow airport, which would see the number flights
> > at the airport increase from 480,000 to 700,000
>
> No, you cretin, it'd see the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE flights expand. That's the

Of course as soon as the economy picks up then the number of flights
will rapidly head towards the maximum possible flights. On this
occasion I'm going to side with Gollum because that there are enough
aircraft in the airspace over london and we don't need any more. Also
given how many airlines have gone out of business and others such as
BA are whining about hard times ahead with reduced passenger numbers I
don't see any case for expanding heathrow or any other airport right
now.

B2003

Doug wrote:
> Opposition to the turd runway seems to be growing but of course the
> hypermobile motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup are all in
> favour of it because they don't care about the environment or noise or
> pollution or fossil fuels and are themselves a part of the problem.
>
One way of reducing aircraft movements and the pollution that comes from
them is to sop importing non-essentials by air, like food for faddy diets.

On Nov 12, 12:43 pm, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n>
wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Opposition to the turd runway seems to be growing but of course the
> > hypermobile motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup are all in
> > favour of it because they don't care about the environment or noise or
> > pollution or fossil fuels and are themselves a part of the problem.
>
> One way of reducing aircraft movements and the pollution that comes from
> them is to sop importing non-essentials by air, like food for faddy diets.

I don't understand why airship freighters haven't become commonplace
as various futurologists have promised for what seems like forever.
They're slower than aircraft but much faster than ships and use a shed
load less fuel than either for a given load carried.

B2003

Boltar wrote:
> On Nov 12, 12:43 pm, "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n>
> wrote:
>
> I don't understand why airship freighters haven't become commonplace
> as various futurologists have promised for what seems like forever.
> They're slower than aircraft but much faster than ships and use a shed
> load less fuel than either for a given load carried.
>
I'd guess that the bureaucracy has delayed things. (I'm being kind for some
strange reason.)

Boltar wrote:
> On Nov 12, 7:45 am, Adrian <toomany2> wrote:
>
> Of course as soon as the economy picks up then the number of flights
> will rapidly head towards the maximum possible flights. On this
> occasion I'm going to side with Gollum because that there are enough
> aircraft in the airspace over london and we don't need any more. Also
> given how many airlines have gone out of business and others such as
> BA are whining about hard times ahead with reduced passenger numbers I
> don't see any case for expanding heathrow or any other airport right
> now.

During a recession is precisely the right time to build infrastructure,
because the labour can be got more cheaply and fewer people are
inconvenienced by the construction work, and it keeps unemployment down,
thus mitigating the recession. Unless you think the country is finished and
the recession will never end, so the increased capacity will never be
needed.

On 13 Nov, 20:43, "John Rowland"
<jo> wrote:
> Boltar wrote:
>>
>
> During a recession is precisely the right time to build infrastructure,
> because the labour can be got more cheaply and fewer people are
> inconvenienced by the construction work, and it keeps unemployment down,
> thus mitigating the recession. Unless you think the country is finished and
> the recession will never end, so the increased capacity will never be
> needed.
>
No its all about over-consumption and the harm that it causes. Over-
consumption is responsible for the debt ridden economy and its wannabe
perpetual growth, hypermobile wander-lust fueled by polluting oil and
the waste and pollution caused by excessive consumption of luxury
goods. All of this while others are exploited by consumers and starve
to death in less developed countries.

Expanding airports will contribute to the problem. They should be
shrinking instead.