Airport expansions

[BrianW]

I would argue that this is exactly where aviation planning has gone completely wrong. The sensible thing to do would have been to cap flight numbers at Heathrow to eliminate this, and there are plenty of flights where there isn't much transit traffic. For example, I can't imagine there's much transit traffic from Derry or Istanbul, and these flights could easily be accommodated elsewhere. Likewise, KLM have quite a few flights into Heathrow, which will be catering for transit traffic through Schipol. There's really no reason why these flights couldn't depart from Southend or elsewhere.

I suggest there is no way that Heathrow Airport Ltd (or whatever they are called today?) will want to create (say) 50% more slots and not want to fill them (or at least maximise their use) and similarly income. Aerial porcine movement? I doubt there will be disproportionate costs falling upon them, though possibly / probably on 'the taxpayer' whether directly or indirectly- noise, congestion etc.

To pursue the argument about transit passengers- is there data available?? eg where do incomers from Derry transit to; or arrivals from Istanbul travel onto? Are there flights between Derry or Istanbul and Manchester or Edinburgh- could there be? It's rather like the arguments about trains in GB direct from 'everywhere to everwhere' without changing at New Street or Crewe, or both?

I appreciate that data is of limited value as we are considering what figures are likely to be several years ahead (in a changing 'world'); more important will be people's perception of 'the pound in their pocket', job prospects, housing (esp it's price) and figures purporting to show GROWTH. It was said that Mrs Thatcher brought down unemployment by changing its definition. Is there an agreed definition of 'growth' by which the government will be judged, or the possible impact of this or that investment or deregulation measure? That's politics. No more Grenfell Towers or Credit Crunches thank you- more regulation is needed not less, nor 'light touch'. Nor a government that's an easy touch.

 

[Ediswan]

I’m not sure what you are asking. Short flights are much more environmentally destructive because of the frequent take off and landing phases.

I mean whether 'landing phase emissions' means e.g. kg/min of CO2 during that phase, or the emissions during that phase as a precentage of the total emissions for the flight.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I mean whether 'landing phase emissions' means e.g. kg/min of CO2 during that phase, or the emissions during that phase as a precentage of the total emissions for the flight.

The former. The latter rather depends on the length of the flight.

An aircraft doing several short flights ina time period emits more than than aircraft doing one long flight in a time period precisely because the take off and landing phases consume more energy than cruise.

So in the context of Heathrow, the planes taking off and landing emit more than the planes in a stack. So more planes doing the former and fewer planes doing the latter is worse for the environment.

Which is why streamlining the planning process, including access to judicial review, are so important.

Only if you don’t believe in local democracy.

Sadly construction firms and property developers don’t believe in local democracy. They believe in making a quick buck, getting to do what they want, and **** the little people who have to live with the consequences.

As I said further upthread, it is truly amazing how people like Reeves don’t demand infrastructure be built in their back garden. Reeves objected to Leeds/Bradford expansion for that reason.

Starmer professes to hate NIMBYs so fine, let’s reincarnate the Ringway plans and build a flyover right by his bedroom window and prevent him from moving. Same with any MPs complaining about anti-nuclear campaigners: make them live next door to Dungeness. If it’s so safe and so pleasant they won’t mind, will they?

 

[Ediswan]

Google is your friend.

That article compares real world takeoff and landing fuel figures to an existing databank. It does not discuss other phases of flight. Consequently, it cannot be used to support a claim that "the maximum emissions come from aircraft in the take off and landing phases of flight".

 

[Tetchytyke]

Consequently, it cannot be used to support a claim that "the maximum emissions come from aircraft in the take off and landing phases of flight".

It supports exactly what I said it supports.

If you think I’m wrong about take off and landing emissions, prove it.

 

[Ediswan]

It supports exactly what I said it supports.

If you think I’m wrong about take off and landing emissions, prove it.

As ever, it is up to somebody making a claim to provide the evidence to support that claim. I am not saying you are defintely wrong, but you have not provided the evidence.

For clarity, it is landing emissions I am interested in.

Looking further at the paper @Tetchytyke cited:

D. Landing and Take Off Cycle
The LTO cycle comprises all those phases of the flight
trajectory which are below 3000 feet Above Ground Level
(AGL). These include the takeoff roll, the climbout to 3000
feet AGL, the approach from 3000 feet AGL, and the ground
taxi/idle phase. The ground taxi/idle phase includes both the
departure and the arrival taxi phases.
The ICAO databank uses standard values of thrust settings
and times in mode to certify engine fuel burn and emissions.
The ICAO databank assumes that, irrespective of the air-
craft/engine type and the airport of operation, the takeoff roll
occurs at a constant 100% thrust setting for 42 s, the climbout
at a constant 85% thrust setting for 132 s, the approach at
a constant 30% thrust setting for 240 s and the taxi/ground
idle at a constant 7% thrust setting for 1560 s.

Takeoff roll - 100% thrust.
Climbout - 85% thrust.
Approach - 30% thrust.

Cruise thrust is comparable to climb. Here is a quote from an A320 manual:
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...e-setting-does-an-airliner-use-while-cruising

It's 80.4% - 86.5% for the different weights and altitudes.

Together, that suggests emissions during approach and landing are about 1/3 of takeoff/climb/cruise.

 

[Skymonster]

It supports exactly what I said it supports.

If you think I’m wrong about take off and landing emissions, prove it.

Can’t even read now! From the very report you link to (my emphasis):

”EIs are the lowest for the taxi phase followed by the approach phase. The highest EIs are for climbout and takeoff.”

You also ignore - conveniently I suspect, because they don’t play to your assertion that long-haul is less damaging than short-haul - a number of reports that suggest emissions at higher altitudes are believed to be more damaging than emissions at low level. Short haul flights spend a much greater proportion of their in-air time at lower levels.

So in the context of Heathrow, the planes taking off and landing emit more than the planes in a stack.

No, not landing. Holding in an airborne stack is a near equivalent to very low level cruise, whereas the landing phase is much more efficient. Anyway, stacks are a necessity in a slot constrained system such as the London TMA. With adequate [additional] runway capacity inbound holding - and thus emissions from it - would be reduced to zero. Yes, that capacity would eventually be used up - then you build another runway if demand is still increasing, etc.

Again quoting from the report you cite:

”Aviation and the Global Atmosphere projects that the total aviation traffic (passenger, freight, and military) in 2050 will be 6.5-15.5 times its value in 1990, whereas the total aviation fuel burn in 2050 will be 1.5-9.5 times that in 1990. As a consequence, carbon dioxide emissions in 2050 are expected to be 1.6-10 times the 1992 values.”

So in other words, aviation is getting more efficient and cleaner (and is forecast to continue to do so) because emissions and fuel burn are not increasing at as great a rate as traffic is growing.

Improvements from technological advances are the means by which any consequences of growth should be addressed - which is the way the aviation industry is dealing with ever increasing demand. Stifling growth in the quest to meet artificially imposed, illogical, unnecessary and unrealistic goals, within unachievable timeframes, is not the way the human race makes progress (in any industry).

 

[Tetchytyke]

As ever, it is up to somebody making a claim to provide the evidence to support that claim. I am not saying you are defintely wrong, but you have not provided the evidence.

I have provided what I believe to be evidence. If you disagree then feel free to supply something else.

The take off and landing phases (since you cannot have one without the other) are the biggest generator of emissions per time period.

 

[Magdalia]

Only if you don’t believe in local democracy.

Sadly construction firms and property developers don’t believe in local democracy. They believe in making a quick buck, getting to do what they want, and **** the little people who have to live with the consequences.

It is quite possible to have a streamlined planning process with local input.

Developers will always start with asking for what they want, and the planning process is an iterative process that gets to something that attempts to balance all interests, including mitigating the consequences for local people. A streamlined planning process is fewer iterations, which means making best use of those that remain.

Quick bucks for property developers are actually very good for the economy. We are not going to get GDP growth quickly without property developers earning quick bucks. Those property developers will pay tax on their quick bucks, the construction companies will pay tax on their profits, and all of the people they employ will pay tax too. Everybody who pays tax and/or uses public services benefits from property developers making quick bucks.

For Nationally Significant Infrastructure, the National interest trumps the local interest, especially when the government was elected on a manifesto to streamline planning to get Nationally Significant Infrastructure built more quickly.

Local democracy is not being able to veto the National interest by saying not in my back yard. But local people still have the planning process to have their say on how to manage the consequences.

 

[Tetchytyke]

For Nationally Significant Infrastructure, the National interest trumps the local interest, especially when the government was elected on a manifesto to streamline planning to get Nationally Significant Infrastructure built more quickly.

Please may you point to the section in Labour's manifesto where they said they were going to support aviation expansion?

Local democracy is not being able to veto the National interest by saying not in my back yard. But local people still have the planning process to have their say on how to manage the consequences.

Of course in reality they do not. As we see so often, mitigations that are put in at the planning stage end up being removed as they are "not commercially viable". Hence why the last remaining pieces of green land in North Tyneside have been flattened to build more Persimmon **** and, now the bulldozing is done, the promises to improve local infrastructure have mysteriously vanished.

And even when locals do manage to get mitigations put in place everyone complains about the cost. Important mitigations to protect ancient woodland and its wildlife in the Chilterns became a "£100m bat shed", as just a recent example. Of course the people financially benefitting from HS2 don't live there so screw the locals.

It's fascinating how the 'national interest' never extends to building this type of infrastructure in the areas where the CEOs and owners of these building companies and where the politicians live. It's always someone else's back garden. No 'nationally important infrastructure' in Finchley or in Esher. How odd.

We are not going to get GDP growth quickly without property developers earning quick bucks.

We're not going to get GDP growth with property developers rinsing the country either. Persimmon's CEO took his £110m bonus and parked it in an offshore tax haven.

To stay on topic, Heathrow Airport is owned by the Saudis and the Qataris. No economic benefit for us.

 

[Skymonster]

Meanwhile, other issues that are part of a bigger picture are also conveniently ignored by the tyke…

”A resolution was passed by IATA member airlines committing them to achieving net-zero carbon emissions from their operations by 2050.”

Yes, the majority of the world’s airlines have already actually signed up to do it.

However, in another industry: ”In July 2023, the IMO [International Maritime Organisation] agreed to a new climate strategy that includes reaching net-zero greenhouse gas emissions ‘by or around, i.e., close to, 2050’… Despite these plans and many successive rounds of negotiations, the IMO has so far failed to adopt reduction measures.”

Unlike the aviation industry, as pointed out above.

In reality: ”the [maritime] industry is also very carbon intensive, responsible for roughly 3% of global emissions – the same as flying.“

However, IMO admits: “3% - Share of shipping in global emissions [in 2023]. 10% - Share of global emissions in 2050.”

So shipping is going to more than triple its emissions in the next 25 years. Maybe we should start a campaign to throttle sea freight? Do we really need to eat bananas, drink coffee and tea, or own cheap plastic trinkets and clothes made in sweatshops? Perhaps we’d be better off [environmentally] if we stopped buying so much carp from the Far East? Or fresh produce from Africa and South America? You know, rebuild our own manufacturing industries here in the UK. Oh no, the climate loonies wouldn’t want that - according to them manufacturing is evil because its polluting, conveniently ignoring the impact of importing the stuff instead. So they continue to buy junk produced overseas and brought into the UK in polluting ships.

Meanwhile, climate change is (a) unstoppable and (b) a cover for a radical socialist agenda designed to inhibit what we do and keep us all in our places. Campaigners take potshots at aviation because its trendy to do so and they don’t feel that travel is necessary, while buying junk imported in poluting shipping is not on their radar. All the unbalanced arguments against aviation are so skewed you couldn’t really make it up; its a scam, and sooner or later the scammers are going to be well and truly exposed.

 

[lachlan]

The result from that third runway will be more flights and thus more emissions. Either that or flights will be diverted away from other airports but that seems unlikely given Gatwick, Bristol, etc are looking to expand too.

Pivoting to maritime emissions is a distraction - both are problems that need to be addressed as is electrification of heating, cars, trucks, trains etc

 

[Magdalia]

Please may you point to the section in Labour's manifesto where they said they were going to support aviation expansion?

I didn't say that the Labour Manifesto supported aviation expansion, I said that it supported planning reform, especially for Nationally Significant Infrastructure.

Of course in reality they do not. As we see so often, mitigations that are put in at the planning stage end up being removed as they are "not commercially viable". Hence why the last remaining pieces of green land in North Tyneside have been flattened to build more Persimmon **** and, now the bulldozing is done, the promises to improve local infrastructure have mysteriously vanished.

That can and does happen with local planning applications, but we are talking Nationally Significant Infrastructure here. What happened in a local authority planning application in North Tyneside isn't relevant to the planning process for Heathrow.

We're not going to get GDP growth with property developers rinsing the country either. Persimmon's CEO took his £110m bonus and parked it in an offshore tax haven.

The GDP growth still happens. Whether the government reaps all of its share of the benefit of that growth is a matter for tax law not planning law.

To stay on topic, Heathrow Airport is owned by the Saudis and the Qataris. No economic benefit for us.

Yes Heathrow is owned by the Saudis and Qataris, but that's a consequence of decades of UK economic mismanagement. If the UK had not run a balance of payments deficit for decades, and sold the family silver in order to fund it, then Heathrow might still be UK owned.

Any foreign direct investment brings benefit to the UK economy, it does increase GDP and it does help us to continue to run that balance of payments deficit and pay for all of those imports from China.

But I do have some sympathy with the view that Heathrow has come onto the agenda because it is a project which is attractive for Middle Eastern investors, not because it is a good project for improving economic growth. My main concern is that the supply side constraints in the construction industry could result in other more worthwhile projects being crowded out, and you can read that upthread.

 

[Ediswan]

I have provided what I believe to be evidence. If you disagree then feel free to supply something else.

The take off and landing phases (since you cannot have one without the other) are the biggest generator of emissions per time period.

You have linked a document, but not shown how it supports your argument. The usual way to do that is to provide quotes.

As for evidence the other way, see post #426.

 

[TravelDream]

I have provided what I believe to be evidence. If you disagree then feel free to supply something else.

The take off and landing phases (since you cannot have one without the other) are the biggest generator of emissions per time period.

This is just totally wrong.

A continuous descent would have the engines on flight idle which is their lowest power setting in flight. Only when the final flap and gears are put down does more thrust need to be added in final descent.
The reason power isn't typically added when flaps are put from down to their initial stages is the plane is slowing down so you are trading the energy of the speed for maintaining an altitude/ descent path.
Continuous descent profiles are basically mandatory nowadays as they reduce noise emissions and reduce fuel use which lowers the environmental impact.

Obviously leveling off to hold/ be stacked does not make a continuous descent which is why things like that are avoided nowadays where possible. Leveling off with flaps down is going to use quite a bit of fuel.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That can and does happen with local planning applications, but we are talking Nationally Significant Infrastructure here. What happened in a local authority planning application in North Tyneside isn't relevant to the planning process for Heathrow.

It's very relevant. The green land was allocated to housing because central Government decreed that it had to be for the 'national interest'.

My other example was HS2: local people managed to secure important mitigations and these were immediately criticised as a "£100m bat shed", and then removed.

Any foreign direct investment brings benefit to the UK economy

The "investment" at Heathrow will be paid for by the passenger of Heathrow in increased airline fees.

The profits from that "investment" will be winging their way off to Riyadh.

Still not seeing the benefit to the UK here.

You have linked a document, but not shown how it supports your argument. The usual way to do that is to provide quotes.

I'm not getting into google ping pong. I said "take off and landing phases"; note the combination. The evidence supports my assertion.

If you believe otherwise, demonstrate it; as you note, cruise thrust is at least 20% below that of take off and climb thrust. Whilst the initial descent may have reduced thrust, once the initial height has been lost then the thrust increases beyond that in level flight.

Finally, a quote from Rutger Bregman in relation to GDP:

If you were the GDP, your ideal citizen would be a compulsive gambler with cancer who’s going through a drawn-out divorce that he copes with by popping fistfuls of Prozac and going berserk on Black Friday.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Indeed. And this more ambitious approach pays dividends all around the world. In this country we have a maddening tendency to focus on the immediate cost of these projects, and write them off as “too expensive”, while completely ignoring that they’re long term assets that will result in similarly long term benefits to the economy.

Then why expand an unsuitable airport at Heathrow and not build afresh elsewhere?

 

[Meerkat]

So you are in favour of capping flights for environmental reasons, despite the UK accounting for a tiny fraction of carbon emissions internationally, and regardless of any impact on prosperity/future growth?

You are conflating two arguments - climate change and local pollution. Heathrow is dumping aviation and travel pollution on a densely populated area. You can smell the aviation fuel sometimes.

 

[Ediswan]

This is just totally wrong.

A continuous descent would have the engines on flight idle which is their lowest power setting in flight. Only when the final flap and gears are put down does more thrust need to be added in final descent. The reason power isn't typically added when flaps are put from down to their initial stages is the plane is slowing down so you are trading the energy of the speed for maintaining an altitude/ descent path. Continuous descent profiles are basically mandatory nowadays as they reduce noise emissions and reduce fuel use which lowers the environmental impact.

I was foretting that due to the higher efficiency of jet engines at altitude, fuel flow is a better indication of emissions than throttle setting. One low quality example I have suggests that during that final descent, fuel flow is comparable to during cruise, possibly slightly higher. All subject to numerous caveats and variables. Whether that justifies the original assertion rather depends on whether or not you consider climb as a separate phase of flight. If you consider climb separate, it is second highest for fuel flow, with cruise and final approach vying for third.

 

[Magdalia]

The green land was allocated to housing because central Government decreed that it had to be for the 'national interest'.

Another manifesto commitment is to build 1.5 million homes in 5 years. Some of them are going to be on "green land", because there isn't enough brown or grey land.

My other example was HS2: local people managed to secure important mitigations and these were immediately criticised as a "£100m bat shed", and then removed.

The so called bat shed has received a lot of criticism, but I'm not aware that it has been removed. I have not followed HS2 closely but, from the general comments I've seen, it includes lots of very expensive mitigations that followed on from local consultation.

The "investment" at Heathrow will be paid for by the passenger of Heathrow in increased airline fees.

The profits from that "investment" will be winging their way off to Riyadh.

Still not seeing the benefit to the UK here.

Even though Heathrow is foreign owned, it is still a UK company, and pays UK corporation tax on its profits. Only the post tax profits are available to repatriate to the foreign owners through dividends or interest. And just because the company is foreign owned that does not necessarily mean that post tax profits will be repatriated. Profits could be retained in the business, for future reinvestment, or the owners could spend in the UK, for example in Harrods or Bicester Village, or investing in football clubs and racehorses.

And that's only Heathrow's profits. Their contractors, suppliers and advisors will make profits too, and pay tax on those profits. Heathrow itself, plus their contractors, suppliers and advisors, will all have employees that generate income tax and National Insurance contributions.

The government supports Heathrow expansion because it thinks it can see a lot of future tax income. If they are right, that benefits everyone in the UK who pays tax and/or uses public services.

 

[Skymonster]

Pivoting to maritime emissions is a distraction - both are problems that need to be addressed as is electrification of heating, cars, trucks, trains etc

Of course it isn’t a distraction. It illustrates the unjustifiable bias aviation faces from misguided climate change loonies, many of whom now single it out as a primary target of their loathing. At the same time they conveniently ignore other polluting activities that they would find it inconvenient for themselves to abandon, or would find it more challenging to get public support to curtail. They have sadly already had a hand in destroying or causing significant decline in a number of valuable industries in this country (e.g. heavy manufacturing, coal mining, gas and oil production) and now in their green eyed naivety they are lobbying to bring down another - aviation. Meanwhile plenty of other countries see expansion of air travel as a cornerstone of development and increasing prosperity, and are no doubt relishing the prospect of becoming leaders while we face decline as we go the other way.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Derry will be mostly transit traffic, I’d expect. The Loganair from IOM, also BA’s domestic network, are all predominantly transit traffic. And even on top of the codeshare, Loganair have interline agreements with a decent number of other airlines, including Emirates and Qatar.

Agreed about the Logan IOM route and BA's domestic network, but would there really be that much transit traffic from Derry? The only direction that would make sense to me would be to the US, but anyone living in Derry or roundabouts would probably prefer to fly from Donegal to Dublin, as Aer Lingus are usually cheaper than BA for US connections.

And yep, I meant the TK stuff, not the BA stuff.

To pursue the argument about transit passengers- is there data available?? eg where do incomers from Derry transit to; or arrivals from Istanbul travel onto? Are there flights between Derry or Istanbul and Manchester or Edinburgh- could there be? It's rather like the arguments about trains in GB direct from 'everywhere to everwhere' without changing at New Street or Crewe, or both?

Unfortunately, such data isn't publicly available, I'm just basing it on my knowledge of the aviation industry. Derry is very economically deprived, and the London route is operated under a PSO. There's certainly a need for a route to London, but the only reason the route is going to Heathrow is so the City of Derry Airport can talk about international flight connections.

For Istanbul, I'd be very surprised if there were more than a handful of passengers on Turkish Airlines transiting through Heathrow. It just wouldn't make any sense, their hub is Istanbul, and they pretty much cover everything (minus some domestic UK routes such as Derry) served from Heathrow with their own flights.

Transit at Heathrow is really much more about BA connecting their strong European route network onto flights to/from the US. Heathrow really stopped being a world transit hub with the rise of the ME3 and TK, but it's still a fantastic place to transit for US-Europe flights, especially with the sheer amount of flights between Heathrow and New York.

 

[Cross City]

There's really no reason why these flights couldn't depart from Southend or elsewhere.

Because Southend is a tiny airport in the middle of nowhere convenient for nobody other than the good people of southeast Essex?

KLM fly EVERYWHERE in the UK, if it's got a paved runway they'll land an Embraer there at least, and even they think Southend isn't worth their time.

 

[43066]

You are conflating two arguments - climate change and local pollution.

I don’t think so? I was responding to someone discussing carbon emissions and climate change (or so I thought).

Heathrow is dumping aviation and travel pollution on a densely populated area. You can smell the aviation fuel sometimes.

I’d like to see some evidence that that being able to smell jet fuel or “travel pollution” (whatever that means) makes any material difference to health outcomes. Certainly compared to people living alongside dual carriageways and busy trunk roads, for example, of whom there are many in London.

Secondly I have zero sympathy for anyone who buys a house near an airport and then complains about its presence. It’s giving an audience to this kind of nimbyism that holds this country back - exactly the same happened with HS2.

Because Southend is a tiny airport in the middle of nowhere convenient for nobody other than the good people of southeast Essex?

It’s actually a viable option for people from London, given the rail links from Liverpool Street, taking around 50 mins. I’ll be using it later this year, in fact. Obviously it’s too small to cater for huge numbers of passengers, and the runway length limits aircraft size.

 

[Cross City]

It’s actually a viable option for people from London

That's the thing though, Heathrow isn't just convenient for London. It serves the Midlands, Thames Valley, the Bristol area and even into South Wales. Apart from levelling half of the Chilterns and building a giant new airport there, Heathrow really is in a perfect location for all of the big population centres south of Stoke-on-Trent.

 

[43066]

That's the thing though, Heathrow isn't just convenient for London. It serves the Midlands, Thames Valley, the Bristol area and even into South Wales. Apart from levelling half of the Chilterns and building a giant new airport there, Heathrow really is in a perfect location for all of the big population centres south of Stoke-on-Trent.

Absolutely - I’m not suggesting that Southend is any way equivalent to Heathrow. However it’s a useful addition to the EasyJet “all London airports” search tool when booking holiday flights.

 

[Meerkat]

I’d like to see some evidence that that being able to smell jet fuel or “travel pollution” (whatever that means) makes any material difference to health outcomes. Certainly compared to people living alongside dual carriageways and busy trunk roads, for example, of whom there are many in London.

Pretty sure breathing fuel is not good for one's health! Travel pollution (cars/taxis/buses) is a definite killer. Roads will be getting significantly less unhealthy as electrification kicks in. Airliners wont be, whatever the greenwashers say.

Secondly I have zero sympathy for anyone who buys a house near an airport and then complains about its presence.

What about all the people who were born in the vicinity of the airport? Or live under the expanded flightpath the third runway will create. And the noise pollution spreads out over a huge area.
The quiet blue skies of lockdown were lovely!

 

[TravelDream]

What about all the people who were born in the vicinity of the airport? Or live under the expanded flightpath the third runway will create. And the noise pollution spreads out over a huge area.
The quiet blue skies of lockdown were lovely!

What does this even mean? The noise profile of Heathrow is significantly reduced since the 1990s.

The next generation of aircraft is/ are going to be quieter again. Plus there's no reason why approaches and departures can't be adjusted to further mitigate any noise.

And no, the quiet skies of lockdown were a despotic hell. Though that viewpoint is one which terrifies me about Britain the Britain's love of the nanny state and being told what to do.

 

[lachlan]

Of course it isn’t a distraction. It illustrates the unjustifiable bias aviation faces from misguided climate change loonies, many of whom now single it out as a primary target of their loathing. At the same time they conveniently ignore other polluting activities that they would find it inconvenient for themselves to abandon, or would find it more challenging to get public support to curtail. They have sadly already had a hand in destroying or causing significant decline in a number of valuable industries in this country (e.g. heavy manufacturing, coal mining, gas and oil production) and now in their green eyed naivety they are lobbying to bring down another - aviation. Meanwhile plenty of other countries see expansion of air travel as a cornerstone of development and increasing prosperity, and are no doubt relishing the prospect of becoming leaders while we face decline as we go the other way.

I'm not convinced the loss of coal mining or oil production is due to environmental regulations- I don't think they cared much about those when Tatcher closed down the mines! As for oil, its naturally more expensive to get it from the seabed than other methods and so the north sea is at a disadvantage.

If you don't believe in climate change I don't think there's any point arguing this further.

 

[Tetchytyke]

he noise profile of Heathrow is significantly reduced since the 1990s.

Except it isn't.

Aircraft may be quieter but there are more of them. Aircraft movements at Heathrow have increased by a third since 1990 (c. 360,000 movements to c. 480,000 movements). So instead of the odd loud noise from a Concorde or a One-Eleven you now get constant noise all day long, all day every day.

Plus there's no reason why approaches and departures can't be adjusted to further mitigate any noise.

How? A third runway adds a third set of approach and departure paths. So more of London gets the pleasure of the relaxing drone of aircraft over their house every 2 minutes from 6am to 11pm.

the quiet skies of lockdown were a despotic hell

Ah. Climate change is a hoax. Covid was a hoax. Explains everything!