PDA

View Full Version : Anti-noise protesters revealed as frequent flyers!


HugMonster
20th Jun 2003, 23:17
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-719708,00.html

Oops! :uhoh: :rolleyes: :ooh:

rupetime
20th Jun 2003, 23:32
There's a guy at Gatwick protesting about the possibility of a second runway and the effect it would have on a small local village, (Charlwood, for people that dont know) - he spent many years as an aviation consultant buying and selling fuel, infact i believe its a career from which he still benefits from.

NIMBY at its most extreme.



RT

steamchicken
23rd Jun 2003, 00:30
Now that's amusing....

eastern wiseguy
23rd Jun 2003, 00:51
Mr Waite said last month: “It is not easy for me to oppose this extension as I am a regular passenger on airlines and have been for 40 years or more. However, I feel that I must make my views known as I am deeply troubled by the threatened devastation of the countryside and the environmental impact such a development will have


At least he sees the irony of the situation....NIMBY's the lot of them .

mad_jock
23rd Jun 2003, 01:06
Bird spotters are another case. Bill Oddie in point. As far as I am concerned the bugga can walk.

As soon as some rare tit etc is seen on one of the islands the phone goes mental with people looking for something which can get into 500m. They lie try and bribe you into excepting a public transport charter flight when we are only a flying school.

But they are the first ones to complain that you have breached rule 5. The fact that you are landing doesn't seem to matter only the fact that some rare tit was scared off.

MJ

WHBM
23rd Jun 2003, 02:43
What the "lets build an airport in the middle of the North Sea" brigade overlook (apart from the fact that airlines would not use it and the investment would be wasted - look at Montreal Mirabel as an example of a middle-of-nowhere fiasco) is that the transport and communications links for road and rail to London would be so lengthened they would consume/blight far more land than extending an existing airport and its links ever would.

PaperTiger
23rd Jun 2003, 03:00
I'm certainly no NIMBY and have lived near various airports over the years. One of the places in which I have dwelt was Charlwood, and I do agree the destruction of this village and the surrounding countryside would be appalling. Other than the people who live there, paving over Sipson (LHR) would be no great loss. The same cannot be said about Charlwood or the hamlet to the N of Stansted. Both of these once quiet airfields became major airports largely by chance, abetted by the inability of successive governments to grab the bull by the horns and do something sensible and pro-active.

I usually poo-poo expansion protesters. In these cases I lean towards supporting them. And no, I don't really have any other answers/suggestions although Alconbury has a lot going for it IMO - nothing of natural or architectural value around there.

maxy101
23rd Jun 2003, 14:31
Papertiger et al,
1) Does everyone agree that U.K plc requires more runway and terminal capacity?

2) If YES then where do you all suggest we build it?

3) If answer to Q2 is YES but not in the South East, do you think any non UK based pax is going to use it?

4)(Un) fortunately (depending on your personal prejudices) It is the preferences of transit pax (especially Americans) that need to be taken into account as if transitting the UK becomes too difficult ,then they wont fly via the UK. I´m sure France, Germany and Netherlands plcs´ are rubbing their hands in glee at the UK´s typical indecision.

5) If the answer to Q2 is NO, then fine. We live in a (semi) democracy....but how are we going to pay for our bloated social security sytem, better roads and public transport, old age pensions, if we turn down the few large revenue generating opportunities that the UK has offered on a plate?

Splat
23rd Jun 2003, 18:57
I know of an airfield who's biggest complainer is a BA captain, who bought a place plumb on the down wind leg!

Zlin526
24th Jun 2003, 04:31
Splat,

That wouldnt be EGKH would it?

And since when have BA Captains liked flying?

Pistol Pete
24th Jun 2003, 04:36
Splat

That wouldn't be near EGLD would it?

We also have a guy living near the field that did his heli training with good old Q and bought his own chopper, parked it in the garden and now bitches every time he gets overflown (his hous is 50m off the centre line 200m from the threshold and with student pilots like me around who have no idea what a glidepath or proper descent is he gets pissed off alot :O

Brgds

Pete

Colonel Blink
24th Jun 2003, 10:57
(Un) fortunately (depending on your personal prejudices) It is the preferences of transit pax (especially Americans) that need to be taken into account as if transitting the UK becomes too difficult ,then they wont fly via the UK. I´m sure France, Germany and Netherlands plcs´ are rubbing their hands in glee at the UK´s typical indecision.

Too true - and with the exception for Germany, they all fly into the capital city. Europeans however, do not give a toss whether the hub if JFK, ORD, DFW or wherever, they use the route that suits their requirements. Perhaps more US carriers need to use other airports and use their alliances (whilst they still exist!)

Splat
24th Jun 2003, 16:53
PP,

Nope, EGKH. Just goes to show the hypocracy (sp?) of some people.

Splat

civil aviation
26th Jun 2003, 06:17
'do something sensible and pro-active.' =what?

We've had a minor version recently re. Gower (Swansea Airport).
The local Council backed airport and Air Wales (economy, jobs, competition for rail rip-off etc.) but the Taffia (Cardiff Airport, Welsh Assembly, crooks etc.) & local toffs opposed expansion.