HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pedants corner
Quote: “I am going totally off topic here but if you are to posit an opinion Fair deal Frank, better to get your facts right. There is no parliamentary seat of Richmond and Barnes, it is called Richmond Park and strangely enough anti Heathrow opposition did play an awfully large part in the last campaign; a small reading of google may reveal this fact and hint, look at the profile of the man who is currently MP for Richmond Park.”
Quite right, the name changed when boundary changes added a section of Kingston, but the principle ramains the same.
Yes, yes, the current MP, Zac Goldsmith (Con) is well-known to be anti-LHR expansion, but then so was the woman he defeated, Susan Kramer (Libdem). So what? Don‘t quite understand your point about Goldsmith‘s profile on google.
Quite right, the name changed when boundary changes added a section of Kingston, but the principle ramains the same.
Yes, yes, the current MP, Zac Goldsmith (Con) is well-known to be anti-LHR expansion, but then so was the woman he defeated, Susan Kramer (Libdem). So what? Don‘t quite understand your point about Goldsmith‘s profile on google.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 4th Aug 2013 at 18:39.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “A minority government would not be as stable, especially one which is 20 seats short. The vote on reducing the House of Commons reflected this rather clearly, as those on the Tory backbenchers who advocated a minority government found a beloved piece of legislation disappear down the gurgler by 50 votes. So it shut them up. And minority governments will have to do deals with opposition parties on legislation, so if any other parties oppose airport expansion it will be shelved. Which is the situation now.”
Not necessarily the case, but it would have brought moderation and allowed the government to concentrate on fixing the economy and not being diverted by silly ideological projects.
Had Dave formed a government without the Libdems, it would be necessary to rely on either Labour and/or Libdem abstentions to pass legislation, so the need for moderation, and, yes for some degree of negotiation. In turn, Labour and the Libdems would be reluctant to bring down the government and take the blame (electorally/seat losses) for the consequent general election.
The Conservatives would probably have saved from breaking their own manifesto promise on no top-down reorganisation of the NHS. The Libdems may have been saved from breaking their on their pledge on tuition fees. Who can say?
Canada had three minority government in succession in recent years, and arguably weathered the recession better than many other countries. Minority governments are not necessarily unstable.
Quote: “The previous government took so long to grant permission, not because of dithering, but because there is no cast Iron case. And parliamentary opposition from politicans reflecting the views of their constituents.”
If there is no cast iron case, why would they have granted permission, even if it was controversial and woefully late in the day? There are many Labour MPs who support expansion, particularly those in the north who see the opportunities to regenerate their areas, by the potential for air links to an expanded LHR. Many Conservative MPs support it too.
Quote: “Strangely enough, neither of the three major parties in the last GE ran on a platform of expanding Heathrow. Dont think it cost them votes either.”
As mentioned many times, LHR expansion is not an election issue. Elections are fought on “bread and butter” issues such as (in no particular order) the economy, jobs, unemployment, social security, taxation, health, education, the EU, immigration, etc..
Not necessarily the case, but it would have brought moderation and allowed the government to concentrate on fixing the economy and not being diverted by silly ideological projects.
Had Dave formed a government without the Libdems, it would be necessary to rely on either Labour and/or Libdem abstentions to pass legislation, so the need for moderation, and, yes for some degree of negotiation. In turn, Labour and the Libdems would be reluctant to bring down the government and take the blame (electorally/seat losses) for the consequent general election.
The Conservatives would probably have saved from breaking their own manifesto promise on no top-down reorganisation of the NHS. The Libdems may have been saved from breaking their on their pledge on tuition fees. Who can say?
Canada had three minority government in succession in recent years, and arguably weathered the recession better than many other countries. Minority governments are not necessarily unstable.
Quote: “The previous government took so long to grant permission, not because of dithering, but because there is no cast Iron case. And parliamentary opposition from politicans reflecting the views of their constituents.”
If there is no cast iron case, why would they have granted permission, even if it was controversial and woefully late in the day? There are many Labour MPs who support expansion, particularly those in the north who see the opportunities to regenerate their areas, by the potential for air links to an expanded LHR. Many Conservative MPs support it too.
Quote: “Strangely enough, neither of the three major parties in the last GE ran on a platform of expanding Heathrow. Dont think it cost them votes either.”
As mentioned many times, LHR expansion is not an election issue. Elections are fought on “bread and butter” issues such as (in no particular order) the economy, jobs, unemployment, social security, taxation, health, education, the EU, immigration, etc..
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 4th Aug 2013 at 19:14.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting piece in the "Times" today saying that the LibDems will probably go with the Labour party if there is a hung parliament
Labour only need 35% of the vote to get a majority but the Tories need 40% - and the wayTory MP's are rubbishing the LibDems they will have to eat a lot of humble pie if they want to stay in power in a hung parliament
Labour only need 35% of the vote to get a majority but the Tories need 40% - and the wayTory MP's are rubbishing the LibDems they will have to eat a lot of humble pie if they want to stay in power in a hung parliament
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And this is why the 'Heathrow issue' IS so important to the election; with it being predicted to be incredibly tight, it could come down to a few key seats won/lost that make the difference.
As an example, the MP's for Ruislip Northwood & Pinner, Uxbridge & South Ruislip, Richmond Park and Windsor are all Conservatives and their constituents will obviously be very interested in what happens at Heathrow. If the Conservatives were to lose just a few of these seats, it could all get very interesting, hence why whether we think it should be or not, airport expansion WILL be an election issue.
As an example, the MP's for Ruislip Northwood & Pinner, Uxbridge & South Ruislip, Richmond Park and Windsor are all Conservatives and their constituents will obviously be very interested in what happens at Heathrow. If the Conservatives were to lose just a few of these seats, it could all get very interesting, hence why whether we think it should be or not, airport expansion WILL be an election issue.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "And this is why the 'Heathrow issue' IS so important to the election; with it being predicted to be incredibly tight, it could come down to a few key seats won/lost that make the difference.
As an example, the MP's for Ruislip Northwood & Pinner, Uxbridge & South Ruislip, Richmond Park and Windsor are all Conservatives and their constituents will obviously be very interested in what happens at Heathrow. If the Conservatives were to lose just a few of these seats, it could all get very interesting, hence why whether we think it should be or not, airport expansion WILL be an election issue."
Why those seats in particular?
Only Richmond Park and Windsor are under the LHR flightpath.
Ruislip Northwood & Pinner and Uxbridge & South Ruislip are miles away from LHR and, as far as aviation is concerned, NHT would be more of an issue.
Ruislip Northwood & Pinner, Uxbridge & South Ruislip and Windsor are all very safe Conservative seats and would not be lost to Labour whether LHR is expanded or not.
Richmond Park is a Conservative-Libdem marginal and is very unlikely to change hands whether LHR is expanded or not. If it changes hands, it will be unrelated to LHR expansion because both the present MP, Zac Goldsmith, and his who ever becomes his Libdem opponent are
opposed, and no other candidate can win there.
As an example, the MP's for Ruislip Northwood & Pinner, Uxbridge & South Ruislip, Richmond Park and Windsor are all Conservatives and their constituents will obviously be very interested in what happens at Heathrow. If the Conservatives were to lose just a few of these seats, it could all get very interesting, hence why whether we think it should be or not, airport expansion WILL be an election issue."
Why those seats in particular?
Only Richmond Park and Windsor are under the LHR flightpath.
Ruislip Northwood & Pinner and Uxbridge & South Ruislip are miles away from LHR and, as far as aviation is concerned, NHT would be more of an issue.
Ruislip Northwood & Pinner, Uxbridge & South Ruislip and Windsor are all very safe Conservative seats and would not be lost to Labour whether LHR is expanded or not.
Richmond Park is a Conservative-Libdem marginal and is very unlikely to change hands whether LHR is expanded or not. If it changes hands, it will be unrelated to LHR expansion because both the present MP, Zac Goldsmith, and his who ever becomes his Libdem opponent are
opposed, and no other candidate can win there.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 5th Aug 2013 at 18:47.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank
You are correct geographically but people in these other constituencies fear Heathrow expansion - possibly illogical but no-one believes any thing the Heathrow lobby says any more
Too many broken promises and wrong forecasts over the years
You are correct geographically but people in these other constituencies fear Heathrow expansion - possibly illogical but no-one believes any thing the Heathrow lobby says any more
Too many broken promises and wrong forecasts over the years
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reference was just picking some constituencies close to LHR, some under the flightpath but others that will most likely have a large number of residents who are either directly or indirectly employed by LHR/rely on LHR for their employment or trade.
It would be remiss to suggest that only those people who live under the flightpath are concerned with LHR given that it is the biggest employer in the area (I've seen figures of 70,000 people directly/indirectly) and affects those people far out down the M4 corridor as well as those in Richmond/Twickenham/Windsor etc who deal with the noise.
It would be remiss to suggest that only those people who live under the flightpath are concerned with LHR given that it is the biggest employer in the area (I've seen figures of 70,000 people directly/indirectly) and affects those people far out down the M4 corridor as well as those in Richmond/Twickenham/Windsor etc who deal with the noise.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noise is really a non issue here. By the time any new runway comes into operation the majority of flights will be operated by what are now new queit aircraft 787 A350 A380 747-800 etc 737max A320NEO etc.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London
Age: 51
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to see how far aircraft noise affects the poulace far from Heathrow, come along to Chiswick, Brentford, Isleworth and Hounslow for a feel of what it is like under the flight path. The figures about the number of people affected are absolute rubbish and need revising upwards. As for quieter aircraft, this is only marginal.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how the runway alternation would work if only one extra runway were built, but certainly under the Policy Exchange/Tim Leunig proposal (which has many similarities with the proposal set out by LHR) it was proposed that the runways would not alternate on the half day as currently, but instead every 24 hours, giving residents a full day's worth of quiet.
This was talked of in terms of a 'new deal' for local residents which, allied with the quieter aircraft due to be in the skies over the next 5-10 years and beyond, would make real differences to thousands of people.
As I said, not sure if any of this sort of discussion/reasoning has been taken into account under the formal proposal submitted to the Davies Commission...??
This was talked of in terms of a 'new deal' for local residents which, allied with the quieter aircraft due to be in the skies over the next 5-10 years and beyond, would make real differences to thousands of people.
As I said, not sure if any of this sort of discussion/reasoning has been taken into account under the formal proposal submitted to the Davies Commission...??
but certainly under the Policy Exchange/Tim Leunig proposal (which has many similarities with the proposal set out by LHR) it was proposed that the runways would not alternate on the half day as currently, but instead every 24 hours, giving residents a full day's worth of quiet.
What page are you looking at ?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies, my memory was slightly incorrect with regards the reason behind runway alternation.
On page 47 it says;
"Landing narrow bodied planes at a steeper angle to wide-bodied planes clearly requires the use of separate runways for each type of plane. Since the narrow bodied planes will be higher, people will prefer to be overflown by narrow bodied planes. For that reason runway alteration should continue. Since it is not practical to swap runways in the middle of the day, the northern runway will be used for narrow bodied landings one day, and for wide-bodied landings the next day. At present people have high levels of noise for half the time, and no noise for half the time. This would be replaced by a tolerable level of noise half the time, and a very low level of noise for the other half of the time."
On page 47 it says;
"Landing narrow bodied planes at a steeper angle to wide-bodied planes clearly requires the use of separate runways for each type of plane. Since the narrow bodied planes will be higher, people will prefer to be overflown by narrow bodied planes. For that reason runway alteration should continue. Since it is not practical to swap runways in the middle of the day, the northern runway will be used for narrow bodied landings one day, and for wide-bodied landings the next day. At present people have high levels of noise for half the time, and no noise for half the time. This would be replaced by a tolerable level of noise half the time, and a very low level of noise for the other half of the time."
Thanks, found it now.
That explains why my search for alternation in the PDF failed. 
In fact that kind of lack of attention to detail rather sums up the Policy Exchange proposal ...
For that reason runway alteration should continue
In fact that kind of lack of attention to detail rather sums up the Policy Exchange proposal ...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Harry,
Its not really surprising that the Lib Dems want to team up the Labour party if required at the next election.
They are more left of centre than Labour ,and the Tories right of centre to the Labour party.
So a left wing Lib Dem and slightly right wing Tory Party was a disaster for the UK, little gets agreed .
I agree its likely Libs will team up with the Labour party.However if the economy keeps on recovering Tories could still get in with help from UKIP in 2015.
Back to aviation, more likely a Labour Govt would plum for LHR expansion with few seats at stake in the area.
Nigel
Its not really surprising that the Lib Dems want to team up the Labour party if required at the next election.
They are more left of centre than Labour ,and the Tories right of centre to the Labour party.
So a left wing Lib Dem and slightly right wing Tory Party was a disaster for the UK, little gets agreed .
I agree its likely Libs will team up with the Labour party.However if the economy keeps on recovering Tories could still get in with help from UKIP in 2015.
Back to aviation, more likely a Labour Govt would plum for LHR expansion with few seats at stake in the area.
Nigel
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of a spotter request so apologies! But, would anyone happen to know what SkyTeam A330 took off today around 1300?
I know CZ, MU, SU bring the SkyTeam into LHR but AFAIK it wasn't any of them. Wasn't on Plane Finder either.
Many thanks!
I know CZ, MU, SU bring the SkyTeam into LHR but AFAIK it wasn't any of them. Wasn't on Plane Finder either.
Many thanks!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Heathrow Harry,
Its not really surprising that the Lib Dems want to team up the Labour party if required at the next election.
They are more left of centre than Labour ,and the Tories right of centre to the Labour party."
Using loose definitions of "left" and "right", the problem for the Libdems is that the paid up membership tends to be left of centre but the leadership tends to be right of centre.
So the MPs can happily vote for a coalition with the Conservatives, but those who do the work to get them elected are less than enamoured.
A Lib-Lab coalition would be a greater disaster for the country.
Quote: "So a left wing Lib Dem and slightly right wing Tory Party was a disaster for the UK, little gets agreed .
I agree its likely Libs will team up with the Labour party.However if the economy keeps on recovering Tories could still get in with help from UKIP in 2015."
Any coalition is a disaster: smoked-filled rooms and fudge and mudge. No one gets what they voted for. Minority government is better.
Quote: "Back to aviation, more likely a Labour Govt would plum for LHR expansion with few seats at stake in the area.
Nigel"
Agreed, Nigel, but not because of seat losses, but because northern MPs want it desperately (to enable their areas to have one stop links to the world) and many of these are Labour.
The way it looks today, the environmental issues likely to be mass "seat-changers" and therefore cause a change of government (if there are any) are fracking and HS2, rather than LHR expansion because it's too local.
Quote: "LibDems further left than the PLP?
Are you smoking something???"
It's difficult to call Labour "leftwing" these days, not since Blair shifted it to the right by adopting Thatcherism and "gold-plating" it. "Red Ed" (sic) hasn't changed this (yet).
Although, in fairness, definitions of left and right wing can be highly subjective, it all depends where one stands in the spectrum!
Its not really surprising that the Lib Dems want to team up the Labour party if required at the next election.
They are more left of centre than Labour ,and the Tories right of centre to the Labour party."
Using loose definitions of "left" and "right", the problem for the Libdems is that the paid up membership tends to be left of centre but the leadership tends to be right of centre.
So the MPs can happily vote for a coalition with the Conservatives, but those who do the work to get them elected are less than enamoured.
A Lib-Lab coalition would be a greater disaster for the country.
Quote: "So a left wing Lib Dem and slightly right wing Tory Party was a disaster for the UK, little gets agreed .
I agree its likely Libs will team up with the Labour party.However if the economy keeps on recovering Tories could still get in with help from UKIP in 2015."
Any coalition is a disaster: smoked-filled rooms and fudge and mudge. No one gets what they voted for. Minority government is better.
Quote: "Back to aviation, more likely a Labour Govt would plum for LHR expansion with few seats at stake in the area.
Nigel"
Agreed, Nigel, but not because of seat losses, but because northern MPs want it desperately (to enable their areas to have one stop links to the world) and many of these are Labour.
The way it looks today, the environmental issues likely to be mass "seat-changers" and therefore cause a change of government (if there are any) are fracking and HS2, rather than LHR expansion because it's too local.
Quote: "LibDems further left than the PLP?
Are you smoking something???"
It's difficult to call Labour "leftwing" these days, not since Blair shifted it to the right by adopting Thatcherism and "gold-plating" it. "Red Ed" (sic) hasn't changed this (yet).
Although, in fairness, definitions of left and right wing can be highly subjective, it all depends where one stands in the spectrum!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 22nd Aug 2013 at 21:10.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA to add AUS from S14
BA have today announced that they plan to flights from LHR to AUS at the start of S14. Flights will initially operate 5 x weekly. Flights will increase to daily from 3rd May 2014.
BA will be the first and only carrier to operate direct transatlantic services to AUS
BA191 LHR 1235 AUS 1700 788 D
BA190 AUS 1900 LHR 1000 788 D
British Airways to become first airline to provide non-stop transatlantic service from Austin, Texas - Yahoo! Finance
BA will be the first and only carrier to operate direct transatlantic services to AUS
BA191 LHR 1235 AUS 1700 788 D
BA190 AUS 1900 LHR 1000 788 D
British Airways to become first airline to provide non-stop transatlantic service from Austin, Texas - Yahoo! Finance