LHR Night Flights ?????

[harmony]

Today is D day for night flying at LHR, Local’s who live under the flight path have gone to court EU type to stop flying in the dark hours...
If they win does this mean more p45`s to be dished out and will this result in a ban for all EU airports.......

Wish I bought shares in the Euro-Tunnel....

H

[Semaphore Sam]

Never too late...under 200 miles high speed rail makes much better sense. Buy those shares (if you still have a paycheck).

[Dan Winterland]

It appears they have won.

[trustno1]

They have won. The European Court of Human
Rights have ruled that people are entitled to a good nights sleep and that there should be no flights arriving or departing between 2330 and 0600. The judgements are not binding on national governments but the UK govt has always implemented the court's decision in the past.

[CP32]

What about the "Human rights" of the employees who will be affected by this ruling? Especially at this time. These stupid tossers moved to the area AFTER Heathrow became one of the world's busiest airports. This is easily the worst case of nimbyism I have ever seen! If they had their way, they would shut LHR down and let AMS, CDG, etc have all the business. :mad:
CP 32

[groundfine]

Well said CP. Another decision determined by poltical correctness swaying practical common sense. Why not limit the movements/noise levels as before or adjusted.
Maybe there will be some eventual compromise with the usual "compensation" paid for with our taxes! If so, limit it to people who moved to the area before the airport developed?

[Red Four]

Not just EGLL that this will affect. Some smaller airports rely on their nightflights to keep them afloat. Whilst LHR will always survive, there may be hard times for some small airports that do not have the throughput of pax. flights in the day,if they are also forced to kertow to this EU twaddle! What are the chances of Labour gov. not implementing? 0%?

[Wobbler]

I can't see this absurd ruling being implemented by the UK government, just because of the ridiculous precedent it sets. Next up will be all the people who live beside the North Circular or A1,or living next to a railway line, claiiming their human rights are being violated with cars and trains travelling by night - where will it end?

[nomdeplume]

I can't see this absurd ruling being implemented by the UK government .....

I hope you're right, but experience suggests otherwise. UK governments, whatever colour, almost always do what Europe says. In contrast, other countries comply if they think the decision is sensible.

Why people who don't like a/c noise choose to live near airfields/airports is beyond me.

[rtompkins]

Actually its good news.
Lets face it, Heathrow is a joke, overcrowded, delays, lousy public transport. It should have been shut years ago and a new airport built away from the most densely populated part of the UK. Maybe they will finally figure this out - move it and add a few more runways as well.

[under_exposed]

"Maybe they will finally figure this out - move it and add a few more runways as well"

.... and use the old Heathrow to land all those flying pigs.

[Squealing Pig]

I believe this was perused by just eight residents, So if like user123 suggests the moving to another area. Just 8 country bumpkins complaining about the good night’s sleep the cow & chicken are not getting they could probably stop that too.

These people will be the first to complain when the first class letter post does not arrive at seven O'clock to be read with the newspaper that also hasn’t arrived while eating there cornflakes because no night freighter could land before six.

Unless they moved in before 1955 when the main terminal was opened they shouldn’t have a leg to stand on. They probably moved in when the noisy 707s & VC10s were operating so that should have told them something, and are now complaining about relatively quiet 777s and A330s, plus aircraft are getting quieter.

[Alty Meter]

Good News!!! :rolleyes:
I assume 'user123' isn't in the aviation industry.
This is seriously bad news for European aviation. Others in other European countries will take advantage of this stupid ruling.
Which was there first? The wealthy Richmond protesters, or LHR?

[ 02 October 2001: Message edited by: Alty Meter ]

[Trinity 09L]

Do not count me as protester, I happily bought under 09L, well aware of the noise, and lived within 6 miles of LHR since the seventies. Cannot wait for Speedbird 1 to return........ ;)

[RVR800]

The court decided flights between 11pm and 6am infringe a person's right to have a good night's sleep, covered by article eight of the convention on rights.

Airlines and airports across the country are likely to be affected by the decision and
not just LHR

Did the people who bought houses not know
about the airport and was this reflected
in the price - I think so..........

On the other hand mopeds often wake me after
11 pm when I am asleep and people coming
back from the pub and older cars and..
etc.. ambulances police helicopters etc .. Lets Ban everything lets have a curfew after 11 p.m. in Europe so we can all get a good
night ..

The UK independance party will love this
sleep

[ 02 October 2001: Message edited by: RVR800 ]

[wallup]

The BBC news report also referred to affects on other airports, such as EMA, which depends on night freight flights.

As if we did'nt have enough problems in the aviation industry.

[Ibis]

Those people shut be banned from any flight for life time! :D :D :D

[U R NumberOne]

Makes Aberdeen's latest closing time of 2330 (L) look positively flexible!

If this did impact on the rest of the UK (and Europe?), are we going to see the time when only a few percent of flights take place during the night and we try to pack even more aircraft into the sky and on the tarmac during the day? Sounds like a safety issue to me.

[TravelManUK]

I agree that this is silly, and wonder whether the UK Government will implement the recommendation. If 8 people are so upset over the noise...they should move! Or should we play into their hands, and ban all cars, lorries, tubes, trains, buses and motorcycles between the same times, so these eight people can get their bed rest.

I live in Central London, and hear the flights (like this a.m.'s BOS-LHR BA Flight, arriving at 05:05)...but that is part of living in a city...just like taxis whizzing down the road at 02:20 a.m., or milk floats at 5:45 a.m. with bottles rattling.

Flew back into LGW on Sunday, and we had to circle for 40 minutes above Sussex because we were not permitted to land before 6:00 a.m. Imagine the added pollution (both emission and noise wise) that created over Britain (there were 9 flights circling), just so a few cry-babies could sleep? It yielded queues at immigration 40 minutes long (a lovely welcome to Britain for tourists in an environment where tourism yield is already poor this year). So, when the 8 people wake up from their slumber, and wonder why they have no jobs becuase the economy is in a mess, perhaps they should re-think their opposition to night flying and buy a pair of ear plugs!!

LGW & LHR should be open 24 hrs!!!!! That will get my vote....and we should have T5 (and T6 while we're at it) plus extra runways for LHR & LGW and STN...and if you don't like it...move to Siberia where it is nice and quiet!!!!!! :) :mad:

[HOVIS]

Here's a scenario,

All night landings & t/os are banned across Europe.
The airports that are already bursting at the seems during the day will have nowhere to put the extra movements.
What UK airport has room to expand, two runways and a lcal population looking for work.
If you haven't already worked it out, MAN has all these and also has a rail link in place to take the commuters on Mr Branson's puffertrains.

The only downside is another influx of cockneys going on about how much they have just sold their 3 bed semi for and bought half of cheshire with change to spare!!

[simbad3000]

One resident living under the flight path, Virginia Godfrey, described the nightly noise from aircraft as intolerable. She told the BBC: "It's loud enough to wake you up, and loud enough that you don't get back to sleep again once you've been woken up."

So you see: it's that 'special' type of noise that not only wakes you up but means you can't go back to sleep again (possiblye forever).

See the prostesters' Website at www.hacan.cero.co.uk (http://www.hacan.cero.co.uk) for more such nonsense.

[ 02 October 2001: Message edited by: simbad3000 ]

[XV208 SNOOPY]

As the old saying goes, "If you choose to live next to a zoo, do not be surprised at the noise lions make"

Are these people too stupid to look at a map when they decide to invest x thousands of pounds! :mad: :mad:

We have the same situation here at work. It is only the oldest airfield in the UK, and the NIMBY's still claim they didn't realise there was an airfield here!

Wonder if Broadmoor up the road has any vacancies, as clearly these people are too stupid for their own good! ;)

[RICHARDTODD]

What about cargo movements?
Look at the multitude of overnight cargo movements, mail,post,food supplies,courier material, express packages... an so on.

Operators have spent millions on upgrading fleets to Stage III compliance in order to successfully operate at night time and make a living. There are very little cargo aircraft flying at night now which are NOT stage III. What is the point of having all of this Stage III investment if there is going to be a blanket curfew?

Look how detrimental this is likely to be?

Come on, lets have some support from the air cargo fraternity.

I can understand 20 years ago when we had BAC1-11, B707 and VC10s blasting around but now - all this investment, all these other problems facing the industry - now this!!

GOODNESS GRACIOUS, WHATEVER NEXT.
SOUNDS LIKE A BIT MORE B.F.H. (BUS FARE HOME) :mad:

[Joystick Incider]

I bet none of those 'idiotic 8' don't work or have friends/family work within the aviation business. These stupid, smug people have no idea what misery they may inflict on us all - they are employment terrorists. I saw their reaction when they heard they'd won - what a bunch of pompous and self-centred bas£ard$.
This is the last thing the airline industry needed.

[chiglet]

Sorry,
but at MAN/EGCC umpteen years ago an "airline Station Manager" coplained [for 20 mins] that an a/c had done a "non-standard SID".
As a plus point. A lady moved to a house less than 1 mile finals for 24R....There's hope yet!
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Devils Advocate]

Should any of you (nearly 38,000 registered PPRuNers - and yes, you do have a powerful voice) like to write directly to the folks at HACAN (http://www.hacan.cero.co.uk/Index.htm), to express an alternative view point about night flights, here are some links (Nb. You'll find that these following email addresses are freely available on their site) :

The Chairman : [email protected]

Vice-Chairman : [email protected]

Enjoy.....

[Mr Angry from Purley]

And I'm going to take up my human rights at the EU. Why, becaue I work nights and sleep thru the day so all those aircraft that go over my house into LHR during the day are infringing my rights to a good days kip.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

And I am really :mad: at this crap

[The Guvnor]

OK, here's what we do. These people have been kind enough to supply their contact details here (http://www.hacan.cero.co.uk/HacanContactUs.htm) - so let's make use of them to point out the error of their ways!

For starters, ask when they moved there - and if it was after 1955, did they not notice that there were aircraft? Then point out that thousands of people rely on the airport and the passengers and cargo they bring in for their livelihoods. Ask if they are involved economically with the airport in any way. Point out that the BAA provided free double glazing for everyone affected by noise pollution. Sign up for the Snap list here (http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/snap/) and provide them with the facts.

Given the crises already facing the industry, this is something we don't need right now!

[aztruck]

I live in chiswick and am disgusted by the whole thing. These people are interfering busybodies who have no thought except for their own selfish ends and the self importance that accrues from it.

[Spoonbill]

HANG ON A MINUTE.........,
1 - As has been pointed out already, this is an EU directive, not legally binding in the UK. Suprisingly,(or not), only 50% of such directives are adhered to straight away by the Government, lets hope that this is one of the 50% they ignore.
2 - Whilst Heathrow may have some restrictions placed upon it, this is because the BAA could not prove the economic necessity of having these flights at the those times.
The vast majority of night movements at other airports are economically necessary, ie night mail, parcels and urgent freight, passenger flights which cannot be operated at any other time. Therefore the likes of EMA etc are likely to be unaffected.
3 - There is, as I understand it, no UK legislation which is binding with regard to noise caused by transport.

Even if you discount the above, the political fall out of UK regional airports losing vital night trade, and therefore the whole regional economic infrastructure being affected, would be too much for the local politicians and the government to face.

[Unwell_Raptor]

AsI understand it this is nothing to do with the EU per se, it is a European Court.

It's not the flights, it's which flights. Largely Far East and largely BA, these flights are disproportionately business-oriented. Very bad news for employees of the hundreds of FE companies along the M4 strip.

Likely loser LHR, thus London - no 2 world business centre.

Likely winners? AMS? CDG? (it's out of town after all) FRA?

I despair of this, and I live 20 miles west of LHR under the 09L approach.

:(

[chiglet]

Thanx Guv [what AM I saying :D ]
Read the blurb, sent an email..What can I do? :confused: ...hope that every other Ppruner does the same :D
cheers
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[simbad3000]

chiglet: As Unwell_Raptor points out this is nothing to do this the European Union. This was a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights which is a body of the Council of Europe not the EU. The CoE composes 43 countries, including Russia.

The ruling is not binding on the UK government, although they have a “strong record” of implementing them. However, the European Convention on Human Rights was recently incorporated into UK law which I think means (correct me if I’m wrong someone) that anti-noise groups could take their cases to the UK courts instead of the ECHR and the rulings would be binding.

[Max Continuous]

European Union....European Court of Human Rights....Council of Europe......... they're all the same to me and it's quite outrageous that these people are telling us in this country how to run our lives.

[autobrakemedium]

Sent an email today.

Shame that it will not wake them up in the middle of the night!!

[simbad3000]

Squealing Pig, Guv and others were wondering whether these eight whingers had lived there before 1955. Well, the dates that seven of them moved in are given in the ruling at www.echr.coe.int. (http://www.echr.coe.int.) They are:

Philippa Edmunds 1992
Peter Thake 1990
John Hartley 1989
John Cavalla 1970
Jeffray Thomas 1975
Richard Bird 1968
Tony Anderson 1963

The top three at least shouldn’t have had a leg to stand on.

[dwlpl]

If flights to/from Heathrow are to be banned for those hours (2300 to 0600) during the night, logically the people living near to every airport within the EEC (AMS, CDG and FRA included) would get the night flights banned also.

It will also put the likes of TNT, UPS, DHL and our own Royal Mail in a bit of a predicament also, with the vast majority of their flights being at those times.

[shuttlefivealpha]

I, along with many of you out there have to work during the hours quoted...can we now take our employers to the ECHR and claim they are infringing our human right to a good nights sleep......what a load of bollox this decision is, just like many of their other decisions. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Vmike]

:mad: These ******s make me puke. Unfortunately, the world we live in is full of tossers. I learned to fly at Biggin Hill, an airport that is under constant harassment from the local anti-aircraft battery. I ask you, who the hell has ever heard of Biggin Hill in connection with anything other than an airport? Apparently, a lot of tossers with nothing better to do than complain about anything and everything. The same types who move to the country and complain about the noise of cockerels and the smell of cow****. The same types who think that anyone who flies must be loaded and, for that reason alone, should be stopped from enjoying themselves.

I now fly, privately, on days off and weekends, from Headcorn. There are numerous villages we have to avoid on take-off and landing because some twats living there don't like the noise (!) of a Gypsy Major on a sunny afternoon. There are flight safety issues here, but I won't bore you with them on this occasion.

Give me a break! If you don't like our noise (the sound of freedom, as our American brethren would say) then don't move next door to an airport. If you choose to buy a house near an airport, then live with your decision and shut the **** up! :mad:

[northern boy]

Gywneth Dunwoody today indicated that the govt will not be in any rush to implement this decision which ,as has been pointed out, is not legally binding.

Let the Guardian folk have their 15 minutes of fame after which they will fade into deserved obscurity.The govt is well aware of the implications especially given the state of the industry at the moment. The ruling is actually applicable to all European airports.
I can just see the French shutting CDG overnight.

Ignore these pathetic bedwetters. Better still bombard them with emails. I have.

[5milesbaby]

Those '8' people you mention were just representatives for the same group that lobbied against Terminal 5 and the new proposed runway at LHR. They are a meddling group wanting 'clear skies' above London. None of these groups seem to understand the economic implications for all, excluding aviation, ie. all those affected by the non-appearence of tourists because the 'cheap flights' don't exist anymore. All they are complaining about is the 16 flights permitted to land between 4am and 6:30am, however the knock-on effect is huge. But obviously our economy is booming from within right now... :(
The news says that the ban may spread further away; I'd like to see charter outfits out of Manch, Gatwick, Standsted, Luton, Newcastle, Liverpool, Birmingham, and the freight from Cov and EMA survive from this. I love it when people don't think past their own front door, which they bought at a price set accordingly to all outside influences :mad: :mad: :mad:

[MEVERTSGB]

Well, I am sorry to disagree with most of you guys (and gals). LHR is totally congested, to such a degree that night flying has become a necessity (for some). Apparently only 16 flights will be affected by this (Big Deal !!!). Perhaps it is now time to kiss Terminal 5 goodbye and consider the other airports around London such as Luton and Stansted. It's bad enough having to fly (as crew) between 2330 hrs and 0600 hrs. Why would passengers wish to fly at that time ? The only flights which will be seriously affected are long-haul flights from the Far East which arrive first thing (before 6 am). They will now all come in at 6am sharp and make ATC earn their keep. Most passengers are happy to fly between 0600 and 2300. Only greedy f**kers like Easyjet will need to operate at 'stupid o'clock' to make their silly 'pauper scheme' pay.

[Devils Advocate]

charterguy one might believe that, in your case, the expression 'thin end of the wedge' means nothing to you ?!

[sirwa69]

Perhaps it's time the industry started to use the law to it's advantage.
We all know that BA & BAA have lots of very expensive lawyers in their pockets. Why don't they start earning their money by suing the individuals concerned for attempted restriction of trade or something. I am not lawyer but surely they can come up with something. If you threaten to tie these people up in very expensive litigation that would see them lose their house, then I am sure they will not be so keen to proceed with these actions. The major flaw in their argument is that they moved to the area knowing that LHR was there. Presumably got their houses cheaper as a result. A good lawyer (yeah, I know it's an oxymoron) should be able to do something with that!! :confused: :confused:

[LRdriver]

Ok I wrote in, here was the response:
Dear All,

My apologies for not writing to you individually, but, as we have had about 20 emails criticising our stance, it is easier to do this one response. Obviously each of you have made slightly different points, but there are common themes running through your emails and it is these I will try and deal with in this letter.

1. The most common point is that we bought our homes knowing we were under a flight path. That is true of most people in South West London. Long-standing residents of South West London will argue that , though they knew they were under the flight path when they bought their homes, they had no idea that the number of planes (day and night) would reach the level they are at today. But those of us living further from the airport moved into our homes when aircraft noise was not a problem. The reason for this is that, over the last few years, extended flight paths have been used during the day to accommodate the increased number of flights (and, of course, a few years ago night flight routes were changed on an 'experimental' basis'). The real anger comes from people who feel "the aircraft noise moved to them".

The other point that nobody mentioned in their emails was the position of low-income households. I don't particularly mean those people living around the airport who would have known the score when they moved in. I am more thinking about the low income areas, such as Brixton, Camberwell and Peckham, which are new to the aircraft noise. Low-income communities, often with no realistic prospect of moving away, can feel trapped by noise. This was borne out by a report I produced in 1997 called Poor Show which looked at the impact of transport policies on low-income communities in the London Borough of Greenwich. It found that a fifth of all council tenants in the borough rated traffic noise as big a problem as crime (in the mid-1990s, when the research was carried out, aircraft noise was not a problem in the borough).

2. A lot of your emails don't see noise as a real problem, implying that it is no more than an irritant. Of noise can be no more than that. But when an individual experiences a real noise problem - whatever the source of the noise: aircraft, traffic, loud music etc - it can become the dominant thing in your life. It invades your home. For many of us, though by no means all, in HACAN ClearSkies aircraft noise is causing us that sort of problem. It is what motivates us to give up hours of our free time (none of us is paid) to campaign against this intrusive noise. It is why we do not want to send our noise problem to another area: we believe nobody should be required to suffer this level of debilitating noise. It is why so many of us end up, if we can, moving away.

3. The third area many of you raised was the question of the economic importance of the aviation industry and, in particular, the question of jobs. HACAN ClearSkies have never taken an "anti-aviation" stance. What we are arguing is that the aviation industry must adopt a responsible attitude; that it should adopt the "polluter pays" principle - ie, that it pays the costs of the social and environmental problems it causes. At present it does not. When I was invited to speak to a major aviation industry conference in Paris last year, the question of how much the aviation industry should pay was raised. My view then and now is that, for too long, the aviation industry has expanded while trying to ignore the social and environmental costs of what it has been doing. Inevitably local residents groups - as well as environmental groups - were going to say "enough is enough". If, over the past twenty years, the industry had spent much more of its research and development budget on producing cleaner and quieter planes (they have got cleaner and quieter, but not by enough to match the huge increase in the number of aircraft), then expansion could take place without residents like those I represent going to the courts. I would argue that the blame for any job losses that result from the industry now having to take a more responsible attitude must be firmly laid at the industry's own door because of the cavalier attitude it has adopted in the past.

Of course I realise that doesn't make it any easier for people who might lose their jobs. Outwith the work that I do for HACAN ClearSkies, I sit on the Executive of the Socialist Environment & Resources Association (SERA), an orgainsation affiliated to the Labour Party. As its name would suggest, one of it main aims is to put pressure on governments to tackle related questions of employment and environment in a way that is beneficial to both. SERA, in its work, works closely with the trade union movement.

I hope this helps to make our overall position a little clearer.

Yours sincerely,


John Stewart
Chair HACAN ClearSkies

[LRdriver]

..oh yeah.. another thing, ONLY 20 emails of critisism?!? Out of 35000+ ppruners only 20 so far, come on we can do better than that..

..Ps, I have just started a lawsuit at the human rights court wanting to ban people driving down the high street in my town after the shops close.infringing on my right to a quite meal..hrmph.

[FNG]

I hope that Danny will forgive me if I go all Scouse for a moment and shout "calm down, calm down" (Danny: I'm not doing the curly wig and 'tache bit as well, honest).

I agree that the claimants should have chosen to live elsewhere, and at first blush the decision appears offensive to common sense.

My point is that the decision may not have anything like the adverse effect which posters above and newspaper coverage might suggest.

Some lawyer stuff: first, as mentioned above, this has nothing to do with the EU. Second, the decision is at htt p://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/ViewRoot.asp?Item=0&Action=Html&X=1003100548&Notice=0&Noticemode=&RelatedMode=1 (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/ViewRoot.asp?Item=0&Action=Html&X=1003100548&Notice=0&Noticemode=&RelatedMode=1)

Scroll to para 95 and read to para 107 for the nitty gritty.

Basically, the UK was found to have failed to strike a sufficient balance between the privacy right on one side and the common good promoted by airport activity on the other (Art 8, like other bits of the ECHR, is all about balancing the rights of individuals against the needs of society), as it had not done the economic analysis needed to show that the inteference with Mrs Miggins' sleepy-bye byes is necessary in the interests of the economic well being of the UK.

A detailed study making the powerful economic case for night ops ought to be enough to resist any long term changes in the operating scheme or the general law about aircraft noise.

EDIT: the link above seems dodgy, so if it doesn't work, go to http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm click on recent judgments, then on Hatton v UK

[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: FNG ]

[Gonzo]

Charterguy,

"They will now come in at 6am and make ATC earn their keep" :eek:

Errrm, not wishing to blow our own trumpet, so to speak, but are you implying that we don't earn our keep already?

These 16 flights that arrive before 0600 are mainly BA T4, and after disembarkation most of them are towed off T4 to remote parking stands, to allow those flights landing after 0600 to have a free stand. So now can we expect a/c to hold for up to an hour awaiting a free gate? And what of those 16 flights going around in the stacks waiting for 0600, added to those from AAL, and UAL and all the others that have to wait for 0600. This will mean that by 0601 there'll be maybe 30mins to an hours inbound delay.

Gonzo.

[aztruck]

I've just fired off a reply to the standard handout reply to my first email.
That makes 21!!
The chairman is a professional agitator employed by the Labour party for research on behalf of the "Socialist environmental..." etc etc.

[The Guvnor]

From today's Telegraph:

Air fares could rise after ruling over night flights
By Paul Marston, transport correspondent (Filed: 02/10/2001)

CONSUMERS were warned yesterday that they could face higher air fares and later mail deliveries if the Government outlaws night flights to comply with a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights.

The court upheld a claim by eight residents of the Heathrow area that the sleep disruption resulting from night-time operations violated their right to "respect for private and family life" under the European Convention.

Environmental campaigners hailed the decision, suggesting that it could lead to a ban on flights between 11.30pm and 6am at all British airports. The judgment stopped short of advocating a ban, even at Heathrow.

It found that in setting the rules for night flights in 1993, the Government had "failed to strike a fair balance" between the economic value of the flights and their impact on local inhabitants.

Ministers, who are considering an appeal, will also explore whether palliative measures - such as trimming the number of night flights or paying compensation to the worst-affected residents - would satisfy the court. However, if a blanket ban was to be the outcome, it would have far-reaching implications for long-haul airlines at Heathrow, and charter operators elsewhere.

Night-flying is far more prevalent at Gatwick and Manchester, where holiday airlines need the flexibility of late arrivals and early departures to achieve the almost round-the-clock utilisation of aircraft which underpins low fares.

At Heathrow, there are on average 16 arrivals per night, almost all between 4.30am and 6am from Far East destinations such as Hong Kong and Bangkok. British Airways, which operates half these flights, said that because of international time differences and slot congestion at Heathrow, they would be difficult to reschedule.

The airline - already facing a crisis after the US terrorist attacks - estimated that dropping such flights would cost it £700 million a year in revenue, and undermine Heathrow's position as a worldwide hub. First-class mail and parcels could also be hit, as Consignia relies on 40 flights a night from a network of airports to ensure long-distance next-day deliveries.

The British Air Transport Association said: "The impact of a ban would be very severe. Airlines do not fly at night to annoy residents. They do so because there is not enough terminal and runway capacity to meet demand during the day."

The judgment said that while night flights made a contribution to the national economy, the Government should have conducted more research into their effect on sleep patterns before implementing the 1993 rules at Heathrow, which led to an overall increase in aircraft noise.

Among the residents who brought the case was Ruth Hatton, of East Sheen, south-west London, who said noise levels after 1993 were intolerable. She had been unable to sleep without ear plugs, and her children were frequently woken before 6am.

Peter Thake, who lives in Hounslow, west London, said nights were particularly difficult in the summer, because if he opened his windows the noise was worse, and if he did not, it was too hot to sleep.

The residents, who were each awarded £4,000 compensation, were supported by the Hacan ClearSkies anti-noise campaign group. John Stewart, the chairman, said a ban at Heathrow would happen within 18 months.

"This ruling has opened the way for residents' groups across Britain and Europe to challenge night flying."

[Trinity 09L]

In response to LR Driver. No one from Hacan canvassed or requested my view on this matter before the Court. I am not against the freedom of movement in the air traffic at LHR. Why were my individual views not expressed at the hearing, do I not have human rights. You are well aware that no significant aircraft noise is heard within the inner London Boro's mentioned, and I have relatives in those boro's as well. In fact they welcome the beauty of a plane in the sky, to brighten some of their duller moments, something for the children to aspire to in the future :mad:

[LRdriver]

erm.. trinity..
not quite sure to what question you are referring?? I just posted the reply received from HACAN after sending them a letter..
I did not mean to insinuate anything
:(

[PAXboy]

Just to say, a couple of other 'earlies' are VS . I have often come in from HKG or JNB and landed early before 06:00 if we have had good winds/routing.

[Trinity 09L]

LR driver, sincere apologies, anger overtook in reading the reply from Hacan, now off to the Hacan site, they rely on the service I provide and if I removed they would lose more than a nights sleep :rolleyes:

[Greg Baddeley]

Here's what we need to do to 'em - part of the re-opening of Washington National is to abandon the previous noise-abatement approach profiles as they pointed aircraft at the Pentagon and White House.....now it's straight in,over built-up areas for reasons of National Security! We could add a couple of escort fighter jets just in case!!!!! :D :D :D :D
check out the full story on:- http://www.airliners.net/news/redirect.main?id=24101

[birdstrike]

LR Driver

As I am sure you are aware, but have chosen to ignore, the far east flights arriving early into LHR have departed at around 2300 - midnight local time. Presumably you don't care that if your judgement is implemented the residents of Singapore, Bangkok etc will be awakened at around 0100 - 0200 local by departing aircraft. If this isn't a case of NIMBY then please illuminate us all.

[virgin]

To Birdstrike (and anyone else who might make the same mistake)

LR Driver is NOT supporting the protesters
He sent them an email telling them what he thought of them, and has posted THEIR response!

It's worth looking at the protesters website, address posted earlier. Check out 'What you can do to help' It gives a list of the people to write to. We can do the same.
So much in the UK is changed just to please a small minority of noisy activists. (eg Where does 'political correctness come from?)
We can learn from them, and use their methods against them.

[HugMonster]

If these protesters had their award based on their "right" to be able to sleep at night when they chose to move close to an airport, perhaps anyone who has moved close to, say, Sellafield should be able to close it on the basis of their right to have kids with only one head... :rolleyes:

Next reductio ad absurdum point concerns people who live close to an airport but work night shifts... do they not have the right to a good day's sleep? Even more difficult for them. Perhaps the ECHR should make a ruling on their rights as well - perhaps the government should do something about all that noise during the daytime? :rolleyes:

Finally, I assume that these protesters have never taken a holiday charter during the hours of darkness? A bit hypocritical if they have. :rolleyes:

[northern boy]

The fact that this HACAN outfit chairman sits on the socialist environment bull**** resource woolly hat brigade, as he so proudly points out in his email says it all.
These people are implacably opposed to the aviation industry in all its forms. They are the ones calling for huge taxes on fuel and fares and will quite happily see us all out of a job in pursuit of their view of a perfect world where we all live in teepees and hug trees.

HACAN are a middle class front for all the dreadlocked tunnel diggers, stone throwers and general spoilt brat squad and should be treated with the utter contempt they deserve.

We are a large group of professional,educated people. They are a small unrepresentative rabble who see an opportunity to put the boot in whilst the industry is down. If we cannot put our case forward in a convincing way, then we get what we deserve. A response of 20 emails is pathetic.Lets try 200000 and shut their server down.We also need to make sure our MP's know our feelings. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Delboy]

The only hope for Europe, the Continent, is that the British people will, one day soon, have the good sense to withdraw from the EU, the corrupt political entity. Without our funding, the whole politically correct, interfering, undemocratic house of cards will collapse. Then we can rid ourselves of the Convention of Human Rights, which is inferior to Magna Carta and our own Bill of Rights.
Pray God that this should happen before Ted Heath dies. I want to see his face.

[LRdriver]

Thanks Virgin,
:( I was starting to feel unpopular there for a short while..

"Never have so few done so much to annoy the p*ss out of so many.."
I 'specially like the list of dates when people moved in to the area on a previous posting. I am gonna buy a house on the M1 and get that shut down too.. :D

[Mr Benn]

How ridiculous is this ruling?!!
Anyone live near a railway line want to try the same crap with the train companies?
I think we should try and find out what jobs the campaigners do. I am sure we could all think of ways of disrupting their lives too.
Why live there?
Mind you, one advantage, I won't have to do any night flying if the ban goes ahead... Course, I might not have a job either...
I liked this bit:-

"The judgment said that while night flights made a contribution to the national economy, the Government should have conducted more research into their effect on sleep patterns before implementing the 1993 rules at Heathrow, which led to an overall increase in aircraft noise."

Now when are they going to do some research into the sleep patterns of airline pilots? Surely the work patterns we do infringe OUR human rights then.

And I can't sleep during the day when its noisy.

When are we going to tell the EU where they can stick their stupid rules. I notice France just blatantly ignores any EU ruling.

All small airfields in the UK have similar problems with people moving next to an airfield and then claiming they didn't know it was there.

I guess we can all be happy in the knowledge that these anti-aircraft campaigners are all TOTALLY IGNORANT.

I really, really hope that this ruling ends up severely affecting their own companies and lives. I hope they find that they can't afford to go abroad on holiday and that they can't get their mail. I hope the companies that employ them go bust due to a knock on effect of this ruling. Then they can go and join the "low income families" that they mentioned before. You know, those people who get a free house with free double glazing and enough money for satellite TV and new cars and then turn around and complain about the location of the free house.

Ooh, it makes me mad!!!

Perhaps we can start up a petition against the outcome of this case?

[Squealing Pig]

Four of them nolonger even live in the area Cavalla moved out in 1996, Hatton in 1997 and Thake along with Bird moved out in 1998.

Makes may blood boil at sea level, as I am on the brink of getting my first job with a night frieght operator. Now I should sue them for loss of sleep due to stress but I won't lower myself to their level. :mad: :mad:

Bird Moved to Wokingham (Woken em.. get it)of all places

[ 03 October 2001: Message edited by: Squealing Pig ]

[masterplanner]

If LHR has the same noise policy as DUB they deserve what they got in Europe. Any aircraft can operate into and out of DUB at any time of day using any runway with SIDS and STARS that take little or no consideration for the local communities. Engine runs can take place from 0600hrs local to facilitate the night shift before they go home and often with an aircraft that may only be going on stand-by. :rolleyes: :eek:

[Trinity 09L]

LR driver,apologies again, the HACAN site is not available, at this time, overloaded with enthusiastic comments? :rolleyes:

[Trinity 09L]

SL4 2PB Old Windsor
Government is making proposals to get more planes in the air even though local people have made it quite clear that they object. There is no such thing as a quiet jet plane when it is flying over your house at a few hundred feet. This morning I was woken by an aeroplane coming in to land at 4.30am and then kept awake by a succession of planes for the next three hours, at which time I had to get up to go to work. I am now feeling very tired indeed. Increasing night flights will make this sort of situation a more permanent feature of my life
SW14 7RJ Mortlake
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that cannot arrive two hours later than 5am, be it people or freight. The current situation is reminiscent of Hitler's Germany and the Gestapo and Stalin's Russia and the KGB: prisoners were deprived of sleep when they were to be interrogated because such continued nightly deprivation of sleep caused extreme fatigue, disorientation, confusion and an inability to think and focus properly. I am self employed and need every ounce of energy I can muster to fulfil my working obligations. I am unable to work effectively. You are thus depriving me of two fundamental human rights: that of working and earning my living, and of my right to sleep. Anyone who proposes more aircraft should have to live personally with the consequences - namely, live directly under the flight paths to experience at first hand on a daily and nightly basis the noise, the sleeplessness and the ensuing tiredness, edginess and inability to lead a healthy and effective life

Examples of HACAN protesters
:mad:

[apruneuk]

Hugmonster asks on page 4 of the rights of those who work night shifts to a good day's sleep. Should they be able to bring cases such as this? Fairly obviously not, as the economic balance (and this is, after all, what upholds Hacan's case), would never be proven in their favour unless the majority of the population switched to night shifts.
Spookily, though, I flew a turbojet single into Swansea last November at 11.00am to be greeted by the airport manager who informed me that a lady living on the final approach path within the ATZ had phoned to complain because she worked nights and was trying to get to sleep. I've just about sussed the kinked final the manager asked me to attempt in future to appease her - she'll probably complain next about the smoke coming from the hole just short of r/w 22 on the day I spin it in!
Still, you can't please all of the people....

[SLF3]

Quite a lot of vitriol here, but are the arguments really so one sided?

I live close to Heathrow, and have done for 20 years. Before moving in I got charts from the CAA showing flightpaths in and out of Heathrow. I also looked at the pattern of flights and concluded they would not affect me: for many years they did not.

Over time the type, routing and frequency of flights from Heathrow have changed. In the summer, with easterly departures, we suffer a continual stream of widebodies grinding overhead until very late at night. Yes, they do wake you up: no, it's not possible to get to sleep until they stop.

We also suffer very poor air quality, with a very high incidence of respiratory ailments such as asthma.

The biggest problem with Heathrow is that the authorities have consistently and knowingly lied as to how they intended to allow the airport to develop. The airport is now totally saturated: thoroughly unpleasant for both users and local residents. The answer is realistic limits on capacity at Heathrow coupled with increased capacity elsewhere, not a steady drive to increase the frequency and operating envelope of Heathrow. Unfortunately, this requires leadership from our politicians, something they appear to be unable or unwilling to provide in any domestic arena. And if the traffic goes to European countries who have more space than us, is that really such a bad thing?

I do not know on what specific grounds the court ruled basic human rights were not being respected. Although travesties of justice do occur, I would suggest that judges are not idiots, that the limits of the judgement were probably pretty narrow, and that they probably had good grounds for reaching the judgement that they did.

At the very least, I'm sure they took a far more dispassionate view of the issues than most of the contributors to this site!

[Sick]

Mark and Lard on Radio 1 did an excellent sketch today ridiculing the hypocracy of the protesters.

Spot on!

[nomdeplume]

SLF3
You say "I live close to Heathrow, and have done for 20 years. Before moving in I got charts from the CAA showing flightpaths in and out of Heathrow. I also looked at the pattern of flights and concluded they would not affect me: for many years they did not."

Didn't it occur to you when you bought your house close to Heathrow that air travel generally would increase over the years?
Or that the traffic at Heathrow, as the world's busiest international airport, might expand.

"And if the traffic goes to European countries who have more space than us, is that really such a bad thing?"

Perhaps it depends whether your livelihood is affected or not. Mine isn't, but I'm concerned for others nonetheless.

I'm sceptical about the claims of these noise protesters, and very suspicious about their motives.
I lived in Twickenham for many years. Whilst I accept that my house guests were woken by the aircraft noise initially, they very soon (like me) didn't notice.
If the noise problem is really so bad, isn't it curious that people are still prepared to pay extremely high prices to live in the so-called 'noise hell' areas like Sheen, Richmond and Twickenham to the East, and Windsor etc to the West? :rolleyes:

[hapzim]

Just allow airports to operate 24hrs, min holding with atc descents being constant min power to 10nm final closer for lighter traffic working on aircraft performance and saftey. Exactly the same for departures operate to produce min noise footprint no low level left right jinks to avoid, just get up and away into the skies with as many direct routing as can be managed by atc. This will cut down on noise , cost , fuel burn and enviromental damage caused by air travel. We can then start to improve the rest of mankinds habits. :mad:

I only fly to enjoy the view out of the window :D

[ayrprox]

These people really p*ss me off, like every body else. for those people who bought before LL got busy (ie before 1960) fair enough. You did not expect traffic to grow by as much as it has. Of those 8 people who complained three moved in within the last 10 years.These T*sspots have got not bloody excuses. They bought at a time when the airport was in full swing and the prices of their homes were probably a lot lower than they are now. It also strikes me that the aircraft we have in the skies now are a lot quieter than those flying in the seventies with improvement in engine designs.
My e mail has been sent and I await the standard reply with baited breath.

Just a thought, I bet these NIMBY's still go on holiday from EGLL and would probably complain like hell if they were forced to fly from one of those airports outside London which they are suggesting should be used more.
Sorry but these worthless people really should find something better to do with their lives other than trying to increase the jobless number in the aviation industry
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[newswatcher]

Letter in the DT from a Peter Hickie, Castle Donington, which seems to put him about 1 mile due north of the western end of the runway at EMA. Reckons that aircraft regularly dump unused fuel on approach to airports. Can that be true?

"SIR - This ban is the best thing to come out of Europe only if our Government has the guts to enforce it. We need far fewer flights for non-essential purposes. Planes are far greater polluters - from waste products and noise - than any other form of transport.

Not only is the fuel untaxed, it is often dumped unused before landing, as anyone living under the flight path will testify. Heathrow's 16 landings per night on average pale in comparison with East Midlands Airport, where night-time aircraft movements average one every five minutes."

[ 05 October 2001: Message edited by: newswatcher ]

[Ace Rimmer]

Take heart me hearties, t'other day I found myself covering the Blairista conference for Rimmer News and found myself in conversation with self confessed "awkward old bat" Gwyneth Dunwoody who assured me that as far as she was concerned (Chairman of the Transport Committee let's not forget) the Court of Human rights could take a running jump and the ruling "has a snowballs chance in hell of being implemented" Gwynnie is not keen on anything that reduces the competitivenes of UKplc and EGLL in particular. In fact never mind not implementing the ruling or getting on with T5 Gwynnie reckons that a third rwy needs to be pushed through as fast as possible to maintain EGLL's postion.

[mainfrog2]

If A/c regularly dump fuel on approach to Castle Donington I'm going to move back there and arrange a lot of buckets in my back garden, and give up smoking.

[DOC.400]

The only reason they 'dump fuel' at East Midlands on westerley approaches is so they can watch me go skittering off at Donnington race track on a mixture of Jet A1 and rain water at Macleans Corner!

Does honk a bit sometimes, same at LHR, just assume it's unburnt fuel and not necessarily 'dumping' per se.

"I love the smell of Jet A1 in the morning.........."

[Flying Lawyer]

So that's why I used to go off at Macleans!
Now, if you could just find me an excuse for ..... ;)

As for aircraft noise
I have no sympathy for people who buy houses near airports/airfields, or under the flight path/circuit, and then complain about aircraft noise. I've lived in Putney and Fulham which are allegedly affected; you become used to it and it ceases to intrude.
According to Hacan's website, they have complaints from people in Chelsea. That only goes to show what we all know: that some people will complain about anything. I live in Chelsea. Aircraft noise can be heard, but the noise is certainly not intrusive.

[ 05 October 2001: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]

[virgin]

Isn't it sickening that at a time when there's been the worst terrorist atrocity in the history of the world, when 4 airliners full of innocent people have been used as flying bombs, when 7000 people have lost their lives and thousands more have had their lives shattered, when the free world has to defend itself in what may escalate into a third world war, and yes, when hundreds possibly thousands of people employed in aviation have lost/are about to lose their jobs ....... that these selfish sh*ts are celebrating their "victory" over aircraft noise and the aviation industry!
:rolleyes: and :mad:

[ 07 October 2001: Message edited by: virgin ]

[jumpseater]

The potential impact of this descision is yet to be felt but do not lose sight of the fact that this has nothing to do with September 11th or any of the commercial outfall of that day. Many UK contributors will remember the decline of the coal industry here, the public has largely forgotten that many communities and families still struggle to this day because of that industries changes. As many of the various recent topics have pointed out some airlines were already in difficulty before this judgement was received. And before anyone gets on their high horse about me not losing my job, your are right, my wife however has a 70% chance of hers going though, meaning a greater than 50% loss of family income.

It is easy to shout NIMBY, but the environmental impact of our industry should not be underestimated, nor its potential to disrupt some peoples lives. In some quarters our industry has lacked foresight in being pro-active and endeavouring to minimise the chance of such a ruling. The genie however is now potentially out of the bottle.

After the anouncement there were several commentators stating aircraft are getting quieter, well they're not. We have just about now reached a plateau in terms of reducing engine noise for large aircraft. No one with any sense will be argueing that the A380's engines will be quieter than those currently fitted to a 777, the airframe noise will be a significant factor too. Over the years the emphasis has been on departure noise, but there has been a significant upward trend in complaints regarding arrival noise as well.

Some airport operators don't help themselves either. One London airport has recently notammed a SID permanantly withdrawn, the replacement is still considered a trial by those underneath it, no mention to the communities so affected, so is it any wonder with such short sighted management that the locals are unimpressed.

Many's the time I've seen the accusations of NIMBY on this site, but I wonder how many crew have actually taken the time to visit communities at public meetings so affected, not many I would venture. When you do visit you realise that many of these people are 'normal', and have the same concerns about employment and the economy that the rest of us do. I used to work in this area and saw very few pilots actually take an interest in these issues, those that did were worth their weight in gold when dealing with communities, and perhaps if more had been done in the past we might not be 'on the back foot' as much as we might be. Don't fall into the trap of thinking it won't happen, because it just might!. It may well form the basis of firmer night curfews with no exemptions under any circumstances at some airports. It could have a bearing on hush-kitted CH2 aircraft and their operating times. All airline operations managers and staff should take a long hard think about how it could affect them, and how best to meet that challenge.
JS

[Mr Angry from Purley]

When considering implementing the Ban, the UK Govt has to consider if by doing so, there would be any economical affects. At LHR it was suggested that the 16 flights need to arrive early / and release transitting pax to connections / also stand / gate issues etc. Probably (in normal times) not much of a economic case as the punters could always catch a later flight.
NOT the case though of the charter flights that come into the UK between 2200-0600 and
overnight express freighters.

Hope common sense prevails or else i'll get :mad: :mad: :mad:

[The Guvnor]

In the case of Mr Bird, Wokingham is in Berkshire - it's Woking that's in Surrey! Which one is it, I wonder? :D :eek: :D

[vikingwill]

So night flights are banned because of the human gripes Act. Don't these people realise they have the simple right..... MOVE if you don't like it. Meantime, Frankfurt and CDG pick up the business. Does anything in this country work anymore?
:mad:

[BIG E]

what about those of us who work night hours,we still have the same basic right to sleep than everyone else,so will they then ban daytime flights?i don't think so,this is then clear discrimination,rights to one but not the other.

[jumpseater]

Viking, a huge number of people cannot 'just move', and why should they?, sand in the head attitudes like that will only give rise to further restrictions on our industry. Many other major international airports in Europe have far greater operating restrictions than the UK.

It should not be forgot that the complainants had seen an increase in noise for the period in question, when all the 'experts' were telling them that there would be no significant increase.

Big E are you suggesting we should make a claim for compensation?, or to ban night shifts?

[BIG E]

J/S

eh...both