View Full Version : NIMBYs to blockade LHR ?

9th Nov 2002, 17:57
Blood pressure alert. :mad:

Not sure if this is the right forum, but the following appeared on UsenetA report in the Uxbridge and Hayes Informer says that the anti third (sic) runway protesters are going to use vehicles to block all roads in and out of LHR on the 15th November.
The times of this protest are 7am - 10:30am and 4.30pm - 6:30pm. They will be attempting to cause the local roads to gridlock and as the traffic feeds off the M4 and M25 onto these roads no doubt the motorways will stop as well.

The person organising the blockade may be contacted at
[email protected]

9th Nov 2002, 22:08
In my experience it'll be hard to spot the difference !:)

10th Nov 2002, 05:22
We're taking it pretty seriously at LTCC. Apparently their plan is to lock-up the roundabout under M4 J4 (Heathrow Spur) during morning & evening rush hours. Should comprehensively ****** the surounding area.

On a seperate note, I was intruiged to have a look at the protesters web site and realised that I now have concerns of my own over the proposed third runway - bit bloody short, isn't it?:eek:


10th Nov 2002, 09:07
Not really NIMBYs as they have quite alot to contend with already. You gotta feel for people who have to live near Heathrow though. It must be bad enough as it is and we all should take their concerns seriously!

As if the SE needs another increase in traffic anyway. The Midlands is the only sensible choice but of course it would cost alot more to expand the infrastructure too.

On the topic. Farnbourogh is to be used for general scheduled business traffic. The distance between the runway and several thousand houses has got to seen to be believed! Who makes these decisions?

El Grifo
10th Nov 2002, 09:40
Well Paper Tiger,
My guess is, that this ain't the reaction you were expecting.

I get the impression you were looking for the "hang them, shoot them, drag them off. The long haired, left wing, commie, lesbian, scum"

Then again maybe I am wrong :D :D

Don't fret though, leave the posting up long enough, it will come!

Jet II
10th Nov 2002, 10:43
Get used to the extra congestion - its gonna get a lot worse when T5 and possibly an extra runway (if an extra runway then T6 and poss T7 will be along) get built.

There is also a proposal to widen the M25 around LHR - expect around 2 - 3 years of chaos.

Little Blue
10th Nov 2002, 11:05
We have 'em protesting at EMA at the mo over possible expansion plans, but the old adage "expand or die" comes to mind.
Having lived 1 mile from LHR and 1/2 mile from EMA, I can honestly say that I haven't experienced any excessive noise pollution, but I was wearing industrial strength earplugs at night !
I hope that they all have viable alternative plans to add to the argument, the "long-haired, leftie,lesbian commie scum...etc etc etc..!"
;) ;) ;)

10th Nov 2002, 11:26
You're ok El Grofi, as a resident of the Canaries you're not affected either way.

I'm less sympathetic to them than Kefuddle. If you buy/rent a house near LHR, you buy/rent much cheaper because it's near a busy international airport. If you get the plus of saving money, complaining about the minuses is a bit strong.

10th Nov 2002, 12:30
These organisations and indeed any organisation attempting to obstruct airport operations can represent a security concern; it only takes infiltration to turn a movement opposed to noise into something altogether more threatening.

It's a particular concern also that some of these groups are talking about more direct action. I trust that suitable steps are being taken to monitor their activities.

10th Nov 2002, 12:46
If you buy/rent a house near LHR

True. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying anybody is in the right or wrong here. Just that I don't feel the normal NIMBY tag applies in this case. We need an expansion and it has to go somewhere. I imagine that the only reason LHR was chosen was because the infrastructure is already in place and the BAA know how to lobby parliment.

Oh and I don't think rent-a-mob is an appropriate response!

10th Nov 2002, 13:00
Lo all,

Interesting ... what is NIMBY's ? I pressume some sort of protestors? What is their web site link ?

Is this story linked to the proposed airport in the midlands. I was on a visit to my aunt in Nuneaton and saw the "NO AIRPORT" posters in all the nearby villiages.

Just asking out of curiosity.

Many thanks,

10th Nov 2002, 13:19

Not In My Back Yard

In other words persons that support advances in infrastructure, and want to have the use of it, but not if it is going to affect their quality of life or cost them anything!!!

Web-Footed Flyer
10th Nov 2002, 13:23
Gunship !

NIMBY stands for: Not In My Back Yard !!!

10th Nov 2002, 13:28
Thanks for the replies !

What a great name .. what a great explanation for a serious problem. I seem to remember my aunt driving me past at least two beautiful villages that would be destroyed for the new airport ... what a shame that would be ?

Ray Ban
10th Nov 2002, 13:35
Whilst everyone has their right to legitimate protest, it should never be allowed to pose a threat to security, safety and the usual business of running Heathrow. What really p!sses me off is the real hardcore NIMBY's who live in areas like Richmond and Putney and constantly spew bullsh!t about living with double barrelled shot guns constanly pointing at them! :mad:

10th Nov 2002, 13:36
There's also BANANA's

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. ;)

El Grifo
10th Nov 2002, 16:28
Correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought that the REAL problem was the congestion of the airways and the inability of the ATC system to adequately control the situation.

Surely firing more winged wonders into the big blue is going to exacabate the situation.

What do I know, I live in the Canaries after all. Rumour has it we will have the Wireless next year, followed by the Cathode Ray Tube by 2015 :( ;) :(

10th Nov 2002, 16:46
So El Grifo, just how much is a Steam Prop type rating in your part of the world then ;)

10th Nov 2002, 18:12
El Grifo I wasn't really looking for any response, although you may have correctly discerned my feelings from the tone ;)

Like you I am thousands of miles removed and thus unaffected, I was just surprised, having seen the Usenet post, that nobody had mentioned it here.

Whatever one's objections or concerns (the demolition of houses and entire villages is deplorable, I am less convinced re: noise), this kind of 'civil disobedience' is unacceptable IMO. And illegal, not that that matters nowadays.

El Grifo
10th Nov 2002, 18:37
Well Paper, it seems to work for the french Sheepy burners and it certainly worked for the Anti Poll Tax Crew.

With "democracy" in the state its in these days, It does appear to be one of the last few ways of being heard.

Keffudle, run that word "prop" by me again.
We have a couple of colonials coming across the atlantic by steam packet, next month going by the names of Wullie and Orville Wright. They are rumoured to be bringing somthing that can be launched from a high hill and remain aloft for yea, minutes.

They sound dead interesting :confused:

10th Nov 2002, 19:19
There is also a proposal to widen the M25 around LHR - expect around 2 - 3 years of chaos.

Is this a typo? - shouldn't there be a zero after the 2 and 3?

10th Nov 2002, 20:34

"If you buy/rent a house near LHR, you buy/rent much cheaper because it's near a busy international airport"

You've got to be joking?

It costs an effin fortune to live near Heathrow


11th Nov 2002, 01:26
Starting to verge on an interesting argument, but not quite. LHR, of course, had quite a few more runways in the past. BAA plc effectively closed the remaining third runway in order to get T4 through - it was argued that modern aircraft did not need a 'cross wind' runway. They also negotiated a 'no discuss'agreement on LGW - namely, they would not even broach the subject of another runway at LGW until 2019 in order to get North Terminal through. STN is somewhat similar - now working on new terminal, having got through a number of satellites. Cliffe/Hoo peninsular is probably designed to stir things up to such a pitch that the 'public' will sigh with relief when it is decided that a second runway at STN is the answer. Make no mistake, a new parallel North runway at LHR is already fully drawn up, costed, etc - as is a second runway at STN and a third at LGW. You can't blame them - once permission is granted, if they are not ready to roll, they will be criticised if they can't immediately start work - T5 removal of 'sludge' started years ago - it was decided so long ago - before any talk, even, of public enquiries,etc. Effectively, Cliffe/Hoo peninsular is a non-starter - apart from cost,etc ( see Kansai ), its development would reduce capacity at STN, LGW, LTN and LCY - nice 'red herring', though - Manston and all the other 'jokes' are scuppered for similar reasons, infrastrucure apart , so we are faced with LHR, STN or LGW - nothing else, really.It is just not humanly possible to take all factors into account and come out with a final, 'balanced' decision - this is not the real world - the last, and most powerful argument is always the one that carries the day - those that decide are mere mortals - they just want to get off for lunch, the weekend, or whatever. Lead times are such that they won't be around anyway - and who, just, are 'they', anyway? What seems to be the 'fly in the ointment' is two-fold. We have no integrated transport policy and until the CAA is privatised ( another disaster? ), you will not get them to take their job seriously - see what has happened to ATC, and continues! Ministers are transient, not understanding the portfolio they are given and the civil servants who run us, can't wait for an early retirement deal -so, the whole thing gets handled and determined at either 'low level'. or by the judiciary! Lots more claims of 'longest public inquiry in history', etc ., but those who finally decide are long gone when their decisions come home to roost! There is no answer, of course. The mess we inherit on things like Channel Tunnel will be repeated. There will be another runway at STN and LGW - LHR not so sure - save your breath - just study all the factors at play and know your history and the country you live in - I would say vote for the' credible 'party, if you agree their policies but there aren't any! Please think about all this seriously - foget your pre-dispositions - the answers are always obvious - an obvious compromise - but that's the best you will ever get!:D

11th Nov 2002, 08:22
In this debate I guess I really have to qualify as a YIMBY (Yes, In My Back Yard) since I live within 10 kilometres of LHR and use it as a passenger on a weekly basis. Having such a major airport so close is undoubtedly beneficial to the logistics of my job, and my house is off the approach paths so all I get in the way of major noise at the moment are the Concordes currently going off 9L (and I still marvel when they do...).
I am also aware that of course LHR was originally designed (back in 1945/6) with six runways, plus a potential additional one north of the A4 as well as a two mile long canal for flying boats (what a shame that last one never got built - what a rowing lake it would make now!); no one could have been in any doubt, then or since, that it was set to be a very major airport.
However, few can dispute that LHR at present is an embarrassing disgrace. It has fallen way behind the standards of more recent new and upgraded international airports. Not only are its passenger facilities poorly provided, they are also abysmally maintained; I shudder each time I pass through, for instance, at the number of moving walkways that are out of service at any particular time; what must visitors think?!
I believe therefore that the time has come to make the very fundamental decision about LHR: either develop it properly into a 21st century airport, with all that that entails in terms of extra runways, terminals and infrastructure and demolition of homes and history, or close it down and build something decent somewhere else.
If it is to stay, then those of us who have chosen to live nearby, for whatever reason, have to accept the consequences of that choice, made as it was in the full knowledge of the implications of doing so ( After all, LHR was a much smokier, noisier place back in the 70s with all those 707s, DC8s and VC10s around). Let's though see some world-class infrastructure put in place there to make it work properly: an inter-terminal monorail, including a passenger pick-up/drop off point outside the congested central area, for instance, and a high-speed trainlink to LGW and STN would provide flexibility to run the three almost as a single "virtual" airport. There are now so many examples of airports that have been upgraded with proper investment to make them efficient and pleasant places to use (O'Hare, Newark and San Francisco (nearly!) come to mind...); we should be bold and copy their examples, or admit defeat at Heathrow, close it down and go elsewhere.

11th Nov 2002, 09:23
The plan for the M25 was 6 lanes each way now around congestion areas. Great.

11th Nov 2002, 21:10
Right on Seloco I agree with all you say - you also know your LHR history, it seems. For info, that off-airport 'rail-head ' is all designed and costed, providing rapid links to the other two London airports and far beyond, too - also, the majority of other features you mention, plus others, have the same status - the problem is funding, exacerbated by the critical error of experimenting with vital public resources/utilities in the private sector. If private capital and investment is being counted on to float Cliffe/Hoo peninsula, it won't happen. If the investment is going to be by the State - then we must lobby and lobby hard to see that this investment goes into our existing airports to make them world class - not just get bored and wander off to half-heartedly play at developing a new site before the others have had the chance to achieve their full potential. The last thing airlines want/ever wanted, was to/have to try to spread their resources over a number of different bases - they can't compete that way, particularly against Continental Euro carriers and their airports - see how the French, Germans and Dutch do this - no comparison! It is a blooming marvel that BA have somehow survived in the face of our 'system' - think how successful they would have been had we had the European airport infrastructure and strategy and investment to work with - streets ahead, is my guess! Again, though, short-termism, the quest for elusive private utility operators, no integrated transport/infrastructure strategy and the nauseating political musical chairs to ensure nobody has the responsibility and accountability to see the job through - just like the M25 and all the other sagas and disasters - originally designed with ( 6? ) lanes - finance 'chopped', now look at the cost and disruption trying to make it keep up with demand - and there are so many other examples - exasperating beyond description - but who listens or cares? Roll on lunch-time, then we can privatise the CAA, ATC, etc., etc - What? Won't work, says some Neddy! Never mind, I'll be retired before that is evident and this way is so much easier! Mmmm....yes, ok, sell the Tunnel to the French, they can have Energy generation as well....the RAF? Oh, ok, let 'em have that and the Navy.... oh, ok - the bloody lot, but make sure I get that little villa on the Dordogne first, won't you? There's a good chappie - now don't bother me again until all that's done!......ZZZZ....ZZZZZ.....

:D PS; CAA is the regulator for BAAplc - when CAA gets sold off ( privatised ), the private sector will be regulating the private sector to ensure it is working in the public interest -GET REAL, PLEASE!!!!! - Another 'Greek Tragedy' looms, I fear

:D PS; CAA is the regulator for BAAplc - when CAA gets sold off ( privatised ), the private sector will be regulating the private sector to ensure it is working in the public interest -GET REAL, PLEASE!!!!! - Another 'Greek Tragedy' looms, I fear

Jet II
12th Nov 2002, 07:28

I believe therefore that the time has come to make the very fundamental decision about LHR: either develop it properly into a 21st century airport, with all that that entails in terms of extra runways, terminals and infrastructure and demolition of homes and history, or close it down and build something decent somewhere else

Exactly why do we need to massively expand avaition in the UK? - It is an unfortunate fact of life that in the UK the main population and business is concentrated in the South East and that this area is rapidly approching saturation point.

In the US and to an extent mainland Europe there is not the pressure on available land, so these new mega-airports can be built without the impact on the lives of those living in the area.

If we do go to extra runways, terminals, railways, etc. etc. at LHR remember you will also need around 20,000 to 30,000 extra staff, as there is almost zero unemployment around LHR at the moment, where are they going to come from and live? (then you need extra schools, shops etc. etc.)

The UK is the 4th largest economy in the world - do we actually need the amount of transfer traffic through our congested airports? we could easily support a good-sized aviation industry with only the travellers to-from the UK.

I would suggest that rather than create all the associated problems with a new mega-airport we build extra runways at LGW and STN (that gives 3 two runway airports around London - not including LTN) and expand services from the other UK airports such as BHX, MAN, GLA etc. and try to spread the pain acroos the country. If this means that we get less transfer pax through London, so be it.

12th Nov 2002, 08:22
As recent posts show this is such a very basic debate, not just about airports but about the very infrastructure of a country that has, through various accidents of history, ended up with a centre of gravity biased so strongly towards one particular city. There is no doubt that the South East is becoming totally saturated, and the infrastructure will continue to deteriorate if those that are needed to support it can no longer afford to live there.

The only viable solution is one that takes a long term view, and that will not be made through private finance, which expects short term gains. It's difficult too with governments that only last about four years; they take the first two working out the problems and the last two deciding what they need to do to get re-elected (OK, cynical, I know....)!

What though if a brave government made a fundamental decision to split the country's financial and political centre? What if the centre of government were to move to, say, Manchester? I'm sure someone would soon find an excellent alternative use for the Houses of Parliament (or even a way to move and rebuild them in Salford........). The political/civil service shift would start a relatively gradual realignment that could soon start to redress the north/south balance. London would stay the financial centre, at least for the mid-term, but Manchester would rapidly grow. The projections for London could be recast to the point where maybe LHR could simply be stabilised at T5 and its existing THREE runways (I'm a member of the R23 supporters club - although we don't often get to indulge in our interest...), plus the upgraded rail/road infrastructure.

Anyway, just a (far from original) thought...

Jet II
12th Nov 2002, 13:56
I totally agre with Seloco - as much of the government infrastructure should be moved out of the south East as possible.

It works fine in Germany, having the financial centre in Frankfurt and the Government in Berlin - why not here?

I also thought that the decision to build the National Football Stadium in London was stupid - It should have been in Birmingham at the centre of the country to provide as much access as possible for the most people.

As a country we have to get away from this obsession with everything being in the Home Counties - theres an awful lot of lovely country in the rest of the UK that deserves the investment.

12th Nov 2002, 20:36
The numbers to contact to express your 'opinion' of the days events should you find yourself caught up:

Hacan: 020 8876 0455

Hacan Press Officer: 0207 737 6641 (or 07957 385650)

Hacan local coordinators: 020 8774 0980


:D :D :D :D

13th Nov 2002, 07:47
the most annoying thing about these protestors is the evangelical gleam in their eyes as they trash our jobs.

It is VERY important that we fight our case and put forward our side by writing to press, local councilllors, MP's etc

Mike Cross
13th Nov 2002, 10:09
More details at

"In view of the potential for a Firefighters strike at the time of the planned 'Bumper-to-Bumper' protest on Friday 15th November and the terrorist threat alert at Heathrow it has been decided to convert the protest into a March & Picket of BA Headquarters at Waterside.

Protesters are asked not to drive to Junction 4 of the M4 on Friday but instead to go to Harmondsworth village and assemble outside St. Mary's Church (at either 7:00am or 4:30pm) for a March & Picket outside BA Headquarters at Waterside. Parking is available in Harmondsworth Lane."


13th Nov 2002, 12:52
Why have you posted a link, and instructions for the anti mob?
Is the idea we should form a posse and head them off at the pass?
Or that Pruners can bombard the MP's website so that his server overloads?
Just curious why you post this on a professional pilots website.

Interesting the mob pick on BA as an alternative. Always an easy target I suppose.
Why not us, or BMI?

simon brown
13th Nov 2002, 12:58
It makes me wonder where these NIMBYs actually go on holiday,and if going abroad how the f**k do they get there.

General noise in the city overwhelms aircraft noise.It about time these narrow minded people accepted aviation is a huge industry and stopped bleating and moaning, afterall most of the w****rs moved near Heathrow in the first place. Its been there since the 40s so why live near an airport if you dont like the noise. I went to view a house near the motorway recently, didnt like the noise so didnt bother moving there.....

Flying Lawyer
13th Nov 2002, 13:49
I've moved this post in response to several requests from people suggesting it justifies a new thread.

See 'One MP's attitude to terrorism!' (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=72497&referrerid=18293)

13th Nov 2002, 14:02
I live less than 10km from the threshold of 25L (Richmond) and the noise is something that you eventually get used to, but it did take a few years to get used to 04:30 arrivals into EGLL !

I'm not in favour of Heathrow expansion myself but I'm realistic enough to realise that it will probably happen sooner or later.

I'll make a few points on the subject as a 'local'....

1 - When T4 was approved, it was stated that there would be no more expansion. Now we have T5 approved, another runway on the cards and a T6. Where does it end ? Let's just knock down the rest of the area !

It's a questionable argument that BAA wish to expand EGLL for the 'economy.' I would say it's for BAA's benefit, rather than UK Plc's.

2 - As an earlier poster commented, Heathrow is a complete mess of an airport. Both myself and my better half are regular users of Heathrow and Schiphol. Heathrow T1,2 & 3 are amongst the most awful public buildings I have ever used. T3 in particular is a glorified shopping mall with nowhere to sit and chill. Thank god for my Virgin flying club lounge access !

Schiphol is the way an airport should be, lot's of light, lots of space and a Casino to lose your shirt in ! LHR needs a redesign, not just expansion.

3 - The current public transport to LHR is hopeless. If I want to get to Heathrow from Richmond I can....

i) Drive, and get stuck everywhere
ii) Get the tube - from Richmond to Hammersmith, then back to Heathrow. This can sometimes take 1h30mins in a cramped, dirty train.
iii) Catch the train to Feltham, then hope a bus turns up to take me to T1-3. If I fly from T4 I have to catch the Heathrow transfer bus.
iv) Go to Paddington and catch the Heathrow Express at a price per minute that makes Concorde look cheap !

It's a bit of a mess really, isn't it ? I normally drive, or get a Johnny Cab for Ł15

4 - One day there will be an accident over London. In the 10 years I've lived in Richmond, I have personally seen an aircraft engine spewing black smoke out the back, which wasn't very pleasant to watch (And a guy a few streets away had an 'ice' block from a passing 747 end up in his conservatory !)

The local Homebase carpark at Manor Road has had it's fair share of stowaways visit from 2000 feet after the gear goes down as well - not really LHR's fault I admit.

Do we really want to push more aircraft over the whole of W.London and E.Berkshire ? I think we are asking for trouble. 'Remember Amsterdam and that block of flats ?' - thats what any protester will tell you.

I could go on for a long while about why I am not keen on Heathrow expansion, but I won't bore you. I appreciate that I knew it was there when I moved to Richmond but it has to be said that consideration to the local environment has to be made when drawing up plans for such a 'monster' development.

My feeling is that by the time Heathrow has it's T5, it's T6, and it's 3rd runway, that it's rivals in Europe (Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam) will have swallowed up most of the transfer traffic that BAA so desperately wants.

Simon - not all locals are w******, you should not generalise the entire local population. As somebody who was born and brought up in London, I can safely say that air traffic noise is far more intrusive and disruptive than 'regular' City noise.

Tudor - I agree that the MP's poster is highly inappropriate, I spent 5 years working for a Broking firm in WTC and luckily all my friends survived.

I'll state here that I have a PPL and I try and fly quietly from Denham and Benson !

Flame proof pants on.



Flying Lawyer
13th Nov 2002, 15:39
What does it say about John McDonnell, a Member of Parliament (for Hayes & Harlinton) that he considers it appropriate to have this cartoon in the 'No Third Runway at Heathrow' section of his website?


Perhaps Mr McDonell has already forgotten tha innocent pilots, FA's and passengers were killed by terrorists in the 9/11 atrocity?

When the country in general, and the aviation industry in particular, is sensitive to threats from people who consider terrorism to be an acceptable means to achieve their aims, it is nothing short of disgraceful for a Member of Parliament to behave in this way. There is nothing even faintly amusing about terrorism.

Note to Mr McDonnell:
If this is brought to your attention, and you wish to claim I've libelled you, my details are:

Tudor Owen
9-12 Bell Yard
London WC2 2JR

On second thoughts, I shall bring it to Mr McDonnell's attention myself, and invite his comments.

If others wish to express their own views, his email address is: [email protected]

13th Nov 2002, 15:42
FL - unless you have edited something out of the post, where does that refer to 11/9/02 or terrorism at all?

13th Nov 2002, 16:07
9/11/02 ???

The image it seems to give is of men armed with guns, associated with the aircraft in the background?

Not a seemingly very responsible representation of one of our MP's though. How else do they act one wonders??

13th Nov 2002, 16:14
Not sure why all the hostility towards mrcross in your post.
As you state, this is a proffesional pilot's site and is also frequented by other proffesionals in the aviation industry. I should imagine that a large proportion of readers work in the Heathrow/West Drayton area and I for one am glad of Mike's information. My only interest in the matter is wether it will be quicker to walk to work on Friday, or drive.

Thanks, Mike.

13th Nov 2002, 16:20
Me thinks hiring a helicopter may be the speediest route!!:D ;) :) :) :mad:

Hew Jampton
13th Nov 2002, 16:21
where does that refer to 11/9/02 (sic) or terrorism at all? Guns, black suits and sunglasses = standard IRA attire as worn at funerals etc.

Mr McDonnell, should you be foolhardy enough to take on FL in the courts, please let me know the when and where. I don't normally spectate at blood sports but in your case I'll make an exception.

13th Nov 2002, 16:24
Look what the guys have got in their hands, d*ckhead! :rolleyes:

And I'd bet my last cent you don't fly airplanes for a living. If you did, you'd understand why joking about terrorist methods just isn't funny in the post 9/11 climate.
I forgot, you didn't get the terrorist point. Sure, they might just have been going hunting.

Try reading your own signature line Steamchicken.
Was Barbara Castle that slushy romance writer in all the pink frills?
Anyways, her advice is good.

13th Nov 2002, 16:35
1. 11/9/01. Yes. Typo.
2. Do you recall the popular films "Men In Black" and "Men In Black II"? With the near-identical publicity posters? And absolutely no connection to the IRA or any other terrorist organisation?
2a. IRA "black suits"? Balaclavas and camo, surely?
3. She was Secretary of State for Transport, then Employment, then Social Services.

13th Nov 2002, 16:45
Of course we know the movies!!!!!!!!!
There were two of them. That's why the cartoon says MiB III.

It's the association of groups using guns, bombs, and airplanes to win what they want by force.
I'm hitting a language problem here.

13th Nov 2002, 17:21
Having known Tudor since we both flew Chipmunks together at ULAS back when even I had hair (and the Flying Lawyer was allegedly slightly more sylph-like than he is now), I know that he has a brilliant sense of humour. So his comments on this thread indicate to me that he is bŁoody angry about this stupid cartoon - and quite rightly so too!! He certainly has my support!!

Select Zone Five
13th Nov 2002, 17:29
Mr McDonnell is clearly a long way "out of touch" which, considering his job and his campaign, worries me a great deal...:mad:

13th Nov 2002, 17:55
I agree with steamchicken. I do not think that this says anything about Mr McDonnell's attitude to terrorism. Vast over reaction from Flying Lawer.

13th Nov 2002, 17:57
If they were in Muslim dress it might be able to be construed as in some way connected to 9/11. As it is, I don't see it as being THAT offensive. Grow up you babies.

13th Nov 2002, 18:46
Fully agree with the last couple of posts.

How anybody can associates the cartoon with terrorism is frankly unbelievable.

But I guess where there is a will there is a way.

13th Nov 2002, 18:55
Ray Puddifoot, whose name is also on the poster, is the leader of Hillingdon's Conservatives. I know him, and he will laugh his socks off at this when he sees it.

Lighten up guys!

Send Clowns
13th Nov 2002, 20:21
Ummm, I'm not entirely sure how any poster with aircraft and men with guns and mentioning a battle against hostile forces could be dissociated from terrorism of some sort. Now most likely the cartoon was just thoughtless, and in any context not attacking the industry could be taken lightly. However since this comes in the middle of propoganda attacking the industry it just seems nasty.

13th Nov 2002, 20:56
Well guys don't worry about the poster and any terrorism..
If their will be any attack we will go to war, if their is a war at least we have a good, strong, believable leader !



13th Nov 2002, 23:17
It looks like the cartoon is alluding to the movie "Men in Black." See here (http://us.imdb.com/Posters?0120912).

What does terrorism have to do with it? :confused: :confused: :confused:

14th Nov 2002, 01:16
What does terrorism have to do with it?

Terrorists are people who try to impose their will on others by fear instead of by democratic process. It depends how you regard a picture which has campign leaders with weapons and aircraft flying in the background.
I'm 100% with FL.
In the current climate, post the 9/11 terrorist actions, so-called humour about achieving objectives by force is in very bad taste. And all the more so where aviation is concerned. An MP being party to it is totally irresponsible.

Chuck K
14th Nov 2002, 09:48
Maybe the guys who think turning the movie poster into a cartoon of protest-leaders armed to the teeth in support of their cause should read the "Heathrow target for al Qaeda" topic.
Passionate 'causes', guns and airplanes are a dangerous mix, and not a good subject for humor after recent events.
The cartoon sucks even tho these protesters wouldn't seriously use weapons to stop more flights into Heathrow.
We've got lotsa dumb politicians here, but I don't think the dumbest would have it on their websites.

Now I've finally gotten round to registering, its opened up a whole new world, like profiles and so on. Interesting demography here.
The guys who think the cartoon is okay aren't pro pilots, apart from one and he's not an airlines pilot. Steamchicken and Techman's posts on politics topics in Jetblast are usually on the 'liberal' side of centre. 'Left wing' (?) in the UK. Another one says his friend in the cartoon will laugh his socks off. So what?
And Cathar from your CAA thinks the Flyer Lawyer's got it all wrong. Well isn't that a suprise! :D

By the way guys, this is a fantastic site and a whole lot better than anything in the US. Hope I'm not causing offence by criticising a British politician.

Select Zone Five
14th Nov 2002, 10:50
Not at all Chuck K, they deserve it and should expect it!

Maybe there is a degree of sensitivity here but rightly so.

It's obvious that this poster can be interpreted as suggested terrorism, which means the MP is either very stupid or very insensitive...

...both instances are worrying!

14th Nov 2002, 12:10
So the LAPD are keeping an eye on me. How comforting.;)

14th Nov 2002, 20:21
Hoverman, 'if you rent/buy' nearby it's cheaper due to the large international airport!!. My house is approx 1 1/2 miles south of the southern runwayvery little noise and had gone up in value in the last 18 months 40%!! :D .

I'm off to buy Devon.:D :D :D


'Depressed,no just give me a Bacardi and Coke'

14th Nov 2002, 21:02
njr makes a very interesting point about house prices, it also ties in with one of the main issues here. One of the major concerns is the fact that this new runway will affect people currently not significantly affected by pollution from LHR. They are facing potential compulsory purchase of their properties, or if not the very real potential of significant disturbance.

As usual with these issues we have the head in the sand attitude of 'don't live/buy near an airport if you don't like the noise' etc. Interestingly none of those correspondants are able or bother to define 'near'. Having worked on environmental issues you would be surprised just how far away 'near' is for some one affected by these issues. A large amount of the housing near the airport is still council owned, hence the income for some of those families may be well below the national average, (about Ł23k I believe), so how would some one, lets say single parent shop assistant, afford to move?, or an OAP, or someone unemployed, not quite so clear cut is it?. Just because these people don't work in our industry does not give us the right to blight their living conditions. The T5 enquiry was fairly robust in not requiring a third runway, less than a couple of years after, its now allegedly on the cards, so no big surprise about the local reaction.

The poster gives me no real problem, you have to remember that it is a tool being used by protestors with a very limited budget, it has to be instantly memorable, if its in questionable taste so much the better, you'll remember it then!, compare it to those Benetton ads a while ago if you like, and finally has to be easy to produce in large number for fly posting etc. It gets your attention which is its prime aim, don't get carried away with the 9/11 connection, because you're looking for something that isn't there.

The planned road blockage would be effective we all know that, but ironically would strengthen the case for STN, with its least worst option for expansion, I wonder if CASE have thought of that affect?, doubt it!.

Finally for all you 'move then' proponents, try looking through the other end of the telescope and try to imagine this:
In your local paper next week you read that there is to be a industrial waste incineration plant constructed 1 km down wind of your current house, that you've paid for and love, good schools, nice community, are you going to upsticks and move?, or are you going to be a NIMBY?

Flying Lawyer
14th Nov 2002, 22:51
But if I'd chosen to buy or rent a house knowing it was next to one of the busiest industrial waste incineration plants in the world I'd be very surprised if people didn't remind me of that when I objected to the inevitable expansion.
In fact I've lived under or near the Westerly flightpath for 30 years. South Kensington, Putney, Fulham and now Chelsea. My choice. I'm told the volume of traffic has increased. I don't know, but it's what I expected and I still chose to buy in West London.
We're a long way from LHR and I've never heard my neighbours even mention aircraft noise yet, when I read the anti's propaganda, I read that we're all kept awake by night flights!

no jacket
Property prices have gone up almost everywhere in the country, especially London. An identical house not situated 1 1/2 miles south of the southern runway will probably have gone up by a similar percentage, but it would be still be more expensive - unless it was 1 1/2 miles from jumpseater's industrial waste incineration plant or some similar attraction. :D

Monkey C
15th Nov 2002, 05:48
Has anybody seen any sign of the threatened traffic blockade at M4 Junction 4 this morning?:confused:

15th Nov 2002, 06:48
When I was at work last Tuesday I'm sure there was a piece of paper saying it had been scrubbed, or the venue changed.

15th Nov 2002, 07:44

t'aint natural
15th Nov 2002, 20:01
As an aviator and a resident of Richmond, (5nm EGLL 27L) I'm concerned at the poor quality of debate on this thread.
All those who oppose Heathrow expansion are not moronic NIMBYs for whom protest is just a knee-jerk reaction. With all respect to esteemed contributors, the simplistic notion that all those who buy/rent around Heathrow must take their lumps is specious drivel.
Many of my neighbours have lived in this area since before the jet age, but even more recent incomers have legitimate grievances. What do you say to someone who bought at a time when there was an absolute promise of a 240,000-movement cap, or when there was an absolute promise that Terminal Four would be the last development at Heathrow? They weren't to know BAA couldn't lie straight in bed.
What do you say when they ask why the population of Scotland and northern England is forced to travel for a day to the south-eastern extremity of the UK in order to catch flights back over their own homes to reach North America? What do you say when they ask why avtur is tax-free, allowing even incompetent airlines to stay in business with dismal load factors?
Anybody who thinks they're attacking jobs should sit down and work out how many jobs would be created by having a less concentrated infrastructure.
The self-righteous belittling of their position is not enough. They do have a point, and the two companies who decide where traffic goes in the UK cannot hold onto that privilege forever.

15th Nov 2002, 20:45
Well said t'aint! There is never any harm in trying to see things from the other side of the boundary fence. It should not be a them vs us but a stark examination of the options.

I agree completely that any needed expansion should be moved to a more central location. Spot on!

15th Nov 2002, 21:43
All those who oppose Heathrow expansion are not moronic NIMBYs ...No they are not. I reserve that epithet for those who feel that causing deliberate disruption to public services is a reasonable way to air their grievances.
... for whom protest is just a knee-jerk reaction. a common characteristic of a NIMBY.

FWIW I don't support LHR expansion. In fact I think it reached critical mass some years ago. As others have posted, this is just the latest manifestation of the complete lack of any concerted policy. I have watched from near and far over the last 40-odd years the same saga played over and over, followed by ad-hoc, patchwork solutions. Promises from the government, any government or its agents, generally have a lifespan not extending beyond the next election. Anyone putting more faith in them than that is bound to be disappointed.

15th Nov 2002, 21:57
fl, I think with respect you may have missed my point, I was talking hypothetically about a new waste plant, not an expansion of an existing one, which is what the new runway proposal is to those affected.

I wouldn't expect there to be too many complaints from your listed areas, from my experience, because of the relatively busy urban area's which you describe. However those complaints that do come from those areas I would expect to come from affluent, professional backgrounds. Closer in to the airport you will see a wider spread in the socio-economic background, hence a more concentrated and vocal opposition. In a previous life I regularly dealt with complaints from 10nm away when the aircraft were at 3,000ft on approach, and still waking the complainant, including 146's! :rolleyes:. I also suspect that because the traffic was there when you moved, and you are interested in aviation, you are far less likely to be disturbed by any increase. Those outside our industry are far less likely to be so tolerant, and the lay public do indeed notice changes even of relatively small magnitude!.

A new runway north of Heathrow will put many thousands of departures/arrivals across an area currently 'unaffected' by Heathrow. Therefore you would be looking at traffic arriving approximately 70% of the time across the north of London from Islington westwards. This is a whole new selection of customers for the BAA complaints section to deal with, who may feel that they have justifiable reason to object. Many of the locals there have been bowled curved balls by sucessive governments regarding capping and and expansion of Heathrow, it is now that the BAA and various politicians are beginning to reap what they sew!

Flying Lawyer
16th Nov 2002, 00:38
If it is the case that some areas previously completely unaffected by aircraft noise would be affected by the expansion, then I did miss that and can understand why they might try to stop the expansion.
I'm afraid I remain unsympathetic to those who bought under the existing flight paths or close to LHR. An increase in traffic was inevitable.
I have some sympathy for those neighbours of my friend t'aint natural of Richmond who bought their houses before the jet age, but they must be quite small numbers, even in geriatric Richmond :D. Won't that particular issue gradually resolve itself as nature takes its course, t'aint?. ;)

Jet II
16th Nov 2002, 06:57
Flying Lawyer

An increase in traffic was inevitable.

Are you saying that all those promises made by QC's,representing BAA at previous enquiries, with regard to caps on flights were not true?

I take it then that your position is never to believe what you are told by any lawyer!


t'aint natural
16th Nov 2002, 08:07
FL (et al)
Although I'm a supporter of aviation in all its forms, as a helicopter pilot I'm particularly sensitive to noise concerns, and I have have no tolerance for the braying self-justification that characterises the take-it-or-leave-it attitude of some people in the industry. These protesters have a point, and if it is not addressed, it will one day overwhelm us.
As it happens, I was one of those who bought at the time of the Terminal Four inquiry, when the QC for the GLC won the concessions mentioned in my previous post. The fact that the same QC, Sir Roy Vandermeer, turned up as the Inspector on the Terminal Five inquiry gave some people reason to think he'd hold BA to its promise (the promise was made by BA - you'll remember that BAA was the most vehement objector to Terminal Five until it was privatised). On the first day of the Terminal Five inquiry, BAA promised there would be no new runway at Heathrow.
It's often hard to argue with people who feel aggrieved at their treatment. I agree with them that Heathrow is in the wrong place. I can think of few other major airports that are as badly sited in relation to nearby populations. LAX maybe. I agree with them that too much UK traffic is channelled through Heathrow, in the absence of a policy on air travel. I agree that there are too many empty seats being hauled over their heads, and (my personal apostasy) I agree that fuel should be taxed.
It is not enough to say that we were here first, therefore we should be allowed to expand ad infinitum just as long as we can force traffic into our asset. Most of my neighbours are happy to put up with a level of disturbance commensurate with the requirements of London and the south of England. Most of them accept my arguments that aircraft today are much quieter, and that (pro tem) they no longer have their biggest bugbear, the 10pm Concorde. They are not inherently unreasonable people, and deserve a fair hearing.

Flying Lawyer
16th Nov 2002, 14:48
I don't think objections from people living near the airport should be ignored or dismissed as irrelevant. They are relevant and should be put into the balance with all other arguments for and against. Objections from people living in Inner London are silly. Witht the exception of Concorde, aircraft noise is barely noticeable.

Jet II
No, I'm not saying "that all those promises made by QC's,representing BAA at previous enquiries, with regard to caps on flights were not true?"
Firstly, I don't know precisely what was said.
Secondly, 'promises' are not made by barristers personally, but by barristers on behalf of their clients. A barrister is employed to put forward his client's instructions. If there is any dishonesty, it is the client who is being dishonest.
'never believe a lawyer'?
If I say something is the truth, you can safely believe it.
If I say "My instructions are ...........", they are just that. I'm merely acting as the client's spokesman. I don't know if it's the truth, and I'm not personally vouching for it.

Flying Lawyer
18th Nov 2002, 11:31
Following my earlier post, I received numerous emails from pilots and cabin crew asking to be associated with my letter to John McDonnell MP. Many said their views were shared by others, and I have no reason to doubt that is so.
The predominant theme was disgust that a Member of Parliament should be associated with a cartoon which made light of the use of force to achieve an objective. Several said they were circulating the link to show that an MP with many LHR employees in his constituency seemed to think the use of force was a proper subject for humour.
On the other hand, a number of contributors to this thread take a different view of the cartoon.
I hope the text of my email reflected the spread of opinion: Dear Mr McDonnell

I am a barrister specialising in aviation law and am constantly in close contact with the aviation industry. I write in a private, not professional, capacity.

I think you should know that the cartoon which appears on the 'No Third Runway' page of your website is causing widespread distress, primarily amongst pilots and cabin crew. The mildest comments fall into the 'bad taste', 'insensitive', 'irresponsible' category. I needn't trouble you with the more extreme comments.

Not suprisingly, there is constant reference to, and condemnation of, the fact that the cartoon appears on the website of a Member of Parliament.

Most people accept that you are not actually advocating the use of force to achieve your objective, but it is open to misinterpretation and provokes 'There's nothing funny about terrorism' comments.

Of course people understand the 'Men in Black' weren't terrorists but, in the current climate, a cartoon depicting the leaders of a group fighting the third runway armed with guns and rocket-launchers to fight the "invaders" is at best unfortunate.

You may well consider your critics to be over-sensitive. Perhaps they are, but the fact is that those who fly for a living, whether as pilots or cabin crew, do feel sensitive post September 11th last year, especially as airliners are so vulnerable to the use of force by extremists.

Please do not dismiss your critics as opponents of your campaign. As you probably know, even amongst those employed in the aviation industry, opinion is divided upon whether there should be expansion at Heathrow or elsewhere in the country.

I should also make it clear that I am not merely reporting the views of others. I entirely agree with the criticism, and am frankly amazed that someone in your position should associate himself with a cartoon which is at best in bad taste, and at worst insensitive to the feelings of those most vulnerable to attacks.

You're the politician, I'm not. But you should know the cartoon is being used, and circulated, to undermine your credibility. You may wish to consider whether the cartoon adds anything to the force of your arguments, and balance any perceived value against the distress it causes to many in the industry.

Perhaps the way forward is to remove it because it is open to misinterpretation, stressing that no offence was intended?

Yours etc"

I received a formal acknowledgement from Mr McDonnell's PA and the cartoon has since been removed - coincidence or not, I am unable to say.

Tudor Owen

Alty Meter
18th Nov 2002, 13:46
Well done, and thank you Sir!

I heard John McDonnell MP on Radio 4 yesterday lunchtime. They introduced him as the Chairman of the 'Socialist Campaign Group' of Labour MP's so no surprise when he supported the Firemen's Union and blamed the government for the strike.

Strange company your friend with the socks keeps Unwell-Raptor!

If it's not too much trouble, I've got a difficult letter I need to send ......... ;)

18th Nov 2002, 21:17
May I congratulate you FL. A beautifully composed, balanced and restrained letter.
Seems to have done the trick. :)

Personally I would prefer to see other airports expanded rather than Heathrow, but the cartoon was insensitive and in very bad taste.