Royal Commission Report on Aviation/the environment

[akerosid]

Just reading over the past few days about the above, it looks as if efforts to build new runways are "on the back foot". Does anyone know anything about these people; what influence do they/will they have on air transport development? The likely effect of their proposals has grave consequences for all involved in aviation.
1)For a start, they seem to be suggesting that low cost carriers are to blame for damage to the environment, notwithstanding that most lo-cos use very modern aircraft;
2) No consideration has been given to the effect on the overall economy if their proposals are brought through; low costs will simply move their operations elsewhere;
3) Doing nothing will add to costs of exports and detract from competitiveness of tourism.

These are just some of the points, but what concerns me is that the response to this report is somewhat muted. Will it simply be cast into the "file and forget" locker, or is there a danger that it might actually carry some weight?

[FoxRomeo]

right you are, akerosid,

same problems here, this side of the channel. Sometimes I get the feeling this environmental stuff has become some kind of religion. There is no reasonable way to talk to those guys, they have their minds fixed. Aircraft is aircraft, whether B707 or A320, whether modern composite kit with diesel engine or old Cessna with fuel to noise converter, makes no difference.

We can talk all we want, there is just no way convincing those people. Real shame it is.

FR

[Lou Scannon]

I wouldn't worry too much by these reports.Firstly the title "Professor" now seems to extend to half the nation and often the same half who are engaged in "File and Forget" papers.

A scientific look at the problem would reveal the considerable decrease in individual aircraft noise over the last thirty years and the allied increase in engine efficiency leading to less polution. If those two changes were extrapolated, an optomist would be looking forward to near silent engines with virtually no polution by the year 2050.

The genie is out of the bottle. The average Brit has had air travel waived in his face and he likes it. Together we can make it possible and environmentally acceptable.

...and before anyone snipes...I live close to a major international airport.

[The Highlander]

I have no problem with peoples right to express their opinions.But what I do object to is these people who buy houses near airports and then jump on the anti noise bandwagon and anti airport extention lobby.
I often wonder if we actually gave in and banned all night flying etc if these people would start complaining that flights were now too expensive and did not operate at times suitable top their lifestyles.
Moral if you dont like aircraft or their noises stay away from airports. as far as possible (if you want to avoid the expansion plans for future). Tiree or stornoway have very quiet areas.

[Squawk 8888]

Environmental watchdog calls for £40 tax on flights (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,850910,00.html)

The royal commission on environmental pollution told the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, that his expansion policy was "deeply flawed". A scathing report said ministers showed "little sign of having recognised" the atmospheric havoc wreaked by aircraft.

It advocated a freeze on airport expansion, together with a tax of between £40 and £100 on every ticket, which would double the price of many journeys. Sir Tom Blundell, the commission's chairman, said: "We believe we should restrict airport development, rather than just expand in response to demand."
Hey, they've been gunning for every other aspect of the good life so it comes as no surprise that travel is on the hit-list. I'd love to start a website that tracks the travel & consumption habits of these wonks who think we should make all the sacrifices.