Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

NIMBYs to blockade LHR ?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

NIMBYs to blockade LHR ?

Old 10th Nov 2002, 20:19
  #21 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 6 Posts
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?
reynoldsno1 is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2002, 21:34
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: ---------->
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

"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

EGLD is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2002, 02:26
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: HERE
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!
IMMELMAN is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2002, 09:22
  #24 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

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.
Seloco is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2002, 10:23
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The plan for the M25 was 6 lanes each way now around congestion areas. Great.
Lucifer is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2002, 22:10
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: HERE
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.....

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

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
IMMELMAN is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2002, 08:28
  #27 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

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.
Jet II is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2002, 09:22
  #28 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NE Surrey, UK
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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...
Seloco is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2002, 14:56
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Jet II is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2002, 21:36
  #30 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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


GustyOrange is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2002, 08:47
  #31 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
ShotOne is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2002, 11:09
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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."

Mike Cross is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2002, 13:52
  #33 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
virgin is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2002, 13:58
  #34 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cheltenham
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

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.....
simon brown is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2002, 14:49
  #35 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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!'

Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 13th Nov 2002 at 16:44.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2002, 15:02
  #36 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Richmond, Surrey
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unhappy Expansion Of LHR

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 15

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.


Thunderbird2 is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2002, 16:39
  #37 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Arrow One MP's attitude to terrorism!

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]

Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 13th Nov 2002 at 16:50.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2002, 16:42
  #38 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 894
Received 9 Likes on 5 Posts
FL - unless you have edited something out of the post, where does that refer to 11/9/02 or terrorism at all?
steamchicken is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2002, 17:07
  #39 (permalink)  

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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??
Andy_R is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2002, 17:14
  #40 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

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.
Hippy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.