Why would it "clearly" be better for pax going from Edinburgh to Tokyo to transit CDG than LHR? As the great circle route passes north of North Cape and over Russia, it would be more mileage, more fuel, more CO2, more £, and more noise!

Do you hold a brief for the French national budget? Or is it that you are a Scot Nat so extreme that you would rather see taxes go to France in their entirely, 100%, than see them go partly (less than 50%) to England and indeed Wales? Certainly there is no environmental or economic reason. Clear as mud.


Approximate EDI-CDG-NRT route

Approximate route EDI-LHR-NRT

As a comparison, approx direct route EDI-NRT

Who the F**k wants to go to France anyway. Unless it is the south and your off to the beach. :E

Okay gang i'm seriously getting narked by HACAN. I would like to send an informed email to Mr Stuart pointing out the flaws in his argument which i hope he has the cojones to publish on his website.

I've had a good look on the website and paid particular attention to his sources of his information. I'm a uni student at the moment and i got told from day one that we need at least one separate source for every 200 words in a piece of coursework. The Hacan website mainly uses two for their entire speil. This i my opinion is just plain wrong, and as i said before i believe that these are too few sources to base an entire argument. On a similar vein why is it always the complaining few that always make the headlines.

Aviation is here to stay. Hell i live 5 miles from East Mids and i can hear the turboprops spooling up at night (with the right wind conditions) preparing for take off. However it is a price i am very willing to pay for the freedom of getting lobster (i wish) at the local restaurant, and sending my grandmother (who lives on the continent) a birthday card one day before her birthday and still making sure she gets it on time. If i can be provided the information, i will provide a clear and educated argument to hacan and to any press that is willing to listen to why the basic argument is flawed. I know JERRICHO and FLIGHTMAPPING are up for it so why don't you guys PM me (or anyone else with a reasonable argument which can be backed up by proper data) with any info and arguments you have and i'll formulate it into an educated debate, perhaps i could even get enough info to write my dissertation on it (doing a degree in air transport management). Hell i'm a student it's not like i have anything better things to do in life. And like i said i'll formulate it into a proper argument.

I don't expect the nimby's will take much notice, but perhaps it will give them grounds to think and perhaps reasses their arguments. Perhaps we could have a reasonable and informed debate without the standard slagging match that usually ensues.

I agree that everyone has the right to a certain quality of life, but comprimises must always be made in whatever field you are looking at. I can't guarentee it will work, but if we can get even one nimby to take stcok and think about it then it'll be worth it.

Cort, you're a person after my own heart.

Unfortunately you idea will probably fall of deaf ears. The 2 "contributors" to this thread have clearly displayed their desire not to enter into ANY form of replying or discussion. This is what they do. Stir things up and slink away............as SLF3 says, they attract zealots. IHMO, they don't want to find answers that are mutually beneficial to all, they just want their own way.

As a big recognition of on of our PPrune brothers Brimstone, he pointed out some facts regarding our ATC operating procedures that wouldn't have been instigated without taking noise into account. Procedures like contiunous descent approaches, vector restrictions on departing aircraft, runway alternation, preferential runways etc are all as a direct result from an attempt to minimise noise impact. And these procedures aren't restrictive or intrusive on air traffic movements. They came about from intelligent apprasial and thought.