Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
hundreds of protesters arrive

14.08.07

Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
than initially planned.

Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
flights.

The news comes as protesters were arriving at Heathrow to swell the
ranks of a week-long protest camp at the airport.

Up to 250 people are already in place on private land adjacent to the
west London airport to protest against plans to expand the airport and
the aviation industry.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23408281-details/Heathrow%3A+Bosses+want+to+make+proposed+new+runway+even+longer+as+hundreds+of+protesters+arrive/article.do

http://tinyurl.com/2k5jx8

SB

"SB"  wrote in message 
news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
> hundreds of protesters arrive
>
> 14.08.07
>
> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
> than initially planned.

Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for using 
that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and pay.

>
> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
> flights.

Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km long is 
not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is absolutely 
necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra runway capable of 
taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways are unavailable for any 
reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged aircraft, for example.

Colin Bignell

nightjar <nightjar@ wrote:
> "SB"  wrote in message 
> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>
>> 14.08.07
>>
>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>> than initially planned.
> 
> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
> but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
> much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for using 
> that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and pay.
> 
>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>> flights.
> 
> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km long is 
> not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is absolutely 
> necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra runway capable of 
> taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways are unavailable for any 
> reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged aircraft, for example.
> 
> Colin Bignell
> 
> 
> 
> 
Originally (ignoring the single strip and grass) there were four runways 
those that are used now and two more running about 035/215 and 135/310, 
I was in the 16th Hounslow Air Scouts and the plan view of the then new 
Heathrow showing all the runways was incorporated in our neckerchief 
badge (and AIUI is a very collectable badge) I have no idea it they are 
still marked out on the sea of concrete that the current airport 
occupies I suspect the 135/310 is partly obscured by a later terminal.

I have actually both landed and taken off on the current 3rd existing 
runway when I was a kid in the air scouts.

"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "SB"  wrote in message 
> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>
>> 14.08.07
>>
>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>> than initially planned.
>
> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
> but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
> much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for 
> using that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and 
> pay.
>
>>
>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>> flights.
>
> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km long 
> is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is absolutely 
> necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra runway capable 
> of taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways are unavailable 
> for any reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged aircraft, for example.

There are hundreds of thousands of us who would welcome delays in aircraft 
taking off due to faults, such as immobile or damaged aircraft!

If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to stop 
talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.

The third runway should not be allowed to be built.

How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into Heathrow, 
just change aircraft and fly out again.

These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
would not have such a devestating affect so many people.

"Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
news:b2mwi.14062$rr5.13518@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
.....
> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to 
> stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
> machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
> effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.

You didn't notice the airport when you moved into the area?

....
> How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into 
> Heathrow, just change aircraft and fly out again.
>
> These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
> would not have such a devestating affect so many people.

The reason that Heathrow takes a lot of transfer passengers is its location 
in relation to the airways, so it is not really possible to move a 
significant part of the traffic elsewhere. Besides, who else would want it?

Colin Bignell

"NM"  wrote in message 
news:FIlwi.30728$1G1.23875@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
....
> Originally (ignoring the single strip and grass) there were four runways 
> those that are used now and two more running about 035/215 and 135/310,

There would have been nine had the war not ended before the RAF finished 
building the base. The reason the first terminals were built in the middle 
is that the central intersection was essentially complete and provided good 
parking areas.

Colin Bignell

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
> news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "SB"  wrote in message 
>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>
>>> 14.08.07
>>>
>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>>> than initially planned.
>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
>> but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
>> much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for 
>> using that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and 
>> pay.
>>
>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>>> flights.
>> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km long 
>> is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is absolutely 
>> necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra runway capable 
>> of taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways are unavailable 
>> for any reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged aircraft, for example.
> 
> There are hundreds of thousands of us who would welcome delays in aircraft 
> taking off due to faults, such as immobile or damaged aircraft!
> 
> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to stop 
> talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
> machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
> effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.

Why did you but/rent a house close to the airport if you don't like the 
noise, the noise has been very bad (though now better than the initial 
jets) since the mid fifties. If you moven in since then fuck off with 
your whining.
> 
> The third runway should not be allowed to be built.
> 
> How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into Heathrow, 
> just change aircraft and fly out again.

So what, it generates business.
> 
> These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
> would not have such a devestating affect so many people.

NIMBY. Though you moved there, so your complaining IMO should be 
discounted, if you don't like it sell your house (houses close to LHR 
sell at a premium) and fuck off to some quiet backwater where you can 
find something else to complain about.

NM wrote:
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in 
>> message news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "SB"  wrote in message 
>>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>>
>>>> 14.08.07
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>>>> than initially planned.
>>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third 
>>> runway, but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does 
>>> not get used much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in 
>>> landing fees for using that one, as the control tower was too far 
>>> away to walk across and pay.
>>>
>>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>>>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>>>> flights.
>>> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km 
>>> long is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is 
>>> absolutely necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra 
>>> runway capable of taking large aircraft if one of the two main 
>>> runways are unavailable for any reason - blocked by an immobile or 
>>> damaged aircraft, for example.
>>
>> There are hundreds of thousands of us who would welcome delays in 
>> aircraft taking off due to faults, such as immobile or damaged aircraft!
>>
>> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to 
>> stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise 
>> generating machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't 
>> care about the effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.
> 
> Why did you but/rent a house close to the airport if you don't like the 
> noise, the noise has been very bad (though now better than the initial 
> jets) since the mid fifties. If you moven in since then fuck off with 
> your whining.

Even those early jets were very quiet compared to their piston engined 
predecessors like the DC-7, Constellation and Stratocruiser. They were 
also very slow to climb out on take off. Granted there weren't so many 
of them.

Modern aircraft are also even faster at climbing out than they used to 
be. In the early 1990s the London TMA was moved back from effectively 
junction 4 on the M40 to junction 3 because of this.

-- 

John Wright

Time flies like an arrow

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:09:54 +0100, nightjar wrote:

> The reason that Heathrow takes a lot of transfer passengers is its location 
> in relation to the airways, so it is not really possible to move a 
> significant part of the traffic elsewhere. 

I don't buy this argument. Airways can be moved. Traffic can be regulated.

-- 
jhk

"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
news:B4ydnTiIJ7N_clzbnZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
> news:b2mwi.14062$rr5.13518@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> ....
>> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to 
>> stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
>> machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
>> effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.
>
> You didn't notice the airport when you moved into the area?
>
> ...
>> How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into 
>> Heathrow, just change aircraft and fly out again.
>>
>> These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
>> would not have such a devestating affect so many people.
>
> The reason that Heathrow takes a lot of transfer passengers is its 
> location in relation to the airways, so it is not really possible to move 
> a significant part of the traffic elsewhere. Besides, who else would want 
> it?

The pax should go straight to the destination that they require.
The required destination would get no more flights than now.

I accept that changing at LHR for Inverness is reasonable,
but encouraging pax to fly to LHR when their ultimate
destination is AMS, CDG, FRA, MUC, FCO is plane (sic)
silly, unless you are BA or BAA.

tim

"SB"  wrote in message 
news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
> hundreds of protesters arrive
>
> 14.08.07
>
> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
> than initially planned.

Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for using 
that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and pay.

>
> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
> flights.

Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km long is 
not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is absolutely 
necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra runway capable of 
taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways are unavailable for any 
reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged aircraft, for example.

Colin Bignell

nightjar <nightjar@ wrote:
> "SB"  wrote in message 
> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>
>> 14.08.07
>>
>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>> than initially planned.
> 
> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
> but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
> much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for using 
> that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and pay.
> 
>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>> flights.
> 
> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km long is 
> not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is absolutely 
> necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra runway capable of 
> taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways are unavailable for any 
> reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged aircraft, for example.
> 
> Colin Bignell
> 
> 
> 
> 
Originally (ignoring the single strip and grass) there were four runways 
those that are used now and two more running about 035/215 and 135/310, 
I was in the 16th Hounslow Air Scouts and the plan view of the then new 
Heathrow showing all the runways was incorporated in our neckerchief 
badge (and AIUI is a very collectable badge) I have no idea it they are 
still marked out on the sea of concrete that the current airport 
occupies I suspect the 135/310 is partly obscured by a later terminal.

I have actually both landed and taken off on the current 3rd existing 
runway when I was a kid in the air scouts.

"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "SB"  wrote in message 
> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>
>> 14.08.07
>>
>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>> than initially planned.
>
> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
> but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
> much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for 
> using that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and 
> pay.
>
>>
>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>> flights.
>
> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km long 
> is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is absolutely 
> necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra runway capable 
> of taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways are unavailable 
> for any reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged aircraft, for example.

There are hundreds of thousands of us who would welcome delays in aircraft 
taking off due to faults, such as immobile or damaged aircraft!

If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to stop 
talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.

The third runway should not be allowed to be built.

How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into Heathrow, 
just change aircraft and fly out again.

These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
would not have such a devestating affect so many people.

"Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
news:b2mwi.14062$rr5.13518@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
.....
> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to 
> stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
> machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
> effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.

You didn't notice the airport when you moved into the area?

....
> How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into 
> Heathrow, just change aircraft and fly out again.
>
> These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
> would not have such a devestating affect so many people.

The reason that Heathrow takes a lot of transfer passengers is its location 
in relation to the airways, so it is not really possible to move a 
significant part of the traffic elsewhere. Besides, who else would want it?

Colin Bignell

"NM"  wrote in message 
news:FIlwi.30728$1G1.23875@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
....
> Originally (ignoring the single strip and grass) there were four runways 
> those that are used now and two more running about 035/215 and 135/310,

There would have been nine had the war not ended before the RAF finished 
building the base. The reason the first terminals were built in the middle 
is that the central intersection was essentially complete and provided good 
parking areas.

Colin Bignell

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
> news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "SB"  wrote in message 
>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>
>>> 14.08.07
>>>
>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>>> than initially planned.
>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
>> but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
>> much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for 
>> using that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and 
>> pay.
>>
>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>>> flights.
>> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km long 
>> is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is absolutely 
>> necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra runway capable 
>> of taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways are unavailable 
>> for any reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged aircraft, for example.
> 
> There are hundreds of thousands of us who would welcome delays in aircraft 
> taking off due to faults, such as immobile or damaged aircraft!
> 
> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to stop 
> talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
> machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
> effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.

Why did you but/rent a house close to the airport if you don't like the 
noise, the noise has been very bad (though now better than the initial 
jets) since the mid fifties. If you moven in since then fuck off with 
your whining.
> 
> The third runway should not be allowed to be built.
> 
> How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into Heathrow, 
> just change aircraft and fly out again.

So what, it generates business.
> 
> These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
> would not have such a devestating affect so many people.

NIMBY. Though you moved there, so your complaining IMO should be 
discounted, if you don't like it sell your house (houses close to LHR 
sell at a premium) and fuck off to some quiet backwater where you can 
find something else to complain about.

NM wrote:
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in 
>> message news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "SB"  wrote in message 
>>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>>
>>>> 14.08.07
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>>>> than initially planned.
>>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third 
>>> runway, but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does 
>>> not get used much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in 
>>> landing fees for using that one, as the control tower was too far 
>>> away to walk across and pay.
>>>
>>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>>>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>>>> flights.
>>> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km 
>>> long is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is 
>>> absolutely necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra 
>>> runway capable of taking large aircraft if one of the two main 
>>> runways are unavailable for any reason - blocked by an immobile or 
>>> damaged aircraft, for example.
>>
>> There are hundreds of thousands of us who would welcome delays in 
>> aircraft taking off due to faults, such as immobile or damaged aircraft!
>>
>> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to 
>> stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise 
>> generating machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't 
>> care about the effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.
> 
> Why did you but/rent a house close to the airport if you don't like the 
> noise, the noise has been very bad (though now better than the initial 
> jets) since the mid fifties. If you moven in since then fuck off with 
> your whining.

Even those early jets were very quiet compared to their piston engined 
predecessors like the DC-7, Constellation and Stratocruiser. They were 
also very slow to climb out on take off. Granted there weren't so many 
of them.

Modern aircraft are also even faster at climbing out than they used to 
be. In the early 1990s the London TMA was moved back from effectively 
junction 4 on the M40 to junction 3 because of this.

-- 

John Wright

Time flies like an arrow

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:09:54 +0100, nightjar wrote:

> The reason that Heathrow takes a lot of transfer passengers is its location 
> in relation to the airways, so it is not really possible to move a 
> significant part of the traffic elsewhere. 

I don't buy this argument. Airways can be moved. Traffic can be regulated.

-- 
jhk

"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
news:B4ydnTiIJ7N_clzbnZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
> news:b2mwi.14062$rr5.13518@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> ....
>> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to 
>> stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
>> machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
>> effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.
>
> You didn't notice the airport when you moved into the area?
>
> ...
>> How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into 
>> Heathrow, just change aircraft and fly out again.
>>
>> These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
>> would not have such a devestating affect so many people.
>
> The reason that Heathrow takes a lot of transfer passengers is its 
> location in relation to the airways, so it is not really possible to move 
> a significant part of the traffic elsewhere. Besides, who else would want 
> it?

The pax should go straight to the destination that they require.
The required destination would get no more flights than now.

I accept that changing at LHR for Inverness is reasonable,
but encouraging pax to fly to LHR when their ultimate
destination is AMS, CDG, FRA, MUC, FCO is plane (sic)
silly, unless you are BA or BAA.

tim

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
> news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "SB"  wrote in message 
>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>
>>> 14.08.07
>>>
>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>>> than initially planned.
>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
>> but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
>> much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for 
>> using that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and 
>> pay.
>>
>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>>> flights.
>> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km long 
>> is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is absolutely 
>> necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra runway capable 
>> of taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways are unavailable 
>> for any reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged aircraft, for example.
> 
> There are hundreds of thousands of us who would welcome delays in aircraft 
> taking off due to faults, such as immobile or damaged aircraft!
> 
> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to stop 
> talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
> machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
> effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.
> 
> The third runway should not be allowed to be built.
> 
> How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into Heathrow, 
> just change aircraft and fly out again.
> 
> These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
> would not have such a devestating affect so many people.
> 
> 

Can I ask how long you have had to endure this situation?

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message
news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com
> "SB"  wrote in message
> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>
>> 14.08.07
>>
>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even
>> longer than initially planned.
>
> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third
> runway, but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does
> not get used much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in
> landing fees for using that one, as the control tower was too far
> away to walk across and pay.

No, runway 23 has been closed permanently for some years now. It's used 
as a taxi-way in the central area and for remote T4 stands. Much of it 
is currently dug up, presumably as part of the changes required to the 
taxi-ways serving the northern runway for the A380 (the southern runway 
changes were completed a year or two ago). The proposed Heathrow East 
terminal will be built over it, which will finally obliterate it.

Even when 23 was in use, only two runways at a time could ever be 
used -- 23 intersected the southern runway, so only one or the other 
could be used. The northern runway (27R) could be used for take-offs 
while 23 was used for landings, when there were strong cross-winds from 
the south.

The new runway will allow all three to be used at once, something never 
previous possible at LHR, even when it had six runways in its earliest 
days.

"NM"  wrote in message
news:FIlwi.30728$1G1.23875@newsfe2-win.ntli.net
> nightjar <nightjar@ wrote:
>> "SB"  wrote in message
>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>
>>> 14.08.07
>>>
>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even
>>> longer than initially planned.
>>
>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third
>> runway, but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does
>> not get used much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in
>> landing fees for using that one, as the control tower was too far
>> away to walk across and pay.
>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>>> flights.
>>
>> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km
>> long is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is
>> absolutely necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra
>> runway capable of taking large aircraft if one of the two main
>> runways are unavailable for any reason - blocked by an immobile or
>> damaged aircraft, for example. Colin Bignell
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Originally (ignoring the single strip and grass) there were four
> runways those that are used now and two more running about 035/215
> and 135/310, I was in the 16th Hounslow Air Scouts and the plan view
> of the then new Heathrow showing all the runways was incorporated in
> our neckerchief badge (and AIUI is a very collectable badge) I have
> no idea it they are still marked out on the sea of concrete that the
> current airport occupies I suspect the 135/310 is partly obscured by
> a later terminal.

Actually, Heathrow was originally built with six runways (three parallel 
pairs, laid out in an approximately equilateral triangle). No more than 
two runways were ever in use at one time, but I assume they needed to be 
laid out that way as the early piston-engined airliners couldn't take 
off and land in strong cross winds (unlike modern jets), so they had to 
use the runway pair that were roughly in line with the prevailing winds.

Three have been built over, but you can just about make them out in 
Google Earth (they are the wider than necessary taxi-ways). In the 
current (out of date) image, 23L looks like it's still open, but there's 
little sign of 23R. The new control tower is built right on it. Of the 
other two, one went through what is now the remote T3 pier, one the 
other through the ends of the T1 piers. If all were still in use, the 
central area would be tiny, so there was no choice but to build over 
them.

On 2007-08-14, tim.....  wrote:

> The pax should go straight to the destination that they require.

Ahhhh, how sweet. Care on the internet.


-- 
                 "Religion poisons everything."
            [email me at huge {at} huge (dot) org <dot> uk]

Recliner wrote:
> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in
> message news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com
>> "SB"  wrote in message
>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>
>>> 14.08.07
>>>
>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even
>>> longer than initially planned.
>>
>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third
>> runway, but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does
>> not get used much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in
>> landing fees for using that one, as the control tower was too far
>> away to walk across and pay.
>
> No, runway 23 has been closed permanently for some years now. It's
> used as a taxi-way in the central area and for remote T4 stands. Much
> of it is currently dug up, presumably as part of the changes required
> to the taxi-ways serving the northern runway for the A380 (the
> southern runway changes were completed a year or two ago). The
> proposed Heathrow East terminal will be built over it, which will
> finally obliterate it.

BAA's site says this:
"The cross-wind runway at the eastern side of the airfield is no longer used 
and we will build new aircraft parking areas and piers to cut delays and 
congestion after Terminal 5 opens."

The Heathrow East terminal itself will be on the site of Terminal 2.
More info at
http://www.heathrowairport.com/assets/B2CPortal/Static%20Files/Heathrow%202012%20Final.pdf

-- 
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 18:14:56 +0100, nightjar my surname here>.uk.com>  
<"<nightjar"@<insert> wrote:

>
> "SB"  wrote in message
> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>
>> 14.08.07
>>
>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>> than initially planned.
>
> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway,
> but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used
> much.

Sorry to disappoint, but 23/05 was decommissioned about 18 months ago. It  
is now designated as various and asorted taxiways and has construction  
work on it near T1. Today Heathrow has only 2 runways. [And before anyone  
thinks to do so, I won't get drawn into the semantics of whether opposite  
ends of the same strip count as 2 different runways. They don't.]
-- 
Fig

Recliner wrote:
> "NM"  wrote in message
> news:FIlwi.30728$1G1.23875@newsfe2-win.ntli.net
>> nightjar <nightjar@ wrote:
>>> "SB"  wrote in message
>>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>>
>>>> 14.08.07
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even
>>>> longer than initially planned.
>>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third
>>> runway, but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does
>>> not get used much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in
>>> landing fees for using that one, as the control tower was too far
>>> away to walk across and pay.
>>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>>>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>>>> flights.
>>> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km
>>> long is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is
>>> absolutely necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra
>>> runway capable of taking large aircraft if one of the two main
>>> runways are unavailable for any reason - blocked by an immobile or
>>> damaged aircraft, for example. Colin Bignell
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Originally (ignoring the single strip and grass) there were four
>> runways those that are used now and two more running about 035/215
>> and 135/310, I was in the 16th Hounslow Air Scouts and the plan view
>> of the then new Heathrow showing all the runways was incorporated in
>> our neckerchief badge (and AIUI is a very collectable badge) I have
>> no idea it they are still marked out on the sea of concrete that the
>> current airport occupies I suspect the 135/310 is partly obscured by
>> a later terminal.
> 
> Actually, Heathrow was originally built with six runways (three parallel 
> pairs, laid out in an approximately equilateral triangle). No more than 
> two runways were ever in use at one time, but I assume they needed to be 
> laid out that way as the early piston-engined airliners couldn't take 
> off and land in strong cross winds (unlike modern jets), so they had to 
> use the runway pair that were roughly in line with the prevailing winds.

Yes, you have twanged memory chords. IIRC the eastern of the pair that 
ran roughly 135/310 was discontinued pretty quickly as was the western 
of the pair 035/215 the building of term's 2 and 3 got in the way IIRC. 
BTW I was present at the opening of the Queens Building.
> 
> Three have been built over, but you can just about make them out in 
> Google Earth (they are the wider than necessary taxi-ways). In the 
> current (out of date) image, 23L looks like it's still open, but there's 
> little sign of 23R. The new control tower is built right on it. Of the 
> other two, one went through what is now the remote T3 pier, one the 
> other through the ends of the T1 piers. If all were still in use, the 
> central area would be tiny, so there was no choice but to build over 
> them. 

Thanks for that I'll check, maybe our old house is still there.

"Richard J."  wrote in message
news:AFowi.7068$cw7.4919@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
> Recliner wrote:
>> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in
>> message news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com
>>> "SB"  wrote in message
>>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>>
>>>> 14.08.07
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even
>>>> longer than initially planned.
>>>
>>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third
>>> runway, but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does
>>> not get used much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in
>>> landing fees for using that one, as the control tower was too far
>>> away to walk across and pay.
>>
>> No, runway 23 has been closed permanently for some years now. It's
>> used as a taxi-way in the central area and for remote T4 stands. Much
>> of it is currently dug up, presumably as part of the changes required
>> to the taxi-ways serving the northern runway for the A380 (the
>> southern runway changes were completed a year or two ago). The
>> proposed Heathrow East terminal will be built over it, which will
>> finally obliterate it.
>
> BAA's site says this:
> "The cross-wind runway at the eastern side of the airfield is no
> longer used and we will build new aircraft parking areas and piers to
> cut delays and congestion after Terminal 5 opens."
>
> The Heathrow East terminal itself will be on the site of Terminal 2.
> More info at
> http://www.heathrowairport.com/assets/B2CPortal/Static%20Files/Heathrow%202012%20Final.pdf

Heathrow East will ultimately replace both T1 and T2 (that image shows 
an intermediate stage, with part of T1 still in place). As you can see 
from the image, one of its remote piers is right on top of runway 23, 
just as T3's remote piers are on top of earlier disused runways.

See page 20 of 
http://www.baa.com/assets/B2CPortal/Static%20Files/Nov05HeathrowEastpresentation.pdf

John Wright wrote:
> NM wrote:
>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in 
>>> message news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "SB"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>>>
>>>>> 14.08.07
>>>>>
>>>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>>>>> than initially planned.
>>>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third 
>>>> runway, but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does 
>>>> not get used much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in 
>>>> landing fees for using that one, as the control tower was too far 
>>>> away to walk across and pay.
>>>>
>>>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>>>>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>>>>> flights.
>>>> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km 
>>>> long is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is 
>>>> absolutely necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra 
>>>> runway capable of taking large aircraft if one of the two main 
>>>> runways are unavailable for any reason - blocked by an immobile or 
>>>> damaged aircraft, for example.
>>>
>>> There are hundreds of thousands of us who would welcome delays in 
>>> aircraft taking off due to faults, such as immobile or damaged aircraft!
>>>
>>> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having 
>>> to stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise 
>>> generating machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't 
>>> care about the effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.
>>
>> Why did you but/rent a house close to the airport if you don't like 
>> the noise, the noise has been very bad (though now better than the 
>> initial jets) since the mid fifties. If you moven in since then fuck 
>> off with your whining.
> 
> Even those early jets were very quiet compared to their piston engined 
> predecessors like the DC-7, Constellation and Stratocruiser. They were 
> also very slow to climb out on take off. Granted there weren't so many 
> of them.

Not true, the crucial factor in making my father move his family to 
Devon was, apart from the fact his class of kids went from one Asian to 
3 white kids, rest Asian in less tha a year and the new kids not 
speaking any English (Southall), new jets, we lived just about as close 
to the end of the runway as you could get, and my then baby sister 
coming in to the house screaming with her hands over her ears, 
complaining that the noise hurt, that was the level of noise difference 
between a piston and the new Boing 707's etc. The piston planes were 
noisy but it was a different more tolerable type of noise.

Anyway, He did well out of the move, the prices of near LHR property was 
even then rocketing, thus I find it amusing all these people moaning 
about their lives being distrupted by the third runway, why don't they 
sell at a good premium and move to somewhere quiet.
> 
> Modern aircraft are also even faster at climbing out than they used to 
> be. In the early 1990s the London TMA was moved back from effectively 
> junction 4 on the M40 to junction 3 because of this.

In the seventies (maybe sixties) there was a requirment to climb at the 
maximum rate for 1000 ft then level off to ecomomic climb as an attempt 
to mitigate the noise pollution, I don't know if this is still active.

"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
news:B4ydnTiIJ7N_clzbnZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
> news:b2mwi.14062$rr5.13518@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> ....
>> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to 
>> stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
>> machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
>> effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.
>
> You didn't notice the airport when you moved into the area?

It wasn't as large, nor were the aeroplanes so big and noisy!
>
> ...
>> How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into 
>> Heathrow, just change aircraft and fly out again.
>>
>> These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
>> would not have such a devestating affect so many people.
>
> The reason that Heathrow takes a lot of transfer passengers is its 
> location in relation to the airways, so it is not really possible to move 
> a significant part of the traffic elsewhere. Besides, who else would want 
> it?

Airways exist in other parts of the country, but the question is of 
significance, who else would want it, it is certainly not wanted here.

But that sort of trafic could still be transfered elsewhere.

"NM"  wrote in message 
news:8omwi.14067$rr5.1872@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
>> news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "SB"  wrote in message 
>>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>>
>>>> 14.08.07
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>>>> than initially planned.
>>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third 
>>> runway, but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not 
>>> get used much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing 
>>> fees for using that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk 
>>> across and pay.
>>>
>>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>>>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>>>> flights.
>>> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km 
>>> long is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is 
>>> absolutely necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra 
>>> runway capable of taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways 
>>> are unavailable for any reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged 
>>> aircraft, for example.
>>
>> There are hundreds of thousands of us who would welcome delays in 
>> aircraft taking off due to faults, such as immobile or damaged aircraft!
>>
>> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to 
>> stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
>> machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
>> effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.
>
> Why did you but/rent a house close to the airport if you don't like the 
> noise, the noise has been very bad (though now better than the initial 
> jets) since the mid fifties. If you moven in since then fuck off with your 
> whining.
>>
>> The third runway should not be allowed to be built.
>>
>> How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into 
>> Heathrow, just change aircraft and fly out again.
>
> So what, it generates business.

For whom, as I've said at least 80% of the people arriving just take off 
again, that creats no business for the people in britain!
>>
>> These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
>> would not have such a devestating affect so many people.
>
> NIMBY. Though you moved there, so your complaining IMO should be 
> discounted, if you don't like it sell your house (houses close to LHR sell 
> at a premium) and fuck off to some quiet backwater where you can find 
> something else to complain about.

Why the hell should I have to move from a house I've lived in for 60 years, 
just so a few faceless idiots can make a lot of money, if the owners of 
Heathrow lived near the airport, then I wouldn't grumble to much, as they 
would be suffering as well!

"John Wright"  wrote in message 
news:f9suaf$f11$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> NM wrote:
>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
>>> news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "SB"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>>>
>>>>> 14.08.07
>>>>>
>>>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>>>>> than initially planned.
>>>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third 
>>>> runway, but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does 
>>>> not get used much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in 
>>>> landing fees for using that one, as the control tower was too far away 
>>>> to walk across and pay.
>>>>
>>>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>>>>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>>>>> flights.
>>>> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km 
>>>> long is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is 
>>>> absolutely necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra 
>>>> runway capable of taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways 
>>>> are unavailable for any reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged 
>>>> aircraft, for example.
>>>
>>> There are hundreds of thousands of us who would welcome delays in 
>>> aircraft taking off due to faults, such as immobile or damaged aircraft!
>>>
>>> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to 
>>> stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise 
>>> generating machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care 
>>> about the effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.
>>
>> Why did you but/rent a house close to the airport if you don't like the 
>> noise, the noise has been very bad (though now better than the initial 
>> jets) since the mid fifties. If you moven in since then fuck off with 
>> your whining.
>
> Even those early jets were very quiet compared to their piston engined 
> predecessors like the DC-7, Constellation and Stratocruiser. They were 
> also very slow to climb out on take off. Granted there weren't so many of 
> them.
>
> Modern aircraft are also even faster at climbing out than they used to be. 
> In the early 1990s the London TMA was moved back from effectively junction 
> 4 on the M40 to junction 3 because of this.

If they can climb faster, why the hell don't they, if they were higher in a 
short time, it would reduce the noise considerably.

"®i©ardo"  wrote in message 
news:V_nwi.7497$L85.84@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
>> news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "SB"  wrote in message 
>>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>>
>>>> 14.08.07
>>>>
>>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>>>> than initially planned.
>>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third 
>>> runway, but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not 
>>> get used much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing 
>>> fees for using that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk 
>>> across and pay.
>>>
>>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>>>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>>>> flights.
>>> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km 
>>> long is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is 
>>> absolutely necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra 
>>> runway capable of taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways 
>>> are unavailable for any reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged 
>>> aircraft, for example.
>>
>> There are hundreds of thousands of us who would welcome delays in 
>> aircraft taking off due to faults, such as immobile or damaged aircraft!
>>
>> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to 
>> stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
>> machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
>> effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.
>>
>> The third runway should not be allowed to be built.
>>
>> How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into 
>> Heathrow, just change aircraft and fly out again.
>>
>> These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
>> would not have such a devestating affect so many people.
>>
>>
>
> Can I ask how long you have had to endure this situation?

Since the majority of aircraft changed from using english engines to 
american!

Alan Holmes wrote:

> 
> It wasn't as large, nor were the aeroplanes so big and noisy!

Then you must have been there over fifty years so why don't you 
capitilise on your investment, move somewhere quiet and bank the profits.

If you have been there substantially less time then you are a NIMBY and 
you get no sympathy from me.

"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
news:__Wdnfe16aNwbVzbnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "NM"  wrote in message 
> news:FIlwi.30728$1G1.23875@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> ...
>> Originally (ignoring the single strip and grass) there were four runways 
>> those that are used now and two more running about 035/215 and 135/310,
>
> There would have been nine had the war not ended before the RAF finished 
> building the base. The reason the first terminals were built in the middle 
> is that the central intersection was essentially complete and provided 
> good parking areas.

The original plans for heathrow included a lake so that seaplanes could use 
it.

"Alan Holmes"  wrote in message
news:Sdpwi.14098$rr5.6562@newsfe1-win.ntli.net
> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in
> message news:B4ydnTiIJ7N_clzbnZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Alan Holmes"  wrote in message
>> news:b2mwi.14062$rr5.13518@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>> ....
>>> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having
>>> to stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise
>>> generating machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't
>>> care about the effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.
>>
>> You didn't notice the airport when you moved into the area?

Surely the planes are quieter now than ever?  The early jets were far 
noisier than the modern Stage 4 models, and the next generation will be 
quieter still.  I can still remember the painful roar from Tridents, 
VC-10s, 707s, 737-200s, etc, and no modern plane is remotely as 
disturbing.

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "NM"  wrote in message 
> news:8omwi.14067$rr5.1872@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>
> 
> Why the hell should I have to move from a house I've lived in for 60 years, 
> just so a few faceless idiots can make a lot of money, if the owners of 
> Heathrow lived near the airport, then I wouldn't grumble to much, as they 
> would be suffering as well!

One reason could be that you would make a substantial profit, residences 
close by the airport re at a premium.

ITYWFind that it's substantially more than a few faceless idiots (I 
doubt that idiot is the right word here) who stand to make a lot of 
money, its thousands of families.

Most of the companies operating in and around the airport are publically 
owned so you have no way of knowing if the shareholders are your 
neighbours or not.

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
> news:__Wdnfe16aNwbVzbnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "NM"  wrote in message 
>> news:FIlwi.30728$1G1.23875@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>> ...
>>> Originally (ignoring the single strip and grass) there were four runways 
>>> those that are used now and two more running about 035/215 and 135/310,
>> There would have been nine had the war not ended before the RAF finished 
>> building the base. The reason the first terminals were built in the middle 
>> is that the central intersection was essentially complete and provided 
>> good parking areas.
> 
> The original plans for heathrow included a lake so that seaplanes could use 
> it.
> 
> 
Viable option, given the situation in the forties.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:57:27 GMT, "Alan Holmes"
 wrote:

>How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into Heathrow, 
>just change aircraft and fly out again.
>
>These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
>would not have such a devestating affect so many people.

Translation: "Not In My Back Yard".

"Jarle H Knudsen"  wrote in message 
news:15mzi1pv9rwrp.r3nws0tq1d7w.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:09:54 +0100, nightjar wrote:
>
>> The reason that Heathrow takes a lot of transfer passengers is its 
>> location
>> in relation to the airways, so it is not really possible to move a
>> significant part of the traffic elsewhere.
>
> I don't buy this argument. Airways can be moved.

Airways are based upon radio beacons, which require large aerial arrays and 
which other NIMBYS won't want near them either.

Colin Bignell

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:08:40 +0100, nightjar wrote:

> Airways are based upon radio beacons, which require large aerial arrays and 
> which other NIMBYS won't want near them either.

A new system not relying on traditional airways where planes can choose a
direct flight path is under way.

-- 
jhk

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:14:10 +0100, Jarle H Knudsen  wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:08:40 +0100, nightjar wrote:
>
>> Airways are based upon radio beacons, which require large aerial arrays  
>> and
>> which other NIMBYS won't want near them either.
>
> A new system not relying on traditional airways where planes can choose a
> direct flight path is under way.
>
That is true, but is very much a pipe dream and far from fruition. Airways  
have not been based on radio beacons for a long time now. Todays RNAV  
equipment means that airways can be established along any arbitrary route.  
The main reasons it's so hard to establish new controlled airspace are the  
General Aviation and Military lobbies. They both see controlled airspace  
as an encroachment on their right to aerial freedom.


-- 
Fig

"Jarle H Knudsen"  wrote in message 
news:oqiptwnna8re$.1tm7pvdmjmfk8$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:08:40 +0100, nightjar wrote:
>
>> Airways are based upon radio beacons, which require large aerial arrays 
>> and
>> which other NIMBYS won't want near them either.
>
> A new system not relying on traditional airways where planes can choose a
> direct flight path is under way.

It may, one day, become a reality, but that day is a long way in the future 
so far as Europe is concerned.

Colin Bignell

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:34:29 GMT, NM  wrote:

>Originally (ignoring the single strip and grass) there were four runways 
>those that are used now and two more running about 035/215 and 135/310, 
>I was in the 16th Hounslow Air Scouts and the plan view of the then new 
>Heathrow showing all the runways was incorporated in our neckerchief 
>badge (and AIUI is a very collectable badge) I have no idea it they are 
>still marked out on the sea of concrete that the current airport 
>occupies I suspect the 135/310 is partly obscured by a later terminal.
>
>I have actually both landed and taken off on the current 3rd existing 
>runway when I was a kid in the air scouts.

There were 6 actually, at 60 degree angles surrounding the original
central area. The 035/215 runway was used extensively in times of high
wind speed. I've been in aircraft which landed on it several times,
usually in BAC1-11s.
-- 
Terry Harper
Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society
http://www.omnibussoc.org

"Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
news:Sdpwi.14098$rr5.6562@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
> news:B4ydnTiIJ7N_clzbnZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
....
You didn't notice the airport when you moved into the area?
>
> It wasn't as large, nor were the aeroplanes so big and noisy!

You should be able to retire and move away if you have been there long 
enough for that statement to be true.

....
The reason that Heathrow takes a lot of transfer passengers is its
>> location in relation to the airways, so it is not really possible to move 
>> a significant part of the traffic elsewhere. Besides, who else would want 
>> it?
>
> Airways exist in other parts of the country,

Not in the same concentration as those converging on the London ATC zone. It 
is the variety of different routes in and out of the zone that makes it the 
best place for transfers.

Colin Bignell

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
> news:B4ydnTiIJ7N_clzbnZ2dnUVZ8vSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>"Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
>>news:b2mwi.14062$rr5.13518@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>....
>>
>>>If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to 
>>>stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
>>>machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
>>>effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.
>>
>>You didn't notice the airport when you moved into the area?
> 
> It wasn't as large,

Which is the problem with the new runway proposal. Some of us checked 
the busiest flight paths and arranged not to live under them. The 3rd 
runway would expose a huge extra swathe of West London and beyond to a 
relentless stream of noise overhead.

The solution for LHR is
- a high minimum aircraft size
- fast rail links to key short haul destinations
- fast rail links to major towns in the catchment area

Just the cost of buying the houses in the way of the 3rd runway would 
cover most of the cost of improving Reading Station to offer very good 
journey times between LHR and Bristol, Birmingham, Cardiff and NE England.

The cost of the terminal building would cover a new rail link to the 
south (including Gatwick).

The cost of the runway and air traffic conrol changes would cover 
improvements necessary to link LHR to the CTRL, ECML, Luton and Stansted.

Colin McKenzie


-- 
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at 
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as 
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:32:30 +0100, tim..... wrote:

>> The reason that Heathrow takes a lot of transfer passengers is its 
>> location in relation to the airways, so it is not really possible to move 
>> a significant part of the traffic elsewhere. Besides, who else would want 
>> it?
>
>The pax should go straight to the destination that they require.
>The required destination would get no more flights than now.

Yes it would.

The required destination would need a direct flight from every origin
point that currently has a direct flight to Heathrow.

"SB"  wrote in message 
news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
> hundreds of protesters arrive
>
> 14.08.07
>
> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
> than initially planned.

Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for using 
that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and pay.

>
> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
> flights.

Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km long is 
not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is absolutely 
necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra runway capable of 
taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways are unavailable for any 
reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged aircraft, for example.

Colin Bignell

nightjar <nightjar@ wrote:
> "SB"  wrote in message 
> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>
>> 14.08.07
>>
>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>> than initially planned.
> 
> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
> but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
> much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for using 
> that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and pay.
> 
>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>> flights.
> 
> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km long is 
> not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is absolutely 
> necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra runway capable of 
> taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways are unavailable for any 
> reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged aircraft, for example.
> 
> Colin Bignell
> 
> 
> 
> 
Originally (ignoring the single strip and grass) there were four runways 
those that are used now and two more running about 035/215 and 135/310, 
I was in the 16th Hounslow Air Scouts and the plan view of the then new 
Heathrow showing all the runways was incorporated in our neckerchief 
badge (and AIUI is a very collectable badge) I have no idea it they are 
still marked out on the sea of concrete that the current airport 
occupies I suspect the 135/310 is partly obscured by a later terminal.

I have actually both landed and taken off on the current 3rd existing 
runway when I was a kid in the air scouts.

"nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "SB"  wrote in message 
> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>
>> 14.08.07
>>
>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>> than initially planned.
>
> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
> but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
> much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for 
> using that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and 
> pay.
>
>>
>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>> of handling long-haul flights, which would overturn a government
>> recommendation that the third runway only be used for short-haul
>> flights.
>
> Heathrow's main runway is nearly 4km long, so one that is only 2.5km long 
> is not going to be used for the really heavy metal unless it is absolutely 
> necessary. It does, however, make sense to have the extra runway capable 
> of taking large aircraft if one of the two main runways are unavailable 
> for any reason - blocked by an immobile or damaged aircraft, for example.

There are hundreds of thousands of us who would welcome delays in aircraft 
taking off due to faults, such as immobile or damaged aircraft!

If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to stop 
talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.

The third runway should not be allowed to be built.

How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into Heathrow, 
just change aircraft and fly out again.

These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
would not have such a devestating affect so many people.

"Alan Holmes"  wrote in message 
news:b2mwi.14062$rr5.13518@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
.....
> If I am in my garden I cannot have a conversation without us having to 
> stop talking every minute for at least 30 seconds as the noise generating 
> machines pass overhead, but then the selfish users don't care about the 
> effect of this estate on the people who live nearby.

You didn't notice the airport when you moved into the area?

....
> How many of you are aware that at least 80% of people flying into 
> Heathrow, just change aircraft and fly out again.
>
> These people could be serviced in another part of the country where they 
> would not have such a devestating affect so many people.

The reason that Heathrow takes a lot of transfer passengers is its location 
in relation to the airways, so it is not really possible to move a 
significant part of the traffic elsewhere. Besides, who else would want it?

Colin Bignell

"NM"  wrote in message 
news:FIlwi.30728$1G1.23875@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
....
> Originally (ignoring the single strip and grass) there were four runways 
> those that are used now and two more running about 035/215 and 135/310,

There would have been nine had the war not ended before the RAF finished 
building the base. The reason the first terminals were built in the middle 
is that the central intersection was essentially complete and provided good 
parking areas.

Colin Bignell

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "nightjar .uk.com>" <nightjar@<insert my surname here> wrote in message 
> news:s_2dnW64l9udflzbnZ2dnUVZ8q-rnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "SB"  wrote in message 
>> news:1187095953.872950.87940@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> Heathrow: Bosses want to make proposed new runway even longer as
>>> hundreds of protesters arrive
>>>
>>> 14.08.07
>>>
>>> Heathrow bosses will face an angry backlash from environmentalists
>>> when they ask permission to make the proposed third runway even longer
>>> than initially planned.
>> Actually, it is the fourth runway. There is already a short third runway, 
>> but, as it crosses the two main runways at an angle, it does not get used 
>> much. I know a chap who reckons he still ows 2/6d in landing fees for 
>> using that one, as the control tower was too far away to walk across and 
>> pay.
>>
>>> Aviation chiefs want the go-ahead for the 2,500-metre runway capable
>>> of handling long-haul flights, which would