PDA

View Full Version : The British and Runways


Asher
15-01-2009, 18:59:03
Briefly now.

Why do so many people oppose the LHR third runway? It needs more than two, or you need another massive airport. You need to fix it. Wake up.

Lurker the Second
15-01-2009, 19:03:21
You're too slow (http://www.counterglow.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42109)

Asher
15-01-2009, 19:04:27
Your thread sucks. This has more posts in it, also.

Lurker the Second
15-01-2009, 19:08:11
It is genetically and scientifically and philosophically impossible for me to make a sucky thread. This thread does have more posts, though.

Asher
15-01-2009, 19:18:40
Can you delete your thread and then this discussion?

Lurker the Second
15-01-2009, 19:32:36
Does that require any level of technological skill?

Asher
15-01-2009, 19:42:13
We can just pretend it doesn't exist.

Funko
16-01-2009, 08:59:11
Originally posted by Asher
Briefly now.

Why do so many people oppose the LHR third runway? It needs more than two, or you need another massive airport. You need to fix it. Wake up.

Environmentalists and NIMBYs. Most protesters will be for one of the following reasons.

1. 'cause flying is teh planet raping evil
2. The planes will fly over my house and my house will lose value.
3. It'll make the traffic bad.
4. hang on, you're actually building it on my house?

Funko
16-01-2009, 09:01:58
People who are anti it are a bit noisier than those who think it's a good idea. eg. me.

There are also some people with a more reasonable objection that rather than having one supermassive airport with all the problems that has associated with it, we should upgrade some of the regional airports to cope with increased international flights. But there are some big benefits of being a massive international hub and being to fly basically anywhere from Heathrow.

But the protesters don't like those people very much, they want to build a runway somewhere else.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
16-01-2009, 09:04:40
How about the north sea? Underwater runway!

Funko
16-01-2009, 09:09:08
Giant offshore aircraft carrier!

Funko
16-01-2009, 09:23:07
The Americans beat us to it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7832439.stm

Funko
16-01-2009, 09:24:09
This is a spectacular American name: Chesley B 'Sully' Sullenberger III

Awesome.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
16-01-2009, 09:26:15
3 times sully

protein
16-01-2009, 10:24:35
since the only protesters with any power were the ones complaining about noise rather than the climate they were considering a new airport in the thames estuary and high speed rail links instead. i'm not sure how serious that proposal was.

the uk is a fairly tightly packed place so plenty of people live underneath the flight path and holding areas of the new runway. their complaints are genuine, i'd be mightily pissed off. house prices plummet and quality of life really would go down if you had a massive jet plane shaking your house every fourty seconds.

Funko
16-01-2009, 10:29:21
I didn't mean to imply their reasons for opposing it weren't valid.

protein
16-01-2009, 10:52:57
oh, i know, i was answering asher. i think. or at least making a general observation.

i like the idea of less stacking time for flights and easier journeys and more money coming in to the uk. i fly all the time and heathrow is one of the worst airports in the world.

but i do recognise the damage planes are potentially doing to the climate and i think about it alot now. and i can see why people are pissed off about the runway. personally of wouldn't have lived there in the first place. :)

Oerdin
16-01-2009, 15:47:48
Originally posted by protein
since the only protesters with any power were the ones complaining about noise rather than the climate they were considering a new airport in the thames estuary and high speed rail links instead. i'm not sure how serious that proposal was.

That would have been a cool solution. It's more or less what Tokyo did with Narita.

The Shaker
16-01-2009, 20:41:45
Originally posted by Funko
People who are anti it are a bit noisier than those who think it's a good idea. eg. me.

There are also some people with a more reasonable objection that rather than having one supermassive airport with all the problems that has associated with it, we should upgrade some of the regional airports to cope with increased international flights. But there are some big benefits of being a massive international hub and being to fly basically anywhere from Heathrow.




Less useful if you are hours and hours of travel away from Heathrow, rather than just jumping on the railairlink bus.

Also a pain if say the weather is bad, thats' extra cancellations cos you localised the runways.

And they are going to rename the whole place Borisport.

Plus ITS EVIL EVIL CAPITALISTIC PIGDOGS RAPING THE ENVIRONMENT!!!

Much more democratic, everyone votes if they want one or not. The place with the most yes votes gets the thing built on top of their homes. Centred on the MPs house.

The Shaker
16-01-2009, 20:42:48
Originally posted by Oerdin
That would have been a cool solution. It's more or less what Tokyo did with Narita.

Narnia?.....that's probably a better solution. 2 wardrobes and stick the runway on the the other dimension.

Drekkus
16-01-2009, 21:25:49
Doesn't heathrow have only 2 runways now? Incredible how they cram so many flights in those two lanes. Schiphol has five now far less passengers than heathrow.

DaShi
17-01-2009, 00:04:20
Originally posted by The Shaker
Narnia?.....that's probably a better solution. 2 wardrobes and stick the runway on the the other dimension.

You're being silly. You need more than 2 wardrobes, if you want to fit those jumbo jets.

Sir Penguin
17-01-2009, 03:35:16
Originally posted by Funko
Giant offshore aircraft carrier!
It's about time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk).

SP

Beta1
17-01-2009, 11:21:51
The problem I have is that theres no end to the runways argument - we need another runway or we will lose out on business/world will end/paris will take over.

Fine. But those arguments came up when they built stansted, and stansteds 2nd runway was approved, and t5 at heathrow.

At some point we have to accept that building runways to avert the end of the world will just result in a lot of runways...

Also the one who make all the noise for the runways seem to be the airport operators and airlines. Not the most unbiased group and the ones who will make the most money out of them.

If they want runways how about they build them themselves rather than making a shed of money from a taxpayer funded project.

Last time I checked i could get a ticket to fly pretty much anywhere at pretty much anytime from one of the london airports (or from birmingham which is far more pleasent although I would probably have to change). I don't see how another runway at heathrow will help.

In terms of passenger experience one less runway would probably be better. then they would have to reduce passenger numbers and the baggage/terminal systems might actually work properly.

*End Is Forever*
17-01-2009, 11:28:56
I feel very sorry for the villagers of Sipson. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the proposed runway, the idea that the Government can unilaterally decide to bulldoze a village of 700 houses (and 1500-odd residents) is simply wrong. For that reason alone I think this plan should be left in the hangar.

Asher
17-01-2009, 17:36:41
Government can and does do that, it happens all the time. Need more space to widen an artery, buy up the houses and move the people...it's not the end of the world.

protein
17-01-2009, 17:38:19
Originally posted by Oerdin
That would have been a cool solution. It's more or less what Tokyo did with Narita.
narita airport.... aaaah. memories!

Funko
19-01-2009, 09:00:37
Originally posted by The Shaker
Also a pain if say the weather is bad, thats' extra cancellations cos you localised the runways.

And they are going to rename the whole place Borisport.


They need the 3rd runway for bad weather. No problem the planes landing in bad weather but they have to space out the landings at bigger time intervals. The runways are running at 95% capacity or something. If weather's bad now they have do divert or cancel planes 'cause they can't land them fast enough. Other airports with equivalent (or less) traffic already have at least 3 runways so are less affected by bad weather.

Boris is massively against it and says he'll do everything in his power to stop it (although I think that's on the basis he doesn't have any power to stop it)

Provost Harrison
19-01-2009, 13:25:36
It certainly does sound like a more feasible solution (if not necessary a cheaper one) would be building another airport instead that is a bit further out, and give a decent connection to it.

I do like the idea of one in the middle of the Thames Estuary, although with the cost of building the island and any tunnels, some of the erosion problems it could cause, I am not sure this is a remotely feasible proposal...

Lurker the Second
19-01-2009, 13:26:29
If Boris is against it, there is no hope!

Provost Harrison
19-01-2009, 13:27:15
The funny thing is, the real Boris looks even more preposterous than that picture :lol:

Lurker the Second
19-01-2009, 13:28:34
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/boris-badenov-from-whatacharacter.JPG

Lurker the Second
19-01-2009, 13:29:25
Edited b/c first pic was only showing up as a link. Sorry PH, but damn you were on that quick.

Provost Harrison
19-01-2009, 13:29:56
I raise you our nations favourite inverted pyramid of piffle :D

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00667/boris-johnson-yawn_667484n.jpg

Provost Harrison
19-01-2009, 13:30:59
Originally posted by Lurker the Second
Edited b/c first pic was only showing up as a link. Sorry PH, but damn you were on that quick.

You have to get up early in the morning to beat me...because I'll have done it really late the night before and be having a lie in :D

Lurker the Second
19-01-2009, 13:31:01
:lol:

Resource Consumer
20-01-2009, 11:15:55
I would have thought it would have made more sense to flog off Gatwick and Stanstead and see how traffic rebalanced in light of the new ownership structure.

It's all a bit ill-thought-out IMHO.

Resource Consumer
20-01-2009, 11:16:56
Originally posted by Funko
They need the 3rd runway for bad weather. No problem the planes landing in bad weather but they have to space out the landings at bigger time intervals. The runways are running at 95% capacity or something. If weather's bad now they have do divert or cancel planes 'cause they can't land them fast enough.

Fair enough.

No need for Terminal 6 then in that case.

protein
20-01-2009, 11:33:09
it still scares me that that silly buffoon is in a position of power.

he was voted in by the sort of people who join "clarkson should be prime minister" facebook groups.

ha ha ha, isn't that misogynistic racist homophobe terribly amusing! arf. look at him bumbling about like a funny character from dad's army. lolz. roflz. har har har. he's just like telly. he should be on celebrity come dancing, that would be the best evah! lolz. rofl. lolz. arf.

Funko
20-01-2009, 11:37:44
Originally posted by Resource Consumer
Fair enough.

No need for Terminal 6 then in that case.

I agree.

*End Is Forever*
20-01-2009, 18:30:15
Originally posted by protein
it still scares me that that silly buffoon is in a position of power.

he was voted in by the sort of people who join "clarkson should be prime minister" facebook groups.

ha ha ha, isn't that misogynistic racist homophobe terribly amusing! arf. look at him bumbling about like a funny character from dad's army. lolz. roflz. har har har. he's just like telly. he should be on celebrity come dancing, that would be the best evah! lolz. rofl. lolz. arf.

He was elected by the votes of nearly 1.2 million Londoners, including plenty of women, ethnic minority and gay people.

Incidentally, here's a picture of "homophobic" Boris at, um, the front of the Gay Pride parade...

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v289/176/85/516752925/n516752925_977940_9298.jpg

protein
20-01-2009, 18:43:37
"okay boris, get out of your nappy and send the prostitutes home now, we have to go and do some damage control"

"damage control? what on earth do you mean?"

"all the gay bashing you've done in the past. you're going to have to walk in the gay pride march."

"what? but i oppose gay marriage. everyone knows that. i supported section 29"

"28"

"whatever, look, i'm dreadfully busy licking this hooker's arsehole"

"either way you have to do it, and it's a good idea if you walk alongside a black person. by the way, you changed your mind about section 28"

"i did? jesus. right give me ten minutes, black swirling forces are making me drink this whore's piss"

*End Is Forever*
20-01-2009, 22:40:43
Leaving aside your bordering on libellous comments and accepting the fact that you aren't going to change your mind on this one, all I would say is that your view is shared by many on the left and if they continue to underestimate Boris as a politician then his re-election for four more years will be a walk in the park.

protein
20-01-2009, 23:09:53
that's not libel. that's satire. even i know the difference and i only did a BTEC.

he's full of bile and would rather come up with a witty put-down about a minority than come to accept them. while he's trying to adjust to modern britain he's just a sheltered posh boy with his morals rooted in the victorian era.

*End Is Forever*
20-01-2009, 23:22:23
Like I said, you keep up that misconception, and he will stroll to re-election. Jolly good.

protein
20-01-2009, 23:43:42
now you sound like him.

Oerdin
21-01-2009, 04:24:59
It's like he's in the Conservative Party or something. ;)

King_Ghidra
21-01-2009, 11:23:11
Despite it all i can't help liking boris.

possibly that makes me an idiot.

MoSe
21-01-2009, 11:29:55
evrytime I read you posting about Boris, I have to think again as it's not possible that Eltsin is still around

Funko
21-01-2009, 11:40:24
I don't think "he'll get re-elected" is a very strong argument against Rob's "misconceptions".

*End Is Forever*
21-01-2009, 17:30:15
I've already said I don't think there's much point trying to change Rob's mind about Boris - it is already made up.

My point was that the Labour campaign in London last year was all about trying to make out that Boris was some sort of bigoted buffoon, and it failed miserably - and that was with a candidate in Ken Livingstone who had a teflon-like quality when it came to wriggling free of any negatives the national Labour Party had acquired.

Boris beat Ken in some remarkable wards across London - South Bermondsey for example - and as long as the left continue to underestimate and misrepresent Boris (as Rob has done on this thread) the more they will lose by in 2012 when he stands for re-election. The good people of London are smarter than that.

protein
21-01-2009, 18:38:50
i'm not representing him from what i've heard in political campaigns, i'm not in any particular camp other than being liberal. liberal in the real sense of the word, not in a political stance. nor am i attacking the conservative party.

i'll speak up against (or attempt to satirise) oppression and bigotry and it saddens me that members of the same political party will stand up for each other even if there is obvious wrong-doing. there are plenty of occasions where johnson has said obvious bigoted remarks about gays and muslims and then gone on to court them to get into power. he's been in trouble several times for dodgy behaviour.

look, boris is clearly a bigoted buffoon, no matter what angle you look at it. it's the reason people like him and dislike him. much like jeremy clarkson. boris is a funny character.

torys should be distancing themselves from people like that, not actually defending them. particularly when people like william hague says there are racists in the tory party and when there's the bnp sharing some of the same views and voters.

the defence of people and views like that makes uneducated people like me think that there really is an un-uttered tory agenda which makes them anti-europe, anti homosexual marriage, anti-abortion, anti-brown people.

The Shaker
26-01-2009, 19:07:41
Originally posted by Funko
They need the 3rd runway for bad weather. No problem the planes landing in bad weather but they have to space out the landings at bigger time intervals. The runways are running at 95% capacity or something. If weather's bad now they have do divert or cancel planes 'cause they can't land them fast enough. Other airports with equivalent (or less) traffic already have at least 3 runways so are less affected by bad weather.



Surely this only works as long as they don't use any of runway 3's capacity for anything other than bad weather. Any they won't, they'll try and squeeze as many flights as possible in to make as much money as (safely) possible to pay for the thing. and they for profit (which is the reason they exist)

Otherwise they'll just be spacing out flights on 3 runways rather than 2 during bad weather. And then will come the justification for runway 4.

Lurker the Second
26-01-2009, 19:18:19
Good point. They should just go ahead and build runway 4 now while they are working on 3. Probably save some money.

Beta1
26-01-2009, 19:54:55
What about runway 5?

Maybe they could just use the hardshoulder of the M25?

Asher
26-01-2009, 19:55:12
Personally, I think they should get rid of towns like Reading (what a fucking daft name) and put in a megaairport with 6 to 8 runways and 15 terminals.

Cort Haus
26-01-2009, 21:57:10
Is this thread about runways, or Boris?

People who buy cheap homes near major airports really shouldn't be surprised when the airport gets bigger. It is why their home was cheap.