Originally Posted by
LondonElite
I don't know if someone did a wee-wee in your cereal bowl, or if you are always this myopic, but this is a bit simplistic. Your tone suggests to me that you are referring to the 'poor' areas immediately to the east of Heathrow. Let me give you a different perspective.
Yes, expansion at LHR must happen, and relocating the airport to somewhere else is nonsense. But the airport 'in its original state' is relatively young. Nothing much was going on there until the early 1950s (expansion started after 1944), and I think you'll find that many areas of Berkshire and Surrey that are under/within the current flight path were already well-established by then. You could ask the Queen, I believe she has a rather large place directly under the flight path.
I live 25 minutes southwest of LHR watch those aircraft that have done a port turn from 27L fly high over my (pre-1950) house. I like the convenience of being close to the airport, and I encourage expansion, but believe me that the mostly-wealthy, mostly-Tory voters in these areas will be vocal regarding this issue.
Back to the original topic, I'd be delighted if there were more flights from T3. I prefer those lounge facilities, the fast track is almost always faster, and I don't have to deal with a silly train. I'm still struggling with the concept of 'flagship facilities' at T5.
The airport become operational in 1930 as an airbase. The houses may be older but the people living in them did not buy them pre-1930. They bought their houses by an airfield specialising in one of the world's fastest growing industries, which it has been since the 1940's. I do not believe any campaigners living nearby have a leg to stand on in campaigning against expansion.
Originally Posted by
ppp909
You are sooooooo wrong. The voters who are anti-expansion are generally the majority. Or at least they are in South West London and I'm one of them. Yes, my house is under the flight path. My previous house was too. For what it's worth, my house is about 110 years old, but I've only spent the last 6 here.
I use Heathrow frequently, and the proximity's one reason why I chose to live in the rather nice bit of the country that I do. In fact, I can't think of another part of the country, or indeed London where I'd rather live.
I was well aware of aircraft flying overhead when I bought the house. We get them for a few hours each day. They've not been over yet today, but they probably will this evening. It doesn't bother me because it's not all day. If Heathrow were to be expanded it probably will bother me. If it were to operate flights all night, it would definitely bother me.
What's the most annoying is all the talk of it benefiting the economy. Nobody around here works at the airport. I benefit from the availability of flights, which in their current state are more than I need. None of the money made by Heathrow comes to me. It all goes to its Spanish owner, who is only interested in attracting transit passengers.
If they were willing to pay those of us who live here to put up with the extra noise we might consider it. They'd also have to pay for improving the roads and railways which are already over capacity.
Then there are those in the "regions" who will moan at yet more money going to London. And they'd be right.
So if we were all to be as selfish as you, I'd say that Heathrow's fine the way it is. I've never had a problem getting a flight to where I want to go, when I want to go. I can be on a plane within an hour of leaving my house. Why on Earth should that change just to please those of you "imbeciles" who are too stupid to buy a house close to a major airport?
There is always more than one side to an argument
You bought a house 6 years ago by an airport who had plans back then to extend. You knew night flights were being called for yet you still bought the house. Night flights may well be annoying, you may not like it, I understand that. However, I say to you...tough! Why should you be able to move into 'trouble' and campaign against it?
Five miles from where I live a few fields are having houses built on (it's at planning application stage). I'm not going to move by the fields and campaign against the application. Don't be ridiculous. If I don't want houses I move to a more rural location. Similarly if you don't want night flights you shouldn't have moved to a location by a busy airport where night flying was being discussed and still is.
The benefit is it not the people it employs nearby but the jobs created in construction, the apprenticeships created in it, attraction of the 30 airlines on a waiting list who don't currently fly to the UK preferring Heathrow over all other airport, more planes arriving means more equipment to service them (UK industry bost there), more capacity gives more APD revenue, more business people in, more leisure people in etc... It's widely accepted Heathrow is the best option for expansion.
When was the last time your plane took off late as you were sitting on taxiways for ages?
When was the last time you had to wait for a gate to become available?
When was the last time you heard of LHR cancelling flights in snow as their infrastructure cannot cope with deicing?
When was the last time you heard about someone being bussed to a plane or needing to fly out of T3 instead of T5 due to capacity constraints?
When was the last time you saw overcrowded lounges?
When was the last time you heard about a delayed flight at Heathrow?
I bet your answers to all of these was 'Not that long ago' - Is Heathrow really fine the way it is? I think not...
Regions complain about London getting money but no other region is calling to build an airport. Build one everywhere for all I care. If a region wants one, allow them to build one. Heathrow airport should not be prevented from coming the world's best airport because of some disgruntled Northerners
The question is why does money go towards London and not other regions? - I blame a terrible education system leaving a skills shortage, a lack of interest in modern industries allowing old industrial towns to decline.