Perhaps BA should be allowed to fail?
#226
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
The thing is though surely that people aren't overly happy about planes whizzing over their head 24 hours a day either (a few spotters aside) and people should have priority over ducks (and I am a member of the wildfowl trust and have a lot of time for ducks in general).
So if the choice is between no expansion at all (because the people impact will be too great in expanding LHR) or a move to a modern airport designed for the modern day rather than the 1950's and then overlaid with compromise upon compromise then which would you favour?
I totally understand those over to the West of London not liking the idea of a move Eastwards but I would be pretty sure that a full cost benefit analysis would significantly favour such a shift.
So if the choice is between no expansion at all (because the people impact will be too great in expanding LHR) or a move to a modern airport designed for the modern day rather than the 1950's and then overlaid with compromise upon compromise then which would you favour?
I totally understand those over to the West of London not liking the idea of a move Eastwards but I would be pretty sure that a full cost benefit analysis would significantly favour such a shift.
The problem is that what you tend to find is that lots of developers are quite happy to make grandiose claims about how there are no other options, this is the only site possible and actually there are, but they are more difficult to build and design or not as profitable. That's not sufficient I'm afraid. We are meant to protect our environment, and the designations on the Thames estuary are the highest possible in the UK - recognising it's national and international importance. We don't just protect this site for the UK, we protect it on behalf of all of the other countries that the birds using it come from.
So as a result of the capacity for developers to claim 'it can only be here', the test of 'over-riding public interest' is actually pretty stiff because it has to be, to ensure that things are not being done out of preference/cost/expediency rather than genuinely 'there is no other option'. The proposals are not the only option for provision of aviation in the south-east of England, and indeed, the results of the work done by the previous government would actually provide any interested bodies with lots of opportunities for judicial review since they clearly established there are preferential options to new build in the Thames estuary.
The problem with protecting the environment is that you actually have to protect it - not just guard it until you get a better, more profitable development coming along to wreck it. And your most valuable habitat - and this is one of the five most important wetland complexes in the UK - have to be protected against all but the most imperative developments (or those which have little effect).
A vanity project, carried out to protect a political party's votes, is not an imperative development. And the problem with CBA when applied to environmental issues, is how do you value a success ecosystem supporting hundreds of thousands of birds? The difficulty of that (though there is a new methodology which is just starting to be picked up but in reality is still being developed) means that environmental benefits are nearly always undervalued, and so CBA is not an appropriate tool when making an assessment of over-riding interest.
The issue for the Thames is that the habitat cannot be recreated. We cannot go and build a massive new estuary complex. So we mess around with this, and we know from the Cardiff Bay research, we lose some of the populations supported by the Thames and which would be most affected. How do you value that? You cannot. But, as SERAS pointed out, this is not the only option available.
Last edited by Jenbel; Jan 22, 2012 at 10:46 am
#227
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 19
If the government decided to try to close Heathrow surely it would have the following problems on its hands:
A. Its a privately owned company/business so massive compensation would have to be paid.
B. Its unfair on the privately owned business to exclude them from any discussion on how to improve the south easts airport space. Sure I have seen somewhere if the government excluded Heathrow from expansion plans its possibly opening itself up to legal action?
C. The current airlines operating from Heathrow would expect to move to said new airport and hold the same amount of slots as they currently do at Heathrow. Then any additional slots would be put out for bidding/sale/auction or whatever the chosen method of selling them is?
A. Its a privately owned company/business so massive compensation would have to be paid.
B. Its unfair on the privately owned business to exclude them from any discussion on how to improve the south easts airport space. Sure I have seen somewhere if the government excluded Heathrow from expansion plans its possibly opening itself up to legal action?
C. The current airlines operating from Heathrow would expect to move to said new airport and hold the same amount of slots as they currently do at Heathrow. Then any additional slots would be put out for bidding/sale/auction or whatever the chosen method of selling them is?
#228
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Edinburgh
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 9,034
Actually, if I posted what you did as the opening post, I expect to be flamed. I'm hardly a new poster. I think people on this board have exercised remarkable restraint on think thread (I would like to think it was partially due to our Open Letter, but it might not be), because your opening post to this thread was appeared rather inflammatory to me despite my extremely thick hide.
#229
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, BAEC (Silver), FlyBe
Posts: 1,649
I heard a suggestion a few years ago that there should be a minimum age of 35-40 years for politicians, because it seems rather disingenuous that people who are supposed to serve as MPs might do so having had no experience of the world. I heard that proposal when I was in my 20s and thought it eminently sensible. I still do.
^ Summed up perfectly. What you say is only half the issue; the other half is how you say it.
^ Summed up perfectly. What you say is only half the issue; the other half is how you say it.
#230
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,775
I heard a suggestion a few years ago that there should be a minimum age of 35-40 years for politicians, because it seems rather disingenuous that people who are supposed to serve as MPs might do so having had no experience of the world. I heard that proposal when I was in my 20s and thought it eminently sensible. I still do.
It's far harder to urge your countrymen onwards to die in blood-soaked misery of hell and destruction, or to order the release of thousands of megatons of nuclear destructive power if you're young and your belly is all afire with optimism and ambition! Personally, for all of their faults that a miserable old git like me will nitpick over, I think today's young people are, generally, much more sensitive to their fellow human beings, much more tolerant and appreciate life more than our generation ever did! ..............and it tends to be the youngsters that are keeping Rememberance Day alive to give thanks to all those poor souls who weren't allowed to enjoy their young lives properly!
From Mike Harding's "Bombers' Moon"
"Old Men Sending Young Men Out To Die.
Young Men Dying For A Politician's Lies.
Old Men Sending Young Men Out To Kill.
If We Don't Stop Them, Then They Never Will!"
#231
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,641
The problem with those migrating birds is
1) You cannot stop them migrating, so the risk cannot be fully mitigated
Shoot, hunt and otherwise reduce the pigeon population, flood the existing habitat, and provide alternate habitat somewhere else (Wales is quite empty).
2) you are bound by international treaty (Ramsar, Berne) and European law to protect them
International Treaties are just that - treaties. Easily exited or overridden. Just look at Kyoto.
3) you can derogate from those international treaties and European law only when you can show there are no other options (overriding public interest) and you can fully compensate by creation of new habitat elsewhere. You cannot show either of those points with a vanity project in the Thames - there is no way you could provide suitable compensation on this scale and it is not the only option available.
Both points could easily be demonstrated by a properly argued case. Compensation doesn't have to be punitive. The odds of European Law trumping UK Law in the next few decades is increasingly slim.
1) You cannot stop them migrating, so the risk cannot be fully mitigated
Shoot, hunt and otherwise reduce the pigeon population, flood the existing habitat, and provide alternate habitat somewhere else (Wales is quite empty).
2) you are bound by international treaty (Ramsar, Berne) and European law to protect them
International Treaties are just that - treaties. Easily exited or overridden. Just look at Kyoto.
3) you can derogate from those international treaties and European law only when you can show there are no other options (overriding public interest) and you can fully compensate by creation of new habitat elsewhere. You cannot show either of those points with a vanity project in the Thames - there is no way you could provide suitable compensation on this scale and it is not the only option available.
Both points could easily be demonstrated by a properly argued case. Compensation doesn't have to be punitive. The odds of European Law trumping UK Law in the next few decades is increasingly slim.
#232
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: UK
Programs: Mucci, BAEC (Silver), FlyBe
Posts: 1,649
#233
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
But the economic success is not being held to ransom. There are other options to a dubious proposal such as this - so if you are saying the birds are holding the country to ransom, then clearly, the same charge can be made against Dave and his cronies since they are the ones who cancelled the third runway? Why do they want the UK to fail
#234
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: All over the place often South Wales and Lake District
Programs: BA Gold for Life Accor Platinum
Posts: 4,552
It's hardly just pigeons so your view is very simplistic. Boris' Island is just about the least practical site for n airport. From South West Wales (Swansea area) I'd rather drive to Manchester than Boris ISland via the world's largest standstill roundabout
#236
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: Battleaxe Alliance
Posts: 22,127
The complaint thread that I closed today was not closed because of the complaint in the opening post. It was closed because of some of the subsequent posts - I think the reason for closure was explained in the closing post, and I apologise it was not clear enough.
LTN Phobia
Moderator: BA Forum
#237
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 487
roundabouts are terrifying enough on their own(learned to drive on right side of road, never really got used to driving on left), to go all the way to boris island means I'd rather take the train to Birmingham
#238
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Left
Programs: FT
Posts: 7,285
I heard a suggestion a few years ago that there should be a minimum age of 35-40 years for politicians, because it seems rather disingenuous that people who are supposed to serve as MPs might do so having had no experience of the world. I heard that proposal when I was in my 20s and thought it eminently sensible. I still do.
#239
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Manila, Philippines (MNL)
Programs: BAEC Gold [>20k Lifetime TPs] | Hilton Honors Lifetime Diamond [as is Mrs PtF] | Various Others
Posts: 6,156