So what ARE our opinions on the Third Runway?

[PeckhamRose]

I travel by plane, because I can.

But should west of London be our travel terminal?

I see both sides of the argument.

I remember when archeologists found the remains of the original Rose Theatre when contractors were digging the foundations of some office block in the early 80s, and there was a festival and attempts to save the Rose. One of the actors was John Sessions and he did a great turn as a oyster fisherman living in the 16th Century, who was right peed off that these people were going to be building yet another theatre ruining his trade. He had a point!

I have often been round Sipson and Harlington and the areas to be flattened, they're pretty village green areas. Not quiet, of course, but pretty.

What are your views? Or has this thread been started before. If so, sorry!

[LegalEagle-ish]

I was one of the climate camp eco-rebels in 2007 - so I guess you coukd say I'm against it.

Apart from flattening people's homes, destroying their communities and increasing the congestion, noise and pollution for the people who remain; increasing air traffic at a time of possible ecologocal tipping point to disaster, seems rather short sighted in my opinion.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

LegalEagle-ish Wrote:

I was one of the climate camp eco-rebels in 2007 - so I guess you coukd say I'm against it.

Is it true about "Swampy" the main protestor about that Newbury Road they built around the Town Centre?

I heard he is no longer with us,had a heart attack,apparently.:'(

[Ladygooner]

I find it curious that "celebrities" are buying up the land around Heathrow. Are they saying they never use Heathrow or fly on planes? Have seens pics many times of Emma Thompson in Los Angeles for award ceremonies - did she get there by boat or train?

[*Bob*]

Emma usually crossed the Atlantic on a methane-powered steamboat, driven by hot air from her ass.

However, there are some occasions when - sadly - she is forced to go First Class with Virgin Atlantic.

[SeanMacGabhann]

There is a difference between using something and saying we need more of something tho LadyGooner

No-one is campaigning to close down Heathrow (or any of the other London airports)

For some reason the push for a third runway reminds me of the recent (and by all means feel free to admit it passed you by - it passed most people by) format wars between HD-DVD and BluRay. Touted as a solution to a problem that didn't really exist in the way it did before, it invoved a lot of corporate muscle, inbvestment and inconvenience on the part ofthe consumer (who would have had to replace old DVDs) and at a time when the very viability of the need for a new "hard" format was being questioned, with HD content now viable over a pipe into the home

I wouldn't be against a 3rd runway per se, but given the impact (ecological, noise, local area) versus the benefits (anyone?? and before you list them, is it really not possible via existing airports and/or rail options), this one seems to be a white elephant in the making

[Tony.London Suburbs]

I'm actually all for a 3rd/4th/5th Runway at all Airports and far more Prisons and Mental Health Instititions and all other things considered to benefit The Great British Public.

er..obviously N I My Back Yard though:)

btw:In case anyone was a fan of "Swampy" the good news is that he is NOT dead!(tu)

Apparently he did have a heart attack and they offered him a By-Pass which he did not want....hence the confusion...:))

[SeanMacGabhann]

the debate is whether they DO benefit the great british public tho..

[*Bob*]

I hear Zac Goldsmith has put-in for the piece of land in question too.

It's easy to be green when Pa was a billionaire.

To be fair though - he's editor of The Ecologist on merit alone - can't take that away from the lad.

[*Bob*]

Oh year.. I forgot.

His Uncle started The Ecologist - so Zac owns it!

Sorry, everyone.

[matthew123]

Well if Heathrow loses its footing as the central hub in Europe to likes of Amsterdam then according to business leaders there will be a huge impact on the economy and loss of jobs. On the otherhand if the country does go into freefall we might be able to free up vast areas of concrete Britain to agriculture and return to the days of working the land when everyone was - allegedly - happy, healthy and the only pollution was cow sh*t ;-)

Personally I'd like to see a bill passed in the commons that ensured that travelling by train is considerably cheaper for everyone. No wonder people fly domestically or tough it out on the motorways when an off peak return ticket from London to the North East can cost about ?90.

[SeanMacGabhann]

And the business leaders you mention are only too happy to drum up that fear matthew - how realistic is it?

Something other than the number of runways is wrong if we can't better manage the 5 or 6 airports currently servicing London

But I agree with you on encouraging more rail use

[matthew123]

Unfortunately, probably to do with the media to an extent, we never hear from these lobby groups in the good times. For instance we never heard from the enviromentalists when the price of oil was $150 a barrel / ?1.20 per ltr, they could have been saying, "this is good news, people cannot afford to drive their cars and pollute the air" - instead we hear business groups piping on about manufacturing costs but they've now fallen silent with oil & interest rates plunging.

In effect lobby groups have their own selfish motives so for me they have no credibility. Is that too cynical!? ;-)

[indiepanda]

I think it's not just relative cost that makes people fly rather than get the train.

I've been to Edinburgh a few times, by train and by plane for both work and seeing friends. If you book early enough the train is cheaper. However, I've been up there for work, and to be there for a 9am start on a Monday is impossible by train unless you want to travel up on the Sunday (which frankly I resent), and that then means paying for a hotel for a night, cancelling out savings.

And, having travelled by train the last time I went up to see a friend, it took me something like 9 hours to get home because of all the engineering works on a Sunday. If I'd travelled by plane, I could have had an extra half day to enjoy with my friends, instead of having to lug bags from train to coach back to train etc etc.

I value my time more than the difference in price, so it's awfully tempting to fly if it cuts the time in half or better. I suspect part of the problem with flying is that we don't pay the externalities that our travel imposes on the world - if we did it would be a lot less affordable, and trains would probably seem more appealing (not sure how much pollution they cause too mind you).

If trains are remotely comparible on total journey time (i.e. allowing for all the check in and waiting about nonsense) you get via plane, there is really no comparison, I'd pick trains everytime. Well, provided they aren't so crowded I have to stand that is....

[Rhinestone Cowboy]

If you build it they will come.

[snorky]

Wood / trees innit

You know the way in 1984, it turns out that there isnt really a war, but its a smokescreen to keep everyone toeing the line and accepting vile treatment ? This isnt too far displaced from that scenario

Imagine a world where the need to travel back & forth as quickly as possible was pretty much removed- we do it like this at the minute as we have to fit Hols & travel in with work. Most people at Hrow are on business, jeting off all over the world to play their role in the gigantic machine of capital.

If we removed Capital from the equation, then most speedy air travel would not be required - if we did not have mind numbingly grim jobs to hurry back to, then we would take a nice slow train & actually enjoy the journey.Aircraft would be used sparingly - why put yourself through the horror of a flight, when a ship can get you there in comfort & takes a week -with no work, its not like you are in any hurry is it ?

Its not the plane or the airport that is the problem, its the system we choose to live in that is the problem. You can bealt about minutae like heathrow or ponder the staggeringly huge problem of global warming per se, but until we see what is at the root of all this, then we cannot resolve anything - everytime you upgrade your phone, treat yourself to a fat telly or buy the latest facelift version of your car, you are feeding capitalism & are as responsible as the bloke that lifts the first sod at the new runway

[SeanMacGabhann]

Jaysus snorks, it must have taken you ages to carve that one out on stone tablets

[????]

I've just returned from Heathrow with my flight to Dublin cancelled 'cos of fog and now have to be there at 5.30am in the morning...so I'm entirely with Snorky (6)

[*Bob*]

Couldn't you have just kipped at the airport, ?????

That way you only have to get up half and hour earlier than usual.

[Michael Palaeologus]

I like planes. Lets have a third runway.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

I like planes. Lets have a third runway.

Speaking frankly,I admit I was completely against a 3rd Runway until I read this most insightful,thought-provoking and well-reasoned posting and as a result I have made a total U-Turn and am now 100% in favour of said Runway....::o

[HonaloochieB]

matthew123 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well if Heathrow loses its footing as the central

> hub in Europe to likes of Amsterdam then according

> to business leaders there will be a huge impact on

> the economy and loss of jobs.

This takes me back to the open air boy's toilets in St George's primary school playground.

Imagine if you will, me as Heathrow and Tommy Bond, as Amsterdam airports. In fact imagine, if it's not too distasteful, that our penises represent the airports.

Yes, yes I know, I'm rambling but stay with me. The three pints of Addlestones and 'some' Peronis may have some bearing on the presentation, but the analogy is, I think sound.

Now, where was I?

Yes, young bladders full, we 'skin back' our 'willies', and with the kind of forcing and sphincter control that, alas has long since deserted me, we force our 'jets' up the wall.

To cut a brief story shortish, Tommy managed to get his his 'jet' over the top of the wall. Thereby winning. Or so it might seem.

It would appear that 'Amsterdam' (Tommy's 'jet') had bested 'Heathrow' (my 'jet'), but perhaps not so.

Tommy had in fact peed right on the head of Miss Mitchell, who had been loitering outside of the boy's toilets and she, mindless of protocol had come in and dragged him off by the ear.

My memory is a little hazy, but I think Tommy got a caning off Sister Mary Frances (a sadistic nun).

To sum up, mine and Tommy's pent-up urine represents the competition between the hubs of Heathrow and Amsterdam, Miss Mitchell represents the city that has been abused by the more 'successful' hub and Sister Mary Frances represents the larger environmental backlash that inevitably awaits the sort of pissing contest that we might be dragged into.

Think about it. Go on. Someone has to.

[Michael Palaeologus]

Thought provoking stuff, urine.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thought provoking stuff, urine.

wee can agree on that My Friend(!):))

[giggirl]

I've stumbled into this thread by mistake. I thought it was about fashion. Now I'm disappointed.

On the other hand, since I'm here I will say that it's a bit hypocritical when you fly about a fair bit to get uppity about expanding airports. When I was little, hardly anyone ever left the country, now everyone expects to holiday in far flung places. Do we actually need a third one though? Are the other two failing to satisfy?