Aircraft noise -

[klove]

This morning was grim but this afternoon much better. Does the change in runways at 3pm make a difference?

[mikeb]

It's even more annoying when sometimes the City airport planes are landing west -> east and the Heathrow planes are east -> west. I know both their landing directions should be the same as driven by the wind but I think when winds are light they can come to opposite conclusions. Which means we get them both at once.

[pop9770]

I can't tell if it's because I've noticed it now or that it is

Actually getting worst.

God knows what it would be like with a third runway at HR.

[OD]

I've not felt that the noise from aircraft in ED has been disruptive to me to be honest... although I don't doubt/dismiss that it really affects some peoples lives..... however, this weekend I went to Horton and Datchet (sp?) and OMG!! The aircraft noise was absolutely deafening.....I actually coudlnt hear the person next to me speaking from the noise!! It felt like I was standing at the end of the runway.

I'm not sure how people living in and around that area could tolerant another runway.... really put it into perspective for me.

[DulwichFox]

London City Airport.

London City Airport: Ministers back ?344m expansion

More planes but newer 'quieter' planes.

The expansion will raise the number of take-offs and landings at the airport from 70,000 a year to 111,000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36901644

DulwichFox

[pop9770]

Rater that than Heathrow

City airport doesn't have the same impact on ED.

[fabfor]

From HACAN East:

Government gives City permission to expand

July 27, 2016

The Government announced today that it had given London City Airport permission to expand. It endorsed the recommendation of the Inspector who heard evidence at a Public Inquiry held earlier this year.

City Airport will be allowed to build a taxiway and more parking spaces in order to accommodate the larger planes it wants to bring in. The terminal will also be expanded to cater for the increase in passenger numbers. And there will parking facilities built.

The Airport has been keen to get expansion because the larger planes will allow it to serve destinations like Moscow and Istanbul, further afield than most of its destinations are at present.

But residents will be hit hard. London City got permission from the Civil Aviation Authority to concentrate its flight paths earlier this year. Now those residents face the prospect of more, and larger, planes.

To read the Government decision: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/planning-applications-called-in-decisions-and-recovered-appeals

[mikeb]

@pop9770 - sadly this isn't either or, but both City and Heathrow.

And with bigger and more frequent planes to City over ED when wind is from the east, we will rarely get a break from aircraft noise.

[Cardelia]

The runway isn't being extended at City so the planes are not going to be any bigger than the ones currently in use.

[rendelharris]

Cardelia Wrote:

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

> The runway isn't being extended at City so the

> planes are not going to be any bigger than the

> ones currently in use.

They will actually be bigger as they will be accommodating new larger wingspan planes with longer ranges, however this will allegedly be offset by the fact that these planes are quieter. It'll be the increase in numbers which will really hit local residents - can't say aircraft noise bothers me much but I really feel for the people of Newham.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/city-airport-200m-expansion-gets-go-ahead-but-campaigners-say-it-will-create-ghettos-and-misery-10022363.html

[Cardelia]

The biggest problem at City is capacity. Large(ish) planes already use City, it's just that there are not many stands which are capable of servicing them. The new Bombardiers are the same size as the A318 which BA has been using for its JFK services since 2009. The extended apron and new stands will allow more of the larger planes to use City, but they won't be any bigger than the planes already in use.

This is because of the physical constraints at City i.e. runway length and approach vector. The runway at City isn't long enough for a fully fuelled A318 to take off and reach JFK hence it has to stop in Shannon on the way out to refuel. My understanding is that even though the Bombardiers have a similar theoretical range to the A318, the physical constraints of City mean that this cannot be effectively utilised. Hence we're unlikely to see any new destinations which are further away than Santorini, which is the longest non-stop destination currently served from City.

[rendelharris]

I'm no expert - just an idiot with Google, frankly - but this would seem to contradict that, Bombardier saying they've specifically designed the new aeroplane to be able to reach Moscow from London City: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aerospace/2016-07-13/c-series-can-do-lcy-nyc-or-moscow

[Cardelia]

City to Santorini is 1,627 nautical miles. City to Moscow (Domodedovo, the main airport) is slightly closer at 1,565 nm.

Aside from the physical limitations of City, the other argument against longer routes is economic. Are there enough people willing to pay business fares for long-haul flights out of City to make it worthwhile operating the routes? BA struggle to get the JFK service to turn a profit and that's with the financial sector who need to shuttle people between London and New York. They're willing to pay for the convenience of having an airport right on their doorstep. There isn't the same demand for Boston, Toronto or any of the Gulf states, especially when you consider that Gatwick and Heathrow are direct competitors with multiple flights a day.

[rendelharris]

Think those are ordinary miles you have there, Santorini is 1430 nautical miles - but yes, you're quite right that Moscow is slightly closer. The devil is in the detail further down in the article I linked, I think, where the manufacturer says the new plane will be able to fly direct to Dubai, considerably further than either - if they can get that working from City that's got to be where the real money is.

[Cardelia]

Whoops, yes, those are miles not nautical miles.

The only way Bombardier can increase the range of the plane to get it to Dubai is to restrict the capacity to 80 passengers. With a restricted capacity each passenger will be paying a higher fare in order to make the service viable, so most leisure passengers will be excluded because they tend to look primarily at price when booking flights. This leaves the business market. Are there are sufficient people in the financial services sector who need to travel to Dubai and who are willing to pay a premium to travel from City rather than Heathrow or Gatwick? I'm not so sure that the demand is there; certainly if BA are struggling to fill their City-New York services, I don't see how Dubai could possibly work.

[rendelharris]

Well let's hope not and that the poor people living round the airport are saved some of the increase. However, the rich and powerful are not renowned for their unwillingness to pay silly money if something increases their sense of self-importance - look at the number who would pay five times the cost of an ordinary flight to save three hours by flying Concorde. If it was sold as a luxury service (with only eighty passengers per plane they could certainly make it spacious) saving two or three hours compared to Heathrow I could imagine enough mugs paying for it.

[Toffee]

I take it that none of you ever fly? Why are you so bothered about the aircraft noise here but not bothered about the aircraft noise in the countries you visit? Some xountries have aircraft literally all but landing on the beach! Says it all: not in my back yard. Think about it and please come on here and tell me you've never flown anywhere, or if you have, do you give a damn about aircraft noise elsewhere. So worried you all are about the world - no, how damn selfish and u

Inward thinking can you be. Well, come on, waiting for replies.

[rendelharris]

Toffee Wrote:

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

> I take it that none of you ever fly? Why are you

> so bothered about the aircraft noise here but not

> bothered about the aircraft noise in the countries

> you visit? Some xountries have aircraft literally

> all but landing on the beach! Says it all: not in

> my back yard. Think about it and please come on

> here and tell me you've never flown anywhere, or

> if you have, do you give a damn about aircraft

> noise elsewhere. So worried you all are about the

> world - no, how damn selfish and u

> Inward thinking can you be. Well, come on, waiting

> for replies.

I stopped flying in 2002 as a conscious environmental decision and since then have only taken my holidays in the UK or Europe by train. I'm not actually bothered at all about "in my backyard" aircraft noise over ED, but I know that near Heathrow, Gatwick and City it is intolerable, and we're all breathing in the pollution. So there's a reply for you to get unnecessarily aggressive about.

[Toffee]

Actually, its not me whose aggressive, neither are you. Re your posts about cycling in dulwich park, it is a public park, it is not exclusive to cyclists. I have never, ever witnessed a dog on a long lead crossing a cyclist. Neither have I ever witnessed a parent not keep aneye on a child on a recumbant bike. We all have to live and let live. Ps. I have lived in Dulwich for 60 years and ha e always enjoyed the park.

[rendelharris]

Toffee Wrote:

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

> Actually, its not me whose aggressive, neither are

> you. Re your posts about cycling in dulwich park,

> it is a public park, it is not exclusive to

> cyclists. I have never, ever witnessed a dog on a

> long lead crossing a cyclist. Neither have I ever

> witnessed a parent not keep aneye on a child on a

> recumbant bike. We all have to live and let live.

> Ps. I have lived in Dulwich for 60 years and ha e

> always enjoyed the park.

Well if you want to tell me that, why not tell me on the appropriate thread? What's it got to do with this discussion? The sentence:

How damn selfish and inward thinking can you be. Well, come on, waiting for replies.

is unnecessarily aggressive.

[Cardelia]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Well let's hope not and that the poor people

> living round the airport are saved some of the

> increase. However, the rich and powerful are not

> renowned for their unwillingness to pay silly

> money if something increases their sense of

> self-importance - look at the number who would pay

> five times the cost of an ordinary flight to save

> three hours by flying Concorde. If it was sold as

> a luxury service (with only eighty passengers per

> plane they could certainly make it spacious)

> saving two or three hours compared to Heathrow I

> could imagine enough mugs paying for it.

It's certainly a possibility, but the competition via Heathrow and Gatwick use enormous planes such as the A380. This allows the likes of Emirates to install truly luxurious first class suites which are aimed squarely at really rich passengers: the tiny (in comparison!) Bombardier planes simply can't compete with that. Likewise, Heathrow has several first class departure lounges whereas City has nothing. The main advantage of City is that it is a small airport and passengers can turn up 30 minutes before takeoff, something you just can't do at Heathrow. For people whose time is so precious that they can't afford to spend hours traipsing across London and waiting in departure lounges, this is great and is probably the primary reason they use City. I'm just not so sure that there are enough of these people who would fly regularly to Dubai to make such a service work out of City.

Toffee: I've lived under the Heathrow flight path for almost my entire life and the noise doesn't bother me. I have no objection to the expansion of City, or even Heathrow come to think of it.

[pop9770]

The problem of aircraft over London isn't only the noise.

They're a potential disaster waiting to happen.

It's only a matter of time that there's a disaster.

A large plane crash over London.

The noise is a nuisance.

Deaths is another matter.

I don't think aircraft shouldn't be flying over major urban areas anywhere on the planet.

I hate the noise I fly regularly I don't see any correlation.

[Toffee]

Exactly cardelia. Im woken at 4 am with birdsong, my cat crying for breakfast, the distant sound of London coming to life, various sounds, yes including planes. Oddly enough the plane noise is the quietest

[Toffee]

Exactly. Now please tell me you dont fly anywhere for business or pleasure. Or are you not bothered if a plane comes down on anyone else but you?

[Toffee]

You fly regularly? So, as long as your ok, thats all that matters. Hypocrites