A chickychickychick-ENN!! Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 Some stats and predictions about a fall in air travel: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/12/business/air.php http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article5526114.ece http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a.ad3f0HUfnw&refer=uk http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=266598&version=1&template_id=38&parent_id=20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodge Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 In a way I am less concerned about the ecological aspects and more appalled by the wanton vandalism and destruction involved in booting folk out of their homes and razing an entire village to the ground. Inexcusable. Cauceascu would be proud of them. This is what the real issue is about here, I applaud all of you who are trying to put a spanner in the works. I personally think this runway will never be built. I base that on one fact and that is: When the Conservative's get back in power they have said they will s"Ooops, word censored!" it. I believe that such is the level of opposition in this country to these plans that the country will vote in their droves to get Labour out. Once again Gordon Brown and his cronies have failed to listen and will therefore pay the price at the next General Election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tessa the Duchess Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I personally think this runway will never be built. I base that on one fact and that is: When the Conservative's get back in power they have said they will s"Ooops, word censored!" it. That's the way I am thinking Dodge, but politicians do have a nasty habit of making promises before an election which are immediately broken once they are in power I also agree with Egluntine it is an absolute disgrace the way they are blithely talking about demolishing homes and businesses without any regard for the people living in them. They did exactly the same to get the site for the Olympic games Tessa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluekarin Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I too have added my name. I think it is disgraceful that a whole village can be wiped out, just because the government feel we need another runway. Surely, if you add the facilities for more people to travel, then more people will travel. I think a similar thing happened when the motorways were being built in the 1950's, and that everyone thought that if you have larger dual laned roads, it wouldn't increase road traffic, and that drivers would just be able to get from A to B quicker. I heard that if the Conservatives get in at the next election they will s"Ooops, word censored!" the runway. But I am not sure if I believe this. Our local council wanted to do a huge refurb of their offices in case we got the central council for Wilts here (we didn't). In the meantime loads of money was spent, trees felled, park area ruined. The opposition said if we get in, we'll s"Ooops, word censored!" the build. But when they got in they said they couldn't s"Ooops, word censored!" it as too much money had been spent. They have scaled down the refurb, but still they didn't do what they said I also would not like to be the village left with the three fence walls round it. You'd feel like you were in prison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_H Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I think it is disgraceful that a whole village can be wiped out, just because the government feel we need another runway. . I agree about the village - this isn't the first village to be wiped out for this sort of reason - Rutland water was created by flooding a valley including several villages but it isn't 'just because the government feel....' there was an extensive consultaion exercise. 70,000 responses were received to the consultation, and the analysis of these responses forms part of the evidence base used to inform the Secretary of State’s decisions on the future development of Heathrow. Surely, if you add the facilities for more people to travel, then more people will travel. Why shouldn't more people travel - should travel remain the preserve of the rich ? Travel can be very educational and not just in an academic sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluekarin Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) Well, I am not too sure about results of consultation questionaires. When our local council sent out a questionaire about the roads in our street and asked if we wanted them to be safer, quieter etc most of the people in our street said yes of course! But infact what happened was we lost about 20 parking spaces and have to buy permits to park. So I think it depends how things were worded. I don't think only the rich should travel, and I do think with the rise of cheap flights, people are more likely to fly more than once a year. Holidays over here will start to cost more money as it is cheaper to go abroad, the hoteliers etc aren't getting the numbers they usually do and so they have to charge more to cover costs. But we have to stop at some point with the expansion of the airports, especially with things like fuel apparently about to run out. Or use a different route which causes less disruption and doesn't wipe out whole communities (I read this somewhere just now and will try and find a link for it). I'm sure this isn't the first village to go, but this doesn't make it right. Edit, it was Jakiepoppies (hope I've got your name right!) mentioned about it being in Manston, Essex. I have also just read about a proposition to put it in the Thames Estuary! Don't know how feasable that would be. But then again, they've done it in Japan haven't they? Edited January 16, 2009 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
earthmam1 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Hi I too have just added my name and like MedusA I also went on marches in the 70s stop the whaling and seal clubbing, perhaps we met there I think it is a great idea and yes perhaps it wont stop the runway being built but at least we have done something. Its not just the evironmental consequences its also the government forcing people out of their homes and village. A picnic on the omleteers plots should good to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missuscluck Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 This whole thing has made my blood boil tbh. Did anyone catch Emma Thompson on the lunch time news on ITV yesterday. I thought she was awesome. 'A life long Labour supporter rapidly going off Gordon Brown!!' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 It is so sad. Well, I must say I knew they would run rough-shod over everyone, so wasn't surprised at the news. I shall sign up because in one of the villages earmarked for destruction, the cemetary holds my grandmother and grandfather and two of my uncles. Edited to say "Done" and link passed on to OH who is in Germany to make sure he does it too. It's been a long time since I was a revolting peasant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A chickychickychick-ENN!! Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 there was an extensive consultaion exercise. 70,000 responses were received to the consultation, and the analysis of these responses forms part of the evidence base used to inform the Secretary of State’s decisions on the future development of Heathrow. A lot of these will be from businesses and lobbying groups who know how to articulate an argument. As far as the 70,000 figure goes, it's back to the old be careful how you draw your statistics thing. Not everyone who is opposed to a plan knows how to fully participate in government consultations, which makes it easy for government to do what it wants, by being cloak and daggery about the wording of consultations, the way in which people can respond, the questions it asks - it can all be skewed. And if every member of the British Chamber of Commerce, Institute of Directors, Association of Small Businesses, the CBI etc are all counted as separate voices within the responses, it doesn't take much to add up to a very biased 70,000. Business wants this runway. Business, BAA (which is in big debt), the airlines and government. Normal people, in the main, don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhapsody Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Business wants this runway. Business, BAA (which is in big debt), the airlines and government. Normal people, in the main, don't. Darn right! A huge proportion of travelers going through Heathrow are in transit, because Heathrow is a major hub. The only folk who benefit from these passengers are in the air business. As for cheap democratising travel, this is not a sacred cow and I don't believe communities should be wiped out so that Joe Soap gets £50 off his week in the Costas. Also isn't anyone else worried about the amount of air traffic over the SE of England if this goes ahead? Surely the margins for error at Air Traffic Control are stretched enough? I am very tired of the air industry assuming none of the rules apply to them. Lets see VAT on jet fuel, VAT on the fuel used by airport vehicles (Mr Brown- an airport is not a farm, why is it classed as such? ) and proper planning processes followed (such as you or I have to if we want to change the windows in our house) I would also like some transparency about who was consulted with about this scheme- Mrs Average down the road or the guy who owns the land earmarked for a carpark. I'm so in on this one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Won't any profit be going to Spain anyway? Who would want to visit a country that contains vast expansions of airports (if one does it - the others will want to compete) and the rest concreted over? Pehaps most of the flights will be us getting away and not coming back (like I have told DD and DS to do if they get the opportunity). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_H Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 if one does it - the others will want to compete That doesn't seem to be the case so far. Personally, I would love to be able to fly from more local airports (East Midlands, Birmingham, Coventry) - nad not have to go to London or Manchester. H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_H Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Normal people, in the main, don't. But its normal people that are actually using it (its no good objecting to something but using it anyway) - thats why its almost at capacity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lesley Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Normal people, in the main, don't. But its normal people that are actually using it (its no good objecting to something but using it anyway) - thats why its almost at capacity. I can see both sides of this argument - and am still looking into it all - but would agree with Hazel on this point.........the demonstrators last week were all having a picnic- the close up on TV showed many bags of grapes (for some strange reason ) ....... ......I wonder how they thought the grapes arrived in this country? I know we grow some for wine but I doubt they would be in the supermarket bags shown A small point - but it stuck in my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhapsody Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Darn right! A huge proportion of travelers going through Heathrow are in transit, because Heathrow is a major hub. I'm sure someone said this...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhapsody Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 But its normal people that are actually using it (its no good objecting to something but using it anyway) - thats why its almost at capacity. A huge proportion of travelers going through Heathrow are in transit, because Heathrow is a major hub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_H Posted January 18, 2009 Share Posted January 18, 2009 I'm being a bit dim here, but whats the problem with it being a hub ? - that gives economies of scale If vast areas are concreted over, its surely better that they're used to/near capacity (rather than concreteing over several places) ? H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhapsody Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Because it is servicing the air industry only, not domestic travellers (so the cheap holiday for John Bull the worthy British workman argument does not work here), those passangers are not spending a penny on our soil but we are concreting another irreplaceble part of the countryside to line the pockets of foreign airlines, who do not pay a penny of tax on the money they make by using Heathrow. Ultimately there is money to be made out of hub traffic but it is not the thousands of jobs and pots of foreign gold that we are led to believe will follow. I don't see why a village in England should be destroyed so that Gulf Air can take more passangers from Australia to Europe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_H Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 who do not pay a penny of tax on the money they make by using Heathrow. I don't see how this can be true ?? Airlines have to pay substantial fees to the operators to use Heathrow - the operators pay tax (this is why budget airlines tend to use regional aiports instead) and ALL passengers landing (even if in transit) pay a flight tax ??? H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhapsody Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Nope. Foreign business= tax exemptions. Yes they pay fees but they pay no tax on the money they make over here. Furthermore the airlines pay no VAT on fuel, either on jet fuel or the fuel the airport vehicles use. We are subsidising this industry to the tune of billions of pounds of tax breaks a year AND they expect to expand at will at huge cost to the countryside and local communities. If airlines operated at a level VAT and tax playing field there would be a lot less demand, and no need for this runway. Above all it is the cavalier attitude to our precious green spaces in this tiny tiny country that sickens me the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 Above all it is the cavalier attitude to our precious green spaces in this tiny tiny country that sickens me the most. Amen to that Rhapsody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_H Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 So if I fly into Heathrow, I don't have to pay the flight tax ?? Above all it is the cavalier attitude to our precious green spaces in this tiny tiny country that sickens me the most.I agree with this and that the bigger picture for the UK should have been looked at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhapsody Posted January 20, 2009 Share Posted January 20, 2009 So if I fly into Heathrow, I don't have to pay the flight tax ?? Did I say that? I'm sure I was talking about foreighn businesses using Heathrow as a major hub between continents and paying no income tax or VAT on the profits made by doing so. It is a totally different and rather more enormous (but cleverly hidden) issue than an individual paying airport tax I'm afraid! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester_H Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Apparently, only 25% - 40% is transfer traffic (So MOST people landing WILL pay a tax.), but two-thirds of flights at Heathrow depend on this transfer traffic. Why? Because, say, there are passengers who fly in from X, change planes at Heathrow, and fly out again to Y. Without transfer passengers, the UK would not have flights to X nor Y. These routes would simply not be economically viable without the high proportion of transfer passengers that support these flights. So hubs aren't all bad by definition. Unnecessarily destroying green belt is another matter - but need to keep arguments valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
