Heathrow runway 3

Discussion in 'Politics & The Economy' started by karkus30, Aug 28, 2012.

  1. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,237
    Am I right in thinking that runway 3 would be financed completely from the private sector ? Because if so, what the hell in this naff Government doing ? It's proper investment and will reap rewards because private industry does not finance white elephants. The concern of noise increase is invalid as those who live on the flight path are already subject to it. The village of 700 houses will have to be moved. All that needs to happen is for a direct compensation package between the developers and those who are likely to suffer. No doubt more planes means more Government tax, well stop that tax being wasted and re-direct it to the objectors then they get something out of the deal, perhaps by reducing their council tax to nothing.
     
  2. sidicks

    sidicks
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    12,715
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,302
    I think there are two issues:

    1) This government has bought into the MMGW ******** and has made ridiculous claims about being the 'greenest government ever' (despite the huge associated costs to businesses and the associated impact on the economy).

    A decision to approve a 3rd runway would be contradictory to this message.

    2) There is also the criticism they will face if they do change their mind.

    Remember:

    If they don't listen to public / business opinion they are 'out of touch'

    If they do listen to public / business opinion they are criticised for doing another U-turn......
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2012
  3. blackrod

    blackrod
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ratings:
    +247
    If I lived in the area I would probably think otherwise but for me they should just get on with it. Even Manchester has two runways (although I think planes have to cross one to get to the other for some bizarre reason!) so how Heathrow copes I don't know.
    If they do go for it then the infrastructure needs to be improved also as T5 aside it is a dump and can be a real pain to get into and out of the place at times.
     
  4. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,237
    They are just fiddling while Rome burns. The only thing that get us back on track is private enterprise, they even said that themselves yet refuse to allow real growth. We need rid of the 'wets' that can't make decisions and court public approval. It's time to shelve green issues until we have the luxury of being able to attend to them. It's the equivalent of the man running in front of he train with a red flag, crass stupidity when it can least be afforded.

    It's the same with this housing problem. Instead of central Government collecting land tax, instead give it to the local authorities and allow them to compensate those who are inconvenienced by building work. it would incentivise everyone to release land and stop putting restrictions on what has to be built, just let developers decide what's needed. Land prices would fall as more planning permission restrictions were lifted, everyone would benefit.
     
  5. icstm

    icstm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,212
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +66
    The problem is that both BA (W Walsh) and BAA have stated that a 3rd runway is only a stop gap measure to the london capacity issue.

    Therefore we need to look at other solutions.
    We could put a 2nd runway at Gatwick. That is an airport (the UK's 2nd largest) that is not near capacity at the moment, but would need the extra runway should it start to take over some of Heathrow's services.

    If you jazz it up and get one of the airline corsortia to move in (eg SkyTeam, Star Alliance) then there would be little need for Heathrow-Gatwick connections. (TBH I am not sure who uses those at the moment).

    Again there are agreements not to expand Gatwick for a few years.

    All this means that airlines would actually like a new airport, so Boris Island looks a good option.

    As for noise at Heathrow, I am not sure why they do not fly a steeper approach (like the old Hong Kong airport forced) this would mean the planes were higher for longer.
    The additional fuel is dwarfed by the UK aviation taxes anyway so would be almost hidden from the customer.
     
  6. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,237
    Who is going to foot the bill for Boris island. It's another idiotic attempt to tell private companies that they are restricted to doing what makes the Government look good and in particular Boris the idiot look good. Not to mention that building on a flood plain is bound to end in disaster.

    The 3rd runway is a private enterprise development ( I'm assuming ) they are not going to waste their money if they thought it wasn't viable they would not be ready to stump up the cost. There is a necessity to compensate the losers in this. Making the dwellings council tax exempt would offset their costs and make the houses saleable if they didn't want to remain in the area and that could be done by diverting taxes from the airport new build and running into local authority coffers to cover the short fall. Everybody wins except the greens.

    You can't let Government go pointing out where it would like to put runways because it's nothing at all to do with them. It's about time these politicians were put to work on some public project that would give us all value for money on the wages we pay them. Let's get them digging ditches and building houses and they can start to grasp what real people do.
     
  7. Will21st

    Will21st
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Brighton
    Ratings:
    +310
    I'm all for a third Runway at Heathrow and a second at Gatwick..

    plus the new Airport in the Thames Estuary,extension of HS2 and so on and so forth. We can't green light enough infrastructure projects at the moment. :smashin:
     
  8. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,237
    As long as there is no public spend necessary either now or in the future then so am I.
     
  9. domtheone

    domtheone
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    15,624
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +4,337
    In favour of more. Be it a 3rd runway, Gatwick expansion or Borris Island.

    Whatever they choose, it's better than sitting there doing nothing. Most of the world is motoring away with Airport infrastructure projects as the number of flyers increases (worldwide) yoy.

    Already half of our airports are laughable when compared to many modern ones around the world.

    Too much H&S, blah blah blah in this country.

    Took 10 years just to get T5 iirc:facepalm:

    Government should tell the Lib Dems to do one and announce something ASAP and scrap APD whilst they're at it.
     
  10. icstm

    icstm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,212
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +66
    @domtheone - how are they going to fund the APD tax cut?

    @karkus30 "You can't let Government go pointing out where it would like to put runways because it's nothing at all to do with them."

    Reading your other comments I know that you are not looking for anarcy, so why do you here say that it is nothing to do with govt? There is a social and economic case and both need to be looked at, who ever is footing the bill.
     
  11. domtheone

    domtheone
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    15,624
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Nottingham
    Ratings:
    +4,337
    It might not even need funding.:smashin:

    There's growing consensus that it's self defeating.:facepalm:

    There's an independent report due out in a few months I think that may estimate/show this.

    Besides, it's just another unfair tax on people flying. Especially our own citizens!

    A small fee is one thing. I'm sure if the taxes levied were relatively insignificant amounts (as they began), it'd be no problem. As it is, they huge amounts levied now are staggering and need to be massively cut/dropped (as most of Europe has done already).
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2012
  12. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,237
    Yes, I said so, but if the privateers consult the people involved and offer direct payments over the long term it's likely that most objections will fade away. The problem we have is Nimbyism, but the reason we have it isn't so much about the planning and building, but because the Government and the private sector gets the benefits and everyone else gets nothing for their sacrifice. The airports are already there, it's not as if they are building new airports.

    To give an example we had a medium size Sainsbury store as a very near neighbour. They applied for planning permission to make the store bigger and install a petrol station. As a street we got properly involved in the planning process and got lots of things altered and changed on the plans such as roads, planting, fencing, sound proofing and a bottle bank shifted away from the site. We all got a few vouchers worth £50 to spend. We has constant communication and meetings throughout the development and we now have a great relationship with the store. It's a result all around as it's a better store, we get a petrol station that we lacked and had all the works carried out that we're a huge improvement on what was there before.

    The difference was that the store was already there, we didn't object but the town council did. If we had objected and then found we had lost we would have gained nothing. There are more jobs, better products and a nice cafe.
     
  13. Will21st

    Will21st
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Brighton
    Ratings:
    +310
    I am happy for the public to spend on Infrastructure projects as they are an investment in the countries economic future.
     
  14. Trollslayer

    Trollslayer
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    24,617
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Poole
    Ratings:
    +9,848
    If I may turn the conversation away from the usual rabies.
    There is a need for more capacity adn a statement has been issued that they are looking at what woudl be the best option.
    There is a lot more than runway capacity involved so it is worth thinking through.
    For example, access to other parts of the country is an important factor, flights connecting to other parts of the country or rail links etc..
    Boris Island (who else thinks of it as Tracy island?) may be a good possbility. There are the infrastructure and links issues to think about but it is interesting.
    Stanstead is another possibility.
     
  15. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,237
    Well that's very noble of you.

    Perhaps then if you knew:

    A) the airport at heathrow was very viable and would make several businessmen a lot of money and that's why the private sector are prepared to gamble because they know the rate of return on investment will be good.

    B) they have chosen Heathrow and not Gatwick or Boris Island because they know it's a far more risky investment which has a good chance of them losing money and so isn't a good investment opportunity.

    Now, if you were making a bet with your own money, which one would you pick in order to get the best return. Would it be A) because businessmen and financiers are also investing and therefore you could well see it being a success and getting a nice return for your hard work.

    Or would it be B) the other option that the investors and businessmen are not putting any money into because they are savvy enough to know the score and don't like losing money. However the Government has suggested they prefer that option and regardless of what you or the businessmen think they are going to make you place your bet there. What's more, even by a slim chance it is successful then the pay out is zero for you. If its a disaster they will want a bit more from you to cover the failure.

    Now, I'm not big on gambling, but I know a bad bet from a good one :)
     
  16. icstm

    icstm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,212
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +66
    @karkus30
    as I explained even those backing A are calling for B as option A is only a temporary fix and does not address longer term issues...
     
  17. Will21st

    Will21st
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,069
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Brighton
    Ratings:
    +310
    well,I don't know about noble! :laugh:

    Infrastructure projects such as roads, rail lines, airports and general means of transportation are all beneficial to the economy.
    As such society as a whole benefits from them and I see countries like Germany,Japan and China investing heavily in them with great returns and benefits to their overall economy. Especially Germany is a good example for this.
    Ok,I will concede that airports my not be a good example for this. :)

    I just hope that the BAA fiasco won't be repeated!
     
  18. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,237
    Infrastructure projects are fine as long as they are privately funded. :) if its good for the economy then someone must be getting wealthy out of it, so let those who are getting wealthy pay for it. My mate did the same as you in assuming that taxation and Government were the ways infrastructure gets built. Here's a thing, private investors created railways, canals, ships, bridges, roads and air travel. If there is a need then someone will meet it. You don't need to be a charitable giver to infrastructure, you will do that by paying your ticket just like its always been.

    When Government get involved it all runs at a loss and gets SNAFU. Look at this train debacle. Loads of paper and complaints, court cases and still we have to invest 40bn a year from our pockets just for the train companies to profit ! Then we pay the high fares and accept the shoddy services. I haven't even started on the track costs which are carefully hidden off balance sheet. Yet back before nationalisation we didn't pay a penny in taxation and got better service from the wholly private company.

    The difference is that unlike private industry who welcomes new customers and automatically expands its services to accommodate them, the Government sees all customers as a terrible problem, just aggravation. That's why we have clogged roads, shoddy railways, Q's at airports, police who are powerless to help anyone. A private company would be bending over backwards to accommodate and make money.
     
  19. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,237
    So, what's the problem. I tell you what it is. The Government are terrified of upsetting their voters and losing tax money. If they were properly entrepreneurial they would get all the objectors together and ask them what it would take for them to accept the extra flights and new building. Then they could stop stealing everybody's money and let the private companies provide to the objectors as a properly brokered business deal. Trouble is the Politicians cannot leave it alone they have to be seen poking their unwelcome noses in everything, getting their cut in taxes and then cutting the ribbon in front of the cameras and saying how well they have done for the country. Vomit
     
  20. icstm

    icstm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,212
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +66
    OK, even if they did as you as and get all the objectors together and ask them what it would take for them to accept the extra flights, surely the government or a quango is best placed to arbitrate, as you would need an independant body to do so?
     
  21. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,237
    You don't need the Government, we threw our local councillor out of our meetings with Sainsbury. Within the area affected there will be enough interested people who will come forward. The sticking point isn't the private side, it's the Government who will want its money out of the private side in land and airport taxes, it's that which limits the private side in compensating those who would suffer. It's dead easy anyway, the private investors just tell the Government they are not getting any taxes and that they will be paying he local authority the council tax that would be paid by the householders in the area instead of feeding central government.

    Then they gather all the people in the area together and offer them freedom from council taxes ( or a part of depending how much they would normally give to Government ). They could offer cash directly, either as a one off payment or yearly, but it's much harder to do that. The residents vote democratically to accept or reject.

    Now of course the cats out of the bag, there suddenly isn't a need for Government involvement and everyone will want to negotiate. Hehe, just like real life where you negotiate a price for the thing or the service and an exchange results. How obviously simple. Government can't make any photo opportunities because the people took it into their own hands and sorted it out. Unbelievable, people actually can do stuff for themselves if they are allowed. In a shock to the Government they found they actually had been making themselves look useful and getting paid for doing nothing.
     
  22. icstm

    icstm
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,212
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Ratings:
    +66
    how would this actually work?
    T5 required changes to the M25 (let alone all the locale road changes) that effects Miles of neighbourhoods.
     
  23. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,237
    Once you create the precedent of compensation and add that into the package and ensure that ONLY private money is used then it may sway the developers to look at alternatives. However, if private money has identified something profitable to build, then we would all be mugs not to let them do it as long as those who were affected we're adequately compensated.

    If it requires new roads then they will have to dip into their pockets to build them and again, they can compensate. They should however be given the option of toll roads if necessary. Anything as long as its not public money and everyone gains.
     
  24. MikeTV

    MikeTV
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Ratings:
    +842
    Speaking as someone who actually lives on the flight path, I think that your opinion is invalid.
     
  25. MikeTV

    MikeTV
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Ratings:
    +842
    Just a tip for any airport planners - when planning a future major international airport, it's probably best not to position it west of one the world's most populated cities, with runways in an east-west direction.

    If we can build an olympic park, we can build a new airport. Whether it can done with only private investment, I sincerely doubt. But bring it on, if we can.
     
  26. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,237
    Well this is cool. Did you choose to live on the flight path ? I'm guessing it was often noisier with the older jets than these newer ones ? Concorde certainly wasn't quiet.
    So, like most people you won't accept any additional inconvenience even if there is a net benefit ? You do believe in Democracy though, so you will have to accept a majority decision even if the Government does a U Turn. So, then, as a democratic voter I believe my opinion is entirely valid as you yourself have affirmed many times.

    Whatever you do, be assured that the democratically elected Government will build that runway regardless of your grumbles and groans if that's what they decide to do.

    All you have to do is figure out what you want out of the deal. Would the additional traffic mean you would want to move to somewhere quieter or how about a reduction or complete cessation of your council tax, maybe a disabled centre of some sort, a new park? I don't know what it might be, but I'm thinking you want something to offset the additional inconvenience.

    Now, if a flood constantly happened in your area throughout the winter, then you might say that you wanted flood defences or were so fed up that you would move. Your house would fall in value because of the flood risk and you would lose money. Now, that's a natural occurrence so you don't give it much thought, but you do when it's man made?
     
  27. MikeTV

    MikeTV
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Ratings:
    +842
    You said my concern was invalid, and I'm saying it is valid. Just as you would be concerned about the council building a motorway through your garden. Of course it matters if it's man-made! If you live on the side of an active volcano, you perhaps shouldn't complain when you are covered in lava. But if the council dumps millions of tonnes of rock on your house, I think you'd have a reason to complain.
     
  28. karkus30

    karkus30
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2002
    Messages:
    13,997
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,237
    Oh yes I see that. I didn't mean it that way. I was referring to it in a different sense. You already live on the flight path, just as you might decide to live on the side of a volcano. That the volcano becomes more or less active is obviously a concern, however it's how it is.

    The council doesn't dump the rocks or build the motorway, the people make that decision because we are subject to a democracy.

    I'm treasurer ( without portfolio ) of a very active local residents group. We live in an area which is close to a commercial area. We knew that when we moved in. To our right used to be a big garage workshop and bus station. We also have a cricket club as our immediate neighbours that sell alcohol every night so are really a pub. Then we used to have the football ground which moved.

    When they applied for planning permission to build a Supermarket on the bus station site everybody except a few of us objected. Made no difference, the council objected, made no difference it got built anyway. When the football club moved the ground was bought by a developer who put in planning permission to build houses and bring a road into our nice quiet cul-de- sac. Again, people moaned and objected, and again the permission was given.

    What I'm saying is that you can protest as much as you like, that's your right. You can get hot under the collar and miserable when you realise you have failed to get your own way, whilst the Government and developers go ahead with the build. That's not to dissimilar to the volcano. You don't want the Lava, but it comes anyway.

    I'm suggesting that because you have effectively built your house knowingly on an airport flight path you are going to be subject to periodic increases and decreases in activity. However you do have the option of getting something out of the developers if you act quickly and get organised. That's something you don't get out of a volcano.

    So, we are living with it in our street. We have been involved with MPs, councillors, licensing authorities, department of transport, developers, the whole nine yards. In every case where we fought blindly for the development not to go ahead we lost. When we worked with the developers we minimised the impact and got something out of it. If the Government really freed that off, then the developer could be more generous, but as it is, the developer relies far more on his power invested in Government than with the people who will be directly affected.

    I sympathise with you, but I know which way the wind blows. If they decide to build that runway then you will be brushed aside, that's why I said your concerns didn't matter.
     
  29. MikeTV

    MikeTV
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Ratings:
    +842
    Public concerns do matter, and do make a very real difference. I remember Ken Livingstone doggedly trying to build the west london tram. It never happened, due largely to public concerns and campaigning. There are millions of other examples. Your suggestion that public and local concerns are irrelevent in government planning decisions is frankly, ludicrous.
     
  30. MikeTV

    MikeTV
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Ratings:
    +842
    I certainly know which way the wind blows. But that's from living on a flight path.

    ;)
     

Share This Page

Loading...