Plane Stupid

#21
ham-shank said:
the process doesn't actually allow concerned residents the opportunity to say no.
It does. The only snag is that it also allows the government to say "Yes. And balls to what everyone else thinks."
 
#22
smartascarrots said:
hotshot85 said:
They shouldn't be there, they could have been infiltrated by terroist groups - shoot them off.
Couldn't we just shoot at them? Maybe into the sort of general area? Using large-calibre weapons appropriate to the threat represented by this security breach and accepting reasonable casualties in the nearby area?
Sod shooting them. Bomb them, only when parliament is "in-session" though.
 
#23
Pluvia_Plumbum said:
Yep that's the one I meant. :p Sorry didn't know the name.
Hong Kong International Airport, more commonly referred to as Chek Lap Kok though. I saw a documentary from the Discovery Channel called Extreme Engineering a few weeks back about the building of the place and was amazed at the scale of the project. All that and in only six years, but I guess when you're willing to spend the money and allow the experts to just get on with it that's the type of things you can achieve. Just a shame that we seem to have lost the will or ability to do things like that in our country any more.
 
#24
ham-shank said:
The arguments for a new runway do not stand up to scrutiny and the environmental information put forward by the Government and BAA have been roundly panned as, at best, very unreliable, and at worst, blatant lies.
The other argument put forward is that LHR is losing custom to other European hubs because LHR canot accomodate extra flights.

Bollox! LHR is losing custom because it is a dirty, overpriced, chaotic shithole were passengers are treated like cattle.
I concur. Terminals 1, 2, and 3 are fit only for teaching sappers the gentle art of explosive demolition. Pokey, gloomy concrete nightmares that remind me vaguely of an abattoir I once visited.

PP has the right idea, a new airport in the Thames estuary with as many runways as necessary(CDG has 4, so better make it 6), whizzy train and tube links(piggyback on the new High Speed 1 chunnel line) and half a Dogger Bank's worth of carpark space. If artificial islands are good enough for Honkers and the Japs, they're good enough for us. It will also be very hard for the greenies to lie in front of bulldozers underwater :?
Assuming costs similar to the Japs it should come in at £40billion or so, so add the payback from Northern Wreck onto the sale of Heathrow for house building, plus an offset as now we don't have to divert a motorway or two(gosh won't THAT be cheap! :roll: ) to expensively squeeze another runway in, build T6, rebuild T1, T2 and T3 and upgrade the transport links AGAIN; job's a goodun :1:
 
#25
theoriginalphantom said:
from the BBC web Site
Anti-Heathrow expansion protesters have climbed on to the roof of the Houses of Parliament.
At least five people are on the roof of the part of the building which houses the Parliamentary press gallery, next to Big Ben.

The people on the roof unfurled banners including one saying "No 3rd runway at Heathrow".

The incident comes two days after a similar protest when banners were draped over a plane at Heathrow.

The protesters said they had gained access to Parliament's roof using visitor passes to get into the building and then via a fire escape.

The protesters, who have been throwing paper planes off the roof, have been joined by police.

The protest will raise fresh questions over security at the Houses of Parliament.

The buildings have been subject to increasingly tight security measures in recent years because of the threat of terrorist attack.

Security had also been reviewed and stepped up after previous protests, including a fathers' rights group throwing purple powder at then prime minister Tony Blair, and anti-fox hunting protesters entering the Commons.
The police are throwing paper planes from the roof?, wish I could get paid for doing that :D
 
#26
Lets be honest, 7 years after the delights of low flying aircraft in built up areas was so wonderfully broadcast around the world and this Government decides that another runway on probably the only airport in the world that has to be approached over the largest urban area in the UK is a cracking good idea.

Heathrow is completely and utterly in the wrong place and this Government hasn't the brains or balls to do something about it, Gatwick and that Stansderd place should be upgraded first, along with bothering to spend some money on public transport links..
 
#27
Wasn't the aiport there when you bought your house? Didn't you notice the flights overhead or did you think maybe air transport might become popular. Bad threat assesssment - tough!

Wherever you put new runways or terminals , someone is going to whinge about it.

It all reminds me of a vicar who bought a house next to the ranges at CPTA and then complained about noise of firing. Commandant finally told him to sod off.
 
#28
Herrumph said:
Wasn't the aiport there when you bought your house? Didn't you notice the flights overhead or did you think maybe air transport might become popular. Bad threat assesssment - tough!

Wherever you put new runways or terminals , someone is going to whinge about it.

It all reminds me of a vicar who bought a house next to the ranges at CPTA and then complained about noise of firing. Commandant finally told him to sod off.
No, your comparison is wrong. It would be more like a vicar who bought a house near a rifle/pistol range and complaining about plans to convert it into a tank/artillery range.

There are already a lot of problems living/working/traveling near Heathrow. This airport is already overloading the communications infrastructure in it's area. Terminal 5 is about to double it's passenger handling capacity and hence overload the roads even more and already there are plans to continue the expansion. Any way you look at it Heathrow expansion appears daft to anyone that is not some sort of property developer.

There are other airports that could possibly benefit from expansion but on the whole I reckon that any growth in capacity for air travel would be better served by building new airports near the coast so the aircraft are flying over water rather than a heavily built up area to take off and land.

The other side of the coin shows just what a bunch of lying gits run this country. Recently the smug sods announced an increase in tax on air passengers. The justification was that it would serve as a green tax and reduce demand on heavily polluting air travel. Increasing airport passenger capacity shows they know damn well that it is just an excuse to fleece more people out of their money to waste on daft projects.
 
#29
The protesters have a good point but their method is quite frankly insane. Shoot the bastards and then scrap the new runway plan. There are plenty of other airports that could be expanded.
 
#30
What more shocking was the beeb last night going through almost step by step how they got in and up on the roof! FFS that kind of detail surely is not needed.....

But..

I wonder how many of these and their eco friendly "warriors" have either a passport or a driving license? well, when nicked you lose both because...

A) Flying is bad m'kay, as a true eco hero, if you want to go overseas buy a canoe and fcuking paddle mate.
B) You have a polluting death machine with four wheels.. No, no good sir, shank's pony or a bicycle for you...

I wonder how much it cost to mobilise plod to deal with them as well, why not either (if they are working) deduct money out of their wages t pay for the plod the took off far more important duties and if your on benifit.. well, you love nature fcuk off up a tree and eat leaves, you want the joys of nature, well off you go then...

My half a shilling....
 
#31
rickshaw said:
Pluvia_Plumbum said:
Have to agree with the protestors on this one. The Heathrow site is pretty much full and trying to cram more aircraft into an already saturated airspace isn't going to help even with a Third runway. The surrounding roads etc are still going to be a nightmare and extra flights won't help there either.

They should look at what Hong Kong did with Kai Tak and build in the Thames Estuary and add on high speed transport Rail links etc.if the South East needs another airport. Problem is that when it comes to ambitious infrastructure projects this country bottles it for the cheapest but not the best solutions every time.

Compare that with what China just opened in Beijing for the Olympics. Its the size of Heathrow complete and took just 4 years flash to bang. Mind you I think protesters there may well be treated slightly differently :twisted:
But even Kai tak wasn't enough to cope with the increase in flights - which is why the HKG took the imaginative step of chopping the top off Lantau Island, hoying it into t sea to make a multiple runway and then linking the whole thing to Victoria with rapid mass-capacity rail links. The UK has, I'm afraid, to stop being so conservative and look to more radical solutions.
Ahem, I think you'll find that Lantau Island is still intact. It was Chek Lap Kok Island that was levelled and expanded with reclaimed land to form the airport.
Spotter Mode Off.
 
#32
Dog-faced-soldier said:
The protesters have a good point but their method is quite frankly insane. Shoot the bastards and then scrap the new runway plan. There are plenty of other airports that could be expanded.
Gatwick ... long-standing protests against another runway.
Stansted ... long-standing protests against further development.

Perhaps everyone should get on the train [using the West Coast Main Line :wink: ] to Glasgow and fly from there .... ?

The greater mass of the population is in the South, and therefore the airports are needed THERE.
Alternatively, we just give up airports altogether and accept that the 21st Century will only happen in other countries.
 
#33
blue_sophist said:
Dog-faced-soldier said:
The protesters have a good point but their method is quite frankly insane. Shoot the bastards and then scrap the new runway plan. There are plenty of other airports that could be expanded.
Gatwick ... long-standing protests against another runway.
Stansted ... long-standing protests against further development.

Perhaps everyone should get on the train [using the West Coast Main Line :wink: ] to Glasgow and fly from there .... ?

The greater mass of the population is in the South, and therefore the airports are needed THERE.
Alternatively, we just give up airports altogether and accept that the 21st Century will only happen in other countries.
So why do I, in the sunny north, have to drive to the sh*ty south to catch a plane to the States, only to fly north and out over Scotland....? what is the logic of letting BAA tell us that, IOT max their profts, we have to fly out of Heathrow et al to the States???
 
#34
Kitmarlowe said:
blue_sophist said:
Dog-faced-soldier said:
The protesters have a good point but their method is quite frankly insane. Shoot the bastards and then scrap the new runway plan. There are plenty of other airports that could be expanded.
Gatwick ... long-standing protests against another runway.
Stansted ... long-standing protests against further development.

Perhaps everyone should get on the train [using the West Coast Main Line :wink: ] to Glasgow and fly from there .... ?

The greater mass of the population is in the South, and therefore the airports are needed THERE.
Alternatively, we just give up airports altogether and accept that the 21st Century will only happen in other countries.
So why do I, in the sunny north, have to drive to the sh*ty south to catch a plane to the States, only to fly north and out over Scotland....? what is the logic of letting BAA tell us that, IOT max their profts, we have to fly out of Heathrow et al to the States???
You can use the M62, and fly via Manchester.
That's what I have to do whenever I visit the family in Yorkshire. :wink:
 
#35
I don`t understand some of you. This forum moans constantly about the government but when some guys get off their arses and take huge risks with their freedom to make a protest you call them a bunch of hippy tossers.

If a lot more people shared their convictions and did something about it this country wouldn`t be in such a mess.

If they had protested in a lesser way it wouldn`t have made the news.

We should be supporting them.

harry
 
#37
A hidden agenda not given light in the argument in the expansion of Heathrow is that in order for the British Airports Authority and their main customer British Airways to maximise their profits,Heathrow expansion is neccessary.

Why do British Airways(save for about 2 token routes from Manchester) not fly from regional airports in Britain to destinations outside Europe?.

Emirates fly from Birmingham,Manchester,Newcastle and Glasgow,so these routes obviously are profitable.

Other airlines also offer destinations outside Europe from regional airports.

BA want regional passengers to fly on overpriced domestic flights to Heathrow then transfer to their intercontental flights.

BA are also looking to carry as many transit passengers as possible,increasing profits for them.

BA resisted Singapore Airlines flying to Manchester in the eighties(unsucessfully).

The upshot is BA want the passengers to come to them at London then fly from a third world airport to their destinations.Other airlines are prepared to fly to regional airports.BA would like this stopped,but the days of them dictating policy to the CAA are over.

BA like competition,so long as it is on their terms.

Too many MPs and politicians are in the pockets of both BA and the BAA.
 
#38
ham-shank said:
Unfortunately, the protesters remember how they were shafted by the Government and BAA with their lies, smokescreens and improbable statistics when the Terminal 5 project was bulldozed through in the face of massive objections.
NuLab claim to be against global warming and airpollution, the biggest cause of which is... the high number of passenger air flights...

Right hand not knowing what the left is doing?

Oh hang on, that fuckwit Broon is going to solve it all by banning carrier bags:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7101075.stm
 
#39
blue_sophist said:
@ harry19 ...

So he who shouts loudest runs the Country?
So minority protesters decide what happens?

Anarchy, anyone?
'This country is run by people who would prefer you not to shout. You can participate in a 'consultation' or fill in an e-petition that we will ignore. If you wish to protest you are invited to our new protesting facility (press not invited) in Renfrewshire. This will incur a policing cost that you will be asked to meet.'

Minority protesters seldom decide what happens but have a freedom to make their protests heard. In the course of this many find inventive places to hang banners off.

Good on them. We have a smug and complacent Government that needs to be reminded who they bloody work for (apart from their selfish selves).
 
#40
Victorian_Major said:
blue_sophist said:
@ harry19 ...
So he who shouts loudest runs the Country?
So minority protesters decide what happens?
Anarchy, anyone?
'This country is run by people who would prefer you not to shout. You can participate in a 'consultation' or fill in an e-petition that we will ignore. If you wish to protest you are invited to our new protesting facility (press not invited) in Renfrewshire. This will incur a policing cost that you will be asked to meet.'
Minority protesters seldom decide what happens but have a freedom to make their protests heard. In the course of this many find inventive places to hang banners off.
Good on them. We have a smug and complacent Government that needs to be reminded who they bloody work for (apart from their selfish selves).
1. We have had many smug and complacent governments, and I suspect there will be another one along shortly :wink:

2. Inventive Banner Hanging may become a new Olympic sport, with a medal hope for Britain, but some of the protests are not exactly helpful to the cause ... especially when they breach security or involve massive Police effort.

3. If Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted [and Manchester, and any other airport] are not allowed to expand their capacities, UK will have to build a brand new International Airport, and provide the necessary connecting infrastructure. Cost? Astronomic ... I couldn't even begin to guess, but I'll say trillions and 30 years to complete. Oh ... but wait. Some vociferous protesters live in the Thames Estuary [or wherever this airport is going]. And look, a rare species of *newt/weed/bird/insect has been found ... stop work immediately! And those Few, that Band of Bothers, will prevent anything happening for years and years, while the extant airport infrastructure crumbles about our ears.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
NSP The NAAFI Bar 67
O Miscellaneous Jokes 0
LazyCaretaker Armed Forces Jokes 2

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top