Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
It is time for Harringay residents to oppose Heathrow Airport Expansion
On the 15th September I took part in an all-party discussion in Enfield which was sponsored by the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, or HACAN for short.
The purpose of the meeting was to encourage opposition in this part of London to proposals which the government is now considering under which:
● a third runway at Heathrow Airport would be built..
● the practice of “runway alternation” (whereby residents affected by one flight path get 6 hours respite per day) would be abolished.
In my view, these proposals must be fought by everyone in London. There are three reasons for this.
1. People who are not the most directly affected cannot easily be dismissed as mere NIMBYs. If we stand up for the long suffering residents of West London we will greatly strengthen the hand of fellow citizens who stand to suffer a very great deal from two very damaging proposals.
2. We can help to create a climate in which governments will have to think very carefully before approving anything that may seriously damage the environment. The more widespread the opposition, the more widespread will be the risk that voters will punish those who let the proposal through.
3. It is only a matter of time before we too will be directly affected. The increase in aircraft noise which we have been noticing is not an illusion. Planes waiting to land at Heathrow are stacked above Epping. As the stacks become too full, planes have to come off them early and circle in lower and wider holding patterns.
It is important that all of us should get involved now. The Secretary of the Department for Transport, Ruth Kelly, is likely to be making a decision on runway alternation later this year.
On my website www.davidschmitz.org.uk you can find an online petition together with my speech on the economic case against the proposals. I would also recommend that you visit HACAN’s web site.
Whether you sign my petition or organise one of your own, please get as much support as possible from everyone you know.
David Schmitz
The purpose of the meeting was to encourage opposition in this part of London to proposals which the government is now considering under which:
● a third runway at Heathrow Airport would be built..
● the practice of “runway alternation” (whereby residents affected by one flight path get 6 hours respite per day) would be abolished.
In my view, these proposals must be fought by everyone in London. There are three reasons for this.
1. People who are not the most directly affected cannot easily be dismissed as mere NIMBYs. If we stand up for the long suffering residents of West London we will greatly strengthen the hand of fellow citizens who stand to suffer a very great deal from two very damaging proposals.
2. We can help to create a climate in which governments will have to think very carefully before approving anything that may seriously damage the environment. The more widespread the opposition, the more widespread will be the risk that voters will punish those who let the proposal through.
3. It is only a matter of time before we too will be directly affected. The increase in aircraft noise which we have been noticing is not an illusion. Planes waiting to land at Heathrow are stacked above Epping. As the stacks become too full, planes have to come off them early and circle in lower and wider holding patterns.
It is important that all of us should get involved now. The Secretary of the Department for Transport, Ruth Kelly, is likely to be making a decision on runway alternation later this year.
On my website www.davidschmitz.org.uk you can find an online petition together with my speech on the economic case against the proposals. I would also recommend that you visit HACAN’s web site.
Whether you sign my petition or organise one of your own, please get as much support as possible from everyone you know.
David Schmitz
Tags for Forum Posts: aircraft noise, flight paths
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Justin Hinchcliffe on
-
David, you do know that this site in non-political? You are violating this rule - and the spirit of the rule - by directing people to your website (which is there to promote you as a Lib Dem parliamentary candidate and your party generally!)
Speaking in a personal capacity, I favour a third runway. Let me give three reasons:
1. A third runway could actually reduce pollution levels. It would certainly stop planes 'hovering' in the skies. Most planes have their engines running for a minimum of ten minutes before take off because the runway is so busy.
2. For London to continue to be a successful tourist attraction, we need first class airports. A third runway could help make flying to London easier, quicker and generally better.
3. If not Heathrow, then where? London needs a third runway.
I doubt if a third runway will affect us here in Haringey. Scaremongering shouldn't be used in this debate, on which, London's future as a number one destination for business and tourism could be put at risk..
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
Ummm... I think the rule was that you had to make it clear that you were from a political party. We're not against information, just pro the transparency of it's source.
-
-
FYI:
Richard Branson Supports Third Heathrow Runway
Virgin Atlantic boss Sir Richard Branson has said there is an "overwhelming" case for a third runway to be built at Heathrow Airport.
In the most impassioned statement yet made in support of the plans to develop Heathrow, Branson argued that a third runway and sixth terminal was needed for a variety of reasons.
Writing in The Times, he claimed Heathrow "will become a symbol of British decline".
He said the country would suffer economically if the expansion plans were not approved.
He added that expansion was necessary to cope with the natural "desire" for travel, and the expected increase in this desire over coming decades.
Branson also allied himself with British Airways' Chief Executive, Willie Walsh, who last week attacked those who criticise the development plans on environmental grounds. Branson said the environmental case for Heathrow's development was sound, and that improvements in aircraft design - especially fuel efficiency - would offset the increase in flights brought by the development.
Heathrow Expansion Economic Case
Branson provided a stark warning about Britain's future economic performance if Heathrow was not developed: "Exports would slow and headquarters would be moved to vibrant countries that are investing in new capacity and infrastructure. Global corporations will turn their back on London in favour of better connected cities", he argued.
He added: "Tens of thousands of jobs will be lost to France, Germany, Holland and Spain. There would also be a decline in the number of flights from regional UK airports such as Aberdeen and Belfast to Heathrow, contributing to the decline of regional economies".
"If a third runway isn't built at Heathrow, you can guarantee other airports will expand to meet that demand. Does the UK really want to shift the demand to fly - and the thousands of jobs that depend directly on the air travel business - to its European rivals?" he wrote.
The Virgin Atlantic chief attacked critics of the expansion plans, including Conservative leader David Cameron, who believe the economic value of transit passengers through Heathrow is overstated.
Branson said: "Transit passengers are one of the prime reasons why airlines fly to so many destinations from Heathrow. If these passengers disappear, so would the choice of routes and the frequency, forcing passengers from London to fly via European hubs...this transit traffic supports key routes, such as to Nairobi, Los Angeles and Bombay, giving greater opportunity for British passengers to travel there".
The Heathrow expansion economic case is also supported, Branson said, because people have a natural "desire to travel - whether for pleasure or work", and because this desire for travel is expected to grow over the next 40 years.
Heathrow Runway Environmental Effect
Branson also said those who oppose Heathrow's expansion on environmental grounds have not considered seriously enough the improvements that are being made in aircraft design technology, particularly on fuel efficiency.
By the time a third runway would become operational, Branson said, "many of the aircraft flying in our skies today will have been replaced. The next generation of planes will be even more advanced than the innovative aircraft now entering service....these aircraft are up to 30% more fuel-efficient than anything flying today...Just think what will be flying when a third runway is up and running".
The Virgin boss also said "there is a sound environmental case for a third runway" because it would mean aircraft can more promptly, meaning "hundreds of planes a day won't have to circle overhead for hours, each of them adding to emissions and noise levels".
In closing, Branson said Britain "is being held back by a lack of long-term investment in transport infrastructure", and that Heathrow's expansion was a chance to improve this record.
Source - Airport International's London Reporter
-
-
Do we really want transit passengers? I know if I "transit" through Sydney from Wellington I pay no Sydney departure tax. I assume it's the same for London.
I hope they're financing this with their own money. Short term interest rates rocketed today. Maybe the Chinese can pay for it...
-
-
One last story of interest:
BAA, British Airways Criticise Cameron's Heathrow Speech
The bosses of British Airways and airports operator BAA have both criticised Conservative Party leader David Cameron, who last week attacked the plans to expand Heathrow Airport.
BAA boss Colin Matthews and BA Chief Executive Willie Walsh presented a united front at the Transport Times aviation conference in London.
Cameron last week said the Conservatives would not be supporting Heathrow's expansion plans to include a third runway and a sixth terminal by 2020. He said the idea that Heathrow should become a larger global hub airport was "flawed", because the economic value of transfer passengers was overstated.
At the conference Walsh lambasted this viewpoint, saying Cameron's argument "does not bear examination".
Walsh said: "[Cameron's] suggestion is extremely insulting to the millions of UK residents in the north of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland who regularly fly to Heathrow to catch connections to distant parts of the globe to win or maintain business and jobs for Britain".
Matthews and Walsh both went on to launch a spirited defence of the Heathrow expansion plans, saying the development is needed if the UK is to maintain pace economically in future.
Heathrow Flight Transfers
Walsh said the key benefit of transfer passengers was that they helped to run routes, such as those to Manchester and regional airports like Leeds-Bradford and Newcastle, "that otherwise would not be financially viable".
In addition, he argued, "the critical financial strength of transfer passengers means that Heathrow can offer a far bigger network of direct, long-haul services for people who want a non-stop journey from London than would otherwise be the case".
Walsh implied that Cameron did not perhaps understand the true value that transfer passengers brought to the country, saying that "the business community understands the importance of being linked".
Matthews, BAA's chief executive, supported Walsh in his speech by saying Heathrow flight transfers provided an important economic contribution to the capital city and beyond.
He said: "Does anybody seriously think that if people living and working, not just in London, but in the rest of the country, were forced to go to Charles De Gaulle, or Schipol to fly to the rest of the world our economy would not suffer?".
London First Heathrow Report
Matthews continued to dismiss Cameron's statement that the Heathrow expansion case was "flawed" by arguing that Heathrow plays a critical, unique role in the UK economy because it is the country's only global hub airport.
He dismissed business group London First's report on Heathrow, released yesterday, which argued that Heathrow's current congestion could be alleviated by reducing the number of flights from the airport.
Matthews said doing this would effectively reduce Heathrow "to a regional airport on the margins of Europe - at a time when this country's direct connections to the rest of the world could not be more important".
He added that keeping up an extensive range of global connections was "essential" if London and the UK's economy was to succeed in the future.
Source - Airport International's London Reporter
-
-
"Ummm... I think the rule was that you had to make it clear that you were from a political party. We're not against information, just pro the transparency of it's source" - well that's not what I was told...
-
-
Well keep going, I like you stirring things up.
-
Permalink Reply by Adam on
-
Business Argument for Heathrow Expansion Rejected
Call reveals divisions within the business community
Campaign Group HACAN has rejected the view expressed by some of the countries businesses that Heathrow needs to expand for the UK to retain access to global markets, particularly those from the fast-emerging economies of China and India, is misplaced (1). HACAN argues that the way forward is to cut the number of slots at Heathrow available to short-haul flights. This would free up space for an increase in long-haul flights from the developing economies of India and China without the need to expand the airport.
HACAN Chair John Stewart said, “A survey we carried out in 2006 showed that well over a third of the flights currently using the airport are to short-haul destinations in the UK and Europe. Paris remains Heathrow’s top destination with over fifty flights on a typical day. It is these flights which are clogging up the airport’s runways.”
HACAN also argued that it was not valid to compare Heathrow with Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt. Stewart said, “It is not comparing like with like. The more valid comparison is between all the airports serving London and all the airports in those other cities. When this is done, the figures show that more passengers use London’s airports than any those at other city in the world. Our nearest European rival, Paris, is in fifth place, with Amsterdam and Frankfurt outside the top ten.”
Stewart added, “The fact is that London already has excellent air links to the rest of the world. They can get better. But that does not dependent on Heathrow expansion. It requires the Government to ask itself whether over 200,000 flights a year serving short-haul destinations is really the way to turn Heathrow into London’s premium business airport. This latest call for expansion shows just how divided the business community is on the Heathrow expansion. Earlier this year London First, representing big business in London, put the emphasis on a better rather than bigger Heathrow. And Bob Ayling, the former boss of British Airways, has said that Heathrow expansion would be ‘a costly mistake (2)’.”
ENDS
Notes for Editors:
(1). The view has been expressed in full page adverts in some of today’s national newspapers taken out by some of the country’s businesses.
(2). Writing in the Sunday Times 4/5/08
-
Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on
-
Copying and pasting what Branson says (the hypocritical git) doesn't prove anything to me. All he wants is domination, he hasn’t got it in the skies yet but has it on the railways on the west coast, where he doesn’t have any competition from other companies, and so he charges what the hell he wants. Thanks for privatisation of the rail network.
London can be a top tourist destination; especially for a lot our European cousins who can be here in no time by train, should we have the will.
The rail industry should have the same tax free perks and subsidies that the aviation industry enjoys. Flying internally in the UK shouldn’t be encouraged, rail travel should. The fact that flying costs far more than catching a train, which is completely insane.
Any flight over built up areas is a risk, the increase in flights means the increase in risks.
I’m not against flying; it’s just become so unnecessary for a large part. Businesses now have videoconferences with others world wide instead of needlessly flying everywhere.
What about a fourth or fifth runway, why not stop at three? Short term gain, long term pain. I am against any increase in runway or airport expansion. So much for Tory green policies!
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh on
-
For the avoidance of doubt, this website's position on politics and political postings is clearly laid out on this page which can be found via the More Content tab.
David Schmitz has set out his afilitaions on his page, he's linked to the Tottenham Lib Dems site in his posting and there is no party politicking included in his post. I saw no reason to pull this post.
-
-
"So much for Tory green policies!" What the devil are you talking about, Birdy_too? Firstly, I said I was speaking in a personal capacity and, secondly, if you re-read my posts you will see that both Boris Johnson and David Cameron area AGAINST the proposed third runway. Both are wrong in my view. We politicos can't win, can we? If we slavishly follow the party line we're slammed and now, it could, seem we are for being free thinkers.
-
-
Well for such an integral part of their new 'look', it does seem to go against the Tory traditional line. What they say now and what they say in power are different. Just look at the North-South tram link and Boris's opinion on that and how it's changed!
Don't trust Cameron or Bonkers on this, they will change their 'mind', believe you me.
And of course aviation has nothing to do with the proposed increase of damage it causes over the next twenty five years:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dm7d5
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
