The Bull  permalink

Thames estuary airport

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 51 - 94 of 94
  • Message 51

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    One thing I have always wondered about air travel and transportation...Is it really as necessary as it once was? I was reading a Jeremy Clarkson book (stay with me!) that had a section about Concorde.In it he said that one of the reasons that Concorde retired was that it was too slow,that Mach 2 was trumped by the internet.If you really needed to be in direct contact with New York you could do it in minutes rather than 4 hours...

    Now Im not a luddite on all this,but I wonder whether that given that our infrastructures rely on a finite resource should we be building another airport or building another super port?Cargo ships carry far more than aircraft can,but obviously a lot slower.Does the world need to rethink its logistical chain?

    I would be interested to hear views.Im not anti airports as such but I do wonder whether they are an answer to future problems?I wonder what will happen when hypersonic aircraft come along? 
    I totally agree - I am inclined to think that mass air transit was largely a product of cheap oil in the 20th century, and while the demand for air travel is still there, the oil increasingly will not be. Plus I don't think the aviation industry can go on increasing its pollution (CO2) when all other aspects of life are having to cut down because of international treaties. It is to some extent yesterday's technology.

    As for hypersonic travel, yes in theory it could be good for very long trips because if the plane manages to escape most of the Earth's atmosphere it will need relatively little fuel to propel it, but seeing as the technical challenge of building a new supersonic airliner is probably beyond the resources and capability of the current aircraft manufacturers, I don't see it happening any time soon. They would probably be broke long before they developed a hypersonic airliner.

    Report message1

  • Message 52

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by auldhairy (U14258268) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Boris Johnson wrong on Heathrow third runway, says Cameron

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/u...

    Report message2

  • Message 53

    , in reply to message 48.

    Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    One thing I have always wondered about air travel and transportation...Is it really as necessary as it once was? 

    I am sure transportation. in this country, is as necessary as it once was, but I does seem that the exponential GROWTH of transportation, which has probably been happening for the last 2 centuries at least, is perhaps coming to an end. Car use and ownership has peaked. There is strong growth in public transport, particularly trains and London buses, which hopefully indicates that travel is becoming more efficient ie less (though bigger) vehicles moving about.

    However if you look at the picture world wide, it would seem that the bilions of people in China, India, Latin America and other countries will want to be travelling around the world a lot more, even if only for holidays. So I think the assumption has to be that international airports, and particularly the main hub ones, will continue to see strong growth for a considerable time to come.

    Report message3

  • Message 54

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by Todaymueller - (U8053762) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Didn't we chop down all our ancient forests to make wooden ships? Not a very ecologically sound thing to do.
    The shorter the take off the more fuel you need to do it [ up to a point ] .
    I agree that in an ideal world new airports would not be needed. But we live in a world that is far from ideal.

    Report message4

  • Message 55

    , in reply to message 54.

    Posted by goodlookingone (U6012246) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    Didn't we chop down all our ancient forests to make wooden ships? 
    We did indeed. When The RAF was formed from Naval and Army elements, it inherited a patch of land- formerly Forest, but by 1917 had become a wide flat field. Thus Fairlop Aerodrome was born. After WW II it was planned to become London's Airport. Unfortunately Housing was also needed and a Large part of the Field became a Housing Estate, another part , Industrial, and the remainder to Gravel extraction land fill.. Just imagine if London had chosen dthe Airport instead of squandering it, an now asking Kent/Essex to donate space to London's failures..

    Report message5

  • Message 56

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    < Just imagine if London had chosen dthe Airport instead of squandering it, an now asking Kent/Essex to donate space to London's failures. >

    I suppose this is a joke, but in case not: what nonsense.

    1) London didn't choose any airport (except London City, which perfectly meets your bizarre requirement of siting within the LA boundary) and won't choose the next one.
    2) Heathrow was built in Middlesex, and the international airport before that, Croydon, in Surrey.
    and
    3) A business that outgrows its site isn't a failure.

    Report message6

  • Message 57

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Taff Agent of kaos-solitary man (U9229223) on Saturday, 3rd November 2012

    I've always thought RAF Upper Heyford should be an option...just off the M40...centralish England & the runways take HUGE airplanes....

    That's assuming we really need more, skype & internet should stop a lot unnecessary business junkets, tourism ...not personally bothered & freight is the only important consideration IMHO.  
    tony blair did the wrong thing

    instead of closing lyneham and moving it all to brize norton, he should have moved it all to lyneham and then made brize norton, Oxford/London international airport, its 1 hour down dual carridge way and motor way from central london

    Report message7

  • Message 58

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Didn't we chop down all our ancient forests to make wooden ships? 
    We did indeed. When The RAF was formed from Naval and Army elements, it inherited a patch of land- formerly Forest, but by 1917 had become a wide flat field. Thus Fairlop Aerodrome was born. After WW II it was planned to become London's Airport. Unfortunately Housing was also needed and a Large part of the Field became a Housing Estate, another part , Industrial, and the remainder to Gravel extraction land fill.. Just imagine if London had chosen dthe Airport instead of squandering it, an now asking Kent/Essex to donate space to London's failures..  

    The Romans chopped down more of Britain's forests than anyone else, mostly for farm land, making Britain the bread basket of the Western Empire.
    Epping forest still covered much of Essex when the Vikings turned up looking for timber, still the largest forest in the country back then. This was stripped for ships like Nelson's Victory built at Chatham just up river from Grain (Medway)

    Report message8

  • Message 59

    , in reply to message 58.

    Posted by the_shellgrottolady (U2395646) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    I think this is a Boris ego trip and the whole airport project based on his vanity - they are calling it Boris island. And yes, I think he is THAT shallow.
    I wonder about the shenanigans and inducements going on behind the scenes too...obviously I'm not accusing anyone of accepting backhanders but this is a major development. you can't tell me that everyone is working for the good of the country and not self interest.

    They can carry on building airports til the cows come home...there'll never be enough, all the time the budget airlines make popping over to wherever for a weekend a must have option.
    Once this one gets too busy they'll look for another location. How many airports do you want? Are they really that vital for prosperity and trade?
    Or is it just to fill the pockets of stavros and what'shis name - ryan air boss - or other similar gits....

    There may only be birds or eel grass or whatver nature is affected by this, but once its gone , its gone and will never come back.
    Yes, the Romans and Vikings chopped down trees but that's not a reason for building an extra airport.

    shell

    Report message9

  • Message 60

    , in reply to message 59.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    >They can carry on building airports til the cows come home...there'll never be enough, all the time the budget airlines make popping over to wherever for a weekend a must have option.<

    Yes, they'll never have enough and will want to build more right up to the point where the price of oil skyrockets to such an extent that all of a sudden they have too many and don't know what to do with them.

    Report message10

  • Message 61

    , in reply to message 59.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    So the arguments against replacing one large airport with a larger one elsewhere are
    1) There will be more airports built somewhere yet further else in the future, and
    2) Some individuals whom you dislike personally will somehow have their pockets filled (heaven knows how, since the airlines they are interested in don't use Heathrow at the moment).

    Oh, and where the human race does something, other species give way.

    OK. Carry on.

    Report message11

  • Message 62

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by the_shellgrottolady (U2395646) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    Whatever

    Shell

    Report message12

  • Message 63

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by La Bez (U14670366) on Sunday, 4th November 2012


    It is a hub. Where people change planes. A US businessmen booking tickets to Shanghai will be totally indifferent as to which country the intermediate airport is situated in. He won't think; 'I see I am on an island in the Thames estuary for the next 30 minutes. I'll just nip into Rochester and find something to invest in.' 

    This is true - although on the whole OH would prefer to fly via the UK (and use a UK airline for the onward trip) when he is flying to Bangalore on business which is becoming a more frequent occurence. At the moment he can either fly via the UAE or, as is mostly the case, via the more frequent connections in Europe. Notably Frankfurt - even returning the last time when he had to travel to London as well he ended up having to fly via Frankfurt to get to London on time for the meetings he needed to be at.

    The bigger point, he says, for the UK though is that businesses in those developing markets are looking for ease of connection. Space at Heathrow is limited and cannot accomodate additional flights from those markets over the ones it already takes. Consequently when they look at Europe for setting up any European investment they are looking at cities, such as Frankfurt, which can accomodate them. And so the UK loses out on that investment.

    Report message13

  • Message 64

    , in reply to message 63.

    Posted by Todaymueller - (U8053762) on Sunday, 4th November 2012

    The businness traveler may not get off his plane and wander into Rochester and buy an antique and a pint of spitfire. But all the people that work at the airport plus all the other people in the supply chain will.

    Report message14

  • Message 65

    , in reply to message 64.

    Posted by Buttey (U14563284) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    The businness traveler may not get off his plane and wander into Rochester and buy an antique and a pint of spitfire. But all the people that work at the airport plus all the other people in the supply chain will.  
    Of course the business traveller who chooses to experience the Medway Towns after returning from, say Kolcata or Kinshasa, will be shocked at the poverty and deprivation that they simply won't be used to.

    Report message15

  • Message 66

    , in reply to message 63.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    < The bigger point, he says, for the UK though is that businesses in those developing markets are looking for ease of connection. >

    Quite so.

    Some facts:

    About 35% of H'row users are transiting to other flights.

    H'row serves 8 other UK cities with (a few) connecting flights; Amsterdam Schiphol serves 16.

    Schiphol recently announced 8 new services to cities in China (that no UK airport serves, I'm guessing).

    Report message16

  • Message 67

    , in reply to message 66.

    Posted by Former Archers Listener known as Fausto etc (U14266958) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    If an estuary airport is so important for a relative handful of businessmen to go on their expenses jollys, how many of these will have to happen www.dailymail.co.uk/... before we start to systematically exterminate several species of birds?

    Report message17

  • Message 68

    , in reply to message 67.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    I don't know; do you? How many do you think are likely to happen?

    What's a crash into New York City 11 years ago got to do with birds in the UK, any way?

    Report message18

  • Message 69

    , in reply to message 68.

    Posted by Former Archers Listener known as Fausto etc (U14266958) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    The New York incident was attributed to a possible bird strike.
    Some hundreds of thousand of birds migrate to the Thames estuary each winter. Most fly in large flocks and are sizeable birds.

    Report message19

  • Message 70

    , in reply to message 69.

    Posted by the_shellgrottolady (U2395646) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    Well quite, Fausto....
    and it is typical that Johnson is taking an area that has had so much industry and pollution dumped on it in the past ,and proposing getting rid of the few natural areas and wild life sites that are already there.

    Its not just the airport. what about the noise pollution for people living under the flight paths in this densly populated area surrounding the site, the road links and all the infrastructure that will have to be put in place?


    Speaking, slightly off topic about boris johnson....and i confess i am not a fan....has anyone notice how often people in the media hint at a "colourful private "life....without actually saying any details about this?
    It just seems that whenever his name is mentioned someone in the know seems to do a nod nod winky thing and hint that there are rumours. I haven't heard them but wondered if it was common knowledge.

    Report message20

  • Message 71

    , in reply to message 70.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    < and it is typical that Johnson is taking an area that has had so much industry and pollution dumped on it in the past ,and proposing getting rid of the few natural areas and wild life sites that are already there. >

    1) < Typical > in what way, of whom or what? What does it matter any way? The idea either stands or falls on its merits, whether or not it's < typical >, doesn't it?
    2) Most people, I suggest, would think that if one is looking for a site for a large economic activity, somewhere that has had industry and pollution dumped on it in the past would be more suitable (when cleaned up) than somewhere currently unspoiled. It's sometimes called "brownfield development", and considered a good thing.
    3) Fact: "Johnson" has already provided (with London's money, goodlookingone) an additional/potential partial substitute wildlife reserve along the coast, and is discussing with the RSPB sites for another, that would replace any land taken for the airport.

    And to talk of the Isle of Grain as a < densely populated area > compared with West London is just surreal.

    Report message21

  • Message 72

    , in reply to message 71.

    Posted by Former Archers Listener known as Fausto etc (U14266958) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    3) Fact: "Johnson" has already provided (with London's money, goodlookingone) an additional/potential partial substitute wildlife reserve along the coast, and is discussing with the RSPB sites for another, that would replace any land taken for the airport. 

    Does he also suggest sending envoys with bird language to Scandanavia, Iceland, Greenland etc to advise the bird populations they need to go elsewhere as a new migration site has been developed for them?

    New wildlife sites are always welcome, but it is a far more complex problem than relocating a travellers camp, and we have seen how fraught with problems that can be.

    Report message22

  • Message 73

    , in reply to message 71.

    Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    3) Fact: "Johnson" has already provided (with London's money, goodlookingone) an additional/potential partial substitute wildlife reserve along the coast, and is discussing with the RSPB sites for another, that would replace any land taken for the airport. 

    Can you provide details?

    Report message23

  • Message 74

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    It was said by Mr J's hired expert who is running the scheme, in the public debate part-broadcast by Radio Kent last Friday and Saturday (#2 above).

    It's here, starting about 45 mins in and lasting a little under an hour, including breaks:
    www.bbc.co.uk/progra...

    (4 days left to listen)

    Report message24

  • Message 75

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by kentishmannotmanofkent (U14273453) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    I live close to where the airport would be located and I support the idea of an Estuary Airport wholeheartedly. The benefits are too obvious to enumerate and anybody who has lived in this area long enough to remember the Naval Dockyard at Chatham will remember also how that closure had a massive and detrimental effect on local business that lasted way longer than a decade. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the Medway towns haven't really got over it even now.

    People talk about the environmental effect on what is an enormous area of wildlife habitation, literally hundreds of square miles over East Essex and North and East Kent.

    An airport in the middle of the estury is only going to affect a small part.

    Infrastructure will increase with new roads and a new Thames Estuary crossing that will relieve pressure on the M25 by the way. But, as we've seen with the new Channel Tunnel rail link, the final impact is fractional compared to the scaremongering of the protesters.

    Report message25

  • Message 76

    , in reply to message 75.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    Indeed. At the abovementioned public debate, a man from some sort of local development association pleaded, NOT for the airport per se, but for people to at least consider the upside - which the protesters and Medway Council etc. seemed not to have done at all.

    The Medway Council man did in fact consider employment, but in the most extraordinarily dismissive way. Jobs at an airport - "ten thousand baggage handlers", he said, and that's all - weren't worth having. His council and others had the plan for employment, in the form of "upskilling" the people. Like every other LA in the country, and the national government, in fact. Well, that's no doubt good as far as it goes, but good luck with it for providing tens of thousands of jobs, is all I can say. But apparently the Council just doesn't want tens of thousands of jobs ...

    (BTW, even a baggage handler needs some skills that not everyone has ...)

    Report message26

  • Message 77

    , in reply to message 76.

    Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    It would surely benefit the local economy to have the esturay airport, but where is the money to build it going to come from?

    Report message27

  • Message 78

    , in reply to message 71.

    Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    3) Fact: "Johnson" has already provided (with London's money, goodlookingone) an additional/potential partial substitute wildlife reserve along the coast, and is discussing with the RSPB sites for another, that would replace any land taken for the airport. 

    I think I have found it; I think 'fact' is rather stretching it.

    Crossrail found a happy solution to the problem of dumping their spoil by using it to enhance the RSPB project to recreate tidal flats at Wallasey. Like a typical politician, Boris now spins this as him kindly creating a wildlife reserve!

    (Incidentally, the Wallasey reserve is not 'additional'. Rather it is a partial replacement for larger areas being lost elsewhere.)

    But what is more misleading is the 'wildlife reserve' bit. Yes, you can create a special reserve of a similar size to those actually buried under concrete, but of course most wildlife does confine itself to those official reserves; it uses and depends on the whole area. For example, the required dredging and the change to tidal flows will be far more destructive to the whole ecosystem than the complete loss of any particular hectare.

    Personally, when it comes to the environment I think Boris will tick the required boxes and find a suitable spin, but I don't think he cares. Maybe that is understandable; the marshes aren't lovely in the conventional sense. Personally, I find the landscape dramatic and would give a lot to preserve it, besides generally wanting a future where we live with the natural world. But other people would concrete the lot if it meant a few pounds in their pocket.

    And that is the trouble with an enquiry framed in terms of costs and profits when the real objection is often simply; 'I love the area the way it is'.

    Report message28

  • Message 79

    , in reply to message 78.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    It will probably need an awful lot of spoil and effort to build the airport up high enough to avoid getting flooded by storm surges and global warming increasing sea level. Maybe the money should be spent on better flood defenses for London. The Dutch are spending a fortune on improving their defenses.

    Report message29

  • Message 80

    , in reply to message 78.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    < I think 'fact' is rather stretching it.
    ...
    (Incidentally, the Wallasey reserve is not 'additional'. Rather it is a partial replacement for larger areas being lost elsewhere.) >

    OK, you've (probably) heard the words more recently than I. But in my simple world, either the thing's there or it isn't; and if it is, it's a fact. Is it there?

    By 'additional', I meant additional to what is currently on Grain and threatened by the airport plan. It is, is it not?

    < And that is the trouble with an enquiry framed in terms of costs and profits when the real objection is often simply; 'I love the area the way it is'. >

    Absolutely! Except that I would substitute 'benefits' for 'profits' - not that I accept that profits are per se a bad thing, as you seem to think. My problem is only with those who pose the 'I love ...' as the knock-down argument, allowing no further discussion.








    Report message30

  • Message 81

    , in reply to message 70.

    Posted by Davey Watts (U15237982) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    Well quite, Fausto....
    and it is typical that Johnson is taking an area that has had so much industry and pollution dumped on it in the past ,and proposing getting rid of the few natural areas and wild life sites that are already there.

    Its not just the airport. what about the noise pollution for people living under the flight paths in this densly populated area surrounding the site, the road links and all the infrastructure that will have to be put in place?


    Speaking, slightly off topic about boris johnson....and i confess i am not a fan....has anyone notice how often people in the media hint at a "colourful private "life....without actually saying any details about this?
    It just seems that whenever his name is mentioned someone in the know seems to do a nod nod winky thing and hint that there are rumours. I haven't heard them but wondered if it was common knowledge. 
    "Well quite, Fausto....
    and it is typical that Johnson is taking an area that has had so much industry and pollution dumped on it in the past ,and proposing getting rid of the few natural areas and wild life sites that are already there."
    What wild life sites would these be then?
    "Its not just the airport. what about the noise pollution for people living under the flight paths in this densly populated area surrounding the site, the road links and all the infrastructure that will have to be put in place?"
    Considering the proposal is for planes to take off into the estuary, which is over the sea, then the noise would be minimal. I don't think you'll find any densly populated areas. What areas are you thinking of?
    "It just seems that whenever his name is mentioned someone in the know seems to do a nod nod winky thing and hint that there are rumours. I haven't heard them but wondered if it was common knowledge."
    Who are those in the know doing the nod nod winky thing?
    Considering you, or anyone else, haven't heard these "rumours" then they probably aren't true. Unless you know otherwise.

    Report message31

  • Message 82

    , in reply to message 79.

    Posted by Morty Vicar (U2247272) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    Poorgrass (and others above),

    Yes, the thing would cost a lot of money, and that includes all sorts of factors like provision for wildlife. We can assume the promotors know that, and that it won't go ahead if enough money can't be found.

    London will need more flood protection any way, in the next 20-30 years at latest, so there is no choice there between that and an airport. In fact, the Grain plan is well situated to contribute to those works (according to a man at the public debate above). So to some (small, no doubt) extent, the same money would serve both purposes.

    Report message32

  • Message 83

    , in reply to message 82.

    Posted by the_shellgrottolady (U2395646) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    Morty
    Well the planes aren't going to materialise over the airport are they?
    They will have to fly there so there will be a flight path. the traffic links to london will have to be expanded on , there will be an ecological impact and how do we know it is a sane or sensible option?

    It is a huge project and the grandeur will appeal to the mayor and I think that it is very important to him and that makes me distrust it.
    Look at Spain at the moment to see an example of a huge airport
    Here's a link.
    www.businessinsider....

    And thank you for pointing out that west london is more populated than the isle of grain. the things you learn eh...

    As to the rumours about Boris, I honestly don't know if there is anything suspect, but there does seem to be a hint that there may be rumours out there.
    My rumour radar is very finely tuned ...Davey...
    It just that everytime the mayor is mentioned by comedians , OK HIGNFY is not a great example , but they certainly do it...they make the same dig about Boris being a bit of a player when it comes to women.
    That's not a hanging offence or illegal. Its just that I've heard this insinuation quite a few times now and it is always the same aspect of his character they mock.
    So I just wondered what his reputation was really.
    And before anyone tells me that I am nosy and its none of my business - I quite agree. But to me it seems like there's some kind of in joke going on that us the public is not party to. So of course it's interesting.
    cheers all



    Report message33

  • Message 84

    , in reply to message 83.

    Posted by Davey Watts (U15237982) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    "My rumour radar is very finely tuned ...Davey...
    It just that everytime the mayor is mentioned by comedians , OK HIGNFY is not a great example , but they certainly do it...they make the same dig about Boris being a bit of a player when it comes to women"

    That could be true but he's whole persona makes him an easy target. Regarding the airport plan itself it would be a welcome boost to what is a poor relation in the South East. Although expensive, cost wise, it allows much needed expansion of air traffic in an already congested area.

    Report message34

  • Message 85

    , in reply to message 83.

    Posted by wycombewanderer (U3114853) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    The prevailing wind is a westerly which aircraft take off and land into.
    Aircraft routinely have to fly low and slow across london on their approach, this gives rise to noise and poillution, that would be largely avoided to an airport in the estuary and the four hourly changes to runway and direction of approach which is operated at heathrow would be avoided.

    Report message35

  • Message 86

    , in reply to message 84.

    Posted by the_shellgrottolady (U2395646) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    Well , we'll see what happens with the airport.
    I don't like it but what I think about it ,won't make any difference.
    Did you have a look at the link?

    They have built so much in Spain (and ireland too i think) and have run out of money.
    The link shows a satellite image of a completely desolate new airport in spain. . It is really eerie actually...
    Spain have done nothing wrong and are now in deep s***...

    As for boris...yes an easy target , so why always the same thing when there is so much to mock...
    but I'll bow out now...
    shell

    Report message36

  • Message 87

    , in reply to message 85.

    Posted by Former Archers Listener known as Fausto etc (U14266958) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    The prevailing wind is a westerly which aircraft take off and land into.
    Aircraft routinely have to fly low and slow across london on their approach, this gives rise to noise and poillution, that would be largely avoided to an airport in the estuary and the four hourly changes to runway and direction of approach which is operated at heathrow would be avoided. 


    that would be largely avoided to an airport in the estuary  


    There would just be huge flocks of large geese to get sucked into engines causing failure instead.

    Report message37

  • Message 88

    , in reply to message 87.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    Yes, airports need quite sophisticated bird scaring systems so it's going to have a big effect on the birds. As shown in New York a couple of years back, Canada geese can turn something like a Airbus into a very expensive glider, so I suspect any new airport will want to clear all of the migrating birds from the whole vicinity.

    Report message38

  • Message 89

    , in reply to message 88.

    Posted by wycombewanderer (U3114853) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    Well if you think there're no canada geese on the approaches to Heathrow then think again!

    Report message39

  • Message 90

    , in reply to message 87.

    Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    The prevailing wind is a westerly which aircraft take off and land into.
    Aircraft routinely have to fly low and slow across london on their approach, this gives rise to noise and poillution, that would be largely avoided to an airport in the estuary and the four hourly changes to runway and direction of approach which is operated at heathrow would be avoided. 


    that would be largely avoided to an airport in the estuary  


    There would just be huge flocks of large geese to get sucked into engines causing failure instead.  

    The geese are feeding on the mud flats and they only fly a few feet off the water when they do move, saves them energy.

    Report message40

  • Message 91

    , in reply to message 90.

    Posted by Former Archers Listener known as Fausto etc (U14266958) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    The geese are feeding on the mud flats and they only fly a few feet off the water when they do move, saves them energy. 

    On the mud flats at low tide and roost on land at high tide. I have seen flocks of 500 or so Brent Geese flying at circa 500 ft.
    Flocks of a 1000 plovers, godwits etc are not uncommon..
    Marsh Harriers will soar at a considerable height and drop quickly Sheppey has probably the largest population of these in the UK.

    Report message41

  • Message 92

    , in reply to message 75.

    Posted by LooseWheel (U2499574) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    I live close to where the airport would be located 

    Me too Kentishman, and I grew up in Medway and know very well what happened with the demise of the dockyard - I still live less than 30 miles away. This airport was proposed at least two decades ago, long before BJ had any involvement so I don't see why it's being touted as his 'vanity project', though he may have jumped on the bandwagon. It's funny how people who have absolutely no current local experience of the day to day deprivation in North Kent can be so happy to dismiss something which may well help to revitalise the area (okay, it might not, there are no guarantees, but the alternative seems to be pretty much stagnation).
    LW x

    Report message42

  • Message 93

    , in reply to message 91.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    There are a lot of lakes round where I live and it's quite common to see Canada and other geese flying at height, as well as other birds such as herons and cormorants. I agree it's not true that they stay at ground level. The whole point about any new airport is that it will have to be a complete no go area for many species of birds and from the wildlife point of view it will make the area much poorer.

    But then again I think the whole thinking behind this expanding airports is one of couldn't give a damn about the environment. The people behind it still seem to be in denial about the risk of dangerous climate change, or else they don't care or expect somebody else to cut down drastically. Nor do they care about noise and degradation of the local environment, as long as rich businessmen that want to fly everywhere are not inconvenienced.

    Report message43

  • Message 94

    , in reply to message 91.

    Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 5th November 2012

    The geese are feeding on the mud flats and they only fly a few feet off the water when they do move, saves them energy. 

    On the mud flats at low tide and roost on land at high tide. I have seen flocks of 500 or so Brent Geese flying at circa 500 ft.
    Flocks of a 1000 plovers, godwits etc are not uncommon..
    Marsh Harriers will soar at a considerable height and drop quickly Sheppey has probably the largest population of these in the UK.  

    I sail out in the estuary with them, they come straight at me in their V formation only banking away at the last moment. they either have poor eyesight or fly with their eyes closed.
    They get extra lift by flying close to the water and the planes landing at Southend have no trouble with them.
    The flight path is directly over their feeding grounds at Two Tree Island in the estuary and from the opposite direction the Crouch/ / Blackwater feeding grounds.

    Report message44

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.