bungle Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 so...what if i cant be arsed, wont or cant afford that day to pay..what will stop me abusing the system...? How do you get through the barrier? Also, there are methods of catching "rat running" drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 8 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 8 December, 2008 The whole railway system needs reform, delldays, yes. At the moment, the railways will get capacity in 2015, which is why we need to start spending massive money in improving it. Sadly, this government will not do that. why should the government do it...the railways are private are they not...just like the air industy...why should WE pay for the reformation of the railways when they alrady screw us with fares today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 It's 1hr 15 minutes to fly from London to Edinburgh. For some people, time is more important than money.... Have you factored in check-in for flights? A few years ago I had to go to Manchester and decided to fly. The time it took to drive to Heathrow, check in a couple of hours before the flight and then get a taxi from Manchester to Salford probably took longer than a train trip would have. I don't fly now - anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 The whole railway system needs reform, delldays, yes. At the moment, the railways will get capacity in 2015, which is why we need to start spending massive money in improving it. Sadly, this government will not do that. What if we scrapped the railway network all together and just used planes? After all the Ozone layer is closing back up isn't it, and we are still pumping that nasty CO2 into the atmosphere. Oh, and the global warming that CO2 was to blame for has stopped too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 8 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 8 December, 2008 How do you get through the barrier? Also, there are methods of catching "rat running" drivers. so, you are saying we should have barriers at each end of all these tolled roads....which, will be the busiest in the land no doubt.... jesus, are you for real..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 8 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Have you factored in check-in for flights? A few years ago I had to go to Manchester and decided to fly. The time it took to drive to Heathrow, check in a couple of hours before the flight and then get a taxi from Manchester to Salford probably took longer than a train trip would have. I don't fly now - anywhere. i have flown from southampton to glasgow before let me tell you...it was a damn sight quicker than going by train....and alot cheaper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 (edited) Have you factored in check-in for flights? A few years ago I had to go to Manchester and decided to fly. The time it took to drive to Heathrow, check in a couple of hours before the flight and then get a taxi from Manchester to Salford probably took longer than a train trip would have. I don't fly now - anywhere. 1. You can check in 'online' before you fly - or even at a self check in computer when you get there. Providing you have no luggage it is a 1 minute job. 2. Internal flights require only 20 minutes to check in, not two hours. 3. You would have to drive to the train station to catch the train anyway. 4. You would still need to arrive before the train left - probably about 10 minutes to be safe. 5. We don't have, nor are we even close to having a high speed rail network. Edited 8 December, 2008 by Weston Super Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 8 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 8 December, 2008 1. You can check in 'online' before you fly - or even at a self check in computer when you get there. Providing you have no luggage it is a 1 minute job. 2. Internal flights require only 20 minutes to check in, not two hours. 3. You would have to drive to the train station to catch the train anyway. 4. You would still need to arrive before the train left - probably about 10 minutes to be safe. yep...british airways do the 5 min check in on international flights let alone internal flights and others are doing the same...it will be the norm soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 These airports are only struggling because of the ridiculous amounts of internal flights. If we spent decent money on high speed rail, and made getting the train affordable again, then we wouldn't "need" these extra runways. Quite frankly, I hope neither Stansted nor Heathrow gets their extra, unnecessary runways. Both Stansted and Heathrow need another Runway. Whenever an incident closed a runway at Heathrow, even only for 20 minutes or so, there is chaos with dosens of flights being delayed, often by more than an hour. Heathrow has the third most passengers anually in the World, yet it only has 2 runways. JFK has 4, Boston has 6, Denver has 6 CDG has 4, Amsterdam has 7... All of these have fewer passengers than Heathrow, which shows just how crowded that place is. Stansted is right on the limit. At peak times the runway is as busy as Heathrow and there is no way of getting more flights in and out of the airport. FYI Ryanair have three flights dailly from Stansted which go somewhere you could get to on a train or car, and they are all to Glasgow (16 hour round trip in a car, sounds like fun). This is out of over 100. As it is aircraft frequently have to hold at both airports, which means more time in the air, more fuel burned and more delays. Another runway would remove this need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 so, you are saying we should have barriers at each end of all these tolled roads....which, will be the busiest in the land no doubt.... jesus, are you for real..? At least he's thinking about alternatives whereas as you continue to adopt a 'I'm going to find fault with every alternative suggestion because, basically, I don't give a sh*t about the environment in the future for my children / grandchildren. I'm alright Jack' attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 8 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 8 December, 2008 At least he's thinking about alternatives whereas as you continue to adopt a 'I'm going to find fault with every alternative suggestion because, basically, I don't give a sh*t about the environment in the future for my children / grandchildren. I'm alright Jack' attitude. the country depends on the movement of goods and trade...the roads or full at peak times at best...imagine throwing in barriers at each end of an already packed motor way..? just not practical what so ever thanks for the little attack though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 1. You can check in 'online' before you fly - or even at a self check in computer when you get there. Providing you have no luggage it is a 1 minute job. 2. Internal flights require only 20 minutes to check in, not two hours. 3. You would have to drive to the train station to catch the train anyway. 4. You would still need to arrive before the train left - probably about 10 minutes to be safe. Everyone's circumstances are different, of course. But for me, it's a darned sight quicker to drive to Oxford to catch a train than it is to drive to any regional airport. However, I concede your point about check-in times. As I said earlier, I don't fly now on principle and the trip I was referring to was a few years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 At least he's thinking about alternatives whereas as you continue to adopt a 'I'm going to find fault with every alternative suggestion because, basically, I don't give a sh*t about the environment in the future for my children / grandchildren. I'm alright Jack' attitude. At the rate things are going, it's great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren. It's almost the same as saying that neanderthal man didn't give a monkeys about how many Great Woolly Mammoths he left for us to look at Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Everyone's circumstances are different, of course. But for me, it's a darned sight quicker to drive to Oxford to catch a train than it is to drive to any regional airport. However, I concede your point about check-in times. As I said earlier, I don't fly now on principle and the trip I was referring to was a few years ago. It wouldn't be if Oxford built a regional airport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Why do we have to charge more for drivers to pay for anything, just pay less money in benefits to the scroungers. Theres billions there. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 It wouldn't be if Oxford built a regional airport Oxford does have a regional airport, of sorts. But I bet you know that already Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 At the rate things are going, it's great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren. It's almost the same as saying that neanderthal man didn't give a monkeys about how many Great Woolly Mammoths he left for us to look at Yep. There are probably as many credible scientists who subscribe to the "global warming is a load of ********" theory as those who go along the Al Gore chain of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Have you factored in check-in for flights? A few years ago I had to go to Manchester and decided to fly. The time it took to drive to Heathrow, check in a couple of hours before the flight and then get a taxi from Manchester to Salford probably took longer than a train trip would have. I don't fly now - anywhere. Well, if you chose to go from Southampton to Manchester via London then well, that is stupid IMO. That must take what, 3 hours by car. You could spend over 1 1/2 hours getting from Southampton to Heathrow alone with bad traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Well, if you chose to go from Southampton to Manchester via London then well, that is stupid IMO. That must take what, 3 hours by car. You could spend over 1 1/2 hours getting from Southampton to Heathrow alone with bad traffic. Err I don't live in Southampton, sweetheart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Well, if you chose to go from Southampton to Manchester via London then well, that is stupid IMO. That must take what, 3 hours by car. You could spend over 1 1/2 hours getting from Southampton to Heathrow alone with bad traffic. She lives in Oxfordshire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 At least he's thinking about alternatives whereas as you continue to adopt a 'I'm going to find fault with every alternative suggestion because, basically, I don't give a sh*t about the environment in the future for my children / grandchildren. I'm alright Jack' attitude. Bridge, there are ways to minimise the impact of air travel on the enviroment without forcing passengers through third-world airports which have nowhere near the capacity to handle them. New aircraft like the A320/737NG, A350, A380, B787 and B777-300 can use as little as half the fuel of the aircraft they are designed to replace. Pratt and Whitney are currently developing an engine which uses 10-15% less fuel than anything on the market today. I could beavailable in as little as 2 years time. Compare that to the train network, which is still using ancient pieces of crap which may well have been build by Stevenson himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Err I don't live in Southampton, sweetheart Well, that's an hour nearer to Manchester and not all that much nearer to Heathrow. Edit: I've just gone on AA route planner and Oxford (I don't know where in Oxon you live) to Salford takes 2hr 51mins by car. Why the heck would anyone do that by a plane? :-s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Well, that's an hour nearer to Manchester and not all that much nearer to Heathrow. Edit: I've just gone on AA route planner and Oxford (I don't know where in Oxon you live) to Salford takes 2hr 51mins by car. Why the heck would anyone do that by a plane? :-s Oops started to reply then saw your edit. I'll come clean - at the time of said trip, I was living and working in Buckinghamshire so I was a tad closer to Heathrow than I am now. And I had to see a supplier (for my dancewear shop) and get back to teach a class in the evening so it was a bit Kick B*llocks and Scramble, I'll admit. However, these days, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, I never fly - ANYWHERE - and only drive if the logistics of going by train render a train trip uneconomic in terms of my time. I love 'flying' BTW, having done a lot of glider flying and a couple of hot air balloon trips. Waits for the inevitable 'hot air' comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Oops started to reply then saw your edit. I'll come clean - at the time of said trip, I was living and working in Buckinghamshire so I was a tad closer to Heathrow than I am now. And I had to see a supplier (for my dancewear shop) and get back to teach a class in the evening so it was a bit Kick B*llocks and Scramble, I'll admit. However, these days, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, I never fly - ANYWHERE - and only drive if the logistics of going by train render a train trip uneconomic in terms of my time. I love 'flying' BTW, having done a lot of glider flying and a couple of hot air balloon trips. Waits for the inevitable 'hot air' comments For a journey of 500 miles a train and an aircraft would both emit the same amount of CO2. Below that, the train is more efficent, above it, the aircraft. Basically if everyone didn't fly on principle because of environmental damage, we'd NEVER be able to go further away from our house than Edinburgh. FYI Air travel (both internal and international) only accounts for 3% of total worldwide emissions and only 5% accross the UK. Cars in the UK produce 24% of the countries carbon emissions. Congratulations child murderer! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 For a journey of 500 miles a train and an aircraft would both emit the same amount of CO2. Below that, the train is more efficent, above it, the aircraft. Basically if everyone didn't fly on principle because of environmental damage, we'd NEVER be able to go further away from our house than Edinburgh. FYI Air travel (both internal and international) only accounts for 3% of total worldwide emissions and only 5% accross the UK. Cars in the UK produce 24% of the countries carbon emissions. Congratulations child murderer! ;-) I already said I go by train whenever I can. I did feel sorry for the man on the radio this morning who was saying that, with Stansted planned to exceed Heathrow in size (and therefore, I suppose, in the number of flights) the air quality over his house would be appalling. He's already suffering being under a flightpath and that will only get worse if the expansion goes ahead. Poor guy - he'd moved out to the countryside before Stansted started to get busy and now he can't move away again because no-one will want to buy his house and he can't get compensation. He said, mind you, not my interpretation and I don't know if what he says is actually true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Poor guy - he'd moved out to the countryside before Stansted started to get busy and now he can't move away again because no-one will want to buy his house and he can't get compensation. He said, mind you, not my interpretation and I don't know if what he says is actually true. The Queen has the same problem because they built Windsor Castle in Heathrows flight path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 so...what if i cant be arsed, wont or cant afford that day to pay..what will stop me abusing the system...? Some sort of barrier presumably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 The Queen has the same problem because they built Windsor Castle in Heathrows flight path. Oh poor love! And she's got nowhere else to live either, has she Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 8 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 8 December, 2008 i guess we should never expand/change/adapt in case it might **** someone off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 How the bloody hell would Stansted ever get close to Heathrow's capacity?! Surely that would require an extra 4 terminals (probably 5 given the size of the current one), the relevant road and rail infrastructure, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Poor guy - he'd moved out to the countryside before Stansted started to get busy and now he can't move away again because no-one will want to buy his house and he can't get compensation. He said, mind you, not my interpretation and I don't know if what he says is actually true. And yet he still bought a house next to an airport. I wonder what he thought they were going to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 (edited) I can understand what morals were driven for the protestors to protest over the new run way in an extreme way. To say this runway gets built, would it mean more tax for people. Gordon keeps going on about wanting to improve the enviroment but an extra run way will just make things worse, perhaps it will make things easier for airports, but it will really make the enviroment worse. The good points of the run way being built will be- less traffic, less delays, a bigger ecomony for businesses and for the government, and it will help airport companies produce more customers. The bad point of the run way would be- effect on the enviroment, loads of money wasted when it could go to better things, greed and more planes. It will help but the government keeps saying that he wants to reduce pollution. Would building a runway really help this target.. will the government decide to use other strategies, such as high tax, ect... we'll see what the downfall will be if THIS runway gets built. ;) Edited 8 December, 2008 by Calvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 How the bloody hell would Stansted ever get close to Heathrow's capacity?! Surely that would require an extra 4 terminals (probably 5 given the size of the current one), the relevant road and rail infrastructure, etc? I have no idea. 'Twas what they were saying on the radio this morning. I dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 And yet he still bought a house next to an airport. I wonder what he thought they were going to do... I think, to be fair to him, he bought the house many years ago when Stansted was very small. It only started to expand when the budget airlines moved in I think and I don't think anyone could predict that at the time. A bit like buying a house in the New Forest near Stony Cross airfield maybe and then finding it's going to be bigger than Southampton airport. I spent my early married life living about 2 miles from Heathrow, under one of the flight paths and TBH it didn't bother me in the slightest. However, there are significantly more movements now and I wouldn't want to live there today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 How the bloody hell would Stansted ever get close to Heathrow's capacity?! Surely that would require an extra 4 terminals (probably 5 given the size of the current one), the relevant road and rail infrastructure, etc? It wont, it's just sensationalist bull**** to try and get people to campaign against the runway. And yet he still bought a house next to an airport. I wonder what he thought they were going to do... Yep. If he wanted to get away from it all, I'd suggest somewhere other than the under flight-path for a London international airport, just off the M11 (which produces far more pollution that the airport ever will). Tit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 I can understand what morals were driven for the protestors to protest over the new run way in an extreme way. To say this runway gets built, would it mean more tax for people. Gordon keeps going on about wanting to improve the enviroment but an extra run way will just make things worse, perhaps it will make things easier for airports, but it will really make the enviroment worse. The good points of the run way being built will be- less traffic, less delays, a bigger ecomony for businesses and for the government, and it will help airport companies produce more customers. The bad point of the run way would be- effect on the enviroment, loads of money wasted when it could go to better things, greed and more planes. It will help but the government keeps saying that he wants to reduce pollution. Would building a runway really help this target.. will the government decide to use other strategies, such as high tax, ect... we'll see what the downfall will be if THIS runway gets built. ;) Not building the runway will increase pollution. Why do you think Ryanair and Easyjet go to Luton and Stansted? Because Heathrow is full and slots there are like Gold-dust. Why is Heathrow full? Because it doesn't have anywhere near the terminal or runway capacity it needs. Once places like Stansted fill up, airlines will just have to move somewhere further away. Passengers will find themselves being quite literally sent to Coventry. That means more trains busses and cars to get them there, on top of the extra time in the air planes spend waiting to land at Stansted because the runway is too busy. All of which means more fuel burned, more envornmental damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 A bit like buying a house in the New Forest near Stony Cross airfield maybe and then finding it's going to be bigger than Southampton airport. Not really. He had a house in the country and swapped it for one next to an airport Perhaps there is some overriding reason why he did this, maybe for the transport links of the M11, perhaps he had a job at the airport so bought the house out of convenience.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 (edited) How the bloody hell would Stansted ever get close to Heathrow's capacity?! Surely that would require an extra 4 terminals (probably 5 given the size of the current one), the relevant road and rail infrastructure, etc? Surely, being located off of the M11 (plus a brand new dual carraigeway having been built to link East Essex/Suffolk and Norfolk to the airport) and having an express rail link from London Liverpool Street, Stansted is a 1/3 of the way there? Edited 8 December, 2008 by Thorpe-le-Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericofarabia Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 The Queen has the same problem because they built Windsor Castle in Heathrows flight path. Uber lolage :grin: To be fair the airport wasn't so busy back in those days, Pontious was the only pilot around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Not really. He had a house in the country and swapped it for one next to an airport Perhaps there is some overriding reason why he did this, maybe for the transport links of the M11, perhaps he had a job at the airport so bought the house out of convenience.... You're being deliberately obtuse, aren't you I'm not championing this guy's cause - I'm only repeating what I heard on the radio. He quite clearly stated that he moved, many many years ago, to the countryside for a quiet life. He moved there before Stansted was any where near as large as it is now. I don't think for one moment he lives close to Stansted but, rather, lives under what is now a busy flightpath and will get even busier if the expansion goes ahead. His over-riding point was that he'd move if he could sell his house but it is now blighted and he can get no compensation. At the time he bought his house, Stansted and the flight path(s) wasn't an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 8 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 8 December, 2008 You're being deliberately obtuse, aren't you I'm not championing this guy's cause - I'm only repeating what I heard on the radio. He quite clearly stated that he moved, many many years ago, to the countryside for a quiet life. He moved there before Stansted was any where near as large as it is now. I don't think for one moment he lives close to Stansted but, rather, lives under what is now a busy flightpath and will get even busier if the expansion goes ahead. His over-riding point was that he'd move if he could sell his house but it is now blighted and he can get no compensation. At the time he bought his house, Stansted and the flight path(s) wasn't an issue. sorry..but moving near an airport of any size is the last thing i would do for a quiet life....especially a london airport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 You're being deliberately obtuse, aren't you I'm not championing this guy's cause - I'm only repeating what I heard on the radio. He quite clearly stated that he moved, many many years ago, to the countryside for a quiet life. He moved there before Stansted was any where near as large as it is now. I don't think for one moment he lives close to Stansted but, rather, lives under what is now a busy flightpath and will get even busier if the expansion goes ahead. His over-riding point was that he'd move if he could sell his house but it is now blighted and he can get no compensation. At the time he bought his house, Stansted and the flight path(s) wasn't an issue. Planes are of course much quieter these days than 30 years ago though. A Boeing 707 could be heard from miles awy for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Planes are of course much quieter these days than 30 years ago though. A Boeing 707 could be heard from miles awy for example. Indeed. You could have a few of these taking off over your house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 I regularly have very large planes flying over my house from Brize Norton. They are incredibly noisy and, no doubt, polluting. I think I'm probably right in saying that most of Oxfordshire is under or very near a flight path for Brize Norton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 What a shame, we were going to invite BTF over for a weekend...... Bloody long walk One thing always forgotten about with the arguments about places like Heathrow etc needing to expand, is that a lot of people who fly into that place are NOT British, and they are in transit to somewhere else. A good example would be Dubai to Madrid, or say Boston. You can choose to fly on BA/Virgin via London - OK planes but the nightmare of the airport, or you fly on a European airline (Karp planes but much easier transit) With Heathrow & Gatwick choking to death, the airlines lose that transit business.... The likes of Emirates over 70% of their long haul passengers are transit. Low Cost airlines it's probably less than 1%, but for the likes of BA, Virgin etc, they have a problem because to keep their service levels they need people doing the whole transit thing. If they stopped thinking of the place as simply "London's airports" they'd stop coming up with whacky ideas like building one in the East Thames. They should build a new one in the Centre of Slough. It would do Billions in improvements and be much easier for us to reach. (Sorry, was being a bit Sloughist there) But if they put a rail link in from Heathrow/Gatwick they'd save a fortune in emissions as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 8 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 8 December, 2008 I regularly have very large planes flying over my house from Brize Norton. They are incredibly noisy and, no doubt, polluting. I think I'm probably right in saying that most of Oxfordshire is under or very near a flight path for Brize Norton. military and commercial planes are very different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 military and commercial planes are very different Really? Really? Nooooo surely not. I'm struggling to think how Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 military and commercial planes are very different Not always. For example Brize Norton is home to the RAF tanker fleet which is made up of converted commercial Tristars and VC-10s. They're just noisy because they are an old design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 8 December, 2008 Author Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Not always. For example Brize Norton is home to the RAF tanker fleet which is made up of converted commercial Tristars and VC-10s. They're just noisy because they are an old design. unless it is just the tristars flying from brize norton then im sure the noises coming out of that place would be slightly different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 8 December, 2008 Share Posted 8 December, 2008 Not always. For example Brize Norton is home to the RAF tanker fleet which is made up of converted commercial Tristars and VC-10s. They're just noisy because they are an old design. Whatever they are, they're bl00dy huge! And because they've just taken off / are about to land, they're very close to the rooftops. I can almost see the pilot's face - I do like a man in uniform Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now