• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Heathrow expansion

scaramanga said:
If you're going to pick a limit, it needs to be realistic.

2-3 business trips in a year is reasonably light. Last year I had to go to Milan twice and Edinburgh once. Then a summer holiday, somewhere long haul. A short haul holiday like skiing or a bit of winter sun. Then maybe a weekend away to somewhere like Paris.

So 12 flights a year is still pretty restrictive and would certainly make people think twice about what flights they really need. But it's also a sensible and (just about) workable number.
Click to expand...

I do actually agree. I did 10 last calendar year without even thinking about it.

My focus would definitely be on banning private planes, empty flights and regulating to force the pace of the transition to electric and synthetic fuels
 
Gutter Boy said:
I do actually agree. I did 10 last calendar year without even thinking about it.

My focus would definitely be on banning private planes, empty flights and regulating to force the pace of the transition to electric and synthetic fuels
Click to expand...
Does the public transport effect apply to aircraft too?

People keep telling me that a polluting bus is better than an efficient car because a car tends to only have one occupant whereas a bus can carry dozens of mental patients with knives and no bladder control.

In that case, isn't flying to Milan better than everyone driving separately? Google Maps tells me that Milan is around 850 miles away. So that would be about 71 gallons of high octane fuel, assuming I can avoid being silly on the Autobahn. So realistically (because I'll obviously drive at 200mph on the Autobahn) that's probably 80-85 gallons of fuel.

Edit:

I found a CO2 calculator. So it doesn't have Milan as an option but I calculated the trip to Frankfurt instead.

Flying business to Frankfurt from Heathrow uses 0.18tons of CO2. Driving my car (the one I'd take on longer journeys) would use 0.38. Now we have to factor in the cost of driving to Heathrow, that's another 0.04.

So overall, it's far better for me to have flown and that's ignoring the Autobahn effect where I doubt I'd get more than around 5 or 6 mpg.
 
scaramanga said:
If you're going to pick a limit, it needs to be realistic.

2-3 business trips in a year is reasonably light. Last year I had to go to Milan twice and Edinburgh once. Then a summer holiday, somewhere long haul. A short haul holiday like skiing or a bit of winter sun. Then maybe a weekend away to somewhere like Paris.

So 12 flights a year is still pretty restrictive and would certainly make people think twice about what flights they really need. But it's also a sensible and (just about) workable number.
Click to expand...
I picked a realistic number as required by the allotted carbon budgets, not what capitalism demands. You can go on these trips but should be penalised severely for doing so is what is being suggested. Have a zoom call instead.
 
Rorschach said:
I picked a realistic number as required by the allotted carbon budgets, not what capitalism demands. You can go on these trips but should be penalised severely for doing so is what is being suggested. Have a zoom call instead.
Click to expand...
Never tried to ski via a zoom call. Don't think it would be all that successful though.

Can I have Le Grand Vefour hand some food and a glass of good wine to me via zoom?

How about enjoying the warmth and relaxation of sitting on a tropical beach with the family? I suppose I could recreate the sun bit with a sunbed but I'm the wrong generation and the wrong social class for that.

In terms of the business trips, I conduct hundreds of meetings a year via Teams or an equivalent. But not all meetings can be held without sitting in front the person. Not all decisions can be made without being physically in front of the building or equipment you're considering.
 
scaramanga said:
Never tried to ski via a zoom call. Don't think it would be all that successful though.

Can I have Le Grand Vefour hand some food and a glass of good wine to me via zoom?

How about enjoying the warmth and relaxation of sitting on a tropical beach with the family? I suppose I could recreate the sun bit with a sunbed but I'm the wrong generation and the wrong social class for that.

In terms of the business trips, I conduct hundreds of meetings a year via Teams or an equivalent. But not all meetings can be held without sitting in front the person. Not all decisions can be made without being physically in front of the building or equipment you're considering.
Click to expand...
Don't make me post the Alan Partridge gif again.
 
I
Lilbaz said:
In itself an extra runway won't increase or decrease the demand for flights. It will mean less waiting time for planes to land and probably more destinations so less need for stop overs to change flights. So less fuel used = less emissions.
Click to expand...

Of course there will be more flights. It’s all about adding infrastructure for much more passenger and freight carrying capacity.

I am much more worried about the roads. I’m close to junction 8 and the motorway should never have gone across the top of the downs it should have gone to the south or north.

Immediately off junction 8 the a road southbound becomes a single lane into Reigate down a steep hill. The m25 route was set out in the 1930’s but it was never the right choice.

Perhaps they could build a motorway sub loop from Gatwick that goes up to Leatherhead. They are building a huge volume of housing in Crawley/Horsham and again where is the national infrastructure to cope.

Interestingly the m23 was meant to go up into Croydon but that never happened o guess because they used a lot of the land for housing postwar.

Note that we are half a dozen junctions from Heathrow but it is the beating heart of our national road network so GHod help those even nearer.
 
Last edited:
johnola said:
I


Of course there will be more flights. It’s all about adding infrastructure for much more passenger and freight carrying capacity.

I am much more worried about the roads. I’m close to junction 8 and the motorway should never have gone across the top of the downs it should have gone to the south or north.

Immediately off junction 8 the a road southbound becomes a single lane into Reigate down a steep hill. The m25 route was set out in the 1930’s but it was never the right choice.

Perhaps they could build a motorway sub loop from Gatwick that goes up to Leatherhead. They are building a huge volume of housing in Crawley/Horsham and again where is the national infrastructure to cope.

Interestingly the m23 was meant to go up into Croydon but that never happened o guess because they used a lot of the land for housing postwar.

Note that we are half a dozen junctions from Heathrow but it is the beating heart of our national road network so GHod help those even nearer.
Click to expand...

Read what i said. It won't increase or decrease the  demand for more flights. That will be dependent on people wanting or needing to fly.
 
scaramanga said:
Does the public transport effect apply to aircraft too?

People keep telling me that a polluting bus is better than an efficient car because a car tends to only have one occupant whereas a bus can carry dozens of mental patients with knives and no bladder control.

In that case, isn't flying to Milan better than everyone driving separately? Google Maps tells me that Milan is around 850 miles away. So that would be about 71 gallons of high octane fuel, assuming I can avoid being silly on the Autobahn. So realistically (because I'll obviously drive at 200mph on the Autobahn) that's probably 80-85 gallons of fuel.

Edit:

I found a CO2 calculator. So it doesn't have Milan as an option but I calculated the trip to Frankfurt instead.

Flying business to Frankfurt from Heathrow uses 0.18tons of CO2. Driving my car (the one I'd take on longer journeys) would use 0.38. Now we have to factor in the cost of driving to Heathrow, that's another 0.04.

So overall, it's far better for me to have flown and that's ignoring the Autobahn effect where I doubt I'd get more than around 5 or 6 mpg.
Click to expand...
I've always wondered about this.
ie the carbon/pollution effect between different activities.
Flying gets a bad press BUT it needs to be compared to other actions one might take.
 
scaramanga said:
Never tried to ski via a zoom call. Don't think it would be all that successful though.

Can I have Le Grand Vefour hand some food and a glass of good wine to me via zoom?

How about enjoying the warmth and relaxation of sitting on a tropical beach with the family? I suppose I could recreate the sun bit with a sunbed but I'm the wrong generation and the wrong social class for that.

In terms of the business trips, I conduct hundreds of meetings a year via Teams or an equivalent. But not all meetings can be held without sitting in front the person. Not all decisions can be made without being physically in front of the building or equipment you're considering.
Click to expand...
It's not about the environment for him, not really. Read his posts and it always comes down to a hatred of capitalism.

His sort are just as dangerous as the far right nutters and just as controlling.
 
Lilbaz said:
Read what i said. It won't increase or decrease the  demand for more flights. That will be dependent on people wanting or needing to fly.
Click to expand...
Don’t get hoity toity. You said there will be less planes circling I honestly don’t understand how you think that is the case when there wil l50% more planes.

As for demand, think more about freight- this will massively improve air freight capacity and will outcompete road rail and sea because it is will be so much cheaper and faster.
 
johnola said:
Don’t get hoity toity. You said there will be less planes circling I honestly don’t understand how you think that is the case when there wil l50% more planes.

As for demand, think more about freight- this will massively improve air freight capacity and will outcompete road rail and sea because it is will be so much cheaper and faster.
Click to expand...

At the moment heathrow is at 100% capacity. So if there is any delay there is a domino effect meaning huge delays and planes can be circling for ages waiting for a landing spot. That's not opinion, that is fact.

Freight is the same as passengers. The demand is there or it isn't. Increasing the amount of runways does not effect demand. It just increases the ability to meet the demand.
 
Danishfurniturelover said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Could the UK actually get colder with global warming? - BBC News

Some scientists fear the risk of a collapse to warm Atlantic currents has not been taken seriously.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

When you hippies going to finally decide.

We going to get colder or hotter?
Click to expand...
Us colder because the world is getting hotter.

Without even reading I'm guessing the warmth is melting the ice pack that introduces far more fresh water into the ocean that then effects/disrupts the thermal currents that have always kept us warmer than our latitude would suggest.

Summers would be hotter but I'd potentially have to raise my house up on stilts (bit if a downside)
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Us colder because the world is getting hotter.

Without even reading I'm guessing the warmth is melting the ice pack that introduces far more fresh water into the ocean that then effects/disrupts the thermal currents that have always kept us warmer than our latitude would suggest.

Summers would be hotter but I'd potentially have to raise my house up on stilts (bit if a downside)
Click to expand...
Hippy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back