Airport expansions

[Meerkat]

Ah climate, the biggest load of bolloxology since we were all told that we’d kill each other if we stood within two meters of anyone else. Both primarily designed to keep us all in our places. What’s the alternative to allowing air transport to grow? Constrain demand through state-mandated prices hikes? Refuse to develop additional infrastructure? Those approaches are so blinkered. The human race doesn’t make progress and improve through being inhibited, restricted and taxed. It does so by being allowed to unfetteredly grow and innovate. Until we accept this and let go of the net zero lunacy, the UK will have one massive hand tied behind its back. Trump seems to know what‘s needed - sadly the UK government seems not to want to know.

Ok, let’s ignore climate for the moment. The airport already causes a huge amount of harmful to health pollution, noise disturbance, and traffic chaos. Increasing that for discretionary travel is unjustifiable.

 

[Skymonster]

If demand is growing so much it should be able to sustain a second hub rather than expand Heathrow at enormous cost to the area.

And which airline is going to do it? British Airways has Heathrow (hub and business) and Gatwick (more point-to-point and leisure). Ryanair and easyJet aren’t interested in connections as their business model doesn’t support it. Perhaps we could invite Emirates to set up a Dubai clone in Essex?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Airlines aren’t dumping huge amounts of capacity at Heathrow at bargain basement prices. Do you really think British Airways would sell seats at lower fares if it could earn more? It charges the UK market what the UK market will stand. To fill aeroplanes some routes, it sells connections over Heathrow. Yes, they may be at a lower price / lower yield, but they’ll still cover DOCs and make a contribution to the bottom line. Fares over Heathrow are set based on what the origin-destination market will stand, competing with other airlines and other hubs, and taking into consideration a connection is often seen as less desirable than a direct flight. For routes that are beneficial to the UK but can’t be sustained by the local market alone, there is a choice of selling connecting traffic or abandoning them. If it constantly cuts UK fares to match some connecting fares, it trashes its local yields.

Thank you for repeating what I’ve been saying all along. Airlines don’t cut fares on hub origin tickets to stimulate home demand because they don’t want to cut the headline fare. So they dump the excess capacity on connecting passengers because those passengers are prepared to pay less and because the price dumping is less obvious.

They all do it, it isn’t peculiar to Heathrow or BA. I understand why.

Only thing I disagree on is that the “UK market alone won’t support those routes”. It would if they charged lower fares. Look at the LCCs.

It’s also completely not the point. If the airlines have the excess capacity to dump at rock bottom prices- and it doesn’t really matter who they dump the excess capacity on- then Heathrow doesn’t need expanding. It really is as straightforward as that.

And that’s why a Heathrow hub is still important and needs to be able to accommodate growing UK demand.

If demand is growing to such an extent then London can sustain more than one hub.

Of course the flip side of 35% of Heathrow passengers being connecting traffic is that 65% of them aren’t. So for those people the hub aspect is irrelevant anyway. There’s a reason why Qatar and Emirates have a big presence at both Gatwick and Heathrow.

The North West runway plan, which is the one that had been eventually settled upon, would take out 761 homes - including all of Langford village, much of Harmondsworth village, a few houses in Sipson and a 'square block' of 1930's houses off Bath Road (Zealand Avenue and Pinglestone Close).

It’s been tightened up a bit then, which is good, though it’s a good few thousand people who stand to lose their homes. And these schemes always seem to spread out further and further than the original plans once they get permission.

Had to laugh at this quote from the BBC article though:

If we don't expand our only hub airport, then we're going to be flying through Paris to get to global markets," he said.

Oh no, not Paris!

In a world of climate change, airports competing to be a bigger hub is like watching two bald men fight over a comb.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2025 ==

And which airline is going to do it? British Airways has Heathrow (hub and business) and Gatwick (more point-to-point and leisure)

British Airways had a hub at Gatwick. They closed it down for commercial reasons related to the shredding of staff T&Cs for EuroFlyer. Hub traffic was moved to Heathrow.

The fact they could do this is another reason why Heathrow clearly isn’t at capacity and clearly doesn’t need expanding. There is really only BA who use Heathrow as a hub anyway.

 

[TravelDream]

Thank you for repeating what I’ve been saying all along. Airlines don’t cut fares on hub origin tickets to stimulate home demand because they don’t want to cut the headline fare. So they dump the excess capacity on connecting passengers because those passengers are prepared to pay less and because the price dumping is less obvious.

Again you miss the fundamentals of capitalism.

From a consumer perspective, I might choose to fly Heathrow to Amsterdam to New York because KLM is selling it cheaper than BA/UA/AA/Virgin etc. direct.
Why? Because those airlines can charge a premium as it's the most convenient and shortest option. Connecting in Amsterdam is less convenient so KLM lowers the fares to make it more competitive.
Conversely, KLM might charge even more than BA etc. do for the direct flight if to book Bristol/ Norwich/ Newcastle to New York via Amsterdam. Why? Because now KLM are offering the premium option of a flight from my regional airport where they are now the most convenient option. Many consumers are willing to pay a premium for that.

If airlines can't make money on routes, they cut them. Simple as that.

It's economics 101.


And it's not true about hubbing.
Star Alliance has a sort of hub in Terminal 2 of Heathrow. Despite not having a based Star airline (since bmi was bought by BA), enough carriers operate frequently enough that there are lots of possible connections there and the terminal is set up to facilitate connections.
Skyteam have a sort of hub in T3 too. Primarily with Virgin Atlantic and Delta (Delta owns 49% of Virgin and moved to T3 a few years ago to facilitate this connecting hub).

 

[Ediswan]

I'm not in favour of expanding Heathrow - great swathes of London are already under the existing flightpaths for a start - however, none of the various plans entail "tens of thousands" of people being relocated.

The North West runway plan, which is the one that had been eventually settled upon, would take out 761 homes - including all of Langford village, much of Harmondsworth village, a few houses in Sipson and a 'square block' of 1930's houses off Bath Road (Zealand Avenue and Pinglestone Close).

Quite. Anybody can look at a map and see the relatively undeveloped area north of Heathrow, between the A4 and M4. The area has long been seen as liable to be affected by Heathrpw expansion.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Again you miss the fundamentals of capitalism.

You’ve literally just repeated what I’ve said?

We all know why they do it: to offload capacity without causing the fare from the hub airport to drop. Makes perfect commercial sense.

And they all do it. For all the connecting passengers from Amsterdam on BA cheapo ex-EU tickets you have connecting passengers to Amsterdam on cheapo tickets because KLM are trying to offload all their excess capacity without affecting their yield at Schiphol too.

The commerciality of it is also complete irrelevant to the point. If they’re having to offload capacity then Heathrow doesn’t need expanding. It really is that simple.

 

[pug1]

You’ve literally just repeated what I’ve said?

We all know why they do it: to offload capacity without causing the fare from the hub airport to drop. Makes perfect commercial sense.

And they all do it. For all the connecting passengers from Amsterdam on BA cheapo ex-EU tickets you have connecting passengers to Amsterdam on cheapo tickets because KLM are trying to offload all their excess capacity without affecting their yield at Schiphol too.

The commerciality of it is also complete irrelevant to the point. If they’re having to offload capacity then Heathrow doesn’t need expanding. It really is that simple.

No. You’re saying the fundamental principles of the hub and spoke network should be removed. If you’re going to champion it then at least make that point clear rather than trying to suggest that they’re only doing it to offload excess capacity. Because that’s horse s***.

 

[Bald Rick]

This decision is plain daft in the face of climate needs but given the failure of the rail industry over the last decade to deliver anything cost effectively let alone on time its hardly a surprising outcome. The industry should hold its head in shame and needs a root and branch overhaul to restore it back to 1980's way of thinking and delivering but that needs the likes of a Chris Green and i just dont see that person.

These proposals have precisely zero to do with the rail industy’s delivery record. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton have all had expansion plans on the table for well over a decade. Gatwick and Stansted have both downsized their proposals (signifcantly), Heathrow’s is much the same, Luton have actually delivered the first two parts of theirs (terminal expansion and airfield reconfiguration; the DART) and are now planning the next part (second terminal and further airfield reconfiguration).

Let’s be clear, even if HS2 had been delivered in full, and to budget, and to timescale, we would still be having these proposals.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Ok, let’s ignore climate for the moment. The airport already causes a huge amount of harmful to health pollution, noise disturbance, and traffic chaos. Increasing that for discretionary travel is unjustifiable.

Indeed even with so called quieter aircraft the drone over SW London is awful for virtually 18hrs every day. Yes they switch runways to alleviate some of that but sound travels a long way. Pollution impact across the area just gets ignored as its just fine for people who can afford to inflict harm on others. And as usual all those politicians who say over my dead body just roll over utter hypocrites.

 

[TravelDream]

Indeed even with so called quieter aircraft the drone over SW London is awful for virtually 18hrs every day. Yes they switch runways to alleviate some of that but sound travels a long way. Pollution impact across the area just gets ignored as its just fine for people who can afford to inflict harm on others. And as usual all those politicians who say over my dead body just roll over utter hypocrites.

How is it 'so called'? Modern aircraft are significantly quieter than older ones. Not a bit, significantly.

The 737 Max, for example, has a noise footprint 50% smaller than the NG series of aircraft it replaces.
The 787 has a 60% smaller footprint than its 767 predecessor (though the 787 is a bit bigger).
These aren't small, they are significant.

In addition, Heathrow does a lot to alleviate noise.
You already mentioned switching runways.
But look at the money they've given people to install noise insulation and triple glazing.
Recent changes include having some aircraft do steeper approaches which obviously lowers noise on the ground.



And as said above, the airport has been there for a VERY long time. People moved there knowing there was a major airport close by. They moved there at a time when aircraft were much nosier.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

These proposals have precisely zero to do with the rail industy’s delivery record. Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton have all had expansion plans on the table for well over a decade. Gatwick and Stansted have both downsized their proposals (signifcantly), Heathrow’s is much the same, Luton have actually delivered the first two parts of theirs (terminal expansion and airfield reconfiguration; the DART) and are now planning the next part (second terminal and further airfield reconfiguration).

Let’s be clear, even if HS2 had been delivered in full, and to budget, and to timescale, we would still be having these proposals.

Of course they run airports so they want to grow their businesses but govts make choices about overall policy and expanding Heathrow was off the table and historically hasn't been well supported by majority of Labour.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Of course they run airports so they want to grow their businesses but govts make choices about overall policy and expanding Heathrow was off the table and historically hasn't been well supported by majority of Labour.

The 1997 to 2010 Labour Government's support for a third runway at Heathrow Airport was clearly one of the reasons they lost the 2010 General Election resulting in 14 years in opposition with the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats both making manifesto commitments in the 2010 General Election not to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport. With this in mind I do not understand why any Labour politician would support building a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

 

[Ediswan]

How is it 'so called'? Modern aircraft are significantly quieter than older ones. Not a bit, significantly.

Also, navigation technology has improved and aircraft now often follow 'continuous descent' approaches, minimising periods of level flight, which is when the highest noise levels occur. Improved ATC systems have much reduced the need to use racetrack holding patterns.

 

[Bald Rick]

Of course they run airports so they want to grow their businesses but govts make choices about overall policy and expanding Heathrow was off the table and historically hasn't been well supported by majority of Labour.

It was off the table due to the pandemic.

The 1997 to 2010 Labour Government's support for a third runway at Heathrow Airport was clearly one of the reasons they lost the 2010 General Election

Not it wasn’t. It might have lost them a seat or two in west London, but for the other 640+ seats it was completely irrelevant.

 

[stuu]

The 1997 to 2010 Labour Government's support for a third runway at Heathrow Airport was clearly one of the reasons they lost the 2010 General Election resulting in 14 years in opposition with the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats both making manifesto commitments in the 2010 General Election not to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport. With this in mind I do not understand why any Labour politician would support building a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

I assume this is sarcasm, as there is no way expansion of Heathrow or not would influence more than a tiny proportion of the electorate

 

[weeklycommuter]

Not it wasn’t. It might have lost them a seat or two in west London, but for the other 640+ seats it was completely irrelevant.

I assume this is sarcasm, as there is no way expansion of Heathrow or not would influence more than a tiny proportion of the electorate

In the 2010 General Election the Conservative Party, having lost the previous three general elections, sought to win new voters everywhere who were concerned about climate change and the environment and saying no to a third runway at Heathrow Airport was clearly a key policy and certainly a high profile policy intended to convince voters everywhere that the Conservative Party had changed and was serious about addressing the issue of the environment and climate change. The parties that said no to a third runway at Heathrow Airport, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, together won a majority in the House of Commons and formed the Government. The Labour Government that said yes to a third runway at Heathrow Airport lost the 2010 general election. Clearly as always there were other issues in the general election but it has to be concluded that a third runway at Heathrow Airport was not a vote winner.

 

[Bald Rick]

Clearly as always there were other issues in the general election but it has to be concluded that a third runway at Heathrow Airport was not a vote winner.

Some very significant other issues, like, err a global financial crisis, and a party leader that a) hadn’t won a General Election and b) was decidedly unpopular with the electorate. Do you think these might have somethign to do with it?

 

[TravelDream]

Announcement expected next week apparently. Fingers crossed.

The 1997 to 2010 Labour Government's support for a third runway at Heathrow Airport was clearly one of the reasons they lost the 2010 General Election resulting in 14 years in opposition with the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats both making manifesto commitments in the 2010 General Election not to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport. With this in mind I do not understand why any Labour politician would support building a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

Utter nonsense. Heathrow will have a limited effect in 5-10 seats close to the airport in any election.
It's irrelevant to basically every other seat.

Labour lost because of the economy, Brown's unpopularity, tiredness of 13 years of Labour and relatively strong campaigns of the Conservatives and Lib Dems vs. Labour.
If Brown had called an election within 6 months of becoming PM and before the financial crash of 08, he likely would have won even with a third runway in Labour's manifesto.

Heathrow is definitely the most challenging though as the other projects are comparatively 'minor'. The government really needs to push this through as primary legislation negating the risk of the project getting bogged down in the courts.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No. You’re saying the fundamental principles of the hub and spoke network should be removed.

No, I’m really not.

I’m saying the airport can’t complain that Heathrow is full to bursting whilst the airlines are simultaneously dropping significant quantities of excess capacity at rock-bottom prices on connecting traffic.

Even if all the traffic originated at Heathrow it would still be a hub and spoke.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Some very significant other issues, like, err a global financial crisis, and a party leader that a) hadn’t won a General Election and b) was decidedly unpopular with the electorate. Do you think these might have somethign to do with it?

Yes but the environment and climate change was an important issue. This was the election when the Green Party won Brighton Pavilion from the Labour Party. Supporting a third runway at Heathrow Airport certainly did not help the Labour Party, it clearly turned off voters for whom the environment and climate change are important issues and in this election that could have changed the distribution of seats enough to put the Labour Party out of Government. As it is not possible to say exactly how many votes were switched by each issue those who want a third runway at Heathrow Airport will inevitably claim that this was not the issue that caused the Labour Party to lose the 2010 General Election but it was clear to me at the time that supporting a third runway at Heathrow Airport was losing the Labour Party votes.
The Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties winning the 2010 General Election with manifesto commitments cancelling the planned third runway at Heathrow Airport defeating a Labour Government that supporting this third runway ensured that the proposal for this third runway had to be abandoned for at least the whole of the 2010 to 2015 Parliament due to the mandate from voters. It has also made it politically difficult and divisive even after this. I cannot understand why any politician would again propose this third runway at Heathrow Airport and create all this political grief for something which is almost certainly impossible to deliver. If they want another runway in the South East of England all they have to do is give the go ahead to the second runway at Gatwick Airport which the owners of Gatwick Airport can easily fund and build.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Also, navigation technology has improved and aircraft now often follow 'continuous descent' approaches, minimising periods of level flight, which is when the highest noise levels occur. Improved ATC systems have much reduced the need to use racetrack holding patterns.

For sure things are significantly better than they were but bottom line is jets of whatever vintage are still noisy.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes but the environment and climate change was an important issue.

Indeed.

but it was clear to me at the time that supporting a third runway at Heathrow Airport was losing the Labour Party votes.

How do you reach that conclusion, was there some research on the subject? Where do you live?

I live directly under a Heathrow flightpath, and within sight/sound of two others, and it was absolutely not a factor here. Not remotely.

 

[Skymonster]

With this in mind I do not understand why any Labour politician would support building a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

Clueless!

Rachel Reeves subjected the country to an almost catastrophic budget, driven no doubt by her idealistic but deluded colleagues. More recently she’s been rubbing shoulders with the world’s real influencers, and she seems to have done an about turn - this morning’s Times even suggests she thinks we need more of a Trump style approach. I suspect that she’s realised that the only way she’s going to climb further up the greasy pole is to accept that economic prosperity and lack of inhibitors to growth need to take precedence over premature and naive initiatives that cost everyone more. Hence she’s now pro-Heathrow. Milliband has shot his bolt - played his green cards on the world stage and has been out-trumped - and with any luck he will soon disappear back into political obscurity, ideally before he does any more damage to the nation, its finances and its credibility. That leaves Starmer. Hopefully it is beginning to dawn on him too that the best way for him to retain influence and wealth after the end of his one term as PM is to dump the stupid country-damaging policies (and politicians) and get on with making Britain great again.

Heathrow isn’t a major war - its a minor skirmish within a much larger battlefield. The outcome of Heathrow may be insightful, approval for its expansion potentially signalling the government adopting a more realistic and reasonable approach to the country’s role in the world - a role it needs perform without its hands tied behind its back, not weighed down by overly burdensome environmental nonsense.

Over the last four years, the global oil index has significantly outperformed the overall market and even more so clean energy indices. The smart money is going to what is practical with today’s technology, not betting on schemes that cost more and inhibit development. That’s the way it should be - exploit cheap energy now while we explore ways to things differently in the longer term future. The UK would do well to follow the lead. Another runway at Heathrow is a small step in the right direction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2025 ==

Airlines don’t cut fares on hub origin tickets to stimulate home demand because they don’t want to cut the headline fare. So they dump the excess capacity on connecting passengers because those passengers are prepared to pay les

I’m afraid your views of how airline economics should work is idealistic but flawed. They might actually work in a budget airline. But Heathrow isn’t about budget airlines, and you need to accept that there are plenty of passengers who don‘t want budget carriers.

You might think its poor practice to charge UK passengers more than European passengers, but that’s economics - its charging what the market will stand. You’re argument is the equivalent of suggesting that a pint of beer should cost the same in London as it does in say Yorkshire, or Lancashire, or… Even ‘Spoons charges more where the market will stand it!

Airlines don’t trash their most important / highest yields for the sake of it, just to fill aeroplanes. They maintain their prime yields as best they can and take other revenue that is available (connecting traffic) at a price that covers DOCs and is also competitive in those remote markets. Selling lower fares in connecting markets but not in the home market helps protect home yields but enables flights to load to overall viable levels.

 

[daodao]

@Skymonster

A third runway at Heathrow would be extremely expensive and challenging to deliver, even disregarding its adverse environmental impact. Whatever its proponents may say, it will cost the UK government billions of pounds, as the owners will only be paying the actual construction costs, not all the consequential costs.

There are more acceptable ways to try to grow the UK economy and even to expand UK air service provision. SE England is already overdeveloped given the available land and water resources.

As much of the capacity at Heathrow is being used for transfer passengers, it cannot be regarded as full for its primary purpose of providing air services to/from London and SE England. Those passengers can use other direct routes or other more suitable interchange airports and could/should be encouraged to do so.

 

[Skymonster]

If it costs the UK government billions of pounds that‘s fine - the country will ultimately reap the benefits that better air connectivity and greater capacity bring. Government is wasting a lot of money on the White Elephant (sorry, HS2), and ultimately a larger Heathrow will be more useful to more people than a 90 mile railway from somewhere near London to Birmingham where those who need to go further will have to change. Oh wait, change - maybe that’s OK in railways but not in aviation.

And I’m afraid your ideas don’t reflect how the airline industry works. It needs connecting traffic to make some routes viable, because the UK market alone can’t sustain them. If there was no connecting traffic then there would not be flights to some existing destinations, and there would be far less new route development. Even in today’s digital world travel is vital to big business, and UK needs that business. If there’s no air service, the risk is business goes elsewhere. Yes, some of it will still come via other hubs, but it makes London less attractive - and you’re not eliminating connections, you’re just moving them elsewhere (so perhaps your argument actually founded on NIMBYism?)

 

[och aye]

Edinburgh to me will require a big terminal extension if passenger numbers keep rising.

The airport has submitted the following applications to the council this month:

25/00247/PNE | To develop an extended Southeast Pier on the east side of the Airport to provide additional departure gate capacity under the Permitted Development Class | Main Terminal 1 Edinburgh Airport Jubilee Road Edinburgh EH12 9DN

25/00247/PNE | To develop an extended Southeast Pier on the east side of the Airport to provide additional departure gate capacity under the Permitted Development Class |

citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk

Formation of a new airport access road and active travel route from Edinburgh Airport to the Gogar roundabout, approximately 2km in length (approximately 3km including spur access points).

25/00250/SCR | EIA screening request | Main Terminal 1 Edinburgh Airport Jubilee Road Edinburgh EH12 9DN

Planning Application details not available

citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk

 

[Dr_Paul]

Quite. Anybody can look at a map and see the relatively undeveloped area north of Heathrow, between the A4 and M4. The area has long been seen as liable to be affected by Heathrow expansion.

I've long thought that. Original plans for Heathrow show another east/west runway, to the north of the Bath Road. Otherwise the neat little villages there would have been swallowed up in the Middlesex sprawl southwards from Hayes and westwards from Hounslow.

How is it 'so called'? Modern aircraft are significantly quieter than older ones. Not a bit, significantly...

And as said above, the airport has been there for a VERY long time. People moved there knowing there was a major airport close by. They moved there at a time when aircraft were much nosier.

I grew up in Richmond in the 1960s, right under the then 28L approach. Jet planes were definitely much louder back then. A little BAC 111 made a devil of a racket, far noisier than the far bigger Boeing 777s and 787s and Airbus 330s and 350s of today, let alone the planes of equivalent size. When I'm in Richmond today, I barely hear them (and I'm not going mutton in my old age!). I don't have much sympathy for people who complain about aeroplane noise around Heathrow.

 

[Snow1964]

Government has released info this morning on Chancellor ahead of her speech on Wednesday, and reform of planning. Whilst no specific airport expansion listed in this advance announcement, does make it clear that significant infrastructure projects are about to get new approach.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will provide the powers to accelerate the infrastructure and homes needed to deliver on the government’s ambitions – and fast track critical infrastructure such as windfarms, power plants, and major road and rail projects. Today the government is confirming for the first time that the Bill will be introduced in Spring and we will work with Parliamentarians to ensure a smooth and speedy delivery.

Further detail on the Bill is being published today in a working paper on streamlining decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects, including reducing the burden on developers by making consultation requirements more proportionate, strengthening statutory guidance to ensure they are clear over what is and is not required when submitting planning applications, and ensuring that National Policy Statements are updated at least every five years to give more certainty to developers, speeding up decisions. Previous working papers have already set out reforms to the operation of planning committees, and an overhaul of the way developers can discharge their environmental obligations so that they can crack on with building.

Government goes further and faster on planning reform in bid for growth

Chancellor continues bold reform of the planning system to deliver on the Plan for Change for working people.

www.gov.uk

 

[zero]

As a former resident of Richmond I would say a lot of people actually tacitly support a Heathrow 3rd runway, however it is an unfashionable view to have in public, most/all politicians are against it and and if you ever spoke up you would get drowned out by the voices of the people who never fly anyway.

The main problem is that any future benefit to locals would almost certainly be outweighed by the years of disruption that construction would cause - it would probably be great if you were to move to the area after everything was built and operational, but if you are living there now and perhaps of an age where you might not even live to see it open...

Now that I have moved away from Richmond (and the UK) I find I don't care that much, because it appears that my future use of Heathrow will only be at quiet times.

 

[GusB]

I'd be interested to know if @pug1, @TravelDream and @Skymonster currently live in the vicinity of an airport. It's all well and good pontificating about the benefits to the country as a whole when you're not personally affected.