Airport expansions

[camflyer]

Did you not mean to write can’t see?

Yes. Good catch.

 

[Cloud Strife]

"Build it and they will come" has been proven time and time and time again to be a complete nonsense. Montreal proved it with Mirabel, the Spanish proved it with Ciudad Real, and Pakistan are proving it with Gwadar. Australia are about to prove it again with Badgerys Creek.

Let's not talk about Radom Airport here, a textbook case of waste if there ever was one.

I think there is a case for building small terminals for joint civilian/military airports in some cases, but things like Ciudad Real were a complete joke. I'd even argue that Berlin-Brandenburg has proven to be a complete failure in practice, as Tegel/Schoenfeld handed over 35m passengers in 2019 and last year, BER only handled 25m, and there's still no need to reopen the former Schoenfeld terminal, nor any prospect of T3 and T4 being built in the next ten years.

 

[pug1]

If airports aren't economic drivers then why are so many national and city governments as well as private investors putting money into major airport expansions? Look at Dublin and Warsaw in Europe, Newark and LA in the States and Sydney in Australia.

This is a rail forum so I would expect the readership to be pro-rail but that doesn't necessarily mean you have to be anti-car or anti-aviation. All three can - and should - coexist in an integrated infrastructure system.

I’m not anti-aviation for a start, I’ve spent over 20 years working in the sector in both commercial and ops roles. You’re talking about major airports that do function as economic facilitators, I’m talking about regional airports in the U.K. that serve primarily the outbound holiday sector and as such are a net loss to regional GDP and their employment creation isn’t even akin to opening a big Tesco or Amazon distribution centre.

Look at the push to reopen DSA as a case in point. They want to throw £150 million (and the rest!) of tax payers money at a venture that failed under two separate private sector airport operators due to a fundamental lack of viability. They claim it’s vital for the economy of South Yorkshire but have failed to quantify this apart from plucking some numbers out of thin air that denote a ROI of 9:1 and the GVA they quote is more than that which London Gatwick generates!

Airports as economic drivers is a fallacy. Airlines are high risk low reward ventures and they have to go to where they know they’ll be able to fill their seats. Dublin, Warsaw, Newark, LA and Sydney yes, Doncaster… errrr. Nope.

 

[The exile]

I'd even argue that Berlin-Brandenburg has proven to be a complete failure in practice, as Tegel/Schoenfeld handed over 35m passengers in 2019 and last year, BER only handled 25m, and there's still no need to reopen the former Schoenfeld terminal, nor any prospect of T3 and T4 being built in the next ten years.

Using comparisons with 2019 to prove something hasn’t performed as expected is a bit unfair. COVID not only knocked the stuffing out of travel demand directly but also accelerated the uptake of online meetings to an extent that you would have been hard-pressed to predict in 2019. Other economic factors not directly related to the airport also come into play.

 

[camflyer]

Airports as economic drivers is a fallacy. Airlines are high risk low reward ventures and they have to go to where they know they’ll be able to fill their seats. Dublin, Warsaw, Newark, LA and Sydney yes, Doncaster… errrr. Nope.

I would certainly agree that they economy is unlikely to collapse without an airport serving Doncaster and a handful of other smaller airports. Better rail links could mean that Liverpool, East Midlands (though that is a big cargo hub) and Teesside could be closed and the land redeveloped for more productive uses.

Airports really should be hubs of the public transport system. Most people using them won't have their own cars and many will be wanting to get to the nearest city. They should all have mass transport links and access by private cars kept to a minimum. That alone would help their environmental sustainability.

So yes, expand Heathrow and Gatwick but only if rail links are improved. Build the Western and Southern Access links at Heathrow and do whatever possible to increase capacity on the Brighton Mail Line (is the BML2 proposal via Uckfield still a thing?)

 

[TravelDream]

Airports really should be hubs of the public transport system. Most people using them won't have their own cars and many will be wanting to get to the nearest city. They should all have mass transport links and access by private cars kept to a minimum. That alone would help their environmental sustainability.

I don't totally disagree. Schiphol is Amsterdam is an excellent example of an airport being a transport hub.
However, there are numerous issues.
For an airport to be a hub, it needs to be close to the city centre/ on a major access route into the city (like Heathrow) or be between two cities (suppose Gatwick could be described as this).
Also, flights leave too early and land too late for trains (and often buses) to be a viable option to get to every flight.
Look at any UK regional airport. 5.45am-7am for departures (which means arriving 3.45am-5am) and post-midnight for arrivals are prime times. Britain doesn't have a 24 hour rail network and departures at these times aren't viable if using trains to get to and from the airport.

 

[pug1]

I would certainly agree that they economy is unlikely to collapse without an airport serving Doncaster and a handful of other smaller airports. Better rail links could mean that Liverpool, East Midlands (though that is a big cargo hub) and Teesside could be closed and the land redeveloped for more productive uses.

Airports really should be hubs of the public transport system. Most people using them won't have their own cars and many will be wanting to get to the nearest city. They should all have mass transport links and access by private cars kept to a minimum. That alone would help their environmental sustainability.

So yes, expand Heathrow and Gatwick but only if rail links are improved. Build the Western and Southern Access links at Heathrow and do whatever possible to increase capacity on the Brighton Mail Line (is the BML2 proposal via Uckfield still a thing?)

I don’t agree that they should close either. Private sector airports will remain open/close as the market dictates. EMA is the UK’s largest pure cargo airport so closing it would be ludicrous. What I’m saying is the public sector should give up trying to prop up loss leading airports like Teesside (and trying to reopen DSA) and yes, focus on improving surface access to bigger and proven airports.

Most people using which airports? Heathrow? Gatwick? Manchester? The main revenue stream for airports like Manchester is car parking so they might disagree with that solution.

Heathrow and Gatwick have proven that they’re full and that there is tangible interest for more airlines to enter those markets. Let the PRIVATE sector build the infrastructure and the connectivity may follow. The public sector needs to stop meddling and offering solutions that are not practicable. They also need to stop banging on about how DSA is the panacea when it clearly isn’t.

 

[Wolfie]

I would certainly agree that they economy is unlikely to collapse without an airport serving Doncaster and a handful of other smaller airports. Better rail links could mean that Liverpool, East Midlands (though that is a big cargo hub) and Teesside could be closed and the land redeveloped for more productive uses.

Airports really should be hubs of the public transport system. Most people using them won't have their own cars and many will be wanting to get to the nearest city. They should all have mass transport links and access by private cars kept to a minimum. That alone would help their environmental sustainability.

So yes, expand Heathrow and Gatwick but only if rail links are improved. Build the Western and Southern Access links at Heathrow and do whatever possible to increase capacity on the Brighton Mail Line (is the BML2 proposal via Uckfield still a thing?)

I note with interest that you completely ignore the interests of people who not only live close to Heathrow or Gatwick but also those under the flightpaths. An airport who has most flightpaths routing directly over the city it serves is a disastrous idea which other countries sensibly addressed years ago.

 

[TravelDream]

I note with interest that you completely ignore the interests of people who not only live close to Heathrow or Gatwick but also those under the flightpaths. An airport who has most flightpaths routing directly over the city it serves is a disastrous idea which other countries sensibly addressed years ago.

At the risk of going in circles.
- Basically everyone who lives near Heathrow or Gatwick bought their house with the full knowledge there was an airport nearby. It's no different that living next to a rail line.
- Modern aircraft are significantly quieter than those of the 80s which themselves were significantly quieter than those of the 60s. The aircraft of the 2020s will undoubtedly be much quieter than today's aircraft. In plain English, the level of noise is actually decreasing. And it's decreasing a lot.
- Nowadays, most airports have carefully researched noise preference routes for arrivals and departures which are strictly enforced with fines for airlines which don't follow them.

 

[Wolfie]

At the risk of going in circles.
- Basically everyone who lives near Heathrow or Gatwick bought their house with the full knowledge there was an airport nearby. It's no different that living next to a rail line.
- Modern aircraft are significantly quieter than those of the 80s which themselves were significantly quieter than those of the 60s. The aircraft of the 2020s will undoubtedly be much quieter than today's aircraft. In plain English, the level of noise is actually decreasing. And it's decreasing a lot.
- Nowadays, most airports have carefully researched noise preference routes for arrivals and departures which are strictly enforced with fines for airlines which don't follow them.

I didn't choose to live in Islington expecting to hear aircraft noise, but l do. Particularly when most of those advocating airport expansion live nowhere near impacted areas - strange that!

 

[pug1]

I didn't choose to live in Islington expecting to hear aircraft noise, but l do. Particularly when most of those advocating airport expansion live nowhere near impacted areas - strange that!

Live in a city expect noise. Dont like it there’s plenty of quiet countryside to move to. As TravelDream says, aircraft engines are getting quieter with each new development as are their fuel efficiency.

 

[camflyer]

Heathrow and Gatwick have proven that they’re full and that there is tangible interest for more airlines to enter those markets. Let the PRIVATE sector build the infrastructure and the connectivity may follow. The public sector needs to stop meddling and offering solutions that are not practicable. They also need to stop banging on about how DSA is the panacea when it clearly isn’t.

"May follow"? The trouble is that the public sector has proven time and time again that it is incapable of providing the transport connectivity.

The connectivity needs to be the at the start not wishful thinking at the end.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I note with interest that you completely ignore the interests of people who not only live close to Heathrow or Gatwick but also those under the flightpaths. An airport who has most flightpaths routing directly over the city it serves is a disastrous idea which other countries sensibly addressed years ago.

I'm always incredibly surprised when in London as to just how low the planes are, and it never really lets up. For that reason, I think it was a terrible idea to privatise Heathrow (the others, no problem), because Heathrow could and should have been sold off for a massive amount of housing, with the proceeds going to build a new airport elsewhere without this issue.

Look at any UK regional airport. 5.45am-7am for departures (which means arriving 3.45am-5am) and post-midnight for arrivals are prime times. Britain doesn't have a 24 hour rail network and departures at these times aren't viable if using trains to get to and from the airport.

Stansted is a textbook example of being a complete disaster in terms of public transport in the mornings, causing people to camp out in the airport in frankly terrible conditions. Most airports aren't *quite* so hostile towards travellers, but there are still plenty of airports that aren't open 24 hours, such as Aberdeen.

Using comparisons with 2019 to prove something hasn’t performed as expected is a bit unfair. COVID not only knocked the stuffing out of travel demand directly but also accelerated the uptake of online meetings to an extent that you would have been hard-pressed to predict in 2019. Other economic factors not directly related to the airport also come into play.

It's perhaps a bit unfair, but the airport has also failed in quite a few ways, such as having terrible problems with queues for security and a design that makes very little sense in terms of facilities, what with T2 being a barren wasteland and with a ridiculously long walk to get to the facilities in T1. While I understand that the point of T2 was to have a cheap, no-frills, low-cost terminal, it's unbelievable that it was constructed with such a minimalist airside area without even adequate seating capacity. And let's not talk about T1 security and the mess there...

Zurich Airport handles about 5-6m more passengers a year, yet the experience there is far more welcoming and friendly than the mess that is BER. If they had stuck to having T5 (the old Schoenfeld) as the low cost terminal, it might be a far more pleasant experience today.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Aug 2025 ==

The connectivity needs to be the at the start not wishful thinking at the end.

Absolutely. One major problem with Heathrow right now is that they can and will deliver a third runway and the associated infrastructure, but there's a very high chance that the public sector won't catch up. Luton received a lot of stick for the DART, but it delivered 6 million passengers in 2 years and it's working very well with the rail connection.

 

[Wolfie]

Live in a city expect noise. Dont like it there’s plenty of quiet countryside to move to. As TravelDream says, aircraft engines are getting quieter with each new development as are their fuel efficiency.

Spoken like a typical person who wants the benefits and someone else to suffer the downside. When l hear comments like that l have more sympathy with my ex-military neighbour who thinks that the best solution to Heathrow is a few SA-14s or similar....

 

[TravelDream]

I didn't choose to live in Islington expecting to hear aircraft noise, but l do. Particularly when most of those advocating airport expansion live nowhere near impacted areas - strange that!

I live less than a ten minute walk to the perimeter fence of a fairly major regional airport. Yes, you can hear planes from around 6am until around 2am.
However, the airport was here long before me, and I moved here with the knowledge it exists.

A few months after moving in, I could sleep with the windows open no issue. You get used to it.

You might say, it's not Heathrow. No, it isn't. But the gap between close and open is much smaller and I live a hell of a lot closer than you do.

 

[camflyer]

Spoken like a typical person who wants the benefits and someone else to suffer the downside. When l hear comments like that l have more sympathy with my ex-military neighbour who thinks that the best solution to Heathrow is a few SA-14s or similar....

What about the benefits of living near a major hub airport? You are only a short train/taxi/bus ride away from a gateway to the world.

West London and the Thames Valley is also one of the best areas in the country for employment with so many corporate offices based in Slough, Reading and Brentford partially for the access to Heathrow.

If the airport was closed and converted into housing then that would radically change the economy of the whole region and maybe not in a good way. The economics and logistics of "Boris Island" made any sense. If people in West London don't like Heathrow then I'm not sure they would want to be on the opposite side of London to its replacement either.

 

[pitdiver]

I’m not anti-aviation for a start, I’ve spent over 20 years working in the sector in both commercial and ops roles. You’re talking about major airports that do function as economic facilitators, I’m talking about regional airports in the U.K. that serve primarily the outbound holiday sector and as such are a net loss to regional GDP and their employment creation isn’t even akin to opening a big Tesco or Amazon distribution centre.

Look at the push to reopen DSA as a case in point. They want to throw £150 million (and the rest!) of tax payers money at a venture that failed under two separate private sector airport operators due to a fundamental lack of viability. They claim it’s vital for the economy of South Yorkshire but have failed to quantify this apart from plucking some numbers out of thin air that denote a ROI of 9:1 and the GVA they quote is more than that which London Gatwick generates!

Airports as economic drivers is a fallacy. Airlines are high risk low reward ventures and they have to go to where they know they’ll be able to fill their seats. Dublin, Warsaw, Newark, LA and Sydney yes, Doncaster… errrr. Nope.

HEAR HEAR re Doncaster

 

[pug1]

Spoken like a typical person who wants the benefits and someone else to suffer the downside. When l hear comments like that l have more sympathy with my ex-military neighbour who thinks that the best solution to Heathrow is a few SA-14s or similar....

Not quite, I live on the approach to an airport in the countryside, I chose to move there knowing I would be interrupted by aircraft. These places have been around for longer than I have and will continue to be so. It’s like people choosing to live next to a main line railway and complaining about trains passing. London is a global city, stands to reason that it’ll have a global airport attached to it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2025 ==

"May follow"? The trouble is that the public sector has proven time and time again that it is incapable of providing the transport connectivity.

The connectivity needs to be the at the start not wishful thinking at the end.

Build it and they will come economics you mean? Fine for airports like Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester which have a large enough throughput to warrant such infrastructure, not so much small regional airports that wouldn’t justify the investment.

They say you need around 10mppa passing through an airport before you can seriously justify extending railways etc. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but each based on merit. A public/private scheme would usually be best.

 

[Acfb]

Not quite, I live on the approach to an airport in the countryside, I chose to move there knowing I would be interrupted by aircraft. These places have been around for longer than I have and will continue to be so. It’s like people choosing to live next to a main line railway and complaining about trains passing. London is a global city, stands to reason that it’ll have a global airport attached to it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Aug 2025 ==


Build it and they will come economics you mean? Fine for airports like Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester which have a large enough throughput to warrant such infrastructure, not so much small regional airports that wouldn’t justify the investment.

They say you need around 10mppa passing through an airport before you can seriously justify extending railways etc. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but each based on merit. A public/private scheme would usually be best.

I can see a case for improved public transport at Bristol which had just over 10m passengers given it's large catchment area. Some sort of heavy rail link or at least light rail should be explored. That would benefit south Wales as well so Cardiff Airport can then be closed (which is basically a slightly larger version of Teesside Airport kept afloat by the KLM flights).

It does seem like there are too many airports, even in the Scottish central belt. I would even question the need for Glasgow Airport to exist long term as it serves basically no destinations now that Edinburgh doesn't have apart from some Highlands and Islands flights.

 

[camflyer]

I can see a case for improved public transport at Bristol which had just over 10m passengers given it's large catchment area. Some sort of heavy rail link or at least light rail should be explored. That would benefit south Wales as well so Cardiff Airport can then be closed (which is basically a slightly larger version of Teesside Airport kept afloat by the KLM flights).

It does seem like there are too many airports, even in the Scottish central belt. I would even question the need for Glasgow Airport to exist long term as it serves basically no destinations now that Edinburgh doesn't have apart from some Highlands and Islands flights.

Of course Bristol airport should have been at Filton with good rail links to the GW mainline and the M4/M5 but we are long past that now.

The only way Glasgow could be closed is a massive expansion at Edinburgh as that is already bursting at the seams and I can't see either being politically popular in the respective cities. People may not support their local airport expanding but they don't like them being totally closed either. Prestwick could easily be closed without much fuss though.

Also does Belfast need two airports (plus Derry not far away)?

 

[AlastairFraser]

I can see a case for improved public transport at Bristol which had just over 10m passengers given it's large catchment area. Some sort of heavy rail link or at least light rail should be explored. That would benefit south Wales as well so Cardiff Airport can then be closed (which is basically a slightly larger version of Teesside Airport kept afloat by the KLM flights).

While a light or heavy rail link to Bristol Airport is significantly overdue, public transport journey times to and from a lot of South Wales would still be unacceptable, and the nature of typical regional railway operating hours mean that the wave of early low cost airline departures would likely still be inaccessible to those attempting to reach the airport from outside the Bristol metropolitan area.

It does seem like there are too many airports, even in the Scottish central belt. I would even question the need for Glasgow Airport to exist long term as it serves basically no destinations now that Edinburgh doesn't have apart from some Highlands and Islands flights.

Edinburgh would need a significant expansion if Glasgow was closed. There isn't really the available land for this, and the land would be far more valuable as a site for a medium-sized new town.

If you wanted to close Glasgow, you'd need a large airport serving both major cities in the middle.
If you can find a site for this (perhaps Grangemouth when the site finishes winding down completely?), then it's viable.

The only way Glasgow could be closed is a massive expansion at Edinburgh as that is already bursting at the seams and I can't see either being politically popular in the respective cities. People may not support their local airport expanding but they don't like them being totally closed either.

Indeed

Also does Belfast need two airports (plus Derry not far away)?

I reckon George Best City Airport could close if Belfast International received a considerable upgrade including station on the Lisburn to Antrim line and shuttle connection to the terminal. The location would be ideal for a premium mixed use residential and commercial development, and any general aviation operations that are unlikely to want to use International could use Newtownards Airport instead.

If you built a new terminal further west while the existing terminal continues to be used for the duration of the new terminal's construction, you could even include a dedicated unguided busway to the new station complex.

I can't see LDY closing until the Foyleside area receives consistently sub 2 hour road and rail connections to the Belfast airports.

 

[pug1]

Of course Bristol airport should have been at Filton with good rail links to the GW mainline and the M4/M5 but we are long past that now.

The only way Glasgow could be closed is a massive expansion at Edinburgh as that is already bursting at the seams and I can't see either being politically popular in the respective cities. People may not support their local airport expanding but they don't like them being totally closed either. Prestwick could easily be closed without much fuss though.

Also does Belfast need two airports (plus Derry not far away)?

Bristol should have been at Filton, Manchester/Liverpool should have been at Burtonwood and in Yorkshire the East Cowick idea held a lot of merit. The uk Governments of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s failed to appropriately plan. Rather than have a national airport framework they took airports that they deemed ‘of national significance’ and left literally every single city that wasn’t included to do their own thing. It’s why we have an LBA that’s well away from the motorway network, MAN and LPL competing with each other and two airports for EDI and GLA because they decided Prestwick (yes that airport in Ayershire) was of nationally strategic importance..

This is partly the reason heavy rail doesn’t really tally up too well with the UK’s airport infrastructure. It was mostly left to local councils (corporations) to sort it out and they struggle to collect the bins on time!

 

[Snow1964]

Seems Alaska Airlines are opening a route to Heathrow

We’re charting a bold new course across the Atlantic with the launch of two new nonstop routes to London Heathrow and Reykjavik, Iceland, from our growing global gateway in Seattle starting next spring. We’re also debuting Alaska’s striking global exterior design that will be featured on our growing fleet of up to 17 widebody 787 Dreamliner aircraft.
By Alaska Airlines
Aug 5, 2025
9 min read

Summary​


Our daily nonstop to London Heathrow will connect business and leisure travelers to the largest intercontinental market from Seattle, our growing global gateway

For the first time, we’re showcasing the striking new exterior design of Alaska-branded 787-9 long-haul aircraft, inspired by our heritage as we connect to the world

On the horizon, a new onboard global experience for the 787-9s based in Seattle and Hawaiian Airlines-branded Airbus 330 widebody aircraft based in Honolulu

Having recently merged (or in process of merging with Hawaiian), they seem to be turning Seattle into a NW USA hub

Alaska Airlines continues international expansion with new flights to London and Reykjavik from Seattle, with a first look at our new global experience - Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines and Horizon Air

We’re charting a bold new course across the Atlantic with the launch of two new nonstop routes to London Heathrow and Reykjavik, Iceland, from our growing global gateway in Seattle starting next spring. We’re also debuting Alaska’s striking global exterior design that will be featured on our...

news.alaskaair.com

 

[Class 170101]

I would certainly agree that they economy is unlikely to collapse without an airport serving Doncaster and a handful of other smaller airports. Better rail links could mean that Liverpool, East Midlands (though that is a big cargo hub) and Teesside could be closed and the land redeveloped for more productive uses.

Possibly but I wouldn't be so sure about giving up the runway capacity given how long and how much hassle is involved in opening new runways. The last one in the UK was Manchester.

So yes, expand Heathrow and Gatwick but only if rail links are improved. Build the Western and Southern Access links at Heathrow.

For Heathrow the planning permission needs to include Southern and Western Rail Access as a requirement of planning permission, with private rather than government funding.

and do whatever possible to increase capacity on the Brighton Mail Line (is the BML2 proposal via Uckfield still a thing?)

Whilst Gatwick will need expanding I'm not sure what BML2 would for Gatwick given BML2 doesn't directly serve Gatwick in the first instance.

I don't totally disagree. Schiphol is Amsterdam is an excellent example of an airport being a transport hub.
However, there are numerous issues.
For an airport to be a hub, it needs to be close to the city centre/ on a major access route into the city (like Heathrow) or be between two cities (suppose Gatwick could be described as this).
Also, flights leave too early and land too late for trains (and often buses) to be a viable option to get to every flight.
Look at any UK regional airport. 5.45am-7am for departures (which means arriving 3.45am-5am) and post-midnight for arrivals are prime times. Britain doesn't have a 24 hour rail network and departures at these times aren't viable if using trains to get to and from the airport.

Actually Gatwick does have a 24hour service between Gatwick and London.

 

[Bald Rick]

So yes, expand Heathrow and Gatwick but only if rail links are improved. Build the Western and Southern Access links at Heathrow and do whatever possible to increase capacity on the Brighton Mail Line (is the BML2 proposal via Uckfield still a thing?)

BML2 was never a thing, if by ‘thing’ you mean a proposal by the rail industry.

For Heathrow the planning permission needs to include Southern and Western Rail Access as a requirement of planning permission, with private rather than government funding.

It won’t, sadly (be included, regardless of funding). I expect this to be a significant point of contention in the public inquiry.

Actually Gatwick does have a 24hour service between Gatwick and London.

And Luton, ie 24 hour service between Luton and Gatwick via London.

 

[Class 170101]

It won’t, sadly (be included, regardless of funding). I expect this to be a significant point of contention in the public inquiry.

And it deserves to be a significant point of contention. If Heathrow wants to be a part of the economy and community it serves it should offer this. If not then frankly I think it would be better to expand Gatwick with a second runway rather than putting UK PLCs eggs into the Heathrow basket.

And Luton, ie 24 hour service between Luton and Gatwick via London.

Not at Luton on Saturday night. Nothing between about 0230 and 0630 Sunday morning.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Live in a city expect noise.

However, the airport was here long before me, and I moved here with the knowledge it exists.

The noise is intrusive, even compared to the background hubbub, as far out as Stratford. The planes were enough to disturb me when I lived in Muswell Hill. They were noticeable in the stack when I moved further out to Hemel Hempstead.

Fine, Heathrow and the flight paths were there before me. But a third runway at Heathrow will increase the number of planes by over 50%. And the people living under these flight paths were there before the third runway.

 

[pug1]

The noise is intrusive, even compared to the background hubbub, as far out as Stratford. The planes were enough to disturb me when I lived in Muswell Hill. They were noticeable in the stack when I moved further out to Hemel Hempstead.

Fine, Heathrow and the flight paths were there before me. But a third runway at Heathrow will increase the number of planes by over 50%. And the people living under these flight paths were there before the third runway.

Perhaps it’s time to explore other parts of the U.K. then? It’s a fairly big country and you can find your quiet spot and probably afford to live a much happier life.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Perhaps it’s time to explore other parts of the U.K. then? It’s a fairly big country and you can find your quiet spot and probably afford to live a much happier life.

If you check the member's location, I think he may have already taken your advice.

 

[philosopher]

The noise is intrusive, even compared to the background hubbub, as far out as Stratford. The planes were enough to disturb me when I lived in Muswell Hill. They were noticeable in the stack when I moved further out to Hemel Hempstead.

Fine, Heathrow and the flight paths were there before me. But a third runway at Heathrow will increase the number of planes by over 50%. And the people living under these flight paths were there before the third runway.

I suspect most of Greater London is impacted by aircraft noise at some point due to London having multiple airports and multiple routes in and out of those airports. I have lived in London at four different locations and three of them have had significant aircraft noise. Putney was under the Heathrow westerly arrivals flight path. Tooting was under one of the Heathrow easterly departures paths, which was quite noisy in the evening as large aircraft flying to the Middle East and Asia tended to use this departure route.

My current location is quite impacted by aircraft noise from aircraft landing at City Airport when the wind is from east. There is some noise from Heathrow when Heathrow is under the usual westerly operations, but I am just about far enough north not to be too impacted significantly.

Islington was the only location where I have where aircraft noise.

More concentrated flight paths may help some to some extent, but would make the noise worse for others.