If I was not constrained by work, I'd happily live on one of the residential properties inside Moorabbin airport, so as to be closer to my flying club

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

"Or perhaps take up plane spotting?"

No kiddin'. There are people in the world to whom life close to an airport is a positive joy. (Did you ever look at airliners.net? Some of those people are kooks.)

And it's getting easier and easier to find them all the time, in case of a decision to sell.

Kenny, it sounds like you need to take a deep breath & down a nice glass of shiraz.  Or perhaps take up plane spotting? ;-) 

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Quite frankly, Duncan, you are spouting crap about an issue that you know nothing about.

The issue about which you speak - nuisance caused by noise and congestion - is addressed already by common law (and statute in most countries). If the airport is causing material harm to its neighbours by increasing its noise output, which is not covered by the 'coming to the nuisance' provisions in common law, then legal action may quite rightly be taken by residents.

However, that's neither here nor there. The issue I am addressing is the same as the issue the protesters are addressing in the aforementioned article - the 'greenhouse gas' output that would be produced by such an increase in aerial traffic. The idea of restricting air travel because of its presumed effect upon anthropogenic global warming is utterly asinine, and needs to be loudly refuted.

You need to re-read my objection to the environmental protests, re-read the original article, and quit insulting my intelligence.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

"..hopefully the aviation industry will have the balls to stand up & say no..."

BAA (the company that owns Heathrow) have won a high court injunction against one of the main environmental protest groups - called "Plane Stupid".

The protesters that have not been stopped are the local residents and they are protesting for different reasons.

Road capacity is a function of price, if the roads were priced sufficiently and there was no state monopoly on road building that may be somewhat addressed. Rail capacity much the same. It's a market issue, but that doesn't enter into debates in the UK.

The homes blighted by Heathrow are no different from homes blighted by airports anywhere. Property values reflect that. I lived a short time enduring the Heathrow flight path, I moved and pay more as a result. I wonder how many property owners would be gain a windfall in value if Heathrow closed (and was moved) would pay for that windfall, or compensate the thousands who would suffer the opposite effect (because their businesses service it). If Heathrow was being opened today, then there would be a point and arguably the tort of nuisance ought to cover that. However, this is no different from buying a house on a major highway - your property rights end at your boundary, and you don't have rights over airspace. You should have rights to cover trespass onto your property of pollution, and nuisance through noise. However, this should be negotiated between the owner of the other property and yourself.

The environmentalists opposed to Heathrow couldn't giving a damn about the noise really, as airliners are now the quietest they have ever been and keep getting so. The question of Heathrow is a question about growth in London - if access to it (in all dimensions) was properly priced, then it could expand as is efficient to do so.

Future Heathrow expansion should be done on the basis of property rights, buying the land for the third runway and buying the rights for more noise off of those directly affected - but that's it. Duncan, you're right the aviation industry hardly fights it (except Ryanair which is a human cargo operator anyway), and argues for carbon offsetting.

I can see this is touchy for you, Kenny. You do have a point, however you are unfair on Duncan. There is a difference between you and the Environmentalists. Your concern is property rights, and local. The Environmentalists concern is the destruction of property rights and on a global level. That's something that Duncan knows a lot about.

I own my house (no mortgage) and don't need a smart ass to tell me. Fuck off!

Your "back yard" is -- presumably -- accurately described in the deed to your property.

Do you understand?

There is not enough road and rail capacity to deal with a doubling in capacity and a third railway. Thousands of homes, including mine, would be blighted by aircraft noise (especially night flights) and traffic gridlock, already a major problem in the Richmond area. House prices in those areas would plummet.

Quite frankly, Duncan, you are spouting crap about an issue that you know nothing about. I don't piss in your back yard. Don't piss on mine!