There's been quite a bit of debate on the subject of massive expansion at the UK's biggest airports. Heathrow's Terminal Five plans were the subject of intense debate - many argued that the construction would be a massive boost for the economy (creating new jobs at Heathrow, as well as increasing passenger numbers) but there was fierce opposition by environmentalists who claimed the increase in air traffic would create unacceptable levels of air pollution - but after eight years, the construction plans were approved.

Just a few days ago BAA (British Airports Authority) called on the government to agree to the construction of three new runways (one at Heathrow, one at Gatwick, and perhaps even two at Stansted). I think it's quite obvious that the UK needs to have room for growth in this industry and that better aviation links will inevitably be of great benefit to the economy over the coming decades but there are several 'campaign groups', comprised largely of home-owners living near the airports flagged for expansion, who are determined to fight any plans to build new runways.

There's a BBC News Online article which briefly details the situation here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3019095.stm

A lot of people opposed to the new runways cite concerns over air pollution and noise pollution as their reasons for being against expansion but are these concerns justified? I live not too far from Teesside International Airport (the 'International' aspect of which is frequently and justifiably mocked) and I see a fair share of aircraft over my house and school as a direct result of living close to the airport. The air traffic has never been a major concern of mine although Teesside is a great deal smaller than any of the UK's major airports. Could someone who lives near a busier airport say how air traffic affects them? Has your house been devalued because you live under a busy flight path, is the noise a nuisance, do you have worries about damage being done to the environment - or, like me, are you largely unaffected by the airport's presense?

I don't know a great deal about the alleged environmental impact of air traffic. Could someone tell me exactly how polluting large commercial aircraft are and whether or not environmental damage is a legitimate reason for people to oppose the construction of new runways and the additional traffic they bring to an airport?

Thanks.

-Stephen.

• RE: UK needs three more runways?,RayProudfoot, 22:04z, 05-13-03
• RE: UK needs three more runways?,AlanParkinson, 19:03z, 05-14-03
  • RE: UK needs three more runways?,jimh, 19:32z, 05-15-03

Hi Stephen,

<<Could someone who lives near a busier airport say how air traffic affects them? Has your house been devalued because you live under a busy flight path, is the noise a nuisance, do you have worries about damage being done to the environment - or, like me, are you largely unaffected by the airport's presense? >>

I live 3 miles to the east of Manchester Airport (EGCC). I've lived here since 1974. My house lies directly under the LISTO departure when 06L is in use. During the summer months if aircraft are taking off to the east the weather is usually warm and people will have windows open and may even be sitting in the garden (yes, even here in Manchester! ). The LISTO departures are around 2,000ft when they pass over and even though many modern aircraft are a lot quieter than their counterparts of 30 years ago they still make enough noise to be a nuisance. From that point of view they are a audible nuisance. I've never considered them to be a pollution problem. Because of my proximity to the green belt of south Manchester and to the airport I consider the area is attractive and house prices are not affected.

On the positive side it's very useful living so close to a major airport. I can be there in less than 15 minutes and often visit the Aviation Viewing Park where there are excellent views of the aircraft. Having a scanner allows me to listen in to ATC - very interesting.

The addition of the second runway has had no effect on my immediate environment. However, if a third runway was ever planned it's possible there could be a negative effect in Cheadle Hulme. I doubt a 3rd runway will be considered for many years though. The cost would be astronomical.

Regards,

Ray Proudfoot,
Cheshire, England

Hi Stephen

>I don't know a great deal about the alleged environmental
>impact of air traffic. Could someone tell me exactly how
>polluting large commercial aircraft are and whether or not
>environmental damage is a legitimate reason for people to
>oppose the construction of new runways and the additional
>traffic they bring to an airport?

I can't say I know a great deal on the subject either, but there's not much argument (by engineers, at least) that modern high-bypass turbofan engines are amongst the most fuel-efficient internal combustion engines ever produced. More of the energy of the fuel is converted to useful work than in other types of engine.

Furthermore, the combustion process in such an engine is very much more complete than in piston engines. From the chemist's theoretical point of view, jet fuel (essentially kerosene) burns to produce nothing but carbon dioxide and water. It's only when incomplete combustion occurs, that you get carbon monoxide, as in car engine exhaust. There's practically no carbon monoxide in jet exhausts, I think.

One of my friends from university days is an aircraft propulsion specialist. Unfortunately, he's in Saudi Arabia, and after the events in Riyadh recently, he's gone very quiet - keeping his head down hopefully - so I can't really quiz him on details.

I seem to remember that the fuel consumption mpg figures of jet airliners are better than for cars (per passenger, that is)

Alan

Hi Stephen,

I live just off the flight path to R23 at Glasgow Airport. In the neighbouring residential area, aircraft overhead make conversation impossible for the duration of their passing. The airport is busy, but it is not a continuous flow of traffic.

Resident's organisations made vehement objections to the extension of operating hours at the Airport, on the grounds of the intolerable noise, yet house prices here are among the highest around the city, and continuing to rise.

Apparently, life in a leafy suburb, 20 minutes from the Airport Terminal, weighs a great deal against the effect of low flying aircraft overhead now and then.

Regards Jim H.