Nonsense “ThinkTank” Says LCY Should Close

It’s a load of Lefty guff:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-26965052

Airports do damage the environment. However, governments could mandate that aircraft manufacturers and operators are more environmentally friendly, such as noise reduction, greener fuels such as biofuel. It can be done without the need to close airports.

As for “tree huggers should not be given a platform to preach”, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and freedom of speech. Furthermore, the article doesn’t mention “tree huggers” at all, it is mostly about homes and businesses.

Also, VK, it is not “lefty guff”. There is nothing wrong with wanting equal opportunities for people and businesses.

Yes, and they can be made greener too, though I doubt cows and vehicles are worse than a 60 tonne aircraft, and an airport full of them. If this government got its rear into gear, we could create a far more connected and environmentally friendly country, we are sadly way behind other nations. LCY does need a longer runway though, it is incapable of handling true long-haul routes, so not entirely sure how it is good for business. Good for europe and JFK (albeit via SNN), but not for long-haul business routes.

I’m not sensitive to it, I just found it rude, that’s all.

Hi nmh

I’m very much an advocate for the environment, so much so that I was asked a few years ago to come up with a presentation to promote internally a scheme to save the planet. Won’t go into specifics as I want to keep my company name out of the debate.

After doing some research I moved from being pro-environment to being passionate about it !

Ironically I also became a bit of a sceptic of “ tree huggers” due to my research, Research that was independent of lobbying groups.

For example, from my presentation notes, see below
Deforestation is responsible for around a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions – that’s more than all of the world’s cars, planes, trains and ships put together. Tackling this must play an important part in how we fight global warming.

To make matters worse, when these forests are burnt down – to clear land for commercial farming or mining, for example – they release any stored CO2 back into the atmosphere

Exasperated by putting cows onto the land !

Being involved in the project really gave me a deeper understanding of the issues, What I didn’t get was why the “Tree Huggers” chose to vent their blame on the aviation industry, There is no doubt that civil aviation contributes, but it’s much less than perceived by the masses! Who should really look at their own car usage as well as domestic home usage, that causes far more damage than airplanes.

I am sure all of us care for the environment, but as for all the reasons put, the Aviation industry has been too easily a target to blame. We need to abolish cattle clearly and change the developing (now developed it seems) countries requiring more of a meat diet. Holland would need to cull cows big time!

China is building one new airport a month according to some figures, and at least another coal power station every two! Me turning my microwave off, or taking less flights will not affect the global problem.

These are one version of the plans to extend LCY:

http://www.lcacc.org/future/cadp1212.pdf

The runway cannot be expanded, and already it is steep to land and take off, with bridges at each end, and a hair airway west.
There are plans to make better use and add a taxi way, and where the water is inside by the car park, extension of the terminal and more and larger stands.

It does also generate much employment, and the residents have worked along with it, as have Newham Council. With the direct and short times needed to fly in and out, and the best location to The City and Central London, who can put a price on the efficiency of travel this provides and is valued at for the economy?

I agree with a Boris Island new Airport, even though it would take 4 times the time to build in the UK, but all the examples from around the world indicate a new airport is the best long term plan.

However, LCY has its purpose, it is a real pleasure to fly from and connects many of the main cities in Europe, and some domestic ones also. The need for larger aircraft, that are new, with less emissions is a matter for all airports especially LCY with many old RJ 85 aircraft still in use. But their forward planning takes this into account.

The Aviation industry is doing very well in investing in new technology. KLM play their big part in Bio fuel experimentation and many green efforts and awarded each year for the best in The World, as one example.
The new orders for 25%+ more fuel efficient aircraft, and less emissions per seat with larger aircraft is the way forwards. It maybe financially driven, but will impact the environment greater than many other industries are bothering to do. Governments need to ensure older aircraft are discouraged, and maximise the passengers enabled on each flight, therefore increasing capacity of an airport for numbers overall, per slot.

Many cities around the world have an old, or smaller airport very near the city. It is more about how the Airlines use it, where they will take you, what aircraft they use, than questioning the existence of the Airport itself.

There are people on the internet that think of weird things and closing down London City airport is one of those weird things. Who ever got the idea to build a airport in the capital, won’t like to see the airport close down.

It is a unique airport and if the airport gets its runway expanded, would help to bring more airlines from more places, which is good, and maybe BA might expand both normal BA and Cityflyer to fly to longer reach places, so maybe in the future, London City to Dubai.

Nice to know Karl Marx learn debating skill in the Oxford Union!