Gatwick-3
Try applying this approach to something like asbestos - it was your problem for working in that building?
If I genuinely believed living near an airport was bad for my health in any way then I’d move away, yes.
But I agree that it’s easier to blame somebody or something else and be a victim than take personal responsibility these days, especially when papers like the Guardian are happy to use it to push their nonsense agenda.
But I agree that it’s easier to blame somebody or something else and be a victim than take personal responsibility these days, especially when papers like the Guardian are happy to use it to push their nonsense agenda.
The following users liked this post:
So the pollution generator has no responsibility, and if we know an activity is damaging people's health we should do more of it and it's their responsibility to get out of harms way?
Fast food restaurants cause significantly more damage to people’s health than pollution in the West, yet there’s no clamour to have them shut down. Where does your grand plan to avoid personal responsibility end?
I reluctantly gave the article the time of day. They’re talking within 1km of the airport fence and depending on which way the wind blows. Choosing to live that close to an airport or any industrial area and complaining about adverse health effects is akin to those who blame McDonalds and genetics for their heart disease.
Again, Guardian agenda pushing drivel.
I reluctantly gave the article the time of day. They’re talking within 1km of the airport fence and depending on which way the wind blows. Choosing to live that close to an airport or any industrial area and complaining about adverse health effects is akin to those who blame McDonalds and genetics for their heart disease.
Again, Guardian agenda pushing drivel.
Give your head a shake - what grand plan? I'm merely stating that there is corporate responsibility at play here, as well as personal responsibility.
Look forward to you moaning about your flight being delayed due to staff shortages!
Look forward to you moaning about your flight being delayed due to staff shortages!
No there isn’t. If you believe where you live isn’t healthy, move somewhere that you believe is. In almost all cases now, the airport was there before the resident. Your health, your choice.
Are we seriously suggesting that industry is not already taking 'corporate responsibility' on environmental issues? If so I have news for you... They most certainly are.
It all boils down to what kind of government policy we want aviation to have... One favoured by environmentalists whose sole aim is to restrain aviation, hike taxes, damage international connectivity, make the UK uncompetetive and starve economic growth for generations to come, all whilst continuing to blight our largest airports with capacity constraints and operational inefficiencies... aka, the failed model.
Or you take a holistic approach and grow aviation in a responsible way; endorsing modern fleets, sustainable fuel, airspace modernisation, slot reform and a fairer taxation system that directly adresses environmental concerns, all whilst growing international connectivity and supporting an economy which can re-invest in further green initiatives. That's what the industy's committed to, but admittedly, I'm not sure any government currently is capable of perfecting that choice... but that is the only viable choice we have.
It all boils down to what kind of government policy we want aviation to have... One favoured by environmentalists whose sole aim is to restrain aviation, hike taxes, damage international connectivity, make the UK uncompetetive and starve economic growth for generations to come, all whilst continuing to blight our largest airports with capacity constraints and operational inefficiencies... aka, the failed model.
Or you take a holistic approach and grow aviation in a responsible way; endorsing modern fleets, sustainable fuel, airspace modernisation, slot reform and a fairer taxation system that directly adresses environmental concerns, all whilst growing international connectivity and supporting an economy which can re-invest in further green initiatives. That's what the industy's committed to, but admittedly, I'm not sure any government currently is capable of perfecting that choice... but that is the only viable choice we have.
At British Airways, we care about the impact of every flight.
I guess the simple test is this - airlines
Emissions targets in and of themselves are arbitrary, it's all part of a desperate need to close the gap between government spending and tax revenue.
The following users liked this post:
Sorry, your agenda is showing again. Nobody has mentioned cutting back or reducing volume here, this issue was raised in the context of Gatwick expanding. The overwhelming response here has been to blame people for living near airports if they are affected by the pollution created by the airport. It doesn't seem unreasonable to take into account that impact when assessing the case for expansion.
And please, less of the industry greenwashing - what they are interested in is efficiency (cheaper). Cleanliness etc only comes into it when imposed by regulators or there's a buck in it (e.g. LHR charges)
And please, less of the industry greenwashing - what they are interested in is efficiency (cheaper). Cleanliness etc only comes into it when imposed by regulators or there's a buck in it (e.g. LHR charges)
Sorry, your agenda is showing again. Nobody has mentioned cutting back or reducing volume here, this issue was raised in the context of Gatwick expanding. The overwhelming response here has been to blame people for living near airports if they are affected by the pollution created by the airport. It doesn't seem unreasonable to take into account that impact when assessing the case for expansion.
And please, less of the industry greenwashing - what they are interested in is efficiency (cheaper). Cleanliness etc only comes into it when imposed by regulators or there's a buck in it (e.g. LHR charges)
And please, less of the industry greenwashing - what they are interested in is efficiency (cheaper). Cleanliness etc only comes into it when imposed by regulators or there's a buck in it (e.g. LHR charges)
When you say "take into account" you mean "give them an effective veto". My agenda is basically finding a way to pay our bills and not get left behind in a forever changing world.
Efficiency and technology and the human need to make things better as well as competitive advantage made the B707 into the B747 which begat the B787 and B777-X, similar story on the Airbus side. The turbojet JT3C on the B707 became a cleaner turbofan JT3D which laid the foundations for the high bypass JT9D/CF6 on the B747 which led to the GE90 and GE-NX today, all of which were cleaner and greener than the previous iteration as part ongoing improvements.
When you say "take into account" you mean "give them an effective veto". My agenda is basically finding a way to pay our bills and not get left behind in a forever changing world.
Last edited by SWBKCB; 14th Jun 2024 at 14:00.
Everything else in terms of airspace, night noise, slots, tax structures is subject to government regulation and that's what too needs modernising and reforming to meet environmental targets.
Well that wouldn't be growing in a responsible way would it? Whatever future greener technology is out there needs to be cost effective. That's as much a part of clean and sustainable aviation as purely the emissions themselves. So you're point is somewhat redundant.
Everything else in terms of airspace, night noise, slots, tax structures is subject to government regulation and that's what too needs modernising and reforming to meet environmental targets.
Everything else in terms of airspace, night noise, slots, tax structures is subject to government regulation and that's what too needs modernising and reforming to meet environmental targets.
Industries generally need cajoling either via direct regulation or financial penalties.
They might’ change manufacturing processes and might’ introduce new technologies however they won’t without a viable financial incentive/legal penalty.
And we are talking of the real/traditional economic drivers , less so services , financial and their associated esoteric gambling sectors.
The following users liked this post:
New LGW slot allocations for winter 2024-25
There is some interesting news in the preliminary slot coordination report ACL have released for LGW.
Both Kenya Airways and Xiamen Airlines have been awarded all the Gatwick slots they applied for for the forthcoming 2024-25 winter season. While nothing may come of it, interesting nonetheless.
And Air Peace have been awarded all the Gatwick slots they applied for winter 2024-25 as well. Hopefully, this will shut up the airline's founder / CEO.
Both Kenya Airways and Xiamen Airlines have been awarded all the Gatwick slots they applied for for the forthcoming 2024-25 winter season. While nothing may come of it, interesting nonetheless.
And Air Peace have been awarded all the Gatwick slots they applied for winter 2024-25 as well. Hopefully, this will shut up the airline's founder / CEO.
If Kenya Airways take up their slots at Gatwick for winter 2024-25, could we perhaps see them launch a twice-weekly (or even thrice-weekly) winter-seasonal service to / from Mombasa (given that they already do Heathrow-Nairobi twice-daily all-year round and probably don't have any need to add further flights to / from the Kenyan capital, at least for the time being)?
Who knows, it might even lead to BA relaunching regular services from Gatwick to one or more of these destinations, all of which are currently unserved by BA. My favourites, which I believe to be a good fit for Gatwick, would be Dar Es Salaam, Entebbe, Kilimanjaro and Zanzibar, with the former two lending themselves to be served year-round and the latter two winter-seasonally.
