East Midlands runway extension plans approved
has been approved.
km (1.8 mile) airstrip nine years ago.
from nearby residents who fear increased noise and pollution.
would be small.
especially across the Atlantic.
Council report found the environmental impact would be marginal given the growth
in flights predicted in the future.
– former passenger aircraft – will take on more fuel and more cargo.
take off speed.”
runway can only hold one plane at a time, so there will be no increase in the
number of aircraft as a result of the extension.
as the council’s own noise experts agree, will be imperceptible.”
the move, but with some conditions attached to limit night-time flying between
2300 and 0700 GMT.
for blocking the development.
freight airport more attractive to long-haul cargo carriers, especially across
it will lead to more jet engine noise and air pollution.
Dear Mr Sensible.
When your house is for sale at a knock down bargain price then please contact
me. I’ll only buy at 50% of the current value. Although I don’t think the runway
extension will reduce it by this much!
emissions and sound pollution further due to what they call “flex thrust”. This
means pilots can use less throttle than they normally would on both take off and
landing. Only a complete know nowt like Mr Dense would argue against such a thing
– but then again, he likes to get outraged and will take the least opportunity
to do so. You trully have been slaughtered on this issue by numerous people who
know infinitely more than you.
This is excellent news!
More metres of runway today, a new terminal tomorrow, and then a port to saturns
moons no doubt shortly to follow.
If this runway extension brings more affordable housing to the east midlands,
then even better. They should widen all roads in the area to handle the extra
I see what you’re trying to say Greg but the extension is to make it possible
for larger cargo planes to land and takeoff. Smaller planes will still only require
the same length of runway.
Im not an expert but wouldnt a longer runway make it easier for aircraft to take
off and land. I would expect that the aircraft wouldnt need to accelerate as hard
meaning less C02 produced and the same for landing less reverse thrust required?
Maybe these points would also reduce noise not increase it.
runway extension, not the construction of a new terminal. This is for larger cargo
planes. Planes that bring in goods which I’m sure you use on a daily basis. Planes
which transport goods out of the country and boost our economy. How can you say
that the airline industry isn’t growing??? Then why are the new owners of Gatwick
proposing a 2nd runway??? We all know about Heathrow’s attempt to build a third.
Budget airlines (eg Ryan Air) are booming even throughout these hard times. Yes
BA has made a huge loss but this has more to do with total mis-management of our
flag carrier by Willie Walsh (as proven by Virgin Atlantic). This last decade
has seen Airbus build the worlds largest airliner. And you say that the airline
industry isn’t growing.
And what shocks me also is the fact that these Airlines can afford to think up
these ambitious plans, when their own staff are finding it very tough to earn
a decent wage in order to put food on their families’ dinner tables.
JW, this mate of yours sounds to me typical of the pro-road, anti-public transport
As long as you can get from A to B by car, or air, at a cheap price, that’s all
that matters and nothing else does.
To allow Airports and Roads to expand like this, whilst allowing train companies
to charge passengers £1000 (as came out in the news this evening) is simply wrong.
The government could easily use the money it is using on road widening projects,
including the nature-killing A46 along with a road pricing scheme to renationalize
and improve the rails.
Someone has to live in these houses…
I feel sorry for anyone who has to live there.
These houses will be sold at Bargain-Bacement, knocked down prices!
And the argument about technology was used to justify the third runway. Does
that mean that only a particular kind of plain can use this area?
And what sort of impact will this have on the local ecology?
Will any local homes go to make way for this?
Where will it go?
Accept it; this idea was built on the faulse claim that the airline industry,
both freight and passenger is growing.
When it obviously isn’t!
Mr Sensible – If residents don’t like living next to an airport, there is a simple
solution – move. Extending a runway doesn’t mean increased airspace – if anything
it frees up space as EMA will provide extra landing area for larger aircraft.
Aircraft technology is improving all the time with quieter, more efficient and
less polluting engines being built. (DHL replacing its MD11Fs with new 767ERFs
is a prime example)
The runway extension is for larger cargo aircraft for now. Yes it may mean that
larger passenger craft may be used in the future, but if you can operate less
flights because of larger planes, this can only be a good thing for the anti airport
The final piece in the conspiracy jigsaw? Donington Ventures fail to secure F1.
Tom Wheatcroft dies.
Airport eyes up Donington Park for Runway 2?
Putting the interests of residents aside to line the pockets of Airline executives!
You watch houseprices in the area depreciate!
Because of the extra noise!
And just how much green space is involved in this?
And how much CO2 will these new Aircraft emit?
We don’t need more Airspace!
We need less!