So, Heathrow........

Sonic67

If you buy a house next to an airport I don't see how you can complain about noise.

IronGiant

Although to be fair to some of the locals, I'd imagine the amount of air traffic has gone up a fair bit over the last 50 years.

woody10381

Ok, I wasn't planning on getting into a debate on standard aircraft operations - merely to state that noise would still be an issue irrespective of thrust setting being utilised.

I'm not sure I'm disagreeing with anything you're saying; I'm just stating that if maximum power is not required, a 'high' power setting will still be used - and it will still be noisy!

Just because a safety margin exists, it does not mean that the crew will start eating into it - particularly where take-off is concerned; beyond this point it is no longer a safety margin. But I agree with you in that a safe minimum (legal) margin can be maintained in most cases without 'maximum' thrust, save for a fully laden heavy on a hot, still day!

Reverse thrust will generally be used where possible irrespective of available runway length. It is safer, (greater retardation = less braking distance required = less time spent on the runway) and results in less wear on the brake packs. It can also be more efficient from an operational point of view, the crew may prefer to vacate the runway at the earliest possible intersection depending on it's route back to the arrivals gate.

domtheone

25% above market value!  Thank you very much HMG/Heathrow.    I'll take the cash and move to France.

^^^^
I'd be like that guy interviewed the other day.  Apart from the moving to France bit

fluxo

Ok, so in today's money £256m. Which means that the new Heathrow runway is going to be about 78 times more expensive than the Manchester one. 78!!!!!!

Greg Hook

You're forgetting that probably twenty times that amount goes to the lawyers, solicitors etc before anything is even done! Some law firm is lined up for some cushy work.

Oswald

There are plenty of lawyers 'oop north' too.  

Stuey1

And I'm not arguing that a high power setting will be used, aircraft make noise that's a fact but the noise is less than it was in years gone by as generally engines are more efficient and quieter

Most of all, I'm just pointing out that the airport in question is already one of the busiest in the world and on balance I can't see how an extra runway is going to cause much more noise that is going to affect house prices drastically in the area. Especially when technology in aviation has come on so much in the last 20 years, and regulations are in place to cause as little noise as is possible for a major airport.

domtheone

According to wiki, "The project was deemed controversial because of the destruction of natural wildlife habitats"

No mention of hundreds of houses that were bulldozed etc etc.

I bet more money is going on compensation for the hundreds of houses that are being knocked down, than what the total cost of the Manchester Runway was.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me, if the cost was 10 x Manchester, before they even start digging!

Oswald

Some houses were demolished in Manchester, though I'm not sure how many (not hundreds).

The wildlife habitat concern was primarily about amphibians and bats... a friend of mine spent a good 18 months on-site catching and counting frogs and newts!  IIRC the runway (and associated infrastructure) had to be designed to accommodate the various wildlife.  e.g. tunnels under the runway for animals, bat 'houses', etc.

...and they also had to deal with 'Swampy' and friends.  
Discussed here:

"783 homes will be demolished at Heathrow. If each home costs £1 million (unlikely), then that's 'only' £783 million of the £20 Billion  project costs. I wonder where the other > £19 Billion will go...?"