Estuary airport would be 'a disaster'

An artist's impression of the planned airport on the Isle of Grain

An artist's impression of the planned airport on the Isle of Grain

First published in News by

THE future leader of Southend’s Tories has attacked Boris Johnson’s plan for an airport bigger than Heathrow in the Thames Estuary.

John Lamb, who will lead Southend Council’s Conservatives when council leader Nigel Holdcroft retires in May, has warned a four-runway replacement for Heathrow Airport on the Isle of Grain, Kent, would close Southend Airport and decimate the town’s economy.

The outspoken deputy leader warned his fellow Tory London Mayor: “Here we are talking about a large change to the estuary, which would alter tidal flows and impact on fish, birds and animals.

“Tell Boris Johnson: ‘Keep your airport in the west and put another runway there if you need it’.”

The council’s Conservative leadership pledged to continue fighting plans for the new airport, drawn up by Wembley Stadium designer Lord Norman Foster and backed by the London mayor, which are being considered by a Government commission on increasing airport capacity in the South East.

Mr Lamb, who has special responsibilities for regeneration and coastal matters, warned the scheme would do “tremendous” damage to Southend, without any benefit.

He said: “While people think it has all gone quiet on the Thames Estuary Airport, it has not and there are many people in the west of London, including the mayor, who if they had their way would damage the whole of Essex and Kent with what theywant to build in the Thames.

“It’s not Heathrow – it would be much larger than Heathrow. If Heathrow can’t cope now, they need a bigger area.

“It would not only damage Southend Airport and business, the damage to tourism would be tremendous.”

Planning officers have warned the Airports Commission, which is considering whether to add an estuary airport to a short list of proposals to meet future demand for flights, has ignored the effect of the closure of Southend Airport on the town.

Paul Mathieson, the council’s group manager for strategic transport and planning policy, said: “The effect of the closure of London Southend Airporthas been more or less ignored in terms of social and economic impact.

“The relationship between planned growth in employment in Southend in proximity to the airport and closure must be examined.”

Evidence for and against the estuary airport must be submitted to the commission by May 23. The commission is expected to publish a report on the estuary airport plan in July and decide whether to include it on the final shortlist by September.

Its final report detailing recommendations to Government is expected in the summer of 2015.

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:05am Wed 26 Mar 14

carnmountyouknowitmakessense says...

People need to consider the bigger picture, without worrying themselves with local issues here.
Yes Southend airport might have to curtail its operations, but the Boris airport is indeed, a viable proposition, in regards to to the much needed airport of the future.
People need to consider the bigger picture, without worrying themselves with local issues here. Yes Southend airport might have to curtail its operations, but the Boris airport is indeed, a viable proposition, in regards to to the much needed airport of the future. carnmountyouknowitmakessense
  • Score: 4

9:47am Wed 26 Mar 14

Matthew S. Dent says...

carnmountyouknowitma
kessense
wrote:
People need to consider the bigger picture, without worrying themselves with local issues here.
Yes Southend airport might have to curtail its operations, but the Boris airport is indeed, a viable proposition, in regards to to the much needed airport of the future.
Nonsense. Boris airport is an unfeasible, unworkable sop to wealthy, Boris-voting residents in West London, who bought property near an airport and now complain about living near an airport.

The idea that at the Mayor of London's behest, an airport should be built outside of London, straddling Essex and Kent, with no regard to the people who live there, is pure hubris.
[quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: People need to consider the bigger picture, without worrying themselves with local issues here. Yes Southend airport might have to curtail its operations, but the Boris airport is indeed, a viable proposition, in regards to to the much needed airport of the future.[/p][/quote]Nonsense. Boris airport is an unfeasible, unworkable sop to wealthy, Boris-voting residents in West London, who bought property near an airport and now complain about living near an airport. The idea that at the Mayor of London's behest, an airport should be built outside of London, straddling Essex and Kent, with no regard to the people who live there, is pure hubris. Matthew S. Dent
  • Score: 1

9:48am Wed 26 Mar 14

EchoReader90 says...

You need to look at the bigger picture here, yes Southend airport may have to reduce services but chances are it will not shut. That level of investment wil not be killed off so easily.
The Estuary Airport makes so much sense -
- It can be built on reclaimed land so there is no need for houses to be demolished.
-Noise levels over neighbourhoods would be reduced.
-It gives room for further expansion should our already over infalted population increase.
-The demolition of heathrow would allow a new 'commuter town' to be built which would ease the housing crisis in the capital.

Ultimately the jobs that the estuary airport would create would be an unbelieveable boost to the economy. It isn't just an airport, but there would be a new motorway built, new highspeed rail links. These infrasturcture projects put so much money into the economy and provide a lot of work to a lot of people.
It may also push ahead that desperatley needed new bridge across the estuary.

If you need proof of what it can do look at Hong Kong who already built an airport out to sea on reclaimed land..they too had to also build rail links and a huge new motorway (with suspension bridge). There were no negative impacts from it (economically speaking).
You need to look at the bigger picture here, yes Southend airport may have to reduce services but chances are it will not shut. That level of investment wil not be killed off so easily. The Estuary Airport makes so much sense - - It can be built on reclaimed land so there is no need for houses to be demolished. -Noise levels over neighbourhoods would be reduced. -It gives room for further expansion should our already over infalted population increase. -The demolition of heathrow would allow a new 'commuter town' to be built which would ease the housing crisis in the capital. Ultimately the jobs that the estuary airport would create would be an unbelieveable boost to the economy. It isn't just an airport, but there would be a new motorway built, new highspeed rail links. These infrasturcture projects put so much money into the economy and provide a lot of work to a lot of people. It may also push ahead that desperatley needed new bridge across the estuary. If you need proof of what it can do look at Hong Kong who already built an airport out to sea on reclaimed land..they too had to also build rail links and a huge new motorway (with suspension bridge). There were no negative impacts from it (economically speaking). EchoReader90
  • Score: 0

10:18am Wed 26 Mar 14

News Bunny says...

It's that same 'artists impression' again. The one that shows the proposed airport at four/five times bigger than Canvey when even if it works out 50% bigger than Heathrow it will still only be the size of one Canvey.
It's that same 'artists impression' again. The one that shows the proposed airport at four/five times bigger than Canvey when even if it works out 50% bigger than Heathrow it will still only be the size of one Canvey. News Bunny
  • Score: 0

10:58am Wed 26 Mar 14

jayman says...

A large intonational airport in the south east of England would be amazing for the wider economy. Southend airport is nothing more then a heavily subsidised, cash cow who happens to be riding a gravy train.

If the airport had been subject to this kind of press scrutiny and political rigour it would never have been expanded to its current size.

lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket.

we need to stop the rot and get this international airport constructed ASAP.
A large intonational airport in the south east of England would be amazing for the wider economy. Southend airport is nothing more then a heavily subsidised, cash cow who happens to be riding a gravy train. If the airport had been subject to this kind of press scrutiny and political rigour it would never have been expanded to its current size. lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. we need to stop the rot and get this international airport constructed ASAP. jayman
  • Score: 7

11:03am Wed 26 Mar 14

Everhard's Daughter says...

jayman wrote:
A large intonational airport in the south east of England would be amazing for the wider economy. Southend airport is nothing more then a heavily subsidised, cash cow who happens to be riding a gravy train.

If the airport had been subject to this kind of press scrutiny and political rigour it would never have been expanded to its current size.

lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket.

we need to stop the rot and get this international airport constructed ASAP.
From the Guardian (13.04.2012) : http://www.theguardi
an.com/uk/2012/apr/1
3/thames-hub-airport
-worst-spot

A proposed airport in the Thames estuary would be in the `very worst spot' for the south-east's crowded airspace, according to the boss of Britain's air traffic control service, Nats. Richard Deakin, Chief Executive of Nats, said the architects of the Thames Hub airport had not contacted them beforehand to discuss its feasibility. Norman Foster and Partners unveiled the blueprints of the £50bn project last November.

Deakin said the proposed site for the new airport, on the Isle of Grain, was directly under the convergence of major arrival and departure flight paths for four of London's five airports. Pointing to the Thames estuary on a map, he said: "The very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here."

He said there were `serious challenges' to integrate an airport into that traffic pattern, and added: "We're a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat" with the air traffic controllers.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: A large intonational airport in the south east of England would be amazing for the wider economy. Southend airport is nothing more then a heavily subsidised, cash cow who happens to be riding a gravy train. If the airport had been subject to this kind of press scrutiny and political rigour it would never have been expanded to its current size. lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. we need to stop the rot and get this international airport constructed ASAP.[/p][/quote]From the Guardian (13.04.2012) : http://www.theguardi an.com/uk/2012/apr/1 3/thames-hub-airport -worst-spot A proposed airport in the Thames estuary would be in the `very worst spot' for the south-east's crowded airspace, according to the boss of Britain's air traffic control service, Nats. Richard Deakin, Chief Executive of Nats, said the architects of the Thames Hub airport had not contacted them beforehand to discuss its feasibility. Norman Foster and Partners unveiled the blueprints of the £50bn project last November. Deakin said the proposed site for the new airport, on the Isle of Grain, was directly under the convergence of major arrival and departure flight paths for four of London's five airports. Pointing to the Thames estuary on a map, he said: "The very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here." He said there were `serious challenges' to integrate an airport into that traffic pattern, and added: "We're a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat" with the air traffic controllers. Everhard's Daughter
  • Score: 15

12:33pm Wed 26 Mar 14

John T Pharro says...

Matthew S. Dent wrote:
carnmountyouknowitma

kessense
wrote:
People need to consider the bigger picture, without worrying themselves with local issues here.
Yes Southend airport might have to curtail its operations, but the Boris airport is indeed, a viable proposition, in regards to to the much needed airport of the future.
Nonsense. Boris airport is an unfeasible, unworkable sop to wealthy, Boris-voting residents in West London, who bought property near an airport and now complain about living near an airport.

The idea that at the Mayor of London's behest, an airport should be built outside of London, straddling Essex and Kent, with no regard to the people who live there, is pure hubris.
Couldn't have put it better. Just think Barmy Boris some believe is not just MP material, but a future Prime Minister.
[quote][p][bold]Matthew S. Dent[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]carnmountyouknowitma kessense[/bold] wrote: People need to consider the bigger picture, without worrying themselves with local issues here. Yes Southend airport might have to curtail its operations, but the Boris airport is indeed, a viable proposition, in regards to to the much needed airport of the future.[/p][/quote]Nonsense. Boris airport is an unfeasible, unworkable sop to wealthy, Boris-voting residents in West London, who bought property near an airport and now complain about living near an airport. The idea that at the Mayor of London's behest, an airport should be built outside of London, straddling Essex and Kent, with no regard to the people who live there, is pure hubris.[/p][/quote]Couldn't have put it better. Just think Barmy Boris some believe is not just MP material, but a future Prime Minister. John T Pharro
  • Score: 8

12:36pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Nebs says...

Everhard's Daughter wrote:
jayman wrote:
A large intonational airport in the south east of England would be amazing for the wider economy. Southend airport is nothing more then a heavily subsidised, cash cow who happens to be riding a gravy train.

If the airport had been subject to this kind of press scrutiny and political rigour it would never have been expanded to its current size.

lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket.

we need to stop the rot and get this international airport constructed ASAP.
From the Guardian (13.04.2012) : http://www.theguardi

an.com/uk/2012/apr/1

3/thames-hub-airport

-worst-spot

A proposed airport in the Thames estuary would be in the `very worst spot' for the south-east's crowded airspace, according to the boss of Britain's air traffic control service, Nats. Richard Deakin, Chief Executive of Nats, said the architects of the Thames Hub airport had not contacted them beforehand to discuss its feasibility. Norman Foster and Partners unveiled the blueprints of the £50bn project last November.

Deakin said the proposed site for the new airport, on the Isle of Grain, was directly under the convergence of major arrival and departure flight paths for four of London's five airports. Pointing to the Thames estuary on a map, he said: "The very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here."

He said there were `serious challenges' to integrate an airport into that traffic pattern, and added: "We're a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat" with the air traffic controllers.
They managed to integrate Southend Airport, which is not a million miles away from the proposed location.

Extend the A130 across Canvey and a new bridge/tunnel to the airport, plus a railway line following the same route from Benfleet, and Canvey could get a real boost from a new train station, new road, and the building of several hotels for first and last night stopovers.
[quote][p][bold]Everhard's Daughter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: A large intonational airport in the south east of England would be amazing for the wider economy. Southend airport is nothing more then a heavily subsidised, cash cow who happens to be riding a gravy train. If the airport had been subject to this kind of press scrutiny and political rigour it would never have been expanded to its current size. lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. we need to stop the rot and get this international airport constructed ASAP.[/p][/quote]From the Guardian (13.04.2012) : http://www.theguardi an.com/uk/2012/apr/1 3/thames-hub-airport -worst-spot A proposed airport in the Thames estuary would be in the `very worst spot' for the south-east's crowded airspace, according to the boss of Britain's air traffic control service, Nats. Richard Deakin, Chief Executive of Nats, said the architects of the Thames Hub airport had not contacted them beforehand to discuss its feasibility. Norman Foster and Partners unveiled the blueprints of the £50bn project last November. Deakin said the proposed site for the new airport, on the Isle of Grain, was directly under the convergence of major arrival and departure flight paths for four of London's five airports. Pointing to the Thames estuary on a map, he said: "The very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here." He said there were `serious challenges' to integrate an airport into that traffic pattern, and added: "We're a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat" with the air traffic controllers.[/p][/quote]They managed to integrate Southend Airport, which is not a million miles away from the proposed location. Extend the A130 across Canvey and a new bridge/tunnel to the airport, plus a railway line following the same route from Benfleet, and Canvey could get a real boost from a new train station, new road, and the building of several hotels for first and last night stopovers. Nebs
  • Score: -9

12:42pm Wed 26 Mar 14

John T Pharro says...

Everhard's Daughter wrote:
jayman wrote:
A large intonational airport in the south east of England would be amazing for the wider economy. Southend airport is nothing more then a heavily subsidised, cash cow who happens to be riding a gravy train.

If the airport had been subject to this kind of press scrutiny and political rigour it would never have been expanded to its current size.

lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket.

we need to stop the rot and get this international airport constructed ASAP.
From the Guardian (13.04.2012) : http://www.theguardi

an.com/uk/2012/apr/1

3/thames-hub-airport

-worst-spot

A proposed airport in the Thames estuary would be in the `very worst spot' for the south-east's crowded airspace, according to the boss of Britain's air traffic control service, Nats. Richard Deakin, Chief Executive of Nats, said the architects of the Thames Hub airport had not contacted them beforehand to discuss its feasibility. Norman Foster and Partners unveiled the blueprints of the £50bn project last November.

Deakin said the proposed site for the new airport, on the Isle of Grain, was directly under the convergence of major arrival and departure flight paths for four of London's five airports. Pointing to the Thames estuary on a map, he said: "The very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here."

He said there were `serious challenges' to integrate an airport into that traffic pattern, and added: "We're a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat" with the air traffic controllers.
And just what benefit would there be for Southend and area workers? You would have to drive 50 miles to this. What about the massive unemployment it would create if Heathrow closed to west London? The money that has been wasted on this one man ego trip producing plan after plan after plan is scandalous. How much of that is taxpayers money? What is certain Barmy Boris hasn't put any of his in.
[quote][p][bold]Everhard's Daughter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: A large intonational airport in the south east of England would be amazing for the wider economy. Southend airport is nothing more then a heavily subsidised, cash cow who happens to be riding a gravy train. If the airport had been subject to this kind of press scrutiny and political rigour it would never have been expanded to its current size. lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. we need to stop the rot and get this international airport constructed ASAP.[/p][/quote]From the Guardian (13.04.2012) : http://www.theguardi an.com/uk/2012/apr/1 3/thames-hub-airport -worst-spot A proposed airport in the Thames estuary would be in the `very worst spot' for the south-east's crowded airspace, according to the boss of Britain's air traffic control service, Nats. Richard Deakin, Chief Executive of Nats, said the architects of the Thames Hub airport had not contacted them beforehand to discuss its feasibility. Norman Foster and Partners unveiled the blueprints of the £50bn project last November. Deakin said the proposed site for the new airport, on the Isle of Grain, was directly under the convergence of major arrival and departure flight paths for four of London's five airports. Pointing to the Thames estuary on a map, he said: "The very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here." He said there were `serious challenges' to integrate an airport into that traffic pattern, and added: "We're a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat" with the air traffic controllers.[/p][/quote]And just what benefit would there be for Southend and area workers? You would have to drive 50 miles to this. What about the massive unemployment it would create if Heathrow closed to west London? The money that has been wasted on this one man ego trip producing plan after plan after plan is scandalous. How much of that is taxpayers money? What is certain Barmy Boris hasn't put any of his in. John T Pharro
  • Score: 9

12:44pm Wed 26 Mar 14

John T Pharro says...

Nebs wrote:
Everhard's Daughter wrote:
jayman wrote:
A large intonational airport in the south east of England would be amazing for the wider economy. Southend airport is nothing more then a heavily subsidised, cash cow who happens to be riding a gravy train.

If the airport had been subject to this kind of press scrutiny and political rigour it would never have been expanded to its current size.

lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket.

we need to stop the rot and get this international airport constructed ASAP.
From the Guardian (13.04.2012) : http://www.theguardi


an.com/uk/2012/apr/1


3/thames-hub-airport


-worst-spot

A proposed airport in the Thames estuary would be in the `very worst spot' for the south-east's crowded airspace, according to the boss of Britain's air traffic control service, Nats. Richard Deakin, Chief Executive of Nats, said the architects of the Thames Hub airport had not contacted them beforehand to discuss its feasibility. Norman Foster and Partners unveiled the blueprints of the £50bn project last November.

Deakin said the proposed site for the new airport, on the Isle of Grain, was directly under the convergence of major arrival and departure flight paths for four of London's five airports. Pointing to the Thames estuary on a map, he said: "The very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here."

He said there were `serious challenges' to integrate an airport into that traffic pattern, and added: "We're a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat" with the air traffic controllers.
They managed to integrate Southend Airport, which is not a million miles away from the proposed location.

Extend the A130 across Canvey and a new bridge/tunnel to the airport, plus a railway line following the same route from Benfleet, and Canvey could get a real boost from a new train station, new road, and the building of several hotels for first and last night stopovers.
Just as potty an idea as Barmy Boris's.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Everhard's Daughter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: A large intonational airport in the south east of England would be amazing for the wider economy. Southend airport is nothing more then a heavily subsidised, cash cow who happens to be riding a gravy train. If the airport had been subject to this kind of press scrutiny and political rigour it would never have been expanded to its current size. lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. we need to stop the rot and get this international airport constructed ASAP.[/p][/quote]From the Guardian (13.04.2012) : http://www.theguardi an.com/uk/2012/apr/1 3/thames-hub-airport -worst-spot A proposed airport in the Thames estuary would be in the `very worst spot' for the south-east's crowded airspace, according to the boss of Britain's air traffic control service, Nats. Richard Deakin, Chief Executive of Nats, said the architects of the Thames Hub airport had not contacted them beforehand to discuss its feasibility. Norman Foster and Partners unveiled the blueprints of the £50bn project last November. Deakin said the proposed site for the new airport, on the Isle of Grain, was directly under the convergence of major arrival and departure flight paths for four of London's five airports. Pointing to the Thames estuary on a map, he said: "The very worst spot you could put an airport is just about here." He said there were `serious challenges' to integrate an airport into that traffic pattern, and added: "We're a little surprised that none of the architects thought it worthwhile to have a little chat" with the air traffic controllers.[/p][/quote]They managed to integrate Southend Airport, which is not a million miles away from the proposed location. Extend the A130 across Canvey and a new bridge/tunnel to the airport, plus a railway line following the same route from Benfleet, and Canvey could get a real boost from a new train station, new road, and the building of several hotels for first and last night stopovers.[/p][/quote]Just as potty an idea as Barmy Boris's. John T Pharro
  • Score: 14

1:48pm Wed 26 Mar 14

A Pedant says...

"lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. "

So, Jayman, bearing in mind your acknowledgement of the army of barristers, you do actually have proof of this last assertion that you would be willing to share, don't you?
"lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. " So, Jayman, bearing in mind your acknowledgement of the army of barristers, you do actually have proof of this last assertion that you would be willing to share, don't you? A Pedant
  • Score: -3

1:49pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Eric the Red says...

Won't be a problem by then. The oil will soon run out, and nobody's even close to inventing a comercial plane that runs on anything else.
Won't be a problem by then. The oil will soon run out, and nobody's even close to inventing a comercial plane that runs on anything else. Eric the Red
  • Score: 5

2:00pm Wed 26 Mar 14

maxell says...

A thames airport would be more benificial than silly southend airport that has no room for expanssion, and going by the last set of accounts is almost toxic, dp world could move freight via a bridge to the airport (or near as **** it) and seeing that the foreigon containers wont fit on uk gauge railways then this leaves road, (stobart road).I did not here the same sound comeing out of councilors mouthes when they suggested maplin, how comes that the suggestion then would not effect the ecology , Its a case of greasing each others poles stobart and the concil. The council should be looking at the bigger picture, the thames airport would at least offer some kind of safety rather than trying to pilot an a319 into and undergorund carpark, (the carpark being the airport) ,maybe the councils feel obligated to stobart for some reason, maybe the reason could be for all the hospitalaties they receive, my opinion as normal...the council are protecting their own intrests and have no right to speak for the majority , if they want a true veiw call a referendum, if brave enough. I dont see the friends of the earth having to much to say on the matter (come to that are they still going, havent seen to many roadside campsite lately) may be it is only an issues in the minds of effected councils/conucillors
.

the reality of this is, factully it has leggs, yes it may reduce some property prices but nowhere near as many as what is affected now by all the other airports tucked in to populated areas, The uk simply just has not got the room for large airports another reason to reclame land.
A thames airport would be more benificial than silly southend airport that has no room for expanssion, and going by the last set of accounts is almost toxic, dp world could move freight via a bridge to the airport (or near as **** it) and seeing that the foreigon containers wont fit on uk gauge railways then this leaves road, (stobart road).I did not here the same sound comeing out of councilors mouthes when they suggested maplin, how comes that the suggestion then would not effect the ecology , Its a case of greasing each others poles stobart and the concil. The council should be looking at the bigger picture, the thames airport would at least offer some kind of safety rather than trying to pilot an a319 into and undergorund carpark, (the carpark being the airport) ,maybe the councils feel obligated to stobart for some reason, maybe the reason could be for all the hospitalaties they receive, my opinion as normal...the council are protecting their own intrests and have no right to speak for the majority , if they want a true veiw call a referendum, if brave enough. I dont see the friends of the earth having to much to say on the matter (come to that are they still going, havent seen to many roadside campsite lately) may be it is only an issues in the minds of effected councils/conucillors . the reality of this is, factully it has leggs, yes it may reduce some property prices but nowhere near as many as what is affected now by all the other airports tucked in to populated areas, The uk simply just has not got the room for large airports another reason to reclame land. maxell
  • Score: 1

2:54pm Wed 26 Mar 14

pembury53 says...

just stick an extra runway at both heathrow and gatwick....infrastru
cture and transport links already in place, capacity problem solved, without embarking on some ludricous, environment destroying, multi billon pound vanity project for a tory buffoon.......
just stick an extra runway at both heathrow and gatwick....infrastru cture and transport links already in place, capacity problem solved, without embarking on some ludricous, environment destroying, multi billon pound vanity project for a tory buffoon....... pembury53
  • Score: 6

3:22pm Wed 26 Mar 14

whateverhappened says...

i feel a large hub airport could have a beneficial effect on southend airport if southend was used as a feeder airport, bringing in people from france, germany etc to then be shuttle trained over to the esturary for onward flights to america, brazil ,china and india. As well as the usual holiday flights.
i feel a large hub airport could have a beneficial effect on southend airport if southend was used as a feeder airport, bringing in people from france, germany etc to then be shuttle trained over to the esturary for onward flights to america, brazil ,china and india. As well as the usual holiday flights. whateverhappened
  • Score: -7

4:09pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Joe Clark says...

A Pedant wrote:
"lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. "

So, Jayman, bearing in mind your acknowledgement of the army of barristers, you do actually have proof of this last assertion that you would be willing to share, don't you?
I have sent his comment to Stobarts, SBC & RDC.

Why is it the anti-Southend minority want something that WILL blight Southend with 25/7/365 noise whilst what we have with Southend Airport is a dozen aircraft throughout the day, the light pollution also needs to be taken in to account and the fact that a SSSI would be destroyed, seabirds and jet engines do not mix, sea fog, and the narrowing of the tidal Estuary would increase tide depth along both the Essex and Kent coasts, this would require the increasing of flood defences the entire length of Southend seafront, it would prevent any sea based events taking place as there would be a controlled zone where no shipping or pleasure craft would be permitted to enter, it could also prove a huge problem for the pier as the increased tides would flow faster as the narrowing of the natural watercourse would require the same amount of water to get through the narrower opening this would increase the erosion of the foreshore.

Only bonkers people support such a proposal, say no more...
[quote][p][bold]A Pedant[/bold] wrote: "lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. " So, Jayman, bearing in mind your acknowledgement of the army of barristers, you do actually have proof of this last assertion that you would be willing to share, don't you?[/p][/quote]I have sent his comment to Stobarts, SBC & RDC. Why is it the anti-Southend minority want something that WILL blight Southend with 25/7/365 noise whilst what we have with Southend Airport is a dozen aircraft throughout the day, the light pollution also needs to be taken in to account and the fact that a SSSI would be destroyed, seabirds and jet engines do not mix, sea fog, and the narrowing of the tidal Estuary would increase tide depth along both the Essex and Kent coasts, this would require the increasing of flood defences the entire length of Southend seafront, it would prevent any sea based events taking place as there would be a controlled zone where no shipping or pleasure craft would be permitted to enter, it could also prove a huge problem for the pier as the increased tides would flow faster as the narrowing of the natural watercourse would require the same amount of water to get through the narrower opening this would increase the erosion of the foreshore. Only bonkers people support such a proposal, say no more... Joe Clark
  • Score: 18

4:11pm Wed 26 Mar 14

emcee says...

I wish councillors would not comment on something they know nothing about. For a start, Southend is a short haul airport. It caters primarily for the short haul traveller. Any new hub would be primarily long haul.
Besides, as has been mentioned, more business could indeed be created for Southend Airport as a "feeder" airport. This would, however, depend on the transport infrastructure between the two airports being upgraded to allow the use of a fast shuttle bus service. This will of course require a positive and forward thinking contribution from Southend council. Only a negative attitude will kill off Southen Airport. Are you listening, Mr Lamb?
I wish councillors would not comment on something they know nothing about. For a start, Southend is a short haul airport. It caters primarily for the short haul traveller. Any new hub would be primarily long haul. Besides, as has been mentioned, more business could indeed be created for Southend Airport as a "feeder" airport. This would, however, depend on the transport infrastructure between the two airports being upgraded to allow the use of a fast shuttle bus service. This will of course require a positive and forward thinking contribution from Southend council. Only a negative attitude will kill off Southen Airport. Are you listening, Mr Lamb? emcee
  • Score: -5

5:26pm Wed 26 Mar 14

John Bull 40 says...

I see the anti Southend airport brigade have been mobilised to give the thumbs
down to anyone who supports our local successful airport, we heard all the
wonderful things maplin airport was going to bring, most of them not based on
facts just dreams, as these are judging by the dreamers on here.
I see the anti Southend airport brigade have been mobilised to give the thumbs down to anyone who supports our local successful airport, we heard all the wonderful things maplin airport was going to bring, most of them not based on facts just dreams, as these are judging by the dreamers on here. John Bull 40
  • Score: 8

5:56pm Wed 26 Mar 14

Joe Clark says...

emcee wrote:
I wish councillors would not comment on something they know nothing about. For a start, Southend is a short haul airport. It caters primarily for the short haul traveller. Any new hub would be primarily long haul.
Besides, as has been mentioned, more business could indeed be created for Southend Airport as a "feeder" airport. This would, however, depend on the transport infrastructure between the two airports being upgraded to allow the use of a fast shuttle bus service. This will of course require a positive and forward thinking contribution from Southend council. Only a negative attitude will kill off Southen Airport. Are you listening, Mr Lamb?
I wish members of the public would not comment on things they know nothing about...
[quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: I wish councillors would not comment on something they know nothing about. For a start, Southend is a short haul airport. It caters primarily for the short haul traveller. Any new hub would be primarily long haul. Besides, as has been mentioned, more business could indeed be created for Southend Airport as a "feeder" airport. This would, however, depend on the transport infrastructure between the two airports being upgraded to allow the use of a fast shuttle bus service. This will of course require a positive and forward thinking contribution from Southend council. Only a negative attitude will kill off Southen Airport. Are you listening, Mr Lamb?[/p][/quote]I wish members of the public would not comment on things they know nothing about... Joe Clark
  • Score: 2

6:53pm Wed 26 Mar 14

John T Pharro says...

Joe Clark wrote:
emcee wrote:
I wish councillors would not comment on something they know nothing about. For a start, Southend is a short haul airport. It caters primarily for the short haul traveller. Any new hub would be primarily long haul.
Besides, as has been mentioned, more business could indeed be created for Southend Airport as a "feeder" airport. This would, however, depend on the transport infrastructure between the two airports being upgraded to allow the use of a fast shuttle bus service. This will of course require a positive and forward thinking contribution from Southend council. Only a negative attitude will kill off Southen Airport. Are you listening, Mr Lamb?
I wish members of the public would not comment on things they know nothing about...
Politicians of all persuasions do it all the time.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]emcee[/bold] wrote: I wish councillors would not comment on something they know nothing about. For a start, Southend is a short haul airport. It caters primarily for the short haul traveller. Any new hub would be primarily long haul. Besides, as has been mentioned, more business could indeed be created for Southend Airport as a "feeder" airport. This would, however, depend on the transport infrastructure between the two airports being upgraded to allow the use of a fast shuttle bus service. This will of course require a positive and forward thinking contribution from Southend council. Only a negative attitude will kill off Southen Airport. Are you listening, Mr Lamb?[/p][/quote]I wish members of the public would not comment on things they know nothing about...[/p][/quote]Politicians of all persuasions do it all the time. John T Pharro
  • Score: 4

10:19pm Wed 26 Mar 14

jayman says...

Joe Clark wrote:
A Pedant wrote:
"lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. "

So, Jayman, bearing in mind your acknowledgement of the army of barristers, you do actually have proof of this last assertion that you would be willing to share, don't you?
I have sent his comment to Stobarts, SBC & RDC.

Why is it the anti-Southend minority want something that WILL blight Southend with 25/7/365 noise whilst what we have with Southend Airport is a dozen aircraft throughout the day, the light pollution also needs to be taken in to account and the fact that a SSSI would be destroyed, seabirds and jet engines do not mix, sea fog, and the narrowing of the tidal Estuary would increase tide depth along both the Essex and Kent coasts, this would require the increasing of flood defences the entire length of Southend seafront, it would prevent any sea based events taking place as there would be a controlled zone where no shipping or pleasure craft would be permitted to enter, it could also prove a huge problem for the pier as the increased tides would flow faster as the narrowing of the natural watercourse would require the same amount of water to get through the narrower opening this would increase the erosion of the foreshore.

Only bonkers people support such a proposal, say no more...
the river roach is also a SSSI.

http://www.sssi.natu
ralengland.org.uk/ci
tation/citation_phot
o/1002160.pdf

That bit of water that happens to be on Southend airports glide path..

Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport.

the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events.

once again you have provided nothing more then weak insults and pure speculation in your need/obligation to support Southend airport/ Southend Tory council.

ps.

Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion..

Enjoy the sunshine.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Pedant[/bold] wrote: "lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. " So, Jayman, bearing in mind your acknowledgement of the army of barristers, you do actually have proof of this last assertion that you would be willing to share, don't you?[/p][/quote]I have sent his comment to Stobarts, SBC & RDC. Why is it the anti-Southend minority want something that WILL blight Southend with 25/7/365 noise whilst what we have with Southend Airport is a dozen aircraft throughout the day, the light pollution also needs to be taken in to account and the fact that a SSSI would be destroyed, seabirds and jet engines do not mix, sea fog, and the narrowing of the tidal Estuary would increase tide depth along both the Essex and Kent coasts, this would require the increasing of flood defences the entire length of Southend seafront, it would prevent any sea based events taking place as there would be a controlled zone where no shipping or pleasure craft would be permitted to enter, it could also prove a huge problem for the pier as the increased tides would flow faster as the narrowing of the natural watercourse would require the same amount of water to get through the narrower opening this would increase the erosion of the foreshore. Only bonkers people support such a proposal, say no more...[/p][/quote]the river roach is also a SSSI. http://www.sssi.natu ralengland.org.uk/ci tation/citation_phot o/1002160.pdf That bit of water that happens to be on Southend airports glide path.. Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport. the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events. once again you have provided nothing more then weak insults and pure speculation in your need/obligation to support Southend airport/ Southend Tory council. ps. Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion.. Enjoy the sunshine. jayman
  • Score: -2

11:19pm Wed 26 Mar 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

jayman wrote:
Joe Clark wrote:
A Pedant wrote:
"lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. "

So, Jayman, bearing in mind your acknowledgement of the army of barristers, you do actually have proof of this last assertion that you would be willing to share, don't you?
I have sent his comment to Stobarts, SBC & RDC.

Why is it the anti-Southend minority want something that WILL blight Southend with 25/7/365 noise whilst what we have with Southend Airport is a dozen aircraft throughout the day, the light pollution also needs to be taken in to account and the fact that a SSSI would be destroyed, seabirds and jet engines do not mix, sea fog, and the narrowing of the tidal Estuary would increase tide depth along both the Essex and Kent coasts, this would require the increasing of flood defences the entire length of Southend seafront, it would prevent any sea based events taking place as there would be a controlled zone where no shipping or pleasure craft would be permitted to enter, it could also prove a huge problem for the pier as the increased tides would flow faster as the narrowing of the natural watercourse would require the same amount of water to get through the narrower opening this would increase the erosion of the foreshore.

Only bonkers people support such a proposal, say no more...
the river roach is also a SSSI.

http://www.sssi.natu

ralengland.org.uk/ci

tation/citation_phot

o/1002160.pdf

That bit of water that happens to be on Southend airports glide path..

Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport.

the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events.

once again you have provided nothing more then weak insults and pure speculation in your need/obligation to support Southend airport/ Southend Tory council.

ps.

Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion..

Enjoy the sunshine.
Well you haven't really have you Jayman.

You've said the a large airport built in the southeast would be amazing for the economy.......No evidence provided, especially given some of the negatives cited.

You said the airport was a "heavily subsidised cash cow, who happens to be riding a gravy train" again no evidence provided, just "humble" opinion.

And which is it, a cash cow or heavily subsidised, the two are mutually exclusive.

"Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport. "

No evidence provided

"the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events."

No evidence provided.

The only time you have provided some evidence to back up your speculations is when you linked the SSSI document, A nice strawman, there is a world of difference between an airports final approach track overflying an area (and has been overflying an area for as long as the SSSI has been established) and destroying an established area to build an airport.

You have ignored the arguments against the estuary airport, most notably the one put forward by Everhard's Daughter, referring to the Senior NATS chaps statement, which is probably the most compelling reason it will never happen.

The estuary airport is a vanity project for BoJo and the architects and has little grounding in reality.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Pedant[/bold] wrote: "lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. " So, Jayman, bearing in mind your acknowledgement of the army of barristers, you do actually have proof of this last assertion that you would be willing to share, don't you?[/p][/quote]I have sent his comment to Stobarts, SBC & RDC. Why is it the anti-Southend minority want something that WILL blight Southend with 25/7/365 noise whilst what we have with Southend Airport is a dozen aircraft throughout the day, the light pollution also needs to be taken in to account and the fact that a SSSI would be destroyed, seabirds and jet engines do not mix, sea fog, and the narrowing of the tidal Estuary would increase tide depth along both the Essex and Kent coasts, this would require the increasing of flood defences the entire length of Southend seafront, it would prevent any sea based events taking place as there would be a controlled zone where no shipping or pleasure craft would be permitted to enter, it could also prove a huge problem for the pier as the increased tides would flow faster as the narrowing of the natural watercourse would require the same amount of water to get through the narrower opening this would increase the erosion of the foreshore. Only bonkers people support such a proposal, say no more...[/p][/quote]the river roach is also a SSSI. http://www.sssi.natu ralengland.org.uk/ci tation/citation_phot o/1002160.pdf That bit of water that happens to be on Southend airports glide path.. Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport. the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events. once again you have provided nothing more then weak insults and pure speculation in your need/obligation to support Southend airport/ Southend Tory council. ps. Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion.. Enjoy the sunshine.[/p][/quote]Well you haven't really have you Jayman. You've said the a large airport built in the southeast would be amazing for the economy.......No evidence provided, especially given some of the negatives cited. You said the airport was a "heavily subsidised cash cow, who happens to be riding a gravy train" again no evidence provided, just "humble" opinion. And which is it, a cash cow or heavily subsidised, the two are mutually exclusive. "Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport. " No evidence provided "the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events." No evidence provided. The only time you have provided some evidence to back up your speculations is when you linked the SSSI document, A nice strawman, there is a world of difference between an airports final approach track overflying an area (and has been overflying an area for as long as the SSSI has been established) and destroying an established area to build an airport. You have ignored the arguments against the estuary airport, most notably the one put forward by Everhard's Daughter, referring to the Senior NATS chaps statement, which is probably the most compelling reason it will never happen. The estuary airport is a vanity project for BoJo and the architects and has little grounding in reality. disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: 5

11:49pm Wed 26 Mar 14

jayman says...

oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/business-24429
443

but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing.

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2363945/Boris-Johnso
ns-plan-replace-Heat
hrow-65bn-Thames-Est
uary-airport-grandio
se-Hitlers.html

here is a full map of SSSI's

http://magic.defra.g
ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?
startTopic=Designati
ons&activelayer=sssi
Index&query=HYPERLIN
K%3D%271002160%27

as for fog.

How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility.

I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport.

Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.
oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24429 443 but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2363945/Boris-Johnso ns-plan-replace-Heat hrow-65bn-Thames-Est uary-airport-grandio se-Hitlers.html here is a full map of SSSI's http://magic.defra.g ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx? startTopic=Designati ons&activelayer=sssi Index&query=HYPERLIN K%3D%271002160%27 as for fog. How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility. I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport. Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense. jayman
  • Score: -2

11:56pm Wed 26 Mar 14

jayman says...

disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
Joe Clark wrote:
A Pedant wrote:
"lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. "

So, Jayman, bearing in mind your acknowledgement of the army of barristers, you do actually have proof of this last assertion that you would be willing to share, don't you?
I have sent his comment to Stobarts, SBC & RDC.

Why is it the anti-Southend minority want something that WILL blight Southend with 25/7/365 noise whilst what we have with Southend Airport is a dozen aircraft throughout the day, the light pollution also needs to be taken in to account and the fact that a SSSI would be destroyed, seabirds and jet engines do not mix, sea fog, and the narrowing of the tidal Estuary would increase tide depth along both the Essex and Kent coasts, this would require the increasing of flood defences the entire length of Southend seafront, it would prevent any sea based events taking place as there would be a controlled zone where no shipping or pleasure craft would be permitted to enter, it could also prove a huge problem for the pier as the increased tides would flow faster as the narrowing of the natural watercourse would require the same amount of water to get through the narrower opening this would increase the erosion of the foreshore.

Only bonkers people support such a proposal, say no more...
the river roach is also a SSSI.

http://www.sssi.natu


ralengland.org.uk/ci


tation/citation_phot


o/1002160.pdf

That bit of water that happens to be on Southend airports glide path..

Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport.

the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events.

once again you have provided nothing more then weak insults and pure speculation in your need/obligation to support Southend airport/ Southend Tory council.

ps.

Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion..

Enjoy the sunshine.
Well you haven't really have you Jayman.

You've said the a large airport built in the southeast would be amazing for the economy.......No evidence provided, especially given some of the negatives cited.

You said the airport was a "heavily subsidised cash cow, who happens to be riding a gravy train" again no evidence provided, just "humble" opinion.

And which is it, a cash cow or heavily subsidised, the two are mutually exclusive.

"Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport. "

No evidence provided

"the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events."

No evidence provided.

The only time you have provided some evidence to back up your speculations is when you linked the SSSI document, A nice strawman, there is a world of difference between an airports final approach track overflying an area (and has been overflying an area for as long as the SSSI has been established) and destroying an established area to build an airport.

You have ignored the arguments against the estuary airport, most notably the one put forward by Everhard's Daughter, referring to the Senior NATS chaps statement, which is probably the most compelling reason it will never happen.

The estuary airport is a vanity project for BoJo and the architects and has little grounding in reality.
oh. and it was an intended cash cow, but the old girl has been a little dry. And as the airport has received more support and concessions then any other business in the history of Southend.
[quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Pedant[/bold] wrote: "lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. " So, Jayman, bearing in mind your acknowledgement of the army of barristers, you do actually have proof of this last assertion that you would be willing to share, don't you?[/p][/quote]I have sent his comment to Stobarts, SBC & RDC. Why is it the anti-Southend minority want something that WILL blight Southend with 25/7/365 noise whilst what we have with Southend Airport is a dozen aircraft throughout the day, the light pollution also needs to be taken in to account and the fact that a SSSI would be destroyed, seabirds and jet engines do not mix, sea fog, and the narrowing of the tidal Estuary would increase tide depth along both the Essex and Kent coasts, this would require the increasing of flood defences the entire length of Southend seafront, it would prevent any sea based events taking place as there would be a controlled zone where no shipping or pleasure craft would be permitted to enter, it could also prove a huge problem for the pier as the increased tides would flow faster as the narrowing of the natural watercourse would require the same amount of water to get through the narrower opening this would increase the erosion of the foreshore. Only bonkers people support such a proposal, say no more...[/p][/quote]the river roach is also a SSSI. http://www.sssi.natu ralengland.org.uk/ci tation/citation_phot o/1002160.pdf That bit of water that happens to be on Southend airports glide path.. Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport. the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events. once again you have provided nothing more then weak insults and pure speculation in your need/obligation to support Southend airport/ Southend Tory council. ps. Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion.. Enjoy the sunshine.[/p][/quote]Well you haven't really have you Jayman. You've said the a large airport built in the southeast would be amazing for the economy.......No evidence provided, especially given some of the negatives cited. You said the airport was a "heavily subsidised cash cow, who happens to be riding a gravy train" again no evidence provided, just "humble" opinion. And which is it, a cash cow or heavily subsidised, the two are mutually exclusive. "Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport. " No evidence provided "the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events." No evidence provided. The only time you have provided some evidence to back up your speculations is when you linked the SSSI document, A nice strawman, there is a world of difference between an airports final approach track overflying an area (and has been overflying an area for as long as the SSSI has been established) and destroying an established area to build an airport. You have ignored the arguments against the estuary airport, most notably the one put forward by Everhard's Daughter, referring to the Senior NATS chaps statement, which is probably the most compelling reason it will never happen. The estuary airport is a vanity project for BoJo and the architects and has little grounding in reality.[/p][/quote]oh. and it was an intended cash cow, but the old girl has been a little dry. And as the airport has received more support and concessions then any other business in the history of Southend. jayman
  • Score: -1

12:16am Thu 27 Mar 14

mr.happy says...

The 'Boris Airport' will have planes taking off and landing over the water, whilst planes from Southend Airport fly low over our house. It will be great sitting down the seafront watching the planes, it will hardly be spoiling a great view that is there at the moment! The number of jobs it will bring will far far outweigh those lost should Southend Airport have to close. Bring it on I can't wait.
The 'Boris Airport' will have planes taking off and landing over the water, whilst planes from Southend Airport fly low over our house. It will be great sitting down the seafront watching the planes, it will hardly be spoiling a great view that is there at the moment! The number of jobs it will bring will far far outweigh those lost should Southend Airport have to close. Bring it on I can't wait. mr.happy
  • Score: -3

12:36am Thu 27 Mar 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

jayman wrote:
oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/business-24429

443

but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing.

http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2363945/Boris-Johnso

ns-plan-replace-Heat

hrow-65bn-Thames-Est

uary-airport-grandio

se-Hitlers.html

here is a full map of SSSI's

http://magic.defra.g

ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?

startTopic=Designati

ons&activelayer=
sssi
Index&query=HYPE
RLIN
K%3D%271002160%27

as for fog.

How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility.

I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport.

Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.
No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently.

But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n
ews/uk-19570653

As for fog
Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country.

No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project.

"Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense"

So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24429 443 but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2363945/Boris-Johnso ns-plan-replace-Heat hrow-65bn-Thames-Est uary-airport-grandio se-Hitlers.html here is a full map of SSSI's http://magic.defra.g ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx? startTopic=Designati ons&activelayer= sssi Index&query=HYPE RLIN K%3D%271002160%27 as for fog. How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility. I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport. Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.[/p][/quote]No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently. But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n ews/uk-19570653 As for fog Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country. No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project. "Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense" So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating. disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: 2

12:44am Thu 27 Mar 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
Joe Clark wrote:
A Pedant wrote:
"lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. "

So, Jayman, bearing in mind your acknowledgement of the army of barristers, you do actually have proof of this last assertion that you would be willing to share, don't you?
I have sent his comment to Stobarts, SBC & RDC.

Why is it the anti-Southend minority want something that WILL blight Southend with 25/7/365 noise whilst what we have with Southend Airport is a dozen aircraft throughout the day, the light pollution also needs to be taken in to account and the fact that a SSSI would be destroyed, seabirds and jet engines do not mix, sea fog, and the narrowing of the tidal Estuary would increase tide depth along both the Essex and Kent coasts, this would require the increasing of flood defences the entire length of Southend seafront, it would prevent any sea based events taking place as there would be a controlled zone where no shipping or pleasure craft would be permitted to enter, it could also prove a huge problem for the pier as the increased tides would flow faster as the narrowing of the natural watercourse would require the same amount of water to get through the narrower opening this would increase the erosion of the foreshore.

Only bonkers people support such a proposal, say no more...
the river roach is also a SSSI.

http://www.sssi.natu



ralengland.org.uk/ci



tation/citation_phot



o/1002160.pdf

That bit of water that happens to be on Southend airports glide path..

Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport.

the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events.

once again you have provided nothing more then weak insults and pure speculation in your need/obligation to support Southend airport/ Southend Tory council.

ps.

Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion..

Enjoy the sunshine.
Well you haven't really have you Jayman.

You've said the a large airport built in the southeast would be amazing for the economy.......No evidence provided, especially given some of the negatives cited.

You said the airport was a "heavily subsidised cash cow, who happens to be riding a gravy train" again no evidence provided, just "humble" opinion.

And which is it, a cash cow or heavily subsidised, the two are mutually exclusive.

"Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport. "

No evidence provided

"the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events."

No evidence provided.

The only time you have provided some evidence to back up your speculations is when you linked the SSSI document, A nice strawman, there is a world of difference between an airports final approach track overflying an area (and has been overflying an area for as long as the SSSI has been established) and destroying an established area to build an airport.

You have ignored the arguments against the estuary airport, most notably the one put forward by Everhard's Daughter, referring to the Senior NATS chaps statement, which is probably the most compelling reason it will never happen.

The estuary airport is a vanity project for BoJo and the architects and has little grounding in reality.
oh. and it was an intended cash cow, but the old girl has been a little dry. And as the airport has received more support and concessions then any other business in the history of Southend.
Deary me, more opinion passed off as fact, I'm not seeing any evidence that the airport is the most supported, business in the history of southend, nor have I seen any evidence that it was purchased as a cash cow. They invested £100 millionpounds in the thing, you might want to learn what a cash cow actually is.

Airports tend to be mid to long term investments, rather than short term "quick buck" ventures, due to the level of investment, infrastructure required.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Clark[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Pedant[/bold] wrote: "lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. " So, Jayman, bearing in mind your acknowledgement of the army of barristers, you do actually have proof of this last assertion that you would be willing to share, don't you?[/p][/quote]I have sent his comment to Stobarts, SBC & RDC. Why is it the anti-Southend minority want something that WILL blight Southend with 25/7/365 noise whilst what we have with Southend Airport is a dozen aircraft throughout the day, the light pollution also needs to be taken in to account and the fact that a SSSI would be destroyed, seabirds and jet engines do not mix, sea fog, and the narrowing of the tidal Estuary would increase tide depth along both the Essex and Kent coasts, this would require the increasing of flood defences the entire length of Southend seafront, it would prevent any sea based events taking place as there would be a controlled zone where no shipping or pleasure craft would be permitted to enter, it could also prove a huge problem for the pier as the increased tides would flow faster as the narrowing of the natural watercourse would require the same amount of water to get through the narrower opening this would increase the erosion of the foreshore. Only bonkers people support such a proposal, say no more...[/p][/quote]the river roach is also a SSSI. http://www.sssi.natu ralengland.org.uk/ci tation/citation_phot o/1002160.pdf That bit of water that happens to be on Southend airports glide path.. Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport. the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events. once again you have provided nothing more then weak insults and pure speculation in your need/obligation to support Southend airport/ Southend Tory council. ps. Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion.. Enjoy the sunshine.[/p][/quote]Well you haven't really have you Jayman. You've said the a large airport built in the southeast would be amazing for the economy.......No evidence provided, especially given some of the negatives cited. You said the airport was a "heavily subsidised cash cow, who happens to be riding a gravy train" again no evidence provided, just "humble" opinion. And which is it, a cash cow or heavily subsidised, the two are mutually exclusive. "Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog as the proposed estuary airport. " No evidence provided "the proposed airport in the estuary would not effect shipping of sea events." No evidence provided. The only time you have provided some evidence to back up your speculations is when you linked the SSSI document, A nice strawman, there is a world of difference between an airports final approach track overflying an area (and has been overflying an area for as long as the SSSI has been established) and destroying an established area to build an airport. You have ignored the arguments against the estuary airport, most notably the one put forward by Everhard's Daughter, referring to the Senior NATS chaps statement, which is probably the most compelling reason it will never happen. The estuary airport is a vanity project for BoJo and the architects and has little grounding in reality.[/p][/quote]oh. and it was an intended cash cow, but the old girl has been a little dry. And as the airport has received more support and concessions then any other business in the history of Southend.[/p][/quote]Deary me, more opinion passed off as fact, I'm not seeing any evidence that the airport is the most supported, business in the history of southend, nor have I seen any evidence that it was purchased as a cash cow. They invested £100 millionpounds in the thing, you might want to learn what a cash cow actually is. Airports tend to be mid to long term investments, rather than short term "quick buck" ventures, due to the level of investment, infrastructure required. disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: 2

8:15am Thu 27 Mar 14

jayman says...

disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk


/news/business-24429


443

but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing.

http://www.dailymail


.co.uk/news/article-


2363945/Boris-Johnso


ns-plan-replace-Heat


hrow-65bn-Thames-Est


uary-airport-grandio


se-Hitlers.html

here is a full map of SSSI's

http://magic.defra.g


ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?


startTopic=Designati


ons&activelayer=

sssi
Index&query=HYPE

RLIN
K%3D%271002160%27

as for fog.

How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility.

I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport.

Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.
No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently.

But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n

ews/uk-19570653

As for fog
Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country.

No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project.

"Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense"

So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.
fog....

http://www.thenorthe
rnecho.co.uk/news/10
699530.Southend_fog_
hits_flights/?ref=rc


https://www.facebook
.com/LondonSouthendA
irport/posts/4186760
51530921

http://www.braintree
andwithamtimes.co.uk
/news/9999241.Fog_de
lays_flights_across_
Essex/

--delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft..

humph.....
[quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24429 443 but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2363945/Boris-Johnso ns-plan-replace-Heat hrow-65bn-Thames-Est uary-airport-grandio se-Hitlers.html here is a full map of SSSI's http://magic.defra.g ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx? startTopic=Designati ons&activelayer= sssi Index&query=HYPE RLIN K%3D%271002160%27 as for fog. How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility. I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport. Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.[/p][/quote]No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently. But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n ews/uk-19570653 As for fog Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country. No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project. "Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense" So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.[/p][/quote]fog.... http://www.thenorthe rnecho.co.uk/news/10 699530.Southend_fog_ hits_flights/?ref=rc https://www.facebook .com/LondonSouthendA irport/posts/4186760 51530921 http://www.braintree andwithamtimes.co.uk /news/9999241.Fog_de lays_flights_across_ Essex/ --delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft.. humph..... jayman
  • Score: -1

8:41am Thu 27 Mar 14

A Pedant says...

J-Man Quote 1:
"lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. "

J-Man Quote 2:
"if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence."

So where's the evidence to back up your first comment then?
J-Man Quote 1: "lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. " J-Man Quote 2: "if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence." So where's the evidence to back up your first comment then? A Pedant
  • Score: 2

9:04am Thu 27 Mar 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk



/news/business-24429



443

but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing.

http://www.dailymail



.co.uk/news/article-



2363945/Boris-Johnso



ns-plan-replace-Heat



hrow-65bn-Thames-Est



uary-airport-grandio



se-Hitlers.html

here is a full map of SSSI's

http://magic.defra.g



ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?



startTopic=Designati



ons&activelayer=


sssi
Index&query=HYPE


RLIN
K%3D%271002160%27

as for fog.

How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility.

I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport.

Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.
No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently.

But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n


ews/uk-19570653

As for fog
Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country.

No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project.

"Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense"

So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.
fog....

http://www.thenorthe

rnecho.co.uk/news/10

699530.Southend_fog_

hits_flights/?ref=rc



https://www.facebook

.com/LondonSouthendA

irport/posts/4186760

51530921

http://www.braintree

andwithamtimes.co.uk

/news/9999241.Fog_de

lays_flights_across_

Essex/

--delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft..

humph.....
Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed.

If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24429 443 but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2363945/Boris-Johnso ns-plan-replace-Heat hrow-65bn-Thames-Est uary-airport-grandio se-Hitlers.html here is a full map of SSSI's http://magic.defra.g ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx? startTopic=Designati ons&activelayer= sssi Index&query=HYPE RLIN K%3D%271002160%27 as for fog. How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility. I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport. Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.[/p][/quote]No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently. But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n ews/uk-19570653 As for fog Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country. No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project. "Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense" So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.[/p][/quote]fog.... http://www.thenorthe rnecho.co.uk/news/10 699530.Southend_fog_ hits_flights/?ref=rc https://www.facebook .com/LondonSouthendA irport/posts/4186760 51530921 http://www.braintree andwithamtimes.co.uk /news/9999241.Fog_de lays_flights_across_ Essex/ --delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft.. humph.....[/p][/quote]Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed. If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact. disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: 3

9:23am Thu 27 Mar 14

jayman says...

disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk




/news/business-24429




443

but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing.

http://www.dailymail




.co.uk/news/article-




2363945/Boris-Johnso




ns-plan-replace-Heat




hrow-65bn-Thames-Est




uary-airport-grandio




se-Hitlers.html

here is a full map of SSSI's

http://magic.defra.g




ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?




startTopic=Designati




ons&activelayer=



sssi
Index&query=HYPE



RLIN
K%3D%271002160%27

as for fog.

How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility.

I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport.

Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.
No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently.

But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n



ews/uk-19570653

As for fog
Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country.

No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project.

"Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense"

So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.
fog....

http://www.thenorthe


rnecho.co.uk/news/10


699530.Southend_fog_


hits_flights/?ref=rc




https://www.facebook


.com/LondonSouthendA


irport/posts/4186760


51530921

http://www.braintree


andwithamtimes.co.uk


/news/9999241.Fog_de


lays_flights_across_


Essex/

--delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft..

humph.....
Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed.

If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.
if the plane cant land because the plane cant see. Or if the tower cant see the runway... Because of fog.... then... for that time.... the... airport.... will be closed. I don't mean 'for sale sign and hoarding' I mean. 'until the fog clears...

i shall now shower you in humphs.
[quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24429 443 but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2363945/Boris-Johnso ns-plan-replace-Heat hrow-65bn-Thames-Est uary-airport-grandio se-Hitlers.html here is a full map of SSSI's http://magic.defra.g ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx? startTopic=Designati ons&activelayer= sssi Index&query=HYPE RLIN K%3D%271002160%27 as for fog. How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility. I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport. Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.[/p][/quote]No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently. But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n ews/uk-19570653 As for fog Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country. No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project. "Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense" So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.[/p][/quote]fog.... http://www.thenorthe rnecho.co.uk/news/10 699530.Southend_fog_ hits_flights/?ref=rc https://www.facebook .com/LondonSouthendA irport/posts/4186760 51530921 http://www.braintree andwithamtimes.co.uk /news/9999241.Fog_de lays_flights_across_ Essex/ --delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft.. humph.....[/p][/quote]Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed. If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.[/p][/quote]if the plane cant land because the plane cant see. Or if the tower cant see the runway... Because of fog.... then... for that time.... the... airport.... will be closed. I don't mean 'for sale sign and hoarding' I mean. 'until the fog clears... i shall now shower you in humphs. jayman
  • Score: -5

9:24am Thu 27 Mar 14

RichardAC says...

not sure why this is still being debated. Jayman hates the Tories and Southend Council and Stobart so is for it. Big deal.
The problem with the Estuary airport is simply that with the closure of Heathrow it leaves west London and the Thames corridor without an airport. Business will not let this happen. There will be another runway at Geathrow and Gatwick, and Stansted will be encouraged to get up to its capacity. The estuary airport is not near enough its customers.
Don't know why they bothered with ther Davis enquiry tbh.
not sure why this is still being debated. Jayman hates the Tories and Southend Council and Stobart so is for it. Big deal. The problem with the Estuary airport is simply that with the closure of Heathrow it leaves west London and the Thames corridor without an airport. Business will not let this happen. There will be another runway at Geathrow and Gatwick, and Stansted will be encouraged to get up to its capacity. The estuary airport is not near enough its customers. Don't know why they bothered with ther Davis enquiry tbh. RichardAC
  • Score: 5

9:30am Thu 27 Mar 14

Letmetryagain says...

It won't happen.
It won't happen. Letmetryagain
  • Score: 6

9:33am Thu 27 Mar 14

jayman says...

A Pedant wrote:
J-Man Quote 1:
"lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. "

J-Man Quote 2:
"if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence."

So where's the evidence to back up your first comment then?
thanks for the selective para-quote. if you cite someone at least do it properly. I also wnt on to say.

"Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion.."
[quote][p][bold]A Pedant[/bold] wrote: J-Man Quote 1: "lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. " J-Man Quote 2: "if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence." So where's the evidence to back up your first comment then?[/p][/quote]thanks for the selective para-quote. if you cite someone at least do it properly. I also wnt on to say. "Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion.." jayman
  • Score: -2

10:01am Thu 27 Mar 14

jayman says...

disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk




/news/business-24429




443

but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing.

http://www.dailymail




.co.uk/news/article-




2363945/Boris-Johnso




ns-plan-replace-Heat




hrow-65bn-Thames-Est




uary-airport-grandio




se-Hitlers.html

here is a full map of SSSI's

http://magic.defra.g




ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?




startTopic=Designati




ons&activelayer=



sssi
Index&query=HYPE



RLIN
K%3D%271002160%27

as for fog.

How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility.

I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport.

Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.
No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently.

But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n



ews/uk-19570653

As for fog
Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country.

No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project.

"Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense"

So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.
fog....

http://www.thenorthe


rnecho.co.uk/news/10


699530.Southend_fog_


hits_flights/?ref=rc




https://www.facebook


.com/LondonSouthendA


irport/posts/4186760


51530921

http://www.braintree


andwithamtimes.co.uk


/news/9999241.Fog_de


lays_flights_across_


Essex/

--delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft..

humph.....
Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed.

If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.
"If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact."

I didn't make any claims regarding the frequency of Southend airport closures due to fog. I simply proved that Southend airport '''has''' closed due to fog to support my previously mounted argument that Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog closure as the proposed estuary airport would based on the fact that that there is only 6.79 miles between the two locations.
[quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24429 443 but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2363945/Boris-Johnso ns-plan-replace-Heat hrow-65bn-Thames-Est uary-airport-grandio se-Hitlers.html here is a full map of SSSI's http://magic.defra.g ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx? startTopic=Designati ons&activelayer= sssi Index&query=HYPE RLIN K%3D%271002160%27 as for fog. How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility. I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport. Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.[/p][/quote]No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently. But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n ews/uk-19570653 As for fog Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country. No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project. "Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense" So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.[/p][/quote]fog.... http://www.thenorthe rnecho.co.uk/news/10 699530.Southend_fog_ hits_flights/?ref=rc https://www.facebook .com/LondonSouthendA irport/posts/4186760 51530921 http://www.braintree andwithamtimes.co.uk /news/9999241.Fog_de lays_flights_across_ Essex/ --delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft.. humph.....[/p][/quote]Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed. If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.[/p][/quote]"If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact." I didn't make any claims regarding the frequency of Southend airport closures due to fog. I simply proved that Southend airport '''has''' closed due to fog to support my previously mounted argument that Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog closure as the proposed estuary airport would based on the fact that that there is only 6.79 miles between the two locations. jayman
  • Score: -2

11:58am Thu 27 Mar 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk





/news/business-24429





443

but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing.

http://www.dailymail





.co.uk/news/article-





2363945/Boris-Johnso





ns-plan-replace-Heat





hrow-65bn-Thames-Est





uary-airport-grandio





se-Hitlers.html

here is a full map of SSSI's

http://magic.defra.g





ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?





startTopic=Designati





ons&activelayer=




sssi
Index&query=HYPE




RLIN
K%3D%271002160%27

as for fog.

How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility.

I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport.

Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.
No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently.

But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n




ews/uk-19570653

As for fog
Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country.

No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project.

"Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense"

So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.
fog....

http://www.thenorthe



rnecho.co.uk/news/10



699530.Southend_fog_



hits_flights/?ref=rc





https://www.facebook



.com/LondonSouthendA



irport/posts/4186760



51530921

http://www.braintree



andwithamtimes.co.uk



/news/9999241.Fog_de



lays_flights_across_



Essex/

--delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft..

humph.....
Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed.

If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.
"If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact."

I didn't make any claims regarding the frequency of Southend airport closures due to fog. I simply proved that Southend airport '''has''' closed due to fog to support my previously mounted argument that Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog closure as the proposed estuary airport would based on the fact that that there is only 6.79 miles between the two locations.
Again if an aircraft suffers a delay because of fog, or even a cancellation, the airport is not closed .

You claimed it was industry venacular, It is not, it is your opinion, you also failed to prove that the airport had closed due fog, as you misunderstand what constitutes a closure.

Also if you had more than a vague understanding of weather, you would know than the type of fog can be very different over the distance of a few miles. The fog that will affect an artificial island in the estuary is very different from that which will affect southend airport
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24429 443 but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2363945/Boris-Johnso ns-plan-replace-Heat hrow-65bn-Thames-Est uary-airport-grandio se-Hitlers.html here is a full map of SSSI's http://magic.defra.g ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx? startTopic=Designati ons&activelayer= sssi Index&query=HYPE RLIN K%3D%271002160%27 as for fog. How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility. I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport. Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.[/p][/quote]No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently. But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n ews/uk-19570653 As for fog Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country. No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project. "Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense" So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.[/p][/quote]fog.... http://www.thenorthe rnecho.co.uk/news/10 699530.Southend_fog_ hits_flights/?ref=rc https://www.facebook .com/LondonSouthendA irport/posts/4186760 51530921 http://www.braintree andwithamtimes.co.uk /news/9999241.Fog_de lays_flights_across_ Essex/ --delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft.. humph.....[/p][/quote]Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed. If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.[/p][/quote]"If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact." I didn't make any claims regarding the frequency of Southend airport closures due to fog. I simply proved that Southend airport '''has''' closed due to fog to support my previously mounted argument that Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog closure as the proposed estuary airport would based on the fact that that there is only 6.79 miles between the two locations.[/p][/quote]Again if an aircraft suffers a delay because of fog, or even a cancellation, the airport is not closed . You claimed it was industry venacular, It is not, it is your opinion, you also failed to prove that the airport had closed due fog, as you misunderstand what constitutes a closure. Also if you had more than a vague understanding of weather, you would know than the type of fog can be very different over the distance of a few miles. The fog that will affect an artificial island in the estuary is very different from that which will affect southend airport disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: 2

12:05pm Thu 27 Mar 14

A Pedant says...

A Pedant wrote:
J-Man Quote 1:
"lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. "

J-Man Quote 2:
"if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence."

So where's the evidence to back up your first comment then?
thanks for the selective para-quote. if you cite someone at least do it properly. I also wnt on to say.

"Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion.."

But you DID make a claim and you haven't backed it up - I was merely using part of your subsequent post to back up my initial request for proof of your 'cash bearing hand' comment. For someone who squeezes half truths out of insinuations on a regular basis you are very sensitive when asked to back up your own assertions. I ask again - where is your PROOF to back your initial comment?
A Pedant wrote: J-Man Quote 1: "lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. " J-Man Quote 2: "if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence." So where's the evidence to back up your first comment then? thanks for the selective para-quote. if you cite someone at least do it properly. I also wnt on to say. "Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion.." But you DID make a claim and you haven't backed it up - I was merely using part of your subsequent post to back up my initial request for proof of your 'cash bearing hand' comment. For someone who squeezes half truths out of insinuations on a regular basis you are very sensitive when asked to back up your own assertions. I ask again - where is your PROOF to back your initial comment? A Pedant
  • Score: 3

2:17pm Thu 27 Mar 14

jayman says...

A Pedant wrote:
A Pedant wrote:
J-Man Quote 1:
"lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. "

J-Man Quote 2:
"if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence."

So where's the evidence to back up your first comment then?
thanks for the selective para-quote. if you cite someone at least do it properly. I also wnt on to say.

"Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion.."

But you DID make a claim and you haven't backed it up - I was merely using part of your subsequent post to back up my initial request for proof of your 'cash bearing hand' comment. For someone who squeezes half truths out of insinuations on a regular basis you are very sensitive when asked to back up your own assertions. I ask again - where is your PROOF to back your initial comment?
nope...

again, this is one of my claims on this thread

------the river roach is also a SSSI.

http://www.sssi.natu

ralengland.org.uk/ci

tation/citation_phot
o/1002160.pdf------

this is one of my opinions in this thread

---lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket.----

see... No link, no evidence. its an ***~~~opinion~~~***.
[quote][p][bold]A Pedant[/bold] wrote: A Pedant wrote: J-Man Quote 1: "lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket. " J-Man Quote 2: "if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence." So where's the evidence to back up your first comment then? thanks for the selective para-quote. if you cite someone at least do it properly. I also wnt on to say. "Stobart/ Southend council have the 'right to reply' via these means. if I make a claim about something i back it up with evidence. everything else is 'probably' just my humble opinion.." But you DID make a claim and you haven't backed it up - I was merely using part of your subsequent post to back up my initial request for proof of your 'cash bearing hand' comment. For someone who squeezes half truths out of insinuations on a regular basis you are very sensitive when asked to back up your own assertions. I ask again - where is your PROOF to back your initial comment?[/p][/quote]nope... again, this is one of my claims on this thread ------the river roach is also a SSSI. http://www.sssi.natu ralengland.org.uk/ci tation/citation_phot o/1002160.pdf------ this is one of my opinions in this thread ---lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket.---- see... No link, no evidence. its an ***~~~opinion~~~***. jayman
  • Score: -3

2:27pm Thu 27 Mar 14

jayman says...

disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk






/news/business-24429






443

but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing.

http://www.dailymail






.co.uk/news/article-






2363945/Boris-Johnso






ns-plan-replace-Heat






hrow-65bn-Thames-Est






uary-airport-grandio






se-Hitlers.html

here is a full map of SSSI's

http://magic.defra.g






ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?






startTopic=Designati






ons&activelayer=





sssi
Index&query=HYPE





RLIN
K%3D%271002160%27

as for fog.

How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility.

I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport.

Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.
No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently.

But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n





ews/uk-19570653

As for fog
Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country.

No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project.

"Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense"

So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.
fog....

http://www.thenorthe




rnecho.co.uk/news/10




699530.Southend_fog_




hits_flights/?ref=rc






https://www.facebook




.com/LondonSouthendA




irport/posts/4186760




51530921

http://www.braintree




andwithamtimes.co.uk




/news/9999241.Fog_de




lays_flights_across_




Essex/

--delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft..

humph.....
Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed.

If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.
"If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact."

I didn't make any claims regarding the frequency of Southend airport closures due to fog. I simply proved that Southend airport '''has''' closed due to fog to support my previously mounted argument that Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog closure as the proposed estuary airport would based on the fact that that there is only 6.79 miles between the two locations.
Again if an aircraft suffers a delay because of fog, or even a cancellation, the airport is not closed .

You claimed it was industry venacular, It is not, it is your opinion, you also failed to prove that the airport had closed due fog, as you misunderstand what constitutes a closure.

Also if you had more than a vague understanding of weather, you would know than the type of fog can be very different over the distance of a few miles. The fog that will affect an artificial island in the estuary is very different from that which will affect southend airport
to which you are right... In dense fog, the airport coffee shop will be open, the WH smiths will be open the check-in may be open, the toilets will be open. However... flights will be ---closed--- for that period of time.
[quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24429 443 but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2363945/Boris-Johnso ns-plan-replace-Heat hrow-65bn-Thames-Est uary-airport-grandio se-Hitlers.html here is a full map of SSSI's http://magic.defra.g ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx? startTopic=Designati ons&activelayer= sssi Index&query=HYPE RLIN K%3D%271002160%27 as for fog. How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility. I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport. Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.[/p][/quote]No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently. But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n ews/uk-19570653 As for fog Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country. No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project. "Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense" So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.[/p][/quote]fog.... http://www.thenorthe rnecho.co.uk/news/10 699530.Southend_fog_ hits_flights/?ref=rc https://www.facebook .com/LondonSouthendA irport/posts/4186760 51530921 http://www.braintree andwithamtimes.co.uk /news/9999241.Fog_de lays_flights_across_ Essex/ --delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft.. humph.....[/p][/quote]Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed. If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.[/p][/quote]"If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact." I didn't make any claims regarding the frequency of Southend airport closures due to fog. I simply proved that Southend airport '''has''' closed due to fog to support my previously mounted argument that Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog closure as the proposed estuary airport would based on the fact that that there is only 6.79 miles between the two locations.[/p][/quote]Again if an aircraft suffers a delay because of fog, or even a cancellation, the airport is not closed . You claimed it was industry venacular, It is not, it is your opinion, you also failed to prove that the airport had closed due fog, as you misunderstand what constitutes a closure. Also if you had more than a vague understanding of weather, you would know than the type of fog can be very different over the distance of a few miles. The fog that will affect an artificial island in the estuary is very different from that which will affect southend airport[/p][/quote]to which you are right... In dense fog, the airport coffee shop will be open, the WH smiths will be open the check-in may be open, the toilets will be open. However... flights will be ---closed--- for that period of time. jayman
  • Score: -3

3:14pm Thu 27 Mar 14

A Pedant says...

---lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket.----

see... No link, no evidence. its an ***~~~opinion~~~***.


There is nothing in your comment along the lines of 'in my opinion', 'I think that', 'my impression is' however you do say '...let's face it Stobart has...'. This is not sharing an opinion, this is stating what you consider to be a fact and I am asking you to back up with proof what could well be construed as a libellous comment at the expense of any or all of Stobart Group, SBC and RDC.

Now stop hiding behind semantics and wither withdraw your comment or back it up.

Oh, while I'm at it, could you stop re-quoting entire passages over and over as it is becoming tiresome trying to get to your 'point'.
---lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket.---- see... No link, no evidence. its an ***~~~opinion~~~***. There is nothing in your comment along the lines of 'in my opinion', 'I think that', 'my impression is' however you do say '...let's face it Stobart has...'. This is not sharing an opinion, this is stating what you consider to be a fact and I am asking you to back up with proof what could well be construed as a libellous comment at the expense of any or all of Stobart Group, SBC and RDC. Now stop hiding behind semantics and wither withdraw your comment or back it up. Oh, while I'm at it, could you stop re-quoting entire passages over and over as it is becoming tiresome trying to get to your 'point'. A Pedant
  • Score: 3

7:49pm Thu 27 Mar 14

jayman says...

A Pedant wrote:
---lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket.----

see... No link, no evidence. its an ***~~~opinion~~~***.



There is nothing in your comment along the lines of 'in my opinion', 'I think that', 'my impression is' however you do say '...let's face it Stobart has...'. This is not sharing an opinion, this is stating what you consider to be a fact and I am asking you to back up with proof what could well be construed as a libellous comment at the expense of any or all of Stobart Group, SBC and RDC.

Now stop hiding behind semantics and wither withdraw your comment or back it up.

Oh, while I'm at it, could you stop re-quoting entire passages over and over as it is becoming tiresome trying to get to your 'point'.
Its called freedom of speech and is the sole reason why corporate libel laws where recently changed...
[quote][p][bold]A Pedant[/bold] wrote: ---lets face it Stobart has its own division and army of barristers, consultants (local and national) and it has a cash bearing hand in many an influential pocket.---- see... No link, no evidence. its an ***~~~opinion~~~***. There is nothing in your comment along the lines of 'in my opinion', 'I think that', 'my impression is' however you do say '...let's face it Stobart has...'. This is not sharing an opinion, this is stating what you consider to be a fact and I am asking you to back up with proof what could well be construed as a libellous comment at the expense of any or all of Stobart Group, SBC and RDC. Now stop hiding behind semantics and wither withdraw your comment or back it up. Oh, while I'm at it, could you stop re-quoting entire passages over and over as it is becoming tiresome trying to get to your 'point'.[/p][/quote]Its called freedom of speech and is the sole reason why corporate libel laws where recently changed... jayman
  • Score: -4

12:27pm Fri 28 Mar 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk







/news/business-24429







443

but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing.

http://www.dailymail







.co.uk/news/article-







2363945/Boris-Johnso







ns-plan-replace-Heat







hrow-65bn-Thames-Est







uary-airport-grandio







se-Hitlers.html

here is a full map of SSSI's

http://magic.defra.g







ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?







startTopic=Designati







ons&activelayer=






sssi
Index&query=HYPE






RLIN
K%3D%271002160%27

as for fog.

How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility.

I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport.

Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.
No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently.

But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n






ews/uk-19570653

As for fog
Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country.

No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project.

"Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense"

So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.
fog....

http://www.thenorthe





rnecho.co.uk/news/10





699530.Southend_fog_





hits_flights/?ref=rc







https://www.facebook





.com/LondonSouthendA





irport/posts/4186760





51530921

http://www.braintree





andwithamtimes.co.uk





/news/9999241.Fog_de





lays_flights_across_





Essex/

--delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft..

humph.....
Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed.

If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.
"If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact."

I didn't make any claims regarding the frequency of Southend airport closures due to fog. I simply proved that Southend airport '''has''' closed due to fog to support my previously mounted argument that Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog closure as the proposed estuary airport would based on the fact that that there is only 6.79 miles between the two locations.
Again if an aircraft suffers a delay because of fog, or even a cancellation, the airport is not closed .

You claimed it was industry venacular, It is not, it is your opinion, you also failed to prove that the airport had closed due fog, as you misunderstand what constitutes a closure.

Also if you had more than a vague understanding of weather, you would know than the type of fog can be very different over the distance of a few miles. The fog that will affect an artificial island in the estuary is very different from that which will affect southend airport
to which you are right... In dense fog, the airport coffee shop will be open, the WH smiths will be open the check-in may be open, the toilets will be open. However... flights will be ---closed--- for that period of time.
Deary me, more ill informed opinion presented as fact.

You have failed to "prove" southend has closed and failed to prove southend would be just as susceptable to fog as an estuary airport, because if you knew anything about weather you would understand that fog forming over an artificial island could be massively different from that experienced by an airport even a little way inland.

No one in the travel industry refers to a to a delayed aircraft as a "closed" flight, so it seems you were talking out of your @ss yet again when you claimed it was travel industry venacular.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24429 443 but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2363945/Boris-Johnso ns-plan-replace-Heat hrow-65bn-Thames-Est uary-airport-grandio se-Hitlers.html here is a full map of SSSI's http://magic.defra.g ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx? startTopic=Designati ons&activelayer= sssi Index&query=HYPE RLIN K%3D%271002160%27 as for fog. How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility. I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport. Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.[/p][/quote]No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently. But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n ews/uk-19570653 As for fog Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country. No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project. "Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense" So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.[/p][/quote]fog.... http://www.thenorthe rnecho.co.uk/news/10 699530.Southend_fog_ hits_flights/?ref=rc https://www.facebook .com/LondonSouthendA irport/posts/4186760 51530921 http://www.braintree andwithamtimes.co.uk /news/9999241.Fog_de lays_flights_across_ Essex/ --delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft.. humph.....[/p][/quote]Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed. If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.[/p][/quote]"If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact." I didn't make any claims regarding the frequency of Southend airport closures due to fog. I simply proved that Southend airport '''has''' closed due to fog to support my previously mounted argument that Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog closure as the proposed estuary airport would based on the fact that that there is only 6.79 miles between the two locations.[/p][/quote]Again if an aircraft suffers a delay because of fog, or even a cancellation, the airport is not closed . You claimed it was industry venacular, It is not, it is your opinion, you also failed to prove that the airport had closed due fog, as you misunderstand what constitutes a closure. Also if you had more than a vague understanding of weather, you would know than the type of fog can be very different over the distance of a few miles. The fog that will affect an artificial island in the estuary is very different from that which will affect southend airport[/p][/quote]to which you are right... In dense fog, the airport coffee shop will be open, the WH smiths will be open the check-in may be open, the toilets will be open. However... flights will be ---closed--- for that period of time.[/p][/quote]Deary me, more ill informed opinion presented as fact. You have failed to "prove" southend has closed and failed to prove southend would be just as susceptable to fog as an estuary airport, because if you knew anything about weather you would understand that fog forming over an artificial island could be massively different from that experienced by an airport even a little way inland. No one in the travel industry refers to a to a delayed aircraft as a "closed" flight, so it seems you were talking out of your @ss yet again when you claimed it was travel industry venacular. disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: 2

2:34pm Fri 28 Mar 14

jayman says...

disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk








/news/business-24429








443

but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing.

http://www.dailymail








.co.uk/news/article-








2363945/Boris-Johnso








ns-plan-replace-Heat








hrow-65bn-Thames-Est








uary-airport-grandio








se-Hitlers.html

here is a full map of SSSI's

http://magic.defra.g








ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?








startTopic=Designati








ons&activelayer=







sssi
Index&query=HYPE







RLIN
K%3D%271002160%27

as for fog.

How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility.

I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport.

Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.
No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently.

But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n







ews/uk-19570653

As for fog
Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country.

No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project.

"Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense"

So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.
fog....

http://www.thenorthe






rnecho.co.uk/news/10






699530.Southend_fog_






hits_flights/?ref=rc








https://www.facebook






.com/LondonSouthendA






irport/posts/4186760






51530921

http://www.braintree






andwithamtimes.co.uk






/news/9999241.Fog_de






lays_flights_across_






Essex/

--delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft..

humph.....
Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed.

If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.
"If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact."

I didn't make any claims regarding the frequency of Southend airport closures due to fog. I simply proved that Southend airport '''has''' closed due to fog to support my previously mounted argument that Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog closure as the proposed estuary airport would based on the fact that that there is only 6.79 miles between the two locations.
Again if an aircraft suffers a delay because of fog, or even a cancellation, the airport is not closed .

You claimed it was industry venacular, It is not, it is your opinion, you also failed to prove that the airport had closed due fog, as you misunderstand what constitutes a closure.

Also if you had more than a vague understanding of weather, you would know than the type of fog can be very different over the distance of a few miles. The fog that will affect an artificial island in the estuary is very different from that which will affect southend airport
to which you are right... In dense fog, the airport coffee shop will be open, the WH smiths will be open the check-in may be open, the toilets will be open. However... flights will be ---closed--- for that period of time.
Deary me, more ill informed opinion presented as fact.

You have failed to "prove" southend has closed and failed to prove southend would be just as susceptable to fog as an estuary airport, because if you knew anything about weather you would understand that fog forming over an artificial island could be massively different from that experienced by an airport even a little way inland.

No one in the travel industry refers to a to a delayed aircraft as a "closed" flight, so it seems you were talking out of your @ss yet again when you claimed it was travel industry venacular.
"No one in the travel industry refers to a to a delayed aircraft as a "closed" flight"

I don't work in the travel industry...
[quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24429 443 but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2363945/Boris-Johnso ns-plan-replace-Heat hrow-65bn-Thames-Est uary-airport-grandio se-Hitlers.html here is a full map of SSSI's http://magic.defra.g ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx? startTopic=Designati ons&activelayer= sssi Index&query=HYPE RLIN K%3D%271002160%27 as for fog. How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility. I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport. Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.[/p][/quote]No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently. But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n ews/uk-19570653 As for fog Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country. No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project. "Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense" So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.[/p][/quote]fog.... http://www.thenorthe rnecho.co.uk/news/10 699530.Southend_fog_ hits_flights/?ref=rc https://www.facebook .com/LondonSouthendA irport/posts/4186760 51530921 http://www.braintree andwithamtimes.co.uk /news/9999241.Fog_de lays_flights_across_ Essex/ --delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft.. humph.....[/p][/quote]Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed. If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.[/p][/quote]"If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact." I didn't make any claims regarding the frequency of Southend airport closures due to fog. I simply proved that Southend airport '''has''' closed due to fog to support my previously mounted argument that Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog closure as the proposed estuary airport would based on the fact that that there is only 6.79 miles between the two locations.[/p][/quote]Again if an aircraft suffers a delay because of fog, or even a cancellation, the airport is not closed . You claimed it was industry venacular, It is not, it is your opinion, you also failed to prove that the airport had closed due fog, as you misunderstand what constitutes a closure. Also if you had more than a vague understanding of weather, you would know than the type of fog can be very different over the distance of a few miles. The fog that will affect an artificial island in the estuary is very different from that which will affect southend airport[/p][/quote]to which you are right... In dense fog, the airport coffee shop will be open, the WH smiths will be open the check-in may be open, the toilets will be open. However... flights will be ---closed--- for that period of time.[/p][/quote]Deary me, more ill informed opinion presented as fact. You have failed to "prove" southend has closed and failed to prove southend would be just as susceptable to fog as an estuary airport, because if you knew anything about weather you would understand that fog forming over an artificial island could be massively different from that experienced by an airport even a little way inland. No one in the travel industry refers to a to a delayed aircraft as a "closed" flight, so it seems you were talking out of your @ss yet again when you claimed it was travel industry venacular.[/p][/quote]"No one in the travel industry refers to a to a delayed aircraft as a "closed" flight" I don't work in the travel industry... jayman
  • Score: -1

5:55pm Fri 28 Mar 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas.

http://www.bbc.co.uk









/news/business-24429









443

but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing.

http://www.dailymail









.co.uk/news/article-









2363945/Boris-Johnso









ns-plan-replace-Heat









hrow-65bn-Thames-Est









uary-airport-grandio









se-Hitlers.html

here is a full map of SSSI's

http://magic.defra.g









ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?









startTopic=Designati









ons&activelayer=








sssi
Index&query=HYPE








RLIN
K%3D%271002160%27

as for fog.

How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility.

I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport.

Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.
No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently.

But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n








ews/uk-19570653

As for fog
Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country.

No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project.

"Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense"

So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.
fog....

http://www.thenorthe







rnecho.co.uk/news/10







699530.Southend_fog_







hits_flights/?ref=rc









https://www.facebook







.com/LondonSouthendA







irport/posts/4186760







51530921

http://www.braintree







andwithamtimes.co.uk







/news/9999241.Fog_de







lays_flights_across_







Essex/

--delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft..

humph.....
Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed.

If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed"

If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.
"If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact."

I didn't make any claims regarding the frequency of Southend airport closures due to fog. I simply proved that Southend airport '''has''' closed due to fog to support my previously mounted argument that Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog closure as the proposed estuary airport would based on the fact that that there is only 6.79 miles between the two locations.
Again if an aircraft suffers a delay because of fog, or even a cancellation, the airport is not closed .

You claimed it was industry venacular, It is not, it is your opinion, you also failed to prove that the airport had closed due fog, as you misunderstand what constitutes a closure.

Also if you had more than a vague understanding of weather, you would know than the type of fog can be very different over the distance of a few miles. The fog that will affect an artificial island in the estuary is very different from that which will affect southend airport
to which you are right... In dense fog, the airport coffee shop will be open, the WH smiths will be open the check-in may be open, the toilets will be open. However... flights will be ---closed--- for that period of time.
Deary me, more ill informed opinion presented as fact.

You have failed to "prove" southend has closed and failed to prove southend would be just as susceptable to fog as an estuary airport, because if you knew anything about weather you would understand that fog forming over an artificial island could be massively different from that experienced by an airport even a little way inland.

No one in the travel industry refers to a to a delayed aircraft as a "closed" flight, so it seems you were talking out of your @ss yet again when you claimed it was travel industry venacular.
"No one in the travel industry refers to a to a delayed aircraft as a "closed" flight"

I don't work in the travel industry...
Jayman "--delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft.. "

That is literally the assertion you made, I know you were talking out of your @rse, but come on try and remain consistant In your ****
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: oh.. I though the argument 'for' another international airport was an established fact. alas. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-24429 443 but hay. the daily mail seem to be against the idea, so it must be a good thing. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2363945/Boris-Johnso ns-plan-replace-Heat hrow-65bn-Thames-Est uary-airport-grandio se-Hitlers.html here is a full map of SSSI's http://magic.defra.g ov.uk/MagicMap.aspx? startTopic=Designati ons&activelayer= sssi Index&query=HYPE RLIN K%3D%271002160%27 as for fog. How many times has Southend airport been closed due to fog.... The thing about fog is... It tends to cover a wide area if it is dense enough to close airports due to poor visibility. I am sure Tilbury docks and the hazard A tanker ships that regularly enter the estuary where well considered by the boffins who designed the airport. Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense.[/p][/quote]No, if you read the article you linked, you would see the requirment is for increased runway capacity in the SE, not a new airport, certainly not an estuary airport, as evidenced by the sneak peak we got into airports report recently. But hey you love your strawmen, so good job with the dailymail article, heres a slightly more sensible one: http://m.bbc.co.uk/n ews/uk-19570653 As for fog Southend airport has never been closed by fog, it has suffered delays, but no more than other airports, and no it doesnt "tend to cover a wide area" it is wholy dependant on the type of fog, be it radiation, advection or sea smoke, it can be extremely localised or cover half the country. No the "boffins" who designed the airport didnt take into account shipping in the estuary, in the same way they didnt consult the Airtraffic controllers at nats, because it wasnt designed by "boffins" it was designed by an architectural firm as a vanity project. "Evidence is hard to come by when it lends itself more to basic common sense" So, like three posts ago you say you back up everthing you say with evidence, now its just "common sense" or more accurately opinion passed off as fact, thatis just terrible debating.[/p][/quote]fog.... http://www.thenorthe rnecho.co.uk/news/10 699530.Southend_fog_ hits_flights/?ref=rc https://www.facebook .com/LondonSouthendA irport/posts/4186760 51530921 http://www.braintree andwithamtimes.co.uk /news/9999241.Fog_de lays_flights_across_ Essex/ --delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft.. humph.....[/p][/quote]Delayed or cancelled are not travel industry venacular for closed in any sense of the word, it might be jayman venacular for closed. If you are delayed for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If a flight is cancelled for what ever reason then the airport is not "closed" If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact.[/p][/quote]"If you would like to link some stats showing that southend airport actually closes more due to fog, then carry on, or shall we chalk this up to you trotting out more opinion as fact." I didn't make any claims regarding the frequency of Southend airport closures due to fog. I simply proved that Southend airport '''has''' closed due to fog to support my previously mounted argument that Southend airport is just as susceptible to fog closure as the proposed estuary airport would based on the fact that that there is only 6.79 miles between the two locations.[/p][/quote]Again if an aircraft suffers a delay because of fog, or even a cancellation, the airport is not closed . You claimed it was industry venacular, It is not, it is your opinion, you also failed to prove that the airport had closed due fog, as you misunderstand what constitutes a closure. Also if you had more than a vague understanding of weather, you would know than the type of fog can be very different over the distance of a few miles. The fog that will affect an artificial island in the estuary is very different from that which will affect southend airport[/p][/quote]to which you are right... In dense fog, the airport coffee shop will be open, the WH smiths will be open the check-in may be open, the toilets will be open. However... flights will be ---closed--- for that period of time.[/p][/quote]Deary me, more ill informed opinion presented as fact. You have failed to "prove" southend has closed and failed to prove southend would be just as susceptable to fog as an estuary airport, because if you knew anything about weather you would understand that fog forming over an artificial island could be massively different from that experienced by an airport even a little way inland. No one in the travel industry refers to a to a delayed aircraft as a "closed" flight, so it seems you were talking out of your @ss yet again when you claimed it was travel industry venacular.[/p][/quote]"No one in the travel industry refers to a to a delayed aircraft as a "closed" flight" I don't work in the travel industry...[/p][/quote]Jayman "--delayed or cancelled-- travel industry vernacular meaning 'closed' for a period of time for reasons relating to the practical and causal principles and limitations of landing/taking off of aircraft.. " That is literally the assertion you made, I know you were talking out of your @rse, but come on try and remain consistant In your **** disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: 3

9:21pm Sun 30 Mar 14

Almeda11 says...

Letmetryagain wrote:
It won't happen.
Comp;etely agree, and l don`t see Heathrow closing any time soon.
[quote][p][bold]Letmetryagain[/bold] wrote: It won't happen.[/p][/quote]Comp;etely agree, and l don`t see Heathrow closing any time soon. Almeda11
  • Score: 4

9:30am Mon 31 Mar 14

JayRSS1 says...

News Bunny wrote:
It's that same 'artists impression' again. The one that shows the proposed airport at four/five times bigger than Canvey when even if it works out 50% bigger than Heathrow it will still only be the size of one Canvey.
The proposed Norman Foster masterplan is for a cargo hub only. If this is to include commercial passenger flights it'll be around the size pictured
[quote][p][bold]News Bunny[/bold] wrote: It's that same 'artists impression' again. The one that shows the proposed airport at four/five times bigger than Canvey when even if it works out 50% bigger than Heathrow it will still only be the size of one Canvey.[/p][/quote]The proposed Norman Foster masterplan is for a cargo hub only. If this is to include commercial passenger flights it'll be around the size pictured JayRSS1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree