Southend Airport dismissed 1,500 complaints

Southend Airport has received a number of complaints since its runway extension

Southend Airport has received a number of complaints since its runway extension

First published in Local News by

SOUTHEND Airport claims none of the 1,500 complaints it received this summer were upheld.

The airport received 1,579 complaints between June and October from as far away as Chelmsford and the isle of Sheppey, but none revealed a breach of controls on flights.

Managing director Alastair Welch said: “If someone is saying there’s an aircraft which was noisy, I’m not saying it wasn’t noisy, but in terms of whether there was any aircraft action that we shouldn’t have done, then I don’t think that was the case.

“I’m not aware of any specific complaints which revealed any non-compliance.”

Complaints dropped from a high of 443 in June to a low of 184 in September after the council’s airport consultative a committee agreed it could discount those from individuals who had made more than 100 complaints over the previous three months.

Six people have been written to about such “vexatious” complainants.

The 272 complaints in October included 120 from a Hadleigh resident, 90 of which related to aircraft using London City Airport.

The airport recorded seven flights in which planes left agreed flight paths, known as noise preferential routes, without instruction from air traffic control for reasons of safety between August and September.

Less than 0.2 per cent of flights leave the NPR and about half of these are instructed by ATC to do so.

Despite agreed to keep night flights over Leigh to an “absolute minimum”, the airport admitted that a fifth of the 120 a month allowed took the southwest route between May and July. The figure dropped to a tenth between August and September.

Explaining the figures at the first meeting of the council’s airport monitoring working party on Thursday evening, Mr Welch said: “If there is a wind over a dangerous level the aircraft will have to take off into the wind. The number of aircraft taking off over Southend is significantly lower than before the runway was extended.”

Comments (43)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:25pm Tue 11 Dec 12

notinwestcliffanymore says...

"it could discount those from individuals who had made more than 100 complaints"
.
.
if only we could do the same with jayman
"it could discount those from individuals who had made more than 100 complaints" . . if only we could do the same with jayman notinwestcliffanymore
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Thekingofsouthend says...

jayman is going to have an **** over this article! I am awaiting his postive attitude with eager excitement! GO JAYMAN!!!!
jayman is going to have an **** over this article! I am awaiting his postive attitude with eager excitement! GO JAYMAN!!!! Thekingofsouthend
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Tue 11 Dec 12

jolllyboy says...

Dismissing complaints does not mean that they were not genuine. As acknowledged the night flight rules are not being adhered to.
Also what has happened to the £1.5 million given to the council to improve the bus services around the area. All we have seen is the No.9 running more frequently whilst other buses are cut. Not the first amount given to the town to improve buses.
Dismissing complaints does not mean that they were not genuine. As acknowledged the night flight rules are not being adhered to. Also what has happened to the £1.5 million given to the council to improve the bus services around the area. All we have seen is the No.9 running more frequently whilst other buses are cut. Not the first amount given to the town to improve buses. jolllyboy
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Thekingofsouthend says...

jolllyboy wrote:
Dismissing complaints does not mean that they were not genuine. As acknowledged the night flight rules are not being adhered to.
Also what has happened to the £1.5 million given to the council to improve the bus services around the area. All we have seen is the No.9 running more frequently whilst other buses are cut. Not the first amount given to the town to improve buses.
'As acknowledged the night flight rules are not being adhered to.' Mate, do yourself a favour and stop commenting on things, get a nice hobby or start drinking, or something more useful with your time. The reason being for the night flights over Leigh (not rules by the way, an agreement by the airport to be accommodating to the whingers) was safety.

I am sure you and jayman would rather risk lives so the good people of leigh don't have to close their double glazed windows, or turn their tvs up a notch?
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Dismissing complaints does not mean that they were not genuine. As acknowledged the night flight rules are not being adhered to. Also what has happened to the £1.5 million given to the council to improve the bus services around the area. All we have seen is the No.9 running more frequently whilst other buses are cut. Not the first amount given to the town to improve buses.[/p][/quote]'As acknowledged the night flight rules are not being adhered to.' Mate, do yourself a favour and stop commenting on things, get a nice hobby or start drinking, or something more useful with your time. The reason being for the night flights over Leigh (not rules by the way, an agreement by the airport to be accommodating to the whingers) was safety. I am sure you and jayman would rather risk lives so the good people of leigh don't have to close their double glazed windows, or turn their tvs up a notch? Thekingofsouthend
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Aint it just the truth says...

So out of 1500 complaints they did not recognise a single one as genuine? Their blinkered arrogance is breathtaking.
So out of 1500 complaints they did not recognise a single one as genuine? Their blinkered arrogance is breathtaking. Aint it just the truth
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Tue 11 Dec 12

notinwestcliffanymore says...

The 272 complaints in October included 120 from a Hadleigh resident, 90 of which related to aircraft using London City Airport.

........
most complaints seemed to have been "misguided" at best.
The 272 complaints in October included 120 from a Hadleigh resident, 90 of which related to aircraft using London City Airport. ........ most complaints seemed to have been "misguided" at best. notinwestcliffanymore
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Tue 11 Dec 12

GrumpyofLeigh says...

Thekingofsouthend might be able to watch the telly after midnight but Leigh residents, by contrast, tend to have jobs so their remedy is to try to get back to sleep, not tweak the double-glazing or the volume knob.
But whilst it remains exceptional - and on good grounds - then...fine.
Thekingofsouthend might be able to watch the telly after midnight but Leigh residents, by contrast, tend to have jobs so their remedy is to try to get back to sleep, not tweak the double-glazing or the volume knob. But whilst it remains exceptional - and on good grounds - then...fine. GrumpyofLeigh
  • Score: 0

2:49pm Tue 11 Dec 12

maxell says...

Using the law of averages or ockhams razor, out of all thoes complaints there must have been some that flaged up concern. one thing I do know for sure is they cant count as I know of a least 2000 complaints that have not been addressed in any way shape or form, and that does not include their own, this is the danger of using the airports webbased complaint form you never know what is happening to your complaint, obviously the rest must have been deemed mere coments,

insults please
Using the law of averages or ockhams razor, out of all thoes complaints there must have been some that flaged up concern. one thing I do know for sure is they cant count as I know of a least 2000 complaints that have not been addressed in any way shape or form, and that does not include their own, this is the danger of using the airports webbased complaint form you never know what is happening to your complaint, obviously the rest must have been deemed mere coments, insults please maxell
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Aint it just the truth says...

notinwestcliffanymor
e
wrote:
The 272 complaints in October included 120 from a Hadleigh resident, 90 of which related to aircraft using London City Airport. ........ most complaints seemed to have been "misguided" at best.
"Most" ... maybe, but not all.
[quote][p][bold]notinwestcliffanymor e[/bold] wrote: The 272 complaints in October included 120 from a Hadleigh resident, 90 of which related to aircraft using London City Airport. ........ most complaints seemed to have been "misguided" at best.[/p][/quote]"Most" ... maybe, but not all. Aint it just the truth
  • Score: 0

3:03pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Max Impact says...

jolllyboy wrote:
Dismissing complaints does not mean that they were not genuine. As acknowledged the night flight rules are not being adhered to.
Also what has happened to the £1.5 million given to the council to improve the bus services around the area. All we have seen is the No.9 running more frequently whilst other buses are cut. Not the first amount given to the town to improve buses.
What about the fleet of new buses that now operate the No9 route, they must have cost a fair bit to buy, prehaps the money went on buying them.

Just a thought.
[quote][p][bold]jolllyboy[/bold] wrote: Dismissing complaints does not mean that they were not genuine. As acknowledged the night flight rules are not being adhered to. Also what has happened to the £1.5 million given to the council to improve the bus services around the area. All we have seen is the No.9 running more frequently whilst other buses are cut. Not the first amount given to the town to improve buses.[/p][/quote]What about the fleet of new buses that now operate the No9 route, they must have cost a fair bit to buy, prehaps the money went on buying them. Just a thought. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Max Impact says...

Aint it just the truth wrote:
So out of 1500 complaints they did not recognise a single one as genuine? Their blinkered arrogance is breathtaking.
Prehaps they were dismissed as the flights were operating within the permitted operating hours and did not not exceed the agreed decibel level.

Just a thought...
[quote][p][bold]Aint it just the truth[/bold] wrote: So out of 1500 complaints they did not recognise a single one as genuine? Their blinkered arrogance is breathtaking.[/p][/quote]Prehaps they were dismissed as the flights were operating within the permitted operating hours and did not not exceed the agreed decibel level. Just a thought... Max Impact
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Max Impact says...

maxell wrote:
Using the law of averages or ockhams razor, out of all thoes complaints there must have been some that flaged up concern. one thing I do know for sure is they cant count as I know of a least 2000 complaints that have not been addressed in any way shape or form, and that does not include their own, this is the danger of using the airports webbased complaint form you never know what is happening to your complaint, obviously the rest must have been deemed mere coments,

insults please
You know of 2000 complaints do you have a mole on the inside or are you saen's head of complaints logging or did you make all these 2000 complaints that are missing, once more you provide absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim.
[quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: Using the law of averages or ockhams razor, out of all thoes complaints there must have been some that flaged up concern. one thing I do know for sure is they cant count as I know of a least 2000 complaints that have not been addressed in any way shape or form, and that does not include their own, this is the danger of using the airports webbased complaint form you never know what is happening to your complaint, obviously the rest must have been deemed mere coments, insults please[/p][/quote]You know of 2000 complaints do you have a mole on the inside or are you saen's head of complaints logging or did you make all these 2000 complaints that are missing, once more you provide absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Max Impact says...

Missed Just a thought off the end of my last post.
Missed Just a thought off the end of my last post. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

3:19pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Nebs says...

Why did they change the free parking from 10 minutes to 5 minutes?
Why did they change the free parking from 10 minutes to 5 minutes? Nebs
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Tue 11 Dec 12

maxell says...

Max Impact wrote:
maxell wrote:
Using the law of averages or ockhams razor, out of all thoes complaints there must have been some that flaged up concern. one thing I do know for sure is they cant count as I know of a least 2000 complaints that have not been addressed in any way shape or form, and that does not include their own, this is the danger of using the airports webbased complaint form you never know what is happening to your complaint, obviously the rest must have been deemed mere coments,

insults please
You know of 2000 complaints do you have a mole on the inside or are you saen's head of complaints logging or did you make all these 2000 complaints that are missing, once more you provide absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim.
yes a mole. if you want proof just ask the council you just have to ask them, or file a FOI to get it.

next batch of insults please'
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: Using the law of averages or ockhams razor, out of all thoes complaints there must have been some that flaged up concern. one thing I do know for sure is they cant count as I know of a least 2000 complaints that have not been addressed in any way shape or form, and that does not include their own, this is the danger of using the airports webbased complaint form you never know what is happening to your complaint, obviously the rest must have been deemed mere coments, insults please[/p][/quote]You know of 2000 complaints do you have a mole on the inside or are you saen's head of complaints logging or did you make all these 2000 complaints that are missing, once more you provide absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim.[/p][/quote]yes a mole. if you want proof just ask the council you just have to ask them, or file a FOI to get it. next batch of insults please' maxell
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Nebs says...

maxell wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
maxell wrote:
Using the law of averages or ockhams razor, out of all thoes complaints there must have been some that flaged up concern. one thing I do know for sure is they cant count as I know of a least 2000 complaints that have not been addressed in any way shape or form, and that does not include their own, this is the danger of using the airports webbased complaint form you never know what is happening to your complaint, obviously the rest must have been deemed mere coments,

insults please
You know of 2000 complaints do you have a mole on the inside or are you saen's head of complaints logging or did you make all these 2000 complaints that are missing, once more you provide absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim.
yes a mole. if you want proof just ask the council you just have to ask them, or file a FOI to get it.

next batch of insults please'
If the airport is allowed to discount those from individuals who had made more than 100 complaints over the previous three months then it is quite possible that your figure and the airports figure are both correct.
[quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: Using the law of averages or ockhams razor, out of all thoes complaints there must have been some that flaged up concern. one thing I do know for sure is they cant count as I know of a least 2000 complaints that have not been addressed in any way shape or form, and that does not include their own, this is the danger of using the airports webbased complaint form you never know what is happening to your complaint, obviously the rest must have been deemed mere coments, insults please[/p][/quote]You know of 2000 complaints do you have a mole on the inside or are you saen's head of complaints logging or did you make all these 2000 complaints that are missing, once more you provide absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim.[/p][/quote]yes a mole. if you want proof just ask the council you just have to ask them, or file a FOI to get it. next batch of insults please'[/p][/quote]If the airport is allowed to discount those from individuals who had made more than 100 complaints over the previous three months then it is quite possible that your figure and the airports figure are both correct. Nebs
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Max Impact says...

maxell wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
maxell wrote:
Using the law of averages or ockhams razor, out of all thoes complaints there must have been some that flaged up concern. one thing I do know for sure is they cant count as I know of a least 2000 complaints that have not been addressed in any way shape or form, and that does not include their own, this is the danger of using the airports webbased complaint form you never know what is happening to your complaint, obviously the rest must have been deemed mere coments,

insults please
You know of 2000 complaints do you have a mole on the inside or are you saen's head of complaints logging or did you make all these 2000 complaints that are missing, once more you provide absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim.
yes a mole. if you want proof just ask the council you just have to ask them, or file a FOI to get it.

next batch of insults please'
So we now know you work for the council.

As for the FoI request why should I pay for it when it is you making the allegations as that is all it is at present allegations by somebody who from day one has born a grudge against the airport expantion.

If you really do work for the council I'm sure they will be more than happy to give you the information you say exists.

Come on we would all love to see you bring flesh and blood to the bones of the allegations

If you seriously beleve 2000 complaints have been removed from the offical records why not make an offical complaint

Do you not think that they might have been doubled up, such as a person putting the same complaint about the same flight to both the airport and council, this woud only be classed as ONE complaint and not TWO.

or in your book will it still count as two complaints.

Just a thought.
[quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: Using the law of averages or ockhams razor, out of all thoes complaints there must have been some that flaged up concern. one thing I do know for sure is they cant count as I know of a least 2000 complaints that have not been addressed in any way shape or form, and that does not include their own, this is the danger of using the airports webbased complaint form you never know what is happening to your complaint, obviously the rest must have been deemed mere coments, insults please[/p][/quote]You know of 2000 complaints do you have a mole on the inside or are you saen's head of complaints logging or did you make all these 2000 complaints that are missing, once more you provide absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim.[/p][/quote]yes a mole. if you want proof just ask the council you just have to ask them, or file a FOI to get it. next batch of insults please'[/p][/quote]So we now know you work for the council. As for the FoI request why should I pay for it when it is you making the allegations as that is all it is at present allegations by somebody who from day one has born a grudge against the airport expantion. If you really do work for the council I'm sure they will be more than happy to give you the information you say exists. Come on we would all love to see you bring flesh and blood to the bones of the allegations If you seriously beleve 2000 complaints have been removed from the offical records why not make an offical complaint Do you not think that they might have been doubled up, such as a person putting the same complaint about the same flight to both the airport and council, this woud only be classed as ONE complaint and not TWO. or in your book will it still count as two complaints. Just a thought. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Tue 11 Dec 12

maxell says...

Somthing else that the reporter failed to mention was about the ILS system we were all lead to beleive that the Ils system could land a aircraft , this is true providing you have the correct Ils system southend airport does not have this , cat 3 can land aircraft cat 1 as at southend cant.
Somthing else that the reporter failed to mention was about the ILS system we were all lead to beleive that the Ils system could land a aircraft , this is true providing you have the correct Ils system southend airport does not have this , cat 3 can land aircraft cat 1 as at southend cant. maxell
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Eric Whim says...

half of those fokkers was messerschmidts
half of those fokkers was messerschmidts Eric Whim
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Tue 11 Dec 12

j-w says...

Maxell apparently knows better that the airports body ACA...
Maxell apparently knows better that the airports body ACA... j-w
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Max Impact says...

maxell wrote:
Somthing else that the reporter failed to mention was about the ILS system we were all lead to beleive that the Ils system could land a aircraft , this is true providing you have the correct Ils system southend airport does not have this , cat 3 can land aircraft cat 1 as at southend cant.
The planning application stated the ILS would be fitted to runway that did not have it to aid landing not to do it.

pppppppppppppppppppp
pppppppppppppppppppp
ppppp;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
;;;;;;
[quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: Somthing else that the reporter failed to mention was about the ILS system we were all lead to beleive that the Ils system could land a aircraft , this is true providing you have the correct Ils system southend airport does not have this , cat 3 can land aircraft cat 1 as at southend cant.[/p][/quote]The planning application stated the ILS would be fitted to runway that did not have it to aid landing not to do it. pppppppppppppppppppp pppppppppppppppppppp ppppp;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;; Max Impact
  • Score: 0

9:13pm Tue 11 Dec 12

pipeman says...

maxell wrote:
Somthing else that the reporter failed to mention was about the ILS system we were all lead to beleive that the Ils system could land a aircraft , this is true providing you have the correct Ils system southend airport does not have this , cat 3 can land aircraft cat 1 as at southend cant.
Maxwell,

Please post link to where the airport stated that a CAT1 ILS would be certified as Full Auto-Land capable.

??
[quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: Somthing else that the reporter failed to mention was about the ILS system we were all lead to beleive that the Ils system could land a aircraft , this is true providing you have the correct Ils system southend airport does not have this , cat 3 can land aircraft cat 1 as at southend cant.[/p][/quote]Maxwell, Please post link to where the airport stated that a CAT1 ILS would be certified as Full Auto-Land capable. ?? pipeman
  • Score: 0

9:25pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Almeda11 says...

Has anybody else on here noticed that there are no up or down arrows to rate comments, as previously, or is it just on my computer?
Has anybody else on here noticed that there are no up or down arrows to rate comments, as previously, or is it just on my computer? Almeda11
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Tue 11 Dec 12

pipeman says...

Almeda11 wrote:
Has anybody else on here noticed that there are no up or down arrows to rate comments, as previously, or is it just on my computer?
Don't see them here either Almeda11
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: Has anybody else on here noticed that there are no up or down arrows to rate comments, as previously, or is it just on my computer?[/p][/quote]Don't see them here either Almeda11 pipeman
  • Score: 0

10:16pm Tue 11 Dec 12

jayman says...

health and safety meeting at the biscuit factory.

"right. we had twenty deaths in the last month. five where on the custard cream line and the rules say we don't have to report them. another five deaths occurred on the jaffa cake line, WELL! jaffa cakes are clearly a cake, so they have nothing to do with this biscuit factory, so we don't have to do anything about it. The other ten are completely fictitious. I made them up this morning using a range of cleaver methods. I did this so that next month i can submit eight deaths. 'to show an improvement'...."

complaints meeting at Southend airport

we received 1500 complaints about noise

we have instantly ignored 500 complaints using the 'couldn't be bothered to read it' method.

we have ignored a further 500 complaints as the complainers could not tell us what the engine serial number was of the aircraft was that was making all the noise.

a further 500 complaints where fabrications from ourselves. this enables us to alter and ease the future complaints case-load. this also enables us to debunk any genuine complaints.
health and safety meeting at the biscuit factory. "right. we had twenty deaths in the last month. five where on the custard cream line and the rules say we don't have to report them. another five deaths occurred on the jaffa cake line, WELL! jaffa cakes are clearly a cake, so they have nothing to do with this biscuit factory, so we don't have to do anything about it. The other ten are completely fictitious. I made them up this morning using a range of cleaver methods. I did this so that next month i can submit eight deaths. 'to show an improvement'...." complaints meeting at Southend airport we received 1500 complaints about noise we have instantly ignored 500 complaints using the 'couldn't be bothered to read it' method. we have ignored a further 500 complaints as the complainers could not tell us what the engine serial number was of the aircraft was that was making all the noise. a further 500 complaints where fabrications from ourselves. this enables us to alter and ease the future complaints case-load. this also enables us to debunk any genuine complaints. jayman
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Tue 11 Dec 12

jayman says...

jayman wrote:
health and safety meeting at the biscuit factory.

"right. we had twenty deaths in the last month. five where on the custard cream line and the rules say we don't have to report them. another five deaths occurred on the jaffa cake line, WELL! jaffa cakes are clearly a cake, so they have nothing to do with this biscuit factory, so we don't have to do anything about it. The other ten are completely fictitious. I made them up this morning using a range of cleaver methods. I did this so that next month i can submit eight deaths. 'to show an improvement'...."

complaints meeting at Southend airport

we received 1500 complaints about noise

we have instantly ignored 500 complaints using the 'couldn't be bothered to read it' method.

we have ignored a further 500 complaints as the complainers could not tell us what the engine serial number was of the aircraft was that was making all the noise.

a further 500 complaints where fabrications from ourselves. this enables us to alter and ease the future complaints case-load. this also enables us to debunk any genuine complaints.
that's 'self regulation' for you......
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: health and safety meeting at the biscuit factory. "right. we had twenty deaths in the last month. five where on the custard cream line and the rules say we don't have to report them. another five deaths occurred on the jaffa cake line, WELL! jaffa cakes are clearly a cake, so they have nothing to do with this biscuit factory, so we don't have to do anything about it. The other ten are completely fictitious. I made them up this morning using a range of cleaver methods. I did this so that next month i can submit eight deaths. 'to show an improvement'...." complaints meeting at Southend airport we received 1500 complaints about noise we have instantly ignored 500 complaints using the 'couldn't be bothered to read it' method. we have ignored a further 500 complaints as the complainers could not tell us what the engine serial number was of the aircraft was that was making all the noise. a further 500 complaints where fabrications from ourselves. this enables us to alter and ease the future complaints case-load. this also enables us to debunk any genuine complaints.[/p][/quote]that's 'self regulation' for you...... jayman
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Max Impact says...

jayman wrote:
jayman wrote:
health and safety meeting at the biscuit factory.

"right. we had twenty deaths in the last month. five where on the custard cream line and the rules say we don't have to report them. another five deaths occurred on the jaffa cake line, WELL! jaffa cakes are clearly a cake, so they have nothing to do with this biscuit factory, so we don't have to do anything about it. The other ten are completely fictitious. I made them up this morning using a range of cleaver methods. I did this so that next month i can submit eight deaths. 'to show an improvement'...."

complaints meeting at Southend airport

we received 1500 complaints about noise

we have instantly ignored 500 complaints using the 'couldn't be bothered to read it' method.

we have ignored a further 500 complaints as the complainers could not tell us what the engine serial number was of the aircraft was that was making all the noise.

a further 500 complaints where fabrications from ourselves. this enables us to alter and ease the future complaints case-load. this also enables us to debunk any genuine complaints.
that's 'self regulation' for you......
Prehaps the complaints were made about flights operating within the agreed operating hours of the airport.

Prehaps the noise the aircraft made did not exceed the permitted decibel level agreed.

Just a thought.


As has been seen from the complaints made some people are complaining about every flight which makes a mockery of the complaints procedure and clearly shows that those who are against the airport are just trying to make thing look worse than they really are, that they are a joke, they are grasping at straws, they are failing to act in a grown up manner and that they are not respecting the fair proecess that has been put in place.

What is the betting they are the sort of people that will moan about the Police helicopter, Air Ambulance and Search and Rescue helicopter!
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: health and safety meeting at the biscuit factory. "right. we had twenty deaths in the last month. five where on the custard cream line and the rules say we don't have to report them. another five deaths occurred on the jaffa cake line, WELL! jaffa cakes are clearly a cake, so they have nothing to do with this biscuit factory, so we don't have to do anything about it. The other ten are completely fictitious. I made them up this morning using a range of cleaver methods. I did this so that next month i can submit eight deaths. 'to show an improvement'...." complaints meeting at Southend airport we received 1500 complaints about noise we have instantly ignored 500 complaints using the 'couldn't be bothered to read it' method. we have ignored a further 500 complaints as the complainers could not tell us what the engine serial number was of the aircraft was that was making all the noise. a further 500 complaints where fabrications from ourselves. this enables us to alter and ease the future complaints case-load. this also enables us to debunk any genuine complaints.[/p][/quote]that's 'self regulation' for you......[/p][/quote]Prehaps the complaints were made about flights operating within the agreed operating hours of the airport. Prehaps the noise the aircraft made did not exceed the permitted decibel level agreed. Just a thought. As has been seen from the complaints made some people are complaining about every flight which makes a mockery of the complaints procedure and clearly shows that those who are against the airport are just trying to make thing look worse than they really are, that they are a joke, they are grasping at straws, they are failing to act in a grown up manner and that they are not respecting the fair proecess that has been put in place. What is the betting they are the sort of people that will moan about the Police helicopter, Air Ambulance and Search and Rescue helicopter! Max Impact
  • Score: 0

11:03pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Devils Advocate says...

Almeda11 wrote:
Has anybody else on here noticed that there are no up or down arrows to rate comments, as previously, or is it just on my computer?
You've been reading another newspaper. They have not been here for the 200 yeats that I have been posting. We who post here do not need such a system. If it was brought in, you know full well that the right wing would install the ballot rigging software and it would then be just like the general elections!

(Just a thought!)
[quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: Has anybody else on here noticed that there are no up or down arrows to rate comments, as previously, or is it just on my computer?[/p][/quote]You've been reading another newspaper. They have not been here for the 200 yeats that I have been posting. We who post here do not need such a system. If it was brought in, you know full well that the right wing would install the ballot rigging software and it would then be just like the general elections! (Just a thought!) Devils Advocate
  • Score: 0

11:04pm Tue 11 Dec 12

Devils Advocate says...

Devils Advocate wrote:
Almeda11 wrote:
Has anybody else on here noticed that there are no up or down arrows to rate comments, as previously, or is it just on my computer?
You've been reading another newspaper. They have not been here for the 200 yeats that I have been posting. We who post here do not need such a system. If it was brought in, you know full well that the right wing would install the ballot rigging software and it would then be just like the general elections!

(Just a thought!)
200 yeats? How poetic am I getting?
Sorry, should have read years of course!
[quote][p][bold]Devils Advocate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Almeda11[/bold] wrote: Has anybody else on here noticed that there are no up or down arrows to rate comments, as previously, or is it just on my computer?[/p][/quote]You've been reading another newspaper. They have not been here for the 200 yeats that I have been posting. We who post here do not need such a system. If it was brought in, you know full well that the right wing would install the ballot rigging software and it would then be just like the general elections! (Just a thought!)[/p][/quote]200 yeats? How poetic am I getting? Sorry, should have read years of course! Devils Advocate
  • Score: 0

11:56pm Tue 11 Dec 12

jayman says...

Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
jayman wrote:
health and safety meeting at the biscuit factory.

"right. we had twenty deaths in the last month. five where on the custard cream line and the rules say we don't have to report them. another five deaths occurred on the jaffa cake line, WELL! jaffa cakes are clearly a cake, so they have nothing to do with this biscuit factory, so we don't have to do anything about it. The other ten are completely fictitious. I made them up this morning using a range of cleaver methods. I did this so that next month i can submit eight deaths. 'to show an improvement'...."

complaints meeting at Southend airport

we received 1500 complaints about noise

we have instantly ignored 500 complaints using the 'couldn't be bothered to read it' method.

we have ignored a further 500 complaints as the complainers could not tell us what the engine serial number was of the aircraft was that was making all the noise.

a further 500 complaints where fabrications from ourselves. this enables us to alter and ease the future complaints case-load. this also enables us to debunk any genuine complaints.
that's 'self regulation' for you......
Prehaps the complaints were made about flights operating within the agreed operating hours of the airport.

Prehaps the noise the aircraft made did not exceed the permitted decibel level agreed.

Just a thought.


As has been seen from the complaints made some people are complaining about every flight which makes a mockery of the complaints procedure and clearly shows that those who are against the airport are just trying to make thing look worse than they really are, that they are a joke, they are grasping at straws, they are failing to act in a grown up manner and that they are not respecting the fair proecess that has been put in place.

What is the betting they are the sort of people that will moan about the Police helicopter, Air Ambulance and Search and Rescue helicopter!
there are hoaxers that call 999 max.

I suppose that means (by your logic) that everyone that calls 999 is not to be trusted.

beyond this, what's the point of having a complaints policy for noise when the criteria for what is and is not acceptable is defined by the airport itself?

furthermore what's the point of any of it when it is the airport that commissions the noise monitoring and publishes the results.

if ever there was an indication that manipulation and damage limitation where occurring it would look very similar to the above observations..
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: health and safety meeting at the biscuit factory. "right. we had twenty deaths in the last month. five where on the custard cream line and the rules say we don't have to report them. another five deaths occurred on the jaffa cake line, WELL! jaffa cakes are clearly a cake, so they have nothing to do with this biscuit factory, so we don't have to do anything about it. The other ten are completely fictitious. I made them up this morning using a range of cleaver methods. I did this so that next month i can submit eight deaths. 'to show an improvement'...." complaints meeting at Southend airport we received 1500 complaints about noise we have instantly ignored 500 complaints using the 'couldn't be bothered to read it' method. we have ignored a further 500 complaints as the complainers could not tell us what the engine serial number was of the aircraft was that was making all the noise. a further 500 complaints where fabrications from ourselves. this enables us to alter and ease the future complaints case-load. this also enables us to debunk any genuine complaints.[/p][/quote]that's 'self regulation' for you......[/p][/quote]Prehaps the complaints were made about flights operating within the agreed operating hours of the airport. Prehaps the noise the aircraft made did not exceed the permitted decibel level agreed. Just a thought. As has been seen from the complaints made some people are complaining about every flight which makes a mockery of the complaints procedure and clearly shows that those who are against the airport are just trying to make thing look worse than they really are, that they are a joke, they are grasping at straws, they are failing to act in a grown up manner and that they are not respecting the fair proecess that has been put in place. What is the betting they are the sort of people that will moan about the Police helicopter, Air Ambulance and Search and Rescue helicopter![/p][/quote]there are hoaxers that call 999 max. I suppose that means (by your logic) that everyone that calls 999 is not to be trusted. beyond this, what's the point of having a complaints policy for noise when the criteria for what is and is not acceptable is defined by the airport itself? furthermore what's the point of any of it when it is the airport that commissions the noise monitoring and publishes the results. if ever there was an indication that manipulation and damage limitation where occurring it would look very similar to the above observations.. jayman
  • Score: 0

12:14am Wed 12 Dec 12

jayman says...

in summery.

the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft.

the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway.

the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable.

SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!!
in summery. the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft. the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway. the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable. SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!! jayman
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Wed 12 Dec 12

RichardAC says...

I think what Jayman is saying is that the airport is a fantastic facility for the Borough, creates jobs, prestige and money for the town.
The industry is very very regulated. What Sir Alistair is saying is that the complaints aren't real complaints as they have not breached any agreements or regulations. If you complain a tree is 10 foot tall, but you can only complain if it's 20 foot tall then it's not a complaint.
I think what Jayman is saying is that the airport is a fantastic facility for the Borough, creates jobs, prestige and money for the town. The industry is very very regulated. What Sir Alistair is saying is that the complaints aren't real complaints as they have not breached any agreements or regulations. If you complain a tree is 10 foot tall, but you can only complain if it's 20 foot tall then it's not a complaint. RichardAC
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Wed 12 Dec 12

openspace says...

RichardAC wrote:
I think what Jayman is saying is that the airport is a fantastic facility for the Borough, creates jobs, prestige and money for the town.
The industry is very very regulated. What Sir Alistair is saying is that the complaints aren't real complaints as they have not breached any agreements or regulations. If you complain a tree is 10 foot tall, but you can only complain if it's 20 foot tall then it's not a complaint.
Nice to see a bit of logic for a change.
Makes a change from Jayman's biased rhetoric.
Not that his comments make any difference to anything and they do, at least, brighten our day by providing some amusement. In these financially testing times, we all need something to laugh at. Keep the comments coming J.
[quote][p][bold]RichardAC[/bold] wrote: I think what Jayman is saying is that the airport is a fantastic facility for the Borough, creates jobs, prestige and money for the town. The industry is very very regulated. What Sir Alistair is saying is that the complaints aren't real complaints as they have not breached any agreements or regulations. If you complain a tree is 10 foot tall, but you can only complain if it's 20 foot tall then it's not a complaint.[/p][/quote]Nice to see a bit of logic for a change. Makes a change from Jayman's biased rhetoric. Not that his comments make any difference to anything and they do, at least, brighten our day by providing some amusement. In these financially testing times, we all need something to laugh at. Keep the comments coming J. openspace
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Wed 12 Dec 12

j-w says...

Be interesting to know how many individual households complained.
Be interesting to know how many individual households complained. j-w
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Joe Wildman says...

jayman wrote:
in summery.

the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft.

the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway.

the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable.

SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!!
and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure.

To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level.

Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30.

The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it.
Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure.

He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: in summery. the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft. the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway. the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable. SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!![/p][/quote]and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure. To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level. Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30. The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it. Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure. He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain. Joe Wildman
  • Score: 0

10:05pm Wed 12 Dec 12

jayman says...

Joe Wildman wrote:
jayman wrote:
in summery.

the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft.

the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway.

the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable.

SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!!
and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure.

To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level.

Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30.

The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it.
Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure.

He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.
i think you will find that the airport lease negotiations where ruled upon by Southend councils very own Tory party, as they had a majority. And some of them got lucrative jobs out of it..

the airport was in terminal decline prior to the expansion. the night flights where dwindling away as a result. The conditions of night flights in the new lease where based on the wildly theoretical night flight arrangements of the previous one.

so I stand by what I say...

the people of Southend got stitched up by the interests of 'the high end'

I'm still waiting for the windfall that the airport is going to provide to materialise. where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance. where are the hordes of highly paid, locally born stobart employees.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: in summery. the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft. the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway. the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable. SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!![/p][/quote]and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure. To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level. Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30. The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it. Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure. He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.[/p][/quote]i think you will find that the airport lease negotiations where ruled upon by Southend councils very own Tory party, as they had a majority. And some of them got lucrative jobs out of it.. the airport was in terminal decline prior to the expansion. the night flights where dwindling away as a result. The conditions of night flights in the new lease where based on the wildly theoretical night flight arrangements of the previous one. so I stand by what I say... the people of Southend got stitched up by the interests of 'the high end' I'm still waiting for the windfall that the airport is going to provide to materialise. where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance. where are the hordes of highly paid, locally born stobart employees. jayman
  • Score: 0

10:58pm Wed 12 Dec 12

Joe Wildman says...

jayman wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
jayman wrote:
in summery.

the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft.

the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway.

the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable.

SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!!
and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure.

To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level.

Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30.

The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it.
Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure.

He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.
i think you will find that the airport lease negotiations where ruled upon by Southend councils very own Tory party, as they had a majority. And some of them got lucrative jobs out of it..

the airport was in terminal decline prior to the expansion. the night flights where dwindling away as a result. The conditions of night flights in the new lease where based on the wildly theoretical night flight arrangements of the previous one.

so I stand by what I say...

the people of Southend got stitched up by the interests of 'the high end'

I'm still waiting for the windfall that the airport is going to provide to materialise. where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance. where are the hordes of highly paid, locally born stobart employees.
To quote quote you...

"where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance"

Was that in the leasing deal or did you just lie?
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: in summery. the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft. the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway. the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable. SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!![/p][/quote]and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure. To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level. Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30. The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it. Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure. He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.[/p][/quote]i think you will find that the airport lease negotiations where ruled upon by Southend councils very own Tory party, as they had a majority. And some of them got lucrative jobs out of it.. the airport was in terminal decline prior to the expansion. the night flights where dwindling away as a result. The conditions of night flights in the new lease where based on the wildly theoretical night flight arrangements of the previous one. so I stand by what I say... the people of Southend got stitched up by the interests of 'the high end' I'm still waiting for the windfall that the airport is going to provide to materialise. where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance. where are the hordes of highly paid, locally born stobart employees.[/p][/quote]To quote quote you... "where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance" Was that in the leasing deal or did you just lie? Joe Wildman
  • Score: 0

10:35am Thu 13 Dec 12

openspace says...

jayman wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
jayman wrote:
in summery.

the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft.

the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway.

the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable.

SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!!
and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure.

To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level.

Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30.

The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it.
Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure.

He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.
i think you will find that the airport lease negotiations where ruled upon by Southend councils very own Tory party, as they had a majority. And some of them got lucrative jobs out of it..

the airport was in terminal decline prior to the expansion. the night flights where dwindling away as a result. The conditions of night flights in the new lease where based on the wildly theoretical night flight arrangements of the previous one.

so I stand by what I say...

the people of Southend got stitched up by the interests of 'the high end'

I'm still waiting for the windfall that the airport is going to provide to materialise. where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance. where are the hordes of highly paid, locally born stobart employees.
" and where is the evidence to back up all your ludicrous claims?"

Please elaborate with precise and factual details.
Please do not use terms like " the people of Southend" in your quotes. Disappointing thought this might be for you, accept the fact that you do not represent the people of Southend, we all have opinions of our own. Amongst a large circle of personal friends and aquaintances of all political persuasions and age ranges, I actually know of no-one who is against the airport expansion, all are very much in favour.
( Many of these, perhaps a majority, don't fly on holidays or actually use the airport so do not have a vested interest,( apart from the one person who is now employed by Stobart, following some time unemployed !!!).
I therefore believe that these positive views on the airport are more representative of the views of local people.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: in summery. the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft. the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway. the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable. SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!![/p][/quote]and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure. To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level. Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30. The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it. Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure. He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.[/p][/quote]i think you will find that the airport lease negotiations where ruled upon by Southend councils very own Tory party, as they had a majority. And some of them got lucrative jobs out of it.. the airport was in terminal decline prior to the expansion. the night flights where dwindling away as a result. The conditions of night flights in the new lease where based on the wildly theoretical night flight arrangements of the previous one. so I stand by what I say... the people of Southend got stitched up by the interests of 'the high end' I'm still waiting for the windfall that the airport is going to provide to materialise. where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance. where are the hordes of highly paid, locally born stobart employees.[/p][/quote]" and where is the evidence to back up all your ludicrous claims?" Please elaborate with precise and factual details. Please do not use terms like " the people of Southend" in your quotes. Disappointing thought this might be for you, accept the fact that you do not represent the people of Southend, we all have opinions of our own. Amongst a large circle of personal friends and aquaintances of all political persuasions and age ranges, I actually know of no-one who is against the airport expansion, all are very much in favour. ( Many of these, perhaps a majority, don't fly on holidays or actually use the airport so do not have a vested interest,( apart from the one person who is now employed by Stobart, following some time unemployed !!!). I therefore believe that these positive views on the airport are more representative of the views of local people. openspace
  • Score: 0

7:57am Fri 14 Dec 12

Nebs says...

Joe Wildman wrote:
jayman wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
jayman wrote:
in summery.

the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft.

the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway.

the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable.

SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!!
and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure.

To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level.

Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30.

The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it.
Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure.

He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.
i think you will find that the airport lease negotiations where ruled upon by Southend councils very own Tory party, as they had a majority. And some of them got lucrative jobs out of it..

the airport was in terminal decline prior to the expansion. the night flights where dwindling away as a result. The conditions of night flights in the new lease where based on the wildly theoretical night flight arrangements of the previous one.

so I stand by what I say...

the people of Southend got stitched up by the interests of 'the high end'

I'm still waiting for the windfall that the airport is going to provide to materialise. where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance. where are the hordes of highly paid, locally born stobart employees.
To quote quote you...

"where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance"

Was that in the leasing deal or did you just lie?
Other airports do charity work for their local community. I would be very surprised if Southend did not follow suit.
[quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: in summery. the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft. the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway. the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable. SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!![/p][/quote]and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure. To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level. Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30. The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it. Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure. He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.[/p][/quote]i think you will find that the airport lease negotiations where ruled upon by Southend councils very own Tory party, as they had a majority. And some of them got lucrative jobs out of it.. the airport was in terminal decline prior to the expansion. the night flights where dwindling away as a result. The conditions of night flights in the new lease where based on the wildly theoretical night flight arrangements of the previous one. so I stand by what I say... the people of Southend got stitched up by the interests of 'the high end' I'm still waiting for the windfall that the airport is going to provide to materialise. where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance. where are the hordes of highly paid, locally born stobart employees.[/p][/quote]To quote quote you... "where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance" Was that in the leasing deal or did you just lie?[/p][/quote]Other airports do charity work for their local community. I would be very surprised if Southend did not follow suit. Nebs
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Fri 14 Dec 12

lennyfy says...

Aircraft noise near an airport ,what a disgrace, the next thing we know it will be the sound of trains comming from a station, where will it end !
Aircraft noise near an airport ,what a disgrace, the next thing we know it will be the sound of trains comming from a station, where will it end ! lennyfy
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Fri 14 Dec 12

largo1 says...

if people have a problem with the airport why don't they move somewhere else?!
if people have a problem with the airport why don't they move somewhere else?! largo1
  • Score: 0

6:28pm Fri 14 Dec 12

BASILBRUSH says...

Nebs wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
jayman wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
jayman wrote: in summery. the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft. the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway. the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable. SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!!
and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure. To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level. Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30. The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it. Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure. He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.
i think you will find that the airport lease negotiations where ruled upon by Southend councils very own Tory party, as they had a majority. And some of them got lucrative jobs out of it.. the airport was in terminal decline prior to the expansion. the night flights where dwindling away as a result. The conditions of night flights in the new lease where based on the wildly theoretical night flight arrangements of the previous one. so I stand by what I say... the people of Southend got stitched up by the interests of 'the high end' I'm still waiting for the windfall that the airport is going to provide to materialise. where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance. where are the hordes of highly paid, locally born stobart employees.
To quote quote you... "where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance" Was that in the leasing deal or did you just lie?
Other airports do charity work for their local community. I would be very surprised if Southend did not follow suit.
The Airport has been doing charity work for years.... Remember the article on 'Runway' the guide dog?
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: in summery. the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft. the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway. the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable. SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!![/p][/quote]and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure. To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level. Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30. The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it. Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure. He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.[/p][/quote]i think you will find that the airport lease negotiations where ruled upon by Southend councils very own Tory party, as they had a majority. And some of them got lucrative jobs out of it.. the airport was in terminal decline prior to the expansion. the night flights where dwindling away as a result. The conditions of night flights in the new lease where based on the wildly theoretical night flight arrangements of the previous one. so I stand by what I say... the people of Southend got stitched up by the interests of 'the high end' I'm still waiting for the windfall that the airport is going to provide to materialise. where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance. where are the hordes of highly paid, locally born stobart employees.[/p][/quote]To quote quote you... "where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance" Was that in the leasing deal or did you just lie?[/p][/quote]Other airports do charity work for their local community. I would be very surprised if Southend did not follow suit.[/p][/quote]The Airport has been doing charity work for years.... Remember the article on 'Runway' the guide dog? BASILBRUSH
  • Score: 0

11:19pm Fri 14 Dec 12

Max Impact says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
Nebs wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
jayman wrote:
Joe Wildman wrote:
jayman wrote: in summery. the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft. the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway. the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable. SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!!
and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure. To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level. Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30. The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it. Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure. He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.
i think you will find that the airport lease negotiations where ruled upon by Southend councils very own Tory party, as they had a majority. And some of them got lucrative jobs out of it.. the airport was in terminal decline prior to the expansion. the night flights where dwindling away as a result. The conditions of night flights in the new lease where based on the wildly theoretical night flight arrangements of the previous one. so I stand by what I say... the people of Southend got stitched up by the interests of 'the high end' I'm still waiting for the windfall that the airport is going to provide to materialise. where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance. where are the hordes of highly paid, locally born stobart employees.
To quote quote you... "where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance" Was that in the leasing deal or did you just lie?
Other airports do charity work for their local community. I would be very surprised if Southend did not follow suit.
The Airport has been doing charity work for years.... Remember the article on 'Runway' the guide dog?
They also hosted Noel Edmonds & his Airborne charity at one time.

Knowing jaymans fetish for posting links I thought I might get him going with:


http://www.southenda
irport.com/news/late
st-news/charity-fun-
day-raises-over-700/


Better pass the tissues for:

http://www.southenda
irport.com/about-us/
charity/
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joe Wildman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: in summery. the airport are powerless to control noise from aircraft. the airport couldn't be bothered about the noise anyway. the airport was never going to honour the spirit and to the word of how they presented the airports ultra quiet operations at the consultation that occurred prior to the expansion of the airport as they knew this would not be profitable. SBC are not preforming a regulatory role and have no ability to interfere with airport operations because the lease conditions are as water tight as a sponge, SBC's Tories knew this when they sign the 150 lease.. hell... knew it!! they where banking on it!![/p][/quote]and those complaining are NOT doing it in the spirit of the complaints procedure. To file a complaint about every aircraft that takes off or lands is a complete an utter farce, so basically the airport can’t operate as an airport without somebody making a complaint even if those flights that they are complaining about are operating within the agreed operating hours and are not exceeding the agreed decibel level. Before the new operating procedures were set down night was defined 23:59—6:00 the new night times are 23:00-6:30. The noise limits and operating hours were agreed by a cross party group NOT just the airport, can’t seem to find the list that was on line as to who voted what way but I sure somebody must have a copy or be able to find it. Guess jayman will dispute any fact, twist it to suit his own view and proclaim it as the real truth, the same as the complaints procedure. He can see no wrong in those that are the prolific complainers who will moan about each and every flight, you will probably find many of those that are complaining will quite happily go to another airport to fly off on holiday of their second homes in Spain.[/p][/quote]i think you will find that the airport lease negotiations where ruled upon by Southend councils very own Tory party, as they had a majority. And some of them got lucrative jobs out of it.. the airport was in terminal decline prior to the expansion. the night flights where dwindling away as a result. The conditions of night flights in the new lease where based on the wildly theoretical night flight arrangements of the previous one. so I stand by what I say... the people of Southend got stitched up by the interests of 'the high end' I'm still waiting for the windfall that the airport is going to provide to materialise. where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance. where are the hordes of highly paid, locally born stobart employees.[/p][/quote]To quote quote you... "where is the photo in the echo of airport bosses handing over a cheque for a million quid to local charities for instance" Was that in the leasing deal or did you just lie?[/p][/quote]Other airports do charity work for their local community. I would be very surprised if Southend did not follow suit.[/p][/quote]The Airport has been doing charity work for years.... Remember the article on 'Runway' the guide dog?[/p][/quote]They also hosted Noel Edmonds & his Airborne charity at one time. Knowing jaymans fetish for posting links I thought I might get him going with: http://www.southenda irport.com/news/late st-news/charity-fun- day-raises-over-700/ Better pass the tissues for: http://www.southenda irport.com/about-us/ charity/ Max Impact
  • 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