Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Terminally stupid at terminal 1

Not that you'd know from the news coverage, but there are some people outside of the Cabinet who are in favour of a third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow.

The reason I am in favour is pretty straight forward: I want the UK to remain a najor business nation.

It goes something like this: Heathrow is a hub. People fly in from all over the world and connect with flights to other countries. A few can go by rail if they are coming to the UK but most are going to other countries. The 3rd runway is for smaller aircraft and will serve European destinations. People flying in from say Ottawa, who have to change at their hub in Toronto, cannot fly to many European destinations and need a hub such as Heathrow or Frankfurt. They can then fly from Heathrow or Frankfurt to Athens, Turkey, Spain etc. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp.

Alas, Tory MP for Putney Justine Greening hasn't managed to do that. The silly girl is playing around with the watermelons from Plane Stupid.

To compare it to other things that we have to put up with on a day to day basis, I will use the words a reader has sent me:

I live under the flight path of planes taking off from Heathrow and it matters not one jot. Better a hundred aircraft that a couple of Blair’s feral youths screaming inanities in the street outside.

Well, quite.

He continues:
...to see a Conservative MP associating with plane stupid is bad enough, but they are just a transient mob of second rate university children enjoying themselves.

The Green Lobby are known as watermelons for a simple reason: They might be green on the outside but on the inside they're as red as socialist blood. They're the kind of people who are opposed to nuclear power meaning that as a country we're now reliant on oil and gas supplies from unstable countries such as Russia. One only needs to ask a Ukrainan how they feel on that particular issue to understand that it's not the most desirable situation to be in. France, on the other hand, don't have that trouble. They produce lots of energy from nuclear and no one talks about that disaster at the French nuclear power station for the simple reason that there hasn't been one. Comparing Chernobyl to a modern nuclear facility is like comparing an SLK to a Lada.

But Plane Stupid and their ilk, grasping their sociology degree certificates, don't like to trouble themselves with things like reality. Their parents have always ensured that they have a nice, warm place to live with heating and lighting and plugs for their slo cookers.

They and their celebrity supporters haven't got as far as thinking that in a recession, the tens of thousands of people who work at Heathrow might like to continue having a job and being able to pay the steadily rising (thanks, green lobby) energy bills.

They'd rather prance around Terminal 1, being terminally ignorant and getting in the way of people who have jobs to do and lives to live, minus a fucking beany hat and a dish of lentils.

Fuck off. Get a haircut. Get and job and stop trying to drag us back to the stone age. Or the 1950s.



Chalcedon said...

I agree. I too think they should have 3. Or actually 6 since Thiefrow is a major international airport. San Francisco airport has 6 runways.

Unfortunately in the UK our planners and government always think small. Heathrow and all commercial airports should have been built like military airstrips which usually have 3 runways in a triangular pattern.

As for Plane Stupid, the organisation should be sued for the commercial disruption they cause as the penalties imposed by the courts are pathetic.

Craig said...

Trixy - as ever, a well-thought out post dealing with the inherent dangers of the mung-bean-and-lentil-wearing-arseholes.

I'm a regular user of LHR, two or three times a week and I'm regularly held up either on the way out or on the way home due to runways not being available or congestion.

Anything (and I do mean anything) that can be done to ameliorate this congestion is only a good thing.

Whilst we're about it, let's also have:

(a) one more runway at Gatwick. I know they might be revelling in being the busiest single airport runway in the world but for fox ache - no need.

(b) one more runway at Stansted. Equally, it's a single runway location that would genuinely benefit from being multiple runway.

Also - if we're in Utopia - let's close City Airport in its current location and make it bigger able to handle Airbus' smaller aircraft and smaller (737s) Boeings. At the moment the little, tiny ones (BAe 146) are a pain in the arse and being tall it's a real squeeze to get into them!