Re: Pilots ignore alerts over faulty planes.

"Doug" <jagmad@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:0abbdd55-0483-4b04-9b08-ffc452b96bf5@u36g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On 18 Jul, 09:38, Fod <friendsofde...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 7:04 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
>>
>> > So, a crash on London homes is perhaps more likely than previously
>> > thought, especially with the introduction of a third runway at
>> > Heathrow?
>>
>> A crash anywhere would appear more likely than previously thought.
>> Having the planes circling around the airport due to lack of landing
>> space would appear to be an even worse idea than it currently seems.
>>
> That it is why it is a much better idea to rebuild the airport in a
> much less populated area, like the Thames Estuary, with fast and
> frequent train connections and no car parking.
>

Heathrow handles around 210,000 people per day.  The entire national rail
network handles around 2 million per day. That means there would have to be
some fucking nice trains going from *wherever in the country* to your new,
environmentally unfriendly airport.  THey'd have to be on time too

So, should we knock down a few houses and build a 3rd runway at Heathrow or
destroy much of one of the wildlife zones in the south by building a fucking
airport on it?  Oh,  that's not to mention all extra pollution from all that
massive earth moving equipment, the enormous amounts of fuel that they use,
the noise, the dirt and the damage it will do to surrounding areas inhabited
by wildlife, fish, etc.

So much for your green credentials Duhg!
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]