Wednesday, 26 September 2012

Manston aircraft noise last night

Did anyone get woken up by the 4.34 am landing at Manston last night? It had a noise rating of QC2.
Please note this isn't a pro or anti airport post, but just related to the fact that I seldom know the noise rating for a night flight that I have actually heard.

Here are the flight details
Date 26.09.12
Time 0434 Arr 0609 Dep
Operator/Aircraft
Cargolux B744

Not sure of the date of the picture of Concord at Manston, possibly 1988.      

140 comments:

  1. What does QC2 mean? I that quite loud? Quite quiet?
    As loud as a second rate barrister? (Think about it)

    There must have been a good reason for the landing anyway.

    I have a house which is often under the flight path and personally will accept the noise for Thanet to have some propserity.
    No way is it as bad with modern aircraft as those old Russian freighters or the USAF years ago, they were deafening.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No good reason for it to be landing at that time, or taking off 2 hours later at 6.00am - was delayed at previous destinations. These knackered old jumbos can't be considered modern. Flying in dates and bananas all hours isn't going to bring in any prosperity - quite the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Try telling that to the Air Traffic Controllers, Security Staff, Freight Handlers, Truck Drivers and anyone else I've forgotten.

      Delete
    2. All of them casual labour and minimum wage - and Manston losing £6M every year at least.

      Delete
    3. Exactly 7:40 PM, that's why we need more flights ... then the jobs would be permanent and the airport would prosper. It's not rocket science.

      Delete
    4. anonymous @7:40,

      I take your point. But surely Air Traffic Controllers are not as you claim casual staff.

      Delete
  3. QC2 is roughly the equivalent of a diesel truck (93-95.9), so shall we ban them as well? You state "this isn't a pro or anti airport", although I suspect you would have explained the noise rating if it had been more obtrusive than a passing truck!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I live under the flight path and within sight of the threshold. I did not hear anything.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Should bring back Concord, that will give the NIMBYs something to moan about!

    ReplyDelete
  6. 6am Saturday was a flight into the airport when it's supposed to be closed until 7am.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Getting bored and decided to stir up all the no night flights, who removed the monitors and what about the aquifer brigade, Michael. This topic has surely been flogged to death and since the antis are totally convinced Manston is a loss maker for all time I really do not know what they get so steamed up about.

      Delete
    2. Mr Clarke, maybe you would get 'steamed up' if you were woken at 04:30am in the morning
      and then had to be out of the house at 06:30am to go to work!

      Laurence Davies

      Delete
    3. Laurence, since all the anti Manston lobbies tell us the airport is a failure and has no future, I still fail to see why you get so excited. According to the No to Nights Flights group the airport cannot pay its way, is in the wrong place, will create no more than a few low paid jobs and nobody wants to go there. In those circumstances you seem to have won, Infratil are selling up and it will probably becoming a large housing estate or something. Now won't that be nice.

      Delete
    4. Tom, my position on night flights, which I have stated here previously, is that any night flying allowance for Manston should be related to the amount of daytime flying activity there. This is the only way I can see the disruption to the rest of the community could produce any economic benefit. At the moment all of the night flight that occur at Manston only produce a small amount of overtime for exiting employees and no extra employment. Obviously night flights, on their own, have a negative effect on the tourist economy and property market, which would need to be compensated for in some way. I have previously suggested that Manston be allowed double the ratio of night to day flights as Gatwick and Heathrow tapering down to an equal ratio if the airport ever becomes significantly busy. I don’t think having similar night time disruption to that caused by major commercial airports without the economic benefits of a major airport would help Thanet in any way whatsoever.

      Delete
    5. Mr Clarke

      Your response completely ignores the point I made. Am I surprised?

      Laurence Davies

      Delete
    6. Correction, Mr Davies, for it is you that completely ignored my first point. If Manston is such a failure it will close so why do you all get so excited. And yes, I have lived under the Gatwick flight path and I got used to it. I also lived under the flight path of RAF Scampton and got used to that as well, even when they had Vulcans.

      Delete
    7. Mr Clarke, I am impressed by your breadth of knowledge on aviation, and life in general it would seem. You are wasting your talents Mr Clarke. Why not stand for the Council, you would get on well there as most of them think they know it all but in fact know very little.

      Laurence Davies

      Delete
    8. Oh dear, Mr Davies, now you turn to sarcasm. You raised the point about aircraft noise and I merely responded outlining my own experience of living under flight paths. That does not make me an aviation expert.

      As for the Thanet council, you must surely be having a laugh. I make no claim to any kind of grandeur, but reckon I am at least a bit more balanced than many of that bunch of egotists, clowns, turncoats and bandwaggoners.

      Delete
    9. Michael, I couldn't agree more with your your post at 8.50pm

      If this was Council policy I imagine the vast majority of Thanet dwellers whether they live under the flight path or not would be happy with it.




      Delete
  7. Clarke's in the lets-pretend-there-is-no-cancer-and-cover-it-up-for-political-expediency brigade now his elderly RAF fantasies for Manston have crashed and burned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How nice of you to so categorise me, 8:40, and I wonder what group you are in. No don't tell me for I am sure its that old stuck in the groove record about polluted aquifers, missing monitors and bankrupt airports. As I have just told Laurence above, if it is all such a disaster no one will buy it and it will have to close.

      As for the RAF, well that is now history and apart from the MOD Fire School there is little prospect of them coming back. But that is the same story around the country with many former RAF fields the victims of defence cuts. Some though are now flourishing regional airports. How strange is that.

      Delete
    2. Tom,

      I would like the RAF relocate their Historic Aircraft Flight to Manston. I am sure that no one could possibly object the mellifluous sound of the Merlin engine.

      Of course they might also bring along the Vulcan and a couple of Javelins. But their flights would be few and never at night.

      I realise the danger in this proposal of upsetting the anti war peace at any costs not in my name brigade.

      But in my experience whatever you do is bound to upset someone.

      Delete
    3. Nice idea, John, and what a pleasure for all our local plane spotters. Unfortunately the Historic Flight is already well housed and many of the others, like the Vulcan, are run and financed by private groups. In these days of austerity and severe defence cuts the RAF is closing bases rather than reactivating old ones.

      Not to worry though because things cannot be all bad when we can afford to spend £12bn propping up despotic regimes in the third world and building hotel complexes in the West Indies. Such is the crazy world we now live in, but for some the most important issue is their undisturbed night's sleep. How twee they are and makes one wonder why the likes of you and I bother to argue with them.

      Delete
    4. I would loose more sleep by denying anyone the right to earn a living than by any number of aircraft passing over. I can only assume the majority of the whingers are blow-ins as those who have grown up with the airport know that it can bring jobs and income. My father traded with the Americans and I have certainly done much business with companies and individuals associated with the airport.

      Delete
    5. How do you "loose" sleep?

      Delete
    6. Spending the night with a 'loose' woman, perhaps?

      Delete
    7. Oh, if only!! It's my Fanit accent and education, I can only spell phonetically.

      Delete
  8. Michael, be honest here: what wakes you up more often in the night, planes or anti-social behaviour (drunks etc)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me prostate if you must know, Peter, and about four times a night.

      Delete
    2. Peter it’s the antisocial behaviour all the time, but you need to put on a commercial hat for this one, aircraft noise real or perceived does have a negative effect on the economy, so has to be compensated for by some other commercial benefit which nightflights without extra jobs don’t provide.

      What interested me in this case is that it was one of the few nightflights I have actually heard where I also knew the QC value, this is helpful when trying to determine what to expect if we do get a significant amount of nightflights.

      Did it wake me up? I think so but am not certain the later takeoff at 6.09 didn’t, does thinking an aircraft may have woken me up and wondering what the noise value for that aircraft is make me appear anti airport? I don’t think it should do. Does rushing outside with a camera every time I hear an unusual sounding plane fly over, which I also do, make me pro airport? I don’t think it should either.

      Delete
    3. Michael,

      I take your point about perceived noise pollution. This is a factor worth taking into account. I am sure that it exists albeit in a few cases. I seek to be offended and therefore I am.

      [Note to Mr anonymous: I said a few cases and of course most certainly not yours]

      Delete
  9. Michael, I live pretty much next door to your shop and I have to say, I didn't hear a thing. OK, I am a heavy sleeper and once slept through my mother's burglar alarm going off, but that's besides the point!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh dear the odious and vacuous pro airport are at it again, there is a problem with the noise level and there is a problem with the aquifers - all fact.

    Its a pity the supporters do not get any facts right Michael, but then again they are not Fanets finest but then again neither are the owners of the Airport.

    They will be moaning when the night freight is shoved down here from Stansted when Infertil get their grubby hands on Stansted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you give precise details of the so called "Facts" you have quoted in the form of detailed studies by professional bodies - or is your knowledge derived from the local second hand book shop owner who knows everything about everything, but still sells second hand books?

      Delete
    2. And presumably you are so fine 9:08 that we cannot even know your name. The pro airport commentators have as much right to their opinions as those that oppose it.

      Delete
    3. Sorry 9:08 for I meant to direct my comment at Anon 6:35. I actually agree with you, but don't expect evidence to back the 'FACTS' from that quarter.

      Delete
  11. I do, too, & I heard it, loud & clear. I don't have a problem with the 6am one, but the earlier one nearly made me fall out of bed !! :o) Now, THAT would have been heard the length & breadth of Thanet !! :o)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never heard it, and I'm a very light sleeper!

      Delete
    2. PJK :o)

      I repeat: I live under the flight path and within sight and walking distance of the threshold and I heard nothing. I suggest that your evidence and mine cancel each other out.

      PS: What does your symbol :o) mean?

      Delete
    3. There was quite a heavy storm going on throughout the early hours, maybe thats what woke you, it was quite loud at times.

      Delete
    4. John - the :o) is a smiley face. As to what I said - I meant I also live under the flight path & from my door step & front windows, I can see the planes landing & taking off.

      Delete
  12. If the report over on Thanet Star has any credibility, it would seem that KLM are considering operating passenger flights out of Manston. That should cause some knee knocking around the anti lobby. What a pleasure and I can hardly wait for the whinging about noise and aquifers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Thanet Star get their story from here:

      http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/Airline-consider-daily-link-Manston-Airport/story-16996305-detail/story.html

      Delete
  13. Like it or not, an airport will always bring prosperity to the town in which it is placed. Me - I do not particularly want a noisy airport on my doorstep, now that I am retired. But I understand that life is not just about me. I appreciate that the young of Thanet need the jobs that an airport will assuredly bring. Thanet must be allowed thrive.

    Some people are agitated by loud noises, especially at night. Some live in fear of an aeroplane falling out of the sky and onto them. I can understand all of this, of course I can. However, what I cannot understand is how one can make a home near and existing airfield and then set about the exciting task of getting rid of the aircraft. Manston has been a thriving air base since 1916, surely the noise sufferers must have noticed its presence before they moved close by.

    When I win the Lottery, it is only a matter of time, I plan to buy a nice house under the flight path in Richmond and amuse myself by starting a protest to close LHR.

    I seek to be offended therefore I am.

    I have just thought, why does the noise of an airport not scare away the wildlife, especially the Skylark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like a lot of Thanets's pro night flight residents birds do not have ears. I note that KLM is looking at flight from Manston to Amsterdam. With most London airports offering flight to this city for less than £30 KLM would need to give them away to make travelling to Manston worthwhile. London to Manston by HS1 will cost £40 each way by January. Only a small percentage of the population in the SE has Manston as their closest airport by distance and time. But this alone (Ashford, Canterbury, Thanet, Shepway residents) is not enought to make an airport pay.

      Delete
    2. anonymous @ 5:45 pm: You are wrong. Birds do have ears! They lie hidden under feathers called auriculars that cover the ear openings on the sides of their head.
      Like humans, birds have an outer ear, a middle ear, and an inner ear. Feathers cover the ear opening to protect it and cut the wind noise.

      On your other points: I am sure that KLM will have done their own calculations and research. After all, they are hardly beginners in the airline business.

      I can understand you objection to night flights. But may I have the temerity to enquire whether you were aware of the presence of Manston airfield before you came to live here?




      Delete
    3. John - I object to night flights & I am Ramsgate born & bred. It isn't just people who moved here who object. Personally, I think anything loud after 11pm & before 6am is unfair to people, whether it's a noisy party held by the neighbours or a plane overhead. I understand times change & we have to accept it, but sometimes, progress seems to come with a price that isn't right.

      I agree with your point *life isn't just about me* - but in cases like this, when everyone has had the chance to make their views known & the majority of people have said no to night flights, then it seems wrong for people/airport owners etc. to keep trying to find ways around it.

      To be honest, I don't have any real idea as to what's going on, so quite why I'm putting my two penn'orth is, is beyond me, but I just wanted to say that it isn't only those who have moved here who object to night flights :o)

      Delete
    4. PJK :0),

      In essence I agree with what you say, especially your last paragraph.

      Should Manston ever become a busy airport then noise, especially at night, would be a disturbance albeit aircraft are becoming increasingly quieter. I am not sure what the rules are at LHR, LGW, etc. In these circumstances we would need to rely on TDC and similar to strike a livable balance.

      I cannot overlook the possibility that Manston will become another housing estate. In truth I do not relish this prospect.

      Delete
    5. Air France/KLM certainly do know how to run an airline and loose millions in the process. Only lost £850 millions last year. So loosing a few more millions at Manston would be no problem, its what they are good at.

      Delete
    6. What exactly has KLM's profit/loss account got to do with Manston's suitability as a regional airport. If KLM think they can run a service from there so be it, but I doubt they will be landing or taking off at night so what's your problem? Surely you are not anti-airport at any time, are you?

      Delete
  14. You'll all be pleased to hear then that Cargolux have started using Boeing 747-800 aircraft that are QC2 on arrival and QC1 on departure... we've already had one into Manston with plans hopefully to replace all flights with B748's as they carry more for less. =)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1 o'clock Rob, yes very pleased to hear that.

      Delete
  15. Would a national carrier use an anonymous online survey to base their decision on whether to launch a speculative service from one of europes buskers airports from a very unsuccessful airports in kents most deprived area? They have millions of reasons - last years losses - not to spend money where a return is far from guaranteed.

    Or is this a dying airport using the last of its marketing budget on one last throw of the dice in an attempt to show that there is a market for Manston in the virtual world, even if it's never quite managed to show itself in the real world?

    Infratil's involvement in the stansted bid, if true, will become apparent in the next few weeks. If that is not the damning evidence to convince the pro's the airport has zero prospects, I suggest they are more stupid than many have given them credit for.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To anonymous @ 8:04,

      I am finding it difficult to grasp your point.

      What are 'buskers airports?

      What do you mean by an 'anonymous online survey'?

      Are you against having an airport at Manston and if so why?

      Are you a speculator hoping to acquire Manston to build houses and flats?

      If not a speculator would you like to see Manston become another housing estate?

      How would you like to see Manston develop?

      You should not hurl the epithet "stupid". It could easily be turned against you. Do you not agree?

      Delete
    2. Good sense, John, which is more than can be said for many of the antis who seem to regard financial viability the main issue now, when they kicked off their campaign on night flights. If, 8:04 is right and Thanet is one of the most deprived areas of Kent, surely we should all be clamouring for anything that might help to put us on the map. Seemingly not with some, for we must drive away all would be investors in pursuit of what exactly? A quiet night though that could hardly have been their reason for opposing the Turner.

      You may have a point about speculators for Manston, if not an airport, is destined to become a mix of housing and industrial. The commentator who lives in cloud cuckoo land and is always rabbiting on about the aquifer, has dreams of fallow meadows. In the real world, if I might use an expression of 8:04, Manston is regarded as a brown field site. If it came on the market as anything but airfield use, the developers will be fighting each other to get it. In any event, Infratil would hardly sell it as agricultural.

      Personally I would like to see Manston suceed as a regional airport, not for some love of aircraft, but mainly because I dread the alternative usage.

      Delete
    3. Tom, John, the aquifer can’t just be ignored, we have been down this road with China Gateway, where I asked the obvious question, can we give up on the Thanet aquifer and pipe water in from elsewhere? The answer from the environment agency which I have documented is an unequivocal no, it is essential to our continued water supply and the economic success of the island.

      Over the last few years the airport operator and the environment agency thrashed out terms for airport drainage, safety measures for underground tanks and so on, this culminated in a time consuming and expensive consultation and a final agreement.

      Earlier this year the airport operator said they were no longer prepared to implement the measures agreed and now want to start the whole process again, leading to a less effective and less costly solution.

      In my book this really translates to years of further delay with more contamination of the aquifer, which ultimately will be much more costly to resolve and has the look of short term savings producing long term damage to Thanet’s economy, something we are only too familiar with here.

      I know the engineer responsible for this and at the moment you put tens of thousands of litres in one end of the pipe ant Manston and get virtually nothing out the other end at Pegwell, which is not so good.

      In these days of much higher environmental awareness, getting companies to invest in an area of Europe requires high standards to ensure employee health and productivity. Having a local airport operator looking for reduced environmental safety standards, may not be conducive to the best economic outcome and may indeed be disconcerting to major airline operators, that may have reservations about being associated with the adverse publicity.

      Delete
    4. Michael,

      You misrepresent me. I have not made any comment whatsoever about the Aquifer.

      Delete
    5. Apologies John, as I said in the post my eye is not entirely on the ball at the moment because I am setting up this book publishing room.

      Delete
    6. S'OK Michael. I wish you well with your publishing room.

      Delete
  16. Busiest. Damn spellcheck.

    Anonymous online survey such as the one Manston is currently conducting


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you know who is conducting it I would suggest it is not anonymous. You, on the other hand, are!

      Delete
  17. Remember the airport master plan? The first iteration said we would have almost 2 million passengers by now

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am for airport growth, I am for economic growth , I hate waste, and Manston could have been put to much better use but for a few dozen moronic councillors over the past 25 years. It's never too late to change direction for anyone, except politician even when faced by overwhelming evidence it's not going to succeed as an airport

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 10:09,

      What you say is interesting. You wish for a change of direction. If not an Airport then what would you like to see instead?

      Delete
  19. To anonymous @ 10:03,

    Now that you know about the Manston survey it is presumably no longer anonymous.

    I would be interested to hear your views on how Manston should be developed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A housing estate does not need to be a bad thing. Simon moores always talka about sink estates, but name one built in the south east on the last 30 years? Good quality housing attracting working families down from nearer London to get a better quality of life with better schools, good transport links........and not blighted by a pointless airport which nobody flys from.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But what about the aquifer with all that pollution or does that not matter as long as it's not an airport. You will be telling us next there are rare wildlife endangered by aircraft at Manston when, in reality, the only wildlife in these parts are you anti-everything group.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @ 10:13,

      You say that wish to attract working families to Thanet. A noble idea. I am sure that they would come in their thousands should there be employment for them here in Thanet. Regrettably, employment in Thanet is sparse. How would you set about creating jobs in order to attract this influx of families that you desire?

      Delete
    3. John, it might be a shock to you, but not everyone has to live near where they work. I live in Ramsgate. I work in London. I .....COMMUTE! What I novel idea! Perhaps when the olympic park was being built 4 stops from Ramsgate our dear councils should have spent their time work out how to get the unemployed to work, not following pie in the sky ideas about bringing work to thanets unemployed. Family living in Medway commuting to london upsize house to new housing estate at Manston, a new Manston station is built where it can't be today because there are planes potentially landing on it, they have a 85 minute commute to canary wharf or 95 minte commute to west end. Bring plentiful London salary back to Thanet to spend innwestwood, restaurants, DIY stores etc etc. Work did not bring me to Thanet. I came here to live.

      Delete
    4. I need no lessons in commuting from Ramsgate to Central London. I did it for three years in the days when the journey took 2hrs 8 mins each way. Though it was much cheaper than today in real terms. I moved from Ramsgate because I was sick of wasting my life sitting on a train for over four hours a day. So I left the area for a leafy town where the commute was a mere 50 minutes each way. And also up-sized assisted in part by the much cheaper season ticket.

      I realise that life is not just about me. However you did challenge me by assuming that I would be shocked by your supposed revelation that you and others commute.

      I am not sure that I entirely follow you argument, other than you appear to be saying that Ramsgate should become a dormitory town for London.

      Delete
    5. There are dormitory towns a lot further from London than Ramsgate, so why not? Commuters have houses, need to eat etc etc, and part of that would come to the local economy. We are booming in Ramsgate in other areas - such as the wind farm - so it would never be the sole purpose of the town.

      A nice large executive town much like kings hill would have an enormously positive impact on the area. Unlike a large freight airport flying in fruits and vegetable that could be grown in an expanded Thanet earth.

      Delete
    6. To anonymous @ 9:06 AM,

      Thank you for the clarification of your views on the future of Manston and Thanet.

      Personally, if I were still at work I would not waste my time and money on commuting to London. I would move out of Thanet as I did before. Or else find a job locally. Which was nigh on impossible then and is even harder today. I ended my working life living just a 15 min tube ride from my place of work in SW1. It was wonderful without that long commute. Surely, those young people today that are say born in Thanet, and are just starting out, are not being unreasonable in their desire to have gainful employment on their door step?

      Delete
  21. John h, do keep up. Anonymous in that KLM's doth not know who fills it in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know that? Does your granny work for KLM and told you that they don't know anything about the survey, except of course her and you. You would be an interrogators delight under questioning.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @ 10:14 AM,

      You are incorrect. KLM most certainly does know who fills it in. The survey company works on a demographic based on a mathematical sample. I agree that the survey does not know the names of those questioned but then why would they need to.

      You admonish me to keep up. I am endeavouring to do so. But this is not easy without your assistance. I would be interested to hear how you think the Manston site should be used; do have any positive ideas or suggestions?

      Delete
    3. John, Thanet is full of people filling in the survey saying the will be happy to wait eight hours at schipol to fly to nice. They will have names proceeded by cllr, and wear blue rosettes. It will give a false impression. This is not a survey by KLM. This is a survey by Manston. It will serve the purpose of making the airport sound like it has a future when it only has a rather sad past. There is only one way KLM would come to manston and that's if someone paid them to do it. Passengers will be a bit thin on the ground so some other fool is going to have to step forward........

      Delete
    4. anonymous at 8:45 pm,

      I ask you again to forget the schadenfreude and explain how you would wish to see Manston develop. I am truly interested.

      Delete
    5. Manston as an airport I don't want to see it developed. I want to see it closed. It has done nothing in the 4 decades I have lived in Kent, yet has been talked of as the next big thing for most of those years. It would have brought more value over that time if it had been ploughed and cabbages grown.

      Houses, schools it's probably all it's good for as Westwood, Thanet earth, Manston eurokent business park could and should have all been built within manstons footprint without concreting over farmland.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous @ 8:54,

      How can you have the gall to you say that Manston has a "sad past". Manston was a front line Battle Of Britain station. Manston has a noble past. I expect that some of its teenage pilots from those perilous days may even have worn that 'blue rosette' that you appear to despise. To be fair you may say that this is not what you meant. But if you do not mean what you say then you should say so.

      And before you leap to any erroneous conclusions: I am not implying that Manston should grow as an airport today simply because of the Battle Of Britain.

      I am ambivalent on the subject of the future development of Manston. But I do know that schadenfreude does not advance the argument. I am interested in the views of others on how we should use the Manston site.

      Delete
  22. What about a prison? Plenty of crims being exported down here. Would save a fortune on transport costs. Extending Thanet earth. Give all those recent arrivals something to do. How about a huge great big job centre so the legions of thatchers unemployed can browse the hundreds of thousands of jobs available if they could be arsed to walk further than the od of their path to find employment? All completely ridiculous of course, but more ridiculous than a 24 hour freight airport less than a mile from forty thousand people sleeping?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As you rightly say it is of course completely ridiculous. But I am sure that you have a serious side to your argument. Perhaps you could let us have your thoughts on how Manston should be developed.

      Delete
  23. For thatchers read Thanet!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once apon a time they probably were thatchers, spud pickers and weavers. Love your idea of a giant work house at Thanet Earth and the inmates could be fed on salad vegtables.

      Delete
  24. John other than Manston being just a Tax Payers (drain) airport - the tax payer keeps on subsidising airline wasters and of course the airport - what alternative use do you have for it? I never once viewed you asking questions at KIACC/MACC meetings? Come on John please do to tell us - and perhaps the sycophantic pro airport lobby should do the same? Michael there is a problem with development and the aquifer and anyone who says there is not - is on drugs, but then we seem to be blessed with a develop at any cost at Manston groups especially from Locate in Kent,KCC and the Support spiv (at any cost) development brigade. I mean who publicly voted for the Chamber of Commerce to have more of say than the Joe Public,

    The real Malcolm

    ReplyDelete
  25. Err, has anyone noticed that KLM has already published its schedule up to August 2013?

    I am shocked that there are no Manston flights on there.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well you crack a bottle to celebrate your pathetic piece of good news.

      Delete
    2. To anonymous @ 6:55 AM

      I am ambivalent about the future use of Manston. This is why I am interested in the views of others. It is a shame that you are unable to help me.

      In all honesty I find your argument difficult to follow. As far as I can make out. You are virulent on the subject of Manston, airports in general and local Government. You are firm on what Manston must not be while offering no alternative on what it should be.

      Delete
    3. John, I feel you are wasting your time trying to get a real plan for Manston out of these airport opponents. Basically they will suggest anything other than an airport, but, if they ever get their way and Manston is closed, wait for their screams of protest over any alternative usage.

      These same people opposed Thanet Earth, but are now claiming it could be enlarged if Manston airfield was not in the way. One has suggested a new station for commuters, but very probably opposed the proposal to build a station to serve the airport.

      Basically, we cannnot influence them as for entirely selfish reasons they oppose an airfield of any discription.

      Delete
    4. Tom,

      You are of course right and I should not rise to the bait. I have always found the blinkered views of single issue fanatics unhelpful. Many of them appear to find satisfaction in the protest itself, irregardless of the outcome. Their opinions are often bland, uninformative, superficial and boring.

      Delete
  26. Good to see the usual DFLs on here who moved under the flightpath of an airport and then have the cheek to complain about aircraft noise? Did you not spot the signs when your removal lorry was chugging along the Thanet Way which said A I R P O R T? Maybe you should be suing your solicitor for not pointing out to you when conducting the searches before you moved in that there was an A I R P O R T up the road? You chose your bed now lie in it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does the feudal system still operate in Thanet?

      Delete
    2. There have been aircraft at Manston continuously since 1916, presumably before any of the flight path residents were born. It puzzles me why some move under a flight path and then set about the exciting task of getting rid of the aircraft.

      As a child I cannot recall being disturbed by the noise of the USAF Thunder Jets overhead. But then I had been born in London during the war and had grown used to things that went bang in the night.

      If I am to display my colours then I say that personally I do not want a noisy airport at Manston. I would rather it be a peaceful Country Park with trees, flowers, streams, butterflies and birds. But then I remind myself that life is not always about me. I want prosperity for the young people of Thanet. If Manston airport will advance this endeavour then I will not oppose it.


      I notice that there are some confirmed socialist commenting on this blog. How could a socialist deny an airport that could bring some prosperity to the working men of Thanet. (Oops, I will have the diversity police on my neck. I of of course include the working woman and gay, lesbian, bi-sexual transsexual, transgender, et alii and et aliae )




      Delete
  27. Parkway airport proposed is further by road from Manston terminal than Ramsgate is. Station could be built nearer to the Manston site if an airport was not there. Crash protection zone you see?

    If the parkway was built for commuters, it might actually have some use. Manston has no passengers. Manston predicted it would have 200k- 1m passengers each year now if you had believed its master plans. Which tom, oh dear, John most probably did.

    Shame Infratil didn't notice the big sign which said RAMSGATE when it decided it wanted to buy an airport and turn it into a twenty four hour freight airport. They should be suing their legal eagles, or selling up and moving on.......oh dear, they are, we aren't! Elephant in the room gents.

    As for accusing people of being single issue fanatics, yes i am. Fanatical about Ramsgate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 7:48,

      I will try once again to clarify my point. What puzzles me is that you are virulent in your opposition to Manston as an airport; but you still fail to offer any alternative use. The truth may be that you do not have any suggestions on how Manston could be used? Or maybe you just enjoy the protest? Whatever the truth may be, schadenfreude runs rampant through your argument. Do you have any positive ideas for the development of the Manston site? If not then it would be honest of you to say so.

      Delete
  28. Who would want to catch a train from Manston if there was no airport there? Quite bizarre and just shows the desperation in the argument of the anti-airport group. Each of Thanet's towns has a railway station so why build another unless, of course, it is to serve an airport? Oh, didn't you know, thicko, if Manston airfield was not in the way we could all have a lovely new huge station there to serve the village and a couple of caravan parks. Now that's what one would call strategic planning.

    What about the aquifer did I hear? It is OK, trains and stations don't pollute it, only planes do. You really could not make up the utter garbage that eminates from the airporft opposition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There have been aircraft at Manston continuously since 1916, presumably before any of the flight path residents were born. It puzzles me why some move under a flight path and then set about the exciting task of getting rid of the aircraft.

      As a child I cannot recall being disturbed by the noise of the USAF Thunder Jets overhead. But then I had been born in London during the war and had grown used to things that went bang in the night.

      If I am to display my colours then I say that personally I do not want a noisy airport at Manston. I would rather it be a peaceful Country Park with trees, flowers, streams, butterflies and birds. But then I remind myself that life is not always about me. I want prosperity for the young people of Thanet. If Manston airport will advance this endeavour then I will not oppose it.


      I notice that there are some confirmed socialist commenting on this blog. How could a socialist deny an airport that could bring some prosperity to the working men of Thanet. (Oops, I will have the diversity police on my neck. I of of course include the working woman and gay, lesbian, bi-sexual transsexual, transgender, et alii and et aliae )

      Delete
  29. I thought I was very clear about its use . HOUSING.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not know which particular anonymous you are so I must take your word for it that you have already been very clear. You want as you say "HOUSING".

      Delete
    2. More urban sprawl, more people with no jobs or prospects, more dependent on benefits, more crime, more demand on our over stretched health and education services, more cars at Westwood roundabout and, presumably, more pollution for the aquifer for the biggest polluters on the planet are human. Cunning plan that, Anon 2:24PM, so go to the top of the class for your well constructed argument.

      Delete
  30. Tom, step forward for the Thanet politician limited vision award 2012. A developer will not build a new housing estate to be filled with social
    Housing. Executive estate. Think kings hill.

    An airport with 6m passengers wouldn't create traffic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be so sure with the present lot in charge at TDC. 'Affordable' housing element would be a prerequisite of planning consent. Passengers arriving would disperse in all directions and many by train. Residents would all come into the Westwood area to shop.

      By the way, surely to get a 'Thanet politician limited vision' award you would have to be one. Not only am I not on the TDC, but anything more nightmarish would be hard to imagine, well perhaps, other than be stuck in a lift with the No to Night Flights committee.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @ 5:58 pm,

      You ask Tom to, "think Kings Hill". You have mentioned this before. Could you help me out. What and where is Kings Hill?

      Delete
  31. You don't have to specify what else should go on the airport site. You simply have to let it be known that you will consider other options. The problem we've had for years is that a few unrepresentative individuals have managed to dictate that it has to remain as an airport and have managed to do this without having an open and democratic debate about it. With millions of pounds squandered on this failed idea, and far fewer jobs than when it was sold, it's high time we allowed people with more creative thinking to put forward their ideas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 7:22 PM,

      I agree that you do not have to specify what else should go on the site. I just believe that it would advance your argument if you offered a few ideas. It is tiresome when someone consistently bangs away with diatribe. Some positive ideas would brighten the debate.

      Delete
  32. Tom, your limited knowledge on everything becomes very apparent very quickly. Airports in the uk have around 30percent of travellers arriving by public transport, the rest arrive by road. Affordable housing should make up ten percent of any new development which the gov is looking to reduce as developers don't like it.

    And you couldn't fit in a lift with the no night flights supporters. Theres far too many of them. Why not Manston, you could meet in a lift, phone box, glove box......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anonymous @ 7:59 PM,

      I hate to appear persnickety, but does not public transport also use the road. We must endeavour to be precise about public transport, in these would be green days.

      Delete
    2. Anon, the strength of your case is belittled by your constant accusations of stupidity or lack of knowsledge in those that oppose you. OK, just say 70% of the passengers arriving at Manston do so by car and leave again on their return by similar means, is it not possible that some would head off in directions other than Westwood Cross. Those living on a housing estate there would all at some times have to come into Thanet,

      I am pleased I could not fit into a lift with the No To Night Flights group because it is not high on my list of ambitions, but please, do tell me, how do you know how many people have signed up to Why Not Manston.

      Delete
  33. How many jobs have been promised by Infratil since they landed in 2006? How many have actually materialised? Utter failure, yet still people such as Tom and John say its "jobs" that makes them support it.

    It's a proven fact the airport operators have failed to deliver on their promises, Tom and John seem like intelligent guys. What's the real reason behind their unwavering support for such a failure?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Genuine concern for the economics of Thanet. A flourishing airport could make a huge difference, but have our local council, and particularly the present lot, ever truly encouraged its expansion. It is meaningless to keep harping on about what it has not achieved because, as has been stated many times before, if it continues to run at a loss it will close. Some of us are not so pessimistic and, just maybe, if a decent sized airline started using the place, it might just bring some much needed prosperity to our sadly run down little isle. Really cannot see the harm in giving it our support because there is little else on the horizon.

      Delete
    2. Tom, Manston failed to flourish during years of unwavering Tory support and air industry, economic boom time. Answer why a decent airline has yet to come down here?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @ 8:07PM,

      You ask, of me "What's the real reason behind their unwavering support for such a failure?" My answer is that I am disinterested. I have consistently made an effort on this blog to explain my thoughts about Manston. However, you fail to understand me and consequently you suspect some kind of plot. The fault is mine. I thought that my repeated use of the word ambivalent would describe how I feel about the future of Manston. My English has let me down.

      Delete
  34. Tom, I don't get your concern for the genuine economics of Thanet and a flourishing airport?. TDC Tories supported it fully during an air travel boom the county is unlikely to see agin and it still failed. If your only hope is Manston, and Manston fails, what next? The harm in unwavering support for Manston means people's eye is taken off real opportunities for real growth and real jobs. Effort is concentrated on a pipe dream when investment of time, energy and cash would have been better spent elsewhere. High speed rail. How has that been used by the council? Get a 45 minute improvement in tran journey and they don't market Thanet as a place to live and work, they talk about a parkway station and getting passengers down here quickly. Unrealistic, and an opportunity missed to attract commuters and investors. One stark example of how an idea that will solve all ills can divert attention of real opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  35. No word from Clive Hart and co in support of the mooted KLM route to Amsterdam. All the posturing about supporting the airport conceals their real aim: close the place down.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What makes you think they are coming to
      Manston?

      Delete
  36. 8:44 PM, all very grand, but where exactly would you invest all this time and money that you allege as been concentrated on Manston airfield. You are beginging to sound like Thanet Labour's business plan which is also full of these wonderful regeneration and moving forward statements, but totally devoid of a single actual project. "Hand in hand together we will work side by side to create a wonderful new and properous Thanet where all its people share in its wealth." That is the kind of crap one gets from socialists and, if you don't believe me, listen to Ed Milliband's speech at the conference on Youtube or read TDC's Regeneration Plan.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Of course not, 8:55, they just want to cover the place with social housing to boost the Labour vote. It is only ever about clinging to power with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon @5:58PM yestersday,

      Please step in. Is 'Kings Hill' stuffed with Labour voters?

      Delete
    2. John, I think your question to 8:55 is actually irrelevant in this case. Whatever the situation at Kings Hill may be, you can bet your bottom dollar that if Hart & Co had anything to do with Manston redevelopment it would be stuffed with Labour voters and, in order to keep the TIGs happy, probably have a church performing ghay marriages as well.

      Delete
    3. Tom, Yeah, sounds likely.

      I remain convinced that there is a already a plan in existence for housing at Manston - and for Dreamland too.

      Delete
  38. I suggest you look past the ends of your noses and see what a very nice development kings hill is. And while you are adjusting your focus, keep your eyes peeled for some exciting news about recent speculation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kings Hill is a mixed light industrial and residential development on the site of a long disused RAF base. It is not a working airfield nor has it been since the Americans left in another century.

      Its development has been under the governance of a very Conservative council, something very different to that we have in Thanet right now, and so, yes, I would agree it is a good looking spot. However, do not cross the road to the old RAF married quarters, long used by Tonbridge and Malling as a dumping ground for their problem families.

      Sometimes 4:24 it does not pay to look beyond the end of your nose for then you might find something not quite so to your liking. Nice try but you are still out of your league here.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Ren Wood, when was Manston last a Working Airfield?

      Delete
    4. 10:31, is your remark supposed to be witty or just childish. As you well know, Manston is an operating airfield used not just by commercial cargo flights, but also flying schools, private aircraft, helicopters and the Coastguard. It is still used by the RAF and other air forces as a base from which to attend various flying displays during the season. I understand about 2,000 people voted against night flights in TDCs survey, far more people than that gather along the sides of the airports roads to watch whenever the Red Arrows visit. Not everybody hates the airfield as you would seem to do.

      Delete
  39. Ren Wood,

    Is Kings Wood the erstwhile RAF West Malling? I knew it well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The very place. Used to house the Asian refugees from Uganda when Idi Amin kicked them out some half a century ago and never used as an airfield or military base since.

      Delete
    2. My father was stationed at West Malling during the 50's and I lived with them in MQs. West Malling was a front line Battle Of Britain station, as was Manston.

      Delete
  40. Anonymous @4:24 pm,

    I wait with baited breath for your promised news.

    ReplyDelete
  41. You won't have to wait long

    ReplyDelete
  42. So KLM were the airline who were asking for hundreds of thousands of pounds to start flights of Manston as they would not fund them themselves and nor would Infratil. They wanted public funds to fund them. Maybe at the time they completely forgot to perform an online survey, which when it closes will undoubtedly confirm that hundreds of people will happily wait for 6 hours at schipol for a flight to Bordeaux without knowing how much either flight is going to cost them. Armed with this information, KLM will now not need the six hundred thousand pound sweetner and will start the flights next week.

    Only a complete idiot would fall for such nonsense. Any takers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you not forgetting that Manston will be highly convenient for international visitors wishing to go to the new proposed theme park at Ebbsfleet. Kent is on the up and Manston will be part of that if commercial interests so dictate despite the antics of either the pro or anti airport groups. Alternatively, and if Thanet Press Releases are to be believed, Kent will fast track whilst Thanet will become an independent backwater under King Worrow the 1st who in turn will quickly be ousted by King Driver, also the 1st. The man who would be king, Hart, will top himself at missing out, by losing his toupee.

      Delete
    2. Surely the airport will be too busy with all of those thrill seekers flying in from across the globe to come to Margate heritage park? Nope, they'll be arriving by train. But won't the high speed train be full of people from London and the rest of the country coming to the studio theme park at swanscombe?

      This is not talking Thanet down, this is having an adult conversation whilst living in the real world. Thanet is a geographical backwater. It's best asset is the sea, not an airport with no passengers.

      Delete
    3. The sea is now empty 9.55, in case you missed out on that news. Yes, why don't we just go back to fishing, smuggling and ship wrecking in our little old backwater and resign ourselves to our miserable fate. Got to go now to boil my winkles and sharpen the pin.

      Delete
    4. anonymous @ 9:55 PM,

      Schadenfreude runs riot through all your comments.

      Delete
    5. That's your opinion John but not my attitude towards this. I'm pissed off in the years I've been here successive red and blue councils have pinned their future on what most sensible people could see was a non starter - Manston - and did bugger all else to improve the area.

      Wasted opportunity.


      What about KLM being the airline Manston was trying to lure here with public money? Any comment on that?

      Delete
    6. anonymous @ 7:55PM,

      I know nothing about KLM being lured by public money and I will take your word that it happened. Do you object in principle to public funds being used to encourage commerce; or is it just any stick good enough for Manston Airport bashing.

      Delete
  43. anonymous @ 7:05 AM,

    Are you sure that what you say is accurate?

    Or is your claim nothing more than biting satire?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Accurate. KLM went for public money. Didn't get it. Said they wouldn't come without it.

      Delete
    2. Inaccurate. KCC and Manston went for public money for KLM. They failed. KLM stayed put.

      Delete
  44. Well well, I have just read this tosh, Only John makes any sense. I have lived here all my life and would welcpme a vibrant airport. Some one suggested build a town,that is being done at Westwood and the ramifications of that need to be considered. Complete closure of 3 towns? lets build an airport in the space?
    Stupidity personified

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.