Saturday, 13 October 2012

More Blind Faith in Manston Airport.


Having just watched the bbc lunchtime news, with their interesting article about how many early deaths are caused by living near to airports, see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19934804 I thought I had better do something about how this relates to Thanet and particularly to Ramsgate which is under the Manston flight path.

I guess as a local businessman and resident, the airport mostly falls into that bracket where I would like to see some sort decision on what exactly its future regulation will be.

News items like the one today and the airport saying that it wants less stringent water pollution regulation than the plans they thrashed out with the environment agency, are not good for local business. The uncertain and unregulated situation over night flights is unfortunate too.

Now I am not at all sure about the actual damage to local people’s health, either in terms of water pollution or air pollution.

With the water pollution my best guess is trust the environment agency and I don’t see the airport not wanting to pay for the drainage scheme as a good sign.

With this latest airport news story, it certainly isn’t sending out the message to companies; relocate your employees closer to an airport. 

My understanding of the situation with the airport at the moment is that they are trying to get council taxpayers, via KCC, to fund getting a new operator into Manston, which does raise the question of should local councils be funding airport expansion in their area.


I guess so much of this is down to the modern world, particularly with much more transparency form government and big business. A few years ago I would guess a report from Cambridge university http://lae.mit.edu/wordpress2/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/LAE-2012-010-R-v1.pdf saying that living near an airport can shorten your life expectancy, would have been covered up.

Now Londoners have to balance the air pollution caused by having an airport on their doorstep against the extra air pollution caused by people driving to an airport further away. 

Making an informed decision about the various aspects of airport expansion is difficult, one wonders where the balance for Thanet lies between on the one hand airport pollution reducing life expectancy and on the other increased life expectancy associated a higher standard of living caused by airport related prosperity.    

102 comments:

  1. Not sure where the blind faith in Manston is at the moment, Michael, for all that is going on is a consultation to see if there are enough people interested in flying the propsed route with KLM.

    As far as I can see, our Labour governed TDC have not changed their position, the anti-airport group continue to make lots of noise and central government rock between third runways at Heathrow and Boris island, neither of which seem to be going anywhere.

    As you well know, nights flights are regulated under the 106 and the present administration are unlikely to relax that restriction. The KIACC continue their periodic meetings, but no signs on any expension moves comin g out of those.

    As to the pollution levels, well there is a vast difference between Heathrow and Manston and our few aircraft movements are probably less polluting than Westwood Cross roundabout traffic. In our modern world many things pollute, but our choice is live with modern travel and creature comforts or go back to cave dwelling.

    Personally, I think you are just trying to stir it up a bit here, knowing how strongly some people feel about Manston, when really there is no news other than the bit on aircraft pollution which is hardly new.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom I think a key word in your comment here is “probably”, frankly I don’t think anyone benefits from the lack of a proper understanding of the environmental impact of the airport, not the operator, not local people and certainly not local businesses.

      I don’t really think the 106 is an appropriate way to regulate an airport and my understanding is that it has no limit on the number or type of flights, nor has any aspect that seeks to address air pollution.

      Finally on the subject of my postings being just to stir things up unnecessarily, what would you like me to do on this blog, keep away from controversial issues perhaps, set comment moderation, any ideas appreciated?

      Delete
    2. I suppose my point I was trying to make is you usual post something when an issue arises. Other than a bit on airport pollution, mainly directed at the effect of a third runway at Heathrow, there was nothing new in the pipeline for Manston that had not already been will covered on one of your earlier recent articles.

      Delete
    3. Tom I think you perhaps misunderstand what I am up to here with this blog, which it primarily to try to express those things which interest me, that come out of my daily experiences, that I think will interest other people.

      With the blog I don’t have a political remit, I am sure that there must be some sort of spin-off benefit for my business, but I certainly wouldn’t say I heavily advertise here, I certainly don’t go out of my way to be the first break new stories although this often happens.

      Personally I think what ever the decisions relating to the London’s airports situation are, they will have a considerable impact on Manston and consequentially local people.

      My main interest in Manston has always been the water supply issues, not so much from a public health point of view as I suppose I have some faith in the various authorities not to allow the pollution to come out of the tap, but in terms of sustainable and affordable supply.

      As you can see the scientists involved are coldly making decisions about how many people will be killed per year by different airport arrangements in London, there isn’t an option where no people are killed, as the country’s economy would collapse without London’s airports.

      I guess today’s news item made me wonder how different levels of local mortality would relate to different levels of local aircraft activity and where the balance should be struck.

      In terms of airport pollution at Manston I don’t think anyone is taking the measurements, let alone doing the calculations.

      Perhaps they should be.

      Frankly when the airport decided that they wouldn’t pay for the basic safety measures with the drainage I became a little more sceptical about their activities, on the other hand when I hear the sound of an unusual aeroplane in the distance I am inclined to rush for my camera.

      Delete
  2. I listened to the 'Today' interview this morning. When challenged there is a strong element of doom mongering in this MIT report.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bit like global warming I guess. Because of those doom predictions we have masses of near useless wind turbines and face the prospect of even bigger energy bills plus power cuts in the not to distant future. Meantime, the Chinese pump pollution into the atmosphere and keep warm and snug in the process.

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Thank you Michael. I was unaware of this report. My first thought was that the 106 was the HS1 to St Pancras.

      (No, anonymous, not really)

      Delete
  4. Tom,

    Your observation about the Westwood Cross Roundabout: I would venture 'definitely'. When I worked in a building on Whitehall we received a few but aggresive complaints about suspected pollution from adjacent building works. We called in the EA to measure. Their findings were that there was little or no pollution within our building. They then monitored the traffic outside the window and detected high levels of polution.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just like a KCC councilor on a recent blog says if you have an issue with the speech by a local headmaster(was it a KCC school or an Academy?) it is your duty to take it further so it is your duty to pursuse issues that effect local health. But using the principles he set out, since from April 2011 KCC have increased responsibilities for public health maybe you should write to you local KCC councilor in the first instance.

    You can also add this to your list of concerns to ask prospective candidates for the KCC elections in a few months time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 6:18PM,

      I take your point. Similarly, if Michael draws certain issues to our attention then maybe it is we who should take it up with KCC. And not necessarily abidcate the task to Michael or anyone else.

      Delete
  6. Shall we think this point through then, Micheal? The motor car is probably one of the most directly polluting elements on our streets and for our children, that has been shown over and over again. How much do you shorten peoples lives when you reduce their low wages, but retain the higher echelons at their current rate? (Oh sorry, I recall that is of no concern to you); how much when robbing them of sleep through drunken noise and damage? How many lives are saved not using the motorways to and from heathrow and Gatwick, and only driving the few miles to Manston? What damage is really done to peoples lives if Pleasurama buildings are seen over the clifftop in Ramsgate? How many people in publishing suffer the stress of losing jobs due to the existence of second hand bookshops? What is the cost to the health service of having to fight tubercolosis all over again due to the higher infection rate in incoming migrants to the community? What is the cost and anxiety of academic reports coming out time after time contradicting each other (ie red wine is good for you in middle age/drinking is bad for you in middle age)? What is the true subsidising cost to the taxpayer of the reopening of Ramsgate Maritime Museum, and why does the council refuse to show it's cost benefit analysis?

    Now some of these things are close to your heart Michael, some yo dont care about. In Cliftonville, Margate and elsewhere their priorities might be different, perhaps whee unemployment shortens lives as well. All life is a choice Micheal, with good and bad consequences. Can you justify art gallerys and museums when we need food banks in cliftonville to help those who can no longer afford to eat? Choice is hard; criticising others choices when you do not have to assess you own objectively, easy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris as a self employed, car driving, manufacturing retailer, publishing books, selling new and secondhand books I guess you have me bang to rights.

      I would certainly say that that the part of Ramsgate I trade in has many of the problems common to Ciftonville, I am certainly familiar with losing sleep because of being woken by drunks and think I have lost about 20 plate glass shop windows in the last few years mostly from drunken vandalism, although one recently to a mobility scooter.

      I guess the environmental balance between driving to Manston and driving to Gatwick hinges on how many people are in the car and where you are driving to or from. Certainly if you see Manston as an air hub offering travel destinations to those living close by, then Manston scores hands down on the environment, however night freight is a very different ball game.

      With public sector pay, you seem to have got the notion that I am for increasing the pay of highest paid and reducing that of the lowest. The truth is somewhat different, I am fairly certain that the burden of the public sector has to be reduced and would like to see this reduction happen among those who don’t produce anything tangible, the administrators, not the street cleaners, road menders, doctors, nurses, fighting members of the armed forces.

      I would comment on the proposed pay changes at TDC but I don’t have access to details of the changes, so I can’t reasonably comment. I also appreciate that some employees will get more pay than others and as I am no a communist, I approve of this state of affairs, I do consider that a qualified engineer working for the council should get paid more than an unqualified filing clerk and think that if essential cuts in public sector pay is seen as an option, as opposed to say just making redundant those workers the council can’t afford, then those cuts should be fair across all pay scales.

      I do see some justification for publicly funded art galleries and museums although I think the only one in Thanet receiving a large amount of public funding is The Turner Contemporary, Margate museum getting some assistance from the council but run by volunteers and Ramsgate Maritime Museum now being funded by a charitable trust. I know the council is making rental concessions and parking concessions for events to be held, but before they were getting no rent and with the only event that has been held so far attracting so many, I doubt the council lost in terms of overall parking revenue that weekend.

      Do I think The Turner Contemporary should be turned into a food bank? Well no not really.

      On to Pleasurama, firstly no I don’t think any part of the development should project above the cliff top, but far more importantly I agree with the environment agency engineer that it should have a flood risk assessment and emergency escapes and not with the council who appear to think that building on a high risk flood zone, without any flood risk assessment is perfectly acceptable. I am also concerned about the council’s liability, they have already spent £1m on cliff repairs and now have another survey saying it needs extensive repairs again, at presumably considerable cost to the council taxpayer.

      Delete
    2. Michael,

      You may wish to consider fitting 6mm, laminated, bandit glass to your shop front?

      Delete
  7. Chris,

    May I expand upon your point about TB and Immigrants that are non EU Nationals. In the late 80s I served as a British Visa Officer in India. The Immigration Rules stated, among other things, that anyone coming to UK for settlement must be clear of TB before arrival. The Medical inspections were carried out by an approved British High Commission local Doctor at HMG expense. When TB was discovered we reported the fact to the Home Office, as we were required to do. In every case that I know about the Home Office instructed us to ignore the TB and issue the Settlement Visa. We would challenge the Home Office, reminding them of the Rules. In my experience the reply from the Home Office was always the same; the TB would be dealt with in the UK. I have reliable evidence that the passenger might, or might not be, met on arrival in UK by a Doctor who simply recorded the details.

    I suggest that then, as now, the Home Office was more concerned with not being seen to offend minorities, with the nation's health being a lesser concern.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Can I come to Michael's defence. Set aside the alleged racism blog which was exceptional and unique. From time to time Michael stirs things up. Which in my opinion is a good thing. I enjoy the cut and thrust of a good argument. I like to be made to think and to reason. Consequently, now that I am retired Michael's blog is a good place to go. I also learn things. For example I now know that 106 is not the HS1 to St Pancreas. On occasion he gets me off my backside. In the case when Michael quoted some outrageous price for a glass of orange juice, saying the price was reasonable, I went down to the cafe to check. Petty maybe, but it occupied me for a couple of hours.

    I can appreciate that someone with a busy day might occasionally become cross when Michael appears to be nipping at their heels. But after all this is England.

    There are a few, very few, that object to Michael promoting his business via this blog. Where is his fault. Michael is a small business trying to make a living. This is not wrong, unless you come from some extreme so called workers party.

    I realise that problems will not necessarily be solved, nor grievances redressed by way of Michael's blog. For this we need to go elsewhere. But Michael's' blog is a fine place to discuss matters, and to occasionally vent our anger, disappointment or whatever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think anyone in this thread is criticising Michael's right to promote his own business via his blog nor do I personnally object to controversial issues, indeed, like John, I enjoy the cut and thrust of a good debate. However, I do have some reservations about the slant put on some items and, in this case, the subject heading.

      I still fail to see how a programme about aircraft pollution leads to 'More Blind Faith in Manston.' I asked that question of Michael, but have received no response so, I say again, who exactly is allegedly showing more blind faith in Manston?

      Delete
    2. Tom I am plastering a ceiling this morning so will respond to longer comments like Chris’s later, the blind faith was partly related to an earlier post and Infratil getting involved in Manston while not really understanding the demographics and geography of the south east, I would guess because of an antipodean view.

      I would do a google image search for “blind faith” and “Charles Buchanan” The current boss of Manston, to better follow my little artistic joke with the watercolour, which you may have missed.

      Delete
    3. Michael, probably because I am not the arty type I missed that subtle piece of humour. As to Infratil's involvement, well I guess like all new ventures they had high hopes. How many other businesses do we see all around us open up with a new coat of paint and great expectations only to be back on the markets shortly thereafter. Nothing ventured nothing gained and all that, nor should we be surprised that the airport chief displays an outwardly optimistic view. Whether he has faith, who knows, but I doubt he would tell us, with his job at stake, if he did not.

      Bearing in mind your last posting, is not putting Infratil's performance at Manston down to their antipodean view a teeny bit racist. Mind you, I suppose the same national expertise could enable them to turn it into a sheep station if all else fails. No doubt then someone would discover that sheep excreta is lethal to the aquifer and the bleating exceeded environmental noise permitted levels. Mind you, the regular bleating in Thanet does that anyway.

      Delete
    4. PS Best of luck with the plastering but don't forget the goggles and face mask. Can't have you polluted, can we!

      Delete
    5. Tom,

      I enjoyed your final paragraph.

      I understand that Infratil is a Kiwi company. I have been to New Zealand. It is in my opinion the most beautiful country in the world. Consequently, I would trust them with Manston on environmental grounds.

      I once turned down a 3 year posting to Wellington - mistake.

      Delete
    6. Sadly, I have never been there, John, but I served alongside the RNZAF in Malaya and Singapore during Confrontation and they were a good bunch to be with. I even played cricket for the RAAF which was a bit unique as the only Pom, though I had to get used to the constant leg pulling. Anyone else dropped a catch it was bad lick but me, well that was "typical xxxxing Pom."

      Delete
    7. Tom,

      I have also visited Australia. I like the county and the Aussies. I have always believed and still do that our loyalties should lie with the Old Commonwealth: Australia, Canada and New Zealand. We may occasionally take the p... out of each other; but this is harmless fun. We trust each other, well I certainly trust them above all others. My last overseas posting was in Ottawa. Somehow I never felt foreign in Canada. I was amazed to discover just how close our two countries are, much of it behind the scenes.

      Delete
    8. John

      I never actually got to Australia either, but was stationed on an Australian air force base called Butterworth in North Malaysia. Much mickey taking between the RAF and the RAAF, especially during the Ashes series, but all well intentioned.

      I agree with you about loyalty to our old dominions, but sadly our politicians, of all parties, do not see it that way. It is easier for a member of the Taliban to get into Britain and claim asylum than it is for an Aussie to get a permanent right of residence, even though his/her ancestor might well have fought for this country years before.

      Delete
  9. A minor correction for you there, gents. I am an unrepenting fan of the Commonwealth as both a source of influence and the very best world wide potebtial trading block we could have access to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chris,

      I agree whole heartedly.

      Delete
    2. Unfortunately, Chris, you are not in No. 10 to further the Commonwealth links altghough I am sure you would do a better job than either the present occupant or the Labour alternative. They are both too busy trying to curry favour with minorities to have time for our real old friends.

      Delete
  10. John holyer, using your Infratil kiwi logic, that means seeing as the USA is the richest country in the world, you'd trust Lehman brothers with your money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 7:35 PM,

      I do not follow the logic of your argument. Other than to conclude that you are still scratching for brickbats to scatter fire at Manston and aeroplanes.

      Delete
  11. Sometimes I despair of local Conservatives. Cllr Wells waxed lyrical last week about the volte face he intended to execute with regards to his political behaviour. Mistakenly I believed that he would stop sniping at anyone that he considered an opponent and devote a bit more time to winning voters round to the Conservative cause. Oh silly me, can a leopard change its spots. Of course not. At the first opportunity he's back to his favourite hobby, Child baiting.
    Tom is sounding increasingly like a ruddy-faced Colonel Blimp, constantly bemoaning modern Conservatism and harking back to the good old days , when presumably a bit of not-so-subtle Kikuyu kicking was an acceptable sport and the only good German was a dead one. As we used to say in the Navy, Military Intelligence is a contradiction in terms.
    I have said before that if we are to avoid a Labour administration continuing to drag the Island into bankruptcy the the Conservatives have to start winning over hearts and minds. That means saying something constructive, not destructive. It means looking to the future, not harking back to a lost past. It means being open and honest, not secretive and sly. It means being positive, not negative. And there isn't that long to achieve this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah Tim, your rant says so much more about you than it does about me. My comment to Micheal was a simple one - if you happen to find a report which favours something you support happening (or not happening in this case) how does the logic of that report follow through into other areas on which you comment/enthuse. His answer, whilst interesting, fails to address the point. Your rant, whilst interesting, fails to address anything other than your favourite sport.

      To address your final lines - if we are to stop Labour administration dragging us down into a financial mess once again, the true costs of decisions must be aired; hence the maritime Museum (hidden costs); the new Director, which Micheal apparantly would be against in principle but refuses to condemn in practice; and Pleasurama decisions by the current administration, not previous ones.

      However I am deighted to hear Micheal, and presumably yourself, are in favour of the Conservative policies of reducing the cost and impact of the state. I look forward to your support in doing that, something neither Labour nor their allies the TIGS support or do locally, where they are constantly demanding new and extra expenditure, which can only be mt by the new homes bonus, the only true strategic reserve the council has been gifted in recent years.

      Delete
    2. Tim, you and I have agreed on issues in the past and even now seem to share a view that the Conservative party needs to get its act together. I cannot, however, agree that we or known Conservative councillors should be expected to ignore the activities of other parties or, indeed, items posted on blogs with which we disagree.

      The current airport thread I would suggest is really apolitical and it has only become a party difference issue since Labour used its opposition to night flights to good effect in Ramsgate in last year's elections. After all, it was not so long ago that Cllr Mike Harrison was a champion of the airport cause and even wrote an item under the 'Night Flight Hysteria' banner on his own blog.

      As to your personal attack on me I cannot quite see how mentioning I served on a RAAF base in Malaysia equates to being a Colonel Blimp. Presumably that must be some kind of navy logic. Should alsao point out that the Malaysian Confrontation campaign was a decade after the Kenya Mau Mau emergency which was well before my time.

      I also found your comment about the Germans distasteful and nowhere have I ever said or written anything which could lead you to such a conclusion. I have a great respect for the German nation and its people from whom we could learn a great deal about running a successful economy.

      On the Conservatives I feel it goes far deeper than the local petty point scoring and is more about leadership direction. In my view David Cameron has tried to copy Tony Blair in targetting the middle ground and giving his party a new image. The difference is that Blair won over middle England for a time whilst retaining Labour's core vote, even if they did not all agree with the New Labour concept. Any success Cameron has had in the middle ground is more than offset by the alienation of many core Conservative voters who, unlike Labour, are less likely to vote for a sack of potatoes as long as it has the right rosette. Attempts by the likes of Scargill to form more left wing parties failed miserably and did not damage Blair. UKIP on the other hand can and do damage Cameron's ambitions. Typically in South Thanet in 2005, UKIP took more votes than the winning margin enjoyed by Labour's Ladyman.

      Having done the street pounding and spoken to people on the doorstep, it is much more likely they will raise concerns about central governments actions than how often their dustbins are emptied, even in local elections.

      Delete
  12. As someone living slap band under the flight path in Ramsgate, can I say I think KLM would be wonderful - so convenient to fly anywhere in the world, abd terriblly needed jobs for Thanet at the airport and related services.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Craig, they say one of the impediments is their night flying allowance. My take on this one has been the same all along, that is, that the night flights allowance for Manston should be proportionate to the amount of daytime flying they achieve.

      Delete
  13. I don't live in Ramsgate but was there on Friday and a Knackered Old Jumbo (Ah...ECR....I miss you)
    came lumbering over the town. It was horrible. All conversation had to cease while it went over. I could see the nuts and bolts on the undercarriage.
    The thought of this happening all day and up to 8 times a night doesn't bear thinking about.
    People who are advocating the use of Manston in this way must be daft or deaf or both.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yogi Bear,

      Your gratuitous use of the words 'daft or deaf' does not advance your argument.

      Delete
    2. About 2 years back I was a frequent visitor to Ramsgate and the Royals Sands before it became a building site. A peaceful day there was often disturbed by the noise of the jumbos. But my wife never complained, she is deaf. Thats the choice for Thanet, if it want tourist like us to come back then tourism, the jobs it provides, and the needs of visitors have to be put before possible jobs at Manston. The most recent bench mark for the number of jobs that an airport can provide is the expansion at Southend that have increased jobs by 500 for an extra million passengers. But a typical new supermarket can also produce 300 new jobs of simmilar skills set needed at an airport. The number of tourism jobs in kent was estimated as 63,000 in 2009 so I can only presume that at least 6000 of these were in Thanet. It would not take much of a decline to negate new airport jobs.

      Delete
    3. Take Us for Fools at your PerilOctober 15, 2012 2:15 pm

      Anyone who believes 1:57 is a visitor and not a member of the anti-airport campaign really ought to see their shrink! When Manston was a busy military field it never deterred visitors who, back then, well outnumbered the comparative few we get these days.

      How nice also of our 'visitor,' if such he is, to recommend we cover the isle instead with supermarkets, real top rung jobs those. For someone who has not been here for two years he seems pretty up to date on happenings and comparative airport statistics.

      Delete
    4. The USAF Thunderjets did nothing to deter visitors in the 50s. The place was packed with hundreds of holidaymakers.

      Anonymous @1:57pm, Your cover story does not bear scrutiny.

      Delete
    5. We are not now living in the past. In the 50's most people would rely on trains or coaches for their trip to the seaside. Todays tourist have a vast choice whether to use their own cars or to fly abroad, a day trip to Margate is not the only option anymore.
      The only point about new airport jobs is that they will scattered around Kent and further and not just in Thanet where as tourism jobs will in general be local.

      Delete
    6. anonymous @ 4:35PM,

      I am finding it difficult to follow your reasoning. In your example of tourists who fly abroad they could presumably do this from Manston.

      Delete
    7. My you do stretch the facts to suit your case 4:35. Many people came to Thanet, not just for day trips, but often for their main annual holdiday, hence all the former hotels and guest houses. That it was back in the 50s and 60s does not change the fact that they were not put off by airctaft noises. Even then, though they might not have discovered Benidorm, there was still stiff competition from the likes of Hastings, Southend, Brighton and Little Hampton, all within just as easy reach of London.

      See you have dropped your pretence of being a put off visitor. That kind of underhand approached invalidates your case anyway.

      Delete
    8. In the 50's and 60's there were plenty of people for all the south east's seasides towns and indeed all the other seaside town in the country. Now you have to offer something exceptional for visitors to come in their droves. But I am not a Thanet local. I have no need to live in an area with low life expectancy, high crime rate, decayed town centres, high unemployment, night time no go areas, a council with a poor track record. Kent's newspapers are full of stories that paint a grim picture. Its just that I would prefer to spend a few days on the Kent coast each year rather than travel elsewhere.

      Delete
    9. Try Joss Bay then. Nice surroundings, good sandy beach with facilities, large car park and no Pleasurama site or aircraft noise or do you simply want to whinge about Thanet.

      Delete
    10. My brother and I grew up in Thanet in the 50's and 60's when there were lots of visitors, but even then there was no decent work. What work the tourism generated was mainly seasonal and low paid. We, like a majority of our school friends, had to leave the area to develop careers. Anyone who argues that Thanet's future is dependent purely on tourists is living in the land of the cuckoo.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous @ 8:30PM,

      I completely agree. I share your experience and assessment.

      A new airport at Manston could not destroy a tourist industry that does not exist.

      I wonder if the Manston site could become a Centre Parc, or similar?

      Delete
    12. anonymous @ 7:05PM
      You paint a terrible picture of Thanet. Curiously, in spite of this you claim that you are an occasional visitor to Thanet by choice. Which I find difficult to accept; it does not have the ring of truth.

      Delete
    13. anonymous @ 7:05PM

      You are saying nothing more than that each year you choose to spend a few days in Thanet, even though you despise the area. You explain that this is because you cannot be bothered to travel elsewhere. Consequently, you do not wish to be distured by aircrsaft noise during you brief and rare visits to Thanet. Your story is risible.

      Delete
    14. John Holyer:
      You're not familiar with the wit of Milligan then.
      I left out bald and toothless as that seemed a bit harsh.

      Delete
    15. Actually, Yogi, many of the opponents of Manston are bald and toothless or, to be more polite, on the down side of decrepid. That is my problem with the opponents because most of them are people who have retired here and are anti for purely selfish reasons.

      I read your earlier comment about the knackered old jumbo, but, having attended a school in Ramsgate right under the flight path, I can assure you one gets used to it. All this nonsense about it disrupting youngsters education is made up by old fogeys with no kids at home to suit their case.

      Frankly, I would have hitherto regarded you as too bright to be duped by the rubbish that eminates from the antis. Evidently I was wrong.

      Delete
    16. yogi bear @2:21pm

      I do not understand your comment. Are you comparing yourself to Spike Milligan. Surely not.

      Delete
    17. I don't know why you keep saying those opposed to manston or night flights, both, are old. Not in my experience. Mostly 30 , 40, school aged children, working. But whether they have teeth, are retired, or have yet to start work, if somebody doesn't like something, they have a right to argue the point.

      And they seem to be doing a much better job of it than you are.

      Delete
  14. Michael,

    Why not consider fitting 6mm, laminated, bandit glass?

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That was a Europe owned and based Cargolux 747-400 LX-SCV .. a mere 11.2 years old.. not old or knackered

    ReplyDelete
  17. anonymous @ 1:57,

    Do you know of any supermarket company that wishes to build a store on Manston?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon 1.57 no but it was just an example to put it into perspective on how many jobs an airport can provide. You may care to take a look at what has happend at the former West Malling air field in Kings Hill. Completely transformed into a much sought after place to live and work. And on your doorstep the Discovery park is become a sucess story with 1,500 jobs many of them in new enterprises.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And a shed load of problem tenants in the old RAF married quarters across the road. Bit like the new houses at Hersden that appear to be well under priced until you find out the burglary track record there.

      Delete
  19. Hey, gold star for the first person to correctly state how many jobs were predicted to have been created by infratil at manston by 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  20. To base anything on a company that has been unsuccessful in developing Manston is nonsense. Another owner might have far more success but, at the moment, no one can have any confidence in the place when there is no goodwill from the local authority. A requirewment to receive the odd aircraft that has been delayed, and there are many reasons why that can happen, after 2300 is not unreasonable and very differenct to the scaremongerers claims of old jumbos landing all night.

    How much do you think the very evident opposition to expanding Manston weighed on Pfizers decision to virtually pull out of East Kent. How many other companies have been put of by the seeming opposition in Thanet to everything from the Turner, Thanet Earth, China Gateway, Manston and Parkway. When did we ever welcome anything yet the mindless still cling to the forlorn hope that the place can thrive on tourism. There are too many retired Nimbys and too many who are content to live on their benefits who trundle out the same objections over and over about damage to the tourist industry we haven't got. It is risible and would almost be funny if it were not so serious.

    Somebody said "What will you tell your grand children when they get cancer" presumably from some notion of airport contamination. Well I ask that person "What will you tell your grandchildren when our generation creates no worthwhile employment prospects for them?"

    ReplyDelete
  21. Allan, how many flights did pfizer employees support from manston to its many locations worldwide? Zero. Your argument is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No because it is indicative of a poor attitude locally to progress and, since you seem unaware of it, aircraft do not just transport people. Notice you conveniently ignore all the other project that some in Thanet have objected to at some stage. There is far too much negativity which is hardly condusive to attracting outside investment.

      Delete
  22. How about creating worthwhile employment for our children. Is lobbing a samsonite into an airplane hold what you dream of For them? Sorry Allan, but I've got slightly higher expectations. And if employment isn't 10 minutes down the road for them, I'll suggest they get on their bikes and find it somewhere else. I believe it's called commuting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 6:29 AM,

      Employment at an airport involves so much more than just loading baggage into the hold, as you well know, or would if you stopped to think before you spoke. You are still scratching around looking for more brick bats to scatter fire at Manston, in the mistaken belief that this will advance your purpose. Your argument becomes thinner each time you speak.

      Delete
    2. 6:29 Why should Thanet be condemned, on your proposal, to forever be a dormitory for commuters. No doubt you would have slated Norman Tebbutt for his 'get on your bikes' comment, but it is OK when it fits in with your anti-Manston case.

      Oh, and since I seemed to miss it, what is this worthwhile employment you suggest creating.

      Delete
  23. So jobs like pilots, engineers etc, the highly paid ones. These jobs would be created by basing aricraft at manston. There aren't any based aircraft at manston, except the decaying ones. There are no airlines queuing up to base aircraft at manston unless the regional growth fund wants to stump up 600k in taxpayer money to entice them here.

    So lobbing samsonites, forklift drivers and cleaners will make up the majority of the workforce. It's not a brickbat, it's the limit of manstons job creating can ability. If it was any different, would the owners be selling?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Conveniently forgetting of course all the other businesses that spring up around successful airports from aircraft support services, maintenance, hotels and catering, hire cars and freight distriburion. Be honest, 8:59, you just don't want an airport, period.

      Delete
    2. And you do want one 9:42 but can't explain away the missing monitrs and fines or aquifer -or can you?

      And flights at 1am when it's closed at 11pm?

      Or it going bust again and being sold off by Infratil who, after a round of redundancies, have nobody's interests except their own to consider - for as long as they can get away with it.

      Delete
    3. anonymous @3:30PM,

      Do you have an explanation for your alleged missing monitors and fines or aquifiers?

      Delete
  24. anonymous @ 8:59,

    There are already aircraft engineering firms at Manston.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, John, for I have two relatives and a close friend in well salaried positions linked to the aircraft industry locally. Funny how the antis think it is just cargo loading, but some of the same people will advocate supermarkets with shelf stacking jobs.

      Delete
  25. Anonymous @ 8:59

    Sometimes I think that you are just playing with us. I always rise to the bait. Your purblind arguments do nothing to advance your espoused cause of keeping Manston aircraft free.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think an anonymous poster in a local issues blog has little influence over an international airports ability to operate successfully. Or unsuccessfully as the case may be. However, the air industry and government have the ability to inlfuence such things, and unfotunately for manston, neither are jumping on their white horse and riding to the rescue.

    Gatwicks second runway, heathrows thirds, stansteds sale and boris island will kill off manston, not opposition in Thanet

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cannot overlook the possibility that TDC has already earmarked the Manston site for housing.

      Delete
  27. Tdc don't own it. Infratil do, and any decision on its future use will be down to the owner. They will need the backing of tdc, who have been nothing but accommodating to successive owners.

    Would you endorse kcc buying it to keep it as an airport?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. anonymous 5:13,

      If as you imply KCC can buy Manston then presumably so can TDC, to do with as they choose.

      Can you please clarify, are you saying that KCC wish to buy Manston to develop as an airport?

      Delete
  28. In theory, tdc could, but kcc have enough money still sitting in Iceland to buy the airport. Probably. Deeper pockets. Plus kcc are more of an advocate. It's possible kcc might want to buy it and run it as an airport as they have invested to much energy and money into it over the years, to see it turned into houses would make them look totally wrong on it for the last twenty years. Politicians are vain. They don't like being wrong. Buying the airport would put off kcc being wrong in the immediate future.

    ReplyDelete
  29. anon @9:18,

    Thank you that was helpful. Houses are my least favoured option for Manston. There is at present insufficient employment to necessitate additional housing in Thanet.

    I have often thought that we should do away with TDC and join Canterbury.

    Historically all of Thanet once belonged to the diocese of Canterbury.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I doubt Canterbury would want us, John, though it is a nice idea.

    ReplyDelete
  31. With Manston on the aquifer isn't that dangerous in polluting it?

    And Infratil and TDC removing the required noise and air monitors (and fines) never seems to be answered by councillors - when did they know and why weren't they replaced immediately or when the Gang of Four were sacked?

    Sandy's court case should bring some of this out into the open. A few others should join him in the dock.

    Cargolux illegally flying over the towns is simply TDC being lazy in not enforcing the already exising 106 regulations again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you followed the KIACC meeting minutes, 3:27, you would be aware that a moblie monitor has been in use for some time testing noise levels around the isle. There is also absolutely no evidence to suggest that the airport pollutes the aquifer anymore than any other potential usage would. I seem to recall the whinge fraternity were concerned the Thanet Earth would pollute the aquifer as would China Gateway. Basically, they just oppose any progress.

      Delete
    2. TDC have a noise monitor, on the roof of my house, big fat waste of time. They do not provide readings from it nor publish them, probably because it proves what we all know.

      Why are live readings not posted on the internet? It should be fairly simple, if there is nothing to hide then don't hide it.

      Strikes me the biggest whinger in this debate is Tom Clarke, advocates the same old tripe that has failed the area rather than progress.

      Delete
    3. Ok, smartarse 10:06, just what is your plan for progress?

      Delete
    4. 10:06 TDC and Infratil don't take any readings from the noise monitor? How long has this been going on?

      The main monitors were removed back in 2006 from a tower block and Clarendon school.

      Delete
    5. And they now have a mobile monitor and do take readings from different positions around the area. Do you forever deny the facts, 12:15, just to suit your rather selfish and jaundiced stance on the issue.

      Delete
  32. Can you please clarify your points about the noise and air monitors and fines?

    What do you mean by the, "Gang of Four". Who are they and what have they done?

    ReplyDelete
  33. John, please don't waste your time. Chummy, he of the aquifers and monitors, has no answers, simply his record stuck in the groove utterances. He knows a few words like aquifer, monitor, 106 and his legendary gang of four. All the questions he asks he could get answered by either approaching TDC officers or his own ward councillor. He does not really want answers, but simply thinks that by repeating his accusations often enough we will all believe them.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Same as you lot talking about manston and jobs then.

    5 years I've been here and nothing. Nada. Zip zilch.

    But still you all keep saying it......

    ReplyDelete
  35. And in all that time 1:32 the No-to-Night Flights fraternity have put the mockers on any confidence in allowing the airport to develop. There are already jobs, not just on the airport, but also with aligned businesses, but that fact does not suit your jaundiced argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give Manston A ChanceOctober 19, 2012 1:51 pm

      1:32 Manston airfield has been here a lot longer than your five years so can I suggest you foxtrot oscar back to where you came from. Us people who have raised our families in Thanet would like to see some jobs created for our kids without miserable old folk from elsewhere opposing every prospect.

      Delete
  36. Old. No. Unless 40 is old.
    From elsewhere? Yes, in Kent. Born, schooled, worked in the county. How many generations need to be born here before they get a say? Or do we have to sacrifice children or something? Democracy. Everyone has a say. Get over it

    If you want to see some jobs created, look elsewhere. It's not happening at manston. The 5 years I've lived nearby, the ten before that. Nothing.

    So perhaps it's not the newcomers causing the issue, but the same tired old faces saying the same thing, decade in, decade out, and accepting failure and false hope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 4.29

      Don't you just love people who move beside an airport that has been there for donkeys years and then they suddenly have a democratic right to object to it. Seems you are happy to dish out the insults to those of us who have no problem with Manston, but we are supposed to just accept your whingeing and whining, live with it was your phrase. Well I suggest you start learning to live with it, accept that democracy is for all people and those of us that support the airport have rights as well.

      Delete
  37. Tom Clarke keeps going on about all these additional jobs being created because of the airport. Which ones?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I know people whose jobs would go if Manston ceased to be an airport, I have some concern for their future. All you ever come up with 4:34 is selfish negativity.

      Delete
  38. Hmm. An airport for donkeys years. Few passengers. Little freight. Prospects bleak.

    PERHAPS TIME TO TRY SOMETHING ELSE THEN !

    Keep clinging onto your pipe dreams and keep the whole area down. Great idea.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9:15 Unfortunately it is not just dreams of the airport, but every Thanet project has had its opposition whether it be Westwood Cross, the Turner, Thanet Earth, China Gateway and even Dreamland theme park has its knockers. What else would you try, but do not be surprised if the usual suspects dismiss it out of hand. It is not dreams of a regional airport or anything else that keeps this area down, but a proportion of the people who live here and who oppose everything. It might have escaped your attention, but property prices in Thanet have fallen quite substantially in the last thre years. That is not down to the airport, but the area's failure to make any progress whatsoever whilst losing Pfizer. You can sneer all you like, but some of us would just like to see people get behind projects for a change, support them and let us see whether or not they can work.

      Delete
  39. Get behind projects......do you honestly think that any protesters have made the slightest bit of difference to manstons plight?

    I don't remember there being an anti pfizer movement, nor an anti dreamland campaign in 2003.

    Market forces Allan will decide. Not one person, not one group, but everyone. Airlines don't want to fly out of Manston. That's why they are not there, and not because a few protesters said the bleeding obvious.

    Pfizer downsized because their industry is changing. The owners of dreamland closed it down because all they saw was never ending cost on a small site with limited revenue. Much more profitable as houses, retail. Westwood opened because national retailers would not invest in 3 sites, they wanted one. Instead of save one town centre, the council obliged by allowing all three to be killed off.

    The individuals making noises against developments are doing just that. It's not really effective. Just good copy fir seldom read papers and blogs.

    Look how often Manston has been discussed nationally as an answer to our runway capacity issues in the south east. That's not because a few people dislike it, it's because everyone outiside of Thanet have a less tainted view. They see it for what it is, which is too far away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If all you say is correct, 4:54, Manston will close as an airport and you have nothing to worry about. Why are you, therefore, still protesting?

      Delete
  40. I think Allan is right. Manston should be left alone. By both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Hold that thought Allan, allegedly klm are making a big announcement on the 13th November.

    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.