NIMBY actions, plain and simple. They knew the airport was there when they bought the house--eff 'em.

Good observation about the A-380, though. The envoronmental concerns are a big plus for the Boeing.

Lou:

No, they aren't.

I have some friends who have watched the A-380 land, and remarked how astonishingly quiet it is.

Besides, it has the lowest fuel consumption per seat mile of any plane flying.

The A-380 will do just fine for those airlines that get them.

And it will trash Airbus, because its sales forecasts completely ignored the inexorable law that the number of units decreases with increasing size.

Exactly, in a democracy it's our backyard.

The A-380 will fly in democracies just fine.

over

And be flown only by state airlines

There is another side to the "they knew they were buying next to commerical (airport) property" argument.

It is: Those who own or operate commerical property know they are next to residental property.

Disney learned that lesson in California and didn't repeat it in Florida.

Not taking sides here, I'm just saying...you want to be left alone, buy all the land you can around you.

Jeff opines that we should downsize airports to accommodate those who bought their houses cheap because they are next to airports and are now finding themselves discomposed about the noise, the traffic, etc.

Sure that makes sense? s/off

New airports have the option of buying a lot of land , but the old ones in the cities haven't got that option. When Idlewild was built in NYC, the area surrounding it was wild wetlands, hence the name. Now thousands of houses have been built cheek to jowl up to the runways.

Sorry they knew what their backyard looked like before they bought their house, not they're stuck with their choice.

When I lived in Queens, we were under the landing pattern of both LaGuardia and Idlewild. They came down so low, guests often thought the plane was about to crash on their heads. We hardly noticed it and my kid brother could name every plane just by the sound of the motor.

The airport, likewise, knew it was opening in a democracy, no?

My home is just south of Seatac International and I'm on the path for Southwest, Horizon, Alaska and others. The wash from the jets actually whips my trees. Still, I got a great deal on a centrally located home only 3 miles from work. I'd love the noise to go away, but without the airport my house would have cost 30% more. To complain now would be ex post facto nimby-ism.

Good grief. I lived on Air Force bases growing up and the noise from constant flights is absolutely not that big a deal. Granted, lots of commercial flights taking off and landing isn't as cool as C-5 touch-and-go's, but give me a break with all the whining...

Sorry about the double post. When I got up this morning, the original didn't appear to have been sent.

The A-380 is an excellent airplane, very quiet and fuel efficient. On environmental grounds, there is simply no rational argument against it.

As a business decision, it is a disaster.

But that is a different discussion.

My original comment is a bit confused, as a result of my haste and non-recognition of the model number of the new Boeing.

My old Reserve base was out in the sticks when it was built, and suburbs built up around it. Sure enough, we got a b*tch & moan ration from the neighbors about every five years.

Hey, we missed the Friends' day school with the crashing A-4 by at least 50 yards, and the mall was closed when we dropped the F-4 into it. You know what they say about those who cannot take a joke.

What do rational grounds have to do with democracy in action? People don't want to enlarge the airports and accept the additional traffic so it won't happen where people have a say. It's a plane only statists can love.

Bosco:

Since when have 'rational' arguments persuaded anyone on the environmental left?

If the A380 had been developed by a private firm, the EU would attack it the way they go after Microsoft and GE. All the startup European airlines are going to buy the 787, if they want a plane larger than a 737 or an Embraer 190.

OJ -

When airport delays and congestion (and the physical condition itself) become intolerable, like O'Hare, Miami, and JFK are today, the 'people' will vote with their feet. Hence the growth at Midway, Ft. Lauderdale, and Newark.

But what to do when ALL options are jammed and dirty?

Blame Bush?

Recall what the city had to resort to at Midway?

Mr. Judd:

The 380 will not cause the airports to get one iota larger.

And in terms of traffic count, one of the most effective arguments for the 380 is the reduction in traffic.

It took a statist mind set to decide to build the airplane when scale laws strongly suggest there would not be enough sales to turn a profit.

But, as I noted above, that is a different discussion than the one you are having.

It is an excellent airplane, and it will make a great deal of money for city pairs appropriate for its size.

Democracy has nothing to do with it (as UPS and FedEx demonstrate very clearly.)

They'll scrap the program as they did the cargo version. Few American airports were willing/able to make the runway and terminal changes it would require. It takes a bureaucratic mindset to believe that landing a larger number of passengers per plane at already overbusy airports will reduce traffic.