Talk:London City Airport/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Lca22.jpg
Image:Lca22.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous logo, referred to above, was deleted. I have added a new logo, and the the image description page gives correct reference to fair use rationale. SempreVolando (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Planning history
I think the planning history should be removed it is unreferenced and does not appear to add any value to the article. The only point of note is the limit of movements and that could be discussed in probably just a few paragraphs. Any thoughts from editors. MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed as relevant material is in other places in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop London City Flights
Someone from London City Airport is trying to stop me mentioning anything about residents protests to the London City Airport. All my changes have been reverted!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.218.175 (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I know there are protests about this - but you have to describe them in encyclopaedic terms; and reference what you say to coverage in the press. The protest should not be described in your words, but in the words used in the press.
 * The best way to cover these things tends to be: a) introduce the controversy - what are they planning (increased flights, change of flight paths, etc); b) introduce the case for - say, the chief exec of the airport's statements to the press; and c) introduce some of the protesters' points - say through their statements to the press, or possibly a quote from their website. The point here is to provide a balanced approach to the issues - let the reader make their own mind up and follow up further information, if they're interested.
 * This article should neither be a puff piece for the airport, nor a forum for the protests, but should be an encyclopaedic article that takes note of the issues in a neutral point of view. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict - KBT has covered some of this too) Actually, an admin removed your coments because they violated Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View and Reliable sources policies. Also, most airpots get these kinds of protests, so on its own, this is not really notable per the Notability policy. - BillCJ (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, it represents a major expansion in traffic and there are significant changes to flight paths around the airport. The changes mean that the airport will have a significantly increased noise footprint - throughout east and south-east London. The final NATs report is N SEL London City final(1).pdf here. The NPOV and reliability issues are covered by referencing any material to national (pref) and local press. As to notability, probably merits at least a para under 'future plans'; and a link to protesters site. But, as previously said, it does need to be NPOV. Kbthompson (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction the link is now - if that's not it look at the index  Kbthompson (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Planning controversy
There's been a bit to-and-fro recently regarding a group - "Fight the Flights" - which oppose an increase in ATMs at LCY. I reworked the section so it was sourced (using WP:RS), neutral, more inline with accepted style etc. This was then reverted back to the more opinionated version. Comments? I suspect there might be a conflict of interest. Thanks/wangi (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. How can you call it "CONTROVERSY"?. "Fight the Flights" is a CAMPAIGN group not a CONTROVERSY!?
 * 2. They have a BLOG as their web site; hence the link to a BLOG rather then a web site.
 * 3. You have deleted the link to LCACC. It is mentioned on London City Airport's own web site: About LCACC
 * 4. Wangi - you deleted the link to Planning Officer's report!
 * 5. Wangi - you have to allow to appreciate by quoting the BBC, add very little value. And quoting the Planning Officer's report is far more accurate (see item 4). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.92.180 (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Less haste please. The attempt by the airport operators to extend the number of ATMs is controversial as demonstrated by media interest and the campaign group. Therefore it is a controversy. There is no need to link to the campaign group website, regardless of where it is hosted. Remarks from the group need to be sourced from a reliable source -- and typically that means the group's own site is a bad idea. A LCACC link already existed (and still does) in the external links section before you added another duplicate copy. Please work through your concerns on this talk page, and take some time to read through some introductory Wikipedia material; see: WP:FIVE for some pointers. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Not provide a link to the campaign group shows bias. Since the campaign group is "specific" to this airport.

2. You have to appreciate that the airport has a PR machine. And their job is to make sure the Aiport's press release ends up in in the media. For instance, the new Transatlantic service is just an example. It was a way of advertising a new service to the US. Yet if you look at the campaign web site, you will see that the A318, has not even been approved (there was a test flight). So people are QUOTING BBC, Bloomberg without fully checking the facts!

3. Much of the Wiki is a cut

4. The campaign web site 'pick' holes in all of London City Airport's claims etc... yet I am unable to quote that until it appears in on the BBC, Blommberg!?.

5. The same goes for the Airport's planning application. For instance, they claim they will create 100 of jobs if they are allowed to expand services, but they fail to point out that because of their expansion 2000, because airport will have a negative impact on noise and cost several thousand jobs. Yet, it seems this first hand bit of research by the campaign group cannot be used until it becomes 'second' hand and comes from other media sources, which usually water down the information.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.92.180 (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This article does not automatically link to any and every website related to the airport - we need to consider notability and accuracy along with other concerns. This is an encyclopaedia, and as such needs to be based on neutral reliable sources. (please sign your posts - see WP:SIG) Thanks/wangi (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just some points on the discussion:

1. The campaign group is mentioned in the article, although it appears not to meet the requirements of notability. The only non-blog references on the net are references to Anne-Marie Griffin as part of the group. Doesnt actually mention the group itself. Blogs are not a reliable source of information so we cant link to it or use it as a reference, refer WP:EL.

2. Again you are referring to information on blogs which do not meet the requirements of reliable source. Also note that it doesnt have to be true just a reliable source. It is not wikipedia's role to come to conclusions that is original research.

3. Dont undertand statement

4. Again not a reliable source, we presume good faith but anybody can start a blog and say anything they want - hence not reliable.

5. Again we can mention anything that comes from a reliable source we cant say what it doesnt say as that is original research WP:OR.

So please note that this is not a reflection on any group but wikipedia must keep a neutral point of view. Also note that if you add information about the campaign and you are involved in that campaign it is considered a conflict of interest and is not normally allowed. Please as Wangi suggested refer to WP:FIVE. MilborneOne (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Last night I noticed that the application to increase ATMs was discussed twice in the article, so merged both sections together to avoid this duplication. This was subsequently reverted by the 78.151.*.* IP editor -- "Undid revision 232190546 by Wangi (talk) - merging makes topic messy". I reverted this change - if it is in some way untidy then please tidy it up, do not revert back to an article with duplicated content. Thanks/wangi (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

wangi: EVERY AIRPORT HAS TO PRODUCE "MASTER PLAN" AS PER WHITE PAPER. SO BY MERGING "MASTER PLAN" WITH "FIGHT THE FLIGHTS" CAMPAIGN GROUP INTO THE ONE GROUP IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECT MATTERS. you will note that having a seperate heading for the campaign group is in line with other Wiki topics (see heathrow, stanstead....) all have seperate sections. IF PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE THE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.161.83 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please revert your edit. You are placing undue weight and notability on the campaign group, which would also seem to be a conflict of interest. Thanks/wangi (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved the campaign group bit and added a reference at the end of the Master Plan and just mentioned the group only objects to excessive noise which is what the BBC reference relates to. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Frustrated IP user
IP user has left the following on my talk page which despite the personal attack is more appropriate here, I am afraid he/she has not listened to what has been said on this page and does not understand that wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia not a campaign blog or soap box. Can some else try and explain this to him/her. Thanks MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tidy up needed!!!!
The discussion is all clutered. Remove old stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.188.151 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-17T00:27:37
 * See WP:TALK on how things are done on Wikipedia regarding talk pages. Thanks/wangi (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Information regarding Opposition to London City Airport
1. There was a section called "Opposition", but it has been deleted.

2. The section was a simple factual 2-3 line section to say "Fight the Flights are a group of residents who oppose London City Airport's planning application to increase flights from 80,000 to 120,000. The grounds opposition are noise, climate change and pollution". Simple! Nothing biased about that right? (the group is mentioned on BBC (so notable) and the reasons reason for residents objecting is mentioned in the Council's Planning officer's report).

3. One Wiki editor tried to rename "Opposition" section to "Controversy". As if to suggest the residents who get their lives disrupted by aircraft noise are "controversial".

'''4. Another (pro-aviation) editor deleted the "Opposition" Section altogether. When I asked "why don't you delete the "Opposition" section for other airports such as "Heathrow", "Standstead", "Belfast City airport"... He refused to justify his rational.'''

5. At the moment this Wiki page is a "cut & paste" of the London City Airport web site. And it might aswell be written by the airport's PR company.

'''I have presented the information below (if say in the future) if someone is doing Research..... The information is supported by documents, reports ... whilst other items are unsupported and need coroboration.... (sorry this is long...)'''

In the beginning....

7. When the London City Airport first opened in late 1980s, there was significant opposition, but the airport did promise to residents that they would only use small planes. They promised they would remain a small exclusive business airport. 8. The airport broke its promise.. Since that time, the airport applied for various permission to increase flights e.g. expanding runway, apron etc... 9. Flights increased from 30,000 (1985/7) to 36,000 in 1991 and then 76,000 (1998) 10. Even though the current flights are 76,000, the number of "jet centre" flights are uncapped. 11. In 2007, the airport applied for Planning Permission to increase flights from 76,000 to 120,000 by 2010 (3.8 million passengers). Planning Application no. 07/01510/VAR. 12. The Planning Officer for the "London Borough of Newham Sunil Sahadeven recommended to grant planning application", despite 801 objections to the Planning Application. (see planning officers report)

13. Residents are shocked and concerned, since the local planning guidelines say that airport expansion must be resisted.(see Planning Officer report - Section 10.8)

Noise

14. The airport says that it cares about noise. Yet it was only in the Environmental Survey (submitted by LCA as part of the planning application), that residents found out the the noise sensors used to monitor airport where not working. There are four sensors at each end of the airport. (see Newham Council's Planning web site - Planning Application no. 07/01510/VAR - Environment Survey).

15. The noise issue raises serious concerns about LCACC (which is 'independent' the L.C.A. Consultative Committee) should have raised the alarm. This suggest there could be "collusion" between the airport and the LCACC?

16. The Planning Report (Environmental section) says the airport is getting rid of quieter propeller 30 seather planes and opting for larger 100 seater noisier jets. (Ref Planning Officer's report Environmental Health - Section 6.30)

17. Residents have complained to the Council as the airport is breaking its s106 legal agreement (Section 106 are legal condition under which planning condition may be granted). '''The airport is obliged to carry about noise monitoring. But residents complain there is a "cosy" relationship between between the airport and Newham Council.'''. Hence no enforcement action has been taken.

18. Residents say if noise monitoring has been lacking for past few years; then how can they make proper assesments for future noise impact for flights to 120,000 per year?

19. The lack of noise monitoring, means that households who should be entitled to sound insulation from don't get it. And also, this is limited to when the property was built e.g. if built after 1990, does not quality for windows treatments.... (see London City Airport web site - to see if you qualify).

20. Many residents complaint - their quality of life has been ruined. People can no longer sit in their garden. or leave windows open in the summer is not possible. (see planning officer report Section 6.3) 21. According to the Planning officer's report 11,000 homes will fall into the 57dB LAeq contour (this the point where government thinks is the onset of significant annoyance), if planning is granted. Previously, it was 3,000 Ref Planning Officer's report Environmental Health - Section 6.30)

22. There was another study which show that 57dB it too high. But the findings were rejected bty DfT the ANASE report which found that people are disturbed at 50dB (see web and mentioned by Planning Officer).

23. Also "noise contours" and measurements are biased towards aviation industry, since they measure "average" noise, rather then the "peak" noise at take-off. (there is link somewhere to explain this...)

24. Also, "noise contours" are apparently computer simulated based manufacturer's data and only a modelling tool for planners. (needs further verication...). 25. Residents who complain to the airport, don't a response (the airport is supposed to investigate all complaints). (See Fight the Flights - web site).

is Airport good for local jobs?

24. The airport claims that it should be allowed planning permission for 120,000 flights, given that it is needed by business travellers, despite that fact they only consititute 64% of travellers and this figure is likely to fall even further as they aim to attract leisure travellers. When the airport opened it was 100pc of travellers were business. (See Telegraph web link below and .... )

25. The airport also claims that it is good for the economy and will provide local jobs. However, when people look deeper into the airport's figure, people find that that figure are full of holes (see points below).

26. The airport is "legally" required to recruit 35% of people from London Borough of Newham. This was one of the previous planning condition (s106). The airport "directly" employs 476 people, which means that only 117 people (29%) are employed from the local area. (see copy of letter from Richard Gooding on "Fights the Flights" web site)

27. The airport says that it employes 2000 people, yet this is misleading, since it is including the jobs from the airlines (and indirect and induced jobs). And the 'airlines' have no obligation to recruit 35% from Newham. So exact local benefits remain questionable. Residents have said, if airlines pilots and flight crew where employed from the local area then they would have know people who work at the airport(See s106 and verbal accounts).

28. Many residents complain that the airport does not have any scheme to offer unemployed youth training etc... (verbal only)

Regeneration

29. The airport PR department and newsletter claim how good they are for the local economy. But they fail to point out '''how bad they are for the local area. So they only count the jobs they create, but they fail to point out how many jobs were not created.'''

'''30. For instance, Building 1000, a fancy 252,000sqft, 5 story office building (Royal Docks Business Park) was built in 2003, has remained empty for 4/5 years. If the airport is so good for the local economy, how come this building has been empty for so long?. I mean how many people want offices which overlook a noisy runway and the smell of aviation fuel?'''

31. The LDA (London Development Agency) was supposed to build 3 more office building next to Building 1000, but they have not done so due to previous experience with Building 1000.

32. In the end Newham Council bought Building 1000 for £75m, but is is merly re-locating staff from one part of the Borough into another. But no net new jobs have been created.

33. Also, lots of generation in West Silvertow and surrounding the Royal Docks have to be scaled down. Not only due to noise, but also due to requrement of PSZ (Public Safety Zones), which are areas around the area meant to protect the public in case of air crash. (see Planning Officer's report and the list of developers asking for Compensation in s106).

34. Barrats (housedeveloper) took a long time to sell "Capital East" a luxury flat development next to Excel centre, as they planes just flew outside the new appartments. (editor note: Barrats will note admit this publically).

Consultation

35. Many residents complain that Newham Council failed to carry out proper consultation. In the Planning Report they claim 10,000 letters were sent to residents. But many residents, say they did not receive anything. The Council did put a few notices on lamposts, but these are easily missed.

Newspaper

36. Residents complain that the local Newspaper such as Newham Recorder are biased towards the airport. It seems that this has occured because the airport took out adverts in the local paper, so how can't they speak ill of an advertiser? (see Planning Report Section 6.3)

37. Many residents complain about the one-sided reporting in the Daily Telegraph in July 2008. Since it merely, quotes the airport and not one mention of the 801 objections (see Planning Report Section 6.2).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/28/cnair128.xml

38. The airport tries to play it is concerned about residents and even has its own newsletters Runway News, but all the time behind the back of residents, it is trying to expand the airport.

Politicians

1. The Local Councillors for E6 and E16 have been approached. All of them Labour, but none is willing to stick their neck out and speak for the residents.

2. Mayor of Nehwam - Sir Robin Wales has a cosy relationship with Mr Richard Gooding, chief executive of London City Airport. And residents are frustrated that he is not sticking up for residents and are baffled why he would support the airport. 3. Stephen Timms MP, decided to write an article in Newham Recorder to support the airport. Funny, he can't be bothered to stick up for residents! (this MP covers E6 area) http://www.stephentimms.org.uk/?PageId=b937bb91-0baa-7184-6dd9-2fcabde23c3b 4. Jim Fizpatrick MP, does not even bother to respond to residents emails. (This MP covers E16 area, but is also at the time of writting Aviation minister). 5. Boris Johnson, who is against expansion at heathrow, says he does not mind expansion at London City.... though he did throw a spanner in the works asking for PSZ and Thames Gateway to be looked at (see letter) and we was concerned that the expansion might blight the area. (see copy of Boris letter - lcacc web site).

How Airports put in Planning Applications and problems for objectors (my opinion)

When an airport such as London City Airport wants to in permission to increase flights, it submits a planning application to the local council. Their Planning Agents provides supporting studies/material to say why they should be granted. The stuff reads more like a Labour/Convervative party manifesto. So they can carry out a study to show that house prices don't go down near airports or that aviation does not cause climate change.

The problem for residents who object is that they do not have the technical skills, resources, time to study the reports.... In other words residents need resources to be able to commission counter studies.

Links

http://www.stopcityairport.org Stop London City Airport Campaign http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com London City Airport - Fights the Flights

78.147.4.31 (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As it has been explained before on this page nobody is saying you are wrong all we want are reliable and verifiable sources before anything can be considered to be added into the article. Fight the flights is mentioned in relation to the noise complaints which is from the only reference provided so far. MilborneOne (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "MilborneOne" wrote on the main page "A campaign group Fight the Flights has criticised the increase in noise levels."


 * The above is misleading, because it suggests it is a general "climate change" group, rather than residents who are objecting to the planning application due to aircraft noise etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.4.31 (talk • contribs) 23:04,20 August 2008


 * The only reference so far provided to support the existance of the group (the BBC report) says Campaigners say the plans would create excessive noise levels, it doesnt say which campaigners. and Anne-Marie Griffin from Fight the Flights campaign group said: "It would mean excessive noise levels will go over an additional 46,000 residents across Newham, Greenwich and Tower Hamlets.". This is the only referenced bit that mentions Fight the Flights hence the statement in the article. If other editors think I have paraphrased it wrongly and it is misleading then they are welcome to re-work it, we have only the two sentences to work with, it doesnt mention that the campaign group are residents and it still does not give us any evidence that the campaign group is more than one person which is stretching the requirements of notability to be included at all. I have added some of the objections and comments from supporters to the article from the planning report although this is not linked with the campaign group in the report. As I am in danger of repeating myself about the need for reliable and verifiable references about the group I will now leave it to others. MilborneOne (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents
An editor has removed this section, claiming that it doesn't meet WP:AIRPORTS guidelines. I can't see anything there saying not to have such a section and many other airports do have such a section. Both entries were correctly cited, and whilst they are not notable enough for their own articles under WP:AIRCRASH guidelines, each was sufficiently notable for an entry under the aircraft, airline and airport concerned. Should the section be restored to the article? Mjroots (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No point in having an empty section! As for the criteria:


 * The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
 * The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
 * The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry.

The Swissair accident did result in serious damage according to the reference (and the CAA) so could be included, although it really needs expanding to explain the damage caused. The Cityflyer incident does not appear to meet the criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully accept that the recent accident isn't sufficiently notable to justify a Wikipedia article in its own right, I've voted "delete" in the current AfD discussion on the article. However, I believe that it is sufficiently notable to justify a mention in the London City Airport, BA CityFlyer and Avro RJ100 articles. The justification for inclusion here is that it caused the closure of the airport to all traffic for a number of hours. I'd say that the damage suffered by the aircraft is going to sufficiently serious that it may require a similar approach to repair that the Swissair aircraft required. Mjroots (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If the damage to the CityFlyer is as bad as the Swissair (which had to be barged across the docks to a temporary hangar to be repaired) then we should reconsider but at the moment it does not meet the criteria. Closing of a single runway airport is fairly common for a variety of reasons and is not in itself notable. London City was closed for far longer recently because of the weather! MilborneOne (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Latest rumour on Pprune is that the aircraft will be barged across the docks for repairs. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of former Concorde flight numbers for BA New York service
A recent edit added commentary based on a news article citing the opinion of the group Campaigners for the return of Concorde, from information contained in this article. I removed the edit as I thought it was one-sided (i.e. the opinion of British Airways was not quoted) but mainly because I didn't think it was relevant for an encyclopedic article. Also, I thought it might be better placed (if anywhere) in the British Airways article. I would appreciate the opinions of other editors on this topic, and if we are going to include the point here could we agree on the wording? Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice bit of history. Touching even (maybe). But absolutely zero to do with LCY. Jasepl (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really relevant to LCY and not really relevant to an encyclopedia, wasnt Speedbird One used before Concorde! it has also been used since Concorde for VIP flights. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Alitalia / Air One
Alitalia / Air One neede to be added to the airlines serving London City Airport. They operate flights every day except Saturday to/from Milan Linate airport. They are pure Alitalia/Air One flights sub-contracted/operated by Cityjet with AZ flight number being the main ones (on some flight there is also an AF flight number). The onboard service (announcements, catering etc) are Alitalia standard. Therefore there won't be a "Thank you for flying Cityjet" but "Thank you for flying Alitalia / Air One" and Alitalia biscuits and crips will be distributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.103.188.139 (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Fight the Flights (FTF) to Merge with Hacan EAST
I would put a papragraph on the main section, except Wiki entry for London City Airport is guarded by people who are pro-aviation.

The following was posted on the Fight the Flights Sunday, July 03, 2011 blog: "'''After almost 4 years of groundbreaking work and a legal challenge FTF are to merge with HACAN to become HACAN East London. FTF are honoured to be able to merge with HACAN who have a strong campaign history in ensuring that residents are represented fairly in all issues of aviation expansion and the associated environmental and health impacts.

The merger will happen during this month (July 2011). Members of FTF will be contacted with further information regarding the merger and who their main contact will be. The FTF website, Facebook and Twitter pages will be closed during July, however the FTF blog will remain open as a resource to all campaigners and to HACAN East London.

FTF would like to thank all of you whom were from us from the very beginning, those who joined us along the journey and will look forward to your continued support through HACAN East London'''."

Not sure if Hacan East and Hacan will be two different organisations or one. Hacan is involved with Heathrow expansion (third runway)

In a sense there is a commonality about aircraft noise over London. The problem from Noise relates to London City Airport and Heathrow jet. Previously, people who were never effected by noise are finding they are blighted by aircraft noise. There have been changed due to new terminals at Heathrow and also expansion at London City Airport. So in some people will blighted by Heathrow jet and whilst other people willbe blighted London City Airport jets or perhaps both. Currently, when London City Airport jet stop around 10pm weekdays and Sat PM and Sunday AM, you see more heathrow jet take their place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.20.48 (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dangerous airport !
This airport is surrounded with high towers and chimneys, runway is short and narrow. And the ILS-status is poor, I've heard (due to all high buildings). The moats are not build for decoration purposes. It should really be used for private airplanes really. Boeing720 (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This page is to discuss improving the article and problems, do you have a problem with the content of the article or a suggestion for improvement ? MilborneOne (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

CityJet/VLM
VLM also operate some Paris and Amsterdam flights for CityJet in addition to Antwerp Nantes & some Rotterdam, and if we show all of these, we are getting very close to duplicating CityJet's entire destination list. Hence I think we should not show what is VLM-operated. http://www.flightradar24.com/flight/wx25   http://www.flightradar24.com/flight/wx195 (sundays only)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.12.251 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London City Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150705231549/http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com/assets/library/document/s/original/silvertown_station.pdf to http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com/assets/library/document/s/original/silvertown_station.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London City Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071028183523/http://www.lcacc.org/history/construction.html to http://www.lcacc.org/history/construction.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on London City Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080102231247/http://www.londoncityairport.com/index.php?mode=pages&action=PlanningApplication to http://www.londoncityairport.com/index.php?mode=pages&action=PlanningApplication
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120218135932/http://www.flightsnetwork.co.uk/London-City-Airport-18564834.html to http://www.flightsnetwork.co.uk/London-City-Airport-18564834.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

What was it built over?
There must have been something there before the airport, even if it was only swamp the article should contain that information shouldn't it? Eddaido (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The intro talks about it being built in the old docks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * So it does, and it has a link and I missed it and spent more than half an hour looking at old and new maps of London. The lead is supposed to summarise what's in the body isn't it. I still think it should say quite specifically what was under the airport, dirt, water, old ships? Why not tell us? I don't think the link in the intro is sufficient, never thought to look there. The history begins in 1981 on land magicked from somewhere, please tell us in so many words. A sentence is enough isn't it. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

'Proposed closure and redevelopment'
I have renamed this section 'Green Party closure and redevelopment proposal'. The original heading implied there was an official, active proposal to close and redevelop the airport, whereas as actually only one political party - one politician, in fact - raised the possibility. It was no more than a manifesto proposal from a candidate who got nowhere near office. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)