Why does the stacking have to be over rural or built up areas at all. The time it takes to fly from the coast to any UK airport is minutes.
The stacking for all airports should be offshore, along with the windfarms. It makes little difference to the fuel used as many flight originate overseas anyway and it would keep the rural areas tranquil. A single corridor for the incoming flights at a relatively high altitude would cause the minimal noise disturbance to all except those living very close to the airports.

Robert, Cambridge, UK

Why should I be restricted to one foreign holiday a year, by flight, as BP Russell suggests? I can image the outrage from the rich if you try and restrict their trips aboard. I travel several times a year aboard for holidays, which I work for, unlike journalists, TV reporters and politicians who travel the world to complain about global warming instead of reporting from their base of operations.
NATS attempt to please their customers like anyone else in business, first the airlines by moving aircraft with minimum of delay, which they do successfully. Secondly by creating better use of airspace, considering, amongst others, safety and routes over land.
People keep on about pollution but with America, China and India spewing out pollution with no intention of stopping, any effort we make will have little or no effect.

Roy E.Pullen, Whiteley, England

NATS staff must be deaf as well as daft: of course aircraft are clearly audible at 7000ft in relatively quiet areas - and they don't stay at 7000ft or above - they'll be steadily descending over our heads, getting ever-nearer to the ground (and ever-noisier as they do so). If Heathrow's stacks are moved further away, those aircraft will be lower for longer - and thus noisier.

The "consultation" will be the typical bad joke: all the aviation interests have already been consulted (it all started about 6 months ago) so the public consultation will be the usual token affair, amply justifying the Devil's Dictionary definition: "Consult: to seek another's disapproval of a course of action already decided upon."

Michael Nidd, Hemel Hempstead, UK

Why is it so difficult to find out where the air traffic corridors, stacking points and military flight areas are? Perhaps it should be something to be included in the "home pack" for housebuyers. " A quiet idyll - until the RAF fly over at 50 feet!"

Roger Blake, Brentwood, UK

Isn`it typical of this government. Almost every decision they make is the exact opposite of what WE want. After making a complete hash of everything .... ruining our quality of life, creating collapsing Health ,Education, Welfare systems and boosting anti-social and criminal behaviour with its Open door policy, it is now intent on boosting air traffic to make our lives completely unbearable. It seems we paying our elected representatives to look after their own financial interests and to turn a blind eye to what is going on. They are certainly inconspicuous when it comes to real decisions.

vVINCENT, huddersfield, england

I suppose most people would prefer to live in a secular world where nobody talks to other nations face to face, and our lives are dominated by the impersonal internet, or would prefer to go back to the horse and cart transport of our fore fathers??????

I wish people would just stop bleating about the haves and not haves and actually turn there effort in to providing solutuions that protect our planet without compromising the progress of humanity, maybe the world would be a better place with a lot less hot air.

M E Randall, Horsham, UK

BP Russell's comments about 95 percent of executive flights being 'jolly junckets' is not bourne out by my experience. I would say 95 percent of the people I know who have to fly abroad - absolutely hate it. They go from the airport to the hotel room, to a meeting, back to the hotel and then to the airport. Doesn't sound like a bundle of fun to me. I don't think the politics of blame or envy will help in when making these sorts of decisions. We need more facts, in order to take part in a climate debate and a transparent way for people to measure their own impact and incentives to do something about it. It shouldn't rely on individuals sence of guilt or smugness.

anne , coventry, United Kingdom

How is it right that Nats can impose a flightpath above your house without public consultation & planning permission. Is there any difference between a highway in the air & a highway or railway on terra-firma. I believe there is no difference. Nats should be subject to the same checks & balances as any other body which intends to interfere with a persons life. The Human Rights Act gives us a right to a peaceful life. Low flying aircraft certainly interfere with that peace. If there is any change to the quality of life that a person is accustomed to over years of living in a certain area, then the cause for the interference must be accountable. If someone moves into an area where there is an existing stacking area or flightpath then they had the choice as to whether they moved there or not. The incumbent residents don’t have a choice, unless they move, no doubt the value of their property being severely reduced due to Nats cavalier practices. We're an island stack over the sea.

Lynda Plum, London, England

Just our luck to have "the most complex airspace in the world." I agree with most of the early comments. It's like the approach we've had until recently to road building - people want to travel more so we must accommodate them. So we build more and more roads and what do we get? Ever-worsening traffic congestion and environmental pollution. But at least, at a pinch, you can move away from busy roads, but if they choose to fly aircraft over you, there's nothing you can do about it. Pandering to those who are so restless they want to spend all their time travelling isn't good enough when it has such adverse effects on third parties and the environment. So-called low-cost airlines are a curse in my view. As BP Russell says, reasonable people will be content with no more than one flight a year.

Barry, Wallington, UK

Kauri, my own view is that air travel should be limited, not banned, and most certainly not expanded. It is very damaging to the environment and many flights are now for pure self indulgence. Surely it is possible to enjoy a weekend break in this country? Yes it may be attractive to fly to Prague or Barcelona or across the Atlantic for a weekend break but if that is at the cost of damage to the air we breathe, the unnecessary infliction of antisocial noise on residents and ultimately a world changed beyond recognition should a responsible government seek to curb it?

Peter Wilson, Bridgnorth, Shropshire

It's so odd. Everybody wants to fly or needs to fly, yet it appears nobody wants ever to hear an aircraft.

What a strange concept.

Rob Pritchard, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire

How many of the so-called business trips are really necessary? I used to work for several executives, who openly admitted that 95% of their trips could be replaced by fax messages, e-mail, video-conferencing, telephone calls or Internet Networking. Of course they wouldn't get a jolly junket on expenses to New York, Chicago, Florida or wherever then.
I don't really object to foreign holidays ... but surely 1 a year is enough for most families?

B.P.Russell, Windsor, England

From the NATS web-site "Under our licence from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) we are required to make the most efficient overall use of airspace, and to be capable of meeting reasonable levels of overall demand." Key words here are efficient and reasonable. Surely part of the license is therefore to minimise noise pollution (efficiency) an where it is necessary ensure that the degree to which it affects others is not unreasonable which in most circumstances can be construed to ensure the noise "does not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their home". If such noise were to interfere with the general public then it would be an unreasonable request and should be denied in that particular instance.

M Jeffs, Bucks, UK

Well, as long as we all want to fly somewhere - preferreably cheap - for our holidays or just a long weekend, someone will have to suffer. That's a fact. Once we decide to stay in this country and no longer go abroad, apart from using the boats and trains or maybe a car and once we start taking the trains up to the Midlands or down to Cornwall instead of flying (if they manage to reasonably price the train fares) we don't have to worry about flight paths anymore....Alas, we all know that won't happen. And thus the consultation is necessary, even if it turns into a farce as Peter Wilson writes.

Kauri, London, UK

What ever happened to New Labour's 'concern' over global warming, air pollution and care for the environment?

Chas., London, England

The consulation will be a farce. In my experience, NATS are utterly arrogant and will do as they intend to do regardless of any comments expressed in the so called consultation. As for their claim that distubance is only caused by aircraft below 7,000 ft, that is nonsense. The air corridors were recently extended above Shropshire and aircraft are supposed to be above 14,000 ft. They are regularly audible inside the house with doors and windows shut.

This all takes place in a world where the damage caused by air travel is clearly apparent. Many flights are unnessary - do we really need an average of eight trips per person per year? This Goverment bleats about climate change and implements radical change like increasing the tax on a small proportion of road vehicles and thinking about banning convetinal lightbulbs but actively encourages the growth of an industry which spews out many tons of CO2 (and other polluting chemicals including carcinogens) at high level every day.

Peter Wilson, Bridgnorth, Shropshire

Quote

"Simon Hocquard, head of strategy at Nats, said that the air traffic control company had a legal obligation to provide enough capacity to meet the expansion plans of airlines".

If I ever heard a case of the cart being put before the horse, this is definitely it!

What other industry has people bending over backwards to humour it (well, apart from the TV licence fascists, who routinely write to people demanding to know why they aren't subscribing to it's service)?

Air traffic control should have a legal obligation to CONTROL air traffic, for the benefit of people who live under the flight paths. I'm just glad I got out of the sewer we call the south east when I did.

j griffiths, manchester, england

So where can we see the proposed flight paths?
It's hard to "Have a Say" unless we know what we're commenting on!!!

Nick`, Potters Bar, UK