The point is that those residents have the right for a quiet life and the airports are definitely needed by people who want to fly, including those who live under the flight path during either takeoff or landing.
Unsolvable dilemma? Definitely, no.
First, the airport has to be there no matter what irrespective of the noise-related complaints. The residents who live at the flight path are divided into two groups:
• The residents who live at the area before the establishment of the airport can be monetarily compensated to live in quiet areas.
• The residents who started to live at the area after building the airport have no right to complain and consequently no compensation whatsoever.
Is that fair? Well, we have to think of something out of the box as long as there are no passenger airplanes which can land vertically like helicopters.
Date: 05 June 2013 commenting on http://www.bloomberg.com/
Unsolvable dilemma? Definitely, no.
First, the airport has to be there no matter what irrespective of the noise-related complaints. The residents who live at the flight path are divided into two groups:
• The residents who live at the area before the establishment of the airport can be monetarily compensated to live in quiet areas.
• The residents who started to live at the area after building the airport have no right to complain and consequently no compensation whatsoever.
Is that fair? Well, we have to think of something out of the box as long as there are no passenger airplanes which can land vertically like helicopters.
Date: 05 June 2013 commenting on http://www.bloomberg.com/
