Edinburgh airport publishes draft Master Plan for high growth out to 2050 for consultation, but no 2nd runway plan

Edinburgh Airport has produced a draft master plan for consultation (deadline for comment is 23rd December) about its future development up to 2050. The airport says “The Masterplan highlights how we aim to grow and develop the airport responsibly over a 25 year period whilst improving the experience” ….benefits to the economy etc etc.” It plans to increase its passenger number from about 11.1 million in 2015, to 19.2 million in 2030, and 35 million in 2050. It will continue to safeguard land for a possible 2nd runway, if there is enough demand after 2040 if there are 30 million passengers by then. The numbers of passengers and ATMs in the current master plan are much higher than in the 2011 plan (eg. 2011 plan anticipated about 200,000 ATMs by 2040, but the 2016 plan expects 208,000. For passengers, the 2011 plan anticipated 20.5 million passengers in 2040, but the 2016 plan expects 25.8 million.) There is little on noise to encourage those already negatively affected by the airport’s flight paths.  It says it has a noise action plan that “sets out the actions we propose to take to manage and, where possible, minimise aircraft-related noise at Edinburgh Airport.”  But “as long as people want to fly, there will be noise from aircraft landing and taking off.” Local groups Transform Scotland, the campaign for sustainable transport, and Edinburgh Airport Watch  criticised the plans for yet further expansion, and the negative environment impacts.
.

 

The Master Plan consultation documents can be viewed via the following link:

Masterplan response questionnaire (PDF format)

Masterplan (PDF format)

edinburgh-master-plan-to-2050-pax-atms


Edinburgh Airport expansion plans unveiled

12 November 2016

(BBC)

Plans for the expansion of Scotland’s busiest airport over the next quarter of a century have been unveiled.   Master Plan details and consultation – consultation ends 23rd December.

Edinburgh Airport has launched a consultation, allowing the public to give their feedback on its “masterplan” for development from now until 2040.

The proposals centre around the growth of operations on the ground, rather than routes or planned changes to flight paths above the capital.

Environment campaigners have questioned the need for further expansion.

An enlarged terminal building and aircraft parking area are in the plans.

The scrapping of an existing contingency runway and the continued “safeguarding” of land for a new second runway are also proposed.

Over the last decade, the number of passengers travelling through Edinburgh Airport has increased by 20%.

Passenger numbers are predicted to rise by a further 18%, from 11.1 million last year to 13.1 million in 2020.

‘Realistic and responsible’

The existing terminal building and main runway were developed in 1977, a time when the airport had fewer than one million passengers per year.

The current masterplan sets out a development strategy for the “realistic and responsible” growth of the airport over the next 25 years.

A more speculative plan of development going up to 2050 has also been released.

The key proposals include expanding the terminal building, aircraft parking area and cargo storage facilities.

Plans to improve access to the airport are also suggested with the creation of a new road linking to the Gogar Roundabout.

The closure of the existing second runway, as its size means it is not suitable for frequent use, is also suggested, as is “the continued safeguarding of land for a new second runway”.

The document, however, adds: “This safeguarding is a long-term precaution only, as we believe that the future growth of the airport can be sustained by the current main runway only.”

The airport’s consultation on its proposals is open for six weeks.

A consultation on its airspace change programme (ACP) will take place next year.

‘Good for Scotland’

Gordon Dewar, Edinburgh Airport chief executive, said: “At Edinburgh Airport our passenger numbers have grown more in the past three years than they did in the 10 years previous.

“We’ve grown by one million passengers each year since 2012. We’ve grown our route network, serving more destinations and working with more airlines than ever.

“We believe that this growth is good for Scotland.”

He added: “This masterplan document sets out how we think we’ll grow in the decades to come and we’re asking some questions around that.

“Your views are important in making sure that our thinking is correct and that it fits with wider plans.”

The proposal for further expansion of the airport has been criticised by Transform Scotland, the campaign for sustainable transport.

Director Colin Howden said: “Aviation is the most polluting form of transport and one that threatens Scotland’s ability to meet its climate change commitments.

“The aviation industry thinks it should be allowed to expand without restraint and without regard for Scotland’s international commitments, instead expecting that other parts of the economy should bear the responsibility for cutting emissions while its growth is allowed to continue unfettered.”

Local campaigners Edinburgh Airport Watch added: “At peak times, its struggles to cope with passenger and traffic numbers now are already well documented – there is simply neither the demand nor the surface capacity to allow EAL to expand further.

“The cost of unfettered aviation expansion is poorer air quality, more noise misery for neighbours – some 20 miles or more from the runway – and a worsening of Scotland’s already enormous tourism deficit.”



The 2016 draft Master Plan

Read more »

Seven more purely, unashamedly, low cost leisure destinations for 2017 from Heathrow

So much for the claims that Heathrow is ensuring Britain is “open for business” and creating “trading links to the growing markets of the world”, or “connecting Britain to global growth.”  The reality is that many of the landing slots at Heathrow are used for leisure flights, and many are for cheap European leisure flights. British Airways has announced 7 new routes from Heathrow for 2017. These are to Murcia, in “stunning” southern Spain “known for its world renowned golf courses”. There is also Brindisi, in Italy “ideal for holidaymakers looking for some sun to soak up in.” And  Nantes, in western France, which is a “gateway to Brittany and Loire Valley as well as being home to the world famous Muscadet wines.” Also Montpellier, in southern France, with “a blend of the beaches of the Mediterranean Sea and the mountains of the Pyrenees.. Also Pula, in Croatia “an increasingly popular destination for families who want a cheap summer holiday, replacing the likes of Spain and France.” Then there is Tallinn, in Estonia, which is cheap and “one of the most preserved medieval cities in Europe”. And Zakynthos “This Greek island in the Ionian Sea is nicknamed the flower of the East. It is home to the Navagio beach, the most famous landmark on the island which is a stunning setting for a day lounging in the sun.  Price: from £65”.  And Menorca.  This demonstrates, yet again, that Heathrow is not full of flights to vital, far flung, business-related destinations. It has flights that make money. ie. cheap holidays.
.

 

7 new places you can fly to from Heathrow Airport next year

British Airways is adding to its schedule in 2017 with seats starting from as little as £65 to a handful of top locations

BA website with details of these and others

BYJONATHAN YATES  (Get West London)
11 NOV 2016

British Airways has released seat fares for seven new destinations customers will be able to fly to in 2017.

A number of the new services will be taking to the skies from Heathrow Airport starting on March 28, including holiday hotspots in Greece and Spain, while the rest follow in May.

The airline is also launching extra services to Palermo, Mykonos and Reykjavik on its schedule as well as more convenient flight times throughout the year.

Neil Cottrell, British Airways’ head of planning, says: “We are thrilled to be launching seven new European routes this summer and we are confident these cities will be a big hit with holidaymakers.”

Return fares for the new destinations will start from £65, reassuring customers that prices will not sky rocket following Brexit this summer.

So where can I fly to?

Murcia

This stunning southern Spanish location is known for its world renowned golf courses as well as stunning buildings including the Gothic Murcia Cathedral. You can book a trip now for holidays from March 28 of next year.   Price: from £65

Brindisi

This one is ideal for holidaymakers looking for some sun to soak up in. It’s in a prime position on the Adriatic Sea where you can make the most of its incredible beaches.  Price: from £85

Nantes

Starting from May 3 of next year you can visit this French city which is a gateway to Brittany and Loire Valley as well as being home to the world famous Muscadet wines.  Price: from £71

Montpellier

British Airways will begin a two-per-week flight service to Montpellier from May 2017. Here holidaymakers can enjoy a blend of the beaches of the Mediterranean Sea and the mountains of the Pyrenees. Price: from £78

Pula

Croatia is an increasingly popular destination for families who want a cheap summer holiday, replacing the likes of Spain and France. And anyone who is a water sports fan will want to head to Pula and the crystal-clear Adriatic.  Price: from £76

Tallinn

One of the cheapest destinations on the list is Tallinn, the Estonian capital and an alternative trip away. It is one of the most preserved medieval cities in Europe and is listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site. Flights will be available from March 28. Price: from £65

Zakynthos

This Greek island in the Ionian Sea is nicknamed the flower of the East. It is home to the Navagio beach, the most famous landmark on the island which is a stunning setting for a day lounging in the sun.  Price: from £65

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/lifestyle/travel/7-new-places-you-can-12110292

.


Another purely low cost leisure flights that Heathrow offers to completely non-business (so not “emerging economies, linking to global growth” etc etc) destinations:

Menorca

from Heathrow

British Airways now flies four times a week to Menorca, Spain from London Heathrow Terminal 5.

and there are other more long haul destinations purely for holidays;

http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/flights-and-holidays/flights/new-routes

.


And there is also Lapland.

http://www.icehotel.co.uk/fly-direct

“With sociable flight times, a full meal service and pre-bookable seats, our 3½ hour direct flight is not just the quickest way but also the most comfortable and enjoyable way to get to the Icehotel.”

“The UK’s only direct flight to the Icehotel – fly Heathrow to Kiruna in 3½ hours! Convenient flying times with regular departures throughout December to March”

“When on holiday, especially on a short break, we believe that it is essential to make the most of your time away. With this in mind we introduced a direct flight from London Heathrow to Kiruna, just 20 minutes from the Icehotel – allowing our clients the most convenient way to reach Swedish Lapland, avoiding the need to fly via Stockholm.”

DIRECT FLIGHT DEPARTURES | WINTER 2016-2017

17, 22*, 26, 29* December 2016   –   21, 28 January 2017
04, 11, 14*, 18, 25 February 2017     –  04 March 2017

See earlier:

 

British Airways adds more Heathrow leisure routes – Olbia, Kos, Corfu – to the existing list

Heathrow airport makes a lot of how important its flights to emerging economies are, and how limited its slots are for this. So it would be logical to imagine that spare slots would be used for just this sort of flight. Heathrow is keen on making statements like: “The UK will fall behind in the global race if it cannot connect to growing economies.” And “Global air transport provides access for our key industries to established and emerging new markets, which will help deliver economic growth across the UK.” So one might expect that, if spare slots come up, they would immediately be used for these long haul destination, to emerging economies.  However, Heathrow will now be getting new British Airways flights to … guess where?  Olbia in Sardinia; Kos and Corfu in Greece and Split in Croatia from summer 2015. And these will use Airbus A319s and A320s. To be fair, it is moving its Las Palmas flights to Gatwick. Other purely holiday destinations Heathrow offers in the Med are Mykonos and Santorini, which started earlier this year. There are also Pisa and Porto. And the Heathrow destination map includes many, many more … Ibiza, Nice, Tunis, Malta, Malaga….

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/10/british-airways-adds-more-heathrow-leisure-routes-olbia-kos-corfu-to-the-existing-list/

.


BA uses its new BMI slots at Heathrow, not for emerging economies, but largely leisure destinations. As usual.

27.6.2014
BA got 42 daily Heathrow slots from taking over BMI. And it said very publicly, in March, that it would be using these to fly to the emerging economies – in  Asia, Africa and Latin America – which is part of the myth that the aviation industry is peddling at present. So what are the slots actually being used for?  One flight per day to  Seoul. The rest are domestic UK (Aberdeen Edinburgh, Belfast, Manchester, Leeds Bradford), or Zagreb, Las Vegas, Barcelona, Marseilles, Phoenix, Zurich and Bologna – with more flights to some.  So that is where the money is.  So much for the allegedly desperate need for slots to fly to second tier Chinese cities. This really proves what a lot of misleading PR is being put out by BAA and the airlines at Heathrow.· British Airways returns to the Isle of Man
· New routes from London Heathrow to Seoul and Zagreb
· New routes from London Gatwick to Las Vegas and Barcelona
· Bologna and Marseille flights move from Gatwick to Heathrow
· Increased frequency on numerous routes
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=2401.


.

More BA routes from Heathrow …. to key business destinations …. Palma and Ibiza

17.1.2013Anyone reading the statements from Heathrow about the capacity crisis and how there is a need for more flights to the emerging markets might be puzzled by recent news from British Airways. Back in February 2012 Willie Walsh said he planned to expand IAG  into lucrative emerging markets, such as Latin America and he hoped to use the extra Heathrow take-off and landing-slots from BMI to accelerate growth into emerging markets. But BA has now announced that it is putting on new flights from Heathrow to Palma (Majorca) from March, and to Ibiza. These are in addition to Mexico and Alicante, as well as  Bologna and Marseilles announced earlier.  There are also new flights to Leeds Bradford (and a mention of links for business connections) and a new flight to Chengdu in China, announced earlier, as well as Almaty (Kazakhstan), Dublin, and Seoul among others, where there is likely to be a business component.  It is hard to believe there is much business benefit from weekend flights to Alicante or Palma or Ibiza.

Contrast this with Willie Walsh’s statement last year:

IAG’s Willie Walsh targets emerging markets

Willie Walsh’s plans to expand International Airlines Group (IAG) into lucrative emerging markets, such as Latin America, will dominate the carrier’s annual results this week as it announces a doubling of operating profits.

The group, owner of British Airways and Spanish carrier Iberia, hopes to use the extra Heathrow take-off and landing-slots that will be gained through its proposed BMI takeover to accelerate growth into emerging markets.

……. and so on …. (Telegraph 25.2.2012) at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9105918/IAGs-Willie-Walsh-targets-emerging-markets.html

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Speculation about a congestion charge around Heathrow, to cut air pollution and deter traffic

The Airports Commission recommended measures such as a congestion charge on roads around Heathrow, in order to keep levels of air pollution at legal levels, and prevent traffic congestion gridlock with a 3rd runway.  The Times reports that the congestion charge may be imposed, with the effect of forcing people to use public transport instead of cars.  The central London congestion charge is £11.50 per day. What the money would be spent on is not known. The charge might be levied on some 80 miles of road, to keep NO2 and particulates down.  The impact on road users who are not related to Heathrow is not known, or the costs to the local economy of this burden. The charge may have to be agreed through the development consent order process.  Chris Grayling said, on 25th October, that the runway could be delivered “within air quality limits.” But little in the DfT’s documents gives any firm reassurances that measures will be put in place that could actually keep the levels of NO2 low enough.  Further questions emerged last week when the High Court ruled that the government was failing to tackle air pollution quickly enough, and its air quality plan was based on over-optimistic forecasts. Heathrow insists that the number of public transport routes (which is is not prepared to pay towards) will increase, with new direct rail links helping Heathrow out. The worst air pollution in the area is near junctions 3 and 4 of the M4, where up to 16% of the traffic is related to Heathrow. 
.

 

 

Heathrow congestion charge to cut car pollution

By Graeme Paton, Transport Correspondent (The Times)
November 12 2016,

A congestion charge could be imposed around Heathrow under plans to make millions of passengers leave their cars at home when the airport’s third runway is built.

Motorists face being “fined” for driving on 81 miles of roads surrounding the airport as part of proposals to combat gridlock on roads and promote greener public transport. The charge will be implemented within a decade if levels of deadly nitrogen dioxide from car exhausts fail to drop within legal limits just north of the airport.

….

Full Times article here

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/heathrow-congestion-charge-to-cut-car-pollution-rf7xltrq6

.


Airports Commission Final Report

Below are the mentions in the Airports Commission’s Final report at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf  that mention their recommendation of a local congestion charge around Heathrow:

Quotes:

The motorway links serving Heathrow are amongst the most congested in the country, meaning that significant additional investment in widening, or effective policy measures such as a congestion charge, may be needed to accommodate growth in traffic resulting from the airport’s expansion.

.
Firm action will therefore be needed on the part of the airport operator to ensure
that emissions related to the airport are minimised, together with an effective
national strategy to address broader background air quality issues, as recently
stipulated by the Supreme Court. Any new capacity should only be released when
it is clear that air quality at sites around the airport will not delay compliance with
EU limits. That will require both the implementation of a range of on-site measures,
for example reduced engine usage during taxiing, and potentially wider steps such
as the implementation of a congestion charge to prevent traffic levels rising as a
result of expansion.
.

…. potentially including the introductionof an access charge for those travelling to the airport by road or a broader congestion charge.

.

The introduction of a congestion or access charge scheme should be considered to help ensure that road traffic to and from the airport does not cause unacceptable impacts on local air quality or road congestion.
.

The percentage of people accessing the airport via public transport would increase from 41% to 53%. This could rise further if a congestion or access charge for motor vehicles was introduced as discussed below
.

On the strategic road network, a number of links near to the airport, particularly
those sections of the M4 in the closest proximity, are expected to require widening
to cope with increased demand resulting from expansion, although demand
management measures, such as congestion charging, could be used as an
alternative to this
.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440316/airports-commission-final-report.pdf

.

.

 

.

 

Read more »

T&E highlights air pollution problem of particulates from petrol vehicles without correct filters

One of the most significant environmental problems of Heathrow, in relation to wanting to add a 3rd runway, is its ability to keep air pollution on local roads down to legal limits. We hear most about Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) but there is also significant particulate pollution. The tiny particles, especially the smallest (PM2.5) can penetrate deep in to the lung and cause damage. Heathrow has local air pollution monitors, and regularly limits for PM10 and PM2.5 are breached. A recent report, by Ricardo, for the Heathrow area in 2015, said at the LHR2, Green Gates and Harlington sites 3 exceedances were recorded. At another site, Oaks Road, registered 5 exceedances. The AQS  (Air Quality Strategy) objective is a daily mean limit value of 50 µg m-3 for PM10 should not to be exceeded.  Now clean transport campaigners, Transport & Environment, say we could be on the verge of a “petrolgate” scandal, not unlike the “dieselgate” one, due to inadequate filters to prevent the emission of particulates from petrol cars. T&E say they have obtained documents showing that governments and car makers are delaying ensuring petrol cars have these €25 filters (most diesel cars have them).  Governments are using theoretical particle emission, rather than the higher real world ones. T&E says the car industry is lobbying to be allowed to overshoot particle limits, and not to have to install filters.
.

Heathrow is one of the UK’s air pollution hotspots. In 2012, it breached safety thresholds for nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter air content at several different locations – and times – according to the airport’s own measurements.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/01/heathrow-expansion-risks-deepening-londons-air-pollution-crisis


The Borough of Hillingdon keeps air pollution data for a number of sites close to Heathrow, showing dates and levels. These can be seen here.

There are many incidents where levels of PM2.5 and PM10 are relatively high.


A ‘Petrolgate’ scandal in the making

November 10th 2016

(Transport & Environment. T&E)

Governments and carmakers are paving the way for a ‘Petrolgate’ scandal. That warning came from T&E after it obtained documents showing some governments and the car industry are trying to weaken the proposed new EU legislation on measuring particulate emissions from cars in real-world tests.

Carmakers are trying to avoid having to pay €25 for a gasoline particulate filter, despite the new petrol fleet endangering human health.

Emissions of particulate matter, in particular micro-particles of soot, are harmful to human health. Up to now, discussion about particulate emissions has focused on diesel engines, where the filter has been mandatory for all new vehicles since 2011.

But now the focus has moved to petrol because of a new generation of gasoline direct-injection (GDI) engines that pump out micro-particles that can get into the bloodstream via the lungs and whose share is rapidly increasing. A particulate filter costing €25 per car is already available and can reduce emissions by 100 times, but records of negotiations and briefings obtained by T&E show the car industry is lobbying to allow them to overshoot the particulate limits for petrol cars by 300%, so they would not have to fit the filter.

The documents also record that some governments, including those of Spain and Sweden, want to delay the new tests’ introduction by one year, while no government is opposing the flexibility to exceed the limit that the Commission has proposed by 50%.

T&E’s clean vehicles engineer Florent Grelier said: ‘This is a Petrolgate scandal in the making. The Commission was warned about the risks of new petrol engines three years ago. Now, because of the rigging of type approval tests, it is preparing legislation on emissions from real-world driving, but its already inadequate proposal is being further threatened by carmakers, and by governments friendly towards them. The Commission and governments need to stand firm to prevent hundreds of thousands of avoidable premature deaths.’

Harmful levels of air pollution cause around 500,000 premature deaths a year and are estimated to cost the EU economies around €1 trillion annually.

Discrepancies between emissions measured in tests and emissions on the road contributed to a legal judgement in London last week that found the British government’s air pollution strategy inadequate and illegal. ClientEarth, a legal NGO, won its case against the UK government, with the judge saying ministers used the well-known over-optimistic pollution modelling based on flawed laboratory testing of diesel vehicles rather than on emissions from real-world driving.

https://www.transportenvironment.org/news/%E2%80%98petrolgate%E2%80%99-scandal-making

.


 

Report on 2015 on the Heathrow Airwatch website

http://www.heathrowairwatch.org.uk/documents/Air_Quality_Monitoring_at_Heathrow_Airport_2015_Issue_1.pdf

Air Quality at Heathrow Airport 2015

Report for Heathrow Airport Ltd ED59405

By Ricardo Energy & Environment. Date 21/07/2016

Extracts:

4.5.1

Particulate Matter (PM) The AQS  (Air Quality Strategy) objective establishes a daily mean limit value of 50 µg m-3 for PM10, not to be exceeded more than 35 times a year, this limit was achieved at all sites for 2015. At LHR2, Green Gates and Harlington 3 exceedances were recorded. These sites have measured high concentrations of PM10 on 17th and 18th March and on 27th December. (2015)

Oaks Road has registered 5 exceedances: 17th and 18th March, 09th and 10th April, and 27th December.

These exceedances match with the exact days where some of the previously mentioned high pollution episodes were registered.

The origin of the high concentration peaks registered in March/April in all sites are the result of UK-wide pollution/trans-boundary episodes that have struck the UK during that particular period in time. Some high values of PM10 were also registered during October.

These episodes were not high enough to cause an exceedance, since they were all the values were below 50 µg m-3.

However, they have influenced the seasonal variation of this pollutant and their contribution should be acknowledged. At the moment, no AQS objective exists for PM2.5. An annual mean objective of 25 µg m-3 , as a nonmandatory target exists for 2020. The highest annual mean for this pollutant was registered at Oaks Road at 10 µg m-3 . All the other sites have registered average values of 9 µg m-3 , less than half of the average concentration target limit for 2020.

 

The diurnal patterns of concentrations of all pollutants were similar to those observed at other urban monitoring sites. Peak concentrations of NO, NO2, particulate matter and BC coincided with the morning and evening rush hour periods, and levels of ozone peaked in the afternoons.

http://www.heathrowairwatch.org.uk/documents/Air_Quality_Monitoring_at_Heathrow_Airport_2015_Issue_1.pdf

.


Quarterly reports on Heathrow air quality.

These are produced by Heathrow Airwatch and go back several years.

http://www.heathrowairwatch.org.uk/reports

.


 

Humans can be adversely affected by exposure to air pollutants in ambient air. In response, the European Union has developed an extensive body of legislation which establishes health based standards and objectives for a number of pollutants in air. These standards and objectives are summarised in the table below. These apply over differing periods of time because the observed health impacts associated with the various pollutants occur over different exposure times.

[ Part of the EU table is copied below (there is more at the link above)  ]

Pollutant Concentration Averaging period Legal nature Permitted exceedences each year
Fine particles (PM2.5) 25 µg/m3*** 1 year Target value entered into force 1.1.2010
Limit value enters into force 1.1.2015

n/a

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) 350 µg/m3 1 hour Limit value entered into force 1.1.2005

24

125 µg/m3 24 hours Limit value entered into force 1.1.2005

3

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) 200 µg/m3 1 hour Limit value entered into force 1.1.2010

18

40 µg/m3 1 year Limit value entered into force 1.1.2010*

n/a

PM10 50 µg/m3 24 hours Limit value entered into force 1.1.2005**

35

40 µg/m3 1 year Limit value entered into force 1.1.2005**

n/a

Lead (Pb) 0.5 µg/m3 1 year Limit value entered into force 1.1.2005 (or 1.1.2010 in the immediate vicinity of specific, notified industrial sources; and a 1.0 µg/m3 limit value applied from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2009)

n/a

Carbon monoxide (CO) 10 mg/m3 Maximum daily 8 hour mean Limit value entered into force 1.1.2005

n/a

Benzene 5 µg/m3 1 year Limit value entered into force 1.1.2010**

n/a

 

And

The new Directive is introducing additional PM2.5 objectives targetting the exposure of the population to fine particles. These objectives are set at the national level and are based on the average exposure indicator (AEI).

AEI is determined as a 3-year running annual mean PM2.5 concentration averaged over the selected monitoring stations in agglomerations and larger urban areas, set in urban background locations to best assess the PM2.5 exposure to the general population.

Title Metric Averaging period Legal nature Permitted exceedences each year
PM2.5
Exposure concentration obligation
20 µg/m3
(AEI)
Based on 3 year average Legally binding in 2015 (years 2013,2014,2015) n/a
PM2.5
Exposure reduction target

Percentage reduction*
+ all measures to reach 18 µg/m3
(AEI)

Based on 3 year average

Reduction to be attained where possible in 2020, determined on the basis of the value of exposure indicator in 2010

n/a

* Depending on the value of AEI in 2010, a percentage reduction requirement ( 0,10,15, or 20%) is set in the Directive. If AEI in 2010 is assessed to be over 22 µg/m3, all appropriate measures need to be taken to achieve 18 µg/m3 by 2020.

.


Heathrow AirWatch

CONTACT HEATHROW AIRWATCH

This site is funded by a joint working partnership. If you need further information about air quality in the Heathrow area, or have a specific enquiry about the Heathrow Airwatch website, then please contact us via one or more of the e-mail addresses below.

http://www.heathrowairwatch.org.uk/contact

.

.

.

Read more »

CAA consultation on whether airlines will pay £10 million (or more) per year of Heathrow’s planning costs

The issue of how much Heathrow can pass the costs of its expansion onto airlines is much disputed. Airlines such as IAG have been vociferous in refusing to pay for anything up-front. The amount Heathrow can charge airlines is laid down by the CAA, which has now put out a consultation on this subject. There are three categories of cost.  Category A is lobbying, advertising etc, to get the runway approved. The CAA says Heathrow must pay this itself. Then Category B costs are those incurred to obtain planning permission through the development consent order, for the runway etc.  It is Category B costs the CAA is consulting about. (Category C costs are those of actually building the added capacity – and may include costs like buying up thousands of properties in the villages. The treatment of these costs is not yet agreed by the CAA). The CAA consultation is proposing that of the Category B costs (ie. planning costs) Heathrow can get back £10 million per year from airlines through higher costs. For planning costs of over £10 million per year, the CAA propose these would be capitalised and rolled into HAL’s existing Regulatory Asset Base (RAB). These costs would then be be paid by a “risk-sharing mechanism” between airlines and Heathrow. If HAL succeeds in getting planning consent, they can get 105% of the costs over £10 million per year back through higher charges to airlines. If they do not get planning consent, they can only get 85% back. The consultation on this ends on 12th December. Details below. 
.

 

 

Recovery of Category B costs by Heathrow Airport

The new document CAP 1469 sets out our final proposals on the recovery of costs associated with obtaining planning permission for new runway capacity at Heathrow Airport.

We have also published CAP 1470, formal notice to allow Heathrow Airport Limited to recover £10 million of Category B costs per year for new runway expansion.

More details and information on how to submit your views to us are available at consultations.caa.co.uk. We are accepting responses to both until the 6th December 2016.  

8.11.2016 (CAA website)

http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=9a13f6185a0a697970bd3de1d&id=17ac9d144d&e=65e9ed7e7c


CAP 1469

The recovery of costs associated with obtaining planning permission for a new northwest runway at Heathrow Airport: final proposals

November 2016 (CAA)
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201469%20NOV16.pdf

Below are some extracts from the document:
Category A costs are defined as “Airports Commission-related and associated lobbying costs incurred by an airport operator or Heathrow Hub Limited. These are costs that we consider will, in general, be incurred before a Government policy decision on the location of capacity expansion is made.”  and

“most Category A costs will not be recoverable, but some costs could be re-categorised as Category B if a strong and clear case is made by HAL that the information submitted for the planning process is not materially different to that submitted to the Airports Commission.”

.

Category B costs  are costs “associated with Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) seeking to obtain planning permission for the development of a new northwest runway at Heathrow Airport.”  These are costs “incurred by an airport operator after a Government policy decision on the location of new capacity and are directly connected with and solely for the purposes of seeking planning consent through the DCO (development consent order) process. We stressed that Category B costs must be strictly additional to any costs already included in the Q6 allowance as well as being efficiently incurred.”
[ Q6 originally expires on 31 December 2018. We consulted on extending Q6 for one year, so
that it will expire on 31 December 2019. The notice of proposed modification to HAL’s licence to that effect is available at www.caa.co.uk/CAP1459. ]

.
Category C costs are defined as costs “incurred by an airport operator, typically after planning permission is granted, in connection with implementation and construction of new capacity, up to entry-into-operation.”


Background

2.1   In our July 2016 consultation, we set out our initial proposals on the treatment of costs associated with obtaining planning permission for new runway capacity.   The broad principles were:

 planning costs are defined as those incurred by the successful
airport promoter following a government policy decision on location
and attributed to activities necessary for it to conduct the planning
process;
 costs up to £10 million per year will be recoverable by the airport
operator through an increase in airport charges;
 costs that are incurred over £10 million per year can be recovered by
the airport operator subject to them being efficiently incurred and
there being risk-sharing arrangements in place; and
 risk-sharing agreements to cover the risk that planning permission is
not granted, rescinded or withdrawn.


Summary

1.1   This consultation document sets out our final proposals on the regulatory treatment of the costs associated with Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) seeking to obtain planning permission for the development of a new northwest runway at Heathrow Airport. These are termed Category B costs (or planning costs).

1.2   The charges that HAL can levy on airlines to recover these Category B costs are subject to economic regulation under the terms of a licence granted by the CAA under the Civil Aviation Act 2012 (the Act).

.


Summary of CAA’s final proposals

1.3  Our final proposal is that Category B costs should be defined as costs which are directly connected with, and solely for the purposes of, seeking planning consent through the Development Consent Order (DCO) process.

1.4   We propose that up to £10 million per year of efficient Category B costs can be recovered from higher airport charges either in the year they are expected to be incurred (or two years later for 2016 and 2017 through the K factor in the Price Control Condition). This proposal is subject to a separate consultation. [ Available at: www.caa.co.uk/CAP1470. ]
1.5   Category B costs incurred over £10 million per year should be capitalised and rolled into HAL’s existing Regulatory Asset Base (RAB). These costs should be clearly identified within the RAB in order to allow the CAA and stakeholders to track and scrutinise the level of costs incurred.
1.6 Category B costs over £10 million per year should be subject to the following cost recovery arrangements:

 A 105 / 85 risk-sharing mechanism, which allows a 5% addition to
costs incurred if a DCO is granted, but limits recovery to 85% of the
costs incurred if a DCO is not granted.
 Planning costs in the RAB recovered gradually over 15 years,
including a return to cover the weighted average cost of capital
(WACC)  [ie. something akin to interest . AW note]  at the level determined in the Q6 settlement and irrespective of the outcome of the planning process.
 Cost recovery to HAL via charges to airlines to commence only after
the outcome of the DCO process is known.

.
1.7   All Category B costs incurred, including costs up to and above the £10 million per year threshold, will be subject to an efficiency test. The Independent Fund Surveyor (IFS) will provide an ongoing assessment of the efficiency of all Category B costs incurred.

1.8   We reserve the right to decide that HAL will be able to recover less than 85% of the Category B costs incurred, if there is clear and compelling evidence that HAL has unilaterally withdrawn from the planning process.

1.9   HAL should make materials and reports produced for the planning process available to the CAA, the airline community and other stakeholders as soon as practicable. HAL should consult with the airline community at the outset on the rules and principles for classifying any information as confidential and how this should be shared with stakeholders.
.
1.13   Our initial proposal said that costs in the pRAB should be recovered over a 10 year depreciation period where the DCO is granted, with a shorter period suggested where the DCO is not granted. We maintain the view that our estimate of 10 years is reasonable, but given the uncertainty over the life of a quasi-intangible asset such as planning permission, we are content to extend the depreciation period from 10 to 15 years, to reflect
the responses from many of the airlines that this period is too short.

.
1.16   Our view remains that the risk-sharing principle and the specific 105/85 parameters are appropriate. We note airlines’ view that they should not bear any Category B cost risks because of their limited control over the planning process. However, we consider that our proposal that 85% of costs can be recovered is a balanced proposition, as well as being more favourable to airlines than previous regulatory treatments. For Heathrow Terminal 5 and the (aborted) second runway at Stansted, we (ex-ante) allowed 100% of efficiently incurred planning costs to be recovered from higher airport charges to airlines

.
1.19   Our initial proposal was that cost recovery should only start when the result of the planning process is known. HAL argued that cost recovery should start as soon as or shortly after they are incurred, whereas the airlines wanted cost recovery to start only when new capacity comes into operation. Our package of proposals mean that the majority of Category B costs will be recovered after the runway is open.

.
1.20   We welcome views on the final proposals set out in this document. Having already reflected carefully on responses to our initial proposals, we would especially welcome any new evidence and arguments.

1.21   Comments should be sent to economicregulation@caa.co.uk by no later than 17:00 on Monday 12 December 2016.

We cannot commit to take into account representations after this date.

1.22   We expect to issue our decision on the regulatory treatment of costs associated with obtaining planning permission for a new northwest runway at Heathrow Airport in January 2017.

1.23   If you would like to discuss the issues raised in this document before the
December deadline please contact Stephen Gifford   (stephen.gifford@caa.co.uk).

.


The principles of a risk-sharing arrangement

Initial proposals

5.1   We said that the principle behind the introduction of a risk-sharing mechanism was to ensure that both GAL/HAL and the airlines bear some risk in the event that planning permission was not granted, was rescinded or was withdrawn.

5.2   We considered that risk-sharing means that stakeholders will be incentivised to be part of the process and to help ensure that Category B  costs are minimised as much as possible. HAL will also be encouraged to engage positively with local communities and other stakeholders to maintain support for expansion and efficiency. We also said that airlines should bear some of the planning risks, as they would stand to benefit from expansion.

.
5.4   LACC/AOC  [ London (Heathrow) Airline Consultative Committee/Airport Operators
Committee ]  argued that airport operator should not be rewarded for performing its core function and that airlines should not be held accountable for risks associated with failure, as they have no control over planning and political risks.
.

5.8  VAA [Virgin Atlantic ] welcomed the risk allocation mechanism, but is concerned that the
level of risk apportioned to the airport is not enough, and argued that the airport operator is in the most appropriate position to bear the risk of planning failure. VAA made the point that our statement that ‘airlines stand to benefit’ from expansion does not apply to all airlines.

.
3.18   We continue to define Category C costs as construction costs incurred by HAL. We will consider the merits of developing a specific policy on preplanning construction costs, which would be on an accelerated timetable and before the overall approach to the economic regulation of Category C costs is devised.  Pre-planning construction costs cover preliminary works, enabling construction, property relocations, land acquisition, blight and
hardship. Stakeholder views and our response is outlined in Appendix B.

 

.

B.15   We note the significant magnitude of Category C costs could be incurred before a planning decision and the need to offer early regulatory certainty on their treatment.

B.16 Pre-planning construction costs could cover preliminary works, enabling construction, property relocations, land acquisition, blight and hardship. These costs could be treated in a similar fashion to the way the costs of capital projects are handled in Q6.

B.17 We are considering developing a policy on pre-planning construction costs as a separate Category C cost and on an accelerated timetable (i.e. before we propose the regulatory treatment of the majority of Category C costs which are incurred after planning permission is granted).


There is also

CAP 1470

Notice of proposed modification to Heathrow Airport Limited’s Economic Licence to allow for an annual recovery of £10 million of Category B costs for a new northwest runway

 

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201470%20NOV16.pdf

A couple of extracts: 

2.9     In our view, the retention of the £10 million pass-through is in the interests of users as it incentivises the airport operator to start work on securing planning permission immediately after a government announcement of its preferred location of new capacity and before a risk-sharing mechanism is put in place. We believe that additional runway capacity in south-east England will benefit current and future air passengers and cargo owners, and we consider that incentivising HAL to start the process of obtaining planning permission is an important first step in delivering new capacity.

2.10   The £10 million threshold will not reduce the incentive for the airport operator to act in an economical and efficient manner. Planning costs are expected to be significantly more than £10 million a year, and any costs above this threshold will be subject to a risk-sharing mechanism.

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Hounslow Council wants Heathrow runway negative impacts reduced – Chamber of Commerce wants “a slice of the action”

Hounslow Chamber of Commerce said that is was “extremely happy” about the Government support for a Heathrow 3rd runway. The Chamber has claimed it will ensure businesses in the borough get a “slice of the action” from Heathrow expansion.  CEO of Hounslow Chamber, Stephen Fry, has signed a declaration to work with Heathrow to develop plans, and says his priority will be to secure jobs and investment in the Hounslow community. He wants to ensure that a larger airport “will benefit our economy by growing existing businesses and kick starting new start-ups thereby creating new jobs around the country.”  He hopes that “while Heathrow airport already procures some £1.7 billion of products and services every year from local, regional and national businesses; we can expect this to increase substantially. Hounslow suffers intense noise from Heathrow over flights. Leader of Hounslow Council, Steve Curran, reiterated the council’s position on 26th October, saying: “Our position as a Council has not changed, we want a better, not bigger Heathrow Airport. We will however, work with Heathrow on behalf of our residents and businesses, many of whom are employed directly at Heathrow or are part of the supply chain, to ensure the best possible outcome and to reduce any adverse effects of the decision.”
.

 

 

Hounslow businesses pledge to work with Heathrow to deliver jobs and growth in the community

Business leader Stephen Fry says jobs and investment in the Hounslow community will be a priority

By SALINA PATEL  (Get West London)
7 NOV 2016

Hounslow Chamber of Commerce has claimed it will ensure businesses in the borough get a “slice of the action” following the government’s decision to back Heathrow Airport .

CEO of Hounslow Chamber Stephen Fry has signed a declaration to work with the hub airport to develop on plans to deliver on jobs and growth for all of Britain.

He says his priority will be to secure jobs and investment in the Hounslow community.

Mr Fry said: “Our job is now to ensure that the catalytic value of expansion will benefit our economy by growing existing businesses and kick starting new start-ups thereby creating new jobs around the country.

“This will mean that while Heathrow airport already procures some £1.7bn of products and services every year from local, regional and national businesses; we can expect this to increase substantially.

“My job is to ensure that Hounslow firms get a slice of the action and inject that cash directly into the veins of the community through jobs and investment.”

Hounslow Chamber of Commerce ‘extremely happy’ over decision to expand Heathrow Airport.

Other organisations to pledge their support include the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), British Chambers of Commerce, British International Freight Association (BIFA), Unite the Union, London First, British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA), and many more.

….. and it continues with Heathrow PR ……

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/hounslow-businesses-pledge-work-heathrow-12109738

.


and earlier

 

Hounslow Chamber of Commerce ‘extremely happy’ over decision to expand Heathrow Airport

BY DAVID RIVERS (Get West London)
26 OCT 2016

The Hounslow Chamber of Commerce has thrown its support behind the Government’s decision to approve a third runway at Heathrow Airport.

But the Hounslow Chamber of Commerce has listed its reasons as to why it is ‘extremely happy’ with the decision.

Chief executive, Stephen Fry, said: “The approval of the third runway and Heathrow expansion is the right choice for business.

“Moreover it is the right choice for the UK and will play a pivotal role in ensuring our post Brexit economy is a success.

“We look forward working with Heathrow, Hounslow Council, & Regional and Central Government to ensure that local businesses play a key role in the economic growth that expansion will bring.

“We also look forward to working with other regional Chambers of Commerce to ensure that an expanded Heathrow secures the expected benefits for the whole of the UK.

“The Government has demonstrated that it is not afraid of big infrastructure projects and is signalling to the world that a post Brexit UK is open for business.”

The Chamber said the two main reasons it believes the decision to expand is a success is because it mean businesses in Britain can plan for a post-Brexit economy, and that the decision sends out a message that says “come and trade with us.”

.

Leader of Hounslow Council, Councillor Steve Curran, added: “The announcement by the government to support expansion at Heathrow Airport with a new runway, will obviously have a huge impact on the residents and businesses of Hounslow.

“It will have significant long term implications for our borough and I can guarantee residents and businesses that we will make sure their voice is heard in the National Policy Statement [NPS] consultation on the new runway.

“Our position as a Council has not changed, we want a better, not bigger Heathrow Airport.

“We will however, work with Heathrow on behalf of our residents and businesses, many of whom are employed directly at Heathrow or are part of the supply chain, to ensure the best possible outcome and to reduce any adverse effects of the decision.

“We have already achieved some local improvements, particularly for our schools, this work must continue.”

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/west-london-news/hounslow-chamber-commerce-extremely-happy-12077847

.


Hounslow

Hounslow Borough is seriously over-flown by Heathrow, with its residents suffering from intense noise from low flights. Many of its schools are badly affected.  However, many of its residents work at the airport and so back its expansion, despite the seriously negative environmental impacts.

 

Some earlier news.

 

Hounslow spending £150 million trying to limit Heathrow plane noise for 40 local schools

Hounslow has a plane landing or taking off over it at least once per minute for most of the day. With noise loud enough to make it difficult to hold a conversation outside while a plane goes over, and loud enough to make speech and teaching difficult indoors, this is a serious problem for schools under Heathrow’s flight path. The airport is well aware of the issue, and that children have little option but to be in schools there. A teacher at a primary school some 2km from the airport’s south runway, said: “We’re in classrooms where we have to shut the blinds, we have to stop speaking, the air quality’s not very good and in the summer the temperature soars. But you can’t open the windows because of the noise, so it’s like we’re in a greenhouse melting.” Hounslow now has a £150m school rebuilding programme which aims to provide quieter classrooms in 40 schools under Heathrow’s flight path, over 5 years, partly by a heavyweight construction approach that incorporates a highly insulated concrete structural envelope. This cuts noise and gives more thermal stability.  Unless there is proper ventilation, and air cooling in summer, just triple glazing and closed windows are not enough.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/10/hounslow-spending-150-million-trying-to-limit-heathrow-plane-noise-from-40-local-schools/

.


.

Heathrow finally completes £4.8 million of insulation work on schools etc – after 10 years

Heathrow has finally finished installing noise insulation at the 42 schools and other community buildings (31 in Hounslow) where it promised in 2005 to carry out the work. It has taken 10 years, and it cost Heathrow £4.8 million.  Heathrow said in 2005 it would install double glazing and make other improvements to minimise the din from aircraft, at selected schools etc under its flight paths. Now, pressing for a runway, John Holland-Kaye ensured the work under the Community Building Noise Insulation scheme was completed this April.  Part of the cost is the adobe buildings for school playgrounds, in which children can be taught “outdoors” under the dome. How being inside an adobe dome counts as being “outdoors” is a mystery. The adobe buildings have cost £1.8 million, from Heathrow, and have been installed in 5 schools in Hounslow and Slough – with 5 more due to be completed in Hounslow this year. If Heathrow gets a 3rd runway, it has “promised” to spend £700 million insulating homes, schools and other buildings affected by aircraft noise – more than 20 times the £30 million currently on offer. But is it not saying if it will make any improvements, if it does not get a runway. John Stewart, chairman of HACAN, said: “What’s important is that further insulation should not be dependent on a third runway.”

As one wit asked: “If it has taken them 10 years to do £4.8 million of insulation work, how long could it take them to get round to £700 million?”   A fair question indeed …..

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/04/heathrow-finally-completes-4-8-million-of-insulation-work-on-schools-etc-after-10-years/

 .

Hounslow Council “positive and productive” and “better working relationship” with Heathrow

Labour led Hounslow council responded to the Airports Commission’s final report recommending a 3rd Heathrow runway, by saying that while the council is opposed to a bigger Heathrow, they want “a better and successful Heathrow.” They continue say they are against a 3rd runway, or any relaxation on runway alternation, or more than 480,000 flights per year. However, the extent of the council’s opposition is much reduced. It says it wants the “very best noise protection and pollution control measures for our residents – and in particular, our schools.” But it adds: …”we welcome the report’s recommendation that the new runway should come with severe restrictions to reduce the environmental and noise effects, including a noise levy, and that night flights would be banned. … we …. have recently developed a positive and productive relationship with Heathrow, which has resulted in many improvements for local people…” In June the council denied rumours it has withdrawn from the 2M group, which opposes a Heathrow third runway. Hounslow is noticeably on better terms with Heathrow, hoping to get benefits if a runway is permitted. Hounslow teamed up with Hillingdon Council to oppose a planning application which would enable more departures over Cranford.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/08/hounslow-council-positive-and-productive-and-better-working-relationship-with-heathrow/

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

 

Read more »

Gatwick now only allows noise complaints by online form (or paper post) – no longer by phone or email

After changing flight paths in 2014, Gatwick made other changes to flight paths that have affected a lot of people. Many who only had the occasional plane over them now find themselves subjected to one every 5 minutes or less, for hours on end, day after day. Gatwick has also slightly increased its numbers of flights.  So people complained. The airport found itself inundated with complaints (which it rather charmingly calls “enquiries”). The number rose 6-fold in a year.  Gatwick then changed the system so there could only be one noise complaint per household per day. Gatwick has now found a way to cut the complaints.  While in the past people could email or phone their complaint, – now the only means of complaint is filling in a relatively long internet form. Or sending in a complaint by paper post, which has now been made Freepost.  This new system means anyone not able to access the internet is effectively prevented from complaining, unless they want to rack up bills. Under the new system there is no limit on the number of complaints per day but each time the ten lines of required information for the form must be filled in. Why is Gatwick so unhelpful?  At least the complaint system at Heathrow allows someone to email, or phone and speak to a person. Gatwick’s treatment of its neighbours seems to have taken a further, downward, turn. Not being selected for a new runway, it has given up on any sort of charm offensive with the local residents.
.

 

 

How to reduce complaints about aircraft noise – make complaining too difficult

6.11.2016 (GACC – Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)

After the success of its campaign against a second runway, GACC is returning to its basic task of alleviating the impact of the airport on local residents.  As a first step they are weighing in against the new complaints system introduced by Gatwick Airport Ltd, describing it as ‘a clever way to discourage complaints’.

According to GACC vice-chairman, Peter Barclay, ‘when Gatwick introduced new flight paths in 2013 the result was a six-fold increase in the number of complaints.  To deal with this the airport dreamt up a wonderful idea:  no one was permitted to complain more than once a day!  Or if they did, their complaints were put in the bin. Now Gatwick has invented a new way of reducing complaints.’

Under the new system there is no longer a limit on the number per day but anyone who is annoyed by an aircraft is required to complain online, filling up a detailed form (with ten lines of required information) for each separate complaint.  Telephone calls are no longer accepted (the chance of being able to speak to a real person was withdrawn long ago).  Emails are no longer accepted.  But as a helpful gesture people are allowed to write in, so each complaint will cost 55p in postage.

Peter asks:  ‘Why is Gatwick so unhelpful?  Both Heathrow and Stansted airports have complaint systems which allow telephone calls and email.’

Recent research shows that 5.9 million people in the UK have never used the internet.  27% of disabled adults have never used the internet.

.


The only way to complain about Gatwick noise now

See new system.

You have to fill in the form with your name and address etc. That is fair enough.

You can only complain under certain categories.

There are only two options –  complain about a specific aircraft event, or make a general complaint about aircraft noise.

If you complain about a specific aircraft event, you have to give the date and the time, and whether it was a 2 or 4 engine plane (of if you could not see it and so don’t know).

Then you are obliged to agree with one or other statement – from a drop down box – as shown in the image below. You cannot proceed till you have ticked one or other.

There are several other options, which you have to choose.

Only finally, after having to tick various boxes (that may, or may not, be what you want to say) are you allowed to write in your own words what your complaint is.

gatwick-complaint-form

 

The Terms are at  http://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/business–community/b_7_aircraft-noise/yla-complaints-handling-policy-2016.pdf


GACC says:  How to complain about noise

It is important that you complain if you are annoyed by aircraft to or from Gatwick.  Otherwise the airport will get away with suggesting that Gatwick is surrounded by empty fields and only a few people who are undisturbed by aircraft.  The complaints system was changed in October 2016.  See new system.

.

1. Freephone 0800 393 070.  Now withdrawn.

2. email.  Now withdrawn.

3. Web site flight tracker at http://flighttracking.casper.aero/lgw/  This flight tracking chart shows flights over the past six months up to the present (with a twenty minute delay).  So if you enter the date and time of the event in the top left hand corner and your own location a little further down the left hand panel you will be able to identify the aircraft concerned.  Click on the icon of that aircraft and a facility to make a complaint “Make a noise enquiry about this aircraft.”  will open just above the flight details in the panel.

.

Don’t be fobbed off !
Whatever method you choose be sure to make it clear that yours is not an enquiry; it is a complaint and you expect a response.
If you find that you are disturbed often, write to your local council and your MP so that they are aware but take care not to pester them – it is not their fault but you want them to make representations on your behalf.  (Find your MP)
Please copy such correspondence to GACC.
The airport will reply to your first few complaints saying, falsely, that they are doing everything possible to minimise noise nuisance.  Do not be put off by the fact that nothing is done – at least your complaints will be counted and will serve to demonstrate to the Government that there is a problem.
Finally, a word of advice.
Many people are suffering frequent noise disturbance and feel inclined to phone or email many times a day to vent their feelings.  That is fine if you find it helpful but please do not feel obliged to do so.  The noise is damaging your quality of life enough already without wasting too much time on the telephone or computer noise line.
.
http://www.gacc.org.uk/how-to-complain-about-noise.php

 

.


This is what is on the Gatwick airport website:

NOISE ENQUIRIES

If you want to know more about noise from planes or the airport, or have a specific complaint, then please contact our Flight Performance Team (FPT).

The FPT provides information to the public and responds to any comments you might have. They monitor the noise levels and track-keeping of all departing aircraft and answer complaints. They also give information about flight paths, for example to prospective home-buyers, and provide statistics to the airport’s independent Consultative Committee, which is made up of local councillors, airlines, passenger and pressure groups.

Please contact us by using our noise enquiry form. That way we can get all the information we need from you and get back to you in the quickest time.

Alternatively you can write to the address below.   (After protest, Gatwick has now made this Freepost – before it would have been 55p per complaint for the stamp, 2nd classl).

Freepost GATWICK AIRPORT FLIGHT PERFORMANCE TEAM
Destinations Place
Gatwick Airport
West Sussex
RH6 0NP

We have a published policy on our procedure for how we deal with noise complaints. You can read our policy here.

http://www.gatwickairport.com/business-community/aircraft-noise-airspace/noise-enquiries/

.


See earlier

NOT GUILTY of annoying the airport by complaining for 4 years about Gatwick aircraft noise

Date added: February 16, 2011

An elderly lady, Ann Jones, was recently arrested, at the instigation of Gatwick Airport, for lodging too many complaints with the airport noise complaints line. She was charged with the criminal offence of using a telephone to cause annoyance or anxiety – although she only spoke to an airport answerphone set up to receive noise complaints.  She was taken to court but found not guilty.  GACC said it was a disgrace the case had ever been brought, wasting public money.  Ann Jones had adopted the tactic of ringing the airport answerphone each time she heard a plane.  Although unusual, the court decided that this was not illegal.  As Ann said:  “What is the point of having a complaints service if one can’t use it to complain?”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2011/02/not-guilty-of-annoying-the-airport-by-complaining-for-4-years-about-gatwick-aircraft-noise/

.


Heathrow’s noise complaint system

By contrast, at Heathrow there are more ways to complain (and they do at least call them complaints rather than “enquiries”:

Their noise complaint page is at  http://www.heathrow.com/noise/what-you-can-do/make-a-complaint-about-noise

Make a complaint about noise

We appreciate that aircraft noise disturbs people and you have the right to make a complaint to us if you want to.

There are four ways you can make a complaint about noise. You can:

1. Complete the complaint form

Use the online form (on the page)  below to submit your complaint.

Or

2. Email us

We are happy for you to send us an email.

noise@heathrow.com

Or

3. Phone us

You are very welcome to call and speak to the Community Relations team if that suits you best.

Freephone 0800 344844

Or

4. Track a flight on Webtrak

Visit the Heathrow Webtrack site

Click the ‘Investigate’ tab, top left, under the Heathrow logo and follow the instructions to find the correct flight.

You might also be interested in:

http://www.heathrow.com/noise/what-you-can-do/make-a-complaint-about-noise

 

and they say under

What happens to complaints?

Receiving complaints

We will respond to all complaints within five working days (as long as we have all the contact details we need). If we need to do more investigation, we will let you know within the five days and tell you when you will get a complete answer.

Providing information

We aim to provide a full and comprehensive information service but we do have to consider the resources we have available, to ensure all complainants are treated equitably.

Type of information provided

We supply information which explains the relevant procedures and includes maps for a complainant’s postcode area. We will also do our best to provide details of particular flights.

Use of complaint data

We only use your personal details for registering complaint details. We do not make them public or use them for any other purpose.

All complaints are reported daily on our Heathrow Operational Data website, in the airport’s quarterly Flight Performance Reports and to the Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee (HACC).

We monitor complaints for trends to inform our noise management priorities but flight paths are not changed purely on the basis of the number of complaints received from a particular area.

For more information read our complaints policy

.


Included in the Complaints Policy it states:

Complaint reference numbers

All complaints made by email or through our online webform, will be recorded and a complaint reference number will be sent automatically via email. All complaints by phone, voicemail, or letter will be recorded and a complaint reference number will be provided on request. Where complaints are made about multiple aircraft events within one email or webform, only one complaint will be recorded. Complaints about separate aircraft events should be made using separate emails or webforms if residents wish these to be recorded as multiple complaints.

.

Regular callers

Where we have explained the policies and noise measures which affect the complainant’s postcode area and have previously supplied sufficient amounts of data to the extent that we are unable to further enhance understanding, we will notify the complainant of our intention to continue to record their complaints and provide complaint reference numbers but will not provide any further explanation or information to them, unless relevant. Where this is the case, we will inform the caller of our intention to do this and outline previous correspondence supplied to them.

.

and there is more at   http://www.heathrow.com/file_source/HeathrowNoise/Static/noise_complaints_policy.pdf

 

 

Read more »

Even with 55% of Heathrow passengers using public transport there could be 15 million more passenger trips per year by car by 2040 than now

The government claims Heathrow can meet air quality standards in future, even with a new runway and 50% more passengers, because it will (among other changes) ensure that there are no more road vehicles than now – and by around 2031 about 55% of passengers would use public transport.  So is that likely? Looking at passengers only, not freight, and the work done by Jacobs for the Airports Commission, it seems that (2012 data) there were about 70 million passengers, about 20 million of whom were transfers (ie. they did not leave the airport). That meant slightly below 50 million passengers travelled to and from the airport, using surface transport. In 2012 about 59% of these travelled by car (ie. about 29.5 million), 41% came by public transport (28% by rail and 13% by bus or coach).  But by 2030 with a new runway, there might be around 110 million passengers, and around 33% would be international transfers. That leaves around 74 million passengers, and if 55% of them use public transport, that means about 34 million using cars. By 2040, the number using cars might be about 45 million (ie. about 15 million more per year than now).  And about 9 million using bus/coach – which is of course also on the roads. There would have to be dramatic increases in electric vehicles and improved engine technology to ensure no higher emissions in the Heathrow area.  And that is not counting freight vehicles. Or staff.  Or other increased vehicle traffic associated with the 3rd runway.
.

 

 

These figures include taxi trips, as well as other car trips.

The Jacobs report for the Airports Commission also states: 

7.1.4  .(Page 74) ……. Currently,  [? 2014] 59% of passengers at Heathrow travel to the airport by car or taxi, and of the 41% who travel by public transport, 28% use rail and 13% bus/coach.  Similarly, around 43% of employees at Heathrow currently commute to the airport by car/taxi, with the 47% public transport mode share split between 35% using bus and 12% using rail.

7.1.5  The HAL submission indicated that an air passenger public transport mode share target of 52% (36% rail, 17% bus/coach) was used to test the impact of the new North West Runway on the rail network and road network. Employee mode share was assumed to be 43% public transport and 47% private vehicle.

 

and

7.2.1 Our analysis predicted that public transport mode share of passenger surface access trips to/from Heathrow would increase from 41% in 2012 to 55% in 2031. [The government document put out on 25th October says 55% by 2040.  Link ]  The main change is predicted to be in the rail mode share, which is predicted to increase from 28% in 2012 to 43% in 2031. This represents a net impact of up to 2,400 additional rail trips to the airport in the AM peak hour in 2030 as a result of the new North West Runway, with up to 1,400 additional rail trips leaving the airport.

 

jacobs-heathrow-surface-access-2030

Table 2 on Page 23 of at link below

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371829/4-surface-access–lhr-nwr.pdf

.

[Jacobs (Page 86) expected around 32 – 35% of interlining (ie. international transfer) passengers by 2030. That would be about 35 million interling passengers out of about 109 million. These interling passengers do not leave the airport, give no benefit to the UK economy, but do not need to travel to or from Heathrow.

The Airports Commission Final Report  (Page 251)said:   “Without expansion, the number of international transfer passengers at Heathrow is forecast to fall from 20 million a year in 2014 to 8 million or fewer by 2050; with expansion this pattern of decline could be reversed, seeing up to 30 million international transfer passengers by 2050. ”

This Airports Commission document Strategic Fit updated forecasts (pages 137 and 138) says there would be 34.4 million international to international passengers at Heathrow in 2030 (carbon traded scenario, and 23 million in 2050.

.


The government statement on 25th October merely said: 

“Heathrow has pledged that there will be no increase in airport-related road traffic with expansion and committed to a target of more than half of passengers using public transport to access the airport.”   Link

.


Some rough calculations:

Heathrow in 2012   – 70 million passengers.

Around 20 million (about 29%) were international to international transfers.

So 50 million passengers travelled to and from the airport per year, most by road or rail (excluding domestic transfers)

41% came by public transport   ie 20.5 million (of the 50 million)
28% used rail     ie  about 14 million of the 50 million
13% used bus or coach (= road)   ie. 9.1 million  ie  6.5 million of the 50 million

59% used car    ie.  29.5 million passengers out of the 50 million

————————————-

Heathrow by 2030  – about 110 million passengers

Airports Commission expects around 32 – 35% would be international to international transfers. (ie about 36 million transfer passengers).  If there was a lower proportion of these transfers, more would need to travel  to and from the airport by local road and rail.

So around 74 million passengers travelling to and from the airport each year, most by road or rail.

55% using public transport     ie. about 40 million of the 74 million
43% using rail     ie.  31.8 million of the 74 million (over twice as many as now – 17 or 18 million more than now)
12% using bus or coach (= road)   ie. about 9 million of the 74 million

45% using car    ie about 34 million passengers, of the 74 million (about 4.5 million more than now – about a 15% increase.)

——————————————————————————

Heathrow by 2040 – about 128 million passengers

AC said (Page 251) there could be 30 million international to international transfers by 2050

so about 100 million passengers travelling to and from the airport each year.
55% using public transport   ie. 55 million of the 100 million 

If  43% use rail   i.e. 43 million  (compared to 14 million now- that’s 29 million more)

If 12% use bus or coach  (= road)  ie.  12 million (compared with 6.5 million now)

45% use car    ie.  45 million passengers  (About 15 million more than now – or about 53% more than now).

But the numbers needing to use public transport, or the roads, would be much higher if Heathrow does not has as much as 32 – 35% of its passengers as international to international transfers, who do not leave the airport.  The numbers could all then be up to a third higher.

AW note

.


Staff transport to and from Heathrow

It is worth mentioning that after the main consultation and the subsidiary extra consultation on local air quality, the Airports Commission released the Jacobs report on Surface Access:Dynamic Modelling report (dated May 2015). This is at

.
This analysis, by Jacobs, took the highest case for the numbers of passengers – the Airports Commission’s “carbon traded, global growth” (CT GG) scenario. (The figures are a bit higher than the “carbon traded, assessment of need” (CT AoN) scenario).   For 2030, with a 3rd runway, the CT GG figure of annual passengers is about 125 million, while the CT AoN is about 109 million.
.
The numbers of passengers using public transport to get to and from Heathrow in 2030 are about 73 million in the  CT AoN scenario, and about 83.9 million in the CT GG scenario.
.
This document also has the number on on-airport staff as about (see Tables 2.2 and 2.3 on page 8) as about 90,000 by 2030 in the CT AoN scenario, and about 115,000 [114,999]  in the CT GG scenario.  (There are perhaps – at a guess – around 67,000 on-airport staff now, but it is difficult to get a figure. It might have been about 76,000 in 2010 – but numbers fall due to greater productivity per worker year by year.  Heathrow’s own forecasts suggested about 72,100 on-airport employees with 82.5 million annual passengers, compared to about 73 million passengers now).
.
The 2014 Jacobs report said:  “Headline employee commuting mode share was assumed to be 43% public transport and 47% private vehicles in both options, compared to 43% public transport and 47% private transport observed in 2013.”  (Page 15 )   And (Page 74) “Similarly, around 43% of employees at Heathrow currently commute to the airport by car/taxi, with the 47% public transport mode share split between 35% using bus and 12% using rail.”  (See Page 6 )
.
If there are currently around  (very approximately)  76,000 on-airport staff ( link ) and 47% of them come by car, that is around 35,700 per year.
.
If the number of on-airport staff rose to 90,000, and 43% of them came by car, that is about 38,700 per year.   Or if 47% came by car, that would be  42.3 million.
.
And if the number was as many as 100,000 (let alone 115,000 staff) the number would be 43,000 per year (or  if 47% came by car, that would be 54 million). Compared to about 36 million now.
.
[Heathrow said in  Feb 2014  that “fewer than 65% of staff commute in single-occupancy vehicles.”  !?  Link  ]
.
But Heathrow says:  “A key undertaking in this is that there will be no growth in airport-related traffic on the nearby road and motorway network, facilitated by enhanced public transport as part of the Airport Surface Access Strategy (ASAS).”  Link 
.
Heathrow says that as a condition of the Terminal 5 Inquiry: “A limit on the number of car parking spaces for both passengers and staff to 42,000”.  [ link ]
.
A Heathrow presentation dated 10.11.2015  says that by 2030 trips by both staff and passengers to the airport will be 53% by public transport.  [ Link ]  ie. still 47% by public transport.
.
The Heathrow claim of no more cars is based on assuming a big switch in employee transport from private cars to public transport/cycling and car sharing and on that basis Heathrow have told the Commission that they do not see any need for widening the M4 and many other road schemes. The dynamic modelling report above led to another report
.
which answered comments made about the need for additional road infrastructure and showed the pressures they expected the road network to come under both with general development in the area and that caused by an expanded airport.
.

On taxi movements

comments from study by Jacobs for the Airports Commission
“Appraisal Framework Module 4. Surface Access: Heathrow Airport North West Runway.  FINAL.  FOR CONSULTATION AIRPORTS COMMISSION. 5th November 2014
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371829/4-surface-access–lhr-nwr.pdf
Currently, 59% of passengers at Heathrow travel to the airport by car or taxi, and of the 41% who travel by public transport, 28% use rail and 13% bus/coach. Similarly, around 43% of employees at Heathrow currently commute to the airport by car/taxi, with the 47% public transport mode share split between 35% using bus and 12% using rail.
.Strategic roads
In terms of road traffic, the Jacobs model forecasted a net impact of up to 1,200 additional car/taxi trips to the airport in the AM peak hour in 2030 as a result of the new North West Runway, with up to 600 additional car/taxi trips leaving the airport. This demand was added to background traffic forecasts sourced from the DfT on sections of the strategic highway network serving the airport and then compared with estimates of capacity on network links, accounting for the impact of committed and planned Highways Agency schemes included in the core and Extended Baseline with SRA packages.

and

3.1.3 The sub-car mode share (i.e. the split between taxi, kiss-and-fly, short-term parking and long-term parking demand) from the 2012 CAA Heathrow passenger survey data was used to estimate a composite GC [GC means Generalised Cost] for car between each district and the airport in the base model. The complexities involved with forecasting sub-car mode share in 2030 (which would involve assumptions related to car ownership levels, background traffic congestion, availability of short- and long-term parking at the airport, average parking tariffs and dwell times, kiss-and-fly arrangements etc.) would be significant,
and the decision was taken to apply the 2012 sub-car mode share by district in the 2030 model to calculate future composite car GCs.

and

As a result, districts with relatively improved transport connections to the airport in 2030 were allocated an increased proportion of total airport demand, reflecting the assumption that improved transport connections would induce demand between these areas and Heathrow. This change in distribution was then fed back into the logit model to forecast the modes of transport that would be used by these trips.

and

3.5.7 Table 5 presents a breakdown of mode share by main regions in the UK. The analysis shows that the proposed rail improvements will generally increase public transport share across the UK. The greatest benefits are observed for trip originating from areas in the South East, East of England, and North West where the public transport share increases by over 50% from the share in 2012.  From South East (Not London), 31% of passengers are expected to access Heathrow via rail, a figure much higher than the 5% observed in 2012. The North West has a significant decrease in access by private car, with only 10% accessing Heathrow by car compared to 53% in 2012 and the proportion of passengers arriving at Heathrow by rail increasing from 35% in 2012 to 85% in 2030. The rail improvements are
also expected to reduce the number of passengers accessing the airport by car from the Inner London area, where the car mode share is predicted to reduce from 40% to 32%.

See Table 5 with % taxi etc for each region. Page 27

and

3.6.4 Heathrow’s own analysis shows that many taxis and private vehicles dropping off at the airport have an empty return journey. This results in approximately 40,000 additional vehicle movements a day to and from Heathrow. This represents over 25% of current car trips to and from Heathrow, so plans to reduce these trips could have an impact on the volume of airport-related trips. A setup which matches passenger to drivers that have dropped off at the airport and encourages taxi sharing is likely to reduce traffic movement. Currently, Heathrow suggest that 78% of taxi trips return empty.

Analysis shows that reducing this by 10% along with an increase in car share could reduce car trip further by up to 4%

Additional vehicle movements are allowed for empty trips generated from Kiss and fly passengers and 78% of all taxis are assumed to generate an empty return.

And

4 In general terms, the analysis suggests that a new North West Runway at Heathrow does not markedly increase traffic on the strategic road network. ……..

However, a noticeable increase in traffic flow as a result of the new North West Runway occurs on some specific links in the immediate vicinity of the airport, particularly on routes where ‘kiss & fly’ and taxi remain popular car sub-mode choices due to short distances between the Airport and trip origins/destinations

and

5.7.4 Heathrow’s proposes to reduce airport-related car trips by implementing initiatives to encourage more efficient use of private cars and taxis. These initiatives which should facilitate a reduction in the no of empty car trip and improve vehicle occupancy levels include:
 Provide sufficient car parking to meet demand with the aim to reduce discourage ‘kiss and fly’ or taxi use. Heathrow’s proposal involves expanding the terminal 5 short stay car park to 6,000 spaces for west terminal and expanding the new terminal car park to 4,000 spaces for the east terminal; and
 Develop a taxi backfilling scheme to match passengers to drivers that have dropped off at the airport and encourage taxi sharing by matching passenger journeys to similar destinations.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371829/4-surface-access–lhr-nwr.pdf

.

See also

How the government hopes air pollution will not be a block on a Heathrow 3rd runway

The Government has produced claims that adding a 3rd Heathrow runway would be compatible with air quality limits for NO2. The DfT statement on 25th October stated that the government had done more work, since the Airports Commission, and this “confirms that a new runway at Heathrow is deliverable within air quality limits, if necessary mitigation measures are put in place, in line with the ‘National air quality plan’, published in December 2015.” That air quality plan has since been judged inadequate by the High Court ruling in the case brought by ClientEarth. The DfT also said: “Heathrow’s scheme includes plans for improved public transport links and for an ultra-low emissions zone for all airport vehicles by 2025. The government will make meeting air quality legal requirements a condition of planning approval.”Lawyers Bircham Dyson Bell comment: “would you build, or invest in, a new runway if you weren’t sure it could be used?” Heathrow and the government hope that, by 2040, 55% of Heathrow passengers will be using public transport, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that legal air quality limits would in reality be met. Currently [2012 data] about 41% of Heathrow passengers use public transport (about 28% by rail and 13% bus/coach – on the road). Heathrow hopes 43% will use rail by 2030. That is estimated to mean an extra over 56 million passengers annually using public transport compared to around 29 million today, and 6 million more passengers travelling to and from the airport by car.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

 

Read more »

How the government hopes air pollution will not be a block on a Heathrow 3rd runway

The Government has produced claims that adding a 3rd Heathrow runway would be compatible with air quality limits for NO2. The DfT statement on 25th October stated that the government had  done more work, since the Airports Commission, and this “confirms that a new runway at Heathrow is deliverable within air quality limits, if necessary mitigation measures are put in place, in line with the ‘National air quality plan’, published in December 2015.” That air quality plan has since been judged inadequate by the High Court ruling in the case brought by ClientEarth. The DfT also said: “Heathrow’s scheme includes plans for improved public transport links and for an ultra-low emissions zone for all airport vehicles by 2025. The government will make meeting air quality legal requirements a condition of planning approval.”Lawyers Bircham Dyson Bell comment: “would you build, or invest in, a new runway if you weren’t sure it could be used?” Heathrow and the government hope that, by 2040, 55% of Heathrow passengers will be using public transport, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that legal air quality limits would in reality be met. Currently [2012 data] about 41% of Heathrow passengers use public transport (about 28% by rail and 13% bus/coach – on the road). Heathrow hopes 43% will use rail by 2030. That is estimated to mean an extra over 56 million passengers using public transport compared to around 29 million today, and 6 million more passengers travelling to and from the airport by car.
.

 

Air Quality Judgment And Implications For Infrastructure Projects

BY ANGUS WALKER (Blog for law firm, Bircham Dyson Bell)

4.11.2016

https://www.bdb-law.co.uk/blogs/planning-act-2008/727-air-quality-judgment-threatens-projects/

Today’s entry reports on this week’s High Court judgment on air quality.

The second most important legal case of the week has implications for infrastructure projects. (So does the most important one,  [meaning the one on Brexit and Parliament] but we might as well wait for the appeal to the Supreme Court that will be heard on 7-9 December possibly by all 11 justices (there being one vacancy)).
.
The case is the second challenge by ClientEarth, an environmental pressure group, to the government’s air quality plans. It first challenged them in 2011, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court, then the Court of Justice of the European Union, before being returned to the Supreme Court and decided in April last year.In that case the Supreme Court decided that air quality plans produced in 2011 by the government were inadequate and that revised plans had to be prepared and published by the end of that year. 
.
Accordingly, in December 2015, the government published revised air quality plans for each of the UK’s 43 zones and agglomerations. You will notice that the plans deal specifically with nitrogen dioxide, as that is the toughest pollutant to keep below the required thresholds.The obligation under the ambient air quality directive is that if concentrations of certain pollutants in the air is still above set thresholds by 2010, then they must be brought within the thresholds as quickly as possible.
.
The two main thresholds are that average concentrations of NO2 must be below 40 micrograms per cubic metre, and that NO2 cannot be higher than 200 µg/m3 for more than 18 separate hours across a whole year.London in particular has some way to go, as that hourly threshold was breached on 9 January this year.

This week’s judgment

ClientEarth challenged the December 2015 plans again for being inadequate and on Wednesday the High Court ruled in their favour, quashing the entire suite of plans. The judgment is pretty damning.

The main points are as follows:

The government decided against some measures to combat pollution levels on grounds of cost, but the court ruled that effectiveness of the measures should outweigh cost (albeit conceding that some measures such as banning all cars from city centres were disproportionate in their effects and therefore need not be considered). Paragraph 50 of the judgment states:

‘The determining consideration has to be the efficacy of the measure in question and not their cost. That, it seems to me, flows inevitably from the requirements in the Article to keep the exceedance period as short as possible.’

Secondly, the government’s practice of only doing modelling every five years to see how each zone is getting on was considered too infrequent in this urgent situation. Apparently they decided the EU wouldn’t start fining the UK until 2020 so that’s when they were aiming to achieve the targets, rather than the requirement of as soon as possible.
Thirdly, the model used by the government, the ‘computer programme to calculate emissions from road transport’, or COPERT, significantly underestimated air pollution compared with real-world measurements, and there was evidence that the government knew that but carried on using it regardless.The latest emission standard for vehicles, Euro 6, aims to limit NO2 emissions, and COPERT assumes that vehicles will in fact be 2.8 times over the limit. Depressingly, that is apparently too low an estimate and it should be four to five times. The judge concluded:

’86. [The air quality plans] identified measures which, if very optimistic forecasts happened to be proved right and emerging data happened to be wrong, might achieve compliance. To adopt a plan based on such assumptions was to breach both the Directive and the Regulations.’

The judge upheld ClientEarth’s case and quashed the entire suite of air quality plans. Further relief is being argued about next week.

Analysis

The government is going to have to do much more to combat air quality and fork out some serious money on it if it is not to find itself in the courts again. To me, the 2015 plans just seemed to be a parroting of local authority measures without adding very much to those, so it seemed pretty inevitable that they would be shown up as not achieving the targets as quickly as possible.

The issue of Brexit hangs in the air – if and when departure from the EU happens, will the deal allow us to alter our air quality obligations? Even if so, that wouldn’t go down very well with many people, including the Mayor of London, and might well be too much of a political hot potato to do.

As most air pollution is caused by vehicles on the road, this may give rise to problems with projects that involve a lot of vehicles using the road, including highway, and of more recent interest, airport projects.

The Airports Commission recommended Heathrow with the proviso that it should only be allowed to operate if it could do so without slowing down compliance with air quality targets (see page 11).  [The Airports Commission’s Final Report said:  “Additional operations at an expanded Heathrow must be contingent on acceptable performance on air quality. New capacity should only be released when it is clear that air quality at sites around the airport will not delay compliance with EU limits.”]

When taking its decision to endorse Heathrow, the government commissioned further air quality work to demonstrate that Heathrow could expand without slowing down compliance. That report  [AIR QUALITY RE-ANALYSIS IMPACT OF NEW POLLUTION CLIMATE MAPPING PROJECTIONS AND NATIONAL AIR QUALITY PLAN   October 2016 by WSP Parsons Brinkerhof ] uses the same model, COPERT, and indeed admits in its foreword on page 1 that it doesn’t even take the latest COPERT factors into account. If that is based on a significant underestimate of emissions from vehicles, it is difficult to see how it remains valid.

[COPERT is an MS Windows software program aiming at the calculation of air pollutant emissions from road transport. The technical development of COPERT is financed by the European Environment Agency (EEA), in the framework of the activities of the European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change. ]

Indeed, the government announcement [25th October 2016] says:

“a new runway at Heathrow is deliverable within air quality limits, if necessary mitigation measures are put in place, in line with the ‘National air quality plan’, published in December 2015.”

Well, that plan has just been quashed for inadequacy (although I note amusingly that a policy on page 228 of the London agglomeration plan is ‘No third runway at Heathrow’).

The government goes on to say ‘The government will make meeting air quality legal requirements a condition of planning approval.’ That is probably unnecessary if they are legal requirements, but would you build, or invest in, a new runway if you weren’t sure it could be used?

On top of recent developments on air quality though, the evidence relied on by the Airports Commission [work done by Jacobs for the Airports Commission, November 2014] on surface access states as follows (3.4.2):

‘with the baseline network in place by 2030, 43% of passengers are predicted to travel to and from Heathrow by rail, a value which is significantly higher than the 28% rail share observed in 2012. The proportion of passengers arriving at Heathrow by car is expected to reduce from 59% in 2012 to 46% in 2030. This would mean that there will be over 56 million passengers using public transport compared to around 29 million today, and 6 million more passengers travelling to and from the airport by car.’

Call me unsophisticated, but I just can’t see how adding 6 million car passengers a year onto the access routes to Heathrow won’t slow down achievement of air quality targets. But maybe I am being too simplistic and I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.Anyway, two very significant High Court judgments affecting infrastructure projects – and much more – in one week is certainly something to write home – or a blog – about.

4 November 2016

https://www.bdb-law.co.uk/blogs/planning-act-2008/727-air-quality-judgment-threatens-projects/

.

 

The Jacobs report for the Airports Commission also states: 

7.1.4  .(Page 74) ……. Currently,  [? 2014] 59% of passengers at Heathrow travel to the airport by car or taxi, and of the 41% who travel by public transport, 28% use rail and 13% bus/coach.  Similarly, around 43% of employees at Heathrow currently commute to the airport by car/taxi, with the 47% public transport mode share split between 35% using bus and 12% using rail.

7.1.5  The HAL submission indicated that an air passenger public transport mode share target of 52% (36% rail, 17% bus/coach) was used to test the impact of the new North West Runway on the rail network and road network. Employee mode share was assumed to be 43% public transport and 47% private vehicle.

and

7.2.1 Our analysis predicted that public transport mode share of passenger surface access trips to/from Heathrow would increase from 41% in 2012 to 55% in 2031. [The government document put out on 25th October says 55% by 2040.  Link ]  The main change is predicted to be in the rail mode share, which is predicted to increase from 28% in 2012 to 43% in 2031. This represents a net impact of up to 2,400 additional rail trips to the airport in the AM peak hour in 2030 as a result of the new North West Runway, with up to 1,400 additional rail trips leaving the airport.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371829/4-surface-access–lhr-nwr.pdf

.

[Jacobs (Page 86) expected around 32 – 35% of interlining (ie. international transfer) passengers by 2030. That would be about 35 million interling passengers out of about 109 million. These interling passengers do not leave the airport, give no benefit to the UK economy, but do not need to travel to or from Heathrow.

The Airports Commission Final Report  (Page 251)said:   “Without expansion, the number of international transfer passengers at Heathrow is forecast to fall from 20 million a year in 2014 to 8 million or fewer by 2050; with expansion this pattern of decline could be reversed, seeing up to 30 million international transfer passengers by 2050. ”

This Airports Commission document Strategic Fit updated forecasts (pages 137 and 138) says there would be 34.4 million international to international passengers at Heathrow in 2030 (carbon traded scenario, and 23 million in 2050.

.


The government statement on 25th October merely said: 

“Heathrow has pledged that there will be no increase in airport-related road traffic with expansion and committed to a target of more than half of passengers using public transport to access the airport.”   Link

.


Some rough calculations:

Heathrow in 2012   – 70 million passengers.

Around 20 million (about 29%) were international to international transfers.

So 50 million passengers travelled to and from the airport per year, most by road or rail (excluding domestic transfers)

41% came by public transport   ie 20.5 million (of the 50 million)
28% used rail     ie  about 14 million of the 50 million
13% used bus or coach (= road)   ie. 9.1 million  ie  6.5 million of the 50 million

59% used car    ie.  29.5 million passengers out of the 50 million

————————————-

Heathrow by 2030  – about 110 million passengers

Airports Commission expects around 32 – 35% would be international to international transfers. (ie about 36 million transfer passengers).  If there was a lower proportion of these transfers, more would need to travel  to and from the airport by local road and rail.

So around 74 million passengers travelling to and from the airport each year, most by road or rail.

55% using public transport     ie. about 40 million of the 74 million
43% using rail     ie.  31.8 million of the 74 million (over twice as many as now – 17 or 18 million more than now)
12% using bus or coach (= road)   ie. about 9 million of the 74 million

45% using car    ie about 34 million passengers, of the 74 million (about 4.5 million more than now – about a 15% increase.)

————————————-

Heathrow by 2040 – about 128 million passengers

AC said (Page 251) there could be 30 million international to international transfers by 2050

so about 100 million passengers travelling to and from the airport each year.
55% using public transport   ie. 55 million of the 100 million 

If  43% use rail   i.e. 43 million  (compared to 14 million now- that’s 29 million more)

If 12% use bus or coach  (= road)  ie.  12 million (compared with 6.5 million now)

45% use car    ie.  45 million passengers  (About 15 million more than now – or about 53% more than now).

 

But the numbers needing to use public transport, or the roads, would be much higher if Heathrow does not has as much as 32 – 35% of its passengers as international to international transfers, who do not leave the airport.  The numbers could all then be up to a third higher.

AW note


Heathrow third runway ‘can be built without a drop in air quality’

By JOE MURPHY (Evening Standard)
4.11.2016

A minister has insisted that Heathrow’s third runway can be built without air quality getting worse in the capital.

Environment Minister Therese Coffey made the claim to MPs who lined up in the Commons to protest against London’s toxic air.

Twickenham Tory MP Tania Mathias said Heathrow expansion should be abandoned following the Government’s defeat in a court ruling this week, when judges ruled that current air quality improvement plans were not good enough.

“How can the Government support more pollution that would come from a third runway at Heathrow?” she demanded.

Tom Brake, the Liberal Democrat MP for Carshalton & Wallington called for action “now to improve the appalling air quality around Heathrow” and said the third runway should be halted “unless air pollution can be contained within the legal limits”.

But Dr Coffey insisted a third runway could be built “without it having an impact on the UK’s compliance with air quality limit values”.

She went on: “Policies at national, London and local level will help to ensure that the scheme can be delivered in line with our legal obligations in respect of air quality.”

…… and the rest of the article is not about Heathrow …. full article at

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/heathrow-third-runway-can-be-built-without-a-drop-in-air-quality-a3386951.html

Read more »

Zac: Too close relationship between Heathrow & Government borders on corrupt – recent examples

Former Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”.   He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”. Examples recently of this are that the Chairman of Heathrow since March 2016 (succeeding Sir Nigel Rudd) is Lord Paul Deighton. Between 2013 and 2015 he held the position of Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, some of the roles of which are described as “infrastructure policy, including working with Infrastructure and Projects Authority and National Infrastructure Commission” and “working with the rest of government to promote the UK as a destination for foreign direct investment.”  Another recent revolve of the door is Vickie Sherriff, who has since September 2015 been the Head of Communications at Heathrow, having earlier worked for the Prime Minister, in 2013, with a dual role as official deputy spokesperson for the Prime Minister and head of news at Number 10. She went to the DfT and then Diageo in 2014.  Then there is Simon Baugh, who in March 2015 because the group director of communications at the DfT, having previously been the director of PR at Heathrow. And Nigel Milton. And there are many earlier cases too. Zac commented: “And that’s why you’ve always had this default position in favour of Heathrow.”  The DfT naturally rejected any suggestion of corruption. 
.

 

Relationship between Heathrow and Government borders on corrupt, says Goldsmith

3.11.2016  (|Belfast Telegraph)

Former Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that “borders on the corrupt”.

Mr Goldsmith, who resigned last week as an MP in protest at the Government’s Heathrow expansion plans, forcing a by-election which he is fighting on a campaign of opposition to the move, said the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was “rotten”.

He told LBC: “I think the relationship between Heathrow and Government is bordering on the corrupt.

“And I’ll put it into context.

Lord Deighton

 

“A year ago I was lobbying the infrastructure minister Lord Deighton, and I was lobbying him on this issue of Heathrow expansion, and he responded very politely and took a few notes. [Lord  Deighton’s page on the government website].

“A few months later he was the chairman of Heathrow.

“And that is true all the way through.

“You’ve got the former head of comms at Number 10, now the head of comms at Heathrow. [Vickie Sherriff, details below].

“Former head of comms at Heathrow now the head of comms at the Department for Transport, [Simon Baugh, details below] and I could spend an hour giving you other examples.

“I think there is a problem. It’s not a Conservative Party problem. This was true under Gordon Brown, and the Tony Blair government before that. The relationship between the two is rotten.

“The revolving door is spinning wildly, and sometimes it is hard to know where Heathrow ends and Government begins.

“And that’s why you’ve always had this default position in favour of Heathrow.

“Why is it that we have this institutional obsession with a solution that is a non-solution and can’t be delivered? It’s very hard to explain, except through the lens of corrupted relationships.”

Asked about Mr Goldsmith’s allegation of corruption, a Downing Street spokesman said: “We reject that entirely.”

The Number 10 spokesman added: “The Airports Commission was absolutely clear that Heathrow is the best option for airport expansion in the South East.

“We took our time to look at that report, we commissioned extra work to go alongside that.

“That has been very carefully scrutinised and we are absolutely of the opinion that Heathrow is the place where airport expansion should take place.”

A spokeswoman for Heathrow Airport said: “This is absolutely untrue.

“The Government’s decision follows the most in-depth study of aviation expansion in a generation, the independent experts of the Airports Commission unanimously and unambiguously supported Heathrow’s plans for expansion.

“After two-and-a-half years, and a £20 million study, the Airports Commission confirmed that expanding Heathrow would have the biggest economic benefits for the UK and can be done while reducing noise for local communities and in accordance with EU air quality law.”

Press Association

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/news/relationship-between-heathrow-and-government-borders-on-corrupt-says-goldsmith-35186374.html

.


Lord Deighton

More about him from the Government website:

Biography

Lord Deighton took up the post of  in January 2013.

Previous roles in government

  1. Commercial Secretary to the Treasury   2013 to 2015

Announcements

  1. Government secures skills boost for major infrastructure projects

    • Press release
  2. Lord Deighton: National Infrastructure Plan 2014

    • Speech

And there is more at https://www.gov.uk/government/people/paul-deighton


Responsibilities of the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury:

The Commercial Secretary is responsible for:

  • UK productivity
  • City devolution, including Northern Powerhouse
  • infrastructure policy, including working with Infrastructure and Projects Authority and National Infrastructure Commission
  • corporate finance, including public corporations, public private partnerships, PFI, and sales of government assets
  • better regulation and competition policy
  • industrial strategy
  • working with the rest of government to promote the UK as a destination for foreign direct investment
  • housing and planning
  • The Royal Mint
  • Crown Estate and the Royal Household

Heathrow announces Lord Deighton as new Chairman

8.3.2016 (Heathrow press release)

Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd has today announced that Lord Paul Deighton will succeed Sir Nigel Rudd as Chairman of the Board when he steps down later this year.
Lord Deighton’s breadth of experience in funding and delivering major projects is unrivalled. He is widely respected in the financial, infrastructure and political communities. Under Sir Nigel Rudd’s leadership, Heathrow has been transformed into one of the great airports of the world. Lord Deighton will guide Heathrow through its next phase of development, supporting Heathrow’s vision of giving passengers the best airport service in the world and preparing for the Government’s decision on airport expansion.

Following a very successful career at Goldman Sachs, Lord Deighton delivered the 2012 London Olympic Games to international acclaim as CEO of LOCOG (London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games), enhancing the UK’s reputation for infrastructure service delivery and generating national pride. Recently, as Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Deighton was responsible for the UK’s National Infrastructure Plan, focussing on getting major projects built, benefits captured , attracting capital into the UK from across the world and creating the right environment for continued infrastructure investment.

…. and it continues ….

http://mediacentre.heathrow.com/pressrelease/details/81/Corporate-operational-24/6031

.


Simon Baugh

  • Group Director of Communications

    Department for Transport (UK)
    – Present (1 year 9 months)

    I am responsible for communications strategy, campaigns, media relations, digital, stakeholder engagement and corporate communications at the UK Department for Transport, and accountable for communications strategy, spend and professional standards across its agencies.

  • Director of Media and Public Relations

    Heathrow
    (4 years)

    I was a communications director at the UK’s largest airport company (formerly BAA) with specific responsibility for group media relations, corporate and financial communications, consumer PR, filming and location management, communications planning and crisis management.

    I led the airport’s campaign for new runway capacity and its communications planning for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

  • Director of Internal and Passenger Communications

    Heathrow
    (2 years 8 months)

    I was communications director with specific responsibility for internal, digital and brand communications. I was also a member of Heathrow’s Operations and HR leadership teams.

  • Head of Public Affairs

    Heathrow
    (2 years 8 months)

    I helped secure planning permission for Heathrow’s new Terminal 2. I was also communications lead on the Crisis Management Team during high-profile events such as the 2006 liquid bomb plot and opening of Terminal 5.

.

See earlier:

DfT hires Heathrow PR director Simon Baugh – to start briefing ministers etc on runways after 30th September

Simon Baugh, who is currently director of PR at Heathrow Airport, is moving to the DfT to take up the role of group director of comms. He takes up the new job on 30th March.  Baugh said: “I can’t think of a more exciting time to be joining the team or to be promoting the role that transport plays in driving UK economic growth.” He has been overseeing PR at Heathrow, which included the launch in late 2013 of Back Heathrow, a ‘grassroots’ (astroturfing – deeply controversial) campaign.  On 20th February Zac Goldsmith put a written question in Parliament: “To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what recruitment process was used when hiring Simon Baugh, Group Director of Communications for his Department; and what role Mr Baugh will have in his Department after the Airports Commission has made its recommendation on airport expansion in the South East.”   Reply by DfT spokesperson:  “As Mr Baugh was previously employed by Heathrow Airport Ltd, he will not be involved in advising Ministers on issues relating to the work of the Airports Commission for the 6 months following his appointment, which starts on 30 March 2015.” ie. the Commission may report at the end of June, and Simon Baugh can start briefing etc by 30th September.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/03/25475/

.


Vickie Sherriff

Revolving door revolves again: Vickie Sheriff (used to work at 10 Downing Street) to be Heathrow head of comms

There have for a long time been concerns about the “revolving door”, by which people switch between working high up in the aviation industry, and working high up in Government. The concern is that they may bring too much influence, from their earlier employer. Now it is announced that Vickie Sheriff it to become head of communications for Heathrow airport. Earlier she had worked for the Prime Minister, in 2013, with a dual role as official deputy spokesperson for the Prime Minister and head of news at Number 10. She went to the DfT and then Diageo in 2014.  Heathrow’s director of PR, Simon Baugh, left earlier this year to work at the Department for Transport to take the role of head of communications. This is the job that was previously held by Vickie Sheriff. (Simon Baugh was not actually meant to be advising ministers on the new runway issue till 1st September 2015 when he had been at the DfT for 6 months).  Heathrow also appointed a new consumer PR agency in the summer. There have been several other high profile examples of the “revolving door” in the past, including Tom Kelly in 2009, who had worked for Tony Blair and then went to BAA as head of comms.

….. and there are more older instances of the revolving door ….. with details at

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2015/09/revolving-door-revolves-again-vickie-sheriff-used-to-work-at-10-downing-street-to-be-heathrow-head-of-comms/


DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS, HEATHROW AIRPORT

Vickie Sheriff recently joined the Corporate Affairs team at Heathrow Airport as the new Director of Communications. It follows a stint as Communications Director for Diageo plc’s global team, before which Vickie spent many years working in numerous Whitehall departments in government communications roles. Her last post in government was Director of Group Communications for the Department for Transport and before that she ran the Downing Street press office and was the Deputy Official Spokesman for the Prime Minister. She has a background in media relations and PR campaigns, always on the client end of PR pitches and work.

.


NIGEL MILTON

Nigel leads Heathrow Airports Ltd’s Public Affairs and Community Relations teams. His responsibilities include managing Heathrow’s relations with politicians, government officials, business groups and the community around Heathrow. He represents Heathrow on a wide range of trade associations and lobbying groups.

Nigel joined Heathrow from Virgin Atlantic in March 2010 where he had spent six years in the External Affairs department. Prior to this Nigel worked for the Department for Transport (DfT) where he had been Assistant Director for International Aviation since October 2000. Prior to this post, Nigel was Private Secretary to the UK Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Transport, John Prescott, between 1998 and 2000.

Nigel has a law degree from Oxford University and a Masters degree in Transport Planning and Management from the University of Westminster.

.

 

Revolving door:

Wikipedia says:

“In politics, the “revolving door” is a movement of personnel between roles as legislators and regulators and the industries affected by the legislation and regulation.[note 1]

“In some cases the roles are performed in sequence but in certain circumstances may be performed at the same time. Political analysts claim that an unhealthy relationship can develop between the private sector and government, based on the granting of reciprocated privileges to the detriment of the nation and can lead to regulatory capture.

“The “revolving door” between the DfT and the aviation industry is well known, and the movement of staff between the two has been going on for years.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics)

.

The quote below is from  Wikipedia:

“The aviation sector has close links with political decision makers which many players moving between roles through the controversial ‘revolving door‘. For example: Joe Irvin was advisor to John Prescott from 1996 and 2001 (Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions as well as Deputy Prime Minister) before working for various element of the aviation lobby and becoming head of corporate affairs at BAA in 2006 before he became ‘Special Advisor’ to Gordon Brown in 2007 when he became prime minister.[28][29] He was succeeded at BAA by Tom Kelly who took the title ‘group director of corporate and public affairs’; Kelly had previously been the official spokesman for Tony Blair when he was prime minister.[28]

Freedom to Fly was formed during the preparation phase of the “Future of Aviation white paper 2003” by BAA and others[30] It was ‘fronted’ by Joe Irvin, a former political adviser to John Prescott[31] who subsequently became Director of Public Affairs at BAA Limited[32]Their director, Dan Hodges, is the son of Glenda Jackson, Labour MP and former Aviation Minister.[33]

“In March 2009 senior MPs demanded a Commons investigation into evidence of a “revolving door” policy between Downing Street, Whitehall and BAA Limited

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_London_Heathrow_Airport

.

.


 

Maria Eagle (Labour’s then Shadow Transport Secretary) said of the DfT in 2011:

“….I am sorry that the government has not learnt from our own mistake – and I do believe it was a big mistake – to see the Department for Transport as a revolving door department. It’s bad for the sector. It’s bad for good governance.”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2011/10/full-text-of-maria-eagles-speech-on-labours-ideas-on-future-aviation-policy/

.


Other examples of the “revolving door” between government and the aviation industry:

February 2008.  Plane Stupid wrote:

“Labour/industry revolving door: Trade minister Sir Digby Jones is the former
CBI boss who became chair of the new aviation industry lobby group, Flying Matters.
The group was recently formed to take on environmentalists over airport expansion.
Gordon Brown also appointed Joe Irvin, formerly a director of the aviation lobby
group Freedom to Fly, to become one of his inner circle of advisors too. Freedom
to Fly was the brainchild of Steve Hardwick – another of Labour’s key Millbank
apparatchiks – while the organisation was previously chaired by Labour peer Brenda
Dean and directed by Dan Hodges, the son of Glenda Jackson who was Labour’s first
aviation minister. Dan Hodge’s wife, Michelle De Leo, is the new director of Flying
Matters.

“The chancellor, Alistair Darling, the bete noir of climate campaigners, is far
from a stranger to BAA either. In fact, he was the guest of honour who officially
launched a group called Future Heathrow, who are lobbying for a third runway and
a sixth terminal at the airport. Future Heathrow, is headed up by another Labour
peer, Lord Soley, who works out of a BAA office in West London. BAA’s new communications chief is former Downing Street spin doctor Tom Kelly.”  Link

.


BAA hire Blair’s former spin doctor – Tom Kelly

25.10.2007  (UK Airport News)

BAA has hired Tony Blair’s former spokesman Tom Kelly. He who spent six years in Downing Street, most recently as the top PR man for the former prime minister. He becomes the UK airport operator’s Group Director of Corporate and Public Affairs.

Mr. Kelly, a former BBC journalist, left Downing Street with Mr Blair in June and takes up his new post on November 5. He replaces Ian Hargreaves, who left BAA more than a year ago in the first wave of resignations after BAA was taken over last year by the Spanish construction firm Ferrovial.

His first order of business will be to help shape the response to an inquiry, announced last week, from the Transport Select Committee into ‘The Future of BAA’. The inquiry will include a televised grilling of company executives, including chief executive Stephen Nelson. BAA has started providing evidence before two days of hearings set for 21 and 25 November.

Other issues for Mr. Kelly to tackle include the Civil Aviation Authority decision on profits and landing fees at Gatwick and Heathrow, which look like being set much lower than BAA had been lobbying for. The Competition Commission, meanwhile, is trying to decide whether the introduction of more competition through a break-up of BAA, which controls Gatwick and Stansted airports, would improve service for travellers.

Then there is the Stansted planning inquiry, which closed last week, and a public consultation on maximising the use of Heathrow runways (the so called ‘mixed mode’) and a third runway expected to be launched next month. In addition, he will need to turn around the criticism of BAA over the ramshackle infrastructure that greets travellers at Heathrow, the world’s busiest international airport.

Also appointed by BAA yesterday was Fiona Rodford as Human Resources Director. She joins from Alliance & Leicester, where she had been for four years, having previously worked for House of Fraser, Whitbread, Booker and Thomas Cook.

Stephen Nelson said the new recruits would ‘bring considerable strengths to the new BAA management team at one of the most important points in the company’s development.’

http://www.uk-airport-news.info/heathrow-airport-news-251007a.htm

.


The aviation sector has close links with political decision makers which many players moving between roles through the controversialrevolving door‘. For example: Joe Irvinwas advisor to John Prescott from 1996 and 2001 (Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions as well as Deputy Prime Minister) before working for various element of the aviation lobby and becoming head of corporate affairs at BAA in 2006 before he became ‘Special Advisor’ to Gordon Brown in 2007 when he became prime minister.[32][33] He was succeeded at BAA by Tom Kelly who took the title ‘group director of corporate and public affairs’; Kelly had previously been the official spokesman for Tony Blair when he was prime minister.[32]

Freedom to Fly was formed during the preparation phase of the “Future of Aviation white paper 2003” by BAA and others[34] It was ‘fronted’ by Joe Irvin, a former political adviser to John Prescott[35] who subsequently became Director of Public Affairs at BAA Limited[36]Their director, Dan Hodges, is the son ofGlenda Jackson, Labour MP and former Aviation Minister.[37] 

Wikipedia


.

Sir Roy McNulty is now non-executive director of Gatwick airport, but he has been Chairman of NATS and Chairman of the CAA in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_McNulty

.

.


Also

David Vowles

Now Air Quality Science Policy Advisor at Defra

– Present (2 years 3 months)  London, United Kingdom

Lead on UK air quality monitoring of black carbon, particle numbers and concentrations, and air pollution emissions from transport.

Before that:

 

Air Quality and Noise Policy Manager at Heathrow

(6 years 4 months)

Wrote Air Quality Strategy for Heathrow Airport and implemented policies to reduce emissions and help improve the local environment. I managed the collection of key data to measure the effectiveness of airport policies as well as the delivery of emissions inventories and dispersion modelling.

Principal Air Quality Advisor at the Greater London Authority

(8 years 4 months)

Principal author of the London Air Quality Strategy and managed key actions to help improve London’s environment. These included a best practice guide for construction, GLA Environment Policy, providing specialist advice to the Metropolitan Police and London Fire Brigade on cleaner vehicles and supporting TfL in their goal for low emission buses.

.

.


Also at PwC, which did analysis for the Airports Commission on Heathrow

David Edwards,  Current Assistant Director – Corporate Finance – Infrastructure PwC
June 2006 – Present (10 years 6 months) London,

Previous  – Department for Transport (DfT), United Kingdom, Corporate Finance Advisor
2015 – 2015 (less than a year)

Before that  – Mott MacDonald

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/david-edwards-6a149728


Andrew Sentance,  is Senior Economic Adviser to PwC. He joined the firm in November 2011 after serving as an external member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.

After studying at Cambridge and the LSE, Andrew started his career as a business economist at the Confederation of British Industry in the mid-1980s before moving to the London Business School in 1994. While at the CBI, he was a founder member of the Treasury’s Panel of Independent Forecasters – also known as the “seven wise men”. Immediately before joining the Bank of England, Andrew was Chief Economist at British Airways, where he also worked on business strategy and planning, airport policy, airport regulation and environmental affairs.

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »