Bloomberg says Heathrow claim that 3rd runway would mean lower air fares takes “a flight of imagination”

A report – by Frontier Economics – released by Heathrow last week, as part of its lobbying effort, sought to put a price on the way the airport has chosen to run at almost full capacity. The study makes out that the cost of building the new runway, terminal, changes to the road network, compensating people etc would only add £20 per ticket.   Interestingly, Bloomberg Businessweek says “Heathrow officials did not respond to e-mails seeking comment” on these remarkable figures.  A footnote buried on page 11 of the Frontier Economics study “notes that calculations for how much fares would fall once a 3rd runway were operational are “complicated by airline price setting,” which is typically focused on “maximizing profitability.”  Indeed. ”  Bloomberg is not convinced that air fares would necessarily fall if a new runway was built. They cite examples of new runways in the  USA, where prices  have merely risen. They also say the airline alliances would make fare cuts unlikely. Airlines have no interest in cutting fares. Bloomberg says: “selling the project as a fare-lowering exercise takes a flight of imagination.”
.

 

 

Would Another Runway at Heathrow Lower Airfares? Don’t Bet on It

By Justin Bachman (Bloomberg Businessweek)

April 22, 2014

Descending over residential property near London's Heathrow Airport

Descending over residential property near London’s Heathrow Airport
Photograph by Jason Alden/Bloomberg
London’s Heathrow Airport is what people in the airline business politely call “capacity constrained.” It is surrounded by houses and highways, making expansion challenging, and the two runways have reached their limits for flights. As Heathrow executives fret that Dubai will overtake the title for international passenger traffic—a milestone that could come next year—they are eager to build a third runway to accommodate new flights to growing markets in India, Africa, and South America.

A British government commission named Heathrow and Gatwick as the two airports best served by expansion. A report released by Heathrow last week as part of its lobbying effort sought to put a price on the current congestion: Passengers pay an extra £95 ($160) on average fares because of the two-runway bottleneck, according to the study, and a third runway would reduce the average round-trip flight by £300 by 2030. (That eye-popping figure even accounts for the cost of the new runway, pegged at £20 per passenger.) Heathrow officials did not respond to e-mails seeking comment.

A footnote buried on page 11 of Heathrow’s runway study, which was put together by Frontier Economics, an economic consulting firm, notes that calculations for how much fares would fall once a third runway were operational are “complicated by airline price setting,” which is typically focused on “maximizing profitability.” Indeed.

But if airfares rise as a result of restricted capacity, does it necessarily follow that prices decline when congestion eases? Would an expansion lure new service from budget airlines such as Ryanair (RYAAY) or EasyJet (EZJ:LN) with cheaper rates?

The U.S. is full of large airports whose capacity isn’t restricted. Chicago’s O’Hare and Atlanta Hartsfield airports are two of the world’s busiest, with thousands of flights each day, and both have steadily added runways. O’Hare opened a fourth runway last year and plans a fifth in 2015, with three additional ones coming before its ongoing modernization effort ends. Atlanta’s fifth runway opened in 2006. So have travelers at these hubs seen a corresponding decrease in average fares? Since the third-quarter of 2006, the average inflation-adjusted round-trip fare has climbed $30, to $432, in Atlanta, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. In Chicago, meanwhile, the average trip has increased by $44, to just over $386 (a figure that includes fares at both of the city’s major airports).

Runways might not even be the most constricting feature of the Heathrow experience for travelers. Britain has been criticized for having some of the highest aviation taxes on the planet; they have risen some 2,600 percent since 1994, according to the International Air Transport Association. Any reductions in how much travelers pay to fly would almost certainly need to come from the airlines’ portion of the total price, not the tax burden travelers pay the government. Yet the Heathrow runway report says very little about airlines, the prime arbiter of travelers’ costs at any airport. The authors note that an airport and its airlines are not an integrated business enterprise and treating them as such “is a very strong assumption and very different from reality.” Still, the assumption works for predicting that a third runway would lower airfares at Heathrow, the report claims, because airlines can be considered “effectively competitive, with easy entry and exit of markets at an unconstrained airport.”

Unfortunately, in the real world, the large global airlines at Heathrow and elsewhere have divvied many of their international routes into alliances to which governments on both sides of the Atlantic grant immunity from antitrust regulation—a license, in effect, to collude on fares and schedules. Heathrow’s dominant airline, British Airways (IAG:LN), has joined with Oneworld Alliance partner American Airlines (AAL) to coordinate flights across the Atlantic. (The carriers boast hourly flights between London and New York. United (UAL), which operates most of its European flights from its Newark and Washington-Dulles hubs, is part of the Star Alliance with Lufthansa (LHA:GR), Air Canada (AC/A:CN), and Singapore. Delta Air Lines (DAL) and Air France-KLM (AF:FP) anchor a third large airline alliance, and Delta has likewise formed a joint venture with Virgin Atlantic for their Heathrow-New York flights.

Major international airports are engines of economic growth, which includes airline profitability. When airports expand, airfare discounts are certainly not among the project’s goals for an airline. Heathrow’s traffic says it’s short a runway—but selling the project as a fare-lowering exercise takes a flight of imagination.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-22/would-another-runway-at-londons-heathrow-airport-lower-fares-dont-bet-on-it

.


.

Earlier:

Frontier Economics report for Heathrow makes out that a 3rd runway will mean lower fares

Date added: April 17, 2014

Heathrow airport has commissioned a report from Frontier Economics (a firm that has done a lot of pro-expansion reports for the industry), and it makes out that air fares will fall if a 3rd Heathrow runway is built. It is not a brilliant report. But it said what Heathrow wanted it to say. Only the FT and the Telegraph bothered to report this story. Frontier economics says the price of slots at Heathrow would fall (which they probably would) if there was a 3rd runway, as with so many new slots, it would not be possible to sell them for the prices charged today. Frontier economics say a long haul holiday would be cheaper at Heathrow in future, with a new runway. The FT comments that: “Aviation analysts said it would be difficult to calculate the saving.” Indeed. The numbers are very speculative.The report is strangely silent on the – not inconsiderable – matter of the cost of building a new runway, at either Heathrow or Gatwick, and the costs needed to give a reasonably return to the investors. The Frontier Economics report contains some very contorted arguments, with some highly contrived conclusions – with much speculation.

Click here to view full story…

 

 


 

The Frontier Economics report is at 

Impact of airport expansion options on competition and choice 
A REPORT PREPARED FOR HEATHROW AIRPORT
April 2014   (93 pages)

.

The Frontier Economics also says the prices for fares would fall even more if both Heathrow and Gatwick built new  runways. (The Airports Commission has said there is only room, within carbon constraints, for one runway in the coming few decades. Not two. Even one runway, in reality, puts serious strains on the UK’s carbon targets.)  

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Flight Global looks at the impacts of a new south east runway on environmental constraints

Flight Global have looked at the environmental issues involved in building a new runway in the south-east.  They consider noise, and appreciate that Heathrow has a serious problem and a political issue.  Gatwick makes much of the lower numbers of people overflown by planes near the airport.  The government has yet to decide if it will  establish an independent noise ombudsman, to deal with noise issues. Even if this is introduced, Tim Johnson (Director of AEF – the Aviation Environment Federation) says “whether it has any real contribution to make over the next couple of years is quite doubtful”.  Another key environmental concern linked to airport expansion is local air quality – an issue which Tim Johnson does not believe has been addressed sufficiently. The NOx pollution, largely from road traffic associated with an airport, is expensive to reduce. Colin Matthews has said that “to fix air quality at Heathrow [you need to] replace the fleet of diesel engines coming down the M4”.  [How about the M25 too? ]  An extra runway can only be fitted within UK carbon targets by not requiring aviation to cut its CO2 emissions cf. their 2005 level.   
.

 

ANALYSIS: What new London capacity means for green goals

By: KERRY REALS (Flight Global)

18.4.2014

Building an additional runway to address capacity constraints and meet future demand for air travel in and out of London has moved from a question of “if” to one of “where”.

Studies have found that an extra runway could be added without jeopardising the UK’s chance of meeting its emissions reduction targets – albeit to the detriment of further developing regional airports, say some. However, concerns over noise and local air quality could still prove difficult to overcome.

In December 2013, the UK’s government-appointed Airports Commission announced it had whittled down to a shortlist of three the options for where and how to add new runway capacity. These include constructing a second runway at London’s Gatwick airport, building a third runway to the north-west at London Heathrow, and extending the northern runway at Heathrow to allow for simultaneous take-offs and landings. A proposal to build an all-new, four-runway airport on the Isle of Grain in the Thames Estuary did not make the shortlist, but backers have been given extra time to make the case for its possible addition in autumn.

The promoters of all four proposals are keen to point out that theirs is the best when it comes to addressing environmental concerns. They will need to spend the next few months putting meat on the bones of these claims, and convincing local residents in particular that their worries are being taken seriously. As Heathrow’s operators know only too well from previous thwarted attempts to build a third runway, airport expansion is a political hot potato that can be dropped at any minute. In the words of Airports Commission chair Howard Davies, speaking at the Runways UK conference in London in January: “There are complex issues to address where consensus is in short supply.”

When it comes to noise and local air quality concerns, Heathrow has the steepest hill to climb, given its proximity to heavily populated areas and one of the UK’s busiest motorway networks. To complicate matters further, there are two competing proposals for Heathrow’s expansion – one of which does not have the support or endorsement of the airport’s management. The airport’s own proposal is to build a 3,500m (11,500ft) runway to the north-west of the Heathrow site, which it says would have a smaller noise footprint than the previous third-runway proposal put forward in 2003.

“The proposal aims to reduce the number of people affected by noise and give periods of respite from noise for every community under the flightpath,” says Heathrow sustainability director Matt Gorman. Heathrow bosses do not believe the competing “Heathrow Hub” proposal to extend the northern runway to at least 6,000m – put forward by independent promoter Runway Innovations – can offer such respite to local residents.

“It is up to the Airports Commission to weigh up the environmental effects and decide which is the best option of the two. However, unlike our own proposal for a north-west third runway, Heathrow Hub is not able to maintain the principle of runway alternation to provide periods of respite from noise for communities around Heathrow,” says Gorman. “That principle has been shown to be important to local residents.”

This is disputed by former Concorde pilot and now director of Runway Innovations Jock Lowe, who says that periods of respite are “still possible” under the Hub proposal. Lowe lists a number of initiatives that could be taken both now and in the future to further reduce noise, such as delaying the lowering of aircraft landing gear until a maximum of 6nm (11km) from touchdown, and changing continuous descents to constant rate descents with a minimum of 1,000ft per minute. He says respite could be achieved by regular changes to arrival routings, with “whole day alternation possible for some communities”.

Tim Johnson, director of the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), believes the Heathrow Hub proposal is “built around addressing the noise question” more than the other shortlisted options. However, he adds that “until we go through a detailed appraisal of each”, the exact noise implications will remain unknown. One thing he stresses, however, is that “noise will mobilise communities and create a political issue”.

While Heathrow’s Gorman highlights research from independent polling company Populus as suggesting that just 36% of local residents oppose expanding Heathrow, Runway Innovations’ Lowe makes the following point: “Noise is the crucial factor, and the people that don’t like noise will make more noise than the people that do.”

Gatwick airport is using its location away from heavily populated areas to position its expansion proposal as having the least impact when it comes to noise pollution. It says the addition of a second runway would mean that 13,800 households would be affected by noise, which it claims is 5% the number of households that would be affected by the construction of a third runway at Heathrow.

“Heathrow has more people living nearby who are impacted by noise than every other European hub airport combined,” says Gatwick’s operator. “That’s why it will always be too politically toxic for expansion.”

Gatwick chief executive Stewart Wingate describes community support for its expansion plans as “strong”, adding: “Gatwick is sparsely populated. Noise at Gatwick is many orders of magnitude less than at Heathrow.”

In its interim report in December, the Airports Commission recommended the establishment of an independent noise authority to offer impartial advice on the effects of noise pollution from aviation. Such an ombudsman is yet to be appointed, but even if it is, the AEF’s Johnson believes that “whether it has any real contribution to make over the next couple of years is quite doubtful”.

Another key environmental concern linked to airport expansion is that of local air quality – an issue which Johnson does not believe has been addressed sufficiently. This has less to do with emissions from aircraft and more to do with surface transportation around the airport. In the case of Heathrow, Johnson says a number of possible solutions have been considered in the past, such as fitting the tunnels leading into Heathrow with “NOx [nitrogen oxide] scrubbers”, but such options have proved to be expensive.

Colin Matthews, whose stint as Heathrow’s chief executive ends later this year, says that “to fix air quality at Heathrow [you need to] replace the fleet of diesel engines coming down the M4 [motorway]”.   [and how about the M25 too?  The problem is the NOx. Scrubbers, if there were tunnels, would be expensive. Heathrow has said it will pay for work needed to the M25.              AW comment].

But convincing people to leave their cars at home and travel to the airport by public transport means “changing public behaviour”, says Johnson, for which there can be no guarantees. Local air quality “needs to be a real focus for the next stage of the [Airports] Commission’s work”, he adds.  [Heathrow airport claims, in its 2013 submission to the Commission, that it can build a new runway and there would be no more road  journeys than now, due to more use of public transport.  Link ]

Heathrow recognises local air pollution as being a problem, and says it is attempting to improve the situation. “Aviation is a far smaller contributor to air pollution than road traffic. However, we are already taking significant steps to tackle the problem,” says Gorman. “For example, we subsidise local public transport so people can travel for free without the need for a car. We also charge airlines based on how green they are, so the cleanest aircraft are charged less to land at Heathrow.”

Whichever proposal is selected by the Airports Commission and recommended to the UK government for adoption, the country’s climate change commitments must be honoured. The Airports Commission has concluded that one additional runway is needed in the south-east of the UK by 2030, and another runway may be required by 2050. It notes that these conclusions “are consistent with the Committee on Climate Change’s advice to government on meeting its legislated climate change targets”. These targets include cutting emissions from aviation and shipping by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. [Not true – aviation is not  properly included in UK carbon budgets, and need to be merely “taken account of”. It is able to expand as long as its emissions are back to 2005 levels by 2050.  Every other sector must cut its emissions by 80% of their 1990 level by 2050.  Aviation is allowed to double its emissions compared to 1990 – the emissions were about double the 1990 level in 2005. The CCC hopes that aviation will improve carbon efficiency in line with its rate of permitted expansion – perhaps an over-optimistic target.  AW comment]. 

In the best-case scenario for aviation, this would allow the industry to grow [number of passengers] by 60% over the next 35 years, says Johnson.  [55% increase in flights, due to an anticipated increase in average plane size].  While he agrees with the Airports Commission that “respecting the limits from the aviation industry doesn’t preclude another runway”, he notes that an additional runway in the south-east would mean regional airports “would have very little licence to grow”.

No matter which proposal the Airports Commission selects, the additional runway capacity will not arrive any time soon. None of the proposed new runways would be operational before the mid-2020s. The next few months will see promoters battling to win local support for their projects and submitting to the Airports Commission details on how their designs could be developed and appraised.

The next big hurdle once a scheme has been selected will be steering it through parliament and making it a political reality. The Airports Commission will not put forward its final recommendation until after the next UK general election in May 2015. Even then, former transport secretary Lord Adonis suggests that if the next prime minister “can duck the decision for another five years, they will duck”.

 http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-what-new-london-capacity-means-for-green-goals-397467/ 

 

 

 

 

Read more »

Frontier Economics report for Heathrow makes out that a 3rd runway will mean lower fares

Heathrow airport has commissioned a report from Frontier Economics (a firm that has done a lot of pro-expansion reports for the industry), and it makes out that air fares will fall if a 3rd Heathrow runway is built. It is not a brilliant report.  But it said what Heathrow wanted it to say.  Only the FT and the Telegraph bothered to report this story. Frontier economics says the price of slots at Heathrow would fall (which they probably would) if there was a 3rd runway, as with so many new slots, it would not be possible to sell them for the  prices charged today. Frontier economics say a long haul holiday would be cheaper at Heathrow in future, with a new runway. The FT comments that: “Aviation analysts said it would be difficult to calculate the saving.” Indeed. The numbers are very speculative.The report is strangely silent on the – not inconsiderable – matter of the cost of building a new runway, at either Heathrow or Gatwick, and the costs needed to give a reasonably return to the investors. The Frontier Economics report contains some very contorted arguments, with some highly contrived conclusions – with much speculation. 
.

 

The Frontier Economics also says the prices for fares would fall even more if both Heathrow and Gatwick built new  runways. (The Airports Commission has said there is only room, within carbon constraints, for one runway in the coming few decades. Not two. Even one runway, in reality, puts serious strains on the UK’s carbon targets.)  

 


 

The Frontier Economics report is at 

Impact of airport expansion options on competition and choice
A REPORT PREPARED FOR HEATHROW AIRPORT
April 2014   (93 pages)


 

Heathrow expansion ‘would cut prices for passengers’

Heathrow claims an average return ticket would be £300 cheaper by 2030 if the airport is allowed to expand to three runways.

Fleet of British Airways airliners at London Heathrow Airport UK

Heathrow believes it could also offer an additional 40 routes to long-haul destinations if it is allowed to expand. Photo: Alamy

By , Leisure & Transport Correspondent

17 Apr 2014 (Telegraph)

Heathrow has upped the ante in its battle to secure approval for a third runway, claiming that air passengers are paying an average of £95 more for a return ticket than they should be due to a lack of spare capacity at the West London hub.

The airport, which has been operating close to full capacity for a decade, said a lack of available take-off and landing slots means passengers are paying higher prices as there is insufficient competition on routes.

A report commissioned by the airport, produced by Frontier Economics, claims the average return ticket could be as much as £300 cheaper in today’s prices by 2030 if Heathrow is allowed to expand.

Two possible designs for a third runway at Heathrow have been short-listed by the government-back Airports Commission, along with a second air strip at rival Gatwick.

Heathrow is seeking to undermine its rival by claiming there would be greater benefits to passengers if both airports were allowed to expand. Gatwick has stated it will not build a second runway if its competitor is also given the go-ahead.

The expectation is most airlines would increase their take-off and landing slots at Heathrow, rendering a second runway at Gatwick unviable if both bases expanded.

The Airports Commission has determined that only one net new runway will be needed to meet aviation demand in the south east of England by 2030 although a second may be necessary by 2050.

Colin Matthews, Heathrow’s outgoing chief executive, said: “This research shows that not building a third runway at Heathrow will add hundreds of pounds to the cost of a family holiday, be a disincentive to doing business in the UK, and increase the cost of the goods and services that are imported and exported through Britain’s most important trade gateway.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/10771073/Heathrow-expansion-would-cut-prices-for-passengers.html

.


See also:

 

Bloomberg says Heathrow claim that 3rd runway would mean lower air fares takes “a flight of imagination”

April 22, 2014

A report – by Frontier Economics – released by Heathrow last week, as part of its lobbying effort, sought to put a price on the way the airport has chosen to run at almost full capacity. The study makes out that the cost of building the new runway, terminal, changes to the road network, compensating people etc would only add £20 per ticket. Interestingly, Bloomberg Businessweek says “Heathrow officials did not respond to e-mails seeking comment” on these remarkable figures. A footnote buried on page 11 of the Frontier Economics study “notes that calculations for how much fares would fall once a 3rd runway were operational are “complicated by airline price setting,” which is typically focused on “maximizing profitability.” Indeed. ” Bloomberg is not convinced that air fares would necessarily fall if a new runway was built. They cite examples of new runways in the USA, where prices have merely risen. They also say the airline alliances would make fare cuts unlikely. Airlines have no interest in cutting fares. Bloomberg says: “selling the project as a fare-lowering exercise takes a flight of imagination.”

Click here to view full story…

.


 

.

Meanwhile the Daily Mail takes it at face value:

Heathrow holidaymaker and business flier fares will soar if no new runway is built, warns new study

By DAILY MAIL

17 April 2014 (This is Money)

Failing to build a third runway at Heathrow will add £300 to the cost of an average return fare from the airport by 2030, according to a new study.

The report by consultancy Frontier Economics, commissioned by Heathrow, said there was no doubt the South East needed new airports.

And it warned costs would soar at Heathrow if no new runway was built, with demand for flights significantly outweighing supply.

 Frontier estimated that not building a third runway would mean a £320 rise on the average £625 return ticket by 2030.

Building the runway would add £20 to each ticket – an overall saving of £300 on each ticket. Building a second runway at Gatwick, however,  would result in a saving of just £4 per ticket over the same period. The study also estimates that passengers are paying an extra £95 at present at Heathrow than they would if it had another runway.

‘This report makes clear that if the UK chooses to expand only one airport, then the greatest consumer benefits from increased competition and lower fares are to be gained at Heathrow,’ said the airport’s boss Colin Matthews.

Frontier also estimated that an enlarged Heathrow would connect London to 40 new destinations, and only seven at a bigger Gatwick.

‘Heathrow Airport would lead to substantially greater reductions in ticket prices and greater connectivity,’ said Frontier.

Sir Howard Davies’ Airports Commission will not make its final recommendations until 2015.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2606419/Heathrow-fares-soar-no-new-runway-built-warns-new-study.html


.

Third runway would lead to lower air fares, says Heathrow

By Jane Wild (FT)

Heathrow airport's Terminal 2 building

©photolibrary.heathrow.comHeathrow airport’s Terminal 2 building

Heathrow airport says the cost of an average air fare would fall sharply if it had a third runway, according to research that backs its case for expansion.

It says passengers pay an extra £95 more for an average return because airlines are fighting for space at Heathrow, and this pushes up prices.

A report by the consultancy Frontier Economics says £300 could be cut from a return air fare by 2030 if the west London airport were allowed to expand.

“This research shows that not building a third runway at Heathrow will add hundreds of pounds to the cost of a family holiday, be a disincentive to doing business in the UK, and increase the cost of the goods and services that are imported and exported through Britain’s most important trade gateway,” said Colin Matthews, the airport’s departing chief executive.

Aviation analysts said it would be difficult to calculate the saving.

“Having extra capacity at a busy London airport would increase competition, which based on historical behaviour would have the impact of driving down ticket prices. It would be hard to quantify by how much that would be,” said Jack Diskin, at Goodbody brokerage.

Anand Date, at Deutsche Bank, said taxes made up a significant proportion of ticket prices, so any cut would have to come from the remainder that went to airlines.

Heathrow’s research said both it and Gatwick should be allowed to expand to bring the greatest benefits to passengers, because both airports will be heavily congested by 2030.

A commission appointed by the government is assessing how best the UK’s southeast air space, the busiest in the world, could take more flights.

Heathrow said with a third runway it would be able to add 40 new, direct routes, to destinations such as Kolkata, Lima and Mombasa. It would also be able to improve connectivity within the UK, with routes to places such as Inverness, Jersey and Durham – destinations that have been cut as space has become more expensive.

Full FT article is at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0c26a398-c587-11e3-97e4-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2z82LG6dT

.


.

The Frontier Economics report is at 

Impact of airport expansion options on competition and choice 
A REPORT PREPARED FOR HEATHROW AIRPORT
April 2014   (93 pages)

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Hundreds turn out for first week of Gatwick 2nd runway consultation meetings

Gatwick Airport’s public consultation about its 2nd runway plans have continued to draw hundreds of people to meetings and sparked a renewed protest campaign. While local residents have packed consultation meetings the Gatwick Airport Conservation Campaign (GACC) has renewed its call for the proposals to be dropped with a new drive called “Gatwick’s Big Enough.”  GACC has attacked the consultation itself as a “phoney” – with no proper option to say NO. New action groups have formed against the second runway proposals, in the wake of the formation of CAGNE.  Gatwick Airport says at the Crawley exhibition there were 690 people; 350 at Rusper; about  370 in Smallfield; 340 in Ifield, 300 in Lingfield; 275 in Felbridge; and around 180 as far away as Epsom. GACC volunteers have been giving out leaflets and recruiting members outside the runway exhibitions. A high proportion of those attending the exhibitions are stunned by the scale of development, puzzled why there are no flight path maps, and opposed to the massive changes planned to a wide area of Surrey and Sussex.
.

Hundreds turn out for first week of Gatwick second runway consultation meetings

Monday 14th April 2014 (This is Local London)

Gatwick Airport’s public consultation over its controversial proposals for a second runway has continued to draw hundreds of people to meetings and sparked a renewed protest campaign.

For while local residents have packed consultation meetings with displays in venues including in Rusper, Smallfield and Lingfield, the Gatwick Airport Conservation Campaign (GACC) has renewed its call for the proposals to be dropped with a new drive called “Gatwick’s Big Enough.”

Citing arguments against the proposals from three local MPs, GACC has attacked the consultation itself as a “phoney” and said new action groups have formed up against the second runway proposals, in the wake of Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions (CAGNE).

The group already has more than 300 members drawn from villages including Rusper, Slinfold, Warnham and Broadbridge Heath.

This week, Gatwick Airport released attendance figures for the meetings held so far in its six-week public consultation.

After launching in Crawley with 690 people viewing the display boards at the Hawth Theatre, 350 turned out for the meeting in Rusper, 370 in Smallfield, 340 in Ifield, 300 in Lingfield, and 275 in Felbridge.

Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) has said feedback from the public consultation will help improve its second runway proposal to the Airports Commission. The consultation will run until Friday, May 16. Stewart Wingate, chief executive officer of London Gatwick, said: “We are keen to encourage as many local people as possible to respond to our consultation, as this feedback will have a key role in helping us to refine our runway proposals. “The consultation is a chance for the local community to find out more about our proposals, ask questions and have their say on our plans for a second runway.” But GACC has slated the consultation as a “phoney,” stating that the Airports Commission has already announced in its Interim Report that it would be focusing on the airport’s preferred option of the three suggested schemes put forward – for a new runway 1,045m to the south of the existing runway, but with the two runways being used independently, and with a new terminal being built between them. GACC said the Airports Commission’s announcement meant “the decision has already been taken.”

It has also blasted the airport response form.

GACC vice chairman Peter Barclay said: “Many people are confused by the airport response form which has 278 boxes which you can tick, but only one well-hidden little box labelled ‘None of these options,’ if you wish to say ‘No’ to a new runway.”

GACC volunteers have been giving out leaflets and recruiting members outside the runway exhibitions.

GACC chairman Brendon Sewill said: “The exhibitions are having one good result – we have had a lot of new people signing up as members.”

Mr Sewill of Stan Hill, Charlwood, said: “A number of local action groups, from Tunbridge Wells to Horsham, have been formed opposing a new runway – all working with GACC.

“For instance, in Crawley, the all-Party ‘One’s Enough’ group has been re-started.

“It had great success in 2003 in persuading Crawley Council to switch from a position of support for a new runway to one of unanimous opposition.”

GACC, which has itself already fought expansion at Gatwick two times, has posted thousands of car stickers to members bearing the ‘Gatwick’s Big Enough’ logo.

It has also posted a Fact File, summarising facts about what it says a new runway would do to the area, to all councillors of seven county, borough and district councils.

The fact file states, among other things, that a new runway “would mean twice as many aircraft in the sky, twice the pollution,twice the climate change damage, twice the noise, and new flight paths over peaceful areas.”

It also quotes statements against a second runway from Reigate MP Crispin Blunt, Mid Sussex MP Nicholas Soames and Horsham MP Francis Maude.

GACC’s calls were also echoed this week by Keith Taylor, MEP for South East England.

Joining the group’s slating of the consultation and in particular, the response form and what he said is its “hard to find” tickbox for ‘No New Runway,’ Mr Taylor stated: “But ‘No New Runway’ is the only sane choice.”

In a letter, he wrote: “A massive increase in flights at Gatwick would mean more people affected by noise and pollution, both from planes and the associated road traffic. “It would have big impacts on our already overstretched road and rail infrastructure, and up to 45,000 new houses would need to be squeezed into Surrey and Sussex to accommodate all the workers the larger airport would require.”

He concluded: “Rather than blindly catering for ever-growing demand for air travel, we need to reduce demand.

“Rather than taking part in a phoney consultation, I am voicing my opposition to any expansion of airport capacity in South-east England.”

The next consultation meetings in the Life area – with the displays manned by teams from Gatwick and the Airports Commission – are due to take place at Reigate Community Centre, off High Street, Reigate, next Wednesday (April 23), from 4pm to 7.30pm, in The Studio at Horley Leisure Centre, off Court Lodge Road, Horley, on Saturday, April 26, from 11am to 3.30pm, and at The Parish Hall, The Street, Charlwood, on Monday, April 28, from 4pm to 7.30pm.

People can respond, get more information and find the full details of where the public exhibitions will be held at: www.gatwickairport.com/consultation

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/11147524.Hundreds_turn_out_for_first_week_of_Gatwick_second_runway_consultation_meetings/

 


 

 

Majority of people at Gatwick Airport consultation express their opposition to second runway

By Crawley News

April 16, 2014

A MAJORITY of people questioned at a consultation on a possible second runway at Gatwick Airport voiced their opposition, as anti-expansion groups petitioned outside.

Gatwick Airport Ltd held a public exhibition at Ifield Community College last Wednesday detailing its plans, if it is chosen as the Government’s preferred option for increasing airport capacity.

Visitors were provided with information on the three options for where an additional runway would be built.

That included maps showing how an expanded airport would develop into parts of Crawley; how the major road network would change; wider transport schemes; the economic impact; and noise and environmental impacts.

The split in the room, which leaned heavily in opposition to the plans, was highlighted further when the Crawley News spoke to a selection of those present at random.

Of the ten people asked, seven were against the plans compared with three being in favour.

Janine Robins, director at Ifield Barn Theatre who lives in Langley Lane in Ifield, explained why she is against the plans.

She said: “I feel this is the wrong place.

“The theatre is built in a conservation area and if a second runway is built it is going to be right under the path for take-offs and have planes circling over.

“How could we still hold weddings and shows with all that noise going on just above us?

“It will not only be really bad with all the planes but all the extra cars as well.

“People cannot just sit at home and accept a second runway being built here. Our voices against it must be heard.”

Steve Mitchell, from Lavant Close in Gossops Green, was not persuaded to change his mind after visiting the exhibition and speaking to airport representatives.

He said: “I have lived in Crawley for over 20 years and I am completely against a second runway.

“There are already too many planes flying over Gossops Green at the weekends, creating too much noise.

“I have 15 a day at the moment and if a second runway means that doubles to 30 it will be disgusting and unbearable.

“Nothing will change my mind. Even if Gatwick offered me £20,000 in compensation a year I wouldn’t support it.”

One of the people most vocal in their support for Gatwick expansion was the 13-year-old deputy youth mayor for Crawley.

Hajid Hussain, from Langley Green, was representing the Crawley Young Persons Council, made up of 36 members aged between 11 and 25, which is petitioning for a second runway to be built.

Hajid said: “I support option three (a wide-spaced runway which would accommodate arrivals and departures) and Gatwick also getting a new terminal.

“It will bring the most jobs which will help people my age and create an economic boost.

“There are disadvantages such as more pollution but I think there are more benefits.”

Mary Graffham, from Southgate Drive, in Southgate, believes expansion at Gatwick Airport would make travelling to long-haul destinations a lot easier.

Mrs Graffham said: “I like to travel with my husband and we often have to go to Heathrow because Gatwick doesn’t fly to as many long-haul spots.

“The M25 is horrific and it actually puts us off going away sometimes.

“A second runway would lead to more long-haul routes at Gatwick and a much quicker journey.

“I think Gatwick suits expansion.”

Among the details shared were the number of jobs which would be created.

Option one (where a runway would be built closer to the existing runway compared to the other options) would create 7,400, option two 15,200 and option three 17,500.

Major road network changes would include the M23’s Junction 9 being improved with a new slip road added to nearly double its capacity.

Part of a new runway would lie over part of the A23 so it would have to be diverted, separating local and airport traffic.

Balcombe Road would be diverted between Radford Road and the M23 spur road.

The Lowfield Heath Road and Charlwood Road route would be lost through expansion and a short diversion of Ifield Road would be created, close to where it crosses the River Mole.

Once visitors had finished at the public exhibition they were invited to comment in a consultation document.

This included selecting which of the three runway options they preferred, or if they didn’t like any option.

A cross-party anti-second runway campaign group called One’s Enough, originally formed in 2003, has been resurrected and petitioned outside the exhibition.

The group has 15 core members including Labour borough councillor Brenda Smith and Conservative councillors Keith and Sally Blake.

John Byng, from the group, said: “We have seen off three previous attempts to expand Gatwick and we are going to see a fourth fail.”

More than 1,000 people have attended the two airport consultations in Crawley.

A total of 340 residents visited Ifield Community College last Wednesday, while 690 went to The Hawth on April 5.

Anyone living in Crawley who was unable to go to either of those public exhibitions but would like to find out more about the proposals and have their say, can visit any of nine still to be held.

The nearest is at the Haven Centre, in Crawley Down, on April 25 between 4 and 7.30pm.

http://www.crawleynews.co.uk/Majority-people-Gatwick-Airport-consultation/story-20961413-detail/story.html

Read more »

Australian government approves construction of 2nd Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek

The Australian government has approved the construction of a 2nd large airport at Badgerys Creek, in western Sydney, about 45 km west of the central business district.   Prime Minister Tony Abbott said planning and design work would start immediately,  with construction expected to begin in 2016. The first flights might take place by the mid-2020s. Funding would come mostly from the private sector. The idea for this airport has been around for decades, but plans to put it at Badgerys Creek were shelved for fear of backlash from local voters.  Mr Abbott has made it clear he wants a curfew-free airport, so it can have flights all night.  Sydney’s current airport is only 8km away from the city and it operates with a curfew between 23:00 and 06:00. Opponents of building the airport at Badgerys Creek say there are better ways of dealing with airport capacity demand, by locating regional flights and cargo flights to two other nearby airports. Sydney airport already has 2 runways and is only up to 80 aircraft movements per hour during the morning and afternoon peaks. They say it is likely, due to pricing changes and competition, the new airport is unlikely to pay back its investors for years, and that proper studies of alternatives have not been looked at properly. 
.

 

Australia’s Sydney gets second airport

15.4.2014 (BBC)

Qantas plane on tarmac at Sydney airport
Sydney’s second airport will cost $2.4bn to build and create thousands of jobs

Australia has approved the construction of a second international airport in Sydney at the cost of $2.4bn (£1.4bn).

The new facility will be located at Badgerys Creek, in western Sydney.

Planning and design work would start immediately, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said, with construction expected to begin in 2016. Funding would come mostly from the private sector.

The green light from Mr Abbott’s government comes nearly 70 years after the idea was first debated.

The debate on the need for a second airport in Australia’s largest city dates back to 1946. Badgerys Creek was a proposed site but the idea was then shelved for fear of backlash from local voters.

‘Nationwide benefit’

Around 20 sites were considered before the government approved the new facility about 45km west of Sydney’s central business district.

Based on early estimates, the first flights in and out of the airport are not expected until the mid-2020s.

Speaking outside parliament in Canberra, the prime minister said Sydney’s second airport would create up to 60,000 jobs when it became fully operational.

Mr Abbott has made it clear he wants a curfew-free airport. Sydney’s current Kingsford Smith Airport is only 8km away from the city and it operates with a curfew between 23:00 and 06:00.

Australia’s national carrier, Qantas, welcomed the announcement.

Chief Executive Alan Joyce said in a statement: “Sydney is the key gateway for air traffic in and out of Australia and the benefits of having two major airports will be felt nationwide.”

“We look forward to being part of this process as Badgerys Creek moves closer to reality.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27030815

.


.

Is a new airport at Badgerys Creek really needed?

April 15, 2014 (Sydney  Morning Herald)

ANALYSIS

Is a second airport the best way to solve Sydney's air travel congestion problems?Is a second airport the best way to solve Sydney’s air travel congestion problems? Photo: Tamara Dean

Within weeks of taking office Treasurer Joe Hockey commissioned a Productivity Commission inquiry into the funding of infrastructure.

Its draft report released in March identified what it said was a classic example of how not to do it.

“The National Broadband Network, Australia’s largest public infrastructure project, was commenced without a cost-benefit analysis having been done,” it said.

“It also appears that detailed analysis of the project was focused, from a relatively early stage, on how best to implement the government’s policy objectives, rather than considering the merits of different options.”

It sounds like Badgerys Creek.

The Commission said the proper process was for the government to first work out what it wanted to achieve (such as moving planes or passengers quickly) and then work out the cheapest means of achieving it. It might be congestion taxes or time-of-day pricing.

Only then, if nothing else would do the job more cheaply, should it build something new.

To spend billions without first having precisely identified the problem and investigated cheaper ways of solving it would be to waste public money.

I am in possession of some back-of-the-envelope calculations done by a Sydney economist who has tried to do that for the Sydney Airport.

It is well located for travellers (much better than Badgerys Creek) but has a curfew and is limited to around 80 aircraft movements per hour.

It only ever reaches 80 aircraft movements during the morning and afternoon peaks. If regional aircraft were encouraged to move to Bankstown and cargo flights to move to Richmond the peaks would vanish.

Regional aircraft need only 1.8 kilometres of airstrip to takeoff. They don’t need to 2.5 and 3.96 kilometres available at Sydney airport. Squandering it on them is “an inefficient use of a scarce aviation asset”.

Regional aircraft typically carry fewer than 80 passengers. A Boeing B747 takes 396, an Airbus 330-300 takes 290. Allowing regional aircraft to use valuable landing slots at peak times means the airport is carrying many fewer passengers than it can.

Regional aircraft typically account for 20 per cent of movements at Sydney Airport.

Most could be banished to Bankstown if its runway was upgraded from 1.4 to 1.8 kilometres and its capacity lifted from 20 to 30 tonnes. A noise levy at the Bankstown and Sydney airports could pay for insulation in the affected homes. The training schools that presently use Bankstown could be moved to Camden.

With commendable understatement the economist says the costs would be “negligible compared to the cost of building a second airport at Badgerys Creek”.

And that’s just the start. Peak period charging could move non-time sensitive customers to other times of the day.

“Applying the laws of supply and demand to address capacity constraints could prove a unique experience for many stakeholders,” the economist says. “Not allowing pricing to ration the shortage of landing and takeoff slots during the peak periods means not using an existing asset efficiently and can no longer be justified.”

And the airlines themselves could reconfigure cabins to carry more customers by allocating seats more efficiently between business and economy class.

Trying all of these things first, as the Productivity Commission suggests, would postpone the need for a second airport. And they might make us realise we don’t really want it.

It’s worth asking who would use it.

The economist writes that Badgerys Creek will become a “spillover” airport.

“Passengers are unlikely to be impressed by the commute time from Badgerys Creek to the centre of Sydney.”

We will continue to want to use Sydney and the airlines will as well, just as they prefer Tullamarine to Avalon in Victoria.

The economist reckons the government has Buckley’s of getting its money back for decades.

“It is likely that Sydney Airport will commence pricing policies for the off-peak period to ensure that Sydney Airport does not suffer revenue leakage to Badgerys Creek,” he warns.

I don’t know whether that is right or not, but I would like to know the government had tried other solutions before settling on spending billions building a new airport in an inconvenient location.

As the Commission says, the first step is to identify the problem.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/is-a-new-airport-at-badgerys-creek-really-needed-20140415-zquyy.html

.


 

.

Tony Abbott confirms Badgerys Creek as site of second Sydney airport

Lisa Cox, James Massola

Badgerys Creek airport gets go-ahead

Prime Minister Tony Abbott announces that Sydney’s second airport will be built in Badgerys Creek in western Sydney.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has confirmed a second airport for Sydney, triggering tens of millions of dollars of infrastructure investment for Sydney’s west.

After months of speculation, Badgerys Creek, 50 kilometres west of Sydney’s CBD, was approved by cabinet on Tuesday as the location of the airport.

Construction of the airport is expected to begin in 2016 and will spur the creation of up to 4000 construction jobs at its peak.

 

Mr Abbott said the bulk of the investment for the airport would come from the private sector, with government to take the lead on building surrounding infrastructure, including roads.

The cost of building the airport is estimated at $2.5 billion.

Sydney Airport has first right of refusal to build and operate the airport.

“It’s a long, overdue decision which, to be honest, has been shirked and squibbed by successive governments for far too long,” Mr Abbott said.

“I also want to stress that the government’s approach will be roads first, airport second, because we don’t want the people of western Sydney to have an airport without having the decent transport infrastructure that western Sydney deserves.”

Mr Abbott said the project would create 60,000 new jobs for western Sydney once the airport was fully operational.

The Prime Minister said details about how the infrastructure package will be funded will be made in the coming days.

It’s understood the federal and NSW governments are close to finalising a deal on how much federal money will be on the table.

An initial figure of $200 million that had been floated was insufficient in the view of the NSW government.

“I think this is a good news story for western Sydney,” Mr Abbott said.

“It’s good news for jobs and, because of the importance of Sydney in our national economy, it’s good news for Australia.”

Mr Abbott played down concerns that airport noise would become an issue at the new flightpath in the way it has for residents around Sydney Airport.

“I don’t believe this is going to be anything like the problem at Badgerys that it has been at Mascot,” he said.

“For a couple of reasons – first, because, quite frankly, people don’t want to travel in the middle of the night.

“And, second, because we are just dealing with far, far fewer people.

“If you look at the noise footprint, some 4000 people live within a Badgerys’ noise footprint.

“The equivalent footprint at Sydney is 130,000. So I just don’t think it’s going to be anything like the issue that it is elsewhere.”

Mr Abbott added: “We are certainly not saying there will be a curfew.”

Qantas immediately welcomed the announcement on Tuesday, with chief executive Alan Joyce describing Badgerys Creek as the right site.

“After decades of debate, we applaud today’s announcement by the Prime Minister,” Mr Joyce said.

“The role of second airports has been well-established in several of the world’s major capitals. Sydney is the key gateway for air traffic in and out of Australia and the benefits of having two major airports will be felt nationwide.”

Western Sydney Airport Alliance spokesman David Borger said the decision to build at Badgerys Creek was long overdue.

He said residents would support the decision because it will create jobs and raise living standards.

However, western Sydney Labor MP Ed Husic said locals are being “blackmailed”.

“They say ‘If you want better infrastructure you have to support the airport and by virtue of blocking the airport you won’t get better infrastructure’,” he told ABC Radio.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-confirms-billions-in-road-funding-to-support-second-sydney-airport-at-badgerys-creek-20140416-zqvc7.html

.


 

Tony Abbott confirms billions in road funding to support second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek

Western Sydney infrastructure blitz

Billions of dollars will be spent upgrading western Sydney infrastructure the Prime Minister has announced. Nine News.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has announced $2.9 billion in new roads spending over the next eight years to support the construction of a new airport at Badgerys Creek, with NSW pitching in 20 per cent of the cost.

The announcement follows from Mr Abbott confirming yesterday that the Coalition cabinet had signed off on building the much-debated airport at the site 50 kilometres west of Sydney’s CBD.

Construction of the airport is expected to begin in 2016 and will spur the creation of up to 4000 construction jobs at its peak.

Prime Minster Tony Abbott at Liverpool Council in western Sydney announces roads funding to support a second airport at Badgerys Creek Photo: Sasha Woolley

NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell was expected to appear with Mr Abbott, but pulled out and then announced he was resigning as premier over revelations at the Independent Commission against Corruption.

Advertisement

Mr Abbott told a media conference at Liverpool Council on Wednesday that the funding was an ‘growth package’ for western Sydney.

The plan includes several major Sydney road upgrades, including expansion of The Northern Road to four lanes from Narellan Road to the M4.

The Prime Minister said Elizabeth Drive from the M7 to the Northern Road would be upgraded to “a very high standard” and there would also be an urgent overhaul of Bringelly Road to increase the thoroughfare to four lanes from Camden Valley Way to the Northern Road.

Mr Abbott said the NSW government would also immediately move to secure the rail corridor from the south-west rail link to Penrith, but Wednesday’s announcement included no funding details for such a proposal.

“These are vital pieces of road infrastructure and what they mean is that the announcement yesterday is not just an announcement about an airport, it is an announcement about jobs and infrastructure for western Sydney,” Mr Abbott said.

“This is a jobs and infrastructure package.

“There will be 4000 jobs in the short-term on road construction and over time, thanks to the development associated with the new airport, we believe there will be at least 60,000 more jobs in western Sydney.”

Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss said the government was attracted to the idea of including a rail link in the airport’s design, but signalled that Badgerys Creek could open without a completed rail station.

He said any railway connection could be built under the runways, with space for an underground station.

“This line, though, will be built not essentially to service the airport, it will be built to service the people of western Sydney and the residential areas of western Sydney,” Mr Truss said.

“It is going to start as a modest airport operation.

“It is difficult to justify the cost of a railway line, specifically to service the airport at an initial stage. If you look at the experience around Australia, Melbourne doesn’t yet have a railway line to its airport. When an airport is starting small, usually the railway comes along later on.”

Earlier on Wednesday, Labor’s transport spokesman Anthony Albanese, who supports a second airport at Badgerys Creek, warned that a major airport at Badgerys Creek would not be viable without a rail link to Sydney’s CBD.

He attacked Mr Abbott’s “ideological objection” to rail and said a rail connection between the two airports and to the greater western line was essential.

“This has got to be not just about the airport,” Mr Albanese said.

“It’s got to be about jobs and economic development of related industries and innovation in western Sydney – part of that has to be a rail line. I don’t understand this ideological objection that Tony Abbott has to rail.

“You need rail as well as road in order for this airport to work.”

Mr Albanese was less forthcoming on Tuesday on the question of 24-hour operation.

“These issues will be examined in the environmental impact statement,” he said.

“It’s important that the community’s views on these issues be taken into account.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-confirms-billions-in-road-funding-to-support-second-sydney-airport-at-badgerys-creek-20140416-zqvc7.html#ixzz2z5iDYbKe

 

.


 

.

Earlier:

Threat to a village called Wilton from proposed 2nd Sydney airport

14.4.2012There have been demands for many years for another airport for Sydney (Australia) as it is claimed that the current airport is nearly full, and that demand for flying is increasing fast, and will continue to do so.  It is even predicted that it will quadruple by 2050. One possible site is called Badgerys Creek, not far from  Sydney, though there are many problems with the site. Another potential site is Wilton, a village 80 kilometres south-west of Sydney.  This is proving to be very controversial, and there is strong opposition building from local residents against having their homes destroyed, and their lives ruined, by having a massive new airport on their doorstep.  Usual pressure by the aviation industry to press for more capacity, with the usual threats of economic doom etc if it is not built. Sounds familiar?  They should  twin Wilton with Sipson.  http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=1693..

.

 

 

Read more »

Residents fear Manchester longer operating hours will mean more noise

Manchester airport has decided to extend the operating hours of its second runway. The airport built a 2nd runway, back in 2001 when it thought there would be an expansion in demand. They forecast badly, the estimates were far too high, and the runway is barely used. The airport only had some 20.6 million passengers in 2013, while over 30 million could be accommodated on one runway. Now Manchester has decided to increase the hours when flights use the 2nd runway for 3 hours per day. The hours were 4pm to 8pm, but these will be increased to 1pm to 8pm from  Monday to Saturday. The decision comes after a trial last summer, and will come into force on May 1st.  The 2nd runway cannot be used from 10pm to 6am, to avoid noise to local residents.  In 2013 Manchester airport had a 5.2% increase in passengers over 2012, the first time it got over the 20 million mark since 2007. Manchester hopes to have a direct flight to Hong Kong from December 2014. People are worried that the extra operating hours will mean an unpleasant increase in noise. 
.

 

 

Manchester Airport: Neighbours say extended hours will mean more noise

Plane spotters are snap-happy at the prospect of more to see, but residents under the flight path fear more noise pollution

Neighbours in Mobberley, who live beneath the Runway Two flight path, seemed unaware of the looming changes to operating hours.

Retired photographic expert Evan Prosser, 85, has lived in his home since 1962 and has in the past received a grant towards sound-proofing.

“It’s still quite noisy when the windows are open, and not bad when we close the windows but I won’t be looking forward to this change at all. If we open our windows in the early afternoon it will be very loud. You realise how bad it is when you have an outdoor event.

“A few years ago we had a tea party and it was just not enjoyable. It was all right when we first moved in many years ago, but the airport has grown a lot since then. In a way we’ve got used to it but I’m not pleased there will be more hours.”

Ellen Buckley, 39, lives with her mother Anne Colley, 76. She said: “We didn’t know about this. When we are inside the planes make the pictures rattle and you have to stop talking but you get used to it, especially when you’ve been living here 40 years. We are a bit disappointed.”

IT manager David Brush, 52, his wife Sally, and one of their four children, live to the side of the flight path.

He said: “It’s disappointing, especially as we didn’t know this was happening. My wife works at home too so this will affect her in the day.

“It’s just the level of noise – at the moment it’s not too bad but an increase would be a little disappointing.”

Leanne Barnes, 26, lives with her daughter Isabelle, two.

She said: “I didn’t know about this but I don’t mind at all. I am completely used to the sound of the planes and I keep my windows shut in the early morning and at night. Isabelle really likes the planes too.”

It’s good news for aviation enthusiasts


Plane spotters at the Manchester Airport aviation viewing park

Plane spotters at the Runway Visitor Park were pleased to hear of the extension to Runway Two hours.

Supermarket worker James Donaldson, 30, from Sale, said: “It’s a great thing that Runway Two’s opening hours are going to be extended. We are going need it in the future, there are going to be more flights operating from Manchester, we’ve got new routes coming to the Far East shortly. Basically It’s going to be needed and I think it should have been done a while ago.

“It’s a great thing for enthusiasts like me, with my long range camera I can photograph aircraft taking off on that runway no problem and there’s another spot on the south side which is just opposite runway two where you can get some great photos. I think it’s absolutely brilliant.”

Care worker George Tetteh-Ahirakwa, 42, from Wythenshawe, said: “The more planes there are, the better it is for those like me.

“Perhaps somebody who is not a plane spotter might have a problem with it – although I think as it will be in the day time it’s not as bad as if it were at night. Perhaps those people should get double glazing. The airport needs to do this because it is expanding.”

Ian Baker, 60, travels to Manchester from Birmingham to spot planes because he says the facilities are a lot better here.

He said: “Extending the hours would suit me because more planes equals hopefully more to spot. I’m very happy.”

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/manchester-airport-neighbours-say-extended-6984261

.


 

.

Manchester Airport extends second runway opening hours to cope with demand

Runway Two will now operate from 1pm-8pm instead of 4pm-8pm, Monday to Saturday

A plane landing at Manchester Airport

Manchester Airport is extending the opening hours of its second runway to cope with booming passenger numbers.

Runway Two will now operate from 1pm-8pm instead of 4pm-8pm, Monday to Saturday.

It will mean flights can be shifted over from Runway One during the busiest times.

The decision comes after a trial extension last summer, and will come into force on May 1.

An airport spokesman said: “Last summer we conducted a trial of revised operating hours on Runway Two. We wanted to improve operations by increasing capacity, which meant opening the runway three hours early each day, and we plan to repeat this from 1 May.

“We will continue to work closely with our local communities as we are aware that our operations have an impact but we are aiming to improve efficiency on the airfield and drive further improvements in customer service for our airline customers and passengers.”

The airport saw a 5.2 per cent increase in its passenger figures last year – hitting the 20m mark for the first time since 2007.

Last week, it achieved its goal of securing a direct Far East flight service, with the Cathay Pacific Hong Kong route launching in December, operating four times a week, and creating 200 jobs.

Manchester Airport: Neighbours say extended hours will equal more noise  (Video clip – the plane spotters think more planes is a great idea!)

It means Manchester is the only airport outside of London to have a direct service to China and the deal is tipped to deliver a major boost to the region’s economy.

Other new long haul routes this year include Charlotte in North Carolina, America and Toronto, Canada, as well as new European and North African destinations.

Business and airline chiefs have welcomed the extra routes – saying they will create jobs and help the economy – but not everyone is pleased that the airport is booming,

Residents living under the flight path have previously complained about noise – and some have now raised concerns to the M.E.N. about more daytime noise pollution.

The airport has paid out more than £10m in compensation to residents of Knutsford and Mobberley, who claim the noise and fumes from planes has slashed the value of their homes since the second runway was opened in 2001.

 

Runway Two is out of bounds between 10pm and 6am because of noise complaints from local residents.

But the airport has permission to use it for emergencies or maintenance. It was used overnight for two months until March 28 while Runway One was shut for repair work.

The noisiest three categories of aircraft are also banned from taking off and landing on either runway overnight and the airport can be fined if noise exceeds the maximum levels set by the Civil Aviation Authority.

The airport spokesman added that residents had been consulted on the extended hours and leaflets were handed out in the community.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/manchester-airport-extends-second-runway-6984243

 


 

Manchester Airport  – Terminal Passengers:  

(thousands)

UK Airport Statistics: 2012 – annual  (Table 10.3)  Terminal Passengers  2002 – 2012

2013     20,682,900 (up + 5.2% on 2012)
2012     19,654,100  (up + 4.5% on 2011)
2011     18,807(up + 6% on 2010)
2010    17,663,000 (down -5% on 2009)   
2009    18,631,242  (down – 11.5% from 2008)
2008    21,063   thousand   (down  – 4% from 2007)
2007    21,892  (down – 1% from 2006)

2006    22,124
2005    22,083
2000    18,349
1997    15,726

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

Letter from a Gatwick flight path trial sufferer: “Home like bizarre noise experiment”

In a heart-felt letter to a local paper in Sussex, a resident who now finds herself – without warning – under a “trial” flight path from Gatwick airport describes how it is affecting her, and her means of earning her living at home. She says the planes start flying overhead before 6am, and continue to do so about every 5 minutes, or less, most of the day. She says, in desperation: “It’s like your home has been turned into some sort of bizarre noise experiment. Where you have no control. On some days you’re OK. The noise isn’t too bad. And on other days – it’s like getting an electric shock, every few minutes. Where you have no control. And it’s not just you – it’s your family as well …. everyone is tired, and ratty and distracted. And annoyed that they didn’t sleep well.” Part of her work requires running a webinair, which is now interrupted by the plane noise.  “That’s my work. That’s how I make a living. And I can’t even rely on the peace and quiet of my own home to be able to run my own business.”
.

LETTER: Home like bizarre noise experiment

Your letters (West Sussex County Times)

Published on 12 April 2014

Dear Sir
“This morning the planes started flying overhead at 5.53. And they have been flying over

every 3- 5 minutes. Some days have been better than others. Today and on 1st April were

bad.

I’m just wondering – do you have any idea about what it is like?

It’s like your home has been turned into some sort of bizarre noise experiment. Where you have no control.

On some days you’re ok. The noise isn’t too bad.

And on other days- it’s like getting an electric shock, every few minutes. Where you have no control. And it’s not just you – it’s your family as well.

And you can’t protect them. And you can’t stop the noise. And everyone is tired, and ratty and distracted. And annoyed that they didn’t sleep well.

And someone else is controlling the experiment. And you feel like a lab rat. So you complain and do what you can to stop the noise.

But the experiment keeps running.

Do you have any idea about how that feels?

I know how bad it was on 1st April, because, as part of my work I was running a parenting webinar.

Ironically it was on how parents can help their children with stress and anger!

I had to block up my window with cushions and blankets, to stop the noise from the planes interfering with the broadcast of the webinar.

That’s my work. That’s how I make a living. And I can’t even rely on the peace and quiet of my own home to be able to run my own business.

rely on the peace and quiet of my own home to be able to run my own business.

window_blocked_against_noise_of_planes

This is a photo of my window, so you can see what someone living in your ‘trial area’ is having to do to stop the aircraft noise. To earn a living.  [Blocked up with 6 sofa cushions and sections of fabric].

Please can you do what you can to stop the Gatwick trial, and ask them to use the normal flight paths, where people bought their homes knowing that they would be subject to the noise, and whose windows have glazing that is suitable for aircraft noise?”

Elizabeth  (name supplied)

Warnham

http://www.wscountytimes.co.uk/news/letters/letter-home-like-bizarre-noise-experiment-1-5992455#.U0l5CD_dYP0.twitter

.


.

 Earlier:

New campaign group – CAGNE – formed to protest against Gatwick Airport noise

March 31, 2014

A new campaign group has formed in the Gatwick area, protesting against aircraft noise. Gatwick airport has been attempting to get good PR by claiming to do more than other airports to manage its aircraft noise. However, infuriated residents living under a newly created departures flight path have formed the new group, called Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions (CAGNE). It already has more than 300 frustrated members across Sussex, who are particularly angry at new flightpaths, of which the airport deliberately gave no prior notice. People at the villages of Rusper and Warnham, west of Crawley – which used to be quiet – have been horrified to find themselves subjected to relentless aircraft noise. Sally Pavey, a CAGNE member, said: “This is bringing misery to thousands of people and destroying the tranquility of parts of Sussex. It is wrong that all we can do is telephone the answer phone at Gatwick Airport to complain. ….we do not know if each complaint will be logged separately or if our address is only logged once.” CAGNE has launched an online petition calling on the DfT to stop the new flightpaths. The usual blandishment from the airport was that they “continue to take a responsible approach to noise reduction and mitigation.”     Click here to view full story…

 


 

e

Gatwick hopes noise compensation pledge will help it win battle for a new runway

March 28, 2014

As competition hots up to persuade the Airports Commission, and ultimately Parliament, on their own cases for building a new runway, Gatwick and Heathrow have both stressed the importance of dealing with the aircraft noise issue, or at least hoping people believe they are dealing with it. Gatwick has committed to pay annual compensation of around £1,000 to local households most affected by aircraft noise should it receive approval for a 2nd runway. Heathrow, meanwhile, has pointed to a [dubious] survey it commissioned from Populus that aircraft noise is only the 7th most important aspect of a London airport for Londoners. The Gatwick scheme would only pay up when a new runway starts to be used, and might affect around 4,100 households inside the 57 db(A) Leq noise contour. The compensation would not be paid to new residents choosing to relocate to the area once the runway is built. Earlier Gatwick announced plans to offer hundreds of local homes up to £3,000 towards double glazing and loft insulation to mitigate aircraft noise. This level of payment if offered at Heathrow would be vastly more expensive, by several orders of magnitude.

Click here to view full story..


 

 

Doubt about the Gatwick scheme to pay off residents affected by noise from 2nd runway – local resident tells it like it is !

March 14, 2014

Gatwick has offered, as part of its PR offensive to try to get opinion behind its 2nd runway, to pay £1,000 per year (the council tax on a Band A property) to 4,100 houses worst affected by noise, if it gets its runway. This is a very paltry sum compared to the negative impacts of the noise and disruption that would be caused. A local resident commented on the plan: “This is just a publicity stunt to try to get Crawley residents on board for a new runway. ….It sounds generous until you look at who gets it and how much we would lose….Even if we got the grant, it would take 150 years for the grant to cover the loss of value of our house. …. Gatwick Airport is trying to kid us that a new runway means lots of jobs for Crawley residents – but the jobs would attract incomers from the UK and the EU who would need new houses in an area that is desperately short of affordable homes…..We existing residents would see our carefully planned country town double in size to become a sprawling city spreading over green countryside….. I hope nobody will be fooled by Gatwick’s offer or by their promises of a golden future for Crawley.”

Click here to view full story

 


 

38 Degrees petition against new flight paths trial

18.3.2014.

Campaigners at the village of Warnham near Gatwick have started a petition on 38 Degrees, to ask the DfT to put a stop to the new flight path trials sponsored by Gatwick Airport and NATS that are bringing misery to thousands of people – who are now being overflown, many times per hour, by take-offs. The area was quiet in the past, and the flight path trial was not announced before it started.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-new-flight-paths-out-of-gatwick-airport

 


 

Warnham continues to suffer amid speculation about why the trial flight path was inflicted on them

March 12, 2014

The upset continues over the trial flight path from Gatwick, for take-offs, over the village of Warnham. The issue had been very badly handled by the airport, in its unsuccessful attempts to reduce the amount of complaint. Residents of Warnham feel they are just seen as “collateral damage” for the airport’s ambitions of increased profit. There is the suggestion from people in the area that the reason for the trial is that Gatwick has quietly committed to the airlines an increased number of flights over the next year. They have oversold capacity at peak travel times/dates and they cannot operationally cope if they take off using the three legally permitted take-off routes. This would mean take off delays at peak-times, which would be financially damaging to the airlines and the airport. They therefore instituted this “trial’ route to increase take-off capacity, especially at peak times, by one-third. The aim is to make this permanent. Gatwick airport is eager to show the Airports Commission that it has rising numbers of passengers and flights, to get its runway. So it has to get as much growth as it can this year. In reality, the number of flights in 2013 was lower in 2013 than in 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2009.    Click here to view full story…

 


.

Villages up in arms as new Gatwick flight path shatters their peace and quiet

March 9, 2014

The Sunday Times has featured the story of the misery and upset being caused over villages in Sussex by a new trial flight path from Gatwick. The village of Warnham is particularly affected. It is a quiet village, but now has planes taking off from Gatwick thundering overhead. Some of the affected residents are the mother-in-law of Boris Johnson, who said who say the noise is so loud that it sets off baby monitors and drowns out the sound of local church bells. Also Caroline Lucas, whose family owns the 215-acre Warnham Park, with a large herd of red deer, said: “How long will future generations stay here? That’s the question you have to ask.” The 6 month trial, of which there was no notice given to local residents, is of a new departure route for planes mainly bound for southern Europe, which are now turning south earlier than they normally do. The airport says the trial is to find out if a new aircraft navigation system will allow air traffic controllers to reduce the interval between flights taking off from two minutes to one, potentially allowing more flights to take off at peak times. ie. make Gatwick even busier than now.                                           Click here to view full story…

.

recent meeting of the Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee (GATCOM) said, discussing whether residents should be warned of the trial in advance.                             GATCOM minutes of 30th January 2014:

“It was felt that parish councils in particular should be advised of trial to enable them to respond to their constituents if problems arose. Mr. Denton would consider this but emphasised the need to obtain genuine feedback from those affected. If people were aware of the trial it was possible that they would be more alert to changes and feel obliged to comment.”     ie. don’t warn them, because they might complain.

.

Francis Maude: Noise misery foreshadows Gatwick second runway

March 8, 2014

Francis Maude, MP for Horsham, has received a great number of letters and emails from distressed residents in Warnham and Rusper, in recent weeks, about the new flight path trial over them. They are saying they are being plagued by a constant stream of noisy aircraft taking off from Gatwick towards the west starting at 6am. Many people have complained directly to Gatwick Airport, the CAA and NATS – but have yet to be satisfied on a number of points. Most residents were not aware of any minimal consultation about the changes before they started. Francis Maude is asking for much more detail about the trials. These include on what criteria will the trial be assessed? Why does it need to continue for six months? and How is it being monitored? He says the misery currently being experienced by local residents foreshadows what would be a permanent feature of life in the area if a 2nd Gatwick runway were to be built. The amount of opposition to this trial suggests it is not being successful. Francis Maude says: “I have made my opposition to a second Gatwick runway many times in public and private, and am happy to reiterate this now.”        Click here to view full story…

 

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Latest Back Heathrow newsletter described as ” A work of art: the art of distortion”

Back Heathrow has produced its latest news-sheet and questionnaire, which has been delivered to thousands of homes. In a blog, Chair of HACAN, John Stewart, writes about how it is “A work of art. The art of not quite telling it as it is.” Its front page has a heading saying “Hillingdon Council want Thousands of Houses on Airport”. That clearly implies that Hillingdon want Heathrow closed, but that is far from what they have actually said.  Its leader, Ray Puddiford, has merely said that, if an Estuary Airport opened and Heathrow had to close, there would be the opportunity for the land to be used for housing and new businesses. The newsletter claims thousands of jobs are at risk if Heathrow were to close. It conveniently overlooks another key finding of the report that the impact of a second runway at Gatwick would have a ‘negligible’ impact on employment at Heathrow. Heathrow is not going to close. The newsletter also quote “residents” – but only highly selected ones. The status of “Back Heathrow” was debated at length, and questioned, at the latest Heathrow Consultative Committee on 26th  March.

.

 

“A work of art: the art of distortion”

It’s got ‘em talking.  And fuming.  Back Heathrow’s latest news-sheet and questionnaire.  I didn’t get one dropped through my door but many of our supporters did and they sent me copies.

The newsletter is a work of art.  The art of not quite telling it as it is.  Take the front page “Hillingdon Council want Thousands of Houses on Airport”.  What message does that convey to you?  The clear implication is that Hillingdon wants the airport to shut.

Heathrow Hub front page April 2014

(sorry about poor quality of scanned image).

Hillingdon have never said that.  It leader, Ray Puddiford, has merely said that, if an Estuary Airport opened and Heathrow had to close, there would be the opportunity for the land to be used for housing and new businesses.  See link to article with his statement  Back Heathrow turns that into “Hillingdon Council Leader Ray Puddiford: Ungrateful – Shutting down Heathrow represents a ‘remarkable opportunity’.”

 The sleight of hand goes on.  It quotes from the report commissioned by three London boroughs which indicates that thousands of jobs are at risk if Heathrow were to close.  It conveniently overlooks another key finding of the report that the impact of a second runway at Gatwick would have a ‘negligible’ impact on employment at Heathrow.

 And then there are “local residents” who are quoted.  Steve Ostrowski may live in Hillingdon but what we are not told is that he also works at the airport.

And then there is Gary Dixon who says he’s “lived near the airport for years.”  Local Hillingdon people tell me his area is not impacted by planes.

Not forgetting Shaun Brimacombe from Harlingon who asks “If noise does affect them then why did they choose to live next to a major international airport?”  Back Heathrow’s bosom buddies at Heathrow Airport know full well that there are people distraught by aircraft noise living 20 miles from the airport.  They didn’t “choose to live next to a major international airport.”  They don’t get a quote.

Although we don’t share it, HACAN recognizes there is an argument to be made for the expansion of Heathrow Airport but this news-sheet does nothing to advance it.

Back Heathrow newsheet Page  4

.

You can contact Back Heathrow at Premier House, 50-52 Cross Lances Rd, TW3 2AAor by email hello@backheathrow.org or via their website:  www.backheathrow.org

 Thinking of filling in the survey? 

Don’t risk it!  You could be quoted out of context in their next news-sheet.  Better to say nothing.  Return an empty envelope.  It’s Freepost! 

 

.


.

Earlier:

Hillingdon Leader unveils vision with 2 scenarios of future Heathrow without the airport

Date added: April 1, 2014

The Leader of Hillingdon Council has set out his vision for the redevelopment of the Heathrow site should the government decide that a new hub airport ought to be built elsewhere in the south east. There has been a lot of scare mongering promoted by Heathrow, and its lobbying campaign, “Back Heathrow” to cause concern that jobs in the Heathrow area would be lost if a 3rd runway was not allowed. On the same day that Boris set out his own 4 scenarios for the area, if Heathrow closed, Hillingdon now sets out its 2 possible scenarios, in its “Heathrow Park: A Better Future for Heathrow.” These are: (1). A smaller West London Airport similar in scale to City Airport; with “Heathrow Park” delivering 31,000 homes for an estimated 67,000 people, and including those at the airport, around 72,000 jobs. (2). If Heathrow Airport closed completely Hillingdon anticipate the creation of “Heathrow Park” with up to 45,000 homes (30% affordable) for nearly 100,000 people, with over 66,000 jobs and a wide range of education, health, public open space and community facilities. In the 2nd scenario, For both scenarios, the principle settlement of Heathrow Gardens and the surrounding ‘urban villages’ will be centred on existing tube and rail networks to maximise connectivity.      Click here to view full story…

.

.


.

This is the section relating to the Back Heathrow campaign, from the Heathrow Consultative Committee meeting minutes of 26.3.2014:

http://lhr-acc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2014Min26MarA.doc

[Rob Gray is from the Back Heathrow campaign.

Rob Gibson (LAANC); Iain Hope  (LCCI);

Cllr. David Linnette  ( LB Richmond on Thames)  ]

4758    ‘BACK HEATHROW’ CAMPAIGN

1.         A presentation was made by Rob Gray, Campaign Director of ‘Back Heathrow’.

It is a community campaign launched six months ago with funding from Heathrow Airport to give a voice to the thousands of residents in the local communities who support Heathrow and depend on the future of the airport.

A map was (circulated) showing the postcode areas where 20,000 supporters lived who had registered to support the campaign.

‘Back Heathrow’ was a group of residents, businesses and organisations that had joined to defend the jobs that rely on Heathrow and to campaign for its secure future.

It gave a voice to the thousands of West London residents who were in favour of a successful, international hub airport at Heathrow.

It was acknowledged that there were differences in opinion, but they wanted to redress the balance to ensure that not just anti-Heathrow or anti-Heathrow expansion voices were heard.

Rob Gray said that the perception that it was a big airport versus all residents was,

in his opinion, wrong.   It was not thought that anyone could represent all residents under the Heathrow flightpath, because everybody had a different opinion about the airport. ‘Back Heathrow’ also wanted to ensure that Heathrow acted as a good neighbour in West London.  Growth was supported at the airport, as they wanted to protect the 114,000 local jobs on site and the ¼ million jobs in the wider area that depend on a flourishing Heathrow. It was believed that Heathrow must grow as the alternative is the decline, or worse, with the Mayor of London’s proposed scheme to close the airport. The status quo is no longer an option.

 

After the Government created the Airports Commission to find a solution to the UK’s             aviation dilemma, it was realised that supporters of Heathrow needed to be heard.

Polls regularly showed that the vast majority of residents felt the benefits of Heathrow outweigh any disadvantages.

The ‘Back Heathrow’ campaign was set up to give these people voices.

The group would campaign vigorously against the Mayor of London and others who want to see the hub airport closed and redeveloped as housing.  They were confused

at the London Borough Hillingdon’s attitude towards Heathrow, which the Council described in is own local economic assessment as follows:-

‘Hillingdon is an impressive borough, the second largest in London with great assets as home to Heathrow Airport and as gateway to London and the rest of the world.

Hillingdon also has a much higher average job density than London and the UK.

Heathrow was the world’s busiest international airport and the largest single employee site in the UK.  Hillingdon has a strong local economy and potential. Heathrow Airport provides considerable benefits for the local economy’.

Continued growth at Heathrow Airport has proved to be one of the key economic drivers for Hillingdon, for London and the rest of the UK economy’.

Opponents state they were not opposed to Heathrow, but to Heathrow expansion.

‘Back Heathrow’ had stated ‘that they would not let jobs and prosperity for local communities bleed out from the wound caused by political inactivity’.

Speaking out for those who value Heathrow, out of the top 300 companies, 200 had headquarters within 25 miles of the airport. There were also small-medium sized

family businesses who provide services e.g. freight, catering, hotels and transport companies.  There were thousands of jobs in the local community from corner shops

to shopping centres, restaurants and other leisure facilities that rely on wealth created by Heathrow jobs.

Without Heathrow as a dynamic hub airport providing links to the world for business and leisure travellers alike, those whose jobs rely on the airport would not have as much money in their pockets to spend and the local economy would suffer.

Heathrow was a massive success story and many local residents were really proud and many had moved into the area because of the airport.  There were opportunities for             local people if Heathrow grows, but without growth it would decline.

Since its launch six months ago, more than 20,000 residents living in communities around Heathrow had supported the campaign.  In addition to the large cross-section of the public, contact had been made by chambers, trade organisations and businesses.

Heathrow was the only hub airport in the UK and one of only 6 that served 50 or more long-haul routes.

Gatwick Airport had refused to agree to build a second runway if Heathrow built a third runway, and the fact that major airline alliances do not wish to go to Gatwick is an inconvenient truth for many.

Any airport expansion would be difficult and require major political decisions.

Opposition to growth at Heathrow was acknowledged.

However, ‘Back Heathrow’ wished to see a successful, international hub airport             flourishing in the UK.

 

2.

Iain Hope stated that the London Chamber of Commerce believed that expansion in the South-East must proceed, as the broader London area was desperately short of runway capacity.

Every airport in the London area was a member of the LCCI, but they did not show favouritism towards Heathrow. However, there are certain strong pressures on the LCCI, not only to support other regulatory airports, but also Heathrow as a hub airport.

The LCCI had carried out various surveys, from which it was very clear that two-thirds of the Chief Executives of small-medium companies who were members  lived within the area South-West of Heathrow.  This was not without problems, because the smooth public transport links needed were not available to Heathrow.

This was a discussion much heard and would continue to be fought for.

There were no illusions that, in terms of a hub airport, there was no alternative to Heathrow.  The LCCI would continue to back this for the business of this country and to safeguard the future for successive generations, without ignoring the environmental issues.

Noise contours had reduced and by individual aircraft types there had been real progress made by the airline industry, although more still needed to be done.

It was good that HACAN and other organisations pressed for this to continue.

 

3.

Cllr. Linnette asked if the 20,000+ supporters of ‘Back Heathrow’ included those    who worked directly at Heathrow.

If the referendum was looked at for both Hillingdon and Richmond together,  80% of those who responded were very concerned about expansion and noise.

There were two sides to the debate.

Cllr. Linettte invited Rob Gray to speak to the LB Richmond residents on the campaign.          which he accepted.

Rob Gray confirmed that some of the supporters worked at the airport or had done so previously, whilst others had no link at all.  More people were regularly joining the campaign and welcomed the support.

It was agreed that there were two sides to the debate, but ‘Back Heathrow’ wanted to re-balance this.

It was interesting to note there was a juxtaposition with this borough as there was a significant number of residents who were against expansion of the airport and noise, but yet, Richmond was in the Top 10 UK boroughs in terms of frequent flyers.

In 12 months, residents had taken 316,542 flights from Heathrow.

 

4.

Virginia Godfrey  (HACAN) referred to the slogan of ‘Back Heathrow’ as being a ‘grass root    community campaign’.  However, the true definition of this was not apt as the term  implies that the ‘creation of the movement and the group supporting it are natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between this and a movement that is             orchestrated by traditional power structures.  A campaign where action and support  is home-grown by individuals – something that originates from other people’.

It was obvious that ‘Back Heathrow’ did not fit in with this description.

 

It would more appropriate to drop the aspect of ‘grass root community campaign’ and call it merely the ‘Back Heathrow’ campaign.  The wording should be more transparent.

Rob Gray replied that he did not wish to do this. ‘Back Heathrow’ was in the public domain initially supported by the airport, but non-profit making.  He believed it was a ‘grass roots campaign’ involving residents who were also achieving on their own in this endeavour with poster and leaflet distribution and writing to local politicians.

 

5.

Cllr. Nelson clarified that it was not the LB Hillingdon residents and workers who  live in the area who wanted to see the closure of Heathrow, but the leadership of Hillingdon Council who did not wish the airport to remain open.

 

6.

Rob Gibson asked Rob Gray how the ‘Back Heathrow’ campaign was developed and   policy steered.  Whether it was his responsibility or that of a Board of Directors, and if the organisation was a registered charity. Also, their view on night flights.

Rob Gray responded that ‘Back Heathrow’ was a stand-alone non-profit making organisation. When it was set up, Heathrow Airport allocated funds to start the campaign. Support had also been received from businesses and unions and residents had also donated.

In terms of setting the policy, this was set by ‘Back Heathrow’ to defend the jobs at Heathrow and to secure a bright future for the airport.

There were two Directors. Nathan Fletcher who works at Heathrow Airport was             appointed to the Board with financial responsibility of the funding, but had no executive decision-making powers. ‘Back Heathrow’ ran their own campaign working with colleagues and volunteers to decide what is best for the organisation and also             talked to the airport and anyone who wished to support the campaign.

Rob Gray said that in terms of night flights, he would not subscribe to 24/7 flights  nor see an increase in night flights.  He was aware that early morning flights could be an issue for some residents.

 

7.

Cllr. Rough stated that improvements had been made in respect of aircraft noise.

Schools and houses were quieter than years ago.  It was necessary to go forward as a country for the benefit of the majority with a business case for aviation expansion.

 

8.

Cllr. Beer stated that the ‘Back Heathrow’ campaign was designed to scare people who were not properly informed.  Heathrow would not close if a third runway was not approved by the Government.  It would survive and thrive, but needed to accept the fact that it was not the only airport in the country  The aviation industry worked on the basis of alliances and competed with each other.

The existing major alliances would continue at Heathrow, whilst other alliances could move elsewhere and expand as their expertise allowed.

Heathrow cannot expand as there was already inadequate housing facilities, with a congested road and rail network.  It would not be possible to provide all the necessary facilities that such a large escalation in business activity would create. It was not realistic and this fact must be faced.

Rob Gray reiterated that if Heathrow did not expand, it would decline as it was at full capacity.

.

.Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee – Minutes and Agendas

http://lhr-acc.org/minutes/

.

.

.

 

Read more »

GACC launch its “Gatwick’s Big Enough” campaign against any 2nd runway

The Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, GACC, has launched its campaign against a new Gatwick runway under the slogan “Gatwick’s Big Enough.”  It has been carefully chosen to show that there is no opposition to the airport as it is, only to the plans to double its size. Thousands of car stickers have been posted to members with this logo. The campaign has also been attending all the Gatwick Airport exhibitions around the area, and has produced a new Fact File. This sets out the information that the airport is not telling people, on the actual impacts a new runway would have, in terms of noise, stress on infrastructure and public services, total change in the character of the area even some distance away, and deteriorating quality of life for many. In GACC’s experience, having been to several Gatwick exhibitions, “It is our impression that many people go in with an open mind but come out alarmed at the scale of what is proposed” and ‘My impression was that the overwhelming majority {in Crawley} were against a new runway” and many people  “were irritated by the lack of information on flight paths.”
.

 

Gatwick’s Big Enough

14.4.2014 (GACC – Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)

 Gatwick Fact File April 2014

GACC has launched its campaign against a new Gatwick runway under the slogan Gatwick’s Big Enough.  It has been carefully chosen to show that there is no opposition to the airport as it is, only to the plans to double its size.  Thousands of car stickers have been posted to members with this logo.

Gatwick's BIG enough

A Fact File summarising the facts about a new runway has been posted to all councillors on seven County, Borough and District councils.   Gatwick Fact File April 2014

GACC volunteers have been much in evidence outside the exhibitions organised by the airport, so far held in Crawley, Rusper, Ifield, Lingfield and Felbridge.

Gatwick exhibitions

Having taken part in the recent spate of Gatwick airport exhibitions, GACC volunteers have commented:

–  ‘It is our impression that many people go in with an open mind but come out alarmed at the scale of what is proposed.’ said John Byng, GACC joint vice chairman. 

–  ‘My impression was that the overwhelming majority {in Crawley} were against a new runway’ said Peter Jordan, a GACC volunteer from Ifield.

–  ‘At Lingfield many were irritated by the lack of information on flight paths.’ according to Tony Brookes, another GACC volunteer

–  ‘Many people are confused by the airport response form which has 278 boxes which you can tick – but only one well-hidden little box labelled ‘None of these options’ if you wish to say No to a new runway’ according to Peter Barclay, GACC vice chairman.

–   ‘Some people are very concerned at lack of relocation and compensation being offered by the airport, they can’t seem to get any answers from the Gatwick staff,’ said Sally Pavey of GACC and CAGNE.

‘People appreciate that we are volunteers giving up our own time compared to the well-paid professionals working for the airport. The exhibitions are having one good result,’ said Brendon Sewill, chairman of GACC, ‘ we have had a lot of new people signing up as members.’

‘A number of local action groups, from Tunbridge Wells to Horsham, have been formed opposing a new runway – all working with GACC.  For instance, in Crawley the all-Party ‘One’s Enough’ group has been re-started: it had great success in 2003 in persuading Crawley Council to switch from a position of support for a new runway to one of unanimous opposition.

 

www.gacc.org.uk

.

Fact File at:  Gatwick Fact File April 2014

.


 

.

Earlier:

Gatwick’s 1st runway consultation exhibition – met with spirited opposition by those to be badly affected

April 5, 2014

Gatwick airport has started a period of 6 weeks of consultation on its plans for a 2nd runway. The consultation is something of a PR exercise, as the Airports Commission has only short listed the wide spaced runway option. Gatwick Airport is, for some reason best known to itself, including the narrow spaced runway (which it does not want) in the consultation options. There is a series of exhibitions planned, by Gatwick airport, in a number of towns and villages over the coming weeks, with the first today in Crawley – the town which might be the worst affected by a 2nd runway. There was spirited opposition by people fighting plans for a new runway, and especially those who have recently found themselves under a new “trial” flight path. Feedback from the exhibition was that it was well attended, by several hundred people, many of whom appeared to be against a new runway. One of their questions was how to fill in the forms, to clearly convey their opposition to any runway – there is just one box people can tick, on the last page, in Section D, “None of these options.”      Click here to view full story…
Embedded image permalink

 

GACC describes Gatwick consultation as “plush and bogus” – it gives no proper chance to say “no” to a new runway

April 4, 2014

The consultation published by Gatwick Airport today is described by GACC (the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) as ‘plush but bogus.’ It is plush because no expense has been spared in an attempt to make a new Gatwick runway look inevitable. But it makes no economic or environmental sense to build a new Gatwick runway when Stansted is not forecast to be full until around 2040. It is bogus because the Airports Commission has already ruled out Option 1, the close-parallel runway. GACC’s objections remain as strong as ever. They will campaign vigorously against any new runway. The consultation document contains no maps showing future flight paths – which is an issue of huge significance to local people. It also ignores the inconvenient issue of necessary increases in landing fees, to pay for a runway + terminal. The consultation is deeply flawed, as it gives no proper option to oppose any new runway. There is merely one small option of “None of these options” buried in its section D. That is difficult to find and somewhat confusing (it could mean a preference for some other runway location). A proper consultation would have given the public a straightforward chance to say ‘No’.

Click here to view full story…

 

Gatwick consultation published: A proper consultation would have given the public a straightforward chance to say ‘No’

April 4, 2014

Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) has put forward 3 options for a 2nd runway at Gatwick and is now asking for comment from the public to its consultation. They key omission in their consultation is a proper option to say NO to any new runway. A proper consultation would have given the public a straightforward chance to say ‘No’ at the start of the response form. As it is, there is a small box buried in section D with the option of “None of these options”. Gatwick is asking people to choose between a narrow spaced runway (something the airport does not want, as it would not be practical – so it cannot be considered a serious option) and whether a wide spaced runway(1045 metres south of the existing runway) should be used for both landings and take offs, or for just landings or take offs, at one time. The Airports Commission has effectively already ruled out the narrow spaced runway, so its inclusion in the consultation seems to be a bit of a PR exercise. The purpose of the consultation is to help Gatwick get their runway plans approved, and if possible, keep public opposition to a minimum. Consultation ends 16th May (which is the date all runway proposals must be submitted to the Airports Commission).

Click here to view full story…

 

.

.

.

.

 


Read more »

Farnborough airport consultation on hugely expanding its airspace, for questionable reasons

Farnborough airport is consulting on its plans to hugely increase the amount of airspace it controls. This will have considerable impacts on general aviation fliers and helicopters in the area, as they would not be able to fly in the new Farnborough airspace, as at present, but would have to make large detours and fly lower, causing more noise to those living nearby. The aim of the airspace grab by Farnborough is thought to be to speed up the arrival of departure of the private jets and business jets which are the users of Farnborough, so the very few passengers per plane (about 2.7 on average, on planes designed to take hugely more) are spared any small delay. The airport has had declining numbers of flights in recent years, and is nowhere near to its target number. It is therefore surprising that the airport feels the need for such a large increase in its controlled airspace.There are real fears that this is in preparation for Farnborough attempting to expand into commercial aviation.  ‘Sky grabbing’ for future use for a much bigger operation? TAG could make a nice profit if it sells an airport with attached airspace!
.

 

Consultation launched on airspace rules as airport aims to double flight numbers

TAG Farnborough Airport would like residents and stakeholders to comment on proposals for new airspace rules, aimed at reducing noise

Farnborough Airport is consulting on airspace changes

TAG Farnborough Airport is urging residents to have their say on proposed airspace rules designed to reduce the impact on the area as flights double over the next five years.

The airport currently handles a maximum of 28,000 air traffic movements in and out of Farnborough each year, however, TAG has approval to gradually increase this.

By next year there will be around 45,000 ingoing and outgoing flights and this will increase to 50,000 by 2019.

Nearby areas such as Fleet and Church Crookham will see less flights overhead but small villages like Crondall could see an increase.

TAG’s master plan, which was set out in 2009 and approved in 2011, states the projected future growth of the airport will be well accommodated and its facilities are sufficient to cope with the increase in flights.

TAG is proposing to introduce new measures to help reduce noise around the airport. In December last year, the airport said it intended to submit an Aerospace Change Proposal (ACP) to the UK Civil Aviation Authority so planes would not disturb residents as frequently and could travel more efficiently.

A spokesman for TAG Farnborough Airport said: “Creating a known air traffic control environment will assist the airport in catering for an increasing number of air transport movements and do so in a way which benefits efficiency and safety for many airspace users, and the environment. The impact on residents and stakeholders has been of primary importance throughout the pre-consultation design phase.

“Noise is an important consideration for local people and the proposed design option aims to further reduce the overall impact of noise, for instance, by optimising arrival and departure routes.”

Kevin Daley, a member of the Farnborough Aerodrome Consultative Committee (FACC) and chairman of the Mytchett, Frimley Green and Deepcut society, said a number of constituents fought against plans to increase the airport’s traffic movements.

He said: “If they try to go beyond the 50,000 there might be a revolution. A lot of organisations objected quite strongly to the plans and around several thousand people were against the permission being granted.

“The biggest issue is the airport has never been at capacity. The number of large aircrafts is increasing and that is beginning to cause people concern and annoyance because the aircrafts are bigger, it’s the visual impact of an 80 tonne aircraft coming over the top of your house that is causing the impact.

“That has caused some complaints because people see aircrafts coming over their houses and think it is too low or off track.”

The airport currently operates within an uncontrolled air space, which is shared with other airports, so aircraft often have longer routings and a less predictable descent or climb, causing more aircraft to fly low over houses. The proposed new operating environment has elements of controlled airspace, so there is a more predictable flow of air traffic, resulting in fewer flights at a low altitude and aircraft flying fewer track miles around the airport.

Planes will also be able to climb higher more quickly and will remain higher for longer.

Brandon O’Reilly, chief executive of TAG, said: “We are seeking to make an application to the Civil Aviation Authority so planes that leave and arrive can have predetermined routes in built up areas.

“The prime objective is to reduce our impact on the environment.”

Last year the airport received 220 complaints regarding aircrafts that were too noisy, flying low or not appearing to be travelling on their correct paths.

TAG is encouraging members of the public, aviation stakeholders and other interested parties to provide feedback on the proposed airspace change. A public consultation was launched this week and will end on Friday May 2. Feedback will be analysed and, where appropriate, used to modify the proposal before an application is submitted in August.

.

.

One well informed comment under the article says:

These proposals are conveniently geared to give the wrong impression that noise will be reduced, and CO2 emissions will be less. What the proposals don’t say is how much general aviation (GA) traffic (light aircraft, helicopters, gliders) will be forced to fly lower and in the narrower corridors created. This is already a busy GA corridor and to squeeze the current GA traffic not controlled by Farnborough into smaller areas will create dangerous ‘choke-points’ with more risk of mid-air incidents (i.e.collisions!). These proposals are unsafe – mark my words. I’m a GA pilot (glider and powered) myself and have flown through this area many times. safely. If these come into effect, I shall fear for my safety in that area.

When the planning consent was given in 2009, the predictions they gave for 2013 movements has been significantly under-achieved. Gatwick now moves the amount of passengers in ONE DAY, that Farnborough would move in 2.9 years. So why do they want such a disproportional amount of airspace for themselves?Gatwick uses 660 cubic kilometres whilst Farnborough are asking for 1000 cubic kilometres. It cannot be justified for these numbers so we can only speculate on the real reason. ‘Sky grabbing’ for future use for a much bigger operation? TAG could make a nice profit if it sells an airport with attached airspace!

And the rubbish about reducing noise? Well, that’s so inaccurate. If they’re forcing other aircraft to fly lower under their airspace, then that will create MORE noise and CO2 emissions. They have only noted amounts of scheduled traffic and do not account for the many 1000s of GA movements in the area.

The document is also designed to make you weary of reading it and just to give up and agree. Thank god there are people out there who do take the time to understand it and can see it for what it really is – a ‘Sky-Grab’ for the rich and famous. Its just like a Limousine company buying up 2 lanes of the M25 so that their wealthy clients can travel quicker than us mere mortals.

http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/consultation-launched-airspace-rules-airport-6682496

.


 

.

Airspace Change Proposal

Early 2014 – (Rushmoor Borough Council website)

TAG Farnborough Airport is consulting on an Airspace Change Proposal before its submission to the UK Civil Aviation Authority.

TAG Farnborough Airport is currently consulting on an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) with a view to introducing an improved operating environment in the skies around the airport. The proposal seeks to introduce ‘controlled’ airspace around the airport, which would involve some changes to flight paths for inbound and outbound aircraft.

“Airspace Change Proposal” is a formal UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) process that is being undertaken by TAG Farnborough Airport with the support of the CAA. It does not affect the planning controls in place regarding the operation of the Airport.

This is not a Rushmoor Borough Council consultation, but is being led by TAG Farnborough Airport. The council is a stakeholder in the consultation process and will be responding as a consultee.

The Consultation is running from Monday 3 February to Friday 2 May 2014 and you can leave feedback on the proposed changes on the TAG Farnborough Airport Airspace Change Proposal website.

You can also find more information on TAG’s proposal and documents page

.


 

.

Farnborough Airspace change proposal

 17 Feb 2014 (Flyer magazine – for enthusiasts of flying small aircraft)

TAG Farnborough Airport Ltd is proposing a significant airspace change and, as required, is running a consultation with all stakeholders prior to submitting the change proposal to the CAA.

The consultation began on 3 February and runs until 2 May. Everyone is invited to participate by reading the document and leaving feedback via the website atwww.consultation.tagfarnborough.com

TAG expects to collate the consultation responses in May and June before reporting back in July and submitting an airspace change proposal to the CAA in August this year. TAG’s aim is that the CAA will reach a decision by November and that the new airspace will be implemented during the first half of 2015.

The airspace change proposal is being driven, according to TAG, by the increased number of movements the airport is allowed to handle under new planning permission. According to TAG, the airport handled 23,000 movements and, again according to TAG, that number is expected to rise to between 32,000 and the maximum 50,000 by 2019.

To put that into context, Gloucester, an airport with a mix of traffic ranging from microlight training to IFR [Instrument Flight Rules ] business jet and passenger flights, recorded over 73,000 movements in 2012, three times that of Farnborough, and given the relatively low number of people on most business jet flights, it is likely that the numbers of people involved in those movements show similar ratios.

The proposal makes it clear that the goal of the airspace change is to afford protection to Farnborough’s IFR operations, and claims are made that the airspace needed to do this has been kept to a minimum.

The problem is, that ‘minimum’ is HUGE and creates an effective airspace block to traffic wishing to transit the area from and to pretty much any direction. While clearance through class D airspace is, in general, relatively easy to obtain (if you are radio-equipped), there are genuine fears that the amount of GA traffic in the area requiring transits will, at times, overwhelm the controller capacity available and result in aircraft being stuck orbiting in relatively small areas, leading to an unacceptable increase in the risk of a mid-air collision.

While a lot of effort appears to have gone into the airspace design, the changes will doubtless result in confusion and airspace busts, with CTR3 and CTR4 looking somewhat ‘magnetic’.

Go online, read the consultation, make your views known and if you aren’t a member already, join one of the organisations and help strengthen their voice too. Sorry TAG, this is just way over the top. Read more comment in the April issue of FLYER magazine, on sale 27 February.
www.consultation.tagfarnborough.com

http://www.flyer.co.uk/aviation-news/newsfeed.php?artnum=1802

.


 

.

Farnborough:

The average plane occupancy at Farnborough may have risen, though it was only 2.7 in 2009.  Link 

Growth has stalled over the  past year or more.  In the full year 2012 there were 21,986 business flights and 25,821 total flights (much lower than in 2008 and 2007 when there were 24,227 and 25,101 business flights respectively).

In February 2011 the airport was permitted to increase its number of annual flights to 50,000 from 28,000 but with the current low numbers, that is irrelevant. As the airport is not managing to get enough flights, it is more keen than ever to get commercial passenger flights.

It needs about 25,000 movements  per year, for financial viability. Already some 8 – 10% of the flights are planes of over 80 tonnes. The B737, the A319 and the A320 can accommodate 120 passengers, but are used as private jets.

The airport currently operates within Class G (uncontrolled) airspace, which is shared with other airports, gliding sites and general aviation activities. Its Airspace Change Proposal would make changes which would affect other airspace users. There is due to be a 12 week consultation, starting in Feb 2014 and ending in May 2014 which was intended to start at the end of October, but this was delayed.

 


 

 

Hampshire airport’s extension plans will increase Winchester air traffic

12th April 2014  ( Hampshire Chronicle)

By Charlotte Neal,

Hampshire Chronicle: This diagram shows the areas that will be affected by the plans
This diagram shows the areas that will be affected by the plans

A HAMPSHIRE airport has sparked controversy by pursuing ambitious expansion plans which would add to air-traffic over Winchester if they go ahead.

TAG Farnborough Airport – largely used for business and VIP jets – began a public consultation in February ahead of submitting its Airspace Change Proposal to the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

But those fighting the plans says they would see its controlled airspace increase to almost twice the size of Gatwick’s, with low altitude flights over towns and villages.

Currently there are 25,000 flights in and out of Farnborough a year, but permission is in place to increase that number to 50,000 until 2019.

If the proposals go ahead, towns across Hampshire, Dorset and West Sussex, including the east of Winchester, Alresford and the Itchen Valley, would face an sharp rise in the number of aircrafts.

The public consultation lasts until May 2, and many residents and politicians are up in arms about how best to tackle the issue – which some say could see the collision risk rise seven-fold.

Steve Brine, MP for Winchester and Chandler’s Ford, said he is working closely with neighbouring MPs, gliding clubs and the Department for Transport to find out what the proposal means for his constituency.

“Opponents of the proposals have described them as a ‘land grab of the skies’ and when you consider TAG is reportedly applying for approximately twice the volume of controlled airspace that London Gatwick Airport uses to handle just over 34 million passengers per year, you can see their point,” he said.

“As ever, it’s important we understand the facts of what’s being proposed here and drill right into the detail, something more important than ever in this case given the technical nature of the consultation which is not that accessible to anyone without some level of aviation knowledge.

“For-instance, we need to know exactly the space covered by what’s known as area ‘C’ and pin-down the minimum altitude levels which are key to the impact for those of us on the ground.”

However, it would seem the online consultation has caused confusion.

Jon Bastin, pilot of 40 years and spokesman for the Lasham Gliding Club based in Alton, the largest of its kind in the world, said it doesn’t inform people sufficiently.

“The general point is that is that they have produced this major so-called technical document – it’s not a technical document, it’s an art form in misdirection and misinformation which misleads people,” he said.

“The analogy is that this is the equivalent of a private limousine company commandeering two lanes of the M25 motorway for its own exclusive use.”

Mr Bastin said the current gap between the Gatwick/Heathrow and Southampton airspaces is 26 miles but under the proposal would be reduced to five, effectively shunting traffic elsewhere, creating a bottleneck and increasing the collision risk seven fold.

It will also create a sharp corner over Petersfield, which Mr Bastin described as “killer corner”.

The gliding club has recently set up a campaign team against the proposals, and spokesman Bill Bullimore said they are doing everything they can to see it overthrown.

“It’s dangerous,” he said.

“It’s like having a brick wall on one side.

“Ninety of our members have sent letters of objection to their MPs. This could be a death knell for Lasham, and the control could stop us from holding the European Gliding Championships in 2017.”

Roger Walker, director of airport operations at TAG Farnborough Airport said: “The environment is of prime importance to TAG Farnborough Airport and we are committed to reducing noise in and around the airport.

“The proposed airspace design would offer all airspace users predictability and consistency of operations, leading to further reductions in noise and CO2 emissions.

“It is also set to improve efficiency and enhance safety.”

http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/winchester/11145177.Hampshire_airport_s_extension_plans_will_increase_Winchester_air_traffic/?ref=nt

.

 

Read more »