HACAN East’s official response to London City Airport’s flight path consultation

London City Airport has a public consultation on changes to its flight paths, which ends on 27th November. The consultation has been widely regarded as inadequate, as there is insufficient detail, and among those criticising the consultation are several councils. The community group representing people  under London City Airport flight paths, HACAN East have published their consultation response. It says concentration of flight paths, without respite, is inequitable and will subject thousands to significantly more noise. They say this concentration without respite is contrary to Government policy, as the CAA itself states: “When seeking opportunities to provide respite for those already affected by aircraft noise it is important that decisions about respite should always be made after considering the specific local circumstances and through engagement with the local community.”  HACAN East also complains that the quality of the consultation has been poor.  The airport did not directly tell local authorities, MPs, GLA or local residents, and refused to hold public meetings in, or leaflet, the affected areas.  They are unimpressed at the claims flight path changes would contribute much in savings of carbon emissions.
.

 

HACAN East’s official response to London City Airport’s flight path consultation

November 24th 2014

To view London City Airport airspace documents and consultation see  http://www.londoncityairport.com/londonairspacemanagement 

We support the principle of airspace being used more efficiently but we object to these proposals.

We object to the proposals to concentrate the flight paths being introduced without planned respite.

  1. Concentration without respite is inequitable

The plans will result in the residents living under the concentrated flight paths getting nearly all, if not all, the aircraft flying over them.

London City Airport argues that, since the chosen corridors are more than a mile wide, the routes will vary a little but the strong suspicion is, as the technology improves further, the aim will be to direct all the planes down the centerline of the chosen route.  Tens of thousands of people will be impacted.  North East London already has problems with noise from City Airport but in South London it tends not to be a problem because the routes are so dispersed.  The proposed plans to concentrate will create a problem.

Indeed, London City is clear in its consultation document of the impact:

As we are seeking to replicate rather than redesign our existing routes, we expect that flights will still be seen in the same areas as today. The main difference would be that aircraft will follow the routes more consistently than they do today. This is due to the improved track-keeping ability of RNAV. Improved track keeping means that there will be less dispersion of aircraft either side of each of the routes; this would mean a reduction in the overall area regularly overflown, but an increase in the concentration of over-flights in some areas.

It is disingenuous for the airport to claim that the changes will be minor.

  1. Concentration without respite is contrary to Government policy

London City claims that it is following Government policy in concentrating without offering respite.  Our view is that it is mistaken.  It is worth quoting at some length the Government’s advice to the CAA on concentration and respite:

While the CAA should follow a policy of concentration in most cases, the Government recognises that there may be local circumstances where the advantage lies in dispersing traffic, for instance when considering multiple routes, and NPRs where relevant, for the purposes of providing noise respite over areas which may be considered to be noise sensitive.

Respite

It is important that any decisions about whether to concentrate or disperse traffic take account of the local context alongside the operation and generic environmental objectives presented in this Guidance. This local context may become apparent through appropriate consultation with the local community (see Chapter 9 of this Guidance). The Aviation Policy Framework reaffirmed the Government’s view that it  is important to consider exploring options for respite wherever feasible for those already affected by noise, especially where frequency of movements has increased over time.

  1. The Government therefore encourages airports and airlines to work with the CAA, NATS and their local communities to consider creative solutions to protect and enhance the use of respite as a means of mitigating the impact of aircraft noise.

7.10  One such example is with the shift to PBN which is expected to be introduced widely in the UK over the coming years. The Government would therefore like to encourage airports, along with NATS and the CAA, to consider how PBN could be used to introduce an element of alternation for respite purposes, providing that this brings a noise benefit and where this is appropriate given local circumstances.

7.11 Other opportunities for arrivals such as varying joining points and reducing the amount of airborne holding are also encouraged as are trials which seek to understand the benefits and impacts of respite measures on local communities.

7.12 When seeking opportunities to provide respite for those already affected by aircraft noise it is important that decisions about respite should always be made after considering the specific local circumstances and through engagement with the local community.  

The full document is at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/207856/air-navigation-guidance-draft.pdf

We would argue that London City has not followed the guidance, in particular where it says: “One such example is with the shift to PBN which is expected to be introduced widely in the UK over the coming years. The Government would therefore like to encourage airports, along with NATS and the CAA, to consider how PBN could be used to introduce an element of alternation for respite purposes, providing that this brings a noise benefit and where this is appropriate given local circumstances”.

  1. The quality of the consultation has been poor

London City has only put its consultation documents – quite technical documents – on its website and told its Consultative Committee about its plans.  It did not directly tell local authorities, MPs, Greater London Authority members or local residents.  It refused to hold public meetings in, or leaflet, the affected areas.

London City argues that its consultation adhered to the guidelines laid down by the CAA –http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20130819PBNSIDReplacementReviewProcessFinal.pdf

This is open to some doubt.  It revolves around the airport’s interpretation of the extent of the changes which are being introduced.

The basic CAA guidance for consultation on route changes is laid out in paragraph 6.1 of the document:

6.1 The introduction of replicated SIDs to replace existing conventional SIDs requires an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) as defined in CAP 725 (Introduction paragraph vii (c)). In this instance the use of Local Airport Consultative Committees (LACC), together with any additional stakeholders deemed appropriate (e.g. local environmental groups etc), may target consultation to those directly affected thus avoiding un-necessary consultation with stakeholders who will not be affected by the introduction of a PBN replication of a conventional SID.

If the proposed changes are minor, less extensive consultation is required.  Paragraph 11.1:

“11.1 Depending on the degree to which RNAV 1 / RNP SIDs are able to replicate conventional SIDs, it is expected that, in most circumstances, consultation can typically be satisfied through established consultative committees / forums, with additional representation agreed at the Framework Briefing. Therefore, LACCs, regular airport operators groups (such as airport Flight Operations Sub Committees), and interested parties, without the need to include all the authorities and environmental groups as detailed in CAP 725 Stage 2 paragraph 9, may form the consultees stakeholder group”.

We argue that, because the proposed changes impact the quality of life of tens of thousands of people in a significant way, the consultation London City has carried out (as laid down in paragraph 11.1 of the CAA guidance) is not adequate and that the airport should have been required to carry out the wider consultation (as laid out in paragraph 6.1 of the guidance).

We shall be writing to the CAA about this.

  1. The emissions benefits are uncertain

It is correct that making more efficient use of airspace should reduce the emissions from each aircraft.  However, if the Point Merge scheme has the effect of  pushing stacks much higher up (in altitude), it could increase emissions as it is accepted that emissions at higher altitudes have a more serious affect on the atmosphere and climate in terms of heating, the principle of radiative forcing.  Before any new scheme is given ahead, the overall impact on greenhouse gases needs to be fully assessed.

John Stewart

Chair HACAN East

http://www.hacaneast.org.uk/2014/11/hacan-easts-official-response-to-city-airports-flight-path-consultation/

.

.


 

Some other recent news stories about London City Airport:

 

Packed public meeting in Wanstead calls on London City airport to reconsult over flight path changes

There is growing anger in areas affected by London City Airport flight paths, because of the inadequate consultation they have launched – it ends on 27th November. On 3rd November, there was a packed meeting in Wanstead, which called on the airport to re-consult. Over 200 people crammed into Wanstead Library and gave London City Airport a very tough time over its failure to consult local people, and even their local councillors, over its plans. The airport wants to concentrate departing flights in a narrow band over Bow, Leyton, Leytonstone, Wanstead, Collier Row and Havering. Planes arriving over South London will also be concentrated. Most councillors knew nothing about the plans until contacted by HACAN East. The plans are on the airport website, but the airport has not put out leaflets or held any public information sessions. Roger Evans, the GLA member for Redbridge and Havering said, “The decent thing to do is to re-run this consultation.” The CAA has been criticised for allowing this poor consultation. People have been encouraged to write to the CAA and the Government calling for a fresh consultation, and sign a petition against concentrated flight paths.

Click here to view full story…

People in Waltham Forest have criticised London City Airport for not informing residents on proposed flight path changes

London City Airport has a current consultation on the use of high-tech satellite navigations (RNAV) in planes, which would result in a narrower flightpath over Wansted, Leytonstone, Leyton and Barking. Under the plans, most planes travelling to and from the airport would use a ‘flight corridor’ over Waltham Forest and Redbridge, leading to concerns over noise disturbance. Campaign Group HACAN East called on the CAA to stop the process, which it says has not directly consulted people living in either area. Now the deputy leader of Waltham Forest council has written to the head of City Airport and urged him to contact residents. The airport is claiming there is hardly any change, as it is just that planes will follow routes more accurately. The reality is that they will be concentrated along a narrow line, at the centre of the previously wide path swathe. HACAN East is organising a public meeting on 3rd November in Wanstead, as the airport has neither leafleted affected areas, nor arranged a meeting.

Click here to view full story…


Open letter to London City Airport asking that they consult properly on flight path changes, and treat people fairly

London City Airport is proposing to concentrate flight paths, in the same way that other airports have been doing recently. This is how air traffic controllers, NATS and the CAA want airspace to be used in future, in order to fit more aircraft into our already very crowded skies. However, London City Airport decided not go give any prior notice to anyone about the changes, except their Consultative Committee, or any warning about the substantial increase in aircraft noise for those unlucky enough to be under one of the new concentrated routes. It seems even local councils were not notified. Local community group, HACAN East, have now written an open letter to the airport, to complain. HACAN East says the flight path proposals will have a profound effect – for the worse – on the lives of tens of thousands of Londoners. This is deeply inequitable. While the airport makes out that the proposed changes are not significant as the planned flight paths are not noticeably different from the current routes. That is incorrect. There is now a concentrated line. Thousands living in Bow, Leytonstone, Wansted, Catford, Brixton and Vauxhall are very well aware there is a significant change. And that these are seen as unfair.

Click here to view full story…


HACAN East suggested letter of objection to London City Airport re: its plans to concentrate flight paths

London City Airport are conducting a consultation on airspace changes, which started on 4th September. It ends on 27th November. It aims to concentrate flight paths, in line with the intentions of UK air traffic control service, NATS. Concentrating flights along narrow corridors is more efficient for air traffic control. Instead of a swathe of perhaps 2 miles wide along which planes are directed, they can now follow a 100 metre track. This means fewer people in total are overflown; but for those unlucky enough to live under the new concentrated route, the noise can be deeply unpleasant. London City airport chose not to give any warning about the changes to local councils or local residents. It is not leafleting any areas, nor holding public meetings to explain the proposals. The areas particularly affected are Bow, Leytonstone, Wanstead, Colliers Row, Dagenham, Hornchurch, Catford, Dulwich, Brixton, Stockwell and Vauxhall. It is deeply inequitable. Local campaign group, HACAN East, will be holding a public meeting. They also have a simple template letter people can send in, to express their views. The lengthy consultation document is hard for laypeople to clearly understand.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

Read more »

“Gatwick Obviously Not” tells Stewart Wingate to come clean publicly on flight path changes

In their recent e-newsletter, the recently formed group, “Gatwick Obviously Not” (GON) representing people over flown by planes in all areas east of Gatwick, set out some complaints to Stewart Wingate. It is widely recognised that Gatwick has not been open and transparent over airspace changes and trials this past year.  A key issue causing anger and outrage across areas affected by Gatwick is the claims by the airport that nothing has changed, when it is clear to many thousands of people that it has. GON is now calling upon Mrs Ellman, MP, Chair of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee to call Gatwick in to find out what has really been happening. While Gatwick says there is no “superhighway” in the sky plan, GON repeat the statement from CAA that “We discovered that by removing the shortened approach path as aircraft turned into land, we were able to achieve a 25% reduction in the spacing variation.” This is to “maximise throughput”. Gatwick wanted to re-establish the trust of its passengers after its disastrous flooding last winter. It needs to stop being economical with the truth on flight path matters too, it is to regain any trust locally.
.


 

e-newsletter sent out by Gatwick Obviously Not.org

(Gatwick Obviously Not is the umbrella group for all areas East of Gatwick)

www.gatwickobviouslynot.org

Can a government of any hue really trust Gatwick with the keys to a 2nd runway?

Change is in the air.

Dear Mr Wingate

Enough is enough.

Yesterday Kent, England’s largest two-tier County Council (by population) publicly stated it is changing its stance and now opposing Gatwick’s 2nd runway.

Quite a blow we imagine.

And its Leader, Paul Carter, CBE, pulled no punches in his fury at the treatment of his constituents in West Kent.

We call upon Mrs Ellman, MP, Chair of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee to call you in for a discussion on what has really been happening in the air. You’ll know the way, as I see you were called in earlier this year after Gatwick’s disastrous response to the flooding crisis over Christmas, when, in your own words, your “actions fell short”

In a comment in January 2014 you also said of the events (see link):

Clearly it will have had an impact on our reputation. Hopefully we will able to regain the trust of our passengers in 2014.

You could use this one again, just replacing “our passengers with “anyone‘”

Time for a change, CEO?

Martin Barraud
Leader
Gatwick Obviously Not.Org


Gatwick say (and have said many times)
“… the impression may be that something has changed, although I can assure you nothing has …”
Stewart Wingate, Chief Executive, Gatwick
18.07.14 to Charles Hendry MP

Are you sure?

2010 2014
gon_251114_01.jpg gon_251114_02.jpg

 

Gatwick said:
Changes in Gatwick flight paths have prompted Kent County Council to withdraw its support for a second runway at the West Sussex airport. Council leader Paul Carter said the new flight paths had made life intolerable for people …”
24.11.14, BBC  (see link)

What has changed big time is that the National Air Traffic Control have started to implement changes in flight paths …
Paul Carter, Leader, KCC, BBC


 

Gatwick’s colleague on Gatwick’s Executive Management said this:
“… flight path changes had reduced the number of people who were affected by aircraft noise but those under the new routes did have more noise … There will be no further changes while we look at this and we try to learn would be the best way to implement them …”
Alastair McDermid, Airports Commission Director, Gatwick
24.11.14, BBC


 

The public seem to think something has changed …
11,311 noise complaints in the first 6 months of 2014 versus 2,645 for the whole of 2013.

We say:
Where are the figures for July-September? It’s nearly December!


 

Gatwick said that:
A feedback report detailing the results of the consultation will be published on this [Gatwick’s] website in September 2014.   (see link)

We say
Where is it?


 

Gatwick said:
“There has not been any trial of a ‘Superhighway’ on our westerly approaches and we are not planning any trials.”
Stewart Wingate, Gatwick, 28.08.14

NATS said
One of the key suggestions emerging from the project team was an approach stabilisation trial … It involved analysing the operation to find ways of improving the consistency of the spacing provided between arriving aircraft in order to maximise throughput.
We discovered that by removing the shortened approach path as aircraft turned into land, we were able to achieve a 25% reduction in the spacing variation.

Steve Anderson, General Manager, NATS Gatwick 16.09.2013,
describing what was discovered to be the ‘ACDM55 Project’

Gatwick Obviously Not.Org

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Kent County Council withdraws backing for Gatwick 2nd runway, due to noise burden

Kent County Council (KCC) is intending to oppose plans for a 2nd Gatwick runway, in order to protect residents in west Kent from “intolerable” aircraft noise. A council policy paper sets out the position of the council and gives details of the over-flying problem, and the level of noise which has risen to unacceptable levels.  This will be discussed at a cabinet meeting next week. The recommendation states: “The Cabinet agrees that KCC opposes a 2nd runway at Gatwick Airport, opposes the increase in overflights across West Kent as a result of airspace changes, and supports a reduction in the number of night flights.”  KCC Leader, Paul Carter, said a potential doubling of the noise impacts over west Kent would be intolerable.  The number of night flights at Gatwick during the summer period is already three and half times as many as at Heathrow.  “Expansion of night flights must not happen.“  KCC said it will call on Gatwick to put in place operational procedures to provide respite for areas experiencing continuing over-flights day and night, to spread out the noise burden.
.

 

Gatwick second runway: Kent County Council withdraws backing

24 November 2014 (BBC)

Changes in Gatwick flight paths have prompted Kent County Council to withdraw its support for a second runway at the West Sussex airport.

Council leader Paul Carter said the new flight paths had made life intolerable for people living in the Bidborough, Chiddingstone and Speldhurst areas.

The council previously support the second runway in its report, Bold Steps for Aviation, published in May 2012.

Gatwick said it regretted the council (KCC) had reversed its decision.

Night flights concern
The Airports Commission is considering three options for airport expansion in the South East – a second runway at Gatwick, a third runway at Heathrow, or an extension to one of the existing Heathrow runways.

KCC’s new policy is expected to be approved by its cabinet on 1 December and submitted to the Airports Commission as part of its three-week consultation.

“What has changed big time is that the National Air Traffic Control have started to implement changes in flight paths,” said Mr Carter.

“This has brought to our attention the concentration in flight paths but also that the number of night flights at Gatwick is about three and a half times the number at Heathrow, which is a massive issue.”

Five MPs from Kent, Surrey and Sussex also expressed their concerns about the new flight paths and the second runway, at a meeting in Crawley on Saturday organised by Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign.

Gatwick protest groupGatwick Area Conservation Campaign held a meeting to oppose a second runway attended by five MPs.

Gatwick protest group
Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign held a meeting to oppose a second runway attended by five MPs
Alastair McDermid, Gatwick’s airports commission director, said flight path changes had reduced the number of people who were affected by aircraft noise but those under the new routes did have more noise.

“There will be no further changes while we look at this and we try to learn would be the best way to implement them,” he said.

He said thousands of households affected by noise from a second runway would get £1,000 a year compensation and insulation grants.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30173769

 

Related BBC Stories


 

The summary text of the policy paper to the Kent County Council Cabinet  “Policy on Gatwick Airport”

This states

Summary:
Gatwick Airport Ltd has proposed a second runway which is now subject to a national
public consultation by the Airports Commission. A recommendation will then be made
by the Airports Commission to Government in summer 2015 on whether Heathrow or
Gatwick should have approval for additional runway capacity.

The proposal for a second runway along with proposals for changes to airspace
resulting in a concentration of flight paths; a high level of permitted night flights; and
an increase in over-flight and noise currently experienced in West Kent; has resulted
in Kent County Council opposing a second runway at Gatwick Airport.

The increase in over-flight across West Kent, the proposed airspace changes and night flights at Gatwick are also opposed.

The policy on Gatwick is stated in section 4.16 of this report and this will be added to
‘Facing the Aviation Challenge’ which states Kent County Council’s views on
aviation.

Recommendation:

The Cabinet agrees that Kent County Council opposes a second runway at Gatwick
Airport, opposes the increase in overflights across West Kent as a result of airspace
changes, and supports a reduction in the number of night flights.

.


.

Kent County Council intend to oppose plans for a second Gatwick runway which could affect residents in Tonbridge, Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells

24 November 2014  (Kent Messenger)

by Annabel Rusbridge-Thomas
Kent County Council is intending to oppose plans for a second runway at Gatwick Airport in order to protect residents in west Kent from “intolerable” aircraft noise.

A paper published today sets out the position of the council and details how an increase in over-flights and noise experienced by communities in west Kent has risen to unacceptable levels.

It comes just two weeks after a major consultation exercise on the future of air transport was launched by the Airports Commission.

On the drawing board are two proposals for expansion at Heathrow Airport, and one at Gatwick – which will itself cost an estimated £9.3 billion, £2 billion more than predicted.

KCC said it will call on Gatwick Airport to put in place operational procedures to provide respite for those areas that experience continuing over-flights day and night.

The matter will be discussed by officers at a cabinet meeting next week, where a recommendation has been put forward for KCC to oppose “a second runway at Gatwick Airport, oppose the increase in overflights across west Kent as a result of airspace changes, and support a reduction a reduction in the number of night flights.

Leader of Kent County Council Paul Carter said:“The noise impacts on west Kent from Gatwick’s current single runway configuration are already unacceptable and a potential doubling of these impacts with a second runway would be intolerable.
“The National Air Traffic control service has started to implement changes in flight paths, which has brought to our attention two things – a concentration of flight paths over west Kent; and that the number of night flights at Gatwick during the summer period is three and half times those coming in and out of Heathrow, which is a massive issue.

“This change in flight paths has been intolerable for a significant number of residents in that area and brought us to the conclusion that if they are going to pursue this policy in line with the EU Single European Sky initiatives, expansion of this airport and expansion of night flights must not happen.“

Affected residents have reported that overflights have recently risen from 10 – 20 flights-a-day to a maximum of 150.

Mr Carter added: “It is quite clear that residents in west Kent are already suffering from significant levels of disturbance as a result of increased air traffic over the last few years and the recent changes in flight paths.

“We want Gatwick to provide respite for these residents by varying flight paths – and have met with the airport’s chief executive to discuss this.

“We want the NATS air traffic control service to re-design the airspace to include the use of multiple arrival and departure routes, to provide predictable, rotating respite, and spread the burden of over-flight more equitably between communities.

“The current number of permitted night flights is simply unacceptable and has resulted in a massive increase in the number of complaints from residents whose quality of life has been disrupted.

“It is quite clear that residents in west Kent are already suffering from significant levels of disturbance as a result of increased air traffic over the last few years and the recent changes in flight paths” – Paul Carter…
“We want the Department for Transport to reduce the night movement limit at Gatwick to at least a level that is comparable with Heathrow.”

“Lastly, there is a lack of adequate surface transport infrastructure enhancements to cope with the proposed additional demand and little obvious direct economic benefit to Kent.

“While we recognise the need for additional airport capacity in order to maintain UK PLC’s position as a major international hub, we cannot support Gatwick Airport Ltd’s proposal for a second runway.”

Many west Kent residents became concerned that their views were not being considered by the county council. At a Southborough Town Council meeting held in September, KCC member Matthew Balfour was questioned by many before stating the council’s support for the second runway was “history”.

The council’s cabinet committee papers state: “In terms of economic impacts, the West Kent districts of Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge and Malling did not even feature in the study area for the economic effects of a second runway in Gatwick Airport Ltd’s consultation on the runway options.”

Richard Streatfeild Chair of the High Weald Councils Aviation Action Group said he welcomes the news that KCC will oppose expansion at Gatwick.

He added: “Listening to the leader of KCC one could tell that the impact of hundreds if not thousands of letters and emails that the council had received from individuals, Parish and Town Councils as well as protest groups were key to their change of heart.

“They have heeded the reasonable arguments of reasonable people.”

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/tonbridge/news/kcc-to-oppose-new-gatwick-27496/

.


 

Kent County Council opposes Gatwick’s plans for a second runway

24 November 2014  (Kent County Council website)

Kent County Council is intending to oppose plans for a second runway at Gatwick Airport in order to protect residents in West Kent from “intolerable” aircraft noise.

A paper published today (to be considered at a meeting of the cabinet on 1 December) sets out the position of KCC and details how an increase in over-flights and noise experienced by communities in West Kent has risen to unacceptable levels. The county council will call on Gatwick Airport to put in place operational procedures to provide respite for those areas that experience continuous over-flights day and night.

Paul Carter, Leader of Kent County Council, said:

“The noise impacts on West Kent from Gatwick’s current single runway configuration are already unacceptable and a potential doubling of these impacts with a second runway would be intolerable.

“In line with the EU Single European Sky initiatives, the National Air Traffic control service has started to implement changes in flight paths, which has brought to our attention two things – a concentration of flight paths over West Kent; and that the number of night flights at Gatwick during the summer period is three and half times those coming in and out of Heathrow, which is a massive issue.

“This change in flight paths has been intolerable for a significant number of residents in that area and brought us to the conclusion that if they are going to pursue this policy in line with the EU Single European Sky initiatives, expansion of this airport and expansion of night flights must not happen.”

Gatwick’s night time air transport movement limits (between 23:20 and 06:00) remains set until 2017, at 3,250 in winter and 11,200 in summer. This contrasts with far tighter night time movement controls at Heathrow – 2,550 in winter and 3,250 in summer.

Affected residents have reported that overflights have recently risen from 10 – 20 flights-a-day to a maximum of 150.

“It is quite clear that residents in West Kent are already suffering from significant levels of disturbance as a result of increased air traffic over the last few years and the recent changes in flight paths,” Paul Carter said.

“We want Gatwick to provide respite for these residents by varying flight paths – and have met with the airport’s chief executive to discuss this. We want Gatwick and the NATS air traffic control service to re-design the airspace to include the use of multiple arrival and departure routes, to provide predictable, rotating respite, and spread the burden of over-flight more equitably between communities.

“Also, the current number of permitted night flights is simply unacceptable and has resulted in a massive increase in the number of complaints from residents whose quality of life has been disrupted.

“We want the Department for Transport to reduce the night movement limit at Gatwick to at least a level that is comparable with Heathrow.”

Paul Carter said:

“Lastly, there is a lack of adequate surface transport infrastructure enhancements to cope with the proposed additional demand and little obvious direct economic benefit to Kent.

“While we recognise the need for additional airport capacity in order to maintain UK PLC’s position as a major international hub, we cannot support Gatwick Airport Ltd’s proposal for a second runway.”

Read the cabinet committee paper (PDF, 82.5 KB)

http://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/news-and-press-releases/roads-and-travel-news/kent-county-council-opposes-gatwicks-plans-for-a-second-runway

 

.

Earlier:

 

Residents and their MP in west Kent want Kent County Council to formally state their objection to a 2nd Gatwick runway

In 2012 Kent County Council produced a document called “Bold Steps for Aviation” in which it recommended to government the building of a 2nd runway at Gatwick airport (as well as high speed rail between Heathrow and Gatwick). It stated: “Capacity growth at Gatwick through the addition of a second runway after 2019. ” This has infuriated many people in west Kent who are increasingly badly affected by Gatwick, and its aircraft noise in particular. Now KCC’s councillor Matthew Balfour has said publicly that the support of KCC for a Gatwick 2nd runway is “history.” Sir John Stanley, Tonbridge and Malling MP, has sent a letter to Kent Council leader Paul Carter asking him to formally rescind the authority’s support of the 2nd runway. He has not received a reply. At a public meeting in Southborough, people were directed to the current document on the KCC website (Facing the Aviation Challenge - August 2014) that now states it currently has no preferred option.  “KCC gives support in principle to expansion at either airport as the right solution to the UK’s aviation needs” by 2030. Sir John Stanley MP does not feel that this new document is enough.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/09/residents-and-their-mp-in-west-kent-want-kent-county-council-to-to-formally-state-that-kcc-formally-state-their-objecition-to-a-2nd-gatwick-runway/

.


 

Kent County Council’s 2012 paper, pro Gatwick 2nd runway

Kent County Council produced a deeply unpopular document called “Bold Steps for Aviation” in May 2012, that backed a 2nd Gatwick runway.

 

This called for: “Capacity growth at Gatwick through the addition of a second runway after 2019. “.

https://shareweb.kent.gov.uk/Documents/News/Bold%20Steps%20for%20Aviation%20May%202012.pdf

 

Read more »

All local MPs speak out against Gatwick 2nd runway at packed protest meeting

Five MPs were on the platform, and 3 more sent messages of support, at a mass protest meeting on Saturday 22 November organised by the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC).  All of the 8 MPs from around Gatwick attended or sent messages. This helps disprove the assumption in some national newspapers that Gatwick would politically be the easiest option for a new runway. The MPs were united in expressing their concern about new flight paths and about the threat of a 2nd runway.  Extracts from their speeches and messages are copied here.  Up to 1,000 people crammed into the meeting in Crawley, and were welcomed by 3 racy air hostesses, and by the Mayor of Crawley, Cllr Brenda Smith who later, speaking as the local councillor, expressed her deep-felt opposition to a new runway. Some 20 national and local environmental groups set up stands around the hall and answered questions from anxious members of the public. Questions from the floor were answered by a panel of experts from a range of organisations.  The participants unanimously held up large cards saying NO when asked if they were in favour of new flight paths, and held up the NO cards again when asked if they were in favour of a 2nd runway.
.

 

NO at 22.11.2014 meeting

 

MPs speak out against second runway

22.11.2014 (GACC – Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)

Five Members of Parliament were on the platform, and three more sent messages of support, at a mass protest meeting on Saturday 22 November organised by the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC).   That is all the MPs from around Gatwick, and helps to disprove the assumption in some national newspapers that Gatwick would politically be the easiest option for a new runway.

The MPs were united in expressing their concern about new flight paths and about the threat of a second runway.  Extracts from their speeches and messages are copied below.

Up to 1,000 people crammed into the Apple Tree Centre in Crawley, and were welcomed by three racy air hostesses, and by the Mayor of Crawley, Cllr Brenda Smith who later, speaking as the local councillor, expressed her deep-felt opposition to a new runway.

Some twenty national and local environmental groups set up stands around the hall and answered questions from anxious members of the public.

Questions from the floor were answered by a panel of experts which included Keith Taylor (Member European Parliament), Cait Hewitt (Aviation Environment Federation), Sarah Clayton (AirportWatch), Sally Pavey (CAGNE), Richard Streatfeild (High Weald Parishes Aviation Action Group), and Brendon Sewill (GACC) under the chairmanship of Cllr Helyn Clack (Surrey County Council).

The meeting unanimously held up large cards saying NO when asked if they were in favour of new flight paths, and held up the NO cards again when asked if they were in favour of a second runway.

The afternoon concluded with 1,000 people singing ‘What shall we do with Gatwick Airport’ to the tune of the Drunken Sailor.  (Lyrics copied below).


 

Extracts from MPs’ speeches and messages

Cabinet member Rt Hon Francis Maude (Horsham) was abroad on Government business but sent a message: ‘As you know, I have always opposed a second runway at Gatwick.   We all know that there are big advantages for our area in having a successful airport as a centre for jobs and business, and I support Gatwick’s expansion as a single runway airport. That remains my view.’  

 

Crispin Blunt MP (Reigate) told the meeting why he had organised the Gatwick Co-ordination Group of MPs – because a second runway would be a ‘disaster for surrounding communities and environment.’   Many areas are being ‘appallingly affected by PRNAV’ [the new system of concentrated flight paths].

 

Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex). A second runway would be a disaster for our local environment. … 120,000 extra people – where they are expected to go is beyond me…. The London to Brighton railway line is already at full capacity – impossible to upgrade sufficiently. .. We must oppose this with all the power we have.’

 

Henry Smith (Crawley) noted that ‘public opinion in Crawley is divided. … There would be a significant impact on housing and infrastructure – school places, GP surgery sizes, healthcare – a need for a new hospital. … Gatwick have not made the case for expansion here.’

 

Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) sent a message:  New flight paths have caused misery for my constituents, which is why I have called for Gatwick to abandon its implementation of the PRNAV system. I would like to congratulate GACC for organising this meeting, and your ongoing work to hold Gatwick to account over these changes and the possibility of a second runway, which could cause significant environmental damage and pressure on local infrastructure.

 

SirJohn Stanley (Tonbridge) sent this message:  ‘I am totally opposed to Gatwick’s new flight path proposals which will make the already intolerable noise disturbance still more intolerable.  I am also totally opposed to a second runway at Gatwick.’

 

Charles Hendry (Wealden) commented on ‘the extraordinarily huge meeting here today. … Gatwick has not been straight with us and are not good neighbours.  If they are not good neighbours today, then the possible doubling in size is intolerable.  A second runway does not make economic sense and it does not make environmental sense.’ 

 

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) told the meeting that a second runway would mean ‘putting a city on Gatwick’….’public transport links are already overburdened’… ‘M25 is a parking lot’………’national businesses are not impressed with Gatwick’s proposal.’

 

Note

A list of the stands is copied below, and also the text of the air hostesses’ announcement. They can also be found on www.gacc.org.uk/latest-news

.


See also:

Standing room only at huge Gatwick protest meeting – definite “NO” to new flight paths or 2nd runway

Stewardesses 22.11.2014 The air hostesses & pilot who gave out the safety etc briefings to the massed audience

GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) organised a protest meeting on 22nd November in north Crawley. It was standing room only, with a huge gynmasium with space for up to 1,000 packed. People had come from areas near Gatwick, and up to 25 miles away – to express their intense opposition both to the flight path changes that Gatwick has recently inflicted on them, and to plans for a 2nd runway. The atmosphere at the meeting was up-beat, positive, angry and determined that Gatwick will not ruin their areas and their homes, or reduce their quality of life. Five MPs addressed the meeting (Nicholas Soames, Crispin Blunt, Henry Smith, Charles Hendry and Paul Beresford) with message of support read out from Francis Maude and Sir John Stanley, neither of whom could attend. The meeting was chaired by Helyn Clack (Surrey County Council), and addressed by the Mayor of Crawley, Brenda Smith. Asked by GACC whether people backed a new runway, or backed new flight paths, the response was a loud, unanimous “NO”. The meeting ended with cheerful singing of a new song – “What Shall We Do With Gatwick Airport?” (to the tune of the similar “Drunken Sailor.”)

Click here to view full story…Gatwick GACC  NO  22.11.2014

Click here to view full story…

.

.


Stands at Protest Meeting

(in random order)                                                   

GACC

One’s Enough   (Crawley)

AEF     (Aviation policy,  climate change)

Cagne  (Flightpaths South west)

PlaneWrong  (Flightpaths North west)

HWPAAG  (High Weald AONB)

GON   + CAGNE East    (Flightpaths West Kent)

ESSCAN    (Flightpaths East Sussex)

Woodland Trust   (Ancient woodland)

Sussex Wildlife    (Wildlife and landscape)

Greenpeace Redhill  (Aviation manifesto by Greenpeace, WWF, RSPB, FoE)

Ifield Village Association   (Ifield)

Green MEP      (EU politics, and no new runway)

Charlwood Society   (Historic houses to be demolished)

.

.


 

The Gatwick Song

What shall we do with Gatwick Airport?

to the tune of “What shall we do with the drunken sailor?”

 

Verse 1.

What shall we do with Gatwick Airport?

What shall we do with Gatwick Airport?

What shall we do with Gatwick Airport?

All day, night and morning.

Show ‘em that the runway is a non-starter.

Show ‘em that the runway is a non-starter.

Show ‘em that the runway is a non-starter.

Never going to happen.

(Refrain)

No Way, second runway

No Way, second runway

Never Never Never

Verse 2.

What shall we do with the noisy flight paths?

What shall we do with the noisy flight paths?

What shall we do with the noisy flight paths?

All day, night and morning


Keep on protesting ‘til they stop them.

Keep on protesting ‘til they stop them.

Keep on protesting ‘til they stop them.

All day, night and morning

(Refrain)

No Way, second runway

No Way, second runway

Never Never Never


Verse 3.

What shall we do with Sir Howard Davies?

What shall we do with Sir Howard Davies?

What shall we do with Sir Howard Davies?

All day, night and morning.


Bump him upstairs with a brand new title.

Bump him upstairs with a brand new title.

Bump him upstairs with a brand new title.

If he says ‘No Runway’.

(Refrain)

No Way, second runway

No Way, second runway

Never Never Never


Verse 4.

What shall we do with Stewart Wingate?

What shall we do with Stewart Wingate?

What shall we do with Stewart Wingate?

All day, night and morning.

Put him on a plane with a one-way ticket.

Put him on a plane with a one-way ticket.

Put him on a plane with a one-way ticket.

All the way to China

(Refrain)

No Way, second runway

No Way, second runway

Never Never Never

(Refrain)

No Way, second runway

No Way, second runway

Never Never Never

 

END


Introduction by the pilot and air hostesses

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. 

On behalf of GACC, and the entire crew, welcome aboard.

If we encounter any excitement please fasten your seat belt.

 [Girls to do the standard seat belt actions ….]

 

In case of an emergency, the exits are there, and there, and there.

[Girls point at actual exits in the usual way.]

 

There are no life-jackets under your seats.  If the airport is flooded again this winter, please swim!

[Girls demonstrate breast stroke movements]

 

We will be taking a new flight path today, so if you see people on the ground shaking their fists, please wave! 

[Girls demonstrate waving,  while pretending to peer down out of the window…]

 

If the Gatwick advertisements make you feel ill, please use a sick bag ….  ‘obviously’.

[Girls hold up airline sick bags]

 

We hope you have a pleasant flight and thank you for flying GACC.


 

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Manchester City chief slams Heathrow’s ‘desperate’ attempt to woo Manchester business leaders

Heathrow has been working hard to try to get support for its 3rd runway from Chambers of Commerce across the country. It has been offering the Chambers in the north west around £3,000 to fund events to pitch their runway case.  They want the regions to believe they risk losing their link to Heathrow if there is no new runway. Manchester Chamber of Commerce declined the offer, and Manchester Council leader Sir Richard Leese described Heathrow’s approach as ‘desperate’. He said: “I don’t think we should be supporting the Heathrow expansion plan. I think increasingly, evidence says that we don’t need the hub airport and what we ought to do is make better use of the network airports – including Manchester Airport…. What you see is both Heathrow and Gatwick increasingly losing the argument and getting increasingly desperate – as shown in this case. ….  Why do our members want to traipse down to London when they can use the airport round the corner?” 25 Chambers have backed Heathrow, but Sir Richard Leese says of them they are getting an unbalanced view from Heathrow. “Perhaps I ought to write to London Chamber of Commerce to set up a meeting for Manchester Airport.”
.

City chief slams Heathrow’s ‘desperate’ attempt to woo Manchester business leaders

Nov 23, 2014 (Manchester Evening News)
By Charlotte Cox

Heathrow Airport bosses have approached Greater Manchester business leaders to garner support for expansion in the south-east

Manchester’s town hall bosses have slammed a ‘desperate’ attempt by Heathrow bosses to get support for their expansion plans from Greater Manchester’s business community.

The country’s biggest airport has approached chambers of commerce across the north west offering each around £3,000 to fund events to pitch their case for a third runway.

Their bid is currently being considered by the Airports Commission against an option for Gatwick expansion.

A source at Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce confirmed Heathrow had approached them hoping to woo up to 300 business leaders – but they declined the offer.

But 25 other chambers have agreed – costing Heathrow around £75,000 – before voting to support the country’s biggest hub’s bid for expansion.

Part of Heathrow’s pitch warned of the risk of losing connections from north west cities to Heathrow if expansion didn’t go ahead.

Manchester council leader Sir Richard Leese described Heathrow’s approach as ‘desperate’.

He said: “I don’t think we should be supporting the Heathrow expansion plan.

“I think increasingly, evidence says that we don’t need the hub airport and what we ought to do is make better use of the network airports – including Manchester Airport.

“What you see is both Heathrow and Gatwick increasingly losing the argument and getting increasingly desperate – as shown in this case.”

Manchester council leader Sir Richard LeeseManchester council leader Sir Richard Leese
He added: “From Greater Manchester Chamber’s point of view it’s a very simple argument. Why do our members want to traipse down to London when they can use the airpot round the corner?”

On the chambers who voted to support the Heathrow bid, he added: “It’s right for them to try to gather evidence but I don’t think it’s sensible to come to a decision based on the unbalanced view they will get from Heathrow.”

He added: “Perhaps I ought to write to London Chamber of Commerce to set up a meeting for Manchester Airport.”

A Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce source said: “We were approached by Heathrow Airport to run an event for a number of businesses explaining how the expansion of Heathrow would be good for this region.

“However, we declined that as we believe that flights directly from Manchester Airport would serve the business community within the region better.

“We are not against the expansion of Heathrow but choose to actively support further use of Manchester.”

Charlie Cornish, chief executive of Manchester Airport has blasted the ‘unprecedented’ levels of government funding potentially needed for expanding Heathrow and Gatwick.

Manchester Airport chief executive Charlie Cornish
But MP Graham Stringer, for Blackley and Broughton, said the chamber was wrong to decline Heathrow’s offer.

He said: “Heathrow should get a third runway. The country needs a major hub airport which benefits the whole economy, and as a result Manchester.

“Manchester is not competing with Heathrow. I think Charlie Cornish has made a mistake by changing the policy.

“Constraining Heathrow send trade to France, Holland and Germany and that’s in nobody’s interest. It’s the worst kind of attitude that will damage Manchester.”

A Heathrow spokesperson said: “Heathrow does not decide what routes go where, that is ultimately a commercial decision for the airlines. We have consistently argued however that regional airports should benefit from direct links to Heathrow. Those routes could better connect regional businesses with growth markets around the world, creating jobs and growth across the country.

“It is normal for Chambers to ask for a small amount of money to sponsor an event to help them to cover their costs and allow their members to hear about interesting policy issues. Many other companies and government bodies also do this so they can hear views directly from firms. Sponsorship covers payment for a venue, catering, marketing and arranging the event. We look forward to continuing to engage businesses on an issue which is vital to the economic prosperity of the whole of the UK.”

He added: “We were disappointed not to be able to make our case to businesses in Manchester, but respect the decision of their chamber of commerce to decline.”

25 Chambers that have voted to support expansion at Heathrow

East Lancashire
Cumbria
Doncaster
Glasgow
Harrogate
Hertfordshire
Hillingdon
Hounslow
Inverness
Kent Invicta
London
Maidenhead
North East
Norfolk
North & Western Lancashire
Plymouth
Shropshire
South Wales
Staffordshire
Thames Valley
West London Business
West & North Yorkshire
Windsor
Kent Channel
West Cheshire & North Wales
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/city-chief-slams-heathrows-desperate-8155651

.

Comment from an AirportWatch member: “If it wasn’t so important one might derive some enjoyment from watching the airport owners fighting like ferrets in a sack………..”


.

Expansion at Heathrow would block expansion of regional airports

The problem for the regional airports, including Manchester, is that if Heathrow or Gatwick is allowed a new runway, and it is used enough to repay its investors their money, that means – under the carbon target for UK aviation – there is very little ability for the regional airports (like Manchester) to expand in future.

See

WWF regional airports report re climate – July 2014

—–

and more information on this at:

Plans to fit a new south east runway within UK climate targets are based on a ‘wing and a prayer’ – rather than reality

Two new reports have been produced, which seriously challenge the Airports Commission’s claim that it is possible to build a new runway and still meet the UK Government’s climate change targets. The reports also argue that building a new runway in the south east would worsen the north/south divide, as growth at the regional airports would need to be constrained in order to ensure CO2 emissions from aviation fall to their 2005 levels by 2050. The RSPB report,  “Aviation, climate change and sharing the load” and the WWF report, by the AEF “The implications of a new South East runway on regional airport expansion” demonstrate that if a new runway is built, commitments under the Climate Change Act cannot be met unless significant constraints are imposed on the level of activity at regional airports. Both reports illustrate that if aviation emissions were allowed to soar, that would impose costs on the rest of the economy rising to perhaps between £1 billion and £8.4 billion per year by 2050 as non-aviation sectors would need to make even deeper emissions cuts.  The regulatory regime for aviation carbon emissions is still just aspirational. Contrary to the impression given by the government and the Airports Commission, the issue of climate in relation to airport expansion has not been resolved.

WWF regional airports report re climate – July 2014


 

 


 

See also

Manchester Airports boss deeply critical of likelihood of large public subsidy aiding Heathrow or Gatwick runway

The CEO of Manchester Airports group, Charlie Cornish, has protested about the likelihood of public funds being used to assist a new south east runway. He says:  “Given the private interests at stake, adopting a special set of rules that favours the delivery of new capacity over the use of existing capacity, will have profound adverse consequences for competition and consumers in the long-run.”  More public funds for London airports does not help regional airports. The Commission, in its consultation documents on Heathrow and Gatwick runway plans, does not give specific figures on anticipated public subsidy.  But it comments there “may be a case” for some funding by the public sector. Equally, if the airport benefits from surface transport paid for by the taxpayer “may mean that a contribution from the scheme promoter to these costs is justified.” State aid rules may also require an airport operator to make an appropriate payment, if it benefits from a surface access scheme. “The Government would need to reach its own view on the level of public investment that can be justified.”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/11/manchester-airports-boss-deeply-critical-of-likelihood-of-large-public-subsidy-aiding-heathrow-or-gatwick-runway/
.


Gatwick has also been spending a lot of money in trying to get councils to back its runway aspirations:

Classic council nimbyism: Wandsworth Council backs Gatwick expansion – anything to avoid more Heathrow noise misery

Wandsworth Council has been a vociferous opponent of expansion at Heathrow, because its residents are badly affected by Heathrow aircraft noise. But now a motion has been voted on – unanimously – by the full Wandsworth Council, backing a new runway at Gatwick. This is a stunning example of Council nimbyism, and irresponsible self interest. Gatwick has spent a lot of money in lobbying west London councils, and this has paid off in Wandsworth. The Council rightly praises itself on its battle against Heathrow, expansion which “would deliver a devastating blow to hundreds of thousands of Londoners whose lives would be blighted by noise and pollution.” They appear not to appreciate that they are advocating inflicting the same misery on other people, in Sussex, Surrey and Kent.  Wandsworth even hopes Gatwick expansion will benefit them financially. Their view is based on the opinions of their unfortunate residents, who suffer significantly from Heathrow, but Wandsworth also unquestioningly backs the myth of airport expansion in the south east being “badly needed.” You can email them your views: aviation@wandsworth.gov.uk

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/10/classic-council-nimbyism-wandsworth-council-backs-gatwick-expansion-anything-to-avoid-more-heathrow-noise-misery/

Read more »

Noise protesters block part of Frankfurt airport for about an hour

Opponents of the noise misery inflicted on them by Frankfurt airport’s 4th runway, there has been a fresh protest at the airport. There have been regular large protests at the airport on most Monday evenings, ever since the opening of the 4th runway on 21.10.2011. On Saturday there was a different sort of protest, when people started off in a similar protest to the Monday evenings, but they then blocked the road access to the departures area for around an hour. That caused considerable disruption to the airport, as departures had to be closed.  This is the first protest blocking a road.  Before the runway was opened, citizens were barely consulted about the flight paths. Only their local authorities were given any information, and all were assured there would be hardly any more noise. The reality was sharply different, and flight paths were changed to accommodate the new runway, meaning thousands  are affected by noise, not only on the direct approach path. One protester commented that as the airport aggravates them for 18 hours per day, they were entitled to aggravate the airport for one hour.
.

Noise opponents block part of Frankfurt airport

Protest – Three years after the inauguration of the northwest runway people are still demonstrating against the project

22.11.2014  (Echo)

Blocks have airport opponents on Saturday the entrance and exit to the arrivals area of ​​Frankfurt Airport.  & Ensp photo: Hans Dieter Erlenbach

Airport opponents blocked the entrance and exit to the arrivals area of ​​Frankfurt Airport on Saturday.  Photo: Hans Dieter Erlenbach

 [Bad translation from the original German below] 

 Several hundred people demonstrated on Saturday against aircraft noise and the further expansion of the airport. They have partially paralyzed the airport for about an hour.

FRANKFURT.

They come for the inauguration of the runway each week. They are noisy and make life uncomfortable, at least for the airport operator Fraport and passengers. Sometimes there are only three hundred, formerly there were times up to 5000, who gave vent to their displeasure with more and more aircraft noise over their rooftops.

On Saturday, there were about 750 (according to police) or 1500 (according to organizers), who started off with their protest in Terminal 1. And then they did something they have never done before.  They sat down on their cushions for the demonstration. After the participants had moved from the arrivals part of the terminal, instead of their usual approved routed, they blocked the road outside the departures level.

The police and the airport security staff were nervous, because such a blockade was not anticipated.

Now the entrance to the departure area had to be closed at once.  Taxi drivers grumbled and passengers who had to walk across the bridge to the main station complained, “of just a few idiots who spend their time here.”

Meanwhile, Fraport also had a lawyer on the spot, watching the situation. Perhaps, the airport operator is now considering whether there are ways to  prohibit such demonstrations if requirements are not met.

With whistles and bells

“We are at the right place,” said Michael Wilk from the alliance of civic action against airport expansion. If the airport harasses the people in the surrounding areas with noise, 18 hours a day, these people may sometimes harass the airport for an hour, he said, with the deafening sounds of drums, whistles and bells. Previously there had been aad in brass band from Mainz in the terminal catered for vocal music.

Several men and women speakers lamented the unchecked growth of the airport and warned it was not only new start or runways, but also the improvement of technology and infrastructure on the ground leading to ever more air traffic. However, this was not made clear in the planning decision. The more air traffic that Frankfurt airport gets, the higher is the demand for commercial areas in the region, which means takes up more and more land.

Against a “feel-good Terminal”

Opponents say the “Feel-good Terminal 3″ is not necessary in Frankfurt.   For it is not just the comfort of the passengers to be considered, but the lives of the people who live in the metropolitan area. “This region is more than just the airport,” Wilke, who referred inter alia to the recent results of NORAH study, the learning delays had diagnosed in children by aircraft noise said.

The Frankfurt Pastor Christoph Stooth warned “against the rule of the people to people”, referring to the proponents of increasingly large projects, the ever narrowed the habitat and meant more and more strain on the environment.  His conclusion: “Our protest is righteous.”

Carola Gottas of the Flörsheimer citizens’ initiative against airport expansion, decided that in the light of the results of the NORAH study they should finally soundproof windows for the schools under the approach flight paths.

The Flörsheimer primary school had still not got this window soundproofing, although it would be over-flown at low altitude. They also warned against the targeted free trade agreement with the US which would allow the local airlines to appeal against the ban on night flights in Frankfurt. (TTIP).

Otherwise, the demands of the demonstrators are the same as three years ago. “The runway must go” they chanted over and over again and hope to get rid of the new 4th  runway. They also want a cap on aircraft movements on 380 000 and a ban on night flights from 22.00 to 06.00am.

After almost an hour, the noise opponents have unblocked the road again. But they will continue their regular Monday evening airport protests in the terminal.

 

Badly translated (apologies) From the original German at:

http://www.echo-online.de/region/suedhessen/Laermgegner-blockieren-Flughafen;art24719,5649199

.


.

Earler:

 

Indignation in Frankfurt at the approval of the 3rd Terminal, for yet more flights and more noise

Frankfurt airport protesters continue their huge gatherings on most Monday evenings (they have a break in the summer, and do vigils instead). There have now been 108 Monday protests and 34 vigils, with around 1,000 at the protests and around 100 at the vigils. After the news that planning had been granted for a 3rd Frankfurt airport terminal, there were far more people than usual at the vigil, with around 500, mobilised by the news. It was “the first Monday after the Tuesday,” and people were deeply angry at the news, and that it had been broken in August, in the holiday period.  The terminal enables the airport to grow, with more flights and more passengers. That means more noise misery for the thousands who already find the over-flights unacceptable. Opponents want the right to sleep, which they say is a fundamental right that is destroyed by aircraft noise. It is unacceptable for people to be rudely woken from their sleep at 5am and that they can no longer sit in the garden when the weather is good is described as “a monstrosity”. “We do not want to live like this.”  Opponents hope the decision can be reversed, when there is a proper study of the surface transport infrastructure required for a new terminal. .

 

Wave of indignation

 From    (fr-online.de) 18.8.2014

[Imperfect Google translation from the German, below].

About 500 people hold in Terminal 1 of Frankfurt Airport vigil. Photo: Andreas Arnold

At the vigil in Terminal 1 of Frankfurt Airport, far more people than usual.The approval granted planning permission for the third terminal mobilized the expansion opponents.

It is “the first Monday after the Tuesday,” says Erwin Stufler of the citizens’ initiative against aircraft noise in Mainz. Since the start there have been 108 Monday demonstrations against the airport expansion and 34 Vigil, who carry on the protest during the holidays. Is common that more than 100 people participate in these vigils. After last Tuesday, as the Frankfurter Supervision issued the building permit for the third terminal on the grounds of the Frankfurt airport, was mobilized vigorously, and actually come in the evening about 500 expansion opponents into the terminal first “We realize that people are absolutely angry” and “pissed” – also because the permission “hewn out in the summer holidays” was. “We realize that it goes to the point that the political opponents of facts creates,” says Stufler, the da Costa and protest veterans Roger Treuting organized from Rüsselsheim a small panel discussion while standing with the airport architect Dieter Faulenbach.

He had “never thought that in my country violates human rights” would. The right to sleep is a fundamental right that is destroyed by aircraft noise. That people were being torn 5am clock from sleep and could no longer sit in the garden when the weather is “a monstrosity”. Hofmann recalled “the general law of self-defense”. The people under the approach and departure routes befänden itself “in an emergency”. He urged the expansion opponents to defend themselves “stronger and more aggressive.” “We do not want to live like this.” Airport would not be sufficient, but will be dismantled. The airport does not belong to this place, not in the region. ”

…and it continues  ………..

http://www.fr-online.de/flughafen-frankfurt/mahnache-am-frankfurter-flughafen-welle-der-empoerung,2641734,28159840.html .


Facebook

Opponents ofthe 3rd Terminal, are at  “Kein Terminal 3″  (No Terminal 3) campaign on Facebook  .

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/08/indignation-in-frankfurt-at-the-approval-of-the-3rd-terminal-for-yet-more-flights-and-more-noise/


.

More older news stories about Frankfurt airport at

.
.
.
.
.

Read more »

Standing room only at huge Gatwick protest meeting – definite “NO” to new flight paths or 2nd runway

GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) organised a protest meeting on 22nd November in north Crawley. It was standing room only, with a huge gynmasium with space for up to 1,000 packed. People had come from areas near Gatwick, and up to 25 miles away – to express their intense opposition both to the flight path changes that Gatwick has recently inflicted on them, and to plans for a 2nd runway. The atmosphere at the meeting was up-beat, positive, angry and determined that Gatwick will not ruin their areas and their homes, or reduce their quality of life. Five MPs addressed the meeting (Nicholas Soames, Crispin Blunt, Henry Smith, Charles Hendry and Paul Beresford) with message of support read out from Francis Maude and Sir John Stanley, neither of whom could attend. The meeting was chaired by Helyn Clack (Surrey County Council), and addressed by the Mayor of Crawley, Brenda Smith. Asked by GACC whether people backed a new runway, or backed new flight paths, the response was a loud, unanimous “NO”. The meeting ended with cheerful singing of a new song – “What Shall We Do With Gatwick Airport?” (to the tune of the similar “Drunken Sailor.”)
.


Wide Gatwick 22.11.2014

 Part of the crowd filling the sports hall.

part of the crowd 22.11.2014

One part of the crowd, listening to the speakers (with frequently outbursts of applause)

Crispin Blunt  22.11.2014

Crispin Blunt says on Twitter: |”With Sir Nicholas Soames, the other local MPs and 800+ protestors against Gatwick expansion…. Great organisation by GACC. Tapping into real anger against GAL. Both 2nd runway & new noise nuisance.”


Gatwick GACC  NO  22.11.2014 Part of the crowd with their “No” signs, voting against a Gatwick 2nd runway, and against new flght paths.


 

Stewardesses 22.11.2014

The air hostesses and the pilot went through the safety drill, pointed out the safety drill – and advised on how to deal with nausea caused by airport propaganda…

 

More photographs below ……


All local MPs speak out against Gatwick 2nd runway at packed protest meeting

Five MPs were on the platform, and 3 more sent messages of support, at a mass protest meeting on Saturday 22 November organised by the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC).  All of the 8 MPs from around Gatwick attended or sent messages. This helps disprove the assumption in some national newspapers that Gatwick would politically be the easiest option for a new runway. The MPs were united in expressing their concern about new flight paths and about the threat of a 2nd runway.  Extracts from their speeches and messages are copied here.  Up to 1,000 people crammed into the meeting in Crawley, and were welcomed by 3 racy air hostesses, and by the Mayor of Crawley, Cllr Brenda Smith who later, speaking as the local councillor, expressed her deep-felt opposition to a new runway. Some 20 national and local environmental groups set up stands around the hall and answered questions from anxious members of the public. Questions from the floor were answered by a panel of experts from a range of organisations.  The participants unanimously held up large cards saying NO when asked if they were in favour of new flight paths, and held up the NO cards again when asked if they were in favour of a 2nd runway.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/11/all-local-mps-speak-out-against-gatwick-2nd-runway-at-packed-protest-meeting/


 

Extracts from MPs’ speeches and messages

Cabinet member Rt Hon Francis Maude (Horsham) was abroad on Government business but sent a message: ‘As you know, I have always opposed a second runway at Gatwick.  We all know that there are big advantages for our area in having a successful airport as a centre for jobs and business, and I support Gatwick’s expansion as a single runway airport. That remains my view.’  

 

Crispin Blunt MP (Reigate) told the meeting why he had organised the Gatwick Co-ordination Group of MPs – because a second runway would be a ‘disaster for surrounding communities and environment.’   Many areas are being ‘appallingly affected by PRNAV’[the new system of concentrated flight paths].

 

Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex). A second runway would be a disaster for our local environment. … 120,000 extra people – where they are expected to go is beyond me…. The London to Brighton railway line is already at full capacity – impossible to upgrade sufficiently. .. We must oppose this with all the power we have.’

 

Henry Smith (Crawley) noted that ‘public opinion in Crawley is divided. … There would be a significant impact on housing and infrastructure – school places, GP surgery sizes, healthcare – a need for a new hospital. … Gatwick have not made the case for expansion here.’

 

Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) sent a message:  New flight paths have caused misery for my constituents, which is why I have called for Gatwick to abandon its implementation of the PRNAV system. I would like to congratulate GACC for organising this meeting, and your ongoing work to hold Gatwick to account over these changes and the possibility of a second runway, which could cause significant environmental damage and pressure on local infrastructure.

 

SirJohn Stanley (Tonbridge) sent this message:  ‘I am totally opposed to Gatwick’s new flight path proposals which will make the already intolerable noise disturbance still more intolerable.  I am also totally opposed to a second runway at Gatwick.’

 

Charles Hendry (Wealden) commented on ‘the extraordinarily huge meeting here today. … Gatwick has not been straight with us and are not good neighbours.  If they are not good neighbours today, then the possible doubling in size is intolerable.  A second runway does not make economic sense and it does not make environmental sense.’ 

 

Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) told the meeting that a second runway would mean‘putting a city on Gatwick’….’public transport links are already overburdened’… ‘M25 is a parking lot’………’national businesses are not impressed with Gatwick’s proposal.’

.

NO at 22.11.2014 meeting

 


 

Gatwick's BIG enough

The main message from GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)


 

Stage and hostesses 22.11.2014

The hostesses setting the scene for the meeting.


Plane Wrong 22.11.2014

Part of the “Plane Wrong” stall – the group affected by planes north of Gatwick in the Holmwoods etc.


 

Gatwick Obviously Not stall  22.11.2014

Part of the “Gatwick Obviously NOT” stall, from the East Sussex and Kent areas


 

Autistic child  22.11.2014

One of the comments from people very badly affected by the Gatwick/NATS flight path trial over the Warnham area this summer (called ADNID)


Cagne stand 22.11.2014

Part of the CAGNE  (Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions) stall


Stop Heathrow Expansion  22.11.2014

Stop Airport Expansion message, on the Greenpeace stall 

 


 

Video: Sally Pavey (CAGNE and GACC speaking about the meeting)

 


.

The Gatwick Song

What shall we do with Gatwick Airport?

to the tune of “What shall we do with the drunken sailor?”

 

Verse 1.

What shall we do with Gatwick Airport?

What shall we do with Gatwick Airport?

What shall we do with Gatwick Airport?

All day, night and morning.

Show ‘em that the runway is a non-starter.

Show ‘em that the runway is a non-starter.

Show ‘em that the runway is a non-starter.

Never going to happen.

(Refrain)

No Way, second runway

No Way, second runway

Never Never Never

Verse 2.

What shall we do with the noisy flight paths?

What shall we do with the noisy flight paths?

What shall we do with the noisy flight paths?

All day, night and morning


Keep on protesting ‘til they stop them.

Keep on protesting ‘til they stop them.

Keep on protesting ‘til they stop them.

All day, night and morning

(Refrain)

No Way, second runway

No Way, second runway

Never Never Never


Verse 3.

What shall we do with Sir Howard Davies?

What shall we do with Sir Howard Davies?

What shall we do with Sir Howard Davies?

All day, night and morning.


Bump him upstairs with a brand new title.

Bump him upstairs with a brand new title.

Bump him upstairs with a brand new title.

If he says ‘No Runway’.

(Refrain)

No Way, second runway

No Way, second runway

Never Never Never


Verse 4.

What shall we do with Stewart Wingate?

What shall we do with Stewart Wingate?

What shall we do with Stewart Wingate?

All day, night and morning.

Put him on a plane with a one-way ticket.

Put him on a plane with a one-way ticket.

Put him on a plane with a one-way ticket.

All the way to China

(Refrain)

No Way, second runway

No Way, second runway

Never Never Never

(Refrain)

No Way, second runway

No Way, second runway

Never Never Never

 

END

 


 

Nearly thousand turn out to protest airport expansion

22 November 2014

It was standing room only as around 1,000 people [at least 600 – could be up to 900] met in Crawley to oppose the building of a second runway at Gatwick Airport.

The meeting, organised by the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, was held at the Apple Tree Centre, Ifield Avenue, this afternoon (Saturday November 22).

Among the speakers were Brendon Sewill, founder of GACC, Sir Nicholas Soames MP, Crispin Blunt MP, mayor of Crawley Brenda Smith and Crawley MP Henry Smith.

Residents from all over Sussex packed into the centre where the environmental and economic consequences of expansion at Gatwick were discussed.

Some attendees were opposed to the building of a new runway anywhere in the south east while others were more focussed on Gatwick.

But all of them had concerns about noise, pollution and the effect expansion would have on the area’s already stretched infrastructure.

Gatwick and Heathrow were shortlisted by Sir Howard Davies and the Airports Commission for expansion and a final recommendation will be made to the government in July 2015.

A public consultation into the shortlist has been launched and residents have been called on to make sure they take part.

The consultation documents can be downloaded at the Airports Commission website.

Information about how to respond to the consultation is at the end of the document.

Responses should be emailed to airports.consultation@systra.com or posted to: Airports Commission Consultation, Freepost RTKX-USUC-CXAS, PO Box 1492, Woking, GU22 2QR.

http://www.crawleyobserver.co.uk/news/videos/video-one-thousand-turn-out-to-protest-airport-expansion-1-6433835

Read more »

Gatwick’s main airline, easyJet, questions Gatwick case for 2nd runway and does not want to pay higher landing charges

Carolyn McCall, CEO of  EasyJet, the largest airline at Gatwick, has said passengers want expansion at Heathrow, not at Gatwick.  Ms McCall said easyJet is “quite concerned” at the prospect that Gatwick’s  landing charges would rise to pay for a 2nd runway.  They are having confidential talks with the airports on future charges.  EasyJet makes on average £8 profit per seat.  If Gatwick’s charges doubled from the current £9  to an average of £15 to £18 (or even up to £23) as predicted by the Airports Commission, this would hit EasyJet’s economics.  Ms McCAll said: “This whole issue of capacity should be about where the demand is. Airlines have to want to go into that airport, and the congestion we have is predominantly around the Heathrow hub. Passengers need to really value what this infrastructure brings, and if they don’t see any benefit it’s going to struggle.” A new runway risked emulating unpopular toll roads. “It will be years and years before [passengers] see any positive effect.”  As one of the UK’s largest and fastest growing airlines, EasyJet’s opinion will need to be given careful consideration by the Commission.
.

 

The Airports Commission’s consultation document (Page 47) states that:

3.41

“Gatwick Airport Ltd has estimated, for example, that per passenger charges would
rise from £9 currently to £12-15 as a result of expansion. This is lower than the
charges predicted by the Commission’s analysis, which indicate average charges
rising to between £15 and £18, with peak charges of up to £23. As can be seen,
the Commission’s estimates show significant potential variation reflecting the
variation in passenger demand across its scenarios. In the upper end demand
scenarios, charges would be close to Gatwick Airport Ltd’s own estimates,
although still slightly higher, reflecting higher costs and a more conservative view
of how the infrastructure delivery might be phased. Conversely, the higher end of
the Commission’s predicted range of charges reflects lower estimated levels of
demand leading to peak charges above £20 (roughly the current level of charges
at Heathrow). “


From Guardian article:

 

EasyJet reports record £581m profit

18.11.2014 (Guardian)

….. Extract …….

EasyJet is the dominant airline at Gatwick airport, where it has negotiated a long-term deal, but McCall said it was concerning that the recent Airports Commission evaluation of Gatwick’s second runway plan had indicated landing charges would need to rise substantially to pay for it, from the current level of around £9 per passenger to as much as £23, against the airport’s own reckoning of £15.

She said: “[Howard] Davies [the commission’s chair] has said Gatwick has underestimated dramatically. It is obviously concerning. When you think our average fare is £60 and we make £8 profit per seat, £23 is a huge amount of money.”

She said easyJet was in discussions with both Gatwick and Heathrow, its rival for the commission’s recommendation for a new runway, and added: “This whole issue of capacity should be about where the demand is. Airlines have to want to go into that airport, and the congestion we have is predominantly around the Heathrow hub. Passengers need to really value what this infrastructure brings, and if they don’t see any benefit it’s going to struggle.”

She said a new runway risked emulating unpopular toll roads. “It will be years and years before [passengers] see any positive effect.”

She said easyJet would publish analysis when it had concluded discussions with the airports and its own number-crunching. “It’s a long-term bet, what is best for easyJet, Heathrow or Gatwick.”

The difference in landing charges has previously deterred easyJet from attempting to enter Heathrow, but McCall added: ”We work out of hub airports all across Europe where the yield is right. There’s no reason we wouldn’t do it in London.”

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/18/easyjet-record-profits-no-frills-airline



EasyJet questions case for new runway at Gatwick airport

By Peggy Hollinger  (FT)

18.11.2014

….extracts  ….

Ms McCall, speaking as the group announced a 22 per cent jump in annual pre-tax profits to £581m in 2013-14, said easyJet was “quite concerned” at the prospect that airport landing charges could rise at Gatwick to cover the costs of a second runway.

“We make £8 profit per seat and our average price is just £60,” she said. If Gatwick’s charges doubled to an average of £15 to £18 as predicted by an independent commission examining the case for expansion, “that is quite worrying in terms of our economic case.”
………..

Passengers seemed to favour Heathrow, Ms McCall added. “This whole issue should be [decided] where the demand is,” she said. “The congestion we have does predominantly appear to be around Heathrow.”

It said 62 per cent of business travellers who booked a flight with easyJet returned to fly again. Leisure travellers were also proving more loyal, with the percentage of passengers making a repeat booking increasing from 50 per cent to 57 per cent.

………………………

“Popular new initiatives like allocated seating meant many people tried us for the first time and we are absolutely focused on driving loyalty, so they choose us flight after flight,” said Ms McCall.

The load factor – the percentage of seats filled – hit 90.6 per cent in the year to September 30, up 1.3 percentage points. Passenger numbers rose 6.6 per cent to 64.8m and annual revenues climbed 6.5 per cent to £4.53bn.

……

See full article at:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8596d4c2-6ef7-11e4-8d86-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3JimfhLm1

.


.

Gatwick hits back at easyJet and BA over second runway plans

by Joel Lewin (FT)

20.11.2014

Gatwick has hit back at easyJet and British Airways after both airlines questioned the case for the UK’s second largest airport having a new runway.

Nick Dunn, Gatwick’s chief financial officer, on Thursday suggested the two airlines, the largest and second largest operators at the airport, were concerned about the prospect of increased competition from rival carriers if a second runway was built at the West Sussex facility.

He was responding to easyJet’s chief executive, Carolyn McCall, who said on Tuesday that a sharp rise in landing charges at Gatwick to pay for a second runway would be “quite worrying in terms of our economic case”. He was also tackling comments last month by Willie Walsh, chief executive of International Airlines Group, parent of British Airways, that there is no business case to expand Gatwick.

Mr Dunn said: “For either one of those parties [easyJet and British Airways] increased capacity into the system will create increased competition for passengers, so I understand why airlines would reflect on that . . . [it] will of course mean more competition for them.”
He added easyJet’s criticism was based on estimates made by the Airports Commission, the independent body studying whether to build a new runway at Gatwick or London’s Heathrow, the UK’s largest airport.

The commission, which is due to make recommendations after next year’s general election, has estimated Gatwick’s landing charges would rise from £9 per passenger today to an average of £15 to £19.

Gatwick disputes the commission’s calculation, claiming charges would rise to no more than £12-£15 per passenger if a second runway costing about £7bn was built.

Mr Dunn said that increased competition between airlines at Gatwick would benefit travellers who could enjoy cheaper flights and more destinations.

David Bentley, analyst at the CAPA centre for aviation, said Gatwick would be concerned that easyJet, its biggest customer, had responded so negatively to the company’s expansion plans.
“They’re a very powerful airline to be challenging Gatwick. Occasionally airlines will throw airports out of kilter with their thinking,” he added.

The dispute came as Gatwick reported the busiest six months in the airport’s history, with passenger numbers up 8 per cent to 22.5m in the six months to September 30 compared to the same period last year.

Chief executive Stewart Wingate said: “The capacity crunch facing Gatwick underlines the urgent need for a new runway.”

Turnover grew 8.6 per cent to £391.6m in the company’s first half, driven by the rise in passenger numbers.

Operating profit grew 15 per cent to £162.5m. However, pre-tax profit fell 3.9 per cent to £122.4m because of lower gains on derivatives compared with the same time last year.
Gatwick is owned by a consortium led by Global Infrastructure Partners.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ed17155e-70b8-11e4-9129-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3JimfhLm1

.


EasyJet CEO still has no details of the practical economics of a Heathrow or Gatwick runway

In an interview, by Buying Business Travel, with Caroline McCall, the CEO of EasyJet she said Heathrow is an expensive airport, which is why they do not fly from there. On Gatwick’s and Heathrow’s bids for runway expansion she says:  “We’ve seen none of the economics behind either of those visions. Inevitably it will be the airlines and therefore the passengers, that will fund this. Therefore, it’s a very, very big decision for Easyjet – because any increase in passenger fares is something that affects our low-fare proposition”….”We make £7 profit per seat – that’s it. We’ve raised that from £4.50 over the last four years. I think Heathrow are talking around £15 billion, Gatwick are talking around £7-8 billion. If you think about the price per passenger for that, you can see we have to be really, really careful about any capacity going into either airport, and before we take a view on it, we have to understand the economics.”  And they want to focus on more  business travellers: “because we know we get higher yields.”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/06/21952/


A new runway at Heathrow or Gatwick would mean big increases in passenger fees – New report

10.3.2014   (Aviation Environment Federation)
The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) has submitted a new report to the Airports Commission. It casts doubt on the feasibility of building a new runway at either Gatwick or Heathrow.  So far there has been little realistic discussion about who will actually pay for the proposed runways.  The new study, “Who Would Pay for a New Runway” by Brendon Sewill, shows that a new runway at Heathrow would be likely to mean an increase in landing fees and other airport charges from £19 per passenger now, up to £31.  At Gatwick there would be a larger increase, up from £8 now to £33.60.   The study points out that with all the London airports separately owned, unlike in the days of BAA, the cost will have to fall only on the passengers using that airport.  If an expensive runway (and terminal) is built, the options are either that the passengers pay for it – or that it has to have public subsidy. A report for the Airports Commission, by KPMG, concluded that a new Heathrow runway would need a subsidy of around £11 billion, and a new Gatwick runway a subsidy of nearly £18 billion. However, the Government is reluctant to commit public funds, and new EU guidelines ruling out subsidies to major airports.  That leaves landing charges – will passengers put up with that, or vote with their feet by using cheaper airports? 
.http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=20374.


easyJet says it would fly from Heathrow, “if it was right for us” debunking Gatwick’s Heathrow myth

Gatwick airport, in its bid to try to pursuade the powers-that-be of its suitability as the site of a new runway, has often said that the low cost airlines would not fly from Heathrow. However, easyJet has now said that it would consider flying from an expanded Heathrow.  Carolyn McCall, the chief executive of easyJet, said it would look at flying from Heathrow in future “if it was right for us”, and it if wasn’t too expensive. Gatwick claims that the increase in demand for air travel will be for short haul flights, mainly to Europe or countries adjacent to Europe. Heathrow claims the demand for air travel in future will be long haul.  According to Gatwick’s chief executive, Stewart Wingate, Heathrow is inaccessible for low-cost airlines and charter carriers due to its high landing charges. But Ms McCall points out that easyJet already flies to and from other hub airports in Europe, such as Schiphol, Rome Fiumicino and Paris Charles de Gaulle. Though Heathrow has high landing charges, so do the other European  hub airports. Ms McCall made her comments shortly after easyJet announced a 7-year pricing deal with Gatwick and revealed it is in discussions to take over the airport’s north terminal, potentially forcing out British Airways. It made no mention of a 2nd Gatwick runway.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/03/easyjet-says-it-would-fly-from-heathrow-if-it-was-right-for-us-debunking-gatwicks-heathrow-myth/

.

 


 

See also

Willie Walsh says there is no business case for a 2nd Gatwick runway – BA has Gatwick’s 2nd largest number of passengers

Willie Walsh, the head of IAG, will not support a 2nd Gatwick runway, even if it is chosen by the Airports Commission or backed by the next government. He does not believe there is a business case to support its expansion, and there is insufficient demand from airlines for extra capacity at Gatwick. Mr Walsh campaigned heavily for a 3rd Heathrow runway before 2010, but has made frequent comments indicating he does not believe UK politicians will have the “courage” to build that. Willie Walsh says British Airways would resist higher landing charges, which would be necessary to fund a runway – either at Heathrow or Gatwick. (EasyJet has also said in the past they don’t want a new runway, if it means substantially higher charges – their model is low cost). BA would want lower costs, not higher costs, from a new runway. IAG’s shares have now risen as it has now made a profit at last, and will be paying its first dividend (and maybe some UK tax). Gatwick’s main airline is EasyJet with around 37% of passengers, and British Airways 2nd largest at around 14%. 

.

Willie Walsh: ‘No business case’ to support a second runway at Gatwick

Boss of British Airways’ parent company suggests there isn’t enough demand from airlines for a second runway at Gatwick Airport

By Nathalie Thomas, Transport and Leisure Editor (Telegraph)

31 Oct 2014

Willie Walsh, the head of British Airways’ parent company, has ruled out supporting a second runway at Gatwick, even if it is given the go-ahead by policymakers, arguing that he doesn’t believe there is a business case to support expansion at the West Sussex airport.

Mr Walsh, who is chief executive of International Airlines Group (IAG), suggested there is insufficient demand from airlines for extra capacity at Gatwick.

His intervention comes at another critical moment in the long-running inquiry over where to build Britain’s next runway, as the body set up to investigate the issue prepares to test public opinion through a national consultation. Gatwick is battling against its larger rival Heathrow for the right to expand.

Mr Walsh campaigned heavily for a third runway at Heathrow during a previous inquiry, only to see a decision to expand Britain’s biggest airport over-turned by the Coalition when it came to power. He has taken a step back during the current process, which is being carried out by Sir Howard Davies’ Airports Commission, but said on Friday that he would be unable to support expansion at Gatwick, even if it was recommended by policymakers.
“I would not support a runway at Gatwick because I don’t think there is a business case to support it,” the airlines boss said.

Mr Walsh said his objections are “principally based on the demand environment” but he warned that BA would also strongly resist any increase in charges to fund expansion, either at Gatwick or at Heathrow.

“I don’t think it [demand] is as strong as Gatwick would argue,” he said. He warned both airports that they would have to demonstrate “how charges [for airlines] will reduce rather than increase”, as IAG unveiled its third quarter results on Friday.

But a spokesman from Gatwick hit back: “Demand is strong and we are close to full capacity today. Airlines and passengers are voting with their feet and Gatwick is the fastest growing airport in London, as our monthly traffic figures underline.

“Building a second runway at Gatwick will be cheaper than expanding Heathrow and those savings will be passed on to passengers who increasingly want affordable flying. A new runway at Gatwick would also give London two world class airports, delivering more competition, choice and even lowers fares for passengers and UK plc.”

Shares in IAG soared on Friday on guidance that full-year operating profit could rise to as much as €1.37 billion (£1.07bn) following a 30pc jump in profits during the key summer months.

The airlines giant, which is next week expected to lay out a road map towards paying its first dividend, said third quarter operating profit before exceptional costs reached €900m, a better-than-expected €210m improvement on the same period last year, as a major restructuring at its Spanish flag carrier, Iberia, continued to pay off.

IAG, which was formed through the 2011 merger of BA and Iberia, said it now expects full-year operating profit, before exceptional costs, to be between €550m and €600m higher than in 2013, when it reached €770m, representing a slight upgrade on previous guidance. The upgrade pushed shares in early trading to a six-month high.

“The recent Ebola outbreak hit all the airlines, but IAG, with its robust management, has pulled out some bumper, analyst-beating figures. Already increased price targets have been issued this morning by analysts. A return to year-highs of 460p [a share] look inevitable,” said Amrit Panesar, senior trader at Accendo Markets.

BA also performed strongly in the third quarter, making an operating profit of €607m during the three months to September 30, compared to €477m during the same period in 2013.
Operating profit at Iberia jumped to €162m from €74m previously but growth at IAG’s budget airline, Vueling, was far more muted, edging up just €1m to €140m, as competition in the European low-cost market heats up.

The third quarter performance pushed up group operating profit after exceptional items for the first nine months to €1.048bn, a significant turnaround from €348m at the same point last year.

IAG’s performance contrasts dramatically with that of its German rival, Lufthansa, which on Thursday issued its second profit warning this year as it struggles to restructure its cost base.

IAG has been consulting investors on a dividend policy, which it is expected to lay out at a capital markets day next Friday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11201064/Willie-Walsh-No-business-case-to-support-a-second-runway-at-Gatwick.html

Gatwick launched a new report claiming that even with a second runway it would be able to meet EU and UK air quality targets

 

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2014/11/willie-walsh-says-there-is-no-business-case-for-a-2nd-gatwick-runway-ba-has-gatwicks-2nd-largest-number-of-passengers/

.

.


Willie Walsh tells Transport Committee there is no business case for a Gatwick 2nd runway

At the Transport Committee evidence session, Stewart Wingate, Gatwick chief executive, said he would oppose a 3rd runway at Heathrow and wanted to see Gatwick develop as a competing hub airport.  But BA’s Willie Walsh said airlines will only pay for expansion at one UK airport and that is Heathrow, implying he would oppose a 2nd Gatwick runway.  Willie Walsh also told the committee there was no business case to expand Gatwick, and he was not aware of any discussion with airlines about the extra amount they would have to pay for a new Gatwick runway.  Willie Walsh said “the only business case you could stand over is one to invest in a 3rd runway at Heathrow, but I’m not going to waste my time because it’s not going to happen.” Divide and rule ?

 http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=1514
.
.

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

Read more »

NATS proposes more low flying Stansted planes over north Essex & SSE will keep fighting changes to departure routes

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) will keep fighting planned changes to the airport’s departure flight paths.  NATS first proposed changes to Stansted flight paths in June, but SSE say there must be clear and compelling benefits for local residents before any shift is implemented.  NATS plans to route about 50 more outbound planes per day along a flightpath towards Clacton to avoid congestion in the skies over London. NATS received over 400 responses to its recent airspace consultation; about  82% objected to the proposed changes. NATS has now published its Feedback Report claiming that “the package of net operational and environmental benefits presents a compelling case for change”. The changes help NATS meet its targets for flight efficiency, which give more priority to cutting fuel burn and CO2 emissions than cutting noise for those overflown. The planes are unlikely to reach 7,000ft until around Kelvedon, and between 4,000 and 7,000 feet, there has to be a trade-off between cutting noise and cutting fuel burn. Hence consultation.  NATS has submitted its Airspace Change Proposal to the CAA and if approved the change would come into effect in December 2015.
.

 

Stop Stansted Expansion campaigners vow to keep fighting changes to airport departure routes

20.11.2014 (Herts & Essex Observer)

STOP Stansted Expansion campaigners have vowed they will keep fighting planned changes to the airport’s departure routes.

Air traffic controller NATS first proposed changes to Stansted flight paths in June. In response, the protesters said that there must be clear and compelling benefits for local residents before any shift was implemented.

NATS received more than 400 responses to its consultation and more than 82% of those who expressed a view objected to the proposed changes.

NATS has now published its Feedback Report claiming that “the package of net operational and environmental benefits presents a compelling case for change”.

 

http://www.hertsandessexobserver.co.uk/Stop-Stansted-Expansion-campaigners-vow-fighting/story-24561571-detail/story.html

.


 

More low flying planes set to cross north Essex

by Will Lodge (EADT)
November 14, 2014

More low flying planes look set to come across north Essex as they leave Stansted Airport following the end of a public consultation.
National Air Traffic Services (NATS), the main UK air traffic management provider, is proposing to route more outbound planes along a flightpath towards Clacton to avoid congestion in the skies over London.

It says the move will also be more environmentally friendly as it will allow planes to continuously and more quickly climb to higher altitudes. Around 50 more planes per day would fly along the East route along north Essex, double the current number.

The planes are unlikely to reach 7,000ft until around Kelvedon.

Several hundred objections were made to the plans during a 12-week public consultation.

However while noting the feedback NATS has said none of the responses presented a new case to not go ahead with the proposed changes.

Witham MP Priti Patel said: “Increases in low flying flights will be a cause of concern for residents affected.

“I would expect NATS and the airline companies to engage with communities to mitigate these effects and take a sensible and pragmatic approach should serious complaints be received.”
NATS will submit an Airspace Change Proposal to the Civil Aviation Authority on Wednesday, including all of the feedback.

If approved the change will come into effect in December next year.

Paul Haskins, general manager of London Terminal Control at NATS, said: “We are not surprised by the ratio of objections to expressions of support – in any consultation people are more likely to voice their feelings if they oppose the proposal or feel that it will have a negative impact on them.

“The response confirmed our understanding of general stakeholder concerns and demonstrates that the views of the Stansted community group are in line with general environmental issues highlighted in Department for Transport guidance.

“This is the first part of a long and complex set of airspace changes to deliver the UK’s Future Airspace Strategy. This first proposal will provide environmental benefits through more efficient routings and climb profiles, whilst enabling future stages of the airspace programme, all of which will be widely communicated and consulted on.”

Craig Martin, chairman of Kelvedon Parish Council, said: “Realistically there is not much we can do about it. We have a grudging acceptance that that’s what is going to happen.

“Although it will cause some annoyance and disturbance it is likely to happen, and NATS has a hard job as wherever they send planes it will annoy someone.”

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/more_low_flying_planes_set_to_cross_north_essex_1_3848821

.


.

Earlier:

 

Stop Stansted Expansion supports call to take part in flight path consultation, and says changes should be postponed

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) welcomes NATS’ call to local residents to have their say and respond to the proposed transfer of traffic on departure routes from Stansted Airport. The proposed change involves switching daytime traffic from the existing south-east (Dover) departure route to the existing east (Clacton) route (see map). The consultation closes on 8th September. Traffic on the Clacton route would double if this proposal were implemented. NATS’ own figures show 1,470 fewer people would be overflown, but 2,400 people would be overflown more intensively. NATS says that the driver for change is network performance and to avoid Heathrow traffic congestion. SSE says significant changes to Stansted’s airspace are likely to come in the next airspace review phase scheduled for 2018/19. If there is a new south east runway, that will mean significant redesign of Stansted routes in future. Therefore SSE says there must be clear and compelling benefits for local residents before any changes are implemented. They recommend that NATS’ proposed changes should be postponed until the airspace redesign planned for 2018/19.

Click here to view full story…


Plan to redirect Stansted Airport departures to reduce Heathrow congestion

Air traffic control service NATS proposes to redirect the majority of Stansted departures from an established southerly route, to an existing route to the east of the airport. “At the moment, departures from Stansted heading towards the South East are kept lower for longer when compared to the route heading east because of Heathrow arrivals.” The changes would only affect daytime departures. This is to reduce congestion above Heathrow. Arrivals are not affected. NATS has started a 12-week consultation on the proposals. Martin Peachey, noise advisor for Stop Stansted Expansion campaign group said: “We basically support the proposal because NATS say it should reduce the amount of people flown in the day and reduce CO2 emissions. It would remove day time departures for a large area to the south but it would double the amount of flights to the east so that would need to be carefully studied. …. There will be winners and losers.” The changes are part of the NATS’ London Airspace Management Programme (LAMP).

Click here to view full story…

 

Read more »

New flight paths revealed in Airports Commission documents – a noise double whammy for Horsham

The Airports Commission has put out various documents in its consultation (main consultation document, main Gatwick document, other noise documents) on the issue of noise.  GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) has unearthed a plan showing some possible new flight paths if a 2nd runway was built.  The Commission emphasise that the map is only illustrative and does not represent where the routes might actually be. That would only be revealed after the new runway had been given the go-ahead. There is therefore no clear detail on flight paths, with no certainty of any sort for those who fear being overflown in future. This uncertainty generates very real concern and anger. The map indicates a massive increase in noise from take-offs to the west and south-west of Gatwick, over Warnham, north Horsham with perhaps a plane per minute between the two, relatively close, flight paths.  Gatwick with two runways is planned to handle 560,000 air traffic movements a year, compared to 250,000 a year now.  The impact of these flights would be profound, over an extensive area.
.

New flight paths revealed – a double whammy for Horsham

17.11.2014 (GACC – Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)

The Airports Commission has produced a plan showing possible new flight paths if a new runway were to be built at Gatwick. [ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/371854/14-operational-efficiency–airspace.pdf   page 39 ]

This has been unearthed by GACC from the mass of documents published last week.  The plan is copied below.

2nd_runway Arr_Dep-paths_2

The Commission emphasise that the map is only illustrative and does not represent where the routes might actually be.  That would only be revealed after the new runway had been given the go-ahead.

Brendon Sewill, Chairman of GACC, commented: ‘The present flight paths are causing widespread anger across West and East Sussex, Surrey and Kent.  This new revelation will make people even more concerned.  Everyone will have the opportunity to express their anxiety at the Protest Meeting that GACC has arranged for this Saturday 22 November.’

Although the plans are described as ‘illustrative’, certain conclusions can be drawn.  Aircraft departing from the existing runway are shown using the present flight paths, except that none will use routes to the south.  Thus the number of aircraft using the present routes (except to the south) would roughly double.

All aircraft departing from the new runway to the west are shown as using two new flight paths, one over Warnham and North Horsham (on the track of the immensely unpopular ADNID trial);  and one turning sharp left to fly over the eastern side of Horsham.  Since these two flight paths would need to take all aircraft taking off to the west, Horsham – on one side or the other – would experience one plane a minute.

As Sewill said: ‘This would be a double whammy for Horsham – one plane a minute over the town.  Some of the Horsham councillors who have been so keen to support a new runway may now find they need to think again’

All aircraft taking off from the new runway to the east are shown as turning right to take a route close to East Grinstead.  Some aircraft already use this route but with a new runway it would be one plane a minute – almost continuous noise.

Arriving aircraft are shown as taking two concentrated flight paths to the east and two to the west. Sewill said: ‘GACC has been pressing NATS (air traffic control) to replace these concentrated routes by multiple routes but even so doubling the number of aircraft would ruin any remaining tranquillity in Ashdown Forest or the rural parts of West Sussex.

In a consultation earlier this year NATS suggested that all arriving aircraft should be directed to ‘merge-points’, and the Airport Commission map shows a ‘merge-point’ (or perhaps two ‘merge-points’) in the vicinity of Haywards Heath.  Sewill commented: ‘The poor people living under what are called the ‘merge-points’ would have every single aircraft over their heads.’

Experience in the past year has confirmed that new flight paths – and especially concentrated flight paths – over peaceful areas cause massive anger and distress because the previous quiet is shattered, expectations of tranquillity brutally destroyed, house values depreciated and people left trapped unable to move away without serious financial loss.

Gatwick with two runways is planned to handle 560,000 air traffic movements a year, compared to 250,000 a year at present.  [ Airports Commission Consultation Document.  November 2014 paragraph 3.11 ]  At busy times of day at present aircraft take-off or land at a rate of nearly one a minute.  With a new runway it would be nearly two a minute.

www.gacc.org.uk 


 

 

Airports Commission documents:

Main consultation document

Document by Commission on Gatwick’s plan

Documents by  Commission on noise

 


Gatwick protest

The Gatwick protest  meeting will be held at The Apple Tree Centre, Ifield Avenue, Crawley from 2.00 to 3.30pm. 

Doors open 1.00 pm.


The Airports Commission paper on Gatwick airport’s runway plan says, on noise:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/374662/evidence-base-gatwick-airport-second-runway.pdf

The Commission’s Approach to Assessing Noise Impacts

One of the key findings of the Commission’s 2013 discussion paper on Aviation Noise
was that people respond to noise in different ways. Response to noise is subjective,
and likely to be affected not only by the magnitude of the sound but also its duration,
regularity, and the time of day at which it occurs.

In order to help people understand the likely noise impacts of the three expansion
options, the Commission has assessed noise impacts in a range of different ways. The
full set of measurements can be found in our supporting annexes. In this document, we
present noise impacts in the following ways:

• day noise (L 16h 0700-2300) and night noise (L 8h 2300-0700), looking particularly Aeq Aeq at the 57 decibel level (which in the Government’s Aviation Policy Framework marks the approximate onset of significant community annoyance), and the lower 54 decibel level;
• the European 24 hour Lden measure, which puts more weight on noise that occurs in
the evening (1900-2300) or the night (2300-0700) than the daytime (0700-1900);
• N contours, which capture how many times in a day or night a population will be
exposed to a very noisy aircraft flyover (with a 70 decibel threshold for the day, and a
60 decibel threshold for the night).

The Commission’s demand forecasts have been used as the basis for measuring future
noise impacts. For each scheme, the assessment of need carbon-capped forecast has
been assessed as a ‘lower end’ case, and a ‘top end’ case has also been assessed
to understand the implications of scenarios showing higher levels of demand. For
the Gatwick Second Runway scheme the low-cost is king carbon-traded scenario
comprises the high end traffic scenario, which results in very sharp traffic increases
at Gatwick in the years immediately following the opening of a new runway and a
corresponding increase in noise impacts. This chapter first considers the lower end case,
then compares these outputs with those from the upper end.

The Commission’s modelling has been undertaken by the noise forecasting unit (ERDC)
at the CAA using their ANCON model. The Commission’s assumptions on the types of
aircraft using the airport, the population changes in overflown areas, the rate at which
aircraft ascend and descend and other important inputs to the model are all set out in
report Noise: Local Assessment. Input assumptions for the noise model can be expected
to impact the results significantly. This can be seen by comparing the results from
scheme promoters and the Commission’s modelling in the supporting annexes. A range
of noise impact results can therefore be created, depending on which particular view of
the future and associated assumptions are input into the model.

The indicative flight path designs used for noise modelling should not be taken as
showing where future flight paths would in practice be located. Creating and agreeing
airspace plans for any new runways would require significant development and public
consultation, which the Commission has not undertaken; and careful consideration of
mitigation options, as well as the impacts of new technology, could lead to significant
changes to the indicative designs.

 

.

There are pages of forecasts, scenarios, looking at various ways in which the noise at Gatwick might increase by a fair amount, by a large amount, or by an even larger amount. There is little certainty about any of it.

See pages 100 – 110 of  Gatwick Airport second runway: business case and sustainability assessment

.


The Commission’s consultation document states:

3.12

The Commission’s forecasts indicate that the proposed second runway at Gatwick
would see 60-96mppa, across all five of the Commission’s scenarios. These
passenger numbers would make an expanded Gatwick in 2050 broadly equivalent
in terms of passenger numbers to Frankfurt or Paris CDG airports for the lower-end
forecasts and as large as any current airport for the upper-end forecasts.

 

 

Read more »