American Airlines to launch direct flights to New York from Birmingham

Birmingham Airport says it will have a daily service to JFK New York, by American Airlines, from next spring. It hopes to have nearly 100,000 seats on the route, per year. There is already a route from Birmingham to Newark, by United Airlines. The route is likely to be used by more people on leisure trips, than business, though some American tourists may come to places like Stratford and further afield. But the airport CEO Paul Kehoe said:  “Last year, the West Midlands exported £4.5 billion worth of goods to North America and has the largest trade surplus with North America of any UK region… etc etc.”  This is seen as the first test of the business model of the runway extension. The route will be operated by a Boeing 757 aircraft with 22 Business Class seats and 160 Main Cabin seats. Whether or not this new service actually needs the new runway extension, or could have managed on the old runway, is a moot point.  757s can use Luton’s runway (2160 metres), and Birmingham’s was 2,650 metres before the recent 400 metre extension, to now be 3,050 metres long. So justifying the extension?
.

 

 

American Airlines to launch direct flights to New York from Birmingham

Nov 3, 2014
By Tamlyn Jones (Birmingham Post)
The daily service will commence next spring and is expected to provide nearly 100,00 seats on the route

American Airlines to launch direct flights to New York from Birmingham

New direct daily flights between Birmingham Airport and New York will run from next spring.

American Airlines will commence the flights on May 8 to John F. Kennedy Airport with the route expected to provide nearly 100,000 seats a year.

It will complement the existing route between Birmingham and Newark operated by United Airlines.

Through the American Airlines and British Airways joint business and oneworld airline alliance, they will offer a British Airways code share, allowing customers to earn and redeem BA air miles and Avios points.

Birmingham Airport chief executive Paul Kehoe said: “This new route will not only create more capacity to this vibrant US business and tourist destination, it will also broaden connectivity and choice from the Midlands with American Airlines across North America and Canada and see the return of a British Airways flight code to Birmingham.

“Last year, the West Midlands exported £4.5 billion worth of goods to North America and has the largest trade surplus with North America of any UK region, and with global brands such as JLR, JCB, Cadbury and Kraft trading both locally and in the US, this is an important link for Midlands’ business.

“The region is also a major tourist destination for Americans, with attractions such as Stratford, Warwick and Birmingham drawing in thousands of visitors every year so we look forward to welcoming many of these tourists into Birmingham next summer and thank the team at American Airlines for recognising the region’s vast market opportunities.”

The American Airlines flight will operate daily, arriving from JFK into Birmingham at 7.10am and depart for the return leg at 10am.

Suzanne Boda, American Airline’s senior vice-president for Asia, Canada and Europe, said: “Adding Birmingham to American’s growing global network is an exciting development.

“Tourists from the US will have closer access to a wide range of attractions in the Midlands while business travellers will also be rewarded with greater choice when flying across the Atlantic.

“Departing passengers from Birmingham will have direct flight to New York, one of the world’s most renowned business and leisure destinations, while connecting passengers will have excellent access to key business and leisure markets up and down the East Coast.

“We look forward to starting this new route in 2015 and I’m confident of its success.”

http://www.birminghampost.co.uk/business/american-airlines-launch-direct-flights-8037738

.


 

Birmingham Airport takes a bite out of the Big Apple as American Airlines announces JFK route

3rd November 2014 (The Business Desk)
by Duncan Tift, Deputy Editor, West Midlands
DIRECT flights between Birmingham Airport and New York’s JFK Airport will begin next May, the airport has announced.

It has secured a deal with American Airlines which will see the US company start daily routes to and from the Big Apple, beginning on Friday May 8.

The route, expected to provide nearly 100,000 seats between and Birmingham Airport and JFK, will also see the return to Birmingham of a British Airways code share as the service will be operated through the American Airlines and British Airways joint business, oneworld airline alliance.

The route has the added advantage of allowing customers to earn and redeem BA air miles and Avios points.

Paul Kehoe, Birmingham Airport’s chief executive, said: “This new route will not only create more capacity to this vibrant US business and tourist destination, it will also broaden connectivity and choice from the Midlands with American Airlines across North America and Canada and see the return of a British Airways flight code to Birmingham.

“Last year, the West Midlands exported £4.5bn worth of goods to North America and has the largest trade surplus with North America of any UK region, and with global brands such as JLR, JCB, Cadbury and Kraft trading both locally and in the US, this is an important link for Midlands’ business.

“The region is also a major tourist destination for Americans, with attractions such as Stratford, Warwick and Birmingham drawing in thousands of visitors every year so we look forward to welcoming many of these tourists into Birmingham next summer and thank the team at American Airlines for recognising the region’s vast market opportunities.”

The American Airlines flight will operate daily, arriving from JFK into Birmingham at 0710 local UK time. It will depart for its return leg at 1000, arriving into New York JFK at 1255 local US time.

“Adding Birmingham to American’s growing global network is an exciting development,” said Suzanne Boda, American’s senior vice president – Asia, Canada & Europe. “Tourists from the US will have closer access to a wide range of attractions in the Midlands while business travellers will also be rewarded with greater choice when flying across the Atlantic.

“Departing passengers from Birmingham will have direct flight to New York, one of the world’s most renowned business and leisure destinations while connecting passengers will have excellent access to key business and leisure markets up and down the East Coast. We look forward to starting this new route in 2015 and I’m confident of its success.”

The new flights, which are now on sale, will be operated by a Boeing 757 aircraft with 22 Business Class seats and 160 Main Cabin seats.

It is the second airline to offer the route to customers using Birmingham Airport.

Biman Bangladesh Airlines announced last year that it would be offering direct flights to JFK from Birmingham as part of its New York to Dhaka service.

The twice-weekly service, using Boeing 777s, was due to have started earlier this year but the introduction has been delayed.

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/westmidlands/news/687444-birmingham-airport-takes-a-bite-out-of-the-big-apple-as-american-airlines-announces-jfk-route.html#

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

Read more »

IPCC report says large cuts in CO2 emissions are vital, and need to be soon, to stop severe impacts of climate change

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has produced its Synthesis report, bringing together work from 3 earlier reports. It is unequivocal about the extent of the danger posed by climate change, and the imperative need to make huge cuts in global carbon emissions. The science is absolutely clear – politicians ignore it at their peril.  Ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not taking action.  The IPCC says climate change is set to inflict “severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts” on people and the natural world unless CO2 emissions are cut sharply and rapidly. They say climate disruptions will cause huge difficulties for humanity, including food shortages and violent conflicts. Inaction would be costly; the longer the delay, the higher the cost. Lord Stern said delaying cutting CO2 emissions would be “profoundly irrational”. Ed Davey said: “…we must act on climate change now.” But he backs building a 2nd Gatwick runway.  With the extent of carbon cuts it is essential to make, how can the inevitable rise in UK aviation carbon emissions, caused by an additional intensely used runway, possibly be justified?
.


Rising aviation carbon emissions – and the cuts required globally

Apart from an IATA aspiration to cut global aviation CO2 emissions by 1.5% per year, up to 2020 (while growing the global industry by about 4 – 5% per year) the only way – other than a vague hope of future use of a tiny amount of “sustainable?” biofuels – the industry will only meet its theoretical target of “carbon neutral growth” by buying offsets for its carbon emissions.

That means aviation intends to continue increasing its total carbon emissions by maybe 3 – 4% per year, but justifying this by paying other sectors to do some actual, real, cuts in carbon.

However, the extent of the carbon cuts we need is great, (as evidenced by the IPCC report).

Can the world really afford to allow an ever-expanding aviation sector to swallow up the hard-won, difficult, carbon reductions achieved elsewhere?


IPCC: rapid carbon emission cuts vital to stop severe impact of climate change

Most important assessment of global warming yet warns carbon emissions must be cut sharply and soon, but UN’s IPCC says solutions are available and affordable

By Damian Carrington (Guardian)

2 November 2014

Carbon emissions will have to fall to zero to avoid catastrophic climate change, the IPCC says. 
Climate change is set to inflict “severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts” on people and the natural world unless carbon emissions are cut sharply and rapidly, according to the most important assessment of global warming yet published.

The stark report states that climate change has already increased the risk of severe heatwaves and other extreme weather and warns of worse to come, including food shortages and violent conflicts.

But it also found that ways to avoid dangerous global warming are both available and affordable.

“Science has spoken. There is no ambiguity in the message,” said the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, attending what he described as the “historic” report launch. “Leaders must act. Time is not on our side.” He said that quick, decisive action would build a better and sustainable future, while inaction would be costly.

Ban added a message to investors, such as pension fund managers: “Please reduce your investments in the coal- and fossil fuel-based economy and [move] to renewable energy.”

The report, released in Copenhagen on Sunday by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the work of thousands of scientists and was agreed after negotiations by the world’s governments. It is the first IPCC report since 2007 to bring together all aspects of tackling climate change and for the first time states: that it is economically affordable; that carbon emissions will ultimately have to fall to zero; and that global poverty can only be reduced by halting global warming. The report also makes clear that carbon emissions, mainly from burning coal, oil and gas, are currently rising to record levels, not falling.

The report comes at a critical time for international action on climate change, with the deadline for a global deal just over a year away. In September, 120 national leaders met at the UN in New York to address climate change, while hundreds of thousands of marchers around the world demanded action.

“We have the means to limit climate change,” said Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC. “The solutions are many and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change.”

Lord Nicholas Stern, a professor at the London School of Economics and the author of an influential earlier study, said the new IPCC report was the “most important assessment of climate change ever prepared” and that it made plain that “further delays in tackling climate change would be dangerous and profoundly irrational”.

“The reality of climate change is undeniable, and cannot be simply wished away by politicians who lack the courage to confront the scientific evidence,” he said, adding that the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people were at risk.

Ed Davey, the UK energy and climate change secretary, said: “This is the most comprehensive and robust assessment ever produced. It sends a clear message: we must act on climate change now.  [But the man backs fracking, and a backs a new south east England runway at Gatwick, expanding aviation …]

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said: “This is another canary in the coal mine. We can’t prevent a large scale disaster if we don’t heed this kind of hard science.”

Bill McKibben, a high-profile climate campaigner with 350.org, said: “For scientists, conservative by nature, to use ‘serious, pervasive, and irreversible’ to describe the effects of climate falls just short of announcing that climate change will produce a zombie apocalypse plus random beheadings plus Ebola.” Breaking the power of the fossil fuel industry would not be easy, McKibben said. “But, thanks to the IPCC, no one will ever be able to say they weren’t warned.”

The new overarching IPCC report builds on previous reports on the science, impacts and solutions for climate change. It concludes that global warming is “unequivocal”, that humanity’s role in causing it is “clear” and that many effects will last for hundreds to thousands of years even if the planet’s rising temperature is halted.

In terms of impacts, such as heatwaves and extreme rain storms causing floods, the report concludes that the effects are already being felt: “In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans.”

Droughts, coastal storm surges from the rising oceans and wildlife extinctions on land and in the seas will all worsen unless emissions are cut, the report states. This will have knock-on effects, according to the IPCC: “Climate change is projected to undermine food security.” The report also found the risk of wars could increase: “Climate change can indirectly increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks.”

Two-thirds of all the emissions permissible if dangerous climate change is to be avoided have already been pumped into the atmosphere, the IPPC found.

The lowest cost route to stopping dangerous warming would be for emissions to peak by 2020 – an extremely challenging goal – and then fall to zero later this century.

The report calculates that to prevent dangerous climate change, investment in low-carbon electricity and energy efficiency will have to rise by several hundred billion dollars a year before 2030. But it also found that delaying significant emission cuts to 2030 puts up the cost of reducing carbon dioxide by almost 50%, partly because dirty power stations would have to be closed early. “If you wait, you also have to do more difficult and expensive things,” said Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London and an IPCC working group vice-chair.

Tackling climate change need only trim economic growth rates by a tiny fraction, the IPCC states, and may actually improve growth by providing other benefits, such as cutting health-damaging air pollution.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) – the nascent technology which aims to bury CO2 underground – is deemed extremely important by the IPPC. It estimates that the cost of the big emissions cuts required would more than double without CCS. Pachauri said: “With CCS it is entirely possible for fossil fuels to continue to be used on a large scale.”

The focus on CCS is not because the technology has advanced a great deal in recent years, said Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a professor at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and vice-chair of the IPCC, but because emissions have continued to increase so quickly. “We have emitted so much more, so we have to clean up more later”, he said.

Linking CCS to the burning of wood and other plant fuels would reduce atmospheric CO2 levels because the carbon they contain is sucked from the air as they grow. But van Ypersele said the IPCC report also states “very honestly and fairly” that there are risks to this approach, such as conflicts with food security.

In contrast to the importance the IPCC gives to CCS, abandoning nuclear power or deploying only limited wind or solar power increases the cost of emission cuts by just 6-7%. The report also states that behavioural changes, such as dietary changes that could involve eating less meat, can have a role in cutting emissions.

As part of setting out how the world’s nations can cut emissions effectively, the IPCC report gives prominence to ethical considerations. “[Carbon emission cuts] and adaptation raise issues of equity, justice, and fairness,” says the report. “The evidence suggests that outcomes seen as equitable can lead to more effective [international] cooperation.”

These issues are central to the global climate change negotiations and their inclusion in the report was welcomed by campaigners, as was the statement that adapting countries and coastlines to cope with global warming cannot by itself avert serious impacts.

“Rich governments must stop making empty promises and come up with the cash so the poorest do not have to foot the bill for the lifestyles of the wealthy,” said Harjeet Singh, from ActionAid.

The statement that carbon emissions must fall to zero was “gamechanging”, according to Kaisa Kosonen, from Greenpeace. “We can still limit warming to 2C, or even 1.5C or less even, [but] we need to phase out emissions,” she said. Unlike CCS, which is yet to be proven commercially, she said renewable energy was falling rapidly in cost.

Sam Smith, from WWF, said: “The big change in this report is that it shows fighting climate change is not going to cripple economies and that it is essential to bringing people out of poverty. What is needed now is concerted political action.” The rapid response of politicians to the recent global financial crisis showed, according to Smith, that “they could act quickly and at scale if they are sufficiently motivated”.

Michel Jarraud, secretary general of the World Meteorological Organisation, said the much greater certainty expressed in the new IPCC report would give international climate talks a better chance than those which failed in 2009. “Ignorance can no longer be an excuse for no action,” he said.

Observers played down the moves made by some countries with large fossil fuel reserves to weaken the language of the draft IPCC report written by scientists and seen by the Guardian, saying the final report was conservative but strong.

However, the statement that “climate change is expected to lead to increases in ill-health in many regions, including greater likelihood of death” was deleted in the final report, along with criticism that politicians sometimes “engage in short-term thinking and are biased toward the status quo”.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/02/rapid-carbon-emission-cuts-severe-impact-climate-change-ipcc-report


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/

The Synthesis Report distils and integrates the findings of the three working group contributions to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report — the most comprehensive assessment of climate change yet undertaken, produced by hundreds of scientists — as well as the two Special Reports produced during this cycle.

Summary for Policymakers 
Synthesis Report – Longer Report 
Factsheet
Quick link to report PDFs

 

One short section of the Summary for Policymakers says:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf

“Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, global emissions growth is expected to persist, driven by growth in global population and economic activities. Global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 in baseline scenarios – those without additional mitigation – range from 3.7 to 4.8°C above the average for 1850-1900 for a median climate response.

They range from 2.5°C to 7.8°C when including climate uncertainty (5th to 95th percentile range). (high confidence)

Emissions scenarios leading to GHG concentrations in 2100 of about 450 ppm CO2-eq or lower are likely to maintain warming below 2°C over the 21st century relative to pre-industrial levels.

These scenarios are characterized by 40% to 70% global anthropogenic GHG emissions reductions by 2050 compared to 2010 and emissions levels near zero or below in 2100. Mitigation scenarios reaching concentration levels of about 500 ppm CO2-eq by 2100 are more likely than not to limit temperature change to less than 2oC, unless they temporarily overshoot concentration levels of roughly 530 ppm CO2-eq before 2100, in which case they are about as likely as not to achieve that goal.

In these 500 ppm CO2-eq scenarios, global 2050 emissions levels are 25-55% lower than in 2010. Scenarios with higher emissions in 2050 are characterized by a greater reliance on Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) technologies beyond mid-century (and vice versa).

Trajectories that are likely to limit warming to 3°C relative to pre-industrial levels reduce emissions less rapidly than those limiting warming to 2oC. A limited number of studies provide scenarios that are more likely than not to limit warming to 1.5°C by 2100; these scenarios are characterized by concentrations below 430 ppm CO2-eq by 2100 and 2050 emission reduction between 70% and 95% below 2010.

For a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of emissions scenarios, their GHG concentrations and their likelihood to keep warming to below a range of temperature levels, see Table SPM.1″

.

and

“Delaying additional mitigation to 2030 will substantially increase the challenges associated with limiting warming over the 21st century to below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels. It will require substantially higher rates of emissions reductions from 2030 to 2050; a much more rapid scale-up of low-carbon energy over this period; a larger reliance on CDR in the long term; and higher transitional and long-term economic impacts. Estimated global emissions levels in 2020 based on the Cancún Pledges are not consistent with cost  effective mitigation trajectories that are at least about as likely as not to limit warming to below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels, but they do not preclude the option to meet this goal (high confidence)”.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf


 

IPCC’s urgent warning to tackle climate change

The UN panel of climate scientists says some consequences of global warming will become irreversible unless greenhouse gas emissions fall to zero by the end of the century − but latest research suggests the reality may be even more urgent than that.

By Alex Kirby

LONDON, 3 November, 2014

Climate change threatens to become “severe, pervasive and irreversible”, according to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Without drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the report says, global average temperatures will probably increase by another 2°C by mid-century on their 1986-2005 levels. This implies temperatures nearly 4°C higher by 2100.

The warnings come in the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC’s Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, itself a distillation of the three distinct volumes of the Panel’s Fifth Assessment Report (on climate science, impacts and mitigation) published since September 2013.

Will to change

The IPCC chair, Dr R K Pachauri, said at the Summary’s launch in Copenhagen: “We have the means to limit climate change. The solutions are many, and allow for continued economic and human development. All we need is the will to change. . .”

The Panel insists that adapting to climate change will not be enough, and that the world must make “substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions”.

Dr Pachauri said: “To keep a good chance of staying below 2ºC [the international threshold for temperature rise], and at manageable costs, our emissions should drop by 40% to 70% globally between 2010 and 2050, falling to zero or below by 2100.”

The Summary, spelling out in careful terms what this means, says: “A large fraction of anthropogenic climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial timescale, except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period.”

Put more simply, this means that without an effective way to clean up the main greenhouse gas, the world will face permanent changes. Unfortunately, the method proposed for cleaning the atmosphere − carbon capture and storage − has not yet proved itself at scale.

So Dr Pachauri’s plea that the world finds “the will to change“ is fine, so far as it goes. The problem is that there are also several technological hurdles still to surmount.

And that’s not the only problem with this report. As with previous major IPCC reports, it unavoidably trails some way behind the facts. The authors of the three volumes on which the Summary is based, published in the last 14 months, were able to consider only climate science published up till 15 March, 2013.

Serious consequences

But among research published since then − and too late to be considered by the IPCC teams − was a NASA report suggesting that the melting glaciers of West Antarctica may have passed the point of no return, with serious consequences for global sea levels.

Yet the IPCC Summary says simply: “Abrupt and irreversible ice loss from the Antarctic ice sheet is possible, but current evidence and understanding is insufficient to make a quantitative assessment.”

Other recent advances in climate science that were published too late for the Panel to consider relate to the Greenland ice sheet and to the Amazon.

This is not to blame the IPCC for producing a report that has serious gaps. Its assessment reports appear only once every six or seven years, and are written by unpaid volunteers, supported by a permanent staff of around 12 people.

But if you hear the IPCC being accused − as it often is − of alarmism, consider how truly alarming the Summary would have been if the authors had been able to digest all we now know about the effects of climate change. − Climate News Network

http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/ipccs-urgent-warning-to-tackle-climate-change/

.

.


 

.

IATA’s Fact Sheet: Climate Change

Industry Goals:

  • An average improvement in fuel efficiency of 1.5% per year to 2020
  • A cap on net aviation CO2 emissions from 2020: carbon-neutral growth
  • Cut net CO2 emissions in half by 2050 compared to 2005                                                       [Net emissions. Not gross].

Air Transport’s Climate Change Track Record

  • Air transport accounts for 2% of global manmade CO2 emissions
    • Air transport’s relative contribution has not increased in the past 20 years and is not expected to increase beyond 3% by 2050  according to The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
  • Air transport has reduced its fuel use and CO2 emissions per passenger kilometer by well over 70% compared to the 1960s.
  • Although in 2012 passenger kilometer performed increased by as much as 5.3% and tonne kilometers performed by 3.3%, total emissions increased only 1.4% to 689 million tonnes of CO2, compared to 679 million tonnes in 2011
  • Emissions growth of 1.4% in 2012 is the result of
    • A 2.7% capacity increase (accounting for 18 million tonnes of CO2)
    • But was partially offset by an annual percentage efficiency improvement of 1.3%

Carbon-Neutral Growth 2020 (CNG2020)

  • CNG2020 means that aviation’s net CO2 emissions will not increase beyond 2020 levels even as demand for air transport continues to grow
  • The industry is working hard to deliver CNG2020 (Four Pillar strategy), but it is also contingent upon action by other stakeholders, notably:
    • The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) needs to adopt a CO2 emission standard for new aircraft types
    • Governments and fuel companies need to support and scale up the production of sustainable biofuels for aviation
    • Governments and air navigation service providers need to improve air traffic management, and live up to their commitments to deliver the Single European Sky in Europe and NextGen in the United States
    • At its Annual General Meeting in June 2013, IATA members adopted a resolutionproviding a set of principles on how governments could integrate a single global market-based measure as part of an overall package of measures to put a cap on net aviation emissions from 2020

Four Pillar Strategy to Address Climate Change

Technology

  • Short-term: enhancements and modifications to existing in-service fleet
  • Medium-term: accelerate fleet renewal, introduce latest technologies, including drop-in biofuels
  • Long-term: radical new technologies and aircraft designs
  • IATA Technology Roadmap identifies technologies that could reduce fuel burn per aircraft by up to 30%

Operations

  • Improved operations can save fuel and CO2 emissions by up to 6% per year (IPCC)
  • IATA helps fuel conservation by compiling best practices, publishing guidance, visiting airlines and training
  • IATA will extend fuel conservation programs and promote airline environmental management systems

Infrastructure

  • Governments and infrastructure providers could avoid up to 12% of CO2 emissions by addressing airport and airspace inefficiencies (IPCC)
    • Some 4% of this has already been achieved since 1999 (according to the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation – CANSO)
    • Single European Sky (SES), US NextGen Air Transport System and flexible use of airspace would contribute to these savings

Economic measures

  • To the extent that the industry’s climate change objectives may not be achieved through the first three pillars alone, a cost-effective single global market-based measure is needed to bridge the gap
  • Considering the international nature of aviation, a global approach to aviation emissions must be preferred over a patchwork of individual and uncoordinated policies:
    • A market-based measure should be cost-effective and administratively simple
    • Airlines should only be held accountable once for their emissions
    • A patchwork of measures may lead to the same emissions being covered by more than one mechanism.
  • A global mechanism is needed to prevent market distortions and carbon leakage

At its 38th session, the ICAO Assembly decided to develop a global market-based measure for international aviation. It requested the ICAO Council to finalize the work on the technical aspects, environmental and economic impacts and modalities of the possible options for a global MBM scheme. The results of the work of the Council will be reported to the next Assembly in 2016 for approval.

Updated: December 2013

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/fact_sheets/pages/environment.aspx

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

 

Read more »

Open letter to the people of Wandsworth, from the people of Gatwick – “Not in My Backyard” should be borough motto

Wandsworth Borough Council recently voted unanimously in favour of backing a 2nd Gatwick runway, and opposing a runway at Heathrow.  In this blatant nimbyism, the Council has shown no regard for the well-being of the people living near Gatwick – in attempting to pass on the noise (and other) misery that a new runway would bring anywhere. An open letter from the people of Gatwick to the people of Wandsworth – not mincing its words – sets out why the Council decision is irresponsible.  Wandsworth will soon be holding a public meeting, to be addressed by Gatwick senior management – who will be pushing their runway plans. But the Gatwick staff have not bothered to find time to speak to local Gatwick residents, refusing to attend half a dozen meetings recently. The letter says: “Wandsworth, NIMBY capital of Europe. Nowhere else in Europe do the citizens vote unanimously to bring misery to their neighbours. “Not in My Backyard” should be inscribed as your Borough motto.” And it concludes: “But, sorry, we forgot: your council has no concern for the next generation. So long as you don’t get any more aircraft over Putney the next generation can get stuffed.”
.

An open letter to the people of Wandsworth from the people of Gatwick

3.11.2014 (GACC)

Thank you. Thank you for sending us the noisy aircraft which keep you awake at night. Thank you for sending us the planes that fill the sky during the day. So kind!

Your Council has voted unanimously to support a second runway at Gatwick. So kind! Your Council is organising two public meetings, one of which is to be addressed by the senior management of Gatwick who will tell you what a splendid airport Gatwick is.

You are lucky. Gatwick can’t find time to speak to local residents – refused to attend half a dozen meetings recently.

You apparently don’t care about us. You don’t worry about the 50,000 people around Gatwick who will be affected by aircraft noise from a new runway. Bugger them you say, so long as we don’t get the planes. So kind!

You don’t care about the Sussex countryside to be destroyed by the huge number of new houses for the Gatwick expansion. Never seen a green field? We will show you one sometime!

You don’t care about the damage to the Gatwick Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. You don’t care about the historic villages whose character will be ruined and whose houses devalued by new Gatwick flight paths. So long as you don’t get more aircraft over Battersea Park, you couldn’t care less.

You don’t care that eighteen listed buildings would be demolished by a new Gatwick runway. So long as no more planes come over Putney, to hell with the heritage!

Welcome to Wandsworth, NIMBY capital of Europe. Nowhere else in Europe do the citizens vote unanimously to bring misery to their neighbours. Not in My Backyard should be inscribed as your Borough motto.

If you want to save your souls, try expressing support for the RSPB, WWF, Friends of the Earth, HACAN and the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign who all campaign for no new runway. Not at Heathrow. Not at Gatwick.

Why? Because the number of passengers per plane is increasing. And because if we
wish to take climate change seriously a new runway is just plane irresponsible.

But, sorry, we forgot: your council has no concern for the next generation. So long as you don’t get any more aircraft over Putney the next generation can get stuffed.

GACC. 3 November 2014

http://www.gacc.org.uk

.


City Diary: Putney house prices the ‘business case’ for Gatwick growth

4.11.2014 (Telegraph)

Wandsworth Council has been accused of being the “nimby capital of Europe”, after it voted against a new runway at nearby Heathrow.

By Harriet Dennys, City Diary Editor

Some high-flying mischief-making as the two-horse race between Gatwick and Heathrow to build Britain’s next runway enters the final furlong.

Conservation campaigners tell Diary that Wandsworth Council in west London is “the Nimby [not in my backyard] capital of Europe”, after it recently voted to block expansion at nearby Heathrow in a unanimous show of hands.

“You don’t care about the damage to the historic villages whose character will be ruined by the new Gatwick flight paths,” says the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign pressure group. “So long as you don’t get any more aircraft over Putney, the next generation can get stuffed.”

Over to Wandsworth Council, which defends its “cross-party” decision to support expansion at Gatwick because it will “generate valuable new jobs and growth for south London”, and “trigger long-term investment in our region’s rail network”. “One of our main rail stations, Clapham Junction, goes direct to Gatwick,” says a source.

Next Thursday, Gatwick’s finance chief, Nick Dunn, will present his business case for a second runway to Wandsworth locals at a public meeting organised by Putney MP Justine Greening, the former transport secretary. It seems he will be preaching to the converted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/11205866/City-Diary-Putney-house-prices-the-business-case-for-Gatwick-growth.html



 

Earlier:

City Spy: Gatwick bosses’ ‘snub’ upsets expansion foes

Local opponents claim Gatwick bosses are turning a deaf ear to their interests

31 October 2014 (Evening Standard)

Gatwick Airport’s campaign for a new, second runway — instead of Heathrow getting a third — is going down badly with local opponents of the West Sussex airport’s expansion.

They claim Gatwick bosses are turning a deaf ear to their interests while spending a small fortune on schmoozing the great and the good in the capital.

Opponents say the airport’s representatives have been notable by their absence at a series of local community meetings whereas the MPs of such nearby constituencies as Reigate and Mole Valley — Crispin Blunt and Sir Paul Beresford — have attended.

Yet Gatwick was happy to sponsor political blogger Guido Fawkes’ 10th birthday party last week at the Institute of Directors in London, when the venue was bathed in Gatwick-branded turquoise lighting.

Big cheeses from London have also been asked to a fancy Christmas drinks at the Victoria & Albert Museum on December 1, but local councillors from the Gatwick area do not appear to have got their invitations.

And in what could be an awkward snag, Gatwick’s bash clashes with Heathrow’s festive drinks party. Whoops!

A Gatwick spokesman said: “We regularly engage with the local community, and have met with over 30 local groups and representatives over the past three months alone.

Invitations for our December event have been sent to more than 50 local representatives including MPs and councillors from local county, district and parish councils.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/business/cityspy/city-spy-gatwick-bosses-snub-upsets-expansion-foes-9830745.html

.


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

Click here to view full story…   

.

.

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Prestwick still set on role as UK spaceport despite Virgin Galactic flight catastrophe

The UK Government  has said the Virgin Galactic crash will not hinder efforts to establish Europe’s first commercial spaceport in the UK, with a likely base in Scotland. SpaceShipTwo broke apart shortly after being released at altitude on 31st October, providing another setback for Richard Branson’s plans. The problem appears to be in the form of rocket used, with nitrous oxide fuel – about which there had been many previous safety warning. One pilot was killed and the other badly injured.  Ailing Prestwick  airport seems desperate to cling to any available straw, so hence the hope of economic resurgence by becoming a spaceport.  Prestwick was shortlisted in July 2014 among 8 potential sites – 6 in Scotland – to locate a launchpad for sub-orbital tourist flights. The plan is ultimately, if anyone wants to risk their lives, for “holidaymakers” to cross the Atlantic from Scotland to New York in around 45 minutes. The latest setback raises more questions about the viability of commercial spaceflight. And that ignores its desirablilty … as about the highest carbon,  unnecessary, activity humans could indulge in.
.

 

Prestwick still set on role as UK spaceport despite Virgin Galactic flight catastrophe

2.11.2014 (Herald Scotland)

Virgin Galactic crash will not hinder efforts to establish Europe’s first commercial spaceport in the UK, with a likely base in Scotland, a Government spokesman has said, as Sir Richard Branson vowed to continue his space tourism enterprise.

SpaceShipTwo broke apart shortly after being released at altitude on Friday, providing another setback for Richard Branson’s efforts to provide commercially viable space travel
SpaceShipTwo broke apart shortly after being released at altitude on Friday, providing another setback for Richard Branson’s efforts to provide commercially viable space travel
The pilot killed in the crash was last night named as 39-year-old Michael Alsbury. The second pilot, who was seriously injured, has not yet been named.

The fatal test flight explosion over the Mojave desert in California came as a report on the future of Prestwick Airport pinned hopes of economic resurgence for the ailing base on a successful bid as the UK’s first spaceport.

The UK Government has already entered talks with the US Government to pave the way for future commercial transatlantic spaceflights and is determined to establish Europe’s first spaceport in the UK by 2018. Prestwick was shortlisted among eight potential sites – six of them in Scotland – to locate a launchpad for sub-orbital tourist flights. In a report published by the Scottish Government on Friday, the possibility of securing spaceport status was described as a “catalyst for transformational change”. It has been estimated that if scientists could master the technology for commercial spaceflight, holidaymakers could cross the Atlantic from Scotland to New York in around 45 minutes – the time it currently takes to commute by train from Glasgow to Edinburgh.

The failure of Virgin Galactic’s test flight on Friday has been seen as a major blow to Branson’s space tourism project, coming on the back of successive delays to its inaugural passenger flight, which was originally due for take-off in 2007.

The incident has also raised questions about the viability of commercial spaceflight.

However, the Department for Transport said the Virgin Galactic tragedy would not derail its plans for a UK spaceport. “Our thoughts are with the families affected by this,” said a spokesman for the DfT. “But it has not affected our overall plans. This is a sector we wish to encourage. These are very early days, as we all know. But it will be part of future travel at some point.”

The shortlisted spaceport sites are in the process of compiling and submitting bids, with the winner expected to be announced at some point next year.

Besides Prestwick, Campbeltown Airport, Kinloss Barracks, RAF Leuchars, RAF Lossiemouth and Stornoway Airport are in the running, alongside Newquay Cornwall Airport in England and Llanbedr Airport in Wales.

Speaking of the spaceport bid, Glasgow Prestwick chief executive Iain Cochrane said: “We satisfy – and in some cases exceed – all the essential criteria such as infrastructure, weather and airspace, and securing spaceport status would be the catalyst for transformational change at the airport – from boosting revenue from space-related flight testing, establishing an attractive modernised hi-tech image and bringing in visitors and tourists. It will also bring significant economic benefits to both Ayrshire and Scotland. Our team is therefore firmly focused on winning the bid.”

The Scottish Government bought the loss-making airport for £1 in 2013 and has vowed to return it to profitability, but has faced the challenge of Ryanair – its only passenger airline – cutting flights.

Meanwhile, Branson said he would persevere with his space tourism venture despite the “devastating loss” on Friday. Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo rocket was said yesterday to have “suffered a serious anomaly” minutes after it was released by the WhiteKnightTwo jet, which carried it to altitude. It was the first time the rocket had been flown using a new fuel formulation.

Branson said: “We’ve always known that the road to space is extremely difficult. Space is hard – but worth it. We will persevere and move forward together.”

Former Nasa astronaut Leroy Chiao said: “This is a serious setback. I want to stress in this case this was a development programme of a new spacecraft and in the history of developing high-performance aircraft and spacecraft, the risks are higher than operational vehicles so mishaps like this do occur.

“As for the impact on commercial space, we will get through this.”

Virgin Galactic has been the frontrunner in the race to send paying customers into space and Branson said last month that he hoped to travel with his son on the first flight next spring.

Seats have been sold for over £150,000, with physicist Stephen Hawking, singer Justin Bieber, and Hollywood stars Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie among the ticket-holders.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport/prestwick-still-set-on-role-as-uk-spaceport-despite-virgin-galactic-flight-catastroph.25756332

.


.

Earlier:

8 sites shortlisted for UK’s first commercial spaceport – Newquay, Llanbedr + 6 in Scotland

At the Farnborough Air Show, plans to build a dedicated launch facility were unveiled. The UK government has expressed its enthusiasm for this unlikely project. Of the sites revealed by he CAA, one site is in England, at Newquay. One site is in Wales at Llanbedr airport in Snowdonia national park. The other six are in Scotland: Campbeltown airport; Prestwick airport; Kinloss barracks; RAF Lossiemouth; RAF Leuchars and Stornoway airport on the Isle of Lewis. Publication of the shortlist has led to a scramble among the sites to win government backing. The Scottish government in keen on the idea, for the kudos of being seen to be a space nation. Operators now enter three months of consultation before the decision is made.The airports considered have to have long runways and have airspace that can be easily segregated to allow spaceplane flights to operate alongside normal aviation. Sites have to be remote from population, on the coast to minimise the risks from “down-range abnormal occurrences” – meaning spaceplanes crashing or bits falling off. Space travel is the highest carbon activity known to man; worse even than  Formula One racing or using private jets.

.
.
.


See also
.
.
.
.

 

Read more »

Divisions at top of Tory party over 3rd Heathrow runway as Hammond, Johnson and others won’t accept it

The Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond (MP for Runnymede & Weybridge), and the London mayor, Boris Johnson, will refuse to support their own party’s policy on airport expansion at the next election, potentially opening a rift at the top of the Conservative party.  They are among a batch of Tories of cabinet or equivalent rank who are expected to rebel against the official party line, which is that no decision on a new runway would be taken before the Airports Commission gives its recommendation in summer 2015. Boris continues to push for an estuary airport. Other leading Tories with south-eastern constituencies who have spoken out against a 3rd Heathrow runway include the Home Secretary, Theresa May (MP for Maidenhead); the international development secretary, Justine Greening (MP for Putney); and the Northern Ireland secretary, Theresa Villiers (MP for Chipping Barnet). The pressure for a new south east runway has come from George Osborne. Gatwick becomes more vulnerable, the more senior Tories oppose a Heathrow runway, though a Gatwick runway makes little economic or aviation sense.
.

 

Rift opens at top of Tory party over Heathrow expansion plan

Senior party figures rebel and say they will oppose building a new runway at the airport

By Toby Helm (The Observer)

1st November 2014

The foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, and the London mayor, Boris Johnson, will refuse to support their own party’s policy on airport expansion at the next election, potentially opening a rift at the top of the Conservative party.

Ahead of a final round of public consultations on how to meet demand for extra capacity, which will begin within days, both Hammond and Johnson have told constituents they will strongly oppose the building of a third runway at Heathrow – one [two]  of three options being considered by an independent commission chaired by Sir Howard Davies.

The mayor and foreign secretary are among a batch of Tories of cabinet or equivalent rank who are expected to rebel against the official party line, which is that no decision on whether to expand Heathrow or Gatwick will be made until Davies, a former director general of the CBI, gives his final verdict next summer.

The Observer has been told that Hammond, the MP for Runnymede and Weybridge, made clear the attitude he would take during the election campaign to a third runway at Heathrow when he spoke at a public meeting 10 days ago in Egham, in his Surrey constituency.

“When asked what his opinion was, the foreign secretary said he was against a third runway and there was a huge round of applause,” said a source who was at the meeting. Those attending voiced their anger about the extra noise and harm to the environment, and concerns about recent trials of new flight paths into Heathrow.

Last night Johnson – who was recently selected as Tory parliamentary candidate for the west London seat of Uxbridge and West Ruislip – also said he would have no qualms about voicing vehement opposition to Heathrow expansion during the election campaign, whatever the official Tory party position might be.

The mayor told this newspaper: “I am wholly opposed to Heathrow expansion, as I have been throughout my six years as mayor. A third runway would be catastrophic for London and Londoners.” Johnson said he remained in favour of a new, four-runway airport in the Thames estuary. Davies has ruled the option out.

The mayor believes his idea, nicknamed “Boris Island”, can be revived and is the only way to solve the capacity issue while avoiding unacceptable environmental effects on Londoners.

The issue threatens to become a battleground between rival candidates to lead the Conservative party in future. Other leading Tories with south-eastern constituencies who have spoken out against a third runway at Heathrow include the home secretary, Theresa May, who is MP for Maidenhead; the international development secretary, Justine Greening, who is the member for Putney; and the Northern Ireland secretary, Theresa Villiers, MP for Chipping Barnet.

The Conservatives went into the last election ruling out expansion of Heathrow, but the prospect was revived in the middle of the parliament after pressure for a rethink from the chancellor, George Osborne.

Government insiders and aviation experts now believe that the extent of opposition to the Heathrow option from politicians of all parties may tilt the advantage in favour of expanding Gatwick, which would have less environmental impact. [Only if judged by certain criteria – on number affected by noise of a certain level].

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both opposed any expansion of Heathrow at the 2010 election. David Cameron ruled it out, saying: “No ifs, no buts, there’ll be no third runway at Heathrow.”  Ed Miliband voiced opposition when he was secretary of state for climate change. However, in September 2012 ministers set up an independent commission chaired by Davies to review the issue. The commission has already said there is a need for one additional runway in the south-east of England by 2030 and has three options: a third runway at Heathrow, lengthening an existing runway at Heathrow, and building a second runway at Gatwick.

Heathrow and Gatwick were asked to submit updated proposals to the commission in May of this year. Davies is due to deliver his final report in June.

A report commissioned by Gatwick and drawn up by the environmental research division of the Civil Aviation Authority will say this week that the number of residents and schools affected negatively by noise as a result of Heathrow expansion would be much higher than if Gatwick were developed.

John Stewart, chairman of AirportWatch, an umbrella group for organisations fighting “unsustainable” airport expansion, said the political obstacles to expanding Heathrow were considerable and had become greater since Johnson had been selected for a west London seat.

“Gatwick is coming up on the rails because politicians think it would deliver economically, and also that it would be more politically deliverable than Heathrow,” he said.

Senior Liberal Democrats, including the business secretary, Vince Cable, who is MP for Twickenham, are also against the expansion of Heathrow, as are several Labour MPs with west London constituencies

Read more »

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


 

.

Gatwick’s website says: 

  • EasyJet is Gatwick’s largest customer; they fly 37% of the total number of passengers at the airport.
  • British Airways is the second largest carrier at Gatwick, accounting for 14% of passenger traffic.

.

Earlier:

 

Willie Walsh of BA: Heathrow expansion is a ‘lost cause’

Willie Walsh, chief executive of BA owner, IAG, has said again that there will not be a 3rd Heathrow runway, as it is too controversial. He says UK politicians “lack the character” to get it built. “Historically, politicians have not been brave enough and I don’t think they will be brave enough going forward. You need a big shift in the politics of the country,” he said. However, Walsh warned a Conservative or Labour-led government against choosing Gatwick for an extra runway, adding that the case for growing the capital’s second-largest airport is “significantly weaker.”  Gatwick did not have the same international attraction. He said: “You won’t find many airlines that say ‘God I’d love to be able to fly to Gatwick’. That’s why this isn’t a business issue, an economic argument. It’s a political argument and the politics of expanding Heathrow are significantly more difficult than the politics of expanding Gatwick.”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/willie-walsh-of-ba-heathrow-expansion-is-a-lost-cause/

.


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 »

Study finds a carbon gap of 220 million tonnes in 2023 will require offsetting by the airline industry

A very readable, short, paper by ICF sets out the extent to which global aviation will not be able to make the carbon reductions it claims will be possible.  ICF looked at the global commitment by the industry to make fuel efficiency gains of 1.5% annually to 2020, and then “carbon neutral growth” from 2020 onwards – despite annual growth in passengers of about 4-5% per year. ICF concludes that  even with improvements in aircraft technology, airline efficiencies and operational improvements, together with the introduction of  6% biofuels, there will be a sizeable 23% carbon gap between commercial aviation forecasts and industry targets by 2023.  Without that much biofuel (which ICF considers unlikely) the gap would be 27%. Without industry efficiencies and biofuels, global aviation would be emitting about 53% more carbon in 2023 than now.  ICF believes carbon offsetting to be the most cost-effective way to close the carbon gap – but that only means aviation buying carbon credits from other sectors which are actually reducing their emissions, while aviation can then continue to increase theirs. 
.

 

Study finds a carbon gap of 220 million tonnes in 2023 will require offsetting by the airline industry

Friday 31 Oct 2014 (GreenAir online)

Link: ICF International   Mind_the_Carbon_Gap Oct 2014 (6 pages)

Even with improvements in aircraft technology, airline efficiencies and operational improvements, together with the introduction of biofuels, there will be a sizeable carbon gap between commercial aviation forecasts and industry targets by 2023, according to a study by consultancy ICF International. Without these improvements and biofuel take-up, ICF estimates commercial aviation will produce 53% more carbon in 2023 than today, leading to a 33% gap with the industry’s goal of capping net emissions from 2020. The consultancy’s own forecast is for global CO2 emissions from aviation to reach 942 million tonnes by 2020 and so form the baseline for the industry’s carbon-neutral growth target. With efficiencies and biofuels, the annual carbon gap would be in the region of 220 million tonnes by 2023, which ICF says will have to be mitigated through carbon offsetting.

ICF, which has considerable expertise in airline industry planning and forecasting, estimates global carbon emissions from aviation in 2013 at around 750 million tonnes, a higher assessment than that from the industry itself, which puts the figure at 705 million tonnes. To arrive at the 942 million tonnes by 2020, ICF factored in the industry’s goal of improving annual efficiency by 1.5% through to 2020 against a forecasted increase in global flight hours.

The consultancy believes that compared to most recent industry forecasts, changes in aircraft productivity will reduce the number of flights airlines need to operate to carry the same number of passengers. Over the next 20 years, it says, air traffic will grow by 4% and the fleet required to carry that traffic will increase by just 3.1%.

It says the slower growth in flight hours will make it easier for the industry to achieve its carbon-neutral growth from 2020 goal. “Even with a lower forecast in flying hours, however, the baseline outlook for aviation carbon still exceeds industry targets by 42% in 2023,” cautions ICF in its ‘Mind the Carbon Gap’ white paper.

To close that gap, ICF studied a range of technology improvements and efficiencies that airlines and aircraft manufacturers can introduce over the 10-year period that could cut annual carbon output by 8% in 2023. This would reduce ICF’s baseline estimate of 1,253 million tonnes of CO2 to 1,195 tonnes in 2023.

ICF notes industry groups and individual airlines have built up hopes that biofuels will be a solution to aviation emissions but its study is less optimistic about the prospect.

“Market forces do not appear aligned to make biofuels cost competitive with traditional kerosene in the near term or medium term,” says the paper. “There is little appetite for government subsidies to cover this cost differential, as the United States historically did for corn-based ethanol production or as many governments have done to support renewable electricity. Unfortunately, biofuels are unlikely to close the full gap between projected aviation carbon and the industry’s targets.”

However, ICF estimates that biofuels could contribute to a further reduction of 33 million tonnes of CO2 in 2023, bringing the carbon gap down to 220 tonnes.

The consultancy – which says it has provided guidance on aviation emissions to ICAO, analysis for the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme and is currently helping China design its future carbon trading programme – believes carbon offsetting to be the most cost-effective way to close that gap.

Link:

ICF International    Mind_the_Carbon_Gap Oct 2014  (6 pages)

http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=2001

.

CF aviation carbon forecast (with efficiencies and no biofuels):

 

Copyright © 2014 GreenAir Communications

.


 

The section of the ICF report on biofuel states:

Biofuels

Industry groups and individual airlines have built up great hope — or hype—about biofuels as a solution to aviation emissions. This focus indicates an implicit recognition that even the most optimistic scenarios of efficiency improvements will be insufficient to meet the industry’s commitments to carbon-neutral growth.

The most promising biofuels under consideration today, derived from Jatropha and Salicornia oils, result in 40 to 60% of the lifecycle carbon emissions produced by petroleum jet fuel.

Although biofuels have lower carbon content than oil, energy consumed in production reduces benefits from CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere during cultivation.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) estimates that by 2020, biofuels will make up approximately 6% of all aviation fuels.  Applying the FAA’s 6% assumption to ICF’s baseline carbon forecast would reduce total aviation carbon output up to 3.6%
during the forecast period.

Unfortunately, this scenario will require a significant coordinated effort to achieve because of a number of obstacles to widespread use of biofuels, some technical and some economic.

Technically, biofuels must gain the trust of airlines and regulators as safe alternatives to kerosene, including the impact on engine maintenance and new methods to ensure safe handling at the airport and procedures for emergency response.

Current aircraft engines depend on aromatic components in petroleum, such as benzene, that help rubber seals expand during engine combustion. Barring development of new engine technology, biofuels will constitute no more than half the total fuel onboard.  As a result, biofuels will require a parallel fueling infrastructure at airports to blend fuels in the right mix for each product.

Economically, biofuels may simply be too expensive for airlines to embrace on a wide scale. Biofuels currently cost at least $3.00 more per gallon ($993 per tonne) than jet fuel, or a premium of $15,000 for a typical transcontinental flight. Market forces do not appear aligned to make biofuels cost competitive with traditional kerosene in the near term or medium term. There is little appetite for government subsidies to cover this cost differential, as the United States historically did for corn-based ethanol production or as many governments have done to support renewable electricity.

Meanwhile, other industries are already willing to pay higher prices for bio-based polymers, further reducing market incentives to process feedstock into biofuels for aircraft instead of other purposes.

Unfortunately, biofuels are unlikely to close the full gap between projected aviation carbon and the industry’s targets.

http://www.icfi.com/insights/white-papers/2014/carbon-gap-alternative-for-aviation-emissions

.


 

On offsetting they say:

How Offsets Work

Participants in an emissions trading scheme purchase certificates that prove a carbon reduction has been achieved in another industry or location. In one functioning example, the United Nations certifies carbon reduction actions, such as eliminating fugitive refrigerant emissions. To offset carbon produced in flight, airlines would purchase these certificates, thereby reducing global emissions at a lower cost than airlines would be able to achieve themselves..

.


 

On Market Based Measures the report says:

Market-based Measures

Assuming aircraft manufacturers and airlines implement widespread efficiency improvements, and assuming the airline industry is able to implement some biofuel use, [the ICF says: “We assume that North America and Europe achieve the biofuel usage
levels predicted by the FAA and that the Middle East and Pacific Rim ramp
up to European production levels by 2020″.]  ICF’s forecast still shows a gap between the outlook for aviation carbon and the industry’s stated targets.

This gap equates to 220 million tons of CO2 in 2023, or the equivalent annual emissions from 44 million cars.

For the aviation industry to meet its emissions targets in 2023 and beyond, reductions in other industries will have to offset airline emissions.

There is precedent for reductions in GHG using such market based approaches. In the Northeastern United States, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) invested $700 million over 5 years to produce more than $2 billion in energy savings. RGGI worksbecause producers with the highest emissions were able to purchase reductions from firms with the lowest cost to reduce emissions.

Similarly, after implementing prudent efficiencies in aviation, it is more cost-effective to reduce GHG emissions in other industries. It will simply cost less to install methane digesters on farms or to insulate buildings than to accelerate aircraft retirement.

ICF has experience developing offset programs to enable the most efficient outcomes. ICF gave some of the earliest guidance on aviation emissions to ICAO—the UN body responsible for aviation — and has provided analysis for the European Union’s Emissions
Trading Scheme. Currently, ICF is helping China design its future carbon trading program

.


 

.
ICF International says of itself:  (aviation is just one sector in which it works)

ICF International provides professional services and technology solutions that deliver beneficial impact in areas critical to the world’s future.

The firm combines passion for its work with industry expertise and innovative analytics to produce compelling results throughout the entire program lifecycle, from research and analysis through implementation and improvement.

Since 1969, ICF has been serving government at all levels, major corporations, and multilateral institutions. More than 4,500 employees serve these clients from more than 70 offices worldwide.

.

.

.


 

.

DfT estimates of amount of biofuels are between the two figures of 2.5% and 10% biofuel use by 2050.

See Page 22 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/186683/aviation-and-climate-change-paper.pdf

.

 

 

.

 

Read more »

Santa Monica airport ballot on its future. (Worth watching great spoof video by its opponents)

In California, Santa Monica municipal airport is situated right in the heart of the suburbs, with flight paths right over thousands of homes. There are serious questions about the effects of the airport’s operations on public health and quality of life.  In 2015 an operating agreement between the FAA and the City of Santa Monica will expire.  There is now to be a public ballot about the airport’s future, and whether it should continue its lease as an airport, or if all or part of it could be used for a large park, or for more housing.  Many Santa Monica residents and city officials favour closing the airport or substantially reducing its aviation operations. Other residents, private jet owners and flight school operators see it as an economic engine. Opponents of the airport being allowed to continue have produced a good, short spoof video – on YouTube – putting their point across. Worth watching.  There are two choices in the ballot, “D” is for Democracy, put forward by the private jet owners, but for complicated reasons, those anti-airport are against this. They want the “LC” is for Local Control option instead – all a bit complicated. But enjoy the video !
.


 

Great spoof video on YouTube at

The Great Santa Monica Airport Controversy, An Idiots Guide

(The anti-runway people want the LC option, not D).

Supporters of closing Santa Monica Airport lose round in court

AUGUST 24, 2014

Santa Monica Airport…..Aircraft line the tarmac at embattled Santa Monica Airport, which is once again the target of lawsuits to determine its future.

Judge dismisses lawsuit challenging November ballot measure to protect Santa Monica Airport from closure

In a setback for opponents of Santa Monica Airport, a Los Angeles judge has dismissed a lawsuit that challenged a November ballot measure to protect the facility from closure.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Luis A. Lavin threw out the case filed in May by an anti-airport group that claimed Measure D was misleading, poorly vetted by city officials and violated the state Constitution and elections code.

The initiative, which is backed by a coalition of airport supporters and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Assn., would require voter approval to shut down the airport, alter its land use or restrict aviation-related activities.

Lavin, who ruled Tuesday afternoon, said there was no evidence that the city clerk violated the elections code, that the measure’s wording was false or that the city attorney was incompetent in the preparation of the measure’s title and summary.

The judge also held that the anti-airport faction failed to cite any legal authority prohibiting the City Council from advancing the ballot measure and that one of the suit allegations should be addressed after the election.

Lavin noted that the plaintiffs sought to impede the initiative process and force the city to abandon its neutral and ministerial role in processing ballot measures.

Attorney Jonathan Stein, who represented the anti-airport group, said he disagreed with the judge and that the substance of the allegations was not heard.

He said he would appeal the decision and pursue a second lawsuit he recently filed with similar allegations. Stein noted that the Council “ended up being a cheerleader for the AOPA” though it supports closing the airport.

In addition to the aircraft owners association, the defendants included the Santa Monica city clerk, the Santa Monica City Council and the Santa Monica city attorney.

“Regardless of the wisdom of AOPA’s ballot measure, the lawsuit was misguided and an unnecessary distraction,” said Santa Monica Deputy City Atty. Ivan Campbell. “We are pleased with the result, but it was a needless waste of public resources and time.”

Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions, a sponsor of the ballot measure, also criticized the case.

“It’s clear that opponents of Measure D will try anything to prevent voters from speaking,” said David Shaby, an attorney and member of the pro-airport group. “But it’s just adding to the cost and delays we’ve seen from frivolous litigation. Why are they so afraid of the voters deciding?”

Lavin’s decision gives Santa Monicans, the city and the AOPA the right to seek their legal fees and court costs from the plaintiffs. Members of Santa Monicans said they are seriously considering it while city officials have yet to decide.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-airport-case-dismissed-20140820-story.html

.


 

Landing on the ballot: 2 Santa Monica Airport measures

Brian Watt
July 25 2014  (Santa Monica blog)

Neighbors of Santa Monica Airport have complained about noise from the aircraft taking off and landing, and they post signs asking pilots to fly quietly.

Voters in Santa Monica will play air traffic controllers in November, as two competing measures regarding the Santa Monica Airport will appear on the ballot.

The Santa Monica City Council this week finalized language for a measure that would give the city more control over the airport – including the ability to close it – though a public vote would be required for any major redevelopment. It will appear on the ballot this way:

Shall the City Charter be amended to: 1) prohibit new development on Airport land, except for parks, public open spaces and public recreational facilities, until the voters approve limits on the uses and development that may occur on the land; and 2) affirm the City Council’s authority to manage the Airport and to close all or part of it.

As the Santa Monica Daily Press reports, that measure will go “head to head” with one supported by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and other proponents of keeping the airport open. Its ballot title:

An initiative measure amending the City Charter to require voter approval in order to close all or part of the Santa Monica Airport, change use of the airport land, or impose new restrictions on fuel sales or use of aviation facilities.

The vote will take place against the backdrop of Santa Monica’s ongoing battle with the Federal Aviation Administration for control over the airport’s land. After a judge threw out a city lawsuit in February, the City Council approved a plan to continue pursuing control over the airport and look for options for closing it in July of 2015.

Many Santa Monica residents and city officials favor closing the airport or substantially reducing its aviation operations, but some other residents, private jet owners and flight school operators see it as an economic engine.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2014/07/25/17063/landing-on-the-ballot-two-santa-monica-airport-mea/

.


 

Path Set For Potential Closure Of Santa Monica Airport

28.3.2014

The exact future of Santa Monica Airport (SMO) is still in the balance. Yet, after nearly four hours of public testimony Tuesday evening, one thing appears relatively certain: SMO, if ever shut down, would not become Century City West.

Just the same, the Santa Monica City Council gave direction just before midnight on Tuesday to essentially find a way to either limit SMO’s current operations or shut down the airport completely.

Council members unanimously voted to direct City staff to develop an airport concept plan based upon low-intensity use and new leasing guidelines.

With the vote, City Hall will continue to look into ways of how to assert control of SMO and take steps leading to potential closure of some or the entire airport by July 1, 2015.

The council direction also could lead to the shortening of the runway and ensure the City-owned property does not give way to high-rise or other majorly dense development.

How the council directions will ultimately play out remains to be seen, yet it was made clear by City Attorney Marsha Jones Moutrie that council members would not be making a final determination of the airport’s future at the March 25 meeting.

“We can’t close the airport now,” Moutrie told her colleagues. “This is contingency planning. We don’t know what opportunities we’ll have in the future.”

Moutrie added the legal battle involving Santa Monica and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) could potentially take years to resolve.

City Hall received about 200 emails addressing the airport’s future in anticipation of the council’s meeting, Moutrie said. There were at least 101 chits submitted to City Clerk Sarah Gorman.

Leading off the public testimony was State Sen. Ted Lieu, who represents Santa Monica in Sacramento and is running to succeed Henry Waxman in representing the City in Washington, D.C.

“We are at a significant crossroads. I am here to urge you not renew [the airport] lease. We are experiencing higher levels of air pollution because of this airport. There are so many good uses for that land,” Lieu told council members.

Another civic leader, Los Angeles Councilman Mike Bonin, urged his Santa Monica colleagues to make every effort to shut down SMO.

“There was a time when an airport in this place made a lot of sense. There is another time now. This is one of the most dense populations in the region,” Bonin told council members. “This airport is now in a place that produces noise and safety hazards and pollution.”

While two elected officials pushed for the closing of SMO, a wide variety of perspectives were shared with the council during public testimony.

There was no clear majority of speakers favoring or closing the airport. Those who spoke in support of keeping the airport operational cited its economic benefits and necessity for natural disaster survival.

For example, a few speakers pointed out the airport is an economic engine bringing the City an estimated $250 million of economic activity.

“I think it’s going to be a regrettable action in the long-term,” the first speaker after Ted Lieu told the council if it goes through with closing the airport.

Others warned the council of how a closed airport could become the ultimate land-grab for developers.

Another point rose to the council: advancements in aircraft technology would significantly reduce air and noise pollution.

A few speakers cautioned against those who proposed replacing the airport with a park, opining the Great Park, which replaced the El Toro Air Base in Irvine, is a “ghost town.”

Still others said SMO is a great community asset, stating they spend quality time with their respective children at the airport.

A pilot told council members if SMO was shut down, the flight path to LAX Airport a few miles to the south would be altered and 747 jets could fly about 2,500 feet above Santa Monica en route to the international airport.

Indeed, it has long been contended by SMO supporters that LAX traffic coming in from the north and west is forced to travel east toward downtown Los Angeles before making a u-turn toward the international airport.

Those who spoke against SMO – some of whom lived underneath the flight path – told council members the planes flying over their respective homes were too loud and posed a significant safety threat.

“People would be shocked if they knew what we had to deal with,” Ellen Brennan told the council of the noise levels residents living directly under the flight path.

One resident who lives under the flight path told council members every time a plane takes off, she wonders if it would “make it.”

“It’s like living in Tel Aviv with the suicide bombers,” Venice resident Judy Russell told the council, describing living under the flight path as “terrorism.”

Airport opponents cited recent plane crashes, including the one claiming the life of a local developer in September 2013, as evidence of the threat to safety posed by SMO’s users.

A professor from Loyola Marymount University stated planes flying from SMO have a significantly adverse impact on the environment.

Addressing concerns about whether SMO would be a land grab for developers, council member Kevin McKeown suggested the airport, in the event it was shut down, be used for low-impact and low-intensity use.

“The airport land will never be used for high-rise development,” McKeown said. “Frankly, it’s not the appropriate site for the kind of development that might appropriate in other parts of our City or the region. There’s no mass transit anywhere near this site.”

Mayor Pam O’Connor echoed similar thoughts, saying if SMO were shut down it would not become Century City West.

“These are public lands. The people of Santa Monica will ultimately decide how to use it. It would not be sold off to developers for high-rise kind of development. That’s just alarmism,” O’Connor said.

Mayor Pro Tem Terry O’Day was present during a portion of the SMO agenda item but had to leave during public testimony due to a family emergency. Accordingly, the council vote was 6-0.

http://www.smmirror.com/articles/News/Path-Set-For-Potential-Closure-Of-Santa-Monica-Airport/39842


 

 

Santa Monica Airport: Business asset or too close for comfort?

6.11.2013m (Explaining Southern California’s Economy)

Last week, the city of Santa Monica sued the Federal Aviation Administration over future control of the Santa Monica Airport. The federal lawsuit asks the court to declare that the city controls the airport’s land and that in 2015, its obligation to keep operating the airport ends.

According to FAA data, in September the Airport saw nearly 7,000 operations — takeoffs or landings — and many city officials and neighbors of the airport would like that activity to be far less, or none at all.

“The bottom line is everyone agrees that the status quo will not be tolerated,” Santa Monica Mayor Pam O’Connor told KPCC.

O’Connor’s main concern is safety. The city filed the lawsuit a month after the crash of a small jet at the airport killed 4 people. The crash gave new momentum to organized campaigns to close the airport, or at least reduce its air traffic. O’Connor says the neighborhoods around the airport have also dealt with airplane noise and exhaust pollution for years.

“As jets have become faster, growth in corporate jet travel, all of that has drastically changed the impact of aviation to the people and to the area,” O’Connor said. She’s among those who believe the airport should close and become something else — like a park — but says she’s keeping an open mind as the city develops a vision for the airport’s future.

Santa Monica must first resolve an on-going dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA has long maintained that Santa Monica is obligated to operate the airport indefinitely because the city acquired the airport land from the government in 1948 for free. Santa Monica believes its obligations, under a 1984 agreement, end in 2015. Its lawsuit asks the court to decide.

The possible 2015 end date puts business owners like Joe Justice in an awkward situation. He runs Justice Aviation, a flight school and aircraft rental service that has operated at the Santa Monica Airport for 22 years. He says if the airport shuts down, his and four other flight schools located there would have to move or close, in addition to the aviation companies, airplane repair and pilot supply shops and the popular Typhoon restaurant, which overlooks the runway.

Justice cites a study the city of Santa Monica itself commissioned two years ago that measured the airport’s annual economic impact at $275 million. The study also said the airport supports nearly 1,500 jobs.

“I do believe that there are businesses here located in Santa Monica with employees in Santa Monica who, if the airport closed, would probably say it’s much easier for us to have an office over in Van Nuys,” Justice says. “In the event they close this airport, they probably will see an exodus of a few businesses.”

The airport is convenient for jet-setters in places like Brentwood and Beverly Hills, but for some Santa Monicans and residents of Mar Vista and Venice, it’s a little too convenient.

They’ve had to cope with the noise from regular flyovers by single and twin engine planes. And the idea of student pilots learning to fly right above their homes is unsettling to say the least.

The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) says about 267 privately owned aircraft are based at the Santa Monica airport. Harrison Ford and Arnold Schwarzenegger are among the celebrities known to keep planes there. The AOPA’s Bill Dunn says it’s an important alternative for private and corporate jets in the Los Angeles basin.

“So rather than a corporate operator flying into LAX or Ontario, they’re encouraged to go to Santa Monica instead, so that the airlines operate in the most efficient manner and with less traffic than normally would be if you mixed all the traffic into one airport,” Dunn says.

Dunn calls Santa Monica the most embattled general aviation airport in the country. He says because the FAA counts so much on its relief to LAX, the battle over its future will continue.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2013/11/06/15125/santa-monica-airport-business-asset-or-too-close-f/
.


.

Earlier:

Battle over Santa Monica Airport’s future revs up

In America, Santa Monica municipal airport is situated right in the heart of the suburbs, with take off and landing routes right over thousands of homes. There are serious questions about the effects of the airport’s operations on public health and quality of life.  In 2015 an operating agreement between the FAA and the City of Santa Monica will expire. The city contends that it will then have more control over how the airport is used. But the FAA has vowed to battle to keep the airport going. There were around 105.000 take offs and landings in 2010.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=633

.

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

CAA 2013 Air Passenger Survey shows only 23% UK air passengers on business (30% at Heathrow, 14% at Gatwick)

The CAA has now released the data from its 2013 Air Passenger Survey. The survey asked 230,000 departing travellers at 13 of the main UK airports to fill in their surveys.  The CAA carries out the annual survey (since 1968) to improve its understanding of the people who use the UK’s airports. This year the airports were: Aberdeen; Birmingham; East Midlands; Edinburgh; Gatwick; Glasgow; Heathrow; Inverness; London City; Luton; Manchester; Newcastle and Stansted. They found that  • London City has the highest proportion of passengers travelling for business (55%), with the next highest being Heathrow (30%). • Airports with the highest proportion of leisure passengers were East Midlands (92%), followed by Gatwick and Luton (both 87%). • Heathrow had the highest proportion (37%) of connecting passengers, the same proportion as 2012, Gatwick had 9%. Though the aviation industry PR implies that air travel is vital for links to emerging  economies for business, the reality is that only about 23% of air journeys in the UK are for business; about 30% business at Heathrow, and only about 14% at Gatwick (declining).
.

 


 

Page 7 of the 2013 CAA Air Passenger Survey

 

The survey is at  http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/81/2013CAAPaxSurveyReport.pdf

CAA 2103 passenger survey business and leisureYou can find earlier CAA Air Passenger Surveys here

2013 Download  (Heathrow had 29.5% business passengers, Gatwick had 13.3%)

2012 Download

2011 Download

2010 Download

2009 Download

2008 Download    (Heathrow had 34.1% business passengers, Gatwick had 16.7% )


 

CAA Air Passenger Survey for 2013 published

24.10.2014(CAA)

…….  It waffles on first about the number of air travellers being waved off by relatives ……

…..

The CAA carries out the annual survey to improve its understanding of the people who use the UK’s airports. Thirteen airports took part in the 2013 survey namely: Aberdeen; Birmingham; East Midlands; Edinburgh; Gatwick; Glasgow; Heathrow; Inverness; London City; Luton; Manchester; Newcastle and Stansted.

Other key findings from the CAA’s 2013 Passenger Survey Report include:
• London City has the highest proportion of passengers travelling for business (55%), with the next highest being Heathrow (30%).
• Airports with the highest proportion of leisure passengers were East Midlands (92%), followed by Gatwick and Luton (both 87%).
• Travellers from Heathrow took a higher proportion of trips (23%) lasting more than two weeks, with London City lowest (3%). Outside London, Manchester had the most (14%).
• Heathrow had the highest proportion (37%) of connecting passengers, the same proportion as 2012, Gatwick had 9%. All the other airports surveyed had less than 4% connecting passengers, with East Midlands lowest at 1%.
• Heathrow and London City were the only airports where the majority of passengers were foreign residents (60% and 52%). Inverness had the smallest number (11%)

The CAA’s Director of Regulatory Policy, Iain Osborne, said: “Our annual survey data shines a light on the latest passenger trends and needs, providing an invaluable insight for the aviation industry.
“For example, do airports know how few people are being waved off, have they considered why and does this have implications for drop off facilities?
“While there are many excellent viewing facilities at UK airports, our passenger survey data tends to suggest they are not being used that much, and this may highlight a missed commercial opportunity.”

For more information, please contact the CAA Press Office, on press.office@caa.co.uk, or 020 7453 6030. You can follow the CAA on Twitter at @UK_CAA

* These figures exclude passengers who were using the airport to connect to another flight.
** Figures relate to passenger data at the 13 airports surveyed

Notes to editors
1. The 2013 survey forms part of a series, which began in 1968. Their purpose is to help airlines, airport operators and the Government to assess the provision of aviation infrastructure. They are also an important tool for profiling markets and identifying new ones.

2. Cycles of surveys were undertaken at major UK airports in the periods 1970-1972, 1975-1978, 1982-1987 and 1990-1996. Each cycle covered, by sample, 95% of terminal passengers in the UK and usually surveys were arranged so that airports in the same broad regions were surveyed at the same time.

3. Following the 1996 survey run at the five London airports, Birmingham, Manchester and four Scottish Airports demand built up for more regular survey data. After a consultation process with all interested parties, it was decided to run the survey continuously at Gatwick, Heathrow and Manchester Airports. Joining these Continuous Survey airports in 2001 were Luton and Stansted. Further information about survey cycles, including results from previous studies can be found on our website Click to read the CAA surveys

4. There are two different passenger survey questionnaires. The main questionnaire has been designed for passengers who have arrived at a UK airport by surface (terminating passengers) or those passengers who are transferring planes having entered the UK (landside transfer). The other questionnaire is for airside connecting passengers, these are passengers transferring to another flight. As the questionnaire for airside passengers is shorter, not all the statistics will include this group.

5. When weighting the departing passenger survey data, the CAA’s Aviation Intelligence team scale the results up to both departing and arriving passengers at a carrier-route level by quarter

6. The CAA is the UK’s specialist aviation regulator. Its activities include: making sure that the aviation industry meets the highest technical and operational safety standards; preventing holidaymakers from being stranded abroad or losing money because of tour operator insolvency; planning and regulating all UK airspace; and regulating airports, air traffic services and airlines and providing advice on aviation policy.

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2394

.


 

CAA Passenger Survey Report 2013

A survey of passengers at Aberdeen, Birmingham, East Midlands,
Edinburgh, Gatwick, Glasgow, Heathrow, Inverness, London City, Luton,
Manchester, Newcastle and Stansted Airports.
15.3% Gatwick business passengers 2012
13.3% Gatwick business 2013

29.8% Heathrow business passengers 2012
29.5% Heathrow business 2013


 

From Page 6 of the CAA report  (data simplified here)

CAA 2013 air passenger survey business proportion

 


By contrast, the figures from the 2012 CAA Air Passenger Survey – there were 24% business passengers (compared to 23% in the survey in 2013, of a slightly different set of airports, so not directly comparable)

CAA business passengers 24 percent  2012

.


 

.

 

.


 

Read more »

Willie Walsh lobbies yet again … regular as clockwork … for cuts in APD … Autumn Budget Statement is on 3rd December

Every year before the Budget in the spring, and the Autumn Budget Statement, the aviation industry has go at trying to get Air Passenger Duty reduced. APD is charged on air travel, in order to partly make up for the fact that aviation pays no VAT and no fuel duty. The industry therefore gets a large annual tax subsidy. However, the airlines would like it cut, in order to sell more flights – many of which are taking Brits out of the UK to spend their holiday money abroad. But that does not stop Willie Walsh proclaiming that APD is “out of control” and saying there have been “relentless rises” in the tax. That is nonsense. APD has risen from £12 to £13 for any flight to Europe (Band A), over the past 5 years or so. The rate for flights in Band B (2,000 to 4,000 miles) has risen from £120 in 2011, to £138 now, and will rise to £142 in April 2015. That is an 18% rise in 4 years.  Willie says, in blatant self interest for airline profits, that “APD has snowballed out of control”  (what ??) and outrageously that scrapping APD “would boost Britain’s economic growth by 0.5% within a year and lead to the creation of 60,000 new jobs.” In reality, in the March 2014 Budget, the Chancellor cut the rate of APD on trips of over 4,000 miles, to only be £142, which means a net loss to the taxpayer of £215 million in 2015.
.


 

Chancellor’s Autumn Statement will be on 3rd December.


 

Air Passenger Duty

More about Air Passenger Duty including rates, why it is charged and how aviation gets an effective subsidy by paying no VAT and no fuel duty.

and   News about Air Passenger Duty


British Airways slams ‘out of control’ APD

By Tom Newcombe (Buying Business Travel)

29 Oct 2014

British Airways has criticised the UK’s high-level of APD and called for its abolition to boost the economy.

The airline said the “relentless rises” in the tax, which is 20 years old this week, means that a family of four flying to a destination outside Europe will soon pay £284 in tax, compared to £40 when the tax was introduced.

According to BA figures, annual treasury revenue from APD is now nearly 10 times as much as in the tax’s first full year. The airline also claimed that UK passengers have paid more than £26 billion in APD since 1994.

Willie Walsh, CEO of BA’s parent company IAG, said: “Twenty years on, APD has snowballed out of control and become a tax that works against people wanting to visit relatives and friends, go on holiday or grow their business to create jobs.

“APD is way out of line with both other indirect taxes in the UK and flight taxes in other countries. Globalisation has accelerated enormously in the last 20 years. This tax helps no-one in today’s economic environment. We must call time on APD.”

BA said that the scrapping of APD would boost Britain’s economic growth by 0.5 per cent within a year and lead to the creation of 60,000 new jobs without reducing the treasury’s net revenues.

Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports have today made a joint submission to the Smith Commission, calling for Air Passenger Duty (APD) to be devolved to the Scottish parliament.

It is expected that if the Scottish government gained control of setting APD it would eventually lead to the scrapping of the tax entirely in Scotland.

http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/2923328-british-airways-slams-%E2%80%98out-control%E2%80%99-apd


 

 

New rates of APD after 1st April 2015 compared with during 2014:

Lower (standard) rate Higher rate
2014 From 1.4.2015  2014 From 1.4.2015
Band A0 – 2000 miles £13 £13 £26 £26
Band B2000 – 4000 miles £69 £71 £138 £142
Band C4000 – 6000 miles £85 £71 £170 £142
Band DOver 6000 miles £97 £71 £194 £142

Loss to the Treasury of the amalgamation of Bands C and D into Band B after 2015
Exchequer impact (£m)

2014-5 2015 – 6 2016 – 7 2017 – 8 2018 – 9
Exchequer impact 0 - 215 - 225 - 230 - 250

.

 

Tourism deficit


Treasury Minister confirms APD is necessary and government has no plans to reduce it

27.10.2013

On 23rd October there was an “Opposition day debate” in the Commons, on Air Passenger Duty -especially in relation to Northern Ireland. There were attempts by some MPs with no interest in environmental concerns, to make out that APD is a “green tax”, (and so, along with other “green taxes” should be cut, in the misjudged belief that would benefit the UK economy. The new Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Nicky Morgan, replied for the government, that “we must continue to work hard to reduce the deficit, so if we were to abolish APD, an alternative source for the revenue would need to be found. We never seem to hear any suggestions,” and “….the £3 billion that is raised by APD is a significant contribution to the Exchequer when we are tackling the deficit.” And “There is also no duty charged on the fuel used in international, and virtually all domestic, flights. …..despite the fiscal challenges, the Government have ensured that APD rates have been frozen in real terms since 2010, rising by just £1 for the vast majority of passengers since then. The Government therefore reject the suggestion that we have pushed taxes on aviation too high.”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=18093 


 

Earlier:

APD rate on business jets to rise from x4 standard up to x6 by April 2015, while Treasury receipts from APD fall by £250 million by 2019

March 20, 2014

The changes to APD in the budget include 3 components; for the next 2 years the rates of APD for Band A (up to 2,000 miles) at £13 and Band B (2,000 to 4,000 miles from London) at £67 continue to rise at the rate of RPI; after April 2015 APD for distances further than 4,000 miles will be at the Band B rate of just £71; and private jets will after April 2015 pay APD at 6 times the rate for standard passengers, up from 4 times the rate in 2014 (and 2 times the rate in 2013). There were some 228 million UK air passengers in 2013, of whom some 120 million were to Europe, some 69 million were to longer haul destinations, and some 38 million were domestic. Of the long haul passengers, some 20 million were to Band C and D destinations (4,000 to 6,000 miles from London, and over 6,000 miles respectively). The Treasury estimates that the revenue generated by Air Passenger Duty will be some £3.0 billion in 2013-14,rising to £3.9 billion in 2018-19. Earlier estimates put the revenue as £4.3 billion in 2018-9. The removal of Bands C and D in 2015 is expected to reduce receipts by the Treasury by £0.2 billion a year on average from 2015-16. They anticipate £215 million less in 2015-6 rising to £250 million less in 2018-9. But they anticipate the losses will be this low due to growth in the number of air passengers

Click here to view full story…

 

Chancellor cuts rate of Air Passenger Duty for long haul (over 4,000 miles) flights from 1st April 2015

March 19, 2014

In the Budget 2014 the Chancellor has announced that rates of Air Passenger Duty (APD) are to be reduced for flights of over 4000 miles from London, from April 2015. Rates of APD will rise by the rate of inflation (RPI) during 2014. After 1st April 2015, distance bands for all journeys longer than 2,000 miles will all be lumped together. While the rate of APD during 2014 (from 1st April 2014) is £13 for a return trip below 2,000 miles (anywhere in Europe), and the rate for journeys of 2,000 to 4,000 miles in length is £69 – the rates from April 2015 will be £13 for the short flights, and £71 for all other distances. The rates of APD in 2015 for premium classes will be £26 and £142. Commenting on this retrograde move by the Chancellor, the Aviation Environment Foundation said it is a backward step environmentally and economically. Aviation is already massively under-taxed compared with the £10 billion that would be raised per annum if aviation wasn’t exempted from fuel taxes and VAT. APD was a means of redressing this problem but any cut means that taxes will have to be raised elsewhere to balance government spending. Long-haul flights contribute more greenhouse gases in absolute terms than shorter flights. It is therefore right that the duty is proportional to the distance flown and the associated emissions. Eliminating bands C and D breaks the link between environmental impacts and tax and breaches the principle of fairness.

Click here to view full story…

 


 

 

Some 250 CEOs write to Chancellor (yet again) to try and stop APD rises in line with RPI due in 2014

December 1, 2013

Regularly, every few months, there is another push by the aviation industry and its supporters, to get Air Passenger Duty (APD) reduced or scrapped. There is an other of these lobbying events again now. Some 250 chief executives have written to the Chancellor, accusing the Treasury of “ignoring evidence that APD is harming the economy.” The UK has one of the highest aviation tax regimes in the world. Most other countries barely tax aviation. Several others in Europe do tax in one way or another. The reason the tax is charged is that UK air travel pays no VAT and no fuel duty. APD is intended to reduce this massive tax break, and in some way and incompletely, put a fair amount of tax onto air travel. The aviation and business lobby ignore this, and claim APD has a substantial negative effect on the UK economy. They ignore the need for fair taxation, and the Treasury’s need for revenue. The businesses say: ….we are bitterly disappointed with the Government’s decision to keep increasing a tax which acts as a barrier for business in attracting inward investment and creating new jobs.” They quote a study earlier in the year by PwC on which the Treasury commented: “We do not recognise the figures in this report or agree with the assumptions behind it.”     Click here to view full story…

 


 

German study: air travel taxes are an important instrument for climate protection

December 2, 2013

A study in Germany has been commissioned by a range of development and environmental organisations, into the effects of taxing aviation. It found that charging some taxes to air travel does not lead to movement of passengers from German airports to use foreign airports or to job losses in the aviation business – which is what he Federation of German aviation industry claims, probably incorrectly. The report says that additional revenue should be generated from air travel, to help fund mitigation and adaptation to climate change in developing countries. The organisations are calling on the coalition government in Germany to keep, and increase, air travel tax. The tax started in January 2011, and is charged based on distance travelled with rates of €7.56, €23.62, or €42.52 for short, medium and long haul flights. In Germany, as in the UK and in most of Europe, jet fuel is exempted from the energy tax on international flights and VAT is not charged. This tax break amounts annually to about €10.4 billion euros lost to the German tax authorities, which is massively more than the approximately €1 billion from air travel tax currently paid. The report wants to see taxation incentivise the most efficient utilization of planes.       Click here to view full story…

 


 

Treasury Minister confirms APD is necessary and government has no plans to reduce it

27.10.2013

On 23rd October there was an “Opposition day debate” in the Commons, on Air Passenger Duty -especially in relation to Northern Ireland. There were attempts by some MPs with no interest in environmental concerns, to make out that APD is a “green tax”, (and so, along with other “green taxes” should be cut, in the misjudged belief that would benefit the UK economy. The new Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Nicky Morgan, replied for the government, that “we must continue to work hard to reduce the deficit, so if we were to abolish APD, an alternative source for the revenue would need to be found. We never seem to hear any suggestions,” and “….the £3 billion that is raised by APD is a significant contribution to the Exchequer when we are tackling the deficit.” And “There is also no duty charged on the fuel used in international, and virtually all domestic, flights. …..despite the fiscal challenges, the Government have ensured that APD rates have been frozen in real terms since 2010, rising by just £1 for the vast majority of passengers since then. The Government therefore reject the suggestion that we have pushed taxes on aviation too high.”

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=18093 


 

Anti-APD campaign wastes no time in lobbying new shadow minister, Lilian Greenwood

September 10, 2013

After the resignation of Jim FitzPatrick as a Labour opposition transport spokesman on 29th August over Syria, his shadow aviation responsibilities have been taken over by Lilian Greenwood (MP for Nottingham South). The aviation industry has lost no time in lobbying her on Air Passenger Duty. British Air Transport Association (BATA) say her new role “offers an ideal opportunity for the opposition to put pressure on the government between now and the next election to review the impact of APD on the UK economy.” While APD does no harm the UK economy, it has a very slight impact on demand for air tickets (it is only £13 for a return flight to anywhere in Europe), so the aviation industry is deeply opposed. All the lobbying ignores the fact that the Treasury charges APD because air travel pays no VAT and aviation does not pay fuel duty. People on internal return flights within the UK pay £26 in APD as each part of the trip is charged. Scotland has long lobbied to get APD devolved to the Scottish Government, with businesses campaigning to get APD removed.
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=17294 

 


 

Report shows EU governments miss out on up to €39bn a year due to aviation’s tax breaks (no VAT or fuel duty)

July 30, 2013      . A report has been produced, by consultants CE Delft, for the sustainable transport group, Transport & Environment (T&E). It shows that debt-ridden EU countries miss out on up to €39bn every year from airlines not paying taxes. CE Delft found that this revenue shortfall is due to out-dated EU laws exempting international flights from fuel taxes, and from VAT, which is levied on almost all consumer goods. While every European consumer, small business and haulier has to pay on average a tax of €0.48 / litre of fuel for petrol or diesel, big commercial airlines – both those based in the EU and overseas – don’t pay any tax on their fuel. This revenue shortfall totals up to €32bn a year. In addition to this EU governments miss out on €7.1bn every year on VAT which is exempt on international flight tickets. T&E’s aviation policy officer Aoife O’Leary said: “International airlines are like flying tax havens inexplicably exempted from paying the basic EU taxes every EU citizen and company is obliged to pay.” However the airline industry says that without such tax holidays it would be hard pressed to turn a profit. (So much fuel used. So much CO2 generated. So little profit.) The EU consultation on state aid to airports & airlines closes 25th September.
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=3975

 

Read more »