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 »

United Airlines to launch direct flights between Newcastle and New York – so no need to travel via London

United Airlines will introduce direct flights between Newcastle and Newark airport, New York.  There will be 5 per week, from May to September 2015.  This will be Newcastle’s first scheduled non-stop trans-Atlantic service. The flights will use a Boeing 757-200 aircraft with a total of 169 seats, 16 flat-bed seats in United BusinessFirst and 153 in United Economy, including 45 Economy Plus seats with added extra space. The airport’s MD said this would offer the people of Northeast England “easy, convenient travel options not only to New York City but also to destinations throughout the Americas.” Presumably it will largely be used for people from the UK taking leisure trips to the USA, but the publicity is that it will also enhance “regional connectivity, growing the regional economy, attracting inward investment and encouraging inbound tourism from North America.”  So this is one more route that enables people in the north of England to travel, without having to use Heathrow or a southern airport. One one bit of confirmation that a new south east runway is unnecessary. The list of direct long haul flights from regional airports is growing.
.

 

United Airlines to launch non-stop service between Newcastle and New York

By Jamie Hardesty
27 Oct 2014 (Business Daily)

United Airlines will introduce non stop flights between Newcastle and its New York hub, Newark Liberty International Airport, during the period May 23 to Sep. 7, 2015 (both dates westbound), subject to government approval.

The frequency of the service will be five times weekly. It will be Newcastle’s first scheduled nonstop transAtlantic service.

Flight UA159 will depart Newcastle daily except Wednesday and Thursday at 9:10 a.m., arriving at New York/Newark at 12:00 p.m. the same day.

The return flight, UA160, will depart New York/Newark daily except Tuesday and Wednesday at 7:20 p.m., arriving in Newcastle at 7:30 a.m. the following day (all times local).

Flight times will be seven hours 50 minutes westbound and seven hours 10 minutes eastbound.

The flights will be operated by Boeing 757-200 aircraft with a total of 169 seats, 16 flat-bed seats in United BusinessFirst and 153 in United Economy, including 45 Economy Plus seats with added legroom and increased personal space.

United’s managing director of U.K. & Ireland sales, Bob Schumacher, said: “We’re very excited about introducing nonstop flights to New York from Newcastle next summer.”

“We’ll be offering the people of Northeast England easy, convenient travel options not only to New York City but also to destinations throughout the Americas.

“United already offers trans-Atlantic service from more cities in the U.K. than any other airline and we’ve every reason to be confident that this new service will be a success.”

Chief Executive of Newcastle Airport, David Laws, said: “For many years, and everywhere I go, people have been stopping me and asking, when is the North East going to get a New York service?

“I have been clear throughout that this is a route that we have been determined to deliver for the region.

“We have been carefully and quietly working behind the scenes, with our shareholders, to secure what will be another game-changing new route.

“I am delighted today that we are finally able to make the announcement everyone has been hoping for. United Airlines is the best airline to operate this service.

“They have an exceptional track record of linking U.K. regions to their New York/Newark hub, where customers can then connect to over one hundred onward destinations.”

Leader of South Tyneside Council and lead of the LA7 shareholders, Councillor Iain Malcolm, said: “On behalf of the Local Authority shareholders, I am delighted that the collective efforts we have been making have been successful.

“This new service will be hugely significant, in terms of further enhancing regional connectivity, growing the regional economy, attracting inward investment and encouraging inbound tourism from North America.

“The Local Authorities and our partner organisations will work hard to make the route a success.

“We will work with inbound tourism bodies to promote the region to a new audience and we will work with the business community to increase awareness of the connectivity opened up.”

 

https://bdaily.co.uk/hospitality/27-10-2014/united-airlines-to-launch-nonstop-service-between-newcastle-and-new-york/

.


.

See also:

Emirates considers direct flights to the USA from UK northern airports, not Heathrow

July 26, 2013

Dubai’s Emirates Airline is interested in getting into the competitive transatlantic market, and offer flights from Dubai to the US via the UK. This market is currently dominated by BA, Virgin Atlantic, Delta Air Lines and American Airlines. Emirates will need to get regulatory approval first. Emirates believes there is strong unmet demand for flights from the north of England to the USA and last year carried 800,000 passengers on its routes in and out of its hubs in the north of England: Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester and Birmingham. There are growing numbers of Emirates passengers and services from these northern UK airports. In October, Emirates will launch flights from Dubai to New York via Milan. Their UK vice president said they are asking the Airports Commission to look at making all the regional airports completely open skies, so anyone can fly anywhere. If they use the northern airports, there is less pressure on the south east airports, and less rationale for building another runway. “Heathrow sits in the south of England, but Manchester has a bigger catchment area in terms of a two-hour drive.” If Emirates goes through with the plan BA and Virgin will be the big losers.

 Click here to view full story..


 

 

Airlines like Emirates keen to fly from regional airports (like Newcastle) – reducing future demand at Heathrow and Gatwick

March 25, 2013

Heathrow Airport has been saying recently that, though it is desperate to get a third runway, even they realise that there is not the demand for a 4th runway. The DfT has consistently over-estimated the amount of passenger demand over the last decade. In reality, passengers from parts of the UK other than the south east can get long haul flights from regional airports. The UK Vice President of Emirates says he wants to expand flights from UK’s regional airports, rather than Heathrow or Gatwick, and has a direct flight from Newcastle to Dubai, for transfers on from there. With that happening more and more in future, the south east airports’ dreams for expansion in the south east, requiring a massive hub airport, look less and less probable. Forecasts more than a few years ahead are based on so many uncertainties and unknowns as to be almost without value. Making best use of existing airports is more efficient than grandiose new infrastructure projects which run the risk of being white elephants. Had a second Stansted runway been built by 2012, it would now be standing idle.

 Click here to view full story…


 

More flights from Manchester to USA taking pressure off south east airports

Flights by American Airlines have started from Manchester to Charlotte in North Carolina, and will run every day until the end of September. Airport and airline bosses heralded the flight as a boost for both the airport and Manchester. The airline says “Manchester has been a hugely important city for American Airlines for many years and we are thrilled to add this flight to Charlotte…. It will bring in around 200 passengers every day…..Next year, we hope to run them for longer. In terms of American Airlines, we have a massive presence in the US and Charlotte is our second biggest hub. ….This is putting Manchester in line with our other destinations like Madrid and Rome.”  American Airlines already flies from Manchester to Chicago, New York and Philadelphia. The airline CEO said most passengers are expected to originate from America – looking to fly into the north of England.”The biggest growth in airlines is down to people visiting friends and family, and Manchester has a catchment area of 22m.” More international flights from the regional airports mean less pressure to expand airports in the south east. Or to build a new south east runway. Manchester’s 2nd runway is hardly used.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/more-flights-from-manchester-to-usa-taking-pressure-off-south-east-airports/

.


Prices of long-haul flights from Scottish airports slashed as Middle East airlines compete – cheaper than going via Heathrow

Air passengers from Scotland, travelling to the Middle East and Australia are benefitting from a price war between the major airlines. Emirates and Qatar Airways are bitter rivals, founded less than 10 years apart in 1985 and 1993 respectively, and then the arrival of Etihad in 2003 put both under pressure.  Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad now compete for long haul passengers from Scottish airports, to Dubai, Thailand and Australia. The price of a ticked on Etihad from Edinburgh to Sydney for next summer is about £790, cheaper than the cost of an Etihad flight from Heathrow. Emirates has slashed its return fare from Glasgow to a low of £771 for the same dates. The same flight with Qatar Airways comes in at £995 return. Industry experts predict fierce competition between the 3 carriers, undercutting each other.  Due to the 3 Middle East airlines competing, fares to Australia are cheaper from Scotland than from Heathrow or Amsterdam. So one less reason to need to expand Heathrow, or worry about losing traffic to Schiphol.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/prices-of-long-haul-flights-from-scottish-airports-slashed-as-airlines-compete-cheaper-than-going-via-heathrow/

.


Birmingham delighted to get daily flight to India, largely for tourism and VFR

 Birmingham airport’s is encouraged by a decision by Air India to increase the number of flights between Birmingham, Delhi and Amritsa from 4 per week to 7 per week. This will start from November, when its 18th Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft is inducted into service. Birmingham has now had direct flights to India for one year, after having none for 5 years. Though some passengers are on business, the majority are tourists and people visiting friends and relatives in India. Having three more flights per week will mean an extra 1,500 seats a week, as the Air India Dreamliners have 256 seats (256 x 3 x 2 = 1,5360.  Paul Kehoe, Birmingham Airport’s Chief Executive, said “The West Midlands receives more foreign direct investment from India than any other region outside of London and Birmingham’s VFR (visiting friends and family) market grew by 71% in 2013, now attracting more visitors from India than any English city other than London.” The runway extension, that opened in April, is enabling more flights to longer haul destinations. The flight path trials, due to the runway extension, are causing real concern and distress to those south of the airport, now finding themselves seriously overflown.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/birmingham-delighted-to-get-daily-flight-to-india-largely-for-tourism-and-vfr/

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

.

.

.

 

 

 

 

 

Read more »

Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen airports call for end to Air Passenger Duty in Scotland

The 3 airports have made a joint submission to the Smith Commission (looking into extra powers for the Scottish Parliament) calling for Air Passenger Duty (APD) to be devolved to Holyrood, and eventually abolished.  The airports claim APD is a significant barrier to growth and damaging to tourism, though this ignores the outflow of Scots abroad – facilitated by cheap flights – taking their holiday money to spend elsewhere. Of the £2.9 billion raised by APD in 2013-14, approximately £200m came from Scotland. APD is charged by the Treasury as a means of, partially, compensating for the tax loss caused by aviation paying no VAT and no fuel duty.  Scotland is more dependent on flying than the south of the UK, as rail journeys to Europe take much longer.  A report by York Aviation for the airports in 2012 suggested that having to pay APD means the country loses (?) some 2 million passengers per year, and could cost the Scottish economy up to £210m in lost tourism spend by 2016. The report is completely silent on the cost of outbound tourism, which is not even mentioned. Airports in the north of England fear APD being dropped in Scotland.
.

 

Three Scottish airports call for end to Air Passenger Duty

28.10.2014 (BBC)

Edinburgh is one of three Scottish airports to call for Air Passenger Duty to be devolved to Holyrood

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

The Smith Commission is looking into extra powers for the Scottish Parliament.

The three airports claim the tax is a significant barrier to growth and damaging to tourism.

Four other countries in Europe levy a passenger departure tax.

The tax raised £2.9bn in 2013-14, with approximately £200m coming from Scotland.

The airports made the case for the devolution of the tax, an excise duty set by the UK government, to Holyrood. This would allow for its reduction and eventual abolition in line with the Scottish government’s commitment.

APD has been increased and restructured by the UK government since 2007, with long haul rates increasing more than short haul.

The submission stated that Scotland’s location and the fact its economy is particularly reliant on aviation meant that any loss of connectivity would have “a significant impact on the country’s competitiveness”.

Their joint submission argued that the tax costs Scotland two million passengers every year. The 2012 report [ by York Aviation ]  also warned that APD will cost the Scottish economy up to £210m in lost tourism spend by 2016.

Zero rate
APD rates on direct long haul flights from Northern Ireland were devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly (NIA) in 2012, which then set the rates at £0. The Republic of Ireland scrapped its equivalent of the tax in 2013, meaning the UK is one of five European countries to levy a tax on passenger departure.

Gordon Dewar, the chief executive of Edinburgh Airport, said: “Scotland’s airports unanimously agree that air passenger duty is hugely damaging to our industry. We’ve argued long and hard for its reduction or abolition and have been ignored but now the evidence for its devolution to Scotland speaks for itself.”

Mr Dewar said that Ryanair had already committed to delivering over one million new passengers if APD were to be abolished.

In published proposals, the Conservative party said that APD “should be devolved”, while the Liberal Democrat party said APD for flights from Scottish airports should be allocated to the Scottish Parliament.

Labour said it was “not now convinced that devolution should be progressed until further consideration is given to the environmental impact and how else this tax might be reformed”.

Colin Keir, the SNP MSP whose constituency includes Edinburgh Airport, described the submission as “very welcome indeed”.

He said: “The case for the devolution of APD has been made – today’s submission from the airports has demolished any remains of Labour’s threadbare argument against it. Labour in Scotland could start to show that it is Scotland, not Westminster, in control by dropping its opposition and supporting the devolution of APD.

“Assuming this common sense submission is taken forward by the Smith Commission in its proposals – the pressure will be on David Cameron and the Westminster system to act immediately and devolve the powers over APD at once.”

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29802846

.

Related BBC stories:

York Aviation report, which completely ignores any mention of the cost to Scotland of outbound tourism, is at  http://www.aberdeenairport.com/media/1071/rpt_apd_impact_update_oct_2012_final.pdf


.

Scottish airports want APD lowered and control of it devolved to the Scottish government

6.12.2014 (BBC)

Scottish airport operators have said they are dismayed and disappointed that the control of air passenger duty (APD) will not be devolved to Scotland.

The UK government gave Northern Ireland the power to reduce the level of the tax because it said it had a special economic case.

That prompted calls from Scottish and Welsh airports for similar treatment.

The UK Treasury said it had not ruled out devolving APD to Scotland and Wales in the future.

A report published following a consultation on reform of APD said the government at Westminster would “continue to explore the feasibility and likely effects of devolution to Scotland and Wales”.

Earlier this year Chancellor George Osborne announced the duty would be cut for direct long-haul routes from Northern Ireland airports, and he would devolve control over the tax to the Northern Irish Assembly.

The move came in response to fears that some routes could be scrapped due to competition from Irish airports where APD is much lower.

Commenting on the UK Government’s decision not to grant the Scottish government similar powers for now, Jim O’Sullivan, managing director of Edinburgh Airport, said: “APD is already costing Scotland passengers and having an impact on tourism revenues.

“We know from discussions with our airline partners that it is a major factor in their decision to connect further routes to Scotland.

“We would urge the Westminster Government to see Scotland as it does Northern Ireland and understand the need to both reduce and devolve this unfair and damaging tax.”

Amanda McMillan, managing director of Glasgow Airport, said: “On the question of devolution of APD, Glasgow Airport has always been supportive of this proposal given the Scottish government’s more progressive approach to aviation and its greater appreciation of the role the industry plays in supporting the growth of the Scottish economy.”

Scottish Transport Minister, Keith Brown said the case for devolving APD was “compelling” and had been backed by all four of Scotland’s biggest airports, and recommended by the Calman Commission.

He added: “We need to be able to deal with the competitive and connectivity disadvantages that Scotland faces and if APD were devolved now we could provide the means to incentivise airlines to provide new direct international connections to Scotland, benefiting our aviation industry and our passengers and supporting the growth of the Scottish economy.

“The UK government needs to listen to the many voices in Scotland who clearly want to see full devolution of the policy on APD.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-16055896

.


 

.

See also

BA boss Willie Walsh backs Scottish independence if its government will then cut APD by 50%

Willie Walsh, CEO of IAG – owner of British Airways – has stirred up some publicity by declaring that Scottish independence could be a “positive development” for British Airways, if it cuts Air Passenger Duty (APD). He said the Scottish government “recognised the huge impact” air passenger duty” had on the economy and had in the past pledged to reduce, then possibly abolish, APD if there is a “Yes” vote for Scottish independence in the referendum in September. Willie Walsh has repeatedly lobbied against APD (which is charged as aviation pays no VAT and no fuel duty), and all airlines would prefer air travel to remain significantly under-taxed, to boost their revenues. In its White Paper on independence, the Scottish government said APD would cost Scotland “more than £200m a year” in lost tourism expenditure, and after a 50% cut they wanted complete abolition of APD “when public finances allow”, in a bid to make Scottish airports more competitive. That would have the effect of drawing potential air  passengers from northern English airports to Edinburgh and Glasgow airports instead.  A north-east MP said of Walsh: “For a man who leads a company that trades on its British identity, he has a very casual approach to the break-up of Britain.” 

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/ba-boss-willie-walsh-backs-scottish-independence-if-its-government-will-then-cut-apd-by-50/

.

.


 

Newcastle and Manchester Airports oppose devolution of APD powers to Scotland

by DAMIEN HENDERSON Transport Correspondent EXCLUSIVE

MINISTERS are facing a backlash from English airports over plans to devolve power
on aviation taxes amid fears it could lead to an exodus of passengers travelling
north of the Border to catch flights.

The Scottish Government has promised to lower Air Passenger Duty (APD) to cut
fares and encourage the development of new routes. It has been pushing Westminster
to honour a commitment to hand over responsibility for the tax to Holyrood.

However, it has faced an angry response from Newcastle and Manchester airports,
which claim introducing a lower rate in Scotland would put them at a competitive
disadvantage as passengers would drive north to get better flight deals.

Airport sources say this would also potentially stem the flow of Scottish passengers
travelling south for cheaper flights.

Both English airports have pointed to the example of Belfast International, which
has lost a stream of passengers to Dublin since the republic decided this year
to scrap its aviation taxes.

There is no good reason why passengers in Scotland should have to travel in such
numbers through other UK airports Graeme Mason, Newcastle International’s planning
and corporate affairs director, said the devolution proposals, which are being
considered by the Treasury, would be “devastating”.

“The devolving of powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to vary APD
would be devastating to other UK regions,” he said. “The north-east would be particularly
damaged, with air services and passengers relocating north of the Border.”

Both airports have called for variable rates of APD to be considered for across
England.

The UK Government had intended to devolve responsibility for APD but reversed
its position while it examined a Coalition commitment to replacing the per-person
tax with a more environmentally-friendly per-aircraft tax.

Chancellor George Osborne then dropped the APD reforms in his March Budget, saying
they would not be legal, but included proposals to devolve responsibility forr
the tax to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in a consultation which ended
last month.

An industry source said UK Government ministers were reluctant to put English
airports at a disadvantage and were also hostile to the idea of introducing a
two-tier tax system. The source said: “They were serious about reforming Air Passenger
Duty. But now that’s been dropped, there’s no way they want to see a variable
rate introduced between England and Scotland.”

A likely compromise would be to hand over power for collecting the tax – worth
£157m in Scotland – but not the power to vary it, the source claimed.

The Treasury insisted no decision had been taken on devolving APD but reforms
would be made on a “revenue-neutral basis”. A final decision is due in the autumn.

A spokeswoman for Manchester Airport Group said it was not against devolution
of APD but would object to reforms that disadvantaged English regions.

“We would be concerned if the Government were to devolve powers to Scotland without
taking into account the effect it would have on airports in the north of England,”
she said. “We have urged the Government to look at a differential rate of APD
more broadly if it is serious about stimulating airport growth, given the capacity
constraints in the south-east of England.”

A spokesman for Transport Scotland, the agency with responsibility for aviation
policy, said: “While we would not seek to displace services which operate from
other UK airports, there is no good reason why passengers in Scotland should have
to continue to travel in such numbers through other UK airports or should not
benefit from levels of connectivity enjoyed in other parts of the UK.

“The case for devolution is growing with Scotland’s four largest airports supporting
the Scottish Government’s call that Air Passenger Duty be devolved to ensure the
interests of passengers in Scotland are supported.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/transport-environment/backlash-over-devolution-of-airport-taxes-1.1113775?localLinksEnabled=false
.
.
.
.
.

 

 

Read more »

Keith Taylor MEP: “We don’t need a new runway at Gatwick – or Heathrow, or Stansted or anywhere else for that matter”

Keith Taylor, the Green Party MEP, has set out clearly why no new runway is needed. The Airports Commission will shortly publish their consultation options, for runway plans at Heathrow and Gatwick. Keith says the extensive evidence against there being a need for a new south east runway is being ignored. The massive advertising and PR budgets by the airports are attempting to persuade that a new runway is vital is described as a con. While in theory the Commission was set up to establish if there was a need for a runway, in reality it has just been a process of making the decision where to build one more politically acceptable. It has not been an issue of “whether” as it should have been – but just “where.” Keith comments: “… it seems the Commission’s sole purpose has become to choose where expansion will go despite the very strong existing evidence against all airport expansion.”  People in the UK already fly more than almost any other nation. Economic claims of  the benefits of a new runway and claims about jobs created are also grossly exaggerated.  The aviation industry is perpetrating a massive hoax, for their own purposes. 
.

 

SussexVoice “Talk Politics” – Green MEP Keith Taylor – We don’t need more runways

28.10.2014  (By Keith Taylor)

Keith Taylor is Member of the European Parliament for South East England and a Green Party member.

We don’t need a new runway at Gatwick – or Heathrow, or Stansted or anywhere else for that matter.

The overwhelming evidence presented against airport expansion in 2009/10 when the then Labour government was backing proposals for a third runway at Heathrow is being ignored.

The huge budgets of the pro expansion lobby are busy trying to convince people expansion is the only way to go.  It’s a con.

When Prime Minister David Cameron set up the Davies Commission in 2012 there was a rising crescendo of business pressure for new runways. Cameron effectively kicked the issue into touch until after the 2015 General Election, ostensibly with a brief to Davies to consider whether expansion in the South East was necessary.

Many people believe Cameron had already privately decided that new runway(s) would be built, and forming the Commission was a cynical attempt at delaying any decision and deferring any political responsibility for implementing their recommendations.

The reality now is that the Davies Commission will recommend not whether expansion will take place but where it will happen.

In fact, it seems the Commission’s sole purpose has become to choose where expansion will go despite the very strong existing evidence against all airport expansion.

Such evidence includes the fact that without the go-ahead for any new runways, Britain is already amongst the most frequent flyers in the world. And that already more passengers fly in and out of London than any other city in the world.

Furthermore, nine of the ten most popular destinations from Heathrow are short-haul flights. [ Details ]  Existing rail services could offer workable alternatives on most of these routes, thus freeing up landing slots for longer haul flights, addressing airport capacity problems. As trains are around ten times less polluting than planes this would also be better for the environment. [ Details of plane/train carbon by Seat 61 ].

The employment benefits of expansion have also been overplayed. Claims that airport expansion will help create thousands of new jobs to help the country through the recession are based on unreliable statistics and in fact, expansion results in more UK tourists going abroad which creates a ‘tourism deficit’, where tourists’ money is exported from UK.      [Tourism deficit ].

Economist Brendon Sewill said:

“The Government, aided by the aviation industry, is perpetrating a hoax that airport expansion is vital to the economy and will help us though the recession. Councillors and planning officers are being misled by exaggerated claims that the expansion of their local airports will create lots of extra jobs. For example, ten years ago Manchester Airport claimed that its second runway would create 50,000 extra jobs [ link ]  whereas in practice employment at the airport has increased by only 4,000.”  [See employment details below. Airport had 2,088 employees in 2013 and 2,585 in 2000]. 

As anti-aviation expansion campaigners, we must be more strategic. If residents of Gatwick and residents of Heathrow both oppose expansion on their own local impacts then this will just be seen as a NIMBY reaction and our chances of winning will be limited.

But if we can create a situation whereby all anti-aviation expansion campaigners are calling for no runway expansion anywhere – because of the very convincing arguments that we have at our disposal on the environment, climate change, noise, air pollution and community blight – then we’re in with a chance of winning.

That also means supporting the regional airport campaigns in their smaller battles to prevent expansion such as the successful campaign I recently supported at Redhill Aerodrome. [ link ]

The fight-back is already happening and will be strengthened when everyone starts saying ‘Stop All Airport Expansion’ to promote the issues further up the agenda.

I look forward to making these points at the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC) conference on Saturday 22nd November.

http://www.sussexvoice.co.uk/2014/10/28/sussex-voice-talk-politics-green-mep-keith-taylor-we-dont-need-more-runways/

 

.

.


.

Employment details for Manchester airport.

Its 2nd runway was built in 2001.
The average monthly number of persons (including the directors) employed by the Group during the year was:

In  2000

Administration  397

Operational  1,633

Baggage handling  555

Total   2,585


 

In  2001 

Administration 405

Operational 1,639

Baggage handling 619

Total 2,663 

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/314061A7BF7257488025738D004BB429/$File/Annual+Report+and+Accounts+0001.pdf

That document said:

“With the Airport set to grow significantly over the next 15 years with the number of passengers forecast to more than double to nearly 41 million a year by 2015″

In reality, the number of passengers in 2013 at Manchester airport was 20,682,900


 

In   2007

The average number of persons (including executive directors) employed by the Group during the year was:

2,263


In 2008

2,481

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/BF3EEF3422FA8E3280257497004ACCEE/$File/Annual+Report+0708.pdf


 

In 2013

The average number of persons (including Executive Directors) employed by the Group during the year was:

2,088


 

In 2014

The average number of persons (including Executive Directors) employed by the Group during the year was:

2,226

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/2D7BEAB35258108D80257D1F004BF436/$File/MAG+Annual+Report+2014.pdf

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »

Hundreds of villagers from Brockham, Betchworth, Beare Green etc protest over Gatwick flightpath changes

Hundreds of people packed into Beare Green Village Hall to protest against the recent flightpath changes out of Gatwick. The meeting was organised by, and chaired by the recently formed action group “Plane Wrong” which has been set up by people in Beare Green, Betchworth, Brockham, Capel, Coldharbour, the Holmwoods and Dorking, who have all been affected by increased aircraft noise nuisance. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) approved the flightpath changes in August last year following a much-criticised consultation by Gatwick,which was far too complex and badly written for non-experts to understand. Plane Wrong will be educating communities about what they can do to stand up to the flight path threats, and getting more and more people involved in the fight.  Plane Wrong has an online petition to the CAA. People are now increasingly aware of the threat of a 2nd runway. Mole Valley MP Sir Paul Beresford told the meeting: “If you think this is a problem now, wait and see if we get a second runway. We have an enormous battle on our hands .”
.

 

Hundreds of villagers protest over Gatwick flightpath changes

28.10.2014

By

People against the recent changes want Gatwick’s flightpaths to go back to where they were but the Civil Aviation Authority said they needed to change

A packed Beare Green village hall for the “Plane Wrong” meeting

Hundreds of people packed into Beare Green Village Hall to protest against the recent flightpath changes out of Gatwick.

The meeting was chaired by the recently formed action group Plane Wrong, which has been set up by people in Beare Green, Betchworth, Brockham, Capel, Coldharbour, the Holmwoods and Dorking, who have all been affected by increased aircraft noise.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) approved the flightpath changes in August last year following a much-criticised consultation by Gatwick.

Speaking at the meeting, Mike Ward, chairman of Plane Wrong, said: “The purpose of this meeting is two-fold. The first is to raise awareness and understanding of the complex issues we are facing.

“Gatwick’s last consultation was 60 pages long and was extremely technical, so people who wanted to respond to the consultation didn’t because of how poorly it was written.

“So we want to educate communities about what they can do to stand up to this.

“Secondly, we want to build on that and gain support so that we can take action. We want people to tell their friends and neighbours to get involved in the fight against the flightpath changes.

“I feel we have a good momentum going but more needs to be done.”

Plane Wrong has started an online petition to be submitted to the CAA which has already attracted more than 1,300 signatures.

‘Flightpaths need to change’

Mr Ward said: “We want to get the flightpaths put back to where they were before, which didn’t affect the communities anywhere near as much as they do now.”

Residents attending the meeting expressed frustration about the constant noise from aircraft, low flying planes, night flights, pollution, the prospect of a second runway at Gatwick, and no longer being able to enjoy the Mole Valley countryside.

Phil Roberts, head of airspace, air traffic management and aerodromes at the CAA, said: “The flightpaths around Gatwick are the busiest in the world.

“It is a very challenging situation for us, and we need to find an arrangement to manage the airspace safely while also taking advantage of new technical advances in air-craft.

“Before these recent changes, we had been using flightpaths that were decided in the 1970s.

“Aircraft have changed significantly in that time and that is why flightpaths need to change.”

Mole Valley MP Sir Paul Beresford told the meeting: “I have managed to get in and speak to the CAA and director Mark Swan. He is listening because they have never had such a flood of responses before. I do not live here, so I do not hear the aircraft noise like you do, but I have heard the noise from you.

“I would like to thank you for all you have done so far.

“However, If you think this is a problem now, wait and see if we get a second runway. We have an enormous battle on our hands and I certainly did not like the way that Gatwick presented its last consultation.”

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/hundreds-villagers-protest-over-gatwick-8007813

.


.

See also:

New action group, Plane Wrong, fights Gatwick flight path changes north of the airport

A new local action group, “Plane Wrong”, opposing changes of Gatwick flight paths, and the sudden increase in plane noise for some areas, has been formed. Changes to a flight path, heading west and north of Gatwick are affecting – and causing annoyance and distress to – thousands of people across parts of Surrey. The flight path is now making a wider turn. Plane Wrong has been established by people in Beare Green, Betchworth, Blackbrook, Brockham, Capel, Coldharbour, the Holmwoods, Leigh, Leith Hill, Redhill and Reigate. The group argues that there have been insufficient trials and consultations about the changes. The increased noise is damaging the environment, especially the AONB surrounding Leith Hill. Plane Wrong has organised two public meetings, on 22nd and 23rd October, to which the CAA was invited to explain its flight path changes. Plane Wrong has a petition to the CAA, asking it to stop the new route. Plane Wrong say that “If this flight path is not reversed, it sets a precedent for airspace changes to be made without proper consideration for the impact it has on the local surrounding areas and population.”

Click here to view full story…

.

.

.

.

.

 

Read more »

DfT signs 2nd PSO to pay £2.5 million so Flybe can profitably maintain Newquay to Gatwick route

The Government will pay £2.5 million, and Cornwall Council will pay £300,000, in a 4-year funding deal to enable Flybe to profitably operate flights between Newquay and Gatwick. The DfT says the public service obligation (PSO) will continue a link.  There will be 3 flights each way on weekdays and 2 at weekends. The aviation minister, Robert Goodwill, said keeping the region connected to London is a “vital part of our long-term economic plan” and Danny Alexander said the route ”is vital for Cornwall’s businesses, tourist industry and residents” and “with a return rate of nearly £3 for every £1 invested, it’s a great deal for the UK taxpayer, as well as for the south-west.” The DfT says Flybe will operate the flights with the timings providing a convenient schedule for a full working day [eh? holiday-makers?] at either destination.” EasyJet took over Flybe’s Gatwick slots when the service ended in March this year, but decided to drop the Newquay service. There were about 92,600 passengers flying between Gatwick and Newquay in 2013, so over 4 years the £2.8 million would be about £7.50 each. Could the fare not rise by that amount, to save having to subsidise?
.


Wikipedia on Newquay:

Newquay Cornwall Airport  is the main commercial airport for Cornwall, located at Mawgan in Pydar 4.6 miles  northeast of Newquay on Cornwall’s north coast.  Its runway was previously operated by RAF St Mawgan before the runway was handed over in December 2008. The airport is located close to Newquay, Cornwall’s premier tourist resort, as well as major attractions such as The Eden Project.

In 2013 the airport handled 174,891 passengers, a 5.0% increase compared with 2012. Newquay has a CAA Public Use Aerodrome Licence that allows flights for the public transport of passengers or for flying instruction. The Cornwall Air Ambulance is based at the airport.

The runway is able to take the very largest and fastest of civil and military aircraft, having been built and maintained for decades as a United States Air Force.  With the end of the Cold War and changes in American political priorities, the Americans pulled out of all involvement with the base by the end of 2009.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newquay_Cornwall_Airport

 

Busiest routes to and from Newquay Cornwall Airport (2013) CAA
Rank Airport Passengers handled  % Change 2012 / 13
1  United KingdomLondon Gatwick 92,609 Decrease 4
2  United KingdomManchester 32,570 Increase 5
3  United KingdomIsles of Scilly 22,093 Increase 56
4  United KingdomLondon Southend 7,448 -
5  United KingdomLiverpool 5,848 -
6  United KingdomEdinburgh 4,481 Decrease 55
7  GermanyDüsseldorf 2,407 Decrease 29
8  United KingdomNewcastle 2,384 Decrease 8
9  United KingdomBelfast City 2,187 Increase 24
10  United KingdomGlasgow 1,751 Decrease 51

Here’s 2013 passengers by destination: 92,609 to/from Gatwick


Department for Transport signs second public service obligation to protect Newquay to London Gatwick route.

27.10.2014 (DfT Press Release)

From:Department for Transport and Robert Goodwill MP

A crucial transport link between the south west and London has been secured after the Department for Transport announced a 4 year funding deal for flights between Newquay and London Gatwick airport.

The public service obligation (PSO) will continue a link which contributes millions of pounds to the Cornwall and south west economies. The government is providing £2.5 million in addition to £300,000 from Cornwall Council. Three flights each way will take place during the week with 2 weekend rotations. Around 100,000 passengers use the route every year for work or leisure.

Flybe will operate the flights with the timings providing a convenient schedule for a full working day at either destination.

UK Aviation Minister Robert Goodwill said:

Keeping our regions connected with London is a vital part of our long term economic plan. That is why we have worked so hard with Cornwall Council to protect the route to Newquay and make sure we do all we can to support the local area.

Fast, frequent flights to the south west will unlock access to stunning landscapes and skilled businesses, benefiting the region and the UK as a whole.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander said:

The air link between Newquay and London is vital for Cornwall’s businesses, tourist industry and residents, so I created the Regional Air Connectivity Fund and fought for £2.5 million for Newquay to ensure that this crucial service could continue. With a return rate of nearly 3 pounds for every pound invested, it’s a great deal for the UK taxpayer as well as for the south-west.

I hope this fund will help other remote areas of the UK sustain economically important connections to London too.

The Regional Air Connectivity Fund was announced by the government in June 2013. The fund is being used to maintain important regional air connections. The government doubled the size of the fund to £20 million per year in the 2014 Budget.

The 4 year length of the deal provides certainty to the region and marks the second UK government PSO, following a 2 year deal for the Dundee-London Stansted air link which was announced in June 2014.

The airport is part of Newquay Aerohub Enterprise Zone- one of 24 government-backed sites nationwide that are helping companies grow by offering top-class business incentives and world-class infrastructure. Home to Augusta Westland’s Operational Flight Training Centre and the supersonic car the Bloodhound, the Zone is positioning itself as a key centre for the aviation and space sectors and will benefit from the continued operation of these flights.

Separately, Transport Minister John Hayes today visited London City Airport to welcome the economic boost provided by the new Flybe routes connecting UK regions with London.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-funding-secures-cornwall-to-london-air-link


 

.

Earlier:

Newquay Airport ‘could become a rock concert venue’ – needs to earn money to stay afloat

Newquay Airport costs owner Cornwall Council about £3m a year in subsidies. It is not likely to make much profit just from its airport activities. It is now suggested the site could be used some of the time as a venue for rock concerts to help balance the books. However, a problem is the poor road links. It might also have go-kart racing and other activities, and has in the past held car shows, eco-car races, police driver training and filming of TV and commercials.  Last year passenger numbers at Newquay airport fell, for a 5th consecutive year, to 174,000, down from 431,000 in 2008/9. The airport, a former military base, was hit by Ryanair and Air Southwest pulling their flights in 2011. In autumn 2014 Newquay will lose its route to Gatwick when Flybe is set to pull out, saying the service it is not viable. The whole airport area is about 861 acres, of which some 650 acres is an Enterprise Zone and 231 acres is development land, occupied by commercial companies.  87 acres is a solar park. Newquay is also paid by the government to stay open as an emergency airfield. The runway is one of the largest in the country so any plane can land there, as one of the first possible sites for planes coming in from the west. 

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/newquay/


 

Newquay Airport: Passenger numbers down and down, subsidy up and up

 17 September 2011

Posted by Oliver Baines

It’s a long time since a posting on this site, and in the meantime every confident prediction by the aviation industry, and every claim by the Newquay Airport Masterplan, has been shown to be inaccurate, wrong, or just plain misleading.

Now we’re faced with the worst of all worlds – an airport in decline, with no plans about how to manage the decline and or sustain it in the absence of massive public subsidy.

So massive public subsidy it is.  Passenger numbers were supposed to be 550,000 and rising by 2012.  Instead they are 239,246 and falling (figures based on provisional statistics for August 2011, annualised).  Meanwhile the official subsidy from Cornwall Council has risen to £3.5m, though cynical observers might consider this only part of the story.  Even at this level it means that on average a family of 4 on a holiday to Dublin, Dubrovnik or Venice, or on the first leg of the journey to their second home in the south of France, are helped by us (yes, that’s you and me) to the tune of £14.63 each – each way.  That’s a total of £117.03.

When Cornwall is moving into hard times, how is it that we subsidise people to spend their money somewhere else?  How exactly does this help Cornwall?

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/newquay-airport-passenger-numbers-down-and-down-subsidy-up-and-up/

.


 

£19 million subsidy for south west airports

TUESDAY, 7 JULY 2009

According to Guardian journalisGeorge Monbiot, The government’s South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) has spent £19m in recent years on extending the airport terminals at Bristol and Bournemouth, aircraft parking at Exeter and airport works at Plymouth and Newquay. The subsidies to Bristol Airport were made in 2004 and included £15,000 to pay for an economic assessment and greenhouse gas emissions assessment for a proposed direct scheduled service to New York and £1.5 million towards extending the terminal.

The bulk of the £19 million of SWRDA subsidies were directed at Newquay, so greatly undermining the attractiveness and potential of the existing rail link to the town. Likewise the £4+ million subsidy to Plymouth airport will give airlines a further competitive edge over rail. Now it is possible to fly from Bristol to Newquay in 45 mins for just £29 one-way which, even allowing for airport travel and check-in, is quicker and cheaper than rail (over 4 hrs, £65 off-peak return). Those low air fares owe a lot to public subsidy.

Air travel accounts for less than 1% of total UK business turnover but accounts for 13% of greenhouse gas emissions. You might think curbing the growth in air travel, particularly of domestic flights that can realistically be undertaken by rail or coach, should be the very top of the government’s environmental agenda. Instead we find them pouring millions of our money into subsidies to support air travel at the expense of rail travel.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Read more »

LETTER in West Sussex Gazette: Politicians are not listening to voters on Gatwick 2nd runway threat

In July 2013, West Sussex County Council, in a rushed and questionably democratic vote, gave its support for a 2nd runway at Gatwick. This is despite having commissioned a study in 2013 that showed somewhere between 30,000 and 45,000 new houses would need to be built in the area, and other serious local problems. The Chair of CAGNE (Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions), writing in the local press, has emphasised how the opinions of the thousands who have been alerted to the new runway threat, need to be taken account of by local politicians and councillors.  Horsham Council is Conservative controlled, with 7 Lib Dem councillors. However, the leader of the Horsham LibDems, Frances Haigh, has backed a 2nd Gatwick runway, even though that was voted against at the recent party conference.  There are very real fears about implications of a 2nd runway, on housing, transport, pressure on all social services and infrastructure – and councillors would do well to take account of these views, with some district elections next year.
.

 

 

LETTER: Politicians are not listening to voters

26 October 2014 (West Sussex Gazette)

From Sally Pavey, Chair of CAGNE – Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions

Did you know last week your councillors (West Sussex County Council) were presented to by Alistair McDermid of Gatwick Airport and Rosemary French of Gatwick Diamond?

Thank goodness Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC) also spoke and countering the spin from Gatwick and the eight-page document read out by Gatwick Diamond!

With reference to the thoughts of Cllr Frances Haigh, LibDem, detailed in the County Times last week, I make the following points.

During the recent Liberal Democrat conference Gatwick Airport were openly criticised for their expensive lobbying.

Gatwick were very busy during party conferences, Labour gave the CEO of Gatwick a platform nearly every day to sell spin; the Conservatives were bombarded by advertisements on political websites as well as all Gatwick senior management being present throughout to lobby.

The LibDem conference voted to keep policy to oppose building a new runway in the SouthEast and yet Horsham LibDems announced they will vote against national policy.

Surrey LibDems see the problems with expanding Gatwick and spoke strongly against Frances Haigh at the LibDem Conference, as did many other councillors, because they know what it will mean to our area and our quality of life.

Who can we trust when local representatives do not conform to what is democratically voted on by a national political party?

Perhaps this decision is too important to be left to WSCC *West Sussex County Council) and HDC (Horsham District Council) councillors and perhaps a referendum should be conducted as to whether we residents want to support Gatwick’s desire to urbanise our rural towns, villages and parishes of West Sussex?

It would seem from Ms Haigh’s pieces that HDC LibDems are to support an offshore company that will have sold in 2018, before any Gatwick  tarmac is laid .

We, on the other hand, will be left with the fallout of an inward migration of workers, all looking for affordable houses, using our roads, rail, hospitals, GPs and schools. Workers that will change the job market in this area as they, and their families, look for work.

Employers in our area already see Gatwick as a drain on quality staff and this huge influx will change salary structures and could well force companies to relocate. Gatwick, itself, had staffing problems and had to bus in staff from Southampton during the luggage fiasco, and airlines’ UK based food suppliers already advertise jobs in Portugal for catering staff.

Frances Haigh represents Horsham Park; well ADNID (Gatwick’s new flight path) gave Horsham North residents aircraft noise impact so Wizard (another flight path route) should be a major concern for Horsham!

There is thinking that as urban areas have a daily decibel noise of about 70 plus that an aircraft above would not really be noticed by residents, so instead of victimising all those that chose tranquillity, to live in rural parishes around Horsham, planes should fly over Horsham.

What about emissions and pollution from road and air? The South-East recently faced high pollution levels, during a particular weather pattern. What will adding an airport with 96 million passengers (Heathrow 72.3 million last year)  joined by 122,000 inward migrating workers, do to traffic on the roads, adding to our pollution levels as well as emissions from aircraft overhead?

What about national policy that the Climate Change Act cannot be ignored and that a new runway in the South-East would mean regional airports would have to reduce capacity, potentially increasing unemployment in other regions?  See a recent report

http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/wwf_regional_airports_report1.pdf  for more details on that.

A new runway at Gatwick will bring economic gridlock to the South-East; the South-East that finances all those unemployed in the North as the South-East comes to a pollution, overcrowded standstill.

The Airports Commission was given the job of finding a location for a new runway in the South-East. It was not asked to look at the national framework of spare capacity at Luton and Stansted nor will Sir Howard Davies look at the widening divide between North / South divide; that is not in his brief.

Sir Howard Davies will receive his peerage and be gone, similar to the executives at Gatwick Airport who are spending so much time and money trying to convince our councillors to support their plans.

Next year is election time for MPs and councillors, so residents will have a chance to express their views. Obviously some party members are not yet listening to us voters.

Residents should contact councillors now as HDC and WSCC will respond to the Airport Commission consultation this autumn!

SALLY PAVEY

Chair, Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions (CAGNE), Mayes Lane, Warnham

http://www.westsussextoday.co.uk/news/letters/letter-politicians-are-not-listening-to-voters-1-6376791

.


 

The next West Sussex County Council elections will take place in May 2017

Many district councils have elections for one third of their members each year.

Horsham election details at  http://www.horsham.gov.uk/electionspages/elections/forthcoming-elections


.

Earlier:

West Sussex County Council gives its backing to 2nd runway plan for Gatwick

The leader of of West Sussex County Council, Mrs Louise Goldman, has welcomed the principle of creating a 2nd Gatwick runway and full airport expansion.  This is nearly 35 years after the local authority signed a legal agreement restricting the airport to one runway. She said the county could not be preserved in aspic;  and if it was to continue to provide quality jobs for its young people as well as take seriously its responsibilities to an ageing population, it had to make economic growth a priority. Somehow she manages to square that with saying she does did not mean abandoning the environment. “Quite the reverse. I have always considered myself to be an environmentalist, and protecting everything that makes West Sussex a unique place of beauty in which to live, work, and visit, remains enormously important.” And she has the naive hope that “ensuring that we mitigate environmental concerns as much as we possibly can,” will get over environmental problems.  Her forthright and unequivocal statement came as Gatwick Airport will submit its planning proposals for expansion on 23rd July. 

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=2288

.


.

Study finds a 2nd Gatwick runway could require 40,000 new houses – a town the size of Crawley

A study by independent consultants jointly commissioned by the West Sussex County Council and the Gatwick Diamond business association has found that the total number of houses in Crawley at present is around 40,000, and some 30,000 – 45,000 new houses would be needed if a new runway is built at Gatwick. The study predicts that the number of jobs created by a new runway plus the number of jobs created in firms attracted to the area by doubling the size of Gatwick would be far in excess of any available labour. That would require a substantial influx of workers from other parts of the UK or from the EU. Local councils, which are already struggling to find sites for the current demand for housing – without Gatwick expansion. Councils would need to decide whether to build a whole new town or whether to add hundreds of new houses to every town and village – perhaps a thousand houses added to forty villages!  A new runway would lead to widespread urbanisation of parts of rural Sussex and Surrey, and the “dream” could turn into a nightmare.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/study-finds-a-2nd-gatwick-runway-could-require-40000-new-houses-a-town-the-size-of-crawley/

.


Gatwick’s runway plans would mean labour shortage, considerable local house building and traffic congestion

If Heathrow or Gatwick got permission to build a new runway, both would struggle to find enough workers locally.  Both are in areas of high employment. Workers would have to either be drawn in from elsewhere, commuting in each day – or a lot of extra housing would have to be built to house them. Both areas already have substantial problems in providing sufficient housing, even at present. More jobs are needed outside the south east. Gatwick claims 122,000 new jobs would be created by a new runway, with 22,000 in the immediate vicinity of the airport.  The airport’s labour shortage was underlined this summer when delays at baggage reclaim forced Gatwick to bus in extra staff from Southampton. Crispin Blunt, MP for Reigate, said the shortage was a “deal breaker” and “Gatwick are proposing an airport busier than Heathrow….which has 43,100 more people on-site today. Therefore the on-site job forecast is probably an underestimate by a factor of two. Gatwick can’t man this airport without a massive increase in local house building.”  A study by independent consultants jointly commissioned by the West Sussex County Council and the Gatwick Diamond, in early 2013, found that 30,000 – 45,000 new houses would be needed if Gatwick got a 2nd runway.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/gatwicks-runway-plans-would-mean-labour-shortage-considerable-local-house-building-and-traffic-congestion/

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

.

 

 

 

Read more »

Monarch Airlines sold by Mantegazza family to Greybull Capital, trying to make a go of it

Monarch has been trying to compete against easyJet and Ryanair.  It has already axed 700 jobs out of its 3,000 employees and reduce its aircraft fleet to 34 from 42.  The airline will now re-focus solely on short-haul European flights and ditch charter flights. Monarch has now agreed a rescue deal that will result in Switzerland’s Mantegazza dynasty, who started the business with just two aircraft in Luton in 1968, selling up completely. The family is impatient with the airline’s financial troubles after Monarch asked for a third bailout in July despite already injecting £75m into the business in 2011, just two years after putting £45m into the business. Investment firm Greybull Capital has now agreed to pump £125m of permanent capital and liquidity facilities into Monarch. Greybull sees the deal as a “long-term investment”, and will own 90% of the airline. The remaining 10% is held by Monarch’s pension fund, which has a reported to have a deficit of more than £300m. Monarch had some 6,248,160 passengers in 2013 compared with Ryanair at 81,400,000  and EasyJet at 61,332,800. 
.

 

Monarch Airlines rescued as Mantegazzas take flight

Greybull Capital pumps £125m into struggling airline as Switzerland’s wealthy Mantegazza family, who founded the business in 1968, exit entirely

By Ashley Armstrong, M&A Reporter (Telegraph)

24 Oct 2014

Monarch Airlines has agreed a rescue deal that will result in Switzerland’s Mantegazza dynasty, who started the business with just two aircraft in Luton in 1968, selling up completely.

Family patriarch Sergio Mantegazza is understood to have become impatient with the airline’s financial troubles after Monarch asked for a third bailout in July despite already injecting £75m into the business in 2011, just two years after putting £45m into the business.

Investment firm Greybull Capital has now agreed to pump £125m of permanent capital and liquidity facilities into Monarch, which has been anchored by a £50m investment.

As a result Greybull, which sees the deal as a “long-term investment”, will own 90pc of the airline, with the remaining 10pc held by Monarch’s pension protection fund. The carrier’s pension fund reportedly has a deficit of more than £300m by some calculations.

Andrew Swaffield, Monarch chief executive, said: “I am delighted to welcome the Greybull team as the new owners of the Monarch Group. We have a shared vision for the strategic direction and prospects for the business, and I am looking forward to working with them to implement the exciting plans for building our future.”

Greybull’s investment was contingent on Monarch’s turnaround plan being sucessful. The airline has already axed 700 jobs out of its 3,000 employees and reduce its aircraft fleet to 34 from 42. The airline will now recfocus solely on short-haul European flights and ditch charter flights.

The terms were agreed on Friday night at law firm Freshfield’s offices, just hours ahead of Monarch’s licence with the Civil Aviation Authority expiring.

Monarch required as much as £60m to shore up its finances, but the situation was considered so dire that restructuring specialists KPMG were waiting in the wings in case a search for a new investor failed.

The search for a new financial backer by Dean Street Advisors, the boutique advisory firm founded by investment bankers Mervyn Metcalf and Graeme Atkinson, and aviation advisory firm Seabury Capital drew interest from private equity investors and venture capitalist Jon Moulton’s Better Capital.

Greybull Capital was founded in 2010 by financier brothers Nathaniel and Marc Meyohas, who were pushed into the spotlight as one of the backers of Comet, only for the electricals chain to collapse months later with 7,000 jobs lost. Greybull’s structured financing meant that it recouped most of its money after the collapse.

Sergio Mantegazza is worth $4.7bn (£2.8bn), according to Forbes magazine.
Commenting on behalf of the selling shareholders, Fabio Mantegazza said: “We are very proud to have created one of the most loved aviation brands in the UK over the past 46 years. We think that now is an appropriate time to allow new shareholders to take Monarch into the future, with secure financial backing and clear strategic goals and we wish the Group every success.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11186804/Monarch-Airlines-rescued-as-Mantegazzas-take-flight.html

 

 

Monarch had some 6,248,160 in 2013 compared with Ryanair at 81,400,000  and EasyJet at 61,332,800.

Anna Aero http://www.anna.aero/wp-content/uploads/european-airlines-traffic-trends.xls


 

 

Earlier:

Monarch airlines plans to slash workforce by 1,000 jobs, up to 30%, to compete with Ryanair and EasyJet

Up to 1,000 jobs, about one third of its work force, will be cut at Monarch as it tries an overhaul to reposition itself as a low-cost airline competing with easyJet and Ryanair. Monarch is currently controlled by a wealthy Swiss-Italian family,  and has been undertaking a strategic review of its business in order  to attract new investors. It will drop its charter flights and focus on short-haul scheduled flights. It will cut its fleet of aircraft from 42 to 30. It will keep its focus on holiday destinations like Spain, the Canary Islands and Turkey but add more European cities and skiing destinations. Overall, it will fly more frequently to fewer destinations. Monarch has its HQ at Luton airport, is made up of Monarch Airlines, tour operator Cosmos Holidays and an aircraft maintenance division. They will no longer fly from East Midlands Airport. Monarch’s MD said “We’re on a trajectory of changing from a charter airline to a scheduled European low-cost carrier.” They recently ordered new planes, at the Farnborough air show.  This is a £1.75bn order for 30 new Boeing 737 aircraft to be delivered by 2020. They carried about 6.8 million passengers in 2013.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/monarch-airlines-plans-to-slash-workforce-by-1000-jobs-up-to-30-to-compete-with-ryanair-and-easyjet/

.

.

.

Read more »

MPs in areas affected by Gatwick say its expansion is a ‘disaster waiting to happen’

Crispin Blunt and other local MPs in the areas around Gatwick have written to Stewart Wingate to tell him that his runway proposals are a “pipe dream. ” The MPs say Gatwick’s runway application is “a developmental disaster waiting to happen”, and local communities are not large enough to support the planned expansion. They warn that planned upgrades to transport links, to deal with the current crowding, will not be sufficient for a possible trebling of current passenger numbers. Adding a runway will result in gridlocked traffic on the M23 and train problems, as more air passengers want to travel with large luggage items. Gatwick claims it can meet local air quality targets, which Heathrow cannot, but if Gatwick grows to approach the size Heathrow is now, it will have the same air quality problems. The MPs say: “The sooner this damaging pipe dream is abandoned, the better for its neighbours.” Also that there is very low local unemployment, and already a “desperate” shortage of housing. “Gatwick’s blithe assumption that the additional housing need would be met by local authorities’ existing development plans is wholly incredible”.
.

 

Gatwick expansion a ‘disaster waiting to happen’

Crispin Blunt and other local MPs tell Stewart Wingate his proposals for a second runway are a “pipe dream”

By Nick Collins, Transport Correspondent (Telegraph)

25 Oct 2014

Gatwick Airport’s application for a second runway is “a developmental disaster waiting to happen”, a group of local MPs has claimed.

Local communities are not large enough to support the planned expansion while planned upgrades to transport links will not be sufficient for a possible trebling of current passenger numbers, they warned.

The politicians, from nearby constituencies in Sussex, Surrey and Kent, added that the proposals would result in gridlocked traffic on the M23 and more of the baggage handling chaos seen at the airport this summer.

It came as Gatwick launched a new report claiming that even with a second runway it would be able to meet EU and UK air quality targets, in contrast to Heathrow which is already in breach of standards and has raised the possibility of introducing a congestion charge.
Gatwick and Heathrow are the only airports shortlisted for expansion by Sir Howard Davies, the chairman of the Airports Commission, which is due to deliver its final report after the General Election next year.

In a letter to Stewart Wingate, chief executive of Gatwick, this week Crispin Blunt and the other members of the Gatwick Coordination Group – Sir Paul Beresford, Sir Nicholas Soames, Sir John Stanley and Charles Hendry – claimed that “Heathrow’s plan for a third runway and attendant infrastructure improvements are, at least, plausible.

“The sooner this damaging pipe dream is abandoned, the better for its neighbours, and the real answer to the future of the UK’s aviation capacity can be reached.”

Gatwick’s application “lacks any serious proposals” on providing the transport infrastructure needed to support a second runway, suggesting that passenger numbers could treble from the current levels, they said.

They also claimed that Gatwick’s forecast of 22,000 new jobs on site and another 100,000 in the local area by 2050 “ignores the stark reality” that there are only 26,000 people claiming jobseekers’ allowance in the local area, and there is a “desperate” shortage of housing.

“As this summer’s disruption to luggage handling showed, Gatwick and its contractors already find it difficult to find workers to properly staff a single runway airport,” they said.
“Gatwick’s blithe assumption that the additional housing need would be met by local authorities’ existing development plans is wholly incredible”.

A spokesperson for Gatwick Airport said: “Our studies show that expansion at Gatwick would deliver many upsides for our local community in terms of jobs and investment.
“We take concerns expressed by our neighbours seriously which is why we have pledged significant funds to help local authorities deliver any required new homes and infrastructure.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/11186182/Gatwick-expansion-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen.html

.


.

Earlier:

MPs initiate “Gatwick Coordination Group” – saying 2nd runway is not in the local or national interest

MPs Crispin Blunt,  Sir Paul Beresford,  Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Soames,  Rt Hon Sir John Stanley, and Charles Hendry have formed the Gatwick Coordination Group.  The Group is established to represent the serious local concern at the plan for a 2nd runway. The MPs’ group released a statement saying they believe a 2nd Gatwick runway would be a disaster for the surrounding communities and environment. They say the level of development, associated with an airport serving nearly three times as many passengers as it does now, would devastate the local environment and leave the UK with its major airport in the wrong place. Also that there is no adequate plan yet presented to provide the necessary infrastructure, of all types, to support this development. “The size of the Gatwick site only lends itself to a single runway airport, serving as a sensible, competitive alternate to London’s main hub airport. While they pursue that objective, Gatwick Airport Limited will have our support, but this proposal is not in the local interest, nor is it in the national interest, and this group will work to prove that case.”

.
http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/mps-initiate-gatwick-coordination-group-saying-2nd-runway-is-not-in-the-local-or-national-interest/

.

 

 

MPs initiate “Gatwick Coordination Group”

 MONDAY 16th JUNE 2014 (GACC – Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign)

MPs Crispin Blunt, Sir Paul Beresford, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas Soames, Rt Hon Sir John Stanley, and Charles Hendry have formed the Gatwick Coordination Group following a meeting at the House of Commons on Wednesday 11th June 2014.

The Gatwick Coordination Group is established to represent the serious local concern at the plan for a second runway at Gatwick Airport which has been shortlisted by the Davies Commission.

Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) has made its submission to Sir Howard Davies, which is yet to be published.  Sir Howard’s Commission will make its recommendation on airport capacity to the Government in 2015.

The MPs’ group released the following statement:

“We believe that the building of a second runway at Gatwick airport would be a disaster for the surrounding communities and environment. The level of development, associated with an airport serving nearly three times as many passengers as it does now, would devastate the local environment and leave the UK with its major airport in the wrong place.

“There is also no adequate plan yet presented to provide the necessary infrastructure, of all types, to support this development.

“The size of the Gatwick site only lends itself to a single runway airport, serving as a sensible, competitive alternate to London’s main hub airport. While they pursue that objective, Gatwick Airport Limited will have our support, but this proposal is not in the local interest, nor is it in the national interest, and this group will work to prove that case.”

.

As a local constituency MP who serves in the Government, Francis Maude is not able to endorse the above statement but wishes to be kept informed of the progress of the group.

The group is chaired by Crispin Blunt MP – Office: 0207 219 2254; Mobile: 07921039891.

.

.

.

 

 

Read more »