Stansted is planning to quadruple the number of long-haul flights it offers, as delays and uncertainty continue on whether there will be a Heathrow’s 3rd runway. Stansted, as London’s 3rd largest airport, is already expanding the number of long-haul services it offers, as it begins to shift away from being a traditional hub for short-haul tourist flights. Fly Emirates will start a daily service from the airport to Dubai next week, and Primera air has also announced four new transatlantic routes from Stansted to New York, Boston, Toronto and Washington that will start this year. Stansted wants others too and its Chief Executive Ken O’Toole said that up to 25 long-haul routes had been earmarked that eventually might take the total to 33 direct long-haul destinations. It is building a new £130 million arrivals terminal, which will be complete in 2021. It is also applying to Uttlesford district council to lift the existing cap on passenger numbers from 35 million to 43 million per year – about the same size as Gatwick. Stansted airport, owned by Manchester Airports Group, believes that airlines were being attracted to Stansted due to becoming frustrated with constraints at both Heathrow and Gatwick.
Stansted long-haul flights could quadruple as Heathrow debates third runway
The airport plans a major increase in long-haul flights as it builds its new arrivals terminal
By Oliver MacKenzie
28 MAY 2018
Stansted Airport is planning to quadruple the number of long-haul flights it offers as delays continue on Heathrow’s third runway construction.
London’s third airport is already expanding the number of long-haul services it offers, as it begins to shift away from being a traditional hub for short-haul tourist flights.
Fly Emirates will start a daily service from the airport to Dubai next week, and Primera air has also announced four new transatlantic routes from Stansted to New York, Boston, Toronto and Washington that will start this year.
However, Stansted hopes that this will be the tip of the iceberg of the number of lon-haul flights it will provide. The Airport’s Chief Executive Ken O’Toole said that up to 25 long-haul routes had been earmarked that eventually would take the total to 33 direct long-haul destinations.
Mr O’Toole also confirmed he was in advanced talks with other airlines both budget and full-service, to create new flights to North America, The Middle East and Eastern Asia.
Why Stansted is expanding its long-haul flight offerings
Stansted has held ambitions of being much more than just a hub for tourists for a number of years now.
Whilst delays and debate continue on Heathrow’s potential third runway and a rail link to create a “Heath-wick” joint hub, London’s third airport hopes it can steal a march on its two biggest competitors.
Key to these plans was securing a new £130 million arrivals terminal, which will be complete in 2021.
Now the airport is applying to Uttlesford district council to lift the existing cap on passenger numbers from 35 million to 43 million a year.
London Stansted Airport is the third largest in London (4th in UK) serving over 24 million passengers a year.
If they are successful with their appeal, and can charter enough flights to run passenger numbers up to the cap, Stansted could become London’s second biggest airport over Gatwick, and third biggest in the county.
The Airport, which is owned by Manchester Airports Group, believes that airlines were being attracted to Stansted due to becoming frustrated with constraints at both Heathrow and Gatwick.
This is not the only expansion the group is working on however, as it also has big ambitions for Manchester Airport to become the UK’s second biggest airport behind Heathrow, as once its £1billion upgrade is complete, the airport could carry 50 million passengers per year.
Heathrow insists that flights can be operational from the new runway by the end of 2025, but Mr O’Toole predicted that expansion would be 10 to 15 years away because of legal challenges.
“Airlines are recognising that London as a market is constrained,” he said. “We see Stansted, for a number of reasons, playing a much bigger role.”
He said that the “biggest driver of aviation growth” was still going to be “short-haul, point-to-point traffic”. Stansted is Ryanair’s biggest British base.
However, speaking to The Times, he said: “I think there are 20 to 25 long-haul routes that will be delivered from Stansted primarily because people don’t want to commit to three hours driving around the M25 to reach Heathrow or Gatwick.”
tansted Airport expansion plans will ‘ambush local communities and residents,’ according to Uttlesford Liberal Democrats
April 22, 2018
Uttlesford Liberal Democrats say that Stansted Airport is seeking to ‘ambush local communities and residents’ with its plans to become the UK’s 2nd biggest airport. They say the submitted planning application is “unravelling under the pressure of public scrutiny” and Stansted is not being ‘open’ with local residents. Thaxted Councillor Martin Foley said public opinion is not being taken into account, nor is there enough consideration in regards to the additional traffic following the expansion, branding plans too “simplistic”. The airport is “not being open and transparent in their application to expand its capacity to 43+ million passengers per annum.” …“Firstly, they have buried their demand for the removal of current restrictions on night flights at Stansted in an appendix to their main application.” Public consultation events have not been properly promoted, and the airport’s “assessment of the impact of the additional traffic generated by the expansion is simplistic and rudimentary.” Implausibly, the airport’s CEO tries to make out there will be a lower noise impact, even with 8 million more annual passengers (35 million up to 43 million).
Stop Stansted Expansion raises night flights and ‘noise nightmare’ concerns over airport’s expansion plans
April 20, 2018
Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) says the airport wants to change conditions which have prevented it from lobbying government for more night flights. The plans were “buried” within its planning application to expand its annual throughput of passengers from 35 million to up to 43m. It claimed it was “a clandestine attempt to betray the community”, as it raised concerns about sleep disturbance and adverse health impacts caused by night flights. “For years SSE has been calling for tougher controls to bear down on the impacts night flights have on sleep disturbance and the quality of life and wellbeing of people across the region,” said SSE noise adviser Martin Peachey. “Stansted is already allowed more than twice as many night flights as Heathrow, and night flights are set to be completely banned at Heathrow within the next 10 years as a condition of expansion.” The airport says it is not seeking any change to current night flight limits, as the limit is already set above current usage. SSE are also concerned that the long haul and freight aircraft which airport owners Manchester Airports Group (MAG) is hoping to attract to Stansted are “typically larger and noisier than most aircraft types currently based there” and with less stringent night noise controls, these could become a serious noise problem for local residents.
Stop Stansted Expansion asks Government to call in the airport’s expansion plans, or face a JR
March 20, 2018
Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) have written a 36-page letter to the Secretary for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Sajiv Javid MP, asking formally for call-in of the application by Stansted for expansion. They include District Council incompetence, bias and a series of statutory planning grounds, as reasons why the airport’s expansion plans should be determined nationally – rather than locally by Uttlesford District Council (UDC). SSE has also made clear that refusal by the Secretary of State to call-in the application will trigger an application for Judicial Review in the High Court. SSE is concerned that UDC has taken a blinkered approach to the rules for considering the application in its desire to do the airport’s bidding. UDC sees potential gain for itself, even though the planned expansion would be at the expense of not only the Uttlesford villages and market towns it is meant to serve, but communities further afield in Essex, Hertfordshire, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. SSE’s barrister, a planning expert Paul Stinchcombe QC of 39 Essex Chambers has identified that UDC has erred in law in its interpretation of the rules by not recognising the application as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. If the Stansted application was approved, it would mean a 66% increase in passengers and a 44% increase in flights compared to 2017.
Stop Stansted Expansion critical of airport expansion application, bypassing local authority scrutiny
March 9, 2018
Stansted Airport has applied to increase the current cap on annual passenger numbers from 35 million to 43 million passengers, in what campaigners say is a ‘sweetheart’ deal with local planning authorities to avoid government scrutiny. The application to Uttlesford District Council (UDC) seeks permission to increase the use of its single runway over the next 10 years. However, the Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) group said the application was misleading in claiming that further expansion of the airport would have no significant environmental impacts. SSE said it was “profoundly concerned at the lengths Manchester Airports Group (MAG) is prepared to go to to avoid scrutiny by secretary of State by amending passenger numbers” as they are trying to keep the expansion to 8 million, rather than 10 million, passengers – avoiding the application being dealt with as a major infrastructure project. SSE said it understands that in return for local planning approval from the district council, MAG might make financial contributions to help fund local road schemes and other local projects in the delivery of the local plan. SSE said: “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that a 44% increase in the number of flights and a 66% increase in the number of passengers means a lot more noise, a lot more pollution and a lot more traffic on our already congested local roads.”
A number of business lobby groups have signed a letter to Theresa May, saying the government needs to “get on with expanding the UK’s airport capacity”. The letter has only been sent, due to Heathrow – and Chris Grayling – lobbying the companies to send it. The same business groups have lobbied many times before, in favour of the 3rd runway. The claim is that, (despite all the financial uncertainties, the fact Heathrow is in the wrong location, and its immensely damaging environmental impacts) the runway will somehow help Britain cope with the problems Brexit will cause. The groups that put their name to the letter were the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the EEF – The Manufacturers’ Organisation, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and airport expansion lobby group London First. The timing of the letter, which has been published by Heathrow, is particularly important, because Heathrow wants the required vote to approve the draft Airports NPS (ie. the Heathrow 3rd runway) to go ahead as planned before September because then MPs will be more pre-occupied with Brexit.
Business groups write to PM urging Heathrow expansion
By Tom Espiner
(Business reporter, BBC News)
27th May 2018
Theresa May has been urged to stick to the government’s timetable for having a vote on Heathrow expansion.
A number of business lobby groups have signed a letter saying the government needs to “get on with expanding the UK’s airport capacity”.
The BBC understands that the idea for the letter came from Heathrow itself.
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has also been asking business groups to support the expansion plans, the BBC has learned.
The business organisations that signed the letter have all come out in favour of Heathrow expansion in the past.
The letter sent to Number 10 said: “As Brexit approaches, Heathrow expansion is crucial to making sure the UK remains an outward-looking trading nation and is well-equipped to compete on the world stage.
“For British businesses, the benefits of expansion have always been clear: connections to new markets and trading opportunities, with better links with regional airports across the UK a boost to British exports, and a skills legacy for future generations.”
The letter adds that the UK is losing ground to competition from European airports.
“There are many unknowns for businesses surrounding Britain’s future trading arrangements, but what is absolutely certain is that our economic success depends on securing Heathrow’s future as a leading international airport,” it adds.
The groups that put their name to the letter were the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses, the EEF – The Manufacturers’ Organisation, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and airport expansion lobby group London First.
The BBC understands that these organisations were asked by Heathrow to lobby the government collectively via the letter.
The timing of the letter, which has been published by Heathrow, is particularly important.
The government is due to timetable a vote on the Airports National Policy Statement, which is going to set out its airport infrastructure policy – including Heathrow expansion – in the first half of the year.
Heathrow regularly has meetings with the business lobby groups, and its position is that the groups sent the letter out of a mutual desire to get the vote tabled, the BBC understands.
It was expected that the vote would happen before the summer recess, which runs from 24 July to 4 September.
The business lobby groups and Heathrow want the vote to go ahead as planned before September because then MPs will be more pre-occupied with Brexit.
The terms for Britain to leave the EU need to be concluded by 30 September 2018 under a timetable set by the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier.
The UK vote on the Airports National Policy Statement will be tabled after a process is set in motion by Transport Secretary Chris Grayling.
He in turn has been lobbying business groups for support for the government’s Heathrow expansion plans to try to get MPs to vote in favour.
Conservative MPs are likely to vote with the government. Unions and many Labour MPs also support expansion, but the Labour leadership in the past has come out against Heathrow expansion on environmental grounds.
City ramps up pressure on politicians to push ahead with Heathrow runway, after likelihood of delays
September 18, 2017
The City of London Corporation has taken the opportunity of the Lib Dem Party Conference to urge the party “to not stand in the way of Heathrow expansion”. The Corporation’s policy chair Catherine McGuinness, said: “Increased airport capacity at Heathrow is near the top of the list when we speak to firms about what can do to help them trade more, create jobs and invest for the future.” (Many other surveys of businesses over the years do not show this – but it depends on which firms are sampled). Speaking at the party conference yesterday, Lib Dem leader Vince Cable (a long term opponent of the runway) said: “I want our party to remain where we were, which is opposed to Heathrow expansion, strong on the environment, protective of our climate change obligations, but committed to support business, but in a practical way that rebalances the UK.” The Labour party is also known to be very divided on the issue of Heathrow, with a lot of opposition. Some Labour MPs have been misled by inaccurate forecasts of jobs that the runway might create. Big business tends to stand with its colleague, Heathrow. The CBI wants progress on the runway quickly, and the Institute of Directors said after waiting years, they want to see “spades in the ground” at Heathrow.
The Institute of Directors want government to allow two new runways – not just Heathrow
May 17, 2017
The Institute of Directors (IOD) are firmly convinced that people should fly more, and so the south east needs more runway capacity. They appear to be entirely convinced by the publicity Heathrow has put out about the alleged benefits a 3rd runway would bring. But they want more than just one runway. The IODs wants the government, after the 8th June election, to build two more runways, and a follow-up Airports Commission be established. They want a fast-track commission be set up immediately to recommend locations for two additional runways within a year. Plans for a 3rd Heathrow runway need the draft National Policy Statement to be voted through parliament, perhaps early in 2018 and then several years of planning process. At the earliest the runway might be in use some time after 2025. Numbers of air passengers are rising quickly, as flying is so cheap and the moderately affluent in the UK get richer. The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has also called for the next government to enable a 2nd runway at Gatwick to help create a “megacity”. While Gatwick was shortlisted as a candidate for a new runway by the Airports Commission, other airports such as Stansted and Birmingham would be likely to push hard should a future opportunity emerge.
Group of business people, led by London First, again lobby Transport Secretary for airport expansion
February 14, 2014
More lobbying by big business backers of aviation expansion continues, as the try to persuade the government that everything must be done to expand current capacity, even before the runway they want gets built. They claim this is important for the UK economy, and necessary for the UK to “stay internationally competitive.” Some 52 business people have signed a letter to the Transport Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin, published in the Telegraph (where else ?) putting their demands. They want ministers to act on interim recommendations made by the Airports Commission, such as more Heathrow flights, and improving rail access to Stansted and Gatwick. They want action quickly and presume that adding more runway capacity for more people to take more leisure flights will somehow boost “UK’s global competitiveness”.They also want an independent ombudsman to oversee changes to restrictions on the timing of flights at Heathrow, to try and get over opposition to more flights, and night flights, which is partly what prevents another Heathrow runway. They want more flights, regardless of the impacts on those overflown or living near airports.
Heathrow has published the results from its Fly Quiet & Green programme for 2018 Quarter 1. Unfortunately it seems determined to persist with the flaky arithmetic and absence of logic and common sense that characterised the results for previous quarters (which remain unaltered). For Q1, as with previous quarters, league table scores have again been inflated, this time by an average of around 44% compared to the results that are produced when Heathrow’s own published methodology and performance rankings are used. Once again that increase has not been applied uniformly across all 50 airlines (a number of them have been awarded more than double the number of points that they merit), with the result that the relative league table positions are significantly altered. Below are some examples, from consultancy, AvGen, showing the arbitrary results – which do not appear to be based on much logic – of airlines being put into higher and lower rankings, based on their noise and emissions. By contrast with the Heathrow figures, those from AvGen show the greenest airline is Aer Lingus – not Scandinavian. The second greenest is Finnair, not LOT Polish Airlines. Curious that Heathrow does such odd things with the data …. . Tweet
With the Heathrow scoring system on noise, the higher the score, the “greener” the airline supposedly is (N.B. “greener” covers CO2 and NOx emissions as well, not just noise).
Why do Heathrow inflate all the scores? AvGen says this is presumably to make airlines, overall, look better than their performance actually merits.
This gives the comment of someone who attended this meeting:
“My impression of the discussion [about the Fly Quite & Clean programme] at HCNF was that Heathrow made no attempt to defend their methodology and answer any detailed criticisms from AvGen – but rather just stated that their purpose with FlyQuiet was to promote active engagement with airlines to improve their practices and they were comfortable with how they were doing it.
“It left me with the impression that they could well manipulate the figures to pick off particular airlines when they felt it appropriate to do so and reward others in a somewhat arbitrary process. They say they have responded to AvGen – it would interesting to see what they said and hear their views on the rigour and impartiality of the process.”
(For the record, Heathrow have never entered into any meaningful discussion with AvGen regarding the variation between their findings and those of Heathrow.)
AvGen suggests that, to really show up the Heathrow system, people should challenge the airport to identify how many points, from the total number awarded to each airline, relate to the Track-keeping metric. There is no way they can answer that question without exposing their flawed calculations.
The two sets of rankings – Heathrow’s and AvGen’s
Some details taken from a larger table from AvGen, showing the different rankings by Heathrow, compared by those obtained by AvGen.
Among the many anomalies in the Q1 results are:
a First placed airline Aer Lingus, with 834 points, is arbitrarily demoted to the Number 3 slot in the table, while 3rd placed Scandinavian is bizarrely awarded the Number One position.
b Lufthansa and Austrian are given an unjustified hike up the table (by 10 places each).
c Air Malta and South African, whose performance qualifies them for joint 19th place with 583 points each are inexplicably awarded 13th and 27th place respectively and separated by 86 points (see attached worked example).
d Other airlines entitled to feel aggrieved with this quarter’s published results include China Southern (yet again), though this time they are only relegated 11 places from their rightful position compared to 20 in the last quarter, together with Aeroflot and Alitalia (both demoted by 10 positions).
e “RAG” (red/amber/green) classifications are again applied inconsistently; for example Qantas and El Al, ranked 44th and 45th respectively by Heathrow for early/late movements, get an “Amber” for that category while BA Longhaul, ranked 38th for that metric by Heathrow, gets a “Red”.
f Heathrow’s results, which aim to compare the “top 50” airlines (defined by number of flights in Q1) completely omit Vueling and Japan Airlines, while Korean, PIA and Kuwait (all with far fewer flights) are included.
Attached is AvGen’s detailed audit of the Q1 results, contrasting Heathrow’s scores and league table placings with those calculated by AvGen using Heathrow’s own published methodology and metric performance rankings. We have copied these to Heathrow.
Also attached is AvGen’s HEMMS (Heathrow Environmental Metric Monitoring System) report for 2018 Q1, showing the airlines’ relative rankings for each of the 7 metrics and the corrected Fly Quiet & Green points values.
The good, the bad and the noisy: Heathrow reveals its greenest and quietest airlines
International Airport Review
The latest league table rated the performance of the top 50 busiest airlines on seven noise and emission metrics from January to March 2018.
London Heathrow Airport has published a list ranking its airlines by their green and conscientious practices for the first quarter of the year.
LOT Polish Airlines proved to be the success story of Heathrow’s Fly Quiet and Green Programme, having completely transformed its noise and emissions performance – from last place in the first league rankings in 2013 to second place in the latest results. Scandinavian Airlines leapt into the top spot from fifth in the last quarter. Aer Lingus came in third, Etihad in fourth and Flybe was the new fifth place. British Airways short haul came in sixth.
Down at the bottom end of the table, Egypt Air short haul came last with the lowest score in noise quota per seat, chapter number and track keeping violations. It replaced Kuwait Airlines which has now risen to second last, beneath Turkish Airlines short haul and Israels El Al.
AWARDS 2018: SUBMISSIONS ARE NOW OPEN!
These awards, designed for airports and suppliers alike, recognise the significant impact best practice and innovative solutions can have on improving the operations of an Airport. Deadline to submit your entry is 21 June.
Matt Gorman, Heathrow’s Director of Sustainability said: “As the first initiative of its kind in Europe, it was hard to estimate the impact the ‘Fly Quiet and Green’ league table would have when it was first launched. LOT Polish Airline’s story, however, shows the results that can be achieved by working productively with our airline partners to encourage them to use quieter technology and operating procedures for the benefit of our local neighbours.
“We know there is always more we can do to reduce our noise impacts, and we have set some ambitious targets in our new Noise Action Plan. We encourage all of our local neighbours to give us their feedback on this plan, and help us shape the way we manage noise in the future.”
The seven metrics were:
Noise quota per seat – a relative noise “efficiency” metric which scores the noise efficiency of an operator’s fleet, recognising that whilst larger aircraft tend to be noisier they also carry more passengers (Best: British Airways short haul, Worst: Egypt Airshort haul)
Chapter number (noise certification) – each individual aircraft’s noise certificate against ICAO’s standards or ‘Chapters’ (Best: FlyBe, Worst: Egypt Air)
CAEP standard (engine emissions certification) – each engine’s emissions against engine against the emissions standards produced and published by the ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (Best: Qantas Airways/Air India/Flybe, Worst: British Airways long haul)
Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) violations – CDA involves arriving aircraft maintaining a steady angle of approach during the descent towards the airport, as opposed to a stepped approach which involves periods of prolonged level flight (Best: Delta Airlines, Worst: Pakistan International Airlines)
Track keeping (TK) violations – the number of times aircraft deviated from the corridors of ‘noise preferential routes’ (NPRs) – 3km-wide corridors in the sky, designated by the Government to route aircraft away from more densely populated areas as far as possible – until they reach 4000ft above mean sea level (Best: Alitalia/TAP Portugal/Finnair/Aer Lingus, Worst: Egypt Air)
Early or late movements between 23:30 and 04:30 (Best: many airlines didn’t run flights between these hours at all, Worst: Malaysia Airlines)
Research indicates that noise is one of the biggest pollutants in modern cities but the risk is often overlooked despite being linked to an increased risk of early death. “Noise produces a stimulus to the central nervous system and this stimulus releases some hormones,” said Dr David Rojas from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health in Spain. ‘(This) increases the risk of hypertension, and hypertension has been related with many other cardiovascular (and) cerebrovascular diseases like infarction (heart attacks) and strokes.’ Dr Rojas, an environmental health researcher, says that despite the fact that noise pollution is a major public health problem in cities – and, in fact, beats air pollution as a risk factor in Barcelona – there is a tendency to overlook the problem because we can tune it out. “When we have a background noise, the brain has the capacity to adapt to this noise, and you don’t see it as an annoyance so much and you start to accept and adapt. But even if you are not conscious of the noise, this is still stimulating your organic system.” …”When you are in the city, we are not exposed to a single pollutant, we are exposed to a mix of things”… (air pollution, noise, the absence of green spaces and plants).
Noise pollution is one of the biggest health risks in city life
24 May 2018 (Horizon Magazine – European Commission)
Noise is one of the biggest pollutants in modern cities but the risk is often overlooked despite being linked to an increased risk of early death, according to research conducted by scientists.
‘Noise produces a stimulus to the central nervous system and this stimulus releases some hormones,’ said Dr David Rojas from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health in Spain. ‘(This) increases the risk of hypertension, and hypertension has been related with many other cardiovascular (and) cerebrovascular diseases like infarction (heart attacks) and strokes.’
He was speaking in Brussels, Belgium, on 23 May at the annual Green Week conference, part of a Europe-wide event to help people swap best practices on environmental activities and policies. This year’s focus is how the EU is helping cities to become better places to live and work.
Dr Rojas, an environmental health researcher, says that despite the fact that noise pollution is a major public health problem in cities – and, in fact, beats air pollution as a risk factor in Barcelona – there is a tendency to overlook the problem because we can tune it out.
‘When we have a background noise, the brain has the capacity to adapt to this noise,’ he said. ‘And you don’t see it as an annoyance so much and you start to accept and adapt. But even if you are not conscious of the noise, this is still stimulating your organic system.’
Dr Rojas’ research, which was carried out under the HELIX and PASTA projects, gathered data on the multiplicity of pollutants that we encounter in cities. He hopes the findings can be used to shape policies that could help improve health in urban areas.
For example, improving cycling infrastructure and encouraging parents to walk their children to school could not only cut noise and air pollution but would also improve levels of physical activity.
‘There are multiple benefits of good urban design,’ said Dr Rojas. ‘It’s not only air pollution or noise, it’s also physical activity, green spaces, (and) heat.’
As part of the HELIX project, Dr Rojas and his team measured the impact of encouraging all children who lived within 1 kilometre of a school to walk there each day. The result was a dramatic improvement in children’s health by reducing high blood pressure and obesity, as well as by avoiding a slew of minor road traffic injuries.
Their findings are also challenging the common misconceptions about whether the harm caused by air pollution counteracts the benefits of walking or cycling in cities. ‘The benefit is 70 times bigger than the risk,’ said Dr Rojas.
He added that while pregnant women and young children were particularly vulnerable to urban pollutants, the problem affects everybody, regardless of life stage, resulting in a large public health burden.
‘In the case of air pollution, even if we feel that we are not vulnerable – we are adults and we are healthy – we are suffering from this exposure. We are losing quality of life and quantity of life because we are exposed to these pollutants.’
The conference also heard about some of the nature-based innovations, such as urban greening, that are being adopted throughout Europe in order to improve the quality of city life.
Community gardens, living walls, and putting greenery in so-called grey spaces such as railway lines, are all examples of attempts to make urban areas more natural places to live and work, according to Dr Dora Almassy from the Central European University in Budapest, Hungary.
She has helped to compile a database of nature-based solutions being used in towns and cities around Europe to produce an urban nature atlas as part of a project called Naturvation.
‘More than half of the projects (in the database) provided benefits for the health and wellbeing of the citizens,’ she said.
This is because they create a healthier working environment and provide space for more leisure and recreational activities. Spending time in green spaces has also been linked to improved mental health, while such projects can also be used for food production and education. But not all of the projects achieve the same benefits for those who use them.
‘Certain types of nature-based solutions are better placed to improve the health of the citizens,’ said Dr Almassy. ‘These are community gardens, parks, or simple green grey infrastructures and … green roofs and green facades.’
One example is Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool, UK, which is was designed to have green spaces inside and out, exposing the children being treated there to a more natural environment. The plants are also used to produce food, which is then supplied to the hospital canteen.
Dr Almassy said that many of these projects are reliant upon the public sector for funding and execution, so future research needs to look at business models that will encourage companies and individuals to contribute to a green urban environment.
Dr Rojas added that another big challenge for the future will be to combine the data on different environmental factors to produce models that can give far more comprehensive predictions for policy decisions.
‘When you are in the city, we are not exposed to a single pollutant, we are exposed to a mix of things,’ he said. ‘We need to think of how we can approach in a better way this complexity of exposure. The urban environment is more than a single thing.’
The research in this article was funded by the EU. If you liked this article, please consider sharing it on social media.
Heathrow Hub, the rival plan to the controversial proposed third runway expansion, is formally complaining to the Competition and Markets Authority about the behaviour of the airport. It claims Heathrow “abused its dominant market position” to get Government backing for the third runway, by simply refusing to consider the Hub. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has said he couldn’t back the Hub option because Heathrow would not guarantee to work on commercial terms to help build it. That is the heart of Hub concept originator, Jock Lowe’s, complaint. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is the UK’s competition authority it carries out market and competition investigations. It is also the body to which airports or other persons with a qualifying interest can appeal the CAA’s price determinations. It was the CMA’s predecessor, the Competition Commission, that ordered the break up of BAA, as it then was, as the company had too much control over London’s airports. That ended up with Gatwick, and then Stansted, being sold. The current government’s desire to expand Heathrow would lead to an almost exactly similar situation – Heathrow being almost a monopoly for long haul destinations in the south east. .
Heathrow blamed for ‘unfairly blocking plan for a rival runway’
By SIMON ENGLISH (Evening Standard)
Heathrow Hub, the rival plan to the controversial proposed third runway expansion, is formally complaining to the Competition and Markets Authority about the behaviour of the airport.
It claims Heathrow “abused its dominant market position” to get Government backing for the third runway, by simply refusing to consider the Hub.
The brainchild of former Concorde pilot Jock Lowe, it would extend the northern runway rather than building a new one.
Lowe said: “After years of trying to work co-operatively with Heathrow Airport and the Department of Transport, we have decided it is time to take the gloves off.”
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has said he couldn’t back the Hub option because Heathrow would not guarantee to work on commercial terms to help build it.
That is the heart of Lowe’s complaint.
He said: “The consequence of Heathrow’s veto and the flawed process run by the Department for Transport is that consumers and airlines are being saddled with its unnecessarily complex, noisy and expensive third runway.” Heathrow had no immediate comment.
In a useful paper, Chris Lyle (with a long, impressive academic and industry pedigree) writes of how the ICAO’S CORSIA (Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation) – that rather implausibly aims for “carbon-neutral growth” from 2020 onward – cannot produce a reduction in global aviation CO2 emissions. He instead suggests ways in which CORSIA needs to be modified, in order to more more ambitious – and achieve carbon reduction cuts from the sector. He suggests that the legal and governance framework and the implementation process of CORSIA should require the aviation CO2 emissions of each country to be part of their obligations under the Paris Agreement, and there should be a more a direct role for the UNFCCC in determining eligibility of emission units and alternative fuels. Much more ambition is needed, and even if the aviation industry manages to find “alternative” fuels that are genuinely environmentally sustainable (doubtful at any scale ….) they will not provide the carbon emission cuts required. Aviation should not be one of the only industries allowed to continue to increase its CO2 emissions, year after year. [Unfortunately, the UK is trying to claim it need not be concerned about aviation CO2, as it is all being adequately dealt with by the CORSIA scheme. It is not.]
Chris Lyle’s paper calls for a more ambitious strategy
Beyond ICAO’s CORSIA: Towards a More Climatically Effective Strategy for Mitigation of Civil Aviation Emissions
By Chris Lyle (Air Transport Economics firstname.lastname@example.org)
Abstract (of 20 page paper)
Pursuant to a referral by the UNFCCC through the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has developed a ‘basket’ of emission-mitigation measures for international aviation. Technical and operational measures proved inadequate to counter traffic growth and finally, in October 2016, ICAO adopted a framework for a market-based measure. The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is the primary emission-mitigation tool for international aviation. It aims at ‘carbon-neutral growth’ (CNG) from 2020 onward. Yet, even with an increased use of alternative fuels and comprehensive implementation of CORSIA, ICAO’s basket of measures will not produce a reduction in global aviation emissions. This article describes the legal and governance framework and the implementation process of CORSIA, assesses the scheme’s potential contribution to climate-change mitigation, and proposes a derivative but more ambitious strategy. This would include incorporation of international aviation emissions in the NDCs of Parties to the Paris Agreement and a more direct role for the UNFCCC in determining eligibility of emission units and alternative fuels, with ICAO remaining accountable for ‘Monitoring, Reporting and Verification’.
One paragraph copied below:
“One elemental weakness in the treatment of international aviation emissions through ICAO is that there is no directly identifiable national commitment, only a global ‘sector-determined’ contribution; and so, the contribution of international aviation emissions does not have a high profile nationally. Not only is potential action diluted, international aviation is treated in a silo and not in the context of differing national circumstances and the relative contribution of aviation to the economy—notably for cases where tourism is critical. Moreover, while membership of the UNFCCC and ICAO is essentially the same, the UNFCCC’s mandate is to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere while general motivation of ICAO is to protect and promote international aviation.”
Heathrow has tried hard to persuade MPs that its 3rd runway would almost eradicate youth unemployment, and its scheme for more apprenticeships would be fantastically effective. One of Heathrow’s most often repeated claims as benefits for a 3rd runway is taking on 5,000 more apprentices, taking the number up to 10,000, by 2030. Now an assessment of its apprenticeship programme by Ofsted shows that its apprenticeships were “not fit for purpose”. Inspectors found “insufficient progress” had been made in establishing and maintaining high-quality apprenticeship provision. The report said progress of the vast majority of current apprentices is slow, and many who should have started in February had still not begun. Leaders had failed to ensure “they have sufficient training staff” with the “required competencies and skills to deliver the programmes”….“Far too many of the apprentices” at Heathrow were adversely affected by this shortage of qualified training staff. Many apprenticeships were in retailing and wholesaling. Many were found to be “not fit for purpose”, and most received “a poor standard of training”.
Early Ofsted monitoring report highly critical of airports apprenticeship provider
By Paul Offord (FE Week – further education)
May 21, 2018
Ofsted has levelled stinging criticism at a provider that trains apprentices for Heathrow Airport, in a hard-hitting early monitoring inspection report.
These have been part of a what is supposed to be a new wave of “monitoring visits to a sample of new apprenticeship training providers that are funded through the apprenticeship levy” announced before Christmas.
The latest report gives the impression that Mooreskills has not delivered apprenticeships before, even though FE Week’s investigations indicate otherwise.
For example they are listed as a subcontractor for 16-to-18 and 19-plus apprenticeships “pre-May 1 2017” for a company called Total People Limited in 2016/17, as well as for Joint Learning as far back as 2013/14.
Inspectors found “insufficient progress” had been made by management at Mooreskills in establishing and maintaining high-quality apprenticeship provision.
“Leaders and managers have not implemented effective quality monitoring processes to check that apprentices receive a high standard of training and make sufficient progress,” the report warned. “The progress of the vast majority of current apprentices is slow.”
The progress of the vast majority of current apprentices is slow
Apprentices who enrolled in February 2018 had not yet started their training programme, while leaders had failed to ensure “they have sufficient training staff” with the “required competencies and skills to deliver the programmes”.
“Far too many of the apprentices” at Heathrow were adversely affected by this shortage of qualified training staff.
Mooreskills started training apprentices funded through the apprenticeship levy in May 2017, “swiftly recruiting apprentices in a relatively short space of time”.
The company currently provides training for 223 apprentices. The vast majority are enrolled on new standards, mainly on retailing and wholesaling, administration, team leading, business management or leadership apprenticeships.
More than half are based at Heathrow, with the remainder at other airports and businesses around the country.
It is thought to be the only newcomer to the provision reported on so far.
Its apprenticeships were found to be “not fit for purpose”, and most received “a poor standard of training”.
FE Week asked the DfE what action it will take against Mooreskills, but no detail was given.
“We will always take action to protect apprentices if a training provider is not fit for purpose,” a spokesperson replied. “We are currently assessing Ofsted’s findings and will be contacting Mooreskills to set out the action we will be taking in due course.”
Today’s report recognised that managers “ensure that the assessors they do recruit are suitably qualified and experienced”.
The firm’s assessors do not set and record personalised “detailed and useful training and development targets for their apprentices to help them to make timely progress”.
The quality of the assessment, and the recording and monitoring of apprentices’ progress were found to be “poor in most cases”.
Too few apprentices had a good understanding of their planned completion date, and many were found to be “unaware of what they need to do to complete their apprenticeship”.
Apprentices at Manchester Airport attended “well planned training days – for example, apprentices on the level three retail team leader programme develop their product knowledge of beauty and cosmetic products”.
But recording attendance at the workshops and other training sessions organised by the employer is “sporadic”.
At the end of last year, the directors of Mooreskills became concerned regarding the slow progress of some of its Levy learners
“At the end of last year, the directors of Mooreskills became concerned regarding the slow progress of some of its Levy learners,” said a spokesperson for the company.
“As a result, the directors immediately contracted with a quality Improvement specialist consultancy, as acknowledged by the Inspectors, for it to provide Mooreskills with an assessment of the quality of their apprenticeships.
“This identified a number of key areas that required improvement and for which action plans have been devised.”
IPPR says apprenticeship levy will deepen north-south divide – with areas like Heathrow benefitting
March 28, 2017
One of Heathrow’s most often repeated claims as benefits for a 3rd runway is taking on 5,000 more apprentices, taking the number up to 10,000, by 2030. In reality, much of the training for apprentices comes from the government, so companies benefit. Many of the apprentices are not young people entering a first job, but existing staff improving their skills. Heathrow would benefit, and get money back, that they have to pay into the levy. Now analysis from the Thinktank the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) suggests the new £3 billion levy on larger employers, starting in April 2017, will raise less money and have smaller impact on areas that need it most – in the regions. Instead it will deepen Britain’s north-south divide, with London and the south-east benefiting most, as this is where there is the highest number of big employers. The areas where it is most needed are those that have been hit by deindustrialisation and suffer from low levels of qualifications, low productivity and low pay. Not the Heathrow area. The levy is to be paid by employers in England with a payroll of more than £3m and charged at a rate of 0.5% of their annual wage bill (ie. perhaps nearly £3bn per year.) The IPPR said: the government should analyse the regional impact of its new apprenticeships policy, so it does not leave unemployment hotspots in the north-east or Yorkshire with proportionately less funding.
Heathrow Hub is not giving up, and keeps pressing for the government to approve its concept of an “Extended Northern Runway” (ENR). It has now submitted amended draft legislation to Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport, so that its ENR proposal can be implemented instead of Heathrow Airport’s north-west runway (NWR). The backers of the Hub (who stand to make a lot of money, if their scheme was chosen) say the ENR scheme would be cheaper, simpler and “quieter” than the NWR. And they say it can be built in phases. Phase 1, costing £3.9bn and delivering 70,000 additional aircraft movements annually, would begin operations as soon as 2026, possibly 4 years ahead of the NWR scheme. There are differences in the numbers of homes needing to be demolished, and the number of people who would be forced to leave their homes. The amount of plane noise would be much worse for those currently under flight paths, but there would probably be fewer people newly exposed to aircraft noise. Heathrow Hub’s lawyers have drafted suggested amendments to the National Policy Statement (NPS), due to be considered by Parliament in the summer.
Heathrow Hub demands changes to airport expansion legislation to include extended runway
Heathrow Hub submits redrafted National Policy Statement
Extended runway is quicker to build and cheaper for passengers and airlines
Heathrow Hub advised by DAC Beachcroft on airport expansion process
Heathrow Hub has submitted amended draft legislation to Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport, so that its Extended Northern Runway (ENR) proposal can be implemented instead of Heathrow Airport’s 3rd Runway.
The ENR scheme is cheaper, simpler and quieter than Heathrow Airport’s 3rd Runway plan. It can also be built in phases. Phase 1, costing only £3.9bn and delivering 70,000 additional aircraft movements annually, would begin operations as soon as 2026, at least four years ahead of Heathrow Airport’s North West Runway (NWR).
Lawyers at City of London firm DAC Beachcroft LLP, advising Heathrow Hub, have drafted suggested amendments to the National Policy Statement (NPS), due to be considered by Parliament in the summer. Rather than only including Heathrow Airport’s proposal, which poses a serious risk for the Government’s desire to increase capacity at Heathrow as soon as possible, the NPS has been revised to include the ENR.
The redrafted legislation responds to the recent report by the Transport Select Committee which proposed numerous conditions on Parliament approving expansion at Heathrow, including in relation to costs, the environment and the M25. Given the numerous flaws in Heathrow Airport’s 3rd Runway plan, there is a serious risk it will now be delayed further.
If expansion is approved by Parliament, at a vote expected this summer, it will proceed to the Development Consent Order process. The Transport Select Committee said that the scheme would need to be tested at this stage by the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that it was affordable and financeable. Heathrow Hub contends that since the complex, risky and expensive 3rd Runway plan – costing at least £14bn – will inevitably fail this test, it has no realistic prospect of being delivered.
The 3rd Runway will result in passenger charges potentially doubling to over £40, hitting consumers and airlines and, as Heathrow is already the most expensive airport in the world, this would damage the UK’s competitiveness. By contrast, the cheaper Extended Northern Runway would have no impact on charges.
Jock Lowe, director of Heathrow Hub, said: “Our extended northern runway proposal is cheaper, simpler and quicker to build than Heathrow’s complicated and expensive 3rd Runway scheme. Even at this stage, it would actually save time and money to adopt our scheme instead.
“Heathrow Airport still has no idea how it is going to get its 3rd Runway over the M25.
“Mr Grayling is on record as saying the main reason our scheme has not been chosen thus far is that Heathrow Airport refused to say it would implement it. It is outrageous that Heathrow Airport should have abused its position by vetoing our scheme, which was deemed viable and deliverable by the Airports Commission.
“Among the extended runway’s advantages are that it won’t cause years of delays on the M25; it can be built quicker and in phases; it is quieter; and it destroys fewer houses. Given our ongoing dialogue with all political parties, we are also confident it would win widespread support in Parliament.
“The Department for Transport has run a flawed process and I appeal to Mr Grayling to see sense and to accept our amendments, so this important piece of national infrastructure can at last be delivered quickly and cheaply.”
Final data from the European Commission show that carbon dioxide emissions from all operators covered by Europe’s Emission Trading System (ETS) rose by around 0.3% in 2017, compared with 2016. This was the first rise in emissions regulated under Europe’s carbon market in 7 years. Preliminary data was released in April. Verified emissions from stationary installations amounted to 1.753 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent in 2017, which is 0.25% higher than in 2016. Verified emissions from aircraft operators amounted to 64.2 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent last year, nearly 5% higher than in 2016. These are just the carbon emissions from flights within Europe, not flights coming into Europe, or those going from European countries elsewhere. The cap-and-trade system is the EU’s flagship tool for reducing greenhouse gases and meeting its climate goals by regulating emissions at some 12,000 airlines, industrial and power installations.
EU ETS carbon market emissions rose overall by 0.3% in 2017 – but those from aircraft (intra-European) rose by 5%
LONDON, May 18 (Reuters)
* Carbon dioxide emissions from all operators covered by Europe’s Emission Trading System (ETS) rose by around 0.3% in 2017, compared with the previous year, final data from the European Commission shows
* This was the first rise in emissions regulated under Europe’s carbon market in seven years
* Preliminary data was released in April
* Verified emissions from stationary installations amounted to 1.753 billion tonnes of CO2-equivalent in 2017, the Commission said, 0.25 percent higher than in 2016
* Verified emissions from aircraft operators amounted to 64.2 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent last year, nearly 5% higher than in 2016
* The cap-and-trade system is the EU’s flagship tool for reducing greenhouse gases and meeting its climate goals by regulating emissions at some 12,000 airlines, industrial and power installations.
(Reporting by Nina Chestney; Editing by Mark Potter)
Bristol airport has revealed its aspirations for long-term growth. It is hoping for expand to 12 million annual passengers, up from about 8.2 million in 2017, and then up to 20 million by the mid-2040s. It is putting forward proposals – out to consultation – for the next stage in its phased development ahead of a planning application, to North Somerset Council by this autumn, to increase capacity to accommodate 12 million passengers a year.In November, there was an earlier consultation. to which over 1,750 responses were made. The expansion plans would mean more surface access, more surface level car parking, a new multi-storey car park, changes to the road layout and highway changes. The airport says: “Proposals will also be developed to address impacts on the local community and environment, including in key areas such as aircraft noise, where no increase in annual night flights will be sought.” So the impacts of the expanded airport would inevitably have a worse environmental impact, in many way, on those living near enough to be affected. Planning permission is already in place for facilities to handle up to 10 million passengers per annum, and £160 million has been invested in infrastructure improvements since 2010.
Bristol Airport plans to increase size of terminal and to double passenger numbers
18 May 2018
By Tom Wright (North Somerset Times)
Record number of passengers and more destinations than ever before form key parts of Bristol Airport’s long-term expansion plans.
This week sees the second phase of public consultation begin over the airport’s project which seeks to increase its offering for travellers.
Bosses are looking forward at ways they can increase capacity at Bristol over the next decade.
They include extending the terminal, additional car parks and better links to the region’s motorways.
In November, the airport revealed its intention to cater for up to 20 million passengers a year by the mid-2040s and conducted a first round of consultation. More than 1,750 responses were received.
Janis Kong, chairman of Bristol Airport, said: “It was clear from the initial consultation on preparing a long-term master plan that local communities wanted clarity on our development plans and solutions to some of the issues they face living close to a busy international airport.
“By bringing forward this planning application in tandem with our emerging thinking on the master plan, we will set out how phased growth can be achieved through the 2020s as part of an exciting longer-term vision.”
Last year, Bristol Airport welcomed 8.1 million travellers through its Lulsgate terminal making it the UK’s ninth busiest airport and the fifth outside of London.
Planning permission is already in place for facilities to handle up to 10 million passengers each year, and £160million has been invested in infrastructure since 2010, including a hotel and multi-storey car park.
The updated master plan focuses on five key areas: creating a world-leading regional airport, employment and economic prosperity, improving transport links, plus being sustainable and deliverable.
Simon Earles, planning and sustainability director at Bristol Airport, said: “These proposals will ensure Bristol Airport continues to provide the connectivity our region needs to be successful while offering local residents and stakeholders greater clarity about the phasing of future development.
“We welcome feedback on these proposals as we work towards submitting a planning application to North Somerset Council this autumn.”
To offer feedback, log on to www.bristolairportfuture.com by July 6.
Bristol Airport gives public a peek at its plans for the next decade
15.5.2018 (International Airport Review)
Alongside long-term considerations, the airport has also put forward proposals for the next stage in the airport’s phased development ahead of a planning application to increase capacity to accommodate 12 million passengers a year.
Consultations have begun on the latest proposals for the long-term development of Bristol Airport, including more detailed plans for continued growth over the next decade.
‘Towards 2050’ includes a Charter for Future Growth in five key areas: aviation, economic impact, green belt, sustainable growth and surface access. Design options for an inspirational gateway, improved boundary screening, and innovative uses for a proposed airside platform are also presented.
The improvements required can be delivered largely within land owned by Bristol Airport, and include surface level car parking, a new canopy at the front of the building, an additional multi-storey car park, and improvements to the on-site road layout. Local highway improvements to enhance access are also proposed.
Proposals will also be developed to address impacts on the local community and environment, including in key areas such as aircraft noise, where no increase in annual night flights will be sought.
Janis Kong, Chairman of Bristol Airport, said: “It was clear from the initial consultation on preparing a long-term Master Plan that local communities wanted clarity on our development plans and solutions to some of the issues they face living close to a busy international Airport. By bringing forward this planning application in tandem with our emerging thinking on the Master Plan, we will set out how phased growth can be achieved through the 2020s as part of an exciting longer-term vision.”
Simon Earles, Planning & Sustainability Director at Bristol Airport, said: “These proposals will ensure Bristol Airport continues to provide the connectivity our region needs to be successful while offering local residents and stakeholders greater clarity about the phasing of future development. We welcome feedback on these proposals as we work towards submitting a planning application to North Somerset Council this autumn.”
Bristol Airport is the UK’s ninth busiest airport, and the fifth busiest outside London, serving more than eight million passengers in 2017. Planning permission is already in place for facilities to handle up to 10 million passengers per annum, and £160 million has been invested in infrastructure improvements since 2010.