Airport News
Below are news items relating to specific airports
Heathrow makes guarded, carefully worded, offers to meet Airports Commission conditions for 3rd runway
Heathrow knows it has a difficult task in persuading the government that it can actually meet the (unchallenging) conditions put on its runway plans by the Airports Commission. Now John Holland-Kaye has written to David Cameron, setting out how Heathrow hopes to meet some conditions. They make out they will even exceed the conditions, in some cases. On Night flights, they say they will introduce a "legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens." [Note, scheduled - not late arrivals etc]. And they will "support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured." [ie. full of caveats]. They dodge the issue of agreeing not to build a 4th runway, saying if the government makes a commitment in Parliament not to expand Heathrow further, then Heathrow will "Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway.." [Words carefully chosen]. On noise and respite, Heathrow say "We will ensure there will be some respite for everyone living under the final flight path by using advances in navigational technology. We will consult and provide options on our proposals to alternate use of the runways." [ie carefully chosen words, avoiding giving much away].
Click here to view full story...
Surprise! None of the Transport Select Committee members, wanting rapid Heathrow decision, live anywhere affected by a vast airport
"Colnbrook Views" has pointed out that, while the Commons Transport Select Committee is very eager to get a new runway built at Heathrow as soon as possible, none of its members live anywhere at all near London. The Committee have asked the government to make a rapid decision, to back a Heathrow runway, apparently not having much grasp of the extent of the environmental (or social, or even economic) problems involved. Their attitude is that: "We accept that the package of measures to mitigate environmental impacts needs careful consideration and further work. We do not accept that all of this needs to be done before a decision is taken on location. In fact a decision on location would give more focus and impetus to this work." ie. decide first. - see if the problems can be sorted out afterwards. None of the MPs on the Committee themselves experience the problems of living near an airport of the scale of Heathrow. The Chair is Louise Ellman, the MP for Liverpool. The constituencies of the others are: Stoke on Trent South; North Tyneside; Lincoln; Glasgow South; Fylde; Bexhill and Battle; Colchester; Milton Keynes South; Blackley and Broughton; Cleethorpes. Perhaps if the problems facing the Heathrow Villages were in any of these constituencies, they might not be so gung-ho?
Click here to view full story...
Farmer at Stansted still awaiting compensation, due to airport loophole of not completing all work – to avoid paying
A farm owner who won £1 million from Stansted, because planes flying over his £2 million home slashed its value in half, is still waiting for the pay-out 17 years later. Patrick Streeter, whose home is about 1.5 km from the end of the runway, was awarded the sum in 1999 but claims Stansted are using a wily “legal loophole”, which says the money needs to be paid only once all work is finished on the airport. Because white lines have not been painted on a strip of airport apron, (presumably deliberately ...) and a fuel pump has not been installed, Stansted has told Mr Streeter that he is not entitled to his pay-out yet. He says the constant din of planes makes the place unbearable to live in, and he believes it would be almost impossible to sell. Mr Streeter’s family home, a 13th century seven-bedroom farmhouse in Great Hallingbury, shakes so badly when planes take off that roof tiles are dislodged. "When we are sitting in the garden your coffee cup will wobble. The cargo planes are the worst." The airport is legally obliged to pay people living around it compensation because of the detrimental impact of the noise. Mr Streeter is now considering suing the airport . A Stansted spokesman said: "We are aware of Mr Streeter's application and the matter is being consulted by MAG (the airport's owner)."
Click here to view full story...
After just a few days as Mayor, Sadiq Khan drops GLA objection to compulsory purchase of land for London City Airport expansion
Within the first few days as London Mayor, Sadiq Khan has re-opened the possibility of expansion at London City Airport. He has dropped the GLA objection to a compulsory purchase order of 26.4 hectares in the Docklands, owned by City Hall. The airport will get the result of its recent appeal against refusal of expansion plans, by Boris Johnson, later this year. The GLA said: “The Mayor continues to support the case for improved noise mitigation measures that will be considered by the Secretary of State when he decides on the planning appeal in due course.” Khan had said in November 2015, during his election campaign, that he would look again at the prospect of the airport expanding. Boris had rejected it, on noise grounds. Meanwhile the owners of London City Airport paid themselves a £27.7m dividend payout last year after the airport attracted its highest ever number of passengers, increasing profits by almost 20%. The airport, while being considered to have the largest proportion of business passengers, in increasingly for leisure trips. London City's higher customer numbers last year were in part driven by its new travel routes including Berne, Hamburg, Mykonos and Santorini (all just holiday destinations) and extra flights to Edinburgh, Luxenbourg, Geneva and Guernsey.
Click here to view full story...
Recent opponent of Heathrow runway, Sadiq Khan, appoints pro-Heathrow runway, Lord Adonis on transport
Until June 2015, Sadiq Khan (now London Mayor) backed a 3rd Heathrow runway. He was Transport Minister under Gordon Brown, pushing for it. He then appreciated that he could not be elected Mayor if he backed the runway as it is so unpopular with millions of Londoners, who are adversely affected by it. Ministers are saying his election, and his opposition to a 3rd runway, will not influence their runway decision. The Mayor's opinion on a runway carries some weight, though they cannot make the decision. Worryingly, Sadiq will appoint former Transport Secretary Lord Adonis, who strongly backs a Heathrow runway, to run transport in London. The Labour peer also heads the government’s National Infrastructure Commission. Sadiq backs a 2nd runway at Gatwick to increase airport capacity, as people in areas adversely affected by Gatwick did not get to vote in the Mayoral election. He also backs improved rail links to Stansted. It would be easier for a Conservative government to resist the opposition of a Labour mayor, than a Tory one, to a Heathrow expansion. Transport Professor, David Metz, said: "There is a respectable case for deferring this difficult political decision, to see how a very competitive aviation sector copes with the growth of demand for air travel" ... seeing how market forces displace leisure travellers from Heathrow to Stansted in future.
Click here to view full story...
Willie Walsh says”Heathrow Hub” runway option should be considered again, as cheaper
Willie Walsh, chief executive of British Airways’ owner IAG, says ministers should not be bound to the Heathrow third north-west runway proposal. He wants the Heathrow Hub option (extending the northern runway to the west) given proper consideration, as it would be cheaper. BA operates the majority of flights (just over 50%) at Heathrow, but Walsh has repeatedly said he is not prepared to pay exorbitant costs - in order to pay for a "gold plated" runway scheme, with all the add-ons. The Heathrow Hub scheme is understood to still be considered by the DFT, as is the Gatwick runway. (All have very serious environmental and economic problems, which is why the government has not been able to come to a rapid decision - largely knowing it would face well informed legal challenges). Walsh believes the Heathrow Hub option would be cheaper, though the costs of surface transport etc to fall on the taxpayer, would be similar. Willie Walsh contrasted Heathrow’s costs with a similar scheme in Dublin, the base of one of BA’s sister airlines in IAG, Aer Lingus. “The airport is talking about building a second runway at a tiny fraction of the cost of the Heathrow third – £350m against £23bn." He has considered moving more BA planes to Dublin, if and when its 2nd runway is built.
Click here to view full story...
BA warns London City Airport not to raise landing charges, or it might pull out
Willie Walsh, Chief Executive of IAG, owner of British Airways has issued a further warning to the new owners (a Canadian consortium) of London City that moves to raise landing charges for the airlines operating form the airport will be resisted. He said: “The airport is good, there’s good demand for it, but the off peak demand is very price sensitive and there’s no way you can serve that sort of demand if it’s very expensive to operate from there.” BA currently has about 40% of the flights at London City airport. Walsh said: “They paid a high price. It’s a good airport, but it’s as expensive as Heathrow in terms of passenger charges. The reason it has grown so strongly is because of us. We are the number one operator from there. We have 18 aircraft there. It’s principally a leisure airport, but there’s only so much you can do for leisure flights. We’d have no problem moving away from London City. There’s no way we’re going to be held hostage there and if the charges go up we’ll move the aircraft. That’s the great thing about aircraft – they’re portable, you can take them somewhere else.” Walsh said earlier that the £2 billion price would mean a multiple of 44 times London City’s earnings (EBITDA), though the airport said it was a multiple of 28.
Click here to view full story...
Proposal at Chicago O’Hare airport to share night flights, on a weekly rota, between runways
Chicago O'Hare airport is huge, with 8 runways. Some are parallel east-west, and some are diagonal and as new runways were built, older ones were closed. This has meant extra plane noise for thousands of residents in various parts of the Chicago area, and there have been huge protests. Night noise has been a particular problem, and residents have been fighting for less noise over them at night, for several years. Now the airport has a revised night runway plan, that means sharing the noise around. There will now be a rota, using different runways at night (considered to be 10.50pm to 5.25am) for week-long periods, with the whole schedule repeated after 12 weeks. That would create a some guarantee of weeks with no noise for most areas, and a fairly predictable calendar of when certain runways would absorb what city experts estimated would be 45 arrivals and 35 departures each night. There will be some winners, and some losers in this process. “Everyone gets some benefit ... Everyone gets some pain.’’ It is estimated that perhaps almost 68,000 Chicago area residents might get less noise. There will be a vote (7th May) on whether to forward the plan to the FAAfor final sign-off on a six-month test.
Click here to view full story...
Edinburgh campaign, SEAT, shows why cutting Scottish APD risks harming people’s health and the environment
The community campaign, SEAT (Stop Edinburgh Airspace Trial) has set out why it is opposed to the Scottish Government intention to cut APD by 50%. Edinburgh airport is delighted that APD might be reduced, so increasing demand for more flights (= more profit). But those badly affected by aircraft noise are very concerned about the increase in the problems they suffer. Air Passenger Duty is needed, to at least partly make up for the tax breaks the aviation industry benefits from by paying no VAT, and no fuel duty. There is no VAT on purchase or servicing of aircraft. Many airports are owned by off-shore corporations, that pay minimal (or no) UK company taxed. Flying is already artificially cheap, and even cheaper, if the only tax is halved. While the Scottish government supports high speed rail links to London, which would cut carbon emissions if rail is used instead of air, they also aim to increase the number of flights, by cutting APD. That means significantly higher Scottish CO2 emissions. SEAT speaks up for people negatively impacted by aviation. The impacts on health from plane noise are now well known, and they are a cost to society. SEAT says cutting APD is unwise, and means putting profit for big business before people's health, or the environment.
Click here to view full story...
Residents invite Transport Select Cttee Chair – Louise Ellman – to Heathrow Villages that she wants destroyed for runway
Local resident-led group Stop Heathrow Expansion (SHE) has issued an open invitation to Louise Ellman MP, Chair of the Commons Transport Select Committee, to visit Harmondsworth, Sipson, Longford and Harlington – the villages around Heathrow that would be destroyed or largely uninhabitable if a third runway were to be built. The invitation comes as the Committee published a report which repeats previous calls to the Government for a rapid decision on Heathrow expansion, which the committee strongly supports. The DfT agreed to respond to the report by the end of May. It said: "We are undertaking more work on environmental impacts, including air quality, noise and carbon so we can develop the best possible package of measures to mitigate the impacts on local people.”" But the Transport Committee, gung-ho for a runway regardless of the problems (and entirely omitting mention of the vast cost to the taxpayer for surface transport) said "we believe that the noise and environmental effects can be managed as part of the pre-construction phase after a decision has been made on location, as can the challenge of improving surface access and devising suitable schemes for compensation for residents in affected communities."