Airport News
Below are news items relating to specific airports
Murad Qureshi blog: So what does the Competition & Market Authority (Competition Commission, as was) think of Heathrow expansion?
Murad writes: Now we have had the report from Airport Commission recommending expansion of Heathrow it strikes me we have to wonder if it really is better for passengers - notwithstanding the obvious adverse impact on the quality of life for those near Heathrow or under its flight paths. It would effectively recreate a monopoly at Heathrow that will suck in long haul connections from the regions of the UK and drive up prices for passengers. It will mean passengers will be forced to take long haul air journeys via Heathrow, with very clear implications to consumer welfare. Heathrow already has a stranglehold on the market for US trips, and £ for £, these are more expensive than similar length trips to Asia. "The irony is that the Competition Commission ( now the Competition & Market Authority ) in 2011 broke up the monopoly that BAA had over airports in London and South-East when it owed all three major ones" ...."Now it appears Heathrow Holdings PLC [with a 3rd runway] ...looks like becoming a private monopoly of long haul flights if Davies' recommendations are accepted by the government. The matter needs referring back to the Competition & Market Authority, for the sake of the consumer and travelling public if nothing else."
Click here to view full story...
Stansted airport night flight warning after Davies Commission recommends third Heathrow runway
The MP for Saffron Walden, Sir Alan Haselhurst, says the banning of night flights at Heathrow, suggested by the Davies Commission which has recommended a third runway at Heathrow rather than a second one at Gatwick (or at Stansted) could still have “sinister” implications for Stansted. The Commission considers Stansted is likely to be full in 15 years, with one runway. The Commission is suggesting one of the conditions on a Heathrow north-west runway is that there should be no night flights at Heathrow. Sir Alan commented: "That has sinister implications. If they are not there, they will have to go somewhere. I don’t want to see the transfer of night flights to Stansted....We have the likes of FedEx and UPS. They are a very important industry. You can have a package from across the world delivered by 10am the following morning but that involves flights at unsocial hours. The dominant players at Stansted are RyanAir and EasyJet and the reason they can offer cheap flights is that they have continuous usage. Planes don’t make money while they are standing on the ground.” Hence the night flights at Stansted. And also at Gatwick, Unintended consequences?
Click here to view full story...
Aviation Environment Federation says Airports Commission recommendations are beset with environmental hurdles
The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), the national environmental campaigning organisation representing community groups around the UK’s airports, has urged the Government to reject the Airports Commission’s recommendation of a third runway at Heathrow, given its insurmountable environmental impacts and widespread opposition. "Every government that has ever considered Heathrow expansion has ruled it out once the full scale of the environmental impacts has become clear." On noise, AEF says people living around Heathrow are already exposed to more noise than at any other airport in Europe. Hundreds of thousands of people around Heathrow would be overflown for the first time if a new runway is built. On air pollution AEF says the UK has a legal obligation to meet EU air quality legal limits and the Airports Commission still cannot say confidently whether or not air quality reduction with a runway would be legal. On carbon emissions, AEF says that according to the Airports Commission’s own analysis, a Heathrow or a Gatwick runway would, on current technology trends, lead to breaches in UK aviation’s CO2 emissions cap, even if the sector was included in a global carbon trading scheme. The only solution would be to limit growth at other airports - or (unpopular) to substantially increase the cost of flying.
Click here to view full story...
Protester whose Harmondsworth home would be destroyed by 3rd runway, blocks Heathrow tunnel for half an hour
A blockade of Heathrow's road access tunnel to Terminals 2 and 3 brought traffic to a halt for more than half an hour at 12.45pm today. The protest follows yesterday’s announcement that the Airports Commission report recommends the building of 3rd runway at Heathrow. This would require the destruction of over 1,000 homes in Harmondsworth, Longford and Sipson with a further 3,000 homes made uninhabitable due to excessive noise and pollution. Neil Keveren, a Harmondsworth resident, used a large white van to block both lanes to incoming traffic. He then unfurled a banner that covered the side of his vehicle to face the stationary traffic saying, "Residents Against Expansion – No ifs, no buts, no third runway". The banner refers to David Cameron’s pledge prior to the 2010 election. His entirely peaceful protest was only ever intended to last 20 minutes, to avoid disruption to the airport. His co-operation enabled the police to avoid an evacuation procedure that would have caused further disruption to traffic. Neil Keveren made it clear his action was a personal protest, and was not part of his role as Chair of the Stop Heathrow Expansion (SHE) campaign group. However, his action were supported by many local residents and the local MP, John McDonnell.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow third runway unanimously recommended by Airports Commission, but with conditions
The Airports Commission has recommended that a 3rd runway should be built at Heathrow, but only if it can meet stringent conditions on noise and air pollution. Those conditions should include a ban on night flights, legally binding caps on noise and air quality – and legislation to rule out ever building a 4th runway [unlikely to be effective?] .The Commission has said their view was "clear and unanimous” that Heathrow’s plan was the strongest case for a runway, delivering the greatest strategic and economic benefits, and they hoped the conditions would make the airport a “better neighbour” than today. The conditions are: - A ban on all scheduled night flights from 11.30pm to 6am....- No fourth runway – the government should make a firm commitment in parliament not to expand further. Davies states: “There is no sound operational or environmental case for a fourth runway.”....- A legally binding “noise envelope”.....- A noise levy on airport users to compensate local communities.... - A legal commitment on air quality (details to be announced, compliant with EU limits).... - A community engagement board to let local people have a say.... - An independent aviation noise authority to be consulted on flightpaths and operating procedures at airports....- Training and apprenticeships for local people. The government must now decide whether to act on the recommendation - by autumn, or before Christmas.
Click here to view full story...
The Guardian view on expanding Heathrow: just say no. Guardian Editorial
The Guardian writes that the Airports Commission and most of the reporting of the Heathrow runway recommendation looked only at issues like economic growth, the alleged urgency of more links to emerging markets, and the UK keeping its place as top dog on aviation in Europe. A few voices were raised about the local “environmental” effect, noise, air pollution etc. But these "pale besides aviation’s contribution to the planet’s slow cooking. If there is a difficult question that has been ducked for too long, then that is the one about decarbonising the economy." Though the Commission looked at carbon, their "emphasis ... and the basis for arguing that increased capacity was not merely desirable but imperative, was on a ...fairytale future, in which passengers double, under the auspices of comprehensive and globally enforced carbon trading." This requires an effective global system in which the price of carbon rises from around £5 to several hundred £s which would greatly increase the price of air tickets. That is not likely to happen. The aim of the runway is to make flying cheaper, not more expensive, so people take even more flights. " The infrastructure we have now is enough to speed climate change. "Transport networks need to be re-engineered for decarbonisation. But that would require some real blue-sky thinking, and of that there is no sign."
Click here to view full story...
Grouping of councils opposed to Heathrow runway call on Government to dismiss Airports Commission report
Councils around Heathrow and across West London have called on the Government to rule out a 3rd Heathrow runway - and to dismiss the Airports Commission’s final report. The local authorities say the legal, political and environmental barriers to expansion are insurmountable and that communities around the airport should be spared the anxiety of a long drawn out process. They also criticised the Commission for suggesting a ban on night flights should follow the delivery of a new runway, instead of being imposed straight away. They argue that the airport and airlines have to prove they can actually deliver a night flying curfew before it’s used as a bargaining chip. The councils (including Wandsworth, Hillingdon, Richmond, Windsor and Maidenhead, and Kingston - and others in the 2M grouping) say other key weaknesses in the Commission's analysis include air pollution, with the ludicrous situation whereby could only be used if air quality targets are met - so the runway, at huge cost to the taxpayer, might not be used. And on flight paths, where there is still no indication where these would be, until a further review of airspace. The councils say it is unacceptable that after £20 million and 3 years of work the Commission cannot confirm which communities will be affected by noise.
Click here to view full story...
WWF comment on Commission’s Heathrow runway support – and the CO2 problem it would cause government
Commenting on the Airports Commission's recomendation of Heathrow for a 3rd runway, the CEO of WWF-UK, David Nussbam said: “UK aviation has a serious CO2 emissions challenge. Runway expansion would make the problem worse and the solutions tougher. The Prime Minister should consider that ordinary families, businesses and our environment will gain little from a new runway. Expanding Heathrow would be the worst outcome for the environment. It would lead to the greatest increases in noise, in air pollution, and in climate-damaging CO2 emissions. Expanding runway capacity will not make Britain more prosperous, but it will make it impossible for the aviation sector to play its proper role in meeting the UK’s emissions targets, to which the Prime Minister and Climate Change Secretary are committed. The greater the emissions from aviation, the greater pressure there will be on other businesses to reduce their CO2 emissions even further. If the Government supports the Davies report, they will have to present a plan showing how these reductions will be achieved elsewhere – and at what price to the UK economy and people."
Click here to view full story...
Stop Stansted Expansion response to the Airports Commission final report
The Commission's main recommendation is that there should be a 3rd runway at Heathrow. Further, the Commission believes that there may be sufficient demand to justify one other additional runway in the UK by 2050. However, the Commission emphasises that this would also need to be justified on economic and environmental terms and that no decisions should be taken until the impacts of the 3rd Heathrow runway have been independently evaluated. In SSE's view the need for additional runways in the UK has been greatly exaggerated by the aviation industry. Business travel has been declining for 15 years and now accounts for less than a sixth of all international travel from UK airports. The new runway would stifle the growth prospects for airports elsewhere in the UK, and make it virtually impossible for the UK to meet its climate change targets. It therefore seems inevitable that there will be a series of legal challenges to the Commission's recommendations. On Stansted the Commission just says: "...there may be a case for reviewing the [35 mppa] planning cap if and when the airport moves closer to full capacity. Its forecasts indicate that this would not occur until at least the 2030s".
Click here to view full story...
Environmental case for new Heathrow runway has ‘Airbus-sized holes’ in it
The Airports Commission said the new runway should come with severe restrictions and be compatible with UK climate change and air pollution targets. But environmentalists dismiss the Commission's calculations. Greenpeace UK chief scientist Dr Doug Parr said: "When it comes to carbon emissions the Davies’ analysis has holes big enough to fly an Airbus through. His claim that a new runway could be compatible with the UK's climate targets is based on the unrealistic assumptions like the need for a 6,600% rise in carbon taxes, rose-tinted estimates about improvements in aircraft efficiency, and false solutions like biofuels....This is just a smokescreen to hide the obvious fact that a new runway will almost certainly derail our legally-binding climate targets. In the year the world is coming together to tackle climate change, we should be talking about how to manage demand, not where to store up a new carbon bomb." Friends of the Earth’s Andrew Pendleton commented: “The UK will be a laughing stock if it turns up at crucial climate talks in Paris later this year, claiming global leadership while at home having nodded through new runways, killed its onshore wind industry and foisted fracking on communities that don't want it.”