Airport News
Below are news items relating to specific airports
Stop Stansted Expansion calls for cross-party support at the election, to end night flights
Ahead of the general election and local council elections on 7th May, SSE is calling upon all local candidates to support a ban on night flights at Stansted. Stansted currently has permission to operate 12,000 night flights a year, between 11.30pm - 6am, more than twice as many as are permitted at Heathrow. [Heathrow is restricted to 5,800 night take-offs & landings /year between 11.30pm- 6am]. SSE has long argued to the Government that night flights have a far greater impact on local residents around Stansted because of its rural location where background noise levels are generally very low. The number of Stansted night flights has significantly increased over the past year, and this is believed to be largely due to the closure of Manston Airport and transfer of its cargo flights. SSE says "night" should not only be a 6½ hour period, but should be the 8 hours between 11.00pm to 7.00am, to give people a proper night's rest. There are no restrictions on the number of aircraft permitted to take-off and land at Stansted during the so-called shoulder periods between 11.00pm and 11.30pm and between 6.00am and 7.00am. SSE is inviting politicians of all parties to support a timetable to progressively phase out nights flight
Click here to view full story...
Polar bears & anti-2nd-runway campaigners descend on Gatwick terminal with dance & song
On Saturday morning, in Gatwick's South Terminal, an invasion of fancy-dress polar bears took place, who danced, chanted and unequivocally put their "NO NEW RUNWAY" message across, for about half an hour. The dancing polar bears - Plane Stupid - descended on the terminal, to make the point that a new runway (either at Heathrow or Gatwick) is a threat to our carbon targets. Asking" Whose Climate?"(response "Our Climate") and "Whose Future?" (response "Our Future") and with huge banners proclaiming "Any Runway is Plane Stupid" and "Climate Chaos Obviously" (rather that Gatwick Airport's mantra of "Gatwick Obviously" they entertained travellers, putting their message across in a good humoured way (somewhat perplexing the security guards ...) for half an hour. No arrests were made, and the polar bears then danced their way out of the terminal. Other protesters against the 2nd runway plans sang the "No Way, 2nd runway, NEVER NEVER NEVER" song, and marched a banner around the terminal. T-shirts read: "NO 2nd runway." "Save our tranquillity." "Save our economy." "Save our countryside." "Save our environment." "No new flight paths" (No passengers were inconvenienced in the making of this protest). See the photos.
Click here to view full story...
Knutsford Council urged to lobby Manchester airport over possible increase in night flights
Councillors in Knutsford are planning to lobby Manchester Airport on concerns about more night flights over the town. Knutsford is only a few kilometres from the end of the runway. Map. A Knutsford councillor, who is on the airport’s community relations team, was informed by the airport's management that Terminal 2 is set to double in size, with plans for more night flights to cope with increased traffic. This will affect Knutsford. Currently, an agreement curtails night flights - take offs and landings - but circumstances will change with both the expansion and the ending of the current arrangements in 2017. The council need to lobby on details of the timing of those night flights. The airport statement gave the usual bland assurances about "improving the passenger and airline experience" and having controls on night noise that are "amongst the toughest in the UK " and balancing the "interests of our local communities and the demand from our passengers to fly." Sadly, the benefit tot he airlines and passengers generally trumps the interests of the residents. Manchester Airport allows a large number of night flights already - with a limit of around 11,000 per year (7% of the total flights). That can work out to more than 45 per night, in the period from 23:30 to 06.00.
Click here to view full story...
Teddington residents miserable under Heathrow easterly take-offs – though officially they are not affected
Teddington is an area largely affected by easterly take-offs from Heathrow. The wind direction in the south east of England is generally for westerly winds for around 70 - 77% of the time. The level of aircraft noise over Teddington is therefore not a problem during westerly take-offs. The way aircraft noise is measured - by taking an average over a period of time, and over many months, rather than the plane noise on a particular day - means that Teddington and areas like it, are not deemed to be within the noise contours that imply a significant level of noise nuisance. However, during periods of easterly winds, which can last for over 10 days, the level of noise is deeply intrusive. The campaign, Teddington Action Group, has made a powerful short film that illustrates the noise they are subjected to, for perhaps 25 -30% of the year. Yet, on the noise averaging system used by the CAA and the Airports Commission, they are considered not to be affected by noise. They wonder how many other areas can be regarded as untroubled by noise, when the reality on the ground is very different. And how much worse would this situation get, with how many more affected, if there was a Heathrow 3rd runway. Watch the film.
Click here to view full story...
Windsor candidates against Heathrow runway, though Labour non-committal
Speaking in a live BBC Radio Berkshire debate, it was clear that none of the parliamentary candidates for Windsor support a 3rd Heathrow runway. However, Labour's candidate, Fiona Dent would not say whether she supported the runway, but did promise a consultation on it, if elected. Lib Dem George Fussey, Independent Wisdom Da Costa and UKIP's Tarik Malik said they were opposed to expansion. The MP since 2010, Conservative Adam Afriye, won the seat with 60% of the vote at the last election, with the Lib Dems second with 11%. Mr Afriye said: "For the last 10 years I've been absolutely clear - no third runway - and it's not just about nimbyism... it's not in the national interest, not in our regional interest and not in the interest of consumers....if Davies is sensible, he will recognise that Gatwick is the right option." [Regrettable that he feels the need to pass the misery of increased noise etc, onto others, knowing how negative the impacts would be on his own constituents]. Mr da Costa said: "It shouldn't be allowed to expand. The benefit to Windsor would be very, very small, economically but the disruption to Windsor, both environmentally and in terms of congestion and health, it will be phenomenal."
Click here to view full story...
Illinois State Senate passes bills designed to reduce O’Hare jet noise
In late 2013 the flight paths at Chicago O'Hare airport were changed, and since then thousands of residents have been exposed to far more aircraft noise. The authorities are trying to find ways to reduce their noise exposure. The Illinois Senate has now unanimously approved legislation to mitigate jet noise by increasing the cap on the number of runways to 10 from 8, and prohibiting the city of Chicago from closing and demolishing any of the airport's 4 diagonal runways. The aim is to distribute the noise more evenly. The two bills are aimed at expanding O'Hare flight paths are going next to the Illinois House of Representatives for consideration. If one of the diagonal runways is closed, its flights will be distributed to the other runways, causing more noise for some people. Keeping 10 runways operational at O'Hare would increase maintenance costs. And while all 10 runways would never be used simultaneously, the more complex airfield layout could create safety risks involving more planes taxiing across runways on their way to the gate or other runways. Noise complaints filed online and to a city-operated hot line totalled 39,500 in January, setting a new monthly record. In 2014, for the whole year, noise complaints totalled 268,211, also an all-time high.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow hopes of cutting NO2 by congestion charge etc could transfer air quality problems to other areas
Gatwick Airport commissioned a report by ERM to show up the air quality problems at Heathrow, making a 3rd Heathrow a practical impossibility. The ERM report says the air quality mitigations proposed for a Heathrow 3rd runway are too vague to be properly evaluated or quantified in any detail. As the majority of the air pollution is due to road vehicles, many on trips associated with the airport, there needs to be credible detail on how this could be cut. Heathrow has suggested various ways to make small airside cuts in NO2 emissions, and possible measure like incentives for access to the airport by zero or ultra-low emission vehicles. Also, as a last resort, the use of a congestion charge to drive down airport-only related road traffic. But the measures lack the necessary implementation specifics to make them meaningful. Neither do the proposals address the potential consequential effects on road traffic distribution in the wider area around Heathrow. It could well be that the introduction of these sorts of Heathrow traffic measures results in shifts in road traffic congestion, and therefore the transfer the air quality problems to other areas. Just pushing the problem somewhere else.
Click here to view full story...
Report by ERM shows Heathrow could not build a new runway and meet air quality standards
Gatwick Airport, keen to show up all the problems with a new Heathrow runway - attempting to promote its own scheme instead - has commissioned a study by ERM (Environmental Resource Management) on Heathrow air quality. The pollutant and averaging period of most relevance around Heathrow is the annual mean limit value for NO2, which is 40 μg/m3 of air. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 say the Secretary of State must ensure that NO2 annual mean level is not over the limit value of 40 μg/m3 anywhere. Heathrow and the DfT predicted 10 years ago that diesel vehicles would emit much less NO2 by 2015 than they in fact do; diesel emissions from road vehicles have not fallen as fast as was expected. Heathrow is therefore not likely to meet the air quality standard, even without a new runway, till perhaps 2030. The Gatwick-funded ERM report is critical of modelling submitted by Heathrow to the Airports Commission that continues to use outdated emission performance of vehicles. The report says no detailed air quality impact modelling has been conducted since the DfT study 10 years ago. The Airports Commission has also not yet done adequate work on this, and said it would do “more detailed dispersion modelling”. This will probably not be available before the Commission's (June?) announcement.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick’s anti-Heathrow leaflets in Boris’ constituency may cause him trouble
Gatwick airport is distributing 400,000 leaflets in the areas around Heathrow claiming that a new runway at Gatwick would affect fewer people than one at Heathrow. Gatwick particularly targeted Uxbridge and South Ruislip, with 86,000 leaflets being distributed there, more than in any other constituency. Uxbridge happens to be the seat being contested by Boris Johnson. Boris is known to have strong views against a new runway at Heathrow; if he is elected, and if the courts were to decide that the leaflets give tacit support to his campaign, the cost of the leaflets would need to be added to his election expenses. If that took him over the limit it could result in his election being declared void. Or the other anti-Heathrow election candidates. GACC is disgusted by the cynical tactics being deployed by Gatwick. Their leaflet is inaccurate as it ignores the fact that lower background noise levels around Gatwick mean that almost as many people would be annoyed as at Heathrow. Until now Heathrow Ltd have pursued a gentlemanly policy of not criticising the Gatwick runway plans, while Gatwick has spent millions on attacking Heathrow. The leaflets may at last so annoy Heathrow Ltd that they will launch a devastating counter-attack.
Click here to view full story...
Conservative and Labour candidates in Brentford & Isleworth say they would defy their parties to oppose a Heathrow runway, if necessary
At a Brentford & Isleworth hustings, Conservative parliamentary candidate Mary Macleod and Labour's Ruth Cadbury told the audience they would vote against Heathrow's 3rd runway even if it was supported by their respective parties. The Hounslow candidates are Joe Bourke (Liberal Democrat), Mary Macleod (Conservative), Ruth Cadbury (Labour), Richard Hendron (UKIP) and Daniel Goldsmith (Green). Both Mary Macleod and Ruth Cadbury said they would not resign should their parties decide to support a 3rd runway, but they would instead try to fight the policy from within the fold. The official policies of both Conservatives and Labour is to wait for the findings of the Airports Commission, which might make its announcement as early as late May, or else by the end of June. Green Party candidate Daniel Goldsmith and Liberal Democrat Joe Bourke both said their parties were clear in their opposition to a 3rd runway. But UKIP's Richard Hendron was the only candidate in favour of the runway, even though his party's manifesto is opposed to it (and backs Manston instead). The anti-expansion candidates said they wanted Heathrow to remain as Britain's "premier" airport. Mr Goldsmith said he didn't want Hounslow to be too reliant on a single industry.