Airport News
Below are news items relating to specific airports
Residents in Auckland, New Zealand, fighting the noise nuisance of planes over the city
People in Auckland New Zealand, are fighting the nuisance of aircraft noise, which has become a serious problem in recent years. The airport is close to the city, and aircraft frequently use flight paths over densely populated areas, as they turn either when landing or taking off. The problem has been made worse in the past year, because concentrated flight paths are being used, in the same way that is happening in UK, Europe, USA and everywhere. The concentrated routes are causing a lot of anger and distress. The local group is Auckland: The Plane Truth (ATPT), working hard to restore some peace and quiet for Auckland residents. ATPT says: "At the least, the noise is physically and emotionally taxing: at the worst, unbearable. Unable to cope, some residents have been forced to move house or to take medication for depression and anxiety, and so they can sleep." There is a petition, asking for a curfew at night, between 10pm and 7am because of the recent changes to flight procedures over Auckland, and the planned significant increases in traffic through Auckland Airport. The type of houses in Auckland, have weatherboard with tin roofing and single glazing. These are difficult to insulate against noise, exacerbating the problem.
Click here to view full story...
Opponents of 3rd Munich runway say the airport’s number of flights is still falling
Munich airport has been planning a third runway for some time, but opponents have succeeded in holding it back. The runway was considered necessary in 2007 and 2008, when the number of air passengers and the number of flights was growing. However, with the recession and with the use of larger planes by airlines like Lufthansa, which use Munich airport, there are now far fewer flights than there were at their peak. Runway opponents say that, in contrast to over-optimistic forecasts of future numbers of passengers and flights, the reality is that the airport now does not need another runway. In 2007 there were around 432,000 flights. In 2012 there were around 398,000. In 2013 there were around 382,000. The number has been declining steadily, even if the number of passengers and the amount of air freight is more constant. The airport management admit the forecasts were too high, but say the trend to ever larger planes will soon end, and the numbers of flights will rise. Opponents are using the falling numbers to fight the runway. The runway has permission but the decision is currently being reviewed by the Court., and the airport cannot yet start work on it.
Click here to view full story...
Detailed critique by Hillingdon Council of the Airports Commission’s failure to cover health issues adequately
In its response to the Airports Commission consultation, Hillingdon Borough Council has been highly critical of the Commission's failure to deal properly with health impacts of a new runway. They say a specific Health Impact Assessment (HIA) would have been the best way of addressing weaknesses on health matters. There is no proper baseline for the health and wellbeing status of local communities. They say it is inequitable that existing airport-related impacts are not considered as a key part of the overall assessment of the three schemes. "There seems to be an implicit weighting for economic development and against health evidence." Hillingdon say "it is unclear how local stakeholder feedback would be incorporated" on health issues. And "The Department of Health and Public Health England do not seem to have been consulted" during the Commission's work. "Aggregating positive and negative impacts is flawed and inequitable. The negative impact of noise cannot be ‘bundled’ together with the positive impact of employment, because most often the negative and positive impacts are experienced by different groups of people." "Impacts on children are not considered as part of this assessment either qualitatively or quantitatively. This is a significant omission." And so on. A long catalogue of failures and omissions.
Click here to view full story...
Mid Sussex District Council, and Wealden District Council both oppose Gatwick runway
Following a full discussion at the Scrutiny Committee for Planning and Economic Development on the 20th of January 2015, Mid Sussex District Councillors agreed to write to the Airports Commission to strongly oppose a 2nd Gatwick runway. The Council endorsed the opposition on 28th January. The Council is concerned about the impact of an expanded Gatwick on Mid Sussex, a predominately rural area, just one mile away from the current airport boundary. Infrastructure will not be adequate, and has not been properly assessed by the Commission. Councillors did not believe the possible economic benefits would outweigh the devastating impact of a runway.There are concerns about the impact on areas designated as National Park or High Weald. Wealden District Council agreed at a meeting on 28th January not to support the Gatwick runway. However, they felt a Heathrow runway would benefit the District more. Councillors are concerned about the pressure for more housing that a runway would create, and that there needs to be further work done on the environmental impact on the Ashdown Forest, particularly exhaust fumes from the extra vehicles. Other councillors expressed concern about flightpaths and noise.
Click here to view full story...
East Sussex County Council votes in favour of Gatwick 2nd runway by 27:19
At a full council meeting on Monday 26th January, East Sussex County Council voted to back a 2nd runway at Gatwick. Members voted by 27 to 19 in support of the runway. The vote came about because the Council is discussing and agreeing its response to the Airports Commission consultation on a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick (having decided, for political reasons, to discount the option of no new runway). There was a free vote and the vote was recorded. Many councillors from economically stressed areas to the south of the county were persuaded that there would be jobs, if there was a new runway. Much of the county is sufficiently far from Gatwick to avoid many of the negative consequences of a new runway. Some councillors hope they might also get better infrastructure, if there was a runway. Unfortunately, though there are jobs at Gatwick (many low paid and some may be on uncertain hours contracts) and people in need of jobs along the East Sussex Coast, the cost and difficulty of getting to Gatwick means the vacancies are not being filled by people from this area. Croydon etc are much closer to Gatwick, and easier to get to for work.
Click here to view full story...
Problem of how people bothered by aircraft noise can register many complaints
The Daily Mail is shares the glee of Heathrow in locating two people who had set up their computer to make automatic complaints about aircraft noise. This came to light, when after the clocks changed, the complaints about flights were made even before the plane had taken off..... Clearly not a proper complaint. However, the presumption is that one person should only make a small number of complaints, even if they find the aircraft noise they are exposed to is excessive. Heathrow appear to see the complaints line as for planes that are making a degree of noise that is greater than normal, or different. For people who are upset and annoyed by the noise, they may see every plane as upsetting and annoying. Airports are delighted if the number of noise complaints goes down, so the numbers matter. If people do not complain often, they are considered not to be annoyed. That requires people to make multiple complaints, but that takes a great deal of time and effort - hard to sustain while leading a busy life. John Stewart (HACAN) commented: 'I think its unfortunate that many residents felt they had to resort to these kinds of machines, but unfortunately they have been left with no choice but to have them. ....that shows how disturbed people were by the noise from the flight paths."
Click here to view full story...
Report by Oxera for Birmingham Airport criticises Commission’s analysis on impacts of Heathrow runway on regional airports
Birmingham Airport has commissioned a study by economic analysts, Oxera, to look at the Airports Commission's analysis of impacts of Heathrow expansion on regional airports - Birmingham in particular. Oxera believes a 3rd Heathrow runway would exacerbate, rather than reduce, regional imbalances and by sucking more business into the south-east, Heathrow expansion would just widen the north/south divide. Oxera say the methodology used by PwC, on behalf of the Airports Commission, could hide winners and losers in UK regions, and underplays the negative effect that Heathrow expansion could have on some UK regions. They believe there should be better analysis of where the national losses and gains would be, and how they would be distributed. CEO of Birmingham, Paul Kehoe, seems to be more in favour of a Gatwick runway, which presumably threatens Birmingham less. Kehoe said: “Whilst Heathrow is essential and must remain a world class airport for the UK and for the Midlands to grow, Heathrow must become complementary to Birmingham Airport. More capacity at Heathrow would limit our region’s ambitions.” The Midlands claims to be responsible for 16% of all UK exports.
Click here to view full story...
Crawley Borough Council votes by 25:11 to oppose 2nd runway at Gatwick
A special Full Council meeting of Crawley Borough Council has voted by 25:11 against a 2nd runway at Gatwick. The meeting was held on 26th January, to discuss the content of the Council's response to the Airports Commission consultation, and whether the Council would take no position, pro or anti the runway - or decide one way or the other. After two hours of debate, in front of a packed public gallery, a recorded vote was taken - it was a free vote, with councillors allowed to vote how they saw fit, rather than according to party lines. The suggested Cabinet wording was that "The Full Council considers that the interests of Crawley residents and businesses are best served by the Council objecting to a second runway being developed at Gatwick." The objection will be recorded in the council's response to the Commission. Five councillors – Stephen Joyce, Colin Moffatt, Chris Oxlade, Peter Smith and council leader Peter Lamb – felt the council should have agreed to take no specific view on the 2nd runway at this time. All five then voted not to object to the new runway. Most other local councils have also recently voted against the runway.
Click here to view full story...
Slough Borough Council lists its financial demands on Heathrow, if it gets a 3rd runway
Slough Borough Council is supportive of a 3rd runway at Heathrow. With Spelthorne, they are the only two councils near Heathrow that do back a new runway. Slough has now submitted their council response to the Airports Commission consultation, but it includes many points on which the council wants extra funding, if there is a new runway. Slough Council expects to be compensated for loss of council tax from residential properties, loss of business rates from commercial land lost; and loss of business rates from closure of the Colnbrook incinerator. They want Heathrow to pay for insulation of public buildings, especially schools, throughout the whole of Slough; fixed noise monitoring stations across all affected areas of Slough, with the airport paying for their operation; and replacement of the Grundon incinerator, with no break in service, all at Heathrow's expanse. They also expect extension of the Slough Mass Rapid Transit bus system to Heathrow, which has been halted due to lack of money. And Slough wants Heathrow to contribute towards the cost of air quality monitoring, recognising much is due to the airport. And the list continues ....
Click here to view full story...
The stubborn 30% who remain opposed to a 3rd runway could be politically more important than those who support it
Heathrow airport frequently gets opinion polls done by Populus. These are phone polls, done by phoning randomly chosen numbers, in chosen boroughs. The script of the interviewer is not published, but earlier someone who received one of these calls wrote down as best she could at the time, the questions. There appeared to be some bias in the phrasing. Populus has not chosen exactly the same list of boroughs for their surveys, making comparison impossible. Heathrow says, in its survey conducted in 10 boroughs, between mid November and mid December 2014 that there was 50% net support for a 3rd runway, against 33% net opposition - from the boroughs of Spelthorne, Richmond Park, Brentford and Isleworth, Feltham & Heston, Windsor, Ealing Central & Acton, Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Slough, Hayes & Harlington, and Twickenham. A survey carried out in 7 boroughs from late February to late March 2014 showed 48% net support, and 34% net oppose. A Populus survey of 6 boroughs in February to May 2013 showed 46% net support and 43% net opposition. A Populus survey in September 2007 (asking about a short 3rd runway) had 50% net support and 30% net oppose. So there really has not been a lot of change, though there are slight variations in the composition of the figures.