Airport News
Below are news items relating to specific airports
London leads as the world’s top airline hub by a wide margin – by number of passengers through its 5 airports
Simon Calder, writing in the Independent, says that "far from Britain declining as an aviation superpower, the capital’s global lead over every other city in the world is increasing." Despite Heathrow being close the largest number of flights, London remains the world’s top airline hub by a wide margin (23%) - and is racing ahead of its closest rival, New York. There were a record number of air passengers using the 5 London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City airport) in 2014, and that was about 61% of all UK air passengers (same % as in 2013). Some 144.7 million passengers flew through London’s 5 commercial airports last year, which is the equivalent of 275 people - or one wide-bodied aircraft - arriving or departing every minute of every day of the year. Heathrow's number of passengers in 2014 rose 1.7% due to using larger aircraft, and the number of passengers using the 5 London airports rose 5% in 2014 compared to 2013. While London is by far the best connected city in the world, New York comes 2nd, Tokyo 3rd and Paris the only other European city in the top 10. The pre-eminence of London indicates that the UK economy is not losing out due to any lack of airport capacity. London comfortably leads world cities, for airport capacity.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick hoping its “pledge” of £46.5 million if it gets 2nd runway will go towards a new Crawley hospital
The local Crawley press reports that Gatwick airport has said they will provide money to contribute towards the cost of a new hospital serving Crawley if they are allowed to build a 2nd runway. This is not a new offer - it was in their list of "pledges" put out in July 2014. However, last week Crawley Borough Council announced that it will tell the Airports Commission a new hospital for Crawley and Horsham must be built if Gatwick is expanded. Members of the council's overview and scrutiny commission debated a report by council officers that the Commission had "significantly underestimated" what healthcare needs would be created by expansion. Gatwick has said it would provide a £46.5 million fund for community infrastructure projects if there is a new runway. (There is doubt whether a future owner of Gatwick would be legally held to any pledges made now by GIP). Gatwick says it would provide just £5,000 per new house needed, and it estimates that number to be 9,300. ie. £46.5 million. But that would have to cover all areas, down to the coast, not only Crawley. Other figures of the cost of building a hospital put the cost at around £330 - £430 million. Local hospital facilities in the area are already under pressure.
Click here to view full story...
High Court decision that RAF Northolt must have same safety standards for private jets as civilian airports
A legal judgement, brought by rival airports (Oxford and Biggin Hill) against RAF Northolt, says the CAA is the statutory regulator required to determine safety standards for civilian aircraft using government owned military aerodromes. This means Northolt will have to meet higher safety standards for business jets than those in place for military flights, and this will be expensive for them. As the number of military flights has fallen from Northolt, there have been more business jets - up to a total of 12,000 per year. The trigger for the current proceedings came in April 2012 when the MOD decided to increase the limit on civil flights at RAF Northolt from 7,000 to 12,000 movements. Ministers had repeatedly argued before that they didn’t need to meet stricter, costlier civilian safety standards and the CAA had no regulatory powers at military aerodromes. This meant that smaller private airports reliant on business jets were being significantly undermined, as RAF Northolt became a competitor without incurring the higher costs of complying with civilian safety standards. Although the arguments in the case have been about the application of safety standards, the motivation for the challenge is the claimant airports' commercial interests as competitors.
Click here to view full story...
Runnymede Council drops its support for Heathrow 3rd runway
At a meeting on Thursday 22nd January, Runnymede Borough Council voted against their previous pro-Heathrow expansion stance. Runnymede has became the first council to change from a position of supporting a new runway at Heathrow. A packed public gallery burst into applause when the council's Corporate Management Committee voted by six votes to three to change the policy. Many of the residents were from areas that had seen an increase in flight numbers during the recent trials by Heathrow. The Committee argued that the environmental downsides outweighed any economic benefits that Runnymede might get from expansion. Unfortunately the council voted instead to back a 2nd runway at Gatwick. The way the Airports Commission process has been conducted, the impression has been given that there will be a runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick. In reality, it is still very much whether there will be any new runway - so not a binary choice. The vote by Runnymede leaves only two councils, Slough and Spelthorne, as fully behind a Heathrow 3rd runway. The Council meeting and the vote came about due to pressure from local groups, such as Englefield Green and Windsor.
Click here to view full story...
In 2014 Heathrow had 86,000 noise complaints in 5 months – with a 5-fold increase between 2013 and 2014
Heathrow have disclosed to Richmond Park and North Kingston MP Zac Goldsmith that they received a staggering 86,000 complaints about aircraft noise in just 5 months last year. Overall, 94,114 individual noise complaints were made to Heathrow in 2014 compared to just 18,826 in 2013. That is a 5-fold increase in the number of complaints, and a 3-fold increase in the number of people complaining. Heathrow says this is due to the airspace trails they carried out in the last half of 2014 where they tested new flight paths, both to the west and to the east of the airport. Zac Goldsmith said “the recent flight path trials offer a tiny hint of what’s to come if Heathrow is expanded. The trials affected a small part of West London, whereas a 3rd runway would bring hundreds of thousands of new people into the airport’s noise footprint. At this stage they know nothing about it. This .... demonstrates how badly affected people are by aircraft noise." The figures also show that nearly 7,000 people complained about night and early morning flights in 2014. The All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Heathrow and the Wider Economy, recently produced a report showing how the impact of noise from Heathrow’s flight paths has been seriously underestimated.
Click here to view full story...
Fears over “illustrative map” showing Gatwick flight path over Copthorne and Crawley Down
Copthorne and Crawley Down residents have expressed disbelief that a map released by the Airports Commission about Gatwick's proposed 2nd runway shows what appears to be plans for a new flightpath directly over their homes. The Airports Commission insisted on the production of a map showing a flight path to assess the "operational viability" of the runway, but Gatwick management and NATS say it should "not be interpreted as representative of the location of future flight paths" The map is from a NATS document, which says "These designs are for illustrative purposes only and should not be interpreted as representative of the location of future flight paths, should a particular scheme be recommended...." Although there is currently no permanent flight path in place over the area, residents from both Copthorne and Crawley Down have complained of noise from changes to flight paths over the past year, including the introduction of a "concentrated flight path. People have become eer more aware of the planes and increasingly concerned about future increases, with planes using a new southern runway 1km south of the current one creating yet more noise near them.
Click here to view full story...
West Sussex County Council Cabinet will not include mention of vote against Gatwick runway in its Airports Commission consultation response
West Sussex County Council voted against supporting a 2nd Gatwick runway - with 37 votes to 26 votes, with 4 abstentions. It also agreed its official response to the Airports Commission’s consultation expressing ‘serious concerns’ about the implications of a Gatwick 2nd runway. At a special Full Council meeting councillors almost unanimously approved the 20-page document which lists the improvements it believes need to be made before any proposal to expand the airport is submitted to Government. Leader of West Sussex County Council, Mrs Louise Goldsmith, and the Council’s cabinet member for highways and transport, Pieter Montyn, continue to back the runway. Mr Montyn said the council would not be including information on the vote in their submission to the Commission. Mrs Goldsmith was eager to assert that the Commission's decision on a runway would not be influenced by her council - an opinion which many would disagree with. Mr Montyn said: “The issue of a 2nd runway at Gatwick is an extremely emotive subject and that played out at today’s meeting. [The Commission ...] asks us to comment on the methodology and evidence base of [their] assessments, and to put forward improvements that we believe should be made." Hence its position opposing Gatwick expansion will not form part of its consultation response.
Click here to view full story...
West Sussex County Council votes to oppose a 2nd Gatwick runway (Kent CC has already done so too)
A second County Council has withdrawn its support for a 2nd Gatwick runway, because of the high level of local opposition - and the unconvincing case made by the airport. West Sussex County Council (WSCC) voted by 37 to 26 to reverse its (somewhat unorthodox) decision in July 2013 to support another Gatwick runway. It held today's special meeting to debate the Gatwick issue, because the Council needed to write its response to the Airports Commission consultation, before it ends on 3rd February. Kent County Council withdrew its backing for a second runway in November, because of new flight paths. Over almost 5 hours of debate, numerous WSCC councillors put their points, displaying a sincere intention to act in the best interests of the county's residents, as they saw them. Many expressed dissatisfaction with the Airports Commission's documents and analysis, saying it was incomplete and often inaccurate. There was a high level of uncertainty about the inability of the county's infrastructure to cope with the stresses of a new runway, with transport being of particular concern. Ultimately councillors felt there were likely to be huge costs and problems from a runway, with uncertain benefits. They voted against the runway. Gatwick said it was disappointed by WSCC's decision.
Click here to view full story...
Crawley councillors say Airports Commission report into impact of Gatwick 2nd runway is riddled with mistakes
Crawley councillors will vote on what the council's position should be on a 2nd Gatwick runway on January 26. Members of the borough's overview and scrutiny committee have delivered a scathing assessment of an Airports Commission report into the impact of the runway, saying it is inaccurate, inadequate and ill-informed. The councillors do not want the council to remain impartial on the issue. Concerns were raised about what they feel are serious shortcomings by the Commission regarding its grasp of the current infrastructure, housing issues and level of employment in Crawley, provision of schools, and the impact expansion would have on the local area. There is little confidence the Commission is even aware of some of these matters, or that it can possibly predict what sort of infrastructure will be needed to support a 2nd runway. While the Commission presumes there is available labour, the council says the current unemployment figure is only 5.3%. As it is, Crawley cannot currently meet its target of building 500 homes a year, due to a lack of available land to build on, let alone many more. There was serious concern about schools that would be demolished, and the runway's impact on the borough's newest school.
Click here to view full story...
Letter: The real cost of Gatwick airport expansion that are not being considered
Sally Pavey, the Chair of CAGNE (Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions) writes that at the Airports Commission event on 16th December, Gatwick announced that it would add to its expenditure a new terminal and passenger rail link from day one, which must add at least £2 billion to the overall costs. And before Christmas Moody Financial questioned Gatwick’s financial stability to afford the expansion. It is not clear who would pay for the Gatwick promises of contributing to infrastructure, unless Gatwick needs to increase passenger landing charges more than anticipated by the Commission, at £23 per passenger. EasyJet, Gatwick’s number one customer, has already raised concerns over the extra cost of a new runway to their passengers. With such increases in passenger fares will passengers move to Stansted or Luton for cheap flights? The infrastructure costs have been missed in the Airports Commission report for Gatwick, so no allowance for schools, hospitals, new roads, railways, GPs, affordable housing. If one in five that work at Heathrow live adjacent to the airport then where will the 90,000 low skilled workers (AC figures) going to live?