Airport News
Below are news items relating to specific airports
GACC says the public misled by Gatwick’s “consultation” – with far higher figures in airport’s submission to Airports Commission
GACC (the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) has now studied the new runway plans announced by Gatwick Airport Ltd on 13 May. Brendon Sewill, chairman of GACC said: "They are horrendous - much larger in scale than in the recent consultation. The proposals will so infuriate local people that they will be determined to oppose the runway scheme at every stage. Any hopes that the airport may have had of building a new runway on time will have disappeared." The new plans are set out in a 3,200 page document that has been sent to the Airports Commission but which has not been published. The Gatwick press summary shows that the new airport would be bigger than anything previously envisaged. The maximum number of passengers per year has gone up to 97 million compared to a maximum of 87 million in the consultation. That would make Gatwick much bigger than Heathrow today (72 million in 2013), and nearly three times as big as Gatwick today (35 million). The new plans show utter disdain for the 6,000 people who have visited the runway exhibitions during the past months "consultation", and for the thousands more who have responded online. It is clear that Gatwick’s owners had already decided on their preferred option. GACC has been proved 100% correct it was a phoney consultation.
Click here to view full story...
Lydd Airport Action Group’s Appeal unsuccessful so Lydd expansion can go ahead
Lydd Airport Action Group (LAAG) is disappointed that they have been unable to quash the government’s decision to grant Lydd Airport permission to extend its runway and build a new terminal to support a throughput of 500,000 passengers per annum. LAAG and the RSPB both challenged the government's decision. Their Section 288 Appeal focused heavily on process, not the merits of the facts. The impact of allowing the expansion of Lydd airport is likely to be highly negative for many people in the area, not to mention wildlife. The airport development will lead to the introduction of large aircraft, such as the Boeing 737, taking off and landing within 60 seconds flight time of the Dungeness Nuclear power complex. No other regional airport in Europe, and possibly the world, will be located as close to a nuclear power complex. LAAG contends this development will result in the possibility of an aircraft accident at the Dungeness Nuclear power complex. LAAG believes Lydd Airport’s expansion is not in the public interest. RSPB says the area round the airport is of "exceptional" importance to birds and the expansion would damage unique habitats on Romney Marsh.
Click here to view full story...
CityJet plane makes emergency landing at London City airport as section of wing became partly detached
A CitryJet flight from London City airport to Florence, carrying more than 60 people had to turn back after take-off because part of its wing became partly detached in mid-flight. The pilot of the Avro RJ85 plane had to abort the CityJet flight and circle above the Thames Estuary [burning off fuel?] before landing again at London City airport with a damaged wing. After take-off at about 7.25am today, passengers heard a loud bang and a section of the left wing, about six foot long, partly detached from the plane. The section is a cowling, made of plastic or fibreglass, which would have come down if the rods holding it had broken. The piece detached is aerodynamic, not vital for flight, but there could have been worse problems if it had fully fallen off. This is yet another incident of a plane with technical problems landing at London airports, flying miles - damaged - over highly populated areas. There will be an investigation into why the rods broke, and the section came away. Only 6 weeks ago the engine of a Swiss plane ‘blew up’ on runway just before take-off at London City airport
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow and Gatwick battle it out in the media, but is either environmentally deliverable?
Gatwick and Heathrow have been trying to get the best publicity they can for their runway, while simultaneously having a dig at each other. But does either deliver on environmental issues? Many of the new ideas, such as noise compensation schemes and a congestion charge, aim to tackle these impacts but much of what has been proposed either misses the key questions or makes impressive promises on issues that are outside the control of airports. Heathrow's only contribution towards cutting carbon emissions appears to be using some renewable energy in its new terminal and incentivising efficient aircraft. They remain silent on inconvenient issues. Giving the go-ahead to any of the runway options would mean UK carbon emissions would have to be cut elsewhere, either though imposing limits on regional airports, or expecting other sectors and industries to deliver near impossible emissions reductions. UK aviation has been given a very lax emissions target of only having to keep its CO2 emissions to 2005 levels by 2050. The assumption that this means an increase of 60% in passengers, or 55% in fligths depends on carbon cuts in line with the rate of growth. It is by no means clear those carbon efficiencies will, or can, be made.
Click here to view full story...
Belfast boy wants alternative home for geese facing cull for safety of Belfast City Airport planes
A 10-year-old boy - Jack McCormick - has appealed to Belfast's Lord Mayor to have geese, considered to be posing a threat to low-flying aircraft, moved to another park. The Lord Mayor has promised to raise the issues in a meeting with George Best Belfast City Airport. "I am an animal lover and would hate to think of anything bad happening to the grey geese at the park," Jack wrote: "My papa takes me to a great park in Gilnahirk .... It is big, but it has no geese or any animals. Why not move some of your geese from Victoria Park to the park at Gilnahirk? I would make sure that they were well-looked after. If you can't move them to Gilnahirk, could you not move them to other parks around Belfast?" The authorities prick the eggs so they don't develop. Jack said (children aren't stupid!): "Last year I noticed that there wasn't that many goslings but this year I'm hoping there will be an increase," he said. "I don't want any of them to die just because of being near an airport. To be fair, the geese were there first, and then the airport was built there."
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow still has a mountain to climb in persuading politicians about its 3rd runway
Writing in a blog, the day Heathrow submitted their runway plans to the Airports Commission, John Stewart (Chair of Hacan, the community group for people affected by the noise from Heathrow flight paths) says Heathrow still has a mountain to climb. Their revised 3rd runway plan shows they understand the need to pull out all the stops to make it politically deliverable. They appreciate that unless there are enough “goodies” for voters living under the flight paths and around Heathrow, governments will continue to be reluctant to commit to a 3rd runway. It is the proposals to deal with noise and community destruction that most politicians will be interested in. The view in the "Heathrow villages" of the offers of slightly higher than necessary payments to those facing compulsory purchase of their homes is that it will take much more than that to quell opposition. Heathrow does now acknowledge that aircraft noise is a problem outside the discredited 57 noise contour but few are really persuaded there would be less noise with 260,000 more flights per year. Whether Heathrow can do enough to persuade politicians that a3rd runway is politically deliverable is still open to real doubt.
Click here to view full story...
M25 could become Britain’s first 14-lane motorway (with 600 metre tunnel under runway) in Heathrow expansion plans
If Heathrow got its way and somehow managed to get permission for a 3rd runway north west of the existing two, the M25 is set to become Britain's first 14-lane motorway. Heathrow wants taxpayers to bankroll £1.2 billion of road and rail improvements including a 600m motorway tunnel under the new runway. ( Earlier estimates were £3-5 billion, according to Colin Matthews, at public meetings). The M25 would be widened to 14 lanes on a two-mile section from Junction 14, next to Terminal 5, to the junction with the M4. The proposal is likely to provoke a furious reaction from environmental campaigner s and from road users and motoring organisations. Heathrow said the 600 metre tunnel would be built in parallel without disruption to the present motorway – a claim Gatwick said was unbelievable. Stephen Glaister, of the RAC Foundation, warned: "Even a day or two's disruption on that vital stretch of road is a big issue. " Others have commented about the economic cost of delays caused by years of motorway disruption and hold-ups. Also the terrorism danger of a huge tunnel for vast numbers of cars, if a bomb was set off.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick submits its 2nd runway plans to Airports Commission – little detail published, but loads of spin
Gatwick is submitting its proposal for a 2nd runway to the Airports Commission. Unlike Heathrow it has not produced a glossy version for the public, but says it has produced a 3,200 page "evidence-based" report. They claim it would produce more economic benefit to the UK and not cost the taxpayer anything. By contrast the KPMG report done in December for the Airports Commission said it might cost the taxpayer up to £17.7 billion. Gatwick claims: "The economic benefit to the UK of this enhanced competition will be £40 billion more than Heathrow’s 3rd runway." Gatwick tries to make out their runway is an obvious choice, and say of their rival Heathrow: "Why tunnel part of the busiest motorway in Europe – the M25 - causing serious traffic disruption, when you can build on land already set aside for expansion?" They say: "The Gatwick proposal is best placed to align with key future trends - including continued market share gains by Low Cost Carriers, the spread of new technology hub-busting aircraft such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350, and the rapid rise of new hubs in the Middle East and Far East." Loads of positive spin, absolutely ignoring all the negatives associated with building an airport the size of Heathrow in semi-rural Sussex.
Click here to view full story...
“Heathrow Hub” submitting their 3rd runway plans to Airports Commission
On the same day as Heathrow airport published their promotion document for the public on their 3rd runway plan, "Heathrow Hub" have also put out a press release about their scheme, which they will also submit to the Airports Commission this week. The idea is to build another runway, at the western end of the existing north runway. Heathrow airport itself is not keen on this option, partly as a runway exactly in line with another is not a layout used at any other airport, and partly as it gives no chance for half a day of noise respite for those overflown. Heathrow knows the respite periods are of huge value to those suffering from aircraft noise. However, Heathrow Hub say their plan could expand Heathrow's theoretical capacity by approximately 220,000 flights per year, and it would create approximately 19,000 jobs ( Heathrow says theirs would create 100,000 jobs !) They say their scheme has the benefit of few homes being destroyed, and planes landing 2 miles further west being a little higher (so slightly less noisy) on approach over London.
Click here to view full story...
What Heathrow’s 3rd runway proposal says on noise (not very convincing)
Heathrow's publicity document on its 3rd runway plans has quite a lot on noise, as Heathrow realises that the noise generated by its aircraft is a key political topic, and is perhaps the main issue that would stop the runway. Having a new runway would mean the number of annual flights could increase by up to 260,000 per year (compared to the current 470,000 or so). This would inevitably create a huge amount more noise. But by only considering the people within the loudest noise contours (noise averaged over many hours each day) - the 57dBALeq countour and the 55dbLden contour - and not those who experience aircraft noise, but not quite as loudy, Heathrow claims fewer people will experience noise. This is manifestly not the truth. There may be slightly fewer, by massaging the figures, in the noisiest contours. But there will be many more experiencing aircraft noise, if not at the most intense levels. Already people miles from the airport, outside any current contour, are troubled and disturbed by aircraft noise. The document provides various maps and charts to try and make their point. The concept of respite periods is key in Heathrow's attempts to win over the over-flown public, and those yet to be over-flown.