Airport News
Below are news items relating to specific airports
Stop Stansted Expansion challenge to Airports Commission on apparent bias going to High Court on Friday 22nd Nov
Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) will go to the Royal Courts of Justice on Friday 22 November to present its case that a key element of the work carried out by the Airports Commission has been tainted by apparent bias and needs to be done afresh. SSE's legal challenge stems from the involvement of Geoff Muirhead, who was appointed to the Airports Commission. He had retired as MAG's chief executive in October 2010 after 22 years with the Group but he was then immediately appointed as their highly paid ambassador, a role he continued to fulfil even after he was appointed to the Commission. Mr Muirhead resigned from the Commission on 20 September 2013, shortly after SSE began its legal challenge. He was directly involved in determining the Commission's 'sift criteria' for deciding the most suitable airport expansion options and SSE believes that these are clearly skewed to favour expansion at Stansted. SSE will be asking the High Court to order the Commission to re-determine the 'sift criteria' and to delay the publication of any short-list of options until the sift criteria have been re-determined.
Click here to view full story...
Opinion (LibDem Robin Meltzer): “Heathrow expansion: big money versus public health”
Robin Meltzer is the prospective LIb Dem candidate for the Richmond Park seat (current incumbent is Zac Goldsmith). In a blog in Liberal Democrat Voice he says the LibDems are strictly against any 3rd Heathrow runway, and against all night flights at Heathrow. He reiterates the fact that over 725,000 people are already affected by noise from Heathrow, making it the airport the noise from which affects more than any other in Europe. This causes health problems. He says: "A 3rd or 4th new runway ..... would lead to the destruction of homes and entire villages. It would be an environmental outrage and a noise pollution disaster for hundreds of thousands of residents, including people not currently affected. Yet the whole pro-expansion side of the issue, which is rolling in money and spending it furiously, is able to get its views across forcefully and frequently in the media. So it is important to challenge the assumptions and myths."...."It’s not exactly rocket science to realise that the massive industry that has grown up around lobbying for expansion serves well the people who would benefit from it. "
Click here to view full story...
BA fears cuts to early morning Heathrow flights before 7am – says cuts would have “dramatic impact” on business travellers
British Airways wants to keep as many flights into Heathrow in the early morning as it can. It is saying it does not want restrictions on flights before 7am. BA’s head of sales and marketing Richard Tams said any further restrictions on landings at Heathrow between 04.30 and 07.00 each day could have a “dramatic impact on business travellers." Currently only 16 flights are allowed to land at Heathrow between 04.30 and 06.00 with a total of 65 take-offs and landings allowed between 06.00 and 07.00 each day. The current night flights regime will remain in place till October 2017. BA says “These early morning flights are critical because a lot of flights from the US and the Far East land during this period – they are critical for people transiting through London.” Not letting BA have these flights - which are deeply unpopular with thousands of Londoners, who get woken up too early - would, says BA, "dramatically impact the schedule we could offer out of London." Usual situation - it's a question of the health and quality of life (and sleep) for thousands, up against t he ability of BA to make more money.
Click here to view full story...
“Have regional airports had their day in the sun?” Plans by some for business parks, housing etc in future
The Northern Echo writes: "Have regional airports had their day in the sun?" They look at loss-making regional airports, after the news that Manston and Prestwick are to effectively be sold for £1 each. Others are surviving on bail-outs from taxpayers. From Prestwick to Newquay, numbers of passenger at UK regional airports plummeted after 2007 as airlines withdrew flights and consolidated services at the major hubs in response to a reduction in both leisure and business traffic. Durham Tees Valley has been particularly badly hit, and continues to lose money - perhaps £4 million this year. Its owner, Peel, are proposing a business park with housing for the airport, and that sort of plan is becoming commonplace. Peel have launched similar plans at Robin Hood Airport, which includes a pub, offices, and industrial buildings. Newcastle airport's masterplan aims to include 2 business parks. Cambridge has a scheme to build up to 1,500 homes on land adjacent to the airport, and Manston wants to develop a campus with student accommodation.
Click here to view full story...
Prestwick Airport to be sold to Scottish Government for £1 – and other failing regional airports look to business parks and housing
Infratil, which currently owns Prestwick Airport, has said the airport is expected to be sold to the Scottish Government for £1. The sale is due to be completed by Wednesday, 20 November. Infratil said the airport’s value had been “fully impaired” - effectively written off - after Prestwick and sister airport Manston in Kent were collectively valued at £11 million in March. Infratil bought Prestwick from Stagecoach in 2001 for £33m. Manston is being sold to Stagecoach founder Ann Gloag for an expected £400,000. Scottish Ministers are taking over Prestwick airport, which is losing £7m a year, to avert its closure and safeguard 1,400 jobs, including 300 at the airport. Infratil described its investment in the airports to have been “unsuccessful for Infratil” and that while such regional airports looked like a good investment 5 years ago, they now are not as they are reliant on "robust air traffic growth driving demand." Other failing airports are looking to create business parks on their land, and housing - to try and make money out of them.
Click here to view full story...
Luton Airport planning application recommended for consent by Luton Borough Council for 21st November meeting
Luton Borough Council's Development Control Committee will be discussing the application for expansion at Luton airport, at a special meeting on 21st November. The officer recommendation is that they approve the application, with various conditions. One of the conditions is that: "At no time shall the passenger throughput of the airport exceed 18 million passengers per annum unless express consent is obtained from the Local Planning Authority." It also says: "Before any part of the development hereby permitted is commenced, a day to day noise control scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority which sets out the proposals for ensuring that individual aircraft noise impact from the Airport's operation is reduced as far as is practicable in the light of development to facilitate 18 mppa." ie. a degree of wishful thinking on noise controls. Local campaigners are arguing that the expansion is likely to increase the annual number of passengers by over 10 million. That would mean the application should be a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, which the Planning Act 2008 requires to be decided by the Planning Inspectorate, not the local council.
Click here to view full story...
Villages opposing a new runway either to the north, or south, of Heathrow unite in their opposition
Stanwell and its neighbouring communities are uniting to oppose plans to expand Heathrow. More than 100 people packed a meeting at the Grade I-listed St Mary’s Church for a debate on Heathrow's expansion plans. The meeting agreed that villages north and south of Heathrow should be protected and moves to demolish them fought. There was one exception - a councillor from Spelthorne Borough Council (which wants Heathrow expansion, but not in their borough - to the north instead. Rather irresponsible to try and pass the misery to another borough ...). "Her words were met with jeers." The 3 main speakers at the meeting were Father William Whittaker, Surrey county councillor Robert Evans and John Stewart, of HACAN. John said the case for a 3rd runway still does not add up. Some 725,000 people now live under the Heathrow flight path, and if a 3rd runway was built, that would rise by 150,000. Geraldine Nicholson, who led the No Third Runway Action Group (NOTRAG) also spoke and was warmly received. Further meetings are planned, with residents now looking to form their own action group.
Click here to view full story...
Speculation that GIP, Ferrovial and MAG interested in buying Aberdeen Glasgow and/or Southampton airports
Sky News has learned "from banking sources" that various infrastructure investors are interested in buying Aberdeen, Glasgow and Southampton airports - amid expectations that their owner, Heathrow Holdings, will opt to sell them - to focus on its ownership of Heathrow. It is understood that Heathrow is considering a plan to offload, following a string of unsolicited approaches from prospective buyers. Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP) which owns Gatwick and City airports, has expressed an interest in buying Aberdeen airport, although it has not yet made a formal bid. A number of Heathrow's shareholders and board members are said to be keen to dispose of the 3 regional airports but its board has not yet made a formal decision. Ferrovial now only owns 25% of Heathrow,and is reported as now likely to be interested in buying one or more of the airports, through a separate vehicle. MAG is also understood to want to buy one or more of them.
Click here to view full story...
“Heathrow Hub” proposers, claiming to be without vested interests, revealed to stand to make millions from options on land
The "Heathrow Hub" proposal for a 4 runway Heathrow got some very expensive full page ads in the main broadsheet papers recently, probably costing a total of well over £200,000. Now the Guardian reports that the group behind the "Heathrow Hub" scheme, which said in its adverts that it was without the "lobbying of vested interests" stands to make millions from options on nearby land should its £12.5bn plan be accepted by the government. Heathrow Hub adverts aimed to persuade the public that its expansionist solution could mean "quieter Heathrow expansion" despite almost doubling the number of planes over London. Their plan includes building on a 200-acre site north of Heathrow that the group could buy for a fraction of its future value. If the government approves the Heathrow expansion scheme, the value of the land currently might rise from around £10,000 per acre to £2m or more – an increase in value from £2m to at least £400m for the site. The 4 Heathrow Hub directors are shareholders in the land, and have a vested interest in its development.
Click here to view full story...
“London Britannia” (aka ‘Boris Island’) mega Thames Estuary airport designs publicised by promoters, Testrad
In the last month before the Airports Commission reveals its interim report, there is a flurry of activity, with airport schemes vying with each other to get media attention - and the attention of Sir Howard Davies. The mega-expensive (and needing huge public funding) scheme calling itself "London Britannia Airport" (aka Boris Island) had got itself plenty of media coverage. Its developers, Testrad, say the cost of £47 billion to develop the airport plus rail links, infrastructure etc, "would be recouped from the real estate value and closure of Heathrow." There is little new, other than what was reported earlier, in July. The airport claims it would bring huge economic benefits, cover most of the Thames estuary in a development area, allow the area at Heathrow (airport would have to be closed) to become a pleasant London suburb, and there are a list of other claims - including that it "avoids the problems of other land-based airport developments." It even makes out that it avoids bird strike problems (?). The entire area is part of the Outer Thames Estuary Special Protection Area.