Airport News
Below are news items relating to specific airports
Effects on cardiovascular and respiratory systems of short-term exposures to ultrafine particles in air, near an airport, in healthy subjects
There is a growing body of research into the negative health impacts of very tiny particulate air pollution. The nanoparticles of ≤20 nm are produced by vehicle engines, but seem to be produced in considerable amounts by jet engine. A new study in the Netherlands looked at impacts on the respiratory and cardiovascular systems of 21 healthy young (18 - 35), non-smoking volunteers. They were exposed between 2 and 5 times to 5 hour periods of the ambient air near Schiphol airport, while doing intermittent moderate exercise like cycling. Various aspects of their circulation and respiration were measured. The study found the exposures were associated with decreased FVC (forced vital capacity - a measure of lung function) and prolonged QTc intervals (the time it takes the heart to re-polarise for the next beat).The effects were relatively small, but they appeared after single exposures of 5 h in young healthy adults. "As this study cannot make any inferences about long-term health impacts, appropriate studies investigating potential health effects of long-term exposure to airport-related UFP, are urgently needed."
Click here to view full story...
Airlines want lower airport landing fees – airports not keen (all suffering Covid impacts)
Ryanair, Wizz Air and easyJet are among the airlines increasing pressure on airports to reduce landing charges. The airlines have suffered financially due to the pandemic, but so have the airports. The low cost airlines are pushing for cuts in charges, and threats they will only fly to airports which charge less. This is seen as a race to the bottom. Airports will have to compete, to get airlines to fly to them, when they recover from the pandemic. O’Leary said Ryanair planned expansion at Venice airport, where a new base and 18 new routes were announced in December following what Ryanair called “competitive” pricing. Airports make money from landing fees, and also revenues from their own facilities including retail space, catering and car parking. A spokesperson from ACI Europe (an airports group) said the financial situation of airports was bad, and agreeing to discount their charges was unsustainable. Airports have fixed costs such as air traffic control, fire services, airport buildings and much else that cannot be cut. ACI Europe has estimated that 6,000 flight routes across Europe have been lost during the crisis, leaving airports competing for flights. Heathrow wants to increase its landing charge by 5% due to its pandemic losses.
Click here to view full story...
Letter in Maidenhead Advertiser: Heathrow leaders are pursuing a dead horse
In a letter, published in the Maidenhead Advertiser, a local resident explains the actual effect of the Supreme Court Judgement in December. The Court ruled that the Airports NPS was legal. But rather than this being a dreadful result for those opposed to a 3rd Heathrow runway, or badly affected by the airport's noise, it is in fact quite a positive result. The judgement does NOT give the runway permission to go ahead. There is ever more awareness of the need for urgent action on climate change, including by the aviation industry. The government also needs to do more on "levelling up" the country, avoiding putting ever more investment and infrastructure into the south-east. Heathrow expansion would not help with that, and would require constraints on regional airports, or even the closure of some. The Court also confirmed that any Heathrow planning application (a Development Consent Order, DCO) would need to meet current policies, on issues such as carbon emissions. Financially Heathrow has serious problems with building a 3rd runway. It has worked over recent years to provide immense dividends to its shareholders - about £4 billion over 8 years. Future air travel demand is uncertain, especially demand for business travel. It should use the post-Covid period to "build back better" and scrap expansion plans.
Click here to view full story...
The problem of a Heathrow 3rd runway for regional airports – it means they cannot expand. Letter from No 3rd Runway Coalition Chair, Paul McGuinness
Since the UK Parliament gave the go-ahead for Heathrow expansion in 2018 (by endorsing the Airports National Policy Statement), quite a lot has changed. The UK’s Net Zero Carbon target has famously been incorporated into law. And – just this month – the Westminster Government has announced we shall increase the speed of progress towards that target (by achieving 68% of the reductions in emissions by 2030). Moreover, the Climate Change Committee (the UK Government’s statutory adviser on the implementation of carbon commitments) has stated there is no room in the next “carbon budget” for any expansion in the UK’s net aviation capacity. This consolidated advice from 2019 that, were Heathrow to expand, restrictions would need to be applied to aviation activity across the UK. This could include the reduction of flights and, potentially, closures of regional airports across the UK, with reduced aviation connectivity for people the UK regions. We should be interested to know if any readers would like to see aviation activity reduced at their local airport (or possibly see it forcibly closed) in order to afford Heathrow the opportunity of expanding, in the already prosperous south east of England.
Click here to view full story...
Legal challenges against government – new one by the Good Law Project on aviation and Heathrow
Environmentalists are using the law to force the government to bring infrastructure plans into line with its climate change commitments. There are already legal challenges, on energy and roads. The challenge on road building is by the Transport Action Network, and the energy one is by the Good Law Project. Now the Good Law Project have started new legal action against the government, to the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS). They insist that the ANPS must now be aligned with the Climate Change Act (2008), which is now in force and which demands almost zero emissions by 2050. The ANPS was first written when some believed (wrongly) that airport capacity in south-east England was becoming over-loaded. Good Law says the strategy should be reviewed due to the likely long-term reduction in business travel due to Covid. In addition there can be no justification for expanding Heathrow, with the UK's climate commitments. Boris has been a long term opponent of a Heathrow 3rd runway, so would perhaps welcome a simple - and wise in terms of carbon - way to prevent it, once and for all. In another legal challenge, Plan B Earth intends to take the Heathrow case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Click here to view full story...
Stansted passengers down to around the level in 2000; huge reduction in the UK tourism deficit, due to Covid
Stop Stansted Expansion's end-of-year message to its supporters provides some useful numbers. As well as the huge financial and job losses to the aviation sector due to Covid, the impact has been that Stansted has around 8 million passengers (about the level 20 years ago). The Government's independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, published a major report on December 9th recommending no further net airport expansion, if the UK is to meet its 'net zero' target for greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. But Covid has meant that the trade deficit caused by UK outbound tourism, that was £34 billion in 2019, is much smaller - as far fewer Brits could travel abroad and spend their holiday money there. SSE say it is estimated that the Spanish tourism industry lost £20 billion this year from UK tourists, with huge losses for the tourism industry in France, Greece and Portugal. Whilst the UK also has lost income from foreign tourists, it is benefitting in net terms to the tune of about £2-3 billion every month. Much of that money has been spent in the UK, on home improvements, new furniture and appliances, savings and some "staycations."
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow expansion decision highlights jobs paradox – PCS union comment
The PCS union, which has workers at Heathrow, has commented on the Supreme Court decision, and on the future of airport workers. They say that contrary to the assumption from some quarters that this means a jobs bonanza for workers, PCS remains sceptical about the real benefit for our members. As a union committed to protecting and supporting their workers, they have had to fight against jobs being reduced - even before Covid - by automation of roles, and new grading structures. Now this has been happening even faster, as cost cutting steps are taken in response to the pandemic. PCS is trying to save as many jobs as possible. But with the need for the UK, and the aviation sector, to decarbonise, some job losses are inevitable. There need to be plans to retrain workers, and find alternative employment, in order to protect the continued livelihoods of workers. It is now generally accepted that combatting climate change is the richest source of future employment, and plans to do so need to be implemented urgently. While air travel demand may return in several years time, jobs need to be found now. While it is a remote possibility Heathrow would build a 3rd runway many years ahead, that does not provide employment for its workers now. Alternatives need to sought for them - now.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow expansion would be a direct assault on this government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda
Paul McGuinness, Chair of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, writing in the Independent, says the judgement by the Supreme Court, that the Airports NPS is legal, will have disappointed many, in particular the local communities who have now lived beneath the black cloud of uncertainty about a 3rd runway for far too long. Many aspects of the ANPS are now seriously out of date - in particular the economic benefits, claimed for the expansion. The ANPS had assumed the runway would be operating by 2028 with a buoyant, growing aviation sector. But Heathrow abandoned plans to open by 2028 and has instead said - for many months - that the runway might not be needed till 2032 or 3035. They consider construction, phased over time, might take 30 years, not the 5 originally intended, and justified it economically on that basis. The economic case needs to be re-assessed. The problem of UK targets on carbon emissions mean the runway is impossible. There is also the “levelling up” agenda, which only came into play after parliament had approved the ANPS. The CCC has just advised for its sixth carbon budget, that there should be no net expansion of airports. A Heathrow 3rd runway would mean yet more aviation activity focused on the south-east, to the detriment of the regions. That is a direct assault on the “levelling up” agenda to which the government says it is committed. The UK needs a proper aviation policy for the whole country, not the ANPS that focused only on Heathrow.
Click here to view full story...
What does the Supreme Court judgement on Heathrow’s runway plans mean for the campaign to stop the 3rd runway?
A briefing note from the No 3rd Runway Coalition on what comes next, after the Supreme Court judgement (16th December) sets out some key issues. The Coalition says the judgement does NOT give Heathrow the green light; it us simply one hurdle cleared. Expansion faces: 1. Legal challenges. Plan B Earth intends to take proceedings to the European Court of Human Rights, on the danger to future generations from climate change. 2. Government can commit to reviewing the ANPS under Section 6 of the Planning Act 2008. This can refer to all or part of the statement. The Act enables the Secretary of State to consider any significant change in any circumstances on the basis of which any policy in the statement was decided. It can be argued that the Net Zero commitments, noise, air pollution, assessment of health impacts, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economics provide legitimate reasons for review. The ANPS could be withdrawn. 3. Though Heathrow can now proceed to submit an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) to the Planning Inspectorate, this has to consider current climate obligations, including the UK's net zero by 2050 target. And Heathrow has been seriously damaged financially by Covid. See the full briefing note.
Click here to view full story...
Boris on Heathrow after Supreme Court judgement: any expansion must meet strict air quality and climate criteria
Boris Johnson, with a constituency near Heathrow, was always a vociferous critic of the plans for a 3rd runway. When Heathrow took their appeal, against the ruling of the Appeal Court against the ANPS in February, the government did not join them. Now the Supreme Court has ruled that the ANPS is legal, Boris has not said anything in favour of it. Allegra Stratton, his press secretary, said Heathrow still needed to convince the Planning Inspectorate that it met rigorous environmental benchmarks before being allowed to proceed through the DCO process. She said the “point the PM would make now” was that “any expansion must meet strict criteria on air quality noise and climate change and the government will come forward with a response shortly”. Heathrow may not be able to raise the necessary funds for the runway. Boris and Grant Shapps, the Transport Secretary, will be under pressure to redraft the ANPS, as it was written in 2018 and is woefully out of date on carbon. Life has moved on since then; the UK now has to cut CO2 emissions by 100% by 2050 (from 1990 level), not the 80% target of 2018. There are now new UK targets - advised by the Committee on Climate Change - for a 68% cut in CO2 by 2030, and a 78% cut by 2035. Expanding Heathrow cannot be squared with that.