General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Uttlesford DC approves Stansted expansion plan, only by Chairman’s casting vote – but plans may now be “called in”
Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) has expressed dismay and disappointment that the vote on 14th November)by Uttlesford District Council (UDC) Planning Committee granted approval for Stansted’s planning application to grow - to an annual throughput of 43 million passengers per annum (from the 35 million cap now). If this approval is allowed to stand, it would mean that Stansted could increase its flights by 44% and its passenger throughput by 66% compared, to last year’s levels. The Planning Committee, comprising ten elected Uttlesford councillors, split right down the middle with 5 in favour of the application (including the Planning Committee Chairman) and 5 against. Where there is a split vote, the Council rulebook gives the Chairman an additional (casting) vote - so he gets 2 votes. Both BBC and ITV regional news teams filmed the session, which was attended by many local people. UDC cannot issue a decision notice until the Sec of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire) has considered whether the application should be called in. This should have been done already, as the planned expansion is very near the threshold necessary - of an increase by 10 million annual passengers. SSE will now submit further representations to the Secretary of State asking him (again) to call in the application. They are currently also legally challenging the decision.
Click here to view full story...
Tests in the US to see if people tolerate booms, from proposed supersonic business jets (for the extra rich)
A long BuzzFeed article looks in detail at the problems of companies trying to bring back supersonic jets, like Concorde, just to cut a few hours off flights for those rich enough to afford them. The interest in developing these planes was galvanised on October 5th, when President Donald Trump signed a FAA bill directing NASA to start consulting with the aviation industry to restart supersonic passenger travel. The problems remain the horrible sonic boom, that is a pressure wave, that hits anyone/anything on the ground, as the plane flies so fast nearby. Earlier studies indicated people really hated it, and it was dangerous. The shock of the bang could cause heart attacks, car accidents, "people to fall off ladders"etc. Research earlier in the USA indicated that people did not become more tolerant of the bang, but less so. Supersonic flights by Concorde were banned over the USA. Now some US companies are looking at supersonic business flights again, but they are hugely wasteful in terms of fuel and high CO2 emissions. The ICCT said the jets would emit 40% more nitrogen oxides and 70% more CO2 than subsonic ones; they burn about 5-7 times as much fuel per passenger (not that Trump would care...)
Click here to view full story...
CCC launches zero carbon economy advice to government – Call for Evidence (till 7th December)
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has launched a new Call for Evidence to support is forthcoming advice to the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations on long-term targets for greenhouse gas emissions and the UK’s transition to a net zero-carbon economy. In October the government asked the CCC when the UK should reach net zero emissions of CO2 and/or greenhouse gases as a contribution to global ambition under the Paris Agreement; if that target should be set now; the implications for emissions in 2050; how such reductions can be achieved; and the costs and benefits involved in comparison to existing targets. The government asked for the advice by the end of March 2019. The current target is for cuts of at least 80% on the 1990 level by 2050. This includes international aviation and shipping. So far the 5-yearly carbon budgets are set up to 2032. The CCC advice will be looking at the latest climate science, including the IPCC Report on 1.5°C. Organisations and individuals are invited to send in responses, by 7th December, including thoughts on costs, risks and opportunities from setting a tighter long-term target - and actions needed to achieve the targets. Details of how to respond etc.
Click here to view full story...
Government, not content with ONE new runway breaching UK carbon targets, is now planning for TWO
The Government will open the door for another new runway by 2050, in addition to the plans for expansion at Heathrow, in a consultation to be launched next month. The DfT's "Aviation Strategy Green Paper" will consult on the decision-making process for delivering a further runway in the UK by 2050, according to Sarah Bishop, DfT's Deputy Head of Aviation Policy. This would be in addition to a 3rd Heathrow runway, and perhaps Gatwick making use of its emergency runway. Ms Bishop says there could be a "need" (sic) for more expansion, to meet air travel demand. Classic outdated "predict & provide" thinking. [The DfT gives the impression it is entirely unaware of of global climate breakdown, or the UK's responsibilities on its carbon emissions]. It remains unclear how even ONE further runway (perhaps Heathrow) could be delivered within the UK's legally binding CO2 emission targets - which require the aviation sector to keep its CO2 emissions to their 2005 level by 2050. The Committee on Climate Change warned as recently as June 2018 that higher levels of aviation emissions in 2050 “must not be planned for” and raised a series of concerns about even ONE new runway (let alone two). The No 3rd Runway Coalition believes the possibility of yet another runway being approved by the DfT would cause concerns for investors in Heathrow.
Click here to view full story...
By 2050 global aviation emissions could surge by 700% compared to 2005
Someone flying from London to New York and back generates roughly the same level of emissions as the average person in the EU does by heating their home for a whole year, according to the European Commission (EC). The EC states that: “If global aviation was a country, it would rank in the top 10 emitters.” Looking at Ireland, it has agreed, under the EU’s Effort Sharing Decision targets, to deliver a 20% reduction in non-ETS (Emissions Trading System) greenhouse gas emissions, based on 2005 levels, by 2020; these include: agriculture; transport; residential; commercial; waste; and the non-energy intensive industry. Earlier this year, Ireland also committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions level by 30% on 2005 levels by 2030. But according to the EC, by 2020, global international aviation emissions are projected to be around 70% higher than in 2005 and the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) forecasts that by 2050 they could grow by a further 300-700%. Some of the carbon emissions from aviation within Europe (not planes flying to and from Europe, just internally) are covered under the EU's ETS. This is at risk if the global ICAO deal succeeds in forcing the EU to abandon this scheme.
Click here to view full story...
Living near to a busy road or airport TRIPLES your risk of a heart attack and stroke because the noise triggers a harmful response in the body
More evidence - now from Massachusetts General hospital - is showing that living near to a noisy road or a busy flight path significantly increases risk of a heart attack or stroke. The added risk is in addition to risks of smoking and diabetes. It is thought that exposure to environmental noise alters the amygdala - a brain region involved in stress regulation and emotional responses. This then promotes blood vessel inflammation, which can lead to cardiovascular problems. Those exposed to chronic noise, such as near an airport, showed and a greater than three-fold risk of suffering a heart attack or a stroke and other major cardiovascular event. People with the highest levels of noise exposure had higher levels of amygdala activity and more inflammation in their arteries. The study looked at 499 people, with an average age of 56 years old. None had cardiovascular illness or cancer. They all underwent simultaneous PET and CT scans of their brain and blood vessels. To gauge noise exposure, the researchers used participants' home addresses government noise maps. The researchers say more research is needed to determine whether reduction in noise exposure could meaningfully lower cardiovascular risk and reduce the number of cardiovascular events on a population-wide scale.
Click here to view full story...
Birmingham airport unveils draft Master Plan, for huge growth over next 15 years
Birmingham Airport has unveiled its draft Master Plan, with its hopes of expansion over the next 15 years. There is a consultation till 31st January. It wants to increase its capacity by 5 million passengers a year (mppa) Much of the intended spending will be for a larger departure lounge with a mezzanine floor, new retail and restaurant units, more toilets and seating. Also more self-service desks (ie. fewer jobs...) and "the latest bag-drop technology and a new back-of-house baggage sorting area aimed at improving efficiency." (ie. fewer jobs). This has been seen by the airport's consultative committee on 5th November. There is no plan for a 2nd runway, but the expansion will cause more environmental damage, more CO2 emissions etc. - of which, no mention is made. (The usual airport attitude is " the majority of emissions are from planes in the sky and that is nothing to do with us…"). In the 2006 Master Plan the forecasts were for 25mppa by 2030; now they have reduced that to 18mppa by 2033. There were 12.9 mppa in 2017. Local campaigners suspect this will not be encouraging shareholders to fund expansion plans till the runway situation in the south east is sorted out. The airport is claiming the increased number of passengers will boost the local economy by £xx billion, and increase jobs by yyy. (These claims never materialise).
Click here to view full story...
“Back Heathrow” massively funded by Heathrow airport, tries to discredit Hillingdon, for their spending to protect residents
"Back Heathrow" is the "astroturf" group set up, managed by and (probably entirely) funded by Heathrow airport, to promote its 3rd runway, largely by claiming it has huge local support. Their accounts show that in 2017 "Back Heathrow" had current assets of £1 million (£1.24m in 2016). They have Net Worth of about £951,300. They complained in January 2017 about how much money Hillingdon Borough had spent in trying to defend its residents from the adverse impacts of an even larger Heathrow airport. Back Heathrow is complaining again. It has got figures from Hillingdon Borough Council, through FoI, for what it has had to spend to oppose Heathrow's plans. (Not being a council etc, Back Heathrow cannot be FoI-ed). It says Hillingdon has spent £1.4 million of taxpayers' money on this, between 2007 and now. In fact Hillingdon has spent about £1.12 million, as they received some funding towards the expenses, from other councils. Meanwhile, it is known that Heathrow spent £1.25 million advertising on Transport for London between June 2016 and 2017. It is also known that, between July 2015 and January 2017, the DfT spent over £3.8 million on external firms such as financial advisers N M Rothschild & Sons, law firms DLA Piper UK and Allen & Overy. No wonder local councils are given little alternative to spending money, to counteract this.
Click here to view full story...
Might Heathrow only be able to afford its 3rd runway scheme, by being allowed another 25,000 annual flights well before runway was ready?
The Times' Chief Business Commentator, Alistair Osborne, has written on the deeply unclear finances of a possible Heathrow 3rd runway. Alistair suggests, one way the airport could try and get in some extra cash, early in the building programme (when no airlines can use the new runway yet) is increasing the current numbers of flights and passengers. Heathrow loves to say it is full, but it is not. Each year the number of passengers creeps up - there is spare terminal capacity. But if instead of the current cap of 480,000 annual flights, Heathrow could get consent for an extra 25,000 (ie. to 505,000), it could add perhaps 6-7 million more passengers, up from the current 78 million or so. That could bring in much needed income, to help fund the vast project - including what to do with the M25. But adding 25 million more annual flights means about 65 more per day. Heathrow hopes to appease the ire of badly impacted local residents, by saying they would start flying at 5.30am rather than the 4.30am start now. But there would then be plane after plane after plane then, when people are still trying to sleep. And the airlines don't like the idea, as it upsets their lucrative long haul schedules, and causes less resilience if there are delays, at the peak periods.
Click here to view full story...
SSE say Stansted airport spin doctors are in a desperate final attempt to sway Uttlesford DC planners
Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) has described the latest Stansted press release claiming public support for its expansion plans as a complete distortion of the facts and a desperate eleventh hour attempt by the airport’s spin doctors to influence members of Uttlesford District Council (UDC) Planning Committee. The Committee is due to consider the airport planning application - for 44% more flights and 66% more passengers per year - on 14th November. The expansion would mean far higher CO2 emissions (over 1 million tonnes) from Stansted flights than now. SSE says the expansion plan "would have very serious environmental consequences for this generation and future generations. It would inflict yet more noise misery upon local residents and it would be a recipe for gridlock [local roads]. ... We simply do not have the infrastructure to support an airport the size of Gatwick”. When Stansted claim hundreds of people support its plans, this is in part due to "repeatedly badgering all airport employees to trigger automatic computer-generated “I support expansion” emails. Only 16 members of the general public sent individual letters or emails to UDC backing the proposals. But UDC received 934 individually-written letters and emails opposing the plans including objections from 47 Parish Councils. No Parish Council has registered its support for the expansion proposals.