General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Around 42% of London MPs (since the election) oppose a 3rd Heathrow runway
List from John Stewart, Chair of Hacan, (the main residents' group working on Heathrow noise issues) of the MPs known to be, or believed to be, opposed to a 3rd Heathrow runway. So far they number 31 MPs out of the total of 73, and more details may be added when the information is known. In the 2005 election, the Conservatives had 306 seats. In the 2010 election they had 330 seats. Now in the 2017 election, the Conservatives have 318 seats. The party wants to get the 3rd Heathrow runway built. The Conservatives may form an alliance with the Irish DUP, which has 10 MPs and is a firm backer of the 3rd runway. That alliance would take the Tories to 328 MPs, which is 3 above the key number of half the MPs in the Commons (650). The hung parliament will make it harder for the government to force through highly contentious, and widely unpopular polices like the runway.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow now considering (not tunnel or bridge) but cheaper series of “viaducts” over M25
Heathrow has a huge problem in how to get a runway over the busiest, widest stretch of the M25. The original plan was a full 14-lane tunnel about 2,000 feet long. Then there were plans for a sort of bridge over the road. Even those would be prohibitively expensive (Heathrow says it would only pay £1.1 billion on roads etc). Now there are plans, by Phil Wilbraham, who oversaw the construction of Heathrow's terminals 2 and 5, to build a cheaper system. It would be 3 parallel bridges across the M25, with narrow ones for taxiways at the side, and a wider one for the runway in the centre. The plan is for a 2 mile long runway, to take even the largest planes. The main airline at Heathrow, British Airways, suggested a runway about 1,000 feet shorter, that would not need to cross the motorway, but that might not be able to take A380s, and would mess up the flight patterns. The earlier "bridge" concept would have meant the runway would be on a slight slope, to get over the motorway. The cost of moving the thousands of tonnes of earth would be immense, and it is thought Heathrow has had to reconsider. The airlines do not want to have to pay for the building costs of roads etc associated with a 3rd runway. The government does not want to force Heathrow to pay, as this would mean increasing the cost of flying - and reduce demand at Heathrow.
Click here to view full story...
Another response by Sir Jeremy Sullivan on the NPS, showing his oversight is not satisfactory
ir Jeremy Sullivan was given the task, by the government, of monitoring the DfT consultation on the draft Airports NPS. People can write to him with concerns about the process. Some very unsatisfactory responses have been received. One person wrote to say: "One of the boards at the consultation displays said the following: “Expanding Heathrow is estimated to deliver additional benefits to passengers and the wider economy up to £61 billion over 60 years.” In the absence of explanation, any normal person (one who has not obtained and studied the detailed evidence) would take this to mean that there is an overall economic benefit from Heathrow expansion. In fact this is not the case. The £61bn is GROSS benefits, the benefits without any of the costs being subtracted. If costs are subtracted the NET economic benefit, according to the DFT, is £0.2bn to £6.1bn. That is, 10 to 300 times smaller. .... This is not a matter of content, which you have stated you will not consider. It is a matter of balance, objectivity and not misleading the public in a consultation." And the reply? "Whether statements such as those which you mention in your email are/are not ‘misleading’ is a matter of opinion. This is precisely the kind of point that you can make in response to the consultation." ie. washing his hands of his responsibilities in this task. Nobody else is overseeing his overseeing of this very poor consultation.
Click here to view full story...
Spanish study shows traffic-related air pollution negatively affects children’s attention in the short term
Research from Barcelona's Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology, by a team of ISGlobal researchers, indicates that on days with high air pollution, there was a marked reduction in the children's ability to focus on problem-solving tasks. The study looked at two traffic-related pollutants—nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and elemental carbon (also known as black carbon). The children who had been exposed to high air pollution on their way to school took longer to respond to questions and found it harder than usual to concentrate. On average, their brain function slowed to the point where attention span was that of someone a month younger. Scientists tracked 2,700 pupils aged 7 to 10, in about 300 classrooms in 39 schools in the city of Barcelona.t They tested their ability to pay attention in class and comparing the results with peaks and troughs in air quality. This shows children's brains work less well when are exposed to high levels of air pollution, especially from diesel. This research suggests that polluted air in Britain's cities is negatively affecting youngsters' brains as well as their lungs. Fine particles in diesel fumes raise our risk of suffering heart damage and an early death. The same team in 2015 found pupils' brain function developed at a slower rate if exposed to high levels of air pollution.
Click here to view full story...
BA’s owner- IAG – launches new trans-Atlantic budget airline “Level”
"Level" is IAG's low-cost transatlantic service, which will operate from Barcelona. British Airways owner IAG is already looking to expand "Level" across Europe as early as 2018. It has now launched its inaugural flight from Barcelona to Los Angeles, with 314 passengers onboard. Flights to LA will operate twice weekly, and also three-times weekly service to San Francisco. Level will operate the service with two new Airbus A330 aircraft, and then airline confirmed it would increase its fleet to five aircraft in 2018. Level has already sold a lot of tickets, and is hoping to get new passengers, some of whom are flying long-haul for the first time. There will be about 21 premium economy seats. Level will initially be operated by Iberia’s crew and create up to 250 jobs in Barcelona. The Oslo-based budget airline Norwegian now has 13 Dreamliners in service with 30 more on order to fly passengers from cities including London and Paris across the Atlantic. Other airlines are looking at low budget fares long haul to the USA too. Iceland's budget airline WOW will be offering flights from Gatwick, Bristol and Edinburgh to Chicago and Lufthansa's Eurowings will have more cheap flights to Orlando, Florida and Seattle.
Click here to view full story...
No mention of backing for Heathrow runway in SNP manifesto (despite backing last year)
The SNP manifesto has come out, and despite the party saying last year that it backed the 3rd runway at Heathrow, there is no mention of it this time. There is a whole section on aviation policy, (p. 26 https://www.snp.org/manifesto ) but no mention of the runway. This is significant, coming only 7 months after the memorandum of understanding the SNP signed with Heathrow. (October 2016). The manifesto outlines that the SNP will press the UK Government to commit to the Open Skies Agreement in the Brexit negotiations, expand direct international connectivity, protect existing connections within the UK and press the UK Government to secure an exemption from air passenger duty on flights to and from the Highlands and Islands. On airspace policy, the SNP back the need to reform UK airspace and more community engagement in the formation of flight paths in future. The SNP backing for the Heathrow runway was based on economic forecasts that were wildly exaggerated and misleading, (the "up to £147 billion benefit to all the UK over 60 years" claim )and which even the DfT knows were wrong. The actual benefit to the UK is more likely perhaps £6 billion (over 60 years). The promises of new jobs etc are also now seen to have been inflated and misleading. Why would an independent Scotland want to depend on air freight going via Heathrow?
Click here to view full story...
Doubt a power surge caused BA’s IT fiasco – bad system, bad planning etc more likely
A massive failure of British Airways' IT system left 300,000 passengers stranded around the world. This will be remembered as a catastrophic event for BA. And there are many questions about what happened. BA said it was due to a “power surge” that was “so strong that it rendered the back-up system ineffective”. But some experts have subsequently publicly expressed their doubt about how true that is, and do not believe a power surge would be able to bring down a data centre, let alone a data centre and its back-up. One said that would mean either bad design of the system, or some other explanation. Normally a data centre would have surge protection, which is there to protect against exactly this problem. There should also be an uninterruptible power supply, and proper earthing systems. The companies supplying the area where BA holds its data say there was no power surge. Experts say much of the problem was the time taken to reboot the system. But the overly-complex IT system is largely outsourced to India - and many of the experts in UK who initially helped to cultivate and develop the network left when the jobs were moved. The extent of the BA problem may be due to poor crisis management planning, an under-trained and under-staffed IT support team and a poor understanding of the wider logistics. The reputational costs to BA could be huge and very significant.
Click here to view full story...
British Airways could have to pay £100m compensation bill to passengers due to its huge IT failure
British Airways could face a bill of at least £100 million in compensation for its passengers affected by the cancellations and delays caused by its IT systems failure. The problem, perhaps caused by a loss of electric power, which then lead to most systems not working, resulted in BA flights around the world being unable to take off, passengers unable to check in, even the website not working. The problem affected Heathrow the most in England, as the largest base for BA. Gatwick was also affected. In total about 1,000 flights were affected, with problems likely to last several days more, while systems are fixed and planes get back into the right places. As this computer fault is entirely the fault of BA (and not any sort of "act of God") BA will be liable to pay full compensation, to anyone delayed over 3 hours. The airline was particularly busy as it was the start of the school half term, and also a Bank Holiday weekend, with people flying for weekends away. The GMB union said the problem had been caused in part because BA made many good IT staff redundant in 2016, to save money. They instead outsourced the work to India. Besides the huge cost of compensation (and improving its IT resilience) BA will have suffered serious reputational damage, with many saying they would avoid ever flying with BA again.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow loses High Court challenge on charging Crossrail trains using the line it built
Heathrow has lost a High Court challenge over access charges it can can levy on Crossrail trains travelling to the airport. The airport spent £1 billion building a five-mile spur 20 years ago to connect Heathrow to the Great Western track. Legal action was triggered after the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) decided the amount which Heathrow could charge Crossrail, and others, for using the spur could not include any amount connected to the recovery of the spur building costs. Heathrow applied for a judicial review at London's High Court, arguing the decision was irrational and ORR had no power to reach any decision over the access charge at all. Now Mr Justice Ouseley has ruled that the challenge failed on all grounds. He refused permission to appeal, but Heathrow can still ask the Court of Appeal to hear the case. Heathrow is counting on the arrival of Crossrail in May 2018, as part of its plans to increase the airport's rail capacity by 2040. There had been concerns that had the decision gone in favour of Heathrow, Transport for London (TfL) may have opted not to serve the airport at all. Heathrow needs a higher proportion of passengers to arrive by rail, to try to deal with its air pollution problems.
Click here to view full story...
IAG warns the “costs and complexity” of bridging M25 could be major problem for Heathrow runway plans
British Airways' owner International Airlines Group (IAG) estimates bridging the M25, close to the M4 junction, would cost £2 billion-£3 billion. The Airports Commission suggested the cost could be higher, with £5 billion for local road upgrades, including the tunnel. The Commission said Heathrow should pay for these, as part of the cost of building its runway. The cost and complexity of somehow putting the runway over the busiest, widest section of motorway in the UK are considerable. IAG, as by far the largest airline at Heathrow, does not want to be charged for this work, which would mean putting up the price of its air tickets. IAG says there is no detailed risk and cost analysis of the airport's plans on what to do with the M25, though a bridge is cheaper than a tunnel. Willie Walsh said: “Airlines were never consulted on the runway length and they can operate perfectly well from a slightly shorter runway that doesn’t cross the M25.” He wants Heathrow to build a shorter runway of 3,200m rather than 3,500m that does not require going over the M25. But that would mean the motorway directly at the end of the runway, in the worse danger zone. IAG says: “We will not pay for a runway that threatens both costs and delays spiralling out of control and where critical elements of the project could be undeliverable."