General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Court rules that legal challenge by 4 councils cannot be heard until final Heathrow NPS published
Four councils that a negatively affected by Heathrow, plus Greenpeace and a local resident, applied for a legal challenge against the DfT because of its plans for a Heathrow 3rd runway. The case has now been struck out, at the High Court, by Mr Justice Cranston, on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim, because of the provision in the Planning Act 2008 which said that proceedings may only be brought in a six-week period that followed once the NPS was adopted, or if later, published. The claim is "precluded" until the NPS is published, and that might be the end of 2017 or early 2018. The court can then consider the challenge. The legal claim is because there was a failure by government to consult residents before going back on promises made repeatedly that a 3rd runway would not be built. John Sauven (Greenpeace) said: 'Today's ruling was about the timing of our legal challenge, not its merit. It doesn't change the fact that ministers have no solution to the huge air and noise pollution problems caused by a third runway." Ravi Govindia (Wandsworth) said "The country is now going to waste more time developing a scheme that will never pass a simple legal test on air quality. Nothing is going to change between now and 2018 to make this scheme any less polluting."
Click here to view full story...
Brexit and Trump mean ‘dangerous new phase’ for Airbus in the UK – future unclear?
Airbus has warned of a “dangerous new phase” as it faces the twin threat of Brexit and the policies of the Trump administration. Airbus's chief operating officer and president of commercial aircraft,Tom Williams, told MPs on the Treasury select committee that it would be “pretty scary” if Airbus were no longer able to operate a successful UK business with the ability to seamlessly move goods and people around the EU. Airbus employs about 15,000 people in the UK and makes wings at its factory in Broughton, north Wales. It would be likely that Airbus's main rival, Boeing based north of Seattle, would want to take advantage of the situation. Trump's policies of putting America first would not hesitate to help Boeing, to the disadvantage of Airbus. With Brexit looming, the British part of Airbus may be affected - and this may in due course influence or put at risk decisions to invest in the UK over the longer term. In the next few years, Airbus might be looking at its longer term product policy, and next investments, and might be unwilling to commit to the UK. MPs also heard that multinational car manufacturers were already putting off investment plans in the UK while there is so much Brexit uncertainty.
Click here to view full story...
In the 4 councils’ legal challenge, lawyers say Government plan for Heathrow runway is ‘unlawful’ because people believed repeated promises
Four Conservative councils affected by Heathrow (with Greenpeace, and a local resident) are bringing a legal challenge against the government, because of the plans for a third runway. They say the plan is “unlawful” because locals bought houses and sent children to schools due to repeated Tory promises it would not happen. The councils argue that their residents had a “legitimate” expectation” the project would not be approved, due to assurances received. They have identified 19 “broken promises” made by David Cameron, Theresa May and other political figures saying the 3rd runway would be scrapped. One is by Theresa May in 2009, telling her constituents she will fight the 3rd runway. The lawyers, Harrison Grant, say such promises are not in law to be treated as mere "empty gestures" but legally significant promises. People had, reasonably enough, believed them. There was a hearing at the High Court on 19th and 20th January, and a ruling may be given this coming week. This will decide whether the councils can bring forward their judicial review claims. The DfT has tried to get the case thrown out or delayed till after there is a parliamentary vote on the National Policy Statement on Heathrow - probably around the end of this year.
Click here to view full story...
Text of speech by Chris Grayling to Airlines UK expressing total support for aviation growth for decades
Chris Grayling gave a speech to Airlines UK (used to be called BATA), giving the industry his strongest support for its growth. Some of his comments: (on Brexit) "... positive expression of our desire as a country to raise our ambitions and look beyond the EU. To strengthen our position as a global country. With the global connections and gateways to make that possible." ... "We already have the largest aviation network in Europe. Direct services to over 370 destinations abroad. ... (bit on routes added) ... And demand for flights continues to grow. ... though we’re awaiting the final figures, the signs are that 2016 will break [the 2015] record once more. ... Over the next 20 years, the industry estimates a doubling of the world’s aircraft fleet. That’s another 33,000 aircraft – quieter, cleaner, more efficient aircraft that can actually deliver a fall in carbon emissions. ( sic ! ) ... And as the world increasingly embraces aviation in the coming decades, in return, aviation will increasingly drive the globalisation of trade and commerce. .... We are currently working on our new aviation strategy. It’s a long-term framework covering airports, safety, security, competitiveness, consumers, regulation and capacity. [Note, no mention of environment at all !] ...It’s part of our plan to build on the momentum of the Heathrow decision - so the whole of Britain can benefit from new aviation capacity." ... and so on ...
Click here to view full story...
While BA passengers may travel to the airport by public transport, bags can go on ahead – by van
Heathrow has a problem with the number of car journeys associated with the airport, the emissions of NO2 etc from these trips, and the added road congestion. It is keen to state how there will be no more vehicles on the roads with a 3rd runway than with two, though this appears implausible - the numbers just do not stack up. British Airways has a service that they call AirPortr, by which passengers can check in their luggage from their home, and then have it delivered by a van (diesel?) to the airport for them to collect at their convenience. It is all very handy for the passenger, but it is absolutely not helping Heathrow to cut the number of vehicle journeys, even if one vehicle carries a good number of cases. AirPortr sells it scheme saying, having had your bags checked and sealed for security etc: "You’re now free to make the most of your time before you fly, either head to work without the evil glares on the tube or enjoy the day sight seeing without dragging your bags around historic monuments. Or simply avoid the balancing act of managing multiple bags and small children en route." The government and Heathrow hope that even with a new runway and 50% more passengers, there would be no more road vehicles than now – and by around 2031 about 55% of passengers would use public transport. In 2012 only about 41% of Heathrow passengers travelled to or from the airport on public transport.
Click here to view full story...
At councils’ Heathrow runway hearing in High Court, DfT wants to get case struck out
Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead councils together with Greenpeace UK have bought a judicial review against the DfT to the High Courts of Justice. At the hearing the councils said the government's decision to back plans for the 3rd runway "frustrates the expectations of councils and residents" who have received "clear, unequivocal and repeated promises" over the years that it would never be built. The councils also challenge the decision on the basis that the government has failed to recognise the project's air quality impacts, which would raise pollution to unlawful levels. Lawyers for the DfT have asked the judge, Mr Justice Cranston, to strike out the case now. The DfT argument (by James Maurici QC) is the case should not be heard until after the consultation on the National Policy Statement (NPS) on aviation is published - which could be anything from this year to 2018. The DfT is hoping to make the case that this is a "preliminary and insuperable obstacle" to the claim proceeding. The councils and their lawyers say that instead of trying to get the case delayed, it is vital that the issues need to be dealt with before, not after, the NPS consultation. That would otherwise be "flawed at the outset and a huge waste of time, energy and public money." A decision given at an unknown later date.
Click here to view full story...
SHE has found another area of housing (in Heston) to be demolished, to cater for Heathrow 3rd runway
As many as 100 homes in Heston, around 4.5 miles from Heathrow, would have to be destroyed if the M4 motorway is widened to accommodate traffic generated by a new third runway. Stop Heathrow Expansion (SHE) has found the admission deep in a technical analysis, by Highways England, of upgrades to the road network that would be required with a new runway. This is a document published by the DfT when it announced Heathrow was its preferred location for a runway. SHE is shocked that this potential loss of homes has not been included in the figures of properties under threat. It also means that people in those homes are unlikely to know the threat, or have enough information to respond fully to the forthcoming consultations. The Highways England document has information on the stretch of the M4 that would need to be widened, with an additional lane to meet extra demand. It states that M4 J2 to J3 widening would result in “substantial acquisition of land including residential and commercial properties in the vicinity of Winchester Avenue”. That is a residential road. Location. SHE visited the residents to see if they were aware of these proposals, but none to whom they spoke were. Heathrow is unlikely to accept that all changes to roads are due to a 3rd runway because that admission would make them liable to pay for that infrastructure. The taxpayer will therefore have to pay the cost.
Click here to view full story...
Zac’s back: Goldsmith to lead four-borough campaign against Heathrow runway
Former Richmond Park MP Zac Goldsmith has been appointed spokesman and organiser of the anti-third runway campaign by Richmond, Wandsworth, Hillingdon and Windsor and Maidenhead councils. The appointment was announced at Richmond Council's full council meeting on 17th January. A revised motion put forward by leader Lord True read: "(This council) endorses the appointment of Zac Goldsmith as spokesman and organiser for the public and legal campaign being waged by Richmond, Wandsworth, Windsor & Maidenhead and Hillingdon councils against the expansion of Heathrow and calls upon all elected representatives to give full assistance to Mr Goldsmith in this campaign." Richmond's Liberal Democrat opposition leader Gareth Roberts said he would support Mr Goldsmith's appointment. Mr Goldsmith's role is an unpaid one. Lord True's motion also rejected the government's recommendation to build a third runway, and reaffirmed the council's commitment of £50,000 to an "initial fighting fund" against Heathrow expansion. Zac Goldsmith lost the local election, which he had called because the government backed the runway, on 1st December - to LibDem Sarah Olney, who fought the election on Brexit, rather than on Heathrow. Sarah Olney is also deeply opposed to the runway.
Click here to view full story...
Letter by Chair of Richmond Heathrow Campaign sets out important key arguments against 3rd runway
In a letter to the Richmond & Twickenham Times, Chairman of the Richmond Heathrow Campaign, Peter Willan, sets out succinctly some of the main reasons why there does NOT need to be a 3rd Heathrow runway. Just a few of the points are: any gain in connectivity due to the runway comes at the cost from another UK airport; international-to-international transfer passengers use over 30% of Heathrow’s capacity and are estimated to use 50% of a 3rd runway; these transfer passengers provide little economic value to the UK, and do not leave the airport; rather than transfer passengers making "thin" (ie low passenger volume) routes more viable, in reality most are on the "thick" routes that are very profitable, eg. to the USA, largely fro leisure; just 2% of transfers are on "thin" long-haul routes and less than 10 "thin" routes have any transfers; the Chancellor should remove the tax exemption (they pay no APD) on international-to-international transfers and free up over 20% of Heathrow’s capacity for UK passengers to benefit the UK economy without environmental cost. Peter says the aviation sector is one of the least taxed sectors of the UK economy., paying no fuel duty and no VAT - a massive subsidy; in addition, Heathrow receives tax relief on its large debt to the benefit of the equity, 90% owned overseas.
Click here to view full story...
Two girls get return flights to Malaga to meet (cost £75) rather than one Birmingham to Newcastle rail ticket (£105)
This story illustrates how the cost of flying does not reflect the environmental cost, and its price is far too low. Two women decided to save themselves a small amount of money, by travelling to Malaga to meet up, rather than one making train journey between Birmingham and Newcastle. The cost of a flight on 7th January by Ryanair from Newcastle to Malaga was £9.99 each way. Total £19.98. [The APD would be £13, so Ryanair made just £7 from transporting this passenger 2,700 miles]. (2,700 miles round trip). The cost of a return flight by Vueling from Birmingham to Malaga was £55.29 (2,200 miles round trip). By contrast the cost of a return train trip from Newcastle to Birmingham was £105. The two girls therefore spent about £75 on travel, (plus another £60 on hostels in Malaga for 3 nights, so they were actually out of pocket ... compared to the rail trip and one staying at the house of the other ...) The cost of staying in Malaga, off season, is also very cheap, encouraging Brits to take yet more trips very, very cheaply - regardless of their person carbon footprint, and the environmental impact. Newcastle and Birmingham are not really that far apart. How is the price for one return ticket as high as £105? And how can airlines be allowed to sell a ticket for a journey of 1,300 miles for just £10? There is something (well, many things) deeply rotten with the current system.