General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Transport Secretary to discuss 2nd Brighton mainline BML2 linking south coast to Canary Wharf
The Brighton Mainline 2 (BML2) consortium has long campaigned for a 2nd railway line between the south coast and London. The idea is for a have a line running from Brighton east of the current main line, going via Uckfield and Crowborough and Oxted, to Croydon, and then on to Canary Wharf and ultimately to Stansted. The campaign says tht the BML2 line would "link into Thameslink 2 between Stratford and Lewisham, providing a rail link between Gatwick and Stansted airports (“StanWick”) and opening up a rail corridor between East Anglia and Sussex, Surrey and Kent ..." And "More services could be run between London and the South Coast, whilst Gatwick airport could have its rail connections speeded-up and increased by means of the Stanwick Express dedicated shuttle services operating between Gatwick and Stansted through Canary Wharf and Stratford International." Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Transport, has agreed to meet with the BML2 campaigners to discuss the plans, a second Brighton mainline. The group has recently revealed a group of heavyweight overseas investors had stated their intention to fund the scheme, and had a particular interest in linking the rail line from Brighton to Canary Wharf. The consortium is now prepared to undertake its design and construction and will put its case to the government.
Click here to view full story...
Study shows sleep deprivation ‘costs UK £40bn a year’ through lost working days
A study by Rand Europe, published in November 2016, shows that sleep-deprived workers are costing the UK economy £40 billion per year and face a higher risk of death. The calculation is based on tired employees being less productive or absent from work altogether. Rand Europe, which used data from 62,000 people, said the loss equated to 1.86% of economic growth. The main impact was on health, with those sleeping less than 6 hours a night 13% more likely to die earlier than those getting the "healthy daily sleep range" of 7 - 9 hours. The study evaluated the economic cost of insufficient sleep in the UK, US, Canada, Germany and Japan. UK loses 200,000 working days a year, costing £40bn, or 1.86% of GDP. Germany loses 200,000 working days a year, costing $60bn, or 1.56% of GDP. Marco Hafner, a research leader at Rand Europe and the report's main author said small changes could make a big difference. If those in the UK currently sleeping under 6 hours a night increased this to between 6 - 7 hours it would add £24 billion to the UK's economy. Large numbers of people living near UK airports, Heathrow and Gatwick in particular, are subjected to aircraft noise at night, between 11pm and 7am, and many suffer chronic sleep interference or sleep loss as a result.
Click here to view full story...
Chris Grayling’s evidence to the Environmental Audit Cttee on climate – in relation to Heathrow runway
Chris Grayling, and Caroline Low from the DfT, gave oral evidence to the Environmental Audit Cttee on 30th November. Chris Grayling was not able to give the committee satisfactory assurances on how much UK aviation emissions would rise, due to a new runway. Nor was he able to comment on the CO2 cuts needed by other sectors, to accommodate aviation CO2 rise. He said: "Of course in the case of carbon emissions, there is no law of the land that requires us to meet any particular target." When asked by Mary Creagh when we could see the aviation emissions strategy, Grayling could give no answer other than an evasive: "documentation on that expansion will be published in the new year." Grayling's responses indicate only an incomplete grasp of the facts on carbon, avoiding specific answers to questions, but with the intention of allowing aviation expansion (and perhaps later trying to sort out the problem). He hides behind the CCC as much as possible. On the issue of non-CO2 impacts, he says "there is no international evidence at the moment"for this" - and then some half-digested waffle about cutting CO2 by more direct routing of flights. He also hopes biofuels will make a difference in future, despite this being unlikely to provide more than a tiny % of fuel. Grayling makes it clear he has no intention of letting aviation CO2 get in the way of a 3rd Heathrow runway.
Click here to view full story...
NATS realise the importance of good sleep for their controllers’ alertness – but not for those overflown at night?
In an article on the importance of sleep (and of taking naps in the day, if people need them) the BBC happens to have focused on NATS (he UK's national air traffic control service). They say how important it is for their air traffic controllers to not be tired, and get enough shut-eye. NATS says staying alert for them "can be a matter of life or death" and they have an "entire department dedicated to this question" because they are "responsible for one of the busiest stretches of airspace in the world, over London." At their centre at Swanwick there is a "dormitory room where those on night duty are encouraged to get two hours' kip in the early hours."We want them to be at the very top of their game at 5-6am, when the arrivals are starting to come into Heathrow." And that is all great. Except it ignores the inconvenient fact that the work NATS does is routing planes late at night (sometimes until 11.30pm or midnight) at Heathrow, and again from 5am (with a few even before 5am. That is sleeping time for most people living under flight paths, whose sleep is being disturbed. By the activities of NATS. The negative impacts of not getting enough sleep are many, including poor concentration, depression, reduced alertness, less good memory - and many other impacts. Ironic?
Click here to view full story...
Australia: Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek signed off by Federal Government
Sydney already has a large airport, near the coast, but in April 2014 the Australian Federal Government designated Badgerys Creek as the site for the Second Sydney Airport. It is being called Western Sydney airport, and it is inland and is within 7 kilometres of the Blue Mountains National Park (UNESCO World Heritage Site). It is be a one runway airport with no night time curfew - flights 24 hours. In November 2014 a set of 40 environmental conditions, looking at issues such as biodiversity, noise and heritage, were set out. The government thinks they can be achieved, and the airport can proceed. The government has approved the airport plan, with the minister giving determination on 12th December. The next step in the process was for the federal government to issue the Notice of Intention, and this was announced on 20th December 2016. "Under the contract, Sydney Airport Group would be required to build the airport to the required standard—including a 3,700 metre runway and a terminal with capacity for 10 million passengers a year. It sets out key milestones—with earth moving works to commence by late 2018 and airport operations to commence by 2026." Some parts of the work have now started. The airport might be complete by around 2025 to 2027.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow bullish about how fast it could get its runway Development Consent Order through
Colnbrook Views reports that Heathrow has begun geeing up airport workers in the past few weeks with internal messages that suggest it hopes it could get its Development Consent Order for a new runway approved as early as 2020. The announcement, to employees and contract workers, implies that the airport believes it could still see a new runway opening within 10 years - by 2027. Heathrow has started work on its development consent application and intends to make a submission in 2019. This has to come after the government gets approval for its National Policy Statement (NPS) - which will go for consultation very soon. The NPS process will take at least a year, depending on hold ups. Heathrow plans to do 2 public consultations, looking at the benefits and impacts of the runway project before submitting an application for DCO “sometime in 2019”. It anticipates a 6 month sprint through the DCO approval process, which will be carried out by the Planning Inspectorate, before a decision by the Secretary of State for Transport (currently Chris Grayling). Heathrow would like this before the 2020 General Election .... By contrast, the DCO for the M4 Smart Motorway took 18 months, March 2015 to final decision in September 2016.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow intent on getting kids (+ parents) into the habit of multiple plane-dependent holidays per year
Heathrow has been working on its PR by giving figures on how much parents spend on air travel and holidays (some exotic) for their children. They hope to give the impression to parents that they need to provide these luxuries to their children, as part of being good parents .... more consumerist pressure .... Heathrow says in 2016 an unbelievable 19% of children (presumably in the UK, or those passing through Heathrow?) took at least 7 trips trips per year; 5% go on more than 10 trips per year, taking into account family holidays, school trips and holidays with friends. And the "dream destinations" (ie. long haul ones that make more profit for airlines and Heathrow) for under 16 year olds were "Australia, Hawaii, Everest and Thailand". (Really? Everest? Is this a joke?) Heathrow says the average cost per trip for a child (those under 16 pay no Air Passenger Duty) is about £616 - and on average parents will spend about £30,000 for the holidays of their children, up to the age of 16. Heathrow says "The current generation of kids are dreaming of Bondi Beach, kangaroos and the Outback, with nearly a quarter (23%) of children citing far-flung Australia as their dream destination for 2017." And on it goes .... Heathrow's future customers. "Get 'em young" ... So THAT's why we need another Heathrow runway, with all its public expense and negative impacts over vast areas within perhaps 20 miles of the airport.
Click here to view full story...
Slightly longer times for some flights, perhaps due to flying slower to save fuel (= cost)
Some flights nowadays are reported to be taking a bit longer than they did several decades ago. The reasons are largely to do with the price of fuel, and airlines trying to cut costs. When planes fly slightly slower, they use a bit less fuel per unit distance. It is reported that a flight from London to Edinburgh takes, on average, 10 minutes longer than it did in about 1995. A flight from New York to Chicago might now take 20 minutes longer, and so on. In 2013 the Telegraph reported that Ryanair told its pilots to fly slower to save fuel – and therefore money – but add 2 minutes onto every hour’s flying time. There is a balance for the airlines, between less cost from arriving sooner, not needing to pay staff for so long, and perhaps getting in another rotation per day. Or they could save a bit of fuel. Traditionally, the typical flying speed is about 546-575mph. Another reason why flights are shown as slightly longer is probably because time is added on, so the flight does not look as if it is late. Airlines get criticised if their flights are not on time - giving an extra long flight time gives some leeway. NATS is also known to get planes to fly a bit more slowly arriving in London, to save stacking time. And at busy airports, extra time is allowed in case of queuing to take off.
Click here to view full story...
Comments by members of NCE expressing opposition to its pro-Heathrow runway line
The New Civil Engineer magazine is very much in favour of building infrastructure of all sorts (predictably) including a Heathrow runway. Some responses on the NCE website, from members, are interesting. These include: ...." the editor rightly says that the elephant in the room is climate change and that the £1bn annual cost of flooding is similar to the cost of not having another runway at Heathrow. However, the benefit of a 3rd runway is purely speculative, whereas the cost of flooding is almost bound to rise." ... "The editor is telling us 'we must support Heathrow' and those who do not believe in this third runway project are “cynics”. Well, my engineering background has taught me to question and be rational, considering all aspects of schemes including the environmental and human aspects." .... "[we are asked to] “come together to support a shared set of goals” and “get behind Armitt and support his work.”" The writer mentions Heathrow noise, air pollution and traffic problems, and says: "The scheme is being pushed by big business, but opposed by most of the locally elected democratic representatives. On a practical operating point, how can this world class airport operate with night flying restrictions, or will those be overturned too?" He is not renewing his NCE membership, due to its position on Heathrow, Hinckley and HS2.
Click here to view full story...
Back Heathrow complains Hillingdon has to spend money fighting runway – refuses to say how much funding it gets from Heathrow
The "astroturf" group (not actually a real community group) Back Heathrow gets its funding from Heathrow. It refuses to say how much money it gets from the airport. John Holland-Kaye has in the past also refused to say how much it contributes. Back Heathrow is complaining that Hillingdon borough has spent a lot of money on its campaigns against the 3rd runway. This is money that the borough is being forced to spend, because of the activities of Heathrow, against which it has to defend its residents. The account for Back Heathrow show it has around £154,000 in the bank; it has assets of around £653,000; it gives its net worth as about £482,000; its current liabilities are shown as - £171,000; and it only has one employee, Rob Gray. No activity is reported, and no turnover is reported. Back in December 2014 the Sunday Times revealed that Back Heathrow had had at least £100,000 from the airport, but no details are ever given. Back Heathrow says, rather bizarrely, that 'It would not be fair to publish the amounts given'. Their next accounts will be published on 31st March 2017. Being private companies, the sums cannot be extracted through FoI. Hillingdon Council makes its figures public, and has defended its campaigning, saying it is representing the views of residents.