General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
DfT consultation about subsidising development of biofuels for aviation, through RTFO
The DfT has published a consultation (ending 22nd January 2017) on “The Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order. (RTFO) Proposed amendments.” Its aim is to encourage development of biofuels for transport, in the hope that transport can continue to expand but its carbon emissions will be slightly reduced. The DfT's John Hayes says: "Our strategy is therefore to provide a positive investment environment beyond 2020 to further encourage the development of waste-based and advanced fuels, while limiting the use of fuels made from crops." They are partly aware of the adverse impacts from ILUC (indirect land use impacts) of many biofuels, which have the effect of shifting damage and ultimately competing with land for food, or causing deforestation. The DfT is keen to boost biofuels for aviation. They say: "We wish to promote the development of sustainable renewable fuel for aviation ... We propose to extend eligibility for reward under the RTFO to both renewable avtur and renewable avgas. ...." ie. they get money back, effectively as a subsidy for these fuels. (Avtur is normal jet fuel, and avgas is largely for general aviation). The DfT proposes to "reward renewable aviation fuels under the RTFO" and "suppliers would be able to claim Renewable Transport Fuel Certificates (RTFCs) for eligible fuel."
Click here to view full story...
Dr Tania Mathias calling for a Bill in Parliament to make aircraft noise a statutory nuisance
In the 1920s aviation was a nascent, struggling industry, and governments gave it a lot of support to get going. One of the benefits it got was in the Air Navigation Act 1920, which provided the basis of the UK's aviation noise regulation regime, by exempting aviation from nuisance sanctions, in order to stimulate the new industry. This was reaffirmed in the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which says citizens have no recourse against aircraft noise nuisance: “No action shall lie in respect of trespass or in respect of nuisance, by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground ....". Unlike almost any other noise nuisance source, there is nothing anyone can do about aircraft noise that disturbs them. Now Dr Tania Mathias, MP for Twickenham, has called for a Bill in Parliament to make aircraft noise a statutory nuisance. She has put down: "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to make noise caused by aircraft a statutory nuisance, and for connected purposes." Tania says an average food blender makes a noise of about 80 decibels, and plane noise in homes in Twickenham can be up to 83 decibels. It is an unacceptable anachronism that while the noise nuisance from model aircraft is recognised in law, the noise of real planes is not. She believes we need the law to provide a means of making it better when noise goes beyond what is reasonable or safe.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow leading questions in Populus telephone poll show how results are biased
Heathrow has paid Populus to carry out surveys across various parts of London and surrounding areas for several years, trying to get results that show high levels of support for Heathrow. Though all results are published, in the proper manner, the details of the phone script for the interviews is never given. People interviewed have expressed the opinion that it is biased. Now the Evening Standard reports on a recording of a local voter being interviewed for the telephone survey. The interviewer is heard pointing out that legal battles could be “potentially costly” and that Heathrow “has committed to reduce the number of people significantly impacted by aircraft noise, extend the ban on night flights and play their part to improve local air quality”. The interviewee was asked how they would vote in the Richmond by-election and whether a legal challenge being mounted by four local authorities was a “waste of time and money” or a “reasonable” use of taxpayers’ funds. This appears to be not only biased interviewing, likely to skew the results, but also intended to reduce the vote for Zac Goldsmith. Zac called a by-election on the Heathrow runway issue, and Heathrow would see it as a positive sign for them - they want Zac to be beaten (by-election on 1st December).
Click here to view full story...
T&E: After Boeing ruling, aviation needs to go cold-turkey from subsidy addiction
Today’s ruling by the WTO against Washington State on subsidies to Boeing, and an earlier similar ruling on Airbus, officially adds another €5.4 billion ($5.7 billion) to the already very long list of subsidies granted to the aviation sector. One reason CO2 emissions are out of control is that flying is artificially cheap because of such subsidies. The list of direct and indirect subsidies includes: Airlines enjoy universal exemption from fuel taxation, estimated at €20 billion a year in Europe and over €60 billion globally; Airlines receive an effective subsidy worth another €7 billion in Europe alone because ticket prices are artificially suppressed by about 20% due to the VAT exemption on ticket sales; Airlines are bailed out on a regular basis especially since the 2009 crisis; Already lenient state aid rules for airports have been regularly flouted; worth another estimated €3 billion a year in Europe alone; Manufacturers receive a €1.8 billion subsidy under the ‘Clean Sky 2’ joint technology initiative; Air traffic control receives a €3 billion subsidy under the SESAR ‘joint undertaking’. Meaningful action to cut aviation CO2 is urgently needed at global level but the very modest and inadequate plans agreed at ICAO will mean nothing so long as the sector binges on government handouts. The subsidies above fall outside of WTO rules and will only be removed with action by governments.
Click here to view full story...
WTO rules Boeing’s state subsidies (that don’t need to be repaid) are illegal
The WTO has ordered the US to withdraw illegal state tax breaks for American company Boeing within 3 months, giving rival Airbus the latest victory in a 12 year battle over government support for the world’s two biggest plane makers. The World Trade Organisation says a tax break granted by the state of Washington to Boeing in 2013, to ensure it produced its newest long-range jet there, was a prohibited subsidy. The WTO rarely defines a subsidy as “prohibited” as this is a very clear breach of its rules. In mid September, the WTO found that the EU had was also illegally subsidising Airbus in Europe. Both companies have benefited by billions of $s or €s over the past years, to battle against each other to sell more planes. In 2011 the WTO said both had received huge amounts of unlawful assistance - from taxpayers. Now the EU trade commissioner says Boeing is in line to receive another $5.7bn, provided by Washington state, between 2024 and 2040. Airbus says this would have covered most of the cost of developing Boeing’s 777X twin aisle aircraft, due to enter service in 2020. The EU wants the subsidy ended immediately. The situation is complicated, and the battles are likely to continue. Airbus says: "Unlike the loans to Airbus – the interest rates of which were considered in the WTO dispute against the European Union – Boeing plans no repayment of any kind.”
Click here to view full story...
NATS gets planes to fly slightly slower in order to cut time waiting in Heathrow stacks
The amount of time aircraft spend in holding stacks before landing at Heathrow have been cut very slightly, due to planes being required to slow down a bit on their way towards London - instead of flying fast, and then having to stack. The reduction in stacking has been due to XMAN – or cross-border arrivals management – which involves NATS coordinating with its counterparts in France, the Netherlands and Ireland to slow inbound aircraft down from 350 miles away, when delays over London begin to build. As a result aircraft don’t land any later, but do spend less time circling in the holds. (They also burn a bit less fuel by flying a bit less fast). They are also using Time Based Separation to cut headwind delays. The new improvements have resulted in about one minute less per plane, which NATS says is about 3,000 hours per year. (That comes to 180,000 planes stacking per year, out of the total of about 235,000 planes arriving into Heathrow in total in 2015 - when there were around 472,000 total air transport movements at Heathrow). NATS says average holding times were about 8.5 minutes at the beginning of 2014, with that figure now just over 7.5 minutes and falling to 6.5 minutes in August 2016. NATS also says shorting stacking results in less noise - which might be true, though planes will still leave the stack at 7,000 feet. Those entering the stack, up to 14.000 feet, cause less noise on the ground.
Click here to view full story...
Mayor Sadiq Khan warns Waterloo to Heathrow rail link, needed to get airport passengers off the roads, may be impractical
Sadiq Khan has welcomed the potential for direct train services from Waterloo to Heathrow Airport but warned that there may not be enough capacity on the rail network for such a service to be introduced. The Mayor said: "While the potential for a new connection between Heathrow and Waterloo is welcome, the proposals face a serious capacity challenge. Rail lines between Windsor and Waterloo are severely constrained and the multiple level crossings on the route limit the ability to accommodate additional trains. Any new airport service cannot be at the expense of existing and planned services or the network's ability to meet forecast growth in background demand. If the Government is to take forward a third runway at Heathrow airport, it needs to demonstrate that there is both the rail connectivity and capacity to enable expansion and achieve the airport's stated aspiration of a zero increase in passenger and staff highway trips. The Southern Rail Access proposals, reliant on the rail lines between Windsor and Waterloo, cannot provide the capacity to support an expanded Heathrow." ... "While the Airports Commission identified Southern Rail Access as the only rail scheme required for Heathrow expansion, it emerged last month that the Government now deems no new rail infrastructure essential for an expanded Heathrow. Such an approach is deeply concerning and risks worsening congestion on the roads and a further deterioration of air quality around Heathrow."
Click here to view full story...
No change to APD in the Autumn Statement – it remains at £13 for European short-haul return trips
Despite the endless calls, as usual, for cuts in Air Passenger Duty that happen before any budget statement, there is no change in the Autumn Statement to levels of APD - other than a slow annual rise in line with inflation, as has already been happening. The level for standard rate return fares anywhere in Europe is £13 now, and will be £13 next year. The level for longer flights (anything of over 2,000 miles) will be £75 from 1st April 2017, while it is £73 now. There is no APD for children aged under 16. The amount the Treasury expects to get in from APD is around £3.3 billion each year 2017/ 2018 (but that ignores the estimate of somewhere around £10 billion per year that is not paid in, as aviation pays no VAT or fuel duty). In addition the government is to pay £20 million "for the development of alternative aviation and heavy goods vehicle fuels" by 2020/21. Philip Hammond also said that "The Chief Secretary to the Treasury [The Rt Hon David Gauke MP] will chair a new ministerial group that will oversee the delivery of priority infrastructure projects." This may be because infrastructure is cross departmental, and Ministers from individual departments will have to agree to commit funds (a Minister has responsibility to Parliament for their departmental budget approved by Treasury).
Click here to view full story...
Rob Hopkins blog: Can we learn to embrace a future of less flying?
Rob Hopkins, founder of the Transition Movement, reports in a blog about teaching a class at a French university, looking at how life will be in 2035. He brought the discussion onto flying, and the extent to which it would, or wouldn’t, be possible in 2035. This group of young students consider themselves to be global citizens. Many of them are international students, thinking nothing of flying home in the holidays, holidaying elsewhere, taking work placements on the other side of the world. Flying regularly is considered as everyday as eating and breathing. Rob considered the discussion under the framework of the "5 stages of grief", with first denial, then anger, bargaining and then depression. (The final stage would be acceptance). Rob quotes George Monbiot saying we need to be cutting aviation, not expanding it and "It’s not a question of whether we open a new runway at Heathrow, rather which of the 2 existing ones we close, and that’s just for starters." On the problem of love miles, flying across the world for weddings etc, Rob comments that this creates the problem where “we find two valid moral codes in irreconcilable antagonism”...."And what’s the moral response when a friend starts to tell of their wonderful 2 week break on the beaches of Phuket (3.16 tonnes of CO2)? We now accept it’s ok to express our disapproval if, for example, someone were to smoke close to our baby .... but to question flying remains hugely socially delicate."
Click here to view full story...
Should society be questioning the ethics or wisdom of dirt cheap, or “free” flights by Ryanair etc?
The low cost of air travel encourages extra demand, which not only increases people's carbon footprint, but also raises the amount that Brits spend abroad - known as the tourism deficit (the difference between the amount UK residents spend on trips abroad, over what residents abroad spend on trips to the UK). The deficit was £16.9 billion in 2015. Air travel is so cheap because it is not charged VAT and there is no fuel duty. The only tax is Air Passenger Duty, that is £13 for any return fight to a European country, and free for children. Fearing loss of profit due to Brexit and the lower value of the £ against other currencies, Ryanair is making ever more crazy offers of cut prices. To try to keep passenger numbers up, he hopes to offer "free" flights in due course. The catch would be that Ryanair would want to get a share in retail income (shopping and car parking at airports), so there would be profit per passenger. This dotty system, of charging so little for something that emits so much carbon, and sucks money out of the UK, is something society should take a long, hard look at. Is it really desirable, looking towards the longer term, that flying is so dirt cheap? And that the aviation sector is not included in either the UK's carbon targets, nor has a proper global mechanism to deal with rapidly rising CO2 from the sector?