General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
BA chief, Willie Walsh, threatens to reduce Gatwick flights if it got a 2nd runway
The boss of International Airlines Group ( IAG), which owns British Airways, has threatened to reduce its flights at Gatwick if the airport is given permission to expand with another runway. Willie Walsh warned that the cost of building a second runway at would result in charges that are too high. He said: "We struggle to see any business case for the expansion of Gatwick and will consider our position at the airport if the Government backs expansion there, principally because the cost of that expansion when translated into airport charges would likely wipe out the profit we make." He claimed Chancellor George Osborne and the Treasury are "clearly excited about a large infrastructure project that requires no Government spending", but urged them to consider the options "as if it was funding the project". He added: "If there is expensive, inefficient airport expansion at Gatwick or Heathrow, then we will expand through other airports and hubs." Willie Walsh has repeatedly said he is not prepared to pay very high landing charges at an expanded Heathrow, and would instead move his IAG planes to Dublin and Madrid instead.
Click here to view full story...
Walsh hits out at runway costs – “Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing”
Willie Walsh, CEO of IAG, speaking at an ABTA conference, has reiterated his opposition to an expensive Heathrow north west runway. His airlines are not prepared to pay high landing costs upfront for years before a runway is operational. He also says there is no business case for a Gatwick runway, and he would not pay higher charges there either. Walsh said “Heathrow is already the most-expensive hub airport in the world, with a history of inflating costs.” ... He questions the potential cost of £17.6 billion: "Only £182 million is for the runway. The new car park would cost £800 million.” ... “You cannot trust Heathrow to deliver anything in a cost-effective manner. Customers have been ripped off by Heathrow for years and leopards don’t change their spots.” ... Walsh claimed “the majority of the money” Heathrow raises from airport charges “doesn’t go towards upgrading facilities but straight into the pockets of the airport’s shareholders”... “Heathrow paid £1.4 billion to its shareholders in the last two years and only invested £1.3 billion in the airport. The average charge for each departing passenger is slightly more than £44." He is more in favour of the Heathrow Hub option, and wants Heathrow expansion in phases with the runway first, using the existing terminals. “Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.”
Click here to view full story...
New petition demanding real action to address global aviation CO2 – not ineffective use of “REDD” offsets
The group REDD-Monitor and other organisations have a petition asking people to sign up, to oppose the use by the global aviation industry, through ICAO, of "offsets" for its emissions using forestry. These offsets, through REDD or REDD+ (meaning (‘Reduce Deforestation from Deforestation and Forest Degradation’) would be very cheap and available in huge numbers. They would not be an effective way to compensate for growing aviation carbon emissions. The industry's only plan to control its CO2 emissions, while doubling them, is buying credits from other sectors. In April 2016, more than 80 NGOs put out a statement opposing the aviation sector’s carbon offsetting plans through use of REDD credits. There are many really serious problems with REDD credits. Some are: They would only use large forestry institutions, or monoculture farming, not small landowners or forest peoples. Most REDD projects are not those that tackle the real drivers of large-scale deforestation – extraction of oil, coal, mining, infrastructure, large-scale dams, industrial logging etc. REDD credits carry the additional risk of becoming null and void when wildfires, storms or natural decay cause uncontrollable release of carbon stored. There are serious risks of lack of monitoring, and of fraud. REDD offsets should not be allowed for aviation carbon credits.
Click here to view full story...
Manchester Airport rubbishes claims Heathrow expansion is crucial for Northern Powerhouse to succeed
The boss of Manchester Airport, Ken O’Toole, has rubbished Heathrow’s claims that a new London runway is crucial to the Northern Powerhouse. He argues that Manchester is an international airport in its own right with many direct long-haul routes. He says Manchester airport could make up any long haul capacity gap over the next 15 years and beyond "if the country adopts a culture of healthy competition." Manchester started a direct service to Beijing last week, giving the North its first ever non-stop flight to mainland China. But Heathrow continually tries to persuade that, without a third Heathrow runway, northern businesses would lose "up to £710m" per year. Manchester airport believes it can have a range of long haul flights, not only to tourist destinations - mentioning important markets like "Singapore, Hong Kong, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Boston and, from next March, San Francisco.” If people can get flights to these destinations direct from Manchester, they do not need to - inconveniently - travel via Heathrow. Ken O'Toole says some 22 million people live within two hours’ drive of Manchester Airport. They have a huge amount of spare capacity on their two runways. Heathrow is very nervous of losing the transfer traffic it cannot manage without, to either other hubs like Schiphol or Dubai - or the growth of airports like Manchester.
Click here to view full story...
In the event of Brexit, easyJet might need to set up a new European operation
If Britain votes to leave the EU, there would be impacts on airlines. The EU agreements that have been in place since the 1990s have fostered a huge expansion of air travel in Europe. Outside the EU, flying rights between two countries, including how many airports a carrier may fly to and how often, are typically negotiated in bilateral treaties. But currently in Europe with its single aviation market, an airline can fly between any EU countries. For example, an Irish Ryanair plane can fly between Britain and Spain, or a Spanish airline can operate flights within France. EasyJet is particularly worried about a Brexit vote. EasyJet is the second largest airline in France. Brexit could mean that the UK is excluded from the common aviation area. One thing it might have to do, in the event of Brexit, would be to obtain an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) in an EU country, which would require it to establish a local holding company. However, the holding company would have to be 51% owned by local investors and would have to comply with local regulations. Ryanair and British Airways already have AOCs in Ireland and Spain, while EasyJet does not. Brexit might have the effect of forcing Ryanair to set up a formal British business by obtaining a UK AOC. A Brexit vote could affect all pan-European carriers, not just British ones.
Click here to view full story...
English translations of some videos explaining arguments against a new Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport
The local opposition around Nantes, to the building a new airport north of Nantes, have produced a series of short videos, setting out some of the issues. There will be a referendum on 26th June, for people in the area, on whether the existing airport, Nantes-Atlantique, should be closed and a new airport constructed at Notre Dame des Landes (NDDL). The opponents of the NDDL airport say, among other things: - The number of flights at Nantes has hardly grown in 10 years. - It is possible to slightly grow the current Nantes-Atlantique airport (just south of Nantes) and slightly extend the runway by 60 metres. - It is possible to take measures to slightly reduce the noise at the Nantes-Atlantique airport. - The new NDDL airpot would cost the taxpayer about €280 million. - There would be no more destinations from the new NDDL airport than from the Nantes-Atlantique airport. Germany has 45 airports, and France has 156 airports. - The NDDL airport would mean the destruction of 700 hectares of wetland and about 900 hectares of farmland. - Many protected species would be lost. - About 200 agriculture-associated jobs would be lost, and most of the alleged new jobs would just move from the old airport. - The costs to passengers will be higher at the NDDL airport. And there is a lot more. With English translations here.
Click here to view full story...
AirportWatch calls on the Advertising Standards Authority to take action to remove misleading ads speedily
A bizarre court case has seen two environmental campaigners landed with a bill for more than £2,600 after they "corrected" a Heathrow Airport billboard promoting a new runway - even though the Advertising Standards Authority subsequently ruled that Heathrow's claims were indeed incorrect. Lawrence Rose and Joseph McGahan were found guilty of defacing Heathrow billboards near the airport, and in their view correcting misinformation on the adverts in March 2015. The adverts about local support and about benefits to the UK economy were referred – in March or April 2015 - to the Advertising Standards Authority, which ruled in September 2015 that these adverts were misleading. Larry and Joe were given suspended sentences, after a jury trial, and fines including a cost of £1,200 to Heathrow airport for the cost of tidying up the damage to their incorrect and misleading adverts. They were also fined £1,440 of court costs. For many months in 2014 and 2015, Heathrow placed these misleading advertisements in very public places. Thousands or hundreds of thousands of people will have seen the ads. Though the Advertising Standards Authority eventually ruled against them, the process took many months so by that time Heathrow had had extensive publicity and been able to convey misinformation. AirportWatch believes this is wrong. The process by which incorrect adverts are removed should be improved to ensure unsubstantiated claims by huge companies, like airports, are not left in place for months after being challenged.
Click here to view full story...
Government decides not to devolve APD to Wales
The UK government has confirmed that there would be no devolution of APD to Wales. APD has been fully devolved to Scotland, and SNP has the intention of halving it and eventually scrapping it. Some in the Welsh Assembly wanted devolution of APD to Wales, so it could be cut - in the vain hope that would boost the profitability of struggling Cardiff airport. Airports in England, and Bristol in particular, were deeply opposed to APD in Wales being cut, in case that encouraged people to use Cardiff airport rather than Bristol. The local Bristol MP said that would cause unfair competition between airports. The impact of abolishing APD would only be at most £13 per return flight for anywhere in Europe, (£26 for a return flight within the UK) - with no difference for a child under 16, so hardly worth the trip all way over to Cardiff. In a Commons debate on the Wales Bill, parliamentary under secretary of state for Wales, Conservative MP Guto Bebb, said: “Air Passenger Duty has been raised during the debate, and the fact that we are not proposing to devolve it has been criticised, although I think that that is right and proper.” The loss of income from the removal of APD would in all likelihood be larger than any benefit from more inbound tourism etc, causing a net loss to the Welsh economy.
Click here to view full story...
Polish study of effects of aircraft noise shows increased hypertension and cardiovascular impacts
A study carried out in Krakow, Poland, has found that long term exposure to aircraft noise is associated with hypertension and organ damage. The study included 201 randomly selected adults aged 40 to 66 years who had lived for more than three years in an area with high or low aircraft noise. Of these, 101 were exposed to more than 60 decibels (dB) of aircraft noise on average and 100 were exposed to less than 55 dB and acted as a control group. The researchers matched the groups in pairs by gender, age, and amount of time living in the area. All participants had their blood pressure measured. Asymptomatic organ damage was assessed by measuring stiffness of the aorta and the mass and function of the left ventricle. They found that the group who lived in an area of high aircraft noise had more hypertension than those who lived in a low aircraft noise area (40% versus 24%). They also had higher systolic (146 versus 138 mmHg) and diastolic (89 versus 79 mmHg) blood pressure than the control group. The researchers say "There is emerging data to suggest that exposure to aircraft noise may increase the risk of hypertension, particularly at night, and of hospitalisation for cardiovascular diseases – but more evidence is needed.” Also that noise should be kept down, by "redirecting flight paths, keeping airports away from homes, and avoiding night flights.”
Click here to view full story...
Stop Stansted Expansion prepares to launch legal proceedings against Stansted airport, over compensation delays
Stansted Airport faces legal action on behalf of thousands of local residents denied compensation over devaluation of their property caused by airport expansion. The cost to the airport could run to hundreds of millions of pounds. Stansted failed to meet a deadline (31st May) to make a public statement agreeing to introduce a compensation scheme for local residents after years of prevarication. Since 2002, Stansted has used the excuse that it has no legal obligation to pay compensation until it has completed everything listed in its 1999 Phase 2 planning consent. Completion of a small part of these works, the Echo Cul-de-Sac, has been repeatedly postponed - most recently until the mid-2020s - and has thus been branded the 'golden rivet' loophole. Stansted lawyers finally accepted this, but then immediately put forward a new excuse for rejecting compensation claims - that claims were now time-barred under the Limitation Act. This gave rise to withering criticism from the judge who remarked: "So, after years of telling people you can't claim until the works are complete, you're now saying Tee-Hee - you're too late." Due to Stansted stalling, SSE are now taking legal action, to safeguard the interests of local residents. SSE's preparations for a legal challenge ,on the airport's use of the Limitation Act, are underway. They have appointed and briefed its legal team, which includes two expert barristers and one of the country's foremost planning solicitors.