General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Block of ice (from plane?) crashes through edge of roof of family home in Chelmsford
People living under flight paths not infrequently suffer from objects that fall from planes, the most common of which appears to be lumps of ice. Now (on 4th March) there has been yet another incident where a block of ice has landed on a house, narrowly missing people. The house is under a Stansted flight path, in Chelmsford, Essex and is the home of a couple and their two teenage children. The ice block, described as perhaps football size, crashed through the overhang of their roof, missing going through the bedroom ceiling by just a few feet. That part of the bedroom is where the couple sleep. The ice block left a gaping hole in the roof. Members of the family were asleep at the time, and were woken by a noise they thought was a bomb going off. The couple now face a repair bill of thousands of pounds. Had the block been only a few inches closer to the window, the couple fear it would have impacted the window, which would have shattered it - with the bed just feet away. The CAA have been contacted, to ascertain if the ice is indeed from a plane. Ice can form naturally on aircraft flying at high altitudes which falls when the plane descends into warmer air and the ice breaks away. The CAA says it is not liable for damage due to an ice fall. Other incidents of objects, including ice, falling from planes.
Click here to view full story...
AEF analysis of the ITC report: its “conclusion that environmental impacts should be no barrier to expansion is unfounded”
A new report published by the Independent Transport Commission (ITC), a think tank supported by Heathrow and Gatwick, has argued that environmental concerns should not prevent a new runway being built. Now the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF)has come out with a damning assessment. The report argues that “it is foreseeable that a range of solutions will enable forecasts of future growth to be delivered within acceptable environmental boundaries even without a “step-change” in technology”. AEF points out that what "acceptable environmental boundaries" are not clearly defined. On CO2 emissions AEF says the ITC has put too much faith in future market based measures to trade emissions, and used unjustifiably optimistic forecasts of fuel efficiency improvements (1.6% per year, when others expect 0.8% at best). On noise AEF says the ITC does not even consider health impacts, uses implausibly optimistic assumptions and some unclear use of noise measurements. On air pollution, the ITC argues this is largely not the airports’ responsibility and hopes levels will improve soon. AEF concludes: "Without clearer definitions of what constitutes “acceptable environmental boundaries”, and evidence that these can be achieved, the report’s conclusion that environmental impacts should be no barrier to expansion is unfounded."
Click here to view full story...
European Commission consultation on less strict rules on state subsidies for aviation sector
The European Commission wants to loosen state aid rules for Europe’s regional airports and ports, reducing the red tape burden on government investment below a certain threshold. The European state aid regulator, the Directorate-General for Competition, has launched a public consultation on the planned changes, with the aim of presenting an updated initiative by this autumn. The consultation ends on 30th May, and there will then be another. The European Commissioner for Competition said the aim was to make state aid investment easier, to create jobs. The Commission has reviewed 54 cases of financial support for airports (and more than 30 for ports). The revision would be one of the last steps of a sweeping overhaul of Europe’s rules governing public subsidies. Under the draft plans now out for consultation, the cultural industry and the overseas regions would also get looser conditions for gaining state aid. The EU rules for state aid to airports and airlines were last changed in March 2014. The rules said state aid is allowed if there is seen to be a genuine need for accessibility by air to a region. One category was for operating aid to regional airports (with less than 3 million passengers a year) to be allowed for a transitional period of 10 years under certain conditions.
Click here to view full story...
“Independent” transport think tank, pro-runway, finds the environmental challenges can all (honestly…) be overcome …
Heathrow is well aware that it has an almost insurmountable set of environmental obstacles that, in any logical system, would make a 3rd runway out of the question. However, it keeps hoping that it can persuade enough key people that all is well, and all environmental problems will just melt away. Now, in a slightly desperate attempt to get politicians etc to ignore the evidence, a report has been done by an organisation called the "Independent Transport Commission." This is a body partly funded by Heathrow, by Gatwick, by NATS and many others. The report "The sustainability of UK Aviation: Trends in the mitigation of noise and emissions", written by RDC Aviation Ltd, sets out to show that the aviation industry can soon overcome problems of noise, air pollution and carbon emissions - and adding a new runway will be problem-free. The report is thin on good detail to back up these claims. It is high on hopes, aspirations and what could be termed "mindless optimism" that new technologies will work out well, and everything that could help the aviation industry will do so. None of the real problems of an expanding industry, with additional problems from the sheer increase in plane numbers are dealt with. A report, which is hard to describe as "independent" in any meaningful sense of the word, advocates sacrificing the environment if holds the industry's growth back.
Click here to view full story...
Local firms dispute Gatwick’s claims that a 2nd runway would be good for business or for the area
Backers of a 2nd Gatwick runway (few as they are) such as the Gatwick Diamond are keen to promote the view that it would greatly help local business. However, many businesses in the area would, in reality, be harmed by it. Employers fear the airport's expansion would mean higher wage expectations and wage inflation. As there is almost no local unemployment, it would become hard to employ local staff. There would also be much more road and rail congestion, from all the extra travel demand generated - with a negative impact on local companies. The pressure on office space and business locations would increase, pricing some firms out of the area. Where are they to relocate to? Gatwick is meant to have an "Engagement Charter" (written in 2014) through which it keeps in contact with local "landowners and occupiers" but some say they have had no contact from Gatwick. There is meant to be one to one support from the airport - especially on compulsory purchase. Sally Pavey, Chair of CAGNE, commented: “At last local businesses are starting to realise what a second runway at Gatwick will mean for them. It’s not going to be all good news for them.” Local campaign GACC produced an excellent, easy-to-read 6-page paper in December 2014, "Bad for Business" setting out a range of topics, illustrating how negative the runway's impacts would be.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow holding “Business Summits” in Leeds and Manchester, attracting SMEs with hopes of lucrative runway supply deals
Heathrow is hoping to get backing from small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the regions, by tempting them with the prospect of lucrative contracts to supply the construction of the 3rd runway (which it presumes it will be getting). It also hopes it can persuade companies that another Heathrow runway will boost their businesses. Heathrow says it will "need more SMEs from the Northern Powerhouse in Heathrow’s supply chain to deliver an expanded Heathrow.” To help get more SMEs on board, there will be "Business Summits in Manchester (7th June) and Leeds (29th September). The days "will consist of speed-dating style sessions of interviews with procurement managers representing businesses based at the airport. By forging connections and winning new business, SMEs have the opportunity to enter Heathrow’s supply chain before development work kicks off as well as using the airport’s international presence to project their brand globally." There is also an annual Heathrow’s flagship Summit which takes place at the airport each November. Heathrow is hoping to lure them, saying: "with the airport spending over £1.5 billion annually with over 1,200 suppliers from around the UK....[the role of SMEs] will grow with the airport’s expansion."
Click here to view full story...
Manchester airport granted planning consent for huge programme of building works on terminals etc
Manchester airport has huge expansion plans. The City Council’s planning committee has approved part of a £1bn building plan. The Manchester Airport Transformation Programme (MAN-TP) will expand and reconfigure Terminal 2, as a "super terminal" with a new elevated road, and a 7-storey car park and also reconfigure Terminal 3. It wants to demolish Terminal One and its car park. The airport hopes over the next decade the project "will see the airport continue to develop as a global gateway for the UK, directly to and from the North." The airport sees itself as a key part of the Northern Powerhouse idea. The expansion will also create space for 50 food and retail businesses - (airports need to boost profits.) Local Ringway Parish Council are deeply opposed to the planned developments, and say the airport is "our worse enemy." They have been fighting the airport's plans for decades. Ringway PC says the impact on the environment will be ‘massive’. “They build on farmland, knock down old houses and they just don’t care. They don’t care about the environment, about small villages being decimated ...It’s a one-sided exercise, because planning applications from the airport will always be waved through." The building will overshadow local houses, make the roads busier and worsen noise pollution.
Click here to view full story...
Four councils affected by Heathrow threaten to take legal action against Government if it backs Heathrow runway
Four Conservative controlled councils - Hillingdon, Richmond upon Thames, Wandsworth and Windsor & Maidenhead councils - are preparing to sue the government over a proposed 3rd Heathrow runway. The four councils are near Heathrow, and affected adversely by it. The warning to David Cameron, from their lawyers, says an escalation in the number of flights would be “irrational and unlawful”. The legal letter to No 10 says court proceedings will be launched unless the Prime Minister categorically rules out expansion of Heathrow. It says “insurmountable environmental problems” around the airport mean it can never be expanded without subjecting residents to excessive pollution and noise. The councils have believed, since the launch of the (government appointed) Airports Commission's final report, that it made a “flawed assessment” of Heathrow’s ability to deal with environmental issues (noise, NO2, and carbon emissions among them). The councils also say David Cameron’s previous promise - "No ifs, No buts, no 3rd runway" - had created a “legitimate expectation” among residents that there would be no runway. The authorities have appointed Harrison Grant, the solicitors that led a successful High Court challenge in 2010 against the former Labour government’s attempt to expand Heathrow.
Click here to view full story...
BALPA wants DfT and CAA to fund drone strike research – fears of cockpit hit or engine fire
Pilots' union British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) are calling for research into what would happen if a drone hit an airliner, after 23 near-misses around UK airports between 11th April and 4th October 2015. In one incident a drone passed within 25m (82ft) of a Boeing 777 near Heathrow. Twelve of the incidents were classed as "A" rated, the most serious rating, by the independent Airprox board, meaning there was "a serious risk of collision". Other incidents given the most serious rating include a drone coming within 20m (66ft) of a Embraer 170 jet on its approach to London City Airport above the Houses of Parliament on 13th September. Also a Boeing 737 had a near miss with a drone shortly after take-off from Stansted. BALPA wants the DfT and the CAA to back research into the possible consequences of a collision with a passenger jet. The effect could be serious if a drone smashed into the cockpit windscreen, or if it crashed into an engine. Unlike with bird strikes, the drones carry lithium batteries - there is concern these could cause a serious engine fire. The consequences of a drone hitting a plane would depend on a number of factors such as the size and speed of the drone and the location of the collision.
Click here to view full story...
Union fears up to 900 IT jobs at British Airways to be out-sourced to India
British Airways plans to off-shore many of its IT jobs to India, in a move to cut costs. Sites affected by the offshore outsourcing plan include BA Heathrow (700 redundancies projected at Waterside), BA Newcastle (100 redundancies projected) and other sites run by the airline. BA is transferring its “end-user” UK IT jobs to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) in India. The GMB union says BA is also flouting visa rules,on rolling Tier 2 visas, which are meant to be for when employers want to internally move a member of staff from one post to another. John McDonnell attended a protest against the off-shoring plans, as many of the people to lose their jobs live in his constituency, in Hayes. BA staff are angry - GMB's Mick Rix said: “BA’s reward for their colleagues’ loyalty is redundancy and to replace them with another company’s cheap labour brought in from abroad on dubious visas.” Despite the job cull, BA is enjoying huge profits by charging a “high price for a premium service” but wants to have the “cost base of a low cost carrier.” BA claims only about 200 UK jobs would be lost, and it employs around 35,000 people in the UK. This is yet another warning that the aviation is not a secure provider of jobs - and claims of job gains with airport expansion needed to be viewed with caution.