General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Istanbul with its massive 3rd airport expected to soon take hub business away from Heathrow
The massive new 3rd airport for Istanbul - Istanbul Grand Airport (IGA) - big enough to take 150 million passengers per year in due course, is due to open on October 29th 2017. With 3 runways built in the first phase, it will have six runways and four terminals when completed. It would mean Istanbul having an airport larger than any in Europe. It will replace Atatürk Airport and provide the capacity that Turkish Airlines wants for huge expansion. Turkey is not doing well in cutting its carbon emissions overall, with more coal power stations planned and inadequate targets. A total of 25 new airports have opened in Turkey in the last 10 years. It is thought that by 2028, the new Istanbul airport may have enough capacity to shift passengers away from Paris Charles de Gaulle airport, Heathrow, Schiphol, and Dubai. Even with the existing airports, Istanbul has been taking share from competitors for transfer traffic between Europe and Asia. Istanbul is one of the top-five largest feeders for Europe. It is likely that even if a 3rd runway was built at Heathrow, Istanbul would overtake Heathrow. It is better located to be a major hub airport, and would take its business. That is expected to start even before 2020. The President of Turkish Airlines says: “The world used to be focused on Northern Europe and America. In this century, it’s our turn.”
Click here to view full story...
Witness statement by Prof Alice Bows-Larkin for Heathrow 13 trial clearly shows CO2 problem of a new runway
Alice Bows-Larkin, a Professor in Climate Science and Energy Policy at MACE at Manchester University, gave written evidence at the trial of the Heathrow 13, for their action at Heathrow in July 2015. Her witness statement (11 pages + references) is a closely argued and highly expert assessment of the need for the emissions from aviation to be restricted. It is well worth reading. Just a few of the points she raises are that the UK has signed up to the ambition of the Paris Agreement to keep global temperature rise to below 2 degrees C. This is not consistent with an increase in the CO2 emissions from UK aviation above their capped level. There is no justification for international aviation to be excluded for global ambitions to limit CO2. Even if there is some carbon trading scheme, aviation needs to be fully included. If ‘negative emission sources’ that can remove CO2 from the air (unlikely) "do not materialise in time, ‘well below 2°C’ will only be achieved by a wholesale shift away from fossil fuel combustion. This would mean that CO2 produced by the aviation sector would also need to be reduced to near zero. This ... would be largely uncontested." Prof Larkin says in ther view the Government's intention to build a new runway, raising UK aviation CO2 emissions, "implies a misunderstanding by UK Government of the scale of CO2 mitigation that a 2°C goal relies upon – let alone a ‘well below’ 2°C target."
Click here to view full story...
“All that noise & just so people can stop off in Heathrow’s duty free”: Darren Johnson makes the case against airport expansion
"The London Assembly has a longstanding opposition to Heathrow expansion for a very clear reason. We don't need it and we don't want it." So says Darren Johnson, speaking for the Green Party on the London Assembly. In a blog, he says a 3rd runway at Heathrow would undermine efforts to tackle air pollution and climate change, and increase noise for millions of Londoners. TfL and the GLA could help fund a legal challenge by London borough councils' to a Heathrow runway. With a new runway, around 30% of the extra Heathrow passengers would simply be "people who would otherwise fly out of another London airport.".... Why are we considering taking 10m passengers a year from other London airports and concentrating them all at one of most polluted hot spots in the country?" The government's latest modelling shows, to keep aviation within its carbon cap, "it would need to impose a carbon tax on fuel adding £100 to the cost of a return flight to Ibiza by 2050, even if there is no airport expansion.... In other words, we’d build a new runway in a London airport – then tax people so no more flights were taken across the UK as a whole." ... "Why create so many problems when we could easily get the extra passenger journeys out of existing capacity at other British airports?"
Click here to view full story...
ICAO proposal to slightly reduce CO2 emissions from new planes, only after 2023, not seen as sufficiently ambitious
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations’ aviation agency, has approved the first-ever binding agreement to achieve CO2 emissions reductions from new aircraft. New efficiency standards will apply to all new commercial jets delivered after 2028, as well as existing jets produced from 2023. This might achieve a cut in CO2 of about 4% in cruise fuel consumption, compared to the level in 2015. This is a very low level of ambition. Environmental groups, specifically the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) said the proposed standards were a missed opportunity and would have little real effect in curbing emissions. The standard excludes aircraft that are already in use, and as most airlines have lifetimes of 20-30 years, it will take decades to cover the current fleet. ICCT says some of the top performing commercial aircraft were already achieving the standard – with room to spare. By 2020, 8 years before the proposed standards were even due to come into effect, the average aircraft would already be 10% more efficient than the ICAO standard. ICAO recognised that "the projected doubling of global passengers and flights by 2030 must be managed responsibly and sustainably.” However, this does very little to achieve that. The exclusion high CO2 emitting international aviation and shipping was a major weakness of the Paris Agreement in December.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow 13: Jailing peaceful protestors could “lead to more disruption” in future, experts say
The protesters who disrupted flights last summer have been told to expect jail when they are sentenced next week (24th) - the maximum jail term for their offence would be 3 months. However, it is possible that jailing the “Heathrow 13” could encourage environmental activists to cause more damage in future protests. The reason is that academics believe a custodial sentence would inspire demonstrators to cause more damage in future – because it would remove the incentive to seek a trial by magistrate rather than trial by jury. Environmental protestors involved in peaceful direct action generally make sure they cause less than £5,000 damage. Beneath this threshold, they are likely to be tried by a magistrate – and receive a lighter sentence (not prison) than if they had been tried by a jury. But if Judge Deborah Wright does jail the Heathrow 13, activists in the future may be inclined to do what it takes to secure a jury trial. Juries are considered less likely to convict than magistrates. Dr Graeme Hayes of Aston University believes the precedent is that non-violent protestors are dealt with leniently by magistrates. If that is no longer the case, there is the risk that "some activists may decide to cause more property damage.” Professor Brian Doherty, professor of political sociology at Keele University, agreed.
Click here to view full story...
Virgin flight to New York had to return to Heathrow due to laser attack (6-7 miles west of airport)
A Virgin flight (VS025) heading to New York turned back to Heathrow after a laser beam was shone into the cockpit, Virgin Atlantic has said. The crew told air traffic control there was a "medical issue" with one of the pilots after the laser hit flight VS025 after take-off at 20:13 GMT on Sunday 14th. The flight turned back some way west of Ireland, after burning off and dumping excess fuel, in order to land safely. The radio clip of the conversation between air traffic control and the pilot indicated the laser attack may have happened some 6 - 7 miles west of Heathrow (the plane took off towards the east and turned west). The plane was landed safely, as the other pilot was not affected. [What happens if both pilots are affected ....] Shining lasers at planes is illegal. A new law introduced in 2010 means someone can be charged with "shining a light at an aircraft in flight so as to dazzle the pilot". Balpa general secretary Jim McAuslan said lasers were "incredibly dangerous", and called for the government to classify them as "offensive weapons". Aircraft are attacked with lasers at an alarming rate and with lasers with ever-increasing strength. Between January 2009 and June 2015 more than 8,998 laser incidents across the country were reported to the UK CAA. In 2014, there were 1,440 incidents, with 168 at Heathrow, which has the highest number.
Click here to view full story...
Patrick McLoughlin evidence to Transport Cttee – he “very much hoped” to give runway location decision by July
The Commons Transport Committee held an oral evidence session on 8th February, inviting Transport Secretary of State, Patrick McLoughlin, to comment on the decision by the government to delay a statement on the location of a possible new runway. The tone of the session was that the Committee was eager for a decision to be made rapidly, with concern that undue time was being taken. Mr McLoughlin explained that even an EU referendum in June would not rule out a decision before Parliament's summer recess. He said though there has been a delay, partly due to air pollution problems and the VW "defeat" scandal, he hoped the government was ensuring all necessary research had been done, to minimise the chance of legal challenges causing yet further delays. The timetable the government is working to is a runway by 2030, though Heathrow and Gatwick would prefer it to be by 2025. Mr McLoughlin said he "very much hoped" there would be a statement to Parliament at least several days before summer recess (starts 21st July) to allow time for MPs to comment etc. He stressed how the 2008 Planning Act would make pushing a runway through fast, and gave the various timings, with only 6 months for a planning inquiry and examination in public.
Click here to view full story...
Faster jet stream, due to climate change, could make transatlantic flights slower (and costlier)
Carbon emissions from global aviation are known to worsen climate change - but now climate change is set to worsen flight times, according to new research. Climate change is likely to cause a faster jet stream, and that will add thousands of hours to journey times and increase airline fuel bills. Dr Paul Williams, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Reading, combined climate models with the software used by aviation companies to calculate the best routes each day. This showed the impact of a 15% faster jet stream, with flights from Europe toward the USA taking somewhat longer, against the wind. The wind could help speed the flights going eastwards, but the overall impact is a longer round trip. There are currently about 300 round trips per day, across the Atlantic, meaning the delay adds up to about 2,000 extra flying hours per year, $22m in extra fuel and 70m extra kilogrammes of CO2 emitted. Earlier work showed other impacts of rising temperatures on aviation, including bumpier, more turbulent flights and reducing the weight planes can carry. The impact of the faster jet stream will mean worse environmental impacts from aviation, as well as raising ticket prices. The jet stream also occurs in other part of the northern hemisphere, and in the southern hemisphere, and would have the same effect on planes there.
Click here to view full story...
London City Airport’s price tag under scrutiny after BA threatens to pull out most flights
The sale of London City Airport could be in jeopardy after British Airways, the largest airline based there (40% of the flights), threatened to pull out most of its aircraft. The second largest airline there has about 20% of the flights. The airport was put up for sale by GIP in in August 2015. BA fears that the high price of £2 billion could force its new owners to raise landing fees, and BA says it is not prepared to pay. Willie Walsh said the £2 billion price would mean a multiple of 44 times London City's earnings (EBITDA), though the airport said it was a multiple of 28. Walsh said the airport had "very high" airport charges of £19 per passenger, one of the most expensive after Heathrow, and with higher charges he would not make enough profit. The number of passengers at London City airport has grown from 2m in 2005 to an estimated 4.3m in 2015. The airport’s value could also be limited by its battle to get planning permission for a £200m development that would increase the number of passengers to 6m by 2023. The plans were blocked last year by Boris, over aircraft noise concerns. London City is appealing against this. The introduction of Crossrail in 2018, which will cut down the journey time from Canary Wharf to Heathrow, could be a real threat to the airport.
Click here to view full story...
EasyJet’s Carolyn McCall says it is “unfair” for airlines to have to pre-fund airport expansion – wants someone else to pay
Carolyn McCall, CEO of easyJet, has claimed it is "very unfair" to expect airlines to fund runway building and airport expansion before the work takes place. She said "quite a big negotiation" will have to take place, whether (if) Heathrow or Gatwick is chosen. The cost of the expansion at Heathrow would be about £18.6 billion; Heathrow Hub at £13.5 billion, or Gatwick at 9.3 billion. Ms McCall has a main base at Gatwick, but backs a runway at Heathrow, expecting easyJet could make more money there. Willie Walsh of IAG has often said that the cost of Heathrow expansion is "outrageous" and insisted "we wouldn't be prepared to pay for or to support the development". Carolyn McCall said the issue of pre-funding is a massive issue for airlines - and therefore for airline passengers - as it would mean more expensive air fares for perhaps up to 10 years before the runway was completed. She claimed it was "a very unfair way of funding infrastructure development which is to the benefit of the country."... "There are lots of negotiations to be had between Heathrow and airlines, including us, as to how we would operate at Heathrow and at what cost and with what infrastructure." She wants a runway.[But she wants someone else to pay for it, so flying for leisure can become even cheaper.]