General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Lilian Greenwood displays the confused thinking of Labour in its enthusiasm for a runway
The Labour party remains in a mess on what to do on runways. They have a position of stating that "Labour will study the government’s proposals carefully, alongside any additional material that is commissioned, and we will respond on the basis of our four tests for aviation expansion. These are: 1.That robust and convincing evidence was produced that the Commission’s recommendations would provide sufficient capacity. 2. That the UK’s legal climate change obligations could still be met. 3. That local noise and environmental impacts can be managed and minimised. 4. That the benefits of any expansion were not confined to London and the South East." But, though Lilian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary herself bought up a bit of Airplot in 2009 to prevent a Heathrow runway, she now says: "There is no doubt ... that we need a new runway." And "Aviation expansion is a matter of national significance and, having committed to addressing the problem head on, David Cameron faces a loss of credibility if he ducks the issue now. The UK needs additional capacity, but the prospect of any expansion is now in doubt." But Labour itself says the runway has to meet the 4 conditions. And in reality that is not possible. So Labour's position?
Click here to view full story...
Richard Heinberg post COP21: “we may have to write off aviation as anything but a specialty transport mode”
After COP21, Richard Heinberg has had a long, hard look at how humanity can reduce consumption of fossil fuels and achieve the carbon reductions needed before 2050. He only touches on aviation, but his message is very clear: Looking at shipping: "One way or another, global trade will have to shrink." On aviation: "There is no good drop-in substitute for aviation fuels; we may have to write off aviation as anything but a specialty transport mode. Planes running on hydrogen or biofuels are an expensive possibility, as are dirigibles filled with (non-renewable) helium, any of which could help us maintain vestiges of air travel." One recommendation: "Where key uses of fossil fuels are especially hard to substitute (aviation fuel, for example), argue for work-arounds (such as rail) or for the managed, gradual scaling down of those uses." And "It will likely require a global authority to determine how to direct the use of the world’s remaining burnable fossil fuels—whether toward the further growth of conventional manufacturing and transportation, or toward the build-out of renewable energy-based generation and consumption infrastructure. Only such an authority could globally prioritize and coordinate sectoral shifts...."
Click here to view full story...
Sunday Times reports “BA cancels flights to tighten grip on privileged Heathrow position” by slot use
The Sunday Times reports that British Airways has admitted it plays the system at Heathrow by “tactically cancelling” flights so it can hang on to lucrative landing slots without needing to fly more planes. BA has about 50% of Heathrow's take-off and landing slots, and it could have 53% by next summer. It has done successive deals to obtain more slots, such as its 2012 takeover of BMI, and getting 11 pairs of slots following the closure of Virgin Atlantic’s Little Red service to regional airports, and the collapse of Russian carrier Transaero. Most of these slots had been mandated for use on UK routes, as part of a European competition ruling on the BMI takeover.But BA can now use them as it wants, after the failure of the two rival airlines. In the rules that govern how landing slots are used, airlines have to use them 80% of the time or lose them to another airline. Airlines that owns lots, which can be valued up to £40 million, are not keen to lose them. BA is using "tactical cancellations" across their network, so they can keep the 80% rule,without much overall increase in capacity. BA cancelled a daily Heathrow flight to New York, and some short-haul routes and will launch new routes, mainly to leisure destinations in Europe. While BA’s tactics are within the rules, they raise questions about whether Heathrow’s runway capacity is being used effectively.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick re-hashes its plans to add runway capacity in 4 phases, rather than all at the start
Gatwick are hoping they can get some advantage over Heathrow, by making much of their plans to develop the extra runway capacity in phases - not building all the ancillary infrastructure at the start. This in fact has been their plan for a long time - it is nothing new. The Airports Commission assessed it in 2014. Gatwick may not be able to secure the necessary funding to build everything at once, and only be able to pay for it over many decades. Gatwick hope to build the runway and basic third terminal in the first phase, costing about £3 billion, by 2025. This would increase capacity to about 63 million passengers, from a maximum now of 45 million. The 2nd and 3rd phases would expand the terminal, build new aircraft gates and fully divert the A23 around the airport. The 4th phase would be the completion of the terminal and piers, while finishing off taxiways for passenger jets by 2040. The aim would be to add more as passenger numbers build up. The Airports Commission always saw the numbers of passengers rising only slowly at Gatwick, and taking a long time to double (not even taking account of the higher costs to pay for the runway etc, that would be passed to passengers, reducing demand).That does indicate that there is no great pent up demand for a huge number more flights. Let alone business flights to emerging economies.
Click here to view full story...
IATA expects global airline profits to rise by 5.1% in 2016 (and CO2 to rise by 4.6%) cf. 2015
IATA, which represents some 260 airlines and 83% of global air traffic, expects profits in the industry to rise by 5.1% to $36.3 billion in 2016 - up from $33 billion in 2015. This growth is attributed to dropping oil prices and a greater demand for travel. IATA expects about 3.78 billion air passengers in 2016, travelling over 54,000 routes. There were about 3.54 billion air passengers in 2015. It says: "Air travel is accelerating, with growth of 6.9% expected next year, the best since 2010, well above the 5.5% trend of the past 20 years." They say air passengers spend 1% of world GDP on air transport, and air transport costs have been halved over the past 20 years. They say load factors forecast to fall a little (around as capacity rises, with yet more planes being added. However, IATA is happy to say the carbon emissions per ATK (available tonne kilometres) will be 1.8% lower. However, as they expect around 7% growth, the net effect is much higher carbon emissions. The estimated increase in the use of jet fuel is about 4.2% higher this year than in 2014, and is expected to rise by 4.6% in 2016, compared to 2015. IATA says the carbon emissions from the global aviation industry were 739 million tonnes in 2014; 771 million tonnes in 2015; and 806 million tonnes in 2016. North America may generate over half of the global industry's profit in 2016 ($19.4 billion), while European airlines could increase in profits from $5.8 billion in 2015 to $8.5 billion in 2016.
Click here to view full story...
Environment MEPs rebuff member states on plans to weaken testing of diesel vehicle emissions
On 28th October, the European Commission (EC) came to an agreement on weakening the emissions testing standards for diesel vehicles. This has been done in order to protect the European car industry, but put at risk the health of European citizens. Instead of tougher tests of how much NO2 vehicles actually produce in real world driving, the Commission proposed that "real-world" driving emissions (RDE) tests should become operational starting next year, but would only take full effect after a two-year phase-in for new vehicles from 2017. The limit is set to sink again in 2019. On 14th December the European Parliament's Environment Committee voted to reject the EC proposal, and member states. A resolution drafted by the environment committee MEPs to object to the proposal was passed with 40 votes in favour, 9 objections and 13 abstentions. Following yesterday's vote, Dutch MEP Bas Eickhout (Greens), spokesperson of the Parliament's Environment Committee, called the outcome an “important step towards overturning the outrageous decision by EU governments. ...This test, as it stands, would essentially overwrite EU limits on pollutants from cars." The European Parliament will vote on the resolution in the week of 18-21 January. Environment ministers will discuss the October agreement on diesel emissions on 16th December.
Click here to view full story...
Patrick McLoughlin makes bland statement to Parliament about runway decision delay
Patrick McLoughlin, Secretary of State for Transport, made an oral statement in the House of Commons on the government's announcement that it is delaying a decision on a new runway. It is carefully worded, to give nothing away and be entirely non-committal. He was asked various questions by MPs after it, and his answers also give nothing away - and barely answer the questions. Some MPs wanted to know if Gatwick was now being considered. Henry Smith (MP for Crawley) asked whether, if the government decides on a Gatwick runway, he could have a "guarantee that the significant investment that will be required in housing, highways, the rail network and healthcare and all other public services will be forthcoming?" Mr McLoughlin: There are already significant commitments with regard to Gatwick; improving the infrastructure for Gatwick is already taking place and further such schemes will be coming on board over the next few years. It is vital that we get the surface access to our airports correct. That is something we are dealing with over a period of time. My hon. Friend asks whether there would be other consequences if the decision should go towards Gatwick. That will be the case for any option we choose, and of course we want to look at those options and see which ones we would want to take forward." ie. more vague waffle
Click here to view full story...
Zac Goldsmith: Heathrow as a hub is not the answer – better competition between London airports is
Zac Goldsmith is unarguably an important part of whatever decision the government makes on whether to build a runway. Writing in the Standard on 14th December, Zac said "London’s prosperity depends on it being connected to the world — particularly those emerging markets where new business and jobs will come from. That is not best achieved by creating a monopoly on one edge of our city. We need competition and choice....The irony is that even if Heathrow is expanded, it will not provide the additional capacity we need. Figures produced by the Airports Commission itself show that new activity at an expanded Heathrow would be at the expense of competing airports .. [it] would suck in flights from across the South-East and undermine competition not only at Gatwick and Stansted but as far afield as Manchester and Birmingham too." And " hubs will likely soon cease to exist. The new generation of aircraft can travel point to point for longer, and at a fraction of the cost" so a massive airport like a 3 runway Heathrow will not be needed. "The priority is competition and, if and when there is need for additional capacity, for that reason it would need to be at either Stansted or Gatwick, whichever can offer the best value for money without compromising carbon, noise and air-quality limits."
Click here to view full story...
Prof David Metz: “The solution to London’s airport capacity crisis? Do nothing”
David Metz is an Honorary professor of transport studies at UCL. He has written a sensible assessment of what should be done with the alleged "crisis" of London's airport capacity. He says for "road travel, “predict and provide” has been largely abandoned by developed economies. These days the favoured approach is called “managing demand”. This method works on the basis that attempting to meet an ever-growing demand is impractical..." "what would happen if we didn’t build another runway at all? For air travel, the answer lies within the market. Three–quarters of passengers are on leisure trips..."... "The case for more airport capacity to support inbound tourism is weak. While London’s hospitality, entertainment and retail sectors would welcome more visitors, Britain has a negative balance of trade in tourism: that is, British people abroad spend a lot more each year than overseas visitors to the UK."..."If we decided not to build a further runway at Heathrow, the market would respond to this capacity constraint by accommodating the most valuable passengers through price increases."..."The growth of business travel would displace leisure travel, both within aircraft on existing routes and between routes, where time is traded against money."... "Managing the demand for air travel though market mechanisms is a viable alternative to building more airport capacity"
Click here to view full story...
Simon Jenkins: Never mind a third runway – what Heathrow needs is managed decline
In a brilliantly written comment piece in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins sets out some timely thoughts on the matter of a new runway. People should read the whole article - it is so well written. Simon says: "If more capacity were vital, the market would have spoken.".... "Never take a fact from a lobbyist. Heathrow runways have nothing to do with “vital British business”. The idea that spending a staggering £18bn on one runway is economically essential is ludicrous. The economy has far more need of better roads to ports, more commuter trains or cheaper electricity.... A full 80% of London’s airport capacity serves one industry: foreign leisure travel. That industry is, overwhelmingly, Britons going abroad, and is thus negative to the balance of payments. Business export travel is a trivial part of the sum. If this whole argument were really about something “essential”, Heathrow would cancel its 20% of domestic flights and discontinue all tourist destinations. If more capacity were really so vital, then the market would have spoken." ..."The days of deciding on infrastructure through “predict and provide” should be over." ..."Heathrow should be phased out or – like City airport – confined to predominantly business destinations. Air travel should be discouraged not encouraged, and airlines dispersed closer to their markets across Britain