General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Murad Qureshi blog: So what does the Competition & Market Authority (Competition Commission, as was) think of Heathrow expansion?
Murad writes: Now we have had the report from Airport Commission recommending expansion of Heathrow it strikes me we have to wonder if it really is better for passengers - notwithstanding the obvious adverse impact on the quality of life for those near Heathrow or under its flight paths. It would effectively recreate a monopoly at Heathrow that will suck in long haul connections from the regions of the UK and drive up prices for passengers. It will mean passengers will be forced to take long haul air journeys via Heathrow, with very clear implications to consumer welfare. Heathrow already has a stranglehold on the market for US trips, and £ for £, these are more expensive than similar length trips to Asia. "The irony is that the Competition Commission ( now the Competition & Market Authority ) in 2011 broke up the monopoly that BAA had over airports in London and South-East when it owed all three major ones" ...."Now it appears Heathrow Holdings PLC [with a 3rd runway] ...looks like becoming a private monopoly of long haul flights if Davies' recommendations are accepted by the government. The matter needs referring back to the Competition & Market Authority, for the sake of the consumer and travelling public if nothing else."
Click here to view full story...
Air travel makes you happy, says the Airports Commission. That’s why we need more runways
The Airport Commission (AC) changed its arguments sharply between its 2013 interim report and the final document. Initially the idea was that there was a need for a runway because of a rising need for business air travel, and vital business routes. Interestingly, in its final report, the AC - realising that the demand for business flights is not growing - has switched to saying it is good for leisure travellers. At Heathrow only at most 30% of passengers are on business, the majority are on holiday, and the rest visiting friends and relatives (VFR). The AC says because air travel and holidays make people happy, put them in a better of mind and give a feeling of well-being, a runway is needed so we can fly even more than we already do. This runway if ever built would, unavoidably, be mainly used for ever more leisure trips. Nothing to do with emerging economies or connectivity, unless the business people help make fares cheaper for the tourists, and vice versa. Having an annual holiday is associated with greater happiness. Whether taken by plane or other modes of travel. Nobody will be surprised. People who are able to take holidays tend to be happier than those that do not. (People involuntarily living with the adverse impacts of an airport may have lower well-being and be less happy).
Click here to view full story...
Aviation Environment Federation says Airports Commission recommendations are beset with environmental hurdles
The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), the national environmental campaigning organisation representing community groups around the UK’s airports, has urged the Government to reject the Airports Commission’s recommendation of a third runway at Heathrow, given its insurmountable environmental impacts and widespread opposition. "Every government that has ever considered Heathrow expansion has ruled it out once the full scale of the environmental impacts has become clear." On noise, AEF says people living around Heathrow are already exposed to more noise than at any other airport in Europe. Hundreds of thousands of people around Heathrow would be overflown for the first time if a new runway is built. On air pollution AEF says the UK has a legal obligation to meet EU air quality legal limits and the Airports Commission still cannot say confidently whether or not air quality reduction with a runway would be legal. On carbon emissions, AEF says that according to the Airports Commission’s own analysis, a Heathrow or a Gatwick runway would, on current technology trends, lead to breaches in UK aviation’s CO2 emissions cap, even if the sector was included in a global carbon trading scheme. The only solution would be to limit growth at other airports - or (unpopular) to substantially increase the cost of flying.
Click here to view full story...
Protester whose Harmondsworth home would be destroyed by 3rd runway, blocks Heathrow tunnel for half an hour
A blockade of Heathrow's road access tunnel to Terminals 2 and 3 brought traffic to a halt for more than half an hour at 12.45pm today. The protest follows yesterday’s announcement that the Airports Commission report recommends the building of 3rd runway at Heathrow. This would require the destruction of over 1,000 homes in Harmondsworth, Longford and Sipson with a further 3,000 homes made uninhabitable due to excessive noise and pollution. Neil Keveren, a Harmondsworth resident, used a large white van to block both lanes to incoming traffic. He then unfurled a banner that covered the side of his vehicle to face the stationary traffic saying, "Residents Against Expansion – No ifs, no buts, no third runway". The banner refers to David Cameron’s pledge prior to the 2010 election. His entirely peaceful protest was only ever intended to last 20 minutes, to avoid disruption to the airport. His co-operation enabled the police to avoid an evacuation procedure that would have caused further disruption to traffic. Neil Keveren made it clear his action was a personal protest, and was not part of his role as Chair of the Stop Heathrow Expansion (SHE) campaign group. However, his action were supported by many local residents and the local MP, John McDonnell.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow third runway unanimously recommended by Airports Commission, but with conditions
The Airports Commission has recommended that a 3rd runway should be built at Heathrow, but only if it can meet stringent conditions on noise and air pollution. Those conditions should include a ban on night flights, legally binding caps on noise and air quality – and legislation to rule out ever building a 4th runway [unlikely to be effective?] .The Commission has said their view was "clear and unanimous” that Heathrow’s plan was the strongest case for a runway, delivering the greatest strategic and economic benefits, and they hoped the conditions would make the airport a “better neighbour” than today. The conditions are: - A ban on all scheduled night flights from 11.30pm to 6am....- No fourth runway – the government should make a firm commitment in parliament not to expand further. Davies states: “There is no sound operational or environmental case for a fourth runway.”....- A legally binding “noise envelope”.....- A noise levy on airport users to compensate local communities.... - A legal commitment on air quality (details to be announced, compliant with EU limits).... - A community engagement board to let local people have a say.... - An independent aviation noise authority to be consulted on flightpaths and operating procedures at airports....- Training and apprenticeships for local people. The government must now decide whether to act on the recommendation - by autumn, or before Christmas.
Click here to view full story...
Grouping of councils opposed to Heathrow runway call on Government to dismiss Airports Commission report
Councils around Heathrow and across West London have called on the Government to rule out a 3rd Heathrow runway - and to dismiss the Airports Commission’s final report. The local authorities say the legal, political and environmental barriers to expansion are insurmountable and that communities around the airport should be spared the anxiety of a long drawn out process. They also criticised the Commission for suggesting a ban on night flights should follow the delivery of a new runway, instead of being imposed straight away. They argue that the airport and airlines have to prove they can actually deliver a night flying curfew before it’s used as a bargaining chip. The councils (including Wandsworth, Hillingdon, Richmond, Windsor and Maidenhead, and Kingston - and others in the 2M grouping) say other key weaknesses in the Commission's analysis include air pollution, with the ludicrous situation whereby could only be used if air quality targets are met - so the runway, at huge cost to the taxpayer, might not be used. And on flight paths, where there is still no indication where these would be, until a further review of airspace. The councils say it is unacceptable that after £20 million and 3 years of work the Commission cannot confirm which communities will be affected by noise.
Click here to view full story...
Stop Stansted Expansion response to the Airports Commission final report
The Commission's main recommendation is that there should be a 3rd runway at Heathrow. Further, the Commission believes that there may be sufficient demand to justify one other additional runway in the UK by 2050. However, the Commission emphasises that this would also need to be justified on economic and environmental terms and that no decisions should be taken until the impacts of the 3rd Heathrow runway have been independently evaluated. In SSE's view the need for additional runways in the UK has been greatly exaggerated by the aviation industry. Business travel has been declining for 15 years and now accounts for less than a sixth of all international travel from UK airports. The new runway would stifle the growth prospects for airports elsewhere in the UK, and make it virtually impossible for the UK to meet its climate change targets. It therefore seems inevitable that there will be a series of legal challenges to the Commission's recommendations. On Stansted the Commission just says: "...there may be a case for reviewing the [35 mppa] planning cap if and when the airport moves closer to full capacity. Its forecasts indicate that this would not occur until at least the 2030s".
Click here to view full story...
Caroline Lucas blog: “Heathrow might have been his answer, but Davies was asking the wrong question”
The Airports Commission (AC) has finally recommended that Heathrow, Europe's biggest noise polluter, should expand. The decision has been framed simply: Gatwick or Heathrow? Either new runway would cost billions of pounds and cause thousands more people's lives to be blighted by more aircraft flying low over homes, schools and neighbourhoods. Caroline Lucas considers the AC's failure to properly consider the option of "no new runway" is indefensible. The proposed new runway isn't just bad news for people living nearby - it's extremely damaging to our efforts to meet our climate change targets. The AC knows the CO2 emission from UK aviation would breach the sector's generous targets - even without a new runway. There are other questions that should e asked, not just if a runway should be at Heathrow or Gatwick. Should frequent flyers pay more, the more they fly? The runway is not "needed" for the average family taking one, or even two annual trips. Should public investment, which would be needed to assist a new Heathrow runway, be better spent elsewhere - on local transport? With different questions asked, there are different answers - not involving another runway.
Click here to view full story...
Campaigners against a Gatwick runway relieved by Airports Commission decision, but aware Gatwick may still ultimately be selected by government.
Thousands of people across Surrey, Sussex and Kent will be relieved that the threat of an environmental disaster has been lifted - though this reprieve may only be very temporary. The Commission appears to leave the door open for a Gatwick runway, while hugely favouring Heathrow, considering the Gatwick option could be pushed through by the Government with less difficulty. There will, however, be no rejoicing from the Gatwick area: campaigners there are only too aware of the misery which will be created for those living near Heathrow. GACC (the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) commented: "We do not want this for our area, and equally we do not wish it onto others, for whom it would be just as bad. We will continue to make the case that no new runway is needed, neither at Heathrow, nor at Gatwick, nor anywhere else." GACC, and all the protest groups around Gatwick, will be studying the report carefully and will remain on guard in case there is pressure to reverse the recommendation. A Gatwick runway would be an environmental disaster for the south east.
Click here to view full story...
HACAN comment on Commission choice of Heathrow: “The final chapter is yet to be written – it’s far from the end of the story”
In response to the Airports Commission, HACAN (the main community group opposing expansion of Heathrow) says even though Heathrow has been recommended for a runway, the Commission has left the door open for a 2nd runway at Gatwick. The Government will announce its decision towards the end of the year. John Stewart, HACAN chair, said: “This is far from the end of the story. The final decision will be taken by the Government. Given the strength of opposition there is to Heathrow within the Cabinet, the final chapter could contain a sting in the tail. Gatwick could emerge as the final choice by Christmas.” There is significant opposition to Heathrow within the Cabinet, and from Boris and Zac. The The obstacles to a 3rd runway remain enormous: – Noise disturbing more people than any other airport in Europe – Air Pollution levels hovering above the EU legal limits – Thousands of people facing eviction from their homes – Millions of pounds of public money required to upgrade the roads network – And the prospect of the biggest environmental battle in Europe