General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Richmond Heathrow Campaign response to the Airports Commission choice of Heathrow
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign is wholly against a new third runway at Heathrow. There is unlikely to be any net benefit to the UK aviation market or to the UK economy. Why? According to the Airports Commission’s own figures, a new Heathrow runway results in no overall increase in the number of UK passengers, business passengers, flights or connectivity because it would be fed by re-distributing growth from other UK airports - in particular from airports outside the southeast. Heathrow expansion would result in cuts to flights at airports outside the southeast: as much as 45% at Birmingham, 30% at Bristol, 15% at Manchester and 10% at Edinburgh. It would stifle growth around the UK and concentrate it at a single airport in the economically overheated southeast. This would be contrary to the government’s aim of re-balancing the UK economy. And the RHC makes also sets out its other key reasons for opposing a new Heathrow runway.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow, Gatwick and London City airport community groups stand united against new runway decision
In response to the threat of a new runway at Heathrow (or very possibly at Gatwick, when the government decides on the Airports Commission announcement), the community groups opposed to increased aircraft noise have issued a joint statement. They say: "The announcement is bad news for all those who will inevitably be affected by increased aircraft activity, noise and air pollution and the associated effects on people's lives and health as a result of a new runway. As groups representing hundreds of thousands of people already suffering the impact of changes in airspace use, or new flight paths we are very aware of the negative impacts of living under, or close to, a flight path. There has been insufficient and inadequate consultation of affected communities on the introduction of airspace changes in the past. There is little reason to believe this will improve when large numbers of new flight paths are to be created in the wake of this recommendation. The campaign to prevent further runways being built and to return the flight paths to their previously regionally acceptable routes will go on. The noise and pollution groups at City, Gatwick and Heathrow airports remain united in this cause."
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick MPs seek urgent assurances on Heathrow ministers’ involvement in airports decision
Crispin Blunt MP has called again on the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, to make sure Ministers who have a constituency interest in the runways decision are not involved in the Government’s consideration of the Airports Commission report. Sir Jeremy Heywood has responded to Crispin Blunt’s original letter of 10th June in which Gatwick Coordination Group (GCG) MPs (chaired by Crispin) sought assurances that the provisions on conflicts of interest in the Ministerial Code will apply to the many Ministers who have a constituency interest in opposing a new runway at Heathrow. Sir Jeremy’s letter is equivocal, saying “These matters are considered on a case-by-case basis, reflecting specific Ministerial responsibilities and the nature of any constituency interest. These Code provisions will of course apply to the Government’s response to the Airports Commission’s Final Report”. The GCG is concerned that this is not a clear response to the specific high profile case of the runway decision. Crispin Blunt's reply to Sir Jeremy says there is seen to be a conflict between constituency interests of Ministers, and the national interest. These suggestions "...should be an affront to you as Cabinet Secretary. That you appear not to be in a position to address our concerns on this very high profile issue is a grave matter.”
Click here to view full story...
Committee on Climate Change confirm aviation CO2 must remain capped – putting new runway into question
On the eve of the Airports Commission’s runway recommendation, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has told Government it has until 2016 to set out an effective plan for limiting aviation emissions. The Government’s official advisory body on delivery of the UK’s Climate Change Act used its 5th ‘Progress Report’ to Government to highlight the need for action on aviation, including constraints on demand. The CCC says that given the anticipated growth in emissions from the sector, the DfT must set out how it will ensure that emissions from aviation are no higher in 2050 than they were in 2005 (37.5 Mt). The limited scope for improvements in aviation technology mean that demand growth must be kept to no more than 60% above its 2005 level. Current forecasts of air passenger growth with associated CO2 emissions exceed this level EVEN WITHOUT adding a new runway. With a new SE runway the growth in passenger demand - and thus CO2 emissions - would be even higher. Extensive analysis by the AEF has shown that a new runway would make the aviation emissions cap (37.5MtCO2 annually) impossible to achieve. Ruling out a new runway is the most obvious first step for the Government to take in response to the CCC's advice. Adding a runway, and then having to deal with the extra carbon problem it has produced, is not an efficient way to deal with the issue.
Click here to view full story...
Most Londoners think London has enough airport capacity already – and no runway is needed
An opinion poll has shown that the vast majority of Londoners think London already has an adequate level of airport capacity for a major global city, new opinion research has found. A poll by ComRes was commissioned by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, found that only 24% of people living in London believe the capital’s airport capacity is inadequate, while 63% say it meets or exceeded their expectations. But the Airports Commission is expected to recommend another runway. The new polling research found that all age groups, social classes, genders, and regions of London believe that runway capacity was in line with their expectations. In a parallel survey, most London businesses also believe that airport capacity met their expectations, albeit by a smaller margin of 52% to 37%. Londoners polled were far more concerned about the availability of housing, with 70% of residents and 74% per cent of bosses saying it was important. Local transport infrastructure was also a far greater concern than airport capacity. London has the largest airport system of any city in the world, with passenger traffic outstripping New York and Tokyo by millions every year. Around 11% of flights abroad are accounted for by business travel.
Click here to view full story...
US airline industry lobby, A4A, hoping it will not need to make further CO2 savings – more NextGen instead
The trade lobbying group, Airlines for America (A4A), argues that the airline industry has already done its part to reduce CO2 emissions. It says it is now up to the US government to get improvements to the air traffic control system that could reduce airline fuel consumption, by cutting extra miles flown. Recently the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) released an "endangerment finding" that that greenhouse gases from aircraft pose a risk to human health. So A4A is pushing back, and saying that US airlines have "more than doubled fuel efficiency since 1978 [planes were very fuel inefficient then]." Leaving out the constantly rising numbers of flights and passengers, they hope to persuade government that there is no need to have any further regulations on their carbon emissions, or emissions standards for aircraft. While the industry hopes for 1.5% efficiency gains per year, this would be negated by its hopes of growing by 4% per year. There is the issue of whether the US and the EU might have different emissions standards, and how that affects trans-Atlantic flights. Airlines are thriving, the fuel price has fallen, and they are making profits. But the industry wants more flight path changes, to cut costs, through NextGen, which have proved so unpopular in subjecting communities to worse noise.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow and Gatwick CEOs both say their runway campaigns will go on, whatever Commission recommends
The CEOs of Heathrow and Gatwick both say they will continue their campaigns for expansion, whatever the Airports Commission recommends (next week?). Holland-Kaye is trying to make out that Heathrow's plans for a 3rd runway had been so substantially altered since David Cameron blocked them in 2010 that "the prime minister could defend a decision to change his mind." (The changes are small - different location, better compensation offers, more attempts to overcome local opposition ... same need to destroy communities, make areas almost uninhabitable, immense increase in noise and air pollution etc etc). Gatwick keep attempting to persuade people their runway is more deliverable than Heathrow's. Both fear the report ending up on a shelf, gathering dust. Heathrow expansion is environmentally and politically just about impossible, but it is what the airlines, the industry and its backers want. Holland-Kaye said Heathrow would not give up pressing for another runway even if the Commission recommends Gatwick. “It’s not a binding report … we’d have to wait and see. A decision hasn’t been made and to some extent the campaigns will keep on going." As one commentator remarked: "... the most likely final resting place for Sir Howard’s report is a dusty shelf, somewhere in Whitehall."
Click here to view full story...
Andrew Simms: “Forget Heathrow and Gatwick expansion, the Davies report should tackle frequent flyers”
The Airports Commission will finally report next week. But many feel it has avoided the far more important questions: whether Britain needs any more runways at all. And would a better approach be to tackle the small numbers of very frequent flyers? Contrary to the popular misconception, business flights are not what a new runway is for. The Commission itself is aware that official figures show a decline in business flights, with only about 11% of flights abroad being by business travel. UK regional airports have ample, spare capacity if additional business routes are needed. The vast majority of flights using UK airports are for leisure travel, and a new runway would enable the relatively small minority who already take many leisure trips, by air, each year to take even more. Data shows that just 15% of UK residents take three or more flights per year, and these tend to be relatively well off people. That 15% accounts for 70% of all flights taken. With a strong economic and environmental case against expanding airport capacity, and declining business demand, the argument is now being made to apply the polluter pays principle by introducing a frequent flyer levy. Because flying is subsidised (air tickets do not include VAT or fuel duty) those who take the most flights receive the most public subsidy. The Commission are trying to answer the wrong question - not just building a runway, but considering how to manage air travel better.
Click here to view full story...
Huge costs would be incurred dealing with 2 currently active landfills + 16 historical landfills for Heathrow runway
A report commissioned by Gatwick airport, in its bid to beat Heathrow in getting a new runway, says Heathrow's north west runway plan would cost £500 million more than estimated because of the amount of potentially contaminated landfill that would have to be treated. The report by environmental consultancy RSK Group claims that Heathrow would have to launch one of the UK’s largest land clearance operations ever if it was allowed to build the runway. RSK claims the need to excavate and clear up to 9 million cubic metres of potentially hazardous landfill would increases the total cost from £18.6 billion to £19.1 billion. A report in June 2014 for Heathrow by Amec showed there are 2 current landfills and 16 historical landfills on the site, the detailed construction of which is not known. The operation to treat the landfill could not only risk releasing hazardous gases and other pollutants, but would also encourage vermin and birds – a key concern since this would take place near the existing airport. There are also risks to ground and surface water, and a Site Environmental Management Plan should be in place including details of emergency procedures to deal with incidents or unexpected contamination.
Click here to view full story...
Eight new Factsheets from the Richmond Heathrow Campaign on a 3rd Heathrow runway
The RHC has published eight Heathrow Factsheets, which have been sent to every MP. There is also a summary of all eight at rhcfacts.org. They are on: (1). The UK Economy: the Commission's own figures show that Heathrow expansion would not add significantly to the UK economy or add further connectivity to the UK as a whole. (2). Deliverability: Heathrow expansion may require £54 billion or more of funding. State aid would be difficult to justify given the spare capacity at other airports and the prevalence at Heathrow of transfers and leisure passengers. (3). Carbon: It is very likely that Heathrow's growth would be constrained by the impact of carbon emissions, rendering a 3rd runway uneconomic. (4) Air Quality: It seems unlikely that a third runway could be built while remaining within legal limits. (5) Noise: Heathrow expansion is likely to expose several hundred thousand Londoners to aircraft noise for the first time. (6) Local Economy: The local economy will grow with or without a runway, and providing enough housing is a problem. (7). Surface Access: Transport for London (TfL) has calculated that an investment of up to £20 billion would be needed to support. (8). Safety: Proposals for steeper flight paths on landing and for curved approaches raise concerns, as does the Heathrow Hub extended runway model.