General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Studies show that at least 7 hours of sleep are needed, each night, by adults
Living under a flight path, along which aircraft fly at below - say 7,000 feet - is noisy. It is all the more noisy now that the aviation industry is introducing narrow, concentrated flight paths. These are replacing the older more dispersed routes, as aircraft have new "PBN" technology (like car satnav) and can fly far more accurately than in the past. And it suits the air traffic controllers to keep flight paths narrow. But if airports allow flights at night, or if the "night" period when flights are not allowed is short, this has consequences for people living near, or under, routes. Studies carried out scientifically show adults need at least 7 hours of sleep, each night to be at their healthiest. Children and teenagers need more.There are some people who need more than 7 hours per night, and some need less. It is not good enough to get less one night, and more the next - the brain does not process the day's memories adequately. Studies show adverse effects of not getting enough sleep, which are not only related to concentration, speed of thinking or reacting etc, but also medical effects. The concentrated flight paths, and airports allowed to have flights all night, are causing very real problems. A study into noise and sleep by the CAA in 2009 looked at the issue, and said a large and comprehensive study is needed, but it is "likely to be expensive."
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick Tory MPs warn of ‘political stitch-up’ on runways by anti-Heathrow faction in Cabinet
A group of senior Conservative MPs has warned David Cameron that he must avoid a “political stitch-up” that would favour cabinet ministers, and other party heavyweights led by Boris Johnson, who are campaigning against a Heathrow 3rd runway. Crispin Blunt, the former justice minister who chairs the 9-strong group of Tory MPs representing constituencies around Gatwick, told the Tory chief whip, Mark Harper, this week that cabinet ministers opposed to a third runway at Heathrow airport should “recuse” themselves [ie. not take part in a decision, due to danger of a potential conflict of interest or lack of impartiality] when the government considers the Airports Commission’s findings. The decision by the government must be taken in an impartial manner. The Gatwick area MPs are concerned that as well as Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith, both keenly against a Heathrow runway, in Cabinet there are also Justine Greening, Theresa May and Philip Hammond, who are openly against a Heathrow runway. The Gatwick MPs are concerned about a political stitch-up on the runway decision. They do not believe a runway at Gatwick is in the national interest.
Click here to view full story...
Aviation Environment Federation short briefing for decision-makers on environmental challenges of a new runway
The Airports Commission will soon publish its final recommendations on a new runway in the South East. The Aviation Environment Federation has produced a short, easy to read summary briefing, about the environmental challenges of adding a runway. They are calling for cross-party support for proposals aiming to protect human health and ensure that airport expansion is permitted only once a framework of environmental limits is in place. These limits relate to aircraft noise, air pollution and carbon emissions. AEF also question whether the economic case for a runway stacks up. They say while there is significant pressure to make a swift decision on airport capacity the analysis published so far by the Airports Commission contains evidence gaps. Until these gaps are addressed, it will not be possible to reach a robust view on the Commission's recommendations. Transparent decision-making by government will be paramount. AEF is calling for a full debate once all evidence is produced. They are asking MPs to ensure the government does not make any runway decision until all the evidence has been gathered, a balanced picture of costs and benefits is provided and all environmental tests have been met.
Click here to view full story...
NATS blogging about cutting APD, instead of getting on with proper management of airspace
The role of NATS, in their own "vision" that they aim “To be the acknowledged global leader in innovative air traffic solutions and airport performance.” But now in a blog on their website, they are lobbying for cuts in Air Passenger Duty, which is the only tax on air travel (as it pays no VAT and no fuel duty - hence being extremely lightly taxed). The NATS blog says that because many other countries have even lower taxes on aviation, the level of APD should be reduced. With no APD (which is only £13 for a return flight to any European destination - with a higher rate of £71 for a return flight anywhere else in the world) there might be slightly more people flying. NATS is 42% owned by airlines, 5% by NATS staff, 4% by Heathrow, and 49% by the government. So NATS says: "At NATS, we have always been clear that what damages our customers, also damages us." Those campaigning for a cut in APD always mention boosting inbound tourism - but they never mention outbound tourism, and the loss of revenue to the UK economy that causes. The government has often repeated that APD is charged because the aviation sector avoids other taxes. Commentators have said NATS should stick to its job, on which has been failing recently, of managing airspace. Problems at NATS have been so bad recently that its CEO Richard Deakin had to resign in May.
Click here to view full story...
Manchester Airport £1 billion plans to improve airport to compete better with Heathrow on long haul routes
The owners of Manchester Airport, MAG, plan to invest £1 billion over 10 years to upgrade Britain's 3rd largest airport and help it compete harder with Heathrow for passengers. While both Heathrow and Gatwick are hoping to be allowed to add another runway, Manchester has two runways already - the second barely used. It has been expanding its long-haul routes, giving passengers an alternative to travelling south to Heathrow, and it plans to add more such routes. Its CEO, Charlie Cornish said: "Over the next 10 years, the airport will continue to develop as a global gateway for the UK." Even if a new runway in the south east is approved (a big IF) it would take at least 10 years to build and in that time other UK airports, such as Birmingham and Manchester will have the chance to add new flights to new destinations - some assisting business travel. The number of air passengers at Manchester rose last year by 6% and may rise by 5% in 2015-16 period. Manchester airport expansion fits in with George Osborne's hopes of improving road and rail links between northern English cities to create a conurbation with the scale and resources to compete with London. A new south east runway would, by contrast, just worsen the north-south divide.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow and Gatwick fighting to get support from Scottish MSPs for their runway plans
Continuing with their lobbying across the country, to try to get support for their runway plans, both Heathrow and Gatwick say they would provide more flights to Scottish airports. Both Mr Holland-Kaye and Mr Wingate are due to appear before a cross party group on aviation at the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood. The improved links to London is sold as providing better links for Scotland to global markets. Heathrow says getting a new runway would enable there to be more flights to the regions. These have been cut back in recent years, as they are less profitable than international flights. Heathrow is keen to tell Scottish leaders how very useful Heathrow will be for them, (though they have been conveniently ignored in the past - it is now time to try to win their support). Stewart Wingate is doing his usual negative campaigning, pointing out, helpfully, all the deficiencies of Heathrow's plans, while being conveniently blind to the deficiencies of his own runway plan. Both airports hype economic benefits ... lots of figures ...The reality is that increasingly flights can be point to point, and people in Scotland have less need to transfer to London, before flying elsewhere. More long haul flights from Heathrow would cut demand for these to develop at Scottish airports.
Click here to view full story...
How to respond QUICKLY to the Airports Commission consultation on air quality
The Airports Commission consultation on air quality ends today (Friday 29th May) at 12 noon. If anyone wants to send in a quick response, some points are given below - general between Heathrow and Gatwick (both have serious problems with air pollution if a new runway is added). It is useful for as many people as possible, for whom this issue is important, to let the Commission know their concerns. If people don't have time to write a response, they can just write to say they support the response sent in by either Clean Air in London, or the Richmond Heathrow Campaign, or GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign). Comments can be submitted via email to : air.quality@airports.gsi.gov.uk
Click here to view full story...
GACC response to Airports Commission: Gatwick runway could breach EU pollution law
GACC, in their submission to the Airports Commission, predict that pollution levels around the airport could become much worse than the Commission forecast. They point to a judgement by the Supreme Court on 29th April that the UK Government must enforce the EU Directive 2008/50/EC on Air Quality. A clause in Directive states that: "Air quality status should be maintained where it is already good, or improved" and limit values must not be exceeded once attained. According to GACC chairman, Brendon Sewill: "The Airports Commission are seriously underestimating future pollution levels. First they are looking at 2030 when the new runway would only be half full; and second, their estimates of future road traffic are only about half of what would be created by an airport larger than Heathrow today. There will be around 100,000 extra cars per day in the Gatwick area plus a ten-fold increase in freight and commercial vehicles – all adding to pollution." The Airports Commission expects the Gatwick runway scheme would mean higher mean NO2 concentrations for about 21,000 properties. There have been many studies of the adverse impact on health of NO2 and other pollutants from aircraft and vehicles, particularly for those with respiratory diseases.
Click here to view full story...
IAG given clearance by Irish government to buy its 25% shares in Aer Lingus takeover
International Airlines Group (IAG), the owner of British Airways, is set to take over Aer Lingus in a deal that values the airline at €1.4bn after the Irish government agreed to sell them its 25% stake. The Dublin government's agreement to sell their stake was critical for the deal to progress. Donohue said: “IAG has provided additional information and certain commitments in relation to its proposal." IAG has further extended guarantees about routes to Ireland from Heathrow, from five to seven years, although they remain some way short of the decade-long commitment Dublin had sought. The guarantees also are dependent on airport charges being limited to inflation. The government has secured important guarantees on the maintenance of Aer Lingus’ iconic brand, and its head office staying in Ireland. There are also some assurances over protecting existing Irish jobs at Aer Lingus, which wants to continue to use Irish crew bases. Ryanair still owns 29% of Aer Lingus shares. About 46% is owned by Aer Lingus. The 24 landing slots Aer Lingus controls at Heathrow are among the most lucrative for BA. The Heathrow-Dublin link is one of the busiest in Europe, and highly profitable. .
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow’s north west runway plan would destroy historic village of Harmondsworth
Heathrow's plan for a north west runway would mean the devastation of the medieval village of Harmondsworth. The airport boundary would come almost to the centre of the village, with everything south of that line demolished. It would level the ivy-covered brick walls of the Harmondsworth Hall guest house and two-thirds of the village's homes. A village that traces its history to the 6th century would be damaged so badly that even what is left would be uninhabitable. People don't want financial compensation, they just don't want their village destroyed or the bulldozing of a historic village with buildings that go back 600 years which cannot be replaced. Heathrow's Nigel Milton said he understands that "some people are very upset." Even though St. Mary's Church, which traces its history to the mid-11th century and the 15th century Great Barn (dubbed the "Cathedral of Middlesex" by John Betjeman) would not be pulled down, they would be so close to the airport fence that the church would have no congregation, and the barn would be pounded by noise (not to mention kerosene fumes). Neil Keveren, chairman of local campaign, SHE,said: "This is my home and if I am forced to leave here, who will it be for? Foreign investors. ...The message I would give to the world is that the British government can be bought."