General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
UK/China agreement to raise number of return flights each is allowed from 31 to 40 per week, and from 6 up to 9 airports
Flights between the UK and China are set to increase following an agreement allowing more passenger flights between the two countries. These are controlled, as for all countries, by bilateral agreements to ensure the number is balanced and neither side has too much advantage. Talks were initiated by Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin who launched negotiations on improved air links during a visit to China in October last year. The previous agreement, last updated in 2011, limited the passenger airlines of both countries to a maximum of 31 return services per week in each direction, serving up to six destinations in each country. The new deal will increase the weekly maximum available to both countries to 40 direct flights in each direction, and allow UK airlines to serve up to three more Chinese cities than previously. ie. nine. The new deal also allows UK airlines greater freedom to codeshare with Chinese carriers on routes within mainland China. The lack of air links to China is due to the limit on weekly flights, and by the level of demand. It is not limited by the number of flights permitted. The numbers of flights to Hong Kong are under a separate agreement from those to China.
Click here to view full story...
BackHeathrow postal survey described as of the “do you support expansion of Heathrow or the boiling of puppies” variety
There is a good blog post by Matt Ballantine, a resident of Twickenham, on the latest survey which is being circulated by the campaign lobby, "BackHeathrow". The organisation was set up with money from Heathrow, to lobby on its behalf. How much funding comes from other sources is not clear. Twickenham is an area now suffering from altered, concentrated Heathrow flight paths. The BackHeathrow survey came through the post, and Matt describes it as of the “do you support the expansion of Heathrow or the boiling of puppies” variety, that he says seem to be so popular amongst political lobby groups. The survey is worded in such a way as to give highly leading questions, and give the impression that Heathrow is likely to close if it does not build a 3rd runway. That was never a realistic threat, and especially as the chance of a Thames estuary airport has significantly receded. The BackHeathrow survey aims to instil fear of losing their jobs into people who work at the airport, or in connected jobs. Matt comments that "This is no way to have an important debate .... In an age when information is so easily disseminated (and checked), organisations that think that it’s enough to gather false data to present their case are on very thin ice."
Click here to view full story...
Planning system ‘too democratic’ says City Airport chief Declan Collier
The CEO of London City Airport, Declan Collier, has said that because so many groups are consulted during the planning process in the UK, it takes twice as long to get a decision than it does in Europe. He said: "We are all frustrated by the delays. In the UK, the problem is that the planning system is too democratic, it takes too long to consult and to make a decision." Mr Collier is paid to make the most profit he can for his airport, and so he promotes the usual opinions about allegedly huge costs to the UK if it delays building more runways etc. The aviation industry has never been shy about making extravagant claims about the supposed benefits it brings the country, while being coy about the difference between profits for the industry, and benefits to the UK as a whole. On the democracy issue, in December 2013 David Cameron said: "It is frustrating sometimes that we can't do things faster in Britain but we have a planning system, we have democratic accountability for that planning system, we have a need for everyone to have their say and make their point. That's very important in the British system." In a country as crowded as the south of England, planning decisions need to be democratic, and to be seen to be so.
Click here to view full story...
Airport Operators Association hopes small cuts in CO2 emissions by airport buildings etc will permit a new runway
The AOA have produced a report, the purpose of which is to persuade government etc that aviation is a responsible industry and a new runway should be allowed for the south east. They make various claims, which need to be analysed with some care. Realising that aircraft noise, and the industry's CO2 emissions are key to any decision to allow a new runway, they say airports are reducing the CO2 emissions of their own operations. Airports tend to be huge structures, inherently poorly designed for optimum energy use. However, AOA says that the largest 18 airports have cut their CO2 by "almost 3% in two years" 2010 - 2012 while their number of passengers rose by about 5.4%. Taking into account the 8 airports for which there is data of aircraft emissions below 2,000 feet, the AOA say the CO2 emissions were down 1.9% with a 2.4% rise in flights. This all sounds great, but completely ignores the issue of the carbon emitted by the flights themselves - which is a far larger amount. Aviation carbon emissions - and controls on them - are based on emissions from aircraft, not emissions from airports. So the AOA's efforts, though welcome, are somewhat peripheral to the main issue. Airport carbon savings should not be a justification for building a new runway, enabling a large number of extra annual aircraft kilometres.
Click here to view full story...
Airport Operators Assn wants restrictions on building of new homes near airports, to limit noise complaints
The Telegraph reports on a study by the Airport Operators Association (AOA) that almost 6,000 new homes have been approved around airports in the past 3 years despite a government policy to reduce the number of people exposed to aviation noise. Since April 2011 some 5,761 homes have either been granted planning permission, started or completed construction close enough to an airport that significant annoyance from noise is deemed likely (they say this is within the 57 dB contour). There are more than 1,000 homes around Heathrow and London City airports, at least 300 around Manchester and more than 100 around Aberdeen, Birmingham, Glasgow and Luton. Many more housing developments are planned in areas afflicted by loud aircraft noise. The AOA does not want more complaints, or demands for reductions in noise, from all these extra people being over-flown. They do not want planners to allow more developments which will restrict aircraft noise. Some 2,000 homes are now being built in north Crawley, in an area now at risk of serious noise if a 2nd runway is built, as planners wrongly believed Sir David Rowland's assurance, in Feb 2010 that Gatwick had “not a shred of interest” in a 2nd runway. A deeply unsatisfactory situation.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow claim 60% of MPs back 3rd runway. Survey actually reveals it was only 55 MPs out of 95 interviewed. Not 650.
Heathrow airport has commissioned a survey by highly respected polling company, Ipsos Mori. They wanted to see how many MPs back a 3rd Heathrow runway. There are 650 MPs in the House of Commons. Heathrow is proudly claiming that "58% of MPs back a third runway at Heathrow". So that means the survey found that 390 MPs thought that ? Really? Amazing! But that is NOT the case at all. The Ipsos Mori survey only in fact interviewed 95 MPs. They say they interviewed 143, but then cut the number back to 95. These were, in theory, "interviewed to closely represent the profile of the House of Commons" - quite how is not explained. What the survey actually found was that just 55 MPs (58% of 95 MPs) said they backed a 3rd Heathrow runway. And when only these 55 MPs - not the whole 95 - were asked if they thought a 3rd Heathrow runway would get parliamentary approval, only 44 thought it was likely (of these only 18 thought it was very likely). This really is taking liberties with polling. Heathrow's rather extravagantly claim that the poll "explodes the myth that Heathrow is politically undeliverable" looks frankly threadbare ... and a bit desperate?
Click here to view full story...
Lib Dem Pre-Manifesto 2014 – definite opposition to any new south east runway, taking account of climate impact
The Liberal Democrats have launched their Pre-Manifesto 2014, and it contains an emphatic statement against any new runway at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted - and no estuary airport. Their policy: "Ensure our airport infrastructure meets the needs of a modern and open economy, without allowing emissions from aviation to undermine our goal of a zero-carbon Britain by 2050. We will carefully consider the conclusions of the Davies Review into runway capacity and develop a strategic airports policy for the whole of the UK in the light of those recommendations and advice from the Committee on Climate Change. We remain opposed to any expansion of Heathrow, Stansted or Gatwick and any new airport in the Thames Estuary, because of local issues of air and noise pollution. We will ensure no net increase in runways across the UK as a whole by prohibiting the opening of any new runways unless others are closed elsewhere." It is thought that this position will not be popular with big business, which wants expanded airport, and ever increasing aviation - with little consideration for the climate impacts.
Click here to view full story...
HACAN to distribute 50,000 copies of newspaper “Third Runway News” setting out reasons against it
HACAN has proudly launched a new local newspaper, called "Third Runway News," a new publication which provides residents of west London, east Berkshire and north Surrey with the facts about what an expanded Heathrow Airport would mean for them. It is 4 pages in full colour, illustrated - link at Third Runway News. HACAN is a residents-led campaign, and by contrast with the millions of ££s that Heathrow airport has for its publicity, benefits from the work of local volunteers. The new newspaper has been designed by a local HACAN member, not by a hugely expensive professional design company. The paper asks people to get in touch to say which of the many impacts of a 3rd runway they are most concerned about. These include noise pollution, air pollution, increased car traffic, loss of their home - or loss of the value of their home, or impacts on children and schools from aircraft noise. Meanwhile Heathrow airport have massive adverts, containing extravagant claims for "benefits" of a 3rd runway, (with no supporting evidence), such as "120,000 more jobs" and "£100 billion of economic benefits (not time-scale indicated)" and "loss of £125 billion per month in last trade" for every month without the new runway. Really??
Click here to view full story...
Carbon constraints relating to a new runway have been lost amongst the debate, not on “if” but only on “where”
In a blog, the Carbon Brief has a look at the climate and environmental impacts of the expansion plans by London's airports. Leaving aside the noise and other impacts, and looking here just at carbon, it is clear that there is an issue. While UK aviation makes up some 6% of just CO2 emissions, under the current system by which aviation is not required to cut its emissions by 2050, UK aviation will then make up about 25% of UK carbon emitted. The UK is required to cut its overall carbon emissions by 80% of their 1990 level, by 2050. Aviation just needs to keep its emissions to 37.5 megatonnes - which was about the level in 2005. As long as the rest of the economy decarbonises very intensively, aviation could keep its very generous allocation. But that means not going above 37.5 Mt. A report in July, by AEF, showed that it would be likely that an additional new runway would contribute some 8.2Mt of CO2 per year, making meeting the 37.5 Mt target "effectively impossible". It would require air travel at regional airports to be reduced, which apart from contradicting regional development policies would be"politically very difficult to implement and have significant economic consequences."
Click here to view full story...
Guardian Editorial on UK aviation addiction & need to limit air travel demand by capacity restriction
The Guardian, in an editorial, says Boris is insisting his estuary airport scheme is “not dead” at all, because in the end it will not be for the Airports Commission to decide, but the next government. In which, of course, he intends to play a major part . The Guardian remembers that the main issue is the deeper environmental damage done by the CO2 belched out by jet engines, which regrettably seems to have been dropped from the political equation. While the UK should be discussing the sort of economic growth we want, instead policy appears to boil down to “planning for rising demand” so anyone who wants to fly can. And cheaply. Allowing airport expansion in the south east will require restrictions on the growth of northern airports, which does not fit with regional policy, or by making reductions of unrealistic depth in other economic sectors. And of course, most air travel is holidaying. "The economics do not dictate that fast projected growth in air travel must be taken as a given: it ought to be possible to manage demand instead. .... there is no easy way to [manage demand] without keeping a lid on capacity. Instead, however, Westminster indulges passengers and airlines with the old lie: the sky’s the limit."