General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
“Let Britain Fly” start petition to get the public to lobby their MPs to back runway building
Jumping on the back of the Thames Estuary airport media bandwagon, Let Britain Fly have launched their public pledge campaign to give the "silent majority" they claim are apparently in support of airport expansion a voice in the run up to the 2015 election. They have put out a public pledge that they want "thousands of people" to sign, asking for more runways and more airport capacity, so everyone can continue to go on lots of holidays, by plane. They are asking that all the political parties commit to build more runway capacity in their 2015 election manifestos. They are also asking that there is a Parliamentary vote on airport expansion in 2016, at the latest. Let Britain Fly has obtained statements in support of its claims from various business people, such as the MD of Harrods (which naturally gets a lot of high spending tourists), and Mace (a construction company - no vested interest there). Lots on the mantra of "jobs and growth." Let Britain Fly and their backers appear oblivious to the fact that the Airports Commission is only considering one runway at most, not runways. They also ignore the inconvenient fact that most air travel is for leisure, and only a small proportion could be deemed to be boosting business links.
Click here to view full story...
A380 poses challenges for Heathrow due to required separation times and distances
With Heathrow already having about 15 Airbus A380 planes using the airport each day,there has now been time to see how they fit in. An article in Aviation Week & Space Technology sets out some of the problems caused by the A380 on account of its size, and the consequent limitations on proximity of planes following it, due to increased turbulence. Aviation Week says senior NATS air traffic controllers say the biggest impact comes from the spacing requirement for the aircraft, which is in the “super” wake vortex category. As an A380 departs, it requires up to 3 minutes of spacing between it and the next aircraft if it is a smaller narrow-body type, such as an Airbus A320 or Boeing 737. Greater distances between traffic are also required on approach, with minimum separation for a “heavy” category aircraft such as a Boeing 747 behind an A380 of 6 nautical miles, while medium-size aircraft up to the Boeing 757 have to keep a 7 nm. separation and smaller aircraft 8 nm. There are also problems as the A380 has a relatively high runway occupancy time, and while a Boeing 747 can take 45 seconds, A380s are taking around 65 seconds on the runway. And so on.
Click here to view full story...
CBI report hopes to get Airports Commission to back a huge hub – for ever increasing aviation
The CBI has produced a report, putting pressure on the Airports Commission (don't they all...) to "deliver recommendations to solve the UK’s shortage of runway capacity and spark new connections with the export markets of tomorrow." They want a huge hub airport with plenty of spare capacity to grow further, which allegedly is needed for economic growth. Part of the report's title is "The Hub is the Nub." They want a new runway soon, with spades in the ground by 2020. They then want a second new runway well before 2050. The report looks entirely, from a very narrow perspective, on growth of the economy. It looks only at business. The words tourism, leisure travel, holiday, carbon emissions, and climate change do not feature at all. Nor noise. It is written with heavy blinkers to realities outside business and continuous growth perspectives. Heathrow has interpreted it as backing their runway. The report does not in fact specify which airport they want; they just want two more runways, and what the hell with any other impacts or consequences. Perhaps they are not aware that the vast majority of UK flights are low cost, for holidays, leisure of visiting friends and family. By airlines that make little profit.
Click here to view full story...
Warren Buffett says airline shares are still risky investments – only £2.49 airline profit per passenger
Warren Buffett, an extremely rich American investor whose opinions on investment are widely well regarded. He has commented that airlines are too risky an investment for the ordinary investor. At the 2013 AGM of his company, Berkshire Hathaway he said: “Investors have poured their money into airlines for 100 years with terrible results ....It’s been a death trap for investors.” But over the past few years, shares in IAG, and easyJet have increased in value. However, things have now changed and during the past 6 months, their shares have lose value and there are uncertainties about their future profits. Making a profit in the airline industry is notoriously difficult. Sustaining profitability is even harder. IATA says the global airline industry in 2013 had a 1.8% profit margin. That means globally airlines made a profit on average of just $4.13 (£2.49) for each passenger they carry. Strange industry; so much environmental harm, so much fuel burned, for so little profit. Profits of Air France-KLM and Lufthansa are down. Airlines say there is overcapacity on trans-Atlantic routes, which cuts their profits. Some established European airlines are facing middle East competition, and legacy airlines are setting up low fares versions. Airlines continue to be risky investments.
Click here to view full story...
US conservation groups to sue EPA over delays in finding aviation emissions an endangerment to health
US conservation groups have filed a notice of intent to sue the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its perceived failure and unreasonable delay in addressing aviation’s growing emissions. The dispute goes back over 6 years to when the groups first petitioned EPA to carry out a mandatory duty under the Clean Air Act to determine whether aircraft emissions cause or contribute to air pollution “that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”. The mandate was upheld in a court ruling in July 2011, and in 2012 EPA acknowledged its obligation to conduct an endangerment finding and indicated it would begin work. However it has not yet done anything. EPA said it would “review and respond accordingly” to the notice but that it was currently working through ICAO on an international CO2 efficiency standard for new aircraft types. But green NGOs are sceptical of this process, and its chance of making any significant cut in overall emissions. The move was supported by European group, T& E who commented that the amount of aviation emissions in the US is huge and "their effective regulation is long overdue.”
Click here to view full story...
Global bird culls by airports, to deter bird strike. Hundreds of thousands gassed, shot and poisoned
The issue of bird strikes for planes is an emotive one. Some collisions do little damage to planes, but hitting a large bird can disable an engine, or worse. While birds and planes co-exist, some strikes are inevitable. Rose Bridger has been looking into this subject for years. She says shortly after the Hudson incident in 2009, New York's 3 main airports began culling Canada geese. This escaped public attention until June 2010, when wildlife officials rounded up nearly 400 birds and gassed with CO2 in a nearby buiding. In fact, the geese that downed the plane were not locals, but migrants from northern Canada. By autumn 2013 geese were being rounded up from municipal properties within a 160 square kilometre area. After a non-fatal (for the plane) collision with a flock of geese at Schiphol in 2010, 5,000 were gassed in 2012. The area where geese are deemed a hazard to aircraft was extended to cover a 20 kilometre radius around the airport, and a further 10,000 geese were gassed between January and July 2013. In January, the New York Port Authority announced plans to eliminate the entire population of 2,200 wild mute swans. And there are many, many other examples. Airports should not be built in or near important bird habitats and migratory flightpaths.
Click here to view full story...
Monarch airlines plans to slash workforce by 1,000 jobs, up to 30%, to compete with Ryanair and EasyJet
Up to 1,000 jobs, about one third of its work force, will be cut at Monarch as it tries an overhaul to reposition itself as a low-cost airline competing with easyJet and Ryanair. Monarch is currently controlled by a wealthy Swiss-Italian family, and has been undertaking a strategic review of its business in order to attract new investors. It will drop its charter flights and focus on short-haul scheduled flights. It will cut its fleet of aircraft from 42 to 30. It will keep its focus on holiday destinations like Spain, the Canary Islands and Turkey but add more European cities and skiing destinations. Overall, it will fly more frequently to fewer destinations. They will no longer fly from East Midlands Airport. Monarch has its HQ at Luton airport, is made up of Monarch Airlines, tour operator Cosmos Holidays and an aircraft maintenance division. Monarch's MD said "We're on a trajectory of changing from a charter airline to a scheduled European low-cost carrier." They recently ordered new planes, at the Farnborough air show. This is a £1.75bn order for 30 new Boeing 737 aircraft to be delivered by 2020. They carried about 6.8 million passengers in 2013.
Click here to view full story...
Political taboos leave politicians unwilling to take steps to cut transport emissions
An interesting, thought provoking article in The Conversation, looks at the way in which issues to do with reducing our desire for travel could be seen as "taboo." For the EU, CO2 emissions from transport make up about 30% of the total. However, while the automotive and aviation industries try to convince us that technology will cut emissions, the growth in demand will far outweigh these small improvements. If politicians challenge our desire for ever more travel, they can be punished by powerful lobby groups, by peers, or at the ballot box. On air travel, a high proportion is done by the most wealthy. But the political classes and opinion formers are themselves in this category, of hypermobile people with a "distinct unwillingness among this section of society to fly less." Increasing the cost of flying disproportionally affects lower income groups, yet does not seriously impede the mobility patterns of frequent-flying elite, who enjoy flights "subsidised through the exemption of international air travel from VAT." The airline industry and its lobbyists work hard to instil the idea that “mobility is freedom”, and that to restrict such mobility through regulation is nothing short of an infringement of that liberty; another taboo.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick PR campaign strategy document, on influencing the key people, accidentally left on train
The plan by Gatwick to lobby “gold, silver and bronze” opinion formers against expansion at Heathrow rival has embarrassingly backfired after a dossier setting out the airport's campaign strategy was left on a train. It was passed to the Sunday Times, which has revealed details of the plans. Gatwick has a “target” lists of opinion formers - politicians, civil servants, business leaders (and allegedly ?? environmentalists) - whom it hopes will put pressure on the Airports Commission and its members. There is a list of around 100 “gold tier” individuals, best able to exercise influence. Gatwick not only wants their target subjects to promote their runway, but also “neutralise the prevailing default bias that we perceive exists in favour of Heathrow”. Gatwick has commissioned a noise study by the CAA undermining Heathrow's implausible claim that fewer people would suffer aircraft noise if it got a 3rd runway and increased flights by some 50%. Unsurprisingly the Gatwick study indicates far more people would be affected by Heathrow noise, with a 3rd runway at full capacity. Heathrow criticised Gatwick for not publishing all the technical documents related to its expansion plans, saying: “It is a shame that the only way anyone can scrutinise Gatwick’s plans is when their executives leave documents on a train.”
Click here to view full story...
Southampton University study shows air traffic growth would outpace CO2 reduction efforts unless demand is cut by higher air fares
Experts warn that cheap air travel needs to end if the air industry is to honour its pledges to reduce its carbon footprint. Airfares will need to increase by a third over the next 30 years if airlines are to cut their passenger numbers,in order to hit their 'carbon neutral' targets. A study (by John Preston, Matt Grote and Ian Williams, at the Dept of Engineering and the Environment at the University of Southampton) shows the airline industry will have to raise fares in order to limit demand for air travel, which otherwise rises continuously. The study says air ticket prices need to increase by at least 1.4% per year, even if the airlines invest in more efficient aircraft and manage to introduce lower-carbon fuels. Air fares have become 1.3 % cheaper every year, on average, since 1979. The researchers say the average fare paid by passengers would need to rise (at 2013 prices) from £170 in 2013, to £195 in 2023, to £225 in 2033, and to £258 by 2043. The growth in demand for flights will outpace fuel efficiency improvements if the annual increase in air passengers worldwide is around 4 - 5% per year. Though ICAO hopes to improve aircraft fuel efficiency by 2% per year up to 2050, it realises the higher growth in passenger numbers is causing a net increase in aviation carbon emissions.