General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Plans to fit a new south east runway within UK climate targets are based on a ‘wing and a prayer’ – rather than reality
Two new reports have been produced, which seriously challenge the Airports Commission's claim that it is possible to build a new runway and still meet the UK Government's climate change targets. The reports also argue that building a new runway in the south east would worsen the north/south divide, as growth at the regional airports would need to be constrained in order to ensure CO2 emissions from aviation fall to their 2005 levels by 2050. The RSPB report, "Aviation, climate change and sharing the load" and the WWF report, by the AEF "The implications of a new South East runway on regional airport expansion" demonstrate that if a new runway is built, commitments under the Climate Change Act cannot be met unless significant constraints are imposed on the level of activity at regional airports. Both reports illustrate that if aviation emissions were allowed to soar, that would impose costs on the rest of the economy rising to perhaps between £1 billion and £8.4 billion per year by 2050 as non-aviation sectors would need to make even deeper emissions cuts. The regulatory regime for aviation carbon emissions is still just aspirational. Contrary to the impression given by the government and the Airports Commission, the issue of climate in relation to airport expansion has not been resolved.
Click here to view full story...
Reports on Thames Estuary airport plan show it is costly, risky for the taxpayer and a potential failure
Serious doubt has been cast on the prospect of a Thames estuary airport plan going ahead. Four reports have been produced for the Airports Commission, to aid their consideration of whether an estuary airport should be one of the short listed options to be taken forward, in September. One of three reports prepared for the commission published on Friday has said of the estuary plan: "Overall, the challenges to transition are considerable and amount to a significant cost and risk to the taxpayer in terms of commercial negotiations, infrastructure development and potential failure." Another report says Heathrow would have to close if the estuary scheme went ahead and that Heathrow's owners would have to be paid compensation of between £13.5 billion and £21.5 billion. The third report cited possible transport improvement costs associated with the new airport of between £10.1bn and £17.2bn for road, and up to £27 billion for rail. The report on environmental impacts which estimated that moving affected wildlife away from the new airport could cost as much as £2bn could cost as much as £2bn.
Click here to view full story...
Four Inner Thames estuary airport studies for Airports Commission finally kill off “Boris Island”
The Airports Commission has now published all four of the studies it has commissioned on an Inner Thames Estuary (ITE) airport. These reports are on environmental impacts, operational feasibility and attitudes to moving to an estuary airport, socio-economic impacts, and surface access. The first report, on environmental impacts was utterly damning, confirming the massive extent of the harm done to highly conserved habitats and their wildlife, and the near impossibility of successfully moving the wildlife elsewhere. Now the report on the feasibility of moving the airport shows the problems of flood risk, fog, wind direction, bird strike, explosives on the SS Montgomery and the Isle of Grain gas terminal - with many practically insurmountable. The report on socio-economic impacts demonstrates that aeronautical charges would have to be very high to pay for the airport, and be too high to compete with Dubai etc. Heathrow would have to close, at immense cost. The surface access report shows the cost of even minimal rail services to get most passengers to the airport would be £10 billion and more like £27 billion for a good service. The cost of road improvements would be £10 to £17 billion. The reports' conclusions now make it nearly inconceivable that a Thames Estuary Airport will ever be constructed.
Click here to view full story...
Airports Commission publishes new discussion document – a call for evidence on “Delivering new runway capacity”
The Airports Commission has published its 7th Discussion Paper, "Delivering new runway capacity: call for evidence." The deadline for comment is 15th August. The paper explores: - legal and planning issues surrounding runway capacity; engagement with local communities including compensation and mitigation; and the role of the state. The Commission welcomes feedback on these issues, to help in its deliberations. The paper sets out the two main routes through planning that a runway proposal could take, either through the NSIP (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project) route, or through a Hybrid Bill in Parliament. The paper also raises issues such as how decisions on associated housing should be dealt with; it considers how consultation can best be carried out to be effective; it asks to what extent - if at all - the State should subsidise an airport, without falling foul of European regulations on state aid; and likewise on spending tax payers' money on surface transport, that mainly benefits an airport and its users. The Commission recognises the importance of noise, and will use multiple contours for LAeq and Lden as well as N70 daytime and N60 night ‘number above’ contours.
Click here to view full story...
Airports Commission publishes “Environmental Impacts” report on Thames Estuary airport, for comment
The Airports Commission has undertaken to commission studies to assess whether a Thames Estuary airport should be short-listed, with the 3 schemes (Heathrow airport, Heathrow Hub, and Gatwick airport) to Phase 2 - for detailed consideration. These studies would be published in July, and accordingly, now the first study has been produced. It is on Environmental Impacts, and it was carried out by Jacobs Consultancy. The report is and is over 200 pages long, and appears to be thorough. It is clear that the extent of the environmental damage done by an airport would be huge, and the mitigation measures needed would be on a scale not seen before in Europe, if such mitigation was possible. It also stresses that, to allow this degree of environmental harm, "the Secretary of State for Transport would need to be certain that no alternative solutions existed, had considered the best scientific knowledge and taken into account the representations of Natural England and Environment Agency. If this test is passed it would need to be demonstrated that the proposals were needed for Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public interest (IROPI)." The Commission invites comment on whether the report contains errors, or if anything has been omitted, by 8th August.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow 3rd runway would mean demolishing Colnbrook incinerator and relocating it – maybe to Stanwell?
The Heathrow airport plan for a 3rd runway to the north-west of the airport, demolishing most of Harmondsworth and making Sipson impossible to live in, also demolishes the current incinerator at Colnbrook, run by Grundon. In Heathrow's expansion plans they propose that a new incinerator should be built just south of the airport, in Stanwell -between Long Lane and Stanwell Farm. This is, at best, controversial. Residents are concerned about the prospect of an incinerator so close to their homes and with the spectre of the eco-park in Shepperton also looming, questions of just how much Spelthorne can take are being asked. The hope it, by advocates of locating a new incinerator there, that the prevailaing wind from the west would blow any pollution away from Stanwell, and towards the east or north east. Incinerators are unpopular in most areas, as people fear not only dioxins in air pollution, but also the associated heavy traffic from lorries. People in Spelthorne are not convinced they want to host two large incinerators.
Click here to view full story...
Price of car travel and domestic flights fell in past decade – cost of bus, coach and rail travel rose
Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton, Pavilion, asked Robert Goodwill, the Secretary of State for Transport , about the costs of different modes of transport within the UK. She asked about the % change in real terms of the cost to the traveller of travelling by (a) private car, (b) bus, (c) train and (d) domestic aeroplane since (i) 1980, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 2010. Mr Goodwill's response was that between 1980 and 2013 the real cost of motoring, including the purchase of a vehicle, fell by 12%. In that time, the price of bus and coach fares rose by 59%. Between 1980 and 2013 the price of rail fares rose by 62% in real terms. Between 1997 and 2013 the cost of motoring fell by 9%. The cost of bus and coach travel rose by 28%. The cost or rail travel rose by 22% in real terms between 1997 and 2013. But by contrast, though not all the figures were available, the cost of domestic flights fell by 43% between 2000 and 2013. It has to be asked how the "greenest government ever" has done little to promote or encourage lower carbon forms of travel against higher carbon options.
Click here to view full story...
Holland-Kaye wants raised Heathrow landing charge, and public subsidy by cutting APD, to pay for runway
John Holland-Kaye has now taken over as CEO of Heathrow, from Colin Matthews. He has already angered airlines by saying he wants to give an adequate return to foreign investors in a 3rd runway, by raising the landing charges at Heathrow. Mr Holland-Kaye wants the landing charge to rise - in real terms - from £20 now, per passenger, to £24 within a few years, and it might rise to £27 by around 2040 (though predictions that far ahead are futile). Heathrow has been battling with its regulator, the CAA, for years on the level of its aeronautical charges. The CAA recently cut its cost of capital to 5.35% in the 5 years to 2019, though Heathrow says its weighted average cost of capital needs to be 6% in the period between 2019 and 2048, to repay its investors. Mr Holland-Kaye also let slip that he wants a cut in Air Passenger Duty (APD) on long haul flights, which would effectively be a loss to the Treasury, and thus be the equivalent of a public subsidy, for a 3rd Heathrow runway. The level of APD on the longest flights was cut this year in the budget, combining the two top distance bands, effectively giving them a government subsidy. He also said he "could not rule out the case for a 4th one in the future."
Click here to view full story...
New branch of CAGNE – CAGNE East – formed in Kent, joining the original in West Sussex
The threat of a 2nd Gatwick runway, and the "trials" of new flight paths by Gatwick airport, has caused considerable upset in areas across southern Surrey, West Sussex, East Sussex and Kent. The flight path routed over the Warnham area (Warnham, Rusper, Kingsfold, Winterfold, Rowhook, Slinfold and North Horsham) set in motion the formation of CAGNE – Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions – to fight against the unwelcome noise intrusion into the lives of thousands. CAGNE has now grown, as more and more people upset by the flight paths - and the threat of more - join forces. There are now two other CAGNE groups, working in East Sussex and in Kent, as well as the original CAGNE in Warnham, West Sussex. A group of residents, formerly the Bidborough Environmental Action Group, are becoming CAGNE East opposing planes, flying day and night - an aircraft "superhighway" - over historic areas of the High Weald ANOB, most of Tunbridge Wells and Southborough, Bidborough, Rusthall, Penshurst, Chiddingstone and Hever. CAGNE East strongly supports the High Weald Parish Councils HWPCAAG initiative, opposing Gatwick’s bid for a 2nd runway.
Click here to view full story...
Air pollution may affect babies even before birth and reduce lung size for life
The Sunday Times (Jonathan Leake) reports that a study has indicated that air pollution in Britain’s cities is stunting the growth of children’s lungs, and could reduce their lung capacity by 5% or more. It appears that toxic particles and gases emitted mainly by diesel vehicles disrupt lung growth, with damage starting to be inflicted in the womb. There is also separate research that indicates that babies gestated in areas with high air pollution levels are born with smaller heads, with the reduction in circumference directly related to air pollution levels. Dr Ian Mudway, of King’s College London, who has been involved in a 6-year study into how air pollution affects children in east London in Tower Hamlets and Hackney, said the evidence indicates the effect of air pollution start in the earliest years of life. Children's lungs by the age nine are already smaller than they ought to be and their lung impairment continues throughout life. Air pollution gases and particles damage the linings of the lung, which is not good at mending itself, and retains the deficit for life. "Children are vulnerable because their lungs are developing so fast and their defences are not evolved. They also spend more time outside.