General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Green MEP Jean Lambert warns new European rules risk making London’s airports noisier
Green Party MEP, Jean Lambert, has warned that people under flight paths to all London's main airports could suffer increased noise level, especially at night. This is because the European Parliament has voted on revisions to EU rules dealing with airport noise which let economic interests override rules on noise. This will enable the European Commission to overrule flight restrictions - such as night bans - at airports. The change will leave many more people being subjected to the noise, pollution and all other miseries caused by planes. Jean said: "Instead of working to ensure stronger EU rules, to reduce the nuisance, pollution, health problems and safety risks posed by airports, the European Commission gave in to heavy lobbying from the aviation industry and the US administration". ....this...."takes on an added significance in the context of the UK Government's desire to cater for ever-increasing numbers of flights..... Instead, we need to reduce demand and explore how aviation could function within environmental limits."
Click here to view full story...
Flight Global looks at the impacts of a new south east runway on environmental constraints
Flight Global have looked at the environmental issues involved in building a new runway in the south-east. They consider noise, and appreciate that Heathrow has a serious problem and a political issue. Gatwick makes much of the lower numbers of people overflown by planes near the airport. The government has yet to decide if it will establish an independent noise ombudsman, to deal with noise issues. Even if this is introduced, Tim Johnson (Director of AEF - the Aviation Environment Federation) says “whether it has any real contribution to make over the next couple of years is quite doubtful”. Another key environmental concern linked to airport expansion is local air quality – an issue which Tim Johnson does not believe has been addressed sufficiently. The NOx pollution, largely from road traffic associated with an airport, is expensive to reduce. Colin Matthews has said that “to fix air quality at Heathrow [you need to] replace the fleet of diesel engines coming down the M4”. [How about the M25 too? ] An extra runway can only be fitted within UK carbon targets by not requiring aviation to cut its CO2 emissions cf. their 2005 level.
Click here to view full story...
Frontier Economics report for Heathrow makes out that a 3rd runway will mean lower fares
Heathrow airport has commissioned a report from Frontier Economics (a firm that has done a lot of pro-expansion reports for the industry), and it makes out that air fares will fall if a 3rd Heathrow runway is built. It is not a brilliant report. But it said what Heathrow wanted it to say. Only the FT and the Telegraph bothered to report this story. Frontier economics says the price of slots at Heathrow would fall (which they probably would) if there was a 3rd runway, as with so many new slots, it would not be possible to sell them for the prices charged today. Frontier economics say a long haul holiday would be cheaper at Heathrow in future, with a new runway. The FT comments that: "Aviation analysts said it would be difficult to calculate the saving." Indeed. The numbers are very speculative.The report is strangely silent on the - not inconsiderable - matter of the cost of building a new runway, at either Heathrow or Gatwick, and the costs needed to give a reasonably return to the investors. The Frontier Economics report contains some very contorted arguments, with some highly contrived conclusions - with much speculation.
Click here to view full story...
Latest Back Heathrow newsletter described as ” A work of art: the art of distortion”
Back Heathrow has produced its latest news-sheet and questionnaire, which has been delivered to thousands of homes. In a blog, Chair of HACAN, John Stewart, writes about how it is "A work of art. The art of not quite telling it as it is." Its front page has a heading saying “Hillingdon Council want Thousands of Houses on Airport”. That clearly implies that Hillingdon want Heathrow closed, but that is far from what they have actually said. Its leader, Ray Puddiford, has merely said that, if an Estuary Airport opened and Heathrow had to close, there would be the opportunity for the land to be used for housing and new businesses. The newsletter claims thousands of jobs are at risk if Heathrow were to close. It conveniently overlooks another key finding of the report that the impact of a second runway at Gatwick would have a ‘negligible’ impact on employment at Heathrow. Heathrow is not going to close. The newsletter also quote "residents" - but only highly selected ones. The status of "Back Heathrow" was debated at length, and questioned, at the latest Heathrow Consultative Committee on 26th March.
Click here to view full story...
IPCC report says transport contributes 27% of global CO2 – and could double by 2050 under BAU
The latest UN IPCC report alerts global leaders to the growing threat of uncontrolled transport emissions. The UN's climate panel says that transport is set to become the world’s biggest source of CO2 emissions unless lawmakers take strong action now. They say "The transport sector accounted for 27% of final energy use and 6.7 GtCO2 direct emissions in 2010, with baseline CO2 emissions projected to approximately double by 2050." The report states: “Without aggressive and sustained policies (to cut CO2 from cars and trucks), transport emissions could increase at a faster rate than emissions from any other sector.” Progress is being made in the EU on cars, but not much on trucks and vans. As actual car performance on CO2 on the road is not as good as the theoretical level, the EC plans to introduce a new test that closes loopholes in the current system in 2017. Air travel is only given one short mention that increased use of high speed rail should replace some short haul flights. There are some very guarded comments on biofuels (written by large committee!) which mention "the risks of increased competition for land need to be managed."
Click here to view full story...
Study suggests London City Airport site could be put to more economically & socially efficient use by closing airport
A new report from the New Economics Foundation (NEF) makes the case for closing London’s City Airport and redeveloping the site to create more jobs, boost local business and build new homes. The report looked at the actual contribution, and the restrictions, caused by the airport on the surrounding area, and it has come to some conclusion that may seem surprising. They found London City Airport creates little value to the UK economy – despite occupying 500,000 square metres at the heart of London. Its direct contribution in 2011 was £110m – compared to £513 million generated by the nearby ExCeL Centre. It provides relatively few jobs, and restrictions on development near the airport due to the public safety zone and height restrictions in the nearby area limit many potentially more efficient uses of the land. Local residents bear all the costs but reap few of the benefits – the average salary of a London City Airport passenger is over £90,000, while 40% of Newham residents earn less than £20,000. Only about 28% of the airport jobs go to Newham people. London's transport no longer needs City Airport – City Airport’s passengers account for just 2.4% of London’s total flight demand. These passengers could be readily absorbed by Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted. By 2019 Crossrail will allow City workers to reach Heathrow in just 30 minutes.
Click here to view full story...
ACI report says small airports with under 1 million passengers per year in danger of making losses
According to the 2013 ACI Economics Report, which is to be released shortly, some 67% of the world’s airport’s operate at a net loss. The report says that globally about 80% of airports handling less than 1 million passengers per year have average net losses of 6%. Of the airports that made a loss in 2012, 93% of the handled under 1 million passengers. It therefore appears that the small airports are very fragile. ACI World’s director general, said: “While the industry as a whole is profitable, with airports posting net profit margins in the realm of 13%, a significant proportion of airports are actually in the red. Industry profitability is primarily generated from the 20% of airports that carry the bulk of passenger traffic. Size matters.” In the UK some of the airports with below 1 million passengers in 2013 were Cardiff, Southend, Exeter, Doncaster/Sheffield, Bournemouth, Blackpool and Durham Tees Valley. ACI also advocated more arrangements between airlines and airports on the level of fees and charges, and less government regulation.
Click here to view full story...
France: The UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populair) has used and abused lobbying to save unnecessary airports
The issue of small European airports receiving substantial government subsidies continues to be highly controversial. A French article (imperfect translation into English) says dozens of airports in France are not profitable and only stay in business due to public subsidies, and that this is continuing because of the intense and effective lobbying of the right wing party, the UMP (Union pour un Mouvement Populair - which Sarkozy used to lead). Small airports have been kept afloat, though making large losses, and sometimes when they are ludicrously close to other airports. In the Languedoc-Roussillon region, which has the second highest largest number of flights by low cost airlines, the subsidies continue as there is fear a cut would drive away the no-frills carriers and the tourists they bring. allocation rules. The state aid rules were recently announced, and were dismissed by T&E as giving "carte blanche to airports and airlines which are guilty of mismanagement in the past". The subsidy system continues to give substantial benefits to Ryanair, which is a key recipient.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow 3rd runway – for “the sovereign wealth funds which control the business & want the best possible return”
A piece in the Observer, written by an un-named author, keen on a Heathrow 3rd runway, sums up the both the undesirability of a new Heathrow runway and its impossibility. Here are a few quotes from it. Its title, on he resignation of Colin Matthews, sums up its style: "Heathrow needs a flashier pilot now."...." But Matthews's operational success has made him the wrong person for the next phase of the job – not least for the sovereign wealth funds who control the business and want the best possible return. And that means a third or fourth runway." .... "The airport's owners needs a leader who can persuade the public – particularly in west London – as well as the three main political parties, that a new runway is in Britain's best interests. This will require showmanship.".... "With many west Londoners in marginal constituencies unlikely to ever be won over by the case for a bigger Heathrow, ministers and opposition leaders will need persuading that the political cost is worth it. So the new Heathrow chief executive will need charm and political nous."
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick’s 1st runway consultation exhibition – met with spirited opposition by those to be badly affected
Gatwick airport has started a period of 6 weeks of consultation on its plans for a 2nd runway. The consultation is something of a PR exercise, as the Airports Commission has only short listed the wide spaced runway option. Gatwick Airport is, for some reason best known to itself, including the narrow spaced runway (which it does not want) in the consultation options. There is a series of exhibitions planned, by Gatwick airport, in a number of towns and villages over the coming weeks, with the first today in Crawley - the town which might be the worst affected by a 2nd runway. There was spirited opposition by people fighting plans for a new runway, and especially those who have recently found themselves under a new "trial" flight path. Feedback from the exhibition was that it was well attended, by several hundred people, many of whom appeared to be against a new runway. One of their questions was how to fill in the forms, to clearly convey their opposition to any runway - there is just one box people can tick, on the last page, in Section D, "None of these options."