General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Sunak halves domestic APD and introduces a band of over 5,500 miles (costing just £5 more)
Air Passenger Duty is the only tax paid on air travel, as it pays neither fuel tax nor VAT. The rate has been £13 for a return economy flight to anywhere in Europe, since April 2012. The price is £82 for trips of over 2,000 miles. Until April 2015 there were four distance bands for APD. Adults on domestic flights paid £13 for each part of the return trip, ie. £26 return. Now the Chancellor has halved the rate of domestic APD, from April 2023, so it would just be £13 for a return trip. The claim is that this helps connectivity within the UK, being useful for those in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Flights within the UK are usually cheaper than rail tickets, and cutting APD sends completely the wrong signal, in making flights even cheaper - when what would help cut CO2 would be to reduce the cost of rail travel. Riski Sunak has introduced a new distance band for APD, so instead of just the two bands - of under, or over, 2,000 miles - a new band is added - of over 5.500 miles. This is from April 2023. But the increased APD level will just be £91. The rate for trips of over 2,000 miles will be £84 from April 2022, and if it rises by £2 per year, which is usually does, would be £86 by April 2023. So the higher rate will be just £5 more. Not much of a disincentive, or help to reduce CO2. Treasury expects £35 million less per year from APD after 2023.
Click here to view full story...
Vague hopes by Manchester airport for future supplies of low carbon fuels from Fulcrum NorthPoint
There is an enthusiastic story about Manchester airport hoping to be getting "up to 10% " of the fuel used by aircraft at the airport replaced with SAF (sustainable aviation fuel) within 5 years "of the Fulcrum NorthPoint facility becoming operational." Manchester Airport had about 196,000 flights in 2019 (and in 2017). Its carbon emissions were estimated to be about 3.6 Million tonnes of CO2 in 2017. As a quick, "back of the envelope" calculation, that would mean - if the number of flights returns to the level pre-pandemic in a few years - the airport would need over 1,100 tonnes of the SAF per year. But the company to supply the fuel has not yet built its facility. It is part of Essar Oil UK, which has owned the vast industrial site in Stanlow, Cheshire, for a decade. But Essar is grappling with a funding shortfall potentially running to hundreds of millions of pounds. Not a great start to embark on this novel fuel project, but hoping for the extensive funding the UK government plans to give companies that try to make "low carbon" jet fuel. The SAF is intended to have a "70% lower carbon footprint" than conventional fuel, and be made from non-recyclable waste, which would typically go into landfill." It is actually really hard to make on a large scale.
Click here to view full story...
Campaigners remain confident after Southampton Airport legal challenge refused
Campaigners against Southampton Airport's runway extension say they remain confident after a legal challenge was refused. GOESA Ltd, a company set up by those opposed to Southampton Airport's runway extension, submitted an application to the High Court for a judicial review in July this year. This came after Eastleigh Borough Council (EBC) granted planning permission for the airport extension which proved controversial during the consultation process. An online fundraising page was set up to fund the review which raised over £60,000, but now, EBC has said that the High Court has refused the review of planning permission. Despite this though, GOESA Ltd has said that this is "not the end" and say that there are still chances to appeal this. They have to decide within the next seven days, whether they apply to have the matter renewed in open court. They are taking legal advice and that will be decided in the next few days. There is another stage in the appeal process. A second application for a judicial review was also made by Bournemouth Airport Ltd, but this has also been refused.
Click here to view full story...
Rishi Sunak might bring back 3 or 4 band APD, with a higher long-haul rate, but lower domestic rate
Air Passenger Duty (APD) is currently charged in two bands, to destinations under 2,000 miles (£13 for passengers aged over 16) and above 2,000 miles (£82), with business class passengers paying more, and more for private jets. There was a consultation about rates of APD and the distance bands earlier in the year. It is thought that the Chancellor will announce, in his autumn budget, that APD will be reduce for domestic flights (passengers pay £26 for a return domestic flight, but only £13 for a return European flight). Until 2015 there were four bands for APD, with under 2,000 miles, 2,000 to 4,000, 4,000 to 6,000 and over 6,000 miles. It is thought likely that Rishi Sunak will bring back the higher distance band, for higher APD for flights of over 6,000 miles. It currently makes no sense, in terms of carbon emissions, that the APD on a flight to Cairo or Dubai is the same as one to Thailand or Australia. Scrapping the APD on domestic flights does not help encourage people to take the train, when often the journey by train is quite easy - but far more expensive. A recent trial by campaigners compared the train and plane between central London and central Edinburgh. The plane was two minutes faster. UK aviation is seriously under-taxed, paying no VAT and no fuel duty.
Click here to view full story...
Government puts up, then almost instantly withdraws, document showing need for behaviour change to cut carbon emissions
Published with the government's decarbonisation, net zero, strategy on 20th October, was a document called "Net Zero: principles for successful behaviour change initiatives". It was produced for BEIS, by the Behavioural Insights Team (aka the Nudge unit). It contained many suggestions for ways the public's behaviour could be "nudged" to help lower carbon emissions. But the document was only on the BEIS website for an hour or two, before being withdrawn. Luckily one sharp-eyed and quick-witted aviation campaigner spotted it and saved a copy. The document suggests ways in which behaviour could be changed - while the government, and Boris himself, claims behaviour change will not be needed, and we will all be able to fly, guilt free, in future. BEIS says it does not wish to suggest behaviour change. The behaviour change paper said, of business aviation, that there needs to be a change in social norms, to international in-person meetings no longer seen as a sign of importance or pride, but "being an immoral indulgence or embarrassment." It also says government should lead by example, in not backing airport expansion for financially supporting the airline industry with little demands for decarbonisation in return.
Click here to view full story...
Independent assessors for Manston expansion plans say there is no need for the extra air freight capacity
The Development Consent Order (DCO) for the re-opening and development of Manston as a freight airport was rejected by the High Court in February 2021. This was after Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps, in July 2020 had decided to ignore the advice of the Planning Inspectorate (PI) in October 2019, that the DCO should be rejected. Grant Shapps said it should go ahead, but the court said there had not been enough detail for reasons to go against the advice of the PI. Grant Shapps then had to "re-determine" the DCO application, and people could submit reasons to the PI for why the airport proposal should be refused. A team was set up as "independent assessor" to investigate the justification for the airport's expansion, and report back to Mr Shapps. The team's report has now been published. It concludes that “the levels of freight that the Proposed Development could expect to handle are modest and could be catered for at existing airports ... Manston appears to offer no obvious advantages to outweigh the strong competition that such airports offer. ...the Applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient need for the Proposed Development". Further submissions are welcomed until 19th November. Now 3rd December.
Click here to view full story...
Lord Deben – head of Climate Change Cttee – UK must drop plans for airport expansion
Lord Deben, the Chair of the Climate Change Committee, has told the Airport Operators Association that the UK must drop plans for airport expansion if it is to meet carbon reduction targets. Lord Deben said “There is not any space for airport expansion ... The idea we are going to have a whole lot of airports expanding – we are just not in that world.” Currently there are up to 10 UK airports planning physical expansion, including Heathrow and Gatwick. Lord Deben said “The government has to make it easier and simpler to be good and hard and expensive to be bad. At the moment it is often more expensive and more complicated to be good....This is not about fiddling about around the edges ... We’ve allowed climate change to get out of hand." Meanwhile a document produced by the government's "nudge" unit (the Behavioural Insights Team), about necessary UK behaviour changes, was removed from the BEIS website. It contained a few suggestions about reducing demand for air travel, including encouraging more domestic holidays and more rail travel to Europe - acknowledging that stopping British people wanting foreign holidays, by air, would be very, very hard.
Click here to view full story...
Good Law project delays its JR of the ANPS, until Government finalises its “Jet Zero” Strategy in early 2022
The Good Law Project, with Dale Vince (Ecotricity) and George Monbiot, started a legal challenge to the government legal department, asking for the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS) to be suspended and reviewed. The Supreme Court had ruled in December 2020 that the ANPS was legal, and that it had taken proper account of the climate impact of airport expansion. Today the Good Law Project has said that the Government has promised to consider whether to review the ANPS once it finalises its “Jet Zero” Strategy in early 2022. So it is prudent to delay the judicial review until the Government publishes this strategy. They say: "The evidence we’ve gathered shows that the Government’s current maths around aviation emissions doesn’t add up. And if they fail to match their climate rhetoric with action by refusing to review the outdated ANPS, we expect to bring a challenge next year." This is especially the case, as this year the government has included international aviation and shipping emissions in the Sixth carbon budget (2033 - 37) and pledged to cut UK carbon emissions by 78% by 2035.
Click here to view full story...
IATA now has aspirations for aviation to be trendy “net zero by 2050” while keeping on flying
IATA is now hoping it could achieve "net zero emissions by 2050". Previously it had aspired to emitting only half as much carbon by 2050, as it did in 2005. Climate experts consider two problems with "net zero by 2050" : the net part, and the date. IATA hopes to get some technical efficiencies to cut carbon, but its real hope is finding fuels that cause the emission of far less carbon than fossil fuels, up to the moment they are burned in a jet engine. (These fuels will still produce most of the non-CO2 impacts at altitude, due to water vapour and other gas interactions). There are widely varying estimates of how much "low carbon" fuel - SAF or Sustainable Aviation Fuel in the jargon - will be available. The main hopes for producing it are forestry waste, domestic waste, or electro-fuels produced from "surplus" renewably generated electricity. No SAF can be produced and delivered to the plane, without creating some carbon emissions. So claiming any SAF is "zero carbon" is incorrect. If a plane burns 50% conventional jet fuel, and 50% of a fuel the production of which saved 65% of emissions, that plane will only produce 33% less carbon than if it burned only conventional kerosene. And being able to permanently store residual carbon, underground, for ever is highly questionable.
Click here to view full story...
Campaigners tell the Treasury that aviation taxation must be reformed
In a joint letter to the Chancellor, AEF, T&E, Tax Justice, Green Alliance, Bellona and Greenpeace have called on the UK Government to reform UK tax in order to better reflect the environmental costs of aviation. The letter has been sent in advance of the Autumn Budget and Spending Review plans which expected to be announced soon. Since 1990, UK’s aviation’s emissions have increased by 125%, and were rising steeply till the pandemic. Now that the government has decided to include international aviation and shipping in future carbon budgets, immediate taxation reforms are needed. The letter suggests a jet fuel tax, of at least the level proposed by the European Union, of €0.38/ litre. There also needs to be VAT on all air tickets, at a rate of 20%. To properly account for the climate warming effect of air travel, which is likely to be up to 3 times as much as that of the CO2 alone, there needs to be an additional charge. That would be world-leading. It the aviation sector was taxed in a more realistic manner than now, it would incentivise progress on decarbonisation initiatives. The government is not prepared to restrict air travel demand, but higher ticket prices, due to higher tax, would have this effect