General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Sweden to increase airport fees for less fuel efficient planes; danger of promoting bio jet fuels
The Swedish government plans to charge airlines more at takeoff and landing if their aircraft are less fuel efficient. It must be approved by parliament. The plan might take effect in July and means that newer and less inefficient aircraft will benefit from the scheme, while older planes, more fuel-hungry planes will be hit with higher fees. Sweden may be the first to do this. It will affect Arlanda airport in Stockholm and Landvetter in Gothenburg, and the plan is still under discussion and being fine-tuned. However, it will consider aircraft using biofuels as low carbon. There are only very tiny amounts of biofuel available, that do not cause considerable environmental harm. Some can be produced from woody waste, from the wood industry. Some from domestic waste. It is expensive to produce. The cheapest source of these fuels would be palm oil, which would have very negative impacts on biodiversity, competing with land for human food, and also in reality produce as much CO2 over the full life-cycle as fossil kerosene.
Click here to view full story...
How airlines make huge profits by monetising frequent flyer programmes
Frequent Flyer programmes are a really pernicious way for airlines to get people, who already fly a great deal, to fly even more. They are also a nice money-earner for the airlines. Some US airlines are probably dependent on them. Their mileage programmes are often worth many billions of dollars. Airline mileage programmes have 2 main sources of revenue: the airline itself and third parties. One of the key ways the schemes work in by partnerships with banks. However, airlines are generally tight-lipped about just how valuable these partnerships are. There is partly the cost of future travel, and airlines do not want customers to fly with another airline. They also do not really want customers to redeem their points, unless they then earn some more. The airlines make a lot of money selling point to other organisations and companies, including American Express. Airlines love it when you earn a credit card welcome bonus or otherwise earn miles through credit cards. In order to give you those miles, the bank needs to buy more miles from the airline. When it does, the airline receives an influx of cash—which is especially needed right now. Also, the airline is able to record at least some of that mileage sale as an immediate profit. And there is more ...
Click here to view full story...
Report for the European Commission shows the CORSIA carbon scheme inadequate – EU ETS more effective in cutting CO2
The aviation industry’s carbon offsetting system (Corsia) risks being ineffective and poorly enforced. A report commissioned by the European Commission (EC) is highly critical of Corsia, which it says may do almost nothing to reduce international aviation emissions. The EC is expected to propose in June how aviation industry emissions should be mitigated, including whether to include international flights in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) - currently only those within the European Economic Area are included. The ETS has its faults, but would be hugely more effective in cutting European aviation carbon. A key problem with Corsia, apart from it being voluntary, is the use of cheap, ineffective carbon credits. Currently the price of Corsia-eligible offsets is under $2.50 per tonne. The ETS price is up to $43. Many of the credits are dubious, with inadequate certification or quality control of offsets. The rationale of just allowing airlines to compensate for their emissions, rather than encourage reductions, is misguided. The report concludes that the most effective way to cut EU aviation carbon would be to use the ETS, not Corsia, and include all international flights. The UK is considering how to do its own ETS, including aviation.
Click here to view full story...
AEF: Claim that new jet fuel from waste will massively cut aviation CO2 is dangerously misleading
UK Government has launched new funding to spur the development of "sustainable aviation fuel" (SAF) from waste. There have been claims that US scientists have found a way to ‘massively reduce carbon emissions from flying’. The benefits of the novel way to make jet fuel are exaggerated. The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) says that the claims require some very dodgy carbon accounting. They are adding the methane that might be generated by decomposing rubbish, and assumptions about carbon emissions - but ignoring the CO2 emissions produced when the fuel is burnt. In fact these emissions would be slightly higher, from waste-derived fuel, than conventional fuel, as it has a slightly higher carbon content. A better way to prevent methane from rotting landfill waste would be to cut food waste, divert biodegradable rubbish away from landfill sites and use methane capture technologies there. Cait Hewitt of AEF said "any government incentives for use of alternative fuels for aviation will need very clear and transparent guidelines to ensure that they actually cut aviation emissions, to avoid this kind of accounting smokescreen in future." Government is In the meantime, cutting back on flying is easily the best way of reducing aviation emissions."
Click here to view full story...
Concerns that in the US airlines got too much Covid taxpayer support, which greatly benefited shareholders
In the US, there were taxpayer-funded bailouts to many airlines, with a total of around $50 billion. It is unlikely that so much money was necessary and taxpayers over-paid. Probably the money helped save some 75,000 jobs, but with the cost of each about $300,000. The money kept the airlines from filing for bankruptcy, and ready to re-start flying. The money was not only, as claimed, to save jobs. In practice airline shareholders have been the biggest beneficiaries. That includes airline executives, many of whom have been paid in stock for years and stood to lose millions of dollars if their holdings were wiped out. Some had, in the past, boosted their companies’ share prices by regularly buying back tens of billions in shares. That meant setting aside less money for a rainy day (eg. a pandemic). Now, the shared of United airlines, traded below $20 in May, are now above $60. The patterns are similar for the other major carriers. "It is fair to say that we socialized the airline industry’s losses and largely privatized the gains." The airlines managed to persuade government (unjustifiably) that they were more indispensable that other struggling sectors, and they were vital once Covid was under control.
Click here to view full story...
Hydrogen very unlikely to be used in long-haul planes; huge problems even for short-haul
There is a lot of hype around about planes eventually being fuelled by hydrogen. This is dangerous, because it gives the false impression that a solution to aviation CO2 is just around the corner, and no measures need to be taken to reduce demand. There are immense problems of using hydrogen in aircraft. Liquid hydrogen, which is easier to store onboard than gas, has to be kept at -253C or it boils off. The tanks to contain it are not only heavier but x4 the size of conventional fuel storage. This imposes constraints on range and capacity for airlines. It might be necessary to remove 25% of the passengers from a conventional single-aisle aircraft to fit in fuel tanks. If it proves possible, in a decade or more, to use hydrogen, its use would be confined to short-haul, and could not be used on long-haul, which produce the most CO2 (+ non-CO2 impact). Flights of over 1,500km account for roughly 80% of the sector’s carbon emissions, according to the industry’s ATAG. Even for the shorter-range aircraft, hydrogen’s deployment would require huge costs for new infrastructure, transport and storage. Airlines could face increased operational complexities and higher costs from mixed fleets. And burning hydrogen generates water vapour, which adds to aviation's non-CO2 climate impact.
Click here to view full story...
Stansted Public Inquiry – MAG challenging Uttlesford’s refusal – has ended. Inspectors’ decision by June?
The Stansted Airport Public Inquiry to consider plans for further airport expansion (from 35 to 43 mpps) came to a close on Friday 12 March after 8 weeks of evidence hearings and cross-examinations. QCs for the 3 main parties - Manchester Airports Group (MAG), Uttlesford District Council (UDC) and Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) - presented their closing submissions at the end of last week. It will now be for the Panel of 3 Inspectors to decide whether to approve the airport expansion proposals. A decision is expected in around 3 months (June?). UDC's Planning Committee had voted 10-0 to refuse permission, though officers had recommended acceptance. SSE says the Inquiry might not have been necessary if UDC had supported SSE's call, 3 years ago, for the Secretary of State for Transport to deal with the Stansted Airport Planning Application nationally. Instead, UDC insisted on dealing with the application itself, despite its limited resources and expertise in this area. During the inquiry, most of the legal attack by MAG was against the detailed evidence produced by SSE, as UDC did not present much.
Click here to view full story...
People overflown by Heathrow dreading the resumption of increased plane noise, when flight restrictions are eased
While for many people lockdown has been a really difficult and isolating time, for those living under the Heathrow flight paths it’s given them the respite from noise that they have really wanted and needed. One resident in Windsor said: “The worst thing for me is the night flights. I worked in a pressurised full time job and we had done as much insulation as possible. But when you wake up at 4.30am - when the first arrivals start - you start thinking about work and you can't get back to sleep and it almost drove me round the bend. For your mental health the night flights are an absolute nightmare.” The problem can be worse in summer, in warm weather, when people want the window open - the noise is then far worse, and people get woken up. One resident said, about the prospect of high numbers of planes returning, when restrictions on air travel are lifted: "I am absolutely dreading it, in fact I am thinking about moving away which is a shame because I love this area and I love where I live." The campaign group No 3rd Runway Coalition ran a noise survey during lockdown which received 3,419 responses. It showed a high number noticed a beneficial impact on their sleep, from fewer planes.
Click here to view full story...
Alex Sobel MP tells government to stop Leeds Bradford Airport’s new £150m terminal
The MP for Leeds North West, Alex Sobel, has told the government it needs to dramatically intervene to stop the building of a new terminal at Leeds Bradford Airport. The airport is in his constituency. He has asked the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, to call in the decision made by Leeds City Councillors to approve plans for a new terminal. The expansion plans are intended to increase the number of flights and passengers, and therefore the amount of noise and carbon emissions. Mr Sobel has been a long-time critic of the airport’s plans. He has pointed out that the expansion plans are not in keeping with the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, to limit aviation expansion, in order to reach UK carbon targets. He said: "I do not believe that a local plans panel of 14 councillors is in any way a competent body to be making a decision of this significance. Applications which significantly affect the carbon budget must be made nationally. We need a national aviation plan and significant measures to reduce net emissions from UK flights. I look forward to seeing these in the Government’s response to the Committee on Climate Change’s Sixth Carbon Budget Report.”
Click here to view full story...
Government advised to halve domestic APD and review distance bands for the tax
Boris Johnson is set to authorise a 50% cut in APD for domestic flights. Senior Whitehall sources say he will announce a review of the tax, which is the only tax on air tickets (on which no tax or VAT is paid). Currently APD is charged at £13 for any adult leaving a UK airport, so that is the cost for any return flight to anywhere in Europe. For domestic flights (for which there is usually a rail alternative) the tax is £26, so it is charged on leaving both airports. The review will also look at the case for increasing the number of international distance bands. Since 2015, there have only been two bands, one covering flights of up to 2,000 miles and the other those in excess of that. The plans to change APD will be put to a consultation, so it is unlikely to be introduced until 2022. The recommendations are part of a wider Union Connectivity Review by Sir Peter Hendy, the chairman of Network Rail, to be published on 10th March, proposing a new “UK Strategic Transport Network” to oversee British transport priorities. Critics say the 50% domestic APD cut — coming just days after fuel duty was frozen for the 10th consecutive year — and rail fare rises, further undermine ministers’ commitment to cutting carbon a target of net-zero carbon by 2050. Doug Parr, chief scientist for Greenpeace UK, said this would “continue our nonsensical trend of the higher the carbon, the lower the tax.”