General News
Below are links to stories of general interest in relation to aviation and airports.
Heathrow Hub asks Boris Johnson and Grant Shapps to order a Section 6 Review of the Heathrow 3rd runway NPS
Heathrow Hub, the rival Heathrow runway scheme that wants to effectively build a third runway, onto the western end of the northern runway, has now called on Boris Johnson and Grant Shapps to implement a "Section 6 review" of Heathrow 3rd runway. They say this is due to spiralling costs and also, bizarrely (as their plan also greatly increases CO2) "the incompatibility of the 3rd runway with the Government’s net zero carbon emissions by 2050." Heathrow Hub are very critical of many aspects of Heathrow's planning for its runway, including failure to provide information. They are particularly critical of the lack of details about Heathrow's surface access plans. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has now deemed Heathrow to be a Public Authority and has ordered it to comply with its obligations under the EIR - so it has to respond to FoI requests, such as on surface access plans. Heathrow Hub says Heathrow's latest consultation reveals a scheme that continues to change from the designated ANPS. The Government decision to approve the NPS and "designate" it is being challenged legally, with a judgement by the Court of Appeal expected on 28th February.
Click here to view full story...
Major airlines say they’re acting on climate change – research reveals how little they’ve achieved
Research by Griffith University, New Zealand, has shown that the climate claims of most airlines are pretty thin. Several airlines have announced plans to become “carbon neutral”, or trial new aviation fuels. But looking at the world's 58 largest airlines, when what is being done is compared to the continued growth in emissions, it is nowhere near enough. There have been improvements in the amount of carbon per seat kilometre - the "carbon efficiency." But that is eclipsed by growth in number of flights and passengers. The study found the improved efficiency (fleet renewal, engine efficiency, weight reductions and flight path optimisation) amounted to a 1% cut in emissions, while the industry aims to cut by 1.5%. That was totally outweighed by annual growth of 5.2% in the carbon emitted by the industry globally. Industry figures show global airlines produced 733 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions in 2014. Falling fares and more people wanting to fly saw airline emissions rise 23% in just five years, 2014 -19. Higher-income travellers from around the world have had disproportionately large aviation CO2 emissions; they form a total of 16% of global population, but 62% of global aviation CO2. People need to cut the amount they fly ...
Click here to view full story...
Non-CO2 climate impact of flying could be cut significantly with small altitude changes to avoid contrail formation
Some research by Imperial College, London, indicates that climate impact of aviation could be significantly reduced by making small changes to the altitudes at which planes fly. And more complete fuel burn. Contrails increase warming, due to a blanket effect, especially at night, preventing heat escaping out into space. This causes "radiative forcing." Contrails form as water condenses around the tiny black carbon particles in the jet exhaust. They form more, and last for longer, in some weather conditions than others. While most contrails disappear within minutes, some spread and mix with other contrails and clouds, forming ‘contrail cirrus’ which can linger for as long as 18 hours. The study by Imperial indicated that flying around 2,000 feet lower or higher - avoiding the more humid air - can reduce contrail formation. Reducing the contrails of the planes having the most climate warming impact would help slightly. Unlike contrails, the impact of the CO2 produced lasts for hundreds of years. Flying higher or lower than normal cruise height could increase jet fuel burn and CO2 emissions. Aviation expects to grow fast between now and 2050, with contrail warming a big problem. However, CORSIA ignores this additional non-CO2 warming impact of aviation.
Click here to view full story...
Teesside Airport flight subsidy – an unknown amount of public money – divides mayoral contenders
New flights from Teeside airport (used to be called Durham Tees Valley airport) are being subsidised by taxpayers. Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) has contributed funds to support six routes from the airport. The amount has not been released due to "commercial sensitivity" but it was believed in 2018 that there would be subsidies of £1 million over 3 years. Now Tees Valley mayoral candidate Jessie Joe Jacobs said the figure should be made public. She said: "If subsidies are going to flights, are we going to see subsidies for buses for places like Port Clarence, where people cannot get to their local hospital without getting a taxi?" With more awareness of climate breakdown, flying shame and increased rail usage, is helping people to take domestic flights sensible use of scarce public funds? The airport was brought back into public hands at the start of last year for £40m as part of a £588.2m investment plan agreed by Labour council leaders and Tees Valley Mayor Houchen. It is owned in a 75/25 split between the TVCA and Stobart Aviation. Its business plan forecasts losses until 2025 after which it just might make a small profit. But who knows, so far ahead. Voting in the mayoral elections will take place in May.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow ruled to be a “public authority” for information-access, so FoI requests can be made on environmental issues
The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has issued a decision, holding that Heathrow is a "public authority" for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). This opens up the potential for anyone to ask HAL for information it holds relating to the environment, through a Freedom of Information (FoI) question. This could be on development applications, emissions, buildings, energy consumption, waste and noise. The EIR operate alongside the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act), and oblige public authorities to disclose environmental information upon request (unless an exemption to disclosure applies). This has arisen because rival builder of Heathrow's runway etc, Arora, asked Heathrow for information. It was withheld. Arora then appealed to the Information Commissioner. They decided that as Heathrow "carries out functions of public administration" it is indeed a public authority, not just a company. This is justified "given the importance of the efficient provision of services at Heathrow Airport to the economy and citizens of the UK". Heathrow may appeal. Other airports might also be considered as public authorities in future...?
Click here to view full story...
Campaigners criticise CAA’s PIR report on Luton flight path changes and noise increase
The CAA have published the results of a post-implementation review (PIR), which analysed the impact of RNAV between its introduction in 2015 and 2017. RNAV means concentration of planes down a narrow flight path, intensifying noise for those over-flown. The CAA concluded that the airspace change "achieved the objectives set out in the original proposal".The introduction of RNAV has meant the majority of departures have moved closer to Harpenden, south Harpenden and the less densely-populated areas of Redbourn, while still not to flying directly over those areas. The number of flights increased by 30% between 2015 and 2017, but the PIR says the flight paths was not an "enabler" for an increase in airport capacity, or for an increase in flights during the early morning and late evenings. The CAA says the increase in noise complaints 2015 - 2017 was due to there being more plane - not the narrowing of the flight paths. Local campaigners are angry and disagree with the CAA, saying much of the noise nuisance is due to RNAV, not just more flights. Andrew Lambourne (LADACAN) commented: "The whole thing feels like a rubber-stamping exercise, and was not worth waiting three years for."
Click here to view full story...
Has Boris Johnson used approval for HS2 to kill Heathrow Expansion?
In announcing that the government is approving HS2, the Prime Minister spoke of the importance of delivering prosperity to every part of the country. Boris said: “Passengers arriving at Birmingham Airport will be able to get to central London by train in 38 minutes, which compares favourably with the time it takes to get from Heathrow by taxi .... [and is] considerably faster than the Piccadilly line”. Was this a subtle alert to the negative economic impacts on every part of the country (save the South East) of expanding Heathrow? The DfT has known for a long time that a 3rd Heathrow runway would mean most regional airports would lose significant volumes of flights. Asked about Heathrow, Boris said he sees no "immediate prospect" of bulldozers, or any start to work to expand Heathrow. If £106 billion of public money will be spent on HS2, (much of that on the London to Birmingham section) this will increase anger about the disparity of spending on the regions and the south-east. With more fast rail travel between London and Birmingham, air passenger demand from the south-east could move to Birmingham, reducing any logic there was for a larger Heathrow.
Click here to view full story...
Bristol Airport expansion plans rejected by North Somerset council by 18-7
North Somerset Council’s Planning & Regulatory Committee has gone against the advice of their own planning officers and have refused permission for Bristol Airport to expand. It has been a "David versus Goliath" battle of local campaigners against the airport, (owned by the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan). The airport wanted to expand from 10 million to 12 million passengers per year, with huge carpark and other building. The opposition to the plans was huge, on ground of carbon emissions, as well as noise and general local damage. There were almost 9,000 objections sent in by members of the public, against 2,400 in favour. Councillors voted 18-7 against the plans, with one abstention. Councillors were persuaded that paltry economic benefits to the airport and airlines were far outweighed by the environmental harm. There would be large land take for the parking, and the extra carbon emissions would make targets of carbon neutrality for the area unachievable. Because the councillors went against the officers’ recommendations, the decision will return to the same committee to be ratified. If the decision is ratified, the applicant has six months to lodge an appeal, which would be heard at a public inquiry.
Click here to view full story...
Kirklees council urged not to back Leeds Bradford expansion plans – due to climate impact
Kirklees Council leader has been urged not to back the use of public money to help the £41 million expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport. The call came from Kirklees Greens leader, Cllr Cooper, who says pumping £5 million into a proposed new rail interchange - the Leeds Bradford Airport Parkway scheme - would inevitably increase international flights and could undermine regional carbon emissions targets. Such a commitment of public money, increasing carbon emissions at a time of climate crisis, was foolhardy. The airport's expansion plans are being considered by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA), a group of leading councillors and officers from West Yorkshire councils, plus York, that works on major infrastructure projects. The rail interchange would include a new railway station on the Harrogate railway line and associated access works, assisting access to the airport. The scheme is being promoted with claims it will improve air quality ... slightly dubious reasoning there ... Cllr Cooper: "Kirklees Council cannot ignore the impact of air travel and the threat it poses to all the actions that we need to be taking to reduce global emissions."
Click here to view full story...
High Court won’t intervene on Stansted planning application being regarded as an NSIP
Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) has expressed disappointment at the High Court decision, announced that the Secretary of State for Transport does not have a statutory duty to treat the current Stansted's planning application as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). SSE challenged the decision that the plans were not considered to be an NSIP in mid November. Though Uttlesford District Council originally approved the expansion plan in November 2018, the council then rejected the plans (new councillors after council elections) on 24th January 2020. It is likely that Manchester Airports Group, the owners of Stansted airport, will appeal against the Uttlesford decision, so the issues would be examined at a Public Inquiry, with the Secretary of State making the final decision. That means that whether the airport's expansion plans are regarded as an NSIP, or if the airport appeals, the final decision would be by the Secretary of State. And SSE says the NSIP route would be cheaper for all concerned.