Noise News
Below are links to stories about noise in relation to airports and aviation.
Night flight ban likely to mean lower profitability for airlines, and higher ticket prices
An aviation industry consultant has commented on just how difficult (ie. how much less profit can be made) it is for airlines to avoid night flights. He is not persuaded that a ban on night flights will be accepted by airlines if they cannot fit in enough rotations per day, keeping the planes in use, and earning enough money, for enough hours. He says in Germany, residents’ campaigning on night flights has been relatively successful, and a number of large airports are now closed completely for extended periods overnight. A strict ban could mean a delayed evening flight not being able to take off till morning, and the passengers having to be put up in hotels overnight. Particularly the low cost leisure market, night flights are an essential part of their operation. To fly to the mid-haul destinations, 4-5 hours away, an airline can just cram two into the day, starting at 6am and ending at midnight. With fast turnarounds. There may not be enough runway capacity, in the London airport or the holiday destination airport, to get the exact time slot needed in order to cram the flights into the non-night period. There are also cargo flights, or passenger flights carrying freight that currently rely on flying at night. The author fears a night flight ban would have "unplanned consequences" on airlines.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow’s vague proposal on no night flights – what is Heathrow really saying?
Heathrow currently, under current night flight controls that are due to be re-considered in 2017, is allowed 5,800 night flights per year. That's an average of 16 arriving each morning, typically between 4.30am and 6am. The latest flights should leave by 11.30pm but there are many that are later, almost up to midnight. Heathrow has been very reluctant to agree to a ban between 11.30pm and 6am, which was the condition imposed by the Airports Commission. Heathrow claims the early arrivals are vital for businessmen catching early flights - especially those from the UK regions. But now, desperate to be allowed a 3rd runway, Heathrow mentions [very careful, rather odd wording]: "The introduction of a legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens." and "We will support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured." Heathrow only mentions scheduled flights. Not late ones. It is widely recognised that for health, people need 7 - 8 hours of sleep per night. Not 6.5 hours. Heathrow makes no mention of the inevitable concentrated landings and take offs at the shoulder periods, in order to keep 6.5 hours quiet. Apart from insomniacs and shift workers, who else regards the end of the night as 5.30am?
Click here to view full story...
Lord True, Richmond Council leader and Conservative peer, describes Heathrow promises as ‘worthless’ and asks David Cameron to deny expansion immediately
The leader of Richmond Council, Lord True, has called Heathrow's pledge to ban night flights a "feeble attempt to bribe London." He described Heathrow's promises as “worthless” and said on the ending of night flights: "This so-called pledge falls short of what the Davies Commission requests and the Heathrow PR men simply cannot be believed. If they can stop pre-5.30am flights, why don’t they do it now? Rather than spending billions of pounds doing it?” On Heathrow's claims about air quality improvements, Lord True commented:: “They cannot comply with EU air quality limits and their ‘jam’ promises are worthless.....if people’s health comes first – big Heathrow is dead in the water.” He said Heathrow had just made some token alterations to their original proposals. Richmond Council, along with Wandsworth, Hillingdon and Windsor & Maidenhead councils, have already made it clear that should the Government give a 3rd Heathrow runway the go-ahead – they would together launch legal action opposing the plans. Lord True: “I say to Mr Cameron – hundreds of thousands of Londoners remember your promise – “no ifs, no buts,” ....We expect our Prime Minister to keep his promise...."
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow makes guarded, carefully worded, offers to meet Airports Commission conditions for 3rd runway
Heathrow knows it has a difficult task in persuading the government that it can actually meet the (unchallenging) conditions put on its runway plans by the Airports Commission. Now John Holland-Kaye has written to David Cameron, setting out how Heathrow hopes to meet some conditions. They make out they will even exceed the conditions, in some cases. On Night flights, they say they will introduce a "legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens." [Note, scheduled - not late arrivals etc]. And they will "support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured." [ie. full of caveats]. They dodge the issue of agreeing not to build a 4th runway, saying if the government makes a commitment in Parliament not to expand Heathrow further, then Heathrow will "Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway.." [Words carefully chosen]. On noise and respite, Heathrow say "We will ensure there will be some respite for everyone living under the final flight path by using advances in navigational technology. We will consult and provide options on our proposals to alternate use of the runways." [ie carefully chosen words, avoiding giving much away].
Click here to view full story...
Surprise! None of the Transport Select Committee members, wanting rapid Heathrow decision, live anywhere affected by a vast airport
"Colnbrook Views" has pointed out that, while the Commons Transport Select Committee is very eager to get a new runway built at Heathrow as soon as possible, none of its members live anywhere at all near London. The Committee have asked the government to make a rapid decision, to back a Heathrow runway, apparently not having much grasp of the extent of the environmental (or social, or even economic) problems involved. Their attitude is that: "We accept that the package of measures to mitigate environmental impacts needs careful consideration and further work. We do not accept that all of this needs to be done before a decision is taken on location. In fact a decision on location would give more focus and impetus to this work." ie. decide first. - see if the problems can be sorted out afterwards. None of the MPs on the Committee themselves experience the problems of living near an airport of the scale of Heathrow. The Chair is Louise Ellman, the MP for Liverpool. The constituencies of the others are: Stoke on Trent South; North Tyneside; Lincoln; Glasgow South; Fylde; Bexhill and Battle; Colchester; Milton Keynes South; Blackley and Broughton; Cleethorpes. Perhaps if the problems facing the Heathrow Villages were in any of these constituencies, they might not be so gung-ho?
Click here to view full story...
Proposal at Chicago O’Hare airport to share night flights, on a weekly rota, between runways
Chicago O'Hare airport is huge, with 8 runways. Some are parallel east-west, and some are diagonal and as new runways were built, older ones were closed. This has meant extra plane noise for thousands of residents in various parts of the Chicago area, and there have been huge protests. Night noise has been a particular problem, and residents have been fighting for less noise over them at night, for several years. Now the airport has a revised night runway plan, that means sharing the noise around. There will now be a rota, using different runways at night (considered to be 10.50pm to 5.25am) for week-long periods, with the whole schedule repeated after 12 weeks. That would create a some guarantee of weeks with no noise for most areas, and a fairly predictable calendar of when certain runways would absorb what city experts estimated would be 45 arrivals and 35 departures each night. There will be some winners, and some losers in this process. “Everyone gets some benefit ... Everyone gets some pain.’’ It is estimated that perhaps almost 68,000 Chicago area residents might get less noise. There will be a vote (7th May) on whether to forward the plan to the FAAfor final sign-off on a six-month test.
Click here to view full story...
Edinburgh campaign, SEAT, shows why cutting Scottish APD risks harming people’s health and the environment
The community campaign, SEAT (Stop Edinburgh Airspace Trial) has set out why it is opposed to the Scottish Government intention to cut APD by 50%. Edinburgh airport is delighted that APD might be reduced, so increasing demand for more flights (= more profit). But those badly affected by aircraft noise are very concerned about the increase in the problems they suffer. Air Passenger Duty is needed, to at least partly make up for the tax breaks the aviation industry benefits from by paying no VAT, and no fuel duty. There is no VAT on purchase or servicing of aircraft. Many airports are owned by off-shore corporations, that pay minimal (or no) UK company taxed. Flying is already artificially cheap, and even cheaper, if the only tax is halved. While the Scottish government supports high speed rail links to London, which would cut carbon emissions if rail is used instead of air, they also aim to increase the number of flights, by cutting APD. That means significantly higher Scottish CO2 emissions. SEAT speaks up for people negatively impacted by aviation. The impacts on health from plane noise are now well known, and they are a cost to society. SEAT says cutting APD is unwise, and means putting profit for big business before people's health, or the environment.
Click here to view full story...
NATS suggests change to “stacking” system, with priority given to the largest planes with transfer passengers
NATS have proposed a different method by which planes queue to land, in order to get even more flights safely using crowded UK airspace. At present, if planes arrive early and have to wait for a landing slot, they enter a stack about 10 nautical miles wide and spiral downwards from about 11,000 feet till called in to land, leaving the stack at around 7,000 feet. The plan would be for planes to circle at about 13,000 feet or more, in a stack about 20 - 25 nautical miles wide, and be called off that, to come in to land. The plan is also to give planes with more passengers, and with more transfer passengers priority, if the airline requests this, so they land earlier - than those without transfer passengers. Currently they get landing slots on a first come, first served basis. NATS says there are around 2.4 million UK flights now, but they expect this number to rise to 3 million in 15 years, and they need to accommodate them all. Without the changes there might be delays. NATS also suggest use of more flight routes, giving the potential for noise to be shared out. However, this means people not currently overflown being affected for the first time, and would significantly increase the numbers affected. There will be a DfT consultation on elements of aircraft noise policy and airspace change, probably in the 2nd half of 2016.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick Chairman confirms no public disclosure of flight paths until after the public consultation of the Gatwick Arrivals Review closes
Arrivals Review team member, Graham Lake, and Sir Roy McNulty, Chairman of Gatwick, confirmed that ‘mapping’ of the proposed flight path routes proposed by the Review will not be disclosed until after the public consultation closes (ends 16th May). This statement was made at the Gatwick Arrivals Review community meeting on 26th April. There is concern that without any input from affected communities or other organisations, it will only be NATS and Gatwick that have any say over how the arrivals flight paths are set. Many residents affected by Gatwick aircraft noise have little trust in the airport, after being let down. But they are being asked to comment on the consultation without vital information. Gatwick said in 2012 that if the impact of PRNAV routes was too "detrimental", then they should be withdrawn. However, there is no indication this is being followed. People living near the airport and already getting the noise of narrow departure routes are concerned that they may also get the noise from narrow approach routes. The CAA has confirmed that there is nothing in the Arrivals Review to stop arriving flights joining the final approach (the ILS) continuing to be placed in narrow ‘swathes’, as they are now. Narrowing the swathes for arrivals and departures enables more planes to use the runway per unit time.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow anti-3rd runway campaigners play aircraft noise in Central London to mark International Noise Awareness Day
Marking International Noise Awareness Day, Heathrow anti-third runway campaigners brought aircraft noise to the streets of Central London to illustrate the fact that London is the most overflown city in Europe. Campaigners from a range of organisations accompanied a lorry - blaring out loud aircraft noise through loudspeakers - at around the level people experience under the approach flight path - outside Europe House in Smith Square. This was to highlight the fact that already 28% of the people who are affected by aircraft noise right across Europe live under the Heathrow flight paths. After Smith Square, the lorry headed off back towards Heathrow, blaring its noise, approximately along the course of the arrivals flight path for a the new northern runway that Heathrow wants. European Commission’s figures show that over 725,000 people (see source and fact check below) are impacted by noise from Heathrow flights and another 25,000 by flights using London City airport. That is nearly a third of all people affected by aircraft noise right across Europe. John Stewart, the chair of HACAN, said that on noise grounds alone a new runway at Heathrow should be ruled out. Adding an extra 250,000 Heathrow flights per year is not a reasonable proposition.