Latest News
AirportWatch on 
@AirportWatch
Summaries of, and links to, the latest aviation news stories appear below. News is archived into topics
For a daily compilation of UK articles on national and regional transport issues, see Transportinfo.org.uk | For more stories about specific airports see Aviation Environment Federation Transport & Environment Anna Aero TravelMole Press releases from CAA IATA BA Ryanair easyJet Jet2.com For climate change ECEEE news and Guardian Climate and NoAA monthly analysisCheck Hansard for reports on Parliament |
 |
Latest news stories:
WTO rules Boeing’s state subsidies (that don’t need to be repaid) are illegal
The WTO has ordered the US to withdraw illegal state tax breaks for American company Boeing within 3 months, giving rival Airbus the latest victory in a 12 year battle over government support for the world’s two biggest plane makers. The World Trade Organisation says a tax break granted by the state of Washington to Boeing in 2013, to ensure it produced its newest long-range jet there, was a prohibited subsidy. The WTO rarely defines a subsidy as “prohibited” as this is a very clear breach of its rules. In mid September, the WTO found that the EU had was also illegally subsidising Airbus in Europe. Both companies have benefited by billions of $s or €s over the past years, to battle against each other to sell more planes. In 2011 the WTO said both had received huge amounts of unlawful assistance - from taxpayers. Now the EU trade commissioner says Boeing is in line to receive another $5.7bn, provided by Washington state, between 2024 and 2040. Airbus says this would have covered most of the cost of developing Boeing’s 777X twin aisle aircraft, due to enter service in 2020. The EU wants the subsidy ended immediately. The situation is complicated, and the battles are likely to continue. Airbus says: "Unlike the loans to Airbus – the interest rates of which were considered in the WTO dispute against the European Union – Boeing plans no repayment of any kind.”
Click here to view full story...
Research confirms traffic pollution responsible for triggering asthma in previously healthy children
Researchers at Leeds University have found that traffic pollution is responsible for previously healthy children developing asthma. The huge study, looking at about a million children, found that black carbon — oily soot particles emitted by diesel engines — is the main cause, with NO2 and particulates. All are emitted by road vehicles. It is already known that higher levels of air pollution trigger asthma attacks in people who already have it, but the role of traffic pollution in initiating the condition in healthy children had not been confirmed before. A large number of schools in the UK are in areas with air quality below EU standards. The pollutants attack the lining of children’s lungs, initiating an inflammatory reaction that leads to asthma. Once triggered, the asthma reaction can happen again and again, causing numerous attacks through a person’s life. The research combined data from 41 epidemiological studies from countries including England, Holland, Germany, Sweden and the US. There are around 1.1m children in the UK with asthma, a near-threefold rise over the past 60 years. Also around 4.3m adults. On average 3 people die each day from it and costs the NHS about £1 billion per year. Long-term exposure to air pollution in childhood is known to stunt lung growth and brain development. The asthma findings will cause further concerns about permitting increases in local air pollution, eg, with a 3rd Heathrow runway, or the government’s £11bn road-expansion programme.
Click here to view full story...
Edinburgh airport produces summary of airspace change consultation responses – majority negative
Edinburgh airport's initial findings into the letsgofurther consultation (on airspace change to create new flight paths across a wide swathe of East Central Scotland) are out. There was an overwhelming rejection of their plans to change flight paths. They are refusing to publish the comments in full. Local campaign, Edinburgh Airport Watch comments: "While it is unclear what criteria the airport has used to categorise the responses as Positive, Neutral or Negative, it is obvious from the airport’s own reckoning that the majority of responders were against the proposals to change the airspace. The initial consultation documents contained little detail, yet people across the piece have given an emphatic thumbs down to any further change to the airspace with 70% of Community Councils commenting negatively." ... Since the airport’s disastrous TUTUR trial in 2015, hundreds of thousands of people have woken up to find themselves suddenly and without warning living under a busy and disruptive flight path - with no consultation. ... "We are struck by the number of comments from people clearly stating the importance to them of tranquility." ..."Before embarking on any more proposals for further change, we call on the airport to reverse the changes it has already made to the airspace since 2015 and enter into a proper dialog with those Communities whose lives have been turned upside down by their actions so far."
Click here to view full story...
NATS gets planes to fly slightly slower in order to cut time waiting in Heathrow stacks
The amount of time aircraft spend in holding stacks before landing at Heathrow have been cut very slightly, due to planes being required to slow down a bit on their way towards London - instead of flying fast, and then having to stack. The reduction in stacking has been due to XMAN – or cross-border arrivals management – which involves NATS coordinating with its counterparts in France, the Netherlands and Ireland to slow inbound aircraft down from 350 miles away, when delays over London begin to build. As a result aircraft don’t land any later, but do spend less time circling in the holds. (They also burn a bit less fuel by flying a bit less fast). They are also using Time Based Separation to cut headwind delays. The new improvements have resulted in about one minute less per plane, which NATS says is about 3,000 hours per year. (That comes to 180,000 planes stacking per year, out of the total of about 235,000 planes arriving into Heathrow in total in 2015 - when there were around 472,000 total air transport movements at Heathrow). NATS says average holding times were about 8.5 minutes at the beginning of 2014, with that figure now just over 7.5 minutes and falling to 6.5 minutes in August 2016. NATS also says shorting stacking results in less noise - which might be true, though planes will still leave the stack at 7,000 feet. Those entering the stack, up to 14.000 feet, cause less noise on the ground.
Click here to view full story...
Government abandoning commitments to restrict aviation CO2 risks UK failure on carbon cap in Climate Change Act
Plans to build a third Heathrow runway have suffered a setback after the government’s official climate advisers, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) warned ministers the project risked blowing a hole in the UK’s legally binding carbon targets. Lord Deben, chairman of the CCC, wrote to Greg Clark at BEIS to raise “concerns” about the plans. Lord Deben said the central business case ministers made in October when they agreed to back a 3rd Heathrow runway would mean greenhouse gas emissions from aviation were about 15% higher than their target level by 2050. This cap is 37.5MtCO2, which is the level of UK aviation emissions in 2005. The CCC has repeatedly said that aviation emissions should stay at 2005 levels until 2050 if the legally binding UK targets are to be met. If aviation is allowed to miss, by 15%, its already very generous allowance, this would necessitate CO2 cuts from all other sectors to be 85% of their 1990 level by 2050. Lord Deben said that would require “significantly more action”to slash carbon pollution from other sectors, which is likely to be impossible. Doug Parr, chief scientist of Greenpeace, said: “What ministers know full well but don’t want to admit is that a third runway means other sectors of the economy will have to bear the costs of further carbon cuts, whether it’s regional airports or the manufacturing and steel industries. ... it’s time ministers came clean about it with those concerned and the British public.”
Click here to view full story...
Mayor Sadiq Khan warns Waterloo to Heathrow rail link, needed to get airport passengers off the roads, may be impractical
Sadiq Khan has welcomed the potential for direct train services from Waterloo to Heathrow Airport but warned that there may not be enough capacity on the rail network for such a service to be introduced. The Mayor said: "While the potential for a new connection between Heathrow and Waterloo is welcome, the proposals face a serious capacity challenge. Rail lines between Windsor and Waterloo are severely constrained and the multiple level crossings on the route limit the ability to accommodate additional trains. Any new airport service cannot be at the expense of existing and planned services or the network's ability to meet forecast growth in background demand. If the Government is to take forward a third runway at Heathrow airport, it needs to demonstrate that there is both the rail connectivity and capacity to enable expansion and achieve the airport's stated aspiration of a zero increase in passenger and staff highway trips. The Southern Rail Access proposals, reliant on the rail lines between Windsor and Waterloo, cannot provide the capacity to support an expanded Heathrow." ... "While the Airports Commission identified Southern Rail Access as the only rail scheme required for Heathrow expansion, it emerged last month that the Government now deems no new rail infrastructure essential for an expanded Heathrow. Such an approach is deeply concerning and risks worsening congestion on the roads and a further deterioration of air quality around Heathrow."
Click here to view full story...
Government backed Heathrow 3rd runway ‘using old air pollution data’
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has admitted the Government backed a 3rd runway at Heathrow without fully understanding the implications of ground-breaking new evidence on vehicle emission standards. Ministers insist Heathrow can expand within EU limits on air pollution, which are currently being widely breached in the capital. But a study for the Government, supporting its third runway decision, was not based on the latest international analysis by experts, which showed emissions from some diesel vehicles are worse than previously claimed. Mr Grayling is to appear before the EAC on 30th November to give evidence on Heathrow and its environmental issues. In a letter to the Environmental Audit Cttee (EAC), Mr Grayling said: “Further work is needed to understand the implications of this evidence. ... But our initial assessment suggests that revised forecasts would be likely to be within the range of scenarios already considered by our re-analysis [on air quality].” However, EAC chairwoman Mary Creagh said: “We will want to hear from the minister how the Government can meet air quality standards given what we now know about real-world emissions, which are higher than used in the Government’s business case [for a third runway]. We are also concerned that the plans for low-emission vehicle uptake and improvements in public transport are over-ambitious.”
Click here to view full story...
No change to APD in the Autumn Statement – it remains at £13 for European short-haul return trips
Despite the endless calls, as usual, for cuts in Air Passenger Duty that happen before any budget statement, there is no change in the Autumn Statement to levels of APD - other than a slow annual rise in line with inflation, as has already been happening. The level for standard rate return fares anywhere in Europe is £13 now, and will be £13 next year. The level for longer flights (anything of over 2,000 miles) will be £75 from 1st April 2017, while it is £73 now. There is no APD for children aged under 16. The amount the Treasury expects to get in from APD is around £3.3 billion each year 2017/ 2018 (but that ignores the estimate of somewhere around £10 billion per year that is not paid in, as aviation pays no VAT or fuel duty). In addition the government is to pay £20 million "for the development of alternative aviation and heavy goods vehicle fuels" by 2020/21. Philip Hammond also said that "The Chief Secretary to the Treasury [The Rt Hon David Gauke MP] will chair a new ministerial group that will oversee the delivery of priority infrastructure projects." This may be because infrastructure is cross departmental, and Ministers from individual departments will have to agree to commit funds (a Minister has responsibility to Parliament for their departmental budget approved by Treasury).
Click here to view full story...
Dr Tania Mathias debate in Parliament on Heathrow – hoping in vain for government assurances on air pollution
Dr Tania Mathias, Conservative MP for Twickenham, secured a debate on Heathrow and its air pollution problem. She made persuasive and important points, and received only inadequate responses from John Hayes, the Minister of State, DfT. A few quotes are copied here: ..."the WHO has said that for PM2.5 “no threshold has been identified below which no damage to health is observed.”... "within just over a week of the Government being found guilty in the courts of not having an adequate plan to address air quality, they decided to approve Heathrow expansion. The expansion will involve perhaps 50% more planes. ... with nearly 250,000 more flights planned, there will be thousands more passengers and staff, and they will not be walking to and from Heathrow airport." ... "£799 million will be spent on car parks at an expanded Heathrow.".. My question to the Minister is simple: if the Government support Heathrow expansion, how will they get air quality within legal targets? I have asked two Prime Ministers, two Secretaries of State for Transport and a Minister from DEFRA how they can expand Heathrow airport without increasing air pollution. Thus far, I have been assured that it will happen, but I have not been told how. I hope that today, at the 6th time of asking, I will be told." [She was not].
Click here to view full story...
Rob Hopkins blog: Can we learn to embrace a future of less flying?
Rob Hopkins, founder of the Transition Movement, reports in a blog about teaching a class at a French university, looking at how life will be in 2035. He brought the discussion onto flying, and the extent to which it would, or wouldn’t, be possible in 2035. This group of young students consider themselves to be global citizens. Many of them are international students, thinking nothing of flying home in the holidays, holidaying elsewhere, taking work placements on the other side of the world. Flying regularly is considered as everyday as eating and breathing. Rob considered the discussion under the framework of the "5 stages of grief", with first denial, then anger, bargaining and then depression. (The final stage would be acceptance). Rob quotes George Monbiot saying we need to be cutting aviation, not expanding it and "It’s not a question of whether we open a new runway at Heathrow, rather which of the 2 existing ones we close, and that’s just for starters." On the problem of love miles, flying across the world for weddings etc, Rob comments that this creates the problem where “we find two valid moral codes in irreconcilable antagonism”...."And what’s the moral response when a friend starts to tell of their wonderful 2 week break on the beaches of Phuket (3.16 tonnes of CO2)? We now accept it’s ok to express our disapproval if, for example, someone were to smoke close to our baby .... but to question flying remains hugely socially delicate."
Click here to view full story...
Should society be questioning the ethics or wisdom of dirt cheap, or “free” flights by Ryanair etc?
The low cost of air travel encourages extra demand, which not only increases people's carbon footprint, but also raises the amount that Brits spend abroad - known as the tourism deficit (the difference between the amount UK residents spend on trips abroad, over what residents abroad spend on trips to the UK). The deficit was £16.9 billion in 2015. Air travel is so cheap because it is not charged VAT and there is no fuel duty. The only tax is Air Passenger Duty, that is £13 for any return fight to a European country, and free for children. Fearing loss of profit due to Brexit and the lower value of the £ against other currencies, Ryanair is making ever more crazy offers of cut prices. To try to keep passenger numbers up, he hopes to offer "free" flights in due course. The catch would be that Ryanair would want to get a share in retail income (shopping and car parking at airports), so there would be profit per passenger. This dotty system, of charging so little for something that emits so much carbon, and sucks money out of the UK, is something society should take a long, hard look at. Is it really desirable, looking towards the longer term, that flying is so dirt cheap? And that the aviation sector is not included in either the UK's carbon targets, nor has a proper global mechanism to deal with rapidly rising CO2 from the sector?
Click here to view full story...
Walsh says Heathrow charges rule out more UK domestic links, and he will not be told where to fly
Chris Grayling and the DfT were eager to point out how a 3rd Heathrow runway would increase links to the regions, and increase the number of routes from Heathrow from 8 now to 14 in future. And these links might have to be ensured by payments. Heathrow, in trying to persuade government this was possible, said it would create a new £10m Route Development Fund. The Airports Commission said there should be a Public Service Obligations on an airport-to-airport basis, to encourage these unprofitable routes. Now Willie Walsh has confirmed that there is “zero chance” of British Airways operating any new domestic flights from an expanded Heathrow. He will not be told, by government or an airport, where to fly. He says the high landing charges, inevitable to pay for the expansion, made it impossible to deliver an increase in domestic air links. He would refuse to run these links even if Holland-Kaye “begs me to do it” because it would not be profitable. He said Heathrow was “fat, dumb and happy” and that it attracted large numbers of airlines but that many failed to make a profit. He also said with a 3rd runway, Heathrow would price out most airlines. Holland-Kaye is hoping he can get easyJet, Flybe and BMI Regional to take on potential regional routes. Mr Walsh said the current charge of £40 for a return trip would double to £80 per passenger with a new runway.
Click here to view full story...
Willie Walsh not happy IAG/BA HQ to be demolished for 3rd runway (and IAG will partly have to pay)
This is not April Fools news. Willie Walsh has only learned, from looking at an Airports Commission map, that the head offices of BA are to be demolished to make way for the Heathrow 3rd runway. Walsh is CEO of IAG, which owns British Airways - and BA has more than half the flights using Heathrow. The head office of both IAG and BA is at Waterside, in Harmondsworth - and would be under the 3rd runway. Walsh said he received no formal warning of the proposed demolition of his headquarters, which only opened in 1998 at a cost of £200 million and sits in a 115-hectare (280-acre) manmade park. Walsh said the HQ was “a fantastic environmental achievement on our part”. Walsh’s grievance over his doomed HQ has been compounded by the prospect of being effectively charged for the compensation bill. IAG will receive compensation, but this will largely come from charges to airlines - so IAG would largely have to compensate itself. The scale of increased charges to airlines, because of the cost of building the new runway, terminal etc, will be determined by the CAA. Walsh said: “That compensation goes into the regulatory asset base and we end up paying 56% of that. We can’t have a situation where I end up paying for the destruction of my own head office.” This office fiasco may have contributed to Wash's antipathy to Heathrow's plans. At the recent AOA conference he described Heathrow as “fat, dumb and happy.” at the Airport Operators Association conference in London.
Click here to view full story...
Chairman of CCC writes to BEIS to query why DfT appears to no longer use the 37.5MtCO2 cap for UK aviation
The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has been giving the UK government the advice, since 2009 (when government was trying to get a 3rd Heathrow runway) that UK aviation should emit no more CO2 than its level in 2005 (which was 37.5MtCO2) per year by 2050. This has tacitly been accepted by government since then. But the DfT "sensitivities" document put out on 25th October, said that this cap on UK aviation carbon was "unrealistic" and its assessments were only now looking at the carbon traded option. That means UK aviation CO2 well above the target. The Chairman of the CCC, Lord Deben, has now written to Greg Clark, Sec of State at BEIS (now in charge of UK carbon emissions, since DECC was scrapped) to point out that the DfT seems to no longer see the constraint of 37.5MtCO2 as being important, and its forecasts and business assumptions are all now based on higher CO2 emissions by UK aviation. Lord Deben says: “If emissions from aviation are now anticipated to be higher than 2005 levels, then all other sectors would have to prepare for correspondingly higher emissions reductions in 2050.” Even if UK aviation stuck at 37.5Mt CO2 by 2050, this would mean “an 85% reduction in emissions in all other sectors”. The CCC does not have confidence that cuts of over 85% could be made. That implies the UK would miss its legally binding CO2 target.
Click here to view full story...
High court gives ministers deadline of April for draft of tougher air pollution plan and final by 31st July 2017
On 2nd November, environmental lawyers ClientEarth inflicted a humiliating legal defeat on the UK government (the 2nd in 18 months) when the high court ruled that DEFRA plans to tackle illegal levels of air pollution in many parts of the UK were unlawful. The court gave the government 7 days to agree on the next steps, but it rejected the proposal from ClientEarth for an 8 month timetable for the improvements, saying it needed till September 2017. Now the high court judge, Mr Justice Garnham, has ruled that DEFRA must must publish a stronger air quality draft plan by 24th April 2017 and a final one by 31st July 2017. The judge also ordered the government to publish the data on which it will base its new plan. In his judgement on 2nd, the judge said it was “remarkable” that ministers knew they were using over-optimistic pollution modelling, based on flawed lab tests of diesel vehicles rather than actual emissions on the road, but proceeded anyway. He also ruled that ClientEarth can go back to court if it deems the government’s draft plan, due in April 2017, is once again not good enough to cut pollution rapidly. Alan Andrews, ClientEarth’s air quality lawyer, said: “We will be watching on behalf of everyone living in the UK and will return to court if the government is failing.” ClientEarth believes measure such as a diesel scrappage scheme and other measures that would cost money, that the Treasury has been unwilling to approve.
Click here to view full story...
Reduction in business rates for Heathrow means it will pay about £10 million less per year for next 5 years
The revaluation of business properties usually happens every 5 years but was controversially delayed by 2 years as a result of the economic downturn. The last revaluation was 1st April 2010 based on the property market at 1st April 2008.It is just a matter of weeks since the Government adjusted the Rateable Values of every business property in England and Wales to reflect changes in the property market. New Rateable Values for tens of thousands of businesses in England and Wales were announced in September, based on values on 1st April 2015. These values will be used to determine the basis of the tax calculation for rates next April and for the next 5 years. Properties that have out-performed equivalent ones will pay more, and those whose properties have underperformed can expect to see their bills fall. While Heathrow remains the highest payer of business rates in the country, its bill is to fall. The Government reduced its property assessment by £32.5 million - from £247.5m to £215 million. On average over the next 5 years, Heathrow will probably pay £118.02 million per year in business rates bills, compared to £127.96m in the previous List; a 5 year saving of £49.7 million. There has been a further £6.49m reduction in property tax assessments at two cargo centres at Heathrow Airport too.
Click here to view full story...
Firms behind Berlin Brandenburg airport offered million-€ bonuses if it is ready by July 2017 (6 years late)
The bosses of Berlin’s new Brandenburg airport have been criticised for offering bonuses to the companies building the long-delayed and over-budget project. Construction companies were being offered financial incentives to speed up their work on the building so that it can be opened by the end of 2017. They will only be paid if work is finished by July 2017. The potential bonuses may add up to around €10 million. Each construction company could receive around €1 million. Berlin Brandenburg airport was meant to open in 2011, but costs have risen from an original projection of €2.5 billion to €6.4 billion. The project has had a catalogue of very serious problems, involving partial rebuilding. A key problem was the fire detection systems, which did not meet national fire safety standards There has also been scandal, and corruption. The plans for bonuses have been criticised by members of the Berlin Senate and on social media, news of the bonuses was met with ridicule. Some consider it is more likely the airport would only be ready in 2018.
Click here to view full story...
Analysis by Carbon Brief: Aviation to consume half of UK’s 1.5C carbon budget by 2050
The UK aviation's greenhouse gas emissions could consume around half the carbon budget available to the UK in 2050, even if the sector’s emissions growth is constrained. An assessment by Carbon Brief shows that even with no new runway, the anticipated demand for air travel - from DfT forecasts - could mean UK aviation (flights taking off from UK airports) could be 47 MtCO2e by 2050. With a new runway, the emissions could be as much as 51 MtCO2e in 2050. The Paris climate agreement means the UK must raise its existing climate ambition. The UK's current legislated target, to limit global temperature rise to below 2 degrees C, is to cut CO2 emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. ie. from 800 MtCO2 per year to 160 MtCO2 per year. To keep below 1.5 degrees C the reduction in CO2 would be around 91% (86 - 96%) below the 1990 level, ie. 72 MtCO2 per year for the UK. Therefore if UK aviation emitted 37.5 MtCO2 per year by 2050 would be about 52% of the UK's carbon limit of 72 MtCO2 for a 1.5C global target, or about 23.4% of the UK's carbon limit of about 160 MtCO2 for a 2C global target. And if instead of sticking to the 37.5 MtCO2 limit (which the DfT now says is "unrealistic")* UK aviation emitted 51 MtCO2 by 2050 that would be about 71% of the UK's carbon limit of 72 MtCO2 for a 1.5C global target, or about 32% of the UK's carbon limit of about 160 MtCO2 by 2050 for a 2C global target.
Click here to view full story...
Up-beat and determined rally organised by Zac Goldsmith, in Richmond, against Heathrow 3rd runway
In addition to the protest against a 3rd runway near Heathrow, with two sections of nearby roads closed by activists linked together with arm locks, lying on the ground, there was also an entirely law abiding protest near Heathrow. Earlier in the day there was a large, energetic and very positive rally in Richmond, organised by Zac Goldsmith - as part of his re-election campaign. Zac had always said that if the government backed a 3rd runway, we would resign. As soon as they did, he did - keeping his word to his electorate. The by-election was caused by the Heathrow issue, and that is what Zac intends to be returned to Parliament on. The LibDems want to get a 2nd MP in parliament, and so are hoping the by-election will instead be largely about Brexit. The rally was compered (brilliantly) by Giles Brandreth, and addressed by numerous well informed speakers, including the Leaders of the 4 councils now embarking on legal action against the government on the runway decision, and the ex-President of the Maldives, Mohammed Nasheed, as well as spokespeople from the Richmond Heathrow campaign, Teddington Action Group, Stop Heathrow Expansion, and Chiswick residents. It was made very clear that Zac has the necessary years of political experience as an MP to take this issue back to Parliament, get change, and ensure the runway is opposed - in every way. Everyone who spoke was utterly determined that, with sufficient work and concerted, united opposition over the coming years, the highly unsustainable and damaging plan for a 3rd runway at Heathrow will be blocked.
Click here to view full story...
15 people arrested in protest against proposed 3rd runway, blocking two roads close to Heathrow
In addition to a rally held on Richmond Green, organised by Zac Goldsmith, against the planned 3rd Heathrow runway there were two other protests near Heathrow. Zac's rally had a host of speakers, including the leaders of the four councils bringing a legal challenge to the government, and the ex-President of the Maldives - with the aim of ensuring Zac is returned to Parliament in the by-election on 1st December. A short while later, there was an action by climate protesters, organised by RisingUp! close to Heathrow itself. They got onto the M4 spur road to the airport at a traffic lights when the traffic had stopped. Within seconds five had locked themselves together with arm locks, blocking the road. Another Heathrow road, the East Ramp, was also blocked, for a short time, with some road trips slightly delayed, but no flights were affected. Fifteen arrests were made for obstructing the highway or public order offences. Many others protested, though without blocking a road. A spokesman for Rising Up! said: "The government's decisions to expand Heathrow, despite mass opposition from local residents and the fact that doing so is incompatible with the UK's own laws on climate change, leaves us with no morally acceptable option but to resist." One of the protesters taking part in the demonstration, Genny Scherer, 70, said: “It's one or the other: new runways or a safe climate. I want my nephews and nieces to grow up in a safe climate, just like I was able to.”
Click here to view full story...
Environmental Audit Cttee finds Treasury failing to take long-term environmental costs into account
The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) has done an investigation into the role of the Treasury in relation to sustainable development and environmental protection. The EAC is calling for the Treasury to "green-check" all its decisions, after its major investigation found that the Treasury puts short term priorities over long term sustainability – potentially increasing costs to the economy in the future. [The Treasury has been a key promoter of a new south east runway, with Treasury staff helping the Airports Commission.] EAC Chair, Mary Creagh, said: "The Treasury is highly influential and uniquely placed to ensure the whole of Government works to promote sustainability. But we have seen considerable evidence that it fails to do this.The Treasury tends not to take full account of the long term environmental costs and benefits of decisions which would reduce costs for taxpayers and consumers in the long run. On the carbon capture and storage competition and zero carbon homes we saw the Treasury riding roughshod over departments, cancelling long-established environmental programmes at short notice with no consultation, costing businesses and the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds. With a week to go until the next Autumn Statement, we hope our inquiry will be a wake-up call to the Treasury."
Click here to view full story...
Councils and campaigners take first step towards legal challenge against government support for Heathrow runway
Solicitors Harrison Grant acting on behalf of Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead Councils, together with Greenpeace and a Hillingdon resident have (17th November) sent a letter, under the Judicial Review Pre-Action Protocol, to the Secretary of State for Transport. The letter gives the Government a period of 14 days in which to withdraw its decision, issued on the 25 October to support a 3rd runway at Heathrow. If it fails to do so, judicial review proceedings will be commenced in the High Court, without further notice to the Government, on the basis that the Government's approach to air quality and noise is unlawful and also that it has failed to carry out a fair and lawful consultation exercise prior to issuing its decision. The 33 page pre-action letter sets out comprehensive grounds for legal challenge, drawing on a broad range of statute and legal precedent, as well as highlighting the many promises and statements made by senior politicians confirming that the third runway would not be built. The move comes shortly after the Government’s air quality plans were overturned in the High Court, putting ministers under greater pressure to reduce illegal levels of air pollution in places like Heathrow. The latest court ruling rejected the current government plans to tackle emissions as inadequate and based on over optimistic assumptions.
Click here to view full story...
Passenger plane approaching Heathrow ‘in near-miss with drone 650ft to the east of the Shard’
A passenger plane flying near the Shard had a "very near-miss" with a drone as it approached Heathrow Airport, an official report has revealed. The drone, described as black and about 50cm (20in) wide, was spotted out of the right flight deck window at about 12.45pm on July 18, the UK Airprox Board (UKAB) report into the incident said. The A320 aircraft, which was flying at an altitude of 4,900ft near to the Shard skyscraper in central London, "narrowly avoided" colliding with the drone, according to the report. The crew said the drone had "probably" passed above the right wing and the horizontal stabiliser, which is found on the tail of the plane. The UK Airprox Board said the account given of the incident "portrayed a situation where a collision had only been narrowly avoided and chance had played a major part". It deemed the incident to be in the most serious category of risk and said the drone operator had not been traced. Earlier on 17th April 2016 a British Airways flight from Geneva was possibly hit by a drone as it approached Heathrow (in the Richmond area) at about 12:50pm on Sunday 17th. The plane was an Airbus A320, with 132 passengers and five crew on board, that landed safely. The AAIB investigation was closed at the end of April, for lack of evidence. It is thought this may not have been a hit by a drone.
Click here to view full story...
Sadiq Khan backs councils’ legal action against Heathrow 3rd runway – and TfL will offer help
Sadiq Khan has announced at Mayor's Question Time that he was officially supporting legal action against a 3rd Heathrow runway. He has instructed Transport for London (TfL) to help 4 local councils (Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead) and Greenpeace, which are together bringing the case against expansion. The involvement of TfL was met with delight from many Assembly Members. TfL is expected to be named as an “interested party” in the action. It is believed that the intervention of TfL will strengthen the case of the local authorities' challenge. In the previous Mayor's Question Time, Mr Khan said he wasn't able answer the question on legal action until the government decision had been made. It was made on 25th October. Though Sadiq Khan had in the past backed a Heathrow runway, he changed his mind in 2015 when the extent of the noise and air pollution impacts became clear. He has now said, addressing the full London Assembly: "I promised I wouldn’t just stand by and see hundreds of thousands suffer from the additional noise and air pollution a third runway would cause. That’s why I’ve directed TfL to provide their expert advice and assistance to support" the councils.. "and why I will be ready for us to play an active role in the action if required.” TfL has the most expertise on matters relating to impacts of Heathrow expansion on London's transport network.
Click here to view full story...
easyJet is planning to set up a separate airline in Europe, to avoid Brexit risks in UK
EasyJet reported slightly lower profits in the year to September. Their results state: "As a result of the UK’s referendum vote to leave the European Union, easyJet plans to establish an Air Operator Certificate (AOC) in another EU member state. This will secure the flying rights of the 30% of our network that remains wholly within and between EU states, excluding the UK.....The primary driver of the cost is the re-registering of aircraft in an EU AOC jurisdiction." The BBC reported that Carolyn McCall "also confirmed that Easyjet is in the process of setting up a separate airline based on the European mainland, in readiness for when the UK leaves the EU. Current EU flying rights might have to be renegotiated and the new company would ensure Easyjet could operate within the EU." She said they don't have the luxury of waiting to see what happens with Brexit, but there was no question of job cuts or moving from the current headquarters at Luton. It was about registering aircraft and "securing flying rights." Though easyJet already has a Swiss subsidiary, Easyjet itself will become the entity inside the EU with the union. "The British airline will become the subsidiary, with the existing UK airline operating certificate ring-fenced, so that it remains majority-owned by British shareholders."
Click here to view full story...
BATA changes its name to “Airlines UK” – to lobby ever more effectively for benefits to airlines
The British Air Transport Association (BATA) has changed its name to "Airlines UK - the association of UK airlines". It is the trade body for UK-registered airlines, and they say they "work with governments, regulators and legislators to promote the interests of UK airlines, and with organisations across the sector to encourage long-term and sustainable growth in aviation." ..."We formulate opinions and engage with stakeholders on a number of issues, including airport capacity, taxation, sustainable aviation, disruptive passengers and regulation and consumer protection. We are proud members of the Sustainable Aviation, A Fair Tax on Flying and The Sky’s the Limit industry campaigns." In other words, they lobby like crazy with their public relations team for more, cheaper flying and they have repeatedly lobbied for lower Air Passenger Duty. Back in January a group calling itself “Airlines for Europe” (A4E) was set up, consisting of Europe’s 5 largest airline groups – Air France KLM, easyJet, IAG, Lufthansa Group, and Ryanair. It wants to “represent the interests of its members when dealing with the EU institutions, international organisations and national governments on European aviation issues.” What that means is that it wants to lobby against anything that does not lower air fares, or increase airline profits. This was based on the group “Airlines for America” (A4A) which lobbies/advocates Congress and the Administration on behalf of its member airlines.
Click here to view full story...
Autumn financial statement coming soon – so it is time for the regular industry lobby against APD ….
Airlines are, yet again, trying to put pressure on the Chancellor to cut rates of Air Passenger Duty, so flights are cheaper, more people fly (and the airlines make more money). They do this every time there is a budget or financial statement, with monotonous regularity. The airlines hope to persuade the government that aviation should be virtually untaxed, and always conveniently ignore the reason for APD - that air travel pays no VAT and no fuel duty. The Treasury has reiterated many times that this is the reason APD is charged. More flights are taken by British people spending leisure time abroad, taking cheap flights, than overseas residents flying to the UK. The net effect of further reducing APD would not only be a cut in government revenue, but an even larger UK annual tourism deficit (at £16.9 billion in 2015). APD for the longest flights was reduced in 2015, so any flight of more than 2,000 miles only pays £146. Before that, in 2014, flights over 6,000 miles paid £194. Children also now pay no APD, making holiday flights cheaper for families. Now some 53 MPs have written to Hammond, again calling for a cut in APD - playing the "need to connect Britain to the world" after Brexit card. It is estimated, and not challenged by the government, that the absence of VAT or fuel duty effectively gives the aviation industry an annual subsidy of around £10 billion (compared to the cost of paying VAT and fuel duty).
Click here to view full story...
DfT publishes proposed route of northern section of HS2, including property compensation details
The DfT has announced the second phase of HS2, north of Birmingham. It is intended to go to Leeds, Manchester, Wigan etc. which would mean journeys to and from London from these areas could be faster than they are now. That would reduce the demand for domestic flights, for connections to Heathrow. Many homes would be demolished to make way for the rail route, and there are compensation arrangements to help those affected. The DfT says compensation (by the government) measures would apply immediately, including a premium on compulsory purchases and moving costs. By contrast with Heathrow, which says compensation (the airport pays) would only start once they have full planning consent - and if their compulsory purchase is agreed in their development control order - which could be another 4 years away. The compensation is un-blighted price + 25% + stamp duty and costs for those in the "Express Purchase" scheme, and un-blighted price + 10% with no costs for the "Need to sell" scheme. The DfT documents say the compensation schemes are the same as the southern part of HS2, and "Two of these schemes will enter into operation from today on an interim basis - these are Express Purchase and Need to Sell, and if confirmed by the government, all the schemes will be in place until 1 year after the railway is fully operational."
Click here to view full story...
T&E says weak ICAO voluntary CO2 deal is NOT mission accomplished for ICAO, Europe or aviation industry
The deal agreed by ICAO to at least make a start on limiting the growth of global aviation CO2 is very far below the level of ambition needed. Transport & Environment have commented on just how inadequate it is. They say the agreement only offers to offset, not actually reduce, the CO2 from international flights, starting in 2021. Participation till 2027 is voluntary and its coverage of emissions falls well short of the ‘carbon neutral growth in 2020’ target promised by ICAO and the industry. The European Commission will now examine the agreement and decide what action to recommend in the light of the current suspension of the ETS coverage of flights into and out of Europe. A major problem is that the offsetting programme agreed so far lacks clear rules on both the quality of offsets that will be recognised and how they are accounted for, so double counting is not ruled out. To be of any use, offsets must be additional, ie. that would not have happened anyway. It is estimated that only about 20% of total aircraft CO2 emissions between 2021 and 2035 will be offset, meaning that the sector's emissions are very far from being negated. T&E says that large historical emitters like Europe and the US must introduce additional measures to close aviation’s emissions gap, such as strengthening the EU ETS and stripping aviation’s harmful privileges regarding taxation and subsidies.
Click here to view full story...
Norman Foster, still hopeful of a Thames estuary airport, considers Heathrow will eventually not be fit for purpose
Norman Foster, a key promoter of a Thames estuary airport instead of Heathrow, has again criticised the government's backing of a Heathrow 3rd runway, saying it is a ‘short-term’ solution to Britain’s infrastructure needs. He still believes a large hub airport in the Thames would be a "better" solution (ignoring the problem of carbon emissions), and presumably he would make a lot of money if his scheme ever went ahead. Norman Foster describes Heathrow's 3rd runway as "a band-aid solution. It is short-term. It’s not thinking in terms of the wider issues of transportation." He says: "’What is guaranteed is that when that third runway comes into action, Heathrow will again be at full capacity. ...I would guarantee the absolute inevitability that one day [Heathrow] will no longer be sustainable in community terms, political terms – just [on account of] the sheer logistics. It cannot continue." The DfT announcement on 25th October, backing Heathrow for a new runway, made no mention of the Airports Commission condition that Heathrow would not be permitted a 4th runway. An article in Prospect Magazine comments that what the Airports Commission should have looked at was whether there should be airport expansion at all in the southeast. Instead, as their brief was to focus on hub capacity, it meant their focus was wrongly on spreading expansion across London airports rather than properly assessing the regions.
Click here to view full story...
Edinburgh airport publishes draft Master Plan for high growth out to 2050 for consultation, but no 2nd runway plan
Edinburgh Airport has produced a draft master plan for consultation (deadline for comment is 23rd December) about its future development up to 2050. The airport says "The Masterplan highlights how we aim to grow and develop the airport responsibly over a 25 year period whilst improving the experience" ....benefits to the economy etc etc." It plans to increase its passenger number from about 11.1 million in 2015, to 19.2 million in 2030, and 35 million in 2050. It will continue to safeguard land for a possible 2nd runway, if there is enough demand after 2040 if there are 30 million passengers by then. The numbers of passengers and ATMs in the current master plan are much higher than in the 2011 plan (eg. 2011 plan anticipated about 200,000 ATMs by 2040, but the 2016 plan expects 208,000. For passengers, the 2011 plan anticipated 20.5 million passengers in 2040, but the 2016 plan expects 25.8 million.) There is little on noise to encourage those already negatively affected by the airport's flight paths. It says it has a noise action plan that "sets out the actions we propose to take to manage and, where possible, minimise aircraft-related noise at Edinburgh Airport." But "as long as people want to fly, there will be noise from aircraft landing and taking off." Local groups Transform Scotland, the campaign for sustainable transport, and Edinburgh Airport Watch criticised the plans for yet further expansion, and the negative environment impacts.
Click here to view full story...
Seven more purely, unashamedly, low cost leisure destinations for 2017 from Heathrow
So much for the claims that Heathrow is ensuring Britain is "open for business" and creating "trading links to the growing markets of the world" or "connecting Britain to global growth". The reality is that many of the landing slots at Heathrow are used for leisure flights, and many are for cheap European leisure flights. British Airways has announced 7 new routes from Heathrow for 2017. These are to Murcia, in "stunning" southern Spain "known for its world renowned golf courses". There is also Brindisi, in Italy "ideal for holidaymakers looking for some sun to soak up in." And Nantes, in western France, which is a "gateway to Brittany and Loire Valley as well as being home to the world famous Muscadet wines." Also Montpellier, in southern France, with "a blend of the beaches of the Mediterranean Sea and the mountains of the Pyrenees.. Also Pula, in Croatia "an increasingly popular destination for families who want a cheap summer holiday, replacing the likes of Spain and France." Then there is Tallinn, in Estonia, which is cheap and "one of the most preserved medieval cities in Europe". And Zakynthos "This Greek island in the Ionian Sea is nicknamed the flower of the East. It is home to the Navagio beach, the most famous landmark on the island which is a stunning setting for a day lounging in the sun. Price: from £65". There are also flights for cheap holidays to Menorca. This demonstrates, yet again, that Heathrow is not full of flights to vital, far flung, business-related destinations. It has flights that make money. ie. cheap holidays.
Click here to view full story...
Speculation about a congestion charge around Heathrow, to cut air pollution and deter traffic
The Airports Commission recommended measures such as a congestion charge on roads around Heathrow, in order to keep levels of air pollution at legal levels, and prevent traffic congestion gridlock with a 3rd runway. The Times reports that the congestion charge may be imposed, with the effect of forcing people to use public transport instead of cars. The central London congestion charge is £11.50 per day. What the money would be spent on is not known. The charge might be levied on some 80 miles of road, to keep NO2 and particulates down. The impact on road users who are not related to Heathrow is not known, or the costs to the local economy of this burden. The charge may have to be agreed through the development consent order process. Chris Grayling said, on 25th October, that the runway could be delivered "within air quality limits." But little in the DfT's documents gives any firm reassurances that measures will be put in place that could actually keep the levels of NO2 low enough. Further questions emerged last week when the High Court ruled that the government was failing to tackle air pollution quickly enough, and its air quality plan was based on over-optimistic forecasts. Heathrow insists that the number of public transport routes (which is is not prepared to pay towards) will increase, with new direct rail links helping Heathrow out. The worst air pollution in the area is near junctions 3 and 4 of the M4, where up to 16% of the traffic is related to Heathrow.
Click here to view full story...
Action to combat UK illegally high air pollution delayed again – judge will decide on timetable for action
On 2nd November, ClientEarth won its High Court case against the Government's slowness in tackling illegal levels of UK air pollution. Mr Justice Garnham ruled that the government’s 2015 Air Quality Plan was not adequate, and said it was “remarkable” that ministers knew they were using over-optimistic pollution modelling, based on flawed lab tests of diesel vehicles rather than actual emissions on the road, but proceeded anyway. It was agreed that both parties would return to court in a week to agree on the next steps. Now Ministers have rejected the court proposal to deliver an effective plan within 8 months, as ClientEarth suggested. The case will now return to court at an unknown future date, when the judge will determine what happens next. An earlier government plan to tackle air pollution was declared illegal in April 2015 and ministers were ordered then to produce a new strategy, which it did in December. But that new plan is the one that was found to be illegal on 2nd November. ClientEarth lawyer Alan Andrews said: “We are disappointed that we have been unable so far to agree on the timetable for the new plan, or on the future role for the court in overseeing compliance with the order. We have made our written submissions and await the court’s decision.” Defra said it would be setting out further measures next year.
Click here to view full story...
T&E highlights air pollution problem of particulates from petrol vehicles without correct filters
One of the most significant environmental problems of Heathrow, in relation to wanting to add a 3rd runway, is its ability to keep air pollution on local roads down to legal limits. We hear most about Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) but there is also significant particulate pollution. The tiny particles, especially the smallest (PM2.5) can penetrate deep in to the lung and cause damage. Heathrow has local air pollution monitors, and regularly limits for PM10 and PM2.5 are breached. A recent report, by Ricardo, for the Heathrow area in 2015, said at the LHR2, Green Gates and Harlington sites 3 exceedances were recorded. At another site, Oaks Road, registered 5 exceedances. The AQS (Air Quality Strategy) objective is a daily mean limit value of 50 µg m-3 for PM10 should not to be exceeded. Now clean transport campaigners, Transport & Environment, say we could be on the verge of a "petrolgate" scandal, not unlike the "dieselgate" one, due to inadequate filters to prevent the emission of particulates from petrol cars. T&E say they have obtained documents showing that governments and car makers are delaying ensuring petrol cars have these €25 filters (most diesel cars have them). Governments are using theoretical particle emission, rather than the higher real world ones. T&E says the car industry is lobbying to be allowed to overshoot particle limits, and not to have to install filters.
Click here to view full story...
Australian Passenger Movement Charge to rise from $55 to $60 for any flight from Australia
In Australia the Passenger Movement Charge (PMC) was established in 1995, replacing Departure Tax (which began in 1978). It has been at he level of $55 (Australian dollars) for anyone aged over 12 travelling outside Australia (unless they are in transit through Australia). The relevant Senate committee has been investigating the proposal to raise it $5 to $60, and will produce its report shortly. $60 per person (about £36.50) is the cost for any length of trip, economy or premium class, for air travel or sea travel. It is administered by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The Australian PMC is considered to be the highest departure tax in the world, after the UK. The airlines, and IATA, naturally do not like the tax - let alone the tiny increase, and have complained how it cuts travel and could allegedly - they claim - damage the economy. As the charge is a flat rate, it is a higher proportion of short haul flights to Tasmania, than on long haul. IATA says the tiny rise might cut the number of international return flights to Australia by some 30,000 per year. “It will act as a brake on the Australian aviation sector,” IATA said, and they give estimates of up to $375 million for the national economy, and 3,800 more jobs if there was no PMC. IATA told the Senate committee that the PMC was “tax on tourism.”
Click here to view full story...
CAA consultation on whether airlines will pay £10 million (or more) per year of Heathrow’s planning costs
The issue of how much Heathrow can pass the costs of its expansion onto airlines is much disputed. Airlines such as IAG have been vociferous in refusing to pay for anything up-front. The amount Heathrow can charge airlines is laid down by the CAA, which has now put out a consultation on this subject. There are three categories of cost. Category A is lobbying, advertising etc, to get the runway approved. The CAA says Heathrow must pay this itself. Then Category B costs are those incurred to obtain planning permission through the development consent order, for the runway etc. It is Category B costs the CAA is consulting about. (Category C costs are those of actually building the added capacity - and may include costs like buying up thousands of properties in the villages. The treatment of these costs is not yet agreed by the CAA). The CAA consultation is proposing that of the Category B costs (ie. planning costs) Heathrow can get back £10 million per year from airlines through higher costs. For planning costs of over £10 million per year, the CAA propose these would be capitalised and rolled into HAL’s existing Regulatory Asset Base (RAB). These costs would then be be paid by a "risk-sharing mechanism" between airlines and Heathrow. If HAL succeeds in getting planning consent, they can get 105% of the costs over £10 million per year back through higher charges to airlines. If they do not get planning consent, they can only get 85% back. The consultation on this ends on 12th December. Details below.
Click here to view full story...
Hounslow Council wants Heathrow runway negative impacts reduced – Chamber of Commerce wants “a slice of the action”
Hounslow Chamber of Commerce said that is was "extremely happy" about the Government support for a Heathrow 3rd runway. The Chamber has claimed it will ensure businesses in the borough get a "slice of the action" from Heathrow expansion. CEO of Hounslow Chamber, Stephen Fry, has signed a declaration to work with Heathrow to develop plans, and says his priority will be to secure jobs and investment in the Hounslow community. He wants to ensure that a larger airport "will benefit our economy by growing existing businesses and kick starting new start-ups thereby creating new jobs around the country." He hopes that "while Heathrow airport already procures some £1.7 billion of products and services every year from local, regional and national businesses; we can expect this to increase substantially. Hounslow suffers intense noise from Heathrow over flights. Leader of Hounslow Council, Steve Curran, reiterated the council's position on 26th October, saying: "Our position as a Council has not changed, we want a better, not bigger Heathrow Airport. We will however, work with Heathrow on behalf of our residents and businesses, many of whom are employed directly at Heathrow or are part of the supply chain, to ensure the best possible outcome and to reduce any adverse effects of the decision."
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick now only allows noise complaints by online form (or paper post) – no longer by phone or email
After changing flight paths in 2014, Gatwick made other changes to flight paths that have affected a lot of people. Many who only had the occasional plane over them now find themselves subjected to one every 5 minutes or less, for hours on end, day after day. Gatwick has also slightly increased its numbers of flights. So people complained. The airport found itself inundated with complaints (which it rather charmingly calls "enquiries"). The number rose 6-fold in a year. Gatwick then changed the system so there could only be one noise complaint per household per day. Gatwick has now found a way to cut the complaints. While in the past people could email or phone their complaint, - now the only means of complaint is filling in a relatively long internet form. r sending in a complaint by paper post, which has now been made Freepost. This new system means anyone not able to access the internet is effectively prevented from complaining, unless they want to rack up bills. Under the new system there is no limit on the number of complaints per day but each time the ten lines of required information for the form must be filled in. Why is Gatwick so unhelpful? At least the complaint system at Heathrow allows someone to email, or phone and speak to a person. Gatwick's treatment of its neighbours seems to have taken a further, downward, turn. Not being selected for a new runway, it has given up on any sort of charm offensive with the local residents.
Click here to view full story...
Even with 55% of Heathrow passengers using public transport there could be 15 million more passenger trips per year by car by 2040 than now
The government claims Heathrow can meet air quality standards in future, even with a new runway and 50% more passengers, because it will (among other changes) ensure that there are no more road vehicles than now - and by around 2031 about 55% of passengers would use public transport. So is that likely? Looking at passengers only, not freight, and the work done by Jacobs for the Airports Commission, it seems that (2012 data) there were about 70 million passengers, about 20 million of whom were transfers (ie. they did not leave the airport). That meant slightly below 50 million passengers travelled to and from the airport, using surface transport. In 2012 about 59% of these travelled by car (ie. about 29.5 million), 41% came by public transport (28% by rail and 13% by bus or coach). But by 2030 with a new runway, there might be around 110 million passengers, and around 33% would be international transfers. That leaves around 74 million passengers, and if 55% of them use public transport, that means about 34 million using cars. By 2040, the number using cars might be about 45 million (ie. about 15 million more per year than now). And about 9 million using bus/coach - which is of course also on the roads. There would have to be dramatic increases in electric vehicles and improved engine technology to ensure no higher emissions in the Heathrow area. And that is not counting freight vehicles. Or staff. Or other increased vehicle traffic associated with the 3rd runway.
Click here to view full story...
How the government hopes air pollution will not be a block on a Heathrow 3rd runway
The Government has produced claims that adding a 3rd Heathrow runway would be compatible with air quality limits for NO2. The DfT statement on 25th October stated that the government had done more work, since the Airports Commission, and this "confirms that a new runway at Heathrow is deliverable within air quality limits, if necessary mitigation measures are put in place, in line with the ‘National air quality plan’, published in December 2015." That air quality plan has since been judged inadequate by the High Court ruling in the case brought by ClientEarth. The DfT also said: "Heathrow’s scheme includes plans for improved public transport links and for an ultra-low emissions zone for all airport vehicles by 2025. The government will make meeting air quality legal requirements a condition of planning approval."Lawyers Bircham Dyson Bell comment: "would you build, or invest in, a new runway if you weren’t sure it could be used?" Heathrow and the government hope that, by 2040, 55% of Heathrow passengers will be using public transport, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that legal air quality limits would in reality be met. Currently [2012 data] about 41% of Heathrow passengers use public transport (about 28% by rail and 13% bus/coach - on the road). Heathrow hopes 43% will use rail by 2030. That is estimated to mean an extra over 56 million passengers annually using public transport compared to around 29 million today, and 6 million more passengers travelling to and from the airport by car.
Click here to view full story...
Zac: Too close relationship between Heathrow & Government borders on corrupt – recent examples
Former Tory MP Zac Goldsmith has accused the Government and Heathrow Airport of having a relationship that "borders on the corrupt". He said the closeness of the interaction between the airport and Whitehall was "rotten". Examples recently of this are that the Chairman of Heathrow since March 2016 (succeeding Sir Nigel Rudd) is Lord Paul Deighton. Between 2013 and 2015 he held the position of Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, some of the roles of which are described as "infrastructure policy, including working with Infrastructure and Projects Authority and National Infrastructure Commission" and "working with the rest of government to promote the UK as a destination for foreign direct investment." Another recent revolve of the door is Vickie Sherriff, who has since September 2015 been the Head of Communications at Heathrow, having earlier worked for the Prime Minister, in 2013, with a dual role as official deputy spokesperson for the Prime Minister and head of news at Number 10. She went to the DfT and then Diageo in 2014. Then there is Simon Baugh, who in March 2015 because the group director of communications at the DfT, having previously been the director of PR at Heathrow. And Nigel Milton. And there are many earlier cases too. Zac commented: "And that's why you've always had this default position in favour of Heathrow." The DfT naturally rejected any suggestion of corruption.
Click here to view full story...
SNP misled by Heathrow inflated claims of number of jobs for Scotland due to a 3rd runway
The SNP decided to give its backing to a Heathrow runway, rather than one at Gatwick - having been led to believe that the only choice on offer was between these two. They were led, by Heathrow PR, to believe there would be greater benefits for Scotland. The SNP hoped to get exports from Scotland (salmon and razor clams) shipped through Heathrow. The Airports Commission came up with a figure of economic benefit from a Heathrow runway of UP TO £147 billion to all the UK over 60 years. Heathrow got a consultancy called Quod to work out the number of jobs. They came up with the figure of 16,100 jobs for Scotland (over 60 years) from the runway. The DfT has now downgraded the £147 billion figure, as it included various speculative elements, and double counted benefits. The new figure (also still far higher than the reality) from the DfT is UP TO £61 billion for the UK over 60 years. That, pro rata, would mean up to about 9,300 jobs for Scotland - not 16,100. It is unfortunate that the SNP were misinformed, as were other MPs, Chambers of Commerce etc across the regions. Heathrow also pledged benefits for Scotland such as using its steel for construction, and using Prestwick as a base. The Scottish Green party see the SNP backing of a Heathrow runway as a betrayal of those badly affected by it, and of Scotland's climate commitments.
Click here to view full story...
Lakeside incinerator plant would need to move, at Heathrow’s expense, if runway is built
Grundon and Viridor's Colnbrook incinerator at Lakeside Road would have to be demolished for a Heathrow north west runway. This, as well as local roads and the M25, are significant obstacles to the runway plan. The issue of how much Heathrow will pay for this is being negotiated. Early in 2015, Heathrow was reported to have struck a deal with Grundon and Slough Borough Council to overcome the risk to delivery of a runway, agreeing that the incinerator would be moved a short distance away, onto (Green Belt) land already owned by Grundon. It is not clear this is correct. Heathrow said it was preparing a “joint feasibility study”. Heathrow said in 2015 that "NATS have given an initial opinion that the site is suitable for accommodating the height of flue stack required (75m).” Three of the four lakes at Colnbrook Lakeside are now set to be lost, due to the runway. In order that the incinerator remains open all the time, with no gap, building would need to start at least 3 years before being operational. But the runway might never get the go ahead ... It is reported that discussions are taking place on payment of the multi-million costs of relocation. Adam Afriyie revealed in Parliament in 2015 that the government would not be paying. Robert Goodwill said it would be "a matter for the airport to take forward with the owners of the site.”
Click here to view full story...
DfT’s own study reveals just how tiny the possible economic benefits of Heathrow or Gatwick runway would be to UK
The economics figures by Airports Commission were always dubious, and their methodology was questioned by their own advisors. The Commission did not use the Webtag method that is normally used to cost transport projects. The Commission added in a range of possible future benefits for Heathrow, and for Gatwick - most purely speculative. Benefits of trade were added, even though these were effectively double counted as already taken account of by other sectors. The AC also counted in economic benefits to non-UK residents of flights to or from the UK. The recent DfT document entitled "Further Review and Sensitivities Report - Airport Capacity in the South East" has had to look more carefully at the figures. It has removed some of the wild claims of benefits from trade, and has looked at the benefits just to UK passengers. Its figures show little difference in the alleged future economic benefit to the UK between Heathrow and Gatwick, and that these benefits are actually tiny. Even when measured over 60 years. The DfT document mentions a large number of the aspects they looked at as being of "low analytic assurance", meaning very uncertain. The new DfT figures give the total benefit (NPV) of a Heathrow north west runway being just £0.2 - £6.1 billion over 60 years, and the figure for Gatwick being £3.1 - £4.5 billion. The equivalent figures by the Airports Commission were £11.8 billion and £10.8 billion for Heathrow and Gatwick respectively. So current estimates are all even lower than before.
Click here to view full story...
Average of 283 noise complaints to Heathrow per day so far this year, from around 4,280 people
Figures from Heathrow of the number of noise complaints received in the period 1st January 2016 to 24th October 2016 have been released. Heathrow does keep all complaints data. The figures show there were complaints made by a total of 4,282 people over the period, and a total of 87,201 noise complaints. The Telegraph reports that 1,209 people complained only once about plane noise during the period. The BBC reported that since the start of 2016, an average of 72 people complained every day. The total number of complaints received was an average of 283 per day. Much is made by the media of some people who make a very large number of noise complaints each. Heathrow confirmed that these were not computer generated. The highest number of complaints in a day was 673 on 8th June (with 235 people complaining), and 672 on 10th October 2016 (128 people). The lowest number of complaints was 91 on 1st August (87 people). Data sheets here. Many people give up complaining, as it is a futile process, and the airport does nothing about the problem. It takes time and energy to keep complaining. If people are upset by the plane noise, and make repeated complaints they are regarded as eccentric, odd, bored, neurotic, over-sensitive etc. But if there are no complaints, the airport says there is no problem - proved by the fact no-one contacted them. Catch 22. Or win-win for the airport.
Click here to view full story...
ClientEarth wins air pollution case in High Court, that government action has been too slow
ClientEarth has won its High Court case against the Government over its failure to tackle illegal air pollution across the UK. In a damning indictment of ministers’ inaction on killer air pollution, Mr Justice Garnham agreed with ClientEarth that the Environment Secretary had failed to take measures that would bring the UK into compliance with the law “as soon as possible” and said that ministers knew that over optimistic pollution modelling was being used. In his ruling, the judge questioned Defra’s 5 year modelling, saying it was “inconsistent” with taking measures to improve pollution "as soon as possible.” Defra’s planned 2020 compliance for some cities, and 2025 for London, had been chosen because that was the date when ministers thought they’d face European Commission fines, not which they considered “as soon as possible.” The case is the second the government has lost on its failure to clean up air pollution in two years. In the judgment he handed down Mr Justice Garnham ruled that the government’s 2015 Air Quality Plan failed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling or relevant EU Directives and said that the government had erred in law by fixing compliance dates based on over optimistic modelling of pollution levels. Future projections of compliance need to be based on real emissions, not discredited lab tests.
Click here to view full story...
High Court win by ClientEarth on air pollution casts more doubt on the possibility of adding a Heathrow runway
The environmental law group, ClientEarth, has won its High Court case against the Government over its failure to tackle illegal air pollution across the UK. The judge agreed that the UK government had failed to take measures that would bring the UK into compliance with the law “as soon as possible” and ministers knew over optimistic pollution modelling was being used. AEF (the Aviation Environment Federation) says this failure by the government to get NO2 levels down discredits the air quality plan that formed the basis for the Government’s argument that a new runway at Heathrow would neither cause not exacerbate legal breaches in NO2 levels. Required to publish an updated plan for UK air quality, Defra produced one in December 2015. This brought forward the anticipated date of compliance to 2025 for London – just in time for the opening of a new runway according to the Airports Commission’s anticipated timeline. But the plans appeared to rely on new, more optimistic forecasts of emissions from diesel vehicles without presenting substantive policy proposals to actually deliver improvements. A new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick would lead to higher levels of air pollution, and the new court ruling confirms that compliance should not be based on over optimistic modelling - and government needs instead to take action to cut pollution levels.
Click here to view full story...
Friends of the Earth warn Chris Grayling that DfT process is pre-determining approval of Heathrow runway
Friends of the Earth (FoE) have sent a letter to Chris Grayling at the DfT, highlighting concerns over the way approval of a Heathrow runway is being done. The letter accused the government of ‘substantive procedural flaws’. It raises concerns that Heathrow had been named as the selected site for the major development without the decision undergoing the legal planning process. FoE the government decision ‘pre-empts the will of parliament’ and ‘predetermines the outcome of any planning application’. FoE's Head of campaigns, Andrew Pendleton, said that the PM had ‘announced the decision as if it was a done deal, but there are many MPs who recognise the devastating effect expanding Heathrow will have on our climate, who will want to vote against these proposals'. If FoE does not receive what it deems to be sufficient assurances over how the government came to its decision, it could be the basis of a legal challenge in the future. The letter says "the decision (as quoted) risks illegality in two respects, namely: a. pre-empts the will of Parliament (by assuming that a planning application will follow parliamentary consideration of the NPS – parliament may resolve the reject the NPS) and b. predetermines the outcome of any planning application submitted concerning the development of the third runway (since it states that “construction will follow” the determination of the application by yourself)."
Click here to view full story...
Estate agents anticipate considerable falls in property values, in many areas, due to Heathrow 3rd runway
There is already speculation about how much house prices will fall in areas affected by aircraft noise, if there was a Heathrow 3rd runway. The founder of eMoov believes that property prices will be as much as 20% lower in areas such as affected parts of Hounslow, Kew, Windsor and Maidenhead, due to air pollution as well as noise. Another property business, dealing in buy-to-let mortgages, expects that flats and smaller houses will fare better as workers move to the area for work. “Any expansion of Heathrow would be good news for landlords who run their business in close proximity to the airport.” But he expected that having a plane overhead every few minutes would not help increase the price of mansions. The cut in price due to the 3rd runway could even create a pocket of almost affordable housing, if the average house price in Hounslow and Hillingdon fell to around £330,000, from around £407,000 now. Areas nearer the centre of London will also be affected, including Richmond, Westminster, and Hammersmith and Fulham, as the arrival flight paths would go straight over huge areas of west London. The effect on the economy? But one west London estate agent cautioned home owners being too concerned yet, or acting too fast, as the runway cannot be approved for at several years.
Click here to view full story...
No confirmation by government that taxpayer won’t have to fund surface access transport for Heathrow 3rd runway
Transport for London calculated the costs of upgrading and improving surface access, to deal with the extra passengers using a 3 runway Heathrow could be up to about £18 billion, over several years. Heathrow has only offered to pay a total of £1.1 billion. Stephen Hammond, a former transport minister, (2012 - 14) asked Chris Grayling about the costs, as did other MPs. The responses were evasive. Stephen Hammond believes the transport work is likely to cost the taxpayer (= us) at least £5-10 billion, and the government is misinforming the public by announcing that: “Expansion costs will be paid for by the private sector, not by the taxpayer.” Asked about the costs, Grayling replied that Heathrow ..."will be held to a plan that: first, does not increase the current level of road transport to the airport; and, secondly, increases public transport access to the airport to 55% of those using it. Those will be obligations that it will have to fund. The Government’s financial advisers have said that that is viable and investible. There are question marks about what schemes are actually part of the surface access. Some of them we have to do anyway. For example, we are about to start improvements to the M4, which will benefit Heathrow and improve access, but they are not solely about Heathrow." ie. no clarity at all, and sounds as if government realise Heathrow cannot even build the runway etc without raising landing charges, let alone all this work. So is not insisting on it ...?
Click here to view full story...
Government and CAA hope that “community engagement” will remove aircraft noise problems with 3rd runway
The proposed 3rd runway at Heathrow is intended to increase the number of annual flights to 740,000 per year - an increase of 260,000 from the current cap of 480,000. This will mean huge numbers of people newly affected by aircraft noise, and changes to the noise for those currently affected. New flight paths would be required, and these would need to be consulted on. The government and the CAA have misguided faith in the magic solution of "community engagement" to solve the noise problems. In the recent documents from the DfT and the CAA, there are numerous comments about how Heathrow will be required to "engage." The fallacy, and the incorrect impression it is intended to create (especially to the naive) is that somehow having information about the noise, and being told about it, makes it less of a problem, and less annoying (stressful, depressing, or damaging to house prices). Some examples of the disingenuous and guileful wording are: (CAA) “… airport expansion can only be permitted if there is a credible package of measures to deal with local communities.” … On legitimate concerns of local communities that “… will require changes to operating practices and full community participation in the airspace changes that will be required.” And (DfT) “Proposals will be brought forward …. including the way in which affected communities can best be engaged.”
Click here to view full story...
IAG’s Willie Walsh doubts current Heathrow management could build runway to budget
The chief executive of IAG, Heathrow’s biggest customer, has said he has no confidence in the airport’s management to deliver a new runway cost-effectively. Willie Walsh did not believe Heathrow would build the new runway within the cost constraints on charges to airlines, set out by their regulator, the CAA, under its current management with John Holland-Kaye. Perhaps they could with different management. Willie Walsh has said for years that he is not prepared to pay up-front higher charges, to help Heathrow pay for their runway during its construction. Heathrow has made the odd comment that it will "hold its charges steady on average over the period up to 2048" but that they may go up in some years and down in others. IAG has about half of Heathrow’s take-off and landing slots. The Financial Times believes IAG is likely, according to aviation insiders, to win only around a quarter of slots on the new runway - so it will face more competition. Heathrow's charges are controlled by the CAA, which wrote to John Holland-Kaye on 25th October, confirming that the airport would not be allowed to raise its charges, and passengers should not have to pay more. The government's aspiration is that charges should remain close to their current levels. Heathrow would have to to work with airlines and have "productive engagement" with them.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow 3rd runway: Harmondsworth residents link decision to Brexit
The Huffington Post interviewed people in Harmondsworth a few days after the news that the government intends to give approval for a Heathrow runway. That will mean around half of the village being destroyed, and all of Longford, with the new runway perimeter fence half way down the village. People gathered in the Five Bells Pub in Harmondsworth on 25th October, to watch the TV and get the news together. Some of the people interviewed were Roy Barwick, who has lived there all his life, and whose family has lived in the area for nearly six generations. He spoke of how the small landing strip beside fields his family worked grew to become the giant hub it is today. “My children, my grandchildren and myself occupy four houses in the villages and all of them are earmarked for demolition.“Losing one’s home is a trauma second only to bereavement. I’m not going anywhere. I shan’t leave.” Neil Keveren is a long-standing campaigner, to try to save his village. He believes that Brexit is being used to force the runway through, and it is opportunistic messaging. He spent money improving his home, when Cameron promised there would be no 3rd runway - and the irony is that as parts of Harmondsworth are a conservation area, he had to use specially approved materials. The runway fence will be just outside his property. For some, no amount of money can make up for the memories that may be lost under the tarmac of the new runway.
Click here to view full story...
Truckers warn work for 3rd runway on M25 will cause serious problems, while Highways England expects “excessive customer frustration”
Stark warnings have been issued by the Road Hauliers Association (RHA) and Highways England that construction traffic for a Heathrow 3rd runway could bring everything to a complete standstill, for years. Highways England says: "There will be a substantial risk of excessive customer frustration about what might be prolonged period of disruption, first while any Heathrow works are done and then while our works are completed within the wider area." There will also be the problems from extensive changes to the local roads in Colnbrook and Poyle. RHA's CEO Richard Burnett said: "We need to have clarity on the plans for the additional necessary road infrastructure during construction work. We also need to know the timescale of the proposed work. Although there will be considerable long-term benefits – increased cargo etc, the immediate impact on the adjacent motorway network – the M25, M4 and M3 will also be considerable”.... “The M25 in particular is already operating to maximum capacity – the addition of construction vehicles will only add to the burden.” A new Highways England document, Airports Commission Surface Access Works, was published by the DfT on 25th October. It makes no mention of the bridge idea.
Click here to view full story...
Teddington Action Group commence judicial review proceedings against government re. Heathrow runway decision
Residents group, Teddington Action Group (TAG) has started judicial proceedings against the government, on its recommendation for a Heathrow runway. The Judicial Review process requires that a Letter of Claim is served on the interested parties, in accordance with "Pre-action Protocol". This was sent on 27 October. Sir Howard Davies, Chair of the Airports Commission, steered it towards its conclusion to back Heathrow. One of the key claims in the 27 page TAG document relates to the "apparent bias" of Sir Howard, from his remunerated roles at GIC Private Ltd (GIC), one of Heathrow's principal owners. TAG says from 2009, Sir Howard was a paid adviser to the Investment Strategy Committee of GIC (formerly known as the Singapore Government Investment Co.), advising them on "new growth opportunities". From 2011, he was appointed to the International Advisory Board of GIC, a board on which he was still sitting on the day of his appointment as "independent" Chair of the AC. Sir Howard only resigned these remunerated roles with GIC, when his appointment to the role as unremunerated Chair of the AC had been confirmed by the government in 2012. At the time of his appointment to the AC, GIC owned 17.65% of Heathrow, was represented on Heathrow's main Board (as it still is), and was pursuing their shared goal of Heathrow expansion. Sir Howard did not disclose his roles with GIC in the AC's Register of Interests.
Click here to view full story...
Draft timeline from the DfT of how they hope the Heathrow runway will proceed to completion
The DfT has put forward its anticipated timeline, of how it envisages the various stages progressing. This will start with a draft Airports National Policy Statement being published early in 2017 - followed by a consultation for 16 weeks. There will be a series of local and regional events around the country and in the vicinity of Heathrow. The NPS then goes to a Commons Select committee (probably the Transport Select committee) which scrutinises it and gives MPs and others the opportunity to present evidence to the committee. This could be 12 weeks. The Select Committee makes its report to Parliament. The Government reviews all the responses to the consultation. The NPS and its supporting documents will be amended and updated by the DfT, taking account of the consultation responses and the Parliamentary scrutiny process. By now it is autumn 2017. By perhaps late autumn Government publishes final NPS in Parliament, with a subsequent debate, followed by a vote. [It goes to the Lords as well as the Commons]. There could be legal challenges at various stages, which might hold things up. (This is not yet clear). If the NPS is voted through, it is then "designated" (ie. comes into force) by the Transport Secretary. That might be by the start of 2018. Once the NPS is agreed, then Heathrow can begin the formal process of seeking planning permission, which includes further consultation with local communities. The DfT has this down as perhaps 3 years, 2018 - 2021 or 2022. There will be a General Election by May 2020, perhaps in the middle of this. The DfT hope the runway would be operational by some time after 2025 or the late 2020s.
Click here to view full story...
Difficult to see how Heathrow could prevent rise in staff road trips to/from airport with 3rd runway
Heathrow has told the DfT that there would be no higher a number of car trips to and from the airport with a 3rd runway than now. But is that actually credible? Neither the DfT nor Heathrow produce easy-to-find figures, but they be located with a bit of digging. There are probably about 76,000 staff at the airport at present. The October 2014 Jacobs report done for the Airports Commission said: "Headline employee commuting mode share was assumed to be 43% public transport and 47% private vehicles (ie. about 35,700 came by car, and Jacobs states: "with the vast majority of those undertaken as single occupancy car trips.") ..." and of the 43% using public transport, about 35% used bus and 12% used rail. There are various estimates of how many on-airport staff there might be with a new runway. The Commission's Carbon Traded Assessment of Need scenario anticipated the number of staff to be around 90,000, and their highest growth scenario anticipated about 115,000 staff. Heathrow said by 2030 trips by both staff and passengers to the airport will be 53% by public transport, and still 47% by car. Nowhere is there anything to indicate that below 47% of airport employees would get to and from work by car. With 90,000 staff at Heathrow, if 47% travelled by car that would be 42,300 people, (or if 43% came by car it would be 38,700). If there were 100,000 on-airport staff, and 47% came by car, that would be 47,000 people (and if 43% came by car, 43,000). Those numbers are higher than today. This is not including people travelling to newly increased numbers of jobs in the area.
Click here to view full story...
Ealing Council, that has avoided opposing Heathrow runway, wants £150 million to compensate residents
Last time round when there was nearly a 3rd Heathrow runway, in 2008- 2009, Ealing Council was part of the 2M group of councils opposing it. In the intervening years, there are only 4 councils really taking forward the opposition. Ealing has increasingly been seen as changing its stance, to luke-warm support for the runway. In July 2015, rather than restate its anti-runway stance the Labour group passed a motion “demanding answers” from the Conservative government on what it intended to do at Heathrow, if expansion is permitted. Its MP, Virendra Sharma, who had been against the runway, announced in August that he now supported it. Now the council leader (Labour) Julian Bell says he wants demanding £150 million, so Ealing can cope with the environmental impact of the runway at Heathrow. ""While we welcome the jobs and economic benefits of Heathrow, a 3rd runway will inevitably cause more noise, pollution and traffic that will damage the quality of life of local people. ...Straight talking and tough negotiating is what is needed if this goes ahead and I will continue to demand Heathrow Airport provides the best compensation deal for the people of Ealing." Slough Council got a deal with Heathrow early on in 2015, to try to get financial benefits from the airport, in exchange for not opposing it.
Click here to view full story...
What the DfT actually said about Heathrow possibly meeting air pollution standards, with 3rd runway
The Government announced on 25th October that it backed a Heathrow 3rd runway, and would set in train the process that could get it eventually built. A key stumbling block for the runway is air pollution. So what has the DfT come up with, to attempt to persuade those whose opinion counts that the problem can be resolved? In effect, just some very thin statements indeed, which are largely wishful thinking - nothing guaranteed. In their statement, the DfT says the scheme would not "cause nor worsen exceedances of air quality limit values." ... "the Government will review new and emerging evidence in relation to air quality to ensure that it is taking the right approach to achieving compliance for the UK." ... the government is supporting "the long-term transition to low emission vehicles and meet the Government’s target that by 2040 all new cars will be ultra low emission." ... lower emission vehicles by the UK vehicle fleet will lead to "tangible improvements in air quality ahead of the new runway beginning operation." ... "Heathrow has pledged that there will be no increase in airport-related road traffic with expansion." ... "Heathrow will encourage people to use public transport getting "at least 55% of people on to public and sustainable modes of transport by 2040" .... and "Providing new infrastructure for zero or low emission vehicles including charging and fuel facilities and priority parking." And ..."Ensuring that surface access plans are appropriately ambitious in their focus on improving air quality." Job done!
Click here to view full story...
DfT states alleged £147 billion economic benefit to UK (over 60 years) of Heathrow runway more like “up to £61 billion”
It appears the economic benefits of a Heathrow runway have been exaggerated wildly. [We have been saying that for a year and a quarter .... as have numerous critics of the runway - but the media and the government preferred to believe the exaggerated numbers]. The government announcement on 25th October only says the benefit of the Heathrow runway would be £61 billion, for the whole of the UK, over 60 years. The earlier figure had been "up to £147 billion" (both for a carbon-traded scenario). The Airports Commission used economic modelling for its projections, which was criticised as being unreliable, by its own economic advisors, Professor Peter Mackie and Mr Brian Pearce (May 2015) which warned of double counting, and questioned the "robustness and reliability" of the method. Heathrow then took an even higher figure, of £211 billion (UK benefit, over 60 years) from part of the Commission's analysis, and promoted this widely. Many, unfortunately, were misled. One of the ways the AC forecasts were to high is including benefits to non-UK residents. Another is double counting all sorts of spin-off activities, that are already accounted for in other sectors. DfT says given the uncertainties, "various calculation approaches have been proposed over time. Ongoing engagement with external experts means that the preferred methodology continues to evolve, and is likely to continue doing so after the publication of this report." ie. these figures may change again (downwards??)
Click here to view full story...
New DfT report indicates number of local jobs from Heathrow 3rd runway about 37,700 by 2030 – not “up to 77,000”
The Airports Commission's Final Report said the Heathrow NW runway would lead to an additional 59 – 77,000 jobs [direct, indirect and induced jobs - ie. supply chain etc] in 2030 for local people. Indeed, Heathrow "astroturf" lobby group got membership partly on the strength of the jobs claims. But now, having looked at the details, the DfT has come up with much lower figures. While the statement on the DfT website on 25th October still says "up to 77,000" local jobs, its more considered assessment "review and sensitivities" document accepted these figures were exaggerated. Instead they now say, using a more accurate method, the number of local jobs might be 37,740 by 2030, not 77,000. By 2050, the DfT now estimate the number of jobs might be 39,100 - while the Commission expected 78,360. The DfT say the 2050 figure is the cumulative total, and cannot be added to the number of jobs created by 2030. The DfT "assessment and sensitivities" report states that it had “identified a number of uncertainties with the approach taken” to assessing jobs by the Commission, which used job multipliers from the airports. These “could lead to significantly different results”. The new DfT figures use Berkeley Hanover Consulting Ltd (BHC) and Optimal Economics Ltd survey data rather than airport assumptions to generate estimates of the indirect job multipliers, which are likely to be more robust.
Click here to view full story...
Berwin Leighton Paisner and Pinsents advise Heathrow on planning stages and process to get a 3rd runway
Pinsent Masons and Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) have advised Heathrow Airport on the planning process up to the government's decision on 25 October to approve a third runway, with more legal advisers likely to be appointed. Pinsents, which has a place on Heathrow's panel, advised the airport on its plans. BLP confirmed it has also advised the airport's in-house team. Meanwhile the government has appointed former senior president of tribunals Sir Jeremy Sullivan to oversee the process of the NPS on aviation, covering the Heathrow runway. In addition, there are likely to be several legal challenges to the decision, including a joint legal action already mounted by Greenpeace UK alongside Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead councils. Greenpeace UK and the councils are jointly instructing Kate Harrison of Harrison Grant Solicitors, specialists in public, environmental and planning law and human rights. In 2010, the campaigners worked together to successfully overturn the Labour governments backing for a third runway in the High Court. Heathrow has a team of around 30 in-house lawyers and typically instructs Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer for finance and corporate, Allen & Overy (A&O) on financing for lenders, Herbert Smith Freehills for litigation, Eversheds for employment and Berwin Leighton Paisner for planning.
Click here to view full story...
Possible plan to put runway and taxiways on a bridge over M25 (not a tunnel) to save money
The Airports Commission (that cost almost £20 million) looked -in theory - at everything in great detail, and its (allegedly) incontrovertible recommendations have now been followed by government. It talked about the M25 needing to be tunnelled under the runway. It did not mention any sort of bridge. But Heathrow was asked by government to cut the cost of its scheme (in order not to raise costs to passengers, to keep demand for flights high) so it came up recently with the idea of a bridge over the motorway. There is a bridge for one of the runways (+ taxiways) at Schiphol, so it is possible. However, there are enormous questions, not the least of which being that nobody has seen any details (cost, practicality, level of disruption, safety, terrorism danger etc) let alone been consulted. The section of motorway that might be bridged is the busiest on the M25, one of the busiest (it might be the busiest) in Europe, and the busiest in the UK. DfT figures show around 263,000 vehicles per day on the Junction 14-15 stretch in 2014. The runway would need to be raised about 8 metres in order to get over the motorway. Heathrow has only said it would spend a total of £1.1 billion for surface access infrastructure. The cost of tunnelling was estimated by the Airports Commission at £3.2 billion. Chris Grayling said absolutely nothing in his announcement, or in Parliament, about how much of the TfL estimate of £18 bn for surface access work the taxpayer would have to fund.
Click here to view full story...
Professor Alice Larkin: Expanding Heathrow flies in the face of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change
Professor Larkin, an expert on climate policy, says measures aimed at increasing capacity and supporting further growth in air travel, such as the 3rd Heathrow runway, are at odds with the Paris Agreement. Such developments risk future stranded assets, and are inconsistent with tackling climate change. In the past we have slightly limited the growth in UK aviation CO2 by having constraints on Heathrow and Gatwick runway capacity. The government now wants to remove that constraint. Professor Larkin says: "Researchers will need to raise their voices to new levels given this week’s decisions. The upcoming call from the Environmental Audit Committee for evidence of the impacts of the 3rd runway is a welcome opportunity on the horizon, but the government have to be willing to sit up and pay attention to the evidence of climate change scientists and prove their commitment to the Paris Agreement." It is not enough to depend on future improvements in aircraft fuel efficiency, which have only been incremental. There have been no new, groundbreaking technical solutions to decarbonise the aviation sector. An increase in air travel cannot somehow be compatible with the Paris Agreement’s goals. All this suggests that climate change science is being overlooked by the UK government to an even greater extent than it was before.
Click here to view full story...
CAA writes to Heathrow setting out its expectations, including preventing airline cost rises
Andrew Haines, the CEO of the CAA, has written to John Holland-Kaye to tell him that airport charges should be kept down, despite the huge costs of the runway and terminal etc. The CAA is the body that controls Heathrow's charges to airlines. Mr Haines said the CAA "expects to see constructive engagement between the airport and its airline customers to drive value for money and efficiency." The CAA will soon publish (November) their proposals on how Heathrow can recover planning and construction costs. The letter to Heathrow says: “But a new runway project cannot simply be treated as ‘business as usual’ and it will require airport-airline engagement to be taken to a deeper and much more productive level by both sides.” And “You will have seen the Government’s aspiration that airport charges should remain close to current levels, indeed the Secretary of State was clear on this being a goal inches announcement.” And the CAA is keen to work with Heathrow, the airlines and other interested parties on the appropriate framework for the recovery of future construction costs, and their immediate priority is a clear timetable for this. There will also be a CAA consultation on key options for the economic regulation framework, to be published by the end of June 2017. There will also be a series of consultation documents through 2017 in which the CAA "will seek to build and expand on its regulatory principles."
Click here to view full story...
Caroline Lucas: “The expansion of Heathrow is unforgivable – we will fight this decision”
Caroline Lucas, a long standing opponent of aviation expansion due to its carbon emissions, has expressed her anger at the government's decision to back Heathrow. She says: "This is not a win for families who jet off on a holiday once a year – this is to pacify the needs of those privileged individuals who fly regularly." ... "the Government is ignoring the abundant evidence. .. For those of us who care about Britain’s role in combating climate change, and for people living in west London, today’s decision is a disaster." ... "We are living under a Government that says it wants to allow people to “take back control”, yet it is pressing ahead with a decision that will inflict more noise and pollution on a local community that’s already suffering..." ... "average CO2 levels are now more than 400 parts per million. The effects of burning more and more dirty fossil fuels are well known..." ... "Theresa May knows all of this of course and, at times, she appears to really care. Earlier this year she proudly told the House of Commons that the UK is the “second best country in the world for tackling climate change”. That’s why her decision back expansion at Heathrow is so unforgivable. " ... "today’s decision puts a wrecking ball through the UK’s climate change commitments." ... "we need practical proposals [like aa frequent-flyer levy] to keep aviation at levels that are compatible with fighting climate change, and which require no new runways."
Click here to view full story...
Standard: “Official: Heathrow Airport expansion threatens to worsen London’s air quality”
The Standard reports that according to the government's own analysis, a 3rd runway at Heathrow threatens to worsen air quality in central London. The focus on whether a 3rd runway would worsen breaches of NO2 levels has been on the area around the airport. But a study (by Parsons Brinckerhoff) for the DfT highlighted that adding a runway risks increasing pollution in central London too. The impact would not be large, but it is more likely, in some scenarios, to push NO2 levels even closer to the legal limit or worsen breaches which may still be happening in 2025 due to traffic levels in central boroughs. This is because the wind is westerly for around 60 - 70% of the year in the south east. The new DfT study also raised doubts over whether another Heathrow runway could be opened in 2025 without breaching EU legal limits on NO2. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has said that meeting air quality legal requirements is a condition of planning approval, but has no concrete proposals to indicate how this could be done. He hopes the 2015 Air Quality Plan by Defra, and new measures around Heathrow, would keep levels down. ClientEarth are currently embroiled in a Judicial Review against the Government on the plan, as it will not improve air quality fast enough (partly due to cost saving). The Defra study was before the truth the "dieselgate" scandal was fully appreciated, or new analysis showing NO2 from diesels is worse than had been thought.
Click here to view full story...
John Sauven: The decision to back a 3rd Heathrow runway is a grotesque, cynical, folly
Writing in the Guardian, the Director of Greenpeace UK - John Sauven - explains why the government approval of a Heathrow runway is so cynical. The reality, which is well known by the government, and the "independent" Airports Commission, is that UK aviation carbon emissions are on target to far exceed the level at which they need to be, under the 2008 Climate Change Act. Adding an extra runway only exacerbates that problem. If the UK was half serious about its global obligations to cut CO2 (which it does not appear to be) the simplest solution would be not to build a new runway - which needlessly raises emissions. But instead, as the job of the Commission was to get a Heathrow runway to appear possible and desirable, they made some obscure assumptions (well hidden in endless supporting documents) which were not intended to be understood. Realising CO2 would be too high, they postulated a sky high price of carbon. That would mean the price of air tickets would rise dramatically, cutting exactly the extra demand the runway had been built to cater for. Otherwise, either the emissions of the regional airports would have to be cut, to let the monster Heathrow continue to expand - or else the UK just abandons any pretence of an aviation carbon target. Both are cynical, demonstrating the absence of any credible aviation carbon policy. It demonstrates that the government is at best half hearted on climate commitments.
Click here to view full story...
Some of the innumerable comments and articles about the Heathrow runway decision
The government decision to give its backing to a 3rd Heathrow runway has been greeted by massive press coverage, and comments in their hundreds by commentators of all sorts. Below is just a small selection of some of the points that are of interest, taken as extracts from the coverage. There are some of the comments from a huge range of people and organisation. These include people in Harmondsworth, about the frightening prospect of having their homes compulsorily purchased, and being forced to move - to they know now where. And comments by Greenpeace, Client Earth, the Aviation Environment Federation and Friends of the Earth. And bits on the plan not to tunnel the M25, but build a bridge with a small hill for the runway, over the motorway. Also comments by Zac Goldsmith, on his resignation and imminent by-election; comments from Sadiq Khan, Boris Johnson, Justine Greening, Tania Mathias, John McDonnell, Andy Slaughter and Ruth Cadbury. And from Caroline Lucas of the Green Party. Also from Richmond, Wandsworth, Windsor Maidenhead councils, and WWF UK and Plane Stupid and Reclaim the Power. As well as some pro-runway comments by the CBI, and Willie Walsh, Carolyn McCall and Michael O'Leary. And a comment from Gatwick. With apologies for cutting short some of the comments, for the requirement of brevity ....
Click here to view full story...
Simon Jenkins: Expanding Heathrow will be a monumental blight on west London
Another of Simon's brilliantly written pieces. Just a few extracts: the runway decision is "...a result of that blight on modern government, lobbying. If anyone complains about public cynicism towards politics, just say Heathrow." ..."We should remember that 10 years ago Heathrow’s owners planned to shift their future expansion to Stansted because they expected no government would allow anything as polluting as more Heathrow." ... "Heathrow may be full. So are Paddington and Victoria stations, so are the M25 and M40, so are Barts and Guy’s hospitals. Supply does not have to answer demand. Price can take the pressure. We no longer “predict and provide” the supply of roads or houses or even hospitals." ..."London now faces two decades of controversial mega-project disruptions, for Heathrow, HS2 and Crossrail 2." ... "Suppose the proposed “year of consultation” yields an overwhelmingly hostile response, leading to furious public inquiries, Supreme Court hearings, civil rights claims and global warming protests? The smart money already is on this being, in reality, a do-nothing decision." ... "The one overwhelming case against it is that in the 21st century it should be inconceivable to send vast, noisy jets screaming over the heads of millions of people". ... "For passengers it is mostly a luxury service. Barely 20% of London air travel is for “business”, the rest being tourism and leisure, overwhelmingly for Britons going abroad. That does nothing for exports. "
Click here to view full story...
AEF damning assessment of Heathrow recommendation and its environmental impacts
The AEF (Aviation Environment Federation) is the main group in the UK assessing UK aviation policy for its environment impacts, with several decades of expertise. They have had a first look at the government's Heathrow decision, and are underwhelmed. Some of their comments: On CO2 the DfT says that keeping UK carbon emissions to within the 37.5 MtCO2 cap while adding a Heathrow runway effectively cannot be done. AEF says the DfT now has no commitment to the 37.5 MtCO2 cap, and just includes vague references to the ICAO global carbon offsetting scheme for aviation agreed this month, and to potential efficiencies arising from better air traffic management -though both measures are (effectively) already taken into account in the CCC’s modelling. On air pollution, the DfT says “a new runway at Heathrow is deliverable within air quality limits, if necessary mitigation measures are put in place, in line with the ‘National air quality plan’, published in December 2015.” But AEF says Government appears to have little idea what those mitigation measures will be, and the deliverability of the plan has already, therefore, been questioned through the courts. And on noise AEF says the noise impact will depend heavily on the precise location of flight paths, which are unknown.
Click here to view full story...
Environment Audit Cttee will be calling Ministers to give evidence on Heathrow runway environmental impacts
The Environment Audit Committee has announced (already) that, after the government's announcement that it backs a Heathrow runway, it will be calling Ministers to scrutinise how environmental concerns are being mitigated. The EAC has scrutinised the Airports Commission in the past, on environmental problems of a Heathrow runway. The EAC wants assurances from the Government that a new runway will comply with key environmental conditions. Mary Creagh MP, Chair of the Committee, said it would be necessary to look at what the runway means for local residents, on air quality and noise standards and also on carbon emissions. She said: ..."we need a clear plan to reduce emissions from aviation to meet our climate change targets. ... The Government must ensure that current legal EU air pollution limits are retained after we leave, to protect the health and wellbeing of local people. We wait to hear what the airport's plans are for covering the costs of local transport. ... On noise we welcome Heathrow’s announcement that it will accept a ban on night flights. Ministers must ensure that local communities receive predictable respite from planes flying over their homes." The EAC report, published in November 2015, called upon the Government and Heathrow to demonstrate how issues were to be dealt with. They are not persuaded by the replies.
Click here to view full story...
Government decides on new runway at Heathrow – with no certainty on air pollution, noise or CO2
The government has made its announcement that it backs a 3rd runway at Heathrow, using the north west option (not the extended northern runway). It has decided to entirely follow the recommendation of the Airports Commission, by backing one runway only. The statement from Chris Grayling is on the DfT website, with a list of supporting documents. The government glosses over details of how it could ensure the runway did not cause worse air pollution, or worse noise, or higher CO2 emissions. Neither the DfT statement, nor Chris Grayling's contributions in the House, give any clarity or reassurances on most of the problems that a 3rd runway will create. There will be a consultation, starting in early 2017, on the National Policy Statement, which has to be agreed by both House of Parliament before Heathrow could go ahead with the planning stages for its runway. The government's statements say things like: "Despite the increase in flights Heathrow Airport Ltd has made firm commitments to noise reduction. The government will propose that a six-and-a-half hour ban on scheduled night flights ..." And "the government proposes new legally binding noise targets, encouraging the use of quieter planes, and a more reliable and predictable timetable of respite for those living under the final flight path." And new work "confirms that a new runway at Heathrow is deliverable within air quality limits, if necessary mitigation measures are put in place"..... ie. vague waffly aspirations, with zero practical details.
Click here to view full story...
BA scraps service to Chengdu, cited by airport expansionists as key, because not enough demand
Heathrow is keen on emphasising the importance of routes to countries like China, or the emerging markets. It likes to give the impression that there is huge pent up demand for these services, and if only Heathrow could be much bigger, there would be numerous flights to all these places. It is just the absence of a 3rd runway holding them back ..... But now the service by BA to Chengdu, about which Heathrow was very proud, is to be cut after just over three years, in January. There is just not enough demand to make it pay. It is not commercially viable, even with smaller planes. So nothing to do with a runway then. Chengdu was where British business would fly to and build trade links if only Heathrow was big enough, according to prominent backers of airport expansion. From September 2013 there were 5 return flights per week, but that was later trimmed down to fewer. BA’s 787 plane and Heathrow slot will be used to fly to New Orleans instead - spare slots are always used for the more lucrative leisure market destinations. The links to China were a key part of Heathrow's submission to the Airports commission in November 2012. Heathrow led the Commission to believe in the need for such links. Time after time, when slots become available at Heathrow, they are used to add capacity on profitable North American or European routes.
Click here to view full story...
Letter in the Guardian, from climate-aware organisations, on the disastrous impact of a new runway
In an open letter, a large number of environmental and climate-aware organisations have written about the disastrous impacts of allowing the expansion of the UK aviation sector by building a new runway. The letter says: "With the scrapping of vital decarbonisation policies and funding, the UK is already way off-track to meet our climate change commitments. The impacts of any new runway will be devastating to people’s lives and to the planet. ... the biggest tragedy of the government’s failure is a global one. ... The push for more runway space is not about demand from business – that has been dropping for over a decade. Nor is it about people taking one or two annual holidays. Growth is being driven by the frequent leisure flyers taking weekend breaks and shopping trips by plane. Half of the UK population don’t fly in any given year, yet all of us subsidise the holidays of the rich. The UK must not abandon our commitments under the Paris agreement and the Climate Change Act for the convenience of binge flyers. We will not allow our government to ignore the promises they have made to us and to the world." There are also statements by Professor Kevin Anderson and Professor Alice Larkin, on how building a new runway is entirely incompatible with the UK's obligations under the Paris Agreement on climate. Kevin described adding a runway as demonstrating "a palpable disdain for the Paris Agreement."
Click here to view full story...
“If you think climate change activists like me will take the decision over airport expansion lying down, you’ve got another thing coming”
Leo Murray, who was one of the founders of the activist group, Plane Stupid, has written eloquently in the Independent, about the opposition - for climate change reasons - to a Heathrow 3rd runway. Leo himself took part in numerous actions, against aviation expansion because the UK government had no effective way of limiting the sector's CO2 growth. Now he says, "Here we go again." Heathrow expansion is back, "rising remorselessly like a zombie from the grave. ...Why won’t it stay buried?" Heathrow and Gatwick have reportedly spent over £30m each on PR and lobbying, to conjure up an “airport capacity crisis” for London, for their own ends - making out that a new runway is in the national interest. To meet carbon targets, UK aviation cannot increase its CO2 to more than its 37.5MtCO2 cap. Leo says: "The solution is clear, but horrifies politicians: we will have to have policy to manage the growth in demand. There is simply no other way." Government will have to grasp the nettle of demand management for air travel. In the meantime, people will just have to rise up once more against the green light - if that is given next week. "Heathrow is set to become a lightning rod for radical climate activists all over the country and the old networks from the former alliance are starting to light up again for the first time in years. Once more, dear friends, once more – but let’s make sure it’s really dead this time."
Click here to view full story...
Theresa May pledged to ‘fight to stop 3rd runway’ at Heathrow in summer 2009 newsletter to constituents
Several old posts on Theresa May's personal website as Maidenhead MP, stating her opposition to a Heathrow runway, were unearthed several months ago. One (May 2010) said she "welcomed the Government’s decision to cancel the third runway project at Heathrow Airport." And she said: “Like many local residents, I strongly welcome to cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow. Expanding Heathrow in this way would have had a detrimental effect on the Maidenhead and Twyford areas by increasing levels of noise and pollution, and today’s announcement is a victory for all those who have campaigned against it.” Now the Telegraph has found a leaflet from Theresa May in summer 2009 that says: "Theresa has opposed the Government's decision to approve a third runway at Heathrow. This would have a major impact on the constituency. A particular concern is a possible earlier increase in night flights over Maidenhead and the surrounding area." And the statement ends: "...I will fight to stop the third runway." She was part of Mr Cameron’s front bench when he made opposition to a third runway a key part of his pitch to get the Tories elected in the 2010 general election. Another leaflet from November 2010 – months after the Tories won power and scrapped plans for the third runway – shows her praising the “victory”.
Click here to view full story...
Statements by Professors Kevin Anderson and Alice Larkin, about how the UK should NOT be building a runway
Professor Larkin said: “The highly constrained carbon budget that is consistent with the Paris Agreement requires all fossil fuel consuming sectors to urgently accelerate towards full decarbonisation – and while some sectors will achieve this sooner than others, no sector can be excluded. Technical and even operational options for decarbonising the aviation sector within a timeframe consistent with the Paris goals are few and far between. As such, demand-side measures that constrain further growth, must receive much greater attention. Equally, policy measures aimed at increasing capacity and supporting further growth in air travel such as new runways, particularly within richer nations, are at odds with the Paris Agreement. Such developments risk future stranded assets, and should be avoided.” Professor Anderson said: "The UK Government’s enthusiasm for more airport capacity alongside its clamour for high-carbon shale gas demonstrates a palpable disdain for the Paris Agreement. Both of these decisions will lock the UK into ongoing emissions of carbon dioxide for decades to come, putting short-term convenience and financial gain ahead of long-term and genuinely low-carbon prosperity. Such reckless disregard for the prospects of our own children and the well being of poor and climatically vulnerable communities arises from either a scientifically illiterate Government or one that cares nothing for its legacy. Whichever it may be, these are undesirable characteristics of a government facing the climate change and other strategic challenges of the twenty-first century."
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow says it won’t raise landing charges while building 3rd runway – IAG not convinced that’s true
The main customer of Heathrow IAG, which owns British Airways, has been adamant that it will not pay exorbitant landing charges at Heathrow well before a new runway opens. Now in a last ditch attempt to win them over (and anticipating a decision by the government to back their 3rd runway) Heathrow is claiming it can keep landing charges down till the runway opens. Heathrow' CEO John Holland-Kaye says: "Through the planning and build period, we can keep prices flat on average compared to today. ...What that means is that there will be some years where they are going down, some where they are going up." Whatever that means. IAG has feared that landing charges would rise from about £20 now to around £40 per flight. Heathrow already has some of the world's most expensive landing charges. But Mr Holland-Kaye's words did not impress IAG and the company said the average was calculated over a period stretching up to 30 years, and "Their figures cannot deliver their stated aim of making Heathrow and the UK competitive. " Last week, Alex Cruz, chief executive of British Airways, urged Heathrow's shareholders to finance the construction from their own funds, rather than by increasing charges to passengers and airlines. Heathrow's 9 month financial statement showed increasing debt for the company, and a huge hole in the pension scheme.
Click here to view full story...