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:
Heathrow’s dividends to shareholders grow, but profits have plunged, pension deficit grows, and net debt grows
Heathrow has released financial figures for the first 9 months of 2016, to the end of September. They show a drop in profits compared to a year earlier. There is a pre-tax loss of £293 million, compared to a £552 million profit in the same period in 2015, due to various exceptional items. Its pre-tax profit before these items — which include fair value gains and losses on property revaluations — showed an 11% increase to £202m. Revenue edged up 1.2% to £2.1bn. Heathrow's consolidated net debt grew to £12.016 billion which was an increase of 2.3% from the same period last year, when it was £11.745 billion. Heathrow's pension fund dropped from a surplus of £104 million on December 31st to a deficit of £370 million in just nine months — a £474 million loss. The company attributed this decline to "financial volatility" following the Brexit vote etc. If this size of deficit continues, Heathrow will be required to put more money into its pension scheme. The Sunday Times recently said that Heathrow and Gatwick had each spent about £30 million on advertising and promoting their runway bids. The 9 month accounts show £13 million on "intangible assets" (probably advertising etc) this year, and £11 million in 2015. They also show £32 million of Corporation Tax paid, and Dividends paid of £486 million so far this year; £289 million in the same period of 2015; and £380 million in all of £2015.
Click here to view full story...
Cameron aide said government was “exposed on Heathrow” over air quality and “did not have the answers”
A memo sent by a Downing Street policy advisor, to David Cameron in September 2015 shows that the government were aware of the air pollution problem at Heathrow. The advisor, Camilla Cavendish, wrote that the air pollution plans by Liz Truss (then Environment Secretary) were inadequate and would not restrict the levels of NO2 around Heathrow. Camilla said: “There are three problems with Liz’s clean air plan as currently written. First it is still very much a draft which quotes initiatives that are likely to be abolished … Second it both over-claims and underwhelms. ... It says we want the cleanest air in the world but does not even begin to tackle the fundamental question of how we might help people to shift away from diesel cars. Third, it leaves us exposed on Heathrow where we don’t yet have an answer on air quality.” Cameron said in December 2015 that the government would undertake more work on the Heathrow air pollution issue. Defra published its national air quality plan in December 2015 with no mention of Heathrow and has not said more on this publicly since. Cavendish, who is now a Conservative peer, has now said she believes "successive governments have failed the public on air quality. Too many people in Whitehall and parliament think they can play it down because it’s invisible."
Click here to view full story...
Possible timescale for consultations and processes needed for a new runway
If the government makes an announcement that it proposes to build a new runway at its preferred location, on Tuesday 25th October, that is merely the start of a process. And it could be a very long process, that may ultimately not end in a runway being built. Looking at the possible timescale, Patrick McLoughlin set out in evidence (Feb 2015) to the Transport Select Cttee, how he expected the timescale to work. This would all take probably at least two years, if there were not hold-ups at all, and no legal challenges. It is expected that the process could take at least four years in reality - getting past the next election (if that is in May 2020). The steps might be approximately: (1). A draft National Policy Statement published for consultation and laid in Parliament, at least 4 weeks after the announcement. (2). The consultation might be 4 months. (3). A Commons Select Cttee will examine the draft NPS and hold a 3 month public inquiry. (4). The Commons Select Cttee will then submit a report to the Secretary of State for Transport. (5). Once a final NPS is laid, debates and votes must happen within 21 sitting days of the House. (6). There might be more changes needed to the NPS and another vote. (7). The developer submits a development consent order to the planning inspectorate. (8). Then a planning inquiry and examination for 6 months. (9). The planning inspector will report to the Sec of State within 3 months. (10). The Sec of State will consider the report and announce a decision in 3 months. And this is not counting legal challenges, at any stage.
Click here to view full story...
If government wants a new runway, why does the UK have no aviation climate strategy?
Business Green has looked at the implications of the UK allowing a new runway for our carbon emissions, and found the government has only an embarrassing space where a credible aviation carbon strategy should be. It has so far refused to engage with is the fact the aspirational target to keep UK aviation emissions at 2005 levels in 2050 is both arbitrary and too weak, and even then the Airports Commission made clear that meeting it requires heroically ambitious (unrealistic) assumptions on future carbon pricing and clean tech adoption. The Commission hoped that adding a runway would be manageable "if the rest of the economy decarbonises as people expect and aircraft become more fuel efficient". There is no guarantee of either of those - and in their absence, aviation emissions would rise too high. The Commission was aware that adding a south east runway would require hardly any expansion at regional airports. Allowing the expansion of aviation means all other sectors having to cut their CO2 emissions by 85% by 2050. Currently the UK is not on track to deliver the decarbonisation of the wider economy as planned. Large swathes of the economy will have to become virtually zero emission just to give aviation more headroom. "The basic principle of climate action should be to try and pull risk out of the system; new runways simply load more risk in."
Click here to view full story...
George Monbiot: Climate change means no airport expansion – at Heathrow or anywhere
An excellently written and eloquently argued piece by George Monbiot sets out why the UK should not build a new runway. Not at Heathrow. Not at Gatwick. Worth reading the whole article. Some extracts: ... "There is only one way to prevent aviation from wrecking the planet. We need to fly much less ... The correct question is not where, it is whether. And the correct answer is no. .... There is only one answer that doesn’t involve abandoning our climate change commitments and our moral scruples: nowhere. ... The prime minister cannot uphold the Paris agreement on climate change, which comes into force next month, and permit the runway to be built. ... [airlines] seek to divert us with a series of mumbo-jumbo jets, mythical technologies never destined for life beyond the press release. Solar passenger planes, blended wing bodies, hydrogen jets, algal oils, other biofuels: all are either technically impossible, commercially infeasible, worse than fossil fuels or capable of making scarcely a dent in emissions. ... Having approved the extra capacity, the government will discover that it’s incompatible with our commitments under the Climate Change Act, mull the consequences for a minute or two, then quietly abandon the commitments. It’s this simple: a third runway at Heathrow means that the UK will not meet its carbon targets."
Click here to view full story...
IATA forecasts UK air passengers by 2030 perhaps 25 million below DfT – so no need for a runway as early as 2030
IATA, the airlines’ trade association, expects that with a "hard Brexit" the number of UK air passengers could be 25 million fewer than government forecasts. 25 million passengers is about the entire annual throughput of Stansted. Though all forecasts are bound to be inaccurate, the problems of the weaker £ and changes to the relationship with the EU are likely to cut demand for air travel in the coming decade. Heathrow etc are keen to claim (having been totally against Brexit before the Referendum) that the UK now needs even more airport capacity. The reality is more than demand may fall, after 4 years of rapid growth before the EU referendum. IATA expect a hard Brexit (more likely) could cause air traffic to be 8-9% lower than with a soft Brexit (less likely). IATA’s forecast of 257 million UK flyers would equate to a total of just over 290 million passengers, including transfers, by 2030. (About 251 million in 2015). The Airports Commission believed, based on DfT forecasts, that a new runway should be constructed in the UK by 2030, predicted an increase to 315 million passengers by 2030. With the lower forecasts, that would not be till 2040. IATA's revised forecasts indicate air passenger demand near the lower limit of the DfT forecasts.
Click here to view full story...
Runway decision by Cabinet due 25th October, no Commons vote, and NPS consultation for new runway all next year
The Cabinet met today (18th October) and did not come to a formal agreement on backing a Heathrow runway. However it is widely believed to be the preferred option of Mrs May and most of the Cabinet. There will be another meeting of the Cabinet next Tuesday, and after that a statement will be made by Chris Grayling in the House of Commons, on which runway location is chosen. There will not be a vote in Parliament soon afterwards, as had been speculated. Instead - as had always been known - there will be consultation next year on the Airports National Policy Statement, which is needed before a development as large as a runway - a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project - can be applied for. The government hopes to have the Airports NPS completed, put to Parliament to vote on, and finally published (designated) by around the end of 2017 or early 2018 . She has written to all Cabinet Ministers laying out what they can, and cannot do, in terms of opposing the Cabinet runway decision. Ministers opposed to her decision have to ask her approval first to be permitted not to toe the line .... This is aimed especially at Boris Johnson and Justine Greening. Mrs May says: “…. no Minister will be permitted to campaign actively against the Government’s position, nor publicly criticise, or call into question the decision-making process itself. Ministers will not be permitted to speak against the Government in the House.”
Click here to view full story...
PM faces Tory problem if Zac Goldsmith stands as anti-Heathrow candidate in by-election
The Standard reports that Theresa May faces an awkward problem, if she backs a 3rd Heathrow runway, if Zac Goldsmith resigns his Richmond Park seat and causes a by-election. Zac held a private meeting of the Conservative group at Richmond Park where he confirmed he is ready to run as an independent. The group also voted in a secret ballot to support Zac rather than an official Conservative candidate, if one stood for the seat. Twickenham MP, Tania Mathias, who is also fiercely against the runway, agreed to support Zac, even though it is strictly against the party’s rules for an MP to back anyone standing against an official party candidate. For a Conservative not to stand, or to be beater significantly, would be very awkward for Mrs May. It is believed that the runway announcement will be made on Tuesday 25th October. At the Cabinet meeting on 18th October, ministers were allowed to discuss the runway issue for the first time — though critics of a 3rd Heathrow runway, such as Boris Johnson and Justine Greening, were only invited to comment and not to vote. The government was expected to hold a vote in Parliament (Commons, not Lords) within a week or so of the decision, to get the endorsement of MPs for the decision. This is now not going to happen. Zac would need to decide when to resign, for greatest impact.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow opponents take inspiration from 5 years of noise protests after 3rd Frankfurt runway
With a decision by government expected shortly, and the likelihood of a Heathrow runway being approved, 3 Heathrow campaigners went to join in one of the massive (almost) weekly demos at Frankfurt airport. Back in October 2011 a 3rd Frankfurt runway was opened. The local residents had not been informed just how much worse the plane noise they suffer would become, with new routes and alterations to old routes. About a million people in the area are affected. Since then they have held hundreds of protests, almost every Monday evening, against this reduction in their quality of life, the noise intrusion they suffer, and the drop in the prices of their homes. The Frankfurt area residents say they will never give up. The Heathrow campaigners said something very similar would happen to noise, with a 3rd Heathrow runway. Speaking to the crowd of many hundreds of protesters in the terminal, John Stewart said: "What you are showing to the airport authorities and to government is that if they build a runway that people don’t want, people will not go away. We will say that we will protest like the people of Frankfurt have protested for 5 years." Neil Keveren, a Harmondsworth resident, said: "When the people of Chiswick, Hammersmith, Ealing and Southall realise they are going to be under a flightpath, I am pretty sure they are going to get the same sort of response at home."
Click here to view full story...
Tory MPs opposed to 3rd runway warn of chaos in the party if PM opts for Heathrow
The Sunday Times understands up to 60 Conservative MPs are against a 3rd Heathrow runway - which would be the biggest parliamentary rebellion since Theresa May took power. In the summer a Comres poll of 150 MPs showed 20% against the Heathrow runway. That would translate to a lot more than 60 MPs, out of the full 650, even ignoring the SNP and the regions. There may be such an outcry that the party could have to reverse any support for Heathrow, if that decision is made in the next few weeks. Zac warns that the risk of Heathrow plans having to be abandoned should worry its potential investors. The Tory MPs opposing the Heathrow runway say they plan to use every parliamentary tool available to delay the final approval of the runway, if Mrs May declares support for it. There could be a “regret motion" in the House of Lords to show the depth of feeling in Parliament, which would cause damage and increase the chances of a judicial review being successful. The rebel MPs also plan to use 3 consultations expected to be launched if Heathrow gets the go-ahead – on planning approval, air space changes and the local impact of expansion – to increase MP opposition. Dozens of Labour MPs are against the runway, though it is thought that Jeremy Corbyn would not be able to enforce a whipped vote for opposition.
Click here to view full story...
Greenpeace to join with 4 councils in legal challenge against Heathrow 3rd runway
Greenpeace UK has joined forces with Hillingdon, Richmond, Wandsworth and Windsor and Maidenhead councils to prepare grounds for a joint legal challenge against Heathrow expansion. More claimants could join the alliance in the coming days as media reports have suggested a final decision has now been delayed until 25th October. Greenpeace and the four local authorities say both Heathrow expansion schemes would be unlawful due to their unrivalled environmental impacts, which include exacerbating illegal levels of air pollution, increasing Europe’s worst aircraft noise footprint and stretching the local transport network beyond breaking point. The councils jointly instructed Harrison Grant Solicitors to prepare their legal strategy last year and Greenpeace will now share costs and bring new environmental expertise to the partnership. The campaigners also worked together back in 2010 to successfully overturn the Brown Government’s backing for a 3rd runway in the High Court. Later that year the scheme was emphatically ruled out by the incoming Cameron Government. Heathrow current expansion scheme is even bigger and has more severe environmental impacts than the 2010 proposal, and will fail the same legal tests. New evidence on the severe health impacts of air and noise pollution make the new scheme far less likely to pass judicial review.
Click here to view full story...
BBC believes runway decision / announcement not on 18th but on 25th October
The BBC's Kamal Ahmed reports that Theresa May is not going to make an announcement on runways on the 18th October, as many had expected. The decision instead may be on Tuesday 25th October - and the announcement the same day in Parliament. This will be to to allow Cabinet ministers to express their views. "Sources in Whitehall told the BBC that expansion at Heathrow is the clear front runner." The BBC believes Mrs May has made it clear she wants to hear the wide-ranging opinions of colleagues in Cabinet, and they will discuss the issue at tomorrow's meeting. But no final decision is expected. It will then be left to the Economic Affairs (Transport) sub-committee, [ie. runways sub-committee] chaired by Theresa May herself, to make the final choice on whether to back Heathrow or Gatwick - or both with one after the other - as those are the options the government has seemingly limited itself to. Boris Johnson and Justine Greening, in Cabinet, are fiercely against a 3rd Heathrow runway. Senior Treasury officials believe Heathrow is the better option for boosting UK economic growth (though the Airports Commission's own reports show this could be as low as a total of £1.4 billion over all the UK over 60 years, taking all costs into account. That is a vanishingly small figure]. Heathrow has the benefit of fitting in with HS2 for links to the rest of the UK.
Click here to view full story...
Sunday Times believes Gatwick has been offered “consolation prizes” for not getting runway agreement yet
The Sunday Times believes that Gatwick has been offered various ways in which the airport could be helped, if it is not selected by the government as the site for a runway. The Times has been a firm supporter of a Gatwick runway, against Heathrow, for months - with many articles backing Gatwick's case. The Sunday Times says in private meetings Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary, and his officials had asked Gatwick what ministers could do as compromise options to assist the airport's growth, even if does not get a runway. This, the say, is an indication that the government is poised to approve a Heathrow 3rd runway. Heathrow apparently were not given any such offer. Theresa May’s cabinet is expected to decide by the end of October where to build a new runway in the southeast of England. Some of the things that might "smooth things over" with Gatwick might be a package of rail and road improvements - or telling Gatwick that while Heathrow could start the process of getting a runway built right away, Gatwick could build a runway within the next decade. An aviation expert commented that Theresa May might lay out a "road map" of different stages for aviation expansion. It is possible that the process of getting consent for a Heathrow runway could take so long that, even if Gatwick started the process years later, it could get a runway completed earlier.
Click here to view full story...
CPRE branches and local campaign groups consider legal action against Government if Gatwick runway approved
The Sussex and Surrey branches of CPRE (the Campaign to Protect Rural England) have jointly written to the Prime Minister to warn her that a legal challenge is on the cards if the government gives permission for Gatwick to build a 2nd runway. As well as the two CPRE branches the most affected by Gatwick, heritage venues, such as Hever Castle, Kent; Knepp Castle, West Sussex and 16 local action groups, have written to the Theresa May to say they are prepared to fight a decision. They said "the destruction of wildlife, tranquillity, dark night skies and clean air" could not be justified for a new runway. They add that Gatwick expansion is not just about a runway; it comes with huge baggage that would destroy the very landscapes that CPRE and local residents seek to protect and promote for future generations. Gatwick lies in the lee of the North Downs surrounded by three ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ which enjoy the same protections as the National Parks. The Chairman of CPRE Sussex said: "We may be smart about our technology but we can’t recreate our countryside, ancient woodland, and heritage. We are all responsible for our legacy; surely we should be leaving behind a better world by preserving our countryside from such destructive developments as a new runway at Gatwick.”
Click here to view full story...
Stansted will fight if Gatwick & Heathrow both get new runways – as they did not get opportunity to make their case
Amid rumours that the government might be intending to approve runway plans for both Heathrow and Gatwick, rather than just one or other, the owner of Stansted - Manchester Airports Group - says it would launch a legal challenge if that happened. They say the Airports Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, only fully examined the case for one new runway to be built before 2030. That is what its final report in July 2015 recommended. The Commission was aware that within CO2 constraints, it would be difficult to justify adding a 2nd runway. It said any case for a 2nd new runway would “need to be closely scrutinised in the light of climate-change policy”.However, it concluded two runways might be needed to if air travel demand by 2050 was to be met, and that could be assessed later on. Tim Hawkins, MAG’s corporate affairs director, said that MAG would have to legally challenge because other airports had not been given the opportunity to present their own cases for the second phase of UK airport expansion post-2030. If there were to be two new runways approved, there would need to be a whole new process before government could make that decision. That would also include the loser this time round (Heathrow or Gatwick). Stansted did not put forward a case for a new runway to the Commission in 2012-13, as its single runway was nowhere near full.
Click here to view full story...
Little new on aviation in CCC advice after Paris Agreement – STILL waiting for Government policy on aviation CO2
The Committee on Climate Change has produced its advice to government on UK climate action following the Paris Agreement last December. It sees aviation as a "challenging" or "hard to treat" sector from which to cut emissions. The CCC advocates greenhouse gas removal options (e.g. afforestation, carbon-storing materials, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) to help deal with these CO2 emissions. It is aware that the option for these measures is limited, though it suggests 10% use of biofuel in aircraft eventually (and reduced red meat consumption in diets as a solution ...) The CCC suggests shifting demand to lower emissions alternatives (e.g. virtual conferencing in place of international air travel). The CCC say government should develop strategies for greenhouse gas removal technologies and reducing emissions from the hardest-to-treat sectors eg. aviation. The CCC continues to say UK aviation CO2 emissions should not be above 37.5MtCO2 by 2050. They have said (Nov 2015) that government should publish an effective policy framework for aviation emissions by autumn 2016. This has NOT happened. While international aviation is not yet included in UK carbon budgets, the CCC said in Nov 2015 that it would "provide further advice following the ICAO negotiations in 2016, and recommend that Government revisit inclusion at that point." No mention of that yet.
Click here to view full story...
Study for Heathrow on “respite” from plane noise cannot define it or agree on its effective use
The concept of "respite" (meaning giving areas that are over-flown some time periods when they are not over-flown, is being considered as a way to make otherwise unacceptable levels of plane noise - eg. from a new runway - acceptable. The concept works well for the two Heathrow approach paths over London now, with the landing runway switched at 3pm, allowing people almost half a day without the noise. But with 3 runways, one would need to always be in mixed mode, and so people could no longer get such long "respite" periods. Nobody knows what actually constitutes respite, how quiet the quiet periods should be, how long they should last, how often they should be, how predictable and so on. Heathrow set up The Respite Working Group (RWG) in October 2014 to provide advice to the Heathrow Noise Forum on the management and assessment of respite. Heathrow employed Anderson Acoustics to look into respite, to define it and to understand how it might be useful. However, their review concluded that: There is currently no clear, consistent or universally accepted definition of respite. What the community values as respite is not fully understood. There is currently no single acoustic metric that can adequately describe respite. There is no universal formula for the successful implementation of an effective respite strategy and operational design for respite needs to consider operational conditions at an airport. And there is currently insufficient information on the benefits of respite to health and on the economic value of the effects of respite.
Click here to view full story...
British Airways CEO confirms his airline will not pay exorbitant Heathrow fees to build new runway scheme
Alex Cruz, the chief executive of British Airways, (which is part of IAG) said the airline would oppose any move by its main airport, Heathrow, to raise its charges if it gets permission to build a 3rd runway. Mr Cruz said that although there was an “overwhelming case” for expanding capacity at Heathrow, this should not be at such high cost, and “Any notion that the cost will be borne by airlines is not acceptable." He said that though IAG (BA produced about 75% of IAG's 2015 profit), would not leave Heathrow altogether if costs were too high, it would look at expanding operations elsewhere. IAG also has hubs in Dublin and Shannon for Aer Lingus, in Madrid for Iberia, and Barcelona for Vueling - so it has lots of possible options. IAG does not want to pay in advance for the future runway and terminal, the extravagant design of which it has described as "gold plated." Alex Cruz, like IAG boss Willie Walsh, was critical of a 2nd Gatwick runway, saying there was “no business case” for it, and “There is simply not sufficient demand from either customers or airlines....Experience shows that the majority of long-haul airlines that start operations at Gatwick either quit and leave London altogether or go to Heathrow as soon as possible.” Mr Cruz said that Heathrow’s shareholders should bear the cost of building a 3rd runway from the start. “Heathrow’s investors do pretty well out of its monopoly hub status."
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow accused of not ensuring all cleaners are paid living wage – while paying huge dividends
Cleaners at Heathrow say that low pay is damaging their families' lives. They have have complained to the airport's CEO John Holland-Kaye that they are not getting the London living wage, which was agreed as a condition by the Airports Commission, as part of plans for a 3rd runway. Heathrow had agreed to pay £9.40 per hour, (about £19,500 per year). But the airport workers say this is paid only to directly employed staff and not those working through agencies. They say low wages and long hours deny them "dignity" and the chance to spend time with their children. (John Holland-Kaye himself earned £2.06m in 2015, more than doubling his basic salary of £885,000. He stands to get a huge bonus if he can get consent for a 3rd runway). While directly employed staff are paid £9.40 per hour, those who are employed through contractors might only get £7.20. In October 2015 the FT reported that by the end of 2018, Heathrow aims to have about a third of its employees on salary packages that are about 30% lower than existing terms and conditions. It will also introduce an annual cap of 2% on future increases to pensionable pay for active members, resulting in a one-off reduction of £236m in the scheme’s liabilities. In January 2016 the Sunday Times reported that Heathrow had paid its owners dividends of £2.1 billion since 2012 – but just £24 million in Corporation Tax.
Click here to view full story...
Richmond, Merton, Kingston & Croydon councils write to PM to stop Heathrow runway, and choose Gatwick
In addition to the four councils that will legally challenge the government if it decides on a Heathrow runway (Windsor & Maidenhead, Richmond, Hillingdon and Wandsworth) now four councils have written to the Prime Minister to oppose a Heathrow runway decision. Richmond, Merton, Kingston and Croydon councils, calling themselves the South London Partnership, made the case to Theresa May to approve a Gatwick runway instead. All these councils know the highly adverse impact of the noise of Heathrow flights on their residents, and would prefer that noise burden to be pushed to others (who do not have the opportunity to vote them out - as with the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, who also backs a Gatwick runway. They also say: “One thing in particular on which we want to contribute is ensuring the transport links to Gatwick and connectivity more widely, including into our area, central London and with other key corridors, are developed to support the full potential of airport expansion." Presumably they appreciate that the transport links to Gatwick are very poor, and would not be able to cope with a doubling in the number of air passengers. Conservative Richmond Council leader Lord True said the government should "stand up for ordinary families, rather than ‘big business’".
Click here to view full story...
UK and China renew bilateral deal so each could have 100 return flights (up from 40) per week
The DfT has renewed the bilateral aviation agreement with China, to allow more weekly flights between the two countries. Until now, the limit had been 40 flights by UK airlines to China per week, and 40 flights by Chinese airlines to the UK. This has been raised to 100 flights each. There will be no limit on the number of all-cargo services (but most Heathrow freight goes as belly hold, not separate freighter). Currently Chinese airlines operate 38 flights a week between the two countries, and UK airlines operate 29. The only UK airports that have flights to China are Heathrow and Manchester. The earlier deal was that any UK airline could serve a maximum of 6 separate airports in China. Now UK airlines can operate to anywhere in mainland China. Laying on the hype, Chris Grayling, the Transport Secretary, said the deal was a “big moment for the UK”. However, airlines will have to decide whether it makes sense to use the extra capacity to offer new Chinese flights to and from China, with doubtful demand, when transatlantic routes are more profitable. The hope is probably for more UK business and UK exports. The DfT ignores the problem that the UK imports from China more than twice as much as it exports to China. More flights may exacerbate that. House of Commons Library data says that: "In 2014, UK exports to China were worth £18.7 billion. Imports from China were £38.3 billion. The UK had a trade deficit of £19.6 billion with China." Flights to and from Hong Kong are in a separate bilateral deal.
Click here to view full story...
New Civil Engineer believes Heathrow, Gatwick and Birmingham set to get go ahead for runways
The NCE believes government will give the go ahead to new runways at both Heathrow and Gatwick - on 18th October. The NCE expects Heathrow would be allowed a runway immediately, and Gatwick could build a 2nd runway within the next 5 years. NCE also understands the government will urge Birmingham airport to plan a 2nd runway. The reason for this decision, other than the difficulties in making it, is ascribed to the forecasts of air passenger numbers being inaccurate. (Forecasts are, of course, usually inaccurate ... and air passenger numbers depend on many variables, including oil price, and the strength of the £ and UK and global economy). The DfT produced very bullish passenger forecasts in 2007, which were way too high and knocked back by the recession. Lower forecasts were produced in 2011, and then lower again in 2013. The Airports Commission did its own forecasts, over a range of scenarios - and took account of the fact that aviation expansion would be constrained by the annual cap on CO2 emissions of 37.5 MtCO2. Because air passenger numbers have recovered to their pre-recession levels, it is believed by some that this rapid growth will continue and the forecasts are too low. The "predict and provide" scenario would require more runways. This sort of growth in UK aviation challenges our legally binding UK carbon targets under the Climate Change Act 2008.
Click here to view full story...
Windsor & Maidenhead council (PM’s constituency) to raise amount for JR against Heathrow runway to £50,000
Windsor and Maidenhead council (Theresa May's constituency) will increase its budget to fight a Heathrow runway, if it gets government backing. The council is prepared to spend £50,000 on a judicial review, which underlines the scale of resistance that the prime minister will face from residents in her Maidenhead constituency if she agrees to allow the third runway to go ahead. Council papers say the runway plans would have a “significant potential impact on the quality of life” of people living in the area. Lawyers for the 4 councils most opposed to the runway wrote to the government’s airport capacity directorate on 30 September 2016 calling for a consultation “in advance of any decision”, and that consulting councils afterwards would represent a “sham”. The councils say the process by which ministers have taken the decision has been “shrouded in mystery” and the “lack of openness and transparency is of great concern”. Specifically government work on air quality was promised but has not been released, and EU limits on nitrogen dioxide concentrations remain binding. The council is particularly concerned about residents who are currently not under flight paths, but would be under the new plans. The council says, moreover the mitigating factors being promised by Heathrow, such as a ban on night flights, are “expressed in vague terms which cannot meaningfully be assessed or considered”.
Click here to view full story...
Teddington Action Group prepares for “first of many” judicial reviews of Government decision on Heathrow runway
Teddington Action Group (TAG) has re-stated its commitment to launch Judicial Review (JR) proceedings of a Government decision on airport expansion – should one of the two Heathrow options be chosen. TAG issued a pre-action letter of claim (the first step in the JR process) back in June 2015, on the eve of the Airports Commission's recommendation for a new runway at Heathrow. Proceedings were then put on hold pending a Government decision on the 3 runway options. TAG has now re-confirmed its commitment to continue proceedings, with a key ground for its JR being the "apparent bias" of the Chair of the Airports Commission itself, Sir Howard Davies, due to his roles at GIC Private Ltd, owner of a 11.9% share in Heathrow Airport Holdings. In 2009, Sir Howard was appointed as an adviser to the Investment Strategy Committee of GIC Private Limited (formerly known as the Singapore Government Investment Co), advising them on "new growth opportunities". In 2011 he was appointed to the International Advisory Board of GIC Private Ltd, a board on which he was still sitting on the day of his appointment as "independent" Chair of the Airports Commission. He never disclosed these roles in the Airports Commission's Register of Interests. He then accepted the Chairmanship of RBS, Heathrow's main banker, while still steering the Commission to its conclusion. This puts the Commission's "independence" into question.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow manages to persuade SNP to back its runway, with hopes of 16,000 jobs (?)
Heathrow have received a boost after the Scottish government announced its backing for its runway plan, which it claimed would create up to 16,000 jobs across Scotland. Environmental campaigners and Green politicians decried the move as “a disaster for climate change”, and questioned whether the promised jobs would ever in fact materialise. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, Keith Brown, believes there would be more benefits for Scotland from a Heathrow runway than a Gatwick one. A series of commitments, including on jobs, investigating the use of Glasgow Prestwick airport as a potential site for a logistics hub for building the 3rd runway, and a reduction of £10 per passenger on landing charges paid by airlines operating services from Heathrow to Scotland, are apparently included in a Memorandum of Understanding signed between Heathrow airport and the SNP government on Monday 10th. Opponents are surprised by this move, as GIP owns both Gatwick and Edinburgh airports, and the SNP are behind the growth of Edinburgh airport. What Scotland wants is more of direct international air routes, not necessarily routes via Heathrow, for business and for cargo (imports and exports). More flights will mean more money taken out of Scotland on leisure trips - something airport expansion advocates always ignore. The current Scottish tourism deficit is already around £1.5 billion per year.
Click here to view full story...
The truth about economic benefits of Heathrow expansion – new detailed analysis from FoE
A new briefing on the economics of a 3rd Heathrow runway makes interesting reading. MPs, councils, Chambers of Commerce and others have been subject to a barrage of propaganda from Heathrow, urging them to support a new runway, for massive economic benefits. But the actual evidence - instead of hype, sound bites and corporate propaganda - shows there is virtually no economic benefit for the country. Furthermore, the regions lose out to the south east. The most important single table from the Airports Commission's final report shows a total benefit, to all of the UK over 60 years, of just £1.4 billion - in the carbon capped scenario (£11.4 billion in the carbon traded scenario). Compare this to the figure of £211 billion that Heathrow is using is its PR. The Commission also showed that without a third runway at Heathrow, growth in necessary air traffic goes to other airports where there is lots of spare capacity. With a Heathrow runway, the flights at regional airports will end up being substantially reduced. It is very hard to see how losing traffic and destinations from regional airports to Heathrow is good for the economy of the regions. In addition, Heathrow is only prepared to contribute £1.1 billion to surface access infrastructure, leaving the taxpayer to fund as much as £17 billion.
Click here to view full story...
Theresa May at odds with her Maidenhead council and local Tory party chairman over Heathrow
The Chairman of Theresa May’s local Maidenhead Conservative Association is part of a group threatening to sue her government if it approves the 3rd runway at Heathrow. Cllr Geoffrey Hill sits on a council warning it will launch legal action within days if Heathrow expansion is backed. Senior Windsor & Maidenhead council figures believe increasing capacity at Heathrow would blight their residents with even more noise and pollution -and are determined to stop the project. Theresa May is widely expected to back Heathrow over Gatwick when she makes a decision on airport expansion - perhaps on Tuesday 18th October (or 11th?). The Prime Minister’s constituency of Maidenhead, which she has represented since 1997, is badly overflown by Heathrow planes. Mrs May voiced her concerns about a 3rd runway before the 2010 election but has since made little public comment on the development. (See her comments from 2010 and 2009 below). Windsor and Maidenhead council is one of 4 local authorities threatening to challenge any decision to build a Heathrow runway through the courts. Simon Dudley, the Tory leader of the council, said their judicial review could see the case in the courts for years, delaying or preventing the runway's construction. The council has put aside £30,000 to fight the legal battle. Maidenhead councillors campaigned on opposing an extension of Heathrow locally before the 2015 election.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick says it intends to build a 2nd runway, even if Government decides on Heathrow
Simon Calder writing in the Independent says Gatwick intends to build a 2nd runway – even if the Government decides Heathrow should have a runway instead. Gatwick wants to build anyway, even though the Airports Commission regard 2 runways as unnecessary, with inadequate demand to fill both. They believed (ignoring carbon implications entirely) there might be demand for a 2nd new runway by around 2050. A moratorium on starting any physical work on a 2nd runway at Gatwick expires in 2019. Gatwick (whose management are in line for vast bonuses if they can get a runway approved) hope they could have a runway completed by 2025 – faster than a 3rd Heathrow runway. Aviation experts have questioned the wisdom of building 2 runways simultaneously at both airports. Aviation analyst John Strickland said: “The acid test would be how much additional traffic Gatwick would attract if Heathrow secures a 3rd runway, which will attract the lion’s share of airline demand in the London market.” Another said the owners of Heathrow are in it for the long term, but Gatwick owners, GIP, are just in it for the money. UK airlines are understood to be appalled at the prospect of higher airport charges to fund the building of one new runway, let alone two. Local campaign groups are also appalled, and point out that Gatwick has no plans to pay for any of the essential surface access improvement work needed to deal with a 2nd runway.
Click here to view full story...
Thousands (20,000?) march to the ZAD at Notre Dame des Landes, planting their sticks symbolic of opposition to new airport
At Notre-Dame-des-Landes, where a new airport for Nantes is planned, there was a massive mobilisation on Saturday 8th October against it. Somewhere between 15,000 and 40,000 people from many distant parts of France walked to the ZAD (zone à défendre), with sticks to symbolise their determination that this land will not be built on for the airport, which they are sure is not necessary. The sticks rang out on the roads surrounding the planned airport site, as the walkers arrived - and they planted the vast number of staffs in the soil, as an expression that they will be back to defend the site against the forces of the state. The only way the government, and the airport developer, Vinci, can take the site is by force - using huge numbers of riot police. They would have to take back a large area (1650 hectares), and keep it defended against zadistes for a long time. Might they try to take and hold part of the site? This situation is difficult, expensive and risky for the government. There have been violent clashes in the past, over the defence of the ZAD. At another protest site, the Sivens Dam, a protester - Rémi Fraisse - died after being hit by a police flash grenade. It is hoped the police would not use force for the evictions. The airport project got a small vote in its favour in June in a public consultation, though the fairness of that is questioned by objectors. There were delays waiting for legal permissions to destroy water vole habitat and wetlands, but these have now been approved.
Click here to view full story...
Might the ICAO deal, weak in itself, be the beginning of the end for very cheap flights?
The recent deal from ICAO on slightly limiting the rise in global aviation carbon emissions would perhaps add around 2% to the price of an air ticket. That would be about the cost of a coffee on many short haul cheap flights - not a deterrent. It would not start till 2020. The aviation industry may worry that its wafer thin margins (shocking it makes so little profit for the emission of SO much CO2) may be further hit. But the industry is pleased there is an ICAO deal, as it will be much cheaper for them than a patchwork of more stringent regulations by regions or countries. Hence their (muted) enthusiasm for it. They have got off lightly. The aviation industry currently has very cheap fuel, but it has not had a good year due to fears of terrorism, cutting growth - and also fears of coming economic gloom, with Brexit as part of that. There have been airline staff cuts. Airlines will need to invest in newer planes, that emit less carbon per mile - to save themselves costs in future. The price of oil is not likely to stay low for ever, especially due to the lack of investment in the current downturn. With the first mechanism to act on aviation CO2 now agreed, there may in future be more environmental regulation for the sector. With anticipated growth of 4 - 5% per year, the CO2 emissions from global aviation could become around 25%of the total by 2050 - eclipsing the progress made in cutting carbon from other sectors.
Click here to view full story...
Campaign to Protect Rural England fears Gatwick runway would mean the loss of ‘glorious tranquil countryside’
With a Government announcement on airport expansion expected soon, the Chairman of the Sussex branch of the CPRE argues against a 2nd Gatwick runway. David Johnson says already Sussex councils are struggling under continuing Government pressure to find yet more sites for development. This pressure is met by fierce community challenges as local residents fight to protect what makes Sussex special - its tranquil rural beauty. Building new infrastructure and swathes of new homes seem to be regarded as the key to inflating the UK’s economy. While the nuisance of aircraft noise, light and air pollution and the impact on local traffic is familiar to many of us, any extension to Gatwick threatens to worsen this blight. David says: "The burden of a greater Gatwick fills me with dread - ‘progress’ should not lead to a decline in air quality, the bulldozing of ancient woodlands and the loss of glorious, tranquil countryside. Gatwick lies in the lee of the North Downs surrounded by three ‘Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty’ which enjoy the same protections as the National Parks. ... We may be smart about our technology but we can’t recreate our countryside, ancient woodland, and heritage. We are all responsible for our legacy; surely we should be leaving behind a better world by preserving our countryside from such destructive developments as a new runway at Gatwick."
Click here to view full story...
Boris and Justine may be “unavoidably away” to avoid embarrassment on Cabinet runway vote
The Observer expects that the meeting of the runway sub-committee of the Cabinet will be on Monday 17th October, with the Cabinet decision on 18th - and the announcement in Parliament. But that may still be speculation .... The Observer also says that to avoid "embarrassment" to Boris Johnson and Justine Greening (fierce opponents of a Heathrow 3rd runway), it is likely they would both be “unavoidably away” when the Commons votes on the issue. They would therefore not have the awkward situation of being in Cabinet ....“Boris can easily be arranged to be on tour and Justine could be researching grammar schools in Malawi, or some such,” said a government source ... (is this ethical or democratic?) Though it is likely there would be a free vote in Parliament, to endorse the Cabinet decision on a runway location, the Cabinet would probably be required to support of the government’s position. Boris will not resign if there is a vote for a 3rd runway, but may believe even if approved by Theresa May, the runway may never in reality go ahead. Journalists appear to believe, or have been told by Whitehall sources, that Heathrow is the preferred location. Zac Goldsmith has warned that taxpayers could end up paying for Heathrow's expansion, as the airport has significant debts and could be forced to turn to the government for financial support.
Click here to view full story...
Turkey building massive aerotropolis – 3rd airport for Istanbul – to cover 7.6 km sq including farmland and forest
Turkey is in the process of building a vast 7,650 hectare (ie. 7.65 km sq) aerotropolis airport development, with 6 runways. It forms part of a massive scheme for a road bridge over the Bosphorus, another canal, huge marinas etc covering a vast area. There has been strenuous opposition to this for years, but Turkey wants a new airport and to be a major aviation hub - situated where it is close to the Middle East. Much of the land being dug up and flattened was farmland, and some was forest. This is now all destroyed. The campaign, Northern Forest Defence (KUZEY ORMANLARI SAVUNMASI), has produced film showing the scale of the devastation. They sent a message of solidarity on 1st October, to other protests agains other unwelcome and environmentally destructive airport developments, including the airport project at Nantes. Work on it started in June 2014, and by August about 30% of work on the first phase was complete. If the first phase is completed in February 2018, it is expected the airport will then process 90 million passengers annually, and up to over 150 million passengers a year when fully operational in 2030. The group says people in the area wait to be told their land will be bought up for the project. The first wave of mandatory government purchases was in 2014. If land is designated as farmland, Turkish law allows its expropriation to use for public projects.
Click here to view full story...
ICAO’s aviation offsetting deal is a weak start – now countries must go further to cut CO2
A deal was finally agreed by ICAO on 6th October. It was progress, in that there had never been any sort of agreement on global aviation CO2 emissions before. But it was not a great deal - and far too weak to provide the necessary restriction on the growth of global aviation CO2. It came in the same week that the Paris Agreement crossed its crucial threshold to enter into force, but the ICAO deleted key provisions for the deal to align its ambitions with the Paris aim of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees with best efforts to not exceed 1.5 degrees C. Tim Johnson, Director of AEF and the lead representative of The International Coalition for Sustainable Aviation (ICSA) – the official environmental civil society observer at the global negotiations, said in relation to the UK: “But while today’s deal is applauded, this international effort falls well short of the effort required to bring UK aviation emissions in line with the Climate Change Act. With a decision on a new runway expected later this month, the UK’s ambition for aviation emissions must match the ambition of the Climate Change Act, and not simply the ICAO global lowest common denominator of carbon neutral growth from 2020. The ICAO scheme could make a contribution towards the ambition of the Climate Change Act, but it does not solve the whole problem.”
Click here to view full story...
New research on Heathrow meeting air pollution standards with 3rd runway is highly speculative and not convincing
The BBC published a story about work, funded by NERC and led by a Cambridge professor, on Heathrow air pollution levels. The work is ongoing and not yet published, but the BBC made the claim that it showed a Heathrow 3rd runway would not breach NO2 levels. The timing of the story by the BBC, one or two weeks before it is expected the Cabinet will make an announcement, may be due to Heathrow manipulation. The study in reality is looking at modelling of future air pollution, based on a range of assumptions - nothing new. Its projections are only as good as its modelling inputs. If assumptions that vehicles will rapidly convert to lower-NO2 engines, or the uptake of electric vehicles will be fast, then forecasts of NO2 can be low. But this is highly speculative. Cait Hewitt, deputy director of the AEF, said: “The assumption would have to be that, over the next decade, we’d move from having something like 57% of London’s vehicles being diesel vehicles to instead having ultra-clean electric vehicles throughout the capital. There just isn’t evidence to suggest that’s going to happen.” Client Earth's CEO James Thornton said: “When making the decision on Heathrow the government has a moral and legal duty to protect people’s health and ensure they have the right to breathe clean air. It shouldn’t base its decision on optimistic modelling at best and a naive view of the car industry that has proven time and time again it can’t be trusted to bring levels of air pollution down." The study did not look at increases in road traffic, or what proportion would be associated with the new runway.
Click here to view full story...
I’ll fight Heathrow over plans for a new runway, says Justine Greening – not ruling out resignation
Education Secretary Justine Greening, MP for Putney, has refused to rule out resigning if Heathrow is chosen by Theresa May to expand. She has been a vocal opponent of a larger Heathrow for years, as her constituency is badly overflown already by Heathrow planes - and the noise would be worse with a 3rd runway. She has now said she would continue to fight against Heathrow being the designated site for a runway. When asked by the BBC if her position in Cabinet would be ‘untenable’ if the decision went against her, Justine said the scenario was ‘hypothetical’. Back in May, before the Brexit vote, she predicted that the then PM, David Cameron, would have to shelve plans to expand Heathrow and choose Gatwick instead. Zac Goldsmith, the Tory MP for Richmond Park, close to Heathrow and badly over-flown by its planes, has again reiterated that he would trigger a by-election if the Cabinet chose Heathrow, but he would not clarify whether he would himself stand again. Theresa May herself clearly said, 10th May 2010 (on her own website) “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.”
Click here to view full story...
IAG Cargo plans a new London premium temperature-controlled freight facility, double the size of the present one
IAG Cargo (which contains 4 airlines) is to build a new £55 million temperature controlled freight facility at Heathrow, to help it grow a “higher yielding” part of its business. IAG Cargo hopes this will be completed in 2018 and that the new building will be twice the size of the current IAG Cargo Premia facility (at about 8,500 square metres). The temperature controlled facility will be for expensive “premier” airfreight, for goods like perishable seafood - making more profit than many other sorts of cargo. IAG Cargo has not been doing well for the past two quarters, with commercial revenue down compared to a year earlier - down by 12% for Q2 2016 and down -1.8% in Q1. Some of the capacity will be for exports, but it is likely that the volume of imports will be larger (though Heathrow and the freight industry never draw attention to this publicly - just talking about exports). IAG Cargo say there is an expansion in demand from China, with the newly affluent middle classes wanting more sea food. They say razor clams and salmon from Scotland and Ireland are profitable exports. Apparently about 400 tonnes of Scottish razor clams were air freighted by IAG to China. [It is questionable how environmentally sustainable it is to grow these sea foods in the UK, to ship almost half way around the world - in biological terms as well as carbon]. IAG Cargo also handles fresh fruit and vegetables that are increasingly air freighted - as imports to the UK. More air freight mean more heavy lorries and vans, powered by diesel, around Heathrow.
Click here to view full story...
Academic research funded by NERC looking at better scientific data on Heathrow area NO2 pollution
The NERC (National Environment Research Centre) has funded independent research by a group of university academics into the NO2 air pollution. Heathrow has not paid for it. They have been using a larger number of pollution sensors, in different places, to contribute scientific data on levels of air pollution. They hope to be able to distinguish between NO2 from Heathrow itself, and from road traffic or that blown in from elsewhere. At several sites, the levels of NO2 are already above EU limits (40 µg/m3 over a year). The aim of the research is to test models to ensure they accord with reality. Past work done for the Airports Commission relied on estimates, whereas this latest work used more accurate, real-world measurements. The research is ongoing and there is no report yet, but it is likely that in a month or so the findings will be submitted to one or other journal, for peer review before publication. The study is on NO2 and has not looked at particulates in the same detail. One of the authors said the study does not say anything new - it is merely looking at the situation in an independent, purely scientific way, rather than (as has been done in the past) just extrapolating and predicting by modelling. The existence of the work, is being interpreted by others (like the BBC) to mean that air pollution from road vehicles will reduce (less NO2 from new diesels, and there will be more electric vehicles) in future, so a 3rd Heathrow runway might not lead to illegal NO2 levels. The authors say they have just done research - interpretation is for others.
Click here to view full story...
Zac Goldsmith likely to quit politics, rather than stand again as Richmond MP, if May approves Heathrow runway
The Evening Standard reports that Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative MP for Richmond Park, has said he would resign as an MP if Theresa May decides to approve a Heathrow 3rd runway. He has said for a long time that he would resign, and perhaps stand again as an independent. Zac's constituency is heavily over-flown by Heathrow, and with a 3rd runway, people would lose a large part of the time they currently have "respite" from the noise, due to the current runway alternation. Heathrow has admitted that people would probably only get perhaps 4 hours per day without planes, rather than about 8 hours at present. But now Zac is understood to feel it would be wasting his constituents' time to stand again at a by-election, and he would instead step down. His current majority is 23,000 (with about 43,000 votes out of around 58,000). The Liberal Democrats have held the seat in the past. The departure of Zac could be a worry for Theresa May as the Conservative party's working majority is only 16. (The Conservatives have 329 MPs, out of 650). They cannot comfortably afford to lose any. Though Boris Johnson and Justine Greening are both deeply opposed to the runway, they have both said they would not resign, and give up their Cabinet positions, on the issue.
Click here to view full story...
ASA uphold Teddington Action Group’s complaint about 4th misleading Heathrow advert
The Teddington Action Group complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) back in July about misleading information put out by Heathrow, implying that "A majority of MPs support expansion". Heathrow got a Comres poll done, of 150 MPs, and said that of these 65% supported a 3rd Heathrow runway. Heathrow then generalised this result to claim the same support across all 650 MPs. The ASA has upheld TAG's complaint against the Heathrow claim "A majority of MPs support Heathrow expansion" was misleading as it was based on a survey of only 150 MPs and the geographical make-up of the MPs surveyed meant a bias in the result; and The advert did not provide sufficient clarity on where the claim that "Expanding Heathrow will deliver up to £211bn of economic growth and up to 180,000 jobs across Britain" was sourced. The only evidence for the claims in the ads is a link to the Airports Commission, in tiny print - and no indication of the caveats on those figures - or that the economic benefits are over 60 years). The ASA agreed the advert had breached the Advertising Codes. To avoid negative publicity, Heathrow agreed to make the required changes to the advert and the case was informally resolved by the ASA. This is the fourth such ruling in 18 months against adverts claiming support for Heathrow expansion.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick signs up Bechtel to build its (dreamed of) runway
In March Heathrow announced 4 winning contractors – Arup, CH2M, MACE and Turner & Townsend – for the construction work on the 3rd runway that it hopes to build. Heathrow hoped this would imply to government that it would be ready to start building as soon as it got consent. Gatwick was a bit slower off the mark, only putting out its offers to tender in February. Gatwick has now announced a "strategic partnership" with Bechtel to deliver a 2nd runway, by 2025. Gatwick says Bechtel has been working with them for the past two years, developing a delivery programme and plan of how to build the runway and the terminal. Bechtel project managed the Channel Tunnel and HS1 and is currently providing programme management services for Crossrail. Gatwick are claiming their expansion plan is "low risk" and is, of course, easier than the problem Heathrow has with having to tunnel the M25. Architect Sir Terry Farrell has been working on Gatwick’s expansion plans, for a number of years - and would work with Bechtel. Gatwick has little support for its expansion, and it would be unlikely to achieve the backing at a vote in Parliament, which is expected some time not long after a runway location announcement by the Government, maybe in October.
Click here to view full story...
Stop Heathrow Expansion casts doubt on Heathrow’s 3rd Runway jobs claims, from past experience
Local group, Stop Heathrow Expansion (SHE) has unearthed figures which throw into question the claims Heathrow is making about the number of jobs a third runway will create. Stop Heathrow Expansion, which represents people in the Heathrow villages, some of whom work at the airport, says Heathrow are hiding behind a wall of secrecy over exactly how many jobs Terminal Five, the last major development at the airport, actually created. The report of the public inquiry inspector which gave the green light to the 5th terminal in March 1999 concluded that by 2016 the terminal would provide an additional 16,000 on-airport jobs. Heathrow has told SHE that it cannot confirm the actual number of jobs which have been created because “finding out would be a substantial piece of work in its own right.” Heathrow annual reports indicate there were 6,714 staff employed in UK Continuing operations in year ended 31.12.2015 and 7,354 staff in year ended 31.12 2013 (ie. 9% lower) and 7,406 in year ended 31.12.2012. Heathrow said that in July 2013, 76,600 were directly employed on the Heathrow site. The Airports Commission's Final Report said the Heathrow NW runway would generate around 75,000-78,000 in 2050."(and an additional 59-77,000 jobs in 2030).
Click here to view full story...
Protest picnic at Gatwick against 2nd runway, in solidarity with Reclaim the Power #staygrounded protests at Heathrow
In solidarity with the two protests organised by Reclaim the Power at Heathrow on the same day - the Critical Mass cycle ride and the flashmob "die-in" in Terminal 2, there was another colourful and creative protest at Gatwick. On cue from a tartan clad bagpipe player, people spread out a picnic in the arrivals area of the South terminal with leaflets and speech bubbles explaining why they were there. The 25 or so protestors were there for about an hour and a half, handing out leaflets explaining that there is no need for new runway either at Heathrow or at Gatwick, though Gatwick has been putting its (weak) case for a 2nd runway as hard as money and PR spin will permit. The protest picnic - in common with the Heathrow protest - stressed that the majority of flights at UK airports are taken by a small minority. In any one year, around 70% of the flights are taken by around 15% of the population. These frequent fliers, taking increasing numbers of low cost leisure flights are driving the demand for another runway. A declining number of flights, already less than a quarter, are for business purposes. At a time when we urgently need to curb our CO2 emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change, increasing these extra CO2 emissions by increasing the amount we British fly will only contribute to climate injustice, and lead to many thousands of deaths worldwide.
Click here to view full story...
Reclaim the Power #staygrounded die-in flashmob at Heathrow against runway, and Critical Mass cycle ride
Two spectacular "Stay Grounded" protests took place at Heathrow, against a possible third runway. Both were organised by Reclaim the Power, which is a grassroots organisation taking action with local communities on environmental, economic and social justice issues. The protests at Heathrow were against aviation expansion, partly due to its carbon emissions and also local air pollution, and to highlight the social injustice of climate change impacts around the world. Hundreds of activists staged a "die-in" flashmob in Heathrow's Terminal 2, and there was a Critical Mass bike ride of about 150 risers wearing red, which circled the area, visiting Harmondsworth Detention Centre and Longford village, and briefly obstructing traffic by circling the main roundabout on Bath Road. The "die-in" involved over 100 people, many of whom wore masks to symbolise the pollution from aviation. Testimonies from communities already affected by climate change were read out, including from Pacific islands that are suffering from sea level rise. Street theatre at the protest showed high income frequent fliers, checking in and drinking champagne (being critical of the "irresponsible" environmental protesters ....) There was also a flashmob action at Gatwick, and others as part of a global wave of actions opposing airport expansion (including Austria, France, Mexico, Turkey), timed to coincide with the major ICAO conference aiming to address the emissions impact of aviation.
Click here to view full story...
Manchester Airport MD says UK needs a national aviation policy to address north-south economic divide
Ken O’Toole, who is the Managing Director of Manchester airport, (and on the board of Manchester Airports Group), says government ‘paranoia’ over Heathrow expansion harms efforts to close the north-south economic divide - and this means the "northern powerhouse" risks being derailed. He says there is an “over-emphasis on the south-east at the expense of everywhere else”. Ministers needed to draw up a national aviation policy to address the north-south economic divide. Though he was confident that Theresa May’s government was supportive of ex-chancellor George Osborne’s "northern powerhouse" agenda, there was a lack of a national aviation policy behind the strategy. Manchester airport is part of the northern powerhouse agenda, in part because it deals with much of the business travel into the north of England. The MAG owns Manchester and Stansted airports, the 3rd and 4th largest by passenger numbers in the UK. With the over-emphasis on the south east, Mr O'Toole believes the south east should not over-shadow the north or the rest of the UK. Manchester airport is the only airport other than Heathrow, with two runways. While it has 25 million (or fewer till recently) passengers per year it has capacity for 55 million, and "could overtake Gatwick to become the UK’s second-biggest airport within 15 to 20 years."
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow more likely to get MPs’ backing as Jeremy Corbyn suggests Labour MPs could have free, unwhipped, vote
Jeremy Corbyn has suggested it would not be easy to whip Labour MPs to vote against a 3rd runway at Heathrow, despite his personal opposition to it, largely on environmental grounds. He has not yet decided whether to hold a free vote, but it could be difficult to get his MPs to agree that the runway and expansion would cause harmful air pollution and noise impacts. A vote in favour of Heathrow expansion is more likely to go through if Labour MPs are allowed to vote with their conscience. This matters as the Conservative majority is small, and there are dozens of Conservatives MPs who are against it. The decision on whether to build a runway, and if so, at Heathrow or Gatwick, is set to be put to a free vote of Conservative MPs in the coming weeks, to allow Cabinet ministers to vote against Heathrow, without having to resign - avoiding the need for collective responsibility. Mr Corbyn told The Guardian that there was a “huge debate in the party about it” and that his shadow cabinet would have to “have a discussion and debate” to work out a way forward. He said, of his rebellious MPs: “What I’ve discovered is whipping Labour when Labour doesn’t want to be whipped is not an easy thing to do.” Heathrow has worked hard to persuade MPs in the regions that its new runway would mean more domestic flights and more economic prosperity for them - however uncertain that is in reality. MPs whose constituencies are not affected across the country hope for local benefits.
Click here to view full story...
FT reports Tories feel they have enough backing in Parliament to push through Heathrow runway
The Financial Times says the Conservative Party Chairman, Patrick McLoughlin, has done a vote assessment, and found that there would be enough support in Parliament for a Heathrow 3rd runway. It is considered possible that the Cabinet's runway sub-committee -chaired by Theresa May - will come to a runway location decision on the 11th or the 18th October. The Cabinet would need to agree to the decision by the sub-Committee, and it would then be announced in Parliament, by Chris Grayling. There could be a Parliamentary vote soon afterwards, perhaps only be a week later. The government would not want to risk a vote on this, unless they knew they would get a majority. The FT understands that Heathrow would easily win enough votes, but there is not enough backing for a Gatwick runway. Though there is massive opposition to a Heathrow runway due to its widespread and seriously negative impacts, and therefore it is likely Theresa May would allow a free vote. It is not clear the Labour leadership would try to whip hostile MPs on the runway issue, at a time of wider party disunity, though Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell are against the Heathrow runway. The FT reports that one insider cautioned it is “not a foregone conclusion” that Mrs May will back the Heathrow runway — or even that there would be a vote. An aviation executive said the prime minister “is like a sphinx on this”. ie. inscrutable.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow proposals for pre-runway flight increase, to try and win Government backing for runway
Heathrow will be putting forward some proposals at the Conservative party conference, to be allowed to start increasing the annual number of flights from 2021 by 25,000 per year (about 68 more per day). "New technology and better use of existing runways will achieve this." (ie. largely loss of runway alternation part of the day, and narrow flight paths?). Heathrow is selling this as a way to start to give a quick "Brexit boost", even before its hoped for 3rd runway is operational. Heathrow is claiming that the "environmental constraints" will all be met (it is unclear how this will be done) with no more noise problems, no more air pollution problems etc. All that is proposed is more money for home noise insulation, (£60 million - it has already said it will spend £700 million) and a congestion charge - no details - for vehicles travelling to and from Heathrow. The plans will be subject to consultation and Government approval. There is a mention of talks with government in future to perhaps delay the start of scheduled flights to 5.30am from the current 4.30am. The main thrust of Heathrow's plans is to say the extra flights will be vital for the economy, with slots set aside for domestic flights. There would be a £10 domestic passenger discount to support "small and large exporters, boosting competition." There are claims of 5,000 more local jobs over 5 years by this pre-runway expansion, and extensive economic benefits for all the UK .... £1.5 billion in the period 2021 - 2015.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow rushes out scheme for increased number of flights BEFORE 3rd runway built – HACAN reaction
Heathrow under pressure from Government to deliver expansion as quickly as possible post-Brexit, has released details of a scheme to increase capacity in advance of a 3rd runway. It will be officially launched at the start of the Conservative Party Conference (2-5 October). Amongst Heathrow's key proposals are - by 2021: - Increasing the number of flights on the existing runways by up to 25,000 a year. - Increasing passenger numbers by 4 million. - Introducing a night flight ban from 11pm to 5.30am. - Putting more money into noise insulation schemes. - Introducing a possible congestion charging scheme around the airport to manage traffic levels and pay for future rail improvements. The extra 25,000 flights per year, starting well before the 3rd runway is open, would require Heathrow to seek planning permission to exceed the current 480,000 cap on flight numbers (imposed as a condition of Terminal Five being allowed, in March 1999). Heathrow expects to have the measures in place by 2021 if it gets permission for a 3rd runway. Residents have regarded this cap of 480,000 flights as sacrosanct, and vital, for the levels of noise around west London. John Stewart, Chair of HACAN, said this offering by Heathrow has been rushed out to try to address government's problems with Brexit. Heathrow knows its scheme is more expensive, and would take more time to complete, than the Gatwick runway or the Heathrow Hub scheme.
Click here to view full story...
Anti-Corbyn Labour backbenchers plan party vote – to back Heathrow runway
The Parliamentary Labour Party has various committees, one of which is on Transport. This is chaired by the young MP for Luton South, Gavin Shuker. The membership of this backbench committee does not appear to be publicly available. There is nothing online about the committee or its work. Mr Shuker says his committee has now produced (or is about to produce) a report that proposes Labour should back a Heathrow runway. They plan to present this report to a meeting of Labour MPs and peers, when Parliament returns after the party conferences. Mr Shuker has been critical of Jeremy Corbyn for the past year or more, and he now wants to get the Labour party to reverse his opposition to a Heathrow runway by getting a vote on the issue within the party. Gavin Shuker said the vote could be the day after the Labour meeting. As well as Jeremy Corbyn, the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, is deeply opposed to a Heathrow runway as his constituency would be badly affected by it. Mr Shuker wants the party to challenge Jeremy Corbyn on a number of policy issues. Heathrow is just one of many, and is a symptom of party disunity. On the same day, it was revealed that the Heathrow-funded and sponsored group, Back Heathrow, had asked for John McDonnell's constituency boundary to be redrawn, to exclude Heathrow - to help their case. Amazing.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow investors snub Chris Grayling’s request for their funding of Heathrow Hub scheme
Some of Heathrow's leading shareholders have snubbed a request from the Transport Secretary, Chris Grayling, to back the Heathrow Hub scheme, that involves adding another runway at the western end of the northern runway. Sky News understands that big investors in FGP Topco, Heathrow's parent company, are refusing to give a written commitment to funding the rival scheme. Heathrow argues that it has not done sufficient due diligence to justify giving its backing to Heathrow Hub. Mr Grayling made the request at a meeting with the two runway promoters last month, since when further talks have been held between executives at Heathrow and Heathrow Hub. While it is understood John Holland-Kaye, Heathrow's CEO, would accept the Hub plan if he cannot get his north-west runway, the airport's leading shareholders are refusing to back it. They believe future financial returns would be lower with the Hub scheme than the NW runway scheme. Sky News has been told that Mr Holland-Kaye had been told by his shareholders that acknowledging any support for the Hub scheme would be a tactical error, at a time they believe is so close to an announcement by the Government. Both Heathrow schemes have offered cut-price versions of their proposals in a bid to convince ministers of their merits. FGP Topco's shareholders are Ferrovial (25% stake), and sovereign wealth and pension funds from Australia, Canada, China, Qatar and Singapore.
Click here to view full story...
Report shows EU’s ‘imperfect’ ETS still outperforms draft UN aviation deal on aviation CO2
When in April 2014 the EU agreed, reluctantly, to "stop the clock" on its inclusion of aviation in the ETS (Emissions Trading System) it was on the condition that this limiting of the scheme would be re-assessed in 2017, depending if ICAO had come up with an effective scheme to restrict aviation CO2 by then. Currently the EU ETS only includes carbon from flights within, (not to and from) the EU. But the deal that ICAO is likely to sign up to next month looks as if it will fail, by being too small in its scope, voluntary not obligatory, and depending on unknown biofuels and technologies in future, no environmental safeguards, as well as unreliable carbon offsets which may not in practice cut CO2 emissions. It will not meet ICAO's stated goal of "carbon neutral growth" from 2020. Therefore, as the ICAO scheme does not meet the requirements of the EU, in order to suspend its ETS, the EU may find it necessary to revert to its full ETS system, to include flights out of (maybe also into) the EU as well as flights within the EU. The EU needs to ensure it gets agreement through ICAO that it can continue to include aviation in its ETS. The ETS scheme had its faults, but used emissions allowances instead of dubious offsets, was binding instead of voluntary, and include all CO2 emissions. To be fully effective, the cap on aviation carbon in the EU scheme needs to reduce each year. A new report "Aviation ETS - gaining altitude" sets out the details of how the ETS could work in future.
Click here to view full story...
ONS data shows rising monthly tourism deficit, with more Brits holidaying abroad and spending more
The ONS (Office for National Statistics) produces monthly data on the numbers of UK residents who travel abroad, and for what reason. Also the number of overseas residents who travel to the UK, and for what reason. They also record how much the UK residents spend on their trips abroad, and how much overseas visitors spend in the UK. The net balance, between the two amounts is called the Tourism Deficit. It is always a deficit, as much more is spent by British outbound visitors, than by visitors coming into the UK. The ONS data for July show that, in the year to the end of July 2016 - UK residents made 67.8 million visits abroad, up +7% compared to the year before. Overseas residents made 36.6 million visits to the UK in that period, up + 4% on the year before. UK residents spent £40.8 billion on these visits during the year, which was +9% more than the same period a year earlier. But the overseas residents spent £21.8 billion on their visits to the UK, which was -1% less than the year before. The deficit grew significantly between July 2014 and July 2016, from £0.93 billion to £1.76 billion, for just that one month. The UK tourism deficit for all of 2015 was £16. 9 billion. Of all the trips made by UK residents abroad, the proportion to Europe is around 79 - 80% of the total, and 20% to the US and the rest of the world. Of all the trips to the UK, about 72 - 73% are from Europe, and about 28% are from the US and the rest of the world. Most trips other than to nearby Europe are by air.
Click here to view full story...
Monarch expects ‘significant investment’ of many million £s within days to avoid cash crunch
Monarch Airline’s majority shareholder, Greybull Capital, is preparing to offer the short-haul carrier another multi-million pound lifeline after problems from the post-Brexit sterling plunge, on holiday demand. Monarch has had to deny weekend speculation that it is on the brink of bankruptcy and has assured the market that it is in line for a “significant” investment in the coming days. The rescue bid is expected to be led by Greybull Capital, which owns a 90% stake in Monarch, after it agreed to pump £125 million of permanent capital and liquidity facilities into Monarch in 2014. That Greybull bailout was Monarch’s 3rd in 3 years and prompted the Mantegazza family, who started the airline in 1968, to sell up completely. Since 2014 Monarch has made £200 million cost cuts, to try to improve its finances, and it made a £19.2 m pre-tax profit in the year to October 2015, compared to a £57.3m loss the year before. Now the devaluation of the £ caused by the Brexit vote means there is an uncertain time, of unknown duration, ahead for the travel industry. There are also uncertainties due to terrorist incidents, making travellers nervous about some countries. Earlier in the summer Monarch said it needed £35 million and issued a "going concern" warning in its annual report.
Click here to view full story...
Blog: The case against Heathrow is not the case for Gatwick
In a blog for The London Economic, Jack Peat writes that just because there are strong arguments against a 3rd Heathrow runway is not a good enough reason to opt for a Gatwick runway. He says: "The easiest way to spot a failing campaign is to seek out the one that argues the shortcomings of its opponent rather than championing its own merits." Gatwick has spent a lot of time and effort putting out negative messaging about Heathrow. There are rumours about that Theresa May might tell both airports they can have a new runway - with a lot of conditions. It Gatwick is allowed a runway, it will be for all the wrong reasons. The Richmond Heathrow Campaign has shown that a high proportion of the added capacity from a 3rd Heathrow runway would only be for more international-to-international transfers. These deliver almost no benefit to the UK economy, other than filling up planes that fly many times per day to the most popular (=profitable) destinations, like New York. Jack Peat says: "If expanding airport capacity in the south east is about catering for more transit passengers, I would happily hand that responsibility to Schiphol or Frankfurt." Heathrow does not need to expand for that. Unless there is more demand for regular domestic and short-haul flights to Europe there won’t be the demand from the airlines to run more flights through Gatwick. "End of."
Click here to view full story...
Emirates postpones its 4th daily Gatwick flight to Dubai – there are 6 per day from Heathrow
Emirates has confirmed it is postponing the launch of its fourth daily service from Dubai into Gatwick. Emirates had been due to start the 4th daily flight in October, which would have been the airline’s 10th daily service into London. An Emirates spokesperson said: “Emirates can confirm that we are delaying the launch of our fourth daily service to London Gatwick. This decision was made as part of our routine operational review, to ensure that our capacity is deployed to best serve customer demand across our global network. We remain committed to London and will continue to serve our customers on this route with a total of 63 weekly flights from Heathrow and Gatwick.” Back in March, Emirates has announced it would add its 10th daily flight to Dubai. It would have been a new B777-300ER (eight first class suites, 42 in business class, and 310 in economy) and would have meant 4 from Gatwick and 6 from Heathrow per day. There were plans to change to an A380 from Heathrow from June.
Click here to view full story...
UK’s smaller airports want proper government policy to boost their expansion
An article in Airport Technology makes the case for better UK aviation policy, to boost the regional airports and the smaller London airports - rather than focus only on Heathrow and Gatwick. Airports like Luton, Stansted, Birmingham and London City do not want their interests overlooked, in the ill-advised focus just on "which of two sites to put a new runway." Speaking on this at the Airport Design, Development and Engineering conference, representatives from the 4 airports reinforced their call on the government to support their expansion. They agreed that a better civil aviation policy is needed in order to build infrastructure, improve connectivity to and from the airports and "stay competitive in the fast growing, ultra-connected global aviation market." But a lot of the usual PR and spin were trotted out, and the article repeats so many of the standard claims - that airports are vital for business growth; ignoring the tourism deficit caused by ever more UK residents taking cheap overseas leisure trips; ignoring the recent growth which is largely just making up the huge declines during the recession years; making unsound comparison with China; and entirely ignoring any adverse impacts of aviation on the populations overflown, or negatively affected by the industry. There is, of course, no mention of carbon emissions. The industry is great at self-promotion, and only seeing one side of an argument.
Click here to view full story...
Virgin Atlantic and LanzaTech hope to produce jet fuel from waste CO from steel mills
Back in October 2011, Virgin Atlantic announced it was working with LanzaTech (which describes itself as a company that sees waste CO2 as an opportunity, not a liability) to produce a low carbon jet fuel, from waste carbon monoxide from steel works. The hope was for rapid progress. Now Richard Branson has announced that the plant has produced 1,500 US gallons of jet fuel from ‘Lanzanol’ - LanzaTech’s low carbon ethanol. The fuel is made by trapping waste gases from steel mills, and "fermenting" them in a manner that is not described, to produce ethanol. (Some work at Stanford University in 2014 suggested CO and water could be combined to make ethanol using a specially formulated copper catalyst. Link ) Virgin says the alcohol can be converted (not a cheap process) into jet fuel, and hopes it will "result in carbon savings of 65% compared to conventional jet fuel." A benefit would be if the CO2 is not released from the chimneys of steel mills into the atmosphere. Virgin hopes for a "proving flight" in 2017 using the fuel, and in due course LanzaTech would fund and build their first commercial jet fuel plant "hopefully in the UK, to supply fuel to Virgin Atlantic and other airlines." And then that there might eventually be "15 billion gallons of jet fuel per year." There is no obvious reason, if this sort of fuel can be made, why it would be for aviation - rather than for important terrestrial uses.
Click here to view full story...
WTO rules that EU unfairly subsidises Airbus ($10 bn per year) – but US subsidises Boeing too
The long-running battle over immense state subsidies to aircraft makers Airbus and Boeing has intensified - the World Trade Organization ruled that European governments had failed to comply with rulings that it should cut subsidies to Airbus. Both plane makers have taken complaints to the WTO about subsidies supplied by the other. The WTO is yet to rule on a similar EU complaint that Boeing benefits from billions of dollars in tax breaks in the US. The complaints are because the industries get unfair assistance, are always bailed out, and the success of either one could lead to lower sales (and fewer jobs) for the other. The state subsidies for these two vast companies mean planes are a bit cheaper than they might otherwise be. Airbus said it would appeal the judgment and the EU said it found some of the findings “unsatisfactory”. There may be issues of state subsidies by other plane makers, in countries such as Russia and China, in future. Bombardier has had subsidies from the Canadian government. In June 2011, the WTO found that the EU and four of its member countries provided billions of dollars in subsidised financing to Airbus, and the recent ruling is the final part of that. The EU had argued that the most recent Airbus jet, the A350, fell outside the case, but that was rejected by the WTO which said funding for the jet had been subsidised. The subsidies to plane makers are just one of the many ways in which the aviation sector is helped, making the cost of flying artificially low.
Click here to view full story...
Edinburgh flight path consultation ends, with the second part due early in 2017
The consultation by Edinburgh airport on changes to flight paths that started in June has now ended. The airport says the results were mixed, with some people not expressing opposition. This may be because the area that was covered by the consultation included places that have not seen increased plane noise, and have not been affected by the changes. There were around 5,000 responses, and the airport's consultation website was viewed about 80,000 times. Edinburgh airport say no changes could be made to existing flight paths until a further stage of consultation, proposing specific routes, was completed and the plans approved by the CAA. A detailed report on the airport's consultation is due to be finished in January, and the second stage of the consultation will begin early in 2017. Some residents are already affected by noise pollution from changes in the flight paths and have accused the airport of pushing ahead with airspace expansion without considering other ways to increase capacity. Edinburgh Airport Watch said that although the airport is 'consulting', they have already changed the pattern of use of the airspace - people have been robbed of their peace and quiet. The airport wants the change flight paths, in order to get more planes taking off and landing at peak times of day, in order to make more money for the airport.
Click here to view full story...
Transport & Environment: Airbus ruling on EU subsidies shows it’s high time to stop the aviation subsidies binge
The WTO has ruled against the EU, on its $10 billion per year subsidies to Airbus. Back in June 2011, the WTO found that the EU and 4 of its member countries provided billions of dollars in subsidised financing to Airbus. And it has not stopped doing so since. There could be another similar ruling if rival plane maker Boeing is found to also have received public subsidies, which it has. Transport & Environment says this adds another $20 billion or more to the already very long list of subsidies granted to the aviation sector. These subsidies include around €20 billion per year in Europe alone due to the sector's exemption from tax on aviation fuel - and up to $60 billion worldwide. Also airlines receive an effective subsidy worth another €7 billion in Europe because ticket prices are artificially suppressed by about 20% due to the VAT exemption on ticket sales. In addition airlines are bailed out on a regular basis, especially since the 2009 crisis. Already lenient state aid rules for airports have been regularly flouted - which is worth another estimated €3 billion per year, in Europe alone. Aviation in Europe also gets a €3 billion subsidy (one off) under the SESAR ‘joint undertaking’, to deliver the Single European Sky. T&E says one reason the aviation sector's CO2 emissions are out of control is that flying is artificially cheap because of such subsidies. The subsidies above fall outside of WTO rules and will only be removed with action by governments.
Click here to view full story...
US airline JetBlue deal to buy about 10 million gallons of HEFA biojet fuel per year for 10 years
JetBlue Airways, a US low cost airline, will be buying biofuels from biofuel provider SG Preston for at least 10 years, in a deal announced recently. JetBlue will buy over 33 million gallons of blended jet fuel per year, consisting of 30% hydro-processed esters and fatty-acids (HEFA) renewable jet fuel blended with 70% traditional Jet-A fuel. […]
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow Hub says, to match Heathrow’s offer, it would cut price of its runway scheme by £2 billion
The backers of the Heathrow Hub scheme, to lengthen Heathrow's northern runway towards the west, have now said they could cut the price of their scheme by £2 million. This offer comes just days after Heathrow's Chairman, Lord Deighton, said their north west runway scheme could be cut by up to £3 billion. The Heathrow north-west runway scheme is expected to cost £17.5 billion (or £14.5 billion with the cheaper scheme) - and the Heathrow Hub scheme is expected to cost £12 billion according to their website (or £10 billion with the cheaper scheme). But Heathrow Hub are now telling the press that their scheme could cost £7.5 million. Their Factsheet of November 2014 said the cost of the runway itself would be £9.2 billion, with £2.8 billion for surface access improvements. In November 2013 they anticipated the cost of diverting the M25 for the runway would be £0.7 billion. Heathrow Hub also proudly say there would be no cost to the public. In reality, Transport for London said (February 2015) of a larger Heathrow, not differentiating between the two schemes: "Our assessment estimated that in order for a fully developed Heathrow (149 mppa) to achieve all of the above surface access objectives in the long term (2040-50), costs would be around £15-20 billion*. The Heathrow Hub scheme is privately funded, and hopes to license its scheme to Heathrow airport for up to £5m a year for 20 years, if successful.
Click here to view full story...
John Redwood, MP for Wokingham, says Theresa May should drop Heathrow plan
John Redwood, the Conservative MP for Wokingham about 25 km west of Heathrow and under some of its flight paths, has said that the government should drop the three very huge projects they inherited from Gordon Brown and David Cameron. ie. Hinkley, HS2 and Heathrow. Each is expensive, highly contentious, and has been much delayed by indecision, argument and opposition. John Redwood was Shadow Secretary of State for Deregulation, from May 2005 to December 2005, and Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, from June 1999 to February 2000. He believes all 3Hs should be scrapped, and there are many other good local projects that should be paid for instead. "I’m all for spending on better trains, power stations and airports, but I don’t want to throw too much money at projects that are so mired in rows and costs." On Heathrow noise he says: "Unfortunately Heathrow has recently with NATS changed the routes and noise corridors, annoying many more residential areas near it. There was no proper consultation. When you want to expand you need to do better at showing you are a good and considerate neighbour." ..."More capacity can be provided through Northolt, Gatwick and other London area airports. Smaller quicker schemes could alleviate the pressures."
Click here to view full story...
8th October – massive gathering at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, resonating with the sound of thousands of walking sticks
After the massive mobilisations against the planned new airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, of January 9th and February 27th, the French government organised a biased consultation in June. That gave a small majority in favour of the airport scheme. Opponents of the airport believe the consultation did not give a fair result, due to the choice of its geographical cover. The government plans to start work on the airport in October, though those fighting the plans say there are still some legal details that are not yet complete. There is fear that the state will send in the gendarmes, and use force to clear the ZAD - the zone à defendre - which is where building needs to start. The ZAD has been occupied for years by those trying to block the scheme, and they have now built a large shed there, which they see as a demonstration of their determination not to be moved, and a base for the future. On 8th October there will be a huge protest against the ZAD being cleared by force. People who oppose the airport plan, from all over France, will converge. All are asked to walk, bringing walking sticks. There will be the same echo of the walking sticks on the ground, as at Larzac decades ago, as the people march. People will leave their sticks in the ZAD committing themselves together to come back for them, in the event of intervention by the authorities - to defend the farmers and their future of the land and the life on it.
Click here to view full story...
BA to charge for food on short haul flights, to better compete with low cost airline rivals
British Airways is expected to become the first mid-market airline to charge for meals after striking a deal with M&S, to charge passengers for sandwiches onboard short-haul flights. This could be announced soon. BA had earlier said that providing free food and drink on board all its flights was an essential part of its product. However, BA is struggling to make its short-haul routes profitable following the rise of its budget rivals such as Ryanair and easyJet, which have always charged for meals. By charging for sandwiches, BA can offer lower headline fares than its rivals but experts have warned that loyal customers will perceive the change as the airline going downmarket in a bid to chase profits. Some BA staff are reportedly skeptical about the move which they fear would increase their workload, having to handle multiple choices and payments. One said: "On a busy Amsterdam we hardly have time to serve everyone, let alone take money.” BA's long haul, business and first class passengers will continue to get "free" meals. The BA website says for European flights "On all Euro Traveller flights we offer you a snack and a bar service, and on some longer flights you’ll be offered more substantial refreshments. Wherever you’re flying to in Euro Traveller, enjoy a soft drink or your choice from the bar with your food."
Click here to view full story...
Blog on the problem of intense plane noise and mental health – is respite the answer?
The problem of aircraft noise is significant, especially for those living under flight paths that are now far more concentrated than before - as UK airspace is "modernised" to deal with ever more planes. Those with pre-existing mental health conditions, in particular depression, are especially vulnerable to the problem. In a blog, Chris Keady, sets out some thoughts on what needs to be done to protect people whose mental well being is vulnerable if they are exposed to intense plane noise, which they cannot escape from. Respite may help, but in situations of noise hotspots, with hundreds of planes overhead most of the day, it is not enough, particularly for those vulnerable to the noise, who will be disproportionately affected and where additional measures are called for. Though there is good evidence of noise from concentrated flight paths causing depression, there is no idea what a safe noise ‘dose’ is – but airspace changes are being introduced nevertheless. To do least harm, the noise needs to be shared out more widely and other measures introduced (respite plus). These are examined in the blog.
Click here to view full story...
Treasury Select Committee Chairman writes to Chris Grayling and Philip Hammond to question economic benefits of runway
Andrew Tyrie, Chairman of the Treasury Committee, wrote to Chris Grayling, Secretary of State for Transport, on 14th September, questioning the economic case for HS2 and airport expansion. Andrew Tyrie says in his letter: "The economic case to support the conclusions of the Davies report lacks crucial information." On 27th November 2015, he tabled 15 parliamentary questions on details of the economic justification [all copied below]. These have yet to be answered 10 months later (they just had a standard holding reply from Robert Goodwill). Andrew Tyrie says: "For the fifth time I am attaching these questions. Failure to answer them will lead people either to conclude that this work has not been done - in which case it would be unacceptable for a decision to be made without the evidence to support it - or that it has been done, and gives answers that do not necessarily support the conclusions of the Davies report. I do not suggest that either of these are the case. The best way to answer these concerns is to public the information immediately. As we discussed, I have written in similar terms to the Chancellor." "Without this information, the evidence in support of any decision that the Government takes on airport capacity will be incomplete." His Parliamentary Questions focus, in particular, on Table 7.1 in the Airport Commission's Final Report, of July 2015. (Table copied below). Mr Tyrie spoke to Chris Grayling on 15 August 2016.
Click here to view full story...
CAA’s Andrew Haines says UK airspace ‘needs to be modernised’ in order to add a SE runway
In a blog by Civil Aviation Authority chief executive Andrew Haines, he says unless UK airspace is modernised, and around London in particular, "then we will not be able to use that additional runway wherever it is because the levels of congestion we have are very severe."... "Effectively the airspace structures have not been redesigned since the 1960s and 1970s. We're not using modern technology, we're using an incremental approach to flight paths which means it's not the most efficient." He admitted that flight paths and noise are a problem for communities. People living 30 or more miles from an airport can now be very negatively impacted by plane noise, due to the way flight paths are now concentrated - as part of the drive for modernisation. Airspace is more "efficient" for the aviation industry if flights follow set routes, rather than being more dispersed. Andrew Haines says the ability to "massively concentrate traffic" would be "brilliant" if that could be done over an unpopulated area (but we have no unpopulated areas in the densely populated south east). He adds that although the CAA approves modifications to airspace design, this is ultimately down to government policy, because "who should suffer most and least from noise is a political decision". But the DfT said: "We are currently reviewing existing airspace and noise policies and will consult on proposals in due course." Meaning after a runway decision. Not before.
Click here to view full story...
Theresa May’s local council, Windsor & Maidenhead, vows court fight if she backs Heathrow runway
The Tory leader of Theresa May’s own local council, Windsor and Maidenhead, has vowed to use “all necessary financial resources” for a High Court battle to block a third runway at Heathrow. Councillor Simon Dudley, Leader of the council, pledged the legal action to protect residents “irrespective of who the Prime Minister is”. He has joined forces with Wandsworth, Richmond upon Thames and Hillingdon councils for the looming court battle if the Government backs Heathrow expansion. “We have very significant financial resources,” he said. “We will put all the necessary financial resources behind a vigorous legal action.” The Council's lawyers, Harrison Grant, wrote to David Cameron this year warning him that his “no ifs, no buts” promise before the 2010 general election to oppose a third runway had created a “legitimate expectation” among residents that the project would not go ahead. So if it were given the green light, they argued, it would be an “abuse of power correctable by the courts”. Mr Dudley said Windsor and Maidenhead had allocated £30,000 for the legal battle and signalled that this could rise to hundreds of thousands. The council’s concerns include more pollution, noise and traffic as well as extra housing needs created by a larger Heathrow. A recent poll in the areas suggested around 38% opposed the runway, with 34% in favour of it.
Click here to view full story...
All Party Parliamentary group on Heathrow publish report setting out 16 main risks of the runway plan
The All Party Parliamentary Group on Heathrow and the Wider Economy (APPG) has published a detailed analysis that sets out in stark terms the key risks facing Heathrow expansion. The report looks at politics, economics, costs environment and security. The APPG believes that problems with all these issues would ultimately ensure the project never happens even if Government gives it the green light this autumn. The paper has been sent to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling. The Chair of the APPG, Dr Tania Mathias, said: “The proposal to expand Heathrow is as undeliverable now as it always has been, and it’s time we stopped wasting time trying to make it work." ...."Ultimately, this is about deliverability. Heathrow’s costly proposal will get bogged down in legal disputes over air quality and noise and arguments over who has to pay for it." The report enumerates 16 serious risks that could stop or delay Heathrow expansion including legal challenges over breaches to EU and UK laws on air quality and excessive noise; complex land acquisition issues with doubts over who will pay for moving an energy waste centre, the Harmondsworth Detention Centre and a BT data network; planning consent challenges which would damage the government’s reputation for competence; serious construction challenges and risk of delay and cost overruns - and much more.
Click here to view full story...
Boris Johnson says Heathrow’s 3rd runway should be ‘consigned to the dustbin’
In his first comments on the issue of Heathrow since becoming Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson has said the 3rd runway is a “fantasy” and should be “consigned to the dustbin.” Commenting on a report by the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Heathrow, chaired by Tania Mathias, sets out 16 serious risks that could stop or delay Heathrow expansion, Boris Johnson said: “The study exposes in glaring detail the weaknesses and omissions in the Howard Davies Airports Commission report. As I’ve advocated for many years Heathrow expansion is the wrong choice, and if it is chosen it simply won’t get built.”... “The massive costs and enormous risks mean it’s undeliverable, and the taxpayer will be saddled with the bill for failure. While we are finding this out our international competitors will be further extending their competitive advantage over us. We need to consign this Heathrow fantasy to the dustbin. We need a better solution.” Justine Greening, the Education Secretary, and Boris are expected to campaign robustly against it. Neither Boris nor Zac believes Heathrow's plans will never actually get built. Zac said: “In the 21st century no developed economy is looking to fly more planes directly over its capital city. If Heathrow expansion is given the green light, it will never take off."
Click here to view full story...
West Midlands business & political leaders write to Theresa May urging support for regional airport expansion
Business and political leaders from across West Midlands have signed a letter to Theresa May, well before the government is due to make an announcement on building a new south east runway (or expanding airport capacity in some other way). West Midlands business and political leaders want the government to support the growth of a competitive network of airports in the UK, rather than expanding still more in the South East. They want local airports that "can act as drivers for local growth in their regions." They say: "Allowing a third runway at Heathrow would re-forge its monopoly, undermining the benefits brought by the break-up of the BAA, and restrict the growth of direct flights to and from our great regional cities." Among the signatories of the letter are the chief executives of Greater Birmingham Chambers of Commerce, Marketing Birmingham and Birmingham Airport as well as MPs and educational leaders. Earlier this week, it emerged the Prime Minister was considering the possibility of expanding Birmingham Airport as a way of increasing UK airport capacity. Birmingham people hope they will benefit from HS2, in 10 years' time, when the fast rail link would increase their catchment area and speed the link to London. The Midlands plan to boost their economy and need government to make decisions that rebalance the UK economy.
Click here to view full story...
Tania Mathias MP calls for Grayling to step in over proposed £3 billion cuts to Heathrow plan – re-consultation necessary?
Transport Secretary Chris Grayling has been asked by Dr Tania Mathias MP to intervene on Heathrow’s £3 billion cost-cutting proposals it announced last week. In order to cut costs, and perhaps get a runway built faster, Heathrow's Chairman Lord Deighton suggested that changes to plans would be made - though nothing has been put forward yet, but they might be in the next weeks. The cuts would mean scrapping plans to (expensively) tunnel the 14 lane M25 under the runway, and a transit rail system around the airport. Conservative MP Tania Mathias, whose Twickenham constituency is under Heathrow flight paths, said the new plan had caused local people “considerable anxiety." She has written to the Secretary of State for Transport, asking him to demand the plan goes back out to public consultation and scrutiny by the Airports Commission (though that has been disbanded). Dr Mathias also wants Chris Grayling to make public any official talks on the late changes, between the airport and government departments. Richmond Park MP Zac Goldsmith also wrote to Lord Deighton that the revised plan would cause Londoners “more environmental misery”. The changes to the roads are not clear, and cutting cost could lead to gridlock on the busiest stretch of the M25. The DfT just said the Government "will continue to consider the commission’s evidence."
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick area MPs warn Rail Minister of rail chaos if Gatwick gets expansion go-ahead
Gatwick Coordination Group (GCG) MPs have written to the Rail Minister, Paul Maynard, to warn him that rail services along the Brighton Main Line would go into “complete meltdown” if Gatwick Airport were to be allowed to build a second runway. The GCG includes the 8 MPs from constituencies nearest to, and affected by, Gatwick. They have highlighted the inability of the railway to cope with the increased demand that Gatwick expansion would entail, and they say: “Gatwick expansion would result in over 140,000 public transport trips to the airport each day. Given the limited public transport options to Gatwick, the vast majority of these will be via rail. To meet this added demand, TfL estimate that the cost of required upgrades is £10bn. There is, however, no plan to deliver this"… “Gatwick have not committed to contribute a single penny towards any cost, leaving commuters and taxpayers to foot any bill for work that would address the chronic lack of capacity that would result from Gatwick expansion" … a 2nd Gatwick runway would "pile impossible pressure on Southern Rail…” The Brighton Main Line is already operating over capacity and is one of the busiest and worst performing rail lines in the country, and already needs new capacity to cope with rising commuter demand. Gatwick has just a single rail connection to London, and a single motorway - both already under strain.
Click here to view full story...
Times reveals, from leaked document, members of Cabinet sub-committee on runway issue
The Times says it has seen a leaked document showing the membership of the Cabinet sub-committee, the "Economy and Industrial Strategy (Airports)" sub-committee, that would make a decision on a runway. The list omits Ministers most critical of Heathrow's expansion, Boris Johnson, (Foreign Secretary, and Justine Greening, Education Secretary). But Sajid Javid (Communities Secretary), who is a Heathrow supporter, keeps his place on the sub-committee, as does Patrick McLoughlin, (Conservative Party Chairman) - who as Transport Secretary was a strong supporter of Heathrow. Theresa May herself will chair the sub-committee, (David Cameron chaired it previously). Other Ministers on the sub-committee are Philip Hammond, (Chancellor), Greg Clark, (Business and Energy Secretary), Andrea Leadsom, (Environment Secretary), David Mundell, (Scottish Secretary), and the chief whip Gavin Williamson. [The previous members were: David Cameron, George Osborne, Sajid Javid, Patrick McLoughlin, Liz Truss, David Mundell, Greg Clark, Amber Rudd, Oliver Letwin and Mark Harper.] It is not known if there will be a free vote on the issue, suspending the normal Cabinet "collective responsibility" as was suggested last week, to overcome the problem of so much opposition to Heathrow. The Times believes that the announcement might be on Tuesday18th October.
Click here to view full story...
Possible resignation of Zac Goldsmith as Richmond MP over Heathrow threatens May’s slender majority
Theresa May's slender Commons majority risks being cut even further if she backs a third runway at Heathrow, because Zac Goldsmith may resign the Tory whip and fight a by-election as an independent in his Richmond Park seat. Zac has said in the past that he might resign if the government favoured a Heathrow runway, as the airport has highly negative noise impacts on his constituency. Zac has a majority of more than 23,000, but he voted for Leave in the EU Referendum. His popularity could be reduced by a Brexit backlash or if the Tory vote splits. While Zac's views on Heathrow expansion are in tune with many voters in his seat, almost 70% of people who voted in Richmond upon Thames on June 23 backed Remain. The Lib-Dems - who held the seat before Zac - said they would put Brexit at the centre of any by-election contest in the constituency. Brexit and Heathrow are two of the most important issues in Richmond. Mr Goldsmith is understood not to have made up his mind yet whether to stand as the Tory contender, an independent or quit Parliament. Mrs May has a Commons majority of twelve.
Click here to view full story...
Nine “Black Lives Matter” activists who blocked London City runway get conditional discharges
Nine Black Lives Matter activists who staged a protest that blocked the runway at City Airport for 6 hours on 6th September have been given conditional discharges. The protesters got access to the runway, by crossing the Royal Dock on inflatable rafts and climbing up steps. They set up a tripod, locking themselves onto it with arm locks. Some 131 flights were delayed or cancelled, some were diverted to Southend and Gatwick. At Westminster magistrates court the nine activists all pleaded guilty to aggravated trespass with intent to obstruct a person engaged in lawful activity. A second charge of aggravated trespass and an allegation of being unlawfully airside within a restricted area of an aerodrome were dropped by the prosecution. Mike Schwartz, representing some of the group, spent several minutes explaining to Judge Elizabeth Roscoe the reasons for the protest. The Judge said the protest appeared to have "mixed motivations" as she imposed 18-month conditional discharges on seven of the group, and longer terms for two with previous convictions. All have to pay £95 each. She said: "It's quite clear this caused a lot of disruption to a great many people, doubtless many of whom were the people you were aiming at." She said it was obvious the protesters had deeply-held beliefs, especially about climate change, but added that she could not see the link to the Black Lives Matter movement.
Click here to view full story...
Steelworkers and their MPs press for Heathrow expansion, to save steel industry jobs
Heathrow has had a new report done by a consultancy called QUOD, on the amount of steel that would be needed for its new runway and terminals - and the number of jobs this might create directly and indirectly, for the steel industry. Heathrow says they would be using 370,000 tonnes of steel ( this would not be the smaller scheme now in prospect, to cut costs, but the original). There are hopes that this might generate around 400 direct steel jobs - if Heathrow used only UK steel - over 2 - 3 years. There might be another 300 indirect jobs - making a total of 700 jobs. This would be some time around 2021 to 2026. The 370,000 tonnes of steel would be the equivalent of nearly 10% of UK steel produced for domestic use in 2015. Seven Labour MPs (Kevin Barron, Tom Blenkinsop, Sarah Champion, Kevan Jones, Jonathan Reynolds, Angela Smith and Anna Turley) representing steel communities (such as Scunthorpe, and Teesside) across the North and south Wales have called on Business Secretary Greg Clark to "get on with" Heathrow expansion. Steel workers have for years lived with the threat of devastating job losses as firms threaten to close down unprofitable UK steel plants. The UK steelworkers’ union Community backs the 3rd Heathrow runway, hoping it gives respite to their industry for many years. The MPs' letter says: "By backing Heathrow you will be making a statement of intent, a decision in the national interest, and a first step in reviving a modern and sustainable British steel sector."
Click here to view full story...
Legal & General’s Nigel Wilson suggests government “should abandon all the big infrastructure projects beginning with the letter H”
Legal & General chief executive Nigel Wilson has suggested that the government "should abandon all the big infrastructure projects beginning with the letter H" - ie. Hinkley, HS2 and Heathrow. He thinks that instead of these, the UK would get much better value spending its limited resources in areas such as social housing, renewables and more mundane but much-needed projects. Legal & General, an insurance company, is a large and important investor, and accustomed to assessing the prospects of long term projects. Anthony Hilton, writing in the Standard, says Theresa May's head of policy at No.10 is John Godfrey, who was until July 2016, the head of policy at Legal & General, and thinks along the same lines as Nigel Wilson. He considers HS2 is probably the easiest to ditch, as there are better ways to increase rail capacity between London and Birmingham - and the saving of 25 minutes is not vital. "If, for prestige reasons, we need another high-speed train, then let’s put it where it is needed and link Liverpool toManchester, Leeds and Newcastle, with a southern spur through Sheffield and Nottingham to Birmingham." There are numerous reasons not to to ahead with Hinkley. And Heathrow costs far too much, with the final sum being perhaps £36 billion, of which around £18 -20 billion to be paid by taxpayers. It is also fiercely opposed and "resisted to the bitter end by some very vociferous people." There would be inevitable years of legal wrangling and planning to secure it.
Click here to view full story...