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:
Euromonitor expects Brexit will ‘lead to loss of 2.3 million visitors to UK’ by 2020
Market researcher Euromonitor is predicting 2.3 million fewer visitors to the UK over the 5 years up to 2020 following the UK's Brexit vote. Euromonitor (a leading global independent provider of strategic market research) forecast a 2% drop in GDP over the next 5 years, with the biggest impact felt in 2017. They do not expect GDP to return to the baseline until 2023. Euromonitor says the UK ranked 6th globally in 2015 as a destination country. The UK is highly dependent on European tourists, with around 73% of all inbound tourism in 2015. The largest number of visits to the UK is from France (3.7 million in 2015) and they are fairly resilient to price changes. But based on what happened in the recession, Euromonitor anticipates that there may be less demand from Germany and the US, with perhaps half a million less visitors from each till 2020. Due to the likely fall in the value of the £ against the € and the $, trips will be more expensive for Brits going abroad. However, this could make trips cheaper for visitors coming to the UK - but this effect will be over-ridden as there are more outbound than inbound trips. It took 8 years for the UK travel demand to rebound after the 2008 recession. IATA has warned that UK air passenger numbers could decline 3% – 5% by 2020 due to airline uncertainties and fall in the £.
Click here to view full story...
Ground-breaking seminar on aircraft noise and mental health held in House of Commons
A ground-breaking seminar discussing the impact of aircraft noise on mental health was held in Parliament on 4th July. The seminar, by HACAN and the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) explored the issue. Hosted by Dr Tania Mathias, MP for Twickenham, the seminar heard from Dirk Schreckenberg, one of the authors of the seminal NORAH study which looked at the link between noise and health at Frankfurt Airport. The study found negative effects on both mental well-being and on depression, from plane noise - especially in people experiencing increased levels of noise. A resident from West London, Chris Keady, spoke about his own history of mental problems, and the effect of high levels of aircraft noise on him. Not enough is known about the impact of exposure to aircraft noise, especially loud noise, often repeated, at different times of day and night, on mental health and stress levels. The evidence suggests that people who already have mental health issues can find aircraft noise particularly disturbing. There is a real problem if there is no escape from the noise, and people feel powerless and impotent against this imposition. We need a constructive dialogue involving noise experts, politicians, campaigners and the aviation industry to give proper consideration to this issue. Matt Gorman from Heathrow Airport also spoke at the event.
Click here to view full story...
US Department of Transportation (DOT) denies Norwegian Air UK foreign carrier exemption
The US Department of Transportation (DOT) has dismissed an application by the UK subsidiary - Norwegian Air UK (NUK) - of Norwegian Air Shuttle to operate flights to the United States on “procedural grounds.” NUK applied for an exemption and permit to operate flights to the US from Gatwick in December, and the DOT refusal means a set back for Norwegian flying to the US. The DOT cited overlapping issues with Norwegian’s Ireland subsidiary—Norwegian Air International (NAI) —which also sought an exemption to begin operating to the US. The DOT dismissed the NAI exemption in September 2014, but indicated in April that it was inclined to approve it. Opponents of Norwegian being allowed permits to operate flights in the US say the airline seeks to evade both Norwegian and international labour laws and pay pilots less by establishing “flag of convenience” subsidiary airlines. This is seen as a threat to jobs and pay in US airlines. The US Transportation Trades Department, a coalition of unions representing airline staff, say Norwegian's business model is ‘novel and complex’. They say Norwegian should not be allowed to create shell subsidiaries designed to undermine labour standards etc. Gatwick airport needs Norwegian to be able to fly extensively to the US, to claim it has important long haul (leisure) routes.
Click here to view full story...
EasyJet in talks with several EU member states on moving main HQ there, from Luton, due to Brexit
EasyJet says it has opened talks with EU member states' aviation regulators about relocating its legal headquarters from the UK, due to the Brexit decision. Sky News believes easyJet's Carolyn McCall has had meetings with several unidentified EU states to explore the possibilities, but details could take months to be ironed out. It is thought that the most likely workable structure would be to be an EU-registered entity with a UK subsidiary". easyJet would need to obtain a air operator's certificate (AOC) that would enable it to base its HQ in an EU country. Some of the states would want an airline with an AOC to move the bulk of their operations there, but it is understood that easyJet is not willing to do that. One insider said moving the HQ could entail relocating just a handful of staff, depending on the regime operated by the individual country's aviation regulator. Moving the AOC to another country would mean the current AOC in the UK would become just a subsidiary. Whether that would mean jobs being lost at easyJet's main UK base, Luton, is not known. British Airways' parent, International Airlines Group, already operates using a similar structure with its AOC. Ryanair, whose main source market is the UK, has also said it will obtain a UK AOC should it need to.
Click here to view full story...
Biggest destruction of British heritage since the Blitz if Gatwick expands – new report
Campaigners against Gatwick expansion have highlighted the extent of the devastation that a 2nd Gatwick runway would cause to important buildings of great British heritage value, as well as demand to local history and environment. Unveiling a new report, the groups say Gatwick’s own submission to the Airports Commission detailed 17 listed buildings which would be destroyed. These include some of Britain’s finest examples of medieval architecture. The launch of the report was held at Rowley, a former residence of Henry VIII's fifth wife, Catherine Howard, which is among those "requiring removal", according to airport plans. The new runway would require the irreversible loss of the last remnant of the ancient village of Lowfield Heath, which was recorded in the Domesday Book in 1068. The groups behind the new report on the threatened heritage damage are CPRE (Sussex, Surrey and Kent branches), the Woodland Trust, the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign, and Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions. Brendon Sewil commented: “Gatwick seek to wallpaper over the sheer level of destruction it would cause to our British heritage. This is a major stand against Gatwick on one of the historical sites that its proposal would destroy. It would be far more damaging than HS2.”
Click here to view full story...
Government announces runway decision is postponed, till at least October, and left to next Prime Minister
The government has announced that the decision on whether to build a new south east runway will be left to Cameron's successor as Prime Minister. It is believed that this means Heathrow will not be getting a 3rd runway, any time in the foreseeable future. Downing Street sources say David Cameron sees no point in making a runway decision that would almost certainly be overturned by a successor. Patrick McLoughlin, the transport secretary, said in the Commons: "Being realistic, given recent events, I cannot now foresee that there will be an announcement until at least October." He and George Osborne wanted David Cameron to take the decision in favour of Heathrow before leaving office. Boris had been expected to stand as a candidate to be Prime Minister, but has not done so. The most likely next PM may be Theresa May, whose position on Heathrow is described as "nuanced." The Times understands that civil servants in the DfT recommended a Heathrow runway, having believed the (flimsy and guarded) promises by Heathrow on noise and NO2. Gatwick may feel it has a slightly better chance, but with Brexit the demand for air travel may be lower in coming years. There will be several years of negotiation to establish arrangements for UK airlines with the EU, and Gatwick deals mainly with cheap European holiday flights. Replies were made in the Commons to MPs' questions, by Patrick McLoughlin.
Click here to view full story...
UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, urges Britain to remain a global leader on tackling climate change
Christiana Figueres, completing her second term as Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, has said the UK's Brexit vote is not an obstacle to continued cooperation between Britain and the EU on climate change. She says Britain must continue to be a world leader when it comes to acting on climate. Though when Article 50 is triggered, for the two year process of leaving the EU, will cause huge uncertainty, cooperation on climate change could be one area of continuity between the UK and EU. Climate change action is now unstoppable, and global. In the UK there are fears that many politicians backing "Leave" are climate sceptic, and this could result in climate policies and protections being weakened. However, carbon targets are enshrined in UK law under the Climate Change Act, which was passed in 2008 with just five MPs voting against it, and requires steeper emissions cuts than EU targets. The UK has not yet ratified the Paris Agreement on climate change, and neither has the EU. There are fears that Brexit could mean the UK delays ratification, unless the current government does this quickly. There are fears the Brexit climate scepticism could lead to weakening of targets and commitments by other countries. Outside the EU, the UK would have to agree its own contribution to emissions cuts if it stays in the Paris accord. These would most likely be based on the Climate Change Act.
Click here to view full story...
Amber Rudd confirms government will agree 5th Carbon Budget on 30th June
The government was under obligation to write the 5th Carbon Budget into law by 30th June. Amber Rudd has now made a statement to confirm this will be done. The budget sets the cap on UK emissions for the period 2028-2032, and requires cuts in the UK’s CO2 emissions of 57% against 1990 levels by 2032. The carbon budgets are important for aviation, even though international aviation and shipping are not included in them. The CCC advises that “International aviation should continue to be allowed for in the size of the budget for other sectors, but not formally included." The CCC has long recommended that in order to allow for aviation’s future inclusion in carbon budgets, Government should plan on the assumption that aviation CO2 emissions in 2050 should not exceed their level in 2005 – 37.5 MtCO2. With the Brexit vote, there were fears that a more climate-sceptic government might try to weaken the budgets. Amber Rudd has now said that though "Brexit would result in a "harder road" for the UK as it worked to meet its climate goals, the government remained firmly committed to the emission reduction targets set out in the Climate Change Act." Amber said, in relation to climate-sceptic Boris, that the stance of a candidate for Prime Minister on climate would be important in her decision of who to back.
Click here to view full story...
Speculation and uncertainty over what Brexit may mean for the US-EU Open Skies agreement in future
The EU–US Open Skies Agreement is an open skies air transport agreement between the European Union and the United States. It became effective in March 2008, and it allows any airline of the EU and any airline of the US to fly between any point in the EU and any point in the US. It allows US airlines to also fly between points in the EU, but EU airlines cannot fly between points in the US. For the UK, the Open Skies agreement opened up transatlantic opportunities to Heathrow, whereas the previous bilateral deal gave access only to American Airlines, British Airways, United Airlines and Virgin Atlantic. But with the UK Brexit vote, the future of the Open Skies Agreement is uncertain. What happens next could take months or years to work out. In theory, if the UK is out of the EU, it would be out of Open Skies and have to renegotiate a bilateral with the US - which could mean airline access limits. In reality, that scenario is highly unlikely, because if the UK decides to join the European Common Aviation Area, like Norway and Iceland, which gives access to the Single Aviation Market. It is likely that the UK will do whatever it takes to continue unfettered access to both the EU aviation market and the US aviation market. However, the attractiveness of increased liberalisation, in many industries, may be reducing. There may be less trust in future of open markets. Uncertainty will continue ...
Click here to view full story...
Joint statement by the Nantes anti-airport movement at Notre-Dame-des-Landes
This is the joint statement of the anti-airport movement on Sunday night following the results of the consultation. "As was shown the various components of the movement, the setting, the process and the content of this consultation were fundamentally biased . This was based on a series of government lies and was radically unfair. There was no question for us that this is just one step in the long struggle for a future without an airport at Notre Dame des Landes. This struggle continues tonight. We know that the attacks of the government and pro-airport side will be strengthened. On our side, we will not cease to live, grow and protect this farmland. It will continue to be defended with great energy because it carries the ineradicable hopes today against the destruction of the living and the commodification of the world. We call on all supporters and committees throughout France and beyond to mobilize and be vigilant in the weeks and months ahead. There will not be an airport at Notre-Dame-des-Landes. We call in this sense, and in the first instance, for a massive convergence at Notre-Dame-des-Landes for a summer anti-airport gathering, on 9th and 10th July."
Click here to view full story...
easyJet, IAG and Ryanair woes over the UK Brexit vote and hit to their businesses
Shares in easyJet have lost value since the Brexit vote, and the airline said its profits would be hit by Britain’s decision to leave the EU. There would be continuing economic and consumer uncertainty, partly about the membership of UK airlines in the single European aviation market. easyJet expected its profits to be £28 million lower than earlier expected, in the third quarter of 2016, and revenue in the second half of 2016 would be lower. Revenue per seat might be 8.6% down in the third quarter of 2016. easyJet said the weaker £ against the € and the $ would make foreign trips more expensive for Brits, and the low cost airlines would have to cut fares in order to attract them. That means cutting airline profits. Carolyn McCall, easyJet CEO, is urging the European Commission to prioritise British airlines remaining part of the EU aviation area “given its importance to trade and consumers”. (ie. given its importance to airline profits). The value of IAG shares fell on the Brexit result, and they issued a profit warning, as the economic slowdown likely in the UK would reduce air travel demand. Ryanair's share priced also fell. It says it will not deploy new aircraft on routes to and from the UK next year, following the Brexit vote, and will instead focus on the European Union. At present, UK passengers are about 40% of Ryanair's total. They expect the period of "considerable uncertainty" to last for many months.
Click here to view full story...
Stansted management changes, under new CEO Andrew Cowan
In March, Stansted airport announced that its CEO, Andrew Harrison, would be moving to the role of Chief Strategy Officer at MAG, based in Manchester. The new CEO is Andrew Cowan, who had been Chief Strategy Officer of MAG, started in the role on 1st April 2016. Andrew Harrison led Stansted since MAG’s acquisition of the airport in March 2013. Andrew Cowan will lead a team of over 1,400 employees at Stansted. Prior to becoming Chief Strategy Officer at MAG, Andrew was Chief Operating Officer of MAG and Managing Director of Manchester Airport. Stansted has now appointed Martin Jones as commercial director responsible for retail, car parking and business development. He previously worked as MAG interim retail director having joined the business from Marks and Spencer in 2015. Stansted has now also appointed Daniel Gallo as customer service and security director, having been MAG HR director and takes over from Karen Smart who moves to the position of Stansted’s assets management director responsible for developing the airport’s future infrastructure needs. Stansted wants better rail links, and soon. Charlie Cornish is the Chief Executive Officer of MAG overall, which owns Stansted, Manchester, East Midlands and Bournemouth airports.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow aircraft noise must be cut says Henley MP, John Howell
The MP for Henley, John Howell, has called for a “significant reduction” in noise from aircraft over the Henley area. With other MPs from Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Surrey he had a meeting with representatives from Heathrow and NATS about the increased noise problem they are experiencing. Mr Howell has had complaints from constituents about increased noise from aircraft coming into land at Heathrow, particularly when there was an easterly wind, when planes circled over Henley. Martin Rolfe, chief executive of NATS, "accepted that increased aircraft noise was a problem for some people" and agreed to investigate individual issues of serious disturbance if they were reported to him by the MPs. [Whatever that will achieve]. Mr Rolfe said there had been no changes to routes but that the flight patterns within controlled airspace changed almost daily. This is the standard thing the airspace management bodies say. People overflown know they experience a change. The CAA etc use semantics to say this is not technically a change, but just a difference in how a route is flown. One of the key improvements in how the airspace change is managed is to recognise and accept that changes to fleet mix, intensity of use of a route, height of planes and times of day are all changes. They have to in future be acknowledged as such, and taken into account fully in the process.
Click here to view full story...
Notre-Dame-des-Landes referendum: 55% majority in favour of new airport – ACIPA fights on
There was a referendum in the Loire-Atlantique département on 26th June, with the question whether people backed the moving of the current Nantes-Atlantique airport south of Nantes, to a site north of Nantes, at Notre-Dame-des-Landes. Finally the voting was 55% in favour of the move. The area to be destroyed for the new airport is good farm land and valuable wetland habitat, and there has been fierce, determined opposition to the project for years. The local opposition, focused through ACIPA, was deeply critical of the way the referendum was organised. They believe areas other than just those in Loire-Atlantique should have been consulted. Some of these areas would be opposed to the move, and some have to contribute public funds towards it. The government wanted the poll as early as possible, as there is a “declaration of public utility” lasting till October, so work has to start by then. The prime minister, Manual Valls, made a statement as soon as the referendum result was known, that "the government will implement the verdict." Those backing the new airport want to clear the protesters living illegally on the ZAD, some of the land on which the airport would be built, moved away soon, so clearing work can start. ACIPA said this result was just one step in their long struggle against the airport, and their struggle now continues.
Click here to view full story...
IATA warns UK air passengers could decline 3% – 5% by 2020 due to airline uncertainties and fall in the £
Following the UK’s June 23 vote to leave the European Union, IATA said preliminary estimates suggest UK air passengers could decline 3%-5% by 2020, following an expected economic downturn and predicted falling £ exchange rates. IATA's evaluation of the impact of Brexit notes that there is considerable uncertainty on details and timescale. A weak £ could make trips to the UK cheaper, but as there are far more outbound trips from the UK than inbound, and foreign trips for Brits going abroad will cost more, the net impact is lower numbers of passengers. A possible future path for the UK aviation sector would be membership in the European Common Aviation Area (ECAA).That would enable the UK to have continued access to the Single Aviation Market. However, it requires acceptance of EU aviation law across all areas, limiting the UK’s policy freedom. IATS says: "The same would apply to regulations more generally if the UK were to join the European Economic Area. For example, the strongest legal impediment to airport expansion comes from EU local air quality rules which would still apply to the UK if EU membership were exchanged for EEA membership.” IAG's share price fell immediately, and easyJet wrote to the UK government and the EC to ask them to prioritise the UK remaining part of the single EU aviation market. BMI said it might "have to review" its bases in the UK.
Click here to view full story...
Early decision on a new south-east runway thought unlikely, due to Brexit and Cameron resignation
There is much speculation and uncertainty about what will happen on the runway situation, and whether - or how much - it will be delayed. A leak was inadvertently made to PoliticsHome on 22nd (not intended to go out till after a Remain vote) indicating that the government would make a runway announcement on 7th or 8th July. That now seems very unlikely indeed. Heathrow put out a bland statement, realising that the rapid decision in their favour is not looking likely, and making out that their runway is of great national importance. Nobody knows what future role Boris may play, but he promised in May 2015 to "lie down in front of bulldozers" to stop a Heathrow runway. Gatwick is no more likely to succeed. There are also fears for infrastructure projects like HS2,and future investment in other rail services. In short, there is immense uncertainty about almost everything. Many of the UK's rail franchises are controlled and operated by European state-owned companies from Germany, the Netherlands and France. What happens with them? Business likes to plan ahead, and does not like uncertainty or being in limbo. The extent to which air travel will grow in future is now in doubt, with a recession likely - and UK air passenger numbers fall in recessions. The weakness of the currency will make many foreign leisure trips more expensive for Brits.
Click here to view full story...
Simon Calder: What does Brexit mean for British tourists travelling to Europe?
With Britain, somewhat unexpectedly, voting for Brexit there may be changes in the way airlines operate between the UK and the EU, and there may be other implications for air travel from currency changes. Simon Calder, in the Independent, sets out some of the issues and what might happen. The exchange rate of the £ against the $ or the € may not only make holidays, to the EU or elsewhere, more expensive - but an increase in the price of jet fuel could happen if the £ weakens against the $. Through the “Open skies” agreement, since since 1994, any EU airline has been free to fly between any two points in Europe. This allowed easyJet and Ryanair to flourish, and forced “legacy” carriers such as BA, Air France and Lufthansa to cut fares. The UK may have to negotiates a similar arrangement to Norway, within the European Economic Area (EEA), in which case little would change. But if Britain does not join the EEA, every route between the UK and the EU might need to be renegotiated on a bilateral basis. The bureaucratic logjam would be immense. Similarly, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic have easy access to America because of an EU-US treaty on open skies. The freedom for British airlines such as easyJet to fly within and between EU countries could be curtailed; nations such as France and Italy have in the past been protectionist of their home airlines. And much more .....
Click here to view full story...
BA chief, Willie Walsh, threatens to reduce Gatwick flights if it got a 2nd runway
The boss of International Airlines Group ( IAG), which owns British Airways, has threatened to reduce its flights at Gatwick if the airport is given permission to expand with another runway. Willie Walsh warned that the cost of building a second runway at would result in charges that are too high. He said: "We struggle to see any business case for the expansion of Gatwick and will consider our position at the airport if the Government backs expansion there, principally because the cost of that expansion when translated into airport charges would likely wipe out the profit we make." He claimed Chancellor George Osborne and the Treasury are "clearly excited about a large infrastructure project that requires no Government spending", but urged them to consider the options "as if it was funding the project". He added: "If there is expensive, inefficient airport expansion at Gatwick or Heathrow, then we will expand through other airports and hubs." Willie Walsh has repeatedly said he is not prepared to pay very high landing charges at an expanded Heathrow, and would instead move his IAG planes to Dublin and Madrid instead.
Click here to view full story...
Walsh hits out at runway costs – “Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing”
Willie Walsh, CEO of IAG, speaking at an ABTA conference, has reiterated his opposition to an expensive Heathrow north west runway. His airlines are not prepared to pay high landing costs upfront for years before a runway is operational. He also says there is no business case for a Gatwick runway, and he would not pay higher charges there either. Walsh said “Heathrow is already the most-expensive hub airport in the world, with a history of inflating costs.” ... He questions the potential cost of £17.6 billion: "Only £182 million is for the runway. The new car park would cost £800 million.” ... “You cannot trust Heathrow to deliver anything in a cost-effective manner. Customers have been ripped off by Heathrow for years and leopards don’t change their spots.” ... Walsh claimed “the majority of the money” Heathrow raises from airport charges “doesn’t go towards upgrading facilities but straight into the pockets of the airport’s shareholders”... “Heathrow paid £1.4 billion to its shareholders in the last two years and only invested £1.3 billion in the airport. The average charge for each departing passenger is slightly more than £44." He is more in favour of the Heathrow Hub option, and wants Heathrow expansion in phases with the runway first, using the existing terminals. “Doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.”
Click here to view full story...
New petition demanding real action to address global aviation CO2 – not ineffective use of “REDD” offsets
The group REDD-Monitor and other organisations have a petition asking people to sign up, to oppose the use by the global aviation industry, through ICAO, of "offsets" for its emissions using forestry. These offsets, through REDD or REDD+ (meaning (‘Reduce Deforestation from Deforestation and Forest Degradation’) would be very cheap and available in huge numbers. They would not be an effective way to compensate for growing aviation carbon emissions. The industry's only plan to control its CO2 emissions, while doubling them, is buying credits from other sectors. In April 2016, more than 80 NGOs put out a statement opposing the aviation sector’s carbon offsetting plans through use of REDD credits. There are many really serious problems with REDD credits. Some are: They would only use large forestry institutions, or monoculture farming, not small landowners or forest peoples. Most REDD projects are not those that tackle the real drivers of large-scale deforestation – extraction of oil, coal, mining, infrastructure, large-scale dams, industrial logging etc. REDD credits carry the additional risk of becoming null and void when wildfires, storms or natural decay cause uncontrollable release of carbon stored. There are serious risks of lack of monitoring, and of fraud. REDD offsets should not be allowed for aviation carbon credits.
Click here to view full story...
Manchester Airport rubbishes claims Heathrow expansion is crucial for Northern Powerhouse to succeed
The boss of Manchester Airport, Ken O’Toole, has rubbished Heathrow’s claims that a new London runway is crucial to the Northern Powerhouse. He argues that Manchester is an international airport in its own right with many direct long-haul routes. He says Manchester airport could make up any long haul capacity gap over the next 15 years and beyond "if the country adopts a culture of healthy competition." Manchester started a direct service to Beijing last week, giving the North its first ever non-stop flight to mainland China. But Heathrow continually tries to persuade that, without a third Heathrow runway, northern businesses would lose "up to £710m" per year. Manchester airport believes it can have a range of long haul flights, not only to tourist destinations - mentioning important markets like "Singapore, Hong Kong, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Boston and, from next March, San Francisco.” If people can get flights to these destinations direct from Manchester, they do not need to - inconveniently - travel via Heathrow. Ken O'Toole says some 22 million people live within two hours’ drive of Manchester Airport. They have a huge amount of spare capacity on their two runways. Heathrow is very nervous of losing the transfer traffic it cannot manage without, to either other hubs like Schiphol or Dubai - or the growth of airports like Manchester.
Click here to view full story...
In the event of Brexit, easyJet might need to set up a new European operation
If Britain votes to leave the EU, there would be impacts on airlines. The EU agreements that have been in place since the 1990s have fostered a huge expansion of air travel in Europe. Outside the EU, flying rights between two countries, including how many airports a carrier may fly to and how often, are typically negotiated in bilateral treaties. But currently in Europe with its single aviation market, an airline can fly between any EU countries. For example, an Irish Ryanair plane can fly between Britain and Spain, or a Spanish airline can operate flights within France. EasyJet is particularly worried about a Brexit vote. EasyJet is the second largest airline in France. Brexit could mean that the UK is excluded from the common aviation area. One thing it might have to do, in the event of Brexit, would be to obtain an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) in an EU country, which would require it to establish a local holding company. However, the holding company would have to be 51% owned by local investors and would have to comply with local regulations. Ryanair and British Airways already have AOCs in Ireland and Spain, while EasyJet does not. Brexit might have the effect of forcing Ryanair to set up a formal British business by obtaining a UK AOC. A Brexit vote could affect all pan-European carriers, not just British ones.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow has posted a video about its Terminal 6. Heathrow only has 5 terminals.
Heathrow has produced a short video showing how beautifully the transport system will link up and serve Terminals 5 and 6. Yes, Terminal 6. It does not yet exist. It will not exist unless the government allows Heathrow a runway. But Heathrow is producing publicity presuming that it exists. It is to be located (either for the Heathrow Hub option of the extended northern runway, or the new north west runway option) right beside Terminal 5 just to the west of it. Heathrow's video shows the location of Terminal 6, close to Terminal 5. http://your.heathrow.com/video-heathrows-terminal-5-6/ Heathrow put out plans in October 2015 for two main passenger terminals and transport hubs – Heathrow West (Terminals 5 and 6) and Heathrow East (an extended Terminal 2) – connected by an underground passenger transit and baggage system.
Click here to view full story...
English translations of some videos explaining arguments against a new Notre-Dame-des-Landes airport
The local opposition around Nantes, to the building a new airport north of Nantes, have produced a series of short videos, setting out some of the issues. There will be a referendum on 26th June, for people in the area, on whether the existing airport, Nantes-Atlantique, should be closed and a new airport constructed at Notre Dame des Landes (NDDL). The opponents of the NDDL airport say, among other things: - The number of flights at Nantes has hardly grown in 10 years. - It is possible to slightly grow the current Nantes-Atlantique airport (just south of Nantes) and slightly extend the runway by 60 metres. - It is possible to take measures to slightly reduce the noise at the Nantes-Atlantique airport. - The new NDDL airpot would cost the taxpayer about €280 million. - There would be no more destinations from the new NDDL airport than from the Nantes-Atlantique airport. Germany has 45 airports, and France has 156 airports. - The NDDL airport would mean the destruction of 700 hectares of wetland and about 900 hectares of farmland. - Many protected species would be lost. - About 200 agriculture-associated jobs would be lost, and most of the alleged new jobs would just move from the old airport. - The costs to passengers will be higher at the NDDL airport. And there is a lot more. With English translations here.
Click here to view full story...
ICAO still very far from any effective means of limiting aviation CO2 to be in line with Paris Agreement
Operating without fuel taxes, VAT, legally-binding fuel efficiency requirements or limits on its CO2 emissions, the aviation sector operates in something of a parallel universe. ICAO will have an opportunity to finally take a step forward on climate action. ICAO will discuss the impact of the Paris Agreement on the sector, and specifically the next steps for an aviation carbon offsetting scheme currently under negotiation. Their earlier response to the Paris Agreement was to try to give the impression that the sector is making huge progress. In reality, industry lobbyists succeeded in preventing an explicit reference to aviation in the text. But the globally-agreed goal of striving to limit global warming to 1.5C does apply to aviation. All ICAO Parties are also Parties to the Paris Agreement. If they let aviation off the hook, the target 1.5 degree, or even 2 degree, global target will simply be impossible to reach. The aviation sector will have to act – rapidly and radically – on climate if the Paris goal can be achieved. But ICAO's current proposals are a very inadequate first step, and the industry plans for up to 300% growth by 2050. Even their modest goal of buying carbon permits to offset aviation carbon is not ambitious enough, as proposed exemptions for airlines of less developed countries amount to about 40% of global aviation CO2.
Click here to view full story...
HACAN East meets CAA to thrash out noise problems caused by newly concentrated routes
John Stewart and Rob Barnstone from HACAN East at London City Airport had a 2 hour meeting with the five members of the CAA, to discuss the new concentrated flight paths-causing intensified noise. The CAA is aware of the unhappiness amongst communities and local authorities at their decision to allow flight path changes in February 2016. One of the most unpopular changes is concentration of the departures route, in westerly winds, that takes off towards the west and turns north and east. The other change is for arrivals, in easterly winds, when planes approach from east, south of the airport. Most of these communities are also overflown by Heathrow planes on the days there is a westerly wind. Both these have led to intensified noise for thousands of people. London City Airport had argued that they could get away with minimal consultation on these changes because the changes were "not significant." However, there has been a definite change since February. HACAN East pointed out that the CAA that there was no mechanism to look at changes over time. There were many changes made in 2008 when the flight paths were changed to accommodate the larger planes which needed to make a much wider turn. HACAN East stressed that respite was important to local communities. People are encouraged to contact the CAA and the airport, to express their views on the noise issue.
Click here to view full story...
AirportWatch calls on the Advertising Standards Authority to take action to remove misleading ads speedily
A bizarre court case has seen two environmental campaigners landed with a bill for more than £2,600 after they "corrected" a Heathrow Airport billboard promoting a new runway - even though the Advertising Standards Authority subsequently ruled that Heathrow's claims were indeed incorrect. Lawrence Rose and Joseph McGahan were found guilty of defacing Heathrow billboards near the airport, and in their view correcting misinformation on the adverts in March 2015. The adverts about local support and about benefits to the UK economy were referred – in March or April 2015 - to the Advertising Standards Authority, which ruled in September 2015 that these adverts were misleading. Larry and Joe were given suspended sentences, after a jury trial, and fines including a cost of £1,200 to Heathrow airport for the cost of tidying up the damage to their incorrect and misleading adverts. They were also fined £1,440 of court costs. For many months in 2014 and 2015, Heathrow placed these misleading advertisements in very public places. Thousands or hundreds of thousands of people will have seen the ads. Though the Advertising Standards Authority eventually ruled against them, the process took many months so by that time Heathrow had had extensive publicity and been able to convey misinformation. AirportWatch believes this is wrong. The process by which incorrect adverts are removed should be improved to ensure unsubstantiated claims by huge companies, like airports, are not left in place for months after being challenged.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow protesters found guilty of graffiti subvertising misleading pro-3rd runway billboards
Two protesters in March 2015 subvertised two Heathrow advertising hoardings, and removed one Heathrow poster from a bus stop. They changed one massive hoarding, on a road close to Heathrow, that said "Those living around us are behind us" to say "Those living around us are CHOKING." Another billboard with the slogan "Expand Heathrow and you grow the economy by up to £211 billion" was changed to say "Expand Heathrow and you grow the economy by destroying homes." The two men, Larry Rose and Joe McGahan, were tried at Isleworth Crown Court and found guilty. They were charged with criminal damage. They pleaded not guilty, and defended themselves using the defence of lawful excuse. They had attempted to alter Heathrow’s fraudulent billboards in order to portray a more accurate reality of the harm and misery Heathrow’s expansion would bring to local residents and the environment. They cited evidence of the health impact of air pollution around Heathrow, and the increased carbon emissions that an extra runway would cause. The two were given conditional discharges and fines totalling £2,640 - of which £1,200 was to Heathrow to pay for cleaning up. Both adverts were subsequently found to be misleading by the Advertising Standards Authority, and Heathrow was told to withdraw them.
Click here to view full story...
Government decides not to devolve APD to Wales
The UK government has confirmed that there would be no devolution of APD to Wales. APD has been fully devolved to Scotland, and SNP has the intention of halving it and eventually scrapping it. Some in the Welsh Assembly wanted devolution of APD to Wales, so it could be cut - in the vain hope that would boost the profitability of struggling Cardiff airport. Airports in England, and Bristol in particular, were deeply opposed to APD in Wales being cut, in case that encouraged people to use Cardiff airport rather than Bristol. The local Bristol MP said that would cause unfair competition between airports. The impact of abolishing APD would only be at most £13 per return flight for anywhere in Europe, (£26 for a return flight within the UK) - with no difference for a child under 16, so hardly worth the trip all way over to Cardiff. In a Commons debate on the Wales Bill, parliamentary under secretary of state for Wales, Conservative MP Guto Bebb, said: “Air Passenger Duty has been raised during the debate, and the fact that we are not proposing to devolve it has been criticised, although I think that that is right and proper.” The loss of income from the removal of APD would in all likelihood be larger than any benefit from more inbound tourism etc, causing a net loss to the Welsh economy.
Click here to view full story...
Polish study of effects of aircraft noise shows increased hypertension and cardiovascular impacts
A study carried out in Krakow, Poland, has found that long term exposure to aircraft noise is associated with hypertension and organ damage. The study included 201 randomly selected adults aged 40 to 66 years who had lived for more than three years in an area with high or low aircraft noise. Of these, 101 were exposed to more than 60 decibels (dB) of aircraft noise on average and 100 were exposed to less than 55 dB and acted as a control group. The researchers matched the groups in pairs by gender, age, and amount of time living in the area. All participants had their blood pressure measured. Asymptomatic organ damage was assessed by measuring stiffness of the aorta and the mass and function of the left ventricle. They found that the group who lived in an area of high aircraft noise had more hypertension than those who lived in a low aircraft noise area (40% versus 24%). They also had higher systolic (146 versus 138 mmHg) and diastolic (89 versus 79 mmHg) blood pressure than the control group. The researchers say "There is emerging data to suggest that exposure to aircraft noise may increase the risk of hypertension, particularly at night, and of hospitalisation for cardiovascular diseases – but more evidence is needed.” Also that noise should be kept down, by "redirecting flight paths, keeping airports away from homes, and avoiding night flights.”
Click here to view full story...
Tunbridge Wells aircraft noise group produces report on correct 3 degree CDA heights for Gatwick arrivals
The Tunbridge Wells Anti Aircraft Noise Group (TWAANG) has researched the actual heights of aircraft around their area, approaching Gatwick. They are concerned that planes are not descending into Gatwick using the approved 3 degree Continuous Descent Approach (CDA), from 7,000 ft or even 6,000 ft. Instead, planes as far out as 20 - 30 miles from the runway are descending by merely 1 or 2 degrees, and are much lower than they should be, using a proper 3 degree CDA. TWAANG have produced data showing the actual heights of planes arriving at Gatwick, against the heights they should theoretically be at. For example, at 15 nautical miles from the runway, planes descending at 3 degrees should be at about 4,500 feet, and at 20 nm out, they should be at 6,000 feet. At a 1 degree the heights would be 3,500 feet and 4,000 feet respectively. Pilots are encouraged by DfT and industry guidelines to keep their aircraft high and to use a 3° angle of descent in a low power low drag (LPLD) configuration. The lower heights mean there is greater disturbance than necessary for people being overflown, and the flatter angle of descent is likely to require engine power to sustain, creating unnecessary noise and poor economic performance. TWAANG say: "We observe plenty of aircraft making full CDAs from 7,000ft already, what is difficult to understand is why such a high proportion fail to follow their example."
Click here to view full story...
Stop Stansted Expansion prepares to launch legal proceedings against Stansted airport, over compensation delays
Stansted Airport faces legal action on behalf of thousands of local residents denied compensation over devaluation of their property caused by airport expansion. The cost to the airport could run to hundreds of millions of pounds. Stansted failed to meet a deadline (31st May) to make a public statement agreeing to introduce a compensation scheme for local residents after years of prevarication. Since 2002, Stansted has used the excuse that it has no legal obligation to pay compensation until it has completed everything listed in its 1999 Phase 2 planning consent. Completion of a small part of these works, the Echo Cul-de-Sac, has been repeatedly postponed - most recently until the mid-2020s - and has thus been branded the 'golden rivet' loophole. Stansted lawyers finally accepted this, but then immediately put forward a new excuse for rejecting compensation claims - that claims were now time-barred under the Limitation Act. This gave rise to withering criticism from the judge who remarked: "So, after years of telling people you can't claim until the works are complete, you're now saying Tee-Hee - you're too late." Due to Stansted stalling, SSE are now taking legal action, to safeguard the interests of local residents. SSE's preparations for a legal challenge ,on the airport's use of the Limitation Act, are underway. They have appointed and briefed its legal team, which includes two expert barristers and one of the country's foremost planning solicitors.
Click here to view full story...
Stop Stansted Expansion sets out details of Stansted’s devious attempts to avoid compensation payments from 2000
Stop Stansted Expansion have catalogued the appalling deceit and prevarication used by Stansted Airport, in its attempts to avoid making compensation payments to people affected by airport's expansion. Work on Phase 2 was started in 1999, to take the airport up to 15 million passengers per year, and claims should then have been possible. But Stansted insisted that no claims could be made until one of the taxiway piers, Echo, was completed. Each year, from 2004 to 2011 the date when the Echo stand's completion date was pushed further and further back (partly as Stansted had a dramatic fall in passenger numbers in the recession). Finally this April Stansted's lawyers said " ...1 March 2007 is a relevant date at least in respect of some of the works in paragraph 1.8..” In other words Stansted finally concedes that it had been wrong to use the ‘golden rivet’ ploy to avoid paying compensation. But now Stansted has a new ploy to avoid paying compensation, saying any claim had to be brought within 6 years. The Deputy President of the Lands Tribunal remarked: “So, after years of telling people you can’t claim until the works are complete, you’re now saying Tee-Hee – you’re too late?” Stop Stansted Expansion gave the airport until 31st May to make a public statement reversing this stance – or face a legal challenge. No satisfactory response was received in time from owners, MAG.
Click here to view full story...
New study in Sweden indicates increased mental illness in children & teenagers exposed to air pollution
A major new study in Sweden has linked worse air pollution to increased mental illness in children, even at low levels of pollution. The research is the first study to establish the link, but is consistent with a growing body of evidence that air pollution can affect mental and cognitive health and that children and adolescents are particularly vulnerable to poor air quality. The suspected mechanism is that air pollution chemicals or small particles breathed in can get into the bloodstream and thus enter the brain. This can cause mild inflammation, and that is associated with a range of psychiatric disorders. The research, published in the peer-reviewed journal BMJ Open, examined the pollution exposure of more than 500,000 under-18s in Sweden and compared this with records of medicines prescribed for mental illnesses, ranging from sedatives to anti-psychotics. Though a relatively crude measure of mental problems, it is a reliable measure. The air pollution (NO2 and particulates) came primarily from traffic. Children are more sensitive and vulnerable to the damage than adults, as they tend to be more active and their brains and organs are still developing. There are confounding factors of poverty, with relatively deprived areas having worse environmental quality, and more studies are needed to corroborate the findings.
Click here to view full story...
St Helena airport (for which UK spent £285 of aid money) to boost tourism – “indefinitely delayed” due to windshear danger
Back in 2010 the UK government approved some £285 million of the aid budget to be spent on building an airport on the remote island of St Helena (population 4,000). Now it has emerged that the airport has been mothballed, and delayed indefinitely due to windshear problems for planes using the runway, because of the position of the runway at the top of an almost 1,000 foot cliff. It is too dangerous for passenger planes to use. The island, a UK overseas territory, is about 1,200 miles west of Angola, with the sea trip (3 times per week) to Cape Town taking 5 days. It is one of the most remote populated places on earth. Keeping the territory going costs the UK money, and it had been hoped that the airport would mean enough inbound tourists could visit the island, bring in currency, boost the economy - and end up costing the UK less. The islanders were very excited about the prospect, and the logistics of building a large enough flat platform up on a cliff were complex. The amount of earth moving and concrete pouring etc, on this remote island, were technically challenging. There would always have been difficulties in running a full air service, due to the inevitably short runway. The island's only connection with the mainland is the ageing Royal Mail ship St Helena which is soon to be retired. Questions are being asked about the wisdom of this use of UK aid money, to attempt to reduce the cost of the island to the UK.
Click here to view full story...
Martin Rolfe NATS blogs illustrate the irreconcilable conflict between increased plane noise and community tolerance
Martin Rolfe, the CEO of NATS, writes blogs - putting the NATS points of view. He talks largely to an industry audience, but has to try to avoid irritating members of the public who find being noisily overflown unacceptable. A couple of these blogs are below, and a response sent to some complainants. The thing that stands out is the language used by the airspace management industry. They like to hide behind the complexity of the process, hoping this will obscure details and make it difficult for the public to understand. Both NATS and the CAA have the difficulty that they get their money from the airlines, and it is not in their interests to do anything other than benefit them. Both realise they have a real problem with the amount of anger, upset, misery and opposition there now is to exposure to high levels of aircraft noise. Both have a real problem in attempting to cram ever more flights, ever more flight paths - and concentrated flight paths - into the skies over crowded areas. Unfortunately for them, most of the UK - the south east in particular - is densely populated. There ARE no empty areas for flight paths to over fly in the south east. So the only thing on offer is to try and tweak the noise a bit, shift it slightly from one place to another, and make communities fight it out between themselves as to who is to be worst affected. The concept of "enough is enough" is not in the mindset of the CAA or of NATS.
Click here to view full story...
Edinburgh airport starts 1st stage of consultation to get more RNAV routes in place by summer 2018
Edinburgh airport met strenuous opposition when it ran a trial that started in June 2015 of the TUTUR route. Now Edinburgh has put out a consultation (ends 12th September) of the first phase of a process of getting more airspace changes. The consultation is not on actual routes. The airport says: "The positions of the new routes have not yet been determined. We seek to inform the decisions regarding where best to position these routes by consulting with those impacted or who have an interest." The question in the consultation is “what local factors should be taken into account when determining the position of the route within the design envelope given the potential impacts, and why?” They say feedback "will inform the detailed design process and will influence the design options." Once draft routes have been designed, a further consultation (probably summer 2017) will take place on the detailed design of the routes. After the second consultation, Edinburgh Airport will submit an airspace change proposal to the CAA. They have been careful to get their consultation in quickly, before the CAA system of improving the airspace change process comes into being. " The target date for the RNAV routes to come into operation is Summer 2018." Consultees cannot comment on air traffic growth, airport expansion, or government policy on airspace noise (or the lack of it), or of PBN or the desirability of RNAV.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick Chairman writes to David Cameron re-hashing unconvincing claims on desirability of its 2nd runway
Gatwick has made its last ditch attempt to persuade the government to let it have another runway. It is thought likely that some runway decision will now be made by early September at the latest, if it is not made before about 18th July. Gatwick Chairman Sir Roy McNulty has written to David Cameron, hoping to persuade him that Gatwick will not cost the air passenger any more than £15 per flight. Gatwick claims they can manage the noise levels, though are not entirely clear how. They hope sharing out the noise over more people will keep the numbers within the 57 dB and the 55 Lden to manageable levels. They hope to get the runway started before the next election, thereby not having given the electorate the change to vote on the matter - as the Airports Commission announcement in July 2015 was deliberately after the last election in May 2015. They claim there will be no cost to the taxpayer, but there are estimates of possibly £12 billion by TfL for the necessary transport work to deal with another 40 million passengers. Gatwick hopes its paltry £46.5 million offer will cover all that. And Gatwick claims it will never have an air pollution problem - rather ignoring the pollution caused by the inevitable traffic, as there is inadequate public transport. Looked at in detail, the offers (like those of Heathrow a few weeks earlier) are very threadbare indeed.
Click here to view full story...
Teddington Action Group (TAG) questions the necessity of low-flying heavy aircraft from Heathrow
Teddington Action Group has questioned the necessity of low-flying aircraft from Heathrow and state that they are flying lower compared to other airports causing more noise, more suffering and more CO2 emissions than at almost any other airport in the World. TAG wants the Heathrow Airport London (Noise Abatement Requirements) Notice 2010 to be amended and tightened so as to require planes to climb from Heathrow at a rate of up to three times that which exists at present. This will bring Heathrow into line with other major international airports. TAG is asking that: (1). All aircraft must attain at least 2,500 ft [up from 1,000 ft] by 6.5 kilometres from start of roll. And (2). Thereafter all aircraft must keep climbing at a rate of at least 12% [up from 4%] until 6,000 ft [up from 4,000 ft]. Currently planes using Heathrow have some of the lowest flying and lowest climbing rates of any airport in the world and as a result cause more noise pollution locally. For economic reasons, heavy long haul flights find it cheaper to burn more fuel on a slower initial climb, but save on engine maintenance. Lighter short haul planes may benefit from steeper initial take-offs. The current rates of climb, under the 2010 regulations, are so undemanding that even very ancient aircraft can attain them.
Click here to view full story...
Another great piece by Simon Jenkins on why the UK does not need another runway, but better roads and rail instead
Simon Jenkins, writing in the Evening Standard, says David Cameron should focus on improving the country’s railways and roads, rather than adding a runway. He asks of Cameron: "Is 2016 to be megaproject Armageddon?" ..."We need constantly to remember a crucial fact about London’s airports. They have next to nothing to do with “business and industry” and the much-vaunted UK plc. " ...."But when the Airports Commission was set up, Heathrow hurled the kitchen sink of lobbying at it, and won the day." ... "Heathrow is full or, as the planners put it, “at capacity”. But then so is Waterloo, so is Victoria, so is the M25, so is every London hospital, school and prison. Big, booming cities are always at capacity. That is why resources must be planned sensibly. Roads, railways, hospitals and schools are more crucial to the prosperity and welfare of the capital than the convenience of tourists, important though they may be." ... [Cameron] clearly does not regard the pressure on Heathrow as being critical to the economy. He is right. There is no overriding reason for London to have a giant “hub” airport." ..."If Cameron really wants to help the British economy with mega-infrastructure, every survey shows that the best value for money is from improving commuter railways and building better roads." Lots of great points in the full article ....
Click here to view full story...
Times speculation on runway decision, Cameron, referendum, Boris, legal challenges and reshuffles
The Times believes that Heathrow and Gatwick made their final submissions to the DfT last week, and government officials say they are ready for a Cabinet decision. The environmental problems at Heathrow have meant there are very real dangers of successful legal challenges, not least from local councils. Heathrow recently put forward some pledges of how it could meet its environmental challenges, but they were over-optimistic and do not bear careful scrutiny. The question is whether the government thinks it could get away with a decision that is neither considered to be a bad one, or one on which they could face legal embarrassment. The Times believes the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, has told David Cameron that he should not postpone the decision again. There is likely to be a window of opportunity for a runway decision, after an EU referendum Remain victory and before a “reconciliation reshuffle” probably in September, to reunite Conservatives. The Times believes if Boris is given a Cabinet post before a runway decision, he will make it difficult. So it would be easier to decide on a runway, before including Boris. However, there are a lot of other issues to be dealt with between 24th June and 21st July, including an anti-obesity strategy, policies to counter Islamist extremism and a vote on Trident.
Click here to view full story...
Airlines put on pressure for SNP to go ahead with cutting APD by 50% despite strong opposition
The consultation on the SNP proposal to cut APD by 50% ended on 3rd June. The SNP want to include the proposal in the draft Scottish budget this autumn. It would mean reducing APD per passenger from £13 to £6.50 for flights up to 2,000 miles, and from £73 to £37 for longer journeys, from April 2018. However, the SNP face strong opposition, as the cut would mean a major loss of revenue to Scotland at a time when cuts are being made for austerity. At present APD raises about £300 million per year in Scotland, and half that would pay for thousands of extra nurses etc. Airlines and airports are, as one would expect, pushing for the APD cut, to increase the number of flights - and their profits. The likely impact would be to increase the number of leisure trips by Scottish people, taking their spending money abroad. There are also fears of the environmental impact of more air traffic, with aviation carbon emissions rising, perhaps by as much as 60,000 tonnes per year. This is inconsistent with Scotland's climate commitments. The SNP would like to totally remove APD “when resources allow”. But they cannot push this through parliament without the backing of other parties, which had manifesto commitments opposed to reducing or abolishing APD.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick provides more details of the setting up of the Noise Management Board, from the Arrivals Review
One of the recommendations of the Arrivals Review was that Gatwick should set up a Noise Management Board (NMB), on which community representatives could sit. Gatwick, in its Final Action Plan on the Arrivals Review, has now set out details of how the NMB will work. It will have no more than 14 members; 5 will be institutions; there will be 2 places for County Councils. There will be 4 places for District, Borough, Town and Parish Councils, and Community Noise Groups, with two from the east and two from the west of Gatwick. Gatwick says the NMB: "should be a body with real influence over operational stakeholders around the airport ...." Nothing says it will have any powers or any real influence. Gatwick says it will: "seek to positively influence the noise environment of stakeholders by assisting the development of consensus among the various organisations represented through its membership" [whatever that means in practice?]. The NMB will: "seek to facilitate better understanding by residents through more consistent communication and verifiable data." Nothing in the stated objectives says noise will reduce, or that the interests of communities will be given equal weight to those of airlines etc. If the NMB cannot reach consensus on a matter, it can be agreed by 75%. The community groups only make up 25% or less.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick provides more details of the wider swathe of arrivals onto the ILS, from the Arrivals Review
The main reason why Gatwick had to set up the Independent Arrivals Review was the fury and anguish, largely from areas around 10 - 14 miles from the airport, due to changes in 2013 to the distance at which planes joined the ILS (the final straight line flight path onto the runway). NATS and Gatwick had decided, allegedly for safety but in practice to make maximum use of the runway at busy times, to get most planes to join the ILS at 10 nautical miles out, while before that, some joined as close as 7 nm. The concentrated noise over some areas, not previously over-flown, caused unprecedented opposition. The Arrivals Review recommended that the swathe, both east and west of Gatwick, be widened to 8 - 14 nm, and that there should be more fair and equitable distribution of the noise of planes joining the ILS. A large part of the "Final Action Plan" deals with this. It attempts to allay fears that, to save fuel, many planes will try to cut a corner, and concentrate around the 8nm area. It tries to allay fears that there will be concentrated parts of the routes, and that people living relatively near Gatwick - (around 7 - 9nm or so) will suffer unduly from noise of both arrivals and departures. However, Gatwick says it is "not possible to predict precisely the distribution of aircraft within the swathe" and this will be "carefully monitored and reported to the Noise Management Board" which in turn will publish its findings and any conclusions.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick produces Final Action Plan to implement Independent Review of Arrivals recommendations
On 31st March Gatwick, made its initial response to the Arrivals Review, carried out by Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake. Gatwick then had to hold la 6 week consultation on the Proposed Action Plan, which ended on the 16th May. Gatwick has now produced its Final Action Plan. It confirms it has accepted all the Review's recommendations. As well as accelerating the retrofitting of Airbus A320 planes to remove the "whine", two issues in the Review that generated the most public input were widening the "swathe" for arriving planes as the join the ILS to 8 - 14 nautical miles, and the setting up of a Gatwick Noise Management Board (NMB), on which a few community representatives can sit. Gatwick says the NMB will "oversee joint strategies to deal with noise around the airport." It will be chaired by Bo Redeborn, and its first meeting will be on 21st June. In response to extensive feedback, community representation on the NMB has been increased from two representatives to four, and further analysis has been carried out to quantify more fully the impact of widening the arrivals swathe. There remain concerns by those living near the airport that some people will suffer from noise of both arrivals and departures, and Gatwick has produced maps to illustrate that it anticipates this will not be a problem for a large area.
Click here to view full story...
Tianjin Airlines to fly (£7 plus taxes ?) Gatwick to Tianjin from June, with Chongquin stop
Desperate to get some sort of link to China, to compete with Heathrow, a twice weekly flight by Tianjin Airlines between Gatwick and Tianjin, via Chongquin (in western China) ill start in late June. Tianjin Airlines are an internal Chinese airline, and they want to eventually get flights from Heathrow. They say no more routes from Gatwick are planned. They seem a little unsure of the level of demand (Tianjin is an industrial port, some 80 km south east of Beijing) as they plan to charge only £7 with taxes one way, and £9 with taxes on the return. If the service continues, they would aim to much cheaper than competitors. Gatwick has not done well with attracting or keeping long haul airlines. Airlines that axed routes from Gatwick in the two years 2011 to 2013 include Hong Kong Airlines, Air Asia X, Korean Air and US Airways. In 2015 Garuda and Vietnam Airlines also moved their flights from Gatwick to Heathrow. Gatwick lost 15 long-haul carriers between 2008, and 2013, including Air Nigeria. Air China pulled out of Gatwick in 2014 when they got slots at Heathrow from October, for a service to Beijing. On the Tianjing flights: "As soon as an LHR slot becomes available they’ll be off.”
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow Express has to cut off-peak fares, to try to smooth demand. Future threat from Crossrail?
Britain’s most expensive train journey per mile, the Heathrow Express from Paddington, is raising the fare on its peak time tickets - to cut congestion. The peak fare standard rate will rise from £22 to £24. But return fares on off-peak tickets will fall from £36 to £25. Heathrow Express hope this will smooth out the flow, even if Heathrow is keen on maximum numbers of passengers at rush hour peaks. One wonders how the trains could possibly cope with the passengers generated by a 3rd runway. The Heathrow Connect service, which also runs services from Paddington, offers single fares of £10.20, and the Underground fare for the same distance during peak times is £5.10. Some of the Heathrow Express trains had to be taken out of service, for months, recently due to cracks. This meant borrowing trains from Heathrow Connect. Last year, Heathrow Express was forced to drop its ‘every 15 minutes’ slogan when a customer rightly pointed out that the frequency falls to once every half hour later in the day. Christian Wolmar has pointed out that the Heathrow Express will face serious challenges once Crossrail starts operating from 2018: "Crossrail will have the fantastic advantage of bringing people from all over London direct to Heathrow in journey times only a bit longer than Heathrow Express and far cheaper."
Click here to view full story...
Local referendum on whether to move Nantes-Atlantique airport to Notre-Dame-des-Landes – 26th June
On 26th June there will be a consultation/referendum on the issue of whether the existing airport, Nantes-Atlantique, just south of Nantes should be moved to a site north of the town at Notre-Dame-des- Landes (NDDL). The government announced this referendum back in March.The question that will be asked is: "Do you support the proposed transfer of Nantes-Atlantique airport to the municipality of Notre-Dame-des-Landes?" The referendum is open to voters of the municipalities of Loire-Atlantique. Opponents are running an active campaign, to provide information to every potential voter and attending public meetings, with their spirit of quiet determination. Opponents, including local campaign ACIPA, say nobody asked for this referendum, and it does not in any way legitimize the airport project at NDDL, which they consider to be illegal, ruinous and destructive. They say the conditions for real democratic debate are not met; the area chosen for the referendum excludes some important local communities; the question is biased; and there is no guarantee of fair treatment of the opposition. They are not impressed that the Prime Minister has announced the start of work in the autumn, despite the referendum. They say the airport cannot proceed until various legal matters have been sorted out. There will be another huge anti-NDDL gathering on 9th and 10th July. "On a tous une bonne raison de voter NON." (We all have a reason to vote NO.)
Click here to view full story...
Departing passengers will pay around £8 – 16 tax till perhaps 2031 to fund 3rd Hong Kong airport runway
Outbound and transit passengers will pay up to between a bout £8 and £16 (HK$ 90 -180) to fund the construction of Hong Kong airport’s third runway system from August 1st. Initial reclamation work for the project is scheduled to start on the same day. The airport construction fee for short-haul economy departing passengers will be HK$90, and in first or business class, HK$160. For long-haul passengers, the fee for economy will be HK$160 and first or business class HK$180. Short haul economy passengers will pay HK$70. The costs would remain at the same level, but continue till the runway is fully paid for, which may be till 2031. Meanwhile, People’s Aviation Watch, an organisation opposing expensive infrastructure projects at the airport, said a judicial review to challenge the environmental impact assessment report for the runway will be heard in court this July. They say the Airport Authority's decision to charge the fees before any verdict on the start of the runway disregards the law. But in March opponents lost a bid to legally challenge the ability of the airport to charge for the runway. A total of five judicial review cases or appeals against the runway are being planned. The new runway is likely to increase CO2 emissions by about 50%, and create serious noise pollution for some areas.
Click here to view full story...
Ryanair uses new €8.5 Norwegian air passenger tax as excuse to cut Oslo capacity
On 1st June, Norway introduced a small charge per air passenger, of around €8.50. Now because of the tax, Ryanair, in bullying and blackmailing mode, says it is to close its base at the low cost Rygge airport at Oslo on 29th October, and reduce its Norwegian traffic by half. The Norwegian government expects to raise an additional €107 million or so, from the tax, during 2016. But Ryanair fears losing money from the tax, which is calls (?) "environmentally unfriendly”. Ryanair says it would mean the loss of 900,000 air passengers per year to Norway, (the country's population is only 5.2 million, but there were around 53 million air journeys in 2015) and 1,000 jobs at the Rygge airport. Ryanair is, in terms of air passengers, a distant 4th in Norway, behind SAS, Norwegian and Wideroe. The low cost airlines fear reduced profits, and inevitably higher fees - though the increase is tiny. Ryanair's commercial officer said the €8.5 tax would destroy the "cost competitiveness of the privately owned Oslo Rygge Airport in favour of the state-owned Avinor." Anna Aero reported in January that Ryanair actually did not do well in Norway in 2015, and cut its available capacity by 8.6%. The tax may be an excuse to get out. Norway’s centre-right prime minister, said last week: “This government will not be blackmailed by Ryanair.”
Click here to view full story...
Anti-3rd runway campaigners hold their own alternative “celebration” of Heathrow’s 70th birthday
To "celebrate" Heathrow's 70th Birthday, on 31st May, anti-3rd runway campaigners and local village residents gathered in Harmondsworth - to express their opposition to the airport's plans for expansion. With festivities centred around the historic "Five Bells" pub, there were 70 "No 3rd Runway" balloons, tours of the historic buildings including the historic, Grade 1 listed, tithe barn, enthusiastic chants of "No ifs, no buts, no 3rd runway, and a walk of part of the course of the proposed runway. To represent each of the houses earmarked for demolition for the runway, 783 small black planes were planted on the green. The cake was cut by representatives of some of the protest groups, including Hacan, Stop Heathrow Expansion, CHATR, TAG, RAAN, and Grow Heathrow. People had thought up entertaining presents for Heathrow, including the cheque from ratepayers - a big fat zero for infrastructure, a Mr Noisy book, a toy demolition truck, a Thomas the Tank Engine, a D-lock, a Pinocchio, and an alarm clock with its hands stuck on 4.30am. The day was a fun event, with a very serious purpose. With 783 homes to be demolished for a runway, and many more made uninhabitable by the proximity to an expanded Heathrow, many hundreds face the total loss of their homes and their community.
Click here to view full story...
Norwegian government introduces approx €8.5 tax per air passenger on all flights
The Norwegian government will introduce an Air Passenger Tax, starting on 1st June 2016. It will be at the rate of a 80 Krone charge (around €8.64, £6.59, US$9.67) per person for both domestic and international flights. Exceptions of the tax include those under two years old and those transiting flights on the same airline. The airlines have, predictably, reacted with fury at being "defied" by the government. They say this tiny tax "threatens to reduce demand by 5%, equal to 1.2 million passengers a year," and they say it could mean airlines might lose €150 million per year as a result. The airline lobby group, "Airlines 4 Europe" (whose members include EasyJet, Ryanair, Lufthansa, Norwegian Air Shuttle and International Airlines Group) is lobbying hard. They all completely ignore the inconvenient fact that air travel demand is artificially high, as it pays no VAT and no fuel duty. Those together amount to a massive annual subsidy (in the UK this is a net annual loss to the Treasury, even including takings from APD, of perhaps £9 blllion per year). Several European countries do have a ticket tax, with the UK levels being the highest (Brits also fly more than most others). There are small charges in France, Germany and Austria. Ireland and the Netherlands scrapped theirs, due to airline pressure.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick Route 4 finally re-routed as local MP warns about noise misery dangers of a 2nd runway
On 26th May, the amended Gatwick departure flight path named "Route 4", taking off towards the west from Gatwick, went in to operation. This route turning north and then east - to fly towards the east. With the implementation of precision-area navigation (PR-NAV) at Gatwick in 2014, changes were made to Route 4 which made it more concentrated, and slightly to the north of the main NPR (Noise Preferential Route). This resulted in thousands of people suffering intense and frequent plane noise, for the first time. The local group, Plane Wrong, was formed to fight the changes. The PIR (Post Implementation Review) by the CAA in 2015 showed that the change to Route 4 was not "compliant" with regulations, and it should revert to how it was before early 2014. However, it has taken a long time for this reversion to actually happen. The route that has now started means the SID (Standard Instrument Departure) turning circle is a little tighter so planes avoid the densely populated urban areas of Reigate and Redhill. It is regrettable that it took so long for an unacceptable flight path, that could be introduced so quickly without warning, could take so long to reverse. Local MP Crispin Blunt warned that the noise situation with a 2nd Gatwick runway would be completely unacceptable, with no noise mitigation measures in prospect.
Click here to view full story...
Planned Birmingham flights by Beijing Capital Airlines to Beijing and Hangzhou scrapped
It was announced in late April that direct flights by Beijing Capital Airlines, from Birmingham to Beijing and to Hangzhou, some 60 miles from Shanghai, (once per week each), would start on July 19th. The new flights would have been by a Chinese travel company, Caissa Touristic, which owns Beijing Capital Airlines. The plan was to use an Airbus A330-200, with 211 seats (33 business and 178 economy). But under a month later, this seems not to be a reality, and Caissa Touristic has pulled out. The reasons are not known. [Likely to be competition from Manchester, 86 miles away?] Birmingham Airport is seeking 'clarification' from Caissa. Birmingham Airport has been hoping for links to China, to use its newly extended runway, and to compete with Manchester. At present there are only direct UK flights to China from Heathrow, with flights 4 times per week from Manchester with Hainan Airways starting on June 10th 2016. Over the last two summers Caissa Touristic ran a popular charter services that brought Chinese tourists into Birmingham for package holidays in the UK. "And news of the takeover of Aston Villa by Beijing-based tycoon Dr Tony Xia last week raised the prospect of big-spending Chinese football fans flocking to Birmingham." Paul Kehoe, CEO of Birmingham Airport, said: “Last year around 150,000 people flew between our region and China."
Click here to view full story...
Hainan Airlines direct flights (4 per week) from Manchester to Beijing start on June 10th
Hainan Airlines will start flying (4 times per week) from Manchester Airport to Beijing from June 10th, as the first direct service from the north of England to mainland China. There are already flights from Manchester to Hong Kong. Some businesses including tourism hope this "will deliver a major boost to the region." The University of Manchester is reported to believe the link will be a significant benefit to students. Faster air links to emerging markets could boost UK exports (they could also boost UK imports, which generally exceed exports). There are the usual comments like: "The Manchester Airport expansion shows that the city is ready to become an outward looking economic powerhouse" and there is even an expectation that it "will deliver an economic boost to the UK worth £250m" (no details or time-scale given .... it never is). Currently, more than 100,000 people from the North (about 6,350 from North Wales) fly to mainland China every year but have to travel indirectly via London or other overseas hubs. Manchester hopes that the flights will bring "hundreds of thousands of tourists to this part of the world every year." North Wales Tourism and Bangor University have both praised the new service to Beijing and hope it "will unlock new opportunities for the area." Many thousands more people will not need to use Heathrow for their travel to China.
Click here to view full story...
Leaders of 3 main London councils set out why they know better about Heathrow impacts than MPs hundreds of miles away
Mark Menzies (MP for Fylde near Blackpool) is one of the MPs with constituencies a long way from London, who have been persuaded by Heathrow to back its 3rd runway. He has accepted, without much consideration of the local impacts, the alleged benefits of a larger Heathrow, from the airport's publicity. Now the leaders of some of the London boroughs that are the worst affected by Heathrow have written in "Conservative Home" to express their exasperation with this sort of attitude, by MPs whose own constituencies will suffer no local adverse impacts. Ravi Govindia, Nicholas True and Ray Puddifoot - the Leaders of Wandsworth, Richmond and Hillingdon respectively - say the 3rd runway would result in an extra 320,000 people subject to noise impact, new flight paths affecting their communities for the first time, 750 homes destroyed, and all in an area that already exceeds air quality legal limits. Many of their residents voted Conservative because of David Cameron's firm promise in 2009 - “no ifs, no buts, no third runway at Heathrow”. They note that Mr Menzies is well known for backing localism – giving local councils the power to act in the best interests of their residents – not having something imposed on them. "He will therefore understand our views."
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick touring the regions to try to drum up support for 2nd runway (Heathrow also touring …)
As Heathrow has been putting itself about across the regions, trying to "sell" its runway, Gatwick is doing the same. Gatwick staff have begun a UK tour campaign, trying to get some backing for their 2nd runway. In reality, Gatwick does not have a lot to offer. It has very little air cargo, if what companies in the regions is looking for is a way to export products. Gatwick is on the wrong side of London for anyone north of Heathrow, and it is almost exclusively an airport for low cost leisure travel. It has few long haul routes, and none to influential places not served by airports such as Birmingham or Manchester. But Gatwick is hoping to persuade that another runway would provide cheaper flights to and from the south east. That is a bit hard to believe, as the cost of the runway would mean ticket prices would have to rise by at least £15 - 18 or even up to £23, (one way). Gatwick's tour includes Manchester, Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh and Newcastle. Heathrow is, at the same time, having "launch events" in Liverpool, Yorkshire, the Midlands and the Thames Valley, to try to persuade how their 3rd runway would provide huge benefits etc etc etc. The Airports Commission appreciated that, being a tourism airport, Gatwick just boosts the UK tourism deficit, as Brits take their money out of the country on cheap trips. More and more spin ....
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow sets out vague, unenforceable, offers to boost links to regions with 3rd runway (with easyJet’s help?)
Heathrow is trying to put more heavy pressure on the government, to back its 3rd runway plans, if there is an announcement in the next few months (EU referendum permitting). Heathrow are aware that it is not considered likely that the regions will get much benefit from a 3rd runway, so it now says it will "improve connectivity, with better air, rail and bus connections from Heathrow to every major town and city - North, East, South and West." No details, and not things done by Heathrow itself. It says its runway means the creation of "up to 180,000 new jobs and 10,000 apprenticeships across the UK" (no time scale given, so pretty useless statement). And that: "A third runway will boost the economy by up to £211 billion, with the benefits spread across the country." The £211 billion claim is very suspect. Even the Airports Commission's most optimistic (criticised by its own advisors) was a maximum of £147 - and that is up to 2080, so over 60 years. Heathrow says it will increase flights to airports like Liverpool, Humberside and Newquay, if it got a new runway. And it might create a "new £10 million Route Development Fund which will provide start-up support for any potential new domestic destinations." The Airports Commission realised that unless government subsidises (taxpayers' money) domestic routes from Heathrow, the number would end up being lower than the number now.
Click here to view full story...
Sunday Times obtains details of £10.4 million bonus scheme, in stages, for Heathrow execs if they get 3rd runway
It emerged on 16th May that Heathrow executives were in line for large bonuses, if they managed to get a 3rd runway. Now the Sunday Times has details. They say eight executives could share a £10 million bonus pool. It appears they have already achieved £414,000 of the bonus, by getting the Airports Commission to select Heathrow in July 2015. Details of the bonus scheme are that the sums increase, based on the success of the executives’ lobbying. The next bonus payout would be, between the eight, £622,000 if they “create a climate of political support that enables the government to give its backing to expansion”. ie. if there is a government announcement this summer or autumn. Then they would get £829,000 if Heathrow is judged to be “on course to win planning approval” for its runway. There would be another £829,000 of the bonus if Heathrow can get the CAA to allow Heathrow much higher landing charges in future, to pay for the runway (the CAA controls its charges). The whole £10.4 million bonus is the airport's "share in success" incentive, and includes other measures not related to a 3rd runway. It is to be paid out in 2019. The existence of the bonus scheme was initially denied by the airport. But it creates strong personal gain motives for senior staff, in pushing through the runway, regardless of its adverse impacts.
Click here to view full story...
Britain had £16.9 billion Tourism Deficit in 2015 – which is 17.6% of UK total balance of payments deficit
Data from the ONS shows that in 2015, the Tourism Deficit (the difference between how much overseas visitors spend on their trips to the UK, and how much Brits spend on their trips abroad) rose to the 2nd highest level ever. The deficit was £16.9 billion in 2015, and £20.5 in 2008, but it fell during the years of the recession. It was around £13.7 billion in each year, 2012, 2013 and 2014. It has now increased again very significantly - by over £3 billion in one year. That makes up a large slice (17.6%) of the UK's overall balance of payments deficit of £96.2 billion in 2015.The number of trips by UK residents abroad increased by 9.4% last year, the largest rise since 1998, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2015, UK residents took 65.7 million foreign holidays or business trips (business trips were only 10.9% of the total, while back in 2005 they were 12.9% of the total). In 2015 the number of trips by foreign visitors to the UK rose by 5.1%, to a record high of 36.1 million. But while foreigners spent £22.1 billion on visits to the UK, Brits spent £39 billion abroad. The French were the biggest visitors to the UK, with 4 million trips. Spain was the country with most visits by UK residents - with 13 million trips, nearly 20% of UK travel.
Click here to view full story...
GACC research studies show hugely negative impact of 2nd runway on urbanisation, habitats and wildlife
As part of the extensive series of research studies that GACC has produced, there are papers on the problems that a 2nd runway would do in urbanising the Crawley area, and the problems for local habitat and wildlife. "The Urbanisation of Crawley" by scientist Peter Jordan, shows how the future would be at risk. Peter says: "Crawley and the surrounding towns already have severe problems of congestion on inadequate road and rail links. A 2nd runway could only make these problems worse, without any realistic plan to address them." The airport boundary would be just a hundred yards from the nearest residential area of Crawley. "The Gatwick Landscape" by naturalist and author, David Bangs, draws attention to the hitherto largely unrecognised landscape wealth of history. Dr Tony Whitbread CEO of the Sussex Wildlife Trust, says: "A 2nd runway at Gatwick would require 577 ha of land for the construction of the runway, terminal, car parks and new on-airport roads. Rather than dismissing this [as Gatwick airport does] as “a few fields”, Dave Bangs has made a careful study of this area. His emotive account is the perspective of an expert who loves every aspect of nature. He reveals the hidden riches of a place which could be bulldozed into oblivion." With tragic loss of natural landscape and wildlife habitats.
Click here to view full story...
HACAN new briefing shows how a 3rd Heathrow runway will not deliver for the regions
Heathrow has made repeated claims that its 3rd runway would be essential for the UK economy, and indeed, that it would be a vital boost to the economies of the regions. HACAN has set out, in a short briefing and in a video, how the claims are not justified. In reality, another Heathrow runway would have negative impacts on regional airports - not to mention huge costs for taxpayers across the country. HACAN says of Heathrow's various promises that they are not guaranteed: ✈ Better connections are not guaranteed. ✈ Instead, ever more resources will be concentrated in London and the South East. ✈ Heathrow expansion may preclude aviation growth elsewhere. ✈ A 3rd Runway may be undeliverable. The Airports Commission itself found that, rather than reversing the decline in domestic flights between Heathrow and the regions, these will fall (from 7 now to 4 with a 3rd runway) unless they are subsidised, which could breach EU regulations. Due the cap on UK aviation carbon emissions, if a Heathrow runway is built (and it has to be used extensively, largely for high carbon long-haul flights)it is likely to mean restriction of the growth of flights from regional airports. A totally dominant Heathrow, eclipsing other UK airports, would make it difficult for long haul routes from the regions to be profitable.
Click here to view full story...
Assessment of proposal to cut APD by 50% in Scotland shows likely overall fall in revenue
An assessment of the Scottish Government's plans to cut the rate of Air Passenger Duty (APD) shows that the aviation industry’s analysis has not accounted for the impact of a fall in domestic tourism. The 50% cut in APD proposed would have the effect of damaging the Scottish economy and reducing funding for public services. The report "APD Cut: A Flighty Economic Case" challenges claims that reducing APD by 50% will lead to sufficient economic growth to cover the short-fall in revenue from the tax cut. In reality, cheaper tickets will encourage more Scots to take cheap foreign trips. The amount of money they take out of Scotland on these extra trips is likely to be larger than the amount brought in. The inbound tourists with greater spending power than typical domestic tourists are the least likely to be sensitive to airline ticket prices. In a buoyant economy, the increase in outbound trips is likely to exceed the increase in inbound trips. The case for business growth due to an APD cut appears particularly weak as business flights are driven by need and time pressures rather than price. They are known to be price insensitive. There could also be a reduction in domestic tourism by Scottish people, who instead take cheap foreign breaks, so reducing employment in Scottish tourism.
Click here to view full story...
Night flight ban likely to mean lower profitability for airlines, and higher ticket prices
An aviation industry consultant has commented on just how difficult (ie. how much less profit can be made) it is for airlines to avoid night flights. He is not persuaded that a ban on night flights will be accepted by airlines if they cannot fit in enough rotations per day, keeping the planes in use, and earning enough money, for enough hours. He says in Germany, residents’ campaigning on night flights has been relatively successful, and a number of large airports are now closed completely for extended periods overnight. A strict ban could mean a delayed evening flight not being able to take off till morning, and the passengers having to be put up in hotels overnight. Particularly the low cost leisure market, night flights are an essential part of their operation. To fly to the mid-haul destinations, 4-5 hours away, an airline can just cram two into the day, starting at 6am and ending at midnight. With fast turnarounds. There may not be enough runway capacity, in the London airport or the holiday destination airport, to get the exact time slot needed in order to cram the flights into the non-night period. There are also cargo flights, or passenger flights carrying freight that currently rely on flying at night. The author fears a night flight ban would have "unplanned consequences" on airlines.
Click here to view full story...
ICAO aviation offset market talks yield little progress, but backtracking on previous agreement
ICAO has concluded 3 days of talks to try to achieve a deal on a market-based offsetting mechanism for international aviation emissions from 2020. It has not made much progress. The industry has expressed the hope of "carbon neutral growth" after 2020, which means continuing to grow and emit more carbon, but buying offsets from other sectors that actually do cut CO2 emissions. Unless this is done, the prospect of the world achieving a limit of global temperature of 2 degrees C is remote. However, there are difficult issues to be resolved, of how to divide up the offsetting responsibilities between fast-growing airlines in emerging economies, and established carriers often with older, less fuel-efficient fleets and based in the industrialised world. Neither side will accept being disadvantaged. There have been proposals to try out a "pilot" scheme, and delay the 2020 date. Either way, the ICAO scheme only intends to cover international flights, not domestic - which form a large proportion in countries like the USA and China. That means only about 62% of the total aviation CO2, assuming the EU counts as a single bloc (more like 40% otherwise). Airlines do not want a patchwork of different systems in different parts of the world.
Click here to view full story...
Alan Andrews, lawyer at ClientEarth, finds Heathrow offers on air quality “underwhelming” and vague
In an excellent article in Environment Journal, ClientEarth lawyer Alan Andrews says John Holland-Kaye's two offers by Heathrow to try to get NO2 levels down are, in his words, "underwhelming." Alan says the first offer to "create an ultra-low emissions zone [ULEZ] for airport vehicles by 2025" is vague, as we are not told what conditions this zone will have. It is also only airport vehicles, which are a tiny proportion of the total. Alan says this is also five years behind the tardy ULEZ which is currently slated to come into force in the congestion charging zone in central London. On the second offer, to "develop plans for an emissions charging scheme for all vehicles accessing the airport...." Alan comments that there is no deadline given for delivery, and it is far from the radical action needed to get air pollution down to legal levels quickly. Heathrow has also talked of extending a low emissions zone to the airport, but there is no detail of when this would happen or what standards would apply. ClientEarth believes that as the area around the airport breaks legal limits, all these measures should be happening regardless of expansion, in order to satisfy the Supreme Court order and achieve legal limits as soon as possible.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick groups and MPs hand in new report to Downing Street: “What about our air quality?”
Community groups and MPs have delivered a copy of a new report, "What about our air quality?" to 10 Downing Street. The report raises the fact that an expanded Gatwick could present worst air quality for a much wider area than Heathrow currently - due to the lack of sufficient transport infrastructure. Air quality targets close to Gatwick Airport have been broken despite the airport’s public denial. Data from Jacobs, for the Airports Commission, show breaches of NO2 levels already. It is inevitable they will be broken again, especially with a 2nd runway, because the rail infrastructure is already inadequate, and more passengers (and possibly freight in future) will mean additional road vehicles. The report contains a letter from 10 MPs who wrote to the Secretary for State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin on 18th March, demanding that Gatwick’s misleading advertising over air quality be stopped. Gatwick has often said words to the effect that "Gatwick Airport has never and will never breach air quality limits" and instead its expansion campaign has been focused on the air pollution problems at Heathrow, ignoring their own. Gatwick is served by a rail line that is already near capacity, and it cannot be much improved due to physical restrictions. It could not handle not only more passengers, but also extra staff and traffic from more businesses.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow senior executives would get large bonuses if they manage to get 3rd runway
The Guardian has revealed that Heathrow's annual report (December 2015) show that its top executives would benefit personally if the airport gets a 3rd runway. This is despite past denials that there were any financial incentives, not least when senior executives at Gatwick were found in February to have huge financial incentives if they manage to get a 2nd runway. Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd states: "During the year a new bonus scheme was launched based on EBITDA, passenger service (as measured by independent ASQ - Airport Service Quality - scores) and airport expansion over the Q6 period...." [Q6 is the 5 year regulatory period 2014 - 2019]. A Heathrow spokesman said the runway bonus would only be a small part of a payout for meeting the strategic requirements of the business, hitting the profit targets etc. CEO John Holland-Kaye earned £2.06m last year, more than doubling his basic salary of £885,000. However, he could add even more to that should a 3rd runway be approved. The annual report states that while a bonus scheme linked to expansion was launched in 2015, “as the performance in respect of this scheme is so uncertain at this stage, no value in relation to these awards is included” in his 2015 earnings package. The Guardian says John Holland-Kaye is believed to be the architect of the new bonus scheme. The airport cut its wider wage bill by cutting 300 jobs last year (6,714 compared to 7,047 in 2014), but directors' pay rose.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow’s vague proposal on air pollution – what is Heathrow really saying?
Heathrow has made some guarded offers to government, attempting to persuade them that environmental problems should not be allowed to block their 3rd runway plans. The offer on air pollution, a key issue meaning Heathrow expansion is likely to be very damaging to health, is vague. Heathrow says (as rather improbably required by the Airports Commission) "New capacity at an expanded airport will not be released unless we can do so without delaying UK compliance with EU air quality limits". That means, if somewhere else has a worse level. Heathrow says it will "create an ultra-low emissions zone for airport vehicles by 2025." Airport vehicles only. And Heathrow says "We will develop plans for an emissions charging scheme for all vehicles accessing the airport." The new Chair of the Environment Audit Cttee, Mary Creagh said the air pollution proposals need “to go much further much faster." ClientEarth said “We need to see detailed analysis on what these proposals would achieve, but air pollution around the airport needs to be cut drastically before we can think about expansion. It’s difficult to see how that would happen without something far more radical than what’s currently on the table.” AEF said permission for a new runway should only be given if it can be proven that this is compatible with bringing air pollution in the Heathrow area within legal limits.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow hoping to woo air freight companies with plans to give air freight more priority
There was a small decline (0.2%) in 2015 in cargo volumes at Heathrow compared with 2014 levels. The tonnage of freight (1.496 million tonnes, more imports than exports) is barely changed from the amount in 2011. Heathrow has tried to sell its 3rd runway plans partly on the grounds that it is vital for UK companies that export things needing air freight. Many non-perishable, not especially high value items are air freighted (books and brochures, raincoats and overcoats). Almost all air freight at Heathrow is belly hold, in passenger planes. DHL is the only freight airline there. Heathrow has plans (nothing started) to try to develop itself as a European cargo hub through the investment of around £180m, including a specialist pharmaceutical storage area — to support airlines to move highly valuable and temperature sensitive medicines. There would be a huge impact on local roads of all the freight vehicles, which would be diesel powered, and the NO2 pollution. IAG has a large freight hub in Madrid, shipping air cargo into Heathrow and Gatwick. Heathrow says it has restricted air freight capacity on some routes, but overall load factors were only about 60-65%. ie. there is plenty of space for more. Air freight companies would like Heathrow to allocate slots for them.
Click here to view full story...
Scottish Green Party calls for Sturgeon to abandon plans to halve APD
The Scottish Green party say that Nicola Sturgeon should abandon her plans to slash air passenger duty (APD). Patrick Harvie, co-convener of the Scottish Green Party, said it was clear that there is no longer a majority at Holyrood in favour of halving APD, which would add to pollution and do nothing to tackle social inequality. The SNP manifesto said it would reduce air passenger duty by 50% over the next parliament (to 2020 or 2021). However, no other party in Scotland supported the move, with even the Scottish Conservatives, traditionally in favour of tax cuts, saying it could not be justified "at a time of constrained fiscal conditions." The Scottish Green party have suggested models of taxing aviation, such as the Frequent Flyer Levy, which would ensure the cost is shifted onto the minority of mostly wealthy individuals who fly most often. Cutting the rate of APD would have the effect of increasing CO2 emissions from Scottish aviation, by encouraging more flights. A better way to tax air travel (which pays no VAT, and on which there is no fuel duty) would be to recognise the environmental costs of flying. Communities that are badly affected by the noise from flight paths at Edinburgh and Glasgow airports would suffer more noise. The additional noise - especially at night - is known to have adverse health impacts, which have a cost to society.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow’s vague proposal on no night flights – what is Heathrow really saying?
Heathrow currently, under current night flight controls that are due to be re-considered in 2017, is allowed 5,800 night flights per year. That's an average of 16 arriving each morning, typically between 4.30am and 6am. The latest flights should leave by 11.30pm but there are many that are later, almost up to midnight. Heathrow has been very reluctant to agree to a ban between 11.30pm and 6am, which was the condition imposed by the Airports Commission. Heathrow claims the early arrivals are vital for businessmen catching early flights - especially those from the UK regions. But now, desperate to be allowed a 3rd runway, Heathrow mentions [very careful, rather odd wording]: "The introduction of a legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens." and "We will support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured." Heathrow only mentions scheduled flights. Not late ones. It is widely recognised that for health, people need 7 - 8 hours of sleep per night. Not 6.5 hours. Heathrow makes no mention of the inevitable concentrated landings and take offs at the shoulder periods, in order to keep 6.5 hours quiet. Apart from insomniacs and shift workers, who else regards the end of the night as 5.30am?
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow’s commitment on 4th runway – what is Heathrow really saying?
The Airports Commission said, in giving its recommendation that a 3rd Heathrow runway should be built, that a firm condition was that no 4th runway should ever be built there. The Commission's wording in its Final Report (1.7.2015) was: "A fourth runway should be firmly ruled out. The government should make a commitment in Parliament not to expand the airport further. There is no sound operational or environmental case for a four runway Heathrow." And "This may be as part of a National Policy Statement or through legislation." What Heathrow has now said is that it will: "Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway." This does not say this ban on a 4th runway would be in legislation. It merely says there would be a commitment. But the coalition government made a commitment not to build a 3rd runway, in 2010. That commitment was then overturned in the next Parliament. It scarcely encourages trust. A commentator in the Huffington Post says (as well as the long history of Heathrow's broken promises) that allowing the 3rd Heathrow runway would effectively say Heathrow is now and ever will be the UK's hub airport. Hub airports actually "need at least four runways and preferably room to expand further."
Click here to view full story...
Willie Walsh reiterates that he will fight Heathrow runway, due to cost; content with 3 hub system for IAG instead
Willie Walsh has reiterated his determination not to pay the exorbitant costs of a new Heathrow runway (and that's without the costs that the taxpayer would have to pick up for surface access improvements - which could be £20 billion). He said the current proposal to build a 3rd Heathrow runway is “indefensible” from a cost point of view and he will fight it. BA holds over 50% of Heathrow's slots. Walsh said he was worried about the current Heathrow proposal because there was now “desperation by the airport to get a third runway and they are willing to do anything to get it.” He commented: “So the airport is incentivised to spend money while I am incentivised to save money.” Because the coalition government blocked a 3rd runway in 2010, in January 2011 BA and Iberia were merged to form IAG. Then IAG bought UK airline BMI, to get hold of its Heathrow slots, gaining an extra 42 pairs. That ensured IAG had enough Heathrow slots to secure its ability to compete from its hub base. Since then Walsh has made his plans to use a 3 hub strategy - with Madrid and Dublin as its two others, not depending so much on Heathrow. IAG also owns Iberia, Vueling and Aer Lingus. Dublin will be adding a new runway - probably by 2020.
Click here to view full story...
Lord True, Richmond Council leader and Conservative peer, describes Heathrow promises as ‘worthless’ and asks David Cameron to deny expansion immediately
The leader of Richmond Council, Lord True, has called Heathrow's pledge to ban night flights a "feeble attempt to bribe London." He described Heathrow's promises as “worthless” and said on the ending of night flights: "This so-called pledge falls short of what the Davies Commission requests and the Heathrow PR men simply cannot be believed. If they can stop pre-5.30am flights, why don’t they do it now? Rather than spending billions of pounds doing it?” On Heathrow's claims about air quality improvements, Lord True commented:: “They cannot comply with EU air quality limits and their ‘jam’ promises are worthless.....if people’s health comes first – big Heathrow is dead in the water.” He said Heathrow had just made some token alterations to their original proposals. Richmond Council, along with Wandsworth, Hillingdon and Windsor & Maidenhead councils, have already made it clear that should the Government give a 3rd Heathrow runway the go-ahead – they would together launch legal action opposing the plans. Lord True: “I say to Mr Cameron – hundreds of thousands of Londoners remember your promise – “no ifs, no buts,” ....We expect our Prime Minister to keep his promise...."
Click here to view full story...
New briefing from AEF explains position with UK aviation use of biofuels, and the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation issue
"Sustainable" fuels (largely biofuels, or fuels made from wastes) are viewed, particularly by the aviation industry, as a key component in their plans to keep on growing rapidly. The industry has wildly optimistic hopes about the extent to which these "alternative" fuels will enable the industry to continue expanding but claiming its CO2 emissions are falling. Estimates of how much biofuel will actually be used by 2050 vary greatly from the (frankly crazy) estimate by "Sustainable Aviation" that it will account for 40% of all fuel, to the more realistic estimate by the DfT that it will make up 2.5%. (The Airports Commission believed this might reach 5.6% with government assistance). The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) has produced a useful 2-page briefing, explaining the issues. It is important to note that the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) that believed UK air passenger numbers could grow by at most 60% of the 2005 level by 2050 keeping within the 37.5MtCO2 cap - assuming 10% use of alternative fuels. (ie. less than 60% if the amount of alternative fuels is lower). The Government will be consulting on possible changes to the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO) that could allow producers of aviation biofuel to benefit from the scheme - an effective subsidy. AEF does not support this use of public money, to assist an industry (that pays no VAT or fuel duty) pay its climate costs.
Click here to view full story...
Decision on London City Airport expansion does not rest with Sadiq Khan, but with the Planning Inspector and Secretaries of State
Sadiq Khan, the new Mayor of London, in one of his very first acts, has instructed the Greater London Assembly's GLA Land to withdraw its objection to London City Airport’s Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) of Royal Docks Land, following ‘new’ evidence supplied by the Airport. However, a final decision on the airport's expansion is not in the Mayor's hands. The decision rests with the Planning Inspector, who will make a recommendation to both Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin and Communities Secretary Greg Clark, following the main planning inquiry into expansion of City Airport that concluded on 5th April. A decision is not expected till the summer. The airport wants to CPO 26.4 hectares of GLA land to facilitate their CADP1 expansion programme which includes parts of the London Plan protected Blue Ribbon Network. of waterways and bodies of water. GLA Land was one of four remaining objectors to the expansion plans. However, its change of heart is not critical. The current Inquiry into the CPO has been adjourned until Tuesday 17 May as negotiations between the airport and the DLR continue, with agreement considered likely. The previous Mayor, Boris Johnson, refused permission for expansion on noise grounds.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow makes guarded, carefully worded, offers to meet Airports Commission conditions for 3rd runway
Heathrow knows it has a difficult task in persuading the government that it can actually meet the (unchallenging) conditions put on its runway plans by the Airports Commission. Now John Holland-Kaye has written to David Cameron, setting out how Heathrow hopes to meet some conditions. They make out they will even exceed the conditions, in some cases. On Night flights, they say they will introduce a "legally binding ban on all scheduled night flights for six and a half hours (as recommended by the Airports Commission) from 11 pm to 5:30 am when the third runway opens." [Note, scheduled - not late arrivals etc]. And they will "support the earlier introduction of this extended ban on night flights by Government as soon as the necessary airspace has been modernised after planning consent for the third runway has been secured." [ie. full of caveats]. They dodge the issue of agreeing not to build a 4th runway, saying if the government makes a commitment in Parliament not to expand Heathrow further, then Heathrow will "Accept a commitment from Government ruling out any fourth runway.." [Words carefully chosen]. On noise and respite, Heathrow say "We will ensure there will be some respite for everyone living under the final flight path by using advances in navigational technology. We will consult and provide options on our proposals to alternate use of the runways." [ie carefully chosen words, avoiding giving much away].
Click here to view full story...
Surprise! None of the Transport Select Committee members, wanting rapid Heathrow decision, live anywhere affected by a vast airport
"Colnbrook Views" has pointed out that, while the Commons Transport Select Committee is very eager to get a new runway built at Heathrow as soon as possible, none of its members live anywhere at all near London. The Committee have asked the government to make a rapid decision, to back a Heathrow runway, apparently not having much grasp of the extent of the environmental (or social, or even economic) problems involved. Their attitude is that: "We accept that the package of measures to mitigate environmental impacts needs careful consideration and further work. We do not accept that all of this needs to be done before a decision is taken on location. In fact a decision on location would give more focus and impetus to this work." ie. decide first. - see if the problems can be sorted out afterwards. None of the MPs on the Committee themselves experience the problems of living near an airport of the scale of Heathrow. The Chair is Louise Ellman, the MP for Liverpool. The constituencies of the others are: Stoke on Trent South; North Tyneside; Lincoln; Glasgow South; Fylde; Bexhill and Battle; Colchester; Milton Keynes South; Blackley and Broughton; Cleethorpes. Perhaps if the problems facing the Heathrow Villages were in any of these constituencies, they might not be so gung-ho?
Click here to view full story...
Farmer at Stansted still awaiting compensation, due to airport loophole of not completing all work – to avoid paying
A farm owner who won £1 million from Stansted, because planes flying over his £2 million home slashed its value in half, is still waiting for the pay-out 17 years later. Patrick Streeter, whose home is about 1.5 km from the end of the runway, was awarded the sum in 1999 but claims Stansted are using a wily “legal loophole”, which says the money needs to be paid only once all work is finished on the airport. Because white lines have not been painted on a strip of airport apron, (presumably deliberately ...) and a fuel pump has not been installed, Stansted has told Mr Streeter that he is not entitled to his pay-out yet. He says the constant din of planes makes the place unbearable to live in, and he believes it would be almost impossible to sell. Mr Streeter’s family home, a 13th century seven-bedroom farmhouse in Great Hallingbury, shakes so badly when planes take off that roof tiles are dislodged. "When we are sitting in the garden your coffee cup will wobble. The cargo planes are the worst." The airport is legally obliged to pay people living around it compensation because of the detrimental impact of the noise. Mr Streeter is now considering suing the airport . A Stansted spokesman said: "We are aware of Mr Streeter's application and the matter is being consulted by MAG (the airport's owner)."
Click here to view full story...