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:
Treasury opens consultation on protecting regional airports from impact of devolving APD
In the Summer 2015 Budget, the Chancellor has announced a short consultation (ends of 8th September) on options for supporting English regional airports from the impacts of Air Passenger Duty (APD) devolution. Sootland may remove APD, and so may Wales. Airports in the north of England are concerned they could lose passengers, to cheaper Scottish flights. The consultation sets out three options for changes to APD. The first is devolving APD within the UK, with powers over APD devolved fully or partially to local authorities within England. The second is varying APD rates within England, so central government would retain powers over APD for the English regions. The rates of UK APD would be varied according to specific criteria, resulting in different rates in different parts of the country. The third is to provide aid to regional airports within England, which have been adversely affected by the devolution of APD. This could be through the Regional Air Connectivity Fund, mainly for the smallest airports and those with up to 3 million passengers per year may be permitted investment aid only in ‘case specific circumstances’. Many airports likely to be affected could be too large to be eligible for aid.
Click here to view full story...
NEF shows how 3rd Heathrow runway might improve well-being for a minority now, at the price of reduced well-being for future generations
The Commission's report justified a new runway for the extra feelings of well-being that leisure flying brings people, stating: “Leisure flights have a high social value. Empirical analysis focused on passengers travelling on holiday or to visit friends and family has shown how the access to leisure travel affects mental health and wellbeing. The findings demonstrate these patterns of travel are associated with higher levels of life satisfaction, general and mental health, and happiness.” The research for the Commission was looking at trips for holidays or VFR. NEF suggests this was the wrong question, and the Commission should have considered how to achieve sustainable, equitable well-being for the whole population, and decreasing inequalities in well-being. As 70% of the total number of flights are taken by only 15% of the population, unsurprisingly, those who do fly are also, on average, richer. So increasing air travel for the affluent has the potential to maintain or even increase existing well-being inequalities. This means a trade-off between the well-being of a minority of wealthier-than-average people now, against both the well-being of poorer people – as well as the future generations who stand to lose the most from unsustainable policies now.
Click here to view full story...
Teddington Action Group continue towards Judicial Review of Airports Commission decision
Campaigners against expansion of Heathrow are calling for a judicial review of the Airports Commission’s decision to back a 3rd runway. The Teddington Action Group argues that there was a potential conflict of interest over Commission chairman Sir Howard Davies accepting the chairmanship of Royal Bank of Scotland, banker for companies that own Heathrow and Gatwick, and that the Commission’s 3 week May consultation on air quality was “rushed and insufficiently publicised”. The Airports Commission rejected both assertions in a response from the Treasury Solicitor. But Teddington Action Group spokesman, Paul McGuinness, said: “We are advised that the Treasury Solicitor's response, on behalf of the Airports Commission, is inadequate and that we should be able to see this Judicial Review through to a successful conclusion”. So work on this continues ...
Click here to view full story...
John Holland-Kaye reluctant to accept conditions on Heathrow runway set by Airports Commission
The Airports Commission, in recommending a 3rd runway at Heathrow, set out a short set of conditions Heathrow would have to meet, to be allowed to build the runway. These conditions are not very onerous. These included a ban on all flights between 11.30pm and 6.00am, better air quality, a legally-enforced “noise envelope”, and that Heathrow should be held to its pledge to spend over £1bn on community compensation. And no 4th runway ever. But now, just days after the Commission's report, John Holland-Kaye, CEO of Heathrow, says the airport is “still assessing” the conditions, and “We’ll have to see how it fits into all the other things we’re doing," and "I’m sure there is a package in there that we can agree with our local communities, with the airlines and with Government." Quite why conditions to be imposed on a runway to protect the public need to be agreed by the airport itself, not just imposed on it, is a mystery. Lord Adonis said the noise envelope, which the commission said might stipulate that there should be “no overall increase above current levels”, was one of the “weaknesses” of the Commission's report. It is not even clear what it even means - “total incidence of noise, high levels of noise, noise in particular communities”. Manifestly adding another 50% more planes will increase the overall amount of noise.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow hopes to make a monster 3-runway airport acceptable by building a 9,000 home “garden city”
At the RunwaysUK conference, Heathrow CEO John Holland-Kaye spoke of his plans to create a 3-runway “aerotropolis” around the airport, with a 9,000-home Heathrow Garden City. He said: “When you are relocating hotels and offices, why not put them next to the rail interchange, so that we can have fewer cars on the road — an aerotropolis, if you like .... If you are re-landscaping the airport boundary, why not link up the open spaces to create a green ribbon round the airport, with better local amenities .... and .... improve local flood defences? Why not improve the local road network and cycle paths?” He said west London needs regeneration just as much as east London, and the airport would do that. The development is understood to be planned for the Hounslow area. Heathrow hopes to get public transport up by over 10% in 4 years, to try and get the air pollution problem down low enough to be allowed a runway. And then: "We should get shovels in the ground by 2020 and the benefits of an expanded Heathrow in 2025.” Work was starting on gaining the planning consents needed for the development. Holland-Kaye said the airport may not agree to all the conditions for expansion proposed by the Airports Commission, but believes "an agreement could be struck on them."
Click here to view full story...
Murad Qureshi blog: So what does the Competition & Market Authority (Competition Commission, as was) think of Heathrow expansion?
Murad writes: Now we have had the report from Airport Commission recommending expansion of Heathrow it strikes me we have to wonder if it really is better for passengers - notwithstanding the obvious adverse impact on the quality of life for those near Heathrow or under its flight paths. It would effectively recreate a monopoly at Heathrow that will suck in long haul connections from the regions of the UK and drive up prices for passengers. It will mean passengers will be forced to take long haul air journeys via Heathrow, with very clear implications to consumer welfare. Heathrow already has a stranglehold on the market for US trips, and £ for £, these are more expensive than similar length trips to Asia. "The irony is that the Competition Commission ( now the Competition & Market Authority ) in 2011 broke up the monopoly that BAA had over airports in London and South-East when it owed all three major ones" ...."Now it appears Heathrow Holdings PLC [with a 3rd runway] ...looks like becoming a private monopoly of long haul flights if Davies' recommendations are accepted by the government. The matter needs referring back to the Competition & Market Authority, for the sake of the consumer and travelling public if nothing else."
Click here to view full story...
Air travel makes you happy, says the Airports Commission. That’s why we need more runways
The Airport Commission (AC) changed its arguments sharply between its 2013 interim report and the final document. Initially the idea was that there was a need for a runway because of a rising need for business air travel, and vital business routes. Interestingly, in its final report, the AC - realising that the demand for business flights is not growing - has switched to saying it is good for leisure travellers. At Heathrow only at most 30% of passengers are on business, the majority are on holiday, and the rest visiting friends and relatives (VFR). The AC says because air travel and holidays make people happy, put them in a better of mind and give a feeling of well-being, a runway is needed so we can fly even more than we already do. This runway if ever built would, unavoidably, be mainly used for ever more leisure trips. Nothing to do with emerging economies or connectivity, unless the business people help make fares cheaper for the tourists, and vice versa. Having an annual holiday is associated with greater happiness. Whether taken by plane or other modes of travel. Nobody will be surprised. People who are able to take holidays tend to be happier than those that do not. (People involuntarily living with the adverse impacts of an airport may have lower well-being and be less happy).
Click here to view full story...
Stansted airport night flight warning after Davies Commission recommends third Heathrow runway
The MP for Saffron Walden, Sir Alan Haselhurst, says the banning of night flights at Heathrow, suggested by the Davies Commission which has recommended a third runway at Heathrow rather than a second one at Gatwick (or at Stansted) could still have “sinister” implications for Stansted. The Commission considers Stansted is likely to be full in 15 years, with one runway. The Commission is suggesting one of the conditions on a Heathrow north-west runway is that there should be no night flights at Heathrow. Sir Alan commented: "That has sinister implications. If they are not there, they will have to go somewhere. I don’t want to see the transfer of night flights to Stansted....We have the likes of FedEx and UPS. They are a very important industry. You can have a package from across the world delivered by 10am the following morning but that involves flights at unsocial hours. The dominant players at Stansted are RyanAir and EasyJet and the reason they can offer cheap flights is that they have continuous usage. Planes don’t make money while they are standing on the ground.” Hence the night flights at Stansted. And also at Gatwick, Unintended consequences?
Click here to view full story...
Aviation Environment Federation says Airports Commission recommendations are beset with environmental hurdles
The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), the national environmental campaigning organisation representing community groups around the UK’s airports, has urged the Government to reject the Airports Commission’s recommendation of a third runway at Heathrow, given its insurmountable environmental impacts and widespread opposition. "Every government that has ever considered Heathrow expansion has ruled it out once the full scale of the environmental impacts has become clear." On noise, AEF says people living around Heathrow are already exposed to more noise than at any other airport in Europe. Hundreds of thousands of people around Heathrow would be overflown for the first time if a new runway is built. On air pollution AEF says the UK has a legal obligation to meet EU air quality legal limits and the Airports Commission still cannot say confidently whether or not air quality reduction with a runway would be legal. On carbon emissions, AEF says that according to the Airports Commission’s own analysis, a Heathrow or a Gatwick runway would, on current technology trends, lead to breaches in UK aviation’s CO2 emissions cap, even if the sector was included in a global carbon trading scheme. The only solution would be to limit growth at other airports - or (unpopular) to substantially increase the cost of flying.
Click here to view full story...
Protester whose Harmondsworth home would be destroyed by 3rd runway, blocks Heathrow tunnel for half an hour
A blockade of Heathrow's road access tunnel to Terminals 2 and 3 brought traffic to a halt for more than half an hour at 12.45pm today. The protest follows yesterday’s announcement that the Airports Commission report recommends the building of 3rd runway at Heathrow. This would require the destruction of over 1,000 homes in Harmondsworth, Longford and Sipson with a further 3,000 homes made uninhabitable due to excessive noise and pollution. Neil Keveren, a Harmondsworth resident, used a large white van to block both lanes to incoming traffic. He then unfurled a banner that covered the side of his vehicle to face the stationary traffic saying, "Residents Against Expansion – No ifs, no buts, no third runway". The banner refers to David Cameron’s pledge prior to the 2010 election. His entirely peaceful protest was only ever intended to last 20 minutes, to avoid disruption to the airport. His co-operation enabled the police to avoid an evacuation procedure that would have caused further disruption to traffic. Neil Keveren made it clear his action was a personal protest, and was not part of his role as Chair of the Stop Heathrow Expansion (SHE) campaign group. However, his action were supported by many local residents and the local MP, John McDonnell.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow third runway unanimously recommended by Airports Commission, but with conditions
The Airports Commission has recommended that a 3rd runway should be built at Heathrow, but only if it can meet stringent conditions on noise and air pollution. Those conditions should include a ban on night flights, legally binding caps on noise and air quality – and legislation to rule out ever building a 4th runway [unlikely to be effective?] .The Commission has said their view was "clear and unanimous” that Heathrow’s plan was the strongest case for a runway, delivering the greatest strategic and economic benefits, and they hoped the conditions would make the airport a “better neighbour” than today. The conditions are: - A ban on all scheduled night flights from 11.30pm to 6am....- No fourth runway – the government should make a firm commitment in parliament not to expand further. Davies states: “There is no sound operational or environmental case for a fourth runway.”....- A legally binding “noise envelope”.....- A noise levy on airport users to compensate local communities.... - A legal commitment on air quality (details to be announced, compliant with EU limits).... - A community engagement board to let local people have a say.... - An independent aviation noise authority to be consulted on flightpaths and operating procedures at airports....- Training and apprenticeships for local people. The government must now decide whether to act on the recommendation - by autumn, or before Christmas.
Click here to view full story...
The Guardian view on expanding Heathrow: just say no. Guardian Editorial
The Guardian writes that the Airports Commission and most of the reporting of the Heathrow runway recommendation looked only at issues like economic growth, the alleged urgency of more links to emerging markets, and the UK keeping its place as top dog on aviation in Europe. A few voices were raised about the local “environmental” effect, noise, air pollution etc. But these "pale besides aviation’s contribution to the planet’s slow cooking. If there is a difficult question that has been ducked for too long, then that is the one about decarbonising the economy." Though the Commission looked at carbon, their "emphasis ... and the basis for arguing that increased capacity was not merely desirable but imperative, was on a ...fairytale future, in which passengers double, under the auspices of comprehensive and globally enforced carbon trading." This requires an effective global system in which the price of carbon rises from around £5 to several hundred £s which would greatly increase the price of air tickets. That is not likely to happen. The aim of the runway is to make flying cheaper, not more expensive, so people take even more flights. " The infrastructure we have now is enough to speed climate change. "Transport networks need to be re-engineered for decarbonisation. But that would require some real blue-sky thinking, and of that there is no sign."
Click here to view full story...
Grouping of councils opposed to Heathrow runway call on Government to dismiss Airports Commission report
Councils around Heathrow and across West London have called on the Government to rule out a 3rd Heathrow runway - and to dismiss the Airports Commission’s final report. The local authorities say the legal, political and environmental barriers to expansion are insurmountable and that communities around the airport should be spared the anxiety of a long drawn out process. They also criticised the Commission for suggesting a ban on night flights should follow the delivery of a new runway, instead of being imposed straight away. They argue that the airport and airlines have to prove they can actually deliver a night flying curfew before it’s used as a bargaining chip. The councils (including Wandsworth, Hillingdon, Richmond, Windsor and Maidenhead, and Kingston - and others in the 2M grouping) say other key weaknesses in the Commission's analysis include air pollution, with the ludicrous situation whereby could only be used if air quality targets are met - so the runway, at huge cost to the taxpayer, might not be used. And on flight paths, where there is still no indication where these would be, until a further review of airspace. The councils say it is unacceptable that after £20 million and 3 years of work the Commission cannot confirm which communities will be affected by noise.
Click here to view full story...
WWF comment on Commission’s Heathrow runway support – and the CO2 problem it would cause government
Commenting on the Airports Commission's recomendation of Heathrow for a 3rd runway, the CEO of WWF-UK, David Nussbam said: “UK aviation has a serious CO2 emissions challenge. Runway expansion would make the problem worse and the solutions tougher. The Prime Minister should consider that ordinary families, businesses and our environment will gain little from a new runway. Expanding Heathrow would be the worst outcome for the environment. It would lead to the greatest increases in noise, in air pollution, and in climate-damaging CO2 emissions. Expanding runway capacity will not make Britain more prosperous, but it will make it impossible for the aviation sector to play its proper role in meeting the UK’s emissions targets, to which the Prime Minister and Climate Change Secretary are committed. The greater the emissions from aviation, the greater pressure there will be on other businesses to reduce their CO2 emissions even further. If the Government supports the Davies report, they will have to present a plan showing how these reductions will be achieved elsewhere – and at what price to the UK economy and people."
Click here to view full story...
Stop Stansted Expansion response to the Airports Commission final report
The Commission's main recommendation is that there should be a 3rd runway at Heathrow. Further, the Commission believes that there may be sufficient demand to justify one other additional runway in the UK by 2050. However, the Commission emphasises that this would also need to be justified on economic and environmental terms and that no decisions should be taken until the impacts of the 3rd Heathrow runway have been independently evaluated. In SSE's view the need for additional runways in the UK has been greatly exaggerated by the aviation industry. Business travel has been declining for 15 years and now accounts for less than a sixth of all international travel from UK airports. The new runway would stifle the growth prospects for airports elsewhere in the UK, and make it virtually impossible for the UK to meet its climate change targets. It therefore seems inevitable that there will be a series of legal challenges to the Commission's recommendations. On Stansted the Commission just says: "...there may be a case for reviewing the [35 mppa] planning cap if and when the airport moves closer to full capacity. Its forecasts indicate that this would not occur until at least the 2030s".
Click here to view full story...
Environmental case for new Heathrow runway has ‘Airbus-sized holes’ in it
The Airports Commission said the new runway should come with severe restrictions and be compatible with UK climate change and air pollution targets. But environmentalists dismiss the Commission's calculations. Greenpeace UK chief scientist Dr Doug Parr said: "When it comes to carbon emissions the Davies’ analysis has holes big enough to fly an Airbus through. His claim that a new runway could be compatible with the UK's climate targets is based on the unrealistic assumptions like the need for a 6,600% rise in carbon taxes, rose-tinted estimates about improvements in aircraft efficiency, and false solutions like biofuels....This is just a smokescreen to hide the obvious fact that a new runway will almost certainly derail our legally-binding climate targets. In the year the world is coming together to tackle climate change, we should be talking about how to manage demand, not where to store up a new carbon bomb." Friends of the Earth’s Andrew Pendleton commented: “The UK will be a laughing stock if it turns up at crucial climate talks in Paris later this year, claiming global leadership while at home having nodded through new runways, killed its onshore wind industry and foisted fracking on communities that don't want it.”
Click here to view full story...
Caroline Lucas blog: “Heathrow might have been his answer, but Davies was asking the wrong question”
The Airports Commission (AC) has finally recommended that Heathrow, Europe's biggest noise polluter, should expand. The decision has been framed simply: Gatwick or Heathrow? Either new runway would cost billions of pounds and cause thousands more people's lives to be blighted by more aircraft flying low over homes, schools and neighbourhoods. Caroline Lucas considers the AC's failure to properly consider the option of "no new runway" is indefensible. The proposed new runway isn't just bad news for people living nearby - it's extremely damaging to our efforts to meet our climate change targets. The AC knows the CO2 emission from UK aviation would breach the sector's generous targets - even without a new runway. There are other questions that should e asked, not just if a runway should be at Heathrow or Gatwick. Should frequent flyers pay more, the more they fly? The runway is not "needed" for the average family taking one, or even two annual trips. Should public investment, which would be needed to assist a new Heathrow runway, be better spent elsewhere - on local transport? With different questions asked, there are different answers - not involving another runway.
Click here to view full story...
Campaigners against a Gatwick runway relieved by Airports Commission decision, but aware Gatwick may still ultimately be selected by government.
Thousands of people across Surrey, Sussex and Kent will be relieved that the threat of an environmental disaster has been lifted - though this reprieve may only be very temporary. The Commission appears to leave the door open for a Gatwick runway, while hugely favouring Heathrow, considering the Gatwick option could be pushed through by the Government with less difficulty. There will, however, be no rejoicing from the Gatwick area: campaigners there are only too aware of the misery which will be created for those living near Heathrow. GACC (the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) commented: "We do not want this for our area, and equally we do not wish it onto others, for whom it would be just as bad. We will continue to make the case that no new runway is needed, neither at Heathrow, nor at Gatwick, nor anywhere else." GACC, and all the protest groups around Gatwick, will be studying the report carefully and will remain on guard in case there is pressure to reverse the recommendation. A Gatwick runway would be an environmental disaster for the south east.
Click here to view full story...
HACAN comment on Commission choice of Heathrow: “The final chapter is yet to be written – it’s far from the end of the story”
In response to the Airports Commission, HACAN (the main community group opposing expansion of Heathrow) says even though Heathrow has been recommended for a runway, the Commission has left the door open for a 2nd runway at Gatwick. The Government will announce its decision towards the end of the year. John Stewart, HACAN chair, said: “This is far from the end of the story. The final decision will be taken by the Government. Given the strength of opposition there is to Heathrow within the Cabinet, the final chapter could contain a sting in the tail. Gatwick could emerge as the final choice by Christmas.” There is significant opposition to Heathrow within the Cabinet, and from Boris and Zac. The The obstacles to a 3rd runway remain enormous: – Noise disturbing more people than any other airport in Europe – Air Pollution levels hovering above the EU legal limits – Thousands of people facing eviction from their homes – Millions of pounds of public money required to upgrade the roads network – And the prospect of the biggest environmental battle in Europe
Click here to view full story...
Richmond Heathrow Campaign response to the Airports Commission choice of Heathrow
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign is wholly against a new third runway at Heathrow. There is unlikely to be any net benefit to the UK aviation market or to the UK economy. Why? According to the Airports Commission’s own figures, a new Heathrow runway results in no overall increase in the number of UK passengers, business passengers, flights or connectivity because it would be fed by re-distributing growth from other UK airports - in particular from airports outside the southeast. Heathrow expansion would result in cuts to flights at airports outside the southeast: as much as 45% at Birmingham, 30% at Bristol, 15% at Manchester and 10% at Edinburgh. It would stifle growth around the UK and concentrate it at a single airport in the economically overheated southeast. This would be contrary to the government’s aim of re-balancing the UK economy. And the RHC makes also sets out its other key reasons for opposing a new Heathrow runway.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow, Gatwick and London City airport community groups stand united against new runway decision
In response to the threat of a new runway at Heathrow (or very possibly at Gatwick, when the government decides on the Airports Commission announcement), the community groups opposed to increased aircraft noise have issued a joint statement. They say: "The announcement is bad news for all those who will inevitably be affected by increased aircraft activity, noise and air pollution and the associated effects on people's lives and health as a result of a new runway. As groups representing hundreds of thousands of people already suffering the impact of changes in airspace use, or new flight paths we are very aware of the negative impacts of living under, or close to, a flight path. There has been insufficient and inadequate consultation of affected communities on the introduction of airspace changes in the past. There is little reason to believe this will improve when large numbers of new flight paths are to be created in the wake of this recommendation. The campaign to prevent further runways being built and to return the flight paths to their previously regionally acceptable routes will go on. The noise and pollution groups at City, Gatwick and Heathrow airports remain united in this cause."
Click here to view full story...
Friends of the Earth warn that airport expansion will undermine UK climate action
Commenting ahead of the Airports Commission report which is expected to recommend airport expansion at either Gatwick or Heathrow, Friends of the Earth’s head of campaigns Andrew Pendleton said: “It's simply not credible for the Government to build a new runway in the South East and still claim to be serious about tackling climate change. "Airport expansion will also have huge impacts on the local community, noise levels and air quality. We can't preach to the world about stopping catastrophic climate change on the one hand and send aviation emissions soaring on the other."
Click here to view full story...
Blog from The Carbon Brief: Aviation’s battle to limit rising emissions – maybe only by limiting demand growth
A huge question mark hangs over how the new runway would be compatible with the UK's climate change targets. The key issue is not where a runway should be built, but whether it should be built at all. A blog by the Carbon Brief discusses how the UK dilemma on this is a microcosm of the global story of rapid expansion in the aviation industry, at a time when emissions need to rapidly decrease. Currently, UK aviation emissions are set to far exceed 2005 levels in 2050 - though the CCC has today reiterated that UK aviation must not emit more than around the 2005 level (about 37.5MtCO2 per year) by 2050. Even if no new runways are built in the UK, aviation CO2 emissions may be at 47Mt in 2050, according to DfT statistics. Without a carbon price and if airport expansion is unconstrained, the CCC project that UK aviation demand could grow more than 200% between 2005 and 2050. Globally, according to the UNFCCC, aviation emissions increased by 76.1% between 1990 and 2012. Projections from ICAO indicate that CO2 emissions from global aviation are set to grow 200%-360% on current levels by 2050. Reducing demand or, at the very least, reducing the growth in demand, may be the only way to keep the CO2 emissions down. The Carbon Brief adds: "If the UK government decides to give the go-ahead for a new runway, it will find it has a difficult task ahead in proving that it is not part of the problem."
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick MPs seek urgent assurances on Heathrow ministers’ involvement in airports decision
Crispin Blunt MP has called again on the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, to make sure Ministers who have a constituency interest in the runways decision are not involved in the Government’s consideration of the Airports Commission report. Sir Jeremy Heywood has responded to Crispin Blunt’s original letter of 10th June in which Gatwick Coordination Group (GCG) MPs (chaired by Crispin) sought assurances that the provisions on conflicts of interest in the Ministerial Code will apply to the many Ministers who have a constituency interest in opposing a new runway at Heathrow. Sir Jeremy’s letter is equivocal, saying “These matters are considered on a case-by-case basis, reflecting specific Ministerial responsibilities and the nature of any constituency interest. These Code provisions will of course apply to the Government’s response to the Airports Commission’s Final Report”. The GCG is concerned that this is not a clear response to the specific high profile case of the runway decision. Crispin Blunt's reply to Sir Jeremy says there is seen to be a conflict between constituency interests of Ministers, and the national interest. These suggestions "...should be an affront to you as Cabinet Secretary. That you appear not to be in a position to address our concerns on this very high profile issue is a grave matter.”
Click here to view full story...
Committee on Climate Change confirm aviation CO2 must remain capped – putting new runway into question
On the eve of the Airports Commission’s runway recommendation, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has told Government it has until 2016 to set out an effective plan for limiting aviation emissions. The Government’s official advisory body on delivery of the UK’s Climate Change Act used its 5th ‘Progress Report’ to Government to highlight the need for action on aviation, including constraints on demand. The CCC says that given the anticipated growth in emissions from the sector, the DfT must set out how it will ensure that emissions from aviation are no higher in 2050 than they were in 2005 (37.5 Mt). The limited scope for improvements in aviation technology mean that demand growth must be kept to no more than 60% above its 2005 level. Current forecasts of air passenger growth with associated CO2 emissions exceed this level EVEN WITHOUT adding a new runway. With a new SE runway the growth in passenger demand - and thus CO2 emissions - would be even higher. Extensive analysis by the AEF has shown that a new runway would make the aviation emissions cap (37.5MtCO2 annually) impossible to achieve. Ruling out a new runway is the most obvious first step for the Government to take in response to the CCC's advice. Adding a runway, and then having to deal with the extra carbon problem it has produced, is not an efficient way to deal with the issue.
Click here to view full story...
London City Airport considering a Compulsory Purchase of Royal Docks Waterway and land
London City Airport have notified the GLA and the Planning Inspectorate they are considering Compulsory Purchase Order against the Mayor of London to own the nearly 20 hectares of land and Royal Docks Waterway, which it needs for its huge expansion plans. The airport has discussed these plans with the DfT with a view that any CPO be considered at the Planning Inspectorates Public Inquiry into the Mayor's expansion refusal. That inquiry is due to be heard in the first quarter of 2016. The enquiry could be extended to consider the CPO. The publicly owned land is the responsibility of the London Mayor. The Docks are part of the Blue Ribbon Network protected by the London Plan. A 3-week consultation into the purchase would also have to be carried out. An attempted land grab by London City Airport's hedge fund owners, GIP, would be unprecedented - if approved -and could see all the Mayor's Public land assets under attack from private developers. GIP is understood to be keen to sell London City Airport soon, but want planning consent for expansion first, to increase the price to perhaps£1.25 billion. GIP also want a 2nd Gatwick runway. Both would raise the price at sale.
Click here to view full story...
Most Londoners think London has enough airport capacity already – and no runway is needed
An opinion poll has shown that the vast majority of Londoners think London already has an adequate level of airport capacity for a major global city, new opinion research has found. A poll by ComRes was commissioned by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, found that only 24% of people living in London believe the capital’s airport capacity is inadequate, while 63% say it meets or exceeded their expectations. But the Airports Commission is expected to recommend another runway. The new polling research found that all age groups, social classes, genders, and regions of London believe that runway capacity was in line with their expectations. In a parallel survey, most London businesses also believe that airport capacity met their expectations, albeit by a smaller margin of 52% to 37%. Londoners polled were far more concerned about the availability of housing, with 70% of residents and 74% per cent of bosses saying it was important. Local transport infrastructure was also a far greater concern than airport capacity. London has the largest airport system of any city in the world, with passenger traffic outstripping New York and Tokyo by millions every year. Around 11% of flights abroad are accounted for by business travel.
Click here to view full story...
Edinburgh Airport’s new TUTUR flight path trial started 25th June – maybe for 6 months
The trial of a new flight path to the west of Edinburgh airport started on 25th June. The airport itself does not say how long the trial with last, but reports say either 5 months or 6 months. The trial sees southbound planes take off over Broxburn and Uphall before turning east over the Forth, then south over East Lothian. The aim of the trial is to speed up departures, increase the number of planes than can be handled, and make more money for airlines and the airport. Edinburgh airport says if the trial is a "success," [a success may mean if the level of opposition is low enough, or can be discounted] it could cut the minimum interval between take-offs from two minutes to one minute, doubling the potential number of flights by large planes from the airport. That could mean increasing the total number of flights by 20% to around 120,000 per year. People finding themselves under the new, narrow, route are experiencing much worse plane noise than before - especially as much of the new flight path is on a turn. People are encouraged to contact the airport and make complaints, if they are not happy with the new situation. Edinburgh airport says: "If the trial is successful it will continue for a bit longer" (ie. no end date?) going through the formal Airspace Change Process by the CAA. Once that is done, the route will be permanent - after a public consultation and the statutory change process.
Click here to view full story...
US airline industry lobby, A4A, hoping it will not need to make further CO2 savings – more NextGen instead
The trade lobbying group, Airlines for America (A4A), argues that the airline industry has already done its part to reduce CO2 emissions. It says it is now up to the US government to get improvements to the air traffic control system that could reduce airline fuel consumption, by cutting extra miles flown. Recently the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) released an "endangerment finding" that that greenhouse gases from aircraft pose a risk to human health. So A4A is pushing back, and saying that US airlines have "more than doubled fuel efficiency since 1978 [planes were very fuel inefficient then]." Leaving out the constantly rising numbers of flights and passengers, they hope to persuade government that there is no need to have any further regulations on their carbon emissions, or emissions standards for aircraft. While the industry hopes for 1.5% efficiency gains per year, this would be negated by its hopes of growing by 4% per year. There is the issue of whether the US and the EU might have different emissions standards, and how that affects trans-Atlantic flights. Airlines are thriving, the fuel price has fallen, and they are making profits. But the industry wants more flight path changes, to cut costs, through NextGen, which have proved so unpopular in subjecting communities to worse noise.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow and Gatwick CEOs both say their runway campaigns will go on, whatever Commission recommends
The CEOs of Heathrow and Gatwick both say they will continue their campaigns for expansion, whatever the Airports Commission recommends (next week?). Holland-Kaye is trying to make out that Heathrow's plans for a 3rd runway had been so substantially altered since David Cameron blocked them in 2010 that "the prime minister could defend a decision to change his mind." (The changes are small - different location, better compensation offers, more attempts to overcome local opposition ... same need to destroy communities, make areas almost uninhabitable, immense increase in noise and air pollution etc etc). Gatwick keep attempting to persuade people their runway is more deliverable than Heathrow's. Both fear the report ending up on a shelf, gathering dust. Heathrow expansion is environmentally and politically just about impossible, but it is what the airlines, the industry and its backers want. Holland-Kaye said Heathrow would not give up pressing for another runway even if the Commission recommends Gatwick. “It’s not a binding report … we’d have to wait and see. A decision hasn’t been made and to some extent the campaigns will keep on going." As one commentator remarked: "... the most likely final resting place for Sir Howard’s report is a dusty shelf, somewhere in Whitehall."
Click here to view full story...
Andrew Simms: “Forget Heathrow and Gatwick expansion, the Davies report should tackle frequent flyers”
The Airports Commission will finally report next week. But many feel it has avoided the far more important questions: whether Britain needs any more runways at all. And would a better approach be to tackle the small numbers of very frequent flyers? Contrary to the popular misconception, business flights are not what a new runway is for. The Commission itself is aware that official figures show a decline in business flights, with only about 11% of flights abroad being by business travel. UK regional airports have ample, spare capacity if additional business routes are needed. The vast majority of flights using UK airports are for leisure travel, and a new runway would enable the relatively small minority who already take many leisure trips, by air, each year to take even more. Data shows that just 15% of UK residents take three or more flights per year, and these tend to be relatively well off people. That 15% accounts for 70% of all flights taken. With a strong economic and environmental case against expanding airport capacity, and declining business demand, the argument is now being made to apply the polluter pays principle by introducing a frequent flyer levy. Because flying is subsidised (air tickets do not include VAT or fuel duty) those who take the most flights receive the most public subsidy. The Commission are trying to answer the wrong question - not just building a runway, but considering how to manage air travel better.
Click here to view full story...
Adrian Pepper: Aviation expansion – and the perils of going for Gatwick
In a blog for Conservative Home, Adrian Pepper sets out some of the reasons why a runway at Gatwick would be unwise - and deeply opposed. These include: due to the low unemployment rate, the need for thousands of homes in countryside, for the inward migration; need for massive investment in road and rail infrastructure; awareness of unacceptability of a Gatwick choice, just to east the strains with the Tory Cabinet; strong opposition from the area’s local Conservative councils, conservation area preservation groups and the little platoons that have been spontaneously springing up, CAGNE, ESSCAN, GON etc; the scale of the nationwide opposition that would happen; big business wants a hub at Heathrow; regional businesses and tourism in the regions want frequent access to a hub airport and they want Heathrow; there would be protests from MPs representing Northern Ireland, Wales, the Midlands, the North and Scotland; "They will castigate David Cameron and his Government for pandering to middle class metropolitan sensibilities, rather than listening to the nation at large" ... and "Even after the Davies report has been issued, we are going to be none the wiser as to where the new runway will be built."
Click here to view full story...
“Government airbrushes aviation’s non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions” – new report
It been recognised for many years that the climate change impacts of aviation extend well beyond those of carbon dioxide (CO2), due to jet fuel being burned at high altitude, creating a range of impacts - including formation of cirrus cloud from contrails. But this fact is largely ignored by the government and its agencies. A new report, produced for AirportWatch, examines the reasons for this and proposes an ‘index’ which will help to ensure that the issue of non-CO2 gases is properly accounted for. Though DECC continues to use a multiplier of 1.9 for the CO2 alone, in its conversion factors, the issue of the non-CO2 impacts has been systematically downplayed by the UK government and its associates over recent years. While ‘scientific uncertainty’ is claimed as the reason to ignore non-CO2, the report considers the real reason is that aviation emissions are an embarrassment to government and others who want to expand airports and air travel. The new paper suggests a new index should be developed. To be very conservative, this should be set at a multiplier of 1.6 of the CO2 emissions alone. It would be an interim measure, pending a thorough and independent review of the issue of aviation’s non-CO2 emissions. Ignoring the non-CO2 impacts of aviation, due to scientific uncertainty, is not acceptable. Using lack of certainty as a justification for ignoring a known issue would not be accepted in other areas.
Click here to view full story...
Huge costs would be incurred dealing with 2 currently active landfills + 16 historical landfills for Heathrow runway
A report commissioned by Gatwick airport, in its bid to beat Heathrow in getting a new runway, says Heathrow's north west runway plan would cost £500 million more than estimated because of the amount of potentially contaminated landfill that would have to be treated. The report by environmental consultancy RSK Group claims that Heathrow would have to launch one of the UK’s largest land clearance operations ever if it was allowed to build the runway. RSK claims the need to excavate and clear up to 9 million cubic metres of potentially hazardous landfill would increases the total cost from £18.6 billion to £19.1 billion. A report in June 2014 for Heathrow by Amec showed there are 2 current landfills and 16 historical landfills on the site, the detailed construction of which is not known. The operation to treat the landfill could not only risk releasing hazardous gases and other pollutants, but would also encourage vermin and birds – a key concern since this would take place near the existing airport. There are also risks to ground and surface water, and a Site Environmental Management Plan should be in place including details of emergency procedures to deal with incidents or unexpected contamination.
Click here to view full story...
Eight new Factsheets from the Richmond Heathrow Campaign on a 3rd Heathrow runway
The RHC has published eight Heathrow Factsheets, which have been sent to every MP. There is also a summary of all eight at rhcfacts.org. They are on: (1). The UK Economy: the Commission's own figures show that Heathrow expansion would not add significantly to the UK economy or add further connectivity to the UK as a whole. (2). Deliverability: Heathrow expansion may require £54 billion or more of funding. State aid would be difficult to justify given the spare capacity at other airports and the prevalence at Heathrow of transfers and leisure passengers. (3). Carbon: It is very likely that Heathrow's growth would be constrained by the impact of carbon emissions, rendering a 3rd runway uneconomic. (4) Air Quality: It seems unlikely that a third runway could be built while remaining within legal limits. (5) Noise: Heathrow expansion is likely to expose several hundred thousand Londoners to aircraft noise for the first time. (6) Local Economy: The local economy will grow with or without a runway, and providing enough housing is a problem. (7). Surface Access: Transport for London (TfL) has calculated that an investment of up to £20 billion would be needed to support. (8). Safety: Proposals for steeper flight paths on landing and for curved approaches raise concerns, as does the Heathrow Hub extended runway model.
Click here to view full story...
Attempts to make “sustainable” jet fuel by using waste bagasse from Brazilian sugarcane
The global aviation industry hopes for over 4% growth per year, but gains in efficiency are around 1% per year. Hence the sector's CO2 emissions will increase. Attempts continue to be made to try and locate some sustainable sources of fuel, which could genuinely cause less carbon to be produced, over its whole life-cycle. This has so far been unsuccessful. For any fuel to be commercially viable, it has to use resources or land, which competes with human food. This is in part accounted for as ILUC (Indirect Land Use Change) effects. There are new claims that jet fuel could be made using sugarcane biomass, waste bagasse, and sugarcane could be grown on "marginal land." However, sugarcane would inevitably grow better on higher quality land, with more fertiliser and more water - and if that was applied, the land could be used for food. Often land termed marginal is, in reality, used by local people. The new enthusiasm for jet fuel involves using bagasse to make oils rather than ethanol. That inevitably means depletion of soil nutrients, as the plant waste is removed and not ploughed back into the soil. The team working on the sugar fuel hope their findings would ultimately be adopted by commercial fuel producers, and they have a patent on the technology.
Click here to view full story...
Darren Johnson asks: Why spend billions on a new runway and then tax us to keep demand for flights down?
Darren Johnson, writing in Best Foot Forward, says there is a huge hidden assumption, in the small print of the Airports Commission. It is that in order for Heathrow or Gatwick to expand, air fares will have to rise across the UK to the point where potential customers abandon the northern and regional airports in favour of their more efficient rivals in the south east. Without more runways in the south east, the regional airports will see a small expansion in flights, but the UK may well be able remain below our CO2 limit for aviation in 2050 (37.5 MtCO2 per year). With another SE runway, the only way to stop it filling up and being intensively used, is to raise fares – a lot - to deter demand, so aviation CO2 emissions remain under the cap. Otherwise the CO2 will just be too high. All this is tucked away in the small print of various appendices. Darren has written to the Commission about this, and responses show they (and the DfT) are aware that a high carbon price would be needed. Estimates vary, but this could add £100 to £150 to a return flight to Ibiza by 2050. Are we just leaving our children to sort out the mess in future? Rather than building a runway, and then having to cut demand (London and the regions) by high taxes, surely it makes more sense not to build the runway in the first place?
Click here to view full story...
Boris Johnson says David Cameron will not approve 3rd Heathrow runway
Boris Johnson has warned that a 3rd Heathrow runway would lead to "paralysis" and insisted that the government will not approve it. He will "counsel" David Cameron "very strongly" against it. He said David Cameron and George Osborne pledged that there would be no Heathrow 3rd runway in the Conservative Party manifesto in 2010. "I think that the government will stick to that." David Cameron had said, in election literature: "No ifs, No buts, no third runway." Boris will be free to campaign against a Heathrow runway, after the Commission reports, as he is not a member of the full Conservative cabinet. He said during LBC's State of London debate: "It is perfectly obvious to me that there is going to be an unholy mess when Sir Howard reports. ...They will plonk this great document on our desk. I will study the document with great care and I will reflect for about 40 seconds. If it comes out very firmly in favour of Heathrow I think that will lead to paralysis." He did not say Gatwick should get a runway, as he has stated in the past that it could only be a "compromise." Boris commented that he believes Stansted would be a better option.
Click here to view full story...
Spending for ads just on the TfL network – £1.7 million by Heathrow; £1.6 million by Gatwick
Darren Johnson, Green Party Assembly Member at the London Assembly, Great London Authority, has obtained figures for the amount spent by the two airports. This is just on Transport for London, so on buses, tubes and trains. The Mayor revealed that Heathrow spent £1.7 million on advertising across the TfL network (from the start of 2012 until April 2015). Gatwick spent £1.6 million on advertising across the TfL network (from the start of 2014 until April 2015). Darren commented: “I’m not surprised that Heathrow has spent almost two million on ads on buses, tubes and trains. The grim reality of aviation expansion will be more noise, pollution and traffic hell for Londoners. As well as the acceleration of climate change which is the biggest threat to our economy. You need a big budget to paper over those huge cracks in your argument.” In December 2014 campaigners against a new runway at Heathrow or Gatwick wrote to the Airports Commission to say the multi-million ££ advertising and PR campaigns being mounted by both airports for their runway plans were “subverting democracy”. They said the advertising was drowning out discussion of alternatives – and the basic question of whether a runway should be built at all.
Click here to view full story...
Anti Gatwick campaigners accuse airport chiefs of cheap leaflet (and free coffee) publicity stunt
Campaigners fighting aircraft noise have accused Gatwick bosses of trying to buy them off with a free cappuccino and glossy printed pamphlet. The leaflet, dropping through the letterboxes of thousands of homes in a 20 mile radius of Gatwick airport, is a blatant PR stunt in the face of a 5 fold increase in complaints about noisy planes. It is edition one of "AirMail" – airport news for residents. It boasts of Gatwick's developments and "activities in the local community" including grants to community groups, local residents discount parking rates and free coffees. Chairman of the High Weald Aviation Action Group, Richard Streatfeild said Gatwick needs to listen, not make cheap gestures. "A free cappuccino is not going to make up for hundreds of aircraft over your home area when people are trying to spend quality family time and enjoy the countryside. They are obviously upping their PR game. They are being told by the CAA that they must involve the local community with their decision making" ...what they need to do is "take into account the feedback they are getting from the local community." Martin Baraud from GON said: "They can send out all the brochures they like but at the end of the day they are part and parcel of creating noise ghettos through the garden of England."
Click here to view full story...
Levy on frequent leisure flyers proposed to make airport expansion unnecessary
Plans for a “frequent flyer” tax to curb demand for leisure flights and make a new runway in south-east England unnecessary have been unveiled by an influential group of transport campaigners, environmentalists and tax experts. These include the Campaign for Better Transport, the New Economics Foundation, the Tax Justice Network, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth among others. In a letter to the Observer - in order to remove the alleged "need" for a new south east runway - they put forward the concept of allowing each person one tax-free flight per year, but increasing the rate of tax for people who fly frequently. The levy would rise with each successive flight. This would mean that instead of APD (£13 per return flight to Europe) there would be a higher rate of tax for frequent fliers. Their analysis shows that 15% of the UK population take 70% of all the flights, while half of us don’t fly at all in any given year. Rather than a new runway being vital for business, the reality is that it would be used for the better off to take more leisure flights (holidays or visiting friends and family). The proposed levy would mean the number of flights would be cut to a level that would make a new runway unnecessary. The authors of the scheme have also shown that this change to the taxation of air travel would also ensure the UK could comply with its obligations under the Climate Change Act.
Click here to view full story...
New AEF report on how new SE runway would mean slashing growth at regional airports to meet UK climate targets
AEF has produced a new report called "Flying into trouble: London airport expansion would mean slashing growth at regional airports to meet UK climate targets." AEF believe the Airports Commission, when it reports (probably within two weeks) will be handing Government an incomplete analysis with no convincing or credible answers on how to limit carbon emissions. AEF calls on the Government to reject the Commission's report, pending a proper analysis on the carbon challenge. The CCC says UK aviation CO2 emissions should not exceed a cap of 37.5MtCO2 per year by 2050. An extra SE runway would require slashing the projected number of flights using UK regional airports, to keep under the cap. The Airports Commission’s own analysis shows that under current trends, this limit will be breached - even without a new runway. The problem would be made far worse by adding a runway. AEF says the figures could only be balanced by limiting the growth of airports in the ‘Northern Powerhouse’ and other regions, which would directly contradict Government policy for regional airport growth. It would be impossible to deliver, in practice. The Commission's own figures show how the number of flights using regional airports would fall, with a new SE runway - and these economic costs are not factored in.
Click here to view full story...
Cases of objects, including human stowaways, but often blocks of ice, falling from planes
A stowaway plunged to his death from a British Airways plane onto an office block near Richmond. Another stowaway survived the trip and receiving hospital treatment. The plane was a 747 on an 11 hour flight from Johannesburg. The spot where the man fell was just a few hundred metres from Kew Gardens. Around three quarters of plane stowaways are killed by the cold or the landing gear during flights. Earlier this year a coroner’s court heard how a Turkish man froze to death in July 2013 when he climbed into the undercariage of a BA jet from Istanbul to Heathrow. In September 2012, a stowaway from Mozambique fell to the ground in a suburban street in Mortlake. A Pakistani stow away who fell from a plane, presumably as the undercarriage came down, over Richmond in July 2001. Data from 2012 indicated that since records began in 1947, 96 wheel well stowaways are thought to have attempted to board 85 flights. Of those 73 of those stowaways died and 23 survived. More details from various sources over many years.
Click here to view full story...
Big five EU airlines join to form new lobbying alliance – to cut taxes and regulations, and make more money
The EU's 5 largest airline groups - Air France-KLM, EasyJet, IAG, Lufthansa and Ryanair - have unveiled plans to establish a new airline lobbying group (not yet named) later this year to present a set of common goals to European regulators. They met in Brussels to set out the initiative. Carolyn McCall said the new entity will be based on the "Airlines for America" lobbying group in the USA and will be “open to all European airlines.” The airlines say there is a “need for a new entity, something new and different” with real “traction”. They want to put on a show of unity and provide a united position on regulatory policy as the new European Commission works on its key aviation package. Carolyn McCall says the new entity will go “live” in October, will represent 4 shared common goals: (1). Development of a European aviation strategy, to have simple regulation, to ensure growth and cut costs. (2). Lowering airport costs through reforming the European airport charges directive. (3). Stopping air traffic management from striking, and using SESAR etc to make savings and more profit. (4). Growing demand for air travel by "removing passenger taxes and unreasonable environmental taxes”. Willie Walsh also wants to "impress on the Commission the risk of and impact of passenger taxes.”
Click here to view full story...
Airbus reported to want more UK taxpayer aid for A380 – but Boeing warns Airbus over state aid
Airbus is reported to have requested a huge cash injection of British taxpayer funds to support a new version of its A380 aircraft with more fuel efficient engines. The Sunday Times understands Airbus has approached the business department for a fresh round of repayable launch investment (RLI) to equip the huge plane with new engines. Business secretary Sajid Javid is believed to have demanded a firm business case before committing funds. The A380, which began commercial flights in 2007, was funded with about £1.9bn from France, Germany, Spain and UK. The UK’s £530m of RLI is due to be repaid through royalties, when the A380 programme makes a profit - which it has not yet done. Rolls-Royce supplies Trent 900 engines for the currenet A380, and may make a new, more fuel-efficient engines should Airbus commit to the A380neo. Rolls has received as much as £450m of RLI for its Trent engines. Now Boeing has warned Airbus that if it gets more subsidies or loans for a new it would breach World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. Airbus said it would not comment as it had not yet decided on a revamped A380, and there has been speculation the programme could be scrapped due to low orders. Boeing and Airbus have been locked in litigation for years about state funding.
Click here to view full story...
Residents fight against ‘noisy neighbour’ RAF Northolt over changed flight path
South Ruislip residents are desperately calling on recently-elected MP Boris Johnson to get RAF Northolt to stop allowing planes to fly over their houses. A local resident has collected over 520 signatures,asking that the planes and helicopters stick to the designated flight path. People know for certain that aircraft are flying over areas they did not fly over before. RAF Northolt is said to use one runway with a designated flight path but residents who signed the petition regularly see planes taking off over their houses. In 2013, the decision to keep RAF Northolt as a military airfield included an instruction from defence ministers that it should aim to increase its revenue from commercial aircraft. The increase was set to rise from 7,000 flight movements, taking off or landing, to 12,000 a year. But an RAF spokesman admitted: “Military and government movements are uncapped but expect to remain constant with the total number of movements in 2016 not expecting to exceed 17,500.” Not the 12,000. John Stewart (HACAN) said the "flight paths seem to have changed without any thought of the impact of local communities." Residents say they have not been listened to by Northolt in the past and a letter to them was "dumped in the bin." They hope Boris will step in and do something.
Click here to view full story...
NAV CANADA and Canadian Airports Council protocol on consultating and informing residents, to reduce opposition
Canadian airports and airspace managers seem to have woken up to the fact that changes to flight paths are deeply unpopular. They have now produced a protocol, setting out how and when they should consult with affected residents. Their intention is to reduce opposition, by consulting and communicating with the local population, on changes to flight paths. It all sounds very laudable, and with aims of "meaningful dialogue" and that they will "consider community feedback in the flight path design process." They say: "Different levels of community outreach and engagement are appropriate depending on the type of change being proposed. In all cases, the goal will be to inform residents so that they are aware of a change, and not surprised by it." But the thing that is missing (and this is so familiar with airspace management in the UK) is any mention anywhere of actually reducing the amount of flights, or reducing the amount of noise, or not introducing the changes to flight paths that the industry considers to be "necessary." It is always just a matter of dialogue, consultation, processes. There is not even a section in the protocol for not introducing changes, if they are not acceptable to residents. Just managing the PR.
Click here to view full story...
Zac Goldsmith unveils maps showing 1 million under indicative flight paths for a 3 runway Heathrow
Zac's all party group of MPs has produced a new map showing where flight paths might be, with a Heathrow 3rd runway. Their map shows that hundreds of thousands more London residents would find themselves under new flight paths if the runway was built. Senior Tories including Justine Greening and Boris Johnson joined Richmond MP Zac Goldsmith in Parliament to launch a campaign alerting people to the potential impact on neighbourhoods across the capital. Heathrow disputes the map, and nobody knows exactly where the flight paths would be. Zac said Heathrow was “already the biggest [noise] polluter in Europe by far” and that additional noise was just one of the reasons to oppose expansion. Boris Johnson said David Cameron should honour his 2010 pledge of "No if, No Buts, No 3rd Runway". Jenny Jones and the Green Party were the only politicians present who said no runway should be built.myself. Zac Goldsmith is aware of the environmental reasons why no runway should be built. However, he has chosen not to say this and go with the dubious assumption that it is just a choice between Heathrow and Gatwick. He commented: "I recognise by piling pressure against Heathrow expansion, I make it more likely that you have Gatwick expansion, but my first priority is to stop Heathrow expansion, it has to be.”
Click here to view full story...
Teddington Action Group prepare to sue Airports Commission over lack of fair consultation on air quality
The Airports Commission and the Department of Transport have been notified by Neil Spurrier and Teddington Action Group (TAG) of their intent to apply for a Judicial Review of the Commission’s work. TAG is a group of residents affected by environmental nuisance in terms of emissions and noise from Heathrow flights. They have taken advice from leading counsel, and allege that the Airports Commission's 3 week consultation on air quality, in May, was rushed and insufficiently publicised. This meant they (and many others) did not had a fair chance to respond. The consultation document was a highly technical 200 page report, containing a large amount of technical data. TAG say the lack of proper engagement by the Commission in relation to the latest air quality consultation is unacceptable and local people should be consulted in a meaningful way on an issue that directly impacts their health and well-being. TAG say the 3 week consultation is far shorter than the Cabinet Office guidelines which recommend three months for controversial or technical consultations. The length and nature of the air quality consultation was widely criticised, as being inadequate and unfair. TAG also questions the continuation of Sir Howard Davies in the role of chair of the Commission in the light of potential conflicts of interest, as he has been appointed to RBS.
Click here to view full story...
Angry residents serve ASBO on Heathrow in flight path noise protest
Residents from a raft of communities to the west of London have served Heathrow with an ASBO (anti social behaviour order) in protest at the increase in aircraft noise generated by new flight paths implemented for Heathrow by their partner NATS. Members of a new grouping, CAIAN (Communities Against Increased Aircraft Noise) took their mock ASBO to Heathrow, to draw attention to the serious impact recent flight pattern changes are having on people across Surrey, Berkshire, and parts of west London. CAIAN represents local action groups that have joined forces to challenge new and altered arrival and departure routes imposed by Heathrow and NATS, without warning or consultation. The mock ASBO accuses Heathrow of “breaches of common decency”, specifically for running an airport “with general disregard for neighbours and the environment, that allows excessive noise for 17+ hours a day, and which contributes to high local air pollution”. CAIAN has a range of demands, including a moratorium on new runways until noise and pollution from the existing two are properly addressed. They will keep up the pressure, to get proper accountability in the aviation sector. There is widespread fury and outrage that PBN routes are being determined by airline profitability rather than any consideration for communities being overflown, who are suffering the consequences.
Click here to view full story...
Ruth Cadbury MP says Heathrow low emission zone would be ‘unenforceable’
The new Labour MP for Brentford & Isleworth, Ruth Cadbury, says banning all but greenest vehicles from roads around Heathrow would have a "serious impact" on the local economy. Heathrow has suggested that a Low Emissions Zone (LEZ) around the airport might be introduced, or even an Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ) in order to try and keep emissions low enough that they could add another runway. There is a LEZ - not a ULEZ - that has been operation in London, since 2008. That restricts the most polluting heavy diesel vehicles driving in the capital. A ULEZ, by contrast, means all but the lowest emission vehicles are excluded. Ruth Cadbury says that to be effective, a ULEZ around Heathrow "would have to be so enormous it would have a serious impact on the economy of the Thames Valley area and would be virtually unenforceable." Ruth believed the impact of non-ULEZ planned public transport improvements on reducing harmful emissions was "not going to be very significant". She questioned whether a ULEZ scheme, which would require Transport for London's approval, could ever happen. She was speaking at a parliamentary debate at Westminster Hall on air pollution on 9th June (called by Diane Abbott). .
Click here to view full story...
Government will not make a runway decision soon, and not till “before Christmas”
The Financial Times has reported that it has been informed by a Whitehall source that Ministers will not provide a formal response to the Airports Commission's recommendation on a runway till about "before Christmas." The official told the FT there would just be a cursory acceptance of the report (expected in late June?) by senior ministers. It had been thought for sometime that the DfT would have to do at least 6 months work, considering the Commission's verdict,before a final decision could be made. The Commission has left many gaps in its analysis, with many questions unanswered. The FT reports that: "Civil servants say they need to start work on any proposed legislation & prepare for legal challenges that are considered almost inevitable." The decision for the Airports Commission has not been an easy one, because there are overwhelming arguments against a new runway at either Gatwick or Heathrow. The Cabinet faces division on the issue of Heathrow, with George Osborne in favour and other senior members deeply opposed. The pro- runway lobby has been complaining vociferously that a runway decision must be made quickly. Labour's Mary Creagh has accused David Cameron of "unforgivable delay" on the issue, and putting party stability "ahead of the national interest."
Click here to view full story...
After EPA “endangerment finding” USA starting to take CO2 emissions from aviation seriously
The Obama administration has now released a scientific finding from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that greenhouse gases from aircraft pose a risk to human health. This is called an "endangerment finding" and it paves the way for regulating CO2 emissions from the US aviation industry. It would allow the US to implement a global CO2 emissions standard for new aircraft, that is being developed by ICAO. However, the ICAO CO2 standard will only start in late 2016 and only apply to new plane designs certified from 2020, leaving most of the world's existing fleets unaffected for years to come. But James Lees, from AEF, writing in a blog, says this EPA move could mark a turning point in efforts to regulate CO2 emissions from aviation globally. While most sectors are expected to cut their emissions, the CO2 from aviation is expected to triple by 2050. Today's airline fleet is more carbon efficient than it was in the early 1970s but efficiency improvements slowed down dramatically since 2000 - while passenger demand grows at 5.5% per year. It is hoped the UK, the EU and the US can now push for an effective global standard.
Click here to view full story...
Residents in Colnbrook with Poyle parish will demand local referendum on Heathrow runway
A meeting of Colnbrook with Poyle Parish has been called for June 16th by residents who intend to invoke a clause in the 1972 Local Government Act. This allows them to trigger a referendum - this one would be on a Heathrow runway. (Either of the Heathrow runway plans would mean effectively the end of Colnbrook - one going slightly north of it, and the other slightly south). Residents agree that a Colnbrook Runway and the Slough International Freight Exchange (SIFE) could completely transform the parish over the next few years. Residents are angry that neither Colnbrook Parish Council nor Slough Borough Council have asked them for their views – yet both have presumed to make policy decisions with potentially enormous consequences for the future of the village … and those who live in it. Hence the meeting on 16th. The first item on the agenda is whether or not to call for a Local Referendum on the Heathrow issue. Colnbrook with Poyle Parish Council dismissed a call for a local referendum at a Parish Council meeting on November 4th. SIFE will also be discussed, to see if there is support for resurrecting the stop SIFE campaign in view of the imminent SIFE appeal.
Click here to view full story...
FAiR citizens’ movement in Chicago wins the right to take part in talks on flight paths
O'Hare airport in Chicago has 10 runways. The local campaign group, FAiR (Fair Allocation in Runways) has been campaigning for some time for all the diagonal runways to be used, in order to distribute the noise more fairly over surrounding areas. Now FAiR has won the right to have a seat at the table in talks about the noise problem with Illinois State and Chicago City officials and the FAA. A new Joint House Resolution also acknowledges the validity of city and suburban residents’ complaints about the drastic increase in planes, noise and pollution since the October 2013 changes in flight patterns and runway usage at the airport - due to NextGen (the US equivalent of PBN and concentrated flight paths that are becoming a serious problem in the UK). In addition, the resolution calls for the city to ask the FAA to delay any action regarding the diagonal runways due to be decommissioned until all hearings and meetings are completed. They also want the FAA to hold meetings about the aircraft noise problem in the areas newly impacted by the October 2013 changes. FAiR say the only three previous hearings on the O’Hare Modernization Plan held in 2005 were intentionally conducted outside the noise contour area and were minimally announced to the public.
Click here to view full story...
The city of Phoenix is suing the FAA due to noise from NextGen flight path changes
The City of Phoenix, Arizona, is suing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) over flight path changes - part of NextGen - that have led to aircraft noise that's plaguing parts of the city. The Mayor said the city has tried to resolve the issue numerous times, but the FAA hasn't proposed any meaningful changes. The noise problem started in September 2014 when the FAA implemented the new flight paths. City officials, the FAA and some airlines have met to try to work out some improvements, but the FAA say that would take 6 - 12 months to do. Hence the lawsuit as Phoenix city say the solutions don't do enough to make up for hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the city's noise mitigation efforts. The FAA has not been very helpful. A city spokesperson said: "The FAA's actions have caused the community extreme discomfort, with many unable to sleep at night or pursue normal daily activities." It claims the FAA caused "a negative impact on the Phoenix community without proper due process, notification and consideration." Phoenix plans to reach out to other US cities facing similar problems, to join in the lawsuit. Other cities troubled by noise due to NextGen changes are Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and Boston.
Click here to view full story...
EasyJet CEO, Carolyn McCall, again says there is no economic case for a Gatwick runway
Carolyn McCall, the CEO of EasyJet - the largest airline using Gatwick airport - has again said that there is no "economic reason” to build a 2nd runway at Gatwick. She believes it does not need to expand, because of a lack of demand from passengers. She would prefer a runway at Heathrow, as EasyJet and other airlines are “queuing up to get in”. They could make more profit there. Though the airlines want a new Heathrow runway, it is both physically, geographically, environmentally and politically very, very difficult indeed. Gatwick is also geographically and environmentally very, very difficult. For Gatwick to build a new runway, the cost would have to be paid by the airlines, which means flights costing more for passengers. As the budget airlines make thin profits (perhaps £7 per passenger after tax), adding on an extra £30 + to a return trip is utterly contrary to the low cost airline business plan. On dirt cheap flights, £30 extra is enough to matter. Even though easyJet is currently Gatwick’s biggest customer, Ms McCall said it had “never proved it can really be the kind of airport that Heathrow is.” Heathrow slot pairs can cost £25 million, but EasyJet got their Gatwick pairs for about £1 million.
Click here to view full story...
NATS and Heathrow agree strategic business partnership – to make more money all round
In April 2015, NATS and Heathrow Airport entered a new strategic partnership, which NATS says signals "a fundamental change to the relationship between the airport and air traffic services provider." As part of the agreement, Heathrow and NATS will jointly create a long term business partnership with shared objectives aligned to what Heathrow is seeking to achieve over the coming years.(ie. it wants a 3rd runway). The partnership mentions "specific incentivised targets in areas from delay performance and service resilience through to cutting aircraft noise." They hope their partnership will "realise benefits for airlines and help deliver a world class passenger experience for the travelling public." (*ie. benefits for passengers, but only the least they can get away with, in terms of noise for those being over-flown.). NATS says: "We’ve moved from being an important supplier to true partners with aligned goals that allow us to share both the rewards of success and consequences of failure in a totally transparent and accountable way.” Last year NATS lost the contract for the airspace below 4,000 feet at Gatwick to Deutsche Flugsicherung (DFS),starting in October 2015. And after the problems in March when NATS did not properly inform Heathrow of flight path changes, things can only improve ...
Click here to view full story...
Studies show that at least 7 hours of sleep are needed, each night, by adults
Living under a flight path, along which aircraft fly at below - say 7,000 feet - is noisy. It is all the more noisy now that the aviation industry is introducing narrow, concentrated flight paths. These are replacing the older more dispersed routes, as aircraft have new "PBN" technology (like car satnav) and can fly far more accurately than in the past. And it suits the air traffic controllers to keep flight paths narrow. But if airports allow flights at night, or if the "night" period when flights are not allowed is short, this has consequences for people living near, or under, routes. Studies carried out scientifically show adults need at least 7 hours of sleep, each night to be at their healthiest. Children and teenagers need more.There are some people who need more than 7 hours per night, and some need less. It is not good enough to get less one night, and more the next - the brain does not process the day's memories adequately. Studies show adverse effects of not getting enough sleep, which are not only related to concentration, speed of thinking or reacting etc, but also medical effects. The concentrated flight paths, and airports allowed to have flights all night, are causing very real problems. A study into noise and sleep by the CAA in 2009 looked at the issue, and said a large and comprehensive study is needed, but it is "likely to be expensive."
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick Tory MPs warn of ‘political stitch-up’ on runways by anti-Heathrow faction in Cabinet
A group of senior Conservative MPs has warned David Cameron that he must avoid a “political stitch-up” that would favour cabinet ministers, and other party heavyweights led by Boris Johnson, who are campaigning against a Heathrow 3rd runway. Crispin Blunt, the former justice minister who chairs the 9-strong group of Tory MPs representing constituencies around Gatwick, told the Tory chief whip, Mark Harper, this week that cabinet ministers opposed to a third runway at Heathrow airport should “recuse” themselves [ie. not take part in a decision, due to danger of a potential conflict of interest or lack of impartiality] when the government considers the Airports Commission’s findings. The decision by the government must be taken in an impartial manner. The Gatwick area MPs are concerned that as well as Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith, both keenly against a Heathrow runway, in Cabinet there are also Justine Greening, Theresa May and Philip Hammond, who are openly against a Heathrow runway. The Gatwick MPs are concerned about a political stitch-up on the runway decision. They do not believe a runway at Gatwick is in the national interest.
Click here to view full story...
Aviation Environment Federation short briefing for decision-makers on environmental challenges of a new runway
The Airports Commission will soon publish its final recommendations on a new runway in the South East. The Aviation Environment Federation has produced a short, easy to read summary briefing, about the environmental challenges of adding a runway. They are calling for cross-party support for proposals aiming to protect human health and ensure that airport expansion is permitted only once a framework of environmental limits is in place. These limits relate to aircraft noise, air pollution and carbon emissions. AEF also question whether the economic case for a runway stacks up. They say while there is significant pressure to make a swift decision on airport capacity the analysis published so far by the Airports Commission contains evidence gaps. Until these gaps are addressed, it will not be possible to reach a robust view on the Commission's recommendations. Transparent decision-making by government will be paramount. AEF is calling for a full debate once all evidence is produced. They are asking MPs to ensure the government does not make any runway decision until all the evidence has been gathered, a balanced picture of costs and benefits is provided and all environmental tests have been met.
Click here to view full story...
NATS blogging about cutting APD, instead of getting on with proper management of airspace
The role of NATS, in their own "vision" that they aim “To be the acknowledged global leader in innovative air traffic solutions and airport performance.” But now in a blog on their website, they are lobbying for cuts in Air Passenger Duty, which is the only tax on air travel (as it pays no VAT and no fuel duty - hence being extremely lightly taxed). The NATS blog says that because many other countries have even lower taxes on aviation, the level of APD should be reduced. With no APD (which is only £13 for a return flight to any European destination - with a higher rate of £71 for a return flight anywhere else in the world) there might be slightly more people flying. NATS is 42% owned by airlines, 5% by NATS staff, 4% by Heathrow, and 49% by the government. So NATS says: "At NATS, we have always been clear that what damages our customers, also damages us." Those campaigning for a cut in APD always mention boosting inbound tourism - but they never mention outbound tourism, and the loss of revenue to the UK economy that causes. The government has often repeated that APD is charged because the aviation sector avoids other taxes. Commentators have said NATS should stick to its job, on which has been failing recently, of managing airspace. Problems at NATS have been so bad recently that its CEO Richard Deakin had to resign in May.
Click here to view full story...
Patrick McLoughlin having final talks with Heathrow and Gatwick on their runway plans
Sky News is reporting that Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, is to hold a final round of talks with Gatwick and Heathrow in the next week or so, with the Airports Commission announcement expected around the end of the month. Mr McLoughlin is to visit both London airports to discuss the prospective financing of their multi-billion pound schemes as well as crucial issues such as the environmental impact of new runway capacity. The DfT has already drafted in bankers from Rothschild to help assess the deliverability of the 3 runway schemes. All the runway schemes would mean huge expenses, which are not yet clearly known, for the taxpayer - due to extra infrastructure required. Spokesmen for Gatwick, Heathrow and Heathrow Hub all declined to comment on the meetings with Mr McLoughlin. The date of the Commission's announcement is not yet known, and there is speculation it could be late June, or possibly on the 8th July, when George Osborne delivers is Emergency (or Summer) Budget. Osborne said in a speech to the CBI last month that the Government would act swiftly to get a new runway built.
Click here to view full story...
Links to responses to the Airports Commission consultation on air quality
The Airports Commission consultation on air quality ended on 29th May. It lasted only 3 weeks (14 working days) and as well as being technical, it was not in a format that non-experts or lay people could easily understand. Let alone respond to, other than in general terms. However, lots of organisations and individuals did manage to make sense of it, and submit responses. The response by the AEF (Aviation Environment Federation) was one of the most extensive and technical. Many other organisations responded, making the point that air quality is a key problem for all three runway proposals. Adding a runway could only have the effect of increasing the amount of air pollution, due to substantially increased numbers of road traffic movements. The emissions from diesel powered vehicles have not reduced as much as had been hoped. Models of future air pollution have to make a range of assumptions, such as layout of roads, use of vehicles within the airport, proportion of passengers travelling to and from the airport by rail, and future improvements in vehicle emissions. The health impacts of air pollution are increasingly being recognised, and the judgement by the Supreme Court that the UK must work faster to meet EU air limits has been important.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow Villages ready to submit proposal for Neighbourhood Plan to counter threat from Heathrow
Residents of three Heathrow villages - Sipson, Harmondsworth and Harlington - have made great strides in the formation of a Neighbourhood Plan in a community-led effort to shape the future – if a Heathrow runway is rejected later this month. They feel the future of the Heathrow Villages should be defined by the communities of people living there and what they feel is important. The residents started work on the plan in November 2014, with a 21-member Forum, when they obtained £7,000 in Government funding from the Community Development Foundation. After piloting its questionnaire at Grow Heathrow’s 5th Birthday in March and conducting extensive consultation with the community the Forum originally agreed that it should be governed by 6 priorities – ‘housing’, ‘transport’, ‘enterprise’, ‘community spaces’, ‘green spaces’ and ‘heritage’. 'Health and wellbeing’ has now been added. Each will underpin the principles to be embodied in the Plan. The area suffers from the proximity of Heathrow, and years of blight - through uncertainty about a runway. The Forum has enlisted the help of postgraduate students on the planning course at University College London. At present, the villages of Cranford and Longford are not included, in order to keep the focus on a small enough area.
Click here to view full story...
Freight Transport Assn writes to David Cameron to push importance of hub for air cargo
The Freight Transport Association's CEO has written to the Prime Minister, to say "the decline of Heathrow [presumably if a Gatwick runway was built] as a viable global cargo hub will increase the costs of freight and logistics across the UK." He said the importance of air freight should not be overlooked when considering the options for creating new airport capacity in south east England, and outlined the importance of a UK global hub airport. Air freight makes up 40% of UK air cargo by value, but far less by weight. The FTA is "concerned that the importance of air freight is being overlooked." 80% of freight at Heathrow is carried in the holds of scheduled passenger aircraft. In 2014 Heathrow moved almost 1.5 million tonnes of freight. The FTA wants expansion at Heathrow, and says "Gatwick does not possess the infrastructure to handle the volumes of cargo required." The FTA says the Government's decision on a runway should not be based solely on passenger considerations and "passengers are not the sole users of these flights nor the only beneficiaries of the wider choice of routes."
Click here to view full story...
Manchester Airport £1 billion plans to improve airport to compete better with Heathrow on long haul routes
The owners of Manchester Airport, MAG, plan to invest £1 billion over 10 years to upgrade Britain's 3rd largest airport and help it compete harder with Heathrow for passengers. While both Heathrow and Gatwick are hoping to be allowed to add another runway, Manchester has two runways already - the second barely used. It has been expanding its long-haul routes, giving passengers an alternative to travelling south to Heathrow, and it plans to add more such routes. Its CEO, Charlie Cornish said: "Over the next 10 years, the airport will continue to develop as a global gateway for the UK." Even if a new runway in the south east is approved (a big IF) it would take at least 10 years to build and in that time other UK airports, such as Birmingham and Manchester will have the chance to add new flights to new destinations - some assisting business travel. The number of air passengers at Manchester rose last year by 6% and may rise by 5% in 2015-16 period. Manchester airport expansion fits in with George Osborne's hopes of improving road and rail links between northern English cities to create a conurbation with the scale and resources to compete with London. A new south east runway would, by contrast, just worsen the north-south divide.
Click here to view full story...
Correspondence with Carolyn McCall (easyJet) illustrates the desperation caused by Gatwick’s new flight paths
One component of the problem of aircraft noise now being inflicted on people of West Kent and Sussex by newly concentrated Gatwick flight paths, is the "Airbus whine". This is an unpleasant additional noise, at a particularly annoying frequency, due to air passing over the Fuel Over Pressure Protector (FOPP) cavities. This is relatively cheap and easy to put right. However, easyJet has not taken steps to make the changes, as it would slightly cut profits. Now infuriated residents have asked Ms Carolyn McCall, the CEO of easyJet, to take action on this. She has replied to say: "easyJet will do whatever it can as we take noise and environmental issues very seriously. I am looking into already how we can accelerate our programme to address this issue." She has actually been aware of the problem for a long time .... some emails to her are copied, giving a flavour of the desperation, anger and exasperation of people whose lives have been changed, seriously for the worse, because of altered and concentrated Gatwick flight paths - about which they were not consulted or informed. Their determination to reverse the deterioration in their quality of life, from the noise intrusion, is palpable.
Click here to view full story...
Gatwick, Heathrow and London City Airport campaigns come together to oppose airspace change
Over the past year or more, changes to flight paths and airspace being introduced in the UK, and these have caused considerable anger and upset among the many communities - and tens of thousands of people - now affected. Many new groups sprang up, in response to the greatly increased levels of aircraft noise people were being exposed to. Now these flight path groups at Gatwick, Heathrow and London City airports have joined forces and got together, to show the DfT, the Government, the CAA and NATS the anger of residents across the UK to these airspace changes. They have signed a joint letter, being delivered to the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, demanding that Government policy should be changed to minimise the impact of aircraft noise on residents. They also demand that the right of people to health, well-being and family life should be prioritised by Ministers over the drive of airlines, airports and aviation industry for greater profits. They are asking that Government should instigate legislation that governs and controls NATS usage of airspace, and that the CAA gives true consideration to residents who are affected, which is not the current situation.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow and Gatwick fighting to get support from Scottish MSPs for their runway plans
Continuing with their lobbying across the country, to try to get support for their runway plans, both Heathrow and Gatwick say they would provide more flights to Scottish airports. Both Mr Holland-Kaye and Mr Wingate are due to appear before a cross party group on aviation at the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood. The improved links to London is sold as providing better links for Scotland to global markets. Heathrow says getting a new runway would enable there to be more flights to the regions. These have been cut back in recent years, as they are less profitable than international flights. Heathrow is keen to tell Scottish leaders how very useful Heathrow will be for them, (though they have been conveniently ignored in the past - it is now time to try to win their support). Stewart Wingate is doing his usual negative campaigning, pointing out, helpfully, all the deficiencies of Heathrow's plans, while being conveniently blind to the deficiencies of his own runway plan. Both airports hype economic benefits ... lots of figures ...The reality is that increasingly flights can be point to point, and people in Scotland have less need to transfer to London, before flying elsewhere. More long haul flights from Heathrow would cut demand for these to develop at Scottish airports.
Click here to view full story...
How to respond QUICKLY to the Airports Commission consultation on air quality
The Airports Commission consultation on air quality ends today (Friday 29th May) at 12 noon. If anyone wants to send in a quick response, some points are given below - general between Heathrow and Gatwick (both have serious problems with air pollution if a new runway is added). It is useful for as many people as possible, for whom this issue is important, to let the Commission know their concerns. If people don't have time to write a response, they can just write to say they support the response sent in by either Clean Air in London, or the Richmond Heathrow Campaign, or GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign). Comments can be submitted via email to : air.quality@airports.gsi.gov.uk
Click here to view full story...
Data on air pollution challenged by group of MPs representing areas around Gatwick
Questions about the robustness and impact of Gatwick’s proposals have been raised by the Gatwick Coordination Group (GCG) of MPs, which now includes all local long-standing and newly elected MPs around Gatwick. Particular concerns are raised about air quality, and Gatwick’s own emissions modelling, which the GCG described as “inadequate” for failing to capture the impact on the new transport and housing provision in the local area, if a 2nd runway got the go ahead. The report by Jacobs for the Commission, suggests that the impact of an expanded Gatwick would be considerably worse than assessments by Gatwick airport. NOx and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), are estimated to be 50% higher than the initial estimates of emissions suggested by Gatwick. Jacobs’ assessment confirms that Gatwick expansion would cause significant deterioration of air quality for over 51,000 people; officially put “at risk” the health of at least 151 people; and have the highest % increase in NOx emissions (28% up) out of the 3 runway options. Chair of the GCG, Crispin Blunt MP, said: "...Gatwick’s plan would ruin thousands of lives and push local services and infrastructure beyond their limits. There is no economic or practical case for Gatwick to become the same size as Heathrow."
Click here to view full story...
GACC response to Airports Commission: Gatwick runway could breach EU pollution law
GACC, in their submission to the Airports Commission, predict that pollution levels around the airport could become much worse than the Commission forecast. They point to a judgement by the Supreme Court on 29th April that the UK Government must enforce the EU Directive 2008/50/EC on Air Quality. A clause in Directive states that: "Air quality status should be maintained where it is already good, or improved" and limit values must not be exceeded once attained. According to GACC chairman, Brendon Sewill: "The Airports Commission are seriously underestimating future pollution levels. First they are looking at 2030 when the new runway would only be half full; and second, their estimates of future road traffic are only about half of what would be created by an airport larger than Heathrow today. There will be around 100,000 extra cars per day in the Gatwick area plus a ten-fold increase in freight and commercial vehicles – all adding to pollution." The Airports Commission expects the Gatwick runway scheme would mean higher mean NO2 concentrations for about 21,000 properties. There have been many studies of the adverse impact on health of NO2 and other pollutants from aircraft and vehicles, particularly for those with respiratory diseases.
Click here to view full story...
Queen’s Speech section on climate says an ambitious global deal has widespread support and is strongly in the UK’s interest
In the Queen's Speech she said: “My Government will seek effective global collaboration to sustain economic recovery and to combat climate change, including at the climate change conference in Paris later this year.” The government's briefing on the Speech said: "The Government is seeking to address climate change through ambitious action at home and at the international level. We are hoping to agree an ambitious global deal on international climate change in Paris this year to take effect from 2020." Some extracts from the briefing include: "A [global] deal is strongly in the UK’s interest."... "It’s not just governments who want this deal. There is widespread support from business, NGOs and the wider public both in the UK here and internationally." ..."The UK has taken decisive domestic action through the Climate Change Act and has already reduced its emissions by 30% as part of its commitment to an 80% reduction in emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels. This target is in line with the global objective to keep temperature increase below 2 degrees." ..."The UK has set targets in legislation, 5 year carbon budgets and review mechanisms, which is providing a leading model for climate change policies both domestically and at the international level."
Click here to view full story...
IAG given clearance by Irish government to buy its 25% shares in Aer Lingus takeover
International Airlines Group (IAG), the owner of British Airways, is set to take over Aer Lingus in a deal that values the airline at €1.4bn after the Irish government agreed to sell them its 25% stake. The Dublin government's agreement to sell their stake was critical for the deal to progress. Donohue said: “IAG has provided additional information and certain commitments in relation to its proposal." IAG has further extended guarantees about routes to Ireland from Heathrow, from five to seven years, although they remain some way short of the decade-long commitment Dublin had sought. The guarantees also are dependent on airport charges being limited to inflation. The government has secured important guarantees on the maintenance of Aer Lingus’ iconic brand, and its head office staying in Ireland. There are also some assurances over protecting existing Irish jobs at Aer Lingus, which wants to continue to use Irish crew bases. Ryanair still owns 29% of Aer Lingus shares. About 46% is owned by Aer Lingus. The 24 landing slots Aer Lingus controls at Heathrow are among the most lucrative for BA. The Heathrow-Dublin link is one of the busiest in Europe, and highly profitable. .
Click here to view full story...
Richmond Heathrow Campaign response to Commission’s air quality consultation
The Richmond Heathrow Campaign (RHC) have submitted their response to the Airports Commission's consultation on air quality. They comment on the inadequacy of the consultation, and the difficulty for lay people in understanding it. They say that with at least 100,000 people affected by a worsening of the air quality resulting from Heathrow expansion, plans, it is not realistic for the government to approve such a plan. The various possible mitigations for NO2 "may not be sufficient to avoid delaying compliance with standards that are already being breached. This will mean that if expansion were approved by the Government, it would knowingly be planning to continue breaching standards without a realistic plan to put this right." The RHC put - in plain English - some of their concerns about the Jacobs study, done for the Commission, and the things it has left out. Just a few of these include: the date chosen to assess air quality is 2030, when a runway would only be perhaps 35% full; much of the anticipated reduction in air pollution is from a higher proportion of air passengers travelling to and from the airport by rail; the cost of the necessary enhancements of rail services would be a huge cost for the taxpayer; health impacts, especially of vulnerable groups, have not been assessed.
Click here to view full story...
Heathrow’s north west runway plan would destroy historic village of Harmondsworth
Heathrow's plan for a north west runway would mean the devastation of the medieval village of Harmondsworth. The airport boundary would come almost to the centre of the village, with everything south of that line demolished. It would level the ivy-covered brick walls of the Harmondsworth Hall guest house and two-thirds of the village's homes. A village that traces its history to the 6th century would be damaged so badly that even what is left would be uninhabitable. People don't want financial compensation, they just don't want their village destroyed or the bulldozing of a historic village with buildings that go back 600 years which cannot be replaced. Heathrow's Nigel Milton said he understands that "some people are very upset." Even though St. Mary's Church, which traces its history to the mid-11th century and the 15th century Great Barn (dubbed the "Cathedral of Middlesex" by John Betjeman) would not be pulled down, they would be so close to the airport fence that the church would have no congregation, and the barn would be pounded by noise (not to mention kerosene fumes). Neil Keveren, chairman of local campaign, SHE,said: "This is my home and if I am forced to leave here, who will it be for? Foreign investors. ...The message I would give to the world is that the British government can be bought."
Click here to view full story...
Road noise combined with aircraft noise raises risk of laying down increased abdominal fat
Living near a main road causes people to gain weight, with the risk of obesity doubling for homes that are also under a flight path and near a railway line. Researchers believe that the stress of traffic din may raise stress levels to the point where the body starts laying down more fat because it thinks it is heading for a time for crisis, when food may be scarce. The noise exposure may be a physiological stressor that raises the production of cortisol, which increases appetite. Normal traffic noise is around 45 decibels, but research indicates that for every 5 decibels above that, the average home-owner gains an extra 0.2cm on the waist measurement. “Traffic noise is a common and increasing environmental exposure, primarily due to ongoing urbanisation and growth of the transport sector,” said lead author Dr Andrei Pyko, Karolinska Institute in Sweden.....Our results suggested associations with waist circumference primarily in the age group below 60 years.” Obesity around the waist is one of the most harmful types of fat, and has been linked to diseases like diabetes. Researchers at Imperial College also found that hospital admissions for stroke, heart and circulatory disease are higher in areas with high levels of aircraft noise.
Click here to view full story...
Retired Gatwick GP warns of health impact of Gatwick runway, especially on those vulnerable to asthma and respiratory illness
A retired GP, who worked in Langley Green for nearly 40 years, believes a 2nd Gatwick runway would lead to a ‘disastrous’ increase in Crawley’s air pollution. He feels that increased pollution from planes and vehicle traffic would worsen high levels of respiratory illnesses in neighbourhoods near the airport. He says this would lead to ‘considerable’ increases in air pollution and noise in Crawley, a decrease in the standard of living and a fall in townspeople’s health within 15 years of the runway and associated infrastructure being built. People living in Langley Green, Ifield and Crawley’s new neighbourhood, Forge Wood, would be worst affected. Over this time as a GP he had seen quite a substantial rise in the number of respiratory illnesses, particularly asthma, particularly in children. He said "the last thing you would want to do is make that worse” and that the airport’s effect on the increasing rate of lung-related conditions across the area played on his mind during his medical career. He said in Crawley almost 10% of his patients were from South Asian origin, a group that is known to have a higher than average incidence of asthma and greater than average need for emergency admission to hospital for asthma. But little thought seems to have been given to their welfare. He also questions the provision of extra medical facilities that would be needed if there was a new runway. Facilities are already stretched - and Gatwick will not pay for more.
Click here to view full story...
Fears Cameron may opt for Gatwick runway, just to avoid Cabinet rift on Heathrow
The Airports Commission is due to make its runway recommendation by the end of June, and since its recent consultation on air quality, speculation on the runway issue has become ever more feverish. The issue of air quality, in reality, prevents either runway being built - at Heathrow air quality is already too poor; at Gatwick, it would be illegal to worsen tolerable air quality for thousands of people. Speculation grows that perhaps, on some measures, the extent of the environmental damage at Gatwick might be lower than at Heathrow. It is still too high to enable a runway to be built. Now a large number of senior Tories and those in the Cabinet are personally opposed to a Heathrow runway, due to the location of their constituencies. Their constituents would not tolerate a new Heathrow runway, due to noise and pollution. So there are fears the Conservative government might try to go for Gatwick, in order to avoid internal splits within the Cabinet. Surely not a sufficient justification for devastating damage to a huge area of Sussex and Surrey, air pollution, intolerable pressure on surface transport, intolerable pressure on social infrastructure, intolerable noise burden over a wide area, huge cost to the taxpayer (not to mention raised CO2 emissions - from a government claiming to be "green") - just to suit Cabinet members and avoid a party rift?
Click here to view full story...