Gatwick objects to new hospice due to increase in ‘bird strike risk hazard’ – as within 13 km radius of airport

Under guidance from the DfT, airports have to be statutory consultees for any planning application within a radius of 13 km of the airport, that might have an impact on it, for a variety of reasons. One of these is the risk of bird strike, and so new developments that might attract birds are opposed. Now Gatwick Airport has objected to plans for a new hospice and homes in Pease Pottage [south of Crawley, and about 6km south of Gatwick airport] due to an increase in ‘bird strike risk hazard’. St Catherine’s Hospice would provide a 48-bed care facility, and there would also be up to 600 new homes, cafe, a community building, retail units, and a new primary school. The current hospice has only 18 beds, and is not able to cater for the number of people needing palliative support in the area  nor has sufficient family areas. Gatwick says the areas of open water in the application would attract birds large enough to endanger planes, including  feral geese, duck, grey heron and cormorants – especially if the public feed them. Gatwick also fear the mown grassland would provide a grazing habitat for birds. Gatwick wants minimal water. Airports keep their grassed areas as unappealing to bird life as possible. Gatwick set out, for the Airports Commission, what it would do to “control and where possible reduce bird hazard.”
.
Tweet

 

 

Gatwick airport objects to new hospice due to increase in ‘bird strike risk hazard’

31 December 2015

Link to map showing location of Pease Pottage in relation to Gatwick

Gatwick Airport has objected to plans for a new hospice and homes in Pease Pottage [south of Crawley, and about 6km south of Gatwick airport] due to an increase in ‘bird strike risk hazard’.

St Catherine’s Hospice has partnered with Thakeham Homes to promote a new development on land off Brighton Road for a 48-bed care facility, up to 600 new homes, cafe, a community building, retail units, and a new primary school.

The hospice, based in Malthouse Road, Crawley, has 18 inpatient beds, but is not currently able to cater for the amount of people needing palliative support in the area and has limited family areas.

However Gatwick, as a consultee, has objected to the application as it stands, as it believes the open water in the proposed ponds will attract birds ‘hazardous to aircraft’ such as feral geese, duck, grey heron and cormorants.

Birds can cause damage to aircraft either by being sucked into the engines or by colliding with the windscreen, as happened in 2009 when a plane was forced to safely land in New York’s Hudson River shortly after take off.

Gatwick’s consultation response, sent to Mid Sussex District Council as the local planning authority, read: “As this is a residential development it is envisaged that feeding of the birds by the general public is highly likely, thus creating an additional attractant to these birds.”

It also suggested that the grassland surrounding the water bodies, if mown short, could create a grazing habitat for birds, and suggested that open water should be reduced to a minimum.

Meanwhile Highways England has raised concerns that proposals have the potential to impact the ‘safe and efficient operation of the strategic road network’, in this case the M23 at junction 11, and part of the A23.
It has asked for more information to be provided in the application’s transport assessment and travel plans, as well as a commitment from Metrobus that it will extend the number 1 service from Broadfield.

However a number of residents have written to the district council in support of the application, describing a new facility to care for terminally-ill people as a ‘no-brainer’.

One resident added: “There should be no debate, this facility is urgently needed in the area and this site represents the best location.”

Giles Tomsett, chief executive of St Catherine’s Hospice, urged the council to recognise the wider benefits the application will offer as the hospice is a ‘strategic asset to the wider health economy’.
Although the charity has received a number of sizeable donations towards the new hospice project, it still needs to raise another £6m if planning approval is granted.

Residents can respond to the application’s consultation on MSDC’s planning portal.
http://ift.tt/1Tsnub6

.

---

 

.

Guidance from the DfT 4.11.2005

Safeguarding aerodromes, technical sites and military explosives storage areas

…

this includes:

Aerodrome safeguarding maps: “Birdstrike” hazard

Birdstrikes are one of the major controllable hazards to aviation. Common birds have caused catastrophic accidents to all types of aircraft. Most birdstrikes occur on or near aerodromes but, because birds are very mobile, features far beyond an aerodrome boundary may increase the hazard. If a man-made development provides feeding, roosting or breeding opportunities, or shelter and security, it may, depending on the siting of the development and the species which it attracts, increase the number of birds visiting or overflying an aerodrome or the number of birds in the airspace used by aircraft. Gulls and starlings congregate in very large overnight roosts and travel long distances daily, while waterfowl are large and often fly in close formation. There is only limited scope for taking action on aerodromes to counter these hazards, and safeguarding may be the only effective means of reducing the risk to aircraft in flight.

The primary aim is to guard against new or increased hazards caused by development. The most important types of development in this respect are: facilities intended for the handling, compaction, treatment or disposal of household or commercial wastes, which attract a variety of species, including gulls, starlings, lapwings and corvids; the creation or modification of areas of water such as reservoirs, lakes, ponds, wetlands and marshes, which attract gulls and waterfowl; nature reserves and bird sanctuaries; and sewage disposal and treatment plant and outfalls, which can attract gulls and other species. Planting trees and bushes normally creates a bird hazard only when it takes place relatively near to an aerodrome, but a potential starling roost site further away from an aerodrome can create a hazard. Mineral extraction and quarrying can also create a bird hazard because, although these processes do not in themselves attract birds, the sites are commonly used for landfill or the creation of wetland.

In order to protect aerodromes against these hazards, safeguarding maps include, in addition to the requirements related to the height of buildings and structures, a dotted circle, with a 13 kilometre radius in the case of civil aerodromes and an eight mile (about 12.87 kilometre) radius in the case of military aerodromes, centred on the safeguarded aerodrome reference point to indicate the area within which developments likely to attract birds require similar consultation. Local planning authorities are required to consult the relevant consultee before granting planning permission for any development within the relevant radius of an officially safeguarded civil or military aerodrome which is likely to attract birds. Whether or not a development is likely to attract birds will depend on a number of factors. A local planning authority will need to consider not only the individual potential bird attractant features of a proposed development but also whether the development, when combined with existing land features, will make the safeguarded area, or parts of it, more attractive to birds or create a hazard such as bird flightlines across aircraft flightpaths.

….

from

http://ift.tt/1RTg7fp

.

---

 

Gatwick Airport’s

A Second Runway for Gatwick Appendix A10 Biodiversity

May 2014 for the Airports Commission

In practical terms, measures are taken to deny birds feeding, nesting, loafing and roosting through careful design, good estate management and use of dispersal action/scaring where necessary. There are restrictions with respect to planting trees, landscaping, and also in relation to the planting palette, e.g. that the species used should not be berry bearing. New ponds or open water courses are generally required to be netted to prevent bird hazard. 3.9 The Airport is required to be consulted by the Local Planning Authorities on proposed developments that have the potential to be bird attractant within 13 km of the aerodrome.

….

We remain fully committed to the maintenance of diverse habitats in and alongside the River Mole, and likewise in areas of countryside that we own to the east of the railway, subject to aerodrome safeguarding requirements which, for example, require us to avoid the use of plant species, or the creation of habitats, attractive to large flocking birds. We also have a commitment to replace trees that are lost as a consequence of airport development and, as well as attending to the land within our ownership, we support good countryside management in Gatwick’s vicinity’.

….

The Airport will continue to be required to control and where possible reduce bird hazard within and around its environs and the CAA will expect that bird hazard is not increased as a result of the proposals as per the directive in CAP772. This will require an understanding of the risks the present habitat poses to aircraft operations, and also the context of the development in respect of the mosaic of surrounding habitats in the Low Weald NCA. In developing proposals Gatwick will consult with the CAA, Natural England and the Environment Agency.

….

The on-site grassland provides particular opportunities for mitigation and enhancement of airfield grasslands, even though the areas concerned are managed carefully by the Airport to reduce bird hazard. These grassland areas can be designed to have low nutrient soils, which in the longer term (10 years or so) would effectively develop into low productivity lowland grassland. It is recognized that the mowing regime would militate against achieving high floral diversity. Nevertheless, the large area coupled with an appropriate management regime would achieve an equivalent resource to that being displaced by the airport extension. Despite close wildlife hazard management by Airports, such airside grasslands have been known to develop to support population of Brown Hare and Skylark. [!!!]

….

In circumstances where new habitat is proposed to offset that which is lost, the CAA will require to be consulted closely as will Natural England and the Environment Agency, so as to ensure that risks from Bird Hazard are not increased.

….

from

http://ift.tt/1Tsnub8

.

---

 

Information from Biggin Hill airport on its rights as a statutory consultee, on planning applications within a 13 km radius of the airport:

This states (some extracts below) :

Birdstrike – controlling developments (e.g. water features and waste disposal sites) which have the potential to increase the number of birds or the bird hazard risk.

…

The Local Planning Authority is required to consult the Airport, when considering developments where the height of a proposed building or structure would exceed the level indicated on the safeguarding map.

The map also includes a dotted circle with a 13km radius, around Biggin Hill Airport to indicate the area within which developments likely to attract birds require consultation of the Airport. Such applications include: facilities for handling compaction, treatment or disposal of household or commercial wastes, the creation or modification of areas of water such as reservoirs, lakes, ponds, wetlands and marshes, nature reserves and bird sanctuaries, and sewage disposal and treatment plant. Applications for development of this nature should be accompanied by a Birdstrike Hazard Assessment.

…

Consultation is required not just on full or outline planning applications, but for an application for the amendment of an outline planning permission or an application for the removal or modification of conditions imposed on a previous planning permission.

When consulted on the type of proposed developments outlined above, the Airport considers whether the proposals could compromise the safe operation of the Airport, impair the performance of aircraft, airport navigation or Instrument Flight Procedures or cause a birdstrike hazard. The Airport will respond in writing to the relevant Local Planning Authority accordingly. If the Airport has insufficient information to consider the proposed development they will submit a holding objection to the Local Planning Authority requesting further information. This could delay the determination of a planning application.

…

From http://ift.tt/1RTgaaM

.

---

 

See earlier:

Birds of prey and robot bird being used to keep birds away from airports

August 24, 2010

An eagle owl named Elliot will take off above East Midland airports in an environmentally-friendly bid to keep the skies free of other birds. 

http://ift.tt/1Tsnubc

.

.

---

More stories about wildlife and how it is removed by airports at 

• Biodiversity News

 

..

---

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Tsnube

Read more ...

Letter to Bo Redeborn – re. Gatwick flight path review: “Don’t let us down”

People living in areas around Penshurst, Crowborough, Tunbridge Wells, Bidborough etc began to suffer from far worse Gatwick noise from early 2014. Changes had been made to Gatwick arrivals flight paths, without consultation. There is now an independent review being undertaken, of the changes. It is being done by Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, and will be published on 28th January. It is hoped that this will not be a whitewash. A resident from a village in West Kent has written to Bo Redeborn, expressing very clearly the necessity of the review being genuinely independent, and avoiding the ambiguities, evasions and half-truths that have plagued the whole flight path change situation from its start. The writer says: “Until or unless you are able to tell us precisely what changed, why it changed, who proposed it and who authorised it then to all intents and purposes this really is ‘vectoring choices’. If this is not PBN, if this is not SESAR, if this is not government directed policy, then this really is caused by a bunch of ATCs [Air Traffic Controllers] making arbitrary decisions to send planes down pig trails. So it can, and should, be restored ‘overnight’ as confirmed by Charles Kirwan-Taylor.” He concludes: “Mr Redeborn, an awful lot of people are depending upon you to repair their shattered lives; don’t let us down.”  See the whole letter ….
.
Tweet

 

Gatwick say (and have said many times)
“… the impression may be that something has changed, although I can assure you nothing has …”    Stewart Wingate, Chief Executive, Gatwick     18.07.14 to Charles Hendry MP

Are you sure?

2010	2014

 

30.12.2015

Letter to Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake

from a resident in West Kent, living for over a year and a half under a new intensified flight path for Gatwick arrivals

 

(extracts only ….)

 

…This once beautiful location (‘one of Kent’s oldest and most beautiful villages’ – National Trust) is now a living hell and I hope that you are fully aware of the expectation that we have of a satisfactory outcome to your review.  [Review link]

What is being perpetrated in the skies above West Kent is unnecessary, is unjustifiable and is totally intolerable.

One hint of a fudge from the review and those that have had their lives destroyed would be totally justified in kicking some doors in, figuratively,…..of those that still, unbelievably, continue to lie about what has gone on and …..of those that are paid handsomely to protect us, yet for some reason choose to pass by on the other side.

…. you know what’s gone on, and you know why it’s gone on; we had to work it out for ourselves, but we know what has gone on and we know why it has gone on.

Tom Denton certainly knew what was going on – http://ift.tt/1d7ABXT – and so did Stewart Wingate. Mr McNulty knew what was going on and so did the company that Mr Major advises – they stood to be the prime beneficiaries and only initiated a review under duress in order to protect its share price.

The problem is that when planes started screaming in down concentrated flight paths …. people noticed, which was something of an inconvenience as GAL [Gatwick Airport Ltd] had everything mapped out; clearly it believed that the best way to deal with the 975% increase in complaints was to ignore them.

We knew that trials to increase capacity had taken place, but Stewart Wingate lied about it; the GAL website was subsequently doctored.

GAL’s ‘consultation’ to create an aviation superhighway was botched and had to be spiked, so Gatwick imposed it anyway and this is the misery we have been left with.

Mr Redeborn, notwithstanding the vested interest of your paymasters, the results of your review will be the very essence of the people vs profit wrangle; this has become a head to head between some of the most important amenity space and heritage sites in the south east and an amoral, voracious foreign hedge fund.  It is a straight fight between the health, wealth and happiness of my family and thousands like it and the Pension fund of Korea and it is within your gift to influence the outcome.

I have read the runes and I just want to be sure that no little wrinkles or loop holes exist in your final judgement that could impact its conclusions, recommendations or adoption.

Firstly, I understand that Mr Lake said at the public meeting in Crowborough that ‘flight paths haven’t changed’; if that appears in your conclusions, I suspect it would be wise to strike that through – a 975% increase in complaints is not a result of mass hysteria it is a result of massive disrespect.

If aviation guidelines allow an amoral operator to behave in such a fashion, and an aviation expert to make such a risible pronouncement, they are not fit for purpose.

Secondly, you stated in Tunbridge Wells that ‘reverting to the situation before 2013 is not feasible’; I totally refute that statement.

Until or unless you are able to tell us precisely what changed, why it changed, who proposed it and who authorised it then to all intents and purposes this really is ‘vectoring choices’.

If this is not PBN, if this is not SESAR, if this is not government directed policy, then this really is caused by a bunch of ATCs [Air Traffic Controllers] making arbitrary decisions to send planes down pig trails. So it can, and should, be restored ‘overnight’ as confirmed by Charles Kirwan-Taylor.

If you are tempted to include the NATS statistic that 90% of approaches are CDA [continuous descent approach] that will undermine any other conclusion; planes are levelling out fully 25 miles from the runway, before joining the magic roundabout out over the High Weald and then screaming to join the ILS from below. Planes have never been this low, planes do not need to be this low. Planes cannot be this low in the future.

If you are tempted to include the following to fob us off regarding the extended joining point to the ILS –  “based on well intentioned safety improvements to reduce unstable approach risks” –  I reckon you’d be well advised to keep that one in your quiver.

GAL lobbied CAA to extend the joining point after it botched its consultation.  FOI requests proved that its justification on safety grounds were entirely bogus –  go-arounds actually increased as a proportion and the primary reason was ‘runway not clear’ – a result of trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot.

Andrew Haines was subsequently found to be massaging and misrepresenting figures to cover GAL’s lies.  The CAA is meant to be the regulator?

There is no justification to extend the joining point on safety grounds and however ‘well intentioned’ it was, rather than restoring an 8 nm joining point I think technology would allow you to recommend something closer than the previous 7 nm – particularly as Gatwick is still touting 6.95 nm for its second runway.

The other thing that I feel has no place in your review is the Airbus ‘whine’; this is something that has been known about for a decade and only came to the fore when concentrated flight paths were created without consultation or permission and the altitude of approaches was slashed.

It is an issue that needs to be addressed but I don’t think that claiming to have ‘mitigated’ the effect of an airframe defect should be included in your review; you should identify the reason the nuisance was exacerbated in the first place and then propose how its impact can be lessened in lieu of modifications being made to the offending planes.

We have been suffering from two years of frustration, anger and aural assault – quite wilfully imposed upon an arbitrarily created minority; we have been fed lie after lie and I hope that you will take the opportunity to deliver a genuine blueprint for a return to the equitable situation that existed in the past.  I suspect that if it looks as though the future can even resemble the present – things will escalate.

We don’t have ages to wait for improvements either; unless you want to tell me otherwise, months and years of airspace planning did not go into creating this torture, so neither must there be any of the dragging of the feet that is being seen elsewhere. It was turned on overnight, it can be turned off overnight.

And if you are even tempted to suggest that things could have been just so much better if GAL’s communication and community engagement was improved, just take one look at the toe-curlingly embarassing pamphlets that were sent out recently trumpeting the arrival of Brer Dormouse in Gatwick’s green and pleasant land; in fact so fantastic are Gatwick’s green credentials that I don’t imagine it will be long until Bottlenose Dolphins are spotted pushing up the River Mole just to get a snout full of its Alpine-fresh air.

Just one thing, a slightly less glossy paper stock would make any future editions more absorbent and therefore suggest at least one useful purpose for it.

Mr Redeborn, an awful lot of people are depending upon you to repair their shattered lives; don’t let us down.

Sincerely

 

[Name supplied]

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1MGINAm

Read more ...

Suffolk ex-councillor: why not use RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk instead of Heathrow?

An ex-councillor from Suffolk, Judy Terry, writing in Conservative Home, puts forward the idea of using the redundant RAF base at Mildenhall, in Suffolk as a new airport.  It is a charmingly bonkers idea – but logically no more bonkers than adding a runway at Heathrow or Gatwick. Judy is aware of the negative impacts a new Heathrow runway would have on surrounding residents, and is unconvinced that greatly increasing Heathrow air freight is a great plan, due to road congestion and diesel pollution. She says deferring the decision on a runway makes sense, as “a lot has changed since Howard Davies started his airport review three years ago, and we don’t understand why other options were dismissed.” So, a “new solution” could be putting soon-to-be-redundant airfields in the regions to use as airports. “In the last year, the USAF announced that it will be leaving the RAF’s wartime bomber base in Mildenhall, Suffolk, by 2022.” This will cause job losses and negative impacts on the local economy, so Judy believes Mildenhall should be considered “if only the Heathrow expansion advocates would open their minds to a viable alternative.” “With the support of the local MP, Matt Hancock, the local council has just received a £230,000 grant to review the future, one option being an international airport, subject to the RAF’s future plans.”
.
Tweet

 

Map shows location of Mildenhall, and East Midlands airport (red marker)

 

Judy Terry: Don’t expand Heathrow – boost regional airports instead

By Judy Terry (Judy Terry is a journalist and marketing professional. She was a Suffolk councillor for 10 years, four of which on the County as Cabinet member for Economic Development, and 10 on Ipswich Borough Council, where she transformed cultural services. She stood down in May this year.)

29.12.2015

How I tire of the criticism and abuse directed at David Cameron. You expect the Opposition to misrepresent the facts, but when business leaders and Conservative backbenchers weigh in, using words like ‘hypocrite’ and ‘coward’ to the media, it’s different.  I wonder if they have any idea how this plays out internationally, let alone in our own country beyond Westminster. Most people just see or hear a headline, which will stick in the mind and inevitably impact future voting intentions.

Do we really want a Corbyn-led government in 2020, and more Labour Police & Crime Commissioners and councillors elected locally next year? It’s about time those critics acknowledged that the economy is about more than their personal ambitions and what happens in the South-East.

Apart from the EU negotiations, latterly focus has been on Heathrow, and the decision to defer a decision for a further review– this time on the potential environmental impact of a third runway.   This has been interpreted as ‘for political reasons’ by the sceptics, citing the forthcoming London Mayoral elections. Yet, for many of us, a deferral makes sense because a lot has changed since Howard Davies started his airport review three years ago, and we don’t understand why other options were dismissed.

Whilst Willie Walsh threatens to take British Airways’ business elsewhere, Boris Johnson has called for “bold, imaginative, new solutions” to the airport expansion dilemma.

Boris is not alone. Apart from those of us trying to get to business appointments, or for a weekend away who are regularly stuck in traffic jams on the M25, if Heathrow expansion goes ahead, residents across the region will have their lives blighted for generations. Not just during the complicated infrastructure works (costing billions and never likely to be delivered on time or on budget), but they will also have to put up with increased aircraft noise, not to mention the impact on their property prices.

It appears that passengers are not the priority after all; demand for another runway comes from the freight industry, which wants increased capacity. However, freight inevitably has to be transported around the country. So why does it have to be imported and exported via London? Where the roads are already clogged up and there are concerns about diesel fumes and the impact on health?

Presumably, the answer is that the capital is the largest market for some incoming goods; that there are existing warehouses local to Heathrow, even if the road/rail infrastructure is inferior, which must increase costs and time delays when moving goods. Or maybe the reluctance to think afresh is simply due to the more usual “we’ve always done it this way and we don’t want to change”.

So, a “new solution” could be putting soon-to-be-redundant airfields in the regions to a new use. In the past, decommissioned airfields have become housing or industrial estates, often stunting wider economic growth (Ipswich is an example) and losing the opportunity for inward investment to create a high paid/ambitious jobs culture. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve heard people say, if only we hadn’t allowed that to happen!

However, all is not lost. In the last year, the USAF announced that it will be leaving the RAF’s wartime bomber base in Mildenhall, Suffolk, by 2022.

Employing 4,200 airmen and civilians, losing the base will have a disastrous impact on the local economy which offers limited alternative employment in this historic market town which was part of the post-War London overspill programme. On the edge of the Fens, just 10 miles from Newmarket and close to the A11,with easy access to Cambridge, it has two particular claims to fame: a 15th century market cross, and the ‘Mildenhall Treasure’, a 4th century hoard of Roman silver, now in the British Museum. Despite its advantages, the town has never lived up to expectations, but the time is right for it to make real progress if only the Heathrow expansion advocates would open their minds to a viable alternative.

With the support of the local MP, Matt Hancock, the local council has just received a £230,000 grant to review the future, one option being an international airport, subject to the RAF’s future plans.

Residents are used to heavy aircraft, and consequently unlikely to resist commercial expansion.

Given the location, it would be convenient for racehorses to be flown around the world, and there would be major advantages for the freight industry in having easier access across the country and to Felixstowe port (for any onward transmission to the continent and across the globe). There is plenty of space to create new, efficient warehousing, and salaries are lower than in the London area; housing is also cheaper.

For the government, costs would also be lower and it would be easier and quicker to deliver the additional capacity. Local road and rail improvements connecting the Eastern region to the Midlands and North (as well as London) are long overdue in any event, so there would be a dual benefit from the investment. Funds could also be made available for grants or loans to support the freight industry to review their business models and develop the new warehousing/transport hubs. In return, the local council would have increased business rates and the Treasury would benefit from higher tax income as more jobs were created, and the benefits budget declined.

Such development would also boost further private investment in a region already renowned for its world class scientific and technical research, especially in the agricultural and medical sectors, with innovations which would benefit not just the UK economy, but help emerging economies and poor countries desperate to improve healthcare and to feed their populations.

Unlike its neighbours in Essex and Norfolk, Suffolk doesn’t have a commercial airport, which has had a seriously detrimental impact on its growth. Mildenhall could change that, and improve so many lives.

http://ift.tt/1YRcqpn

 

Related Articles

Peter Thompson: Heathrow expansion would be bad for Hounslow

Anna Round: If Osborne’s Northern Powerhouse is to work, it needs devolved education and skills – not just infrastructure

Heathrow: to expand or not to expand?

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1YRcqps

Read more ...

Sunday Times reports that Heathrow wants to recoup its Crossrail costs by extra charges for passengers

The Crossrail link to Heathrow is due to open by the end of 2019, and it is expected that this will cut the travel time from Liverpool Street station to Heathrow from 55 minutes to 34 minutes. Heathrow built and paid for a 5.3 mile long stretch of line linking its terminals with the main line to Paddington station. But the Sunday Times reports that now Heathrow wants to recoup the cost of building this stretch of line, which was completed almost 20 years ago, from users of Crossrail. The DfT estimates that meeting Heathrow’s claim could add over £40m on to the annual cost of running Crossrail. The DfT believes Heathrow should not get this money back. If Heathrow gets its way, rail passengers would have to pay inflated prices to travel to Heathrow. Transport for London (TfL), which will oversee Crossrail, will have to decide whether to claw back the cost through ticket prices on the line, or spread it across the whole of London’s transport network. Heathrow says it paid over £1 billion for the tracks, trains and depots, and to get this back, it wants a fee of £597, plus a maintenance charge of £138, to be paid by Crossrail every time one of its trains uses the line. Heathrow also owns Heathrow Express, Britain’s most expensive train service (£26.50 from Paddington to Heathrow). The decision on any financial deal will be in the hands of the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).

.
Tweet

 

Heathrow starts fight over bill for Crossrail link

Travellers could be hit with a surcharge as airport demands £40m a year from operator of flagship London project

By John Collingridge (Sunday Times)

27 December 2015

Full article in the Sunday Times at

http://ift.tt/1mHFnbF

Travellers to Heathrow could end up footing the bill for its row with Crossrail

A ROW has erupted over who should foot the bill for a stretch of line that connects Heathrow’s overground stations to Crossrail, the newest rail network in London.

…….

Heathrow said European rules meant it had to introduce charges: “Under this approach, Heathrow will recover the long term rail infrastructure costs in a fair and transparent manner.”

The Department for Transport said: “As a joint sponsor of the [Crossrail] project, we oppose increased charges to train operators to access the Heathrow spur. As supporters of the growth agenda, we recognise the important role the private sector plays in bearing its fair share of these costs, particularly where they are benefiting now and more so in the future.”

Full article in the Sunday Times at

http://ift.tt/1mHFnbF

.

 

---

Crossrail

The western section of Crossrail is on the surface from Reading to Acton Main Line, with an underground spur to Heathrow Airport, and upgrading stations: Maidenhead, Taplow, Burnham, Slough, Langley, Iver, West Drayton, Hayes and Harlington,Southall, Hanwell, West Ealing, Ealing Broadway and Acton Main Line. Reading station has already been redeveloped.

The Heathrow branch includes stations at Heathrow Terminal 4 and Heathrow Central and joins the main route at Airport Junction, between West Drayton and Hayes & Harlington.

Crossrail had been planned to end at Maidenhead, with an extension to Reading safeguarded. On 27 March 2014, it was announced that the line would go to Reading.

…

The RUS (Route Utilisation Strategy) also proposes integrating Heathrow Express services from Heathrow Terminal 5 into Crossrail to relieve the GWML and reduce the need for passengers to change at Paddington.

….

• The Crossrail route will run over 100km from Reading and Heathrow in the west, through new tunnels under central London to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east.
• There will be 40 Crossrail stations including 10 new stations at Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street, Whitechapel, Canary Wharf, Custom House, Woolwich and Abbey Wood.
• Crossrail will bring an extra 1.5 million people to within 45 minutes of central London and will link London’s key employment, leisure and business districts – Heathrow, West End, the City, Docklands – enabling further economic development.
• The first Crossrail services through central London will start in late 2018 – an estimated 200 million annual passengers will use Crossrail.
• Construction of the new railway will support regeneration across the capital and add an estimated £42bn to the economy of the UK.
• The total funding envelope available to deliver Crossrail is £14.8bn.

 

Moreover, Crossrail will make accessing our major international gateways like London Heathrow more accessible – for instance, the journey time from London Heathrow to the City of London (Liverpool Street) will fall from 55 to 34 minutes.

 

• PROJECT TIMELINE AND MILESTONES

  2015-2017:

  • Major fit-out of stations and tunnels continues as does the major upgrade of the existing rail network for Crossrail services by Network Rail.

  2017:

  • The first new Crossrail rolling stock will start to replace existing suburban trains between Liverpool Street and Shenfield.

  2018:

  • In late 2018, the first Crossrail services will start through the central London tunnelled section.

  2019:

  • In late 2019, the full Crossrail service will be operating from Heathrow and Reading to Abbey Wood and Shenfield.

 

http://ift.tt/1M77cVV

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1mHFnbH

Read more ...

Activists who blocked Heathrow tunnel plead not guilty – further hearing some time in 2016

On 23rd December, there was a brief court hearing for the 3 activists who blocked a main Heathrow entrance tunnel on 26th November. The hearing was at Uxbridge Magistrates Court, and they pleaded not guilty. Another hearing will therefore be arranged in 2016. Many supporters of the activists attended the hearing and gathered outside the court beforehand. After the court hearing, a large group Heathrow-3rd-Runway-opponents including many local residents who face destruction of their homes and communities if a runway is built, met outside the Magistrates court. Wearing Santa hats, they sang a few Christmas carols and jingles (with two or three accompanying policemen) before dispersing. The next court date for Plane Stupid airport activists will be Monday 18 January 2016 at 9am at Willesden Magistrates’ Court, when the 13 activists who occupied Heathrow Airport in July 2015 have their trial -due to last 6 days. All 13 activists are asserting their right to defend the climate and the communities negatively impacted by Heathrow, and are pleading not guilty. Plane Stupid invites people who sympathise with the actions taken by the activists, and want to support them in court, to come along.  They say: “Bring cake and banners, or just yourselves!”
.
Tweet

 

Some of the supporters outside the Uxbridge Magistrates court before going in for the hearing

The 3 defendants, who blocked the main entrance tunnel to Heathrow terminals on 26th November, attended a Hearing at Uxbridge Magistrates Court on the afternoon of Wed 23rd December.

They pleaded not guilty, and so the Magistrates postponed the hearing. The magistrates will meet on January the 6th (without the defendants being present) for a meeting amongst themselves to arrange a date for the next hearing.

After court a very large group of anti-3rd-Runway-supporters met outside the Magistrates court again and as it was a clear but chilly afternoon, we put on Santa hats and sung a few Christmas carols and jingles with the support of two or three policemen before dispersing.

The next court date for Plane Stupid airport activists will be Monday 18 January 2016 9am Willesden Magistrates’ Court.   The 13 activists who occupied Heathrow Airport in July 2015 have their trial. The trial will last 6 days. All 13 activists are asserting their right to defend the climate and the communities negatively impacted by Heathrow, and are pleading not guilty.

Plane Stupid invites people who sympathise with the actions taken by the activists, and want to support them in court, to come along.  They say: “Bring cake and banners, or just yourselves!”

See: http://ift.tt/1mFtGSI for details of their action

The Airports Commission failed to address climate change adequately in its report. Use of fossil fuels is destablising the climate and the life support systems upon which life depends, so we need to rapidly transition to a fossil free future. This means that we cannot have more carbon-intense mega-infrastructure projects like a new runway, in fact we need to reduce fossil fuel use dramatically from where we are now. It’s up to people acting collectively to bring about a sustainable, just and fossil free world, since the government is taking us in the opposite direction.

The “Heathrow 13” activists also have strong support amongst the long suffering community around Heathrow.

.

---

Earlier:

5 arrests after Plane Stupid block Heathrow tunnel for 3 hours using a van + activists locked onto it

November 26, 2015

The main road entrance tunnel to Heathrow’s Terminals 1 and 2 was blocked by climate change activists from Plane Stupid, for about 3 hours, from 7.40 this morning. Three activists parked a vehicle across both lanes of the entrance tunnel and locked themselves to it, unfurling a banner quoting David Cameron’s election promise in 2010: “No Ifs, No Buts: No Third Runway”. Five people were arrested, and the tunnel was finally cleared and the road re-opened by 1.30pm Some travellers may have been delayed or could have missed flights. Local resident Neil Keveren, a builder from Harmondsworth, whose house would be bulldozed for the 3rd runway, was fined after blocking the same tunnel with his van for half an hour on 2nd July, the day after the Airports Commission announcement. Neil said: “No one wants to do this. They feel they have to. People feel they have no choice. After we campaigned for years, David Cameron was elected promising ‘no ifs, no buts: no third runway’. …. We have tried every other option. We have been forced to be disobedient just to be heard. To save our homes and our planet.” There is already airport capacity for families taking a couple of trips per year, or wealthy foreign visitors to the UK, but a new runway would be for the most wealthy to take multiple leisure trips each year. Plane Stupid apologised for causing inconvenience, but believe the strong arguments against a Heathrow runway must be heard.

Click here to view full story…

The last time the tunnel was blocked: 

Protester whose Harmondsworth home would be destroyed by 3rd runway, blocks Heathrow tunnel for half an hour

July 2, 2015

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.

Full story at  http://ift.tt/1Nz3fpC

 

---

13 Plane Stupid activists who invaded Heathrow plead not guilty – trial in January

August 19, 2015

Thirteen members of Plane Stupid, who invaded part of Heathrow on 13th July as a protest about a possible 3rd runway, were charged with aggravated trespass and entering a security restricted area of an aerodrome. At Uxbridge magistrates’ court on 19th August, they all pleaded not guilty to both charges. Dressed in polar bear costumes or wearing David Cameron masks, and carrying placards – they were surrounded by supporters and arrived to chants of “no ifs, no buts, no third runway!” Many of the 40 or so supporters could not get into the public gallery. One of the accused, Sheila Menon, said people are already negatively impacted by Heathrow, and the UK already has enough runway capacity. An extra runway would largely cater for leisure travel by a minority. She believed the government was failing to act responsibly, and: “It is against this background and the failure of democratic processes, we believe our actions were reasonable, justifiable and necessary.” The 13 were released on bail on the condition not to enter Heathrow or the area considered to be its perimeter. A trial date was set for 18th January. It is thought the case will last two weeks, with each defendant expecting to give evidence.

Click here to view full story…

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1YHUSfs

Read more ...

Richard Heinberg post COP21: “we may have to write off aviation as anything but a specialty transport mode”

After COP21, Richard Heinberg has had a long, hard look at how humanity can reduce consumption of fossil fuels and achieve the carbon reductions needed  before 2050. He only touches on aviation, but his message is very clear: Looking at shipping: “One way or another, global trade will have to shrink.” On aviation: “There is no good drop-in substitute for aviation fuels; we may have to write off aviation as anything but a specialty transport mode. Planes running on hydrogen or biofuels are an expensive possibility, as are dirigibles filled with (non-renewable) helium, any of which could help us maintain vestiges of air travel.” One recommendation: “Where key uses of fossil fuels are especially hard to substitute (aviation fuel, for example), argue for work-arounds (such as rail) or for the managed, gradual scaling down of those uses.”  And “It will likely require a global authority to determine how to direct the use of the world’s remaining burnable fossil fuels—whether toward the further growth of conventional manufacturing and transportation, or toward the build-out of renewable energy-based generation and consumption infrastructure. Only such an authority could globally prioritize and coordinate sectoral shifts….”
.
Tweet

 

Renewable Energy After COP21: Nine issues for climate leaders to think about on the journey home

By Richard Heinberg, from the Post Carbon Institute

This is a very long paper, well worth reading in its entirety.  Below are just a few extracts, especially relating to transport and aviation …… there is much, much more on a range of energy topics in the paper.

Full paper at

http://ift.tt/1SXvS2d

 

Extracts:

COP21 in Paris is over.  Now it’s back to the hard work of fighting for, and implementing, the energy transition.We all know that the transition away from fossil fuels is key to maintaining a livable planet. Several organizations have formulated proposals for transitioning to 100 percent renewable energy; some of those proposals focus on the national level, some the state level, while a few look at the global challenge. David Fridley (staff scientist of the energy analysis program at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory) and I have been working for the past few months to analyze and assess many of those proposals, and to dig deeper into energy transition issues—particularly how our use of energy will need to adapt in a ~100 percent renewable future.

….

Level One: The “easy” stuff

Nearly everyone agrees that the easiest way to kick-start the transition would be to replace coal with solar and wind power for electricity generation. That would require building lots of panels and turbines while regulating coal out of existence. Distributed generation and storage (rooftop solar panels with home- or business-scale battery packs) will help. Replacing natural gas will be harder, because gas-fired “peaking” plants are often used to buffer the intermittency of industrial-scale wind and solar inputs to the grid (see Level Two).

..

Transportation represents a large swath of energy consumption, and personal automobiles account for most of that. We could reduce oil consumption substantially if we all drove electric cars (replacing 250 million gasoline-fueled automobiles will take time and money, but will eventually result in energy and financial savings). But promoting walking, bicycling, and public transit will take much less time and investment, and be far more sustainable in the long-term.

The food system is a big energy consumer, with fossil fuels used in the manufacturing of fertilizers, in food processing, and transportation. We could reduce a lot of that fuel consumption by increasing the market share of organic, local foods. While we’re at it, we could begin sequestering enormous amounts of atmospheric carbon in topsoil by promoting farming practices that build soil rather than deplete it.

If we got a good start in all these areas, we could achieve at least a 40 percent reduction in carbon emissions in ten to twenty years.

…..

Level Two: The harder stuff

Solar and wind technologies have a drawback: they provide energy intermittently. When they become dominant within our overall energy mix, we will have to accommodate that intermittency in various ways. We’ll need substantial amounts of grid-level energy storage as well as a major grid overhaul to get the electricity sector to 80 percent renewables (thereby replacing natural gas in electricity generation). We’ll also need to start timing our energy usage to better coincide with the availability of sunlight and wind energy. That in itself will present both technological and behavioral hurdles.

Electric cars aside, the transport sector will require longer-term and sometimes more expensive substitutions. We could reduce our need for cars (which require a lot of energy for their manufacture and de-commissioning) by densifying our cities and suburbs and reorienting them to public transit, bicycling, and walking. We could electrify all motorized human transport by building more electrified public transit and intercity passenger rail links. Heavy trucks could run on fuel cells, but it would be better to minimize trucking by expanding freight rail. Transport by ship could employ modern fsails to increase fuel efficiency (this is already being done on a tiny scale), but re-localization or de-globalization of manufacturing would be a necessary co-strategy to reduce the need for shipping.

….

Level Three: The really hard stuff

Doing away with the last 20 percent of our current fossil fuel consumption is going to take still more time, research, and investment—as well as much more behavioral adaptation. Just one example: we currently use enormous amounts of cement for all kinds of construction activities. Cement making requires high heat, which could theoretically be supplied by sunlight, electricity, or hydrogen—but that will entail a nearly complete redesign of the process.

While with Level One we began a shift in food systems by promoting local organic food, driving carbon emissions down further will require finishing that job by making all food production organic, and requiring all agriculture to sequester carbon through building topsoil. Eliminating all fossil fuels in food systems will also entail a substantial re-design of those systems to minimize processing, packaging, and transport.

The communications sector—which uses mining and high heat processes for the production of phones, computers, servers, wires, photo-optic cables, cell towers, and more—presents some really knotty problems. The only good long-term solution in this sector is to make devices that are built to last a very long time and then to repair them and fully recycle and re-manufacture them when absolutely needed. The Internet could be maintained via the kinds of low-tech, asynchronous networks now being pioneered in poor nations, using relatively little power.

Back in the transport sector: we’ve already made shipping more efficient with sails in Level Two, but doing away with petroleum altogether will require costly substitutes (fuel cells or biofuels). One way or another, global trade will have to shrink. There is no good drop-in substitute for aviation fuels; we may have to write off aviation as anything but a specialty transport mode. Planes running on hydrogen or biofuels are an expensive possibility, as are dirigibles filled with (non-renewable) helium, any of which could help us maintain vestiges of air travel. Paving and repairing roads without oil-based asphalt is possible, but will require an almost complete redesign of processes and equipment.

…

One of the Recommendations: 

• Where key uses of fossil fuels are especially hard to substitute (aviation fuel, for example), argue for work-arounds (such as rail) or for the managed, gradual scaling down of those uses.

…..

The technical coordination of the renewable transition is itself an enormous task, and currently nobody is handling it. It will likely require a global authority to determine how to direct the use of the world’s remaining burnable fossil fuels—whether toward the further growth of conventional manufacturing and transportation, or toward the build-out of renewable energy-based generation and consumption infrastructure. Only such an authority could globally prioritize and coordinate sectoral shifts (in agriculture, transport, manufacturing, and buildings) to reduce fossil fuel consumption as quickly as possible without reducing economic benefits in unacceptable ways.

But in the absence of such an international authority, the onus of this work will fall largely upon nonprofit environmental organizations and their funders, along with national and local governments.

One way or another, it’s time to make a plan—as comprehensive and detailed as we can manage—and run with it, revising it as we go. And to “sell” that plan, honestly but skillfully, to policy makers and our fellow citizens.

http://ift.tt/1SXvS2d

.

.

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1JAhLuj

Read more ...

“Plane Wrong” critical of CAA’s PIR decision to permit new easterly take-off route to continue

The CAA published its long-awaited Post Implementation Review report in early November. Gatwick is required by the CAA to change one westerly departure route (Route 4) that affects people in many villages to the South of Dorking and across to Reigate and Redhill. This has to revert back to being within the NPR (noise preferential route) as before. Local group, Plane Wrong, set up in response to the noise problems caused, says it welcomes the decision and wants this to be implemented rapidly so that residents do not have to suffer the noise for another summer. Plane Wrong is, however, dismayed at the CAA decision in respect of Route 3, which is not to be changed despite the fact that many more people are significantly affected by the change. This appears to have been entirely ignored. Plane Wrong has considerable doubts about some of the methodologies employed by the CAA to reach both these decisions. On the change to Route 4, Plane Wrong says the changes should be completed quickly, though the CAA has to test the change in simulators for Boeing and Airbus. They do not yet know when this work will take place. There is also a 2 month period that has to elapse after that, and there is no indication yet of when this will end.

.
Tweet
 

 

Response to the CAA’s report of November 2015 in respect of the introduction of PBN for Gatwick Departures

 

Summary

 

1. We welcome the decision of the CAA to require Gatwick Airport Limited (GAL) to change the westerly departure route (Route 4) and call for this to be implemented rapidly so that residents do not have to suffer the noise for another summer.

2. We are, however, dismayed at their decision in respect of Route 3. The fact that many more people are significantly affected by the change appears to have been entirely ignored

3. We have considerable doubts as to some of the methodologies employed to reach both these decisions.

The methodologies used

1          At no stage of the PIR process has the CAA considered noise actually measured on the ground. All their findings about noise have been based on theoretical models. We believe that this methodology may (in part) account for the considerable difference between what people are actually suffering and the CAA’s apparent views as to what they are experiencing.

2          The above failure to measure noise is compounded by the CAA’s selective interpretation of the Government’s Aviation Policy Framework. (See paragraph 4.37.) This interpretation provides their reasoning for stating that the environmental effect of the changes they authorised in August 2013 has not been significant.

Their choice of the 57dB LA_{Eq 16 hour} test set out in paragraph 3.17 of the APF combined with the unrelated noise test set out in paragraph 3.39 sets a high bar which greatly reduces the chances of noise which actually is significant being treated as significant by the CAA.

Route 4

1          Although we are pleased that the CAA accepts that, under plans they originally approved, a large quantity of aircraft have been flying outside a long established NPR swathe since May 2014, we cannot understand why – as appears to be the case – the CAA is so relaxed about long suffering residents having to put up with another summer season (i.e. when windows and doors are open and when flights are at their most frequent) in which the NPR is regularly flouted. We think that to allow another season of stress caused by excessive aircraft noise in a once tranquil environment would be both unacceptable and unnecessary.

2          The changes the CAA have asked for should therefore be completed in the shortest possible time and ideally before the 2016 summer season starts in April. We are aware that, following discussions with the CAA, GAL has produced a revised design that is expected to take the route back inside the established NPR and we understand that the CAA requires this to be tested in simulators for both Boeing and Airbus. However, we do not know when this work will take place.

Also, whilst we know that approval from the CAA will be required after the simulation work and that there is then a 2 month period that has to elapse before implementation, we do not know how long this is expected to take.

It would be logical and helpful if the CAA and Gatwick were to collaborate and let local community groups see a draft timetable which would progress from today’s currently unsatisfactory position, via consultation with the public, to a new route being in place.

3          Nonetheless, we understand that it is likely that the new route within the NPR will benefit from only a limited degree of lateral dispersal. We believe that on balance an element of dispersal (similar to that which existed prior to the changes) would benefit the communities who live under or close to the flight paths.

The main reason for the new route being concentrated seems to be that the CAA and Gatwick are agreed on an industry-friendly interpretation of government policy. We do not accept that interpretation.

Further, we support all efforts to change government policy, so that it is accepted that there should be a fair and equitable lateral dispersal of aircraft both arriving and departing.

Route 3

1          As we say above, we are dismayed by the CAA’s conclusion that the easterly departure route does not need to be changed.

2          Their reasoning here seems to be that outlined above – that their modelling does not indicate that the flightpath changes have made any previously quiet locations noisier, and even if they have, these locations are not significantly noisier. This erroneous reasoning is compounded by the methodology used to analyse the sources of noise complaints; here, the CAA simply made the decision not to associate any complaints arising in the Reigate and Redhill area with Route 3 flights. Given the increased number of complaints from this area since May 2014, this is perverse.

3          That there should be an increased number of complaints from this area is only to be expected. The new route affects more people significantly than the old one did partly because it is more concentrated (as the CAA accept – see para 9.33) and partly because more flights are flying closer to Reigate and Redhill.

4          So we urge the CAA to revisit their conclusions.

 

.

---

 

Earlier:

The CAA’s disappointing PIR finally published, showing only one Gatwick route to be slightly changed

November 12, 2015

Since autumn 2013 there have been changes to flight paths for Gatwick airport, given provisional approval by the CAA.  Routes have been altered, and flight paths have been more concentrated.  This has been done without consultation of affected communities. The CAA has done a PIR (Post Implementation Review) that ended in January. It has finally, after delays, published its findings.  These are regarded as very disappointing, as almost no concessions have been made and though hundreds of complaints were sent in, there are few changes to routes. GACC says: “In a 198 page report they devote only 2 pages to the possibility of dispersal – spreading the aircraft over a wider area – and to the possibility of respite – giving people a break from constant noise. And then reject both.   We will now need to take the case to the Government and indeed will raise this when we meet the Minister for Aviation, Robert Goodwill MP …on 18 November.”  The more concentrated noise has caused great distress for the people unlucky enough to live directly under the flight paths.  The only change to a route is one which takes off to the west, and flies over Holmwood, Brockham and Reigate – Gatwick will be consulting on a revised route in the next few months. People are angry that the CAA, yet again, ignores input from the public.

http://ift.tt/1O0ZJa1

.

---

Sally Pavey’s comment on the CAA’s Gatwick PIR – it ‘ignored’ human cost of changed flight paths

November 14, 2015

Responding to the publication of the PIR (Post Implementation Review of Gatwick flight path changes since 2013, Sally Pavey (Chair of CAGNE) commented that it was “extremely disappointing”. It concluded that only the departure route taking off to the west, and heading north, had to change. Local group, Plane Wrong, welcomed that admission, but are dismayed by the CAA’s conclusion that the easterly departure route does not need to be changed. The PIR said a route towards the south-coast and another heading east were acceptable but should be reviewed by Gatwick; the remaining six routes did not need to change. Sally said the PIR now needed to be reviewed by the Aviation Minister, Robert Goodwill: “For a Government, in this day and age, to implement and subject residents to such an airspace concentrated system without any research into the noise readings or emissions from concentrated routes is beyond belief.” She added: “The noise shadow is far grater from a concentrated route than a dispersed route. It’s like having a country lane next to your home, which might see a few cars throughout the day and night, and changing it to the M1 overnight. The noise is relentless. Until the aviation industry recognise that concentrated routes create noise shadows these reports are pointless as they serve only the aviation industry and not the taxpayers.”  The report offers little for people affected in West Sussex. 

http://ift.tt/1Qo6gNH

.

.

 

 

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1O0ZLi7

Read more ...

Sunday Times reports “BA cancels flights to tighten grip on privileged Heathrow position” by slot use

The Sunday Times reports that British Airways has admitted it plays the system at Heathrow by “tactically cancelling” flights so it can hang on to lucrative landing slots without needing to fly more planes. BA has about 50% of Heathrow’s take-off and landing slots, and it could have 53% by next summer. It has done successive deals to obtain more slots, such as its 2012 takeover of BMI, and getting 11 pairs of slots following the closure of Virgin Atlantic’s Little Red service to regional airports, and the collapse of Russian carrier Transaero. Most of these slots had been mandated for use on UK routes, as part of a European competition ruling on the BMI takeover.But BA can now use them as it wants, after the failure of the two rival airlines. In the rules that govern how landing slots are used, airlines have to use them 80% of the time or lose them to another airline. Airlines that owns lots, which can be valued up to £40 million, are not keen to lose them. BA is using “tactical cancellations” across their network, so they can keep the 80% rule,without much overall increase in capacity. BA cancelled a daily Heathrow flight to New York, and some short-haul routes and will launch new routes, mainly to leisure destinations in Europe. While BA’s tactics are within the rules, they raise questions about whether Heathrow’s runway capacity is being used effectively.
.
Tweet

 

BA cancels flights to tighten grip on privileged Heathrow position

By John Collingridge (Sunday Times)

20 December 2015

BRITISH AIRWAYS has admitted it plays the system at Heathrow by “tactically cancelling” flights so it can hang on to lucrative runway slots without having to fly more planes.

The carrier, owned by International Airlines Group (IAG), has been gradually strengthening its dominant position at the London hub through deals such as its 2012 takeover of BMI. By next summer it will have almost 53% of the take-off and landing slots at Heathrow, one of the world’s busiest airports.

…….

full Sunday Times story at
http://ift.tt/1UR2GLz

.

---

See also:

Heathrow slots that should be ‘ring fenced’ for Scottish flights redeployed for leisure routes to Spain, Italy & France

October 22, 2015

Simon Calder reports that precious landing slots at Heathrow that had been “ring fenced” for Scottish routes are being redeployed by British Airways to open new routes to Spain, Italy and France – leaving Scotland with one million fewer seats a year. When BA bought BMI, it was forced to hand 9 daily slot pairs specifically for use on routes connecting Heathrow with Edinburgh and Aberdeen. The so-called “remedy slots” had been used by BMI to operate flights from Heathrow to Scotland, and were taken up by Virgin Atlantic, which ran them for 2 years as “Little Red”.  But last month Virgin scrapped Little Red. Therefore the slots revert to BA, which is using them to launch routes to Menorca, Biarritz and Palermo (starting next spring) – as opposed to the “emerging markets” in Asia, Africa and Latin America that are often cited in support of a 3rd runway at Heathrow. There will also be increases in the number of departures to long-established destinations such as Berlin, Stockholm and Venice. ie more holiday destinations.  If another contender were to come forward for the “remedy slots”, BA would be obliged to hand them over. It is difficult to see, though, an airline that could make a success where Virgin Atlantic failed.

http://ift.tt/1XlPrUN

 

 

---

 

British Airways adds more Heathrow leisure routes – Olbia, Kos, Corfu – to the existing list

October 3, 2014

Heathrow airport makes a lot of how important its flights to emerging economies are, and how limited its slots are for this. So it would be logical to imagine that spare slots would be used for just this sort of flight. Heathrow is keen on making statements like: “The UK will fall behind in the global race if it cannot connect to growing economies.” And “Global air transport provides access for our key industries to established and emerging new markets, which will help deliver economic growth across the UK.” So one might expect that, if spare slots come up, they would immediately be used for these long haul destination, to emerging economies.  However, Heathrow will now be getting new British Airways flights to … guess where?  Olbia in Sardinia; Kos and Corfu in Greece and Split in Croatia from summer 2015. And these will use Airbus A319s and A320s. To be fair, it is moving its Las Palmas flights to Gatwick. Other purely holiday destinations Heathrow offers in the Med are Mykonos and Santorini, which started earlier this year. There are also Pisa and Porto. And the Heathrow destination map includes many, many more … Ibiza, Nice, Tunis, Malta, Malaga….

http://ift.tt/1RxlUa7

---

BA uses its new BMI slots at Heathrow, not for emerging economies, but largely leisure destinations. As usual.

June 27, 2012

BA got 42 daily Heathrow slots from taking over BMI. And it said very publicly, in March, that it would be using these to fly to the emerging economies – in  Asia, Africa and Latin America – which is part of the myth that the aviation industry is peddling at present. So what are the slots actually being used for?  One flight per day to  Seoul. The rest are domestic UK (Aberdeen Edinburgh, Belfast, Manchester, Leeds Bradford), or Zagreb, Las Vegas, Barcelona, Marseilles, Phoenix, Zurich and Bologna – with more flights to some.  So that is where the money is.  So much for the allegedly desperate need for slots to fly to second tier Chinese cities. This really proves what a lot of misleading PR is being put out by BAA and the airlines at Heathrow.

http://ift.tt/1UR2FqX

---

.

A long article by CAPA on Heathrow’s slots, in 2013:

Heathrow Airport’s slot machine: hitting the jackpot again?

8-May-2013

British Airways now holds more than 50% of the slots at capacity-constrained Heathrow, thanks to its bmi acquisition. Nevertheless, BA had managed to grow its holding for years, mainly due to secondary slot trading. After years of uncertainty over its legality in EU law, the EU clarified its position in 2008 and allowed the practice. It went on to commission a 2011 study which concluded that slot trading had clear beneficial impacts at Heathrow.

In this report, CAPA analyses the small proportion of the total number of Heathrow slot trades where slot values have been reported in the media and elsewhere. For many years until the mid 2000s, the average traded value per daily slot pair calculated from such transactions was around GBP4 million. A series of trades at more than GBP20 million per pair captured headlines in 2007 and 2008 before the market went underground. Surprisingly, after such a long quiet period, 2013 has seen two deals valuing Heathrow slots at GBP15 million per daily pair.

BA’s Heathrow slot holding is above 50% for the first time, thanks to bmi

British Airways is the biggest holder of slots at London Heathrow Airport, with 50.6% of the total for the summer 2013 schedule. This is the first summer season for which BA has held more than half of the slots (although it had 52.8% in the winter 2012 schedule) and its increase from 44.1% in summer 2012 is due to the acquisition of bmi. The significant growth in Virgin Atlantic’s share is mainly due to the slot divestment for domestic services following BA’s takeover of bmi.

……………..

and it continues with a lot of interesting detail, graphs and charts ….

http://ift.tt/1OqJdR2

.

.

.

.

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1UR2FqZ

Read more ...

DEFRA produces plan to improve air quality – Client Earth regards it as inadequate

A ruling by the Supreme Court in April 2015 required the government to produce a comprehensive plan to meet air pollution limits by December. The government has now produced this. The intention is that it has to include low emission zones, congestion charging and other economic incentives. It is thought that due to the failure to meet European limits of harmful NOx gases, which are mostly caused by diesel traffic, there are up to 9,500 premature deaths each year in London alone. Under the government’s plan, “Clean Air Zones” will be introduced – by 2020 – in areas of Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Derby and Southampton where pollution is most serious. However, though vehicles like old buses, taxis, coaches and lorries have to pay a charge to enter these zones – private passenger cars will not be charged. Also newer vehicles that meet the latest emission standards will not need to pay. Client Earth, the lawyers who brought the legal case against the UK government, for breaching the EU’s Air Quality Directive, said the plan falls far short of the action necessary to comply with the Supreme Court ruling, and they will make a legal challenge to force the government to take faster action to achieve legal pollution limits. “As soon as possible,” or by 2020, is not soon enough.
.
Tweet

 

DEFRA’s press release is at 

http://ift.tt/229CMrk

---

 

Illegal air pollution will blight many UK cities for at least five years

17.12.2015 (Guardian)

Government plan to improve air quality will still leave people in dozens of cities, including London, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Cardiff and Edinburgh, breathing toxic air until at least 2020

Dozens of UK cities including London, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Cardiff and Edinburgh will still be in breach of EU limits on air pollution for at least the next five years, despite an air quality action plan issued by the government on Thursday.

The plan is a response to a supreme court ruling in April on the government’s failure to meet European limits of harmful NOx gases, which are mostly caused by diesel traffic and blamed for nearly 9,500 premature deaths each year in London alone.

But the blueprint for cutting NOx lets privately-owned passenger cars off the hook by making them exempt, and only includes so-called clean air zones for five cities, in addition to one already planned in London.

Alan Andrews, a lawyer for ClientEarth, the NGO which won the supreme court case, said: “These are better than the draft plans [published in September] but they’re still not good enough. They need to go much further and much faster, and we’ll be going back to court.”

He added: “The original deadline for compliance was 2010. The supreme court ordered plans to achieve compliance as soon as possible, yet the government is acting as if 2020 is somehow okay. Every year that goes by, thousands more people will die or be made seriously ill.”

Under the plan, clean air zones will be introduced in Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Derby and Southampton by 2020. The owners of the dirtiest buses, coaches, lorries and taxis will have to pay a charge to enter the zones, but newer and cleaner models will be exempt.

However, privately-owned passenger cars, which make up 88% of the UK’s motor fleet , will also be exempt from paying a charge.

The plan projects that London will be in compliance by 2025 rather than 2030 as expected before. Leeds and Birmingham will meet the limits by 2020, instead of 2025 without the plans.

But the compliance date of 2020 for many cities – including Manchester, Cardiff and Edinburgh – remains unchanged by the plans.

Elizabeth Truss, environment secretary, said: “Our clean air zones are targeted on the largest vehicles, whilst not affecting car owners and minimising the impact on business.

“We want to ensure people can continue to drive into city centres and by targeting action at the most polluting coaches, taxis, buses and lorries we will encourage the use of cleaner vehicles.”

The UK has been in breach of EU limits on annual mean NOx concentrations since 2010 and pleaded for extensions. That led the NGO ClientEarth to bring a court case against the government which culminated in a unanimous verdict in the supreme court ordering a clean-up plan by the end of 2015.

The resulting plan today comes just days after it was revealed that the UK was lobbying against new European limits for carmakers on NOx. The government blames much of the UK’s pollution woes on the failure to introduce real world driving tests in Europe, but the UK has lobbied against those in Brussels.

Andrews said that exempting privately-owned passenger cars was the plan’s biggest weakness.

“The elephant in the room is passenger cars. They are one of the biggest sources of NO2 pollution and yet they are being exempted from the clean air zones. One of the biggest weaknesses of this plan is the failure to adequately address pollution from passenger cars.”

A spokeswoman for the environment department could not explain why 88% of the UK motor fleet was being exempted, but said the focus was on targeting the oldest and most polluting vehicles.

The department said it expected 35 of 43 air quality zones to meet NOx limits by 2020, up from 28 under its earlier projections. “This will lead to significant benefits for the UK, including helping to avoid health impacts,” it said.

The government will be consulting with local authorities on the level of the fees charged to deter the dirtiest lorries, coaches and taxis ahead of the zones taking effect by 2020.

http://ift.tt/1Ib3nO8

.

---

Britain unveils final plan to improve air quality

17.12.2015 (Reuters)

The City of London financial district is seen from Primrose Hill as high air pollution obscures the skyline over London April 10, 2015. REUTERS/Toby Melville

Britain will submit its final plan for improving air quality to the European Commission on Thursday after levels of the pollutant nitrogen dioxide, mostly from diesel vehicles, were found to have breached EU limits.

The UK Supreme Court earlier this year ordered the government to submit the new plans for fighting the harmful pollutant by late December.

Under the British government’s plan, “Clean Air Zones” will be introduced in areas of Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Derby and Southampton where pollution is most serious by 2020, the department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra) said.

Vehicles such as old buses, taxis, coaches and lorries have to pay a charge to enter these zones but private passenger cars will not be charged.

“Under government plans no private cars will be charged in these cities and newer vehicles that meet the latest emission standards will not need to pay,” Defra added in a statement.

Plans have already been announced to improve air quality in London by 2025, such as introducing an ultra-low emissions zone and retro-fitting buses and new taxis.

However, environmental law firm ClientEarth, which originally brought the case against the government for breaching the EU’s Air Quality Directive, said the plan falls far short of the action necessary to comply with the Supreme Court ruling.

“The government’s latest plan for clean air zones doesn’t tackle all pollution from passenger cars, one of the biggest sources of poor air quality, and fails to take action in dozens of other cities where people are breathing illegal levels of pollution,” said ClientEarth lawyer Alan Andrews.

ClientEarth added that it will make a legal challenge to force the government to take faster action to achieve legal pollution limits.

Nitrogen oxides reduce air quality and member states have been flouting EU limits on a range of pollutants associated with more than 400,000 premature deaths per year, according to European Commission data.

The Commission has begun 21 infringement proceedings against nations in breach of existing rules and has proposed more stringent legislation in the face of resistance from some governments.

http://ift.tt/1ObwDAh

.

.

---

 

See earlier:

 

Why the ruling by the Supreme Court on air pollution could stop plans for a new SE runway

Date added: May 2, 2015

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Government must produce a new action plan by the end of this year for bringing air pollution within legal limits. A decision to allow another Heathrow runway could be legally challenged unless the Government’s new plans are sufficiently ambitious to reduce emissions of a 2 runway airport below the legal limit – and also leave enough headroom to accommodate the negative impact of a 3rd runway. There is only pure speculation on how it could be achieved. The court ruling also suggests that the cost-benefit analysis for adding a runway will need to be revised, as the Government has previously claimed that complying with air quality law would be too expensive. And this does not only affect Heathrow, but Gatwick too. Gatwick is keen to claim it does not have a poor air quality problem. But EU regulations require not only that poor air quality must be improved but also that good air quality should be protected. A 2nd Gatwick runway would mean local air pollution hotspots, with a risk of breaching the legal limits. The Airports Commission has a duty to the public not to recommend a project that would significantly damage people’s health. It would also be a poor use of taxpayer’s money to make recommendations that invite a legal challenge.

Click here to view full story…

Landmark air pollution ruling by Supreme Court could scupper 3rd runway at Heathrow due to high NO2 level

Date added: April 29, 2015

The UK Supreme Court has quashed the Government’s ineffective plans to cut illegal levels of air pollution in Britain and ordered it to deliver new ones by the end of the year. The Supreme Court Justices were unanimous in their decision, saying: “The new Government, whatever its political complexion, should be left in no doubt as to the need for immediate action to address this issue.” This could have implications for a 3rd runway at Heathrow, as areas around the airport continue to be stubbornly above the EU legal limits. That is due both to air pollution from the planes in addition to the huge amount of traffic on the M4 and M25. In their verdict, 5 judges ordered the Secretary of State at DEFRA to consult on strict new air pollution plans that must be submitted to the European Commission by 31 December 2015. The EU Air Quality Directive demanded the UK brought pollution down to legal limits by 2010 or apply for an extension by 2015. But the government in 2011 said that a number of areas, including London, would be unable to comply by 2015 and instead argued the law allowed it to comply “as soon as possible”. The judgement marks a victory for the campaigning legal firm ClientEarth. HACAN commented: “This is a potential show-stopper as far as a 3rd runway is concerned.”

Click here to view full story…

---

UK Supreme Court orders Government to take “immediate action” on air pollution

29 April 2015 (Client Earth)

The UK Supreme Court has quashed the Government’s ineffective plans to cut illegal levels of air pollution in Britain and ordered it to deliver new ones by the end of the year.

The Supreme Court Justices were unanimous in their decision, handed down this morning, saying: “The new Government, whatever its political complexion, should be left in no doubt as to the need for immediate action to address this issue.”

The historic ruling is the culmination of a five year legal battle fought by ClientEarth for the right of British people to breathe clean air.

The ruling will save thousands of lives a year by forcing the Government to urgently clean up pollution from diesel vehicles, the main source of the illegal levels of nitrogen nioxide found in many of the UK’s towns and cities.

ClientEarth Lawyer Alan Andrews said: “Air pollution kills tens of thousands of people in this country every year. We brought our case because we have a right to breathe clean air and today the Supreme Court has upheld that right.

“This ruling will benefit everyone’s health but particularly children, older people and those with existing health conditions like asthma and heart and lung disease.

“The next Government, regardless of the political party or parties which take power, is now legally bound to take urgent action on this public health crisis. Before next week’s election all political parties need to make a clear commitment to policies which will deliver clean air and protect our health.”

The Supreme Court ruling means the Government must start work on a comprehensive plan to meet pollution limits as soon as possible. Among the measures that it must consider are low emission zones, congestion charging and other economic incentives.

ClientEarth is calling for action to clean up the worst polluting diesel vehicles, including through a national network of low emission zones.

http://ift.tt/1EnGb9O

and more stories under  Air Quality news

.

.

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1ObwDAl

Read more ...

Gatwick re-hashes its plans to add runway capacity in 4 phases, rather than all at the start

Read more ...

Shipping, like aviation, slow and reluctant to agree any measures to limit global CO2 emissions

Read more ...

IATA expects global airline profits to rise by 5.1% in 2016 (and CO2 to rise by 4.6%) cf. 2015

IATA, which represents some 260 airlines and 83% of global air traffic, expects profits in the industry to rise by 5.1% to $36.3 billion in 2016 – up from $33 billion in 2015. This growth is attributed to dropping oil prices and a greater demand for travel.  IATA expects about 3.78 billion air passengers in 2016, travelling over 54,000 routes. There were about 3.54 billion air passengers in 2015.  It says: “Air travel is accelerating, with growth of 6.9% expected next year, the best since 2010, well above the 5.5% trend of the past 20 years.” They say air passengers spend 1% of world GDP on air transport, and air transport costs have been halved over the past 20 years. They say load factors forecast to fall a little (around as capacity rises, with yet more planes being added. However, IATA is happy to say the carbon emissions per ATK (available tonne kilometres) will be 1.8% lower. However, as they expect around 7% growth, the net effect is much higher carbon emissions. The estimated increase in the use of jet fuel is about 4.2% higher this year than in 2014, and is expected to rise by 4.6% in 2016, compared to 2015. IATA says the carbon emissions from the global aviation industry were 739 million tonnes in 2014; 771 million tonnes in 2015; and 806 million tonnes in 2016. North America may generate over half of the global industry’s profit in 2016 ($19.4 billion), while European airlines could increase in profits from $5.8 billion in 2015 to $8.5 billion in 2016.
.
Tweet

 

 

IATA raises airline profit forecast

By Ben Allen (Buying Business Travel)
Tue, 15 Dec 2015

IATA report at http://ift.tt/1MgYCxj

.

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) is forecasting a 5.1 per cent increase in airline profits in 2016.

The organisation, which represents some 260 airlines and 83 per cent of global air traffic, expects profits in the industry to rise to $36.3 billion up from $33 billion in 2015.

This growth is attributed to dropping oil prices and a greater demand for travel, with 3.8 billion passengers expected to travel over 54,000 routes in 2016.

The forecast also projects that the industry’s return on capital will exceed it’s cost of capital in both 2015 and 2016.

IATA’s CEO, Tony Tyler, said: “This is an historic achievement for an industry that has been notorious for destroying capital throughout its history. Airlines are finally meeting the minimum expectations of their shareholders.”

However, as the industry looks to be reaching the top of the business cycle, Tyler warns that the profitability is better described as “fragile than sustainable”.

North America still leads the industry’s performance, and is expected to generate more than half of the industry’s total profits ($19.4 billion), while European carriers are also expected to see a significant increase in profits from $5.8 billion in 2015 to $8.5 billion in 2016.

According to IATA, total industry revenues are expected to rise by 0.9 per cent to $717 billion.

http://ift.tt/1RPiO0t

.

---

 

IATA report at http://ift.tt/1MgYCxj

http://ift.tt/1lyXAHi

---

.

Airlines Continue to Improve Profitability 5.1% Net Profit Margin for 2016

10 December 2015   (IATA press release)

​​​The International Air Transport Association (IATA) announced its airline industry outlook for 2016 which sees an average net profit margin of 5.1% being generated with total net profits of $36.3 billion. IATA also announced a revision to its airline industry outlook for 2015 upwards to a net profit of $33 billion (4.6% net profit margin) from $29.3 billion forecast in June.

The strengthening industry performance is being driven by a combination of factors:

• Lower oil prices (forecast to be $55/barrel Brent in 2015 and averaging a lower $51/barrel in 2016) are giving airline profits a boost; however this is strongly moderated in many markets by the appreciation of the US dollar
• Strong demand for passenger travel (+6.7% growth in 2015 and +6.9% in 2016) is making up for disappointing cargo demand growth (+1.9% in 2015; strengthening to 3.0% in 2016). Weak cargo performance reflects sluggish growth in trade
• Stronger economic performance in some key economies (including a faster than expected recovery in the Eurozone) is outweighing the overall impact of slower growth in China and the downturn in the Brazilian economy. Global GDP growth is expected to improve to 2.7% in 2016 (up from 2.5% for 2015)
• Efficiency gains by airlines are illustrated by record high load factors (80.6% in 2015, tapering slightly to 80.4% in 2016). Capacity is increasing and is expected to move ahead of demand growth in 2016. Yields, however, continue to deteriorate amid stiff competition

“This is a good news story. The airline industry is delivering solid financial and operational performance. Passengers are benefiting from greater value than ever—with competitive airfares and product investments. Environmental performance is improving. More people and businesses are being connected to more places than ever. Employment levels are rising. And finally our shareholders are beginning to enjoy normal returns on their investments,” said Tony Tyler, IATA’s Director General and CEO.

In 2016 total passenger numbers are expected to rise to 3.8 billion traveling over some 54,000 routes.

Profitability in Perspective

In both 2015 and 2016 the industry’s return on capital (8.3% and 8.6% respectively) is expected to exceed the industry’s cost of capital (estimated to be just under 7.0% in 2015 and 2016 because of low bond yields).

“This is an historic achievement for an industry that has been notorious for destroying capital throughout its history. But let’s keep that achievement in perspective. With net profit margins still in the 5% range there is little buffer. Achieving returns that barely exceed the cost of capital means that airlines are finally meeting the minimum expectations of their shareholders. For most other industries this is the norm and not the exception.

And this is coming as expectations build that we are nearing the top of the business cycle. On average airlines will still make less than $10 per passenger carried. The industry’s profitability is better described as ‘fragile’ than ‘sustainable’,” said Tyler.

There are several indicators that improvements in airline profitability are likely to slow. The first is found in the cyclical nature of the airline business. Historically the airline industry profitability cycle is 8-9 years from peak to peak (or trough to trough). The low point of this cycle was 2009. The second is the anticipation of the economic impact of interest rates rising from current exceptionally low levels. And lastly, airlines will soon have realized the maximum positive impact of lower fuel prices with most of the higher-than-market hedges due to unwind in 2016.

2016

2016 will continue the main trends from 2015. Major drivers of performance in 2016 include:

• Revenues: Revenues are expected to rise by 0.9% to $717 billion in 2016. Industry revenues peaked in 2014 at $758 billion, then declined to $710 billion in 2015 with the impact of the strengthening of the US dollar on non-dollar revenues. The increase in revenues in 2016 is expected to be wholly due to the contribution of the passenger side of the business ($525 billion in 2015 rising to $533 billion in 2016). Cargo revenues are expected to decline slightly to $50.8 billion (from $52.2 billion in 2015).
• Demand: The demand for passenger travel is expected to grow by 6.9% (similar to the 6.7% growth expected in 2015) with 3.8 billion passengers expected to travel in 2016. Passenger capacity is expected to grow slightly ahead of demand at 7.1% which is an acceleration from the 5.5% capacity expansion in 2015. Demand for air cargo is expected to accelerate in 2016 to 3.0%, ahead of the 1.9% growth in 2015. This is slightly ahead of GDP growth which is expected to average 2.7% in 2016. Prior to the Global Financial Crisis this pace of economic growth would have generated much faster international trade and air cargo growth, but that pattern of growth appears to have stopped as companies bring supply chains closer to home. In total, the industry is expected to uplift 52.7 million tonnes of cargo in 2016.
• Yields: The cost of travel and shipping is expected to continue to decline with average yields for passengers falling 5% and cargo falling by 5.5% in 2016. The pace of decline is a deceleration from 2015 when cargo yields are expected to fall by 18.0% and passenger yields by 11.7%. About 6.0 percentage points of the 2015 decline can be attributed to the appreciation of the US dollar and the impact this has when accounting for non-US dollar revenues.

……….. and it continues …..

Full press release at

http://ift.tt/1SQmb5r

.

All of IATA’s press releases are at 

http://ift.tt/1MgYCxt

.

.

.

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1NThlV9

Read more ...