Pages

Luton Airport wants to relax aircraft noise violation limits as it starts expansion programme

Monday, 31 August 2015
Read more ...

Alex Salmond says 3rd Heathrow runway is for the benefit of London and SE, to the detriment of Scotland

Monday, 31 August 2015

Alex Salmond, the former First Minister of Scotland, speaking on the subject of Heathrow expansion, said that UK Governments have a long history of dressing up London investment as being of equal benefit to the whole nation. He is not persuaded that the Treasury is particularly interested in benefiting Scotland. There is evidence that public spending in previous decades, while supposedly UK-wide, is in reality aimed at helping London and the south of England.  Some examples given are the redevelopment of docklands, the Jubilee line extension, and concentrating defence spending, procurement, and the civil service firmly in the south. Alex Salmond says that much of this type of spending was omitted from all official accounts of “identifiable public spending” and it still is. But public spending in Scotland was routinely described as a “subsidy.”  He says the proposed Heathrow runway would be to the potential detriment of Scotland, which is facing all of the pain and none of the gain. He wants to boost direct Scottish flights to and from international destinations for the benefit of travellers, tourism and Scottish exporting industries. And he wants APD cut in Scotland, reducing the need to fly via London at all.
.

 

Heathrow decision just latest example of UK Government’s London obsession

By ALEX SALMOND*

31 August 2015
UK Governments have a long history of dressing up London investment — like here at the docklands in the 1980s — as being of equal benefit to the whole nation, says Mr Salmond.
There are three great lies in life.

One is “The cheque’s in the post”. The second is “Darling, I’ll respect you in the morning”, and the third is “I’m from the London Treasury and I want to help Scotland!”

Twenty five years ago, ground-breaking research by award-winning journalist George Rosie – published under the banner “Scotching the Myth” – exposed the truth that much of supposed UK-wide public spending is in reality a subsidy ramp for London and the south of England.

The vast expenditure lavished in and around London in the 1980s and 1990s – on a host of infrastructure projects such as the redevelopment of docklands, the Jubilee line extension, and concentrating defence spending, procurement, and the civil service firmly in the south – was presented by proponents of the Union as benefiting all of the UK equally, despite the clear economic advantage given to London.

The bulk of this type of spending was omitted from all official accounts of “identifiable public spending” and it still is. Meanwhile, public spending in Scotland was routinely described as a “subsidy” – notwithstanding the £300 billion generated from North Sea oil taxes and the fact that Scotland continues to generate more tax per head than the rest of the UK, as it has for each and every one of the last 30 years.

Such is the language of political control. I’m a big fan of infrastructure spending to boost the economy, north and south of the border. And I’m also a fan of London as a buzzing and diverse capital city.

But I’m also a big fan of fairness and balance – and successive Westminster governments have failed lamentably to spread the benefits of infrastructure investment to Scotland and other areas of the UK, while all the time denying that London receives preferential treatment.

And if Scotland gets short-changed then the north of England gets taken to the cleaners. A report last year by the Institute of Public Policy Research showed that in terms of all infrastructure spending, London received a mind-boggling £5,426 compared with £223 per head in the north east of England!

But I predict that airports will be the next row over the concentration of taxpayers’ money in London – to the potential detriment of Scotland.

A UK Government-appointed commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, was charged with recommending the site for a new runway in London. Earlier this summer, it chose expansion at Heathrow – despite a massive cost to the taxpayer.

Like so much else of London-centric policy – not least energy, as the threatened closure of Longannet shows – Scotland is facing all of the pain and none of the gain from a third runway at Heathrow.

Our priority should be to protect Scotland’s position and boost direct Scottish flights to and from international destinations for the benefit of travellers, tourism and our exporting industries.

However, if new capacity is needed in London then at least Heathrow’s rival Gatwick have pledged they would build a new runway there at no cost to the public purse and guarantee proper access to the capital from Scottish airports.

The Heathrow option is the worst of all worlds – taxpayers, including in Scotland, would have to stump up over £5 billion of construction costs to create a virtual aviation monopoly of international connectivity.

And just like other London-based spending, our friends in the Treasury would deem public cash for Heathrow as a “UK-wide strategic project” – in other words, no Barnett consequential money to invest in infrastructure in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

A new runway in London is some years away, and right now we need the transfer to Scotland of Air Passenger Duty – as agreed through the Smith Commission.

Scotland’s airports are crying out for this power, because cutting APD will help us attract more direct international flights, more direct access to global markets, and more visitors coming directly to Scotland – reducing the need for flying via London altogether.

Not for the first time, the UK Government is obsessed with London – while Scotland’s focus should be flying high and handsome to the wider world.

http://ift.tt/1UnT3lB
*Former First Minister of Scotland
Alexander Salmond is a politician who served as the fourth First Minister of Scotland from 2007 to 2014. He is currently a member of both the Scottish and United Kingdom parliaments.



via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1ieVbAm
Read more ...

Canadian Borealis Infrastructure (Channel Tunnel rail owner) and German Allianz (insurer of Thames Tideway tunnel) consortium interest in London City Airport

Sunday, 30 August 2015

A Canadian pension fund that co-owns the Channel Tunnel rail link has joined forces with the German insurer behind the Thames Tideway Tunnel (super sewer) project to enter the £2  billion bidding war for London City Airport. GIP announced at the start of August that it is selling.  Borealis Infrastructure, which manages investments for the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, is understood to have teamed up with Germany’s Allianz to make a consortium approach.  They are rivals to buy the airport, including another Canadian investment giant, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), which has partnered with the sovereign wealth fund of Kuwait and Hermes to submit an offer for the airport. Australia’s Macquarie is also thought to be considering a consortium bid.  Borealis and Allianz are already large investors in British infrastructure, and they have worked together on transactions, including a huge deal to buy RWE’s Czech gas pipeline business and the company that owns German motorway services. Some bankers reckon £2 bn is a top-end valuation for the airport but feasible given the current frothy nature of the market for infrastructure assets.
.

 

 

Channel Tunnel rail link owner and insurer eye City Airport bid

Borealis Infrastructure and Allianz are understood to have joined forces for a swoop on the airport, which has been valued at £2bn

By Ben Martin  (Telegraph)

29th Aug 2015

A Canadian pension fund that co-owns the Channel Tunnel rail link has joined forces with the German insurer behind the Thames Tideway Tunnel project to enter the £2 bn bidding war for London City Airport.

Borealis Infrastructure, which manages investments for the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, is understood to have teamed up with Germany’s Allianz to make a consortium approach.

The duo will come up against a host of heavyweight suitors, including another Canadian investment giant, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP), which has partnered with the sovereign wealth fund of Kuwait and Hermes to submit an offer for the airport. Australia’s Macquarie is also thought to be eyeing a consortium bid.

Infrastructure investors are lining up to swoop on City after Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), the private equity firm that owns a host of energy and transport assets including Gatwick, announced at the start of the month it wanted to sell the airport. Borealis and Allianz are already important investors in British infrastructure and are viewed as natural suitors for City.

Toronto-based Borealis jointly owns the high-speed rail link between London and the Channel Tunnel with OTPP, and is a shareholder in Associated British Ports.

Allianz, meanwhile, is one of a group of investors that is backing the £4.2 bn Thames Tideway Tunnel, the “super-sewer” project which gained financing approval last week from water regulator Ofwat. Furthermore, Borealis and Allianz have worked together on transactions in the past, including a €1.6  bn (£1.17 bn) deal to buy a RWE’s Czech gas pipeline business in 2013.

The two groups earlier this month partnered with the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority and Munich Re to purchase Tank & Rast, the owner of German motorway services.

City Airport is viewed as something of a trophy asset in the infrastructure world. Located close to both Canary Wharf and the City, it is convenient for workers in the capital’s financial districts and so inevitably carries a high proportion of business travellers.

Some bankers reckon £2 bn is a top-end valuation for the airport but feasible given the current frothy nature of the market for infrastructure assets.

Dermot Desmond, the Irish billionaire businessman, bought City for £23.5 m from construction business Mowlem 20 years ago. He went on to sell it to GIP for about £750 m in 2006.

The airport has enjoyed strong growth, catering for 3.7m passengers last year compared with 2.8m in 2010. However, uncertainty over its mooted £200 m expansion plan could mean that bids fall short of GIP’s asking price.

Boris Johnson , the London mayor, recently blocked the airport’s proposal to boost capacity because of concerns about the increase in aircraft noise. The airport is appealing against his decision and, if it succeeds, City hopes that expansion will allow it to carry 6m passengers a year by 2023.

Spokesmen for Borealis and Allianz declined to comment.

http://ift.tt/1Kwn2Hl

.

.


 

Earlier:

 

The sovereign wealth fund of Kuwait & Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan interested in buying London City Airport

The sovereign wealth fund of Kuwait is teaming up with Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and Hermes to bid for London City airport, while Macquarie is leading a rival consortium. The airport has been valued at £2 billion. Wren House Infrastructure Management is a massive sovereign wealth fund, one of the world’s largest, owned by the Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA). The KIA is the world’s fifth largest sovereign wealth fund with some $592bn in assets. The current owners of 75% London City Airport, GIP, hired Credit Suisse to handle the sale. Oaktree Capital owns the remaining 25% of the airport, and has agreed to the sale. London-based Wren House was set up in 2013 to facilitate direct infrastructure investment by Kuwait’s sovereign wealth fund. The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund already owns Bristol airport (bought Sept 2014 from Macquarie) and holds a stake in Birmingham Airport, as well as other non-airport assets. Despite growth in passengers at London City airports, the sale is likely to be complicated by uncertainty over its £200m planned expansion.

Click here to view full story…

GIP to put London City airport up for sale this year – might raise £2 billion?

London City airport is to be put up for sale by GIP by the end of the year, who want to capitalise on the rising global demand for air travel. GIP owns 75%, with Oaktree Capital owning the remainder, but both have agreed to the sale. GIP also has the main stake in Gatwick airport, and Edinburgh but say they are not selling these now. It is thought the airport might fetch as much as £2bn, which the FT says would be a multiple of over 60 times the company’s EBITDA in 2014. GIP bought the airport for about £750m in 2006 from Dermot Desmond; he had paid £23.5m for it in 1995 from Mowlem. The airport is trying to get planning consent for work to increase the annual number of passengers to 6 million per year by 2023, (4.1 million in 2014) but this has been blocked by Boris, due to noise. London City is appealing against this and may hear the outcome next year. City airport has already been granted permission to increase ATMs from 70,000 to 120,000 per year. It is widely believed that GIP would sell Gatwick soon, after the government makes a decision on if/where there might be a new runway. Last month, GIP said it would be prepared to give a legally binding promise that it will not sell out for a quick profit if the government decides to opt for a runway at Gatwick.

Click here to view full story..

 



via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1PFMLfM
Read more ...

Gatwick announces “independent review” of Westerly Arrivals due to the extent of opposition to changed flight paths

Sunday, 30 August 2015

Due to the level of disturbance, upset and anger for miles around Gatwick, from increased aircraft noise, narrowed and altered flight paths, Gatwick’s Chairman, Sir Roy McNulty, has commissioned an “independent review” of air traffic, which will focus on Westerly Arrivals (ie. planes arriving from the east, to the airport, when there are westerly winds).  The review will be led by Bo Redeborn, who for many years was Principal Director of ATM for EUROCONTROL. Gatwick airport says Mr Redeborn “will be assisted by a small independent review team which has been tasked with ensuring the involvement of local communities most affected.”  The review is to look at whether, for westerly arrivals: “Everything that can reasonably be done to alleviate the problems which local communities are raising is in fact being done, whether this involves action by the airport or by other parties most closely involved – NATS, CAA, DfT or the airlines.”  And if Gatwick’s approach to providing “information to the local community and for handling complaints are fully adequate for the task.”  Thousands of people do not believe Gatwick is succeeding on either. The review is to begin on 1st September 2015. It may end in November, but may be extended if more consultation is needed. There will be a review of Easterly Arrivals later on.
.

 

Gatwick announces independent review of Westerly Arrivals

24/08/2015  (Gatwick Airport Press Release)

In response to noise concerns expressed by some local residents, Gatwick’s Chairman, Sir Roy McNulty, has commissioned an independent review of air traffic, which will focus on Westerly Arrivals.

The Review will be led by Bo Redeborn who brings extensive experience and understanding of air traffic control having previously served as Principal Director of Air Traffic Management for EUROCONTROL. He will be assisted by a small independent review team which has been tasked with ensuring the involvement of local communities most affected.

The purpose of the review is to consider, in relation to Westerly Arrivals, whether:

  1. Everything that can reasonably be done to alleviate the problems which local communities are raising is in fact being done, whether this involves action by the airport or by other parties most closely involved – NATS, CAA, DfT or the airlines; and;
  2. The approaches which Gatwick has adopted for providing information to the local community and for handling complaints are fully adequate for the task.

The review is to begin on 1st September 2015 and a provisional target date for completion has been set for November. It is accepted that this end date may need to be moved back depending on the extent of consultation which the review team decides is necessary. A review of Easterly Arrivals will be undertaken as part of a second phase review.

Terms of Reference for the Review can be found at the following link

 

http://ift.tt/1hq6KUv

.


.

AIRSPACE REVIEW

In response to feedback from some of our local residents and resident groups, Gatwick’s Chairman, Sir Roy McNulty, has commissioned an independent review of the air traffic around Gatwick, focussing in particular on westerly arrivals.

The Review will be led by Bo Redeborn; Bo fulfils very well the principal criteria necessary for this role. He has very extensive Air Traffic Control experience, and has the necessary degree of independence from Gatwick and the other key players involved in these matters. He will be assisted by a small review team, all of whom will also be independent of Gatwick and the other key players.

Amongst other current activities, Bo is currently an independent member of Gatwick’s Environment, Health and Safety, and Operational Resilience Committee. From 2011-2014 he was Principal Director Air Traffic Management in EUROCONTROL and, before joining EUROCONTROL in 2009, he was Manager Air Traffic Management and later Manager Air Traffic Management Support and Development in the Swedish CAA (LVF).

It is intended that the review will be completed in November, but it is possible that it may run into December.

Terms of reference

http://ift.tt/1hq6J39

.


.

Earlier:

Gatwick now says it will “carry out a fresh review of the whole situation” on Gatwick westerly arrivals

The group opposing Gatwick’s altered flight paths, “Gatwick Obviously NOT” wrote to Global Infrastructure Partners, (GIP), the main owner of Gatwick, on 9th May.  Now a reply has been received from Sir Roy McNulty, who is the Chairman of Gatwick Airport Ltd.  [Sir John Major, former Prime Minister, is Chairman of the Senior Advisor Panel at GIP]  The letter says: “Sir John Major has shared with me your letter of 9th May. Sir John has asked me to look into this matter and reply to you direct.  Having reviewed the issues… I have concluded that the best course is to carry out a fresh review of the whole situation as regards westerly arrivals into Gatwick …  Yours sincerely.”   Westerly arrivals are those coming in from the east to Gatwick – in other words the narrowed swathe the people in west Kent, and much of Sussex  have all been suffering from.  The airport and its owners are aware of the extent of the opposition and anger that their flight paths have caused, from the literally thousands of complaints and letters that have been sent.  Many people are not only angry about the aircraft ” super-highways” in the sky over their heads, but deeply stressed by having their tranquillity removed, with no consultation or warning.  Extracts from one (of many) furious and determined letter are copied here, illustrating the problem.

http://ift.tt/1eSGGQL

.


 

SESAR Deployment Speech by Bo Redeborn, Principal Director ATM

(not dated – press release from Eurocontrol)

“There is a saying among pilots that particularly useless things include altitude above you, runway behind you and air in your fuel tanks.  I’d like to add another one to this list – a development that hasn’t yet been implemented.

We all agree that it’s vital to get deployment right, particularly in the case of a huge programme such as SESAR.  However, it’s not easy – in fact we can see that, in many ways, it’s actually much harder than development.  For example on deployment you have to involve everyone – not just the subset of stakeholders who volunteer to help on development.

It also involves a lot more money, some 30 billion euros and money, as we all know, is in rather short supply at the moment.

And of course, it’s not a quick exercise.  We can expect to be working on the deployment of SESAR for the next decade – well beyond the end of the development phase.  So we need to make sure that the mechanism we put in place works – and that it is robust.

So what do we need to do?  Well I believe a critical first step is to learn from experience both here in Europe and elsewhere.

Within Europe, we’ve seen deployment of some projects move ahead rapidly while others never seem to get going at all.  This can happen even if the development phase of the project has been a success – a good example of how the issues facing deployment are very different to those facing development and how the transition from one phase to the next needs to be carefully handled.

There are many reasons for deployment being slow – for example sometimes there has been a lack of clarity on standards and guidance material. Safety cases have been difficult to conclude.  Sometimes the business case has not been made or the benefit has been remote from the investment.  We’ve also seen the delays caused by airlines, albeit understandably, adhering to the doctrine of last mover advantage.

Indeed, there is now general acceptance that some public funding will be required to overcome this doctrine.  However, public funds are limited – particularly at the European level – and they need to be focused where they will do the most good.  Here, there may be some valuable lessons to be learned from the approach to incentivising equipage in other parts of the world.

Another reason for problems has been poor deployment planning.  Now, we already have a raft of plans – the Network Strategic Plan, the ATM Master Plan, Performance Plans, the Regulatory Roadmap to name just a few.  We need to make sure that our new deployment process is coherent and that all the planning is coordinated.  We’ve tried having a proliferation of plans before and it didn’t work.

So we have to take into account the existing mechanisms as we move forward.  I’m not saying that these existing mechanisms can’t be changed – far from it, we need to be willing to change.  But we cannot just bolt on a new set of processes and plans without considering the effect on what’s already there and without looking at the whole picture.

This sort of wider view is crucial for success in other ways as well.  Deployment needs to be coordinated on a pan-European basis across the whole network – both on the ground and in the air, and also working with our military and our general aviation colleagues.  In fact, for many aspects, we actually need to think wider than Europe – we need to make sure that our needs are reflected in the ICAO processes designed to achieve global interoperability.

That is why we at EUROCONTROL, together with our stakeholders – indeed with many of those in this room today, are actively preparing for ICAO’s Air Navigation Conference at the end of next year – to make sure that there is a single European voice and that it is heard.

I mention working with our stakeholders on ANC12 not just because that’s what’s happening but also because it is a good illustration of how a joint approach really adds value.  However, there are limitations to a purely collegiate approach.  As a sailor myself, I strongly believe that you still need a clear direction to steer and a firm hand on the tiller.

You also need to recognise that deployment is a challenge – it is a complex web of equipment, manufacturing, procedures, training, regulation, guidance material and of course finance.  Planning for it, working out how it can best be achieved, has been an integral part of our activities at EUROCONTROL for many years.

But we at EUROCONTROL have always taken pride not just in our professionalism but also in our independence.  I try to make sure that we approach problems with the question “What’s best for European ATM?” and not “What’s best for this part of the sector?”.  Of course, we are fortunate in that we are not just allowed to be independent, it’s actually expected of us – without independence we could not function in our various roles, such as the Network Manager.

The consultation paper marks a step in the debate we now need to have on how to get this difficult thing right. And it follows from a Task Force report that did seem to me to get most things right – the three level approach and so on.  But it was always apparent that it was the second level that was going to be the most difficult to fix. And so it is there that we need to devote most effort.

Industry has to have a key role here. But how do you associate all those that need to be involved?  And how do you ensure that the work done genuinely meshes with the ATM Master Plan and the Network Strategic and Operations Plans? These and other questions need more work, in particular to ensure that the Network Manager is firmly part of the partnership that is necessary at this level, if it is to succeed.”

So on this occasion I would like to urge everyone to put aside their own agendas and to come together to address the question “What is best for European ATM?”.  Because, in the long run, we all need a sustainable, healthy and successful European ATM system.”

http://ift.tt/1hq6Jjn

,


 

Mr. Bo Redeborn has been Principal Director of ATM at EUROCONTROL NV since February 1, 2004 and served as its Director of Cooperative Network Design. Mr. Redeborn served as Director of Air Traffic Management Strategies at EUROCONTROL since February 2004. He worked six years as an air traffic controller in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on an ICAO technical assistance mission, then returned to the Swedish CAA and took up managerial functions with increasing responsibility. Mr. Redeborn started training as an air traffic controller at the Swedish ATS Academyin 1972. Mr. Redeborn headed the Air Navigation Services ATM Support & Development Business Area at the Swedish Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)and was responsible for technical and operational support and development with regard to the provision of air traffic control services and air navigation systems in Sweden. He serves as the Chairman of Board at AVTECH Sweden AB.
.



via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1hq6KUx
Read more ...

About £85 million spent to update Heathrow tunnels and reinforce them against heavy A380s above

Monday, 24 August 2015
Read more ...

Jeremy Corbyn’s opposition to a Heathrow runway likely to lead to internal Labour party disputes

Monday, 24 August 2015

Jeremy Corbyn – who might become leader of the Labour party – has come out against a 3rd runway at Heathrow. The Labour leadership favourite has indicated in an interview with the FT that under him, the party would not support expansion at Heathrow.  He said: “I think the third runway is a problem for noise pollution and so on across west London…I also think there is an under-usage of the other airports around London. I’d vote against it in this parliament.” If he does become leader (decision on 12th September) this would represent a U-turn from the party’s current stance of supporting the runway, if certain conditions are met. Corbyn’s opposition to a Heathrow runway will have an impact on the London mayoral race, as two Labour candidates are in favour of it, and two against. Tessa Jowell, the favourite to win the nomination, would find herself at odds with her party’s leadership on Heathrow. There are also plenty of moderates in the party who would also rebel against Corbyn.  But airports are purely a lobbying issue for mayoral candidates — they have no actual power over the decision. It is not yet known if there will be a parliamentary vote on a runway, though it will require a lot of public funding (directly and indirectly for years). David Cameron will decide by November whether to accept the Airports Commission recommendation of Heathrow, and if Labour now votes against it, that could fatally undermine the project.
.

 

Jeremy Corbyn signals the return of Labour’s Heathrow wars

24 August 2015
By Sebastian Payne

.
Quelle surprise, Jeremy Corbyn has come out against a third runway at Heathrow. The Labour leadership favourite has indicated in an interview with the FT that under him, the party would not support expansion at Heathrow:

‘I think the third runway is a problem for noise pollution and so on across west London…I also think there is an under-usage of the other airports around London. I’d vote against it in this parliament.’

Assuming that the bookies and pollsters are correct and Corbyn is elected leader on September 12, this would represent a U-turn from the party’s current stance. Following the release the Airports Commission’s report in July, Labour’s shadow transport secretary Michael Dugher said the party would back the proposals, under the right conditions:

‘We will scrutinise the Airports Commission’s final report carefully. If the recommendation can meet a number of tests, including consistency with our climate change obligations, we will take a swift decision to back Sir Howard Davies’ proposals.’

Corbyn’s U-turn will have an impact on the London mayoral race. The Labour candidates are split on the issue of airport expansion: Tessa Jowell and David Lammy are pro-Heathrow, while Sadiq Khan and Christian Wolmar are against. Jowell, who remains the favourite to win the nomination, would find herself at odds with her party’s leadership on Heathrow. There are also plenty of moderates in the party who would also rebel against Corbyn.

Khan, like Corbyn, is not from the Blairite wing of the party and is well posted to pickup on the Corbynmania — how many of the new thousands of new members will be backing arch Blairite Jowell? At Corbyn’s rally in Islington last week, his team were out in force to distribute leaflets to those queuing for entry. Judging by the response of those present though, he has a way to go to convince these people.

But airports are purely a lobbying issue for mayoral candidates — they have no actual power over the decision. Heathrow will be a central issue in the 2016 race and if Labour selects a candidate who is pro-expansion to go up against Zac Goldsmith, you can be certain that the Tories will maximise the opportunity and turn the election into a referendum on a third runway. And Labour will find itself split on the issue all over again.

When Heathrow will come to ahead is uncertain. Decisions still need to be taken before the end of this year on which solution the government will back and how it will consult MPs. Coffee House understands that the government has yet to decide whether it will back a sole Heathrow expansion or involve Gatwick, and whether there’ll be a Commons vote.

There remains a possibility that the House will have its say in some form, but as the Times reported in July, a free vote looks unlikely. Building a third runway doesn’t strictly require approval from the Commons as it won’t be using public funds. Given the passionate views within all the parties, some debate on the matter will be expected and justified.

http://ift.tt/1PuMigv

.


On 2nd July, the Times reported that: 

“Heathrow’s chances of its expansion plans being approved by a Commons vote were given a major boost yesterday when Labour swung behind the project to give the west London airport a third runway.

As divisions among Cabinet members were aired in public, Harriet Harman revealed at prime minister’s questions that Labour would back Heathrow subject to the conditions set out in the report by Sir Howard Davies.

The government has not decided whether its eventual decision will be put to a vote. However a senior No 10 source suggested that there was little chance that MPs would be allowed a free vote on the issue if it does.”

http://ift.tt/1KsYbDl

.


.

See earlier:

 

Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour leader could scupper plans for Heathrow 3rd runway

The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party could scupper plans for a 3rd Heathrow runway, as he has now declared his opposition to it.  The three other Labour contenders, Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall,  all support the plan to expand Heathrow.  Jeremy Corbyn appears most likely to win the leadership contest.  If the Conservative party needs to get a Heathrow runway approved in Parliament, he may need Labour to be behind it. When the Airports Commission issued their final report on 1st July, Labour supported a Heathrow runway and wanted a quick decision by the Government to get on with it.  But now Mr Corbyn said: “A third runway at Heathrow would mean 4,000 homes demolished and 10,000 people displaced. It would cause massive increases in noise and air pollution and inflict misery on hundreds of thousands of Londoners. UK air pollution is already above EU limits, and 30,000 people are dying every year because of it”. He wants better transport links to airports, betteru se of existing capacity, and more even spread to the regions. Of the London Mayoral candidates, Tessa Jowell, Gareth Thomas and David Lammy back Heathrow, and Sadiq Khan, Christian Wolmar and  Diane Abbott are against.

http://ift.tt/1IDgrJX

 

 

 

 



via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1MPxpYv
Read more ...

Head of “nudge unit” considers Heathrow opponents could be bought off with free Caribbean flights

Sunday, 23 August 2015

Since the UK’s behavioural insights team, or “nudge unit” was set up by David Cameron in 2010 to try to improve public services and save money, it has had various successes in making small changes to people’s behaviour. It still gets most of its work from government, though it has now expanded to take on a wider range of projects. It is now a part-privatised company. Recently David Halpern, the head of the unit, said that fresh thinking was needed to win over the local population affected by Heathrow, in order to stop their opposition holding back a major infrastructure project. He has told the Times that he believes Heathrow’s neighbours could be bought-off [not his words] by bribes [not his words] of free flights to the Caribbean to persuade them of the benefits of a third runway.  Purely by self interest. That sort of thing could avoid costly planning battles, by defusing opposition. The idea is that by getting free travel vouchers, people being over-flown by planes think “There goes my holiday to Barbados.” The problem of the carbon emissions has not occurred to Mr Halpern. It does not appear that other “nudges” have involved such blatant and expensive bribery.  … Unbelievable that this could be permitted…..
.

 

By Rosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent (The Times)
August 22 2015

Full article at

http://ift.tt/1TYkyav

Whitehall’s behavioural guru believes he can win over Heathrow’s neighbours
Residents living near Heathrow should be given free flights to the Caribbean to persuade them of the benefits of a third runway, according to a senior adviser to the government.
David Halpern, the head of the behavioural insights team, or “nudge unit”, said that fresh thinking was needed to win over the local population when it came to big infrastructure projects to stop the costly planning battles that precede most of them.

Psychologically, the human mind is primed to fear the worst when change is imminent, he said. The mind fills with the bad, which drives out the good. Incentives can help to break into that mechanism, he believes. Smart incentives that need not cost much could help people to realise that there may be an upside for them.

“When it comes to a big project like Heathrow, we need to think about how to help local people feel more positively about expansion. Heathrow airport should be offering local residents who will be affected by the noise of more planes flying over their homes by giving them vouchers for travelling. It would change the way a resident feels about the plane going overhead. It might make them think, ‘There goes my holiday to Barbados’.”
Mr Halpern was speaking to The Times to mark the publication of his book Inside the Nudge Unit, which charts how the behavioural insights team came into being in the early days of the coalition government in 2010 and how it has started to change policy making.

Full article in the Times at

http://ift.tt/1TYkyav

.


.

The rise of nudge – the unit helping politicians to fathom human behaviour

The government’s behavioural insights team has won over sceptics in Whitehall and it is now ‘nudging’ behaviour across the world

23.7.2015

By Tamsin Rutter (Guardian)

………

extracts:

…………

Set up by David Cameron in 2010 to try to improve public services and save money, the nudge unit still gets most of its work from government, though it has expanded to take on a wider range of projects, including work for foreign governments, the World Bank and the UN. “Essentially we respond to the priorities of government,” said Halpern, explaining how the unit chooses its projects. “The key point is that it has to be social purpose.”

The team would refuse to help a major drinks company improve sales, for example, but might help with a project to reduce sugar consumption.

Most of the changes applied by the nudge unit are tiny: a text message, rewording a letter, a personalised email. One of Halpern’s favourite projects was on improving police diversity. Although around 60% of applicants from a white British background were passing the situational judgment capability stage of Avon and Somerset constabulary’s recruitment process, only 40% of black and minority ethnic (BME) applicants passed it. Halpern’s team reworded the email sent to all candidates that congratulated them on passing the previous stage to include a request for them to “take some time to think about why you want to be a police constable” before moving on to the next test.

………

Back in 2010, its launch was greeted with a great deal scepticism. It influences the public without them knowing it and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Last year a Lords select committee called for more evaluation of its successes and failures. But it seems to have won over senior civil servants. “If you’re a permanent secretary or head of department you have seen lots of ideas come and go. New governments come in on a wave of new shiny ideas,” said Halpern. “But permanent secretaries can read a graph pretty well, even if they don’t see enough of them.”

and it continues …….

http://ift.tt/1KlWyJt

.

 

As a part-privatised company, the nudge unit is no longer subject to freedom of information (FOI) requests, a move criticised by sceptics already suspicious of the practice of “implementing policy on the subconscious of the British public”.

This is a very negative view, says Sanders, quick to point out that any correspondence with Whitehall can be subject to FOI. The team will also be audited by the National Audit Office.

http://ift.tt/1oh5eC2

 

.

.

 

 



via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1NOiv1y
Read more ...

15 routes to small airports short-listed to apply for taxpayer subsidy over three years

Friday, 21 August 2015

The Government invited airports and airlines to bid for state funding to set up routes, which would not otherwise be profitable. This is only permitted under EU law under certain conditions. In March the DfT published the details of 19 bids it had received during the initial application stage for funding from the Regional Air Connectivity Fund. The funding is available for new routes for regional airports which handle fewer than 5 million passengers a year, and they have to demonstrate that the route would be commercially viable after 3 years. The government hopes that smaller airports will improve connectivity, increase trade and help to create new jobs in their regions. Bids from 15 smaller airports across the “Northern Powerhouse,” of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are now to be considered on the short-list for the state funding.  Patrick McLoughlin said aviation is one of the UK’s economic success stories and our investment ensures it is shared out across the whole country. The shortlisted routes include Dundee-Amsterdam, Doncaster Sheffield-Frankfurt and Newquay-Leeds. The government expects to spend £56 million of taxpayers’ money on this over three years.
.

 

Shortlist for new regional air route funding announced

Department for Transport, HM Treasury, The Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP and The Rt Hon George Osborne MP

20 August 2015 (Government press release)

Bids from 15 smaller airports across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be considered for awards.

The shortlist of new international and domestic air routes for smaller airports was announced by the government today, Thursday 20 August 2015. Successful routes from this latest stage of the Regional Air Connectivity Fund will provide improved connectivity with new transport connections for businesses and passengers from their local areas.

Fifteen brand-new routes have reached the funding shortlist, open to regional airports handling fewer than 5 million passengers a year. Airports that have reached this stage serve the Northern Powerhouse, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Chancellor George Osborne said:

We’re determined to build a one nation economy, where all parts of the UK are growing and connected. That’s why we support new regional air routes. Further funding for brand new routes will support many more businesses and individuals across UK regions as part of our rural productivity plan. This is a great deal for taxpayers too – the existing Newquay-London route, supported by the fund, delivers benefits to the economy of nearly three pounds for every pound invested.

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said:

Smaller airports are vital for bringing the country together and creating new international opportunities for their local areas. The shortlist we are publishing today shows the potential for smaller airports to create jobs and drive growth. Aviation is one of the UK’s economic success stories and our investment ensures it is shared out across the whole country.

The shortlisted routes include Dundee-Amsterdam, Doncaster Sheffield-Frankfurt and Newquay-Leeds.

The funding will provide support for approved routes for 3 years. To be successful bidders, the operators of these routes will need to prove they will be commercially viable after that time.

The proposed links will also be assessed for providing maximum value for money for the taxpayer.

The funding continues the government’s support for smaller airports through the Regional Air Connectivity Fund. Launched in June 2013, it has already supported strategic routes from Dundee and Newquay into London. The fund was expanded to support new international and domestic air routes with the final announcement of winning bids to be made in November 2015.

The full list of the routes that have applied is available on gov.uk.

http://ift.tt/1E6O1HW

http://ift.tt/1E6O1HW

http://ift.tt/1E6O1HW


http://ift.tt/1E6O1HW
The list of possible routes that may be included in the scheme, DfT, March 2015

http://ift.tt/1NrDyaF


 

International and domestic connections from smaller airports to be expanded across the UK.

27.3.2015 (DfT press release)

Smaller airports across the UK will benefit from new routes thanks to a start-up aid fund to back greater connectivity, aviation minister Robert Goodwill announced today (27 March 2015).

The Department for Transport has today published the details of the 19 bids it has received during the initial application stage for funding from the Regional Air Connectivity Fund.

The funding is available for brand new routes for regional airports which handle fewer than 5 million passengers a year. Smaller airports can play a vital role improving connectivity and increasing trade and helping create new jobs in their regions.

The bids include proposals for air links such as Norwich to Paris, Southampton to Lyon and Oxford to Edinburgh.

Aviation Minister Robert Goodwill said:

The range and ambition of the bids shows how smaller airports can transform their local areas with new connections and trade links. This announcement builds on the government’s commitment to ensuring smaller airports grow, boosting both local and national economies.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander said:

As someone from the north of Scotland, I appreciate the value of regional connectivity for businesses and communities, which is why I created the Regional Air Connectivity Fund. I’m delighted that so many regions across the country are set to benefit from improved connections, boosting trade and tourism.

This fund boost regional economies, so is also great value for the taxpayer; the Newquay to London link that I announced last year has a return rate of nearly 3 pounds for every pound invested, benefitting people across the UK. I hope these routes, if successful in the bidding process, will be well used and will support stronger economic growth across the country.

The Regional Air Connectivity Fund was launched in June 2013 and has already supported strategic routes from Dundee into Newquay into London. It is now being expanded to support new international and domestic regional air routes in a bidding process for start-up aid.

The announcement of those routes which have passed the initial application stage has been delayed to allow the department more time to consider the relevant evidence before determining whether the route meets the European Commission guidelines.

The announcement of a short-list of routes that have met the criteria of the initial application stage will now be made in early May. Those routes that are successful at this stage will then move forward to the strategic and economic appraisal stage, with successful bids being announced in July 2015.

The Regional Air Connectivity Fund has a total of £56 million available to cover 3 years of financial support for start-up aid.

http://ift.tt/193yIBr

http://ift.tt/193yIBr


Regional airports asked to bid for up to £56 million funding for new routes over next 3 years

Airports and airlines are being urged to bid for government funding of up to £17.5 million in the next year to help launch new routes. This ‘start up aid’ will be made available from the Regional Air Connectivity Fund, which was announced by the government in June 2013 and is open to airports with fewer than 5 million passengers per year. This fund has already been partly distributed to support strategic routes to London from Newquay and Dundee but is now being extended to bids for more routes. The £56 million is available to cover 3 years of financial support for start-up aid, with £17.5 million being made available to bids in 2015/16 and around £20 million a year for each of the remaining years.  To apply for the funding, airports and airlines will have to provide evidence to show their proposed route will generate local benefits and represents value for money.  The initial application stage will run for five weeks, closing on Wednesday 25 February. Ministers will announce a shortlist of bids in March 2015. A list of successful bidders will then be published in June.

http://ift.tt/1NKYGZ4

,


 

AIRPORT OPERATORS ASSOCIATION WELCOMES REGIONAL AIR CONNECTIVITY FUND BID ANNOUNCEMENT

20.8.2015

The Airport Operators Association (AOA), the trade association that represents over 50 UK airports, has welcomed today’s announcement by the Department for Transport that 15 air routes have successfully made the funding shortlist under the Regional Air Connectivity Fund. The Fund, which is open to all airports with fewer than 5 million passengers per annum, will provide economic support for approved routes for a total of three years, following which they will need to demonstrate that they can be commercially viable.

Tim Alderslade, Public Affairs Director at the AOA, said: “The AOA has long supported the Regional Air Connectivity Fund and we’re pleased that this announcement has been made. We believe the policy has the potential to help many of our smaller members, boosting passenger numbers and enhancing connectivity to and between the regions of this country. The Government needs to be careful that in awarding funding for individual routes it is not doing anything to distort competition, but provided that this is not an issue we would urge Ministers to proceed quickly and ensure that the money is allocated as soon as possible.”

http://ift.tt/1KaTDSW


 

Flybe want to connect Leeds Bradford and Newquay

20.8.2015 (Yorkshire Evening Post)

LEEDS could get a direct air link to the UK’s surfing capital if it gets backing from taxpayers.

Flybe wants to operate a new flight from Leeds-Bradford to Newquay and has asked the Government for financial help to get the service off the ground.

It is asking for help from the Government’s regional air connectivity fund which is designed to encourage more flights from regional airports.

Flybe’s proposals are among 15 nationally the Government has judged meet European rules on state-aid.

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: “Smaller airports are vital for bringing the country together and creating new international opportunities for their local areas.

“The shortlist we are publishing today shows the potential for smaller airports to create jobs and drive growth.

“Aviation is one of the UK’s economic success stories and our investment ensures it is shared out across the whole country.”

To access money from the fund airlines have to show they will be able to operate the proposed routes without financial help after three years.

Further consultations will now be held over the shortlisted flights before a final decision is taken over which receive backing.

http://ift.tt/1NKYEjP


.
.

NEW flights from Yorkshire airports could be launched with help from the taxpayer.

20.8.2015 (Yorkshirei Post)

The Government has shortlisted two applications from airlines seeking financial help to start new services from the region.

Flybe wants to operate a new flight from Leeds-Bradford to Newquay while BMI regional wants to connected Robin Hood Airport with Frankfurt.

Both airlines are asking for help from the Government’s regional air connectivity fund which is designed to encourage more flights from regional airports.

Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin said: “Smaller airports are vital for bringing the country together and creating new international opportunities for their local areas.

“The shortlist we are publishing today shows the potential for smaller airports to create jobs and drive growth.

“Aviation is one of the UK’s economic success stories and our investment ensures it is shared out across the whole country.”

To access money from the fund airlines have to show they will be able to operate the proposed routes without financial help after three years.

The two Yorkshire proposals are among 15 the Government has judged meet European rules on state-aid.

Further consultations will now be held over the shortlisted flights.

http://ift.tt/1KaTG0M


Dundee to Amsterdam service closes in on Regional Air Connectivity Fund assistance

By ANDREW LIDDLE
20 August 2015

A proposed air route from Dundee to Amsterdam has taken a major step forward after the UK Government agreed to look at subsidising the flight.

The Amsterdam service would be in addition to the current route to London Stansted.

Almost £3 million of taxpayers’ money is already ploughed into maintaining the city’s air link with London Stansted – and it is now hoped a similar deal can be struck to create a route to the Netherlands.

FlyBe are proposing to operate the flight to Amsterdam Schiphol — Europe’s biggest aviation hub.

The news that the planned route has been shortlisted for funding by the UK Government has been welcomed by local politicians who have campaigned for an expansion of the HIAL-operated Dundee Airport.

The proposed new Dundee link was one of 19 routes to be assessed by UK Government Department for Transport for support through the Regional Air Connectivity Fund.

Derrick Lang, HIAL’s Dundee Airport manager, said: “We welcome the UK Government’s decision to progress Flybe’s proposed Dundee to Amsterdam service for potential funding by the Regional Air Connectivity Fund.

“There is no doubt that this service would be of considerable benefit to business and tourism in Dundee and we are pleased that the proposed route will now be subject to further evaluation.

“We are ready to work with Flybe and Dundee City Council to support this bid in any way we can.”

http://ift.tt/1NKYEjU

 

 



via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1KaTE9e
Read more ...

Group of London councils say Airports Commission buried economic evidence

Friday, 21 August 2015
Read more ...

The sovereign wealth fund of Kuwait & Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan interested in buying London City Airport

Wednesday, 19 August 2015

The sovereign wealth fund of Kuwait is teaming up with Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and Hermes to bid for London City airport, while Macquarie is leading a rival consortium. The airport has been valued at £2 billion. Wren House Infrastructure Management is a massive sovereign wealth fund, one of the world’s largest, owned by the Kuwait Investment Authority (KIA). The KIA is the world’s fifth largest sovereign wealth fund with some $592bn in assets. The current owners of 75% London City Airport, GIP, hired Credit Suisse to handle the sale.  Oaktree Capital owns the remaining 25% of the airport, and has agreed to the sale. London-based Wren House was set up in 2013 to facilitate direct infrastructure investment by Kuwait’s sovereign wealth fund. The Ontario Teachers’ Pension Fund already owns Bristol airport (bought Sept 2014 from Macquarie) and holds a stake in Birmingham Airport, as well as other non-airport assets. Despite growth in passengers at London City airports, the sale is likely to be complicated by uncertainty over its £200m planned expansion.
.

 

Kuwait eyes consortium bid for London City Airport

The sovereign wealth fund of Kuwait is teaming up with Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan and Hermes to bid for the airport, while Macquarie is leading a rival consortium

One of the world’s biggest sovereign wealth funds is part of a consortium that is plotting a bid for London City Airport, which has been valued at £2bn.

Wren House Infrastructure Management, which is an investment vehicle owned by the Kuwait Investment Authority; Canadian giant Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan; and investment firm Hermes have teamed-up to make an offer for the airport, according to sources in the infrastructure sector.

The KIA is the world’s fifth largest sovereign wealth fund with some $592bn in assets.

The trio will come up against a group led by the infrastructure arm of Australian financial group Macquarie, which is also understood to be preparing a rival approach for London City.

Suitors are scrambling to position themselves for a bidding war after private equity house Global Infrastructure Partners revealed earlier this month that it had put the airport up for sale.

GIP, which owns 75pc of London City as well as Gatwick and Edinburgh airports, bought the airport nine years ago for around £750m. It is thought that a sale could fetch up to £2bn. Earlier this week it emerged that GIP had hired Credit Suisse to handle the disposal of London City. Oaktree Capital owns the remaining 25pc of the airport and has agreed to the sale.

London-based Wren House was set up in 2013 to facilitate direct infrastructure investment by Kuwait’s sovereign wealth fund. Kuwait was part of a consortium that unsuccessfully attempted a £5bn takeover of water utility Severn Trent two years ago.

OTPP, which manages about C$154.5bn in assets, is one of Canada’s largest investment houses and is a major player in British infrastructure. It took sole ownership of Bristol Airport last September, holds a stake in Birmingham Airport, and, along with fellow Canadian pension fund Borealis Infrastructure, owns High Speed 1, the company behind the rail link between London St Pancras and the Channel Tunnel.

Hermes is also a key investor in the infrastructure sector and, together with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, bought a 30pc stake in Associated British Ports for about £1.6bn earlier this year.

Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, which is planning its own consortium bid, was bought out of Bristol Airport by OTPP.

London City is close to Canary Wharf and is a popular airport for workers in the financial services sector. It expects to carry about 4.1m passengers this year, up from 3.7m in 2013 and 2.8m in 2010. The airport is targeting 6m passengers a year by 2023.

Despite the strong growth, a sale of London City is likely to be complicated by uncertainty over its £200m planned expansion. Boris Johnson, the London mayor, blocked a proposal to grow the airport earlier this year, a month after Newham council approved the plans. The airport is now appealing the mayor’s decision.

A spokesman for Hermes said: “We do not comment on market speculation”. Spokesmen for OTPP and Macquarie declined to comment. Wren House did not return requests for comment.

http://ift.tt/1NvDsk8

.

.


 

Earlier:

 

GIP to put London City airport up for sale this year – might raise £2 billion?

August 6, 2015

London City airport is to be put up for sale by GIP by the end of the year, who want to capitalise on the rising global demand for air travel. GIP owns 75%, with Oaktree Capital owning the remainder, but both have agreed to the sale. GIP also has the main stake in Gatwick airport, and Edinburgh but say they are not selling these now. It is thought the airport might fetch as much as £2bn, which the FT says would be a multiple of over 60 times the company’s EBITDA in 2014. GIP bought the airport for about £750m in 2006 from Dermot Desmond; he had paid £23.5m for it in 1995 from Mowlem. The airport is trying to get planning consent for work to increase the annual number of passengers to 6 million per year by 2023, (4.1 million in 2014) but this has been blocked by Boris, due to noise. London City is appealing against this and may hear the outcome next year. City airport has already been granted permission to increase ATMs from 70,000 to 120,000 per year. It is widely believed that GIP would sell Gatwick soon, after the government makes a decision on if/where there might be a new runway. Last month, GIP said it would be prepared to give a legally binding promise that it will not sell out for a quick profit if the government decides to opt for a runway at Gatwick.

Click here to view full story…

 



via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1EDs5zn
Read more ...

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

Wednesday, 19 August 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.
.

 

 

Plane Stupid activists plead not guilty over Heathrow expansion protest

19.8.2015 (Guardian)

Supporters join the 13 Plane Stupid activists outside Uxbridge magistrates court on Wednesday.

More photos at Demotix
Thirteen charged with aggravated trespass and entering a security restricted area of an aerodrome after runway demonstration in July. Supporters join the 13 Plane Stupid activists outside Uxbridge magistrates court

heathrow-climate-activists-protest-outside-plane-stupid-court-hearing
Thirteen members of the activist group Plane Stupid have pleaded not guilty to charges of aggregated trespass during a protest at Heathrow airport last month.

The seven men and six women are accused of cutting a hole in a fence and chaining themselves to railings on the north runway to protest against the airport’s expansion.

The demonstration at around 3.30am on 13 July – which caused delays for passengers around the world, with 22 flights out of the airport cancelled – coincided with the publication of a long-awaited report that recommended a new runway should be built at Heathrow rather than Gatwick.

After three years of investigation, the Airports Commission said Heathrow was best placed to provide “urgently required” capacity. But environmentalists warn that building a new runway there will make it harder to reduce air pollution and climate change emissions.

The activists are charged with aggravated trespass and entering a security restricted area of an aerodrome. All thirteen, supported by a packed public gallery at Uxbridge magistrates court, took turns to stand and plead not guilty to both charges.

On arriving at the court on Wednesday, the protesters stopped for a statement to be read on their behalf. Surrounded by supporters – dressed in polar bear costumes or wearing David Cameron masks, and carrying placards – the 13 arrived to chants of “no ifs, no buts, no third runway!”.

One of the accused, Sheila Menon, 43, read: “Some of us are part of the local community that is already feeling the hugely negative impact of existing air traffic from Heathrow by way of noise and air pollution, and blight on the area.”

She said the UK had more than enough capacity to deal with the “ordinary people” taking their annual holidays and that airport expansion was being driven by a “minority of wealthy frequent flyers”.

The government was failing to act responsibly, said Menon, adding: “It is against this background and the failure of democratic processes, we believe our actions were reasonable, justifiable and necessary.”

Menon, of Hackney, east London, is accused along with Rebecca Holly Sanderson, 27, of Machynlleth, Powys; Richard Steven Hawkins, 32, and Kara Lauren Moses, 31, both of Heol y Doll, Machynlleth; Ella Gilbert, 23, of Norwich; Melanie Strickland, 32, of Waltham Forest, north-east London; Danielle Louise Paffard, 28, of Peckham, south-east London; Graham Edward James Thompson, 42, of Hackney, north-east London; Cameron Joseph Kaye, 23, Edward Thacker, 26, Alistair Craig Tamlit, 27, and Sam Sender, 23, all of West Drayton, west London; and Robert Anthony Basto, 67, of Reigate, Surrey.

A number of the group’s supporters, a total of about 40 people, were unable to get into the courtroom owing to lack of space and stood outside for the morning, waiting for the hearing to finish.

One of them, who wished only to be named as Margo, said: “I am here to support the amazing, brave activists and to show my solidarity with them. If they get found guilty then it could be an incredibly terrifying sentence for them, because it is a big thing they are being accused of.”

The defendants 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 18 January. It is thought the case will last two weeks, with each defendant expecting to give evidence.

http://ift.tt/1USLwxm

 

 


 

Heathrow disruption: Plane Stupid activists in court

19.8.2015 (BBC)

Thirteen climate change activists have pleaded not guilty to charges of trespassing on Heathrow’s north runway.

The Plane Stupid demonstration on 13 July led to delays and the cancellation of 22 flights.

The activists, who were protesting against plans to expand the airport, allegedly cut a hole in a fence and chained themselves to railings.

Supporters chanted “No ifs, no buts, no third runway!” outside the court.

Sheila Menon, one of the accused, read a statement outside Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court. She said the pollution and noise caused by air traffic at Heathrow was already blighting the area.

She said the proposed expansion – recommended by the Airports Commission in its final report last month – was driven by “wealthy frequent flyers” rather than ordinary holidaymakers.

Plane Stupid’s actions were “reasonable, justifiable and necessary”, said Ms Menon.

The activists were charged with aggravated trespass and entering a restricted area of the airport without permission.

They were bailed on condition that they do not enter Heathrow or its perimeter, with a trial expected to begin on 18 January.

http://ift.tt/1fpZB5h

.


.

Earlier:

Plane Stupid activists set up protest, locking themselves together, on Heathrow northern runway

At around 3.30am a group of 12 climate change activists from the group Plane Stupid cut a hole in the perimeter fence at Heathrow, and set up a protest on the northern runway. They set up a tripod of metal poles, and metal fencing panels, and locked themselves onto these. Some were attached by D locks around their necks, onto the fence. Others used arm locks (two people link arms, handcuffed together, inside a hard tube) to make it difficult for police to remove them. Police arrived on the scene shortly after the protest was set up. The first flights arrive at Heathrow from around 4.30am. Flights were delayed while the airport needed to shift runways. Six protesters were removed quite quickly. The protest was due to the recommendation of the Airports Commission that a 3rd runway should be built at Heathrow. Besides the serious negative impacts of the runway on noise, air pollution, destruction of Harmondsworth, huge costs to the taxpayer and considerable social disruption for miles around, the issue which has been glossed over is the CO2 emissions that the runway would create from greatly increased flights, many long-haul. The Commission itself was aware that a new runway would mean the UK could not achieve its aviation carbon cap, and make it less likely the UK could meet its legally binding carbon target for 2050.

Click here to view full story…

 



via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1E4Tcsh
Read more ...

Analysis by AEF shows economic impact of Heathrow runway likely to be minimal, or negative. Not £147 billion (over 60 years)

Monday, 17 August 2015

The Airports Commission has claimed,in its final report (1st July) and the media has uncritically repeated, that a new north-west runway at Heathrow would deliver up to £147 billion benefit for the UK (over 60 years). Now the AEF (Aviation Environment Federation) has done some critical analysis of the Commission’s various documents and figures, to elucidate what the actual economic impact on the UK economy might be. This is complex stuff, and making sense of the various facts (often in different documents at different dates) is not for the faint hearted. However, AEF shows that claims of £147 billion do not take into account the environmental or surface access costs associated with a new runway. The Commission’s own economic advisers have criticised the analysis (not done with the usual “WebTAG” model used by government) for double counting and questionable assumptions in relation to the indirect benefits associated with increased seat capacity. Using WebTAG, it appears – using the Commission’s own data – that there could be a net cost to the UK economy of – £9 billion over 60 years. Not a benefit at all, once all environmental and surface access costs are factored in. With some ‘wider economic benefits’ included, the benefit over 60 years would still be only £1.4 billion  (not £147 billion), as quoted in the Commission’s own final report.
.

 

AEF briefings: Airports Commission’s climate and economic analyses

The Airports Commission has claimed, and the media has uncritically repeated, that a new runway at Heathrow would deliver ‘up to £147 billion’ benefit for the UK. But this figure is based on analysis that takes no account of the environmental or surface access costs of expansion. Indeed, the Commission’s own specialist economic advisers have criticised the analysis for double counting and questionable assumptions in relation to the indirect benefits associated with increased seat capacity.

The results generated by using the Government’s methodology for cost benefit analysis meanwhile, are dramatically different: the Commission’s own figures, based on this methodology, suggest that building a third runway at Heathrow would result in a net £9 billion loss to the UK once all environmental and surface access costs are included. With some ‘wider economic benefits’ included, the benefit over sixty years would still be only £1.4 billion, as quoted in the Commission’s final report.

In our briefing on the economic impacts of airport expansion, available to download below, we look at how the Commission has presented its analysis of the costs and benefits of a new runway.

We have also published our assessment of whether the Airports Commission addressed our earlier concerns regarding a ‘carbon gap’ in the Commission’s analysis.


Download AEF briefings:

The Airports Commission’s economic fudge: How the economic case for expansion dissolves once climate change limits are accounted for

The Airports Commission’s final report – has it closed the carbon gap?

.

Some extracts from the AEF report: 

“The dominant narrative in the Airports’ Commission’s case for a new runway focuses on the economic benefit that it would bring to the UK, and the media presentation of the Commission’s work has largely repeated this storyline, quoting the Commission’s headline figure of ‘up to £147 billion benefit’ [link P 24] , with the addition that the environmental impacts will nevertheless make it controversial politically. But in fact the economic case for expansion rests on a highly selective presentation of the analysis undertaken by the Commission which gives a misleading impression about the strength of the economic case.”

…..

“Alongside [the conventional “Webtag” which is the Government’s recommended methodology for assessing the costs and benefits of proposed transport schemes] the Commission also commissioned analysis using a methodology it describes as a “novel” approach to capturing possible indirect GDP and GVA benefits as a result of expansion. This “Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model” relies on the assumption that aviation growth has ‘spillover’ effects in the form of increased trade, business growth, productivity improvements, and job creation. Among the papers published with the final report was a note [http://ift.tt/1TOj79b ] from the Commission’s expert economic advisers providing comments on the Commission’s approach to estimating wider economic benefits. This welcomes the attempt to adopt complementary approaches alongside WebTAG but expresses a number of concerns about the findings generated by the CGE model.

These include:

 too much weighting being given to the assumption that increased seat capacity will lead to wider benefits (for example in terms of increased trade), given that the direction of causality is in some cases unclear:

 likely double counting between the direct and wider impact channels in the PwC calculations; and

 inexplicable results, such as GDP impacts of more than twice the size of the direct welfare and wider economic benefit gains (while it might be expected that they would be lower).

The conclusion of the reviewers is that “While the content of the model itself has been well tested, the same cannot be said of the front end, where an increase in capacity is converted into an increase in trip-making, trade, tourism and finally productivity. Furthermore the interpretation of the result – what exactly do they mean and is their basis transparent – is an issue. Overall, therefore, we counsel caution in attaching significant weight either to the absolute or relative results of the GDP/GVA SCGE approach (PwC report) within the Economic Case”.

……

“Since WebTAG is the appraisal that Government guidance requires to be undertaken, it might be expected that the Commission’s WebTAG analysis would be central to its economic conclusions. In fact, however, the results were not included in headline figures or statements to the press and were instead presented in a table on page 147 of the Commission’s final report. These indicate that under a carbon cap (the ‘CC’ figure), the benefit of the recommended new Heathrow runway (in the third column) would be only £1.4 billion over sixty years. ”

…..

[Also interesting information, on pages 3 and 4 of the AEF report, on gaps in earlier documents by the Commission that were finally filled in, in a letter to Lord Deben of the CCC on the day the final report by the Commission was published (1st July 2015).  Also showing how some figures by the Commission relate to their “carbon capped” forecast and others to their “carbon traded” forecast. And they said  the omission of calculations for the carbon capped scenario (as requested by the CCC) was problematic as the initial figures suggested that carbon costs would ‘dominate’ the appraisal. [That means the costs of carbon would be so high, that the runway would have a negative impact on the economy, rather than a positive impact].

 


 

Also by the AEF:

The Heathrow noise sweeteners that act as a smokescreen for third runway pollution

AEF response to the Airports Commission consultation: gaping holes conceal potential environmental disaster

The carbon gap in the Airports Commission’s new runway analysis

Read more ...

More than a thousand people stage protest over Gatwick flight paths

Sunday, 16 August 2015

16.8.2018

More than a thousand people, many from Sussex and Kent,  gathered in a field at Penshurst, Kent, to protest against changes to flight paths. Campaigners have unveiled a huge sign, consisting of people with hay bales, and  that can be read by aircraft passengers (and pilots) landing at the airport.

Gatwick Obviously NOT photo 16 Aug 2015

Martin Barraud is one of the leading campaigners from the group “Gatwick Obviously NOT”. He commented that it is about sending a message to the airport from  the people on the ground, making it clear there are a massive number of people who are affected by aircraft noise from Gatwick airport.

Flight paths are now lower over their area, and concentrated – so people suffer from intense aircraft noise,often every two minutes or so, for most of the  day.  Planes also fly over them at night, though less often than in the daytime.

Someone who attended commented that is was not only people over a certain age who took part, but also a large number of younger people, who are also concerned about the noise.

http://ift.tt/1nSysWK

Two short video clips at  http://ift.tt/1gOeUG7



via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1DYqBod
Read more ...

Gatwick adverts banned by ASA for ‘misleading public’ on comparing numbers affected by new runways

Sunday, 16 August 2015
Read more ...

Boeing 757 escape slide fell from plane at around 3,000 feet, approaching Gatwick (Oct 2014)

Sunday, 16 August 2015

A Thomas Cook Boeing 757-300 that took off from Gatwick on 31st October 2014 dropped an emergency escape chute [about 25 kg weight?] as it approached Gatwick, for an emergency unscheduled landing. The plane’s escape slide fell off at 3,000 ft as it was approaching the airport, and was later found stuck in a tree (location not specified). A report by the AAIB said several minor issues combined to loosen the slide release mechanism of the slide as the plane was taking off. A crank handle had not been in the right place.  During the take off the cockpit instruments showed that the right over-wing escape slide container was not secure. With no sign that the slide had actually come loose, the crew continued with their take-off. The pilot circled around for 40 minutes, with landing gear, flaps and airbrakes deployed to burn off excess fuel and get the plane down to a normal landing weight before returning to Gatwick. As the plane descended to 3,000 ft, some of the cabin crew and passengers heard a number of bangs or felt the airframe shuddering. Two passengers reported seeing a white object falling from the right hand side of the aircraft.  It was later discovered that the emergency slide had struck the body of the plane and one window before it fell.
.

 

 

Boeing 757 escape slide falls off during flight

 

14 August 2015 (West Sussex Gazette)

A plane’s escape slide fell off at 3,000 ft as it was approaching Gatwick Airport.

The Boeing 757-300 was making an unscheduled return to Gatwick after a problem during takeoff.

A report by the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB), published yesterday (Thursday August 13), said the incident happened aboard a Thomas Cook flight from Gatwick to Egypt on October 31 last year.

Several minor issues are thought to have combined to loosen the slide release mechanism as the plane was taking off.

The plane was on the ground, travelling at about 70 knots (80.6 mph) when the cockpit instruments showed that the right over-wing escape slide container was not secure.

With no sign that the slide had actually come loose, the crew continued with their takeoff – as recommended by the Boeing quick reference handbook. However, after consulting their airline, they decided to return to Gatwick.

The pilot circled around for 40 minutes, with landing gear, flaps and airbrakes deployed to burn off excess fuel and get the plane down to a normal landing weight before taking it back to Gatwick.

As the plane descended to 3,000 ft, some of the cabin crew and passengers heard a number of bangs or felt the airframe shuddering. Two passengers reported seeing a white object falling from the right hand side of the aircraft.

It was later discovered that the object was the emergency slide, which had struck the body of the plane and one window before it fell.

On final approach, the pilot noticed that the autopilot seemed to be having trouble keeping the wings level.

He switched off the autopilot and took control. Although he could control the aircraft, he reported that it needed a ‘significant amount of left aileron’ to stop the plane rolling to the right.

This issue has been noticed before in cases where the slide carrier has opened in flight. The quick reference handbook recommends reduced flap settings to manage the problem while coming in to land, but only in cases where the slide has come loose but is still attached.

Boeing have now been advised to update the handbook to extend this advice to any 757-300 with a wing slide alert warning showing.

The plane landed safely. The slide itself landed in a tree, and was later recovered by the investigators.

Investigators discovered that a crank handle which controls the panel latches had moved to the release position.

The report said it was likely that someone had accidentally moved the handle slightly out of position, so that a slight additional factor could move it the rest of the way.

The AAIB found that a component missing from one of the flaps, and another that was loose, would have caused increased vibration on the plane.

“It is possible that the flap system vibration and resonance resulted in a gradual movement upwards of the crank handle over a period of time to the point whereby it allowed the slide carrier and panel to open with its locking devices in the released condition,” it said.

“Once open, it was in the air flow with the slide itself now no longer restrained within its pack. Thus it eventually unravelled in the slipstream flailing about against the fuselage until its attachment material failed allowing it to detach and fall to the ground.”

Safety improvements, which were already being brought in when the incident happened, include alignment markings on the panel, which will make it easy to spot if the crank handle is slightly out of position.

During the investigation, it emerged that airlines and airport fire crews do not use a universal system to identify the various exits from a plane.

This could cause a serious problem during an emergency evacuation if, for example, fire crews needed to warn cabin staff not to use a particular exit.

The AAIB has now recommended that the European Aviation Safety Agency and other air safety regulators should bring in a standardised system.

http://ift.tt/1MvYy2q

 

The slide may weigh about 25 kg.  link


Examples of other objects falling from planes   http://ift.tt/1MvYy2u

.

.

.

 

 



via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1UMIwCG
Read more ...

Airport shops cheating passengers out of £ millions in VAT fiddle

Sunday, 16 August 2015

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke said he was concerned and disappointed that airport retailers were pocketing millions of pounds in VAT discounts without passing the savings to customers.  And that this should stop.  Stores at airports demand that passengers present their boarding cards at checkouts before paying for any goods, in order to avoid paying 20% VAT on everything they sell to customers who are travelling outside the EU. Most of these stores, including Boots and W H Smith, do not pass on the savings to passengers.  The Independent says this ruse is also used by so-called “duty-free” shops to boost their profits on alcohol sales, thereby making profits of up to 100% on each alcohol sale they make to travellers leaving Europe. UKinbound chief executive said visitors to the UK already have the impression that the UK is an expensive destination – and this is not helping. The airports charge retailers huge rent, to have the privilege of a store in the captive market that is the airport departure lounge. Exact figures are hard to come by and not publicly available, but Heathrow alone last year made around £400m in rental income from its airport 345 concessions and stores. Unlike on the high street Heathrow does not charge its stores a set flat rent – but rather a % of their net sales. On average each retailer is paying over £1m a year in rent.
.

 

Airport VAT scam: Treasury ministers demand end to rip-off charges and to pass savings on to passengers

Mass revolt across Britain as thousands refuse to show their passes after huge VAT scam is exposed by The Independent

By OLIVER WRIGHT and SIMON CALDER

12 August 2015

Treasury ministers have demanded an end to rip-off VAT charges by some airport stores as the grassroots passenger rebellion against the racket gathers pace.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke, told The Independent he was concerned and disappointed that some of Britain’s top retailers were pocketing millions of pounds in VAT discounts without passing the savings to customers.

The practice, where stores demand that passengers present their boarding cards at checkouts before paying for any goods, was first revealed by this newspaper last week.

The information is used by stores to avoid paying 20 per cent VAT on everything they sell to customers who are travelling outside the European Union. Most of these stores, including Boots and W H Smith, do not pass on the savings to passengers.

The Independent can also reveal the ruse is used by so-called “duty-free” shops to boost their profits on alcohol sales.

Mr Gauke said the intention behind VAT relief at airports was to help passengers and not to line the pockets of retailers – and called for the practice to stop. “The VAT relief at airports is intended to reduce prices for travellers not as a windfall gain for shops,” he said.

“While many retailers do pass this saving on to customers it is disappointing that some are choosing not to. We urge all airside retailers to use this relief for the benefit of their customers.”

Since the practice was exposed last week thousands of people have taken to social media to say they will now refuse to show their boarding cards at airports stores to stop the profiteering.

Many passengers claim to have been misled by airport shop staff who told them presenting a boarding card was obligatory – and even required for security purposes.

On 11 August travellers reported a confusing picture, with some stores agreeing to sell goods without the need for a boarding card while others refused. “I just bought a toothbrush and toothpaste from Boots and they sold it to me even when I refused to give them my boarding card,” said Andrew Buurman, who was travelling to Boston with his daughter. “Then I tried to buy some sun cream from World Duty Free and they refused to sell it to me without a boarding card.”

A former Boots worker said: “I used to work at a UK airport [and] I remember a colleague asking a manager once why we were required to ask for boarding passes. She explained it was so we could pay less tax on transactions where customers were flying outside the EU, though she also said we weren’t to tell customers that.”

But VAT appears not to be the only tax saving that stores are failing to pass on to customers. The Independent has established that some airport shops are making profits of up to 100% on each alcohol sale they make to travellers leaving Europe.

Most so-called “duty-free” stores in UK airports now operate a single pricing policy for the majority of alcoholic drinks they sell regardless of where passengers are travelling in the world, which is not illegal. While this represents a modest saving on high-street prices for travellers within Europe it creates a profits bonanza for stores on sales to passengers leaving the European Union.

For every one-litre bottle of spirits sold, the stores save around £11.06 in alcohol-specific duty charges as well as avoiding paying VAT. For each bottle of wine sold they save £2.73 per litre and £3.50 on champagne.

But little of these savings are passed on to customers. World Duty Free, which has concessions at Heathrow, for example, charges customers £16.49 for a bottle of Absolut Vodka compared to a high-street price of around £20 – a saving of less than 20 per cent. Most high-street retailers operate on profit margins of around 25 per cent, meaning that World Duty Free is making a profit even on the alcohol it sells to EU travellers. For non-EU travellers the store could be making as much as £9 in profit on each bottle sold at £16.49.

A spokeswoman for World Duty Free confirmed that it was a requirement that passengers who purchase any goods from the store produce “a valid transport document”.

The Money Saving Expert founder, Martin Lewis, called on travellers to refuse to let airport retailers scan boarding passes.

Speaking on BBC Radio 2 to Jeremy Vine, he said: “What we need to do, if we want to get them to change their policy, is quite simple: those of you who are going away this summer outside the EU, when they ask for your boarding pass, say, ‘No, sorry, I’m not going to give it to you: it only gives you a reduction. Unless you pass that on to me I’m not going to give it to you. Please tell your bosses.’”

Mr Lewis said travellers should ignore claims by retail staff that showing a boarding pass is obligatory: “You’re not protecting the sanctity of Britain by giving them your boarding pass – you’re enabling the commercial company to get a reduction on its tax bill.”

A spokeswoman for the campaign group 38 Degrees said: “It’s time for retailers like W H Smith and Boots to pass their savings on to their customers, rather than using them to line their shareholders’ pockets.”

 

Q&A: Simon Read’s guide to airport sales taxes

Q | What is duty free?

A | The term refers to the old excise duty charged on cigarettes and alcohol and certain other items.

There was no duty due on items bought outside the country – up to certain low limits – which meant holidaymakers could bring home a bottle of booze and a box of fags bought abroad, often at airports, without having to pay UK duty or tax.

That all changed in the 1990s after a number of European nations campaigned for duty-free sales within EU states to be scrapped, which they were in 1999.

Q | What’s happened since then?

A | “Duty-free” now strictly refers to cigarettes, tobacco and some spirits which are bought by British travellers to take to countries outside the EU, and brought in from outside the region. At airports you’ll see that items are labelled “available for non-EU destinations only”.

Q | So what’s the current row about?

A | It’s around the so-called “tax-free” prices that many airport shops offer. This is the price of an item before VAT has been added at 20 per cent. The problem is that many airport shops offer items for sale at the same price as they do in the high street – despite no VAT being due on any items you pay when travelling outside the EU.

It means that if you pay £6 for a bottle of sun cream, for example, the retailer doesn’t have to pass on the £1 VAT included if you’re heading outside the EU. Yet it charges you the full amount, including what it would normally pay in VAT. In other words, it pockets the tax element to boost its profits.

The total extra tax retained by retailers adds up to tens of millions each year. Campaigners say they should share that effective windfall with consumers, passing on at least some of the tax benefit to shoppers.

http://ift.tt/1IFBwSL


 

UKinbound chief executive Deirdre Wells has joined the debate by urging shops not to be greed, saying: “We are very concerned to hear that some retailers are not passing on the VAT refund which is due to visitors from outside the EU.

“The UK already suffers from a perception that it is an expensive destination – and this is not helping.

“Retailers need to recognise the important contribution which inbound visitors bring to the UK and make them feel welcome, not pocket the tax refund which is rightfully theirs.”

The government’s financial secretary David Gauke has also urged airport shops to do the decent thing, saying: “The VAT relief at airports is intended to reduce prices for travellers, not as a windfall gain for shops.

http://ift.tt/1WwG59g


Airport VAT: How I unearthed the great boarding pass scam – and led the charge to end it

By OLIVER WRIGHT
16 August 2015

Every time my boarding card had been requested at the checkout it had perplexed me

It is a scene repeated thousands of times a day at airports up and down the country.
Travel bag over your arm, carrier bag in one hand and the toothpaste, suncream and plug adaptor you’ve forgotten to pack balanced precariously in the other. You get to the checkout, put your goods on the counter and take out your card to pay.

The sales assistant looks at you somewhat contemptuously. “Have you got your boarding card?” she says – not as question, but as a weary command.

You put down your carrier, rummage around in the side pocket of your bag, pull out a crumpled piece of paper and hand it over compliantly. It’s far from the worst thing in the world but it makes the whole experience of travelling by air just one notch more unpleasant.

The question that has always perplexed me is: why? Over the past few years, every time I’ve gone abroad, I’ve made a mental note that when I get back I’ll investigate. And every year, by the time I get home I’ve forgotten about it.

But this year was different. I did remember, and on a quiet day in the office I decided to try to unravel what was going on.

I ruled out security, on the grounds that it made no sense at all, and phoned up Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ask them if they knew why passengers had to present their boarding cards at the checkout in airports.

A few days later they got back to me. There was no legal reason, they said. But airport stores could claim back the VAT on purchases made by people flying out of the EU – as long as they had the evidence in the form of a scanned boarding card.

On the face of it, that seemed pretty outrageous to me. We, the passengers, were not getting the savings: the stores concerned admitted to me that they charged the same at the airport as on the high street. But here they were, making millions of pounds a year by inconveniencing us and taking the 20 per cent VAT saving for themselves.

More to the point, it seemed like a scam that needed to be written about. I phoned the Consumers’ Association (who run Which? magazine and usually champion these kinds of issues) to ask what they thought. But they couldn’t have been less interested. “We haven’t done any research into it,” they told me. “It’s not something we can talk about.”

“But I can send you what HMRC say,” I offered. But it was to no avail. “Look, we will not be commenting,” I was told firmly.

When I pointed out to them that this seemed a bit odd, given their self-proclaimed role protecting consumers, they told me I was being rude. Hmm.

Dispirited, I phoned up Paul Lewis of Radio 4’s Money Box Live as well as our own travel editor, the brilliant Simon Calder. What did they think? Both of them were as outraged as I had been. Yes, it was a story, they said, and agreed it was worth writing about.

So we did. Last Saturday morning The Independent put the great VAT scam on its front page – and gratifyingly kicked off a campaign of gentle civil disobedience. Friends reported seeing people buying a copy of the paper – which they had been attracted to on the news stand – and then refusing to hand over their boarding card when they paid for it.

Twitter was predictably but rightly outraged. Facebook went into “share” overdrive.
Then other papers starting picking up the tale. The Daily Telegraphcommissioned an online poll of its readers. The Daily Mail, never one to pass on a good consumer-outrage story, joined the fray. Five days later, when ministers intervened to call for the practice to stop, the BBC decided that it too should report the story.

The message was simple: why should we all be inconvenienced just so that stores can take money off us that should rightfully be ours? And now, a week on, Boots has climbed down and said it will end the practice.

WH Smith and Dixons are still attempting to hold out. But resistance is futile. Anyone who has been in the country this week and who listened to news on the radio, watched the television or read a newspaper now knows about the practice and how to stop it.

As one traveller remarked on Twitter: “At Heathrow, a joy to watch old men loudly refuse to show their boarding cards. Truly, our own Arab Spring.”

http://ift.tt/1IWm0j9

As one commentator below the article commented: … “this illegal activity is anti-competitive. i.e a company landside at Heathrow has a competitive disadvantage with a company airside. This is permitted by HMRC providing an illegal opt out and should be stopped. It’s a rip off, anti competitive and illegal.”

.

and

http://ift.tt/1TbPfDE


 

Airport VAT scam: Are high airport rents, rather than greedy retailers, to blame?

11 August 2015  (Independent)

By Oliver Wright

The VAT wheeze is, in a way, a ‘victimless’ sleight of hand that helps them turn a profit while still paying sky-high rents

Why is it that a respected retailer such as Boots would knowingly indulge in the slightly underhand practice of pocketing VAT savings without passing on the benefits to its customers?

The answer may lie in the prices retailers themselves are charged for the privilege of opening a store in the captive market that is the airport departure lounge.

Exact figures are hard to come by but Heathrow alone last year made around £400m in rental income from concessions, including food outlets, in its airport stores. Unlike on the high street Heathrow does not charge its stores a set flat rent – but rather a percentage of their net sales.

This rate varies from retailer to retailer and the figures are not publicly available. But Heathrow has 345 concessions which means, on average each retailer is paying over £1m a year in rent.

Clearly some stores will be paying more than others but if you are a company like Boots, which has a presence in every terminal, you are clearly going to have to sell a lot of toothpaste and sun cream if you are still going to turn a decent profit after you’ve paid your rent.

So what to do?

Customers would be rightly peeved if they felt they were being charged a premium for goods bought at the airport. And Heathrow itself strictly controls what prices stores charge it as seeks to promote itself as a shopping destination that provides value for money.

So the VAT wheeze is, in a way, a “victimless” sleight of hand that helps them turn a profit while still paying sky-high rents. But consumers should not be fooled: their purchases are what makes the airport business such a profitable one.

http://ift.tt/1N7RS9S

.


 

The airport VAT ‘rip-off’ explained: What’s going on, which shops are involved and how to fight back

By CAMILLA CANOCCHI FOR THISISMONEY.CO.UK
13 August 2015

What is going on?

Passengers shopping at UK airports before boarding flights are used to showing boarding passes to staff at shop tills, usually under the impression that they are legally obliged to scan them.

But last weekend, many rebelled against some airport stores after it emerged the only reason they were asked to show boarding passes was for retailers to benefit from tax discounts which they do not then pass onto customers by lowering prices.

How so?

Most goods sold by airport stores to passengers travelling outside the European Union are exempt from 20 per cent VAT.

Retailers such as Boots and WH Smith are accused of including the VAT in the price charged to customers as prices at the airport are very similar or the same as on the high street.

On Tuesday, David Gauke, financial secretary to the Treasury, intervened and demanded airport stores pass on the VAT relief to travellers by cutting prices.

Who should be entitled to a discount and which goods should be cheaper at the airport?

People travelling outside the EU should not have to pay 20 per cent VAT on goods purchased at the airport.
Goods ranging from soft drinks, cosmetics, electricals and snacks carry VAT and therefore they should be cheaper at airports for customers travelling outside the EU.

But most food, books, magazines, newspapers, children clothes and other items will not be cheaper because they are exempt from VAT.

So do you have to show your boarding pass?
Yes and no.
You do not need to show your boarding pass if you buy most goods such as cosmetics, soft drinks or electronic goods.

However, you need to show it at duty-free shops if you buy alcohol, cigarettes or tobacco as these goods are subject to different taxes from the Government.

A spokesman for the HM Revenue & Customs said: ‘There is nothing in VAT law to require the production of a boarding pass to purchase goods in airport shops, but without such evidence the supply cannot be zero-rated as an export.’

This means that if you refuse to scan your boarding pass at the till, the store will not be able to claim back the VAT.

Which shops are ripping you off?

Retailers such as Boots, WH Smith and Dixons all charge similar prices on the high street and airports. This means that prices at the airport are set as if they are inclusive of VAT at 20 per cent.

For example, a bottle of Nivea sunspray at UK airport branches of Boots sells for £8. Boots can reclaim £1.60 VAT on every sale to customers travelling beyond Europe, but it does not pass on that discount to the customer.

If shops are showing two prices – one including VAT and one without – then they probably not ripping you off.

A Burberry checked cashmere scarf that costs £335 on the high street is priced at £279 at the airport.
Staff at the luxury fashion brand at Heathrow airport over the weekend said boarding cards had to be shown to benefit from VAT-free prices.

Are duty-free shops ripping you off too?

Only cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol are ‘duty-free’ goods. It means that the shops selling them, like World Duty Free, do not pay duty or VAT. This is because they are treated as exporters by the taxman.

Normally these stores display two different prices – one with and one without the excise duty, so shoppers travelling outside the EU are supposed to make savings.

http://ift.tt/1WwG59h


 

Airport shops refuse to pass on VAT savings: WH Smith, Dixons and Boots under pressure after refusing to change their prices

• Pressure building over ‘duty free’ shops pocketing VAT saving at airports
• WH Smith, Dixons and Boots are under fire but still won’t change prices
• More than 2,000 people signed a petition calling for an end to the ‘scam’
• Passengers have protested by refusing to hand over boarding passes

• By CLAIRE DUFFIN FOR THE DAILY MAIL
13 August 2015

Pressure was mounting last night on airport retailers to pass on tax savings to customers.
Experts joined consumers in calling for fairer prices at airport duty-free shops after it emerged that stores were using passengers’ boarding passes to benefit from tax exemptions to the tune of millions of pounds.
Until now, it was widely believed that the travel documents were required in shops for security reasons or passenger surveys.
In fact, the purpose is to allow stores to escape paying 20 per cent VAT on any products they sell to people travelling outside the EU.
Purchases made by such passengers are exempt from VAT and shops ask to see boarding passes so they can prove to HM Revenue and Customs that goods have gone out of the EU.
But many airport shops charge all passengers the same, regardless of whether VAT is due.
Boots, Dixons and WH Smith – identified as the worst offenders – have so far refused to change their prices.
Some shops charge similar prices at airports as they do on the high street. For example, a bottle of Nivea sunspray at airport branches of Boots sells for £8. Boots can save £1.33 VAT on every sale to those travelling beyond Europe, but it does not pass on that discount to the customer.
Last night, more than 2,000 people had signed an online petition urging retailers to ‘end the airport sunscreen scam’. Addressed to Boots president Simon Roberts and Stephen Clarke, chief executive of WH Smith, the petition calls for VAT savings to be passed on to passengers ‘rather than using an underhand method to reduce your tax bill’.
And at airports, passengers have protested by refusing to show their boarding passes after learning it was not a legal requirement. The Retail Ombudsman – set up in January to help shoppers settle disputes – said it had been so ‘inundated’ with complaints that it is taking on more staff to handle them all.
WH Smith said it was too difficult to introduce ‘dual pricing’, but the claim was undermined by the fact that several retailers already have.
Lord Harris, chairman of the National Trading Standards Board, said airport shops that failed to pass on the tax relief were ‘quite clearly profiteering’.
He suggested retailers should have two queues with different prices for customers travelling inside the EU and those going further afield.
Boots pledged late on Wednesday to stop asking for boarding passes while it reviewed the situation. But it has refused to change prices, along with Dixons and WH Smith – despite a plea from the Treasury for airport stores to pass on the VAT relief to travellers as is intended.
Dixons said it offered ‘one single, great-value price across products; underpinned by our price promise’.
Boots said: ‘Rather than offering different prices to some customers travelling outside the EU, we want all customers to benefit from consistently low prices.’
WH Smith has said that ‘any VAT relief… is reflected in our single price and extensive promotional offers provided to all our customers’.
http://ift.tt/1UFXWZt

.

 

 



via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1WwG5pu
Read more ...