April 2016

All Party Parliamentary Group on Air Pollution set up, as greatly increased interest in air quality by MPs

Friday, 29 April 2016

A cross-party Parliamentary group of MPs, Peers, businesses and other stakeholders has been set up to specifically look at air pollution issues in the UK, with Labour MP Matthew Pennycook (MP for Greenwich) acting as its chair. The All Party Parliamentary Group on Air Pollution held its inaugural meeting on 26th April, and 3 vice-chairs were also elected (Daniel Poulter; Helen Hayes;and Baroness Sheehan). Trade organisation the Environmental Industries Commission (EIC) will act as secretariat for the Group, through its chief executive, Matthew Farrow. More interested MPs will be recruited. There has recently been a much increased level of interest in air pollution, especially in NO2 – brought into the spotlight by the VW “defeat” devices scandal. The emergence of the group is timely, after the news that ClientEarth has permission to pursue its JR against the government, to get improvements in air quality more rapidly. A week or so earlier, a new joint body between Defra and the DfT was set up – JAQU, Joint Action on Air Quality – to deliver national plans on air quality. Heathrow’s hopes of a 3rd runway are at risk, due to legal levels of NO2 already being breached. Gatwick also risks breaching legal limits, if it had a second runway.
.
Tweet

Parliament sets up cross-party air pollution group

28.4.2016

By MICHAEL HOLDER (Air Quality News)

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Air Pollution held its inaugural meeting on Tuesday evening (April 26), at which MP for Greenwich Mr Pennycook, who was instrumental in setting up the group, was elected chair.

Three vice-chairs were also elected at the meeting: Conservative MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, Daniel Poulter; Labour MP for Dulwich and West Norwood, Helen Hayes; and Liberal Democrat Peer, Baroness Sheehan.

Perhaps tellingly, the chair and two of the vice chairs either represent, or have previously represented, London constituencies in the House of Commons, with only Mr Poulter being based outside UK’s capital – which has the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the UK.

Trade organisation the Environmental Industries Commission (EIC) will act as secretariat for the Group, for which a “big programme of events” are not being planned alongside further recruitment of interested stakeholder businesses and organisations as members.

“We are conscious that it is a very complex issue – there are many different airborne pollutants and different technology options” – Matthew Farrow, EIC

Remit

Matthew Farrow, executive director of the EIC, said that while it was still “early days” the remit of the APPG would be “technology neutral” and focus on a range of airborne pollutants beyond just NO2 and particulate matter.

Speaking to AirQualityNews.com, Mr Farrow said: “Air quality has been a big, big issue for a long time but gradually there has been a lot more attention on it in the media. But, while that is all good, we are conscious that it is a very complex issue – there are many different airborne pollutants and different technology options.

“We also felt that there was much-increased interest among MPs and so there was a great deal of merit in setting up this group.”

He said the timing of the new Group was pertinent, as with Defra facing further court action from Client Earth, the EU referendum and the EFRA report on air pollution earlier this week “this is a big year for air quality”.

Mr Farrow added: “It is something we have been working on for a little while with Matthew Pennycook MP, who was elected the chair this week. He is a London MP for Greenwich and so has a lot of interest in this subject.”

http://ift.tt/24aXcna

Judge gives ClientEarth permission to pursue a JR against UK government over air quality

April 28, 2016

Environmental lawyers ClientEarth have been granted permission to take the UK government back to court, over its failure to tackle illegal levels of air pollution. A judge at the High Court has granted their request to pursue a Judicial Review against Defra. ClientEarth’s CEO James Thornton said the decision by the court to grant a hearing was a victory in itself. “The UK government has claimed that it has done everything required by last year’s Supreme Court ruling. By granting us permission to return to court the judge has decided that the government does indeed have a case to answer.” ClientEarth lodged papers at the High Court in London in March – naming the UK Environment Secretary Liz Truss as defendant. Papers were also served on Scottish and Welsh ministers, the Mayor of London and the DfT as interested parties in the case. ClientEarth said the government’s lastest plans are woefully inadequate and won’t achieve legal sir quality limits for years to come. ClientEarth believes the government is in breach of its legal duty to produce new air quality plans to bring air pollution down to legal levels in the “shortest possible time”, despite being ordered to do so by the UK Supreme Court. ClientEarth has asked judges to strike down the plans produced by the government in December, order new ones and intervene to make sure the government acts. #no2dirtyair

Click here to view full story…

Defra and DfT set up JAQU (Joint Air Quality Unit) to deliver national plans to cut NO2 levels

April 22, 2016

A new joint unit between Defra and the DfT has been established, to deliver national plans to improve air quality and meet EU limits. The new body, the Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU) has been set up to do this and will be hosted at Defra. It will be led by Defra’s deputy director of flood risk management, Susanna May. The JAQU will report to Defra air quality minister, Rory Stewart, and Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Andrew Jones. It will focus on delivering the UK’s national air quality plans to reduce levels of NO2. These plans were publicly consulted on by Defra last year and include proposals to establish Clean Air Zones in five UK cities by 2020. The Unit will develop more detailed proposals for the Clean Air Zone framework and legislation to mandate zones in certain cities, with a view to consulting on these later this year. A number of Defra and DfT staff who worked to develop these plans have transferred into the new Unit. Day-to-day responsibility for air quality matters will remain with Defra. Work on aviation matters will still be taken forward by the DfT. The new unit is timely, as ClientEarth have been given permission to take further legal action against the government on its slow progress to improve UK air pollution.

Click here to view full story…

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1O1vFYz

Judge gives ClientEarth permission to pursue a JR against UK government over air quality

Thursday, 28 April 2016

Speculation that Berlin Brandenburg might never open, as its problems are so expensive

Thursday, 28 April 2016

The man in charge of planning Berlin’s Brandenburg airport, which has had a catalogue of major problems, says it now may never open. It might be pulled down. It was meant to open in 2010, but had real problems with the fire extinguisher system, which did not work. Every year, the date of possible opening is pushed further back. Now it seems the myth of German national efficiency is under threat. The airport is already £5 billion over budget and a national disgrace for a country that prides itself on technical excellence. The chief planner, until 1999, doubted if it would ever open. After the fire issue, which required the removal of hundreds of defective firewalls, there were also hundreds of miles of wiring that had to be ripped out of leaking underground conduits. The luggage relay systems did not work, and the computer system was so complex that for years nobody could work out how to turn off the lights. They blazed 24/7. Every month, the delay costs about £15 million, including cleaning costs and lighting to prevent vandalism. The Times says the airport’s PR chief “who, rather too truthfully, told journalists that claims of the project going well were “bullshit”.” If it does ever open (2018, 2019?) it will already be too small, and another runway may be added ….
.
Tweet

Berlin’s new airport ‘may never open’: planner

27.4.2016 (The Local. Germany)

The man formerly responsible for planning Berlin’s much-delayed international airport has claimed the air hub will never open, after a series of failures have left city authorities red faced.

Lufthansa slashes 895 flights over Wednesday strike (26 Apr 16)
Strikes to hit major German airports next Wednesday (22 Apr 16)
Inspectors smuggle bomb parts through Cologne airport (18 Apr 16)

Talking to the Berliner Morgenpost, Dieter Faulenbach da Costa, who was responsible for planning the project up until 1999, said he doubted whether the airport would ever be opened.

Berlin-Brandenburg Airport (BER) was supposed to open to the public in 2011, providing the German capital with a modern transport hub to replace the smaller airports at Schönefeld and Tegel.

But a series of planning failures have delayed the opening by years, with city authorities now claiming it will open in 2017.

Da Costa believes though that modifications to the design of the fire safety systems, which are the main reason for the delay in the opening, will make the project unworkable.

“The restructuring of the fire safety systems which has been going on for the last four years at BER will prevent the opening of the new airport,” he told the Morgenpost.

Da Costa criticized the airport management for too hastily ditching the old fire safety system.

“Instead of completing the [fire] apparatus which complied with original construction permit and then testing it, they decided to take on restructuring projects,” he said.

Berlin authorities responded to the former planner’s comments by saying it was sticking to the scheduled opening at the end of 2017.

“We already commented fully on this problem and to our current plan for the opening on Friday. We have nothing more to add,” spokesperson for the airport Lars Wagner said.

Earlier in April the airport sacked its previous PR chief for being slightly too honest about failures in the project.

Daniel Abbou described previous management as a shit show and said “up until now official statements always said that the project was going well. That’s bullshit.”

Due to the chronic delays, the state governments of Berlin and Brandenburg are also likely to have to pay out millions in compensation to airlines which planned their businesses around a 2011 opening.

http://ift.tt/1qSQkc0

The Times has the same story. “Berlin’s delayed airport ‘will never open’ “

Wikipedia states:

http://ift.tt/1LpfU01

Berlin Brandenburg Airport is an international airport under construction, located adjacent to the current Berlin Schönefeld Airport in Schönefeld 18 kilometres (11 miles) south of the city centre of Berlin.

It was originally intended to replace both Schönefeld and Berlin Tegel Airport, and to become the single commercial airport serving Berlin and the surrounding state of Brandenburg, an area with a combined 6 million inhabitants. However it is now known it will only replace Tegel, as the old Schönefeld airport is in current expansion because will still be required to cope with rising passenger numbers.

With a projected annual passenger number of around 34 million, Berlin Brandenburg Airport would become the third busiest airport in Germany, surpassing Düsseldorf Airport, and one of the fifteen busiest in Europe.

Air Berlin, Germanwings and easyJet are expected to become the leading carriers at the airport, having announced the intent to relocate and keep their hub / base operations there which they currently maintain at Tegel and Schönefeld airports today.

Originally planned to open in 2010, the airport has encountered a series of delays due to poor construction planning, management, execution and corruption.

Unfinished construction and corrective work means an opening prior to late 2017 is unlikely according to the WSP CBP time frame.

Current estimates suggest that the airport will open in 2018 or 2019, at the latest. Recent reports mentioned the 3rd quarter of 2019.

Current total costs amount to €5.4 billion. Additional plans suggest additional costs amounting to an extra €2.19 billion. As of 3 June 2015, Germany applied for an additional €2.5 billion spending approval at the EU, in addition to the previous total of €4.3 billion. Total costs thus mount to €6.8 billion.

The EU will only permit an additional €2.2 billion. Although the airport has yet to open, officials are planning a possible third runway for approximately €1 billion and other new projects such as an additional terminal, expanded baggage system and another freight facility.

The total additional spending would amount to €3.2 billion. The board warned of a further rise in costs because the airport will not open before 2017. The current time-cost frame is limited to 2016.

….. and there is a lot more …… http://ift.tt/1LpfU01

Some earlier news about Berlin Brandenburg airport:

Berlin Brandenburg airport problem of terminal ceiling being too heavy ….. already years late, hugely over budget

October 1, 2015

Berlin’s long-delayed Brandenburg airport has suffered another setback after structural flaws were found in the terminal roof. It appears that the ceiling in the terminal building is too heavy. The airport, which was originally due to open in 2010, is still under construction and has run billions of Euros over budget. It was expected to open in 2017 but that could be postponed even further. The local building authority said it had told the construction firm to “immediately stop building works for the area underneath the entire terminal roof of the BER airport” until security checks could be carried out by engineers. The airport’s CEO has left the company. Earlier this year Air Berlin, which is currently running at a loss, reached a settlement with the airport over the delays as it had planned on making BER its main hub airport. The first problems noted were to do with the smoke and fire detection problem. The proposed solution, (which was not surprisingly rejected) was (paraphrased) for 800 low-paid workers armed with cell phones, sitting on camping stools, armed with thermos flasks, who would take up positions throughout the terminal. If anyone smelled smoke or saw a fire, they would alert the airport fire station and direct passengers toward the exits” The airport’s cost, borne by taxpayers, has tripled to €5.4 billion.

http://ift.tt/1KXxbZd

Troubled Berlin Brandenburg airport, due to open in June 2012, could be shut down in late summer unless €1.1 billion is raised

March 12, 2015

Berlin Brandenburg (BER) airport was intended to be a huge new airport for Berlin, so Berlin-Schönefeld and Tegel airports could close. The BER was initially due to open in June 2012. It had a catalogue of problems with fire safety, smoke extraction system, and fresh air supply in the event of fire. The launch has been delayed and delayed …. last year it was hoped it might open this year. Now the airport’s CEO has announced that it is possible the construction of the airport may need to be shut down this summer, if a further €1.1 billion cannot be raised. Some €4.3 billion has already been spent, but that only lasts till this summer. Extra costs have been incurred due to the late opening, as well as the extra construction costs. A decision on how €1.1 billion can be raised is needed urgently, perhaps through bank loans, government grants or from an investor. The money has to not only be agreed by Berlin, Brandenburg and the federal government, but also needs approval from the EU Commission. Current total costs amount to €5.4 billion. Additional plans suggest additional costs amounting to an extra €2.19 billion. Although the airport has yet to open, officials are planning a possible third runway for approximately €1 billion and other new projects such as an additional terminal, expanded baggage system and another freight facility. The total additional spending would amount to €3.2 billion.

Click here to view full story…

Berlin’s Schönefeld airport ‘to stay open’ as Brandenburg airport (at huge expense) not ready till 2015 at the earliest

February 25, 2014

Berlin’s old Schönefeld airport is likely to remain open as a destination for budget airlines despite a multi-billion airport being built next to it, at Berlin Brandenburg (BER), as the new international hub is too small. It is the latest in a long line of setbacks to hit the BER, which is over budget and behind time. It will have two runways. It is expected to open in 2015 at the earliest. Officially the cost of the airport is €4.3 billion, though initial cost estimates were €1.2 and it could cost up to €6 billion. Despite the huge cost, the airport will only have a capacity of 27 million passengers a year, so its ageing neighbour, Schönefeld, will need to stay open. The original plan had been for Schönefeld, which caters for budget airlines, to merge with BER. Keeping Schönefeld in operation would increase capacity by 7.5 million passengers a year and avoid further costs of building a new terminal. Earlier it had been expected that BER could be partly in use in 2014, with 10 planes per day, but that will not happen. The airport was initially intended to open in 2010 but the multiple delays have been due to difficulties concerning fire safety, the smoke exhaust systems and construction errors. Air Berlin is suing BER for damages due to the much delayed opening.

Click here to view full story…

…… and there is more going back further at

http://ift.tt/1VVgGb7

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

Whitehall logjam of work due to EU vote could push runway decision back to September

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

The Standard reports that the Government may delay their decision on a runway until perhaps September, rather than July. Patrick McLoughlin had said earlier (8th Feb) that he hoped there would be a decision before the summer recess (mid-July). However the government has such a “log-jam” of work caused by the EU referendum that, frankly, the runway issue is not top of the agenda. Insiders in government are said to believe the runway problem is only one of many major decisions competing for time in a one-month window between the referendum (23rd June) and the summer parliamentary recess (21st July). Many Whitehall departments are keen to get their decisions time-tabled to be taken in July. Parliament returns briefly between the 5th and the 15th, and it is considered possible that the government might make an announcement then. That way, there would be a runway decision (perhaps stating a location?) in time for the Party Conferences. However, it is possible there could be a longer delay. It is thought that No.10 is somewhat “paralysed” by its battle to win the referendum on June 23.” It is known that the DfT is having to carry out a considerable amount of further work on the runway options, to add to the work of the Airports Commission, and fill in gaps.
.
Tweet

Whitehall logjam over EU vote ‘could push Heathrow ruling back to September’

By JOE MURPHY AND NICHOLAS CECIL

27.4.2016 (Evening Standard)

The Government decision on Heathrow’s third runway faces yet another delay because of a Whitehall “logjam” caused by the EU referendum. Insiders say it is among a raft of major decisions competing for time in a one-month window between the referendum and the summer parliamentary recess.

September is increasingly seen as the earliest date for a new South-East runway site to be chosen, but a longer wait is not being ruled out. The slippage is embarrassing for David Cameron, who pledged to settle it by the end of 2015.

No 10 officials strongly denied claims made by MPs and ministers that the Government is “paralysed” by its battle to win the referendum on June 23.

But one senior Tory said: “The Prime Minister is absolutely consumed by the referendum and a lot of decisions are piling up in the in-tray.” An industry figure who deals with government said: “We’re seeing every Whitehall department fighting to get its decisions timetabled to be taken in July.”

Ministers have to choose between three schemes: a third runway at Heathrow, a second at Gatwick or the independent Heathrow Hub plan. However, the boss of Gatwick says the Government must redraft its air quality plan in the wake of the emissions scandal.

Diesel cars being sold in the UK emit an average of six times more nitrogen oxide in real-world driving than the legal limit used in official tests, according to a government report last week.

Gatwick chief executive Stewart Wingate claimed the findings were a “hammer blow” for Heathrow expansion: “It also obviously means the Government will have to revisit its air quality plan.”

Heathrow rejected the claim about its plans for a third runway, which it says can operate within EU air quality rules. It said: “Heathrow’s forecasts are modelled on real-world emissions data.”

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We will consider any revisions and, if necessary, update our air quality plans.”

The Department for Transport said: “We have accepted the case for airport expansion in the South-East and we are further considering the environmental impacts. We will take account of any relevant evidence and expect to conclude this work by the summer.”

http://ift.tt/1NUJPL1

Earlier:

Patrick McLoughlin evidence to Transport Cttee – he “very much hoped” to give runway location decision by July

February 11, 2016

The Commons Transport Committee held an oral evidence session on 8th February, inviting Transport Secretary of State, Patrick McLoughlin, to comment on the decision by the government to delay a statement on the location of a possible new runway. The tone of the session was that the Committee was eager for a decision to be made rapidly, with concern that undue time was being taken. Mr McLoughlin explained that even an EU referendum in June would not rule out a decision before Parliament’s summer recess. He said though there has been a delay, partly due to air pollution problems and the VW “defeat” scandal, he hoped the government was ensuring all necessary research had been done, to minimise the chance of legal challenges causing yet further delays. The timetable the government is working to is a runway by 2030, though Heathrow and Gatwick would prefer it to be by 2025. Mr McLoughlin said he “very much hoped” there would be a statement to Parliament at least several days before summer recess (mid-July, date not yet published) to allow time for MPs to comment etc. He stressed how the 2008 Planning Act would make pushing a runway through fast, and gave the various timings, with only 6 months for a planning inquiry and examination in public.

http://ift.tt/1ouu4UZ

Patrick McLoughlin hints that EU referendum could delay runway decision, even beyond this summer

January 21, 2016

One of the many omissions by the Airports Commission, in its analysis of whether a runway should be built, and its recommendation, is the impact of the UK leaving the EU. It was not considered. Clearly, if the UK did leave Europe after a referendum, there would be complicated economic impacts – which would take years to work through. Now the Secretary of State for Transport, Patrick McLoughlin, speaking in an interview on LBC, has said there could indeed be a delay in the government making a decision due to the referendum and the uncertainty about that. Asked when there would be a decision, he replied: “I hope later this year. We have said we would hope to move some way by the summer of this year.” And he went on: “There’s lots of other things which are going on in the political spectrum – if there’s a referendum this summer, and the like. But I would hope by the summer of this year we will be able to make progress.” There is no mention at all of the issue in the Airports Commission’s final report in July 2015 nor in the many supporting documents, nor in its interim report, in December 2013. David Cameron has said the EU referendum will happen by the end of 2017. It may happen as early as June or July 2016.

Click here to view full story…

Long awaited Government statement on runways – decision will be delayed till summer 2016 – more work needed

December 10, 2015

After a meeting of the Cabinet Airports Sub-Committee, a statement was finally put out by Patrick Mcloughlin, the Secretary of State for Transport, at 7pm. It said that the government confirms it supports the building of a new runway in the south east, to add capacity by 2030 (earlier airports claimed they could have a runway built by 2025). The decision on location is “subject to further consideration on environmental impacts and the best possible mitigation measures.” All three short listed schemes will continue to be considered – so Gatwick is still included. “The government will undertake a package of further work and we anticipate that it will conclude over the summer.” On air pollution and carbon emissions “The government faces a complex and challenging decision on delivering this capacity.” More work is needed on NO2. “The government expects the airports to put forward ambitious solutions. …The mechanism for delivering planning consents for airport expansion will be an ‘Airports national policy statement’ (NPS), following which a scheme promoter would need to apply for a development consent order.”… “At the first opportunity I will make a statement to the House to make clear our plans.”

Click here to view full story… and for some of the many comments on the statement

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1NUJPL2

Airport officials, CAA and NATS face hundreds of angry residents at CAGNE 2nd AGM

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

Local campaign group, CAGNE (Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions) held its 2nd AGM on 15th April, attended by around 200 people. Senior spokespeople from Gatwick, NATS and the CAA were invited to speak, but faced angry residents who are not satisfied with what is happening about Gatwick noise issues. During the meeting Bo Redeborn, who headed up the Arrivals Review, confirmed that it had not considered departures – only arrivals. Phil Roberts of the CAA explained how it is seeking greater transparency in airspace changes, having been surprised by the public outcry at various airports due to airspace changes. He confirmed that, (obviously) changes in one area impact airspace in other areas [arrivals and departures]. The CAA hopes that use of PRNAV or PBN (aircraft navigation by ‘satnav’) will improve the noise problem in future. [That is not inevitable, depending how it is used, and is likely to lead to concentrated flight paths, even if those could be varied. Sally Pavey commented that the CAA view of ‘dispersal’ would mean a ‘multitude of concentrated routes’ and not dispersal as people would normally consider it. NATS confirmed that though the LAMP programme, with routes outside current NPRs, has been put on hold, it will return by 2023/2024.
.
Tweet

Airport officials face hundreds of angry residents

25 April 2016 (West Sussex County Times)

.
Senior spokespeople from Gatwick Airport and the aviation industry faced hundreds of angry residents at the second annual meeting of an airport protest group at Warnham village hall on Friday.

CAGNE (Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions) is the West Sussex and Surrey lobby group that shares information with communities that are affected by aircraft noise from flight paths and the potential impact of a second runway at Gatwick Airport.

The aviation industry spokespeople included representatives from Gatwick Airport, its independent Arrivals Review team, the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS, which operates air traffic control.

During the meeting Bo Redeborn, who headed up the Arrivals Review, confirmed that CAGNE was right that the Gatwick Airport review had not considered departures when suggesting changes to arrivals.

The formal procedure of the AGM was conducted quickly with Sally Pavey being re-elected as chairman of CAGNE and the committee members being re-appointed by the audience, all unanimously.

Speaker Phil Roberts of the Civil Aviation Authority said that the CAA is the body tasked with ensuring that the aviation industry meets the highest safety standards and that drives improvements in airlines’ and airports’ environmental performance.

Mr Roberts detailed the role of the CAA and how residents could get involved in the current CAA consultation ( see details – ends 15th June ) and said that the CAA is seeking transparency in airspace changes. He also detailed how such changes in one area impact airspace in other areas, and that the way forward was PRNAV or PBN (aircraft navigation by ‘satnav’) on arrivals. [ie. flights have to be flown more accurately, so it is likely routes will be more concentrated, as planes fly almost the exact same course with little deviation. AW note].

Sally Pavey said later: “Both of these technologies result in concentrated flight paths against which CAGNE is lobbying. CAGNE’s appeal is for the exact opposite – dispersed flights – in order to achieve fair and equitable distribution of noise. Sadly the Government body defines ‘dispersal’ as a ‘multitude of concentrated routes’ and not as we knew it.
“This is because their policy is ‘concentration’ and ‘to save CO2 (fuel)’”.

Dave Curtis of the National Air Traffic Service (NATS), which is the UK’s largest provider of air traffic control services, explained how airspace works. In answer to a resident’s question, he said that villages are not shown on air traffic controllers’ screens but that aircraft and the volume of movements tend to dictate airspace routing guidance given to pilots.

Mr Curtis added that the LAMP (London Airspace Management Programme) document to modernise airspace, which was put on hold in 2014 as it pitched communities against each other with proposed new routes outside of the NPRs (Noise Preferential Routes) and which CAGNE battled to stop, will return in 2023/24.

Vicki Hughes of Gatwick Airport, who was accompanied by Bo Redeborn, the leader of Gatwick’s Arrivals Review team, said that she had just joined Gatwick to deal with feedback on the Arrivals Review and would be hosting a public meeting on April 26 and residents should email her via arrivalreview@gatwickairport.com; the final report is being published on May 31.

Jeremy Quin, MP for Horsham, speaking from the floor, advised Mr Redeborn that he would be meeting with Gatwick Airport soon to discuss the Arrivals Review and that he hoped that departures and their associated problems would be addressed.

In a question and answer session, two members of the public challenged the CAA over noise metrics, claiming that that they are out of date.

Sally Pavey, chairman of the meeting, stressed that the ambient noise in the countryside is much lower than in urban areas and so each low-flying aircraft is an ‘event’.

Other residents made it clear that sleep deprivation is a major concern for their families and that this is affecting their health and quality of life with departures as well as arrivals.

A Warnham resident asked if there were any plans to move flights from the westerly Dorking route (LAM 26) and place them over West Sussex and Warnham. [This means the possibility of moving some of the traffic that currently takes off from Gatwick to the west, and then turns north, before going east – and whether some of that traffic might in future be directed to turn south and then east AW note. Maps of Gatwick flight path routes below]

The CAA and NATS both confirmed that this was not the case and would not happen.

Another Warnham resident Michael Brookes said after the meeting: “The speakers must have left feeling the communities’ intense anger and frustration and their high level of mistrust at the whole issue of airspace changes. The meeting will have shown to them that it is not just one or two CAGNE committee members who are unhappy but the great swathe of inhabitants of the West Sussex and Surrey who CAGNE seek to protect.”

“Changes to airspace and flight paths will be met with strong and vehement criticism if those who wish to make them do not take into consideration with sincerity and in a practical way the feelings of those beneath the flight paths.”

http://ift.tt/1Tea7d3

Map showing the 9 different Gatwick departure flight paths

Taking off towards the west:

RWY26-CLN/BIG/LAM/DVR

RW26-TIGER/WIZARD

RW26-SFD

RW26-SAM/KENET/BOGNA/HARDY (2 parts)

and

Taking off towards the east:

RW08-SAM/KENET

RW08-SFD

RW08-CLN/BIG/LAM/DVR

RW08-LAM (joins with the route above eventually)

Gatwick routes

Naming of routes

Bognor Regis for BOGNA,

Seaford for SFD,

Dover for DVR,

Clacton for CLN,

Southampton for SAM etc

RWY26 means using the runway to take off to the west.

RWY08 means using the runway to take off to the east.

RWY26-DVR/CLN/BIG/LAM

That means Westerly departures on that route

RWY08-SAM/KENET

That means Easterly departures on that route

CAGNE also reported that:

Gatwick and aviation representatives faced angry at AGM

Senior spokespeople from Gatwick Airport and the aviation industry faced angry residents and community leaders at CAGNE’s second AGM, at Warnham village hall on Friday 15 April with some 200 people packed into the village hall.

Sally Pavey explained later, “Both of these technologies result in concentrated flight paths against which CAGNE is lobbying. CAGNE’s appeal is for the exact opposite – dispersed flights – in order to achieve fair and equitable distribution of noise but sadly the Government body call dispersal a multitude of concentrated routes and not as we knew it, as the policy is concentration and to save CO2 (fuel)”.

Challenged by a resident that NATS was ‘owned’ by the airlines and so had little interest in the affected communities, Mr Curtis said that it was not owned by the airlines. He said that an ‘Airline Group’, which held NATS shares, had recently diluted its shareholding.

CAGNE confirms that NATS’ current website, states that the Airline Group (comprising eight airlines including BA, Virgin and EasyJet) holds a 42% interest with Heathrow holding another 4%.

Attendee Martin Spurrier, who represents a rural community at Coneyhurst, near Billingshurst said, “The Arrivals Review is a step in the right direction and there are some good things in it. However, we sense that insincerity permeates the whole distasteful flight path and aircraft noise issue. It appears to be run by a self-interested ‘Club’ largely for its own and the airlines benefit”.

Sally Pavey, Chair of the meeting, added that until noise ‘events’ are measured (a noise ‘event’ is the noise of each individual aircraft disturbance) and not ‘average of noise’ over the period of 7am-11pm at Gatwick, the noise measurements cannot reflect the true ‘impact’ on rural areas. She stressed that the ambient noise in the countryside is much lower than in urban areas and so each low-flying aircraft is an ‘event’.

Other residents made it clear that sleep deprivation is a major concern for their families and that this is affecting their health and quality of life with departures as well as arrivals, especially the noise generated by the Emirates’ huge airbus.

On this topic, Ian Jopson of NATS said that the World Health Organisation are conducting a study into the affects of aircraft noise. This was not satisfactory for those in the audience who expressed further annoyance that the NATS representatives did not know the location of specific village to which they were referring in relation to aircraft routing.

Closing the meeting, Sally Pavey, said. “We thank our speakers as CAGNE wants to provide a platform for regular open debate so that residents can ask questions of those who seek to ‘modernise’ the airspace above their homes and dramatically impact residents’ lives.”

“We believe that cost efficiency and profit for Gatwick Airport shareholders and the aviation industry is top priority. We feel that it is vital that those who want to bring radical changes to the skies above communities, hear the pain that they impose on affected communities and work with us, not against us”.

www.cagne.org

Representing residents of West Sussex and parts of Surrey

cagnegatwick@gmail.com

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1SsyJ5A

Heathrow anti-3rd runway campaigners play aircraft noise in Central London to mark International Noise Awareness Day

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

Marking International Noise Awareness Day, Heathrow anti-third runway campaigners brought aircraft noise to the streets of Central London to illustrate the fact that London is the most overflown city in Europe. Campaigners from a range of organisations accompanied a lorry – blaring out loud aircraft noise through loudspeakers – at around the level people experience under the approach flight path – outside Europe House in Smith Square. This was to highlight the fact that already 28% of the people who are affected by aircraft noise right across Europe live under the Heathrow flight paths. After Smith Square, the lorry headed off back towards Heathrow, blaring its noise, approximately along the course of the arrivals flight path for a the new northern runway that Heathrow wants. European Commission’s figures show that over 725,000 people (see source and fact check below) are impacted by noise from Heathrow flights and another 25,000 by flights using London City airport. That is nearly a third of all people affected by aircraft noise right across Europe. John Stewart, the chair of HACAN, said that on noise grounds alone a new runway at Heathrow should be ruled out. Adding an extra 250,000 Heathrow flights per year is not a reasonable proposition.
.
Tweet

Anti-third Runway campaigners play aircraft noise in Central London to mark International Noise Awareness Day

noise_campaigners_outside_Europe_House_2

27.4.2016 (Hacan press release)

On International Noise Awareness Day, Wednesday 27^th April, Heathrow anti-third runway campaigners brought aircraft noise to the streets of Central London to illustrate the fact that London is the most overflown city in Europe.

Anti-3rd runway campaigners representing 8 different organisations (HACAN, Stop Heathrow Expansion, Chiswick Against the Third Runway, West London Friends of the Earth, Hammersmith Friends of the Earth, Hammersmith Says No, Ealing Aircraft Noise Action Group and AirportWatch) accompanied a lorry blaring out loud aircraft noise this morning outside Europe House in Smith Square to highlight the fact that already 28% of the people who are affected by aircraft noise right across Europe live under the Heathrow flight paths.

hacan_noise_lorry (2)

Campaigners, wearing colourful ear-defenders, (not just for decoration, but necessary against the ear-splitting din) gathered in Smith Square, home to the European Commission in London, where they played aircraft noise. A lorry blaring out aircraft noise, drove slowly round the square, accompanied by the campaigners, before driving off to Heathrow – along the line of the new arrivals flight path, if a third runway at Heathrow were to be given the green light.

The European Commission’s figures show that over 725,000 people (see source and fact check below) are impacted by noise from Heathrow flights and another 25,000 by flights using London City airport. That is nearly a third of all people affected by aircraft noise right across Europe.

noise_campaigners_outside_Europe_House_3

John Stewart, the chair of HACAN, the residents’ organisation fighting a third runway, said, “On noise grounds alone a new runway at Heathrow should be ruled out. It beggars belief that the Government is still considering whether or not to allow another 250,000 flights a year to use Heathrow. Heathrow is already in a noise league of its own.”

The Government is expected to give the green light for a third runway at Heathrow or a second runway at Gatwick later this year.

www.hacan.org.uk

International Noise Awareness Day 21st anniversary

INAD 2016: Wednesday, April 27, 2016

All over the world, people, organizations, and governments will commemorate the 21st Annual International Noise Awareness Day (INAD) on Wednesday, April 27, 2016. The Center for Hearing and Communication (CHC) founded this yearly event in 1996 to encourage people to do something about bothersome noise where they work, live, and play.

Contact us to share what you’re planning for INAD so we can publish it on the Noise Center. So far, we’ve heard from people fed up with noise who are planning INAD events here in New York City to as far as Italy and Latvia. Watch this space for info on INAD commemorations all over the globe, how to start your own, and learn more about the history.

Why do we care so much about unwanted noise?

In the short term, noise causes stress, and as most of us understand, stress is terrible for your health. In the long term, noise causes hearing loss—and hearing loss is also detrimental to your health.

Individuals and communities no longer accept that noise is a natural by-product of an industrial society. Grassroots activist groups address the issue of noise in their own communities. New Yorkers gave noise as the leading complaint to quality to the city’s life quality hotline.

Adults may be the ones to have the greatest concerns about and problems dealing with noise, but children can suffer just as much, and there may be no indication as such to their parents.

http://ift.tt/1HW0H5i

Full Fact check on the claim that Heathrow has 28.5% of the people affected by aircraft noise, across Europe:

http://ift.tt/1SAGbYU

“25 per cent of people in Europe who suffer from aviation noise live near Heathrow”

Boris Johnson, Today, Radio 4, 18 January 2012

On this morning’s Today program the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, made the interesting claim that a quarter of Europe’s residents suffering from aviation noise were those living near Heathrow airport.

His claims come amidst a recent debate over a proposed new airport on the Thames Estuary, set to be subject to a Government consulation.

Full Fact looked into the figures behind the claim.

Analysis

Mr Johnson’s claim appears to be based on a report from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) published in December 2011, which claimed “Heathrow accounts for more than one quarter of the people affected by aviation noise at the European level”.

In it, CAA provide a list of the top fifteen UK airports (below), listing Heathrow airport as having an impact on 725,500 people, or 28.5 per cent of people in Europe.

The measure used to calculate the area affected is called the Lden. This is measured as the Leq (equivalent continuous noise level) over 24 hours, adjusted with a 5 dB weighting during the evening and a 10 dB weighting at night.

The standard measure of the number of people affected by an aviation noise is the number of people living in an area where the Lden is 55 dB or more, used by both the CAA and the EU. Hence it does not necessarily apply to all residents necessarily ‘affected’ by the noise, but those most affected in terms of decibels.

However, although the CAA refer to a figure of 2.5 million from 2006, a report to the European Commission from MPD Group Ltd in 2006estimated that 2.2 million people were affected (estimated to have increased to 2.4 million by 2010). The 725,500 figure is 29 per cent of 2.5 million.

Full Fact contacted the CAA regarding the source of the latter figure, and received this reply:

“Firstly, the total number of people at Heathrow within the 55 Lden contour is 756,000 as published in ERCD Report 0706, which can be accessed by clicking here. [CAA link no longer available].

The estimate of 2.5 million for the total number of people affected by aviation noise in the EU is derived from each Member State’s (MS) submission as published by the Commission on its CIRCA website; please click here to access the relevant information. The difference in estimations was the result of some confusion over the initial submissions to the Commission. The submission had to be reported in 100’s of people, but it would appear that the data from some MS had not been multiplied by 100; hence the initial data was around 2.2 million.”

Conclusion

The Mayor of London’s claim that Heathrow accounts for 25 per cent seems to be a slight underestimate according to the figures provided by the CAA.

It is nonetheless worth noting that these figures are from 2006 and therefore may not necessarily still apply, but they do appear to be the latest figures available and applied when the CAA report was published last month.

http://ift.tt/1VC6Kml
/

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1SAGbZ1

New GACC research paper indicates higher Gatwick charges for runway could lead to airlines moving to other airports

Monday, 25 April 2016

There is a problem about how Gatwick would pay for a 2nd runway, bearing in mind the airlines that use it are not keen on extra charges. Local campaign GACC (Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) has produced a short research paper looking into the issue. Paying for a new Gatwick runway. They conclude that the steep rise in airport charges at Gatwick which would be needed to pay for a new runway could cause airlines to decamp to other airports such as Stansted or Luton. The GACC study is based on the estimates made by the Airports Commission that the cost of a new Gatwick runway would mean a rise in airport charges from the current £9 per passenger to £15 to £18, rising to £23 at the peak. Chairman of GACC, Brendon Sewill pointed out: “That is a rise of over 100% and would be serious shock for airlines. easyJet and BA have already expressed anxiety about higher charges, and their unwillingness to pay them. Stansted is at present half full and would be overjoyed to attract business from Gatwick.” Manchester airport is a salutary reminder of the risk; its new runway opened in 2000 but was followed by a fall in passenger numbers. Manchester airport is still only at about 60% of the capacity of a single runway. Competitive pressure from other airports could make the financing of a new Gatwick runway challenging.
.
Tweet

Higher Gatwick airport charges could lead to airlines moving to other airports

24th April 2016

(GACC – Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign – press release)

.
The steep rise in airport charges at Gatwick which would be needed to pay for a second runway could cause airlines to decamp to other airports such as Stansted or Luton: that is the conclusion of a new research study published today.

Written by economist and former Treasury adviser, Brendon Sewill, the study is based on the estimates made by the Airports Commission that the cost of a new Gatwick runway would mean a rise in airport charges from the current £9 per passenger to £15 to £18, rising to £23 at the peak.

Sewill points out: ‘That is a rise of over 100% and would be serious shock for airlines. easyJet and BA have already expressed anxiety. Stansted is at present half full and would be overjoyed to attract business from Gatwick.’

The study shows that the result could be the same as happened at Manchester: when a new runway was opened in 2000, it was followed by a fall in passenger numbers. Manchester airport is still only at about 60% of the capacity of a single runway. [Link CAA airport data 2015. 23 million passengers at Manchester]

Sewill was asked how his prediction that a new runway could be a white elephant could be reconciled with warnings by GACC that a new runway would mean worse noise, worse pollution, worse traffic congestion etc. His answer: ‘A new runway would not be opened until 2030, and it is difficult to predict the future that far ahead. There is a fair chance that the runway would prove an economic failure but equally a fair chance that Gatwick would grow to become as large as Heathrow today. Either would be a disaster.’

The research study is the second in a series published by GACC. Paying for a new Gatwick runway – by GACC

The first study was on Ambient Noise, and is on the GACC website http://ift.tt/1MGj0PV

The Conclusion of the report states:

Conclusions

What conclusions can be drawn? Or, as the Victorians might say, what morals can be drawn from this cautionary tale?

First, for the past four years there has been unending discussion of where a new runway should be built. Each airport has spent millions on lobbying, newspapers have carried innumerable articles, everyone in every pub has a view on where it should be. But it seems that no one has stopped to ask: “Who will pay?”

Second, the predicted 100% increase in airport charges at Gatwick could cause a substantial shift to Stansted and Luton. This could become a vicious spiral if higher chargers led to fewer passengers at Gatwick which meant fewer to share the cost. Economic analysis reinforces the common sense view that there is no point in building a new runway at Gatwick while Stansted remains only half full.

Third, competitive pressure from other airports could make the financing of a new Gatwick runway challenging.

Paying for a new Gatwick runway – by GACC

Necessary rise in price per flight at Gatwick with a 2nd runway:

“In order to pay the cost of a second runway, the Commission states that passenger charges would rise from £9 at present to ‘between £15 and £18, with peak charges up to £23.’ ”

This is from the Airports Commission consultation document, November 2014, para 3.41.

http://ift.tt/1HBMYNS

Stansted Airport’s charges can be seen here

Gatwick Airport’s charges can be seen here

Earlier:

EasyJet CEO, Carolyn McCall, again says there is no economic case for a Gatwick runway

June 8, 2015

Carolyn McCall, the CEO of EasyJet – the largest airline using Gatwick airport – has again said that there is no “economic reason” to build a 2nd runway at Gatwick. She believes it does not need to expand, because of a lack of demand from passengers. She would prefer a runway at Heathrow, as EasyJet and other airlines are “queuing up to get in”. They could make more profit there. Though the airlines want a new Heathrow runway, it is both physically, geographically, environmentally and politically very, very difficult indeed. Gatwick is also geographically and environmentally very, very difficult. For Gatwick to build a new runway, the cost would have to be paid by the airlines, which means flights costing more for passengers. As the budget airlines make thin profits (perhaps £7 per passenger after tax), adding on an extra £30 + to a return trip is utterly contrary to the low cost airline business plan. On dirt cheap flights, £30 extra is enough to matter. Even though easyJet is currently Gatwick’s biggest customer, Ms McCall said it had “never proved it can really be the kind of airport that Heathrow is.” Heathrow slot pairs can cost £25 million, but EasyJet got their Gatwick pairs for about £1 million.

http://ift.tt/1KWj2jJ

Gatwick’s main airline, easyJet, questions Gatwick case for 2nd runway and does not want to pay higher landing charges

November 21, 2014

Carolyn McCall, CEO of EasyJet, the largest airline at Gatwick, has said passengers want expansion at Heathrow, not at Gatwick. Ms McCall said easyJet is “quite concerned” at the prospect that Gatwick’s landing charges would rise to pay for a 2nd runway. They are having confidential talks with the airports on future charges. EasyJet makes on average £8 profit per seat. If Gatwick’s charges doubled from the current £9 to an average of £15 to £18 (or even up to £23) as predicted by the Airports Commission, this would hit EasyJet’s economics. Ms McCAll said: “This whole issue of capacity should be about where the demand is. Airlines have to want to go into that airport, and the congestion we have is predominantly around the Heathrow hub. Passengers need to really value what this infrastructure brings, and if they don’t see any benefit it’s going to struggle.” A new runway risked emulating unpopular toll roads. “It will be years and years before [passengers] see any positive effect.” As one of the UK’s largest and fastest growing airlines, EasyJet’s opinion will need to be given careful consideration by the Commission.

http://ift.tt/1KWj0bJ/

EasyJet’s Carolyn McCall says it is “unfair” for airlines to have to pre-fund airport expansion – wants someone else to pay

February 2, 2016

Carolyn McCall, CEO of easyJet, has claimed it is “very unfair” to expect airlines to fund runway building and airport expansion before the work takes place. She said “quite a big negotiation” will have to take place, whether (if) Heathrow or Gatwick is chosen. The cost of the expansion at Heathrow would be about £18.6 billion; Heathrow Hub at £13.5 billion, or Gatwick at £9.3 billion. Ms McCall has a main base at Gatwick, but backs a runway at Heathrow, expecting easyJet could make more money there. Willie Walsh of IAG has often said that the cost of Heathrow expansion is “outrageous” and insisted “we wouldn’t be prepared to pay for or to support the development”. Carolyn McCall said the issue of pre-funding is a massive issue for airlines – and therefore for airline passengers – as it would mean more expensive air fares for perhaps up to 10 years before the runway was completed. She claimed it was “a very unfair way of funding infrastructure development which is to the benefit of the country.”… “There are lots of negotiations to be had between Heathrow and airlines, including us, as to how we would operate at Heathrow and at what cost and with what infrastructure.” She wants a runway.[But she wants someone else to pay for it, so flying for leisure can become even cheaper.]

http://ift.tt/1KTCI43

Gatwick “promises” to cap landing charges to £15 + inflation for 30 years (if it gets an unspecified non-existent 30 year “contract” from Government)

March 14, 2015

Gatwick airport, in frenetic publicity in the months before the Airports Commission runway recommendation has made various pledges – in the hope of currying favour. It says it will “bear all the main risks” of a new runway. Sir Roy McNulty, chairman of Gatwick, has written to Sir Howard Davies saying – among other things – that the landing charge will be kept at £15 (plus inflation) for 30 years. As long as there is no new Heathrow runway. (It is currently £9). Sir Roy said it is “in return for Government agreeing a 30 year contract” though exactly what that means is not explained. Presumably a contract that there will be no other runway? [Government has not made any such deal with Gatwick, and would be unlikely to]. Gatwick also says it will “bear all the main risks of the expansion programme . . . including long-term risks related to traffic levels, market pricing, construction and operating costs”. How exactly? Gatwick’s main airline, EasyJet, is not happy with charges rising to £15. The Airports Commission consultation documents considered Gatwick’s estimate of £15 to be too low, and instead considered “average charges rising to between £15 and £18, with peak charges of up to £23.” These higher levels were due to lower estimated levels of air passenger demand than Gatwick’s optimistic figures, and higher infrastructure costs. [ Airports Commission’s consultation document Page 47].

http://ift.tt/1ACZabl

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

Shock £17bn taxpayer’s bill for Heathrow expansion revealed through Freedom of Information request by Greenpeace

Monday, 25 April 2016

Environmental and transport groups have used FoI to obtain details from Transport for London (TfL), of their estimates of the amount of money the UK taxpayer would be expected to pay, for Heathrow’s 3rd runway. This comes to a staggering £17 billion, to cover the costs of transport links needed to deal with a massive traffic surge from a 3rd Heathrow runway. TfL say the actual cost would be around £18.4 billion – which is 4 times as high as estimated by the Airports Commission. Heathrow’s John Holland-Kaye reiterated, to the Environmental Audit Committee (4.11.2015) that the airport would pay only about £1 billion. The government made it clear (Oct 2015) that it expects aviation expansion promoters to cover any surface access costs.The vast amount of money required throws into question both the financing and feasibility of a crucial part of the project. The documents, released to Greenpeace through FoI, contain the first detailed comparison of the contrasting estimates by the Airport Commission and TfL. They show the figures published in the Commission’s report failed to take into account the costs of key rail schemes, extra buses, additional operational spending and road traffic management. The Treasury needs to properly assess the real costs of expanding Heathrow and guarantee taxpayers won’t be left to pick up the bill.
.
Tweet

Shock £17bn taxpayer’s bill for Heathrow expansion revealed

25.4.2016 (HACAN press release)

UK taxpayers could be asked to fork out a staggering £17 billion to cover the costs of transport links needed to deal with a massive traffic surge from Heathrow expansion, according to confidential estimates disclosed today.

Transport for London (TfL) documents released following an investigation by transport and environmental campaigners have revealed a multi-billion-pound gap in the official figures for the costs of road and rail improvements required by a third runway at Heathrow.

According to the agency in charge of the London transport system, the real price tag for boosting surface access to an expanded airport is nearly four times the figure put forward by the government-appointed Airport Commission [1].

The revelation will reignite the longstanding controversy over who will pay for the road and rail works needed to deal with the extra traffic from a new runway. The government has made it clearthat it expects aviation expansion promoters to cover any surface access costs, but Heathrow bosses have said they are not willing to pay anything above £1.1 billion [2].

An analysis of the TfL figures released today shows this would leave a shortfall of at least £17 billion. The funding gap is large enough to throw into question both the financing and feasibility of a crucial part of the project [3].

The documents, released to Greenpeace following a Freedom of Information request, contain the first detailed comparison of the contrasting estimates by the Airport Commission and London’s transport agency. They show the figures published in the Commission’s report failed to take into account the costs of key rail schemes, extra buses, additional operational spending and road traffic management.

A third runway at Heathrow is expected to put an extra 30 million passengers on the Londontransport system every year by 2030, stretching the network’s capacity to breaking point.

In the documents TfL stresses that all transport upgrades included in its cost estimates will be essential to manage the increase in traffic. It also warns that, if surface access issues are not solved, there will be ‘serious implications’ for the government ability to meet its legal obligations on air pollution.

Environmental and transport campaigners from Greenpeace, Campaign for Better Transport and HACAN are calling on the Treasury to come clean over the real costs of expanding Heathrow and guarantee taxpayers won’t be left to pick up the bill.

Back in February, Andrew Tyrie, chair of the influential Commons Treasury select committee, wrote to George Osborne asking for more details about the calculations which led the Airport Commission to come down in favour of a third runway at Heathrow.

Greenpeace UK executive director John Sauven said: “These figures reveal a gaping hole in the financing for Heathrow expansion. The UK public needs to be told the full truth. If the government picks up the tab for the extra costs, this would be a £17 billion taxpayer-funded subsidy in disguise. It makes no sense to waste billions on a project that jeopardises efforts to meet legally binding targets on air pollution and climate change. George Osborne should come clean with UK taxpayers on whether they’ll need to bail out this project before it has taken off.”

Campaign for Better Transport Chief Executive Stephen Joseph said: “Astonishingly, this cost is even greater than the Government’s hugely wasteful national road building programme. Spending this amount of money in London would worsen the North/South divide, whilst bringing little benefit to the capital. What London needs is investments in public transport to help people get around the city, ease congestion and tackle air pollution, rather than squandering limited funds on unnecessary airport expansion. While people elsewhere in England might well ask: What would the Northern Powerhouse be able to deliver with this level of investment?”

HACAN Chair John Stewart said: “What makes these figures so compelling is that they have not been plucked out of the air. Transport for London has done its sums. All their figures are backed up by detailed, painstaking work. The Government ignores them at its peril when making up its mind about new runways.”

Both sets of estimates include the costs of major road schemes such as putting part of the M25 in a tunnel and widening sections of the M4. But, crucially, the Airport Commission’s estimates overlooked the cost of additional buses, road traffic management, and major rail improvements such as an upgraded Great Western Main Line, a new rail link through Staines, and an extension to Crossrail 2 running from Teddington to Heathrow.

The Government is expected to give the green light to a new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick later this year after the EU referendum has taken place.

ENDS

All documents, including a summary table showing the contrasting estimates by TfL and the Airports Commission, can be found at energydesk.greenpeace.org

Notes for Editors:

According to the TfL documents, the Airport Commission’s estimate for surface access costs adds up to £4.2 billion, but a figure of £5.7 billion has also been widely reported.
Heathrow CEO John Holland-Kaye told the Environmental Audit Select Committee at its inquiry last year that Heathrow would only be prepared to pay £1.1 billion towards improved road and rail access.
TfL estimates the overall bill for road and rail improvements to top £18.2bn. Taking out the £1.1 billion Heathrow bosses said they’re willing to pay, that would leave a funding gap of about £17 billion to be plugged.

Contacts:

Stefano Gelmini, Greenpeace UK press office, sgelmini@greenpeace.org, m 07506 512442, t 020 7865 8255

Alice Ridley, Campaign for Better Transport Press Officer, Alice.ridley@bettertransport.org.UK, t 020 7566 6483

John Stewart, HACAN, johnstewart2@btconnect.com, t 020 7737 6641, m 07957385650

http://ift.tt/1VwYP9P

While Heathrow try to claim cost of surface access needed for 3rd runway is just £2.2 billion, TfL estimates cost of £18.4 billion

April 25, 2016

Heathrow’s management have claimed that only £1.2bn of public funds would be needed to upgrade local road and rail links, for its 3rd runway, while Heathrow itself would spend a further £1bn, making £2.2bn. The Airports Commission estimated the cost to be around 5.7bn, to include widening the M4 and tunnelling the M25 under the runway. But now TfL has come up with figures showing the total cost would be about £18.4bn, which is hugely more. TfL believes Heathrow and the Commission have substantially underestimated the amount of increased congestion the runway would cause on the roads, and on trains due to 30 million more annual passengers. They also did not take freight into account. The government has said whichever airport might be allowed a runway would have to meet all the costs which arise due to a new runway, and from which the airport would directly benefit. TfL has added the cost of other vital transport infrastructure, such as improving bus services, traffic management measures and alterations to the South West and Great Western Main Lines. TfL says none of the schemes in its £18.4bn figure are already committed, funded or planned. The Campaign for Better Transport said the money would be better spent elsewhere eg. on the Northern Powerhouse.

Click here to view full story…

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

While Heathrow try to claim cost of surface access just £2.2 billion, TfL estimates cost of £18.4 billion

Sunday, 24 April 2016

Heathrow runway ‘faces £16bn black hole’

By Jim Pickard, Chief Political Correspondent (Financial Times)

24.4.2016

Heathrow faces a “black hole” of more than £16bn to fund the upgrade of road and railway links to the airport if the third runway gets the go-ahead, Transport for London has warned.

In the latest stumbling block to Heathrow’s airport expansion proposals, TfL said its estimates to upgrade the transport system were about eight times more than the airport’s £2.2bn calculation.

The City Hall department said there had been a “substantial underestimate” in the extent to which a third runway would increase heavy congestion on local buses, trains and roads.

…………..

A breakdown of TfL’s £18.4bn figure was obtained by Greenpeace through a freedom of information request. John Sauven, executive director of the environmental group, said the figures showed a “gaping hole” in financing for Heathrow expansion.

Stephen Joseph, chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport, said that the money would be better spent on the Northern Powerhouse rather than on “worsening the north-south divide”.
Full FT article at
http://ift.tt/1VMKbvI

See earlier:

Aviation Minister Robert Goodwill says Heathrow has to pay for surface access work resulting from a 3rd runway

October 14, 2015

Adam Afriyie has reported that, in response to a question he asked the government’s aviation minister, Robert Goodwill, the Government ruled out spending public money for the related surface access costs of a Heathrow 3rd runway. If correct, this is a huge blow to Heathrow, as their surface access costs could be £5 billion just to tunnel the M25 and perhaps up to £10 -15 billion more, for other road and rail improvements, according to Transport for London. In response to the parliamentary question Robert Goodwill said: “In terms of surface access proposals, the Government has been clear that it expects the scheme promoter to meet the costs of any surface access proposals that are required as a direct result of airport expansion and from which they will directly benefit.” Adam Afriyie said: “It is welcome news that the Government has ruled out paying the costs of upgrading the railways and local roads or moving or tunnelling the M25. If Heathrow won’t pay and the Government won’t pay, then the 3rd runway is already dead in the water …It is quite right that the public should not be made to fork out up to £20 billion of subsidies to a private company which refuses to pay its own costs of expansion.” In July John Holland-Kaye said Heathrow would not pay.

http://ift.tt/1VSZs9e

Earlier:

Heathrow boss rules out footing the £5 billion bill for road and rail works – wants taxpayer to pay

July 24, 2015

The Airports Commission left the matter of who would pay for the approximately £5 billion needed to tunnel a section of the M25, and other surface access improvements, vague. The assumption has been made that the taxpayer would have to fund this, though the Airports Commission suggested that Heathrow would be able to find the funding from its investors for this. Now the CEO of Heathrow has dismissed the suggestion that the airport foots the £5 billion bill for road and rail work if a 3rd runway is built. Huge motorway engineering would be needed, to have the runway going over the motorway. John Holland-Kaye has ruled out paying for the surface access work. Though the government funds road and rail improvements under normal circumstances, tunnelling the M25 and dealing with hugely increased road traffic using an airport 50% larger than at present are not normal circumstances. Especially in times of huge economic savings being necessary in public finances. The Commission’s final report said it considered the runway was commercially viable “without a requirement for direct government support. This remains the case even in a situation where the airport is required to fund 100% of the surface access costs.” This would be by Heathrow “raising both debt and equity finance. This finance is then serviced through subsequent revenues and refinancing by the airport operator.”

Full story at

http://ift.tt/1MrV68J

Access to expanded Heathrow could cost £20 billion, TfL warns – maybe £15 billion more from the taxpayer than Commission estimate

April 1, 2015

Transport for London (TfL) has raised “serious concerns” about congestion and the costs of expansion at Heathrow just weeks before the Airports Commission’s final recommendation is due (end of June?). TFL Response to APPG on Surface Access Feb 2015 In response to questions by Zac Goldsmith, TfL said both Heathrow and Commission had “significantly underestimated” the challenge of improving transport access to the site, with the Airports Commission estimating £5 billion would be enough to make the improvements. TfL believes to provide an optimal level of service, the figure would be nearer to £20 billion, raising questions about who would pay the additional costs. TfL said population growth of 37% by 2050 has also not been taken into account, with regards to the increased pressure on London’s roads and public transport infrastructure, Zac said: “TfL is better placed than any other organisation to understand the effects Heathrow expansion will have on London’s transport network, and it is extraordinary therefore that the Commission never bothered to ask for its assessment. This raises serious questions about the thoroughness and reliability of the Commission’s work. If TfL is right, the taxpayer may end up having to cough up an additional £15 billion to help Heathrow secure its monopoly, in addition to all the associated problems of gridlock, noise and air pollution.”

http://ift.tt/1GfFRLT

GACC warns Patrick McLoughlin of the future costs to the Exchequer of infrastructure needed for Gatwick runway

October 20, 2015

GACC (the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign) has written to Patrick McLoughlin, to remind him about the comparative costs of infrastructure relating to a new runway at Heathrow or Gatwick. Robert Goodwill recently indicated that whichever airport was selected would be expected to pay for the necessary infrastructure – a policy GACC fully supports. GACC point out that the calculation of the surface access costs, by the Airports Commission, is distorted. While it considers the requirements for both airports at 2030, it estimates that by then there would be 35 million extra passengers at Heathrow (due to pent up demand), but only 8 million more at Gatwick(struggling against Stansted and Luton). So the extra road and rail traffic generated at Heathrow by 2030 would be far greater than that at Gatwick, and (when adding tunnelling the M25 at Heathrow) accounts for the difference in infrastructure costs – £5.7 billion compared to under £1 billion. But with the runways working at full capacity by around 2040, the surface access infrastructure costs of a new Gatwick runway would fall on the Exchequer. These would include widening of the M23 or M25, and improvements to the Brighton main line. With Gatwick then bigger than Heathrow today, there might be a need of of a hugely expensive extension of the M23 into central London. And so on …

http://ift.tt/1Xhkykb

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

Ryanair may try out transfer flights at Stansted, and even eventually feeders for long-haul airlines

Saturday, 23 April 2016

Ryanair will trial offering some flight transfers this summer, as it moves another step closer to mainstream airline practices. For years, Ryanair has been a strictly point-to-point airline, even actively warning prospective passengers against trying to make connections between two of its flights at major hubs, such as Stansted. It was bothered by luggage problems or delays, costing the airline money. But it will soon be testing a transfer service at Stansted and Barcelona’s El Prat airports. The trial “will allow customers to connect onto Ryanair flights without having to go back through security.” Ryanair said that if the trial is successful, it would “consider rolling it out elsewhere across its network.” Ryanair is also tentatively looking at plans to supply short-haul feeder passengers to other long-haul carriers. In September, it said it might consider providing connecting flights for long-haul airlines including Lufthansa and Air France-KLM within the next 5 – 10 years. This could boost Ryanair by expanding its network and growing (even more) passenger numbers. It may be that the flag carrier airlines will want low-cost airlines to feed in passengers from secondary bases across Europe.

.
Tweet

Ryanair to test connecting flights

April 20th 2016

By Alan Dron (Air Transport World)

Ireland-based low-cost carrier (LCC) Ryanair will trial flight transfers this summer as it moves another step closer to mainstream airline practices.

For years, Ryanair has been a strictly point-to-point carrier, going so far in years past as to actively warn prospective passengers against trying to make connections between two of its flights at major hubs, such as London Stansted.

As part of its move toward legacy airline standards in the area of customer relations, however, the airline has said it will test a transfer service at London Stansted and Barcelona’s El Prat airports this summer.

Stansted is Ryanair’s largest hub outside its Dublin home; it makes up more than 70% of the 20-million passenger throughput at the airport, some 30 miles northeast of the UK capital.

The trial “will allow customers to connect onto Ryanair flights without having to go back through security,” the airline said in a statement. A spokesman told ATW that the duration of the trial was not yet settled “as details are being finalized, but it’s for the summer months.”

The carrier has always fought shy of allowing transfer flights, concerned at the additional risk of ensuring baggage is transferred and the problems that arise if an incoming flight is delayed.

The airline added that, if the trial is successful, it would “consider rolling it out elsewhere across its network.”

Ryanair is also tentatively looking at plans to supply short-haul feeder passengers to other long-haul carriers.

http://ift.tt/1WG68vh

Ryanair’s website says:

Can I book a connecting flight with Ryanair?

Ryanair is what is known as a ‘point-to-point’ airline. This means that we fly directly to our destinations and we do not operate connecting flights.

This means that we cannot transfer passengers or their baggage to other flights, whether those flights are operated by ourselves or by other carriers.

For more information please refer to our Terms and Conditions of carriage here.

Article 17 – point-to-point airline

http://ift.tt/1QuOSli

Earlier:

Ryanair looks to team up with long-haul carriers

The budget airline says it is in talks with a number of major carriers, including British Airways, on providing connecting flights to smaller airportsBy Bloomberg
17 Sep 2015Ryanair will provide connecting flights for long-haul airlines including Lufthansa and Air France-KLM within the next 10 years, as Europe’s biggest discount carrier targets tie-ups to expand its network and boost passenger numbers.“The low-fare airlines will be doing most of the feed for the flag carriers,” Ryanair chief executive Michael O’Leary told Bloomberg in an interview.

While network carriers will continue to service their main hubs, they will turn to low-cost operators to deliver passengers to secondary bases across Europe, Mr O’Leary said, adding: “It’s not going to happen tomorrow, but in five or 10 years time.”

Ryanair is in talks with British Airways owner IAG, Virgin Atlantic, Norwegian Air Shuttle, and Portugal’s TAP about providing feeder traffic in a move that would mark a major shift from its previous strategy.

The Dublin-based carrier has previously eschewed ties to other carriers, suggesting they’d be incompatible with the quick turnaround times central to the low-cost model.

However, the company is now looking to appeal to a broader customer base by sprucing up its service, adding frequencies and targeting primary airports.

“Lufthansa will continue to serve their main Frankfurt and Munich hubs from the 10 or 20 most important European Union cities,” Mr O’Leary said. “But they will say look, we’re losing money serving the next 20 or 30 European cities – why don’t we do a deal with one of the low-cost carriers?”

Ryanair has previously said co-operation with long-haul airlines could begin on some routes as early as the coming winter timetable.

Long-haul partners would be responsible for baggage transfer and dealing with missed connections.

While European airlines have enjoyed lower oil prices, which have boosted returns from strong summer traffic, the industry is likely to struggle as soon as the value of crude starts to rise, Mr O’Leary said.

“Everybody will look good for the next year or two because lower oil prices will make all airlines profitable,” he said.

“There are going to be very significant changes when in two or three years oil goes back up again to $100 or $150 a barrel. That’s when the next crisis for the industry will be.”

In March, the airline had to clarify its stance on whether it was planning transatlantic flights for as little as €10, saying that it had not approved any such decision.

“Even if we wanted to start flying tomorrow, there are no long-haul aircraft available, all the Eastern carriers have mopped up all available capacity for lease the next four five years,” said finance director Neil Sorohan at the time.

Just a few weeks ago Ryanair hiked its full-year profit guidance by a quarter following record late summer bookings, a strong pound and cheap fuel.

http://ift.tt/1MPNmPX

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

New grouping (APCAG) of Parish Councils south west of Gatwick formed to work on aircraft noise issues

Saturday, 23 April 2016

There are a number of groups representing the many areas affected by Gatwick flights, both arrivals and departures. One of the groupings towards the east, in east Sussex and Kent, is the HWCAAG (High Weald Councils Aviation Action Group) which is a grouping of parish councils (Bidborough, Chiddingstone, Dormansland, Hever, Leigh, Penshurst, Sevenoaks Weald and Speldhurst Parish Councils). Now parishes to the west of Gatwick have formed a similar grouping, the APCAG (Association of Parish Councils Aviation Group) which so far has six founder member parishes, (Pulborough, Wisborough Green, Kirdford, Loxwood, Plaistow and Ifold) and it is planned for more to join. APCAG says it hopes to provide a strong and unified representation for its area in discussions with Gatwick, NATS, the CAA, the DfT, and airlines on aircraft noise issues. It hopes that consisting of democratically elected bodies, APCAG’s voice would more likely to be taken account of than a protest group. It chairman is Peter Drummond and its Vice Chairman is Ian Hare. APCAG subscribes to the concept of ‘fair and equitable dispersal’; the principle that, provided noise is minimised, it should be shared around in a fair and predictable manner (not defined) – and wehre possible flight paths should not be over people not previously overflown.
.
Tweet

Parish councils joins forces to provide a strong voice over aircraft noise issues

Thursday 21 April 2016

West Sussex County Times

A new parish council grouping has been launched to provide what it describes as a strong and unified representation for its area in discussions with Gatwick, NATS, the CAA, the Department for Transport, airport and airlines over aircraft noise issues.

APCAG (Association of Parish Councils Aviation Group) has been endorsed by six founder member parishes, representing more than 10,000 residents: Pulborough, Wisborough Green, Kirdford, Loxwood, Plaistow and Ifold and it is planned for more to join.

As an organisation comprising democratically elected bodies, APCAG’s voice is more likely to be heard than the voice of a protest group, it says.

Peter Drummond, the newly elected chairman of ACPAG and a Wisborough Green councillor, said: “Of the many groups focusing on Gatwick’s activities there is only one group combining solely elected representatives, HWCAAG (The High Weald Councils Aviation Action Group). APCAG emulates, to the west of the airport, this highly effective parish council grouping from the east.

“When APCAG speaks to Gatwick Airport, it will be with the formal endorsement of elected representatives.”

The primary aim of the new association will be the protection of people in the APCAG member councils’ parishes areas, and neighbouring areas, from unacceptable aircraft noise.

Whether by minimising the disturbance from existing aircraft movements or by having a strong voice in any discussions about future flight paths or flight techniques, APCAG says it will ardently pursue the best settlement possible and is already working closely with an effective grouping of Gatwick-focused groups.

The chairman of Kirdford Parish Council, Ian Campbell, said: “Kirdford is a small council with huge demands on its time and resources and so being able to sub-contract such an important function to a properly constituted grouping, with developed expertise, is a fillip. We have huge support for APCAG’s aims.”

The new group says it is an inevitable fact that aircraft noise has to go somewhere but APCAG, along with almost every Gatwick action group, subscribes to the doctrine of ‘fair and equitable dispersal’; the principle that, provided noise is minimised, it should be shared around in a fair and predictable manner.

Further, APCAG believes that wherever possible, those not previously overflown should not be subject to noise nuisance especially preserving the tranquillity of the countryside.

The formation of APCAG has coincided with the reporting and implementation of the Gatwick Independent Arrivals Review and the group plans to have a close involvement in the latter.

Ian Hare, vice-chairman of APCAG and a Pulborough councillor, said: “We have formed APCAG to work tightly with stakeholders, from both aviation and communities, to ensure that as many measures as possible are taken with regard to aircraft noise for the benefit of those living in our part of the world.

“We acknowledge that the recent attitude change from Gatwick management has been transformational and that they now see the need to work closely with communities going forwards.

“The establishment of a Noise Management Board is a good first step but now we must hold them to their commitments.”
http://ift.tt/1VKtmRS

HWCAAG consists of the constitutionally elected representatives of resident and business communities within the defined area boundaries of Bidborough, Chiddingstone, Dormansland, Hever, Leigh, Penshurst, Sevenoaks Weald and Speldhurst Parish Councils . Link

Earlier – (PAGNE has now been superceded by APCAG):

Pulborough residents launch anti-Gatwick group, PAGNE

3 February 2015 (West Sussex County Times)

A new pressure group has been formed in Pulborough to fight against the proposal for a second runway at Gatwick Airport.

Pulborough Against Gatwick Noise & Emissions (PAGNE) was launched last week and has backed the desicion taken by both West Sussex County Council and Horsham District Council to withdraw support for Gatwick’s bid for a second runway.

The group is made up of concerned residents who have raised the issue of rising aircraft noise levelsin the area after a new government-backed policy made changes to flighpaths.

Ian Hare, a member of PAGNE, said: “Pulborough has until recently been a peaceful rural area and the blight of flight noise is something local residents have not had to face in the past 25 years.’’

He said the new group was now making ‘a concerted bid to make more people aware of the threat facing the community’.

“If we do not register our grievances now, we run the risk that concentrated flight paths over our heads will become the accepted norm,” he added.

Pulborough Parish Council debated the issue on January 22 and voted to endorse the group.

http://ift.tt/1VKtmRU

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1SX500e

Pages

Parliament sets up cross-party air pollution group

Judge gives ClientEarth permission to pursue a JR against UK government over air quality

Defra and DfT set up JAQU (Joint Air Quality Unit) to deliver national plans to cut NO2 levels

Berlin’s new airport ‘may never open’: planner

Wikipedia states:

Berlin Brandenburg airport problem of terminal ceiling being too heavy ….. already years late, hugely over budget

Troubled Berlin Brandenburg airport, due to open in June 2012, could be shut down in late summer unless €1.1 billion is raised

Berlin’s Schönefeld airport ‘to stay open’ as Brandenburg airport (at huge expense) not ready till 2015 at the earliest

Whitehall logjam over EU vote ‘could push Heathrow ruling back to September’

Patrick McLoughlin evidence to Transport Cttee – he “very much hoped” to give runway location decision by July

Patrick McLoughlin hints that EU referendum could delay runway decision, even beyond this summer

Long awaited Government statement on runways – decision will be delayed till summer 2016 – more work needed

Airport officials face hundreds of angry residents

Map showing the 9 different Gatwick departure flight paths

Naming of routes

Gatwick and aviation representatives faced angry at AGM

Anti-third Runway campaigners play aircraft noise in Central London to mark International Noise Awareness Day

International Noise Awareness Day 21st anniversary

INAD 2016: Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Why do we care so much about unwanted noise?

Full Fact check on the claim that Heathrow has 28.5% of the people affected by aircraft noise, across Europe:

Higher Gatwick airport charges could lead to airlines moving to other airports

Conclusions

Necessary rise in price per flight at Gatwick with a 2nd runway:

EasyJet CEO, Carolyn McCall, again says there is no economic case for a Gatwick runway

Gatwick’s main airline, easyJet, questions Gatwick case for 2nd runway and does not want to pay higher landing charges

EasyJet’s Carolyn McCall says it is “unfair” for airlines to have to pre-fund airport expansion – wants someone else to pay

Gatwick “promises” to cap landing charges to £15 + inflation for 30 years (if it gets an unspecified non-existent 30 year “contract” from Government)

Shock £17bn taxpayer’s bill for Heathrow expansion revealed

While Heathrow try to claim cost of surface access needed for 3rd runway is just £2.2 billion, TfL estimates cost of £18.4 billion

Heathrow runway ‘faces £16bn black hole’

Aviation Minister Robert Goodwill says Heathrow has to pay for surface access work resulting from a 3rd runway

Heathrow boss rules out footing the £5 billion bill for road and rail works – wants taxpayer to pay

Access to expanded Heathrow could cost £20 billion, TfL warns – maybe £15 billion more from the taxpayer than Commission estimate

GACC warns Patrick McLoughlin of the future costs to the Exchequer of infrastructure needed for Gatwick runway

Ryanair to test connecting flights

Can I book a connecting flight with Ryanair?

Ryanair looks to team up with long-haul carriers

Parish councils joins forces to provide a strong voice over aircraft noise issues

Pulborough residents launch anti-Gatwick group, PAGNE