Anti-3rd runway campaigners hold their own alternative “celebration” of Heathrow’s 70th birthday

To “celebrate” Heathrow’s 70th Birthday, on 31st May, anti-3rd runway campaigners and local village residents gathered in Harmondsworth – to express their opposition to the airport’s plans for expansion. With festivities centred around the historic “Five Bells” pub, there were 70 “No 3rd Runway” balloons, tours of the historic buildings including the historic, Grade 1 listed, tithe barn, enthusiastic chants of “No ifs, no buts, no 3rd runway, and a walk of part of the course of the proposed runway. To represent each of the houses earmarked for demolition for the runway, 783 small black planes were planted on the green.  The cake was cut by representatives of some of the protest groups, including Hacan, Stop Heathrow Expansion, CHATR, TAG, RAAN, and Grow Heathrow. People had thought up entertaining presents for Heathrow, including the cheque from ratepayers – a big fat zero for infrastructure, a Mr Noisy book, a toy demolition truck, a Thomas the Tank Engine, a D-lock, a Pinocchio, and an alarm clock with its hands stuck on 4.30am. The day was a fun event, with a very serious purpose. With 783 homes to be demolished for a runway, and many more made uninhabitable by the proximity to an expanded Heathrow, many hundreds face the total loss of their homes and their community.
.
Tweet

 

 Photos below

The cheque – Heathrow is not prepared to pay for necessary infrastructure, so the taxpayer would have to pick up the bill.

Group with “No 3rd Runway” balloons.

Group outside the Five Bells pub.

Group with the 783 small black “No 3rd Runway” planes – one to symbolise each of the homes that would be compulsorily purchased and demolished, for a 3rd runway.

The cake “Celebrating 70  years of unrelenting aircraft noise for local communities”.

Representatives of some of the community groups, cutting the cake.

One of the presents – “Mr Noisy”, from the Mr Men series.

Our model shows the new kit that could be supplied to schoolchildren in the area to deal with the added air pollution from a 3rd runway. (Tongue in cheek and wittily presented by Neil Keveren) — with John Stewart.

 

 

The presents will probably be delivered to Heathrow’s headquarters on its birthday.

Courtesy of TAG ( Teddington Action Group)

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/25uWIFK

Read more ...

Norwegian government introduces approx €8.5 tax per air passenger on all flights

Read more ...

Gatwick Route 4 finally re-routed as local MP warns about noise misery dangers of a 2nd runway

On 26th May, the amended Gatwick departure flight path named “Route 4”, taking off towards the west from Gatwick, went in to operation. This route turning north and then east – to fly towards the east. With the implementation of precision-area navigation (PR-NAV) at Gatwick in 2014, changes were made to Route 4 which made it more concentrated, and slightly to the north of the main NPR (Noise Preferential Route). This resulted in thousands of people suffering intense and frequent plane noise, for the first time.  The local group, Plane Wrong, was formed to fight the changes. The PIR (Post Implementation Review) by the CAA in 2015 showed that the change to Route 4 was not “compliant” with regulations, and it should revert to how it was before early 2014.  However, it has taken a long time for this reversion to actually happen. The route that has now started means the SID (Standard Instrument Departure) turning circle is a little tighter so planes avoid the densely populated urban areas of Reigate and Redhill. It is regrettable that it took so long for an unacceptable flight path, that could be introduced so quickly without warning, could take so long to reverse. Local MP Crispin Blunt warned that the noise situation with a 2nd Gatwick runway would be completely unacceptable, with no noise mitigation measures in prospect. 

.
Tweet

 

 

Gatwick departure route finally re-routed as local MP warns about noise misery dangers of a second runway

Thursday, 26 May, 2016

Crispin Blunt MP’s website

Following Crispin Blunt’s campaign for changes to the Gatwick westerly departure flight route, the modified departure route has finally come into operation today.

The implementation of precision-area navigation (PR-NAV) at Gatwick in 2014 led to a concentrated flight path (Route 4) overflying south Reigate and Redhill, affecting thousands of residents.

Regrettably, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) took far longer than expected to complete the Review of the implementation of PR-NAV. In November 2015, the CAA Board adopted a recommendation to alter departure Route 4, which has come into operation today. This makes the Standard Instrument Departure turning circle tighter and ensures that planes taking off to the west and heading east fly back over the constituency further to the south, avoiding the densely populated urban areas of Reigate and Redhill.

Crispin Blunt commented:

“Today’s change should finally bring relief to residents who have been affected by noise pollution caused by the botched implementation of precision navigation from Gatwick Airport. It is regrettable that it has taken so long to make this correction when the problems were so clear from the start.

“I will monitor the impact of the change and I am expecting the Government to review its policy on aviation noise, including ways of implementing these concentrated satellite guided routes so as to provide for greater dispersal and multiple respites for affected areas. Local airports must work with local communities to manage and alleviate aviation noise. This should be Gatwick’s focus now.

“I continue to call on the Government to come forward with a decision to implement the Airports Commission’s recommendation which rejected Gatwick as a location for a new runway and recommended Heathrow with a package of extensive noise mitigation measures and a ban on night flights. Gatwick’s flawed and rejected second runway proposal would lead to an airport with over half a million flights a year, more than Heathrow currently has and with no measures to mitigate noise for local communities.

“The easterly and westerly departures affecting Reigate and Redhill would have potentially twice as many aircraft movements.

“Unlike Heathrow which alternates the use of its runways for take offs and landings giving local communities guaranteed respite, Gatwick’s proposal is to use two runways for take-offs and landings throughout the day and much of the night. Local residents would have more overflight than West London has today but with no respite from noise whatsoever. There’s no credible case for Gatwick from either a local perspective or in terms of national economic benefits. It is time the Government rejects it definitively.”

http://ift.tt/1XXJxLa

.

---

Gatwick admitted:

“The new P-RNAV routes sit within the airport’s nine Noise Preferential Routes (NPRs) or ‘corridors’ that departing aircraft fly within. Aircraft started flying these modified flight paths in November 2013 and use of P-RNAV on departures became mandatory in May 2014. These routes [were] reviewed (a post implementation review) by the CAA to ensure they are compliant with regulations.

“The departure routes within Route 4 (also known as 26LAM) – an NPR departing from the west before wrapping around 180 degrees to the right to fly out to the east – was not fully compliant as some aircraft were flying outside the northern perimeter of the NPR. We are now making modifications to this route to ensure that aircraft move back inside the NPR.”

http://ift.tt/1Ul7sBg

.

---

See earlier:

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

December 20, 2015

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

http://ift.tt/1O0ZLi7

.

---

Earlier:

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

November 12, 2015

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

http://ift.tt/1O0ZJa1

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

Read more ...

Planned Birmingham flights by Beijing Capital Airlines to Beijing and Hangzhou scrapped

It was announced in late April that direct flights by Beijing Capital Airlines, from Birmingham to Beijing and to Hangzhou, some 60 miles from Shanghai, (once per week each), would start on July 19th. The new flights would have been by a Chinese travel company, Caissa Touristic, which owns Beijing Capital Airlines. The plan was to use an Airbus A330-200, with 211 seats (33 business and 178 economy). But under a month later, this seems not to be a reality, and Caissa Touristic has pulled out. The reasons are not known.  [Likely to be competition from Manchester, 86 miles away?] Birmingham Airport is seeking ‘clarification’ from Caissa. Birmingham Airport has been hoping for links to China, to use its newly extended runway, and to compete with Manchester. At present there are only direct UK flights to China from Heathrow, with flights 4 times per week from Manchester with Hainan Airways starting on June 10th 2016. Over the last two summers Caissa Touristic ran a popular charter services that brought Chinese tourists into Birmingham for package holidays in the UK. “And news of the takeover of Aston Villa by Beijing-based tycoon Dr Tony Xia last week raised the prospect of big-spending Chinese football fans flocking to Birmingham.” Paul Kehoe, CEO of Birmingham Airport, said: “Last year around 150,000 people flew between our region and China.”
.
Tweet

 

 

Direct scheduled flights to China from Birmingham Airport scrapped

20 MAY 2016
BY TAMLYN JONES

Tour operator Caissa Touristic withdraws from planned weekly schedule to Beijing and Shanghai for ‘unknown reasons’

A new direct scheduled service from Birmingham Airport to China due to launch this summer has been scrapped.

Birmingham Airport announced last month that a deal had been struck with Beijing Capital Airlines to run weekly departures to China’s capital Beijing and the country’s largest city Shanghai.

It was considered a major feather in the cap of Birmingham Airport as only Heathrow currently flies directly to China while Manchester Airport awaits the launch of a new service from there.

In a statement, Birmingham Airport said it was disappointed to announce Caissa Touristic, the tour operator which owns Beijing Capital Airlines and was due to sell the flights, had chosen to abandon its plan.

The programme was to commence on July 19 and the airport said Caissa Touristic had withdrawn “for unknown reasons”.

It comes in the same week that Chinese businessman Tony Xia acquired Aston Villa for a reported £60 million.

The move will be seen as a bitter blow for the region’s tourists and businesses after the success of previous programmes of direct charter flights, the first outside of London, when Caissa Touristic carried thousands of Chinese tourists into Birmingham on package holidays during 2014 and 2015.

Flights to the Far East were a major target for the airport after its £40 million runway extension opened in 2014.

Chief executive Paul Kehoe said: “There is strong demand for flights between China and the Midlands.

“Last year, around 150,000 people flew between our region and China and we have made significant investment over the last two years to offer services with Caissa.

“We are currently unaware as to the reasons why, given the success of the China services over the last two summers from Birmingham.

“We are awaiting more information from the tour operator as to why it has made this decision but we are confident we will be able to reinstate services between Birmingham and China in the near future.”

http://ift.tt/1qyMDYK

.

---

See also:

Hainan Airlines direct flights (4 per week) from Manchester to Beijing start on June 10th

May 26, 2016

Hainan Airlines will start flying (4 times per week) from Manchester Airport to Beijing from June 10th, as the first direct service from the north of England to mainland China. There are already flights from Manchester to Hong Kong. Some businesses including tourism hope this “will deliver a major boost to the region.” The University of Manchester is reported to believe the link will be a significant benefit to students. Faster air links to emerging markets could boost UK exports (they could also boost UK imports, which generally exceed exports). There are the usual comments like: “The Manchester Airport expansion shows that the city is ready to become an outward looking economic powerhouse” and there is even an expectation that it “will deliver an economic boost to the UK worth £250m” (no details or time-scale given …. it never is). Currently, more than 100,000 people from the North (about 6,350 from North Wales) fly to mainland China every year but have to travel indirectly via London or other overseas hubs. Manchester hopes that the flights will bring “hundreds of thousands of tourists to this part of the world every year.” North Wales Tourism and Bangor University have both praised the new service to Beijing and hope it “will unlock new opportunities for the area.” Many thousands more people will not need to use Heathrow for their travel to China.

Click here to view full story…

Earlier:

Birmingham gets weekly flights to Beijing and Hangzhou with Beijing Capital Airlines

April 22, 2016

It is expected that direct flights by Beijing Capital Airlines, from Birmingham to Beijing and to Hangzhou, some 60 miles from Shanghai, will start on July 19th. At present there are only direct UK flights to China from Heathrow, with flights 4 times per week from Manchester with Hainan Airways starting this June. The new flights from Birmingham will operate on Saturdays to Beijing and on Tuesdays to Shanghai (Hangzhou) using an Airbus A330-200, with a total of 211 seats (33 business and 178 economy). Flights to the Far East were a major target for Birmingham airport, after its £40 million runway extension allowing use by heavier planes. Birmingham also, from March 2016, obtained 8 flights per week by Qatar Airways Boeing 787s between Birmingham and Qatar. Birmingham also has a daily service by Emirates, using an A380, to Dubai. Birmingham airport says the two new scheduled service follows on from some direct charter flights, which saw over 7,000 Chinese visitors travel through Birmingham Airport during 2014 and 2015, and in 2015 “around 150,000 people flew between our region and China, with passengers preferring to travel from their local airport.”

Click here to view full story…

---

Regular flights from Birmingham Airport to China cancelled in shock move

24.5.2016  (Midlands – Express and Star)

Hopes for the start of regular flights between Birmingham and China have collapsed after the tour operator suddenly pulled out.

Caissa Touristic, one of China’s most important travel companies, contacted the airport at the end of last week to say it was cancelling the planned service.

……. full article at  ……

http://ift.tt/1OPt3O5

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1WmxQ13

Read more ...

Hainan Airlines direct flights (4 per week) from Manchester to Beijing start on June 10th

Hainan Airlines will start flying (4 times per week) from Manchester Airport to Beijing from June 10th, as the first direct service from the north of England to mainland China. There are already flights from Manchester to Hong Kong. Some businesses including tourism hope this “will deliver a major boost to the region.” The University of Manchester is reported to believe the link will be a significant benefit to students. Faster air links to emerging markets could boost UK exports (they could also boost UK imports, which generally exceed exports). There are the usual comments like: “The Manchester Airport expansion shows that the city is ready to become an outward looking economic powerhouse”  and there is even an expectation that it “will deliver an economic boost to the UK worth £250m” (no details or time-scale given …. it never is). Currently, more than 100,000 people from the North (about 6,350 from North Wales) fly to mainland China every year but have to travel indirectly via London or other overseas hubs.  Manchester hopes that the flights will bring “hundreds of thousands of tourists to this part of the world every year.” North Wales Tourism and Bangor University have both praised the new service to Beijing and hope it “will unlock new opportunities for the area.”  Many thousands more people will not need to use Heathrow for their travel to China.
.
Tweet

 

Business leaders welcome stronger links to China

26 MAY 2016

BY LUCY ROUE (Manchester Evening News)

Hainan Airlines will start flying from Manchester Airport to Beijing from June 10th. It is the first ever direct service from the North to mainland China.

Business leaders, university bosses and tourism chiefs say a new direct flight from the north west to China will deliver a major boost to the region.

Hainan Airlines will start flying from Manchester Airport to Beijing from June 10. It is the first ever direct service from the North to mainland China.

A host of business groups, as well as individual companies, have all praised the new service and believe it is a massive benefit to the region and will unlock new business opportunities for the region. Plus the University of Manchester believes it will be a massive benefit to students.

Juergen Maier, CEO of Siemens UK and Chairman of the North West Business Leadership Team, said: “Developing strong business ties with China is essential for securing solid economic growth across the UK. If we are to export more and develop stronger trade relationships we need faster access to emerging markets.

“The best way to do this is to strengthen the north west as a strong investment and export hub. The Manchester Airport expansion shows that the city is ready to become an outward looking economic powerhouse.

“The first direct flight to Beijing will help Siemens to export too – it is a route that will be well used by our people at the Siemens Digital Factory in nearby Congleton which exports 98% of its products, with China being one of its biggest markets.”

Currently, more than 100,000 people from the North fly to mainland China every year but have to travel indirectly via London or other overseas hubs.

It is estimated the Hainan route – which will take 10.5 hours – will deliver an economic boost to the UK worth £250m.

A large chunk of that will be felt across the north west, as a result of productivity gains for businesses; the stimulation of trade and inward investment between the Far East and the region and by bringing hundreds of thousands of tourists to this part of the world every year.

Mike Perls, chair of IoD North West, said: “Transport links are vital in boosting trade and direct flights are particularly important for Northern exporters.

“China may be the world’s second biggest economy, but it is only sixth biggest destination for British goods and services – we export nearly the same amount to Belgium and Luxembourg.

“There is huge potential for Northern firms in Asia. We excel in financial and professional services, which will be increasingly attractive to these markets and the Manchester-China Forum highlights other key strengths. This isn’t just one way.

Ken O’Toole, CEO of Manchester Airport, added: “We know how important direct access to key markets like China is to stimulating trade and tourism for regions across the North.

“The north west has a strong business base covering a diverse range of sectors, with many companies already trading in the Far East, and so the existence of a non-stop route to Beijing will be of significant benefit.

“In addition, the service will hopefully encourage more businesses to start exporting their goods and services to this key market for the first time, while also being key to unlocking inward investment opportunities.”

http://ift.tt/1TCc7fT

.

---

Manchester Airport direct link to China will boost business and tourism in North Wales

25 MAY 2016 (Daily Post)
BY OWEN HUGHES

Tourism, business and university bosses have welcomed the flights between Manchester and Beijing

Hainan Airlines will start flying from Manchester Airport to Beijing from June 10th

A direct flight from Manchester Airport to mainland China will help boost tourism, exporters, and universities in North Wales.

It is the first ever direct service from the North of England to mainland China.

North Wales Tourism and Bangor University have both praised the new service and believe it is a massive benefit to the region and will unlock new opportunities for the area.

Currently, 6,348 people from North Wales fly to mainland China every year but have to travel indirectly via London or other overseas hubs.

The new four-weekly service will make Manchester the only airport outside of London with a direct year-round scheduled service to Mainland China and will be served by an Airbus A330-300. The cabin will have 32 business class seats and 260 in economy.

It is estimated the Hainan route – which will take 10.5 hours – will deliver an economic boost to the UK worth £250m.

A large chunk of that will be felt in the region, as a result of productivity gains for businesses; the stimulation of trade and inward investment between the Far East and the region and by bringing thousands of tourists to this part of the world every year.

Plus the recent addition of 40 direct rail services a week will deliver a significant boost to both leisure and business travellers wanting to access Manchester Airport, and this new route.

Jim Jones, managing director of North Wales Tourism said: “Everyone in North Wales warmly welcomes our Chinese friends and visitors. We are delighted with the news that Hainan Airlines will be flying direct four times a week into Manchester Airport.

“Manchester Airport is the international gateway for North Wales, which has so much to offer the Chinese visitor.

“Beautiful landscape, gardens, steeped in heritage and culture, with some of the leading adventure attractions in Europe.

“Once the new flights start in June it will be much easier for inbound Chinese tourists to access our lovely part of Great Britain.”

Bangor University currently has strong links with China with a campus in Changsha, direct flights will link the two locations, improving education opportunities between the two.

Frank Fitzmaurice, executive director of Marketing and Communications at Bangor University said: “Bangor University is widely recognised for our internationalisation and for the diversity of our campus, with almost 2,000 students from over 70 countries accounting for over 15% of our student numbers.

“As an example, we have grown our relationships in China to the point where we now operate a campus in Changsha with our Chinese partner university CSUFT, which further strengthens our position in that country.

“Manchester airport provides us with a vital link to these countries around the world. Combined with fast access via train and motorway, it means that our campus in Bangor in north-west Wales is within easy reach for our students from all over the world.

“This plays no small part in our successful marketing of the Bangor University brand internationally”

Ken O’Toole, CEO of Manchester Airport, said: “We know how important direct access to key markets like China is to stimulating trade and tourism for regions across the North.

“North Wales has a strong business base covering a diverse range of sectors, with many companies already trading in the Far East, and so the existence of a non-stop route to Beijing will be of significant benefit.”

http://ift.tt/1TLyiUp

.

---

Earlier:

Direct flights from Manchester to Beijing, starting June 2016, announced on President Xi’s UK visit

October 25, 2015

Manchester airport started Cathay Pacific direct flights to Hong Kong in December 2014. Now with the state visit of the Chinese President Xi Jinping to the UK, the first ever direct air link between Beijing and Manchester has been formally unveiled. President Xi was joined at the airport by David Cameron for the announcement of the Hainan Airlines service, which will fly four times per week, from June 2016. There are the usual claims of huge impacts on the economy with the link contributing “£50m annually to the city’s economy” and the usual mentions of both economies being “open for business.” Also the “northern powerhouse.” There are also other “substantial cooperation agreements” being signed between the two countries, covering economy, trade, investment, infrastructure, scientific innovation, manufacturing and sports. The Manchester Airports Group has been keen to get direct Beijing flights for years, to link northern businesses to the Far East economies – and get high spending tourists. The Chinese state-owned Beijing Construction and Engineering Group (BCEG) has already invested heavily in Manchester’s “Airport City.” There is also to be a £130 million ‘China Cluster’ to provide a commercial base for Chinese businesses arriving in the UK, based around two campuses within the Manchester Airport City development.

Click here to view full story…

Owner of Manchester and Stansted airports, MAG, unsurprisingly wants airport growth outside the south-east

October 7, 2015

The Manchester Airports Group (MAG) which owns/runs Manchester, Stansted, East Midlands and Bournemouth airports) says a new strategy is needed to promote local airports rather than investing in a megahub in the south-east. MAG wants a nationwide network of competing airports rather than investing all energies — and taxpayer funding — in an even larger airport in the south-east. While Heathrow claims it would provide a significant net benefit to northern England, allegedly “with the creation of up to 26,400 manufacturing jobs”, the Airports Commission’s own figures show negative impacts of a 3rd Heathrow runway on the UK’s regional airports. MAG believes that the expansion of local airports would provide a greater boost to the nation, and provide “an important catalyst for rebalancing UK plc.” So unsurprisingly Heathrow and MAG are both speaking from a position of self interest. While the Airports Commission ended up, misguidedly, just looking at whether they should be a runway at Heathrow or Gatwick, the main question of whether there should be a new runway in the south east at all still needs a convincing answer. MAG believes there is more likelihood of a successful “Northern Powerhouse” if northern airports get successful long haul routes, rather than Heathrow.

Click here to view full story…

Manchester Airport £1 billion plans to improve airport to compete better with Heathrow on long haul routes

June 2, 2015

The owners of Manchester Airport, MAG, plan to invest £1 billion over 10 years to upgrade Britain’s 3rd largest airport and help it compete harder with Heathrow for passengers. While both Heathrow and Gatwick are hoping to be allowed to add another runway, Manchester has two runways already – the second barely used. It has been expanding its long-haul routes, giving passengers an alternative to travelling south to Heathrow, and it plans to add more such routes. Its CEO, Charlie Cornish said: “Over the next 10 years, the airport will continue to develop as a global gateway for the UK.” Even if a new runway in the south east is approved (a big IF) it would take at least 10 years to build and in that time other UK airports, such as Birmingham and Manchester will have the chance to add new flights to new destinations – some assisting business travel. The number of air passengers at Manchester rose last year by 6% and may rise by 5% in 2015-16 period. Manchester airport expansion fits in with George Osborne’s hopes of improving road and rail links between northern English cities to create a conurbation with the scale and resources to compete with London. A new south east runway would, by contrast, just worsen the north-south divide.

Click here to view full story…

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

Read more ...

Leaders of 3 main London councils set out why they know better about Heathrow impacts than MPs hundreds of miles away

Read more ...

Gatwick touring the regions to try to drum up support for 2nd runway (Heathrow also touring …)

As Heathrow has been putting itself about across the regions, trying to “sell” its runway, Gatwick is doing the same. Gatwick staff have begun a UK tour campaign, trying to get some backing for their 2nd runway. In reality, Gatwick does not have a lot to offer.  It has very little air cargo, if what companies in the regions is looking for is a way to export products. Gatwick is on the wrong side of London for anyone north of Heathrow, and it is almost exclusively an airport for low cost leisure travel.  It has few long haul routes, and none to influential places not served by airports such as Birmingham or Manchester. But Gatwick is hoping to persuade that another runway would provide cheaper flights to and from the south east. That is a bit hard to believe, as the cost of the runway would mean ticket prices would have to rise by at least £15 – 18 or even up to £23, (one way).  Gatwick’s tour includes Manchester, Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh and Newcastle.  Heathrow is, at the same time, having “launch events” in Liverpool, Yorkshire, the Midlands and the Thames Valley, to try to persuade how their 3rd runway would provide huge benefits etc etc etc.  The Airports Commission appreciated that, being a tourism airport, Gatwick just boosts the UK tourism deficit, as Brits take their money out of the country on cheap trips. More and more spin ….
.
Tweet

 

 

Gatwick will push its bid across UK

24.5.2016 (Argus)

GATWICK bosses have begun a UK tour campaign in a bid to win backing for a second runway.

They believe another runway would provide cheaper flights to and from the south east and greater economic benefits across the country.

The tour has already reached Manchester and future events will take place in Belfast, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh and Newcastle.

Heathrow has also launched an “election-style” manifesto in a bid to gain support for its expansion plans.

In December the Department for Transport confirmed that the commission’s shortlisted options – new runways at Heathrow or Gatwick, or extension of an existing runway at Heathrow – were ”viable”.

But it also announced that further work on noise, pollution and compensation – which it expects to be concluded over the summer – will be carried out before it makes a decision on which project to support.

Gatwick chief executive Stewart Wingate said: “With the Government shortly set to make a decision on airport capacity it is important that the regions and nations of the UK know how expansion in the South East will benefit them.

“Rather than concentrating growth in a corner of west London, Gatwick expansion will spread more evenly the economic benefits which will help deliver regional powerhouses across the UK.”  [How, exactly??]

http://ift.tt/1Txjntu

.

---

Earlier:

Gatwick announces £20m fund to boost regions if second runway gets go ahead

10 Apr 2015

By Helen McArdle (News Reporter, Herald Scotland)
GATWICK Airport will establish a £20 million fund to boost regional connections to and from London in the ten years after opening a second runway, bosses have said, as the battle with Heathrow over expansion intensifies.

The cash would be used to incentivise airlines to introduce new services and help bankroll marketing campaigns for tourism bodies in UK regions, including Scotland.

Airport bosses would also work with Government to explore how to safeguard slots for new regional domestic flights and support funding applications for new subsidised routes, according to the details of a package unveiled on Friday.

The move comes weeks after rival Heathrow announced plans to cut airport charges for domestic flights and launch a £10m Route Development Fund if it was given the go-ahead to build a third runway.

Revealing the plans at Cornwall Chamber of Commerce, Gatwick Airport chief executive Stuart Wingate said: “Gatwick has always been serious about encouraging the growth and development of a strong network of competing airports around the UK. This fund – and the measures we propose to support it – will improve connectivity to London for those that need it.

“Gatwick expansion is best for the UK and regions because it supports not only the growth of connectivity to London, but also more connectivity between all UK airports and international short and long haul destinations.

“Expanding Gatwick will provide more competition and choice for passengers all around the UK.”

Gatwick Airport is trailing its rival for support north of the Border, with the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry (SCDI) both backing an extra runway at Heathrow’s over Gatwick.

A consultation on the airports’ expansion plans ended in February and the Airports’ Commission, chaired by Sir Howard Davies, is due to publish its final report this summer.

Meanwhile, the Department for Transport has reportedly drafted in city bankers, Rothschild, to provide financial advice to ministers and officials in the wake of Sir Howard’s final recommendation.

According to the Airport’s Commission, Gatwick’s second runway would require an outlay of £9.3bn, while Heathrow’s third runway plan is estimated to cost £18.6bn.

http://ift.tt/1VgUxml

---

See earlier:

 

Britain had £16.9 billion Tourism Deficit in 2015 – which is 17.6% of UK total balance of payments deficit

May 22, 2016

Data from the ONS shows that in 2015, the Tourism Deficit (the difference between how much overseas visitors spend on their trips to the UK, and how much Brits spend on their trips abroad) rose to the 2nd highest level ever. The deficit was £16.9 billion in 2015, and £20.5 in 2008, but it fell during the years of the recession. It was around £13.7 billion in each year, 2012, 2013 and 2014. It has now increased again very significantly – by over £3 billion in one year. That makes up a large slice (17.6%) of the UK’s overall balance of payments deficit of £96.2 billion in 2015.The number of trips by UK residents abroad increased by 9.4% last year, the largest rise since 1998, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2015, UK residents took 65.7 million foreign holidays or business trips (business trips were only 10.9% of the total, while back in 2005 they were 12.9% of the total). In 2015 the number of trips by foreign visitors to the UK rose by 5.1%, to a record high of 36.1 million. But while foreigners spent £22.1 billion on visits to the UK, Brits spent £39 billion abroad. The French were the biggest visitors to the UK, with 4 million trips. Spain was the country with most visits by UK residents – with 13 million trips, nearly 20% of UK travel.

Click here to view full story…

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

April 25, 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.

Click here to view full story…

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

Read more ...

Heathrow sets out vague, unenforceable, offers to boost links to regions with 3rd runway (with easyJet’s help?)

Read more ...

Sunday Times obtains details of £10.4 million bonus scheme, in stages, for Heathrow execs if they get 3rd runway

It emerged on 16th May that Heathrow executives were in line for large bonuses, if they managed to get a 3rd runway. Now the Sunday Times has details. They say eight executives could share a £10 million bonus pool. It appears they have already achieved £414,000 of the bonus, by getting the Airports Commission to select Heathrow in July 2015. Details of the bonus scheme are that the sums increase, based on the success of the executives’ lobbying. The next bonus payout would be, between the eight, £622,000 if they “create a climate of political support that enables the government to give its backing to expansion”. ie. if there is a government announcement this summer or autumn. Then they would get £829,000 if Heathrow is judged to be “on course to win planning approval” for its runway.  There would be another £829,000 of the bonus if Heathrow can get the CAA to allow Heathrow much higher landing charges in future, to pay for the runway (the CAA controls its charges). The whole £10.4 million bonus is the airport’s “share in success” incentive, and includes other measures not related to a 3rd runway.  It is to be paid out in 2019.  The existence of the bonus scheme was initially denied by the airport.  But it creates strong personal gain motives for senior staff, in pushing through the runway, regardless of its adverse impacts.
.
Tweet

 

Heathrow bosses eye £10m bonus pool

Payouts will flow if airport chiefs create ‘right climate’ for third runway

By John Collingridge (Sunday Times)
May 22 2016

…….

Full Sunday Times article at

http://ift.tt/1NFFGQJ

Eight Heathrow executives could share a £10m bonus pool, with part of the payout dependent on their creating the right “political climate” to approve a third runway.

Senior executives at the airport look to have already earned £414,000 of the bonus after winning over the independent Airports Commission.

………….

Heathrow, which is largely owned by overseas funds, including those of Qatar and Singapore, has demanded a 20-year deal on landing charges from the watchdog [CAA] in return for building a third runway. It argues that it needs a fundamental review of the regulatory regime if it is to bear the huge risks of expansion.

The CAA recently warned the government that the winning airport’s shareholders may try to move the goalposts to extract better profits once ministers have ruled.

 

Full Sunday Times article at

http://ift.tt/1NFFGQJ

.

---

Earlier:

Heathrow senior executives would get large bonuses if they manage to get 3rd runway

May 16, 2016

The Guardian has revealed that Heathrow’s annual report (December 2015) show that its top executives would benefit personally if the airport gets a 3rd runway. This is despite past denials that there were any financial incentives, not least when senior executives at Gatwick were found in February to have huge financial incentives if they manage to get a 2nd runway. Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd states: “During the year a new bonus scheme was launched based on EBITDA, passenger service (as measured by independent ASQ – Airport Service Quality – scores) and airport expansion over the Q6 period….” [Q6 is the 5 year regulatory period 2014 – 2019]. A Heathrow spokesman said the runway bonus would only be a small part of a payout for meeting the strategic requirements of the business, hitting the profit targets etc. CEO John Holland-Kaye earned £2.06m last year, more than doubling his basic salary of £885,000. However, he could add even more to that should a 3rd runway be approved. The annual report states that while a bonus scheme linked to expansion was launched in 2015, “as the performance in respect of this scheme is so uncertain at this stage, no value in relation to these awards is included” in his 2015 earnings package. The Guardian says John Holland-Kaye is believed to be the architect of the new bonus scheme. The airport cut its wider wage bill by cutting 333 jobs last year (6,714 compared to 7,047 in 2014), but directors’ pay rose.  Directors’ remuneration was up by £366,000 in 2015, to £3,555,000 from £3,189,000 in 2014).

Click here to view full story…

Anger at revelation that Gatwick bosses to personally profit (millions of £s) if 2nd runway allowed

February 29, 2016

The Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC) has expressed anger at the revelation in the Sunday Times that Gatwick bosses are set to benefit personally by several million pounds if permission is given for a 2nd runway. GACC says a 2nd runway would bring misery to tens of thousands of people. There would be three times as many people affected by serious amounts of aircraft noise, and new flight paths over peaceful areas. About 50,000 people would suffer from worse air quality. A new runway would mean traffic jams on motorways and local roads, overcrowding on the trains and an influx of new workers with a need to build 40,000 new houses on green fields. But with all these negative impacts on ordinary people, Gatwick bosses would walk away with huge bonuses. GACC chairman, Brendon Sewill, commented: “Until now Gatwick Airport Ltd have tried to persuade the public that a 2nd runway would be in the national interest. Now the cat is out of the bag!  There is no real need for a new runway at Gatwick.” GACC will be investigating how far these new bonus payments will be subject to the normal full 45% rate of income tax.  Despite making large profits, Gatwick Airport has paid no corporation tax since being bought by GIP due to tax fiddles similar to those operated by Starbucks or Google.

http://ift.tt/1LpIFv5

.

---

Top Gatwick bosses stand to make personal fortunes if airport price raised by 2nd runway

February 29, 2016

The Sunday Times has found that several of Gatwick’s senior bosses are signed up to a bonus scheme that should pay out handsomely if the airport is sold.  In small print in Gatwick’s 2011 accounts the bonuses of “certain members” of its board are directly linked to the amount GIP gets from sale of the airport.  It has long been suspected that Stewart Wingate, Nick Dunn (and others?) would stand to gain significantly, themselves, if they could raise the value of the airport by getting a 2nd runway.  Now the disclosure has proved it.  The cap on how much they could make is not revealed. Gatwick lent the executives £2.8m to buy into the share scheme, with the interest-free loans repayable once they sell their shares.  GIP owns 42% of the airport, with much of the rest held by investors from Abu Dhabi, California, Korea and Australia. Gatwick have been doing all they can to block a Heathrow runway, to get their own.  They are also doing all they can to increase the maximum number of flights per hour through flight path changes – again to raise the airport’s price. GIP bought Gatwick for £1.5 billion in 2009, and has just sold London City airport for almost x3 what they paid for it – and almost x32 its annual underlying profits.

http://ift.tt/1XURrmV

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/20o2wxi

Read more ...

Britain had £16.9 billion Tourism Deficit in 2015 – which is 17.6% of UK total balance of payments deficit

Data from the ONS shows that in 2015, the Tourism Deficit (the difference between how much overseas visitors spend on their trips to the UK, and how much Brits spend on their trips abroad) rose to the 2nd highest level ever.  The deficit was £16.9 billion in 2015, and £20.5 in 2008, but it fell during the years of the recession. It was around £13.7 billion in each year, 2012, 2013 and 2014. It has now increased again very significantly – by over £3 billion in one year. That makes up a large slice (17.6%) of the UK’s overall balance of payments deficit of £96.2 billion in 2015.The number of trips by UK residents abroad increased by 9.4% last year, the largest rise since 1998, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). In 2015, UK residents took 65.7 million foreign holidays or business trips (business trips were only 10.9% of the total,  while back in 2005 they were 12.9% of the total).  In 2015 the number of trips by foreign visitors to the UK rose by 5.1%, to a record high of 36.1 million.  But while foreigners spent £22.1 billion on visits to the UK, Brits spent £39 billion abroad. The French were the biggest visitors to the UK, with 4 million trips. Spain was the country with most visits by UK residents – with 13 million trips, nearly 20% of UK travel.

.
Tweet

 

 

Big rise in foreign travel by Britons, despite 2015 terror attacks

By Brian Milligan, Personal Finance reporter (BBC)

20 May 2016

The number of trips by UK residents abroad increased by 9.4% last year, the largest rise since 1998, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

In 2015, UK residents took 65.7m foreign holidays or business trips.

That was despite a number of high profile terrorist attacks in Europe.

They included the deaths of 130 people in Paris in November, and the killing of 38 holiday-makers on a beach in Tunisia in June.

The travel industry said the figures showed the “resilience” of UK travellers.

“The 9.4% growth recorded in overseas holidays during the year is the largest annual rise in nearly twenty years, and spending on holidays exceeded pre-crisis levels for the first time since the recession,” said a spokesperson for the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA).

Spain was easily the most popular country for UK residents to visit, with 13m trips there during the year. That accounted for nearly a fifth of all foreign travel by Brits.

The UK’s travel deficit 2015
	UK visits abroad	Foreign visits to UK
Number of trips	65.7m (+ 9.4% v. 2014)	36.1m (+5.1%)
Spend (not adjusted for inflation)	£39bn (+9.8%)	£22.1bn (+1%)
source: ONS

 

At the same time the number of trips by foreign visitors to the UK rose by 5.1%, to a record high of 36.1m.

But while foreigners spent £22.1bn on visits to the UK, Brits spent £39bn abroad.

That spending gap of £16.9bn is the highest since 2008, and accounted for a large slice of the UK’s overall balance of payments deficit of £96.2bn in 2015.

The French were the biggest visitors to the UK, with 4m trips.

Behind them were the Germans and the Americans, with 3m visits each. However American visitors spend more, so are more important to the economy.

Outside London, the cities with the highest number of visitors were Edinburgh, Manchester and Birmingham, each of which had more than a million foreign visits.

http://ift.tt/1TOZBZX

.

Taken from  http://ift.tt/1TntOVL

.

---

Taken from http://ift.tt/1TntOVL

UK residents 2015:   58,570 on holiday, VFR or miscellaneous, and and 7,149 business

Total is  65,719,000 of which business was 10.9%  (the figure was 12.9% business in 2005).

 

---

---

The ONS survey data for 2015 from which the data comes is at

http://ift.tt/1TntOVL

.

The ONS survey data for 2014 are at 

http://ift.tt/1TOZjCp

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Tnu8nq

Read more ...

HACAN new briefing shows how a 3rd Heathrow runway will not deliver for the regions

Heathrow has made repeated claims that its 3rd runway would be essential for the UK economy, and indeed, that it would be a vital boost to the economies of the regions. HACAN has set out, in a short briefing and in a video, how the claims are not justified. In reality, another Heathrow runway would have negative impacts on regional airports – not to mention huge costs for taxpayers across the country.  HACAN says of Heathrow’s various promises that they are not guaranteed: ✈ Better connections are not guaranteed. ✈ Instead, ever more resources will be concentrated in London and the South East. ✈ Heathrow expansion may preclude aviation growth elsewhere. ✈ A 3rd Runway may be undeliverable.  The Airports Commission itself found that, rather than reversing the decline in domestic flights between Heathrow and the regions, these will fall (from 7 now to 4 with a 3rd runway) unless they are subsidised, which could breach EU regulations. Due the cap on UK aviation carbon emissions, if a Heathrow runway is built (and it has to be used extensively, largely for high carbon long-haul flights)it is likely to mean restriction of the growth of flights from regional airports.  A totally dominant Heathrow, eclipsing other UK airports, would make it difficult for long haul routes from the regions to be profitable. 
.
Tweet

 

Briefing from HACAN at  

Booklet: “Heathrow 3rd Runway.   Will it really deliver for areas outside London and the South East?”

and short video

Heathrow 3rd Runway

“Will it really deliver for areas outside London and the South East?”

HACAN Briefing

19.5.2016

Promises, but not Guarantees

Heathrow Airport has made plenty of promises to other regions about how a 3rd runway could boost their economies but there are very few guarantees.

Key issues:

✈ Better connections are not guaranteed
✈ Ever more resources will be concentrated in London and the South East
✈ Heathrow expansion may preclude growth elsewhere
✈ A 3rd Runway may be undeliverable

1. Better Connections are not guaranteed

Capacity constraints at Heathrow have seen the number of domestic connections at the airport decline in recent years. As a result there have been persistent calls from local authorities, elected representatives and businesses from across the UK for better links to Heathrow. Heathrow Airport has promised a third runway will reverse this decline. It may do so but it is far from guaranteed. According to the Airports Commission’s final report, the number of domestic destinations served by Heathrow will fall from 7 to 4 if a third runway is built, unless they are subsidised. This is because the new slots created by a third runway will be used by routes to more profitable overseas destinations.

The Commission’s report says: ‘without specific measures to support domestic connectivity even an expanded Heathrow may accommodate fewer domestic routes in future than the seven served currently.’ The report spells out that ‘reserving’ slots for domestic routes is not an option as it would be in breach of EU regulations. Public Service Orders would be an option, but there are restrictions on which routes could qualify, and these would be entirely dependent upon the willingness of the UK Government to provide subsidies. Heathrow has recently made much of the fact the easyJet may come to Heathrow and create additional domestic slots but this is far from guaranteed. Gatwick, with a second runway, expects to continue to serve 7 or 8 domestic destinations.

“It is just plain wrong to say that only Heathrow can connect the UK to global growth, or that businesses in the UK’s regions need to fly through Heathrow to reach these markets. Manchester Airport is truly the international gateway for the North…..the north does not need another runway at Heathrow to connect to global markets.” Manchester Airport, CEO

2. Ever more resources would be concentrated in London

Heathrow Airport would pay for the cost of a new runway, but much of the cost of the associated road and rail infrastructure would fall on the UK. The Airports Commission estimated the road and rail costs at over £5 billion, though Transport for London (TfL) has put the broader transport infrastructure costs resulting from expansion at £15-£20 billion. However, Heathrow Airports Ltd has stated it is unwilling to contribute any more £1.1 billion. The rest of the cost would need to be met by taxpayers across the UK.

That’s yet more billions going to London and the South East. Money that could be spent in the rest of the country. On HS3 for example, across the North of England. Or on the electrification of the rail lines in North Wales.

3. Heathrow expansion may preclude growth elsewhere

The Airports Commission was clear that a third runway at Heathrow would reduce the scope for growth at other UK airports. There would not be the market for significant growth both at Heathrow and at other UK airports. The quarter of a million flights that would use a third runway at Heathrow would concentrate growth in the South East. Moreover, the Commission accepted that the climate change emissions from a third runway might also require growth to be curtailed elsewhere. Although one new runway at Heathrow would not, in itself, prevent the UK Government from meeting its climate change targets for aviation (CO2 to return to its 2005 levels by 2050), growth at other airports would potentially trigger some form of carbon tax in order to reduce demand in order to meet the CO2 targets. A 3rd runway could thereby necessitate limiting growth at other airports in the UK.

4. A 3rd Runway may be undeliverable

Because of the problems facing a third runway at Heathrow may be undeliverable.

• According to the European Commission over 725,000 live under the Heathrow flight paths (28% of all those impacted by aircraft noise in Europe); a 2-runway Gatwick would impact 35,000; Stansted even less.
• Heathrow is the only airport in the UK where air pollution exceeds the EU legal limits.
• Almost 4,000 homes might need to be acquired if a third runway was given the green light; 167 would be required for a second runway at Gatwick
• These problems have led to huge opposition to a 3rd runway. There’s no reason to believe this Government could succeed in building a 3rd runway where the last Labour Government failed.

.

HACAN gives a voice to residents under the Heathrow flight paths.
We can be contacted on info@hacan.org.uk; tel 020 7737 6641 www.hacan.org.uk

.

Briefing from HACAN at  

Booklet: “Heathrow 3rd Runway.   Will it really deliver for areas outside London and the South East?”

and short video

.

.

 

.

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

Read more ...

Assessment of proposal to cut APD by 50% in Scotland shows likely overall fall in revenue

An assessment of the Scottish Government’s plans to cut the rate of Air Passenger Duty (APD) shows that the aviation industry’s analysis has not accounted for the impact of a fall in domestic tourism.  The 50% cut in APD proposed would have the effect of damaging the Scottish economy and reducing funding for public services.  The report “APD Cut: A Flighty Economic Case” challenges claims that reducing APD by 50% will lead to sufficient economic growth to cover the short-fall in revenue from the tax cut.  In reality, cheaper tickets will encourage more Scots to take cheap foreign trips. The amount of money they take out of Scotland on these extra trips is likely to be larger than the amount brought in. The inbound tourists with greater spending power than typical domestic tourists are the least likely to be sensitive to airline ticket prices. In a buoyant economy, the increase in outbound trips is likely to exceed the increase in inbound trips.  The case for business growth due to an APD cut appears particularly weak as business flights are driven by need and time pressures rather than price. They are know to be price insensitive. There could also be a reduction in domestic tourism by Scottish people, who instead take cheap foreign breaks, so reducing employment in Scottish tourism.
.
Tweet

 

New Report – APD Cut: A Flighty Economic Case

Report by Dr Craig Dalzell finds that the aviation industry’s analysis has not accounted for the impact of a fall in domestic tourism from the APD cut

16.5.2016  (Common Space)

A new  Common Weal report argues that the case made by the Airport lobby for a 50% cut in Air Passenger Duty omits key facts, and in reality the tax cut could damage the Scottish economy while reducing funding for public services. 

‘APD Cut: A Flighty Economic Case’, published by Common Weal and authored by Dr Craig Dalzell in response to the Scottish Government’s open consultation on its planned APD cut, can be accessed in full here.

APDcut.png

 

It challenges the case made in two reports – from Edinburgh Airport and PwC on behalf of a number of aviation companies – that reducing APD by 50% will lead to sufficient economic growth to cover the short-fall in revenue from the tax cut. The two reports commissioned by the Airport lobby are the basis on which the case for an APD cut has been made.

Key points in the report include:

– The case for increases in tourist traffic is substantially undermined by the impact of cheaper tickets inducing more domestic tourists taking foreign trips instead.

– The spending power of the outbound tourists most likely to take more trips outside of Scotland is greater than the typical spending power of the inbound tourists most likely to take more trips to Scotland.

– The inbound tourists which have a greater spending power than typical domestic tourists are the least likely to be sensitive to airline ticket prices.

– Inbound tourists are generally more weakly linked to the economy than consumers more likely to be induced to leave which may lead to negative economic impacts even in the face of increased tourist numbers.

– The case for business growth due to an APD cut appears particularly weak as business flights are driven by need and time pressures rather than price.

– The case for an APD cut encouraging more visits to Scotland for the purposes of international trade and business deals is particularly weak as long haul business flights between the UK and the US and Asia is almost entirely price insensitive.

– If an APD cut results in a transfer of revenue from APD to corporation tax there may be deeper implications for the robustness of the Scottish budget under the devolved tax structure. This will be exacerbated in the case of corporate profits transferred outside of the UK entirely.

– The greater impact on the transport network due to increased traffic  as well as the economic imbalances created by the APD cut inducing greater traffic in the Central Belt but little growth elsewhere.

– If the reduction in revenue due to the APD cut is not at least recouped in full then additional cuts in public spending may be required.

http://ift.tt/1Xwy19A

.

Dr. Craig Dalzell is an MSci and PhD in Laser Physics and Photonics. He is an activist and researcher and runs a politics and economics blog at thecommongreen.wordpress.co

---

See earlier

SNP to launch consultation on plan to cut Scottish air passenger duty by 50%, starting April 2018

 March 14, 2016

The Scottish National Party (SNP) say they will cut Air Passenger Duty (APD) by 50% between April 2018 and 2021, if they win the Holyrood election on 5th May 2016. There is now a public consultation on this proposal. Control of APD is due to be devolved to Holyrood when the Scotland Bill becomes law, so it is no longer administered by the UK government. The Scottish Labour party has said a reduction would most benefit wealthier people, and should not go ahead. The majority of flights are taken by more affluent people, who can afford multiple short breaks as well as long haul holidays. Details of the APD consultation were announced by Finance Secretary John Swinney during a visit to Edinburgh Airport. The 50% cut in APD would start in April 2018, and be done in stages till 2021. The industry would like cutting APD to increase the amount of profitable high spending tourists to Scotland. They hope this would boost jobs and bring economic benefits. The amount of Scottish money taken out of the country on even cheaper flights is not counted, nor the jobs lost as Scots spend their holiday money abroad. Climate campaigners fear the net effect will be higher carbon emissions from Scottish aviation, if the ticket price is cut.  

http://ift.tt/1piWgdK

.

---

Edinburgh campaign, SEAT, shows why cutting Scottish APD risks harming people’s health and the environment

May 5, 2016

The community campaign, SEAT (Stop Edinburgh Airspace Trial) has set out why it is opposed to the Scottish Government intention to cut APD by 50%.  Edinburgh airport is delighted that APD might be reduced, so increasing demand for more flights (= more profit). But those badly affected by aircraft noise are very concerned about the increase in the problems they suffer.  Air Passenger Duty is needed, to at least partly make up for the tax breaks the aviation industry benefits from by paying no VAT, and no fuel duty. There is no VAT on purchase or servicing of aircraft. Many airports are owned by off-shore corporations, that pay minimal (or no) UK company taxed.  Flying is already artificially cheap, and even cheaper, if the only tax is halved.  While the Scottish government supports high speed rail links to London, which would cut carbon emissions if rail is used instead of air, they also aim to increase the number of flights, by cutting APD. That means significantly higher Scottish CO2 emissions. SEAT speaks up for people negatively impacted by aviation. The impacts on health from plane noise are now well known, and they are a cost to society. SEAT says cutting APD is unwise, and means putting profit for big business before people’s health, or the environment.Consultation ends on 3rd June.  

http://ift.tt/24tPdBK

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

Read more ...

Night flight ban likely to mean lower profitability for airlines, and higher ticket prices

An aviation industry consultant has commented on just how difficult (ie. how much less profit can be made) it is for airlines to avoid night flights. He is not persuaded that a ban on night flights will be accepted by airlines if they cannot fit in enough rotations per day, keeping the planes in use, and earning enough money, for enough hours. He says in Germany, residents’ campaigning on night flights has been relatively successful, and a number of large airports are now closed completely for extended periods overnight.  A strict ban could mean a delayed evening flight not being able to take off till morning, and the passengers having to be put up  in hotels overnight.  Particularly the low cost leisure market, night flights are an essential part of their operation.  To fly to the mid-haul destinations, 4-5 hours away, an airline can just cram two into the day, starting at 6am and ending at midnight.  With fast turnarounds.  There may not be enough runway capacity, in the London airport or the holiday destination airport, to get the exact time slot needed in order to cram the flights into the non-night period.  There are also cargo flights, or passenger flights carrying freight that currently rely on flying at night.  The author fears a night flight ban would have “unplanned consequences” on airlines.
.
Tweet

 

 

Comment: Why are night flights such an important issue?

by Andy Cooper

May 17th 2016 (BreakNews)

The government should think carefully before changing the night flights regime, says industry consultant Andy Cooper

The topic of night flights is once again in the media, following the recent announcement by Heathrow airport that it was willing to accept the proposed restrictions put forward by the Davies Commission in order to secure agreement to build a third runway.

The UK government will also be consulting later in 2016 about night flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted for the next five years, which will keep this subject in the public eye for the foreseeable future. So what’s all the fuss about?

Night flights are an emotive subject, and one which brings the aviation industry and its customers into direct conflict with residents living close to airports, or more specifically those living on airport flight paths.

Indeed, following the Heathrow announcement, John Stewart, the chair of the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise (Hacan), was quoted as saying: “Between a third and half of people who have joined our group have done so because of night flights. It is the biggest source of irritation to a great number of people.”

So, why are night flights so important, and wouldn’t it be easier simply to ban or restrict them significantly?

To understand this topic in any detail, we need to think about how airports manage their capacity. There are effectively two major capacity constraints affecting any airport: how many passengers can be accommodated in its terminals, and how many aircraft can use its runways.

Subject to planning permissions (a whole hornet’s nest in itself), in theory an airport can always address terminal capacity, simply by building more or bigger terminals – provided of course there is sufficient land to park all the additional aircraft that need to use the terminals – and anyone who has tried to fly some smaller Greek or ski airports will recognise this as a real problem.

It needs to be borne in mind that building in Britain is never a cheap exercise, so an airport is not going to undertake an expansion programme unless it has great confidence about future demand for its capacity.

Therefore, the biggest constraint to airport expansion, particularly for the London airports, tends to relate to runway capacity. Gatwick is operating at pretty near full capacity on its single runway for most hours of the day, and Heathrow is running at absolute maximum.

Therefore, for both those airports, the only way that they can meet passenger demand for any growth in the short term, pending both a decision on any new runway and the 20-odd year lead in to building the runway is by extending the hours in which the airport operates.

This also pre-supposes that airlines are willing to operate flights at unsociable times. Logically therefore, it is unlikely to be in an airport’s interest to restrict airport opening hours, and night flights are an important part of the mix for any airport.

Interestingly, in Germany, residents’ campaigning on night flights has been relatively successful, and a number of large airports are now closed completely for extended periods overnight.

This does create some challenges for airlines, particularly when they have a delayed departure shortly before the night flight restriction. A number of travellers from Frankfurt have found themselves in hotels overnight, rather than leaving on business or holiday trips due to these restrictions.

For an airline, particularly those in the leisure market, night flights are an essential part of their operation. There has been a significant fall in the number of the worst-timed flights in recent years, and it is relatively uncommon nowadays to see flights leaving at the horrible times – there’s nothing worse than an 1am departure from the UK, or come to that matter a 2am return.

However, these flight timings still happen, and for the airlines, there is often an operational and financial need to operate at those times.

While 2016 has seen a massive resurgence in holidays to Spain, the trends of recent years have been an increase in programmes to “mid-haul” destinations – whether that is the Canaries (4-4.5 hours flying from the UK), Turkey (4 – 5 hours flying), Egypt (5 – 6 hours flying) or elsewhere.

Most airlines cannot make their business model work with a single round trip (rotation) on any day, and typically need to operate two rotations. A typical aircraft may operate from the UK to, say, Palma, followed by a return flight to Turkey.

Allowing for an hour on the ground between each flight sector, the aircraft day may look something like this – for simplicity, it’s easiest to show by keeping all times in the UK clock:

________________________________

06:00 LGW – PMI 09:00
10:00 PMI – LGW 13:00
14:00 LGW – DLM 18:30
19:30 DLM – LGW 23:59

Where LGW is Gatwick, PMI is Palma and DLM is Dalaman.

________________________________

That flight plan is fairly common – and involves a very early departure from Gatwick, as well as a late return. Depending on how you define night flights, and the government definition appears to be anything in the period from 23:30 to 06:00, the programme can only work by operating a night flight – and if you try to bring the start of the day any earlier, then the first departure also becomes a night flight.

Therefore, the effect for an airline of a complete ban on night flights is not simply to prevent the return of the flight from Dalaman, it is to require the airline to rethink its whole flight programme.

This might be fine if the airport had sufficient capacity for the airline to change a number of flights to make its programme work.

However, airlines rely on their historical slots to operate their programmes, and at an airport like Gatwick, which is already full, a significant replanning of a flight programme simply isn’t possible.

The other feature that makes this issue more complex is that by definition, any route has two ends. A change to the flight times in the UK airport also affects the flight timings at the overseas airport. Many of those airports are also capacity constrained, so the airline may not be able to make changes at the other end of the route.

So what on the face of it sounds like a simple, resident friendly move to restrict the timings of night flights can have big impacts for airlines, and call into question the ability of the airline to operate their programme – which, let’s face it, only works if the airline has sufficient demand for those flights in the first place.

And in looking at this topic, I have limited my thoughts to passenger flights. Any changes would have big impacts for the freight and mail industries, which definitely rely on night flights to make their models work.

So, my plea to government is to take great care before messing with the night flights regime. There is nothing worse than any government decision having inadvertent and unplanned consequences – and a change to the regime could easily have that effect.

http://ift.tt/1slPHZt

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Xwu8S3

Read more ...

Heathrow’s vague proposal on air pollution – what is Heathrow really saying?

Read more ...

ICAO aviation offset market talks yield little progress, but backtracking on previous agreement

ICAO has concluded 3 days of talks to try to achieve a deal on a market-based offsetting mechanism for international aviation emissions from 2020.  It has not made much progress.  The industry has expressed the hope of “carbon neutral growth” after 2020, which means continuing to grow and emit more carbon, but buying offsets from other sectors that actually do cut CO2 emissions. Unless this is done, the prospect of the world achieving a limit of global temperature of 2 degrees C is remote.  However, there are difficult issues to be resolved, of how to divide up the offsetting responsibilities between fast-growing airlines in emerging economies, and established carriers often with older, less fuel-efficient fleets and based in the industrialised world. Neither side will accept being disadvantaged. There have been proposals to try out a “pilot” scheme, and delay the 2020 date.  Either way, the ICAO scheme only intends to cover international flights, not domestic – which form a large proportion in countries like the USA and China. That means only about  62% of the total aviation CO2, assuming the EU counts as a single bloc (more like 40% otherwise).  Airlines do not want a patchwork of different systems in different parts of the world. 

.
Tweet

ICAO aviation offset market talks yield little progress, seen backtracking on previous agreement

May 14, 2016

By Ben Garside – ben@carbon-pulse.com  (Carbon Pulse)

Three-day talks (11th to 13th May) on a deal to launch a market-based offsetting mechanism for international aviation emissions from 2020 wrapped up in Montreal Friday without any firm progress, with some nations even appearing to backtrack on a previous agreement by proposing a ‘pilot’ practice phase and a later start date.

The “high-level” negotiations at the headquarters of UN aviation body ICAO were one of the last opportunities to iron out key issues before a deal is due to be voted on at ICAO’s full assembly in October.

But two-and-a-half years spent poring over technical details has so far yielded little in the way of solid results, as this week’s session ended with governments failing to establish clear negotiating lines, including on the main issue of how to divide up offsetting responsibilities.

In response to the lack of progress, Singapore tabled a proposal for an “implementation phase” from 2020 to buy time to iron out the details and test infrastructure.

China also called for a pilot process, three sources at the talks said.

An EU source told Carbon Pulse that while the 28-nation bloc EU would welcome a pilot to test auditing rules and voluntary offsetting before 2020, it opposed any move that would delay the start of the global market-based measure beyond the beginning of the next decade.

That start date was agreed by ICAO’s assembly when it last met in 2013.

REACTION

Environmental campaigners were appalled that the process appeared to be rolling back from the agreement to attain carbon-neutral growth, and that draft design plans that have emerged contain too many loopholes to adequately address the sector’s climate impact.

Industry groups, on the other hand, keen to keep the process together rather than see it unravel into a patchwork of regional measures, took pains to remind governments that they were prepared to start the global offsetting measure in 2020.

“The industry is ready to play its role and we further encourage governments to deliver a deal with concrete parameters that allows us to start implementation from 2020,” said Michael Gill of cross-industry Air Transport Action Group.

**Read our analysis on how the ICAO deal is poised to cover less than 40% of airline pollution and do little to answer airlines’ pleas to avoid a patchwork of regional measures.** (See below).

FURTHER TALKS

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch member of the European Parliament observing the session in Montreal, took a more positive stance however.

“Experienced negotiators are saying they’ve never seen a more positive attitude here before. There are still a lot of points to be discussed, but generally I’m quite optimistic,” he told Carbon Pulse.

“It’s not yet clear how the Singapore proposal will be handled. It will be one of the issues on the table for further talks in June,” referring to another session of ICAO negotiations scheduled for next month.

On Thursday Egypt tabled a proposal, which was reportedly supported by the US, to outlaw any unilateral regional measures to address aviation emissions once ICAO’s global market-based mechanism was implemented.

But Gerbrandy said that proposal had since been amended so as to prove less of a threat to the EU’s ability to impose its own regulation on flights using European airports under the bloc’s carbon market.

“It would at least mean inter-European flights are not affected, and while the problem has not been overcome, it’s moving in the right direction,” he added.

By Ben Garside – ben@carbon-pulse.com

http://ift.tt/1qnev1N

.

---

See also

ANALYSIS: ICAO climate talks reach crunch time, but deal poised to exempt most aviation emissions

May 11, 2016

By Ben Garside (Carbon Pulse)

Deep divisions are emerging between global powers over a UN deal to curb aviation emissions that is set to cover less than 40% of airline pollution and do little to answer airlines’ pleas to avoid a patchwork of regional measures.

Government officials resume the negotiations today at a three-day session at the headquarters of UN aviation body ICAO in Montreal, their main opportunity to iron out key issues before the deal is due to be voted on at the body’s full assembly in October.

But after two-and-a-half years of polite positioning, major rifts have emerged between the US and China over an ICAO draft for a global offsetting mechanism that some carbon market proponents expect to save the ailing CDM and spur a surge in demand for REDD credits.

“Now we will see negotiating lines begin to harden. People have been pretty careful until now,” said Annie Petsonk of environmental campaigners EDF.

The draft ICAO proposal is aimed at meeting an earlier pledge by the industry to achieve carbon neutral growth from 2020.  However, under the plan’s current design it would only see flights between richer countries join the scheme when it launches in 2021, with flights linked to middle-income nations being phased in from 2026.

This, combined with ICAO’s remit of only covering international flights, would mean less than 40% of commercial aviation emissions worldwide are set to be regulated by the scheme from 2020, undermining efforts to curb emissions from the fast-growing sector currently responsible for as much as 5% of global greenhouse gas output.

In percentage terms it appears insignificant, but aviation’s share represents more than the total emissions of the world’s 129 least emitting countries.

FAIR SHARE

Underpinning those major shortcomings is a battle among nations over how to divide up the offsetting responsibilities between fast-growing airlines in emerging economies with established carriers often with older, less fuel-efficient fleets and based in the industrialised world.

China has already raised objections that the deal would “impose inappropriate economic burden on developing countries, where the international aviation market is still maturing,” according to a paper it submitted ahead of the talks urging all major airline emitters to enter from 2021 on a “nationally-determined” basis.

The US, on the other hand, is pushing for the measure to “achieve the widest possible coverage”, according to its submission, and is seeking for offsetting obligations to gradually move towards being determined by an airline’s individual growth rate rather than the industry average used in ICAO’s draft.

This would pile a much heavier offsetting burden on faster-growing carriers such as Turkish Airlines, China Southern, or Russia’s Pobeda, rather than established US carriers such as Delta and American Airlines.

The diplomatic manoeuvring centres around ICAO’s principle of treating all airlines equally on the same routes, and the guiding tenet of the UNFCCC, the UN climate body, of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) that mean developed nations with greater historical responsibility for emissions are required to take the lead.

“There’s a high risk that the ICAO talks will fail if countries can’t agree on CBDR,” one EU official told Carbon Pulse on condition of anonymity.

“Things haven’t advanced too much since Paris, as differentiation is still obstructing progress … The problem is that countries are taking the Agreement and reading what they want from it,” said another source familiar with the talks.

While generally in favour of the phase-in approach for poorer states, the EU stressed that any emissions left out from the start would create a ‘gap’ in the regulation.

“If left unaddressed, this gap would put at risk the achievement of the climate objective. Europe stresses the need to improve the design so that the emissions gap is minimised and addressed,” the EU said in its submission to the talks.

But Andrew Murphy of green group T&E said this would pile more pressure on countries to deepen emission reductions on their own territories to meet their collective goal in the Paris Agreement of keeping global warming to well below 2 degrees C and of striving to keep it below 1.5C.

“The UNFCCC’s analysis of national pledges assumes that aviation will achieve carbon neutral growth from 2020, so if international aviation doesn’t stick to that then we face the prospect of moving away from the 1.5C/2C goal,” he said.

GLOBAL PATCHWORK

Airline association IATA expects the offset measure to cost carriers up to $6.2 billion a year by 2025, rising to $23.9 billion by 2035. But it is pushing for an October deal as the sector’s most cost effective way of tackling climate change and to cut red tape for its globally-focused members.

“A market-based cost will be much more efficient, and much fairer than the alternative which is a patchwork of inefficient and ineffective charges and taxes which are cooked up primarily just to raise cash rather than to tackle climate change,” IATA chief Tony Tyler told an industry event ahead of talks in Montreal on Tuesday.

“We expect that the cost will be not insignificant, but it will be manageable,” he added.  “Industry is resolute. It is determined to do the right thing.  We are counting on ICAO states to enable us.”

Yet, ICAO’s remit is only to cover emissions from international flights, which accounts for just 62% of the total assuming the EU counts as a single bloc.

It is unclear how countries will address domestic aviation emissions should an ICAO deal be struck on the international portion, though analysts don’t expect governments to cede control to ICAO.

“We think it is likely it will be a patchwork of regulations with domestic policies in a way continuing what they do today, rather than using the ICAO regime domestically,” said Frank Melum, an analyst at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon.

The EU has since 2012 included intra-European flights in its Emissions Trading System.  South Korea covered airlines in its ETS in 2015, and China expects to regulate them when it launches its national carbon market in 2017.

The US, which accounts for two-thirds of all domestic aviation emissions, has no firm plans, yet its submission to the ICAO talks appears to lean towards uniting the regulation of aircraft pollution globally.

“Deciding to adopt a global market-based measure at ICAO is imperative to avoid a patchwork of approaches at the country or regional level that may be inconsistent, overlap and result in increased costs,” it said.

RESTART THE CLOCK

The EU also has an additional negotiating chip.

Should the 28-nation bloc deem the ICAO deal inadequate, it could opt to once again impose its ETS on international flights using most European airports, effectively ‘restarting the clock’ on a law it froze in 2012 amid an outcry from its major trading partners that the rules infringed on their sovereignty.

“If ICAO agrees on a scheme that doesn’t ensure the aviation sector doing its fair share in limiting climate change, I see no reason why Europe shouldn’t include international flights as of the 1st of January 2017,” said Bas Eickhout, a Green party member of the European Parliament.

However, while the EU Parliament is eager to push the issue, member states are less keen on revisiting the diplomatic furore, and observers expect the bloc to set a high bar for re-establishing its law.

Regardless, airlines remain apprehensive over what sort of additional measures may await should governments deem whatever ICAO agrees as insufficient.

“If you’re an airline seeing different measures popping up around the world, this scares you.  For that reason, ICAO is feeling the pressure.  If it doesn’t get this done, that will provide impetus for additional regulations,” the second anonymous source said.

“The UNFCCC may take over on this if ICAO can’t reach an deal,” he added, noting that following failed efforts in Paris, some countries may once again try to regulate the sector’s emissions through the UN’s climate change secretariat.

By Ben Garside and Mike Szabo – ben@carbon-pulse.com

http://ift.tt/21XTKHK

.

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1OvPPu7

Read more ...