Evening Standard believes Ministers likely to make runway decision by end of year
Monday, 5 October 2015
Labour peer Lord Adonis to head Osborne infrastructure body – to get things like a new runway built fast
Monday, 5 October 2015
A new body to plan infrastructure projects, the “independent” National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) will be chaired by the former Labour transport secretary Lord Adonis. The government is expected to announce it will pledge an extra £5 billion in this Parliament for major schemes, which he hopes will boost the UK economy. Osborne says he plans to “shake Britain out of its inertia” and Lord Adonis thinks that without “big improvements” in transport and energy “Britain will grind to a halt”. The NIC will initially focus on London’s transport system, connections between cities in the north of England, and updating the energy network – funded by selling off land, buildings and other government assets. Lord Adonis has resigned the Labour whip and will sit as a crossbencher in the Lords as he starts work in his new role immediately. The NIC will produce a report at the start of each five-year Parliament containing recommendations of infrastructure building over the next 20 to 30 years. Osborne: “I’m not prepared to turn round to my children – or indeed anyone else’s child – and say ‘I’m sorry, we didn’t build for you.’ John Cridland, director-general of the CBI business lobby said: ” ….we must not duck the important infrastructure decisions that need taking now, particularly on expanding aviation capacity in the South East.”
.
Tweet
BBC
Labour peer Lord Adonis to head Osborne infrastructure body
5.10.2015 (BBC)
Lord Adonis will become an independent peer to take on his new role
A new body to plan infrastructure projects will be chaired by the former Labour transport secretary Lord Adonis, the chancellor is to announce.
The commission will be unveiled at the Conservative conference and George Osborne will pledge an extra £5bn in this Parliament for major schemes.
In a speech later, he will say he plans to “shake Britain out of its inertia.”
Lord Adonis said that without “big improvements” in transport and energy “Britain will grind to a halt”.
The chancellor believes the independent National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) will prove vital to boosting the economy.
It will initially focus on London’s transport system, connections between cities in the north of England, and updating the energy network – funded by selling off land, buildings and other government assets.
Lord Adonis, policy chief in Tony Blair’s government before becoming transport secretary under Gordon Brown, has resigned the Labour whip and will sit as a crossbencher in the Lords as he takes on his new role.
The NIC, which will start work immediately, will produce a report at the start of each five-year Parliament containing recommendations of projects.
Mr Osborne said Lord Adonis would be working in the “national interest” in his role.
Lord Adonis, a Social Democrat councillor and Liberal Democrat election candidate before joining Labour, said: “Without big improvements to its transport and energy systems, Britain will grind to a halt.
“Major infrastructure projects like Crossrail and building major new power stations span governments and Parliaments. I hope it will be possible to forge a wide measure of agreement across society and politics on key infrastructure requirements for the next 20 to 30 years.”
Mr Osborne is expected to tell the Conservative Party conference: “Where would Britain be if we had never built railways or runways, power stations or new homes? Where will we be in the future if we stop building them now?
“I’m not prepared to turn round to my children – or indeed anyone else’s child – and say ‘I’m sorry, we didn’t build for you.’ We have to shake Britain out of its inertia on the projects which matter most.”
‘Open to ideas’
Mr Osborne has also announced plans to combine 89 local authority pension funds in England and Wales into six regional funds in the hope it will encourage them to invest in major infrastructure projects.
The chancellor is expected to acknowledge in his speech that the idea for the NIC was first proposed by Labour in its manifesto for May’s general election.
The chancellor said Lord Adonis would be working in the “national interest”
An aide to Mr Osborne said: “The chancellor is open to good ideas.”
BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said Lord Adonis’s move was “a long way from a defection”, and that while it was embarrassing for Labour that he was resigning the whip he would remain a party member.
She added that it was worth noting that Lord Adonis had sat on the review for Labour that effectively set out the blueprint for the new commission.
A spokesman for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: “We have heard it all before from Osborne and the Conservatives on infrastructure and their record is one of complete failure to deliver.
“There is still nothing to indicate that the Tories understand the desperate need for serious long-term investment in infrastructure – and the real story of their conference remains their attack on working people through the cut on tax credits.”
John Cridland, director-general of the CBI business lobby group, said: “Updating the UK’s infrastructure is critical to sustainable growth and productivity, and we’ve long called for an independent body to assess our long-term needs.”
He added: “But we must not duck the important infrastructure decisions that need taking now, particularly on expanding aviation capacity in the South East.”
.
.
.
via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Q03Xx8
Guardian reports Patrick McLoughlin saying Government statement on runway likely to be delayed – even past May 2016
Sunday, 4 October 2015
An article in the Guardian, interviewing Patrick McLoughlin, the Transport Secretary, says that because of the well known “deep and unresolved cabinet splits over whether to expand Heathrow to provide more airport capacity for the south-east, the statement by the government about the runway issue may be delayed. It has been expected that some sort of statement would be made, before Christmas. This might be in favour of Heathrow, or it might be a holding response to give government more time. The Guardian states: “McLoughlin said an announcement would “hopefully” be made [before Christmas], but he could not promise it would, or indeed that it would be made before next May’s London and council elections. It was simply the firm intention, but that was as much as he could say.” At least five cabinet ministers, as well as Boris Johnson, a likely candidate to succeed Cameron after he steps down in 2020, are against, while Osborne, probably now the favourite to step into Cameron’s shoes, is in favour. Zac Goldsmith, Conservative Mayoral candidate, deeply opposed to the runway, is a huge complication for the government on the issue.
.
Tweet
From Guardian article at http://ift.tt/1WEz9pC
…..”There are also deep and unresolved cabinet splits over whether to expand Heathrow to provide more airport capacity for the south-east. At least five cabinet ministers, as well as Boris Johnson, a likely candidate to succeed Cameron after he steps down in 2020, are against, while Osborne, probably now the favourite to step into Cameron’s shoes, is in favour.
Jostling over the succession is already beginning. A decision on Heathrow was expected by Christmas but now that appears to be in some doubt. McLoughlin said an announcement would “hopefully” be made by then, but he could not promise it would, or indeed that it would be made before next May’s London and council elections.
It was simply the firm intention, but that was as much as he could say.”
via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1PdPlMj
CPRE raises concerns about government plans to raise cost of legal challenges, on projects like a new runway
Friday, 2 October 2015
The CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) fears proposals to expose claimants in environmental cases, such as big infrastructure projects, to higher financial liabilities if they lose their cases could deter people from bringing actions. Green organisations could face steep rises in the cost of legal challenges to Heathrow’s expansion, or air quality policies, under reforms that the government is contemplating. But the Ministry of Justice denies proposals for higher cost caps are timed to coincide with HS2 and Heathrow. Campaigners fear government plans will deter people from bringing actions. There is a current consultation to update the UK’s responsibilities under the Aarhus convention, which guarantees public participation in decision-making as well as access to information and justice in environmental matters. The Prime Minister has been critical of delays to building projects, due to lengthy judicial review cases. This is claimed to delay economic development. Ralph Smyth, a barrister and the transport campaign manager at CPRE, said the planned changes could make it harder to challenge environmental decisions in the courts, and get justice for individuals, community groups and charities seeking to protect air quality, green belt, tranquillity and the climate.
.
Tweet
Green activists worry about government plans to raise cost of legal challenges
Ministry of Justice denies proposals for higher cost caps are timed to coincide with HS2 and Heathrow expansion. Campaigners fear government plans will deter people from bringing actions over upcoming infrastructure projects.
By Owen Bowcott – Legal affairs correspondent
Monday 28 September 2015 (Guardian)
Green organisations could face steep rises in the cost of legal challenges to Heathrow’s expansion, or air quality policies, under reforms the government is contemplating.
Proposals to expose claimants in environmental cases to higher financial liabilities if they lose their cases could deter people from bringing actions, according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).
The consultation has been launched to update the UK’s responsibilities under the Aarhus convention, which guarantees public participation in decision-making as well as access to information and justice in environmental matters.
But green activists fear the plans, which introduce higher cost caps, coincide with the next stage of major infrastructure projects such as expanding Heathrow to a third runway and the HS2 rail lines linking the north of England and London.
In the past, the prime minister has blamed judicial review cases for delaying economic development. In 2012, David Cameron told the CBI: “We urgently need to get a grip on this. So here’s what we’re going to do: reduce the time limit when people can bring cases, charge more for [judicial] reviews so people think twice about time-wasting, and instead of giving hopeless cases up to four bites of the cherry to appeal, we will halve that to two.”
Ralph Smyth, a barrister and the transport campaign manager at the CPRE, said: “In the run-up to its decision on Heathrow expansion, the government is cynically seeking to make it harder to challenge environmental decisions in the courts.
“What it is spinning as merely ‘measured adjustments’ would in fact impact hugely on the affordability of British justice for individuals, community groups and charities seeking to protect air quality, green belt, tranquillity and the climate.
“With legal costs in England among the highest in Europe, the current system of costs protection brings much needed certainty for those bringing environmental cases.
“Because of the complexity of judicial review, few cases are brought. While the proposals would save negligible costs, they would introduce significant uncertainty about how much a losing party would have to pay, putting the public off seeking justice in the first place.”
Campaigners are worried about consultation proposals to double the caps from £5,000 to £10,000 for individuals and from £10,000 to £20,000 for organisations such as environmental groups – exposing them to higher costs if they lost their cases.
They also allege the MoJ plans contemplate making the higher liabilities apply to each claimant rather than each case, potentially multiplying costs in challenges brought by multiple parties. The department says this is a misunderstanding of the proposals and the cap will still apply to each overall case if bought collectively rather than being applied to every claimant.
It also denies the timing of the consultation has anything to do with Heathrow or other imminent infrastructure projects. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The proposed changes to the rules around legal costs in environmental cases are designed to make sure challenges can be still be brought without encouraging meritless claims, which cause unreasonable costs and delays.”
.
http://ift.tt/1LJU5bp
via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Vtwu51
New group, CHATR (Chiswick Against the Third Runway) formed to oppose Heathrow expansion
Friday, 2 October 2015
The first meeting of a new group in Chiswick, opposing Heathrow expansion, took place on 25th September. The group is CHATR (Chiswick Against the Third Runway), and it covers areas in North and Central Chiswick that would be badly over-flown by arrivals to a new north west runway. Ruth Cadbury MP for Brentford & Isleworth, who has campaigned against expansion at Heathrow for 12 years, spoke at the meeting. John Stewart, HACAN’s Chairman said the meeting was ‘timely indeed’ as the deadline for a Government decision on the runway rapidly approaches. Last time round, back in 2009, there was active opposition to a new runway from the Chiswick area, and there is again determination to see it does not happen. The area will not only suffer the plane noise, but also considerably increased pollution and noise, from the increase in road traffic that will inevitably be the consequence of the runway. People were encouraged to attend the anti-runway rally, as CHATR representing Chiswick, in Parliament Square on 10th October (11 am to 12.30pm). It is suggested they come with a placard clearly showing their postcode and stating they are against the third runway. More information or to join CHATR@mail.com
.
Tweet
Chiswick Against The Third Runway Inaugral Meeting A Great Success
By Paul Williams (Chiswick Herald)
Monday Sep 28th 2015
It was standing room only at Chiswick Against the Third Runway( CHATR’s) inaugural meeting for local residents on Friday evening, 25 September 2015. John Stewart, HACAN’s Chairman, addressed the meeting, calling it ‘timely indeed’ as the deadline for a Government decision on the runway rapidly approaches & ‘Chiswick does seem to be starting to make a noise’.
A third runway will make Heathrow the biggest emitter of CO2 in the country. The lives of people in the surrounding communities, already suffering, will bear the brunt of the considerably increased pollution and noise, not only from aircraft but also the increase in road traffic that will inevitably be the consequence of the proposed third runway.
HACAN’s John Stewart with Ruth Cadbury MP (centre) with three founding members of CHATR
The audience was treated to a guest appearance by Ruth Cadbury MP for Brentford & Isleworth who has campaigned against expansion at Heathrow for 12 years. Ruth pointed out that the frequency of landings is as much of an annoyance as the amount of noise and that studies show that children in schools under flight paths suffer cognitive learning impairment.
Heathrow leads Europe in the number of people affected by noise with well over a million people in London alone.
Noise from the new proposed flight paths directly overhead would be the biggest problem for residents of North and Central Chiswick, followed by air pollution caused by significantly increased road traffic and community disruption. There are pockets around Heathrow that already exceed EU pollution limits.
The ministerial group assessing the Davies Commission Report does not include any cabinet members from areas that would be affected or potentially affected by the third runway and David Cameron will also have to face down significant political opposition even within his own party.
You can support the cause and protest at Parliament Square at 10.30am on Saturday 10 October 2015 (http://ift.tt/1M7arH2).
Please turn up with a placard prominently displaying your postcode declaring you are against the third runway. CHATR is in the process of organising placards and a group from Chiswick to go to the rally. Please check here for more details.
The organisers would like to thank everyone who attended, supported and assisted at the meeting and for kind offers of help.
CHATR – Chiswick Against the Third Runway would like to hear from other interested groups and residents in Chiswick and surrounding areas to join the campaign against a third runway at Heathrow.
Please email them at CHATR@mail.com
via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1FLDQd4
Airlines write to UN Secretary General to say they want governments to set up offsetting for their carbon growth
Friday, 2 October 2015
Airbus, Boeing and Rolls-Royce are among 28 signatories to open letter to the Secretary General of the UN, stressing the need for a carbon market to curb aviation CO2. They say they are committed to curbing the aviation sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, ahead of a Paris climate deal this December. Their letter says they will not increase net (Note: net not gross) CO2 emissions from aviation after 2020 and halve them compared to 2005 by 2050. These cuts would in practice not be made by actually reducing the amount of CO2 aviation emits, but by buying credits from other sectors that actually reduce their carbon. To do this, they need to agree a carbon market at the 2016 summit of UN aviation authority, ICAO. The design of a “market mechanism” (system of trading carbon) to offset emissions by investing in low carbon development projects is behind schedule. The aviation industry is keen to be seen to be doing something, though internal divisions within ICAO mean agreeing anything that would actually be effective in limiting the sector’s carbon emissions. They still hope to be able to cut emissions by a few % by use of biofuels, though this is not looking promising. Though the letter is a start, global aviation needs much more ambition, and it cannot rely on offsets indefinitely. See also critique of offsetting for carbon cuts.
.
Tweet
Airlines commit to climate action ahead of Paris
30.9.2015 (Climate Home)
Airbus, Boeing and Rolls-Royce among signatories to open letter pledging a carbon market to curb aviation emissions
By Megan Darby
Aviation industry leaders have reaffirmed their commitment to curbing the sector’s greenhouse gas emissions, ahead of a Paris climate deal.
Chiefs of Boeing, Airbus and Rolls-Royce were among 28 signatories to an open letter published on Wednesday, pledging to stabilise emissions from 2020 and halve them by 2050 from a 2005 baseline.
To hit those targets, they emphasised the need to agree a carbon market at the 2016 summit of UN aviation authority, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
They wrote: “It’s a challenging task. But it is one to which the aviation industry is fully committed.”
Representing more than 90% of airline traffic worldwide, nearly a trillion dollars of annual revenue and 4 million employees, the organisations called on governments to support their goals.
Michael Gill, head of the Air Transport Action Group which coordinated the letter, said: “This is an influential set of business leaders adding their voice to those supporting climate action in the lead-up to the COP21 negotiations in Paris and one year ahead of aviation’s own climate deadline.”
The industry aims to meet rising demand for flights without increasing emissions from 2020 onwards.
That will involve increasing fuel efficiency, developing biofuels and offsetting any emissions growth that cannot be avoided.
Yet industry figures have warned the design of a market mechanism to offset emissions by investing in low carbon development projects is behind schedule.
WWF-UK aviation specialist James Beard said: “There are key decisions that still need to be taken on the ICAO market-based measure, including what sorts of offsets and biofuels will be allowed. It’s crucial that these decisions are fair for all countries and promote sustainable development.
“The target of carbon neutral growth from 2020 is a start but much more ambition will be needed. The aviation industry cannot rely on offsets indefinitely. It must pull its weight on both reducing emissions and providing climate finance for developing countries.”
.
The letter from ATAG
to the Secretary General of the United Nations, the head of the UNFCCC and the French Government delegation leading the COP21 talks in Paris. :
30.9.2015
Sir,
One year ahead of the 39th International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Assembly and as governments prepare to meet in Paris for the crucial COP 21 climate change negotiations, the aviation industry reaffirms its commitment to reduce aviation’s contribution to climate change.
As a result of billions of dollars of investment and collaborative action already taken by the industry, a passenger today produces half the carbon dioxide per kilometre flown compared to 1990. [Since then the low cost airlines have sprung up, with higher load factors. AW note]
This is significant progress. But we recognise that more needs to be done.
Many economies rightly wish to foster the vital connectivity for trade, investment and tourism that further development of air transport can bring. We must balance that task with the challenge faced by all industrial sectors to reduce emissions.
As leaders in the aviation industry and the global business community and as the first global transport sector to set carbon-reduction goals, we have been engaged in impressive cross-sectoral climate action.
Our ambitious goals are to:
1. improve the fuel efficiency of the world fleet by an average 1.5 per cent a year, a goal we are already exceeding;
2. stabilise net aviation CO2 emissions at 2020 levels through carbon-neutral growth; [ie. trading with other sectors which actually do cut carbon emissions. AW note]
3. halve aviation’s net CO2 emissions by 2050, compared with a 2005 baseline. [By carbon trading with other sectors, while the emissions from aviation itself grow perhaps three-fold. AW note].
These have been matched by action across the sector in four key areas: over $1tn of new technology aircraft have entered the fleet alongside advances in sustainable alternative fuels; operations; infrastructure; [all these things have been done by the industry in order to save costs and boost profits – not to cut carbon emissions, which is sometimes a useful additional gain. AW note. ] and the development of a global market-based measure.
Today we call on governments to support efforts towards realising these goals. This support must take place through a range of actions: air traffic management investment and reform; continued support for research into new technology, operations and sustainable alternative fuels; improved intermodal transport planning; and the right policy framework to help accelerate the availability of sustainable alternative fuels for aviation.
Importantly, we have just one year in which to shape a groundbreaking market-based measure that will, for the first time, enable a single global sector to stabilise its emissions from 2020. It is a challenging task. But it is one to which the aviation industry is fully committed.
We need governments meeting at ICAO to work together with us and civil society to push this process forward. We call on them to agree at the 39th ICAO Assembly to the implementation of a simple, global offsetting scheme which will stabilise air transport carbon emissions growth and to endorse a historic global CO2 standard for new aircraft. To delay will harm a vital global sector and harm our global climate.
For the full explanation of our commitments and examples of climate action across the sector, please visit: http://ift.tt/1MNySMr
.
Fabrice Brégier
President and CEO, Airbus
Patrick de Castelbajac
CEO, ATR
Raymond L Conner
President and CEO, Boeing Commercial
Airplanes
Fred Cromer
President, Bombardier Commercial
Aircraft
Jean-Paul Ebanga
President and CEO, CFM International
Paulo Silva
President and CEO, Embraer Commercial
Aviation
David L Joyce
President and CEO, GE Aviation
Tim Mahoney
President and CEO, Honeywell Aerospace
Paul Adams
President, Pratt & Whitney
Tony Wood
President — Aerospace, Rolls-Royce
Philippe Petitcolin
CEO, Safran
Angela Gittens
Director-general, Airports Council International
Jeff Poole
Director-general, Civil Air Navigation
Services Organisation
Tony Tyler
Director-general and CEO, International Air
Transport Association
David F Melcher
Chair, International Coordinating Council of
Aerospace Industries Associations
Kurt Edwards
Director-general, International Business
Aviation Council
Peter J Bunce
President and CEO, General Aviation
Manufacturers Association
Dr Elijah Chingosho
Secretary-general, African Airlines
Association (AFRAA)
Nicholas E Calio
President and CEO, Airlines for
America (A4A)
Abdul Wahab Teffaha
Secretary-general, Arab Air Carriers
Organisation (AACO)
Andrew Herdman
Director-general, Association of
Asia-Pacific Airlines (AAPA)
Athar Husian Khan
CEO, Association of European
Airlines (AEA)
Fabio Gamba
CEO, European Business Aviation
Association (EBAA)
John Hanlon
Secretary-general, European Low Fares
Airlines Association (ELFAA)
Simon McNamara
Director-general, European Regions
Airline Association (ERA)
Sylviane Lust
Director-general, International Air
Carriers Association (IACA)
Andrés Conesa
President and CEO, Latin American and
Caribbean Air Transport Association (ALTA)
Michael Gill
Executive Director, Air Transport Action Group
.
The speech by Michael Gill, of ATAG
which is long and wordy, but basically says the industry is vital for the world and governments should work with it to find ways in which it can continue to grow, but its carbon emissions can be traded with other sectors. And they have to get governments to do this, so the aviation sector can keep growing. Every possible action, other than actually emitting less carbon overall, in coming years ……..
…. with extracts like:
… “The Open Letter from industry has been sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations, the head of the UNFCCC and the French Government delegation leading the COP21 talks in Paris. Over the next few weeks it will also be sent to governments around the world.”
…. “united in a common position that industry and governments must work together to solve this issue.”
… “We are a heavily regulated sector. And to fully realise the potential for efficiency measures we will need governments to step up and commit too.”
… “t must take place through a range of actions: air traffic management investment and reform; continued support for research into new technology, operations and sustainable alternative fuels; improved intermodal transport planning; and the right policy framework to help accelerate the availability of sustainable alternative fuels for aviation.” [In reality, there are virtually no “biofuels” that aviation could use which could not equally be used by other terrestrial uses, or which don’t compete more or less directly with land used for human food, or food fed to animals to feed people].
…. “we need governments meeting at the 39th ICAO Assembly to endorse the implementation of a simple, global offsetting scheme which will stabilise air transport carbon emissions growth. Failure to agree will harm a vital global sector and harm our global climate.”
.
“Powerful call for Government partnership to deliver aviation industry’s climate goals”
From ATAG – the Air Transport Action Group
GENEVA, 30 September 2015 – A group of 28 aviation industry chief executive officers and association leaders has today sent an open letter to governments committing to climate action and calling for a joint approach to help deliver maximum CO2 emissions reductions in the aviation sector. In particular, the industry group urged action to approve a meaningful market-based measure for aviation emissions, expected to be agreed by governments at a meeting of the United Nations specialised aviation agency in one year’s time.
Aviation was the first transport sector which set global goals to proactively manage its climate change impact, in 2008. These goals include capping net CO2 emissions from 2020 through a global market-based measure being developed at the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and a longer-term goal to reduce net CO2 emissions from aviation to half of 2005 levels, by 2050.
Michael Gill, Executive Director of the cross-industry coalition Air Transport Action Group which coordinated the letter said: “This is an influential set of business leaders adding their voice to those supporting climate action in the lead-up to the COP21 negotiations in Paris and one year ahead of aviation’s own climate deadline – the 39th ICAO Assembly. We are urging governments to back industry and civil society efforts to deliver this market-based measure.”
“Since we set the goals, the aviation sector has been actively undertaking fuel efficiency projects through the deployment of over a trillion dollars of new technology, improved operational procedures and moving towards more advanced infrastructure. However, government regulation and national political environments prevent us from fully influencing our own future. [???] Today’s letter urges government action in five key areas to complement the significant action already taking place within the industry.”
The letter says that to maximise already impressive aviation action, “government support must take place through a range of actions: air traffic management investment and reform; continued support for research into new technology, operations and sustainable alternative fuels; improved intermodal transport planning; the right policy framework to help accelerate the availability of sustainable alternative fuels for airlines; and to agree at the 39th ICAO Assembly to both the implementation of a simple, global offsetting scheme which will stabilise air transport carbon emissions growth and to endorse an historic global CO2 standard for new aircraft. To delay will harm a vital global sector and harm our global climate.”
Whilst Michael Gill says the industry believes the development of the global market-based measure is progressing well, “we have to ensure that the timelines do not slip and that the current positive momentum is not lost. Aviation has a distinct timeframe from the broader climate negotiations being undertaken at the UNFCCC. A progressive outcome in Paris would certainly help deliver a meaningful result at ICAO next September, but let’s not wait until after December for the aviation talks to proceed.”
The open letter, 60 days before the crucial COP21 climate talks in Paris, was signed by the chief executives of all the world’s major aircraft and engine manufacturers and leaders of associations representing over 90% of airline traffic; 1,861 airports and air traffic management organisations supporting 85% of traffic. In total, the organisations represent businesses with nearly a trillion dollars in annual revenue and over four million employees worldwide. The industry has been meeting with government and civil society representatives at the Global Sustainable Aviation Summit in Geneva, Switzerland.
Related posts:
- Airlines call on governments to sign aviation emissions deal
- EU proposes more time for long-haul airlines to cut CO2
- Airlines reject carbon trading ‘windfall profit’ claims
- Cheap carbon offsets could strengthen aviation emissions goals
.
See also
Tom Burke article exposes the fallacy of hoping carbon pricing will lower CO2 emissions
The aviation industry is reluctantly realising it needs to cut its carbon emissions, and work is under way, through ICAO, on a “market based measure” by which the industry could pay for carbon emissions. This, like the EU ETS, would be by being able to buy carbon permits from other sectors which had managed to make actual carbon cuts. A hard-hitting article from Tom Burke casts serious doubt on whether this sort of carbon pricing and trading could ever work effectively. He fears many high carbon industries pay lip-service to the concept, in the full knowledge that it will never work sufficiently well to curtail their activities, and it delays the need for any real action. He says: “The intent is to create the impression of an industry in favour of urgent action whilst actually slowing that action down”…. [with the carbon price remaining too low] … “If only governments were brave enough to put the carbon price up higher and faster, they will lament, we would get there sooner. This is hocus-pocus. They know full well governments will be deeply reluctant to put up consumers’ bills.” … “There is no chance that the world will agree on a global price for carbon in the forty years we have to keep the climate safe…. Their purpose is clear, to set a trap for unwary policy makers and environmentalists. Shame on those who fall into it.”
.
Green skies for aviation industry behind schedule
29.5.2015
Deadline to set up offset mechanism at UN’s aviation body meet in 2016 will be missed, delaying action on climate
By Alex Pashley
As passengers numbers soar and new carriers crisscross the skies, the aviation industry aims to achieve “carbon-neutral growth” from 2020.
It has a voluntary goal to halve emissions from 2005 levels by mid-century. The sector’s carbon footprint is equivalent to the seventh largest country in the world.
But a key tool in crimping airlines’ emissions will miss a deadline to be adopted at the International Civil Aviation Organization’s (ICAO’s) next meet in 2016, according to an official involved in proposals.
Andreas Hardeman, deputy assistant director at the International Air Transport Association, told the Carbon Expo in Barcelona on Thursday an offsetting mechanism wouldn’t be ready by the triennial conference.
Report: Is there any way to slow aviation’s soaring emissions?
“Will there be a fully developed scheme in time for ICAO? No. There has been a lot of progress but there’s still a lot of work to be done next year to get states and operators ready to take this on,” he said.
Under the proposals, from 2020 airlines will have to offset emissions growth with carbon credits that direct investment to CO2-reducing projects: a wind farm in Nepal, for example.
The industry favours a market-based mechanism as the most effective way to regulate emissions.
At present, only flights within the European Economic Area airspace are subject to any kind of carbon charge, being included in the EU’s emissions trading system.
Proposals to extend that to air links with non-EU destinations were dropped after a backlash from other countries.
As a result, all eyes are on the ICAO scheme to deliver a more comprehensive plan for emissions.
Megan Flynn, who leads Qantas’ carbon strategy, said with four years until plans took effect it was “never intended that we would have the t’s crossed and i’s dotted by the ICAO assembly”.
Report: Aviation industry unlikely to agree emissions reduction deal until 2016
Eight percent of the Australian carrier’s passengers voluntary offset their journeys, she said, making it the airline with the largest uptake. Over 30 IATA member airlines have introduced an offset program either integrated into their web-sales engines or to a third party offset provider.
Aviation accounts for about 2% of global greenhouse emissions, and 13% of those from transportation.
Around 3.1 billion people take flights a year, three times the number that flew 30 years ago. What’s more, that could triple again by 2050.
But at world climate talks, aviation emissions fall into no man’s land.
“Aviation is an international sector like very few sectors,” Niclas Svenningsen at the UN’s climate change body said. “It’s not explicitly included in the UNFCCC process.”
Emissions, visibly etched into the sky in the form of condensed trails, are difficult to regulate belonging to all and none.
Kat Watts at Carbon Market Watch told RTCC with the political will of countries and industry there was “no reason most of the market’s modalities couldn’t be agreed in 2016″.
“A key issue will be the agreement of strong eligibility criteria so that credits used represent real emissions reductions and don’t cause environmental and social harm,” she added.
via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1MNyQnT
Berlin Brandenburg airport problem of terminal ceiling being too heavy ….. already years late, hugely over budget
Thursday, 1 October 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.
.
Tweet
Berlin Brandenburg airport suffers further setback
By Alex McWhirter (Buying Business Travel)
28 Sep 2015
Berlin’s long-delayed Brandenburg airport has suffered another setback after structural flaws were found in the terminal roof.
According to franceinfo.fr the ceiling within the terminal building has been found to be 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 building authority for the Dahme-Spreewald locality 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.
German aviation magazine, airportzentrale.de reports that the latest problem has led to Brandenburg’s CEO Karsten Muhlenfeld leaving the company.
In a statement, the airport authority said, “There is no question we are currently in a difficult phase of the project. However we will proceed without compromise.”
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.
.
.
Air Berlin reaches settlement over airport delay
By Tom Newcombe (Buying Business Travel)
4th Jun 2014
German carrier Air Berlin has agreed an out-of-court settlement with airport operators in its dispute over the delayed opening of the new Berlin Brandenburg airport (BER).
The airport, which was originally due to open in 2010, is still under construction and has run billions of Euros over budget.
Originally planned to be opened in 2010, BER has encountered a series of delays due to poor construction planning, management, execution and corruption
Air Berlin, which is currently running at a loss, had planned on making BER its main hub airport.
“Air Berlin and Berlin Brandenburg GmbH airport operators have agreed an out-of-court settlement in the compensation claim based on the postponement of the opening of Berlin Brandenburg airport BER in 2012,” the airline said in a statement.
“Air Berlin has therefore withdrawn its claim before the regional court of Potsdam. Both parties have agreed not to disclose details of the settlement.”
The planned June 3, 2012 inauguration of the new hub was to replace two smaller airports, Tegel and Schoenefeld.
.
.
How Berlin’s Futuristic Airport Became a $6 Billion Embarrassment
Inside Germany’s profligate (Greek-like!) fiasco called Berlin Brandenburg
July 23, 2015 (Bloomberg)
by Joshua Hammer
Full article contains lots of pictures too – see link
The inspectors could hardly believe what they were seeing. Summoned from their headquarters near Munich, the team of logistics, safety, and aviation experts had arrived at newly constructed Berlin Brandenburg International Willy Brandt Airport in the fall of 2011 to begin a lengthy series of checks and approvals for the €600 million ($656 million) terminal on the outskirts of the German capital. Expected to open the following June, the airport, billed as Europe’s “most modern,” was intended to handle 27 million passengers a year and crown Berlin as the continent’s 21st century crossroads.
The team of inspectors, known as ORAT, for Operations Readiness and Airport Transfer, brought in a dummy plane and volunteers as test passengers. They examined everything from baggage carousels and security gates to the fire protection system. The last was an especially high priority: None could forget the 1996 fire that roared through Düsseldorf Airport’s passenger terminal, killing 17.
When they simulated a fire, though, the system went haywire. Some alarms failed to activate. Others indicated a fire, but in the wrong part of the terminal. The explanation was buried in the 55-mile tangle of wiring that had been laid, hastily, beneath the floors of the building where ORAT technicians soon discovered high-voltage power lines alongside data and heating cables—a fire hazard in its own right.
That wasn’t all. Smoke evacuation canals designed to suck out smoke and replace it with fresh air failed to do either. In an actual fire, the inspectors determined, the main smoke vent might well implode.
Confronted with the fire system fiasco, Rainer Schwarz, chief executive officer of Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg (FBB), the airport company owned by the city of Berlin, the state of Brandenburg, and the federal government, downplayed it. Schwarz and his staff told the airport’s board of oversight, as well as Stephan Loge, the commissioner of Dahme-Spreewald County, who had the final authority to issue the airport an operating license, that they were working through some issues, but that the situation was under control.
Schwarz also appointed an emergency task force to propose solutions that would allow the airport to open on time. In March 2012 the group submitted its stopgap: Eight hundred low-paid workers armed with cell phones would take up positions throughout the terminal. If anyone smelled smoke or saw a fire, he would alert the airport fire station and direct passengers toward the exits. Never mind that the region’s cell phone networks were notoriously unreliable, or that some students would be stationed near the smoke evacuation channels, where in a fire temperatures could reach 1,000F.
It was, says Martin Delius, “an idiotic plan.” Delius is a physicist and member of Berlin’s parliament who has conducted an extensive investigation of the airport’s troubled infrastructure. “They thought that this would at least eliminate the need for wiring,” he says, “because [the spotters] could see with their own eyes if there is a mass of smoke lower than 6 feet above the ground.”
Schwarz continued to prepare for the opening, and the German public remained oblivious. By April 2012, airport fever was consuming Berlin. Mayor Klaus Wowereit sent out 3,000 invitations for the Hoffest, the annual mayoral ball at the 19th century City Hall, printing the entry tickets on mock boarding cards. Billboards went up, showing a photomontage of the airport’s namesake and famous Cold War leader embracing passengers, with the legend, “Willy Brandt greets the world!”
Preparations continued for an extravagant inaugural. Angela Merkel, the chancellor, was to disembark from a government jet and stroll down a red carpet to the glass-walled terminal, which would have been filled with expensive food and drink. On the night of June 2, in a stunt-like mobilization, thousands of workers would shuttle 600 truckloads of equipment and a fleet of 60-ton aircraft tugs 19 miles down a sealed-off expressway from Berlin-Tegel, Berlin’s main airport, in the northwest corner of the city, and Tegel would shut down forever the same day the new airport came online.
But in the town of Lübben, in what used to be East Germany, Commissioner Loge had his doubts. He and his own staff of building inspectors had spent many hours examining the fire protection system at the Tropical Islands Resort, an indoor paradise set in a former airship hangar in Brandenburg. One of the world’s largest freestanding structures, it draws up to 6,000 warmth-and-beach-deprived Germans a day. “It was far more complicated than the one at Berlin Brandenburg airport, and it worked,” Loge says.On May 7, less than four weeks before the scheduled opening, Loge met with Schwarz for the first time. The airport, Schwarz conceded, would have to open using the army of human fire detectors.
“Professor, let me understand this,” Loge said. “You are talking about having 800 people wearing orange vests, sitting on camping stools, holding thermoses filled with coffee, and shouting into their cell phones, ‘Open the fire door’?” Loge refused the airport an operating license. Schwarz stood up and walked out without another word.The next day, in a hall packed with government officials and journalists, Schwarz sat grimly behind a table with four other officials, including Mayor Wowereit, and announced the unthinkable: The airport wouldn’t open as scheduled. The inaugural bash and overnight move from Tegel were scuttled.
It was merely a prelude to a debacle that is still unfolding. Three years later, Berlin Brandenburg has wrecked careers and joined two other bloated projects—Stuttgart 21, a years-late railway station €2 billion over budget, and an €865 million concert hall in Hamburg—in tarnishing Germany’s reputation for order, efficiency, and engineering mastery.
At the very moment Merkel and her allies are hectoring the Greeks about their profligacy, the airport’s cost, borne by taxpayers, has tripled to €5.4 billion. Two airport company directors (including Schwarz), three technical chiefs, the architects, and dozens if not hundreds of others have been fired or forced to quit, or have left in disgust.
The government spends €16 million per month just to prevent the huge facility from falling into disrepair. According to the most optimistic scenarios, it won’t check in its first passengers until 2017, and sunny pronouncements have long since given way to “catastrophe,” “farce,” and “the building site of horror.” There is a noted German word for the delight some took in the mess, too. [schadenfreude].
In the beginning, Berlin Brandenburg airport was at best an economically unnecessary symbol of unity and growth. In October 1990, when politicians and planners began a search for ways of bridging the city’s long East-West divide, Berlin had three modest-size airports: Tempelhof, famed as the site of the 1948 Berlin Airlift; Schönefeld, opened in 1946, which later became the main airport serving Communist East Germany; and Tegel, a gem of efficiency that opened in 1948. By 1995 about 12 million people flew in and out of the city each year. After years of languishing as a Cold War backwater, Berlin was on the rise. By 2020, passenger totals were projected to reach 22 million.
In 2001, Wowereit sensed an opportunity. A gray-haired extrovert who bears a certain resemblance to the actor Alec Baldwin, “Wowi,” as he’s known, had earned a reputation as both a party animal and a rainmaker. He attracted free-spirited events to the city, such as an international S&M fetish street party, and proudly proclaimed, “I’m gay, and that’s a good thing.” “Is Germany Ready for a Gay Chancellor?” Der Spiegel asked after the Social Democrat’s landslide reelection in 2006. The Berlin Brandenburg Willy Brandt Airport was to be his legacy in the city, while possibly paving the way for national office. (Wowereit declined to be interviewed for this article.)
To design the airport, FBB landed Meinhard von Gerkan, Germany’s most famous architect, a septuagenarian with a mane of white hair who’d made his name at age 30 with the Tegel Airport. The founding partner of Hamburg-based firm von Gerkan, Marg, & Partners, he’s known to squabble publicly with project managers when he feels that his artistic vision has been compromised.
The third key player was Schwarz, who was appointed CEO of the airport management company in 2006. A U.S.-trained economist who’d run Düsseldorf Airport, Schwarz had a reputation as a cost-cutting technocrat—just the man for the job. After considering a half-dozen sites, including a former Russian army base, the airport management team from FBB broke ground in 2006 on a vast plot just a couple of miles from the existing runways at Schönefeld.
The project’s first complications stemmed from Schwarz and Wowereit’s ever-changing ambitions. With construction under way, Schwarz, seizing on increasing forecasts for air traffic (up to 27 million passengers at that point), had von Gerkan add north and south “piers” to the main terminal, turning it from a rectangle into a “U” and dramatically enlarging the floor space. Schwarz also dreamed of making the airport a Dubai-like luxury mall. Airports earn significant money from nonaviation businesses, the FBB boss noted, so why not insert a second level, jammed with shops, boutiques, and food courts? Von Gerkan derided what he called the Vermallung of the airport—its “mallification”—but he capitulated to Schwarz’s demands.
According to Boris Hermel, a TV and radio correspondent who has covered the airport saga from the beginning, and other sources, Wowereit and Schwarz fell hard for an airplane: the Airbus A380, the double-decker, widebody, four-engine jetliner capable of seating 853 people. While no airline indicated it wanted to fly this monstrosity to Berlin, the men called for the walls at one end of the terminal to be ripped out so that an extra-wide gate could be built to accommodate it. “The clients were tripping over each other with requests for changes,” von Gerkan later said.
In his investigation, Delius examined tens of thousands of internal FBB e-mails. “The people responsible for technical oversight were saying, ‘We cannot do this within this amount of time,’ and Schwarz would answer, ‘I don’t care,’ ” he says.
The architecture and engineering teams fought to keep up. As the terminal ballooned from 200,000 to 340,000 square meters (dwarfing Frankfurt’s 240,000 and just shy of Heathrow Terminal 5’s 353,000), they parcelled out the work to seven contractors. That soon grew to 35, and they brought in hundreds of subcontractors, says Delius. Several engineering and electronics companies, led by the German giants Siemens and Bosch, struggled to retain control over the complex fire protection system that included 3,000 fire doors, 65,000 sprinklers, thousands of smoke detectors, a labyrinth of smoke evacuation ducts, and the equivalent of 55 miles of cables.
“Our part, the detection of hot air or smoke … is functioning,” says Thilo Resenhoeft, a Bosch spokesman. “The responsibility for the dysfunction lies with somebody else.” Siemens spokesman Oliver Santen confirms that the company was originally responsible for building the “automated fire protection facility” and “the control unit for fresh-air circulation.” Testing in 2013 “showed the need for reworking part of the system,” he says. Santen declines to attribute responsibility other than to say that Siemens is “responsible for the reconstruction of the fresh-air circulation system.”
Each addition ordered up by Schwarz required shifting passenger flows through the terminal. That meant rebuilding walls, exits, emergency lights, ventilation systems, windows, elevators, and staircases. At one point, in 2009, outside controllers urged Schwarz and his engineering chief to shut down construction for half a year to give the architects and contractors time to coordinate efforts.
Schwarz, Delius says, ignored them. Just months before the scheduled June 2012 opening, the terminal was a mess. Careless workers stepped on and shattered glass being installed by other companies. Heavy equipment rolled across the terminal floor, scratching expensive tiles. Tempers flared; small contractors complained they weren’t getting paid and threatened to walk off the job.
“The number of defects that they’ve found has grown to 150,000”
Following the humiliating announcement in May 2012 that the grand opening was off, the theater of the absurd escalated as executives, board members, and contractors turned on one another. Schwarz presented the board with a list of accusations against von Gerkan and his firm, charging that the architects had misled management with overoptimistic reports on their progress. The architects were fired, along with dozens of other key planners, slowing the project further. “Schwarz lost all their know-how,” says Hermel, the radio journalist. “They were back at Square One.”
Von Gerkan shot back. In a 2013 tell-all book, Black Box BER, he accused Schwarz of resisting all attempts at dialogue. Schwarz “had no concept, only insatiable demands,” von Gerkan wrote, and lived inside “a fairy tale.” That same year, after it became clear that Wowereit’s repeated predictions of an imminent opening were unrealistic, the mayor stepped down as chairman of the board of oversight. (He later resigned as mayor.)
Schwarz was fired days after Wowereit left the board of oversight. He sued for wrongful termination, and in late 2014 a Berlin court ordered the airport owners to pay Schwarz €1.14 million in damages for his dismissal, saying the board of oversight shared responsibility for the fiasco. In an e-mail to Bloomberg Businessweek, Schwarz said he felt vindicated by the court’s decision, concluding, “There is nothing to add.”
In the two years since Schwarz and Wowereit’s dual exit, the owners of the airport have reshuffled the board of oversight and burned through another management team. Schwarz’s successor, a short, stocky official named Hartmut Mehdorn, 72, is a close friend of former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. While head of Deutsche Bahn, the German national railway, Mehdorn supervised the construction of Berlin’s Hauptbahnhof, the central train station, in a contentious collaboration with von Gerkan. Hauptbahnhof is considered a German triumph: “If all Americans could compare Berlin’s luxurious central train station today with the grimy, decrepit Penn Station in New York City,” Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times in 2008, “they would swear we were the ones who lost World War II.”
Mehdorn came into the Berlin Brandenburg job determined to turn it around. “He is a whirlwind,” says Axel Vogel of the Green Party. After a year of paralysis on the building site, one of Mehdorn’s early moves was to turn on the fountain in front of the deserted terminal to signal that he would get things done. But almost as a mocking counterpoint, the lights in the terminal couldn’t be turned off because of a computer glitch no one could fix, and the electricity bill soared.
Mehdorn squabbled with his engineering chief and antagonized the board of oversight with his ill-conceived schemes to get the airport up and running. At one point he proposed opening just the northern pier. A terrible idea, says Delius: “It was never meant to be opened separately from the rest of the terminal. There were no luggage carousels, no check-in counters, and the only way to reach it would have been to walk across the runway.”
By December 2014 relations between Mehdorn and the board had gotten so bad that the board considered hiring a headhunter to find his replacement, according to Delius and others. Hearing about the plan, Mehdorn quit. After his exit, nobody wanted the job. Mehdorn could not be reached for comment.
In February 2015 the board managed to lure Karsten Mühlenfeld, the well-regarded 51-year-old former chief of engineering at Rolls-Royce Germany. It also hired a former Siemens manager as his technical director. One of the first moves the two made was to yank out and reinstall the miles of cables. Then they turned to the fire prevention system. Smoke now channels upward through chimneys, in accordance with the laws of physics.
The board says construction should be completed by the middle of 2016, to be followed by fresh rounds of testing by ORAT crews. If all goes according to plan, says Mühlenfeld, the airport should begin operations in 2017. Berliners are trying to remain patient as tourism is booming and growth is limited by a lack of flights. “The number of defects that they’ve found has grown to 150,000, including 85,000 serious ones,” says Vogel.
On a Saturday afternoon in July, I board a bus in the Schönefeld parking lot for a two-hour public tour of the deserted airport. The tour leader seems almost to revel in the airport’s cursed history. The project had been a disaster, he says. Still, the terminal building is impressive. We enter the giant structure and walk across floors of light-gray tile, past check-in counters made of artificial walnut. The infamous second level looms above, filled with restaurants and duty-free shops, all done in the same tasteful faux wood. Twin pairs of stainless-steel chimneys rise out of the ceiling. An express train rumbles into the station directly beneath the terminal. Eventually, four trains an hour will whisk passengers to and from central Berlin in 20 minutes. The terminal has a light, spacious feeling, with panoramic sightlines reminiscent of the aesthetics at Berlin Hauptbahnhof.
“You have to say that it is a really cool airport,” Delius says. “The architecture is good. The concept is good. It is very easygoing, easy to navigate. It should please a lot of people—if it ever gets finished.”
.
.
Earlier:
Troubled Berlin Brandenburg Airport, due to open in June 2012, Could be shut down in late summer unless € 1.1 billion is raised
Berlin Brandenburg (BER) Airport What Intended to be a huge new airport for Berlin, as Berlin-Schönefeld and Tegel airports Could close. The BER what INITIALLY due to open in June 2012. It had a catalog 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 photoshoped what it might open this year. Now the airport’s CEO has announced it is Possible That the construction of the airport may need to be shut down this summer, if A Further € 1.1 billion can not be raised. Some € 4.3 trillion has already been spent, but did only lasts till this summer. Extra costs incurred due to the havebeen 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 Investor. The money has to not only be agreed by Berlin, Brandenburg and the federal government, so but needs approval from the EU Commission. Current total costs amount to € 5.4 billion. Additional plans suggest additional costs amounting to € 2.19 billion at Extra. Although the airport has yet to open, Officials are planning a possible third runway for Approximately € 1 trillion and other new projects: such as on additional terminal, expanded baggage system and another freight facility.The total additional spending would amount to € 3.2 billion.
.
and
Berlin’s Schönefeld airport ‘to stay open’ as Brandenburg airport (at huge expense) not ready till 2015 at the earliest
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.
.
Further fire safety problems at Berlin Brandenburg Airport mean it cannot open in October, so delayed till unknown date in 2014
January 8, 2013
Berlin’s Brandenburg airport was initially due to open in June 2012. It has problems with fire safety, smoke extraction system, and fresh air supply in the event of fire. Therefore the opening was put off till October 2013. It has now been announced that the airport will now open on an unknown date in 2014. Based on the previous timetable, construction work was due to be completed by May 2013 to allow a 5-month period for trial operations before the official opening. There may be other technical problems as well, such as on baggage handling. When completed, the airport will take over from the ageing Tegel and Schoenefeld airports. It is expected to be able to eventually handle up to 27 million passengers a year, but this figure has been reduced from the initial figure of 45 million. The cost of the project has risen, from an estimated £1.6 billion to more than £3.2 billion and the latest delays are likely to increase the costs further. A growing chorus of critics is calling for the city’s mayor, Klaus Wowereit, to step down over the matter.
Click here to view full story…
.
.
Catalogue of delays and problems for the new Berlin Brandenburg Airport (Willy-Brandt)
Brandenburg (Willy Brandt) airport has become a symbol of how, even for the remarkably technologically successful Germans, things can go horribly wrong. There is currently no opening date set. It has a range of problems, many caused by such complicated and advanced computer systems and technologies, that engineers cannot work out how to fix them. Thousands of light bulbs illuminate the gigantic main terminal and the car park 24 hours per day, which is a massive cost and waste of energy; officials cannot work out how to turn them off as the computer system that’s so sophisticated it’s almost impossible to operate. Every day, an empty commuter train rolls to the unfinished airport over an 8 km stretch to keep the newly-laid tracks from getting rusty – more waste. Several escalators need to be rebuilt because they were too short; and dozen of tiles were already broken before a single airport passenger ever stepped on them. Then there are the fire system problems – with some technology that is so advanced that technicians can’t work out what’s wrong with it.
.
.
Berlin Brandenburg Airport opening date postponed – till March 2013
The new Berlin Brandenburg (Willie Brandt) airport will not now open till March 2013. It had been due to open in June 2012, and was postponed recently until August 2012. The problem appears be the fire safety system. The airport can only commence operations with a fully automated fire safety and control system as originally planned, and the interim solution of a partly automated system will not be allowed. This will take until December 2012. In addition, the risk would be too high to move the airport in winter due to adverse weather leading to operational restrictions. The Managing Director Operations, responsible for the construction of the airport, will have to leave the company. Keeping open the two older Berlin airports that this one will replace will cost about €15 million a month.
.
via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1KXxbZd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)