BALPA questions effectiveness of Heathrow 3.2 degree approach trial – noise might even increase?

Heathrow has started a 6 month trial of some aircraft approaching the airport at a 3.2 degree angle, rather than the usual 3 degrees. Its intention is to make a small reduction in aircraft noise.  But BALPA, the  pilots union, has commented that this may actually be more noise, not less. The steeper angle means pilots will need to be aware of how this will affect the handling of the aircraft and will have to adapt their flying accordingly. Though modern planes are quite capable of landing at 3.2 degrees, the plane must be at a specific height and speed and configured correctly when it reaches 1,000ft above the airport.  If it does not meet the criteria the landing must be aborted. It is possible the 3.2 degree approach could result in more go-arounds. That would cause more noise, more pollution and an increase in workload for both air traffic controllers and pilots. Planes would also need to slow down earlier in their preparation for landing. Using speed brakes, lowering the undercarriage and using flaps to reduce speed could possibly increase the noise levels further out on the approach to the airport.  Some aircraft may have to use full flaps for landings, which will increase noise due to higher power settings required to counter the extra drag.
.
Tweet

 

Balpa questions effectiveness of Heathrow noise reduction trial

By Phil Davies 

16.9.2015 (Travel Weekly)

Heathrow will allow certain aircraft to increase the angle they fly as they approach the runway from tomorrow as part of its noise reduction blueprint.

But UK pilots have questioned how effective the trial change from the international standard of 3 degrees to 3.2 degrees will be.

They have concerns that this scheme could possibly increase noise for Heathrow’s neighbours rather than reduce it.

The steeper approach to Heathrow will be different from the accepted standard around the world. Pilots will need to be aware of how the increased angle will affect the handling of the aircraft and will have to adapt their flying to take it in to account, according to the British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa).

Balpa stressed that flying a 3.2 degree approach path in a modern aircraft is not a problem in itself as most are certified for approaches of more than this and pilots are more than capable of adjusting flying techniques to cater for it.

When coming in to land an aircraft must be at a specific height and speed and configured correctly when it reaches 1000ft above the airport. If it does not meet the criteria the landing must be aborted.

Balpa warns that the adjustment to a steeper angle could mean an increase in the number of aircraft failing to meet the criteria and having to go around and begin the approach again.

That would result in more noise, more pollution and an increase in workload for both air traffic controllers and pilots.

The change will mean aircraft need to slow down earlier in their preparation for landing. Using speed brakes, lowering the undercarriage and using flaps to reduce speed could possibly increase the noise levels further out on the approach to the airport, according to Balpa.

Speaking ahead of the trial, which runs until March, Balpa flight safety specialist, Steve Landells, said: “UK pilots want to use their millions of hours of flying time to work with airlines, airports and air traffic controllers to minimise pollution and noise, but pilots are concerned that this particular trial could in fact increase those problems.

“Most aircraft are certified for approaches in excess of 3.2 degrees and well trained British pilots have the skills to tailor their flying to allow for the steeper angle.

“However, deviating from the international standard will mean the approach to Heathrow is unusual and will fall outside a pilots everyday experience.

“They will need to use a selection of skills from their flying toolkit to adapt their approach. Balpa wants to ensure pilots are well rehearsed in the changes and offered appropriate information and training to counter any problems.

“The aim of the change is to reduce noise, but a steeper approach may actually add to the problem. For example, some aircraft may now have to use full flaps for landings which will increase noise due to higher power settings required to counter the extra drag.

“For any trial to produce meaningful data there needs to be a representative sample taken. Balpa looks forward to seeing how many different aircraft and airlines take part in this trial.

“Pilots are keen to work with the aviation industry to help find ways to reduce noise impact, and look forward to analysing the results.”

http://ift.tt/1Ybqywa

.

Two comments below the story:

We already make every effort to make our approaches as quiet as possible. One example amongst many – we avoid level flight below 6000 feet to keep engine thrust as low as possible, flying what we call a ‘Continuous Descent Approach’. BALPA are not attempting to thwart quiet ops, I believe, they are just suggesting that the 3.2deg trial may not produce a net decibel reduction, which is the ultimate objective and is in all our interests.
.
I think the question for BALPA is this: “Given the importance of noise reduction, what suggestions would pilots make to minimise noise impacts?”

.

---

Earlier:

Heathrow trial of some planes using 3.2 degree approach (not 3 degrees) starts 14th September

September 12, 2015

Heathrow airport knows it has a massive problem in trying to persuade people that adding a new runway would not greatly increase the amount of noise that residents around the London area are exposed to. So it has various ideas about how it might manage this. It is starting a trial 14th September (ending on 16th March 2016) for planes to approach the airport at an angle of 3.2 degrees, rather than the normal 3 degrees. Heathrow says this is optional and airlines can take part if they like. They say this will only affect planes on the final approach into Heathrow (approx. 10 nautical miles from touchdown), and will be trialled on westerly and easterly arrivals. The claim is that a plane 10 miles away from touchdown would be 215 feet higher. So around Clapham a plane might be at 3,400 feet rather than at 3,185 feet. With less height difference near the runway. That really does not make a huge amount of difference to the noise perceived. Heathrow says planes will continue at 3.2 degrees right up to landing, though not in bad weather. However another possibility is a “2 segment” approach, where the plane levels off to 3 degrees for landing. “Even 3.2 degrees could interfere with the ability to use low power/low drag and reduced landing flap techniques.” The 3.2 degree approaches have been used at Frankfurt and residents do not report any significant benefits.

Click here to view full story…

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

Read more ...

Edinburgh trial (no prior consultation) of new narrow route to be ended 2 months early, due to opposition

Read more ...

Advertising Standards Agency rules Heathrow ads claiming “Those living around us are behind us” are misleading

Heathrow Airport has been told by the ASA that its adverts claiming that “Those living around us are behind us”.  Eight people had challenged whether the adverts were misleading and if they could be substantiated.  The ASA concluded that the claim exaggerated the level of support for expansion, had not been substantiated and was misleading. They noted that the claims “Those living around us are behind us” and “Locals support it” were not qualified.  The ASA considered that most readers would interpret the claims to mean that a clear majority of those living in close proximity to Heathrow Airport supported expansion. The evidence provided, however, showed that only 50% of those surveyed from ten constituencies close to the airport supported expansion. The ASA say the ads must not appear in their current form again. They told Heathrow Airport Ltd to ensure they held sufficient evidence to substantiate their objective marketing claims in future, and to ensure their claims were adequately qualified, without contradiction. John Stewart, chair of HACAN, said: “This judgement is not good news for Heathrow. It undermines a key plank of their campaign that they have strong local support for a third runway.” The ASA ruled against other Heathrow ads in February 2015.
.
Tweet

 

ASA Ruling on Heathrow Airport Ltd

Heathrow Airport Ltd

The Compass Centre
Nelson Road
Hounslow
Middlesex
TW6 2GW

Date:

16 September 2015

Media:

Transport, Digital outdoor, Internet (social networking)

Sector:

Holidays and travel

Number of complaints:

8

Complaint Ref:

A15-293164

Background

Summary of Council decision:

Three issues were investigated, all of which were Upheld.

Ad

A billboard poster, digital poster and sponsored ad on a social media site promoted the expansion of Heathrow airport:

a. The billboard poster stated, “Those around us are behind us. More local people support than oppose Heathrow expansion. In a recent poll, 50% of those living around the airport were in favour of expansion and 33% opposed”. Small print at the bottom of the ad stated, “Populus interviewed at least 1000 adult residents (18+) in ten constituencies local to Heathrow Airport by telephone between 19 Nov and 21 Dec 2014. In total 10,006 residents were interviewed. Results were weighted to be demographically representative of all adults in each constituency, and were also weighted by past vote to be politically representative of all adults”.

b. The digital billboard poster stated, “Heathrow expansion Those living around us are behind us”.

c. The sponsored ad stated, “Expansion will add up to £211bn to the UK economy. Locals support it. Britain needs it”. Below there was an image of the United Kingdom, alongside the text “Heathrow Taking Britain further”.

Issue

The ASA received eight complaints.

1. Two of the complainants challenged whether the claim “Those around us are behind us” in ad (a) was misleading and could be substantiated.

2. Six of the complainants challenged whether the same claim in ad (b) was misleading and could be substantiated.

3. One the complainants challenged whether the claim “Locals support it” in ad (c) was misleading and could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.13.73.9

Response

1., 2. & 3. Heathrow Airport Ltd said the ads were part of a wider campaign to show that there was a lot of support for the expansion of Heathrow, including from the councils and boroughs that relied on Heathrow for jobs and growth. They said contrary to some people’s perceptions, Chiswick and Richmond were not the only areas affected by Heathrow, but they were the most against expansion and individuals from those communities often believed that their views represented the majority. They said they had commissioned Populus to conduct independent polling, which showed that this perception was incorrect. They provided the poll results and a press release which summarised the key findings. They highlighted that the results showed that 50.46%, a majority of those surveyed, supported expansion, while 33% and 17% opposed expansion, or were unsure, respectively.

Heathrow Airport explained that the poll was limited to ten constituencies for budgetary reasons, and that they had ensured those included were representative of local views. In particular they had focused on those areas that were most impacted by the airport, in terms of noise, and those that were most vocal about the airport’s operations, or had MPs who strongly opposed expansion. They had actively tried to include local constituencies with the highest profile opposition to Heathrow, at the expense of those with lower noise complaints or MPs who endorsed expansion. For example, they had chosen to include Ealing Central and Acton because the local MP at the time was an active opponent of expansion and they received relatively a high number of noise complaints from individuals in the constituency. Further, they had included Uxbridge and South Ruislip after discovering that Boris Johnson had been selected to stand, as he was their highest profile and most vocal opponent. Working with Populus, they had also checked to ensure that the ten constituencies reflected the diverse political, socio-economic, ethnic and geographical nature of the region around Heathrow.

Heathrow Airport also highlighted that, although not referenced in the ad, they had support from the “Back Heathrow” group. They acknowledged that the airport had helped to setup the group, but that its aim was to give a voice to local people who wanted to have their views heard. The group was voluntary, but they were passionate supporters of expansion from the local community, and numbered nearly 80,000.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that the headline claim stated “Those around us are behind us”. We considered that most consumers would understand the headline claim to mean that a clear majority of those surveyed were pro-expansion. While we acknowledged that the survey showed that 50% of respondents were pro-expansion and 50% were against, or neither supported nor opposed, expansion, when rounded to the nearest whole number, we considered that the ad implied that the proportion of locals in favour of support was greater than 50%. Therefore, we considered that the headline claim misleadingly exaggerated the level of support for expansion. Further, while we acknowledged that the body copy explained that 50% of those polled supported expansion and 33% opposed it, we considered that this text contradicted rather than clarified the headline claim.

We noted Heathrow Airport’s comments that they had chosen the ten constituencies that were most negatively impacted by noise, those with the most vocal complainants in terms of noise and those with high profile opponents to expansion. We also noted that the small print at the bottom of the ad provided additional information regarding how, and when, the survey had been carried out, and referred to “ten constituencies local to Heathrow Airport”. In combination with the other references to “local people” and “those around the airport”, we considered that, although they would not know exactly which constituencies the survey related to, in the absence of any additional qualification, most readers would believe they were selected based on their proximity to the airport and included those most directly adjacent to it. Therefore, we considered consumers would interpret the claims to mean that a representative sample of individuals from the ten constituencies closest to Heathrow Airport, in terms of proximity, were pro-expansion. We understood from the data provided, however, that three constituencies that bordered Heathrow’s constituency, Hayes and Harlington, had not been included in the survey and their views not taken into account. Because we had concerns that most readers would interpret the ad to mean that individuals living in the ten constituencies closest to Heathrow Airport, in terms of proximity, were in favour of expansion, and Heathrow had not provided evidence to confirm that that was the case, we considered that the claim had not been substantiated.

For those reasons, we concluded that the claim exaggerated the level of support for expansion, had not been substantiated and was misleading.

Ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation), and 3.9 (Qualification).

2. & 3. Upheld

We noted that the claims “Those living around us are behind us” and “Locals support it” were not qualified. We considered that most readers would interpret the claims to mean that a clear majority of those living in close proximity to Heathrow Airport supported expansion. The evidence provided, however, showed that only 50% of those surveyed from ten constituencies close to the airport supported expansion. In addition, as noted in point 1. above, three constituencies that were adjacent to Heathrow’s constituency, and therefore “local” to the airport, had not been included in the survey. Therefore, we concluded that the claims exaggerated the level of support for expansion, that they had not been substantiated and were misleading.

Ads (b) and (c) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.9 (Qualification).

Action

The ads must not appear in their current form again. We told Heathrow Airport Ltd to ensure they held sufficient evidence to substantiate their objective marketing claims in future, and to ensure their claims were adequately qualified, without contradiction.

http://ift.tt/1KgjQM9

.

---

.

Heathrow’s advertising agency seems to be Saachi Masius  http://ift.tt/1iOJgtg

.

---

.

Earlier:

Advertising Standards Authority finds Heathrow advert about increased trade breaches their code and is ‘misleading’

February 4, 2015

In October 2014 about 13 people send in official complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority, on claims being made by Heathrow in its adverts. The ASA looked at 7 different complaints, and considered that 6 passed their standards. However, on the claim by Heathrow in its ads headed:”Expand Heathrow and its’s the economy that takes off” the statement “Direct flights to long-haul destinations build twenty times more trade with them than indirect flights” was found to breach the ASA code. The ASA say the claim was not adequately substantiated and that the ad therefore breached the Code, both by being misleading and by not having proper substantiation. The ASA say the advert “must not appear again in its current form.” They have told Heathrow “to ensure that they held robust substantiation for absolute claims made in their future advertising.”  The ASA ruling also says the claim was presented as objective facts rather than an educated assumption and that Heathrow’s own report “One Hub or None”itself cautioned that direct flights would not automatically lead to more trade and that multiple factors could influence the amount of bilateral trade.

http://ift.tt/1DdsFWA

.

And another set of adverts was considered by the ASA,but they did not rule against them:

Does Heathrow advert implying a small girl needs a 3rd runway, for her future, meet Advertising Standards?

Update:    10th December 2014

The ASA now say:

“….the investigation had been delayed due to some new points being raised by additional complainants.  Since then another couple of issues have been added to the investigation, meaning that we have had to again engage in further discussion with the advertiser.

“However, we have now received Heathrow’s response on all points, including the newest ones.  We are currently in the process of drawing up the documents for the next stage of the case, and hope that we may be able to send these out [to those who submitted complaints] by the end of the month.”

…. and they say “… the issues around advertising claims of this nature are complex and our investigation will necessarily take some time”   …. and they are working to address the concerns of the many people who complained as promptly as they are able.

The Heathrow advert

22.9.2014

Earlier this week, Heathrow put out full page advertisements for their 3rd runway. This is part of an on-going, and expensive media campaign. However, they may have mis-judged the tone of this one. It features a small girl, aged about 5, with her hand up – and the text makes out that her future well being will depend upon ….. guess what?? …. a new Heathrow runway. The advert says the 3rd runway will deliver “… at least£100 billion of economic benefits [no timescale given] the length and breadth of the country.  …. So, even if our little girl never leaves home, she’ll still feel the benefit.”  People may have been inspired to write to the Advertising Standards Authority, to complain about this rather dubious text, with unsubstantiated claims, making use of a small child, to try to make a PR point. One such letter to the ASA has been copied to AirportWatch, in which the writer clearly puts the case that what this child needs is a stable climate for her future, not accelerating carbon emissions. The writer believes the advert to be misleading, and asks the ASA to have it withdrawn. There is now an Avaaz petition to the ASA on this ad.

http://ift.tt/1iOJgth

.

.

.

 

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1KgjR2t

Read more ...

Newquay Airport Development Fee (£5 per passenger) axed after private meeting of Cornwall Council

A secret meeting of Cornwall Council’s Cabinet has agreed that the taxpayer will have to pay  more to subsidise Newquay airport.  They voted to abolish the passenger levy, which is the £5 Airport Development Fee (ADF) that is charged for each departing passenger over 16 who boards a flight from Newquay. Newquay was the first to introduce such a tax in the UK, in 2006, to fund development of the airport. It is understood that the controversial vote was reached by just one vote and was pushed through by the deputy leader of the council. The hope is that the decision will help Newquay win back Ryanair.  But removing the £5 charge will mean an increase in the amount of taxpayer subsidy, shifting the burden from those who use the airport on to the general public. It comes at a time when cash-strapped Cornwall Council considering selling off leisure facilities, reducing library opening hours and closing public toilets.  A cross-party group had asked the council’s chief legal officer to scrutinise the Cabinet’s decision, and there is concern that the decision was taken in private. One councillor said: “Where there are matters surrounding the airport, they frequently like to put cloud of secrecy around it.”
.
Tweet

 

Newquay Airport Development Fee axed after secret meeting

16.9.2015   (Cornish Guardian)

A secret meeting of Cornwall Council’s Cabinet has pledged hundreds of thousands of pounds to Newquay airport after voting to abolish the passenger levy, the Cornish Guardian can reveal.

Councillors agreed to scrap the £5 Airport Development Fee (ADF) – it was the first of its kind to be introduced at a UK airport and is charged for each departing passenger over 16 who boards a flight from Newquay.

The Cornish Guardian understands that the controversial vote was reached by just one vote and was pushed through by Adam Paynter, the deputy leader of the council.

The hope is that the decision will help Newquay airport win back the airline Ryanair, which is said to be looking into a number of new routes – including Newquay.

A spokeswoman for that airline said: “We are always interested in new routes, which are dependent on demand, aircraft capacity and a viable airport deal.

“We remain in talks with up to 100 airports over potential Ryanair growth.”

Shifting the burden

But the move has angered some council members as it means an increase in the amount of taxpayer subsidy, shifting the burden from those who use the airport on to the general public.

It comes at a time when cash-strapped Cornwall Council considering selling off leisure facilities, reducing library opening hours and closing public toilets.

Councillor Fiona Ferguson said she was unable to go into detail about the meeting but revealed that a cross-party group had asked the council’s chief legal officer to scrutinise the Cabinet’s decision.

“The only thing I can say is that object to the whole meeting being held in private,” she said. “Any scrutiny of the Newquay airport decision should be undertaken so far as possible in a meeting open to the public.”

Councillor Bob Egerton, who has previously branded the airport a “white elephant” after it failed to meet its forecast passenger numbers, said: “I don’t think the original session should have been held in private.

“There will be a scrutiny meeting on Tuesday, September 22 – which is being held in private as well – and that should be a chance for some councillors to review the which has been made.”

Mr Egerton added: “Where there are matters surrounding the airport, they frequently like to put cloud of secrecy around it.

“The council’s excuse will be that it was all rushed and there was no way to disentangle the confidential parts from the not-confidential parts.”

The UK’s largest airline, easyJet, has previously criticised Newquay’s development fee, saying it “put Newquay at a disadvantage” by potential operators.

‘Welcome boost’

Tourism boss for Visit Cornwall, Malcolm Bell, said he approved of the move and said scrapping the fee could provide a welcome boost.

He said: “The Airport Development Fee was a big block to the low-cost airlines coming in and, even with Cornwall’s growing popularity, it was always a barrier to low-cost operators.”

Mr Bell added: “It’s surprising, but good news for tourism and, hopefully, it will open up new routes and increase volumes.

“We’d like to support that and, if this helps, particularly with international routes, then we’re all for it.”

Cornwall councillor, and town councillor for St Mawgan and Colan, John Fitter, said: “I totally 150 per cent approve of the Cabinet’s decision. It was a very brave decision and, in my opinion, a brilliant decision for Newquay airport.”

Others have questioned the decision, particularly after Cornwall Council recently stated that it had no plans to remove the fee.

Adam Paynter, the portfolio holder for partnerships at the council, whose role covers the airport, previously described the levy as “a short-term measure”, but, in 2013, he said the council had “no plans” to remove it.

He said: “We haven’t had feedback that passengers are being put off. We’ll continue to monitor the situation to see how it is going.”

In fact, Cornwall Council had suggested as part of its draft budget proposals that £400,000 could be saved by doubling the Airport Development Fee from £5 to £10.

The fee, on top of Air Passenger Duty, was introduced in October 2006 to raise cash to invest in the former military airbase.

Cornwall Council would neither confirm nor deny that the decision had been reached, but issued a statement saying an airport-related matter had been heard in private, and there was “no question of the airport closing or being put up for sale”.

http://ift.tt/1Lgjd9n

.

.

---

 

Some earlier news about Newquay Airport:

Flybe to have daily flights to Newquay from Stansted from 16th May

18.3.2015

Flybe is expanding its Stansted’s UK connections with three new services – to the Isle of Man, Newcastle and Newquay. The service to the Isle of Man, which will operate three times a day by the end of March.  Next will be Newcastle on 29th March to provide passengers with twice daily direct connections during the week and daily at weekends to the North East.  Newquay will be the third new route to join Flybe’s network at Stansted with a daily service from 16th May having initially been announced as a ‘seasonal part week summer service’.

http://ift.tt/1Mb797Y

---

 

DfT signs 2nd PSO to pay £2.5 million so Flybe can profitably maintain Newquay to Gatwick route

October 28, 2014

The Government will pay £2.5 million, and Cornwall Council will pay £300,000, in a 4-year funding deal to enable Flybe to profitably operate flights between Newquay and Gatwick. The DfT says the public service obligation (PSO) will continue a link. There will be 3 flights each way on weekdays and 2 at weekends. The aviation minister, Robert Goodwill, said keeping the region connected to London is a “vital part of our long-term economic plan” and Danny Alexander said the route ”is vital for Cornwall’s businesses, tourist industry and residents” and “with a return rate of nearly £3 for every £1 invested, it’s a great deal for the UK taxpayer, as well as for the south-west.” The DfT says Flybe will operate the flights with the timings providing a convenient schedule for a full working day [eh? holiday-makers?] at either destination.” EasyJet took over Flybe’s Gatwick slots when the service ended in March this year, but decided to drop the Newquay service. There were about 92,600 passengers flying between Gatwick and Newquay in 2013, so over 4 years the £2.8 million would be about £7.50 each. Could the fare not rise by that amount, to save having to subsidise?

Click here to view full story…

Aerohub business park at Newquay Airport to gain £6m investment (from public funds)

5.9.2014

The Aerohub business park at Newquay Airport is set to receive £6m for the first phase of the project.  The hub is part of Cornwall’s new enterprise zone, which is dedicated to the aerospace industry. The money will come from the Homes and Communities Agencyhttp://ift.tt/Um4hN3 and the European Regional Development Fund Convergence programme. http://ift.tt/1Mb797Z     The development is predicted to create 2,500 jobs [says 700 below] and construction is due to begin in October. Business Secretary Vince Cable said: “It’s a remarkable facility, we think about 700 new jobs could be created by this investment, its badly needed in this area.  Companies choosing to develop at the Aerohub will be offered tax breaks and planning regulations will be eased.

http://ift.tt/1Lgjc5A

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1Mb7982

Read more ...

draft on long haul destinations

 

 

The Airports Commission considers that only a very tiny number of extra long haul destinations would actually be added by a Heathrow runway.

There is a lot of detail about this in the  “Strategic Fit” document, from the Commission at 

[The Airports Commission has used a number of scenarios, in its attempt to forecast future demand – the one it uses most often is “Assessment of Need” (AON). They also model their forecasts using either a “Carbon Capped”  or “Carbon Traded” version.   Under carbon capped, it is presumed that UK aviation does not exceed a total of 37.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year by 2050.  Under the carbon traded scenario, it is presumed that there will be a very high carbon price (£300 – £600 per tonne of carbon) agreed at some future date, and aviation carbon emissions will be controlled by the higher price of air travel in future.]

For convenience, we have chosen to look at the “Assessment of Need” scenario, and the Carbon Capped version 

If you look at Table 5.10 on page 87.  Link

Just taking a little portion of it – below – looking only at their “Assessment of Need” scenario and the “carbon capped” version

Table 5.10: Baseline, (ie. no new runway) destinations served with daily scheduled services, carbon capped

and then by contrast with the Heathrow NW runway

Table 6.28,   Option Heathrow Airport Northwest Runway, destinations served with daily scheduled services, carbon capped

And by contrast with a 2nd Gatwick runway:

Page 158    Table 6.26: Option Gatwick Airport Second Runway, destinations served with daily scheduled services, carbon capped (revised)

Long haul routes (at least one scheduled flight per day)

This shows that for the UK as a whole, the number of routes to long haul destinations,          if there is no new runway, might be (61 in 2011); 74 in 2030; 79 in 2040; and 82 in 2050.

With a Heathrow north west runway, for the UK as a whole, the number of routes to long haul destinations, might be (61 in 2011); 74 in 2030; 84 in 2040; and 87 in 2050.

With a Gatwick 2nd runway, for the UK as a whole, the number of routes to long haul destinations, might be (61 in 2011); 75 in 2030; 81 in 2040; and 85 in 2050.

That means an increase of only 5 more long haul routes, with at least one flight per day, by building a new Heathrow runway.  Or 3 more long haul routes with a 2nd Gatwick runway.

---

International routes in total (including lots of European leisure destinations) with at least one flight per day

Without any new runways, the number of routes to international destinations from regional airports (“Other modelled airports”) would be (46 in 2011), 88 in 2030;  99 in 2040;  and 109 in 2050.

With a Heathrow NW runway, the number of routes to international destinations from regional airports would be  (46 in 2011), 77 in 2030, 87 in 2040 and 95 in 2050.

With a Gatwick 2nd runway, the number of routes to international destinations from regional airports would be 88 in 2030, 105 in 2040, and 102 in 2050.

That indicates there are likely to be 14 fewer routes to international destinations from regional airports by 2050 if there is a Heathrow runway (and also by 2050 with a Gatwick runway). So the runways are not benefiting the regional airports.

---

That means an increase of only 11 more international routes, with at least one flight per day, by building a new Heathrow runway.  Or 9 more international routes with a 2nd Gatwick runway. It also means no increase in international routes from regional airports, if there is a 3rd Heathrow runway.

The Airports Commission‘s final report document (P 248) … saying a 3rd Heathrow runway would only provide “up to 12 additional long-haul destinations”

It states:

Para 13.10  “While expansion at Gatwick would also deliver improvements in the UK’s aviation capacity and connectivity, these would be more likely to be focused on short-haul and European links. The number of long-haul destinations at an expanded Gatwick would be at most 4 higher in 2030 than it would be if no new capacity is added and by 2050 only 1 higher, and at national level long-haul capacity would only increase by up to 5 million seats; this compares to up to 12 additional long-haul destinations at an expanded Heathrow and up to 16 million extra seats nationally. The degree of global connectivity and the wider impacts on the UK economy created by expansion at Heathrow could not be delivered by a second runway at Gatwick.”

The Commission also says: (Page 4 – Link)

“We have concluded that the best answer is to expand Heathrow’s runway capacity. A brand new airport in the Thames Estuary, while appealing in theory, is unfeasibly expensive, highly problematic in environmental terms and would be hugely disruptive for many businesses and communities. Gatwick, by contrast, has presented a plausible case for expansion. It is well placed to cater for growth in intra-European leisure flying, but is unlikely to provide as much of the type of capacity which is most urgently required: long-haul destinations in new markets.”

The figures from the Strategic Fit document appear to be saying, at least looking at the AON case (Assessment of Need) and carbon capped,  that there would be an increase of long-haul destinations with a daily scheduled service, up from 61 now to 82 by 2050 – with no new runways added. With a Heathrow NW runway that 82 rises to 87. With a Gatwick runway, it rises to 85.

So much for the vital links to emerging economies etc. But if you trawl through the figures, it does seem that the Commission is predicting a higher proportion of business passengers travelling by air by 2050 than in 2011.

25.39 % business Heathrow in 2011 Table 5.5 (nationally 14.00% business) and with no runways (base case, AON, carbon traded) in 2030 35.5% business Heathrow (nationally 21.8% business in 2030) AON

via Airportwatch http://ift.tt/1UStK0D

Read more ...

Commons Transport Committee start short inquiry into surface access for larger UK airports

The House of Commons Transport Committee has invited submissions for a short inquiry (ends 12th October) on surface transport at airports. “The inquiry will examine whether strategic connections to airports fulfil current and future requirements in terms of range and capacity. The Committee is interested to assess the effectiveness of the Government’s approach to planning surface access to airports, as well as understanding whether the Government is making full use of its powers to influence the selection of infrastructure and accompanying modes of transport to and from airports.” The inquiry is only for airports with over 1 million passengers per year, and it is not looking at air quality issues of surface transport (which is regrettable, for Heathrow and Gatwick). The Committee want submissions on how increased numbers of passengers and air freight in future are being planned for; whether better surface access could free up existing spare capacity in airports (Luton and Stansted perhaps); the Government’s role in planning surface access to airports in conjunction with airport owners, local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships. They also want submissions on the funding and the DfT’s role in ensuring planning is joined-up.
.
Tweet

 

Committee launches surface transport to airports inquiry

11 September 2015

.

The House of Commons Transport Committee is undertaking an inquiry into surface transport at airports. The inquiry will examine whether strategic connections to airports fulfil current and future requirements in terms of range and capacity.

You can send in a submission – details here

The Committee is interested to assess the effectiveness of the Government’s approach to planning surface access to airports, as well as understanding whether the Government is making full use of its powers to influence the selection of infrastructure and accompanying modes of transport to and from airports.

Written submissions

The inquiry will be limited to looking at UK airports with 1 million passengers per annum or above. The Committee is particularly interested in receiving written submissions on:

• The range and capacity of current strategic connections to airports and how predicted changes in demand for capacity (both passengers and freight) are being planned for.
• The importance of surface transport in freeing up existing spare capacity in airports.
• The Government’s role in planning surface access to airports in conjunction with airport owners, local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships.
  The funding of strategic connections to airports, particularly:
  Department for Transport’s (DfT) role in ensuring that surface access infrastructure is planned and built in a joined-up way where different parts of the infrastructure are funded by different parties.
  The level of responsibility that should be borne by the taxpayer for funding access and interfaces with national networks
• The Government’s effectiveness in ensuring that its own policies, such as modal shift, are being achieved in decisions about surface transport to airports.
• The extent to which airport customer preference and DfT policy concur in terms of preferred modes of surface transport to airports.

The following issues will not be covered by this inquiry:

• Non-surface access modes of transport e.g. domestic flights
• Air quality issues

We would be grateful to receive written submissions by Monday 12 October 2015.

Written submissions for this inquiry should be sent via the surface transport to airports inquiry page.

Transport Committee

Further information

• Guidance: written submissions
• About Parliament: Select committees
• Visiting Parliament: Watch committees

http://ift.tt/1FBigCx

.

.

.

 

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

Read more ...

European Parliament urges EU governments to include aviation and shipping in a strong Paris climate deal

Read more ...