Airport Working Party, 19 May 2009

Hours' worth of minutes

Dear reader, this is how some of us frittered our lives. There's plenty to pick over here, all comments welcome. I've added paragraph numbering for ease of reference and some comments (original version on TDC's website HERE). Council Officer in charge of the AWP: Charles Hungwe.

1. Flight routes, including noise abatement routes
1.1. Over time, noise abatement routes seem to have disappeared. Evidently.There was need for transparency regarding noise abatement routes, which should be clearly defined.
1.2. “Excuses”, which were often given by Airport Operator for non-adherence to proper routes (for example, captain on a training flight had given instruction to turn left instead of right) failed to satisfy residents. Understatement.
1.3. Planes taking off in a westerly direction were expected to take off 1.5 km from end of runway, and then make a turn towards Herne Bay and Birchington, achieving altitude over the sea. That, however, did not always happen. Instead, the aircraft would fly directly over the villages. I think this should be: after take-off, 1.5km from end of runway, turn right to avoid HB & Birchington.
1.4. Routes required to be revised, in order to minimise flying over sensitive areas and maximise the proportion of landing process which occurred over the sea.
1.5. The possibility of planes turning closer to the Airport when landing, than was currently the case, should be investigated. See LINK.
1.6. Planes taking off in a westerly direction were known to turn left, instead of right.
1.7. Originally, flight routes were not over the villages.
1.8. There was need for a second radar, thereby enabling the capability to monitor whether or not aircraft were on track.
1.9. It was explained by the Director of Regeneration that the noise abatement routes prescribed in the S.106 Agreement are adhered to by Infratil. Routes prepared by the previous Airport Owner had never been formally adopted and given legal standing. TDC failed to include them in the S106.
1.10. Recognised routes for aircraft movements were generally felt to be a good thing.

2. Noise factors and overflying
2.1. Low flights over Ramsgate were noisy and intrusive, even during the day. Funeral ceremonies had been known to come to a standstill because of overhead noise from aircraft.
2.2. Infratil should be requested obliged to provide a list of its noise mitigation measures;
2.3. The old “747”s, which were used to carry freight, were particularly noisy; True.
2.4. Owing to a large proportion of flights being freight, Manston Airport was much noisier than other airports; True.
2.5. In some cases, take-offs did not appear to be steep enough. Consequently, overflying of area was longer than necessary; True.
2.6. The public perception at Canterbury (where noise monitoring of aircraft was non-existent) was that planes were often flying very low; True.
2.7. It could be beneficial to carry out a Survey in order to gauge opinions of residents, particularly those most affected by noise from aircraft. I honestly don't think a survey is necessary, other than to establish the scale of annoyance and anger.
2.8. The majority of noise complaints concerned overflying, particularly over the villages. Inevitably, given that they're nearest, but HB and Ramsgate cop it too.

3. Noise Monitoring
3.1. Monitoring of noise could not be effective unless planes adhered to proper routes. On occasions, take off point was out of monitoring range;
3.2. MUCH More use should be made of the mobile noise monitoring equipment that had been purchased by the Council. A headmaster of one of the schools under a flight path had welcomed the positioning of monitoring equipment on the roof of the school. I suggest hospices, rest and care homes, hospitals and schools should all have noise monitoring at some point.
3.3. Without effective monitoring, noise levels could not be understood; No. We all understand noise. Without effective monitoring, Infratil can downplay noise pollution.

4. Runway rotation
4.1. A proper discussion needed to take place on balancing number of take offs to the west (potentially, affecting the villages) and those to the east, affecting Ramsgate;
4.2. The direction of take-off was dependent on wind direction, and although the current 70/30 West to East ratio could be flexed, it rarely fell below 50/50;
4.3. If stipulated times and routes were adhered to, runway rotation would not be a big issue. Exactly.

5. Penalties, controls and enforcement
5.1. Some enforcement mechanism needed to remain in place and be applied so that those who did not keep to prescribed routes would be aware of consequential penalties;
5.2. Steeper penalties should be imposed to reflect the unacceptability of landings well outside of prescribed hours; the existing escalating fines would be sufficient IF they were actually levied.
5.3. The Airport Operator needed to provide assurance that sanctions were in place and were effective in preventing recurrences of deviations from proper flight paths; Don't want assurance; want evidence.
5.4. The community should have confidence that any criteria laid down would be adhered to;
5.5. The current system of cumulative penalties was felt to be appropriate;
5.6. Allotment of penalties to a community fund should be continued;
5.7. If stringent constraints were imposed on noise, poorly maintained aircraft would be excluded from the Airport.

6. Environmental Impact
6.1. It was necessary to draw up in detail measures that would minimise the environmental impact of the Airport and, at the same time, enable it to be operative effectively and safely;
6.2. The Council should keep abreast of EU environmental laws and also look at papers prepared by DOT (Department of Transport) regarding effects of noise disturbance at night; Too much to expect Infratil to take any responsibility for this.
6.3. The problem of CO2 emissions were exacerbated by prolonged overflying of the area.
6.4. (EU papers on air quality were passed at the meeting to the Chairman of the Working Party)

7. Night flying and shoulder periods
7.1. Night flying disturbed people’s sleep True.
7.2. The issue of night landing permits should be looked at. The Department of Transport had reported that 181 night permits had been issued since 2006 for cargo flights from outside of Europe;
7.3. If night time landing was taking place without a permit, reasons should be established; and arses kicked.
7.4. Night landings were, on occasions, caused by delays in departures of flights from Africa;
7.5. Take-off times from foreign destinations should be monitored;
7.6. Residents of Dover & Sandwich would be opposed to any relaxation of night-time flying;
7.7. In Acol, residents were generally comfortable about day-time noise, but found noise at night unacceptable;
7.8. In exceptional circumstances, non-scheduled night-time flying was permissible (for example, emergency, Government flights) I think everyone has always accepted this.
7.9. A proper framework should be put in place to prevent the “nibbling effect” whereby shoulder periods became increasingly relaxed over a period of time. We're alreday being 'nibbled' by the influx of non-scheduled night flights.

8. Aborted night-time landings
8.1. Measures to penalise aborted landings, allegedly not confined to training exercises should be set in place and fully enforced.

9. Updating of S.106 Agreement
9.1. The Director of Regeneration, Brian White said that there are no proposals to amend the S.106 Agreement. He explained that a successor document would be attached to the next significant planning approval at the Airport. The Masterplan would set the scene for subsequent development. Hang on a minute, is this what he said? I thought S106 was tied to the usage of the facility, not specific planning applications. Can anyone give me chapter and verse on this?

10. Need for greater consultation
10.1. There was a fundamental problem with training flights in that some rules (e.g. time lapse between landing and subsequent take-off) had been removed without consultation with the local community; Disgracefully.
10.2. TDC & KIACC should be notified of any procedural changes; True.
10.3. Civil Aviation Notices were inadequately publicised or informative – the community required greater detail; True.
10.4. The introduction of changes without consultation had engendered a feeling of mistrust on the part of residents. True.

11. Complaints Handling
11.1. Complaints to Infratil regarding early morning freight flights had not appeared to have been taken seriously;
11.2. Infratil should be required to respond to complaints within a certain length of time, say, 20-30 days, just like complainants, who had to make their complaint within 15 days of time of incident;
11.3. The whole of complaints system needed to be reviewed – Infratil’s current system was unreliable; "Evasive" is my word of choice.
11.4. Infratil’s website was not always accessible;
11.5. There was a measure of duplication between complaints to Infratil and those to the Council. Brian White said that complaints made directly to the Council were received by the Council’s Environmental Health service;
11.6. It seemed desirable to have a shared website between Infratil and the Council for the purpose of capturing all complaints; If EITHER of them was adequate, it would be a leap forward.
11.7. The Chairman of the Airport Working Party, Councillor Harrison said that all the airports (with the exception of Bournemouth) which had been visited by the Working Party, dealt with complaints directly.

12. Social and economic benefits of night time flying
12.1. Job benefits as outlined in the Masterplan seemed unrealistically high; True.
12.2. The geography of the area did not lend itself to a significant enhancement of jobs; True.
12.3. In itself, an increase in night time operations would not impact on job creation; True.
12.4. The Council should provide an analysis of perceived benefits of night-time flying; No. Surely this is Infratil's responsibility?
12.5. Without some night flights, the Airport might be unsustainable; No. The airport should operate more profitably within the existing S106.
12.6. The Council needed to be robust in challenging employment figures associated with night-time flying;
12.7. Increased air traffic could have “knock-on” benefits for tourism; How?
12.8. Residents would probably accept an occasional night-time flight if overall benefits of the Airport were obvious. Quantify 'occasional' and then ask them.
12.9. Emergency flights were always to be considered separately. True.

13. Support for expansion
13.1. Monkton Parish Council was supportive of the Airport and hoped for development and creation of jobs. The operation must, however, be well controlled;
13.2. Canterbury supported the airport expansion, but only in a way that did not impact harshly on the community;
13.3. The airport presently operated at a loss. It should be provided with adequate scope to function in a commercial world. The 'scope' is called the free market economy.

At this juncture, the Chairman of the Working Party drew the meeting to a conclusion, by re-iterating a statement that the Airport should be allowed to become a successful commercial venture, but not at any price.

The Chairman also stated that an opportunity would be given to the public to express their views as part of a consultation exercise, if and when an application was received by the Council in relation to night-time flying.

.:.

KIACC public meeting

Dear reader, a golden opportunity presents itself. This Tuesday 19th May 2009 there will be a meeting of the great and the good and the rest to discuss the thorny topic of night flights.

The TDC Airport Working Party will be there. Infratil will be there. The Airport Consultative Committee will be there. The general public will be there. A rare chance to see them all in the same place at the same time. The mind boggles! There's even the possibility that something useful may come out of it. 

If there is anything you want to say about night flights, or if you want to hear what everyone else has to say - BE THERE! You may not get another chance like it. 

Tuesday, 19th May, 2009 at 7.00 pm
The Passenger Departure Lounge
Kent International Airport Terminal Building, Manston
Please use the car park opposite the Terminal building (not the staff car park!).

It's a public meeting - you're entitled to be there. Click here to link to the Agenda on the TDC website. If you'll be getting to Manston on wheels rather than wings, here's how:

(click it to big it)

By their logos shall ye know them

A man running away from a mess on the ground labelled "Airport". 

This is prescient, you mark my words.

Infratil's flawed bid

Seppuku Lite

As I mentioned recently, before getting revolted by Infratil’s selfishness, the pile of poo they presented to TDC was the carefully considered best efforts of a wealthy, globe-spanning organisation aiming to win support from a strategic partner at a key point in the development of its European operations.

It is a public declaration of commercial weakness; of ongoing and increasing failure; of a flawed business model; of narrow short-termism and strategic poverty.

“All airports across the country are significantly affected by recession”; passengers, freight, airport investment and employment are all down. Like it says in the small print ‘the value of your investments can go down as well as up’. As Newton said ‘what goes up must come down’. As my Gran said ‘all good things must come to an end’. So deal with it.

Guys, having a fixed cost base is nothing special – everyone from the United Nations to my local ice cream van has a fixed cost base. Why bother mentioning it? It in no way entitles you to any special treatment or sympathy.

We all know Manston’s losing some £4 million per year, and that this is unsustainable, and will lead to closure. Top tip: DO NOT BLEAT about your company going down the toilet in a public document. It does not inspire confidence, and puts you in an appalling negotiating position in the event of anyone showing an interest in using your airport.

And what’s this about wanting to be “able to compete equally for new business as shown by the BAWC tender”? As if you couldn’t! At the time of the bid, Infratil had already successfully bounced TDC into giving the all-clear for night flights, and night flights didn’t seem to feature in BAWC’s decision-making process:

Jude Winstanley, BAWC's head of network and freighters, said: “After careful evaluation and taking into account a number of factors including the need to provide the best product for our customers, cost effectiveness, service quality and speed of connection, Stansted remains the most attractive long haul freighter base for BA World Cargo and our customers.” Air Cargo News, 13th March 2009

Manston lost out to Stansted on at least FOUR key considerations, and night flying wasn’t even mentioned. The competition was unequal only inasmuch as Manston was a crappier proposition for BAWC.

In an earlier post, I pointed out that Infratil made Manston’s under-usage a selling point: lack of congestion, competitively priced aircraft parking, etc. There are at least two major problems with this: first, idle is good vs busy is bad isn't a great starting point for a business model; second, when all the other recession-hit airports are less congested anyway, you suddenly lose your selling point.

Infratil are labouring under the impression that they are competing for low cost passenger and long haul freight with Gatwick and Stansted. (Duh! Heathrow, London City, Lydd and Southend: recession-hit airports, just like Manston, and all hungry for business. Manston’s business would do fine. Ignoring them won’t make them go away.) Infratil are trying to hit the big time in a high volume, commoditised market, setting off from well behind the starting line in the toughest market for decades. I wouldn't start from here, guys. Strategically, making a selling point of lack of custom, whilst aiming for a high volume, low margin market sector is a rather messy form of suicide.

The bid for BAWC night flights

Before I die of rage...

I should have known better. I should have been ready, but I was taken aback by the torrent of special pleading, contradictory arguments, anti-logic and selective perception of reality. Infratil's presentation to TDC (mentioned in thanetonline, and thoroughly bewailed by Brother Stephen at St. Opmanston's) is a leading contender for the crappiest piece of work this year.

Bear in mind, dear reader, that this is a presentation from a multi-million dollar enterprise to a strategic partner on whom it is pinning its future hopes. I'll take you on a guided tour of the particularly crappy bits later, but for the moment, try this: here are all the reasons that KIA spelled out to TDC as to why night flights are a bad thing...

No mention of the 40,000 people in Ramsgate, or the 35,000 in Herne Bay, or the 30,000 in Whitstable, or the 45,000 in Canterbury. The poor sods who will be living under the night-flying aircraft.

Thanks a million, Matt. Sleep tight.

Manston keeps failing. What next?

Controlled descent...

Down under. Going under?

The downward drifting squiggly line is Infratil's share price on the New Zealand stock market. Should we care? Definitely - it's time to plan ahead. Infratil describe their strategic interest in airports thus:

The huge growth in the world’s population of people financially able to fly (both because of reducing air travel costs and increasing incomes) is increasing airport throughput. In Europe, hub airport congestion is presenting additional opportunities to “urban edge” airports.

I've heard Manston called many things, but 'urban edge' is a first. Infradig describe the advantages of Manston thus:

KIA's major advantage is its lack of slot congestion and its ability to provide prompt ground service, a significant advantage to customers over the principal London airports. KIA can take delayed or unscheduled services, which other airports struggle to fit into congested passenger service dominated schedules. KIA will also offer freight airlines competitively priced aircraft parking.

So its advantages centre on the fact that it's not very busy. Presumably this puts KIA in something of a bind: every time they get more business, they will be making themselves less attractive. Idle is good vs busy is bad isn't a great starting point for a business model. The aggregated figures for Infrapenny's Urban Edges must make dispiriting reading for any of their shareholders, and the footnotes suggest that the actual figures are even worse.

• Infratil's founder supremo Lloyd Morrison is worth some NZ$70 million, and estimates his company's market capitalisation at NZ$1.2 billion.
• They bought Manston for £17 million and are happy to spend £10-20 million on it before pulling the plug, so from their point of view KIA is small but far from trivial.
• Infratil's European airport investments are performing poorly. Infratil are big enough to take the hit by cross-subsidising, but not indefinitely.
• Their airport at Prestwick had to fire a quarter of the staff due to falls in freight and passenger traffic; Manston just lost out to Stansted on a freight contract that was big enough to be a tipping point.
• The global decline in air traffic due to economic slowdown and contraction won't be reversed quickly.
• The mad fluctuations in oil prices over the last couple of years have highlighted the vulnerability of budget holiday travel and air freight.

Infratil's portfolio covers a couple of airports and bus companies in New Zealand, property investments, a port and lots of power generation. Close to home, well understood and relatively successful, these ventures are a comfort to Infratil's shareholders. In their shoes, I would be looking askance at the European airports, and Manston in particular. It's bleeding cash at the rate of millions a year. Realistically, a lot of good news has to happen to Manston very soon. Realistically, it won't.

So, we come to the forward planning. Infratil pulls the plug and Matt flies home, presumably from another airport. Twice-failed Manston lies empty. What shall we do with it?

YES WE CAN: sleep

Absolutely no night flights. Not scheduled flights. Not chartered flights. No night flights. Diversions from other airports (due to emergencies, bad weather and so on), humanitarian missions or national crisis are fine. Obviously. But otherwise... Absolutely no night flights.

I hope that's clear.

A plane coming in to land makes a LOT of noise. At night, when everything else is that much quieter, the sound stands out against the reduced background noise, so seems louder, and is more disruptive. This much is self-evident.

Even modern planes are noisy, and even when they're relatively high up. An enquiry at Stansted in 2007 took evidence of noise complaints that came from a roughly rectangular area 35 miles by 60 miles around the airport. The sound footprint of each aircraft is large; the combined impact of all an airport's traffic taken together is huge.

The noise itself is stressful, as is the loss of sleep - a 10 decibel increase of noise at night raises the risk of hypertension by 14%. On health grounds for all those within earshot, night flights are a non-starter. From the point of view of quality of life, ditto.

Economics: the aviation group of the Local Government Association reports that “no evidence has been produced by the Government or the aviation industry to justify claims that night flights have an overall economic benefit”. That sentence is worth re-reading out loud and thinking about carefully. The LGA, which covers the whole country, but concentrates on local interests and priorities has a 'Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group'. They've done their homework, they've done their sums, and they've come to the conclusion that night flights don't make economic sense.

Matt Clarke (Infratil's Chief Exec) has said that Manston is operating at a fraction of its capacity. Surely there can be no need for them to operate night flights. As there's plenty of available daytime capacity, that should be used up first.

Night flights: unhealthy, uneconomic, unwanted and unnecessary.

Better monitoring needs better radar

Altitude thickness

In the Olden Days (2005), Manston’s radar wasn’t good enough to tell them exactly where their planes were. They couldn’t tell the exact height because they only had Primary Surveillance Radar.

In the Modern Age (2009) they also have Secondary Surveillance Radar (they buy a feed from the MoD) so they can now tell the height of planes as they pass over Herne Bay. And elsewhere, presumably.

But they don’t record it.

This is perplexing me. Given the aviation industry’s healthy obsession with safety statistics and analysis, I would have thought that recording the actual position, speed and direction of all aircraft within detectable range of any airport would be encouraged to the point of compulsion.

This begs a question: when someone (like me) complains to KIA about low, noisy, off-route planes (as I have), how can they possibly be so certain that the plane was at an appropriate height, given that they have no record of it?

Another question: for a presumably modest outlay, Infratil would be able to to publish clear, accurate information about flight patterns, like this example from Luton Airport. How can they resist? It's a very effective way of letting everyone know exactly what's happening.

Oops. Did I just answer my own question?

Changes to airport master plan

Clipping: thisiskent

Thanet council’s leading group is to consider a report recommending changes to the Manston airport draft master plan. On Thursday, April 9 the Tory cabinet will discuss recommendations made by its airport working party, chaired by Cllr Bob Bayford, in response to proposals put forward by airport owners Infratil.

Proposed amendments include more specific measurable targets on the airport’s environmental goals including sustainability, becoming carbon neutral, and emission control including proposals on airline offsetting measures.

The report also recommends more specific details on establishing an Air Transport Forum and developing a strategy to cope with predicted growth. It calls for realistic revisions to forecasts hoping for greater use of public transport and other means of transport than private cars. The recommendations also call for reference to the impact of the present economic conditions on predictions for short-term development at the airport. It wants the inclusion of more specific proposals for the phasing of development proposals and associated infrastructure provision required up to 2018, with details of approximate costs at today’s prices.

The working party’s recommendations, which need to be approved by both the cabinet and full council, also include a call for more specific proposals, with timescales, on the implementation of environmental studies to assess the implications of the airport’s planned growth. The document calls for the master plan to define how it aims to meet all the requirements of the Section 106 agreement, including night flying and adherence to take off and landing routes. If approved by the cabinet, the report is due to go to full council on April 23.

Matt Clarke, chief executive of Kent International Airport, said:

“The purpose of the consultation period for the Master Plan was to obtain feedback on our proposals, which will then be included within the final document as appropriate. We look forward to receiving the formal feedback from the council when it arrives.”



No case for night flights

Something of the night

They must be bats, wanting to fly in the dark. Not in the squeaky, blood-sucking sense. Just a bit nutso. Re-tune your ears and minds to human frequencies and I'll explain...

At the end of last year, Infratil published their draft MasterPlan, spelling out their hopes and dreams for the coming years. The projected growth in freight and passenger volumes is staggering. Both Thanet District Council and the CPRE were critical of the plan. The document will now rattle back and forth until an agreed final draft is produced, about September 2009.

In a separate but related development, Infratil (who were hoping to win a contract with BAWC) pushed TDC into changes to the Section 106 Agreement at very short notice. These changes would have allowed them a number of night flights to support the BAWC contract. This had the effect of drawing attention to the consequences of increased traffic through Manston. The BAWC deal fell through, and Thanet Council are now starting to draw up a pre-emptive night flying policy that will see them through until 2018.

With me so far? OK. But...

A lot of keen and clever people have spent a lot of time studying planes and airports. Much head-banging, hair-pulling, teeth-gnashing, midnight oil-burning... you get the picture. All this hard work has been condensed down into reports, analyses and presentations which we can all get hold of - we don't have to re-do all that slog.

The aviation group of the Local Government Association reports that “no evidence has been produced by the Government or the aviation industry to justify claims that night flights have an overall economic benefit”. That sentence is worth re-reading and thinking about. The LGA, which covers the whole country, but is focussed on local interests and priorities has a 'Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group'. They've done their homework, they've done their sums, and they've come to the conclusion that night flights don't make economic sense.

The World Health Organisation has found that people's health is damaged if their sleep is reduced or disrupted by noise. This wouldn't just affect those under the loudest part of the aircrafts' noise footprint - it would affect everyone within earshot.

In earlier applications for night flying, promises have been made that flights would be going in and out to the west of Manston, thus avoiding the more densely populated parts of east Kent. The key phrase in all those promises is "weather permitting".

Fact: most of the time the wind in Britain is westerly or south-westerly. Fact: for safety reasons, pilots prefer to land into the wind. So the most sincere of promises, made with the best of intentions, will come to nought if the wind's blowing in the wrong direction. The night flights would be coming in low over Ramsgate and Thanet to land at Manston. Lots of voters, waking up grumpy, needlessly.

Matt Clarke has said that Manston is operating at a fraction of its capacity, so there can be no need for them to operate night flights. There's plenty of available runway time throughout the daylight hours: surely it would make sense to use that up first.

No economic benefit; proven health cost; vote-loser; unnecessary. The Airport Working Group's recommendations onthe proposed night-time flying operations from 2010-2018 should be pretty straightforward: don't.