Boris confined to London!

Those nice people at AEF (the Aviation Environment Federation) have managed to shoe-horn a little bit of sense into Boris' more grandiose ramblings. The London Plan is now restricted to, er, London - rather than the whole south east, and it now contains a commitment to phasing out night flights. Great work, guys!

---

The London Plan is the spatial strategy for London.  At the 'Examination in Public' (EiP) last autumn AEF was invited to present its views on the draft Plan, following written representations. The report of the Panel of inspectors has now been published.

By the time the EiP was held, the coalition government had announced that it was opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. This was supported in the plan, which was unsurprising as Mayor Boris Johnson is Conservative. However the draft Plan said "..  he [the Mayor] does recognise the need for additional runway capacity in the south-east of England."  AEF argued that this was gratuitous, because no evidence was presented to this effect and the national government was not of this view, having come out against extra runways in the SE, not just at Heathrow. The Panel agreed, noting also that airports outside London were outside the remit of the London Plan, and they recommended that the statement be deleted.

The Panel also recommend that the following statement be inserted ".. supports the government statement of 7 September 2010 opposing mixed-mode operations and supporting runway alternation, westerly preference and related measures to mitigate noise effects on local communities.  He also supports phasing out of scheduled ATMs during the night-time quota period."  

We also said that Noise Action Plans and designated 'Quiet Areas' should be specifically mentioned in the Plan. This was done, the Panel recommending this addition "The Mayor will support action by Airport Operators to prepare Noise Action Plans for London's Airports and by the Boroughs to identify and implement 'Quiet Areas' with a view to ensuring that environmental issues are suitably taken into account alongside economic considerations when dealing with aviation-related development". However, this statement is rather double-edged. It seems to endorse a widespread conventional view that environment and quality of life can be sacrificed in the name of economic benefits.

Sustainable Aviation

Consultation begins on a sustainable framework for UK aviation

The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) welcomes today’s statement by the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, announcing the launch of a scoping consultation on a new UK aviation policy. This begins a process that will lead to the eventual publication of a ‘sustainable framework policy’ in early 2013.  Labelling the current Air Transport White Paper as “fundamentally out of date because it fails to give sufficient weight to the challenge of climate change“, the scoping document reiterates the Government’s decision not to build new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, while challenging the industry to ensure any growth is consistent with environmental goals and “protecting the quality of life of local communities“. The consultation seeks comment and supporting evidence in three key areas: aviation’s economic contribution, how to address climate change, and protecting the local environment.

In particular, it asks for views on whether the EU emissions trading scheme is sufficient to deal with greenhouse gas emissions, or whether additional measures are required; the scope for setting a “noise envelope” around airports, and; what can be done to improve community engagement, for example, through airport consultative committees.

Although we will have to wait to see how the Government will develop these themes in its aviation policy, the scoping document poses many of the right questions to explore both the breadth and detail of the current policy issues highlighted by NGOs and communities around airports and under flightpaths.

The consultation will be open for 6 months and the AEF will produce briefings on the key themes in due course.

‘Developing a sustainable framework for UK aviation: scoping document’ can be viewed at: www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/2011-09/ 

Philip Hammond’s statement can also be seen on the DfT web site.

AEF Mar 30 2011

Airport expansion COSTS jobs

Here's a press release from the nice people at the Aviation Environment Federation - the AEF specialise in the wider environmental impacts and implications of air travel. Click here for details and full report.

This is a cracker! Jobs created at and near airports are heavily outnumbered by jobs lost in the domestic tourism and hospitality industries due to everyone disappearing abroad for 50p with EasyRyan. Cheap flights abroad increase our tourism deficit.

A new study of the employment provided by airports and airlines from the economist Brendon Sewill concludes that the Government should stop giving people false hopes about the number of jobs which would be created by the expansion of airports. The study, published today by the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), shows Government claims that airport expansion will help create thousands of new jobs to help the country through the recession to be based on unreliable statistics. In fact, it finds that if the expansion results in more UK tourists going abroad then the forecast growth in air travel is likely to lead to a net loss of jobs in this country.

Sewill shows that the old rule of thumb that 1 million extra passengers using an airport is likely to create 1,000 extra jobs is no longer valid. The efficiency of low-cost airlines means that far fewer jobs are created by airport expansion than in the past. The move towards low-cost airports, where modern technology replaces manual jobs, will accelerate that trend.

The study reveals that, between 1998 and 2004, when the number of passengers using UK airports rose by 30%, the number of people employed directly at airports went up by only 3%. Research by York Aviation, a consultancy close to the aviation industry, found that despite a predicted increase of 110% in passenger numbers at the country’s airports between 2004 and 2030 jobs would increase by only 21%.

Sewill argues that the York Aviation research takes no account of the number of jobs that will be lost to the UK if the number of Britons holidaying abroad continues to rise. Last year the UK’s aviation tourism deficit - the difference between what British air passengers spend abroad and visitors by air spend in the UK - was about £17 billion. That deficit is at present costing the country around 900,000 jobs.

The Sewill study concludes that, because most of the predicted expansion is to cater for UK citizens going abroad, the Government’s plans to double the amount of air travel is likely to lead to a further net loss of 860,000 jobs by 2030.

Brendon Sewill said: “The Government, aided by the aviation industry, is perpetrating a hoax that airport expansion is vital to the economy and will help us though the recession. Councillors and planning officers are being misled by exaggerated claims that the expansion of their local airports will create lots of extra jobs. For example, ten years ago Manchester Airport claimed that its second runway would create 50,000 extra jobs whereas in practice employment at the airport has increased by only 4,000. The Government should admit that - when spending abroad is taken into account - its airport expansion plans could actually produce a serious net loss of jobs”.