BAWC

OK folks, let's get a grip before hysteria takes hold.

There have been mutterings in the undergrowth for a while, and now ITV Meridian are obediently repeating the carefully leaked PR drivel. BAWC are going to save the whole of south-east England from flight congestion by, er, moving their flights from one part of the south-east to another.

Hmmm... well, first of all, we've been here before. In February 2009, BAWC pounced on an unsuspecting and unprepared TDC and tried to bounce them into allowing BAWC to schedule night flights if they moved their operation from Stansted to Manston.

TDC complied almost immediately, and were left looking a bit daft when BAWC pulled out just a few weeks later in mid-March 2009. It turned out (as some had suspected) that this had been no more than a ploy on BAWC's part to screw better terms out of Stansted - they were re-negotiating their contract at the time. I wonder if it was a three year contract?

Anyway, fast forward three years, and here we are, déjà vu-ing all over again - BAWC are, allegedly, showing an interest in Manston. The talk is of them "moving their operations". Nobody has so far suggested that BAWC would be buying Manston.

Three years ago, the main spin was jobs, with the then Leader of TDC Sandy Ezekiel (whatever happened to him?) repeating BAWC's line that some 200 jobs would be created. This time round, however, the spin and hype is much more grandiose - by moving to Manston, BAWC will free up so much capacity at Stansted that the south-east will have no need of third runways or estuary airports. Marvellous!

Working on the assumption that if something looks too good to be true, it probably is, I had a look at BAWC's use of Stansted. Their online timetables show that Stansted is used for long-haul freight - these are the departures:

STN Monday 08:30 CGN Monday 10:50

STN Monday 08:30 MAD Monday 15:10

STN Monday 08:30 JNB Tuesday 04:40

STN Monday 08:30 NBO Wednesday 00:05

STN Monday 11:35 DMM Monday 21:10

STN Monday 11:35 DXB Tuesday 01:25

STN Monday 11:35 PVG Tuesday 23:00

STN Wednesday 14:35 FRA Wednesday 17:00

STN Wednesday 14:35 ORD Wednesday 21:15

STN Wednesday 14:35 ATL Thursday 02:15

STN Wednesday 14:50 ZAZ Wednesday 18:10

STN Wednesday 14:50 BAH Thursday 04:25

STN Wednesday 14:50 HKG Thursday 18:20

STN Thursday 10:25 CGN Thursday 12:45

STN Thursday 10:25 DEL Friday 06:15

STN Thursday 10:25 HKG Friday 15:45

STN Thursday 19:45 FRA Thursday 22:00

STN Thursday 19:45 PVG Friday 23:59

STN Friday 10:20 DXB Friday 21:20

STN Friday 10:20 HKG Saturday 10:10

STN Saturday 11:50 FRA Saturday 14:15

STN Saturday 11:50 ATL Sunday 00:15

STN Saturday 15:45 FRA Saturday 18:15

STN Saturday 15:45 HKG Sunday 16:55

STN Sunday 03:10 FRA Sunday 05:40

STN Sunday 03:10 ORD Sunday 09:50

STN Sunday 03:10 IAH Sunday 14:05

STN Sunday 17:50 FRA Sunday 20:20

STN Sunday 17:50 DEL Monday 17:15

The arrivals look like this:

America

ATL Thursday 04:15 STN Thursday 17:05

ATL Sunday 02:15 STN Sunday 15:05

IAH Sunday 18:30 STN Monday 09:15

ORD Wednesday 23:15 STN Thursday 17:05

ORD Sunday 11:50 STN Monday 09:15

India/Bangladesh

BOM Saturday 18:05 STN Saturday 22:10

DAC Thursday 00:40 STN Thursday 08:00

DAC Friday 23:40 STN Saturday 07:00

DEL Thursday 04:30 STN Thursday 08:00

DEL Saturday 03:30 STN Saturday 07:00

MAA Wednesday 07:10 STN Wednesday 12:20

MAA Friday 00:40 STN Friday 06:00

MAA Saturday 07:55 STN Saturday 13:05

MAA Sunday 23:20 STN Monday 04:30

Middle East & Africa

JNB Tuesday 19:10 STN Wednesday 11:15

NBO Wednesday 02:05 STN Wednesday 11:15

Far East

HKG Wednesday 20:15 DAC Wednesday 22:40

HKG Wednesday 20:15 STN Thursday 08:00

HKG Thursday 20:20 STN Friday 06:00

HKG Friday 19:15 STN Saturday 07:00

HKG Saturday 12:10 STN Saturday 22:10

HKG Sunday 18:55 STN Monday 04:30

PVG Wednesday 01:10 STN Wednesday 12:20

PVG Saturday 02:15 STN Saturday 13:05

However, and it's a big however, I really don't see how relocating this number of flights from Essex to Kent would remove the (alleged) need for a £50 billion mega-airport in the Thames.

So, dear reader, two little twists of spin to look out for whenever this story pops up:

1. Jobs: 58 flights a week isn't that much more than Manston is currently handling - averaging 38 flights a week in 2011. Manston has told the government that it could handle double the current freight tonnage (and 750,000 passengers) with just 23 extra staff. Promises of hundreds of jobs resulting from BAWC's presence should be taken with a large pinch of salt - it's just as well we're so near the sea and salt is plentiful.
2. Congestion: judging by their timetable, BAWC doesn't seem to be such a large operation that moving it from one county to another would shift the national strategic aviation requirements for the coming decades.

Consultation stops before it starts

Across east Kent, along the flightpath, all the boys and girls awoke with a thrill of anticipation. "Today's the day! Today's the day!" - they thought as they scrubbed their little faces clean, "Today's the day we finally get asked about what we want to happen to our sky". Their little eyes, once sparkling with excitement, are now bloodshot with tears of frustration and disappointment.

Yes folks, although it was once scheduled to start TODAY, the public consultation has been stopped in its tracks. Thanet District Council CEO Richard Samuel, and TDC Leader Cllr Bayford met Manston's CEO Charles Buchanan to break the bad news - his proposal doesn't merit consideration.

How did it come to this? TDC bent over backwards to accommodate Infratil's requests/demands during the British Airways World Cargo fiasco. Their embarrassment at the unseemly haste of it all (coupled with the need to bounce their neighbouring councils into agreeing at short notice to buy a pig in a poke) led them to press Infratil for a formal night flying request. Days, weeks and months passed. Which came as a surprise to anyone who had believed Infratil's talk of the pressing commercial urgency of having permission for scheduled night freight.

Eventually Infratil produced a remarkably shabby and utterly useless document that lacked a few vital ingredients - numbers, for instance. This was sent back to them, marked "must try harder". More time passed. Thanet's CEO Richard Samuel apparently prodded Infratil twice to get cracking and produce something worth looking at.

Hand on heart, I have to say I am taken aback at the rubbish Infratil have put out. To jog your memory - Infratil are a billion dollar multi-national, and they would have us believe that night freight will be the make-or-break factor for their strategic move into European aviation. It was clear, even to my untrained eye, that their proposal to TDC was riddled with unrealistic forecasts, unsupported assertions and manifestly unacceptable conditions. The "supporting" documents from BAP noise consultants are a mixed bag: the technical stuff is incomprehensible, the comprehensible stuff is laughable.

With a commendable display of common sense, and a degree of self-interest, TDC has thrown the latest tawdry offering back at Infratil. (See how TDC present the story further down the page.) As you will see, TDC have twigged that they are once again being given the runaround by the greedy kiwis. Infratil shot themselves in the feet by (i) asking for an absurdly high annual noise allowance, and then (ii) bodging the counting system so that nobody could understand what it would translate into in practice. It would appear the Bureau Veritas, employed by TDC to "peer review" the proposal, have warned them to steer clear.

A possible future problem arises from the wording of TDC's press release:

...before residents have their say, they need to know more detail and have a full understanding of exactly how many aircraft movements are being discussed. That information is difficult to gauge from the proposals that have been put to us, partly because of its technical nature and this needs further work. I also believe that the proposed upper level of activity is too high and needs to be reconsidered. I am not prepared to start a public consultation until these issues have been resolved.

To me, this carries the suggestion of an auction-style conversation between the airport owners and the council to determine what is "acceptable" long before Jo Public gets a look-in, which isn't my idea of a consultation.

---

From the TDC website

Plans for a public consultation on a new night-time flying policy for Manston Airport have been stopped by Thanet District Council.

The night-time flying plans were submitted by the airport to the council in late September 2010. When the plans were received, the council said it would carry out an independent review of the noise assessment report, produced by the airport as part of their application, before any consultation started. An initial draft of this report was received recently and the final report is expected soon, when it will be made public.

Following careful consideration of this draft report and taking account of the considerable public interest in the future direction of the airport, Council Leader Cllr. Bob Bayford and Chief Executive Richard Samuel met with the airport’s CEO Charles Buchanan on Monday 1 November. The airport agreed to revise the detail contained within the proposal. The council will not open any public consultation until this has been received.

The council indicated that elements of the night flying policy needed more clarification to ensure that the public could be provided with a better understanding of how it would be managed, how it would link to the business need for the plans, and examples of how many aircraft movements could potentially take place during the night. Cllr. Bayford said:

“I have met with Charles Buchanan to advise him that, after careful consideration over the last couple of weeks, the proposals that have been submitted have insufficient detail in some areas to be acceptable to the council. We’ve had an initial report through from our consultants, which has confirmed that there are areas of clarification that require further work before local residents are consulted. I believe that, before residents have their say, they need to know more detail and have a full understanding of exactly how many aircraft movements are being discussed. That information is difficult to gauge from the proposals that have been put to us, partly because of its technical nature and this needs further work. I also believe that the proposed upper level of activity is too high and needs to be reconsidered. I am not prepared to start a public consultation until these issues have been resolved. I am pleased to say that the airport has agreed to review these issues.

 “The council remains supportive of the airport and maximising the employment opportunities it can create and sustain, but this cannot be at any price for local residents. As a council, we need to balance the economic benefits carefully against environmental considerations. The proposed night-time flying policy doesn’t fully allow us to do that, as it leaves uncertainties that need to be clarified before we consult the public.

 “I have confirmed with the airport that they will receive a copy of our advisor’s report as soon as it’s finalised. From this, they have agreed to develop fuller information that we will consult on. I recognise, as does the airport, that this may take time, but it is important to get this right.”

Night flying fuels fresh Manston airport fight

Clipping: thisiskent

Agreements on night flights cannot be changed until the airport owners make a planning application. An independent group set up to advise on the development of Manston airport has said no to more night flights. Kent International Airport Consultative Committee chairman Paul Twyman told a meeting of Thanet council’s airport working group that while there should be a balance of “economic and environmental interests”, he was against changing current night policy.

An existing section 106 planning agreement restricts flying between 11pm and 7am. Although it expired in 2003 the agreement will remain in effect until a new one is signed by Thanet council and airport owners Infratil. On February 12 Infratil persuaded Thanet council to hold an emergency meeting requesting a temporary extension of flying times to 6am to 11.30pm in a bid to attract a new airline operator. The council was told the reason was so the company could attract British Airways World Cargo which, Infratil said, would create more than 400 jobs. After the council agreed to the changes, BAWC’s move from Stansted Airport was cancelled. Night flights are now supposed to adhere to the original terms.

On Tuesday KIACC vice chairman Nick Cole told working party members that aircraft noise is a problem for residents and raised a question over the whereabouts of noise monitoring equipment. Mr Twyman said:

“On the western take-off route planes should turn at about 1.2 miles to avoid villages but they have not done this. We have had a number of excuses over the years and I now think routes need to be clearly defined. We have to have some mechanism to ensure that these routes are kept to. In a good airport there should be good noise monitoring and we don’t seem to have mobile noise monitoring.”

KIACC committee member Malcolm Kirkaldie said:

“If someone wants to complain about noise or planes not sticking to routes it has to be done within 15 days but Infratil takes an awfully long time and doesn’t have to come back to us in 15 days, 20 days or 30 days.”

Thanet council planning boss Brian White said:

“We get separate complaints from residents about noise. Of course there has been and still is duplication of complaints. We are talking to Infratil about sharing a website with the airport.”

Mr Twyman said:

“The local authority needs a big stick it can wield at Infratil when they don’t behave themselves. I think there have to be steep or steeper penalties for people flying outside the agreed hours. We must try to build noise reduction into our plans.”

After the meeting airport working group chairman Mike Harrison said:

“Infratil has to apply to us for a night-time flying policy which will trigger a six-month consultation process.”

Ramsgate councillor David Green, who was in the audience, said:

“It seems to me to be the same old questions and the same old answers. The existing 106 agreement ran out years ago but there is a clause that enables it to continue until another is created. Talking to KIACC was another stage in the process but nothing can happen to address issues until Infratil applies to extend a building, build a new terminal or for an amendment to night flights because the agreement is attached to a planning decision.”

Steve Higgins, of the Stop Manston Expansion Group, said:

“The council need to engage with the community before they make any changes to the policy on night flying.”

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.

Fanciful employment figures

Ha, ha, ha, ha...  Oh.

Having been roped in to the shambolic shotgun-wedding-cum-phantom-pregnancy of Infratil's attempted seduction of BAWC, TDC have decided to have a bit of a think and Be Prepared. This will consist of producing a pre-emptive night flying policy, in the full expectation that it will need to modified later, pretty well regardless of who's flying. Rather than saving their efforts until they know what's required, presumably.

Anyway, wisdom and sense to one side, TDC Airport Working Group's briefing papers include Infratil's recent request for night flights, which contains their projected employment figures. This may be old news to many of you, but it's the first time I've seen them. Plug in your abacus, sharpen your pencil and screw in your monocle...

Infratil says:

The based aircraft operation would require the immediate employment/ relocation of;

*3 administration staff, 38 pilots, 8 freight forwarders along with a host of logistics, engineering, cleaning and catering staff required to support a based airline operation.

**Using examples from other UK airports it can be shown that the additional activity at the airport will generate indirect and induced employment opportunities for over 300 further full time employees. For example, East Midlands Airport reports that the Cargo operation of 300,000 tonnes per annum supports 2,100 indirect and induced jobs.

The influx of business relating to the new contract will also secure the future of the 150 staff already based at KIA.

The first slice of 57 jobs I understand. I think.

The next 55 jobs are made up of 49 specified posts and "a host of logistics, engineering, cleaning and catering staff" (this particular host amounts to six). These 55 jobs are to be filled by immediate employment/relocation. Not dissing Thanet, but I'm guessing that the 38 pilots will be relocations. Which brings us up to 57 + 3 + 8 = 68 new jobs for appropriately qualified and experienced people who live within commuting distance of Manston.

Ha, ha, ha, ha....

But now we get to the bit where you can throw away your abacus and monocle and stick your pencil up your nose. Infratil has more than 300 imaginary friends. It's OK though: they're not completely imaginary, because TDC believe in them too. But nobody wants to get bogged down in the humdrum, prosaic details of where these 300 might actually live and work in real life.

Oh.

I'm gob-smacked, horrified and despairing: TDC actually believed these unsubstantiated and wishful numbers. This, I finally realise, is the original source of TDC's oft-repeated claims of hundreds of jobs being created. They fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Guys, I realise that Thanet is hard-pressed and keen to attract employment. I understand that you have both a duty and a desire to do right by your electorate. But please don't fall for every shiny new promise - you announce yourselves as prey for any smooth-talking salesman and do a disservice to the very people you serve.

British Airways reject Manston airport

SLEEPERS can rest easy for awhile after British Airways shelved plans to fly noisy cargo planes over the area. Complaints flooded in after the airline was given the go ahead to fly 11 planes out of Kent International Airport at Manston and across Herne Bay, Tankerton and Chestfield the town between 6am and 11.30pm every day. Canterbury City Council was given just five days to respond to the proposal passed by its Thanet counterparts late last month.

But those fearing sleepless nights breathed a huge sigh of relief this week as BA pulled the plug and announced it had decided to remain at Stansted Airport.

Although pleased with the withdrawal, campaigner Phil Rose, of Beacon Hill, says the issue of planes over Herne Bay should not drop off the radar. He said:

"It's as important as ever, just temporarily less urgent. Obviously the latest announcement is a relief for us all, but airport owners Infratil have invested millions of pounds and will be looking for alternatives. This temporary setback gives us all much-needed breathing space. It is essential that we use this interlude to agree a robust framework which allows Infratil scope for commercial success, while maintaining the quality of life for the residents of Herne Bay. Rather than rushing into this half-cocked, we can work towards a sound and solid "win-win" solution. I am all for the creation of jobs and a boost to the local economy, but not if it sees Herne Bay getting screwed."

Councillors will be briefed by Infratil at a private meeting on Tuesday (March 24). Mr Rose said:

"They need to get an independent flight path expert to attend the meeting. Someone with no axe to grind, who can say whether or not the planes need to go over the town or can go out to sea. It may be that they says it's not possible or practical to over the sea, but we need to make sure Infratil aren't being lazy or greedy."

Agreeing with Mr Rose, Herne Bay councillor Ron Flaherty said:

"All members are determined to investigate thoroughly the possibility of changing the flight paths. A gun was held against the head of the consultative committee when we were given just five days to respond. We knew BA wanted to come to Manston, Infratil were keeping it a secret, and now BA have decided they don't want to come after all. The farce continues."

Speaking after BA's withdrawal, Manston chief executive Matt Clarke said:

"Like any business that bids for a new contract and is unsuccessful, we are obviously disappointed with this news. However, this negotiation was only one of several opportunities we have been pursuing and we are pleased with the level of interest shown by carriers in operating at KIA. The fact that Kent International was considered alongside Stansted shows how far its reputation in the industry has progressed since Infratil acquired it in 2005 and this bodes well for future business."

Clipping: thisiskent By jnurden

Keep calm and carry on

I sent this to all the Herne Bay Councillors, in the hope of encouraging them to keep their collective eye on the ball.

Dear Councillor,

It is now public knowledge that BAWC have pulled out of their negotiations with Infratil.

PLEASE don't let the issue of planes over Herne Bay drop off your radar. It is as important as ever, just temporarily less urgent.

For their own (presumably good commercial) reasons, Infratil couldn't allow Thanet or Canterbury Councils enough time to give their proposed increase in air traffic the careful attention it deserves. I got the impression that everything became rather hasty and rushed.

This temporary setback in Infratil's growth plans gives us all a much-needed breathing space. It is essential that we all use this interlude to agree a robust framework which allows Infratil scope for commercial success, while maintaining the quality of life for the residents of Herne Bay. Rather than rushing into this half-cocked, we can work towards a sound and solid "win-win" solution.

At Tuesday's HBAMP meeting, I was delighted to see you all agreed that this issue transcends party boundaries. At the meeting with Infratil on the 24th March, I think it is essential that you have Paul Twyman and a flight path expert present. Only then can you be sure of establishing what is possible and what is practical in terms of flight paths, monitoring and policing. And that is how to get the best deal for Herne Bay.

Stansted 1, Manston 0

MANSTON airport's chief executive has announced British Airways will not be using the airport for cargo flights. The airport applied for changes to the its legal agreement last month saying a "major global freight carrier", widely speculated to be British Airways, was set to move in.

But in a statement released today (Wednesday, March 11), an airport spokesman said British Airways World Cargo had decided to stay at Stansted airport in Essex.

Chief Executive Matt Clarke said:

“Like any business that bids for a new contract and is unsuccessful, we are obviously disappointed with this news. However, this negotiation was only one of several opportunities we have been pursuing and we are pleased with the level of interest shown by carriers in operating at KIA. We are committed to attracting further freight operators to the airport and ensuring the successful return of scheduled passenger services to a range of destinations in line with the development proposals outlined in our draft master plan.

“The fact that Kent International was considered alongside Stansted shows how far its reputation in the industry has progressed since Infratil acquired it in 2005 and this bodes well for future business. We have now established a solid base of regular freight customers and tonnage has bounced back after the temporary reduction associated with the administration of MK airlines."

 ...from thisiskent.co.uk:

---

So that's BAWC out of the picture. However, as Matt says, there may be others in the pipeline.

City leader names BA as mystery firm

John Gilbey: leak

Clipping: thisiskent

A TOP Kent politician is the latest person to name British Airways as the firm set to move into Manston. Thanet council called an emergency meeting last month to change regulations of the airport's night flights in the belief that a new freight operator was about to relocate there. Despite widespread speculation that British Airways World Cargo was the firm set to move in, no formal announcement has since been made. But in a meeting last week, Canterbury City Council leader John Gilbey said:

"My understanding is that Kent International Airport has been approached to relocate a long haul international freight operation to Manston from its existing base. Infratil have therefore been asked to facilitate the relocation of this company to KIA and secondly confirm that they will be able to operate between the hours of 6am and 11.30pm."

He later confirmed he believed the company in question is BA. An airport spokesman said he did not know how Cllr Gilbey had come by the information and refused to disclose who the operator would be until the deal had been finalised.

Meanwhile, the airport's expansion plan has been backed by Conservative leader David Cameron's new economy spokesman. David Freud used the Lord Mayor of Canterbury's annual free lecture to say the airport is the key to regeneration in east Kent. Mr Freud, who lives near Sandwich, said:

"I am appalled at how bad we are in this country about building infrastructure. My solution to Heathrow is to build a rail link to Manston. It's so obvious. It is stunning that we have an airport like that, with one of the longest runways in the country, yet someone decided not to link it to a railway line three miles away. It would do more for the growth of Kent than any other project and would solve the problem of London's fourth airport at a stroke."

Mr Freud joins Mayor of London Boris Johnson on the list of senior Tories to support the airport.

Cargo flights fear for Herne Bay

Clipping: thisiskent

Residents face sleepless nights from May as night-time flights are set to soar over Herne Bay and Whitstable from May. Herne Bay town centre and Hampton Pier are on the planned flight path for 11 British Airways cargo carriers and homes in Chestfield and Blean will also be affected. BA has been given the green light for 11 freighter planes to land and take off at Kent International Airport at Manston for an 18-month trial period from 6am to 11.30pm. Canterbury city council was given just one week to respond to the proposal, passed by Thanet Council earlier this month.

A third of the flights are expected to be directed over Herne Bay and Whitstable as the Boeing 747-400s make their way into land. Liberal Democrat councillor Ron Flaherty (Heron) demanded more information about the plans at a council meeting on Thursday. Tory council leader John Gilbey responded by confirming rumours that the previously unnamed international freight operation was British Airways. He said:

"My understanding is that Kent International Airport has been approached to relocate a long haul international freight operation, which I can confirm is British Airways, to Manston from its existing base. The proposal envisages an 18 month period of operation with three monthly review, at the conclusion of which a prospective night time flying policy, covering the period of 2010 to 2018 can be put into place."

As the flights will affect residents in the Canterbury district Cllr Flaherty, a former member of Kent International Airport Consultative Committee, is angry at the lack of consultation.

"I'm not happy about this, as many as a third of these proposed flights could come over us."

He is also annoyed that the city council was given less than a week to respond to the plans from airport owners Infratil, adding:

"Infratil threw this down with only five days notice and would not disclose who the airline was. I don't understand the rush because British Airways cargo operations have been looking for a new site away from Stansted for years."

Council spokesman Rob Davies said:

"Although we weren't given as much time as we would have liked, we did manage to produce a response in time."

The response listing the city council's concerns was included at the debate in Thanet. The city council's head of regeneration and economic development Ian Brown agreed that the plans would be good for the economy but was concerned about noise levels and their effect on the district:

"This proposal is potentially a major opportunity to generate employment and strengthen East Kent's economic structure. Overall we would expect best possible technology and methods of working to be deployed to minimise the environmental impact of the operations. There is no mention of any changes to noise abatement routes. Our understanding of routes for the preferred approach from the Dover Beacon shows the route passing to the west of Canterbury over Blean, Chestfield, Hampton and Herne Bay. It would be preferable if this route could be modified to mitigate noise over Chestfield or Herne Bay."

Although in theory the airline has permission for more than 2,000 flights a year, only a portion will be scheduled. A spokesman for BA World Cargo said: "British Airways World Cargo is currently in the process of tendering its long haul ground handling operations within the United Kingdom.

"These operations are currently based at Stansted Airport. However, as part of the tender process we are considering a number of different Airport options within the UK."

The owners will brief city councillors on the plans in a private meeting in March. Cllr Flaherty said:

"We have to seize this opportunity to determine whether these flights have to go over our town."

An Infratil spokesman said:

"Canterbury City Council has a permanent representative on the airport's consultative committee which meets monthly. The council also made a submission to us about the plans. The number of flights coming over Herne Bay will really depend on wind direction so it is hard to determine. The town is a fair distance from Manston so planes coming in to land will be at a high enough level where noise should not be a big issue."

By jnurden