Upping the ante

Well, here's a surprise - I asked Manston and Infratil and their spin doctors to justify their absurd job figures, and there's been absolute silence. Maybe it's just me - maybe they just won't talk to me. Maybe it would help if YOU asked them...

Here are the email addresses I used, if you can find better addresses, do let the world know by putting them in a comment.

Or you could simply email them this article by using the "EMAIL THIS" link below.

Many thanks in advance for your help.

• Tom Wilson (Chief Executive of Infratil Airports Europe Ltd) admin@infratil.com
•  Charles Buchanan (Chief Executive Officer of Manston Airport) charles.buchanan@manstonairport.com
• Andrew Metcalf (Director of Maxim PR) hello@maxim-pr.co.uk

---

I have become so sickened and angered by the false promises of jobs that Manston keeps trotting out that I decided to force the issue, and throw down the gauntlet.

Manston's business plan features graphs that sweep majestically up to indicate millions of passengers a year, and thousands of jobs.

This business plan is based on the fairytale that 1 million passengers = 1 thousand jobs.

I've written to Charles Buchanan (Chief Executive Officer of Manston Airport), and his boss Tom Wilson (Chief Executive of Infratil Airports Europe Ltd), and Andrew Metcalf (Director of Maxim PR, who as Manston's spin doctor has the thankless task of trying to make a silk purse out of a flying pig's ear).

I've asked them, basically, to put up or shut up - name some airports that actually deliver this thousand-per-million ratio to prove that it is actually achievable. I've invited them to reply to me direct, or leave their replies HERE.

I've copied the letter to local journalists and newspaper editors, so that they can keep an eye what (if anything) happens.

We wait and watch. [23rd Feb 2012]

Open letter, simple question

Dear Charles Buchanan (CEO Manston), Maxim PR (Manston's spin doctors), Infratil (Manston's owners), and anyone who believes Manston's job forecasts:

Have a look at THIS and then, if you like, do some research of your own into passenger/job ratios.

Then come back to this post and give us the names of, say, 3 UK airports that actually deliver 1,000 on-site jobs for every 1,000,000 passengers they handle - this is the ratio that Manston keeps promising.

You get extra points if any of them are regional airports of the size that Manston is forecasting for 2018 (2,000 onsite jobs for 2,286,000 passengers).

If Manston's job forecasts are realistic, this should be easy to do.

The fact is that Manston's job forecasts are absurdly exaggerated - a cruel and selfish deception on the people of Thanet and east Kent.

[First posted 9th Feb 2012]

[Re-posted 21st Feb 2012 - still no answer!]

[22nd Feb 2012 - sent formal request to Tom Wilson (Chief Executive, Infratil Airports Europe Ltd), Charles Buchanan (CEO Manston), and Andrew Metcalf (Director, Maxim PR) for their responses... stay tuned.]

Knight vision

I wonder if Sir Roger Gale MP understands aviation. He says that "the new Secretary of State for Transport, Justine Greening, needs to take a long, hard, look at the available and under-used facilities that already exist. That must, of course, include Manston." And then what? What does he think will happen after this purposeful looking?

The top end of the aviation industry is characterised by huge budgets and small margins. The successful players continually examine and re-examine every opportunity the market has to offer. It is a very pure form of market-driven capitalism, and as his ex-Boss once said "You can't buck the market".

The major (and minor) players in the aviation industry have been examining, and then rejecting, Manston for over a decade. In addition, throughout that time, each owner of Manston has been doing their utmost to attract business. Does Sir Roger really think that a thoughtful stare from a Secretary of State is going to transform a history of hard-headed rejections into a future of warm-hearted embraces?

---

Since the application of the jet engine for civilian aircraft use, London’s Heathrow airport has been the dominant inter-lining facility within Europe and has been used by passengers changing planes to fly to just about every country in the world.

That international standing has been worth, over more than half a century, hundreds of millions of pounds and tens of thousands of jobs to the United Kingdom.

That World Class position is, though, now under threat. Heathrow Airport is bursting at the seams and the construction of Terminals Four and Five and the refurbishment of the older Terminals One, Two and Three cannot disguise the fact that LHR only has two runways and that, therefore, the capacity for aircraft movements is very strictly limited.

Other European airports - Paris Charles de Gaulle, for example, and Frankfurt — have four runways and Schiphol is snapping at London’s heels and eager to steal the business. If we are to retain our national position as a premier player in global aviation then, as I said in a ‘View’ back in February 2009, to do nothing is not an option.

It is not so very long ago that I presided over a Commons debate during which the Aviation Minister ruled out a new London airport in the Thames Estuary or in Kent.

Now, with government having eliminated the possibility of a third runway at Heathrow from the equation, ‘Boris Island’ or, more probably a ‘Grain Island Airport’ is back on the agenda and will go out to public consultation. There are, of course, those who would like to see the skies clear of all aeroplanes. For those people the answer is simple; never mind the cost to the economy, never mind the loss of employment, no more airports and no more runways. Let others launder the dirty linen of global travel. For the rest of us there is a harsh reality to be faced. If not Heathrow, then where?

Whether we like it or not international travellers do not wish to find themselves relegated to some peripheral location. Heathrow has been successful in part because of its proximity to Central London and to the global Financial Services located there.

In 2009 I Wrote that “I do not believe that ‘Boris Island’ is either desirable or politically achievable” and, broadly, I hold to that view. The Mayor of London has said that “sovereign funds”, by which he presumably means Middle and Far Eastern money, are available to provide the billions of pounds necessary in long- term investment to build a brand new London Airport.

Provided that airlines could be persuaded or compelled to relocate from Heathrow to ‘New London’ rather than to mainland Europe then he may well be right. Boris Johnson also says that “given the political will” a new airport could be built not in decades but in short order. That, I personally doubt. Our planning and consultation and necessary legislative procedures all take time and even with the necessary political will I would doubt that a new airport and the supporting rail infrastructure is likely to be up and running, if it is approved, inside 20 years.

The need for additional airport capacity in the South East is, though, immediate. I believe that the time has come for the new Secretary of State for Transport, Justine Greening, to take a long, hard, look at the available and under-used facilities that already exist. That must, of course, include Manston.

I have said before and can only repeat that while I do not suggest that Manston offers either the space or the location to serve as another London Airport it could relatively easily, with enhanced rail transport links, prove to be a viable regional airport capable of taking passenger traffic from Gatwick. That, in turn, would release slots. at Gatwick that could help to take some of the pressure off Heathrow.

Manston, with its job creating potential in an area that needs inward investment and employment, ought to be a more affordable and more immediately achievable contribution to the solution than the construction, at some time in the future, of a new facility in the Thames Estuary with a consequent transfer of work from the West of London to the East.

Study casts doubt on night flight benefits

Plans for night flights at Manston International Airport have been shot down by an independent report. Herne Bay campaigner Phil Rose said:

“This confirms a lot of what the No Night Flights campaign has been saying for the past two years. The original proposal and back-up documents submitted by Infratil were putting a very, very, positive spin on things. They were promising more than the airport could deliver, and they understated the effect night flights would have on the local population.”

The report by Parsons Brinckerhoff was commissioned by Thanet District Council following Manston’s application in October to have more planes landing and taking off between 10pm and 7am. Airport bosses say extra capacity is needed to meet demand for more flights, and would lead to more jobs and attract up to one million more passengers a year.

But the report, published on Monday, says predictions do not take into account the 2009 dip in demand. It says:

“In the short term, we do not believe the airport can justify a night flying quota system to support passenger growth.”

It warns that Manston’s isolated position and relatively small catchment area would stop airlines from moving to it, and suggests that any airline which does move to the area could be encouraged to operate during the day. Manston’s advisors say without night flights they could lose up to 40 per cent of available business, but Parsons Brinckerhoff’s report said they could not see any evidence for that figure, adding:

“Given that Manston Airport currently employs a proportionately large workforce for a small throughput, growth of passengers and freight in the short term may not necessarily lead to significant employment and hence economic impact.”

The report predicted there could be at least four complaints about noise a night, which it says is a “not insignificant number", and that while

“the noise assessment at first glance appears to tick all the right boxes [...] the analysis of the noise impacts have, in our opinion, resulted in an underestimation of the potential adverse impacts on residents.”

---

Manston claimed:

• Proposal: To allow more night flights based on total amount of noise rather than total number of flights. This system is used at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stransted. Manston bosses say night flights are crucial to the airport’s future.
• Night flights: Any take-off or landing between 10pm and 7am. There were 43 at Manston in the year up to last September. It is costly for airports as they have to employ a full shift of staff (including firefighters) even for just one flight.
• Demand: Demand for flights is expected to grow “dramatically” in the next 20 years. The government wants to make better use of existing airports but does not want to build a third runway at Heathrow. Allowing night flights would help meet the demand.

HB Times 26th Jan 2012

Report highlights night flights hype

Nights flights will not be the salvation of Manston airport, according to campaigners who say that a report from a leading transport consultancy backs their views.

Community groups say they do not believe allowing the flights would bring any economic benefit to the residents of Thanet, and may in fact bring harm to the area due to the impact of noise and air pollution.

Many also say that if the proposed operations went ahead, they could actually deter people who might be planning to move their businesses to the area or thinking of buying a home there. Dr Hilary Newport, of Protect Kent, the county arm of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) said:

“Night flights will not be the airport’s salvation. Manston cannot sell all of its daytime slots, and disturbing the sleep of residents in Ramsgate and beyond is not the way forward.”

A report into the contentious issue - authored on behalf of Thanet District Council by Parsons Brinkerhoff, a leading transport consultancy - has just been published. CPRE casts doubt on the claim of airport operator Infratil that 3,000 jobs will be created if night flights go ahead and says that the impact of noise levels has been underestimated.

Andrew Ogden, campaigns manager for Protect Kent, said:

“This report, which is based on an examination of the documents submitted by Infratil, clearly brings into doubt many of their claims. Parsons Brinkerhoff indicates that Infratil’s views of the economic benefits are wildly over-optimistic, while the impacts of noise - the major concern of residents in the area - have been seriously understated. These two points alone vindicate the local opposition groups, whose concerns have been regarded by some as backward-looking and ‘nimbyism’.

The fact that Flybe are pulling out in March because they cannot fill planes is damning proof of the lack of demand for flights out of Manston. We simply cannot see how allowing night flights will help Manston grow as a passenger airport, and therefore generate both jobs and economic sustainability for the area.”

In light of this recent report, Protect Kent is asking for full public consultation before any night flights are allowed. It says this should be open and transparent, with all the facts available. Mr Ogden said:

“This will enable the people of East Kent to weigh up the benefits and disadvantages of night flights and lobby Thanet District Council accordingly. It is only right they be given this opportunity, as it is their communities and environment that will be significantly affected by the implementation of night flights.”

However, a report last year commissioned by Infratil said the flights would be beneficial. The first part of the Economic Impact Report, produced by York Aviation and published in May, suggested that the airport would directly employ 2,070 people and support a further 1,035 indirect jobs by 2018 if a level of night flights was allowed. It also estimated that the Kent airport would deliver almost £65 million a year to the local economy by 2018 if its Master Plan development was realised.

Today (25th Jan 2012), Clive Hart, leader of Thanet District Council, signed a decision notice, which states the council’s intention to carry out a focused consultation in-house for 28 days for isle residents and in particular for those directly affected by the airport’s proposals.

The decision follows clarification that the proposal submitted by Infratil is for consultation only and so does not require a planning application at this stage. The council says this means its role is therefore as a ‘consultee’ and it is not in a position to make a binding decision in respect of the night-time flying policy.

It is seeking advice as to whether the proposed night-flying policy could result in an “intensification or change in operation at the airport”. This could then require a planning application at some point in the future. Cllr Hart said:

“We’re committed to listening to our residents and will still provide the opportunity for people to comment on the proposals before we draft our response from the council, as well as people being able to provide their views directly to the airport. We’ve promised that we will seek residents’ views, and we’re standing by this commitment but on a more appropriate scale. This issue needs to be drawn to a conclusion for the sake of the community, the council and the airport.”

The public consultation is proposed to launch on Friday, February 3, for 28 days and will be open to all residents in Thanet. Responses to the proposals must be submitted in writing to Consultation, Thanet District Council, PO Box 9, Margate CT9 1XZ, or by email to consultation@thanet.gov.uk Full names and addresses must be provided with each response. To view the proposals, and for more information about the public consultation, visit www.thanet.gov.uk, where information will be available to view from Thursday, January 26.

kentnews 25th Jan 2012 Nick Ames, reporter

Night Flights are for Freight

Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) put Manston’s request in the context of increasing demand for aviation services, particularly in the south-east of England:

[p3] … the demand for aviation services is set to dramatically increase in the next 20 years. The conclusion is therefore that better use needs to be made of the existing facilities.

The obvious solution would be for Manston to use its daytime capacity, but this never gets a mention.

The PB report says Manston wants night flights for freight:

[p4] … the ability to operate at night will be a crucial factor in attracting a regular air freight service provider which will improve the financial viability of the airport in the short-term.

The PB report says Manston's forecasts in its Master Plan are unrealistic:

[p4] … despite the forecasts only being two years old, the airport is not achieving the level of forecast passenger growth

The PB report says short-term passenger growth would come from carriers based at other airports, which would not need a night flight facility:

[p5] Therefore, in the short term we do not believe that the airport can justify a night flying quota system to support passenger growth. 

---

Next installment: Manston’s in the wrong place 

---

Employment - when will it ever grow?

Manston airport currently runs on a skeleton crew of about 100 - the bare minimum required to handle any number of flights. Quadrupling the present number of flights wouldn’t result in a quadrupling of the present staff numbers.

The Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) report points out that there’s plenty of staff capacity to be taken up:

[p8] Given that Manston Airport currently employs a proportionately large workforce for a small throughput, growth of passengers and freight in the short term may not necessarily lead to a significant employment and hence economic impact.

The PB report also raises a very good point which, as far as I know, has never been addressed - how much slack capacity is there, how much more traffic can Manston handle before they have to employ more people?

[p8] We would therefore like to see more evidence of the ‘threshold’ whereby Manston Airport achieves a specified level of throughput such that additional employment is required.

---

Next installment: Noise

---

York Aviation: enthusiastic number-crunchers

York Aviation come in for a lot of flak. I’ve started a list of the explicit criticisms that Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) make in the first few pages of their methodology, assumptions and conclusions… see how many more you can find.

York Aviation’s analysis is entirely based on a discredited Master Plan:

[p4] The basis of the analysis provided by York Aviation is the passenger and freight forecasts contained within MIA’s Master Plan published in November 2009.  We would note that despite the forecasts only being two years old, the airport is not achieving the level of forecast passenger growth

Inaccurate assumption:

[p4] … no adjustment has been made to the 2018 figure to take into account the downturn seen during 2009 onwards.  In our opinion it is highly likely that the 2018 planning assumption used is significantly overstated.

Reaching the wrong conclusions:

[p5] We would partially disagree with the bullets provided at 2.14 [of the York Report] that suggest the resultant effects of not having based units would be; fewer destinations, less likelihood of key European city links and fewer overall passengers.

Hidden assumption:

[p5] Without seeing the underlying analysis used by York Aviation to create Table 2.2 it is difficult for us to accurately assess…

Poor grasp of geography:

[p5] … we would disagree with York’s contention that “It is for the relocation of these services that MIA is ideally geographically located”.

Arbitrary assumption:

[p5] … there is no rationale provided as to why 23.00 has been used as a departure time.

Hidden assumption:

[p6] York Aviation have not provided any of their calculations used to estimate the annual freight loss of 40%... we would need to see the calculations and assumptions used in getting to 40% before this figure could be validated.

---

Next installment: The Planning Mess

---

Campaigners anger at bid to introduce night flights

Airport owners have been accused of trying to "pull a fast one" after revealing new plans for night flights over Herne Bay. Controversy has boiled for the past two years over the policy, with Manston Airport owners Infratil keen to boost the number of night flights at the Thanet airport.

Under the current agreement the airport is not allowed any scheduled flights between 11pm and 7am. But in a new revised proposal submitted on Friday, Infratil says it will limit any flights between 11.30pm and 6am to less than two a night and will comply with a strict noise quota.

But the policy leaves them free to fly as many planes as they want - unrestricted by noise limits - between 11pm and 11.30pm and 6am and 7am. Phil Rose, who runs the website HerneBayMatters and has fiercely campaigned against the night flights, said:

"The airport owners are trying to pull a fast one. They are proposing to place an upper limit on the total amount of noise nuisance from planes, but they'll only be measuring the noise between 11.30pm and 6am. Who are they trying to kid?"

Airport chiefs have forecast an average 6.4 flights between 11pm and 11.30pm and 6am and 7am, but just 1.8 between 11.30pm and 6am. Mr Rose said:

"They call this less than two flights a night, but it's actually more than one an hour throughout the night. You also have to bear in mind that these are average numbers - when there are no planes one night, there'll probably be 16 the next night. So an 'average' night could be a Boeing 747-400 cargo plane landing, or taking off, at 11.05pm, 11.15pm, 11.25pm, 1.55am, 3.40am, 6.05am, 6.25am and 6.55am - and they're presenting that as a couple of flights a night."

Planes landing at Manston fly straight over Herne Bay if there is an easterly wind and skim Reculver when they take off into a westerly wind. Mr Rose said:

"Sometimes, like last summer, we can have several weeks of non-stop easterly winds. So the people of Herne Bay can look forward to sleepless nights from noise pollution, ill health from the resulting stress, ill health from the air pollution from cargo planes and HGVs, and the rapid destruction of our tourist industry."

---

Rejection "could threaten airport"

Manston boss Charles Buchanan says allowing night flights would create 3,000 jobs by 2018 and is vital for the long-term future of the airport. He said:

"For the airport to be commercially viable in the longer term and deliver for Kent what other airports have done for their regions, it is vital that we are allowed to compete in terms of the operating hours."

The submission also includes a Night Noise Assessment Report after previous plans sparked fears about noise. Mr Buchanan said:

"Rejecting the submission by prohibiting all commercial traffic between 11pm and 7am would severely hinder the airport's ability to attract passenger and freight airlines. It would cost the local economy an estimated £30 million per year and some 1,450 jobs at a time when the area needs them more than ever. It could even threaten the continuation of the airport as a viable business."

The plans will go out to public consultation after Thanet council has had an independent assessment carried out.

HB Gazette 3rd Nov 2011 joewalker@thekmgroup.co.uk

Flybe says UK's domestic air travel boom is over

Flybe has declared an end to the boom in domestic air travel as the regional airline reported a deepening drop in demand for British routes.

The Exeter-based carrier runs domestic services which include Manchester to Norwich and Aberdeen to Gatwick, but the fallibility of its business to UK demand has been underlined by two profit warnings this year.

Flybe avoided another surprise on earnings on Wednesday as it published first-half results, though an increase of pre-tax profits in the six months to 30 September of £8.2m to £14.3m had been forecast to be significantly higher at one point this year. Before the profit warnings, Flybe had been expecting to make £36m.

As well as the poor profits performance, the results contained a further admission of weakness in the UK market. Flybe said winter bookings were down 1% compared with last year, confirming a deterioration of sales on top of an already poor outlook. Only last month Flybe had forecast a 1% increase in winter bookings. It carries 7 million passengers a year.

At the time of its second profit warning Flybe said it was still gauging whether the decline in UK travel – which accounts for seven out of 10 Flybe passengers – was due to a faltering economy or a fundamental move away from domestic routes. Jim French, Flybe's long-standing chairman and chief executive, said the fall appeared to be deep-set. "This is a trend we have picked up across the industry You have got to look at the industry, not just Flybe. I think we are seeing a very, very flat situation."

French added that, according to the Civil Aviation Authority, domestic air travel had fallen 20% over the past four years, as an over-supplied market bottomed out. "It is a combination of the economic and business cutbacks over the period, but I truthfully think that the market was over-supplied five to 10 years ago," said French, pointing to a subsequent scaling down of domestic routes by Ryanair and easyJet, as well as the sale of British Airways' domestic operations to Flybe in 2006.

Flybe has emphasised plans to expand in Europe, including the acquisition of Finncomm Airlines in a joint venture with Finnish carrier Finnair.

According to the Civil Aviation Authority, UK airports handled 48.7 million passengers in 2007, but that number fell to 38 million last year – a fall of 22%. Rail appears to have been a major beneficiary and competitor. The Association of Train Operating Companies said intercity rail journeys had risen by 19% since 2007, while on the top 10 domestic air routes, including London to Manchester, Edinburgh and Glasgow, rail's market share versus airlines has risen from 32% to 44% since 2007. "In what is a highly competitive market, better services and more cheap tickets are encouraging more and more people to choose rail to travel between the UK's main cities," said ATOC.

Shares in Flybe rose 2p to 70p, despite the gloomier UK outlook. Analysts said the airline's tough action on costs – the cost of flying a single passenger rose slightly – had calmed investors.

"Demand looks as weak as it did last month, but the saving grace is a tight grip on costs, which are hardly growing at all," said Douglas McNeill, analyst at Charles Stanley Securities.

Guardian 9th Nov 2011