Manston's dreams and nightmares

"Nostrildamus nose the future"Nostrildamus says:

• Infratil's Charles Buchanan will shortly unveil his plans to stuff our ears with plane noise 24 hours a day.
• He will brandish carrots and sticks as if they were real.
• He will repeat the mantra that the airport will have to close if the proposals aren't accepted.
• He will never say that he will close the airport - far too personal.
• He will want to distract attention from the fact that the closure of the airport is a purely commercial decision, already more than half-made.
• He will want to abdicate responsibility to 'prevailing circumstances', and shift the blame onto an 'uncooperative' local Council.
• He will alarm the Council with the threat of dozens of jobs lost if the airport closes.
• He will cajole the Council with promises of thousands of jobs created if he gets his way.
• He will present the reports he's commissioned as proof of his case, because there is nothing else that supports his claims.
• He will never say that that the night flights he's asking for won't be enough to make the airport break even, let alone become profitable.
• He will say that night flights will be the catalyst that will make the Master Plan achievable and the airport profitable.
• He will never say that every penny of profit will be repatriated to New Zealand in the most tax-efficient way possible.
• He will never admit that the Master Plan, which has missed every significant target and forecast, is a work of unachievably optimistic guesstimation.
• He will muddy the water with promises of flights to New York.
• He will not explain that the carrier (currently called Acer Airways) says it won't exist until 2013 at the earliest.

• TDC's Cllr Bayford is unaware that KCC's Leader Paul Carter is using him as a disposable human shield.
• He will continue to champion the airport as a 'good thing'.
• He will do everything he can to ensure that TDC Labour don't have a free vote on the issue.
• He will continue the fiction that TDC Conservatives will have a free vote on the issue.
• He will continue to use last minute procedural and legal ploys.
• He will seek to skew the public consultation towards a 'Yes' result.
• He will ignore a 'No' result.

• Thanet District Council denies that it holds any records of legal advice on airport planning issues, night flights or the S106 agreement in the last 10 years.
• Nostrildamus has framed copies of the legal advice TDC has received.
• The legal advice confirms that the airport is long overdue for a formal planning application, due to the incremental development over the years.
• The legal advice confirms that the intensification of use resulting from night flights would require a planning application.
• TDC dreads this: it will highlight a decade of slapdash management and craven fawning.
• The airport dreads this too: it would automatically trigger an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) lasting a couple of years, while the airport continues to lose £5m a year.

KCC, TDC and Infratil want the night flights proposals to be rubber-stamped with the minimum of fuss.

And they don't give a toss about you.

Surely we can trust Infratil’s numbers?

Infratil (who own Manston) also own Prestwick Airport near Glasgow. In autumn 2008 Infratil’s forecast for passenger numbers at Prestwick was 5.7 million by 2018 and 12 million by 2033...

Almost immediately, freight and passenger business plummeted, and Prestwick ran at a loss for the rest of the year. Shortly after that, 50 staff lost their job. By autumn 2010, passenger business had fallen so much that another 120 staff had been made redundant... so much for Infratil’s forecasts.

Infratil’s forecasts for Manston are no more reliable than its forecasts for Prestwick. In October 2008, the Master Plan said Manston would have 1,200,000 passengers this year. But by November 2009, the Master Plan forecast had dropped to just 100,000. In fact, the actual passenger total for 2011 will probably be around 35,000 - less than 3% of what was forecast just three years ago. The Council says Infratil’s Master Plan is aspirational… that’s one word for it.

Charles Buchanan is Manston’s CEO. When he was at London City Airport, he said that an extra 36,000 flights - none of them night flights, by the way - would make 3,135 jobs. He got his flights, but created only 726 jobs, around 200 of which went to local people. So, the promised 3,135 jobs turned into around 200 jobs for locals - not a great track record.

Of course, nobody can guarantee that every job created will go to a local - that would be illegal.

If it’s in the Master Plan, it must be right. Right?

If only! Even the Department for Transport says that airport Master Plans tend to be so over-optimistic about future passenger numbers that it applies its own “pinch of salt” discount when it produces its national forecasts.

For example: in 1991 Manchester Airport wanted to build a second runway, and promised this would create 50,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs.

The runway opened in 2001, and by 2006 there were 4,000 additional jobs at the airport. Even allowing for another 2,000 indirect and induced jobs, the promise of 50,000 extra jobs was just a flight of fancy.

Manston boss claims it wasn't a "sweetener"

Bitter-sweetener

Manston's boss has defended efforts to persuade the government to underwrite the costs of a new service out of the Kent airport. Chief executive Charles Buchanan said subsidies from the public purse were commonplace and it was unfair to describe them as sweeteners.

His comments follow our disclosure that KCC and Infratil, which operates the airport, had sought to persuade ministers to provide £600,000 to underwrite a twice-daily service out of Manston for the first three years of its operation.

An unnamed company is in confidential talks about the service, which could get underway next April. Mr Buchanan said:

"It is unfair to call this bid for support a ‘sweetener’. What are known as route development funds are approved of by the European Commission because they have been proven to build strong regional economies. Public funding for the development of routes between airports is commonplace in Europe and has been, and continues to be, used in the UK. For example, the recent announcement of the start of a new service between Inverness and Amsterdam was on the back of support from Highlands & Islands Enterprise. Support funding was also contributed by the Highland Council, the Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership and VisitScotland."

With the closure of Pfizer, it was even more important to focus on stimulating the east Kent economy.

"Investing in routes from Manston would deliver significant benefit to the area. We recently published an economic impact report undertaken by York Aviation which suggested that Manston could provide direct employment for 2,070 people and a further 1,035 jobs in the wider economy by 2018 through the delivery of our masterplan."

He confirmed that discussions were taking place with other operators interested in providing new routes. According to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act by KCC, consultants had estimated the new twice-daily route would create 23 jobs at the airport and a further 133 across the area over the next eight years.

Campaigners opposed to the expansion of Manston argued those figures were modest and raised questions about the value of a public subsidy and the viability of the airport over the long term.

kentonline 16th Jun 2011

Belfast route opens

New flights have started between Manston and Belfast's George Best airport. The first of the Flybe services arrived in Thanet at lunchtime on Thursday. Flights will run between Manston and Belfast three times a week on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. The route takes 90 minutes and will initially run for the summer, with plans to extend it if the service proves popular.

At the launch, which coincided with the first anniversary of flights between Manston and Edinburgh, airport chief executive Charles Buchanan said:

"The Belfast service underscores Manston's key importance as the gateway to the glorious south east. Passengers using the airport immediately realise how different it is to others, thanks to the ease of getting to and from Manston and the fact that you can board your aircraft just metres from where you park your car. It's air travel as it should be – convenient, comfortable and relaxed."

Mr Buchanan added that 25,000 passengers had used Manston's Edinburgh service in its first year, hailing it as a success. Flybe and Manston airport hope that 50,000 people will use the services to Edinburgh and Belfast in the next year. Flybe flights between Manchester and Manston were dropped this year after disappointing sales.

Mr Buchanan also took the opportunity to underline the economic benefits of the airport. The airport is on the brink of reapplying to Thanet council for changes to the current ban on flights at night. Mr Buchanan said:

"It is important to us as an airport to build up the right services for the community and the economy. Particularly in these times, when jobs are difficult to come by, the airport can have a positive economic impact on the area. We are going to see if we can grow the airport to our master plan in the next three to four years, which would bring £340 million a year to the local economy. We think that this is a prize worth having."

Thanet Times 3rd Jun 2011

Passenger flight plans grounded at Manston

The global financial crisis has delayed plans to run more passenger services out of Kent International Airport. But airport chiefs, confident it is a short-term dip, have published a master plan that foresees gradual expansion over the next 20 years to around six million passengers a year. Freight operations are forecast to reach 400,000 tonnes. Matt Clarke, KIA chief executive, said:

"Like most businesses in the UK aviation marketplace our business has felt the impact of the recession. Our air cargo business has proved itself to be resilient but the recent market activity has delayed our plans for passenger service expansion in 2009. We do not expect medium or long-term growth in demand to be affected by the current economic climate, but the milestones contained in the Master Plan have been pushed out to account for the impact of the recession on the first few years of our forecasts. The revised figures are realistic and attainable within the Master Plan period."

The downturn hitting aviation business has prompted planners to defer growth expectations at Manston, with Infratil, the airport's New Zealand-based operator, now forecasting 2.2 million passengers in 2018 instead of the 2.7m originally predicted. The forecast for 2033 has come down from 5.7m to 4.7m.

The master plan - which updates a draft published in October 2008 - also includes fresh information on domestic high-speed trains and how they impact on journey times to London. It backs highway improvements in the £90m East Kent Access programme, and features more detail on environmental controls.

With some small expansion, the existing terminal will accommodate growth to around one million passengers but beyond that a new terminal would be needed. This would trigger a new access road to the terminal, closure of the B2050 to through traffic and a new through road build through the airport's northern land.

The final plan follows a lengthy consultation process. More than 400 contributions were received from members of the public and KIA managers say the feedback has been "considered and incorporated into the final document where appropriate". Mr Clarke added:

"For the first time in its long history, the airport now has a clear blueprint for the future. I thank those who contributed to our consultation process as we are grateful for the feedback we received. We are very pleased to present our plan to those stakeholders to communicate the shape of things to come. Our plan defines our commitment to the development of air services in Thanet, Kent and the wider South East and details how we intend to develop the Manston site into a thriving regional airport."

kentonline 3rd Dec 2009

Wiggins' routes discovered

A red letter day, dear reader. One of my undercover researchers (codename: Casey) has unearthed a map of the routes agreed between Wiggins and TDC many moons ago. Apparently one of the lead negotiators from the TDC side was Cllr Harrison. These 'people-friendly' routes didn't make it into the Section 106 Agreement due to an oversight by, er, Cllr Harrison. Shame.

These routes were mentioned at a meeting held at Manston, chaired by Cllr Harrison. I got the impression that they had somehow wisped away to nothingness, lost forever to the eyes of mortals. I'm pleased to have sight of them at last. I expect Infratil and TDC will be thrilled, too. Now that they don't have to go through the rigmarole of (re)negotiating effective noise abatement routes, they can use the time they've saved to install fixed noise monitors under the newly agreed routes.

click it to big it

click it to big it

The carefully drawn coloured lines on the map are explained by the accompanying colour-coded key.

The red route labelled 1 is the standard westward instrument departure route: by the time the plane is doubling back on itself and heading south, it's supposed to be at 3,000 feet and climbing. Route 2 is the alternative westward route; route 3 is the standard eastward instrument departure route. All of the other lines and boxes are explained in the key.

What I find interesting about this is that it so clearly shows what is achievable. The planes can fly more people-friendly routes. So what do you think the odds are of anything resembling this appearing in the next S106 Agreement?

In a nutshell: airport manners

• The Draft Masterplan for KIA is indicative but insubstantial – it needs to be redrafted, and then put out to consultation properly.
• The Section 106 Agreement should reflect the needs of everyone affected by the operation of the airport, not just Infratil and TDC.
• There is absolutely no need or justification for night flights (other than emergency diversions).
• Flight paths should avoid population centres by overflying the sea, or sparsely populated land.
• If overflying towns is unavoidable, the planes could fly higher for longer, and then descend more steeply.
• These ‘people-friendly’ routes should be agreed and implemented before flight volumes increase.
• Infratil must demonstrate that the routes are being adhered to by recording and reporting what the planes actually do, by installing adequate noise and pollution monitoring equipment and ensuring it is used consistently.
• The readings from all the monitoring equipment must be recorded consistently, and the recorded readings must be published frequently and regularly (e.g. on-line).
• Failure to comply with the S106 agreement must be reported and fined. Any decisions not to fine must be explained.

In a nutshell: Manston

Manston a.k.a. Kent International Airport is an ex-RAF base in north-east Kent, just west of Ramsgate. It passed from the RAF to Wiggins, then PlaneStation, owners of EUJet (a budget passenger airline). EUJet went bust, and in August 2005 the administrators sold Manston to Infratil, a New Zealand-based multi-national infrastructure investor.

The airport is mainly used for flying clubs, testing and training, and private planes. In 2008, less than 3% of the planes were freight or passenger flights. Infratil's growth plans for Manston are ambitious: 6 million passengers, ½ million tonnes of freight and 103,800 flights annually.

There is a "Section 106 Agreement" (S106) between Infratil and Thanet District Council (TDC) which describes what Infratil can, and can't, do at Manston. The scale of Infratil's planned growth is enough to require the S106 to be renegotiated. The existing S106 was drawn up in 2005, and needs to be renegotiated anyway as its 3 year lifespan has expired. There would be a statutory period of public consultation lasting 6 months. This consultation period has not started (as at: 20th June 2009).

Due to the nature of airports and air travel, many more people have a stake in this than just Infratil and TDC. East Kent residents under the flightpaths, particularly in Ramsgate, but also in the Wantsum villages, Herne Bay, Whitstable and Canterbury will all be affected to some degree. Environmental groups, transport lobbies, government bodies, wildlife groups and others all have an interest. The non-partisan KIA Consultative Committee provides a valuable forum for all the interested parties to meet and discuss.

A key issue for local residents is noise. Obviously, the nearer a plane is (in both distance and height) the louder the noise; and if everything else is particularly quiet (at night) it will sound louder anyway. Which is why flightpaths, plane heights, flight times and monitoring matter so much to so many, and keep appearing on this site.

TDC have a duty to do their best to regenerate and energise Thanet, which includes some of the most deprived areas of Kent. Infratil have spent £30m on Manston so far, and have yet to make their shareholders a profit. All the East Kent residents would welcome something that benefits them. We need to find a win-win-win solution.

This is not a small decision, and the consequences will affect tens of thousands of people for years, if not decades. It's worth taking the trouble to get this one right. And everyone needs to think in the short, medium and long term.

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.

.:.