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 

---

Location, Location, Location

It's refreshing to see an independent review of Manston's present and future prospects that doesn't shy away from stating the obvious - a successful passenger airport needs plenty of passengers within a convenient distance, and a successful freight airport needs plenty of customers within a profitable distance.

The Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) report says Manston airport is in the wrong place:

[p5] Given the geographic location of Manston it is unlikely that carriers would show much interest for inbound traffic from key European city links – we would argue this would only be relevant if Manston was strategically placed near to a large city or a region with a large catchment area.

Heathrow has queues of carriers wanting to use the airport, so they can afford to pick and choose who they let in. Over the short to medium term, Heathrow airport will carry less freight and more passenger traffic, as passengers are more profitable. This will displace freight traffic to other UK airports.

The PB report says York Aviation is wrong when it says that Manston is "ideally geographically located" to benefit from this displaced freight traffic.

[p5] Stansted, and Gatwick to a lesser degree, have significant capacity to accept additional freight volumes and are strategically better located close to motorways and major conurbations.  For this reason we would disagree with York’s contention that “It is for the relocation of these services that MIA is ideally geographically located”.  MIA, whilst only 50 minutes from the M25 at Junction 2, is not strategically positioned for freight to be dispatched anywhere other than the far South East of England.

On p15 of their report, York Aviation claim that a night time ban prevents Manston from accepting freight traffic from much of the rest of the world (based on an arbitrary departure time of 2300).

The PB report says Manston is only excluded from 9% of the scheduled air freight market...

[p6] … we do not believe that this provides a compelling argument for significant economic benefit to the region as a result of the introduction of a night flying quota system.

---

Next installment: Jobs

---

Noise Nuisance Under-stated

Manston's night flying application was backed up by a report on noise nuisance from Bickerdike Allen Partners (BAP). The BAP report assumes that house windows are closed all year, thus understating the decibels heard by residents by 27dB.

The Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) report picks up on this:

[p11] This of course fails to consider the partially open window situation described in both WHO guidelines and PPG24, which might be expected in the late spring, summer and early autumn months of the year. This corresponds to the months of year covered by the summer timetable in which the bulk of activity occurs at most airports in the UK.

The PB report also correctly identifies the obvious flaw with Manston’s proposal to exclude parts of the night from the night quota period. This would inevitably result in a late-night and early morning rush hour:

[p11] In relation to the proposed QC quota, the exclusion of the shoulder hours from the night time period is out of step with other airports, and would result in a “cramming” of movements into the shoulder hours, times in which most of the UK population is attempting to get to sleep, or before they would normally wake.

(The night quota period is when they propose to monitor and limit aircraft noise - 2330 to 0600. The so-called shoulder periods - 2300 to 2330 and 0600 to 0700 - would be treated as normal daytime, and would not be included.)

The PB report says the assessment of noise impact completely under-estimates the noise impact - under any other circumstances this would be an unacceptable proposal:

[p11] ... the failure to consider the impacts with windows open, coupled with a mitigation scheme that potentially may not reflect the noise risks from larger aircraft movements at night, may not be as favourable to protecting the local amenity for nearby residents. Had the council been considering a planning application for night operations with 5338 properties above 48 dB, and 312 exposed to the 95 dB Single Event Level, it is unlikely that the application would be seen favourably unless there was a substantive economic argument for its approval.

The PB report says in summary:

[p12] The analysis of the noise impacts have, in our opinion, resulted in an underestimation of the potential adverse impacts on residents in the area.

---

Next installment: York Aviation

---

Quick question

A reader writes:

Have recently become more involved in NNF's campaign. Much to digest and eventually understand. Have emailed Manston, MP/councillors about recent flights - as per your website advice.

What I don't quite understand at the moment is - when flights do come over during the restricted hours - who/which organisation has responsibility to decide if they are operating outside of the current agreement/legislation and then who/what organisation then places fines etc onto Infratil?

Thank you for your time.

SM

Hmmm... good questions, which highlight the shortcomings of the current S106 agreement between the Council and the airport.

The agreement explicitly forbids scheduled night flights, using the following definition:

"regular night flying operations" means flight movements which are scheduled or programmed and which occur frequently or regularly to the same or similar pattern for the same operator during night-time.

The problem is that it is down to the airport to decide (or admit) whether a flight is scheduled or not, and self-regulation is a notoriously bad way to run anything.

Flights that are not scheduled, but arrive during the restricted hours, are only fined if they exceed a certain noise threshold. The flight arrived at 3:30 AM on 9 December, for example, was rated as QC2 and will not attract a fine. The next level up is QC4, which would also not attract a fine. The next level above that is QC8, which would attract a fine of £1000 for the first offence – and the fine doubles on each subsequent offence.

The airport is expected to confess to each and every breach of the agreement, and the Council is supposed to be monitoring the airport's performance. The Council has admitted that its monitoring of the airport has fallen short of what is expected and required, so we cannot be certain that the airport is confessing to every misdemeanour.

The result of all this is completely unsatisfactory for everyone who lives within earshot of the flight path. The S106 agreement is supposed to regulate the activity of the airport in order to protect the quality of life of those who live nearby. Clearly, it fails to do this. All too frequently, the residents of Ramsgate, Herne Bay and the Thanet Villages are woken from their sleep and the operators of the offending aircraft go unpunished.

On the bright side, there has been a recent change of leadership at TDC. The local elections in May this year resulted in a finely balanced Council which has recently flipped from Conservative to Labour leadership (the new Leader is Clive Hart). This may result in a fundamental change in the nature of the relationship between the Council and the airport. Until now, the Council seems to have been bending over backwards to give the airport whatever it wants. We may now be entering a phase when the well-being and wishes of the residents are also weighed in the balance. I hope so.

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

Bureau Veritas report examined

Even in its draft form, the BV report was enough to stop the consultation process in its tracks. I asked TDC's Leader and CEO on 25th November for a glimpse of the draft. On 2nd December Cllr Bayford told me that the final draft had been received and would shortly be published. Sure enough, it appeared on the TDC website on 6th December - more than a month after it was delivered to TDC.

Given the close working relationship between TDC and the airport owners, I expect they passed it onto Infratil straight away - long before the public got sight of it. TDC's press release said that Infratil's next policy submission would follow on from (and be guided by?) BV's final report. Unless Infratil throw up their hands in horror at the report's recommendations and simply leave town, they'll be delivering a new proposal in the New Year. Possibly before.

In the meantime, here's some of the more encouraging quotes from the final Bureau Veritas report:

1.0.4 Even with this [quota count system] in place, it is BV’s view is that the predicted number of people likely to be exposed to significant levels of average night-time noise is not sufficiently justified by the number of passengers and freight activity that are forecast to benefit from the proposals.

This would appear to leave Infratil's night flying proposal dead in the water.

1.0.6 In order to reduce noise impact on nearby residents due to individual aircraft movements, BV would recommend that bedrooms of dwellings predicted to be exposed to 90 dB(A) SEL or more are also included in the sound insulation scheme.

This would be expensive for Infratil to comply with. Below is a street map of Ramsgate with the 90dB(A) SEL noise contour superimposed (the contour is taken from the Bickerdike Allen report). As you can see, that's a lot of double-glazing to install. If Infratil only want the night flying permission to make the airport more attractive to sell, this is a significant obligation for any purchaser to inherit.

1.0.9 BV has reviewed the input assumptions for this [BAP's] modelling and, using these, has undertaken their own independent noise modelling. The results of this have shown the contour modelling undertaken by BAP is accurate and representative of the input data provided.

So the noise contour in the map above is likely to be fairly accurate.

4.2.2 Given the sensitivity of night flights, and the comments in the ATWP [Air transport White Paper] ... there is an obligation to be sure that the economic benefits from those flights do justify the inevitable disturbance that will occur.

"Obligation" is a good word to see in this context. We have yet to see the required economic justification from Infratil.

4.3.2 ... this [quota count] system only controls activity between 23.30 and 06.00 hours, which on its own would leave the shoulder periods uncontrolled (other than by the inherent runway capacity).

One of the ploys in Infratil's proposal which TDC seem to have overlooked is the shortening of the "official" night by 1½ hours by introducing the evening and morning "shoulder periods" of 2300-2330 and 0600-0700. As the BV report correctly points out, flights during the shoulder periods are as unregulated as day-time flights.

4.3.9 ... over 60% of night operations will take place during the shoulder periods, which as indicated above is not controlled by the quota system. BAP also mention that it is generally accepted that the most sensitive time for people at night is the quota count period, and particularly during the hours of 01:00 and 06:00. People are, however, also sensitive to noise when they are trying to get to sleep and soon before waking up in the morning, i.e. during the shoulder periods. Noise impact during the shoulder periods could be regulated by imposing a limit on the area of the night-time noise contour...

At last, some common sense! Regardless of what Infratil may like to call night and day, the rest of us are still doing our best to get some sleep at times that fit into the rest of our lives, and planes late at night and in the early hours will be disruptive. So BV's suggestion is to limit the sound footprint of the airport.

4.3.10 An indication of the severity of night noise controls is given by considering the average quota count per aircraft movement within the night quota period. The policy proposes an annual quota of 1995 created by 1081 movements, giving a quota count per aircraft movement of 1.85. The current regime at London Heathrow permits ... a quota count per aircraft movement of 1.45. The corresponding figures for Gatwick and Stansted are 0.62 and 0.67 respectively.

Yes, you read that right - Manston want to create twice the nuisance of Gatwick and Stansted, and more even than Heathrow.

Click here for the Bureau Veritas final report. See the NoNightFlights Archive for the supporting documents.

Policy on night-time flying needs more detailed review

Clipping: thisiskent

My decision to halt the consultation process with regard to the night-time flying policy application from Manston airport was not taken lightly, as I am aware that many people felt that debate about this sensitive issue was long overdue. This week's column gives me the opportunity to share my thinking on the matter. I have always believed that any night-time flying policy should be as specific as possible and that anyone reading it should be able to have a reasonable idea of what exactly that policy would mean in terms of how many planes would be moving at night, how noisy would they be and at what times would these occur.

The application used an annual quota count limit as its basis. This is an accepted method of limiting night-time flying, but I have always felt that it doesn't offer the ability, on its own, to predict how many night movements there might be. The airport's request for 1,995 annual quota count points was accompanied by a noise assessment report that suggested that by 2018, if the airport was on target to meet its masterplan predictions, on a "typical" night there would be three aircraft movements between 11.30pm and 6am.

Protesters were quick to point out that, if it were the least noisy planes involved, that there could be greatly increased numbers of aircraft movements. Given that frequency of disturbance is just as big an issue as the noise level of individual planes, it is perhaps reasonable that the policy should address the number of movements, as well as the quota count limit.

This view was supported by the independent review, commissioned by your council, of the noise assessment submitted by the airport. Further, it suggested that a lower quota count figure might still support the airport's business aspirations. In light of this, I felt Infratil, the airport owners, should be asked to review the detail of their application. They have agreed to do this and will submit a revised application shortly. I look forward to the resolution of the night-time issue and Manston becoming the thriving regional airport that will boost our local economy.

Cllr Bayford (I presume)

Gale's View on night flights (Oct 2010)

Turncoat

Ten days before the May 2010 general election, Roger Gale wrote "I have never supported night flights from Manston and do not propose to do so." Click here to see for yourself. Six months later, he writes this...

---

Gale's View – 22 October, 2010

East Kent will, very shortly, have the opportunity to indicate clearly whether we want the airport at Manston, and the jobs and transport links that are dependent upon it, to have the opportunity to grow and prosper or to close.

We need, I think, to be very clear that the consultation relating to night time aircraft movements, due to be independently carried out for Thanet District Council in response to an application by the airport operators, Infratil, will affect the whole future of aviation at Manston and, very possibly, in the South East.

Ask local people if they want to be able to fly to sunshine holiday destinations direct from Manston and the answer is an emphatic “yes”. Ask the same people if they want to see more freight flights from the same airport and the response is, not surprisingly, very much more restrained. We subscribe to development that benefits us personally and we are lukewarm about development, whether it be business, retail or even housing, that impacts adversely upon our lives.

The harsh economic fact is that for the foreseeable future Manston cannot survive without freight traffic and the competition for a dwindling share of that freight market is fierce. Long-haul passenger flights into Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted carry considerable amounts of belly cargo and other regional airports, such as Ostend, are able to offer highly advantageous terms, conditions, costs and hours of movement. Remove the flexibility from Manston and the essential services – Air Traffic Control, Fire vehicles, Revenue and Customs, Re-fuelling and even catering, become unsustainable. Without those services the airfield will close.

There is, of course, no guarantee that the present operators will prove any more successful than predecessors dating back to the original civilian proprietors, Seabourne Aviation. Current passenger trends using Flybe services to Edinburgh and Manchester are modestly encouraging and the prospect of some Sunshine Destination tour operators is, as always, on the cards. The possibility of bringing aircraft carrying the overseas 2012 Olympic and Paralympic teams directly into Kent is enticing also. These are too few swallows, though, to make a summer and it is clear that the need to attract and retain freight operators is vital to Manston's survival.

We also have to recognise that without Manston not only will the airfield's job creating potential disappear but so, also, will any serious justification for a parkway station or the extension of the fast rail link from Ashford through to Thanet. That prospect may please those whose self-interest reflects only a demand for tranquillity but it would not bode well for future generations seeking to work and raise families in East Kent.

I have consistently opposed a free-for-all night flying policy that has been espoused, in the past, by some of Thanet`s councillors of both major political persuasions. I do, however, believe that the proposals now on the table represent a fair consideration of the airport`s likely maximum night time flexibility through to 2018 and very possibly beyond. To represent the maximum unit quota provided for in the application as “Seven night flights per night” is mischievous if not downright dishonest. Even local journalists living on the flight path need to recognise that the purpose of the unit quota is to limit and regulate night time noise. If, though, we deny the operators the operational flexibility needed to accommodate not only scheduled aircraft movements but also the unforeseen late take-offs from overseas destinations that, inevitably, affect arrival times then we shall drive Manston's business across the Channel with the inevitable consequences.

Thanet Council has indicated very clearly that it will take no decisions until the outcome of the consultation is known. That is a correct and proper position. It is also entirely right that those of us with elected responsibility should do everything possible to both recognise the legitimate needs of a potentially valuable local business while at the same time seeking to mitigate any environmental impact upon residents and the countryside that may arise from those needs.

If, however, a relatively few of East Kent's residents are left with an open goal into which they may then kick “anti-airport” shots then we shall be doing the future of East Kent no favours at all. Those that want Manston (and, of course, the remaining RAF presence as well) to close have a clear duty to indicate what alternative future (Industrial development? Housing Estates?) they see for the land, what vision they have for the future of local transport infrastructure and how they intend to generate the employment opportunities that East Kent's children and grandchildren will be looking for. Protest-power without social responsibility is no more of an acceptable or honest position that would be the free-for-all night aircraft movement policy that absolutely nobody is in fact proposing.

---

You can contact Roger Gale at: suzy@galemail.com

Night flights plan requesting take-off

Clipping: thisiskent

THE owners of Manston airport have applied for permission to run regular night flights. The planning application was submitted to Thanet council last Wednesday, seeking the right to run scheduled flights between 11.30pm and 6am. Airport boss Charles Buchanan believes permission, which it needs from Thanet council, is vital to the success of the airport. He said:

"We want to offer clarity for the community and people that use the airport. It is incredibly important because we have to satisfy passenger and freight operating at night but it is equally important that we operate with sensitivity."

The airport is asking for 1,995 quota count (QC) points per year, the equivalent of 500 take-offs or landings of 747s, which are rated QC 4. The airport's application says it will not operate aircraft of "greater than QC 4" between these hours. Thanet council will hold a consultation to assess the views of people living in Thanet in the coming weeks. Council leader Bob Bayford has promised to weight answers for people living directly on the flight paths. He said:

"We know that this is a hugely important issue for local people, especially those living under the flight path, which is why we are making these documents available to the public at the earliest possible opportunity. We want people to have the chance to see what Infratil have submitted to us."

The full application is available at Thanet council's website www.thanet.gov.uk

By saul leese saul.leese@krnmedia.co.uk

Herne Bay is 'the fall guy' for night flights

Clipping: thisiskent

HERNE Bay will be getting the worst of the night-flights deal being thrashed out at Manston, campaigners have warned. Kent International Airport owner Infratil is asking Thanet District Council to overturn the ban on regular night flying and let up to six cargo planes a night flying directly over Herne Bay. Manston claims development of passenger services will be possible only if the existing freight business is successful. And, to attract more freight, it must be able to schedule planes to land and take off at night.

The night flights will be fully laden cargo aircraft, which are usually older, louder planes. Every plane will count towards the total annual noise quota for the airport, and planes louder than the agreed maximum will be fined £1,000. Currently, flights over a set noise level which land of take-off at Manston after 11pm or before 6am are not allowed. If flights do happen, the carrier is liable for a £1,000 fine. Campaigner Phil Rose from Herne Bay is monitoring every Manston move. He said:

"What makes me angry is that Herne Bay is being set up as the fall guy and people need to know. Flights over Herne Bay will only count as being half as loud as they actually are, and pilots who break the rules, by being too loud or too low, will only get fined half as much. Manston will put all the planes they can over us, and we'll get the loudest. The impact on Herne Bay will be massive, and it will be all pain, no gain. The airport wants to move from two night flights a week to an average of 7.7 night flights per night – nearly a month's worth of noise every night. These old Boeing 747 cargo freighters sound like a pneumatic drill at full throttle seven metres away."

Bay city councillor Ron Flaherty, a former member of Kent International Airport consultative committee, said: "We are calling on Canterbury City Council officers to arrange a public meeting to hear what our residents have to say about this.

"It is clearly a most important issue to everyone who lives under the flight path. The last time this came up, Thanet District Council voted to have night flights but in a westerly direction – over Herne Bay. We must not be caught unawares this time."

He has called for council chief executive Colin Carmichael to chair the meeting. Campaigners are angry that meetings are being held in Thanet, but not Herne Bay. Paul Twyman, chairman of Kent International Airport, says he will now attend a meeting in Herne Bay. Those concerned about the plan can visit www.nonightflights.info to sign the online petition.

By jan thom