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.

Gale keeps digging

Arch-betrayer Gale swims against the tide of public protest and revulsion, claiming (psychic?) knowledge of the wishes of the silent majority, and dismissing democracy as "populism". Fool.

MP admits a U-turn over Manston night flights ban

BAY MP Roger Gale has been accused of chucking "his pre- election commitment in the bin" after changing his views on night flights over the town. The Conservative has come under fire after an apparent U-urn on comments made before he was elected for a seventh term in May. Mr Gale had opposed plans to relax a ban on night flights from Manston airport, but last week lent his support to the proposal.

He has defended the move, claiming it is for the good of people living in the town. He said:

"They are entitled to say I've changed my views, but I've done so in light of economic need and the interests of the majority of my constituents. We live in a changing game. Night flights were never an election issue. In fact, I doubt I had any more than two letters about Manston throughout my campaign. The silent majority want to see this airport succeed. I've always been against night flights and in an ideal world we could avoid them, but we don't live in an ideal world, we live in a commercial reality. If the airport is to remain open there has got to be some flexibility on night flights to allow the operators the time and financial stability in which to develop further passenger services."

Airport owners Infratil want to lengthen the flying day by 90 minutes and introduce night flights within a noise quota system from 11pm to 7am. Critics say it will result in sleepless nights, claiming up to seven flights will thunder over the town every night. But Mr Gale says the statistics are being exaggerated. He said:

"What campaigners have done is take the worst case scenario, using the quietest aircraft, to calculate how many flights there could possibly be. The fact is there won't be many night flights over Herne Bay. I'm not trying to pretend there isn't an environmental issue, but if Manston goes bust what are we going to do with it? We'll be left with a derelict airfield which will likely become an industrial estate or housing estate - or both. Nobody in living memory has bought a house in east Kent without knowing there was an airport at Manston. I can't allow myself to be driven by populism. I believe the line I'm taking is the right one."

[Infratil's proposed policy repeatedly predicts an average level of 7.7 flights per night, and assumes the current mix of aircraft.]

---

Pre-election promise broken

Night flight campaigner Ros Mclntyre says she is "astounded" by Mr Gale's "change in direction". She said:

"Before the general election, I wrote to Roger Gale asking him where he stood on the issue of introducing scheduled night flights at Manston. Mr Gale wrote back saying 'I have never supported night flights from Manston and do not propose to do so'. Now he is suddenly in favour of night flights.

Not only has he gaily chucked his pre-election commitment in the bin, he has now also started to vilify the people he is meant to be representing. He said "to represent the maximum unit quota provided for in the application as 'seven night flights per night' is mischievous if not downright dishonest".

In fact, the night flight proposal would allow the airport to lengthen the flying day by 90 minutes and to introduce scheduled night flights. The airport's specialist noise report estimates 7.7 flights a night - which seems pretty close to the seven planes a night Gale is saying is a dishonest representation. He simply doesn't understand the numbers, which is shocking in a man who is prepared to criticise others so publicly and mistakenly.

So, we have an MP who breaks clear election promises and who criticises the people he is meant to be representing. We have an MP who says it is dishonest to bring accurate numbers into the public domain. Do explain to me how sharing the airport's own numbers with the public can be "mischievous if not downright dishonest". Frankly, I think that is a better description of your recent behaviour on this issue."

MP accused of U-turn

THANET North MP Roger Gale has been accused of doing a U-turn on his views on proposals for regular night flights at Manston airport. Mr Gale, whose constituency includes Herne Bay as well as large parts of Thanet, wrote to a constituent in April this year saying he did not support night flights at Manston. He wrote to Ros McIntyre:

"I have never supported night flights from Manston and do not propose to do so."

In a political column on his website last week Mr Gale appeared to express a different view, saying Infratil's application for regular night flights was "worthy of consideration". Mr Gale, who has served as an MP for 27 years, used Gale's View to express his concern about the economic impact of saying no to night flights. He said:

"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."

"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."

Ms Mcintyre said: "Now that the votes are safely in the bag, Roger Gale is suddenly in favour of night flights."

We asked Mr Gale to comment. He had not responded as we went to press.

thisiskent

Gale's View on night flights (Feb 2009)

Forked Tongue

"... my own constituents living in the Thanet villages and Herne Bay on the flight paths have a right to due consideration and to the greatest achievable protection from noise and disturbance that is achievable and compatible with the lawful use of the airfield.  That is why I have again consistently opposed any extension of night flying at Manston..."

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

Gale's new opinion: part 1

East Kent is still reeling, caught in the giddying vortex of Roger Gale's about turn. "I have never supported night flights from Manston and do not propose to do so." But that was ten days before the May 2010 general election, when he would say anything to anyone to trick a vote out of them.

Now that the election is over, and Roger has been made to feel important and powerful by a charm offensive from Infratil, his tune has changed. Whole sections of his recent article in the local press could have been lifted from an Infratil brochure. The talk is no longer of "flights" but of "flexibility" (a weasel word cynically put into Roger's mouth by Infratil's spin doctors). For example "... 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."

So let's have a closer look at the Mr Flip-flop's words...

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.

Oooh, Roger, just a teensy bit one-sided, don't you think? No mention of East Kent deciding whether it wants the noise, sleeplessness, ill-health, early deaths, dirt, fumes, extra lorry traffic, lower educational achievement, falling house prices and collapsing tourist trade that the huge increase in night freight will inevitably bring.

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.

Yes, Roger, of course the consultation about night flights at Manston could affect the future of Manston - that's the point of it. Well, most of us probably assumed that what we say in the consultation will have some kind of impact, but Cllr Bayford has poured cold water on that. If the majority of us say "No" to night flights... it might make no difference.

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.

To paraphrase: "People like nice things and don't like nasty things." I think we can all go along with that one, Roger. It's completely normal - why comment on it? Do you think it's in some way wrong to oppose, to speak out against, or even campaign against something that will "adversely affect" your life, and the lives of your nearest and dearest? What we're being offered is a force-fed diet of nasty things (night flights, forever) with only the vaguest, sometime, sort-of promise of 'jam tomorrow' somewhere in the hazy future, in the form of nice holiday flights.

---

Click here to email Roger Gale

Gale's new opinion: part 2

In this section, Roger fails to grasp why Manston is failing, and then grasps at straws. (Emails are already winging their way to our glorious leader, David Cameron, asking whether he can condone Gale's conduct. Do feel free to join in - if you get any meaningful replies, please send them in to be posted here.)

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.

What Roger lacks the honesty to point out is that Infratil has failed to attract this apparently vital freight business for the past five years, despite their best efforts. Manston is almost empty throughout the daytime - there would be no queuing delays for incoming freight traffic. Manston repeatedly boasts of its rapid turnaround for unloading aircraft. So why isn't Manston coining it from the daytime freight traffic? Because the freight operators don't want to fly there, because it's in the wrong place. (Manston is tucked away in one corner of Britain, as are Lands End and John o' Groats.) As Roger's ex-mistress Margaret Thatcher said "You can't buck the market" and the market says No to Manston.

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.

There is no guarantee that the present operators have any intention of staying any longer than they absolutely have to. Infratil have spent the last five years trying to persuade major holiday operators to use Manston and have failed - because Manston's in the wrong place, so its catchment area is too small to be commercially viable (you can't buck the market, and you can't change geography). Roger is being disingenuous to suggest that the 2012 Olympians will be flying in to Manston - they're more likely to use London City, Stansted, Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow which have the proven ability and capacity to do the job, and are already prepared.

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.

If Manston airport closes, that is absolutely NOT the end of the airfield's job creating potential. The 160 acre site, and the 1.7 miles of runway are freed up for brownfield development - eco-housing, farmers' markets, solar power plant, light industrial workshops, all-weather holiday park, Thanet Earth extension, etc.

Is this the same Roger who rails (ho, ho) against the current high speed link's effect on Herne Bay? Because that Roger points out that Herne Bay commuters are unwillingly subsidising the high speed service, and getting a degraded service into London in exchange. However, he is now singing the praises of more high speed links, so that more people can be disadvantaged as Herne Bay has been.

Incidentally, Roger, you write of "self-interest" as if it's a bad thing, like selfishness. It bloody well isn't.

---

Click here to email Roger Gale

Gale's new opinion: part 3

This is the bit where Roger Gale displays his shocking ignorance of key elements of Infratil's proposal, and has the cheek to call other people dishonest.

---

 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.

"To represent the maximum unit quota provided for in the application as 'Seven night flights per night' is mischievous if not downright dishonest." No it isn't, you ignorant, insulting fool. That's exactly what it says in the application. Have you actually read the application, Roger? It's there in black and white, as plain as the nose on Pinocchio's face.

Roger writes "... the purpose of the unit quota is to limit and regulate night time noise"... er, yes Roger, that's the point - we all get that. There is NO LIMIT on the number of flights that Manston can schedule in the daytime, and they already have the "flexibility" that allows for late arrivals. The freight is going to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted because each of them is a better commercial proposition for the operators - you can't buck the market, Roger.

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.

There are many people in Thanet and across east Kent who are getting the impression that TDC have already made their decision, and will cherry-pick and selectively (mis)represent the results to support it. Your last sentence reveals a fundamental error - your job is not about businesses, the environment, or the countryside. First and foremost, your job as an elected representative is to represent the wishes and interests of your electorate. Everything else follows.

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.

The "clear duty" that Roger seems happy to foist on anyone actually rests with the elected representatives - always has, always will. It is a cause for public shame that Thanet District Council have consistently failed to shoulder this duty, and have no "Plan B" of any description. Roger suggests a housing development (it's a good brownfield site with decent transport links) or industrial development (small to middling workshops and light fabrication plants would create more jobs than one big factory). Others have already suggested a wider range of possibilities, but welcome to the debate, Roger.

---

Click here to email Roger Gale

More from the rumour mill...

Our diligent spies never rest and never sleep, even without night flights.

The latest news is that the gaggle of Kiwis visiting Thanet will be meeting our dazzling local MPs Roger Gale and Laura Sandys. As we all know from recent posts here, both MPs have publicly declared their opposition to night flights and will doubtless make this clear to our anitpodean visitors in their private meetings. Of course.

One of the topics up for discussion appears to be broadening the range of goods that can be flown in to Manston to include toxic waste. Clearly this is a bold step into a glorious and prosperous future for Thanet and east Kent. Why limit ourselves to green beans and cut flowers when there's the opportunity to take delivery of disgusting death sludge from around the world?

From Infratil's point of view, it's a no-brainer: carrying toxic filth is more profitable (hmmm, wonder why?). Permission to import this stuff, added to permission to fly freight throughout the night would give Manston airport two unique selling points, making it easier to sell.

Politicians Against Night Flights

In April, a number of local politicians were asked: 

"Do you support night flights from Manston Airport?"

It's great to have such high profile local Conservative politicians agreeing with our message:

No Night Flights!!

Roger Gale said "No"

Laura Sandys said "No, I do not support night flights from or to Manston."