Thanet Airport Working Party 4th April

Like pushing your own face into a bacon slicer. Slowly. It was shambolic to a degree I would once have found shocking.

Charles Buchanan had been invited to speak by Cllr Gideon (chair), at Madeline Homer's suggestion, to "clarify" a number of points relating to the AWP's draft response. This led to some confusion as to whether the current draft report would need to be returned to Parsons Brinckerhoff for rewriting in the light of whatever Mr Buchanan might be about to say. Eventually they decided to play it by ear, and if only minor adjustments were required, they could go straight to the next stage of the process (Overview & Scrutiny) without the AWP needing to meet again.

[An aside: WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? TDC have had their consultation, and received a report from the independent consultants. Why is Buchanan even allowed to speak at the AWP, let alone be allowed to modify the Council's document? We've all seen TDC's draft report, and there's plenty that NoNightFlights would like to comment on, as (I guess) would the CPRE Protect Kent, and many others. If TDC want to avoid legal crucifixion for bias and failure of process, they are going to have to cut Mr Buchanan out of the loop, or include everyone.]

At the beginning of the meeting, Mr Buchanan's scope for comment was whittled down from the whole report to sections 4.7 to 4.7.3 - largely as a result of Cllr Campbell's insistence. Mr Buchanan was accompanied a consultant from Bickerdike Allen Partners (who said nothing), and another from York Aviation who ended up doing most of the talking.

Some while into the discussions, Cllr Campbell realised that the AWP all had a new and previously unseen document, and complained that they hadn't been given time to assimilate it. It eventually transpired that this was not a TDC document, but had come from Buchanan. He had said that he had been hoping to speak more widely than 4.7-4.7.3, and presumably had wanted to work his way through the document, point by point.

Looking at the signing-in book on the front desk, Mr Buchanan was the first in, and had presumably just left a copy of the document at each seat. Sneaky bastard. Homer simply told everyone to "pretend they hadn't seen it" and not to include any reference to it in their discussions, although she did tell Cllr Marson that she could take her copy home (!).

People wiser than I in the ways of protocol and the conduct of meetings would know better, but I would have thought a more proper course of action would have been for Cllr Gideon to collect and destroy the documents, rebuke Mr Buchanan, and minute accordingly. Or just punch someone.

In between trying to undermine the credibility of Parsons Brinckerhoff and their report, the guy from York Aviation did reveal the identity of the six airports that appeared in Section 3.10 of the York Aviation report as the basis for employment forecasts. They are Bournemouth, Bristol, Blackpool, Leeds/Bradford, Edinburgh and East Midlands - the last of these being the "outlier" on the graph due to the high volumes of freight it handles. He also let slip that Manston expected a 50:50 mix of freight and passenger traffic - the previous story has been 90% passenger.

Charles Buchanan stated that the proposal does not claim that 1,4552 jobs and £30.4m GVA (Gross Value Added) would be created by night flights, rather that the absence of night flights would jeopardise the potential benefits of the airport by these amounts.

In my eyes, Charles Buchanan exemplified the use of data to obscure and distort issues. In striking contrast was Council officer Hannah Thorpe - easily the star of the evening - who stuck resolutely to the principle of using data to clarify, and sticking strictly within the limits of validity rather than trying to extrapolate in the hope of supporting anyone’s preconceptions.

So when Cllr Gideon asked whether free-form (as opposed to questionnaire-style) responses were harder to analyse meaningfully - Ms Thorpe: No, we do it all the time - we're doing it for the Asset Management consultation.

Cllr Gideon: was the format of the survey a good way of getting a response? - Ms Thorpe: it was widely promoted through mail shots, press articles and adverts, and is "equally as valid" as any other form of consultation conducted by TDC.

Cllr Gideon: what percentage of Thanet's population responded? - Ms Thorpe: that's not a valid or correct way to assess the response.

Cllr Gideon: doesn't the low percentage response rate invalidate the result? - Ms Thorpe: don't go there, this is the highest response rate we've had for any consultation - if you disregard this result, you'll have to disregard every consultation result we've ever had.

Cllr Green successfully argued for the inclusion in the report of three significant additional considerations: a summary of the health impacts of broken and disrupted sleep from the World Health Organisation; a critical assessment of the short-comings of the QC noise rating system, from the House of Commons library; and an overview of the scale and economic importance of Thanet's tourism industry.

Cllr Campbell successfully argued that the effects of noise disruption on residents' rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights needed to be included in the report.

Cllr Hart, when explaining his decision to go for an in-house consultation rather than spending £50k on MORI made an interesting point. Many people had been puzzling over how TDC proposed to implement the proposed weighting of responses from those under the flight path as against those living out of earshot - what multiplier, or what algorithm would be used?

Cllr Hart's solution was disarmingly simple: it would be down to councillors to use their own judgement. Just as councillors make a judgement call when assessing the planning applications - closer proximity means a greater impact - they should use their own judgement to assess how much more weight should be attached to responses that come from those under the flight path.

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

Council Report Pans Night Flights Proposal

It's grim reading for Manston, but it could be good news for East Kent - depending on Thanet District Council’s priorities. Yes folks, the Parsons Brinckerhoff report has finally arrived, and you can read, print and download your copy HERE. 

This summary is in handy bite-sized chunks - just click on the "next installment" at the end of each post to work your way through...

Shortly after Manston submitted their most recent night flying proposal last autumn, TDC commissioned independent experts Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) to look at all the paperwork. Manston’s application was supported by a noise impact report from Bickerdike Allen Partners (BAP), and an economic assessment from York Aviation.

TDC’s brief to PB was:

[p2]  To assess the suitability of the methodology used in the application; To test the assumptions made; To review the Planning situation

I have no idea why they asked for the third point - this is clearly a matter for planning lawyers. PB spend about a third of their report rehashing the history of planning problems and then throw up their hands in resignation and say “ask a expert”:

[p22] It is recommended that Legal Council [sic] Opinion is sought on the question of intensification of use.

Some key findings from the PB report:

• Manston wants night flights for freight.
• If this was a planning application, it would be rejected.
• Having night flights will not generate passenger growth.
• The noise analysis supporting Manston's application is flawed.
• The economic analysis supporting Manston's application is flawed.
• The S106 agreement and the planning status of the airport is a shambles.

Incidentally, if you found this useful, do feel free to pass it on to friends, neighbours and colleagues - just use the "EMAIL THIS" link below.

---

Next installment: It’s all about freight

---

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

---

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

---

More airport expansion

NEWSFLASH: the real reasons Flybe quit Manston - click HERE

---

Well, well - here's another airport in the south-east that's looking to expand. Their proposal for 57% growth will be rushed through public consultation in just 4 weeks. They are promising to continue to be a "good neighbour". They say that the impact on the environment noise and road traffic flows will be "fully evaluated".

They even say that they will be submitting a planning application. Ahem. Nudge, nudge. Wouldn't it be nice if all airports had planning permission?

Following the BBC news item below, you will find a report from the trade press which talks about "6.5 million passengers" creating "6,000 jobs". This mythical golden ratio of 1,000 jobs per million passengers should be familiar to regular readers of this blog.

And who's peddling these wildly optimistic numbers? The propeller-heads' favourite number-mongers – York Aviation. Step forward, take a bow and your customary large cheque.

---

Luton expansion plans

Luton airport -  the UK’s 5th biggest –  has announced a 4 week consultation on its plans that will start on 6th February.  It has plans to increase the annual number of passengers.

It would handle 18 million passengers a year under the plan, up from 11.5 million. Work “can be achieved within the airport’s existing boundary and using the existing runway”.  Once the consultation ends, the airport hopes to submit a planning application in April. The airport says:

“Impacts on the environment, noise and road traffic flows will be fully evaluated as part of the process.”

The airport announced plans for road improvements in November to reduce anticipated congestion at the time of the Olympics. Some of the work is paid for by public funds.

AirportWatch 16th Jan 2012

---

London Luton Airport hopes to boost passenger numbers

Luton airport has announced plans to boost passenger numbers by nearly seven million a year.  [18 million would be more like 9 million over the 2010 figure]. 

Proposals released by London Luton Airport Limited (LLAL) aim to also create 6,000 jobs. The airport, the UK’s fifth biggest, would handle 18 million passengers a year under the plan, up from 11.5 million. [Highest was 10.2 million in 2008.  Down to 8.7 million in 2010]. 

Its 57% growth bid comes after claims of an air travel capacity shortage in south east England, by 2020. A four-week public consultation will begin on the 6 February and will include a series of public exhibitions around the region.

The project, known as “futureLuToN:Optimisation”, has already been introduced to the airport’s consultative committee, which represents local residents, councils and community groups. In a statement, LLAL said the growth “can be achieved within the airport’s existing boundary and using the existing runway” and it will consider what modifications and improvements will be required.

LLAL Chair, Councillor Robin Harris said the airport needed to be ready to “embrace market demand in the future” but it would “listen carefully” before submitting a planning application.

“The benefits that will flow from the airport’s development will be realised in the local, regional and national economies. We are committed to ensure the airport will continue to be a good neighbour and any growth in passenger numbers is managed in a responsible manner. Impacts on the environment, noise and road traffic flows will be fully evaluated as part of the process.”

LLAL has said it intends to submit a planning application for consideration in or around April, at which time a further statutory consultation will be undertaken by Luton Borough Council as planning authority.

BBC online 16th Jan 2012

---

Luton Airport to expand to 18mppa

London Luton Airport has announced “ambitious plans” to optimise capacity at the gateway by around 57% so it will be able to handle at least 18 million passengers a year by 2020. The gateway said that plans to increase capacity by an additional 6.5 million passengers would take shape using the existing runway and within the airports current boundaries.

According to the airport owner – London Luton Airport Limited (LLAL) – the gateway’s current maximum capacity is 11.5 million passengers with 9.6 million expected up to the end of March 2012. In the calendar year for 2012 the airport is expecting to handle 10.2 million passengers.

The expansion project seeks to optimise the capacity of the existing airport and LLAL will consider what modifications and improvements will be required. This will include looking at the aircraft taxiways, aprons, piers and parking stands, the road network, airport car parking and the passenger terminal. Meanwhile, LLAL has estimated that the plans could create up to 6,000 new jobs and generate millions of pounds of investment.

The project – called ‘futureLuToN:Optimisation’ – was introduced today (January 16) to the airport’s consultative committee representing local residents, councils and community groups. A pre-planning application public consultation will begin on Monday February 6, when plans will be presented in Luton and around the wider area. The four-week consultation process will run until March 5 and will include a series of public exhibitions around the region.

A dedicated website – www.futureLuToN.co.uk – will also be launched for interested parties to view proposals and provide their feedback on the airport’s plans. Robin Harris, chair of LLAL, said: 

“We’re at the very beginning of a journey that builds on the tremendous success we have seen through the last decade and will ultimately bring huge benefits to Luton and the wider region – with jobs and much-needed income. We will consult actively and listen carefully ahead of submitting a planning application to enhance this important people’s asset but we must be ready to embrace market demand in the future.

Our plans that will go out for public consultation in February are ambitious. While we will have to work hard to meet our aspirations, I am encouraged by the vast majority of people and businesses in Luton and the wider region who believe strongly that the airport is a terrific asset for job creation and our biggest wealth creator.”

London Luton Airport is the UK’s fifth biggest airport. It is a headquarters for easyJet and is a major base for Wizz Air, Ryanair and Monarch.

Luton Airport added that it would also consider expanding the airport further to be able to handle 30 million passengers a year but added that “this does not form part of the proposals being consulted on in February”.

Meanwhile, it is estimated that Luton will drive an additional 440 direct on-site jobs for every extra million passengers that pass through the airport, and as a result, an estimated additional 1,750 indirect jobs will be created by the airport’s plans for it to increase capacity to 18 million passengers per year, according to York Aviation.

London Luton Airport is operated by Abertis-owned London Luton Airport Operations Limited (LLAOL).

Airport World 16th Jan 2012

The Night Flight Proposals 2011

Click the links to view the documents, or to download your very own copy. More documents, and scathing analysis to follow...

---

There should be a neat widget-type thing above this line showing you a list of the proposal documents. If there isn't click HERE to see them in the NoNightFlights archive.

Manston dragging its heels over night flights

No haste = no need

OK, let's just make sure we've got this straight...

The night flights that Manston is hankering after have been portrayed as essential, crucial, make-or-break. Without them, so we are told, the airport won't be able to deliver on its fairytale Master Plan.

I find this VERY hard to square with (a) any facts in the real world, and (b) the airport's conduct over the last year. If night flights really did matter so much, why would they spend a YEAR dragging their heels?

Sep 2010: Manston submits its night flying proposal, backed up by the report it commissioned from Bickerdike Allen. A shambolic public meeting at Chatham House demonstrates the unpopularity of night flights, and makes Bill Hayton a household name for all the wrong reasons.

Oct 2010: Ramsgate Town Council has its own mini-consultation and rejects night flights.

Nov 2010: TDC get a technical review report from consultancy Bureau Veritas on the airport's proposals, which concludes that the costs outweigh the benefits. TDC cancels the public consultation on the day it was supposed to start, stating that Manston's proposals were too unclear and lacked economic justification.

May 2011: Local elections. Part 1 of the York Aviation report, commissioned by the airport, supposedly providing economic justifications for night flights is published.

Jun 2011: EasyJet snuggle up to Southend airport and launch a range of European services. Southend doesn't have night flights.

Aug 2011: Part 2 of the York Aviation report, commissioned by the airport, supposedly providing economic justifications for night flights, is leaked to the press and (presumably) given to TDC. No sign of it in public yet. Charles Buchanan appears on TV, predicting a night flight application "next month".

Sep 2011: It is next month. There is no application, yet. There is a meeting of the Airport Working Party on Wed 28th Sept. Surely, Manston isn't planning to release its next night flight application after the AWP meets? That could easily be seen as a crass attempt to exploit the Council's timetable.

Straight from the horse's orifice...

In the interests of even-handedness and fair play, I thought I would publish Manston's statement on the importance of night flights, despite it being crap. Large chunks of this have been regurgitated by the local press.

If you can bring yourself to plough through this litany of self-serving distortions and special pleadings, do please bear a few things in mind:

• The "independent" report was produced by York Aviation, who describe themselves thus: "A specialist firm of air transport consultants providing a complete consultancy service for the airports business, including aviation policy advice, economic impact assessment, air traffic forecasting, and specialist advice on airport capacity assessment and planning."
• The airport already had a ban on regular (i.e. scheduled) night flights when Infratil bought it. The long-standing S106 agreement with Thanet District Council allows for unavoidable and unscheduled late arrivals.
• I repeat: this is what they bought. It said "No Night Flights" on the tin when they picked it off the shelf.
• The thousands of jobs referred to throughout this blurb only exist in the forecasts made in Manston's Master Plan.
• Passenger airlines don't decide which airports to use on the basis of what times of day they can fly. They decide on the basis of whether their planes will be full or not.
• Infratil want to make Manston a 24-hour freight hub, and then sell it.

---

---

Imposing stringent restrictions on night flights at Manston could cost the Thanet airport an estimated 1.3 million passengers and 67,000 tonnes of freight a year by 2018, according to the final part of independent research into its future economic impact and even call into question the ongoing viability of the airport.

The airport has already tabled a proposal that would control and limit the amount of flying permitted at night. This business will be lost to the airport and the area if the more onerous restrictions, being suggested by the Labour Group on Thanet District Council, were to be imposed.

The final conclusion of the report suggests restrictions on night flights would increase the airport's financial losses, making it untenable for any owner. According to the report, the ability to attract and retain a full mix of passenger and freight services will be dependent upon the ability to schedule flights during the night, both now and in the future.

As a result of the loss of trade due to restricting night flights, the report estimates that the airport's potential to create jobs will be cut by almost half, from over 2,000 people directly employed in airport activities to just 1,102 jobs by 2018. The report, carried out by York Aviation, leading experts in this field, also concludes that the airport would support 484 fewer indirect jobs in the local economy over the same period.

Charles Buchanan, Chief Executive Officer of Manston Airport, said:

"The implications on the local and wider East Kent economy of restricting our operating hours beyond the proposal we previously submitted is estimated to be in the region of £30m a year, and even brings the airport's financial viability into question. This may not just be a question of the scale of benefits that the airport can bring to the area, but whether there is a viable business at all under these restrictions. What we are trying to do is build a regional airport here in Kent which requires an ability to be able to compete on a level playing field with the likes of Stansted, Luton and Gatwick, as well as airports on the continent. Restricting our operating hours will fundamentally affect the economic viability of the airport. It will reduce our ability to attract passenger and freight services and secure based airlines, which would offer a greater range and frequency of scheduled passenger services."

Low cost passenger airlines require flexibility of scheduling to maximise aircraft utilisation to be able to offer the more popular destinations such as Spanish sunshine resorts. Based airlines also provide a wider range of employment opportunities from flight deck and cabin crew to aircraft engineers to support the operation. Charles Buchanan added:

"An excellent example of what can be achieved with the correct conditions is the recent announcement by easyJet of their new base at Southend Airport. The airline is to operate three based aircraft at Southend and is able to offer low cost services to Alicante, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Belfast, Faro, Ibiza, Mallorca and Malaga. Unless Manston can receive a level of night flights consistent with our proposal, this kind of development will be denied to us; it seems to me that such services would prove extremely popular with the local community. Successful regional airports are also an important factor in attracting businesses into an area. A thriving Manston will have a positive impact on the ability to secure new companies not just for Manston Business Park, but also for Discovery Park, the former Pfizer site."

The report concludes that the ability to handle some aircraft movements between 23.00hrs and 07.00hrs would be necessary for Manston to attract airlines, such as low-cost operators, with planes based at the airport, as well as handle greater levels of freight from around the world. Charles Buchanan continued:

"Persuading airlines to base planes at the airport is fundamental to our ability to maximise the benefit that the airport can bring to the Thanet economy. By doing so we will be able to develop a range of destination opportunities for local people, while bringing increased numbers of visitors to the area. Despite the on-going poor economic situation we remain confident that airlines will choose Manston and build upon our Flybe services and charter services."

The report highlights the impact on the airport's ability to secure freight traffic. Stringent restriction of flights between 23.00 and 07.00 GMT would effectively put the vast majority of countries, which export fresh produce into the UK, beyond the reach of Manston's freight handling team. Charles Buchanan added:

"World fresh produce markets operate on narrow margins. Growers need to pick, pack and despatch within a day to extend the shelf life for supermarkets and customers. Regularly this means most flights depart for the UK in the evening even allowing for the time differences around the world, stringent restrictions would effectively close the door to many freight customers who want to use Manston. Our produce handling speeds are better than any other airport in the UK, where fresh produce often has to be unloaded, moved to a warehouse, before being loaded onto a truck. We take the produce from the plane straight to the truck with no double handling and delay. This means that loads are on the roads within minutes of landing giving a further day on the shelves and making us more attractive to freight operators."

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 were allowed. It was also estimated that the Kent airport would deliver nearly £65 million GVA a year to the local economy by 2018 if its Master Plan development is realised.

The findings of the York Aviation study are consistent with the airport's Master Plan and the owner's commitment to developing a South East regional airport offering scheduled passenger services, chartered flights and handling international freight. Charles Buchanan concluded:

"We recognise that the issue of the airport's operating hours is a high profile one within the District. We will be submitting further detailed proposals in the coming months and then Thanet District Council can present them to the public for consultation."

Source: Manston's website

bit.ly/nQAZlW

Open and Shut Basket Case 2

Night flight ban could crush Manston

Airport chiefs at Manston say restricting night flights at Manston could strike a huge blow to the recovery of the local economy - and put the site’s very existance in doubt. According to the final part of independent research into its future economic impact, imposing stringest restriction could cost an estimated 1.3 million passengers and 67,000 tonnes of freight by the 2018.

The airport wants to expand its flight times as it seeks to grow - but opponents say such a move would create more noise for residents. Thanet District Council has been split by the proposals - with the Tory group backing them and Labour opposing. The Conservatives hold a one-seat majority at the local authority.

The airport has already tabled a proposal that would control and limit the amount of flying permitted at night. This business will be lost to the airport and the area if the more onerous restrictions, being suggested by the Labour group on Thanet District Council, were to be imposed.

The final conclusion of the report suggests restrictions on night flights would increase the airport’s financial losses, making it untenable for any owner. According to the report, the ability to attract and retain a full mix of passenger and freight services will be dependent upon the ability to schedule flights during the night, both now and in the future.

As a result of the loss of trade due to restricting night flights, the report estimates that the airport’s potential to create jobs will be cut by almost half, from over 2,000 people directly employed in airport activities to just 1,102 jobs by 2018. The report, carried out by York Aviation, leading experts in this field, also concludes that the airport would support 484 fewer indirect jobs in the local economy over thesame period.

Charles Buchanan, chief executive officer of Manston Airport, said:

“The implications on the local and wider east Kent economy of restricting our operating hours beyond the proposal we previously submitted is estimated to be in the region of £30m a year, and even brings the airport’s financial viability into question. This may not just be a question of the scale of benefits that the airport can bring to the area, but whether there is a viable business at all under these restrictions. What we are trying to do is build a regional airport here in Kent which requires an ability to be able to compete on a level playing field with the likes of Stansted, Luton and Gatwick, as well as airports on the continent. Restricting our operating hours will fundamentally affect the economic viability of the airport. It will reduce our ability to attract passenger and freight services and secure based airlines, which would offer a greater range and frequency of scheduled passenger services.”

Low cost passenger airlines require flexibility of scheduling to offer the more popular destinations such as Spanish sunshine resorts. Based airlines also provide a wider range of employment opportunities from flight deck and cabin crew to aircraft engineers to support the operation.

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 were allowed.

kentnews 18th Aug 2011

For more, see Needle & Threat