Fight The Flights London City Airport

Important News On FTF

2011-07-03T17:57:00.003+01:00

After almost 4 years of groundbreaking work and a legal challenge FTF are to merge with HACAN to become HACAN East London. FTF are honoured to be able to merge with HACAN who have a strong campaign history in ensuring that residents are represented fairly in all issues of aviation expansion and the associated environmental and health impacts.

The merger will happen during this month (July 2011). Members of FTF will be contacted with further information regarding the merger and who their main contact will be. The FTF website, Facebook and Twitter pages will be closed during July, however the FTF blog will remain open as a resource to all campaigners and to HACAN East London.

FTF would like to thank all of you whom were from us from the very beginning, those who joined us along the journey and will look forward to your continued support through HACAN East London.

Look Up In The Sky

2011-06-13T13:38:00.000+01:00

London City Airport Safety Risk : Cease all flights immediately

2011-06-09T14:01:00.003+01:00

- Flock of Swans in the London City Airport Crash zone - London City Airport admit swans pose a significant risk of bird-strike. - Airport tells residents a single swan can bring down a plane.

London City Airport has continued operating flights while acknowledging that a flock of swans located in the airports Crash Zone pose a significant risk of bird-strike and potentially putting passengers and the public in severe danger.

Bird-strike is the most common cause of aircraft accidents. To make matters worse the swans are located in the London City Airport Public Safety Zone - also known as the Crash Zone - which itself already has a heightened risk of an accident.

The Airport said that "an incident of this nature could cause serious threat to aircraft, passengers and the local area" and was a "matter of urgency" but has continued to operate flights potentially risking both passengers and the public.

London City Airport have already moved a flock and warned residents who they accuse of feeding the protected species that this may not be an option again and have implied that the swans may have to be culled.

Alan Haughton said "London City Airport have demanded that residents not feed the swans due to the safety risk yet continue to put those very same residents at risk with the knowledge that the swans could bring down a plane on top of them. There should be no grey area when it comes to safety. If there is this clear and present danger, flights should be halted immediately until the swans are relocated."

Ends.

Alan Haughton 0790 515 6922

(1) London City Airport swan risk information sheethttp://stopcityairportmasterplan.tumblr.com/post/6350244741

(2) LCACC in April informed of the risk.
http://www.lcacc.org/committee/minutes.html

(3) London City Airport PSZ map http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/170049DE-A707-4FE0-A341-FC1856FE9F7A/0/London_City_Airport_Safety_Zone_MapT5.pdf

London City Airport to start paying it's own Police Bill

2011-05-03T22:55:00.005+01:00

At Last.......

London City Airport is to start paying it's own Met Policing Bill which they have expected Tax Payer to Pay for years.

Tax payers have been paying over £5.5 million a year for this private hedge fund owned businesses security. They refused to pay while expecting to be allowed to expand their business in one of the most densely populated and impoverished boroughs in the UK.

LB Newham have let this business that has brought little regeneration to East & SE London away with breaking the Section 106 agreements, increasing the noise and air pollution and did nothing to push for London City Airport to pay their own way while the rest of us had to pay towards their security.

This is one small win for the little people who London City Airport continually run over with their increasing negative business in this part of the UK.

Sir Simon Milton

2011-04-12T08:50:00.004+01:00

We are extremely saddened to hear that Sir Simon Milton, Deputy to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, passed away in hospital yesterday.

FTF were invited to meet with Sir Simon at City Hall and found him willing to listen to residents concerns and a very courteous and polite individual.

Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this very sad time.

Airportwatch Statement on the Budget: APD on Business Jets

2011-03-23T15:07:00.002Z

AirportWatch, the national network of airport community campaigns, welcomes the Chancellor’s proposal in the Budget to tax flights taken on private business jets. HACAN Chair John Stewart, who chairs the network, said “This move is long-overdue. In the forthcoming consultation we will be urging the Chancellor to raise Air Passenger Duty by at least the rate of inflation each year. Ideally the rate of inflation plus 1%. The fact of the matter is that aviation remains under-taxed as it pays no VAT and no tax on its fuel.”

Contact John Stewart on 0207 737 6641; 07957385650

High Court setback serves to help campaign take off

2011-03-23T12:22:00.005Z

This is an article from This Docklands 24 on the FTF Campaign. You can read it from HERE...

A negative High Court decision would derail many campaigns, but for Fight the Flights (FTF) it has had the opposite effect.

Membership for the group, which was formed in 2008 in response to the application to increase London City Airport (LCA) flights by 50 per cent, is rising rapidly since the decision, according to campaign member Barry Griffin.

“Membership has tripled since the court case because somany people are unhappy with what’s happening,” he says. “It’s now around the 200 mark – people on the mailing list and those who keep in contact.

“We have business owners, unemployed people and members from all ethnic backgrounds.”

FTF’s legal team are working on an appeal to the January decision to allow annual flight traffic to increase to 120,000. The group, made up of 12 core members, now claims cross-borough support from Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Newham and Waltham Forest. But initially it struggled to get any recognition.

“At the start we were very polite and thought that as residents the councils would listen to us,” said FTF member (and chairman of his own campaignStop City Airport Masterplan) Alan Haughton.

“We were knocking on doors and having doors slammed in our face – and and at some point we had to kick the door in basically and say actually you have to listen.”

Mr Griffin, who works in marketing by day and handles FTF’s online activities during his spare time, stresses there is no anti-LCA sentiment.

“I have flown from LCA before – I can see the viability and why people would want to use it but it’s not down to saying, well, ‘let’s make ourselves bigger because we want a larger catchment area’. We’re just against the expansion.” The group questions the overall need for flight expansion in London and welcomes high-speed rail and projects such as Crossrail.

But the number of flights isn’t its sole grievance. Mr Griffin, who has livedin an apartment in West Thamesmead since 2005, a mile from the tip of the runway, says the type of planes that use the airport is equally crucial to the case.

“At first I wasn’t affected or I wasn’t as bothered because it was mainly props [propelbyler instead of jet-propelled planes].

“The key change was from props to jets. The airport had around 30 per cent jets but with an increase to around 60 per cent of jets, that is going to have a dramatic effect on your lifestyle. ”

Friends of the Earth represented FTF at the court case against Newham Council, but the group has not been ‘hijacked’ by non-local environmental organisations, says Mr Griffin.

“We are generally interested locals that are now looking at the bigger picture and are interested in the wider environmental aspects.”

He maintains FTF just wants equal media coverage for its concerns, and a two-way dialogue with the airport’s management, both of which he says hasn’t happened so far.

“The message we were getting from the press was the airport was a fantastic business, it’s a viable business, one of the biggest businesses in the area, so of course we’re going to report everything and anything that goes on there.

“But we are a campaign that also has information and detail about the airport”

FTF Launches Legal Challenge Fund Appeal

2011-03-22T14:11:00.001Z

FTF to Appeal High Court Decision

In 2009 Newham Council voted to approve the 50% flight expansion at London City Airport, taking the current annual air traffic movements up to 120,000 a year. With the help of our lawyers at the Friends of the Earth’s Rights & Justice Centre, we legally challenged the decision at the High Court in November 2010. We did this by pointing out that the climate change and air quality impacts of the expansion had not been considered properly.

Dissapointingly the judges did not rule in our favour and said that local authorities do not need to take account of the new policy target from the previous government of reducing aviation emissions back to the 1997 levels. The government however have not issued guidance to Local Authorities and until they do airport expansion and the associated growth in aviation emissions will go unchecked, making aviation emission targets impossible to meet and further damage our environment and community. This decision has the potential to negatively impact on every current and future campaign against expansion, and already there are indications that this decision has been used to justify expansion at another airport.

Our legal team have advised us that there are good grounds for an appeal of this decision at the Court of Appeal and we feel that due to the possible implications of this decision on all expansion plans that it is essential that we do appeal.

We Need Your Help

We are now seeking your assistance to help us continue to put social justice, the environment and the health and welfare of the communities at the heart of this planning decision. FTF residents all work, but are not able to afford to fund a legal case themselves and are campaigning in one of the most socially deprived borough in London,which severely limits funding directly from residents.

We are seeking funding for the legal costs of an appeal from organisations or individuals who have an interest in protecting our environment and of promoting social justice, and the health and safety of some of the most deprived areas in the country. We are particularly looking to other campaigners/campaign groups and residents from other airport areas who believe they are at risk from expansion plans and the impact of the FTF High Court Decision. We would appeal to those groups/NGOs and individuals to make a donation to our appeal fund due to the wider implications of the decision on their campaigns and work.

We are more than happy to meet to discuss our campaign, and the legal case in further detail at request. If individuals wish to donate an amount, small or large please contact us to find out how you can donate or use the PayPal service linked on the right hand side of the page at:

http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/

London City Airport expansion has been an expansion by stealth and one which many residents are still only finding out about, despite it now being regarded as a major airport. FTF has played a key role in raising awareness and continues to lobby on the issues and impact of expansion. We have built ourselves a credible reputation: being asked to speak at various events such as Progressive London, UCL and the Houses of Parliament. We continue to believe that London City Airport is one of the most harmful expansions in the country, due to it's location in the most densely populated area of the country.

FTF wants the communities to be treated fairly, and they have not. We cannot meet climate change targets by allowing unfettered flight expansion, nor can we improve, or even maintain the quality of life or health of the residents in these areas all the time the London Borough of Newham is listening to business rather than environmental and health facts and not acknowledging the impacts on neighbouring boroughs.

Please help by giving generously to the Legal Appeal Fund.

Aviation wants YOU to PAY and it'll scream and scream and scream until you do

2011-03-03T14:50:00.009Z

Today we see a fightback from the aviationisatas to the campaign against those dirty tax dodging firms who simply don't want to pay their dues in the UK. Aviation are crying about how hard life is in their business, this is something they excel at. Despite all the freeloading they already do at the expense of tax paying residents in the UK they are upset: oil has gone up to over $100 a barrel and rather than pay VAT themselves they sat back and saw Air Passenger Duty be created so the government could collect some type of tax from that specially treated sector, aviation. You can read all about it here, including comment and feedback.

Lets just consider just a few of the perks and negative effects that aviation has over other businesses in terms of finance:

1. It is rated as zero VAT - this means it pays no VAT on fuel, servicing or parts. Triples all round on that one eh?

2. It's has a privileged position in terms of reducing emissions, don't ask us how it's achieved it, we'll leave you to imagine: whilst we all take on the cost and responsibility of reducing emissions, aviation responds that 'they can't afford to reduce theirs'.

Can you really afford that extra VAT on those essential items in your shopping trolley each week? Well if you can't why not just say to your supermarket that you can't afford the VAT as it's too expensive and deduct if off the bill. Even better, why not try deducting it off your utility bills? Yes, the luxury of heating a home will become considerably cheaper if residents were given the same perks and 'special treatment' that the aviationistas receive.

Fuel poverty is not something the aviation industry has ever had to deal with, however it is most certainly something a lot of people have to deal with under the London City Airport flight paths. Oh yes, London City Airport are just one of the airports that are asking for more special treatment on taxes, the same airport that gets London Taxpayers to pay their £5.5m annual security costs for the MET and received £1,256,629.00 of taxpayer money from the London Development Agency between 2004-20011. Yes, London City Airport is insatiable for your money!!

3. In 2008 aviation created a £17.6 billion tourism deficit - it took this money out of this country and dumped it somewhere else. So at a time when we keep hearing business say that they need consumer confidence to spend more money in the UK the aviation industry want more state benefits/special treatment to help them fly more people, and their money out? We know who we'd like to fly out on a one way ticket, and it's not the tourists.

4. Then we come to that little issue of where and how aviation pays it's taxes. London City Airport - in various names just happens to be registered in the Channel Islands. We can't think why that would be, however it was suggested by a local resident that this could be due to them not wanting to pay UK taxes. What, LCY not want to pay their way - surely not!! City Jet is another - ask them how many of their staff are registered as employees and paid in the UK. So despite their staff being counted in the employment statistics at LCY it appears none are actually registered in this country as employees. They instead appear to be paid in Euros. So no tax for the UK there then either. We could continue, but we simply don't have the time to list all the misdemeanors.

LCY is situated in the third most socially deprived borough in the country, after over 26 years the airport has had not had any tangible impact on helping improve the fortunes of the very people and communities that are subject to excessive air and noise pollution as a result of it's activities.

London City Airports (Public Safety Zone) & The Thames Olympic Cable Car

2011-02-25T16:56:00.001Z

London City Airport and it's Chief Executive Richard Gooding were today criticised for it's 'corporate conspiracy of silence' around its Public Safety Zone impact Boris Johnson's Cable Car application.

The Cable Car is a joint application between Transport for London and the London Development Agency from whom London City Airport have received £millions in taxpayer subsidies. [1]

TfL claim London City Airport raised no 'crash zone' objection and assured them that there was no issue relating to the Cable Car going through the Public Safety Zone. Richard de Cani told planning committees that London City Airport had no problem with the Cable car going through the safety zone.

London City Airport have refused to confirm this to be true and has refused to respond to questions relating to the crash zone. Did London City Airport tell TfL , as TfL claim , that there was no issue relating to the Cable Car and the Public Safety Zone? Did London City airport raise the crash zone as an issue at all?

London City Airport did raise an objection on safeguarding yet have studiously avoided any mention or comment about the Public Safety Zone
a far cry from their objection to Crossrail developing in the same zone. In a petition against Crossrail to the House of Lords they stated

"The worksite proposed as part of the Crossrail proposals at the Connaught bridge falls within the Public Safety Zone at the western end of the Airport. This is contrary to the objective of the Public Safety Zone which is to minimise the number of people working or congregating within the Zone" [2]

Newham Council have a safeguarding policy relating to London City Airports crash zone but since the application the Supplementary Planning Guidance has been found to be incomplete and the key DfT Circular Guidance section 18 on Transport Infrastructure has been completely omitted while maps are modelled on pre-expansion planning approval. [3] [4]

Alan Haughton said

"London City Airport's silence is deafening. Richard Gooding must now make his position clear. Has London City Airport told TfL that it's ok to build the Cable Car through it's Crash zone?"

ENDS

Spokesperson - 0790 515 6922

(1) TfL Cable Car application update http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/corporate/cable-car-update-leaflet.pdf

(2) Crossrail / House Of Lords London City Airport objection http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/014/l63.pdf

(3) Newham Council Supplementary Guidance for London City Airport
http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/1F1E5159-6CB2-45E1-B719-D6597CB9EDE7/0/LondonCityAirport.pdf

(4)DfT Public Safety Zone Circular http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/safety/circular012010/

Boris Johnson's Cable Car funding plunges into crisis

2011-02-21T09:57:00.003Z

Tower Hamlets Residents Group Press Release:

Boris Johnson's Cable Car funding plunges into crisis.

- Newham Councils Clive Dutton declares Cable Car fully funded.
- TfL deny private funding in place.
- Boris Johnson's Cable Car private funding promise in pieces.

A Campaign against Boris Johnson building a Cable Car through London City Airport's crash zone have uncovered that funding claims are completely unfounded.

Clive Dutton , Newham Councils Director for Regeneration last week told an influential group of planning strategists at the NLA that the Cable Car was fully funded.

Not so say Transport for London who just issued us with this reply,

"Funding arrangements for the scheme are still being finalised,although we anticipate that third party contributions, fare revenues and sponsorship will be key elements"

This is a far cry from TfL and the Mayors original claims of it being private sector funded. Fare revenue and sponsorship will not generate cash till after completion so where will the funding to build the project is still a mystery.

TfL's own Cable Car Consultation document stated that:

"TfL will not be paying to build this project. Instead, the project will be privately funded and discussions are taking place with interested third parties"

The Mayor of London Boris Johnson has also stated

"The aim is to fund the construction of the scheme entirely from private finance"

The Mayor has already moved £1.2 million of taxpayer funded London Development Agency money into the scheme.

Resident Alan Haughton said

"We have gone from Cash Crisis to Crash Crisis. What should have been a simple, environmental way to cross the Thames has played out like an episode of The Office. Bad management, building through an airports crash zone , costs going from £25 million to £40 million and still no funding. Now if Boris Johnson could just perfect a David Brent style dance routine we may have found our opening act for the London Olympics"

ENDS

Contact - 0790 515 6922

(1) NLA - http://www. newlondonarchitecture.org/ event.php?id=227&name=nla_on_ location_investing_in_newham

(2) Cable Car Consultation Document http://www.architectsjournal. co.uk/Journals/1/Files/2010/7/ 5/PRINT%20FINAL.pdf

(3)BBC Funding report http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ mindthegap/2010/12/12m_cable_ car_may_not_be_ready.html

(4) £1.2 million authorisation. http://www.london.gov.uk/who- runs-london/mayor/mayoral- decisions/md727

NOT GUILTY Of Annoying The Airport By Complaining About Aircraft Noise

2011-02-16T15:02:00.006Z

Press Release From GACC

An elderly lady was recently arrested, at the instigation of Gatwick Airport, for lodging too many complaints with the airport noise complaints line. She was charged with the criminal offence of using a telephone to cause annoyance or anxiety – although she only spoke to an airport answerphone set up to receive noise complaints.

Ann Jones of East Grinstead has been found NOT GUILTY. As Ann told the court: “It was not me annoying the airport: it was their aircraft which were annoying me.”

GACC chairman Brendon Sewill commented: “It is a disgrace that this case was ever brought. It has wasted a great deal of police time, court time and public money, and has added to the suffering of an elderly lady.

Ann Jones had adopted the tactic of ringing the airport answerphone each time she heard a plane. Although unusual, the court decided that this was not illegal. As Ann said: “What is the point of having a complaints service if one can’t use it to complain?”

The court heard that each of her calls was prompted by a specific aircraft (she did not call during periods when aircraft were routed elsewhere) and often drew attention to the fact that she had been woken by aircraft as early as 5.30 am.

“Many of our members are frustrated” Brendon Sewill told the court “by only getting an answerphone, never a real person.” The court also heard that the airport staff were under instructions not to discuss Mrs Jones’ complaints with her nor to make any response, and that Mrs Jones last had a response from the airport in 2006 and was naturally frustrated and angered by the airport’s refusal to respond.

“We hope that Gatwick Airport will now find better ways of handling complaints from people distressed by aircraft noise,” said Brendon Sewill. “Misuse of the legal system to intimidate complainants is unacceptable"

2011-02-15T11:03:00.001Z

For Immediate Release

Boris Johnsons Cable Car application decends into chaos

- Application withdrawn from Mayors Office
- TfL instruct NATS to do emergency safety assessment
- Newham Declare Cable Car fully funded and work to begin shortly

Boris Johnson's desire to see a Cable Car from Newham to Greenwich across the Thames has decended into farce.

The Cable Car application is through the London City Airport Public Safety Zone , also referred to as a "crash zone".
The application has now been withdrawn from the Mayors Office pending a safety assessment.

Objections sent to Newham and Greenwich Councils at the planning stages have now been sent to the Mayor regarding the potential disregard of the DfT PSZ Circular.

Greenwich Council have confirmed that they were asked to recall the application in a bid to extend the Mayor's 14 Stage 2 decision powers. GLA Planning have stated that it will be up to Newham Council to whether the application must be reheard.

TfL have instructed NATS to assess the risks of a Cable Car through the London City Airport Crash Zone in whats appears to be a complete reversal.

Transport For London's Richard de Cani stated at Newham Planning that

"The public safety zone issues relating to the London City Airport were not material considerations for the Cable Car. "

The NATS emergency safety report appears to completley contradict de Cani's claims.

He also claimed that London City Airport were specifically consulted on the Crash Zone. London City Airport have failed to respond to repeated queries asking to substantiate this claim.

Meanwhile Clive Dutton, Newham Councils Executive Director for Regeneration, Planning and Property stated at the NLA Conferance that the Cable Car is fully funded , has planning permission and will begin work soon. TfL have refused to comment on the funding situation.

Resident Alan Haughton said

"Boris Johnson's desire to see a Cable Car across the Thames for 2012 is an Olympic sized mess. The planning application has ignored key safety guidelines and objections. Newham Council supported the London City Airport expansion and were fully aware of the increased Public Safety Zone. Newham Council want two bites of the same cherry regardless of the potential human cost"

Nobody from Newham Planning was available for comment.

END

Spokesperson - 0790 515 6922

DFT Circular http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/aviation/safety/circular012010/pdf/circular
TFL Cable Car project http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/15959.aspx
De Cani quote - Newham Planning Minutes http://mgov.newham.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=7824&T=1
Newham Planning application http://pa.newham.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=LB1OZDJY01R00
NLA - http://www.newlondonarchitecture.org/event.php?id=227&name=nla_on_location_investing_in_newham

Major study finds sleep deprivation increases stroke and heart disease risk

2011-02-14T20:13:00.001Z

HACAN PRESS RELEASE:

For immediate use

Email campaign launched to ban night flights at Heathrow

The week after a major new study linked chronic sleep shortage to increased risk of heart disease and strokes, HACAN has launched an email campaign to persuade MPs to back its call for a ban on night flights at Heathrow before 6am. Residents can email their MP and MEPs via the HACAN website: www.hacan.org.uk

The new study, released last week by Warwick University , is one of the biggest-ever into the effects of sleep deprivation. It is based on the experiences of hundreds of thousands of people across eight countries. Chronic short sleep produce hormones and chemicals in the body, which increases the risk of developing heart disease, strokes and other conditions such as high blood pressure and cholesterol, diabetes and obesity, according to Dr Michelle Miller of the University of Warwick.

She and Professor Francesco Cappuccio, who co-authored the report published in the European Heart Journal, followed up evidence spanning seven to 25 years from more than 470,000 participants across eight countries, including Japan , the US , Sweden and the UK .

Professor Francesco Cappuccio said: "If you sleep less than six hours per night and have disturbed sleep you stand a 48% greater chance of developing or dying from heart disease and a 15% greater chance of developing or dying from a stroke."

HACAN Chair John Stewart, “The evidence is overwhelming. Sleep disturbance damages our health. We are calling on people to back our email campaign to end night flights at Heathrow before 6am”.

Last month HACAN published a study from consultants CE Delft which found that sleep disturbance at Heathrow was costing the country so much money in terms of poor health, early death and low productivity at work that it would almost certainly help the economy if flights were banned before 6am.

The current agreement with airlines on night flights at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick comes to an end in Autumn 2012. The Government is expected to start consulting on a new agreement later this year.

ENDS

For further information:
John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

Press Release dated 14/2/11

This Saturday: Grounded – A session on the future alternatives to airport expansion

2011-02-14T11:48:00.004Z

Progressive London Conference

This year, for the first time at a Progressive London conference, the future of aviation and the demands for airport expansion will come under the spotlight when leading campaigners and activist speak at a session on the future of aviation on Saturday 19th February at the TUC.

Among the speakers will be Anne –Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights who have led the campaign against the expansion of City Airport, John Stewart from the successful campaign HACAN who led the fight against a third Heathrow runway, and London Assembly Member Murad Qureshi.

The session on aviation links in with other discussions during the day, including sessions on the environment and transport.

With over twenty sessions and 50 speakers, the third annual Progressive London conference on the 19th February at the TUC is at the centre of the debate for finding the alternatives – of showing that there is an alternative.
Progressive London Conference - This Saturday

19th February 2011,
Congress House, Great Russell St, London WC1H
10am–5pm

Register now!
£10 (individuals) £6 (unwaged)

London City Airport Ground Staff Look to Set Strike Over Conditions

2011-02-11T11:16:00.004Z

We are well aware that there have been issues with staff conditions and contracts at London City Airport over the past year. Disgruntled staff have been contacting us during the time and we know that they have also been in contact with Stephen Timms MP over the issue. They are very very angry at what they call 'appalling treatment' they have been at the receiving end of. It appears that the issue is now coming to a head, as reported by the GMB press release beneath. The problems just never end for LCY:

Ballot London City Airport

Friday 11th February 2011

GMB CEC ASKED FOR PERMISSION FOR STRIKE BALLOT FOR GROUND STAFF AT LONDON CITY AIRPORT IN DISPUTE OVER TREATMENT AND TERMS & CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

If GMB members vote in favour of strike action this will have an impact on all CityJet, Air France and KLM flights arriving and departing from LondonCityAirportin March

The GMB Central Executive Council (CEC) which meets on Tuesday 15th February 2011 will be asked to give permission for an official strike ballot for ground staff at London City Airport. The staff are employed by an agency Aviation Resources and provide checking-in and dispatch services for the airlines CityJet, Air France and KLM flights. The dispute is about pay, treatment and terms & conditions of employment.

CityJet has refused to sanction a pay rise given the level of inflation since 2008. The employer Aviation Resources, is wholly reliant on each airline for the pay and conditions of employment of the staff they supply. CityJet management is also accused of bullying tactics. A typical example is where CityJet told a new mother on her first day back to work following the birth of her baby boy that her ‘grooming needed attention’ as she had ‘put on weight’. The airline is insisting she remove her nose stud, which is integral to her religious beliefs. She is now off work having been sent home whilst the CityJet Manager who gave the orders remains at work.

In addition, CityJet has also demanded changes in terms and conditions of employment. CityJet has insisted that the part-time mothers loose their flexible rosters that they have had over past years and go on to general rosters. These will impact badly on their childcare arrangements and ability to work at the airport.

GMB members have already voted by 97% for industrial action in a consultative ballot of all the members working on the CityJet contract at London City Airport. GMB has offered to go to mediation at ACAS and is awaiting a response from the members’ employer Aviation Resources.

Stephanie Attwood, GMB Organiser said: “CityJet’s behaviour is from another era, running roughshod over people’s rights and dignity with no regard to race, religious or family commitments. It is only a matter of time before the balloon goes up.

The GMB CEC will be told that CityJet is the problem. CityJet itself has refused to negotiate with GMB and compounds this by refusing to allow Aviation Resources to have meaningful discussions with GMB. Unfortunately, the other airlines could get caught in the crossfire and I urge them to seek to influence CityJet to put things right as soon as possible.

If the GMB CEC gives permission for an official strike ballot and if GMB members vote in favour of strike action, this will have an impact on all CityJet, Air France and KLMflights arriving and departing from London City Airport in March.”

End

Contact: Stephanie Attwood, GMB Organiser on 07793 211525 of GMB Press Office: Rose Conroy on 07974 251823 or Steve Pryle on 07921 289880.

Noted to Editors: CityJet, Air France and KLM are all part of the same group.

Whilst you pay more VAT: No VAT is charged on aviation fuel or flights from airports within the EU.

2011-02-11T09:16:00.004Z

It seems all money that aviation (London City Airport) take from the London Taxpayer, as per yesterday's posts here and here, is simply not enough! For an airport and industry that likes to make wild claims about how much they contribute, they certainly seem keen to take a lot from you the taxpayer. The Channel Islands also seems to be a favourite place of London City Airport for registering business too. Strange that.

Few people are aware that aviation pays no VAT on aviation fuel and flights. We can only welcome the news in The Guardian that 'TakeVAT' is highlighting the issue of how much these and other tax breaks are costing the tax paying public. We can only hope that TakeVAT builds and builds.

Take VAT plans action against companies avoiding the 20% tax

Protest group inspired by UK Uncut activists to stage first action against groups avoiding VAT
It was formed less than six months ago, but the success of UK Uncut's non-violent, direct actions is inspiring similar protest movements. One of these, Take VAT, stages its first actions on Saturday.

Take VAT, which describes itself as a "UK Uncut-esque" action group, was formed last month to raise awareness of companies that avoid paying VAT.

These range from companies such as HMV and Tesco, which use a VAT loophole to sell CDs and DVDs VAT-free from the Channel Islands, to airlines. No VAT is charged on aviation fuel or flights from airports within the EU.

Hedge Fund Owned London City Airport Make More Unbalanced Claims

2011-02-10T17:14:00.014Z

Since the the 18th November we keep hearing about a report that the City of London Corporation have paid York Aviation to carry out. Interestingly, the media have referred to it on various occasions since, but low and behold, none of them had seen the report when we questioned them. So all the spin and claims were without any reference to evidence for the past few months.

Today we see more over exaggerated claims from the airport about their self claimed contribution to London.

"As well as direct economic benefits, it has also levered investment in public transport, in particular the DLR extension to Woolwich Arsenal"

Really, they invested so much in the DLR? Transport from London and the Transport Select Committee didn't seem to think their contribution was so great as we wrote in a blog item in November 2008:

At the Select Committee on Transport 9 May 2007, yet again it appears that London City Airport c/o Richard Gooding has been shirking it full financial responsiblities. The moths must really build up in LCAs gold coin purse. Before reading the following, keep in mind that LCA consistently tells residents in Newham that LCA is responsible for the regeneration, particularly in the Royal Docks. They have indeed even claimed that it was down to them that the DLR came to town, always inferring that they have invested so much finance into the area and into the DLR - seems they didn't invest as much as they'd like you to think:

Q595 Chairman: How do you think dedicated services ought to be funded from airports as public transport?

Mr de Cani: The DLR extension has been funded primarily through Transport for London so it is publicly funded. However, there are small contributions through planning gain agreements, section 106 agreements. London City Airport has made a small contribution to the extension of the order of about £2 million. That compares to a capital cost of about 140 million. We would have liked it if they had made a bigger contribution and we tried to do that but the railway is serving a whole range of other objectives and contributing to the regeneration of east London so this extension was not just about the airport. We think they got a good deal.

Chairman: I am sure they did.

So they 'levered' in £2 million out of £140 million towards the DLR. So that adds up to just over a 1.4% contribution, the rest picked up by....surprise, surprise the London taxpayer! Still, going on how difficult it is to get money out of London City Airport (see reference to security costs) then we can imagine it really did have to be 'levered'.

As for LCY being the main regenerator of the area, it is arguably Exel that is the driving force bringing in £1.6b annually (just a little more than the claimed £500m by the airport!), without the noise and air pollution and whom have won awards for their wormery. The best you'll get for 'green initiatives' at LCY, is a photo of a paper shredder, as proudly displayed in their application for expansion.

Richard Gooding was quoted as saying: “Whilst we have to do everything we possibly can to mitigate environmental impacts, we run into the trap of ignoring the benefits,”

Well there's one thing that London City Airport haven't done and that's ignore the benefits, the business welfare benefits on offer to them: particularly those from the London tax payers purse through all the millions of pounds of subsidies from the London Development Agency. But don't forget the £5.5m+ a year security bill which they simply refuse to pay because they think you, the London tax payer, should pay it for them. Yes, the London tax payer is paying for a private hedge fund owned airport!

So when your council cuts your services, closes down your libraries, reduces your policing due to the economic environment at the moment: question whether London City Airport are being told to sling their hook and pay their own £5.5 million security bill, repay the £24 million security costs they've had over the past 5 years or so, and repay all the tax payer funded monies they have been given by the LDA over it's lifetime? Apparently we're all in this together, aren't we? So if your communities funding is being cut, why would tax payers money continue to be given to a privately owned airport?

Richard Gooding is correct in referring to an 'unbalance': there is clearly a very big imbalance between the amount of London taxpayers money which has funded the airport and how little is given back to Londoners. It's ironic and strange, for an airport that claims it is 'integral' and a key source of regeneration that after 25 years that Newham is still one of the most socially deprived boroughs in the country.

It must have been really helpful for that lowest tax band increase on the lowest earners to help subsidise private businesses like London City Airport. Never mind where the money comes from or at what cost eh?

Private Hedge Fund Owned London City Airport Given Millions Of London Taxpayers Money

2011-02-10T12:41:00.009Z

£50,000 to develop a website, £1.6million towards the construction of an additional apron...oh and £5m+ a year to pay for airport security.

In a recent Freedom of Information request to the London Development Agency it was revealed that between 2004 -2011 London City Airport received: £1,256,629.00 of London taxpayers money from the LDA alone.

This is just the tip of the iceberg of how London taxpayer public monies are 'given' to a joint private hedge fund owned airport: London City Airport.

Clearly, we are not all in it together at all. Shocking!

Sources:

London Development Agency:

http://www.lda.gov.uk/Documents/FOI_354_Support_to_Airports_Airport_Operators_(9_April_2009)_4925.pdf

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/55647/response/144452/attach/4/SCANNED%20FOI%20575%20Response%204069926%201.PDF.pdf

Greater London Authority:

Len Duval, GLA Member Lab, asked a question in City Hall in 2007 about LCY's unwillingness to even contribute towards it's own security costs - LCY continue to let London taxpayers pay 100% of their security costs.

Question number 0043/2007
Meeting date 10/10/2007
Question by Len Duvall

I am not asking you to comment on the planning application; it is more about the commercial engagement with London City Airport . Are you aware that London City Airport provides no cost towards the security of its perimeters and, in a sense, that we and part of the GLA family are subsidising them? Before you enter into commercial agreements with London City Airport or give any undertaking that security, the primacy of security around our airports and users of airports comes first and therefore that they should not be subsidised by London taxpayers, they should make a contribution like other airports; even Heathrow are cooperating in that. There seems to be a real problem with London City Airport ; they do not seem to want to even engage in a conversation about costs and they are quite adamant they are not going to pay it. Do you see that as being a part of a discussion that you may wish to have to them before you exercise any commercial deal?

Answer by Manny Lewis, LDA
Given that you have raised it, Len , absolutely, in terms of the Metropolitan Police Service position. I am not familiar with those security issues; you have alerted us to those. We need to follow those up both with the Metropolitan Police Service as well as with TfL and we will certainly now factor that in.

_____________________________________________________

Article taken from the Newham Recorder but which has now been removed from the Recorder's webpage:

THE Metropolitan Police Service has spent £24 million policing London City Airport in Silvertown over the past five years, it has emerged.

The figure came to light after London Assembly Green Party member Jenny Jones tabled a question on the cost. Mayor of London Boris Johnson's written response detailed the money spent on policing in each of the last five financial years.

In 2004/05 it was £2 million, £5.5 million in 2005/06, £5.3 million in 2006/07, £5.5 million in 2007/08 and £5.6 million for the current financial year.

______________________________________________________

Parliamentary Questions:

Neill, R - Airports use of Regional Development Agency funding
Robert Neill (Conservative Communities and Local Government Minister): To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills what payments each regional development agency has made to airports in the last 12 months; and for what purposes such payments were made in each case.

Pat McFadden (Business, Innovation and Skills Minister): The following table shows RDA payments to airports in the last 12 months.

RDA
Payments to airports in the hundreds of Thousands
Purpose

AWM
£170,000
This relates to preliminary costs in respect of the project to extend the main runway at Birmingham International airport.

LDA
£1,050,000
This was a payment made as part of a £1.6 million Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) grant to London City airport. The grant was a contribution to a wider £39.8 million project to construct additional apron over the north-west corner of the George V Dock, increasing stand space and providing an extra runway link.

ONE
£416,000
This is comprised of: (a) four payments to Newcastle International airport to finance route development support to Copenhagen , Bergen and Krakow, as well as the cost of hiring a meeting room; (b) three payments to Durham Tees Valley airport for route development support to Warsaw as well as gap funding for economic development at the adjacent business park.

EDITOR’S NOTE:

AWM – Advantage West Midlands; LDA – London Development Agency; ONE – One North East; EEDA – East of England Development Agency; EMDA – East Midlands Development Agency; NWDA – North West Development Agency; SEEDA – South East of England Development Agency; SWRDA – South West Regional Development Agency; YF – Yorkshire Forward.

'Air Talk'

2011-02-09T19:58:00.000Z

A short film about air and relatedness in an atmosphere of noise.

Evening Standard Cover Boris/TFL Cable Car/ London City Airport Crash Zone Saga

2011-02-09T13:31:00.005Z

Boris Johnson's London cable car 'will cross airport crash zone'

Pippa Crerar, City Hall Editor

Boris Johnson's plan for a cable car across the Thames was in doubt today after it emerged the route will cross a "crash zone" around London City Airport.

Residents have raised serious safety concerns and called for a delay until an investigation takes place.

They say the cable car will pass through the extended public safety zone that would come into force following an increase in flights of up to 50 per cent. It means up to 340 people at any one time could be at risk if a plane crash-landed or overshot the runway. The cable car, approved by Greenwich and Newham councils and the Thames Gateway Development corporation, would carry up to 2,500 passengers an hour between North Greenwich and Royal Docks. Continued on the Evening Standard here

Transport for London, London City Airport and The Cable Car

2011-02-08T07:51:00.010Z

Pictured above: CAA revised London City Airport PSZ Map

We've been closely following the story of the cable car crossing from North Greenwich to the Royal Docks in Newham and the issue around the Public Safety Zone (PSZ/crash zone). Many of you will know we are fairly familiar with matters of the PSZ and have written about it many times before which can be seen here, here, here and here.

Transport For London (and interested parties) want a cable car to cross the Thames, from the South to the North and land at the West end of the Royal Docks, Newham. There's just one problem though: the cable car goes right through the current PSZ of London City Airport. Low flying planes on landing and take off, a cable, cable houses, and an estimated 5000 travellers an hour, all at the end of London City Airport's runway. It's a bit like putting an electric fan heater in the far corner of a bathroom and hoping that it doesn't get splashed with water (please don't take anything electrical in the bathroom, it is a hazard to life). If an incident were to happen where the cable was broken, it appears the whole cable car system would be affected. We do not want to see anything like the Cavalese Cable Car Incident happen in London.

It appears however that the authorities wish to down play, or actually ignore the PSZ policy which is written by the DfT. Richard de Cani , Director of Strategy and Policy at Transport for London, who submitted the planning application, even went so far to state in the Newham Council Planning Meeting minutes that:

"The public safety zone issues relating to the London City Airport were not material considerations for the Cable Car. "

So that's alright then!

What concerns us is that TFL choose to ignore something as important as your safety when the DfT have clearly put a policy in place for all airports to protect and reduce the risk to persons in the areas each end of runways. TFL did however suddenly find an interest in the PSZ as they spent a considerable amount of time and days on this blog during the week of the planning meetings.

The DfT circular on the PSZ policy is quite clear: no new developments are to be built in PSZ areas and the people present in the PSZ should be reduced over time. There is a clause for low intensity transport, but 5000 passengers an hour dangling in cable cars from a cable that goes right across the PSZ and flight path of London City Airport flights is not 'low intensity'. The PSZ has grown as the planes have got bigger and more flights are allowed, so the size of the PSZ is simply a further blight on the use of land in East London for regeneration, but it seems that some authorities want to have their cake and eat it, especially if the risk is someone elses. Who better than the unsuspecting public?

Even London City Airport themselves raised the concern of Crossrail using an area of land within the PSZ in the Royal Docks and objected in their petition to the House of Lords:

"The worksite proposed as part of the Crossrail proposals at the Connaught Bridge falls within the Public Safety Zone at the western end of the airport. This is contrary to the objective of the Public Safety Zone which is to minimise the number of people working or congregating within the Zone.Aircraft operations at London City Airport cannot be modified to accommodate the extent of activity in this area. Should such activity be deemed to be unsafe by the Civil Aviation Authority , restrictions may be imposed on the aerodrome licence , which would severely curtail or prevent commercial operations......."

We are told that Transport for London's Richard DiCani was alegedly clasping an out of date PSZ map as his justification for not needing to consider the PSZ at one of the planning meetings. However considering the ATWP is quite clear that any planning authority considering applications around an airport should always take into account the full masterplan, and that the Civil Aviation Authority had released a new PSZ map in mid December to both Greenwich and Newham Councils (which is a notification, not consultation, there is a distinct difference between the two) which clearly indicated that the cable car was to travel through the PSZ.

The extent of the PSZ (albeit different to the most recently published map) had also been indicated in predictive maps in the London City Airport expansion application, so there is really little excuse for the PSZ and the associated risks not to have been fully considered as required by the DfT circular and policy.

What is even more surprising is that it is very hard to find where the PSZ has been properly addressed at all in the Cable Car application process and three authorities went ahead and approved it 2 weeks ago. It is that which appears to have raised enough concerns from Friends of the Earth and a local Tower Hamlets resident to challenge this approval, both of whom we are assured fully support a cable car, but not at the expense of the safety of those on the ground and passengers.

The latest development in this sorry saga is the release of a wake turbulence report from London City Airport (more to follow on this in the coming days!). The cable car not only sits in the PSZ, it also sits in the wake turbulence path as modelled by Halcrow. At the Greenwich Planning meeting it was stated that "the applicant has been advised by London City Airport that wake turbulence will not be a significant issue". Considering the reports indicate that there have been two incidents of wake turbulence damage recorded (considerable damage to a roof of a building in one) and it appears these have been so since the introduction of larger jets, it seems that the focus should be on the word 'significant'. Wake turbulence is heard 3-4 times a week at the end of the runway, and cannot be ruled out as not a risk to the cable car system at all - hence the use of the word 'significant' no doubt! We suspect that most passengers in the cable car would not wish to be caught up in a wake turbulence vortex, not unless they were expecting a white knuckle ride across the Thames.

To illustrate the impact of wake turbulence on the ground, let alone to a cable car, this may assist: "In the late 1970s I was driving north on I-5, passing the end of SAN Lindbergh Field. A Delta L-1011 was just touching down on 27 and I noticed that a palm tree in the median of the freeway was flailing wildly. A moment later the vortex hit me. It almost rolled my VW bus over." More documentation of just how serious it can be read here and here.

We will be posting a lot more on wake turbulence, what it is and what residents experience in a wake turbulence attack in the coming days.

Now objections have been submitted to the Mayor of London Boris Johnson and he has been requested to call the application in on safety grounds. Boris is going to have to deal with just one of the consequences of his support for London City Airport expansion now, how untimely that it should come so soon!

We are just struck by how the PSZ suddenly became less important and one that apparently local authorities can afford not to fully consider to protect the safety of individuals around airports.

HACAN PRESS RELEASE: Deluge of complaints on night flights

2011-02-07T11:53:00.001Z

Campaign group HACAN has been deluged by complaints about night flights following the publication of its report two weeks ago (1). The group has today released a digest of some of the emails they received from people outlining how they are disturbed by night flights (2). The emails came from as far afield as Greenwich and North East London.

HACAN Chair John Stewart said, “We have been inundated by emails and phone calls since we published our report on night flights. Of course not everybody is woken up by night flights, but for those people who are, there is no escape from the noise. For them, night flights gave become a regular nightmare. The first plane coming over at 4.30 am is their alarm clock.”

HACAN is calling on the Government to ban flights before 6am. The current agreement with the airlines runs out in October 2012 (3).

Last month’s report published by HACAN showed that a ban would be likely to save the country money. The report, from the respected Dutch economists CE Delft, found that a ban on night flights before 6am could benefit the national economy by as much as £860 million over a 10 year period. The big savings would be in the monetary costs associated with sleep deprivation. Because of the huge number of people living under the Heathrow night flight path, these savings could be expected to outweigh any loss of income to the aviation industry.

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

1. The report, which looked at the economic impact of a ban on night flights at Heathrow, was launched in the House of Commons at a meeting hosted by Zac Goldsmith MP on 27th February. The report is on the HACAN website: www.hacan.org.uk

2. The digest is attached.

3. Every 5/6 years the Department for Transport enters into an agreement with the airlines using the country’s three ‘designated’ airports – Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick – on the number of flights permitted during the ‘night quota’ period (from 11.30pm – 6am). At present at Heathrow 16 flights are allowed (averaged over the year). They are all landings. There are no scheduled departures, though some are allowed in emergency situations. The first landing aircraft arrives around 4.30 am. In the full night period (11pm – 7am) there are over 80 flights.

For further information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641; 07957385650

Press Release dated 7/2/11

FTF's Formal Response to the CAA's Consultation of Future Airspace Strategy

2011-02-03T22:28:00.002Z

RE: Formal response to the CAA consultation on Future Airspace Strategy (FAS) 2011 – 2030

Introduction:

Fight the Flights (FTF) is a residents group which was initially formed in 2007 to campaign against the expansion of London City Airport whilst considering the environmental and public health effects of the operations of the airport in this most densely populated area of the country. FTF now also performs a watchdog role upon the operations of London City Airport and the management of planning conditions by Newham Council aswell as political lobbying. FTF provides information, advice and support to residents in any area affected by London City Airport flights and has formed an alliance with HACAN due to the accumulative effect of both Heathrow and London City Airport flights over a vast area of south and east London.

We welcome the invitation to positively contribute to this consultation and look forward to continuing positive dialogue with the CAA in the future. We are particularly pleased to see that the environment has been highlighted as one of three drivers of new policy and a willingness of the CAA to look at things 'radically'. We also welcome a focus on reducing noise. These are all points that could have a positive impact in improving the quality of life and health of residents in east and south London and across the UK as a whole with associated gains beyond in regard to reducing emissions and the impact of aviation's contribution to global climate change.

We would like to raise our concern that at this first stage the consultation appears to be solely aimed at the aviation industry. We feel that it is imperative that communities and NGOs are included and have accessibility to contributing to such a consultation in the very first stages. This essentially promotes a balanced starting point, with all interests being dealt with equally at the same time. We appreciate that the consultation material is technical, but it should not be assumed that such data cannot be grasped by those outside of the aviation industry. However we do feel that it would be best practice to always present the data and text in a way that is generally felt would be accessible to the widest audience possible. This should also take into account equal opportunities on a wide scale and be shaped accordingly. We appreciate this offers challenges in itself but we feel a consultation that is inclusive and accessible adds value in the long term and enables positive dialogue to be built whilst acknowledging equal opportunities.

Further Research Required

FTF welcomes the new strategy offering a chance to review flight paths and the acknowledgment and commitment that ‘.... careful analysis is required to understand the issues .... [such as] concentration versus dispersion of aircraft routes across the ground.’

Research is needed to assess the disturbance caused to people by dispersing flights over what are currently lightly/not flown over areas against the disturbance caused by the concentration of flights. The impact of both methods needs to be fully understood if the best case scenario is to be secured. We would not advocate a move that removes the problem of noise from one locality only to drop it upon another area which would simply move the problem to another set of people. We do however support an approach in which the impacts of the options on communities are fully researched and decisions made upon independent and objective analysis, providing a basis for fairness and transparency.

Research is needed into the way aircraft noise is measured. Leq is outdated and simply does not reflect the noise levels that communities experience: we would like to see this replaced by Lden and in doing so, see the measurement fall in line with the EU. The ANASE report reflected much more accurately the noise that residents and communities actually experience and we feel strongly that the previous government made an error of judgment in they way that it de-valued and discarded the findings. Since the introduction of the Embraers: E170 and E190 at London City Airport it appears that low frequency noise is a particular problem and appears to be prevalent in these newer aircraft. Since a sizable proportion of noise of landing aircraft is caused by the airframe, low pitch noise may be a significant, but under-recorded, element in noise complaints

London City Airport Flight Paths

In the past year we have seen considerable disruption and annoyance from residents who have found themselves newly affected or beneath a more intensified flight path as a result of the SIDS changes at London City Airport. The impact and changes have been discussed with the CAA over the past year in written exchanges and meetings. The impact of these changes have been further compounded by the constant heavy volume of Heathrow flights crossing east and south London in readiness to join the CDA to Heathrow.

The height of aircraft on take off from London City Airport is held down in order to pass beneath Heathrow flight routes. Keeping LCY flights at this lower level, whilst also making a sharp turn upon taking off into the West has the effect of compounding aircraft noise over a concentrated path, but wide area of east London. We welcome the suggestion in the draft strategy that in a redesign of air space an endeavor will be made to remove such restrictions.

Although there are claims in the wider realm outside of this consultation regarding aircraft noise having reduced over the last decade this is not what the communities, both those local and some considerable distance away reflect. At London City Airport this has been due to massive increases in flight numbers, and also in the size of aircraft, and most particularly in noisier profile jets replacing quieter profile propeller planes. It is worth us pointing out that it has been the ever increasing amount of jets at London City Airport that forced the SIDs change in 2009 and which have also had an all round effect of causing more disruptive noise events throughout the day. This is of course in addition to the constant stream of Heathrow traffic above the layer of London City Airport aircraft. It is the ceiling of Heathrow planes and the forced lower level flight of LCYs that further concentrates aviation noise levels over south and east London.

In recent years the problem of disturbance to people living under the Heathrow and London City Airport approach path has been getting worse, partly because of the increase in the number of aircraft movements from both London City Airport and Heathrow. Aircraft are larger and Air Traffic Control is instructing aircraft to join the straight ILS path further out (for Heathrow), and improvements in navigational equipment mean that for the final approach all aircraft now follow a narrow track. People living directly under the flight path up to 30 miles east of Heathrow airport suffer a continuous stream of aircraft overhead and above the stream of London City Airport aircraft that operate at a lower level.

The decision to instruct most Heathrow aircraft to join the ILS glideslope further out has brought disturbance to new areas further east. Other areas previously overflown have benefited, but for those people adversely affected the situation has become intolerable. They feel it is totally unfair that they should be made to suffer the whole burden. Residents find that the more noise events (i.e. individual aircraft flyover) there are, the more disruptive they find it. Frequent lower levels of noise are considered worse than the occasional higher noise: constant noise brings the feeling that there is no escape from it, and for some this leads to desperation. This is indicated in the complaints that residents make to our group and other bodies. Many have found themselves becoming actively involved in lobbying and campaigning for the first time in their lives as a result of the increase in aircraft noise and disruption to their lives.

Concentration or dispersal?

There is strong support from residents in some areas for a curved final approach on Heathrow ILS paths, this should be introduced in order to enable aircraft to join the glide slope nearer the airport and thus reduce the problem of concentration in those areas.

The draft Strategy recognises that any new flight paths would need consultation. There is a case to be made that it would be fair to share the misery of noise from curved flight paths joining the ILS, however the impact on residents should be fully considered and any decision should be based on the assumption of fairness. Any area faced with increased aircraft overhead will wish to be fully consulted and feel that the impact upon them has been fully considered and compared with alternatives. We cannot highlight enough the need for inclusiveness and transparency in the consultation and decision making process.

Continuous Descent Approach

A considerable amount of noise is generated from Heathrow aircraft banking over east and south London to join the ILS. We were advised by the CAA that pilots are told (in regard of best practice) to glide the aircraft when joining the ILS, however it is clear that this is rarely carried out. We have been informed that there is considerable variation between the airlines training of pilots to minimize noise. However there is no regulation, nor recording of the noise of aircraft joining the ILS and therefore the issue fails to be addressed. Without identifying which aircraft and pilots are not using noise reduction methods when possible, the situation cannot be improved. However with the use of noise monitoring of aircraft from beneath the flightpaths a positive improvement in noise levels could be achieved with best practice.

Climate Change

We would welcome a focus on reducing emissions and hence the impact on climate change. This would of course be in line with the Governments Aviation Policy target of returning aviation emissions to 1996 levels. The direct routing of aircraft would contribute in some way towards this and minimize disruption for some areas.

We feel that the section dealing with strategy on climate change is somewhat misleading: The statement ‘Aviation CO₂emissions currently account for [..]1.6 % of global GHG emissions’ is indeed the global figure but it is relevant to acknowledge that UK airport departures account for about 6% of UK total emissions. In addition this figure is set to increase considerably in future years if aviation expansion is to continue. By presenting only the global figure it does not give a clear picture of aviation emissions in the UK at all. The majority of aircraft seats in the UK are filled by UK citizens, therefore the climate change attributable is even higher. Any strategy should therefore be based on a realistic assessment of the damage caused by air travel.

In addition it is stated: The [IPCC] review estimated in 2050 under ‘business as usual’ projections that CO₂emissions from aviation … would account for around 5% of the total warming effect in 2050. Airlines often quote this in order to minimize their responsibility to reducing emissions, but again this is misleading. The 'business as usual’ term makes the unrealistic assumption that neither Britain nor any other country will take any action to reduce C02 emissions during the next forty years. The CAA should not build an Air Space Strategy on an uncritical acceptance of airline propaganda and to do so would be irresponsible and short sighted.

The draft Strategy refers to the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) advice that the UK aviation demand growth should be restrained to around 60% by 2050 if it is to be compatible with the target of keeping CO₂emissions no higher than 2005. The Strategy is at fault in not mentioning that the CCC considered this equivalent to a 55% increase in the number of flights. It therefore appears wasteful and irresponsible for the CAA to base the draft Strategy on an 80% growth in flights. Indeed an 80% growth, not by 2050 but by 2030.

We would like to see the Air Space Strategy revised to take into account the recommendations of the Climate Change Committee.

Other comment

We would like to reiterate the value that any decisions which will have an impact on communities should be fully researched and are based on objective analysis and fairness. We do not support a moving of a problem from one area only for it to be given to a new area. We very much value looking at positive and fair solutions to mitigate and improve the quality of residents lives and environment in a fair and transparent manner.

Greenwich Council Planning - PSZ? 'I know nothing'

2011-01-31T08:43:00.010Z

During the Christmas holiday, the team here at FTF were made aware of the Notification of the change to the London City Airport Public Safety Zone. This change was on the cards as each time London City Airport demands more flights and bigger planes the public safety zone enlarges to take account of increased risk in the nearest landing and taking off areas at each end of the runway.

The Civil Aviation Authority are now responsible for the administration of the Public Safety Zone. The Department for Transport write the circular on the PSZ, and the local authority in which the PSZ sits is the authority responsible for ensuring that the numbers of people in the PSZ is ideally reduced over the years, and that no new buildings or structures are allowed to be built which would increase the numbers of people in the area. But considering that Greenwich and Newham Councils have just approved around an estimated 2,500 people an hour travelling on a cable car which goes straight through the PSZ, and that Greenwich Council claimed that the none of the cable car travelled through the PSZ then it makes you wonder if they are simply incompetent or like to water down the interpretation of the safety rules when it suits them. The councils and Transport for London may wish to consider the Cavalese Cable Car disaster in 1998 to focus their minds on why it might not be a good idea to put a cable car through the Public Safety Zone of London City Airport.

So the indication is that Greenwich has little regard to the PSZ, it certainly didn't worry about it when it supported expansion and by doing so immediately put thousands of properties in Greenwich in the noise contour, and double figures of homes in the crash zone. So how were residents in those areas to know that they were going to find themselves in those areas? Unless residents read through page upon page of the planning application for expansion or had found us nobody indicated to them how they would be affected. None were told to expect to have their windows sealed up and ventilation installed, none were told in advance that their properties were going to be in the PSZ crash zone. That is a scandal in itself.

However the administration of the PSZ is in good hands with the Civil Aviation Authority, but no matter how much work the CAA do, it cannot do the work of the local council.

In mid December the CAA called Greenwich Council Planning's head Steve Pallet and advised them of the notification of change to the PSZ and requested that there be an area where residents could look at the PSZ map in the council office, in addition 35 letters were sent out by the CAA to the dwellings that now fall into the PSZ. We are advised that Steve Pallet of Greenwich confirmed that there was an area where the map could be viewed from. Greenwich were advised that the items were being posted to them and they were duly posted on 20th December 2010.

FTF were made aware of the PSZ notification on 4 January, and noticed that Greenwich Council were listed in the document as having the map to view and this being within a set consultation/notification period. On 5 January FTF called Greenwich Council Planning to arrange to view the map and were advised that they knew nothing about it, that the planning officer was away on holiday for the week and that only he would be able to deal with it. FTF was told to call back a week later but decided to email Steve Pallet the link to the document and highlight that the map should be available during the whole of the consultation period, not just when his planning officer returned from holiday. Greenwich Council's Steve Pallet made no attempt to respond to the email.

By Thursday 27 January FTF were concerned that Greenwich had made no contact in response to the email or phone call so we made contact with the Civil Aviation Authority and then Greenwich Council once again.

Greenwich Council claim to have never received the information in the post, claiming it may have been lost in the weather conditions. FTF raised concerns with the CAA that residents may not have received notifications and had not had access to the PSZ map and asked if they would consider extending the consultation/notification period. The CAA responded by leading by example and confirmed they had re-posted not only the documents to Greenwich Council but also to all the 35 dwellings affected and had extended the notification period, essentially starting the whole process from scratch.

In our opinion the Civil Aviation Authority went the extra mile to ensure this notification was flagged up to the planning department in mid December. Few organisations would call ahead of actually sending the paperwork through and ensuring that the map would be available to view. We'd like to thank Kate at the CAA for being so responsive to our communication and efficient in dealing with the issue as unlike Greenwich Council, concerns were raised, addressed and the practicals were all completed in just one day.

What concerns us is that Steve Pallet was asked about the availability of the PSZ map on 5 January 2011, and now that we know he was called by the CAA in mid December you would have thought that his department would have checked to see if the documents had arrived, and if not followed up with the CAA. But no, Steve sat on the email and no action was taken at all until FTF once again chased the document on 27 January. In 3 weeks Greenwich Council had made no attempt not only to contact FTF but also to call the CAA to enquire about the PSZ information that Steve Pallet had been told was to be with him in days after the phone call of 20 December 2010. If we hadn't of chased this, Greenwich clearly would have made no effort to contact the CAA to enquire the whereabouts, and in fact never did. It was the CAA who made the contact. Residents in the Greenwich PSZ could have found themselves yet again let down by Greenwich Planning.

The council have been consistently sloppy and careless over anything to do with London City Airport which affects land/properties/residents in Greenwich from day one, they had to be chased to respond to the original airport planning application for expansion (when a resident called 2 days before the deadline the planning officer said the consultation pack was on the floor and he hadn't looked at it, never mind that no residents in Greenwich at that time had been consulted directly. FTF were solely responsible for ensuring that each household in the Thamesmead Moorings area (the area in the crash and noise zone) of Greenwich received a consultation letter on the expansion from Newham Council. We also had to chase Greenwich on responding to the airports noise action plan.

Could Greenwich Council systematically fail the residents in the most affected areas from London City Airport any more than they have done for the past 3 years? We think not.

The Notification of Change to the London City Airport Public Safety Zone notification period now runs until 14 March and is open to comments which are to be submitted to the CAA. The PSZ map affecting West Thamesmead, SE28 is now on display at Greenwich Council Planning Department, Crown Building, 48 Woolwich New Road, Woolwich, SE18 6HO.

Thamesmead will suffer after London City Airport expansion

2011-01-28T08:23:00.004Z

From Bexley Times 24

Thousands of residents will suffer an extra 40,000 planes flying overhead every year after the High Court upheld a decision for the expansion of City Airport.

Campaigners in Thamesmead, which is directly under the flightpath to the airport in London Docklands, say it will mean a huge increase in noise and pollution now the plans have been given the go-ahead.

Pressure group Fight the Flights lost its judicial review against Newham council’s decision to approve the expansion plans. Now the group’s director, Anne Marie Griffin, of Melbury Road, Thamesmead, said it is considering appealing again.

She said: “This will increase flights to 120,000 per year from the current 80,000. It means noise will double. There are now 35 homes in West Thamesmead which are in the airport’s crash zone, meaning that if nothing was there already, it would not be allowed to be built for public safety reasons.

“A lot of people in this area do not have the option of moving as it is not an affluent area and a lot are in social housing or have just got on to the property ladder. They are stuck. It is going to be terrible.

“We are looking at having a flight overhead every 90 seconds. The numbers of jumbo jets from the airport is increasing so the noise is already getting worse.”

The campaigner, who set up the protest group with her husband Barry Griffin, said properties could also be damaged by the vibrations from the vortex left after the plane crosses the Thames, which is similar to a tornado.

Another resident Charles Saxby, of Hazlitt Court, Thamesmead, said that he is often woken from the sounds of planes to and from the airport.

He said: “Newham council without consultation have given the OK to an increase in flights to and from City Airport. I can see myself running around in the middle of the night with my handheld extinguisher pulling people out of a plane that has crashed on its way to City Airport. I hear planes from City airport well before they are overhead.”

The decision by the High Court last Thursday comes a week after London Mayor Boris Johnson renewed his call for a £40billion airport to be built in the Thames Estuary, an idea he first aired in 2008.

A report published last Tuesday and overseen by Transport for London deputy chairman Daniel Moylan said the UK economy would suffer and London would lose jobs to its European competitors unless a new airport was built in the South East.

Erith and Thamesmead MP Teresa Pearce said the High Court’s decision was not good news for Thamesmead’s residents, adding: “Their lives are already blighted by living under the flight path of City Airport. My concern is that any increase in flights would lead to increased noise and pollution. Also it does not seem right to me that a decision has been made by one authority who may benefit from that decision without due consultation with the residents of representatives of Thamesmead, who are the people who have to live with the noise, pollution and risk of having low flying aircraft above their heads day after day.”

A spokesperson for the airport refused to comment on how the expansion would affect Thamesmead residents but did provide the following statement: “We are delighted with the decision to uphold the planning approval granted by the London Borough of Newham in July 2009 to increase the annual number of flight movements at London City Airport to 120,000.

“This is great news for London City Airport and Newham and will allow us, and our partner airlines, to continue our key role in supporting the local, regional and national economies and providing new local employment and training opportunities. The decision also enables us to continue supporting the much needed regeneration and investment which London City Airport has helped bring to east London over the past 23 years.”

European Aviation CO2 emissions figures for 2010 - UK and Heathrow are WAY ahead of EU countries or airports

2011-01-27T09:14:00.005Z

RDC Aviation

EU Aviation Emissions Report. Quarter 4 2010

Contains much more data. Below are some key figures.

CO2 Estimates By Country – December 2010

European Aviation emissions - Tonnes CO2

Country

December 2010

Rolling 12 months (all 2010)

United Kingdom

3,534,971 (26%)

44,900,745

Germany

2,462,258 (18%)

31,411,992

France

2,049,766 (15%)

25,001,122

Spain and Canary Islands

1,320,057 (10%)

17,034,457

Netherlands

1,090,748 (8%)

13,300,655

Italy

985,905 (7%)

13,245,207

Portugal

287,316 (2%)

3,709,925

CO2 emissions by Airport

Tonnes of CO2

Airport

December 2010

Rolling 12 months (all of 2010)

London - Heathrow

1,356,374 (16.4%)

16,227,256

Paris - Charles De Gaulle

816,199 (9.9%)

9,849,611

Frankfurt

789,988 (9.6%)

9,892,726

Amsterdam - Schiphol

580,286

7,084,182

Madrid

456,994

5,430,924

Rome - Fiumicino

269,512

3,545,825

Munich

258,416

3,224,331

London - Gatwick

225,459

3,110,108

Paris - Orly

180,153

2,161,269

Milan - Malpensa

143,438

1,822,088

Brussels

141,951

1,702,166

Total - All Airports

8,231,627

107,603,581

"The tables and charts depict estimated CO2 output from scheduled commercial aviation at an
origin or destination within the scope of ETS. The data has been generated using methodology for
calculating fuel burn and conversion factors as directed by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate
Change and ratified using proprietary RDC Aviation Ltd systems. Schedule feeds are taken from
Innovata."

Source Airport Watch

10% Decline in Flight Demand At London City Airport And The Taxpaying Scapegoats

2011-01-21T07:21:00.000Z

Think it's noisy now? London City Airport shamelessly breached its planning agreement 4 years ago, (and Newham took no action at all) by allowing almost 20,000 more flights to use the airport than allowed - taking them up to around 90,000 air traffic movements that year. That year was a nightmare, and for many it was the tipping point from not being bothered too much by LCY operations at all, to being very bothered about the increasing noise levels. Now the Civil Aviation Authority statistics show that in 2010 the air traffic movements (atms) have plummeted back down to 59,919 offering a respite of sorts - but one that is purely as a result of lack of demand and which will change as quick as demand for flights changes.

If you think current noise levels are a problem at 59,919 atms then just imagine what it will be like at 120,000 atms per year and the impact on the daily lives of 100,000's of East Londoner's. Back in 2008, John Austin the then Labour MP for Erith and Thamesmead made his concerns well known regarding the proposal to increase flights from 79,616 to 120,000 per annum:

“Many of my constituents are naturally concerned about increased levels of noise and atmospheric pollution if the planning application were granted. If permission is granted for an additional 40, 384 flights per annum over 260 week days, the airport will be allowed to operate an additional 155 flights per day".

So an 155 extra flights a day on top of the past allowance. If you are already affected things can sadly only get worse, and if you notice them but are not unduly bothered at the moment then be prepared as a 100% increase in flights each day will without a doubt further deteriorate already ridiculous noise levels and air pollution in the capital. We already know that noise levels in East London are comparable to those experienced in Kew due to noise research carried out, we also know that there is an ever building accumulative noise level of both London City and Heathrow jets overhead.

Surprisingly, Boris Johnson wants to make this worse for you too: he supports expansion at all airports apart from Heathrow, and in addition to continued expansion and more runways around the south east Boris Johnson wants a floating airport on the Thames Estuary. His plan isn't to replace other airport expansion, but to simply add to the capacity in the skies above us. These are the skies that both NATS and the CAA have already indicated that there is not enough space in. So what's changed? The aviation lobby, personal interests, politicians? Clearly the demand for flights is not there to support expansion plans despite their pulled out of the hat claims. LCY may keep spinning the PR of new flight routes, but they are not advertising how many flight routes have been dropped due to being unsuccessful and a lack of demand.

New flight routes being launched and then dropped at LCY within months does not indicate there is a demand from the public at all- Newquay to London City Airport was a great example. But of course at the time it was feted as having HUGE demand! Of course, that's why it's now completely disappeared off the timetable with many of the others. It's simply greed, and they can afford to be greedy: Aviation pays NO VAT and guess what: City Jet's new Boss on the block Christine Oumieres was reported on the Evening Standard website (sadly for some bizarre reason the item appears to have been pulled off the website yesterday - search for 'City Jet Tax' under the news category on Google and you'll find the listing):

"CityJet boss tells Government to look elsewhere for taxation targets‎"The boss of short-haul specialist carrier CityJet today fired a warning to the Government over making airlines a "tax scapegoat". ...

One resident commented:

"What a (bad) joke - no VAT or duty on fuel, no VAT on servicing, spares..... and they still can't make money? As the old soldier has it: "if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined". It can't be blamed on APD since "all those City types" whose vitally important travel is the airport's raison d'etre are able to claim back their travel costs as business expenses. So perhaps CityJet aren't charging enough".

Obviously airports like LCY refusing to pay their security costs to around the tune of £5million a year and letting London Taxpayers pay it for them, and ZERO VAT is just not enough for this aviation industry. I think we ALL know who the taxpaying scapegoats are here - and they are the taxpaying residents of London and beyond (especially those that don't even use the airport!).

2010 Total Air Transport movements for the whole year (CAA)

LONDON CITY 59919 -10.4

HEATHROW 449283 -2.4

GATWICK 233567 -4.8

STANSTED 143069 -8.3

City Airport’s expansion is a green light to increased misery for many more Londoners – Caroline Pidgeon

2011-01-20T12:53:00.000Z

CONTACT: Mark Morris, Senior Press Officer GLA Liberal Democrats, 020 7983 4336/ 07917214788

Immediate release: 20 January 2011

Caroline Pidgeon, Leader of the Liberal Democrat London Assembly Group, commenting on today’s Judicial Review decision upholding Newham Council’s decision to significantly expand London City Airport said:

"Many people in east and south east London are already facing serious problems with noise and disturbance from air flights. Today's decision provides the green light to increased misery for many more Londoners.

“I remain convinced that greater scrutiny should have been given to the initial planning decision by Newham Council. Questions also remain as to why Greenwich Council never objected to the planning decision despite the serious impact that the airport is already having on so many of its residents.

"Most significantly this decision sends out the message that the economic benefits of aviation are still being exaggerated while its environmental harm is largely overlooked."

ENDS

Press Release: DISMAY AS JUDGE ALLOWS NEWHAM’S GREEN LIGHT TO LONDON CITY AIRPORT EXPANSION

2011-01-20T11:44:00.004Z

Friends of the Earth press release :

Embargo: For immediate release, Thursday, 20 January 2011

Contact: Neil Verlander, Friends of the Earth press office, 0207 566 1649

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights: Tel: 07984 300558

Local people and green campaigners reacted with disappointment today after a High Court judge refused to overturn Newham Council’s decision to expand London City Airport. Campaigners are now considering an appeal.

Residents, represented by Friends of the Earth’s Rights and Justice Centre, took the council to court in November last year after it decided to allow a 50 per cent increase in flights. The community representatives argued that Newham Council failed to consider changes to Government policy on climate change and did not properly consult boroughs and residents in the surrounding area.

Reacting to the decision, Chair of local campaign group Fight the Flights Anne-Marie Griffin said:

“We are desperately disappointed by this judgement.

“London City Airport already causes major disturbance and pollution for people living locally – the disappointment we feel at this outcome will be shared by thousands of residents across East London who are severely affected by London City Airport’s operations but were not consulted about expansion.

“Without clear guidelines to local councils on aviation expansion, the emissions targets set have no hope of being met.

“Fight the Flights is currently taking legal advice as to whether to appeal.”

Friends of the Earth’s London Campaigner Jenny Bates said:

“Airport expansion will have a terrible impact on local people’s quality of life, as well as increase air pollution breaches and undermine efforts to tackle climate change.

“Many of the destinations served by London City Airport could easily be reached by fast rail travel.

“If this Government wants to keep its pledge to be the greenest ever it must develop a transport strategy which encourages people to use greener forms of transport over climate-wrecking flights.”

ENDS

Notes to editors:

1. The High Court hearing took place on Thursday 18 and Friday 19 November 2010 at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand in London.

2. Newham Council's decision to expand London City Airport by 50 per cent will increase flights from the airport from 73,000 to 120,000 a year. The decision was made in October 2008, after which Friends of the Earth's Rights and Justice Centre submitted a number of letters on behalf of Fight The Flights to Newham council in protest, raising the issues of climate change, air quality and race equality.

3. On 15 January 2009 the Government announced its intention to reduce aviation emissions to below 2005 levels by 2050. Newham Council issued a formal grant of planning permission at a meeting on 8 July 2009 without taking into account the Government's target in their decision-making.

4. Fight the Flights: http://www.fighttheflights.com/

5. Friends of the Earth's Rights and Justice Centre provides access to legal advice and representation to people wishing to use the law to protect their communities and the environment. The Centre operates a free legal advice line for members of the public on 0808 801 0405 (open between 6.30-8.30 pm on alternate Wednesdays).

6. Friends of the Earth believes the environment is for everyone. We want a healthy planet and a good quality of life for all those who live on it. We inspire people to act together for a thriving environment. More than 90 per cent of our income comes from individuals so we rely on donations to continue our vital work. For further information visit www.foe.co.uk.

The Public Safety Zone (Crash Zone) is getting bigger - will it cover your home?

2011-01-04T18:24:00.005Z

The Civil Aviation Authority has submitted a proposal to revise the public safety zone (PSZ) at London City Airport. The proposal can be seen here and most importantly maps are included so that you will be able to see if your property is currently or will soon be in the PSZ crash zone. Organisations and residents who will be affected are invited to respond. The closing date for submissions is the 2nd February.

More information about what a PSZ is can be found here. Long term followers of ours will be aware that we have raised multiple concerns about the PSZ and consultation procedures in the past, here, here, here and we are yet again dissapointed that it appears that the very people this change will affect have not been consulted and will be completely unaware of this proposal. Greenwich Council appear to have made no effort at all to ensure that the areas affected are kept informed by those responsible.

As a general view of the PSZ map the only residential properties covered by the PSZ are in:

West Thamesmead, Greenwich, SE28 therefore if you live in this area this is of particular importance to you.

No properties appear to be covered by the PSZ in Newham.

If you wish to respond to the CAA proposals and require assistance to do so please email: fighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk and we will do all we can to assist.

Boris Goes After Royal Family but Not London City Airport for Policing Bill

2010-12-31T15:33:00.005Z

FTF were fascinated to read an article in the Evening Standard today quoting the Mayor is to 'fight for the MET's £5million royal wedding bill'.

This does surprise us. Since Boris Johnson became Mayor he has not once showed the same concern about London taxpayers money in relation to London City Airport. Between 2004 and 2008 London City Airport cost London taxpayers £24million. This was for services provided to the airport by the Metropolitan Police.

The airport were asked by Len Duval (Greater London Authority member), when he was Chair of the Metropolitan Police Committee to contribute to some or meet all of the cost. Mr Duval quoted that the airport would not even discuss the matter. Therefore the airport continues to cost us London taxpayers millions each year as it refuses to pay ANYTHING TOWARDS IT'S SECURITY COSTS , essentially denying London Communities the services they pay for.

The Mayor of London may wish to provide his reasons for why he is going after the Royal Family for a one off £5million security bill for the Royal Wedding, but has failed to even raise the issue or seek the millions of pounds that London City Airport continue to dodge paying.

In view that the same report states that: 'The Met police is in financial dire straits, with a £30.4million cut in its Home Office grant this year having resulted in a freeze in officer recruitment and the loss of 955 posts' it is an absolute disgrace that the Mayor has continued to allow this free for all attitude for London City Airport security costs to continue.

HACAN: VAT goes up to 20%; Aviation still pays no VAT

2010-12-31T14:44:00.002Z

HACAN today highlight the ridiculous special treatment that the aviation industry are given over and above families who are struggling to make ends meet in these difficult financial times:

______________________

Press release - HACAN

Campaigners claim it is ‘deeply unfair’ to the rest of British industry and hard-working families that the aviation industry continues to be a special case

Campaign groups are calling for VAT to be imposed on aviation. The call comes on the day when VAT has gone up to 20%. Currently aviation is zero-rated for VAT. The consumer pays no VAT on tickets, airline fuel is zero rated and no VAT is due on purchases of new aircraft. Indeed, because of the zero rating, the airlines are VAT registered and can reclaim VAT on goods and services (1).

John Stewart, who chairs the Heathrow campaign group, HACAN, and also the national umbrella body of aviation campaign organisations, AirportWatch, said, “It is deeply unfair to the rest of British industry and to hard-working families trying to pay their bills that the aviation industry continues to be a special case. It also makes no sense that one of the dirtiest and noisiest industries on the planet gets away with paying no VAT. Add this to the fact it pays no tax on its fuel and the Chancellor is losing at least £9 billion a year.”

At the end of last year, the European Commission began consulting on a revision of its VAT Directive (2). A revised Directive could include the possibility of VAT being imposed on aviation by member states of the European Union.

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

(1) If aviation was exempt from VAT, it could not claim it back. The fact it is zero-rated means that it can.

(2) The consultation closes on closing date 31 May 2011

http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/common/consultations/tax/2010_11_future_vat_en.

For further information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641; 07957385650

Press Release dated: 31st December 2010

New Study: aircraft noise disturbs people at lower levels than previously thought

2010-12-17T11:34:00.005Z

Campaign group calls for flight path alternation to be extended to provide relief

HACAN, the campaign group which represents residents under the Heathrow flight paths, has called for action to be taken following a the publication of a new European Report which shows that people are disturbed by much lower levels of aircraft noise than previously thought.

The report from the European Environment Agency (1) indicates that over a million people are disturbed by aircraft noise from Heathrow, more than the three times the number admitted by the Department for Transport.

HACAN has published a short briefing, No Longer just a West London Problem, which shows how London is affected (2). The briefing was launched yesterday at a meeting in City Hall hosted by London Assembly member Val Shawcross.

HACAN Chair, John Stewart, said, “The new report from Europe backs up what our members have been telling us for years. Aircraft noise can be a serious problem for people living over 25 miles from Heathrow. In parts of East London it is made worse by the huge growth at London City Airport .”

HACAN is calling for the alternation of flight paths, which currently gives people in West London a break from the noise, to be extended to other areas of London and the Home Counties.

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

(1). The 2010 European Good Practice Guide (www.eea.europa.eu/publications/good-practice-guide-on-noise)

(2). Read Report Below

For more information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

Press Release dated 17/12/10

No Longer Just A West London Problem

London City Airport Continues to Fail Local Residents

2010-12-15T14:52:00.016Z

Or how the fat cats continue to use your tax money to avoid paying their own way and promote it as 'community work'.

London City Airport spend a lot of time on Public Relations. They go into overdrive, but spectacularly continue to alienate the residents who suffer the most as they are rarely, if ever made contact with.

The airport is keen at putting out press releases on how many t shirts it has bought, or how many hampers it has given away, or the latest christmas card competition for schools in Newham and Tower Hamlets, or how they've sent someone to talk to schoolchildren about careers. But the airport owes the community much, much more especially the residents. But it's the residents, and what they have to put up with, who are consistently ignored.

The airport currently saves £7 million every year by refusing to contribute to it's security costs to the Metropolitan Police. It would perhaps be admirable if the airport would simply pay up, but as a consolation the airport could offer that money to the charities and schools it wishes to support, rather than expect London taxpayers to pay 100% of their security costs in the first place. This selfish, greedy action of London City Airport deprives the London public purse of huge amounts of money which would indeed be filtered back down into policing and education as it should be.

Instead the airport goes for the cheapest deal of all and donated around £36,000 to charities last year. Not to be sniffed at of course, but read on and you will see the bigger picture. Some of those thousands will be the donations given directly by residents and passed through the middleman of LCY from the Funday etc. But for an airport that avoids paying £7m a year, it makes the donation look relatively small in comparision and clearly the impact of not paying the £7m has a far greater impact on reducing services to you, the resident in your community. Of course more public money from London tax payers was also poured into this private business owned by a bank and hedge funders GIP: the London Development Agency gave them a huge amount of grants to build additional aircraft stands and set up their LCY website! Can you believe it, they were actually given taxpayers money to set up their website, how many small businesses would ever get that help?

The public relations are clearly welcome to those that are receiving the gifts and advice, however there is one huge flaw: London City Airport continue to fail to engage fully and openly with residents who suffer the most. Not only do they fail to engage, they have consistently failed to put any plan together to effectively improve residents quality of life as a result of the airports operations. The draft noise action plan was a wonderful illustration of this - the airport felt at the time of drafting that nothing was bad, and there was no need for them to make any efforts to reduce or keep noise to the current levels - business as usual then! Those 1000s of individuals who make up East London, and who are the life and soul are invisible to London City Airport, they are the inconvenient truth, a reminder of the bad things that happen around airports, the pollution, the noise - all things that the airport prefers to ignore or deny.

Our argument is not that the airport are giving t shirts away or speaking to schoolchildren or donating money to charities, we think that is what any large corporate business who receives lots of public funding should indeed do: but is about why they are not proactively looking for solutions to improve the environment and residents quality of lives in the areas affected. They are IGNORING residents suffering.

It is a half baked PR strategy, a cynical one that completely ignores the ordinary resident of the streets, roads and closes that suffer intolerably from flights 7 days a week and if they have their way will simply get worse. It's always been the same at LCY, their communication with residents has been defensive, poor and of little help in providing accurate information. Residents have simply been left to pick up the pieces, year on year, and no better example was the one where residents were left to deal with the extra 20,000 flights the airport operated despite it being against the planning agreement. It translated into a noise nightmare that year and you know, they didn't care about residents, they, GIP were simply counting the dollars and pounds.

Ask yourself, what have LCY done to help you with noise and pollution from their operations? It's likely that a few of you have been told to keep your windows closed and have mechanical ventilation which is noisy,costly to run and leaves the room stifling, or they simply said they can't help you at all even though you live in the noise contour.

That, we are afraid, is the naked truth and no amount of PR trips to the local school are going to help the resident who has to put up with excessive noise and air pollution 7 days a week for almost every day of the year. Residents are simply left asking for help, and getting little or nothing in return whilst the MET are pretty much in the same boat with the airport, asking for their money but never getting it.

Perhaps it's time the airport put it's brave hat on,faced the residents and started looking at and working towards positive solutions to deal with the dirty noisy industry they want to make lots of money from at the expense of the local community. Residents have had no choice but to face up to reality, it's about time London City Airport did too.

London Assembly on City Airport expansion: local residents' views

2010-12-11T10:02:00.000Z

Development of Future Airspace Strategy - It could affect you

2010-12-08T13:44:00.005Z

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) have released consultation documents regarding how airspace over your homes will be used in the future. It is possible that any changes proposed may have far reaching consequences for you and your area.

FTF will be submitting a response, which when completed will be posted online. However we would urge residents to ensure that their local councils are aware of the consultation and are submitting a response to the CAA themselves.

The CAA consultation documents can be seen here.

New Government Funded Study Shows Significant Effect of London City Airport on Noise Levels

2010-12-02T09:42:00.010Z

A government funded, pioneering new way to measure environmental noise has shown the excessive noise levels that London City Airport brings to the Royal Docks.

The National Physical Laboratory (NPL), a world-leading centre of excellence in developing and applying the most accurate measurement standards, science and technology has just completed a case study on Greater London Authority owned land in Silvertown.

The case study, not solely focused on London City Airport but looking at all sources of noise in the area, involved using a new measurement based approach using multiple prototype noise sensors situated across the piece of land with a system called Dreamsys. The system has been proven to be accurate during the case studies and is expected to offer a more representative noise measuring method to work alongside predictive noise mapping currently used for environmental noise measuring. This system will also be financially more accessible and a unit is expected to cost no more than a high end mobile phone.

The data collected was used to create noise mapping and illuminating graphs indicating noise levels at particular locations on the site, and also consider different environmental noise factors. The noise data collected was then compared to the predictive noise maps (the technique already used, but felt widely to be insufficient in displaying the actual impact of noise on communities and fails to take into account accumulative noise effects). It was found that the new noise levels measured in the case study and compared to the predictive noise maps created by Hoare Lee were most similar at the nearest locations to the airport runway, however as you moved away the predictive noise maps became less accurate in representing the noise actually measured on the site. This can be seen here on the map points.

Of particular significance is the data collected during the volcanic ash flight ban last April. The MEMs DREAMSys units stationed on the Silvertown site measured a notable change in daily noise level - a 10dblaeq reduction. This translates as a 10db average reduction in noise levels.

NPL Dreamsys commented: "Lasting for just over 5 days for London airports, the grounding of flights was widely observed through the quieter skies and the absence of vapour trails, bringing discussion into the public domain on the usually unnoticed effects of air traffic".

This drop in noise level reflects measurement levels taken by FTF and local residents during the same period with the help of University College London's Mapping for Change enterprise and uploaded onto the Royal Docks Map. Richmond Council in West London also recorded a 10db drop in noise levels during the same period. Overall noise levels around London City Airport were also found to be comparable to levels under the flight path in Kew,West London based on a HACAN commissioned study carried out by Bureau Veritas.

The NPL Dreamsys data, is all available to view on user friendly maps which you can command to show you noise levels and the times of the noise here.

Dr Richard Barham, Principal Research Scientist in NPL's Acoustic Group commented:

"DREAMSys greatly expands the coverage offered by the measurement system in conventional equipment. It enables a large number of measurement points to be installed and used to continually monitor an area for months or even years. However, it is not intended that DREAMSys replaces prediction entirely. We hope that both approaches will complement each other, with the measurements being made in areas carefully selected on the basis that action plans would be significantly enhanced as a result. This shows the essential role that cutting edge measurement science can have in helping to meet specific challenges."

But overall the results of the NPL Dreamsys Silvertown case study offer many other illuminating facts from the real data collected:

1. London City Airport contributes excessive noise levels to East London and the peaks and troughs of each day perfectly reflect the times at which most residents express they are most disturbed by aircraft noise.

2. The issue of accumulative noise is raised - particularly road traffic and the DLR on the site. Not only did residents notice a huge decrease in aviation noise during the flight ban, but they also noticed a huge decrease in road traffic. London City Airport attracts huge amounts of road traffic with it's noise and air pollution, just under half of it's passengers arrive by private car or taxi. This makes a huge contribution to noise and pollution levels in Newham and the surrounding boroughs. FTF and HACAN have been actively lobbying for accumulative noise mapping.

Allowing airports to expand is not just about what happens within the terminal or on the runway - it has far reaching impacts across a very wide area. Accumulative noise impacts of aircraft with extra traffic, alongside pre-existing businesses should be always be part of any environmental consideration in planning. It suits aviation in general and London City Airport in particular to continue to ignore the impact of their business activities over the wider area, hence the keenness on the aviation industry on the current noise measurement methods they employ which fail miserably to represent what residents hear and what communities actually experience.

FTF welcomes the NPL's case study results at Silvertown and is excited at the prospect of Dreamsys being adopted more widely by local and central government but also the system being more affordable and accessible to many organisations and groups affected by excessive noise levels. Essentially, this system could offer government a better, more effective way to meet the EU noise directives, allow scrutiny and to promote better noise mitigation and management. It is a positive development and we hope it will be embraced. This should in turn influence planning decisions, and environmental and health impact studies as the effects of accumulative noise effects on communities has sadly been overlooked for too long. The cost of excessive noise levels on human health and develpment is something that needs to be looked at more closely, but an essential part of any such work needs to be supported by accurate and representative noise measurements to see localised cause and effect.

More press coverage can be found here, here and here.

London City Airport Fairground ride-like buzz all tax free

2010-11-23T13:13:00.006Z

This week we hear that landing at London City Airport is one on the most stunning airport approaches in the world "making for a fairground ride-like buzz". The Top 10 released by Private Fly is run by Adam Twidell who is an ex-RAF pilot and joined up with London City Airport to develop RAF Northolt for private jet use. Like London City Airport Private Jet centre, RAF Northolt security is fully paid for by us the taxpayer. London City Airports security alone is in excess of £5.5 million pa. The interesting fact about Private Fly's list is that London itself is the only major city over flown and London City Airport has the most densely populated surroundings. Flights pass over City Hall, London Eye, St Pauls and Canary Wharf to name but a few.

In light of the recent near miss over Hackney involving one of these private jets it is hard to believe that high profile, densely populated areas in a major city can be overflown while pilots get a "fairground ride-like buzz". The private jet centre at London City Airport directly contributed to the breaking of permitted flight allowances from the airport. Up to 15,000 private jets a year flew from the airport yet where not included in any ATM's (Air Traffic Movement)counts. They were just anomalies not included in any targets or totals yet residents got to breath the fumes and hear the noise from them. Plane Stupid highlighted this when they breached the LCY perimeter and locked themselves onto a private jet.

Meanwhile London City Airport are throwing around "economic impact assessment" figures with wild abandon and no proof. A report can be expected in 2011 showing how it benefits the economy to £500 million annually - the same as a large supermarket. The airport states that it contributes £21 million a year in air passenger duty. What they don't tell you is that the Private Jets pay no APD (Air Passenger Duty) at all - a loss to the economy of at our estimate of £1.5 million pa. Nor do they tell you they pay no VAT on the fuel they use. The only contribution these uber rich users make is to noise, air quality and climate change.

The Human Cost of London City Airports Expansion

2010-11-19T05:01:00.005Z

Over the past three years of the Fight the Flights campaign we have seen a steady increase in residents getting in contact with us. Over the past 18 months this has risen dramatically. What they all indicate is the problem of London City Airport (LCY) flight noise, and the accumulative effect of flight noise from both London City Airport and Heathrow, and how far the problem spreads out across East and South East London. We appreciate that London City Airport doesn't like to hear this fact (they have the advantage of not having to listen, unlike most residents under their flight path) but they have contributed significantly to bringing West London noise levels to East and South East London.

We have also noticed that the emails from residents have steadily become more and more unhappy, for many at the realisation that they are not entitled to any noise insulation despite having been given that impression by comments made by London City Airport and the planning authority, Newham Council, in the past. Others have been massively affected by the change of flight paths by the Civil Aviation Authority. Newham has readily passed the buck on this, as do London City Airport on this issue. But if London City Airport flight paths had to be changed due to jets not being able to use the same departure routes as the old propellor planes, who asked to use the jets, and who approved their use, and the additional flights in the past? Relevent points to consider.

Residents aren't buying the pass the buck scenario any longer as their private lives in their homes and communities have become increasingly invaded by the activities of London City Airport and of course also Heathrow. Bearing in mind that flights are currently down around 25,000 per annum on what they were 2 years ago, when Newham Council allowed London City Airport to breach it's flight limits by around 20,000, then you will appreciate that things are only going to get worse when flight numbers increase again. This is why it is essential that residents continue to speak out, write/email their local councillors, MPs, MEPs, GLA member, Civil Aviation Authority, local papers and complain to Newham Council, the planning authority for London City Airport, by email or letter. We appreciate that this takes time, but it is the only way that politicians will understand the breadth of the problem and take steps towards assisting you.

Residents are always welcome to contact FTF for help and advice and we will always do our best to assist or put you in contact with someone who can help. Please be patient if we take time to respond though, which can occasionally happen due to our workload. What is important is that if you have only began to notice aircraft noise and are disturbed by it recently then you understand that you are not alone. It is not unreasonable and residents are certainly not a nuisance if they complain. It is your right to complain if you are being negatively effected and we believe it is your right to expect to be listened to and for your concerns to be acted upon. There are 100,000s of residents who are experiencing the same right across London, you are most certainly not alone.

We'd also ask you to consider donating to FTF using the paypal facility on the website. FTF runs financially on next to nothing, but we do need to pay for things such as website domain costs and the odd ream of paper. Donations however small are very much appreciated! You can donate on Paypal HERE

In the meantime we'd like to share just a few of the comments we've received from residents which we feel indicate the impact of the dreadful blight of newer but bigger noisier jets at London City airport, increased LCY flight numbers over the years, the flight path changes and in addition Heathrow flights. These are the hidden stories of lives blighted by an airport that got too big for it's own good and was allowed to runaway with expansion over the years:

"I have lived [by London City Airport] for 58 years and since the introduction of the new jets the noise is insufferable. In the inseption of the STOLPORT the airport installed double glazing to all properties front and back. But since the introduction of these new Jets the double glazing is not fit for purpose and the airport should upgrade to sound proof from the noise is there anything that you can do for the residents in [my road]". Resident of Newham.

"I live locally near Royal Victoria. I share your view against City Airport expansion and the flight noise. I have written to Newham council complaining about the noise but so far the response is not meaningful (mayor has not come back at of today). What i was told that they categorise the plane by its noise emission so they can have less jet planes compared to more propeller planes (i really don't think Newham council keeps any record of how many jet planes fly out of the city airport every day). You are doing a great job for the local community. Keep up the effort!!!!" Resident of Newham.

"I have lived in this borough [Newham] for nearly fifty years, I have seen a lot of changes but this one is the worse, I cannot sleep at nights in the morning five o'clock on the dot they start to go every seconds another all through the day one can't hear the television if one is on the phone, you cannot hear a word. I have spoken my landlord asking if they would install double glazing, they are too many planes, we need to do something about this annoyance." Resident of Newham.

"The noise pollution from flights in this area is unbearable. Every morning we are woken up by flights. We cannot go into the garden because airplanes are rattling overhead every 60 seconds. On the weekend relaxing at home is impossible because we sit with teeth on edge, waiting for the next jet to zoom overhead. I used to work from home but have been hounded out of the house by the noise and now have to go to local libraries or cafes to get some respite from the planes. So to recap: LCY stops us from being able to sleep. It stops us from being able to sit in our garden It stops us from being able to relax at home. And it stops me from being able to work at home. LCY stops us from being able to almost everything we should be able to do in our own home. Our choices? Spend £25,000 insulating the house (which we don't have). Or sell the house. Or have a miserable existence in our own home. To say that those are "choices" is nonsense." Resident of Tower Hamlets.

"I am still absolutely fed up with being disturbed by aircraft noise. I am woken up most mornings by aircraft noise at just after 06.00. From then on the flights are more or less continuous through the day- howling, roaring and whining. There are hundreds and hundreds of flights passing over my house every day. This is a relatively recent problem so there must have been a radical change in fight paths. WHY WAS THERE NO CONSULTATION?" Resident of Redbridge.

"When I moved to W Forest 10 years ago and to this address 5 yrs ago the only thing we heard was the ocassional vehicle and the birds! We thought we had found that peace until one day I think last year I was sitting in my back garden and heard several plane noises overhead. I really thought it unusual and it must be a one off. Then I notice it happened for a few more days and went on my computer to see if I could find any news about it. I cannot believe that such an important change could be allowed without consulting with residents and have to think that this is because it affects poorer London boroughs in East London". Resident of Waltham Forest

"I live in Redbridge and although I appreciate that the noise I have to endure is minimal compared to those poor people living in the shadow of City Airport, it is really getting on my nerves, especially when low flying airplanes rumble through my double glazing after midnight! Oh.. there goes another one, as I'm typing". Resident of Redbridge

"In the last six months I have noticed inreased levels of air traffic in my area. Sometimes I can count three separate planes in the sky and the noise is becoming almost constant. I am very worried that additional flights will be granted into City Airport". Resident of Southwark

"The volcanic ash crisis brought some relief from the noise, and reminded us all of how things used to be before they imposed this on us. Just this week the flights have been continuous after coming home from work, getting noisier and noisier which is almost unbearable". Resident of Havering.

"For several weeks now we have been noticing aircraft noise and believe it is an increase of flights going into City Airport. We live in Swanley just on the edge of Dartford Borough. Obviously the noise here is not as bad as closer to the airport but does, I believe, show the extent of the problem. Before this year we have never noticed the planes, and have only noticed them more now, now that the weather is warmer and we have the windows and doors open. Additionally there are definitely more flights. If we sit in the garden at times we can hardly talk to each other". Resident of Sevenoaks District Council

Fight The Flights Judicial Review: Day 1

2010-11-18T21:03:00.006Z

Fight The Flights went to the High Court in London to challenge Newham Councils decision to allow a 50% increase in flights at London City Airport. Nathalie Lieven QC acting for our group stated that Newham Council had made a mistake by not considering the governments change in policy on climate change.

We had support at the Law Courts from Darren Johnson GLA member Green Party, Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP Lib Dems and Murad Qureshi GLA member Labour.

The Judicial Review will resume at 10AM on Friday the 19th of November 2010.

Here's a round up the of the press coverage:

Press

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/151502.html

http://news.uk.msn.com/environment/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=155290137

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/residents_protest_over_airport_growth_1_2769585

http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/docks_airport_flights_plan_challenged_in_court_today_1_729893

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/rbnews/8675809.WANSTEAD__Anti_expansion_campaigners_relishing_day_in_court/

http://www.docklands24.co.uk/news/london_city_airport_protest_as_high_court_hearing_begins_1_730208

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/685622/high_court_battle_over_london_city_airport_expansion.html

http://www.thelondondailynews.com/london-city-airport-protesters-take-newham-council-court-p-4794.html
">
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11780093&l t;/ p>

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Development-Control/1041857/London-City-Airport-challenge-opens-High-Court/

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/8672131.WANSTEAD__Airport_expansion_opponents_set_for_court_battle/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hiz-AJ2ID6Wyk0Sv-lPC0TDp3sMg?docId=N0119311289993992887A

http://www.lbc.co.uk/airport-expansion-challenge-goes-to-high-court-32792

TV:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj67 at 12:51 minutes

http://www.itv.com/london/fight-against-flights55445/

http://www.itv.com/london/city-airport-interview76235/

Radio:

BBC London: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00c3j23/The_Breakfast_Show_with_Gaby_Roslin_and_Paul_Ross_18_11_2010/

LBC's news channel

Magic FM

Sky News Online

FTF High Court Challenge - This Thursday

2010-11-17T11:09:00.000Z

The hearing for the legal challenge against Newham Council in regard of the approval to allow London City Airport to expand to 120,000 flights per year is to take place this thursday:

18-19th November 2010, expected start time of the hearing is 10.30am for 1,1/2 days.

Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London

The grounds of challenge are:

There are three aspects to Fight the Flights claim. In summary they are:

(1) that Newham failed to have regard to the Government’s policy on climate change and aviation;

(2) that Newham failed to consult relevant neighbouring local authorities; and

(3) Newham failed to consult the residents of those boroughs.

A copy of the legal grounds are available on request / or on our website at http://fighttheflights.com/.

FTF Colleagues Listed in Top 1000 Most Influential Londoners

2010-11-17T10:25:00.004Z

We would like to congratulate Jenny Bates, London Coordinator at Friends of the Earth and John Stewart of HACAN who have both been listed in the Top 1000 influential people in London for the second year running.

Jenny and John have worked closely with FTF since it's formation and continue to do so today. They have inspired, supported and shared their wealth of knowledge. However their work with FTF is but a small part of their overall work with other individuals and groups.

Such recognition is well deserved for two such hard working and committed individuals.

John and Jenny will both be present at the FTF Judicial Review hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, tomorrow (Thursday 18 November) , commencing at 10:30am.

Listings from the ES:

Jenny Bates, Friends of the Earth, London co-ordinator
Seasoned environmental campaigner has worked tirelessly to prevent expansion of City Airport. Less successful in opposing the Mayor's axing of the western congestion charge zone. She claims abolition of M4 bus lane at Heathrow will raise emissions.

John Stewart, Hacan Clearskies, campaigner
Long-serving leader of the main pressure group opposing Heathrow expansion, Stewart is building on the success of the foiled third runway by calling for a block on any further increase in plane flights into London. Has slammed the building of a high-speed rail line as a “white elephant”.

HACAN PRESS RELEASE: Major Report Confirms Aircraft Noise Levels in East London can Match Those in West London

2010-11-09T10:00:00.000Z

For immediate use

The controversial research published last week by campaign group Fight the Flights which showed that aircraft noise levels in parts of East London can match those in West London has been backed up by earlier research carried out by the respected firm of acousticians, Bureau Veritas.

The report, No Place to Hide, published in 2007, found that the combined noise of Heathrow and City aircraft over Poplar matched the noise in parts of West London. It recorded 84 planes flying over in a two hour period, 45 Heathrow and 26 City Airport. The noise level of the Heathrow aircraft ranged from 60 – 69 decibels and the City aircraft from 64 – 82 decibels.

John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN, which represents residents under the Heathrow flight path and which commissioned the report, said, “Those sort of levels are higher than parts of West London. We can’t get away from the fact that aircraft noise has become a real problem in East London.”

Stewart was critical of City Airport’s reaction to the Fight the Flight’s findings, “the Airport cast doubt on the findings because they said they were not carried out in accordance with internationally-recognised methods of measuring aircraft noise or performed by independent professional acoustic consultants. Our report was and it came up with very similar results. Stephen Turner, the Director of Bureau Veritas is one of the country’s most respected acousticians. Indeed, his firm were the advisers to Newham Council when it approved plans for the expansion of the airport. The bosses of City Airport have to come to terms with the fact that they work in a very noisy industry and not hide behind fine-sounding words.”

ENDS

For further information:

John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

Press Release dated: 9/11/10

Greenwich Council Fail to Hear Aircraft Noise, Whilst BACityflyer and LCY Celebrate the Noisiest Jets

2010-11-08T15:00:00.009Z

PRESS RELEASE – IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 08.11.10

Greenwich Council Fail to Hear Aircraft Noise

"It would be funny if it were not so serious. Greenwich Council are actually supporting expansion at London City Airport on the misleading premise that they believe jets to be quieter than propeller planes whilst the airport and British Airways celebrate the noisiest jets at the airport”.

Greenwich Council Planning Committee voted to support expansion at London City Airport on the basis that the airport introduce more jets to replace propellor planes in the belief that they are quieter and have less impact on the communities. But this is contradicted by work done by the Civil Aviation Authority. It shows that Jets at London City Airport are significantly noisier than propeller planes – in particular the new Embraer E series jets are considerably noisier than the old BAE RJ Avro 'whisper jets' that they are replacing (1).

Fight the Flights, the campaign group which is legally challenging the decision by Newham Council to approve the expansion of flights at the airport in the High Court in London next week (2), can reveal these figures as London City Airport and British Airways Cityflyer welcome with some fanfare the 700th E jet using the airport (3).

The new jets have already impacted on community noise levels showing an increase in complaints being made to the airport as discussed in the London City Airport Consultative Committee Meetings (4).

The noise difference between a propellor plane and an Embraer E series jet on take off/reverse thurst landing is an increase of 13dbs, this represents a 130% noise impact increase in real terms and is comparable to standing beside a road drill. The difference between an old jet and the new jets is 5dbs on a gliding approach which represents a 50% increase in noise impact in real terms.

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights commented: “It would be funny if it were not so serious. Greenwich Council are actually supporting expansion at London City Airport on the misleading premise that they believe the jets to be quieter than propeller planes whilst the airport and British Airways celebrate the noisiest jets at the airport. Surely if a borough is heavily overflown at just a few hundred feet on arrival and departures any council would wish to consider the noise impact above their borough not only the noise impact a mile away in another borough”.

She added: “The Planning Officer either failed to understand the official statistics on the aircraft noise profiles and impact or was given incomplete information as the jets used are far noisier than the propeller planes. In a Freedom of Information request Greenwich Council revealed that their decision and understanding of the noise levels was based on stationary aircraft noise readings measured on the airports runway, approximately a mile away in London Borough of Newham. Greenwich has significant residential areas, including schools, covered by excessive noise levels”.

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

1. International Civil Aviation Organisation:official noise database: http://noisedb.stac.aviation-civile.gouv.fr/

Noise Level of

Propellor plane: ATR-42 Model: ATR42-500 Engine:PW127M 80.7db on full power lateral, take off, reverse thrust landing.

Jet aircraft: Embraer 190 Model:ERJ190-100 Engine: CF34010R6A0-1 93.3db on full lateral, take off, reverse thrust landing

2. The legal challenge is taking place at the Courts of Justice on the Strand on 18th and 19th November. FTF launched it, with the help of Friends of the Earth in September 2009 to the London Borough of Newham’s decision to grant approval to a 50% increase in flights at London City Airport. There are three aspects to Fight the Flights claim. In summary they are (1) that Newham failed to have regard to the Government’s policy on climate change and aviation; (2) that Newham failed to consult relevant neighbouring local authorities; and (3) Newham failed to consult the residents of those boroughs. A copy of the legal grounds are available on request/or on our website at http://fighttheflights.com/. FTF, founded in 2007, is a non party political residents group covering all areas affected by London City Airport operations. FTF works with not only the community and NGO‘s, but also lobbies decision makers.

3. London City Airport and British Airways Cityflyer celebrate the 700th E jet : http://www.londoncityairport.com/AboutUs/ViewRelease.aspx?id=1245

4. An increase in complaints regarding the new larger jets: Embraer E series, being used at London City Airport has been discussed at the London City Airport Consultative Committee, with complaints being raised by two local Newham Councillors:

http://www.lcacc.org/accmins/accmin0710.pdf Item 17E

http://www.lcacc.org/accmins/accmin1010.pdf Item 6J

Additional sources of information:
The number of jets using City Airport has risen, jets from the airport are individually noisier than the propeller planes which have previously made up a greater proportion of flights.

London City Airport Air Transport Movements – % of Jets [as opposed to the propellor planes they are replacing], data provided by the Civil Aviation Authority:

1999 43

2000 33

2001 29

2002 25

2003 26

2004 28

2005 36

2006 37

2007 50

2008 58

2009 63 (Jan-Sept)

http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environmental-health/noise/facts-and-figures

These residential noise readings in normal flight periods can also be contrasted to The World Health Organisation recommendation that noise levels should be less than 35db(a) in classrooms to allow good teaching and learning conditions and under 40db(a) outside of a bedroom overnight to prevent adverse health effects from night noise (4).

Fightthefights.com http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/

For more information:

FTF Spokesperson: 07984 300558 or flighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk

Press Release dated 08/11/10

Cost of giving Newham Council the 'wow factor'

2010-11-04T16:58:00.006Z

We have a thought that you may wish to ponder as you read through this illuminating article from the BBC: Newham is keen to state that London City Airport has bought so much regeneration to the borough, jobs, money etc, it's often used as the excuse as to why the residents around it have to suffer intolerably. It's marketed as a bit of pay off in exchange for all that pollution. But why and how is it that Newham continues to be one of the most socially deprived boroughs in the country with all this wealth that is supposed to be generating from LCY and landing into Newham? Those trickle down economics just aren't trickling down to the right people. The facts are there, plain to see.

_________________________________________________

As seen on the BBC: Cost of giving Newham Council the 'wow factor'
By Ed Davey
BBC News, London

London's most expensive council-funded festival, offices with the "wow factor" costing £18.7m and an in-house newspaper costing more than £500,000 a year.

As local authorities digest a 26% funding cut, BBC London examines the outlay in one of the UK's most deprived boroughs.

One critic said the offices resembled a "five star hotel or West End nightclub"

With its reflective floor and designer bird's nest light fittings, Newham Council's new back office looks impressive.

Last week's spending review ushered in an age of austerity for local authorities, ordered to make 7.1% savings annually for four years.

But at Newham Council staff are celebrating winning a top award from the British Council for Offices.

Judges called it an "outstanding transformational workplace environment", saying the "innovative, lively and colourful design contributed to a dynamic environment".

Daniel Windor, of interior designers Sheppard Robson, who carried out the work, said: "You have to have the 'wow factor' in that environment. You need to give it a bit of sparkle or it will fall flat."

'Ultimate Champagne socialist'

But the £18.7m cost of the building and its decor is one of several spending projects highlighted by a BBC investigation.

The Local Government Minister Bob Neill criticised the figure saying it showed members of Newham Council were "living the ultimate Champagne socialist lifestyle on the taxpayer".

The BBC was told the lights came from a designer but has been unable to track down the cost

In response a council spokesman said the building was saving taxpayers in the borough £7m a year.

Newham, where all 60 councillors are Labour, is ranked as the UK's sixth most deprived borough.

The Council's own publicity describes it as one of the poorest boroughs in London.

"Poverty intensity in Newham is high," it says.

Central government funding for the authority this year stands at £224m, more than £100m above the median London council.

The grant is based on need and takes into account deprivation levels.

Only two London councils, Hackney and Tower Hamlets, received more per head.

Like many local authorities, the council produces its own newspaper.

This is published fortnightly and last year cost the taxpayer £547,000.

Rebranding

The figure is the highest in London and compares with an average cost of about £140,000.

The council also funds an annual festival, formerly called the Newham Town Show.

But after Newham opted for a directly elected mayor, Sir Robin Wales, it was rebranded the Mayor's Newham Show and spending on the festival increased.

This year's show, attracting 40,000 people, cost £362,000, the most expensive festival predominantly funded by a London council.

Newham, one of the UK's poorest areas, is the Olympic borough

The sum is higher than Westminster's West End Live show, which attracts more than 250,000 people.

Newham, the Olympic borough, has declined to confirm how much the show cost in the last year before it was rebranded.

Along with Croydon, the authority was one of only two London councils to award pay rises to three senior councillors in 2010, during a public sector pay freeze.

Sir Robin's remuneration increased from £78,844 to £81,029.

It has also emerged that departing chief executive Joe Duckworth - once the highest-paid town hall chief in England on £241,000 - may receive a pay-off.

Mr Neill accused Labour councillors of a "spending spree that would make a millionaire blush".

"This is more evidence that if you root out all the waste and wild overspend in local government you can protect frontline services," he said.

A spokeswoman for the Taxpayers' Alliance said some of the spending highlighted at the authority amounted to "needless extravagance".
'Modernist chic'

Of the offices, she added: "This glitzy refit is the sort of thing you might expect of a five star hotel or a West End nightclub, not the back offices of a local authority in one of the poorest boroughs of London.

"Any additional grants Newham receive should be spent on efforts to improve the area, not modernist chic for council officers."

But a Newham Council spokesman called the new office "an efficiency move that is saving taxpayers almost £7 million each year".

The council says 91% of people find its magazine "informative"

He added: "These savings are being realised by reducing the cost of office buildings and introducing better ways of working for staff, such as having all back office operations in one location.

"This move has helped to achieve the lowest council tax in outer London."

He said the festival played a "vital role in bringing the community together and ensuring cohesion" and spending on the Newham magazine resulted in a publication that 91% of people surveyed found "informative".

The spokesman said increasing councillors' salaries brought the mayor into line with a recommendation from an external panel.

"We are continually looking to ensure value for money for our residents and are working hard to make our finances stretch that bit further," he said.

Additional reporting by Sarah Halls.

Coming next: How the new Embraer Jets are noisier than the jets they are replacing

2010-11-02T11:42:00.001Z

New Research Reveals Sky-High Noise Levels from City Airport

2010-11-01T13:49:00.008Z

PRESS RELEASE 01.11.10

"the levels of noise being measured across East London should send shock waves of concern to the heart of the government”

Research carried out by Fight the Flights (1) in alliance with University College London (UCL) and London 21's Mapping For Change (2) has shown that some residents living under London City Airport flight paths are experiencing noise levels much higher than many people under the Heathrow flight path in West London.

Local residents were asked to record the noise of planes (3) overhead using hand held noise monitors on loan from UCL. They were also required to record their emotions in response to the noise. Some took photographs of the sources of noise. The residents were from a wide area of east and south east London. Some of them lived under the controversial new flight paths introduced last year by the Civil Aviation Authority (4).

Noise levels measured ranged from 87decibels to 35 decibels. 87 decibels is higher than a plane flying over Kew Gardens in West London and comparable to the noise of a food blender or lawnmower. The emotions described ranged from irritated to relaxing for the scale of the readings taken. Whilst noise data was being collected the volcanic ash cloud also halted all flights over the UK for a few days during April, giving residents a unique chance to compare a quiet no flight period with business as usual. During this time measured sound levels dropped dramatically with the majority of readings falling between 40-50dbs which is comparable to a refrigerator humming. Few noise events measured above 50dbs.

These residential noise readings in normal flight periods can also be contrasted to The World Health Organisation recommendation that noise levels should be less than 35db(a) in classrooms to allow good teaching and learning conditions and under 40db(a) outside of a bedroom overnight to prevent adverse health effects from night noise (4).

Fight the Flights Chair Anne-Marie Griffin commented “This project highlights just what noise levels residents are having to put up with under the flight paths in east and south east London, Fight The Flights plans to carry out a more extensive project in the future with UCL. It should not be forgotten that East London suffers a double whammy, of not only London City Airport Flights, but also Heathrow flights overhead adding to the misery.”

A Redbridge resident commented "This used to be a peaceful quiet area to live. The planes have single handedly changed that, and I am angry that I was not offered any opportunity to comment on either the expansion of London City Airport nor the change of the aircraft flight path, which has so compounded the existing problem of aircraft noise in my area over the last couple of years. Another resident said that '”I have been affected by more aircraft noise than ever before and I was surprised to discover that neither residents of Waltham Forest nor the council had been consulted by Newham Council on London City Airports application for the expansion of flights “. Another stated "the noise due to the increase in jets has increased, the no flight period allowed us the luxury to have windows open without having to close them due to excessive jet noise from London City Airport and Heathrow flights commencing from 4.30am over the borough of Greenwich".

Dr Muki Haklay of UCL commented: “Mapping for Change was set up to support community action and citizen science. We are pleased to see the community’s use of the noise meters and the methodology of noise mapping that we have developed to record the level of ambient noise and their level of emotional stress that noise can cause. The mapping of the personal experience and the measured level of noise is useful in communicating the influence of urban noise on communities”.

Louise Francis of Mapping for Change stated: “Contrary to recently published online noise maps, which are created using computer-based models, the results collected by the community reflect actual ambient noise readings. The UK Government have been creating noise maps that show the predicted level of environmental noise from industries, airports, and road and rail networks in response to the EU’s environmental noise directive. The current exclusive system used to calculate various noise sources does nothing to look at cumulative ambient noise, that is the noise communities are actually exposed to”.

Fight the Flights is calling on the new coalition government to act on the unacceptable noise levels from current aircraft activities and to halt all further expansion plans at London City Airport and new airport developments in East London. Anne-Marie Griffin stated that "the levels of noise being measured across East London should send shock waves of concern to the heart of the government. It isn't only about residents being disturbed, it's also about the effect on public health and the economic cost of that". Excessive noise levels have been shown to have a detrimental effect on human health and associated illnesses are already over represented in the Borough of Newham.

Fight the Flights is legally challenging the decision by Newham Council to approve the expansion of flights at the airport in the High Court in London on 18,19 November 2010.

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

FTF launched a legal challenge, with the help of Friends of the Earth in September 2009 to the London Borough of Newhams' decision to grant approval to a 50% increase in flights at London City Airport. There are three aspects to Fight the Flights claim. In summary they are (1) that Newham failed to have regard to the Government’s policy on climate change and aviation; (2) that Newham failed to consult relevant neighbouring local authorities; and (3) Newham failed to consult the residents of those boroughs. A copy of the legal grounds are available on request/or on our website at http://fighttheflights.com/. FTF, founded in 2007, is a non party political residents group covering all areas affected by London City Airport operations. FTF works with not only the community and NGO‘s, but also lobbies decision makers.
This snap shot noise mapping project was in alliance with Dr Muki Haklay and Louise Francis of Mapping for Change, a social enterprise of University College London and London 21 Sustainability network. http://www.mappingforchange.org.uk/ Residents took readings for a minimum of 10 days – and up to 21 days of 3 readings, 3 times a day in: Tower Hamlets, Redbridge, Greenwich, and Waltham Forest. The Royal Docks map may be seen here: http://www.communitymaps.org.uk/version3/includes/MiniSite.php?minisitename=Royal%20Docks
The number of jets using City Airport has risen, jets from the airport are individually noisier than the propeller planes which have previously made up a greater proportion of flights.

London City Airport Air Transport Movements – % of Jets, data provided by the Civil Aviation Authority:

1999 43

2000 33

2001 29

2002 25

2003 26

2004 28

2005 36

2006 37

2007 50

2008 58

2009 63 (Jan-Sept)

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) signed off a new flight path for London City Airport in Spring 2009. This flight path previously had mostly traveled over the borough of Newham but now almost misses the borough completely as it has been moved further north. It now affects wider areas of Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest and Redbridge, some being newly affected. http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1736
http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environmental-health/noise/facts-and-figures

Fightthefights.com http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/

The noise mapping slide and the noise comparison table will both be available on the FTF website in due course, or provided upon request.

For more information:

FTF Spokesperson: 07984 300558 or flighttheflights@yahoo.co.uk

Press Release dated 01/11/10

Aviation Crying over "APD" (Air Passenger Duty) without telling the whole story

2010-10-30T11:29:00.005+01:00

Quote from Fight The Flights

"The reality is that aviation simply don't want to pay their way. They are happy to defend their corner consistently to reject paying the full cost of their activities and pass those costs onto those that fly, and those that don't fly. Those that fly pay APD, and in addition everyone else including the flyers ends up contributing around £400 a year in tax to the aviation industry benefit system in terms of government subsidies and tax breaks. Correct us if we're wrong! If passengers want to point the finger at anyone for their APD costs they should perhaps consider looking to the aviation industry itself!"

Quotes from John Stewart Chair of HACAN

"A lot of complaining from the aviation industry about the rise in Air Passenger Duty. They are misleading people. The aviation industry is not over-taxed. Even with the rise in APD it is still undertaxed. The Exchequer is losing around £10 billion because aviation fuel is tax-free and the industry pays no VAT. The income from APD is still well below half that figure."

"More on APD: Aviation says it pays for its emissions through the European Emissions Trading System. That is beginning to happen but that doesn't cover noise or community destruction. And it misses the point: APD is not an environmental tax. It was introduced by Kenneth Clarke in the early 1990s to help make up the shortfall in aviation's contribution to general taxation. That is still its purpose."

Quote from Plane Stupid

"Has any industry claimed to care more for their customers than the airlines? The past few weeks have seen pundits from any company with the slightest interest in aviation fronting up at the BBC's studios to defend hard working families from proposed rises in air passenger duty. Those rises are: a staggering £1 extra for short haul, £5 extra to fly a little further, £10 extra on a flight to Thailand or Brazil and a whopping... £15 on a flight to Singapore.

Now far be it from me to say that those rises hardly break the bank, or to accuse the airlines from being self-interested: I'm sure that their efforts to pay even less tax than they already do are motivated purely by altruism. After all, it's not like this is an industry which invented charges for bringing bags with you on holiday, or for paying with a credit card, or for not paying with a credit card, or for the fuel used in the plane, or to sit by the window... I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point.

The industry claims it already covers the cost of its environmental impact, so the 'hard working family holiday tax' doesn't need to go up anymore. This is one of the problems with monetising things like climate change: while you can work out the cost of a something tangible, assigning a figure to the range of outcomes from a human-induced temperature rise (which may or may not happen, depending on whether we stop climate change) is almost impossible.

This is all a bit complex. Firstly the cost of climate change is directly related to whether we manage to keep our emissions in check. If we do, then the cost of a tonne of carbon is quite low; if we fail then the cost is exorbitant. That's the problem: if carbon is cheap we'll keep emitting it but if it's expensive then we'll cut down, so whatever outcome we think will happen prices carbon emissions so that we actually get the opposite effect. Instead of assuming we'll stop climate change we should assume that we won't and price emissions accordingly; this would make the cost of CO2 high enough that we'd have an incentive to change our behaviour and thus avert disaster.

It's not like air passenger duty is spent tackling the problem; like most taxes it disappears into the black morass of Government spending. No matter what it says, the industry is not paying for the damage it causes: it's not like Michael O'Leary will turn up in Gloucester to pay for the flood damage, or Willie Walsh will help Africa cope with drought caused by second home owners topping up their tans too frequently.

Luckily this whole economic credit crunch means that taxes on flights will keep rising so we can bail out more and more bankers, so the industry won't get its way no matter how many minor celebs it wheels out in support. On second thoughts, I'm not so sure that's a good thing. God, the intricacies of fiscal policy are more complicated than I first though..."

Judicial Review Hearing Date Set on London City Airport Expansion Approval

2010-10-22T08:41:00.001+01:00

The hearing date for the legal challenge against Newham Council in regard of the approval to allow London City Airport to expand to 120,000 flights per year has been set for:

18-19th November 2010

Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London

Eurostar unveils £700m train deal, London City Airport Expansion Not Needed

2010-10-07T18:58:00.004+01:00

Eurostar has unveiled an order for new trains worth more than £700m.

The Channel Tunnel rail firm, which runs high-speed services from London to Paris and Brussels, is buying 10 trains from German firm Siemens and overhauling its existing fleet.

France had been pressing for the new trains to be built by French firm Alstom.But Eurostar said the decision had been made in the best in interest of customers after a "rigorous" process.

The new Eurostar e320 trains would be able to carry more than 900 passengers and their luggage, and reach speeds of 320km per hour (200mph), the firm said.

The 28 existing Eurostar trains can carry up to 750 travellers at up to 300km/h.

Eurostar said the new fleet would be equipped with wi-fi and on-board services including real-time travel and destination information and interactive entertainment.

The firm's chief executive, Nicolas Petrovic, said the new trains and refurbished fleet would make Eurostar "the obvious choice for short-haul European travel".

Eurostar is set to lose its monopoly on passenger services through the Channel Tunnel, after the introduction of open access on international lines in Europe introduced in January this year.

German state-owned rail operator Deutsche Bahn is planning test trips of inter-city trains and is understood to want to run services from London to Cologne and Frankfurt.

From BBC London News HERE!

Last Chance To Have Your Say On London City Airport

2010-09-28T17:29:00.005+01:00

It's your last chance to have your say on how London City Airport affects you and your community. It closes on the 30th of September 2010
The GLA (Greater London Authority) Environmental Committee want to get your valued feedback.

Just complete this short survey

Make sure you have your say.

To get more information go to the GLA's website HERE!

London City Airport | Greater London Authority

2010-09-25T16:23:00.002+01:00

The Committee visited City Airport on Thursday 10 June 2010 to consider the potential impact of expansion plans.
Our investigation
In July 2009 Newham Council gave permission to increase the number of flights from 91,000 to 120,000 per year. Expansion was made conditional on tougher environmental controls for air quality and noise levels, which were to be monitored by borough staff. Residents across Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich, Hackney, Havering, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest are likely to be affected by an increase in flights.
The investigation will look at environmental impacts like noise, emissions and air quality, and whether the current environmental safeguards and controls are adequate. The Committee is keen to hear how the extra flights are impacting on local people.

Tell us your views
Please tell us your views by completing our short survey (linked below). This survey will close on September 30.

City Airport | Greater London Authority

London City Airport expansion under further scrutiny

2010-09-25T16:15:00.000+01:00

London City Airport expansion under further scrutiny

London Assembly on City Airport expansion: local residents' views

2010-09-25T16:06:00.000+01:00

If you want to have your say on how London City Airports business affects you & your communities please complete the GLA's (Greater London Authority) survey HERE!

Auf Wiedersehen jet: London to Frankfurt by train

2010-09-20T22:04:00.002+01:00

Article from The Guardian, Environment

Dan Milmo, transport correspondent

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/19/

A German high-speed train will visit Britain for the first time next month on a dry run for a direct rail service between London and Frankfurt.

The 200mph train operated by Germany's state railway company, Deutsche Bahn (DB), will pull into the capital's flagship St Pancras International terminal on 19 October after a maiden cross-channel voyage that challenges one of Europe's busiest aviation markets.

The state-of-the-art, German-made Inter City Express (ICE) 3 train must pass stringent tunnel safety tests before it can start full services from Frankfurt, with December 2013 the likely start date.

But rail experts expect it to open up Britain to a new market for rail travel and put downward pressure on Eurostar fares.

A spokesman for Deutsche Bahn said: "DB is committed to introducing high speed passenger rail services between London and Germany, enhancing connectivity between these two countries. Services are expected to start at the end of 2013.

"Work has already commenced with safety, infrastructure and regulatory bodies across Europe in order to meet all the requirements necessary to operate these trains. As part of this work we will hold a safety exercise with an ICE train in the Channel tunnel on 19 October, showing the train subsequently the same day in London St Pancras."

Eurostar, the Paris and Brussels service that operates from St Pancras, has been a success since its 1994 debut, now carrying more than 9 million passengers and taking three-quarters of the air and rail market between London and the French and Belgian capitals.

DB is considering a route that would start in Frankfurt – the heart of Germany's finance industry – with possible stops at Cologne and Brussels en route to London. The service is expected to grow the high-speed rail market between London and the continent by around 10%, carrying more than 1 million passengers per year.

Chris Cheek, a rail industry analyst, said the move would further reinforce the case for long-distance train travel at the expense of the aeroplane.

"It will increase the size of the high-speed rail market between London and Europe and the main source of the traffic will be diversion from the air," he said.

A spokeswoman for Eurostar was sanguine about the potential competitive threat to her company. "It will be very good news because ultimately it will grow the market."

Asked if a new entrant would benefit passengers on the Brussels route, who currently pay as little as £69 for a standard return but could hope for even lower prices, she said: "Of course we would compete very energetically with any rail competition."

Despite the threat of a new rail entrant, Eurostar believes that the competitive threat from low-cost airlines such as Ryanair already holds down cross-channel rail fares.

However, a London-to-Frankfurt train service will also stretch the industry maxim that rail journeys must last no longer than four hours in order to compete with airlines.

A trip between Europe's two largest financial centres would take four to five hours, with DB hoping that the appeal of broadband access and lack of airport security hassle will tempt the all-important business traveller market.

A spokesman for High Speed One, the owner and operator of the Channel tunnel rail link, said the service could use the high-speed terminal at Stratford in east London to tap the business market at Canary Wharf and in the City.

"Stopping patterns for any Frankfurt-to-London route are not confirmed but post-Olympics there will be an even more compelling case for international services to start using Stratford International – not just leisure passengers but also business travellers, given the close onward connections."

Channel tunnel safety authorities have already relaxed regulations that will make it easier for DB to operate a London-to-Frankfurt service.

The ICE3 train will have to be 375m long in order to allow its rear and front doors to connect with emergency exits in the train tunnels that connect with the central service tunnel which is used in the event of emergency evacuations.

The exits are spaced 375m apart, hence the requirement for trains of that length. Because the DB train will be formed by two locomotives bolted together, and passengers cannot therefore travel through length of the train, the company must prove that it can evacuate people from either end without serious problems.

Richard Clifton, head of the UK delegation to the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority (CTSA), said DB had to prove that the different configuration of its train would not hinder an evacuation. There have been three fires in the tunnel since it opened in 1994.

"It is up to Deutsche Bahn to produce some proposals as to how to evacuate the train. They [DB] need to demonstrate an evacuation system from a shorter train, or one that does not have a through-corridor, which does not diminish the level of safety," he said.
Faster than flying

For decades, three hours has been seen as the magic number, the journey time at which train travel becomes faster than flying on a centre-to-centre basis. But with stricter and more time-consuming airport security, plus frequent air traffic delays, that magic three hours is stretching. So much so, that Guillaume Pepy, CEO of SNCF (French national railways) has stated that this three hours has become four or perhaps five.

He cites Paris-Perpignan, where SNCF's high-speed TGV takes five hours, yet where rail has captured 50% of the market.

It's not only journey time that's important. European high-speed trains typically achieve punctuality of 90-95% on time or within 15 minutes, whereas European airlines struggle to reach 63-68%. And with WiFi and power sockets for laptops, a train journey is often more productive.

As air travel gets slower, rail gets faster. New high-speed lines have made rail a serious player on routes such as Paris-Amsterdam (3 hrs 20 minutes), Paris-Frankfurt (3 hrs 55 minutes), Barcelona-Madrid (2 hrs 40 minutes) and Milan-Rome (3 hrs).

Deutsche Bahn's planned test run of an ICE through the Channel tunnel to London is an exciting development, potentially the forerunner of a direct Frankfurt-Cologne-London service. This would take advantage of new EU rules that came in this year, under which anyone with the relevant licences can operate an international train service within the EU.

DB already offers bookings from London to Cologne in conjunction with Eurostar, but the change of trains in Brussels means a journey time of four-and-a-half to five-and-a-half hours.

A direct train could cut London-Cologne to 3 hrs 55 mins. This would compete with air not only on speed and convenience, but on comfort – DB's ICE trains are among the most comfortable trains in the world, being designed to tempt German businessmen out of their BMWs and Mercedes, with power sockets for laptops at every seat and WiFi on many routes. And using DB's current ICE fares to neighbouring countries as a guide, I'd expect a London-Cologne or London-Frankfurt journey on any new service to start at a very affordable €49 (£41) or even €39 each way, with no need to pay to get add the cost of getting to and from airports. In short, this is a move that I personally would welcome with open arms. Now, how about a direct London-Amsterdam train service in 3 hrs 50 mins? Mark Smith

Mark Smith is founder of the rail travel advice website The Man in Seat Sixty-One

Coming Soon: Aircraft Noise, and Comparisons - what decibels sound like to you

2010-09-17T13:58:00.002+01:00

Thanks to our friend in the North.

Press Release: Mayor Boris Johnson To Review Support for London City Airport Expansion

2010-09-16T05:29:00.007+01:00

At yesterdays London Assembly Mayors' Question Time (1) the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson stated that 'in retrospect he realises that his decision to support the flight expansion at London City Airport needs reviewing'. He went on to say he felt very anxious about the impact of extra flights over London and that the 'consequences of the expansion had been unexpected and we need to look at the impact of aviation over huge areas of East London'. The Mayor also indicated that he had written to the Civil Aviation Authority expressing his concern and requesting further information over the near collision (2) between a Heathrow 777 and London City Airport Cessna in July 2009.

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights welcomed the news stating "We have been expressing our concerns about the impact of the expansion of London City Airport for over 2 years to the Mayor. We felt that the Mayor had been ill advised but it is now clear that he is acknowledging the full impact of extra flights over London, particularly over East London.What is important now is to see what action the Mayor takes and we'd certainly welcome the 'fresh thinking on aviation expansion' which the Mayor referred to".

The Mayor was also asked regarding the pledge(3) he made at the Ilford Environmental Question Time in early 2009, to support a call for a public review (4) of the London City Airport Flight path changes by the Civil Aviation Authority. Griffin said "the Mayor does acknowledge his pledge and response to the FTF question, however he appears to have moved the goalposts by commenting that he would ensure that the review 'would be useful to the public and get the facts into the public domain'. That simply isn't the same as calling for a public review. The CAA are still reviewing the flight path change behind closed doors so the Mayor still has time to put Londoners first and insist that the review is a public one".

End

Notes for Editors:

(1) http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/the-london-assembly/webcasts

(2) http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23875801-jet-in-near-miss-with-heathrow-airline-over-london.do

(3) http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/2010/01/boris-backs-call-for-public-review-of.html

(4) http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/2010/08/caa-update-on-post-implementation.html

For further information:
FTF spokesperson 07984 300558

Website: http://www.fighttheflights.com/
Blog: http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/

Press Release dated 16/9/10

We hate to say it but: We told you so. Near Collisons Over London

2010-09-15T08:26:00.014+01:00

Above: sequence of events leading, and to avoiding the near collision as illustrated in the Daily Mail.

Since the very start of this campaign, and of suddenly finding out that London City Airport wanted to expand to bigger jets, and more flights on one of the shortest runways, and in the most densely populated area in the country, we've been worried. Worried about a lot of things: pollution and the impact on health,well being and the environment, and of course safety. Why allow an airport to expand when at the most basic it's crash zone is going to cover hundreds, if not a thousand residents in the borough of Greenwich, let alone all the other worrying issues around safety?

Over the past few years we've seen increasing amounts of residents expressing fears of what they see in the skies above them: aircraft too near to one another. Some report it to the airport/CAA too: but the aviation industry always has an answer, usually one's we've heard hundreds of times before but simply can't be proved or disproved. But of course, as it's the big world of aviationistas with money to burn on expensive public relations firms,well and truly helped along by all those tax breaks (welfare benefits in our view) and VAT free fuel - then the non aviationista resident is soon shot down with the formula responses:

"the two jets crossing one another, it's an optical illusion"

"it was an air proximity report, it wasn't a near miss"

"it was not a near collision, it was a near miss"

"there have been no flight path changes at all, but the Standard Instrument Departures have shifted to the north"

"there's no opposition to the expansion of LCY" (Ok, that one is not relating to safety, however it was a statement made by the airport around the time the legal challenge was launched against Newham Council and we'll throw it in for the sake of it).

Wake up aviation industry, government departments and quangos: there are more residents than possibly ever before in history that understand more about operations, and know when you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes. We've even see MPs/elected officials subjected to this ridiculous wool pulling from DfT, National Air Traffic Systems etc. Residents are not stupid, and never have been, and neither are our politicians: the aviation industry was simply always given the upper hand and was party to more information than we ever had access to. No longer. Residents are more educated, knowledgeable and informed than ever before on the industry and operations thanks to campaign groups such as HACAN, umbrella group Airportwatch and NGOs Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Aviation Environment Federation along with the Freedom of Information and Environmental Regulation Act. Hooray for at least some people power in this democracy.

If you approach the Civil Aviation Authority on safety concerns, (who wholeheartedly get behind the aviation industry regardless with full blinkers on, no matter what, and continue to approve larger and larger jets to operate out of LCY): well they'll call/write to the airport that you have concerns about, have a chat, ask the environmental officer at the airport to write a response and......say everything is fine! We'd be shocked to hear anything different now.

Strangely, a resident raised safety concerns about how London City Airport air traffic control were allowing jets to take off and land in the most appalling storm conditions a couple of years ago. Readers have to consider the situation of LCY's tiny runway to understand the full concern. The same jets sometimes took 3 attempts to land at the site, attempting landings from different directions and perilously aborting landings when around a 100ft or so above the runway. Some were struggling to reach a height above the conifers planted on the Royal Albert Basin at the end of the runway east bound. It must have been a scary experience for those drivers on the Sir Steve Redgrave, and Connaught bridge that day, perhaps also Canary Wharf. It was scarier still for residents watching from a living room window, thinking the unthinkable, and reminding themselves that the public safety zone is not also called also called a crash zone without good reason. Most 'incidents' - crashes to you and us (see what we mean about the language that the aviation industry use), are in the take off and landing stages.

Interestingly, and thankfully, those few weeks of terrifying activities to onlookers that year, haven't been witnessed to the same degree since. They were of course never discussed either, but who takes the concerns of residents seriously in the world of aviaiton? However concerns over the flights in the sky have increased, and this can be witnessed in the complaints being made. But despite the aviation spin on safety, near misses (or air proximity reports) are no strangers to London City Airport activities. The Wanstead and Woodford Guardian excellently highlighted the issue (and for which they famously received some bullying phonecalls from the London City Airport PR person over, to which the Editor firmly responded to with an editors comment the following week, with residents letters of support) gives a good overview of this, and we ourselves covered the amount of air proximity reports here and here.

We dare say that since the date that the blog was written, it's likely that there's more incidents to add. We certainly know we can add the Heathrow 777 and London City Airport Citation Jet July 2009 near collision, investigated by the Air Acidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) here, here and here in national headlines. You know that things are bad when even the AAIB comments: "the consequences of a midair collision in this part of the London TMA would be particularly serious because of the population density below". Not much comfort when it states that private jets are not required to be fitted with "crash‑protected recorders or flight data monitoring recorders". "Neither TCAS unit fitted to the aircraft involved had capability to record event data".

Predictably the Citation was not fitted with the equipment (and there's no confirmation at all that all the business jets are now either).Why do something unless your forced to is clearly the motto. Fortunately Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP has picked up on the issue and in her bulletin states:

"Then yesterday a report was issued about a very alarming potential for disaster over London City airport. A near-miss happened between a business jet leaving LCA and a commercial flight coming in to land at Heathrow, see here:

“The incident on 27 July last year highlighted the potential for human error to cause disaster above the heavily populated area between Hackney and Stratford where planes leaving London City airport routinely cross the flight path of incoming Heathrow-bound aircraft.”

One recommendation by air safety watchdogs is that all planes operating in this zone should be equipped with a collision-avoidance piece of equipment known as a TCAS II, which the business jet did not, and I intend to take this up with ministers.

Has anyone considered how many private jets fly out of LCY each year? It's not mentioned at all, probably because they were never recorded, but a free for all until last summer. Free for everything it seems, including the tax breaks. But be warned, the AAIB states, they investigate incidents, they don't report to apportion blame, but to make recommendations. Of more concern is that we couldn't find that anything stating that they perhaps investigated so that could identify who was responsible. But we realise that corporate responsiblity is regarded as dirty term. Some residents have asked why it took a year to carry out the investigation, quite. That this incident was AFTER the Standard Instrument Departure flight path changes signed off by the CAA in May 2009, reason given: safety and for jets, the whole incident appears to be a complete shambles and the changes appear to have seen one of the closest near collisions at LCY in the past few years to our knowledge.

It's just a shame that a lot of the media missed the real issues: there's simply too many aircraft over London, and how the 50% expansion of London City Airport flights aren't without cost and impact to Heathrow flights, queuing up for Heathrow from the east and the 13+ flight paths that cross over some areas of London, that there's a school less than 200 yards from the runway, homes alongside that school....and oh dear it just gets worse the larger the area you look at. NATS had already commented some time ago, that if all the expansions planned in South East airport masterplans were implemented then there wouldn't be enough airspace.

It seems that's the case already, and allegedly other factors such as saving money might be influencing some decisions and even the Pilots are now calling for an urgent change in regard to the London City Airport near collision, Coalition Duckhouse quotes British Airline Pilots' Association (BALPA) Captain Martin Alder: We don't have appropriate "failsafe" co-ordination at the moment for the unique aspects of this operation. It could best be achieved by redrawing the London City airport departures or alternatively not permitting London City to act independently.'

Julian Bray, an aviation expert commented: "Air safety is not a cash or financial issue, airlines and airport operators go into this business knowing that safety of both staff and passengers cannot under any cicumstances be compromised and that all costs to supply a level of safety are part of operational cost budgets and not subject to savings or culling."

London City Airport were predictably quiet on the negatives of operations and near collisions from it's residential hub:

London City Airport's Statement on the AAIB Report
Date: 09/09/2010 "Following the publication of the AAIB’s report into the incident at London TMA (terminal control area) on 27 July 2009 London City Airport has thoroughly reviewed the report issued by the AAIB. Following advice from NATS and the CAA procedural changes have been made which comply with the AAIB's safety recommendations."

So that's alright then. It's just a shame that sentiment isn't echoed elsewhere beyond the LCY Public Relations machine!

On the same day that the near collision report was released, comments were also released from David Miliband (really, the timing could not have been better/or worse depending upon which side you sit on expansion) asserting that a 3rd runway at Heathrow should go ahead. So where to fit the aircraft in then David, and what about the 1000s of Londoners who are dying prematurely from air pollution, which airports add to in aviation and road traffic pollution ten fold? What about the fact that there's only 1000ft between Heathrow and LCY flights, sometimes dangerously less. We hope you are prepared to take the consequences of your blinkered view of safety over London by supporting more flights in what is already the most complex, and busy flight path area in the world.

We don't need more flights, we need the flights we already have to be operated safely and more efficiently before the unthinkable happens. LCY cannot expand without an accumulative effect not only on pollution (air and noise) but also on flight paths with Heathrow and also the other various flights that overfly London and the south east.

BREAKING NEWS: Boris Johnson appears to have committed at Mayor's Question Time to be reconsidering his position on supporting the 50% expansion at London City Airport in light of the near collision last year. More to follow.

PRESS RELEASE: The Two Faces of Boris

2010-09-13T19:37:00.001+01:00

For immediate use

At the public hearing into the London Plan last Friday (1) held at City Hall it became clear that the Mayor, Boris Johnston, is adopting a very different approach to expansion at each of London’s airports. He has backed the Government in ruling out any further expansion at Heathrow but is supporting plans for a 50% increase in flight numbers at City Airport.

At Friday’s hearing the Mayor’s office made it clear that he supports Newham Council’s bid for expansion at City Airport (2).

Fight the Flights (3) spokesman Alan Haughton, who gave evidence at the public hearing, said “It is not at all clear why the Mayor is adopting such a contradictory attitude. There is no hard evidence that a 50% in flights at City Airport will do anything to boost the local economy. What we do know is that it will bring yet more noise and air pollution to one of the most deprived areas of London.”

The Mayor has made is clear that he would not support any further increase in flights beyond 50%. But Haughton commented: “Boris has come up with no good reason why expansion can’t just stop now.”

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

(1). The Mayor is required to produce the London Plan by the Government. At present public hearings are taking place into what policies the Mayor should adopt in the Plan. The Plan, once published, will cover a 20 year period. On Friday 10th the hearing considered the whole question of aviation policy.
(2). Newham Council, the planning authority, have given permission for a 50% increase in flight numbers at the airport but Fight the Flights have been granted permission to challenge the decision in the High Court by means of a Judicial Review. The Judicial Review hearing will take place on 18th and 19th November.

(3). Fight the Flights is a residents community group, non party political and anti expansion, not anti aviation.

Web:http://www.fighttheflights.com/

Blog: http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/

For further information:

Fight the Flights spokesperson: 07984 300558

Press Release dated: 13/9/10

Campaign Update - Bulletin - East London Autumn Edition Now Available

2010-09-12T13:27:00.006+01:00

You can now read the Fight The Flights Autumn, East London Edition, 'Campaign Update Bulletin' here.

Why not print one or more off and share them with your neighbours, or ask your local shopkeeper/health centre to put a few on their counter/noticeboard? We know there are still so many residents out there who are increasingly bothered by London City Airport aircraft noise, but that we simply haven't been able to reach and they are having difficulty finding accurate information and advice. London is a big place, and reaching everyone affected is an uphill struggle. But you can help us very simply by talking to, or giving just a couple of your neighbours the bulletin.

Help spread the word about Fight the Flights (a non party political residents community group) and what we are doing to stop expansion at London City Airport, but also perform a watchdog role and look for positive solutions to deal with the current noise and air pollution levels in East London.

Residents Call for Boris Johnson to Make U Turn on London City Airport Flights

2010-09-10T08:14:00.004+01:00

There are renewed calls for Boris Johnson, Mayor of London to retract his support for the 50% increase in flights at the airport, and for him to put the health and safety of all Londoners first. Today's news that a Heathrow bound Boeing 777 and a private jet from London City Airport had a near collision in 2009 has further raised residents concerns regarding the safety of increasing flights at London City Airport (1).

Anne-Marie Griffin said: ''the Civil Aviation Authority had already been forced to change flights paths to improve safety due to larger jets being flown out of the airport, but as this near miss occurred after these changes were implemented in May 2009 it is shocking (2). There simply isn't enough room for more planes above London, and there's no room at all for error from pilots, air traffic controllers or the aircraft''.

''The Mayor of London, Boris Johnson should be supporting residents who are against expansion to protect their environment, health and well being. The risks of increasing flights in the most complex flight paths in the world is simply a bigger risk''.

On the eve of the London Plan aviation day, Boris Johnson has so far failed residents in East London, despite him showing signs of being shocked to hear how badly affected they were by aircraft noise at a question time event in Ilford (3). However despite Boris's promise to ensure that the Civil Aviation Authority would carry out the flight path review publicly, the Mayor appears to have taken no action at all. Once again, Boris appears to have ignored the residents of East London and failed to carry out the pledge he made to residents in Ilford last year.

Too many planes in the skies over London , say residents’ groups, after near-miss.

2010-09-09T18:24:00.003+01:00

Press Release
For immediate use

Too many planes in the skies over London , say residents’ groups, after near-miss.

Residents groups Fight the Flights and HACAN have combined to call for fewer planes in the skies over London following the near-miss over Hackney which has just come to light (1). In July a private jet taking off from City Airport came within 200ft of a plane bound for Heathrow.

Annie Griffin, Chair of Fight the Flights, representing residents affected by City Airport aircraft, said, “This incident was entirely predicable. Over the last decade the number of planes criss-crossing over the skies of East London has increased dramatically. It is quite unacceptable to put people at risk like this.”

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN, representing residents under the Heathrow flight paths, said “One of the features of the last few years is the growth number of people living under the flight paths to both City and Heathrow airports. Daily they experience constant noise. We know the safety record of both airports has been good but this incident gives serious cause for concern. Fewer planes is probably the only answer.”

In 2007 HACAN published a report from the respected firm of consultants Bureau Veritas which showed that over the previous ten years the number of planes in the skies over East London had increased significantly as the sheer volume of planes waiting to land at Heathrow meant they were forced to make long detours before they landed.

In 2010 Newham Council gave London City Airport permission to increase flights by 50% but this is being challenged by Fight the Flights in the law courts. The Judicial Review takes place on 18th and 19th November.

ENDS

Notes for Editors:

(1) http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23875801-jet-in-near-miss-with-heathrow-airline-over-london.do

For further information:

Anne-Marie Griffin 07984 300558
John Stewart on 0207 737 6641 or 07957385650

Press Release dated 9/9/10

Message from Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP, Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament for London

2010-09-07T18:42:00.004+01:00

This message was sent prior to the No to Domestic Flights Demo at London City Airport last Saturday:

Dear friends,

I'm sorry I can't be with you here in person today to help call for an end to domestic flights in the UK, a cause I strongly support. Domestic flights are unnecessary, completely contrary to our commitments to reduce CO2 emissions, and only worsen London’s air and noise pollution.

The LibDem/Tory coalition government has already of course made a great new start on aviation policy by cancelling Labour's third runway at Heathrow, which was a product of the tired old 'predict and provide' policy so beloved of airlines and airport operators. What a victory that was for those of us who have been campaigning against Heathrow expansion for years. The new government has also said it will refuse new runways at Gatwick and Stansted. Regarding aviation tax, the government has also committed to implementing a per-plane rather than per-passenger levy. The coalition is also pushing ahead with High Speed 2 between London and Birmingham, and have pledged to work towards a truly national high speed rail network in the long-term. There is a lot of urgent work to be done, but at least we are now moving in the right direction.

I believe that in that context the case against expansion at London City is not only just, but has a chance of being listened to. Many thanks for your hard work and persistence in this cause, and for those of you that are going, have a good trip up to Manchester!

Best wishes,

Sarah Ludford

No To Domestic Flights Demo See's Strong Cross Party Support

2010-09-05T21:25:00.006+01:00

The Campaign Against Climate Change (CCC) demo 'No to Domestic Flights' got off to a wonderful start at London City Airport yesterday where speakers spoke out against the expansion of City Airport, domestic flights and the impact on residents lives and the environment.

Speakers present:Murad Qureshi, Greater London Authority, Darren Johnson, Greater London Authority, Phil Thornhill, Co-ordinator of CCC, John Stewart of HACAN, Anne-Marie Griffin of Fight the Flights, Josh from Plane Stupid and Food Not Fuel. In addition, Baroness Sarah Ludford, MEP for London also sent a letter of support of the demonstration and of Fight the Flights campaign which was read out at the event.

This was the first time that cross party politicians and campaigners had stood together on London City Airport turf with their message against expansion, against domestic flights. It was a significant day.

Protesters then boarded an open top bus to Euston Station, taking the message of train not plane for those domestic trips, through London before boarding the train to Manchester to join the Stop the Expansion of Manchester Airport group.

Further photos and coverage of the event may be seen here and here.

Fight the Flights would like to thank the Campaign Against Climate Change team, and all the speakers for their outstanding contribution and efforts which made for such a successful event.

Jacqueline Bradshaw-Price - A Tribute

2010-09-03T16:20:00.013+01:00

For over 2 years Jacqueline Bradshaw-Price brought her creativeness, style and concern about the well being of communities to the Fight the Flights campaign. Jacqueline, a key player in the group was a unique multi-talented individual: an artist, therapist and book restorer. There was little that Jacqueline could not turn her hand to, and all that she did, she did extremely well.

Jacqueline was committed to residents and communities having quality of life and health, particularly in the East End and Bow where she lived. She had never been affected by London City Airport flights until around 3 years ago, when she noticed more flights, more jets and more noise. The noise began to affect her in her home and studio and as a result she had triple glazing installed. That was the catalyst for Jacqueline to become a campaigner against the expansion of London City Airport.

Jacqueline had empathy and understanding, built up good contacts and networked across all levels, from meeting with Sir Simon Milton at City Hall, stylishly challenging the Mayor of London Boris Johnson on his environmental policies in a public question and answer session in Bethnal Green, spending the day at the World Climate Day march with FTF, regularly attending the London City Airport Consultative Committee and spending hours completing funding forms to help secure money for the FTF legal challenge fund. Jacqueline even managed to secure a place on the Anthony Gormley Plinth in Trafalger Square where she raised the issues that she was passionate about, you can see the video here. Her contribution to FTF, and the community was endless, and far more than we could ever list here.

Her independent, brave, intelligent and courageous character bought something special along to the campaign, and to the communities she contributed so much to. She cared and made time to care, and to listen. FTF were extremely lucky to have met Jacqueline, and strong friendships were forged outside of the campaign. Adversity often brings people together whom would have never otherwise have met in such a busy place as London.

Jacqueline Bradshaw-Price sadly passed away on Saturday 21st August 2010 after a long illness which she faced with dignity and courage. She will be sadly missed by all of us here at FTF as a friend as well as a fellow campaigner.

Cremation at City of London Crematorium, Aldersbrook Road, London E12 on Wednesday 8th September at 2.45 p.m. Enquiries to: A & C Tadman, 020 7790 4097. It is requested:no flowers or donations.

Tomorrows Speakers at LCY Demo - End Domestic Flights Now!

2010-09-03T15:26:00.004+01:00

PLEASE NOTE: THERE IS NO DLR SERVICE BETWEEN WESTFERRY, BECKTON AND WOOLWICH ARSENAL - RAIL REPLACEMENT BUSES WILL BE RUNNING- PLEASE CHECK TFL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

Schedule for the day :

11.00 am Demonstration outside the main entrance to City Airport, London, begins.

12.00 noon Speeches outside City Airport –including

John Stewart (leader of the succesful anti-Heathrow expansion campaign),

Murad Qureshi (GLA member, Labour) and

Darren Johnson (GLA member, Green Party).

12:15 “Train not plane” brigade bus leave City Airport on open-top bus, bound for Euston.

1.40 pm “Train not plane” brigade take special carriage on the train to Manchester.

3.50 pm “Train not plane” brigade arrives at Manchester Piccadilly station.

4.30 -5.45 pm “Train not plane” brigade join demonstration at Terminal 3, Manchester Airport.

Phil Thornhill from Campaign against Climate Change said “As unprecedented flooding devastates Pakistan, record temperatures stoke raging wildfires around Moscow and torrential downpours cause landslides that kill thousands in China - its time we got serious about the escalating threat from climate change before its too late. And we’re not getting serious about reducing climate-destabilising emissions until we get to grips with the their fastest growing source. Aviation symbolises the high-emission lifestyles of the developed world that are threatening billions, especially in the most vunerable communities, around the world. We can start to get to grips with the growth in aviation by illiminating the shorter journeys that can be made in other, less carbon-intensive, ways. This is the time to show we’re getting serious with aviation, serious with unnecessary high emissions, serious with climate change – serious, in other words, with the greatest threat facing humanity.”

Anne-Marie Griffin, Chair of ‘Fight the Flights’ said: “An end to unnecessary domestic flights for trips which could be taken by train, would have a hugely positive impact on the residents around London City Airport. Not only would they experience less flight noise and pollution from City Airports' domestic flights, but also from those heading to Heathrow. Travellers taking the train instead of the plane could help improve the lives and health of thousands of Londoners.”

Robbie Gillett from the ‘Stop Expansion at Manchester Airport’ coalition said "There are currently around 38 flights per day between Manchester and the London hubs. Airlines such as Flybe who promote these domestic flights are encouraging airport expansion and threatening the stability of the climate in order to line their own pockets. These flights are the most unnecessary of all and should stop immediately."

Demo This Saturday: End Domestic Flights Now!

2010-08-30T20:12:00.003+01:00

Start: 04 Sep 2010, 11:00 am

Where: London to Manchester

FTF MEETS THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE

Demonstrations in London and Manchester, Saturday 4th September

You can come to the London demonstration - or the one in Manchester - or, for just a fiver, join us in our special carriage on the train (see here) for a full fun day of aviation activism!

Timetable:

11.00 am Demonstration outside City Airport, London. (take the DLR at Bank to get to the ‘London City Airport’ stop on the Woolwich line)

12.15 pm “Train-not-plane” party board the big red (open top double decker) ‘End Domestic Flights’ bus which takes the message through the streets of London to Euston station.
1.40 pm "Train-not-plane" brigade boards the Manchester train at Euston.

3.49 pm “Train-not-plane” party arrives at Manchester Piccadilly station

4.30 - 5.45 pm Demonstration at Manchester Airport at Terminal 3 . More info info[at]stopmanchesterairport.org.uk

6.30 pm - Tea and coffee, followed by a Party for aviation activists : food, drink and live music from ceilidh band "The Fig Band". This will be at Hasty Lane near Manchester airport - in a street threatened by airport expansion - a short bus ride, or 25 minuite walk, from Terminal 3. Accommodation will be organised for those staying overnight.

Join us on the special "Train-not plane" carriage on the 1.40pm train! Take the big red bus from the City Airport demo to Euston station and then join our special “train-not-plane” carriage on the 1.40 train to Manchester. A fiver will get you to Manchester Airport taking our special carriage – first come first served for available seats. To book a ticket click here.

But remember, you need to get back from Manchester! The sooner you book the cheaper the return to London! You can return from Manchester Saturday night or party in Manchester and return Sunday morning. Return to London by train is £11.50 if booked well enough in advance, or around £5.50 on Megabus. The last trains back from Manchester to London on Saturday leave Manchester Piccadilly at 19.37 and 20.35.

Any queries? E-mail enddomesticflights@campaigncc.org

Find out about the local London City Airport anti expansion group “Fight the Flights” at www.fighttheflights.com
Find out about SEMA, the “Stop Expansion at Manchester Airport” group at www.stopmanchesterairport.org.uk

Download a flier to publicise the demo from our leaflets page.

Put this date in your diary now! This will be the time to take the agenda forward on aviation, and insist that at this time of climate emergency we cannot afford to be using high-emission forms of transport where viable alternatives exist. And that aviation will need to bear the burden of emissions reductions along with other sectors.

"End Domestic Flights" is one of the 'Climate Emergency Demands' - see here.

We asked people their thoughts on banning domestic flights and made a video of their responses, you can watch it here.

Victory Against All The Odds

2010-08-22T22:19:00.004+01:00

It is fitting that as FTF nears it's 3rd anniversary, and the legal challenge in November moves nearer that we consider how campaigns work, what makes them successful, the strategies, and most of all the amazing people behind them. We've always been united with our fellow campaigners and always will be, celebrating the successes, and sharing the challenges.

John Stewart, Chair of HACAN and a colleague of ours, has written a book on the work which led to the victory of the Heathrow Campaign to stop the third runway. We'd like to invite you to read it: it reveals the commitment, sacrifices and bravery of those that worked so hard for their victory.

You can read the inspiring and fascinating book here.

Press released 20/08/10

Victory Against All The Odds

New book describing how the Heathrow campaign was won released to mark official celebration of the victory

A book outlining the successful campaign to stop the expansion of Heathrow has been released to mark the official celebration of the event on Saturday 28^th August (1). Victory Against All The Odds has been written by John Stewart, the Chair of HACAN, one of the main organisations in the coalition of groups which successfully fought the plans to expand the airport.

The illustrated book outlines the 10 year struggle to stop expansion. It describes the methods used and highlights the key individuals and organisations involved

It puts success down to three main things: the building up of what it calls the largest and most diverse coalition ever to oppose expansion of an airport in the UK; a willingness to challenge the economic case for expansion; and a determination by the campaigners to set the agenda.

Stewart said: “The victory was no fluke. It wasn’t a question of luck. It was the result of a clear strategy, a radical approach, daring tactics and an utter refusal by the campaigners to believe that we wouldn’t win.”

Notes:

(1). The celebration, organised by Hillingdon Council in conjunction with NoTRAG (The No Third Runway Action Group), will take place on Saturday 28^th August, from 2 – 7pm in Sipson Recreation Ground, Sipson Way (off Sipson Road). More details: www.hillingdon.gov.uk

Coming Soon: Greenwich Council and it's failure to understand noise pollution

2010-08-22T22:17:00.001+01:00

CAA Update on Post Implementation Review of LCY New Flightpath

2010-08-22T22:03:00.004+01:00

The Civil Aviation Authority have kindly updated FTF on the following in relation to the new London City Airport flightpath (Standard Instrument Departure) which was introduced in May 2009. The shift of this particular flight path on departures taking off into the west and banking over Bow, Leyton and Wanstead was a controversial move, and has resulted in an increase in complaints from residents in the areas affected.

I am writing to update you on the progress of the CAA’s Post Implementation Review of the changes to the London City Airport Standard Instrument Departure (SID) routes introduced on 9 May 2009.

The Review was initiated in May 2010 when the change sponsor, NATS, was requested to provide operational data concerning the traffic distribution associated with the revised SIDs covering the 12 months since implementation. NATS have provided the data and our initial analysis has now led us to request further technical data from NATS, which will take time to assemble and analyse. Consequently, the target date for the publication of the Post Implementation Review will now be 31 October 2010

FTF would advise any resident who has found themselves to have been negatively affected by the change of this flight path to submit their feedback to the CAA in regard to the change experienced since last May, and how it has impacted upon your area.

You can submit your comments to the CAA:

Mr J. Walker, Business Coordinator

Directorate of Airspace Policy

CAA House45-59 Kingsway

London

WC2B 6TE

'Why we should end domestic flights: aviation in the era of climate emergency"

2010-08-13T14:23:00.005+01:00

Article from the Campaign Against Climate Change

Where:

SOAS, School of Oriental and African Studies, Thornhaugh St, off Russell Square

Public Meeting, Wednesday 11th August

Around 40 people enjoyed an evening of discussion in SOAS.

John Stewart (chair of AirportWatch) kicked the evening off by stressing the importance of the Heathrow third runway victory to national airport expansion policy.

Dan Glass (Plane Stupid) then followed with a speech and PowerPoint presentation explaining the attractions of non-violent direct action and charting the history of the Plane Stupid campaign including his sticky meeting with Gordon Brown and multiple runway occupations.

Alan Haughton (Fight The Flights) gave us a passionate look into the plight of the people living in the area around City Airport and especially how unviable aviation would be if it were not for government subsidies.

Phil Thornhill (national co-ordinator) applauded the triumphs made at Heathrow, Stansted, and Gatwick, but also expressed the critical need for anti-expansion groups to triumph on a principal instead of individual expansionary proposals. He also noted the importance of direct action whilst highlighting the necessity of legal and inclusive public protests so as to render an argument of ‘illegitimacy’ or ‘marginal extremism’ moot.

The evening concluded with a lively Q&A session covering subjects such as freight transport, a just transition for aviation workers to a low carbon economy, and the need to address long-haul flights in addition to short-haul flights.

Some Facts Regarding London City Airport Expansion Plans

2010-07-27T07:48:00.002+01:00

1. The numbers of people living under flight paths are higher than ever before, and it's happening all over the UK. The planned increase in the number of flights at London City Airport from 76,000 to 120,000 with more plans for an increase over the next decade will bring in larger nosier planes, create new and larger flight paths and negatively affect 1,000’s more. In London and the South East over a million people now live under a flight path.

2. Even though the aviation industry claim that individual aircraft types are getting quieter the growth in the number of aircraft has off-set any improvement in the noise climate for people under the flight path. Remember London City Airport is built in the most densely populated area in the UK.

3. For each of the next 20 years flight numbers across the UK are predicted to rise between 4% and 6%. The Government expects this will require up to 5 new runways, plus full use of the existing runways at most of the country’s airports.

4. The Aviation Industries contribution to climate change is increasing. World-wide aviation is currently responsible for 3% of the emissions that contribute to climate change but between 6% and 13% in the UK. Aviation is the fast-growing contributor to CO2 emissions in the UK.

5. Current Aircraft activities harm people's health. The body of evidence is growing. Many reports from the USA claim there are higher levels of cancer around airports. Many people under flight paths near airports suffer higher levels of annoyance and stress and, whenever there are late or night flying, sleep deprivation is increased.

6. Noise harms children's education. There are a number of studies carried out around airports, which show that "aircraft noise" can adversely affect our children's education. London City Airport is built 200m from a school in Newham.

7. Aviation's contribution to the economy is overstated. It is not nearly as important to the country's economy as the industry claims. It is only the 26th biggest industry in Britain, half the size of the computer industry, and just a tenth the size of banking and finance.

8. The aviation industry is heavily subsidised. The subsidy comes in a number of forms: the industry doesn't pay the costs of the noise and pollution it causes; it pays no tax on aviation fuel; and it is zero-rated for VAT. London City Airport’s policing bill is paid for by the Tax payer at a cost of up to £5.5 million a year. Therefore the cost to the taxpayer of creating a job in aviation is much higher than in a less heavily subsidised industry.

9. Aviation runs up a deficit on tourism. Air tourism results in a deficit of around £17 billion pounds each year. This is because the amount of money spent abroad by Britons flying out of the UK for leisure and holiday trips exceeds the amount visitors into Britain spend here. London City Airport claims it's a business airport, but it will be flying to Ibiza and Majorca during the summer months.

10. London City Airport Fight The Flights is not opposed to aviation, but it does aim to give a voice to people under the London City Airport flight paths. We campaign alongside national, regional and local pressure groups and lobby local and national politicians and government for an approach to aviation that acknowledges those who suffer because of the growth of Airports in populated areas. Such as London City Airport

Country	December 2010	Rolling 12 months (all 2010)
United Kingdom	3,534,971 (26%)	44,900,745
Germany	2,462,258 (18%)	31,411,992
France	2,049,766 (15%)	25,001,122
Spain and Canary Islands	1,320,057 (10%)	17,034,457
Netherlands	1,090,748 (8%)	13,300,655
Italy	985,905 (7%)	13,245,207
Portugal	287,316 (2%)	3,709,925

Airport	December 2010	Rolling 12 months (all of 2010)
London - Heathrow	1,356,374 (16.4%)	16,227,256
Paris - Charles De Gaulle	816,199 (9.9%)	9,849,611
Frankfurt	789,988 (9.6%)	9,892,726
Amsterdam - Schiphol	580,286	7,084,182
Madrid	456,994	5,430,924
Rome - Fiumicino	269,512	3,545,825
Munich	258,416	3,224,331
London - Gatwick	225,459	3,110,108
Paris - Orly	180,153	2,161,269
Milan - Malpensa	143,438	1,822,088
Brussels	141,951	1,702,166
Total - All Airports	8,231,627	107,603,581