The 'prosperity' of 20 years of LCA speaks for itself

Credit Suisse Recommends Trains Rather Than Short Haul Flights

We always love a bit of good old hypocrisy and double standards falling from the mouths of big business, and you can always guarantee it is at its best when big bucks are in the vision of the fat cats.

In this example it is Credit Suisse - a major shareholder in London City Airport. They recommend in their own 'emagazine' that trains should be used in preference to short haul flights. We don't need to remind you that the vast majority of routes out of LCA are mostly accessible by train, and hooray...we see Credit Suisse encouraging the use of audio and video conferencing! Now they are 'forgotten concepts' for the 'fat cat plane and profit pushers'!

We suspect that Credit Suisse may suddenly have a change of heart about promoting train use and reducing CO2 emissions when applying it to their business interests at London City Airport.

Here's part of the article of their committment to encouraging the use of trains...over planes:

Air Travel: Second Largest Emission SourceBusiness air travel causes a fifth of the bank’s CO2 emissions. To neutralize these emissions, all plane tickets for flights originating in Switzerland and booked through the bank’s travel services are currently issued as carbon neutral tickets. Train travel is also recommended as an alternative to short-haul flights, and the use of audio and video-conferencing encouraged. In 2006, the use of videoconferencing for instance rose by 30 percent worldwide compared with a year earlier. Paper, waste and water use, combined contribute to an additional 3 percent of the bank’s CO2 emissions.

If you would like to ask Credit Suisse about their double standards and how they are quite happy to ask for 100,000 extra jets over the heads of the most densely populated residential areas in the country why not write to them? Here's their address:

Credit Suisse
One Cabot Square
London
E14 4QJ

Phone +44 20 7888 8888
Fax +44 20 7888 1600

Aircraft Noise and High Blood Pressure

In a report issued in January 2008 on behalf of the Federal Environment Agency, Berlin Germany it was found that:

'sufficient evidence for a positive relationship between aircraft noise and high blood pressure and the use of cardiovascular medication".

Wolfgang Babisch & Irene Van Kampf
Cardiovascular Effects of Aircraft Noise
2nd draft (December 2007) Issued January 2008

So if you have high blood pressure and live in the noise contour why not mention this to your GP or consultant? Perhaps in the future we'll be seeing some 'no win, no fee' activity taken out against London City Airport too. But then again, with the company they keep they will be denying it until the evidence is a mile high and hits them in the face.

Corporate responsibility Credit Suisse? Oh silly us! Of course it's residents own fault for living in the area, or that's the inference from the socially responsible London City Airport 'employee'! Considering the Government has a drive on housing people in the Thames Gateway, you'd think LCA would get a grip. Perhaps they ought to take that attitude along to the Government, and the Thames Gateway Unit? Yes, why not kick the residents in one of the most socially deprived boroughs in London, let alone the country, just a little more?

Yes your local airport certainly displays that it is a caring and sharing airport.....of all things negative with a hefty dollop of disrespect to the local residents. Corporate dis-respect.

Roll Up, Roll Up: Airport Takes A Minimum 15% Off Home Values

In an article by Find a Property.com as far back as 2003 it was stated that:

being on a noisy road or right next to the railway line, or under a flight path, has a big negative impact, lopping off up to 15% of the value of your home

And London City Airport likes to make out it doesn't have any impact on housing prices in the area....we suspect that the 15% has become rather larger since then, and clearly any flight expansion using more and more jet planes only adds to the negative effect on the value of property. In addition being forced into a noise contour, or a Public Safety Zone due to LCAs relentless greed to expand, is hardly an attractive benefit to add value to your home. So just how much is lost when an airport expands or changes beyond recognition of it's original planning approval whilst you have lived in the same area during that time?

In the days when LCA was just for small private planes - the original purpose of the airport being opened, it would have been a lot different. But it's managed to betray the local community, along with Newham Council and push for expansion over the years leaving the community blighted by noise and air polllution. In fact, just 2 years ago the area was a lot different, and it certainly was not dominated by the majority of flights being jets, thundering overhead forcing residents to close windows and turn up the tv - even though you still cannot hear it until the so called 'whisper jet' passes by.

Of course there's a lot of money at stake to developers, planners and business if articles such as that above are publicised too much. So don't expect the property pushers to start saying anything but the opposite!

Property Prices Crash Under the Flight Path

Property Prices on one recently built development under the flight path in Greenwich have crashed whilst those less than a few minutes walk away, but not under the flight path, nor in the noise contour, are flourishing. So it seems that the current general credit crunch effects cannot be applied.

A campaigner recently had their home valued and was told that their property value had decreased by £57,000 in 3 years. And this is just the tip of the iceberg other residents in the same development have lost over £100,000.

It's a tale of two developments - with exactly the same problems - but the only difference being that one is beneath the flight path.

London City Airport recently asked their friends to prove that airport expansion doesn't effect property prices. Interestingly their friends were not brave enough to use the area around London City Airport as an example. Instead they used Farnborough and Heathrow. Once again, it was a clear case of skirting around the real issue, something that LCA is so good at.

Something which is more valuable, and not tinged by the aviation industry is a study by Stop Stanstead Expansion group who were lucky enough to have a specialist to look at the effects of expansion on property values around Stanstead Airport. They estimated, after having looked at property data from over a period of years that: there had been a loss of £800 million on the value of local properties around the Stanstead areas.

What is more, Newham was also plummetting behind on the property front some time ago according to the Newham Recorder, well behind property trends elsewhere.

So how are the Government, house builders and land owners in the areas affected going to convince eager home owners to buy in the Thames Gateway which is overflown by LCA flights at low level? They say there is shortage of homes, but the Thames Gateway already has an image problem without Public Safety Zones and excrutiating noise levels of up to the mid - late 80dbs.

Developments such as Silvertown Quays, Tamesis Point and many others are going to have their work cut out. We'd like to see the developers be more vocal about the effects of expansion on the properties they are building- as the cat is definately out of the bag based on all the current evidence whether they like it or not. Why else wouldn't property agents be telling prospective buyers about the airport expansion plans and the associated noise, whilst others only like to show buyers around at the no flight time - Saturday afternoons.

All in all it's just another way in which residents are paying for the operation of London City Airport and the airlines, along with the £7million pound annual security that London taxpayers pay (which Richard Gooding has no intention of paying - see Wanstead and Woodford Guardian Q & A session with Richard Gooding) , the tax breaks, the pollution and effects on residents health. All picked up by...you, the taxpayer and local resident.