Are LCA Dicing With The Communities Safety?

Residents have been reporting into us this morning of the appalling weather conditions and alarming attempts of flights to land and take off.

With strong cross winds around London City Airport's runway - 4 flights were forced to abort landing in just 30 minutes of observation. Planes were visibly struggling at some height before approaching the runway with the cross winds.

Some were just feet above the runway and were felt to be at risk of over running the runway by observers - before the aircraft had to abort the landing and struggle to gain height over the A117 Woolwich Manor Way, with landing gear still visible.

Observers felt that they were about to witness an incident on more than one occasion and questioned 'why were LCA still allowing flights to take off and land in such conditions, wouldn't it have been better to have re-routed them to another airport if landing was proving so difficult'? 'Who takes that decision to allow flights to continue to land and take off in such dangerous conditions - and who are they accountable to'? the resident asked us. We suspect there may have been some very startled drivers on that road this morning, as well as startled air passengers.

It reminds us that there are a lot of people in the close vicinity of LCA and the public safety zone, and they were alarmed and scared by these sights. It brings home the reality of the dangers to the community of the airports close proximity to such high density residential areas, and busy roads and the difficult weather conditions that are experienced in the area. The strong winds are even stated in planning documents for housing and developers are often required to plant trees to help create some protection from wind in the exposed areas of East and South East London's former marshlands. LCA's location is clearly not a suitable place to expand flights at all and with 50% more flights (100% more flights in their dreams) - especially on days like today, the risk is too high to the safety of the surrounding communities.

Coming Soon: Videos of this mornings aborted and alarming landings.

Aviation Environment Federation - Resources for Campaigners

Worried about an airport expansion? Wondering how to influence a planning decision? AEF has published an online handbook, Airports and Planning, which guides readers through all stages of the planning process and how to get involved.

The handbook - designed to give general readers an accessible overview of the environmental impacts of airports, as well as offering practical advice for campaigners - covers where to get information, how to respond to planning applications and public inquiries, and what you can do to influence national policy. Offering a complete revision of AEF's 1995 publication Aviation, the environment and planning law, the new guide outlines the latest developments in legislation and provides up-to-date information about environmental impacts.

Chapters can be downloaded for free from the planning section of their website.

How's Life Around London City Airport - A Bowl of Cherries?

We're sorry to say that life for the communities around the airport is far from a bowl of cherries.

University College London have created the London Profiler, a mapping tool which when you search a borough or postcode and select to search for illness levels, deprivation, income levels, barriers to housing etc it highlights areas to the level of deprivation they suffer.

On our first view of this splendid tool of the areas around London City Airport we have noticed that the following categories all fall into the 1st, 2nd or 3rd, 4th most deprived categories in and around London City Airport:

• exceptionally high levels of admission to hospital for heart attacks, for male and females in the areas adjacent to the airport and directly under the east bound flight path,
• income
  
• employment
  
• crime
• health, deprivation and disability
• barriers to housing and services
• living environment

It's always helpful to see a map of the economic and social, health pointers to dispel the spin that London City Airport feed to residents that they have done so much for the area in 20 years.

To us here at Fight the Flights it doesn't look as if they could have done any less, or have had a more negative impact for the communities that are around them! So who is benefitting from the airports presence....? That's an easy one....

All answers to the usual address at Pinnochio Way please!!

London City Airports Annual Bill To London Taxpayers

We raised the issue a time ago, (something that London City Airport neglect to address in their spin to residents), of the £7million annual cost for LCA airport security, that you the London taxpayer, pay to save their shareholders money and make them more profit.

An agreement was supposed to have been settled by November of 2007 with regard to these costs: the Metropolitan Police quite rightly should not be picking up the cost and paying with our taxes - most of us would prefer to see that £7million put to good use by the Police in helping them to do their job in communities - not in commercial financial concerns. And it's clear that the Met want to see LCA pay their own bill - and we are right behind them on that.

So what's happened since with these discussions? Well not much it seems - LCA are dragging their heels - putting up a good fight so that their shareholders don't pay a penny towards the security costs.

In an article in Airport International at the end of last summer they highlighted how it is London taxpayers who are paying for London City Airport security and Richard Barnes of the MPA stated:

“There appears to be no common approach to the extent to which operators contribute to policing costs and too many different interpretations of requirements under current legislation. Police have to provide a service to protect all those who use our airports, and it is unfair to expect them to pay for policing private, moneymaking businesses.”

He concluded:“At the end of the day, it is the taxpayer who pays, while shareholders earn dividends. This can be tolerated no longer.”

Apparently it will ultimately land on the desk of Ruth Kelly if it is not resolved - and we just can't wait to see what decision she makes on whether we should all continue to go to work, or receive pensions and pay taxes on them just to fund the likes of LCA, Credit Suisse, GE and AIG.

And what was London City Airport saying about what they give to the community?!! We'll hazard a guess that it's not anywhere near £7million's worth each year!!

LCA, Cloud Cuckoo Land and Southend Airport

We found ourselves rather amused at London City Airport's latest statement of spin - but first here's the context:

This time, unfortunately, we are very sad to report that London City Airport and their greedy shareholders: AIG, Credit Suisse and GE want to spread the misery they already inflict on South East and East London on....Southend Airport, Essex. Yes, those caring and sharing shareholders who like to bury the negatives of the effect of aviation expansion in mistruths and spin of the most epic proportions through their employees at London City Airport may be on their way to Sunny Southend. Reportedly having put in a bid for £100 million for Southend airport they are now waiting to see if they are successful or not.

But what amused us was the statement from Richard Gooding, Chief Exec of LCA, who we find is becoming almost an expert on making statements which are inaccurate and misleading.......gaffs are a plenty for the price Credit Suisse, GE and AIG are paying him...

He stated to the Independent:

"There is a shortage of airports in the South-east, and Southend therefore presents an opportunity."

There is a shortage of airports in the South-east??? Nooooo.... he's wrong on that one, but we're used to him being wrong. What he clearly meant to say was: there is a shortage of airspace for all his big plans to pollute communities in South East and East London...and now Essex...or perhaps he didn't realise? There's just 'no more room at the Inn' - hence why the government are asking NATS to squeeze a camel through the eye of a needle with their proposed flight path changes.

Here's a list of airports in the South East:

Gatwick
Heathrow
Stanstead
Lydd
Kent International
Biggin Hill
Farnborough
London City Airport
Luton
Southend
Southampton
Brighton City

Doesn't look anything like a 'shortage' to us!! Still LCA do have a problem with the correct definitions of words.....

But even better their 'spin doctor spokeswoman' then went on to claim in The Wharf:

“We have the expertise in the Thames Gateway region and when you take that into account it becomes an even more interesting proposition".

Expertise in the Thames Gateway? What exactly is that expertise we are wondering? After 20 years LCA has not bought any significant prosperity to the area and it's residents - Newham is still the 3rd most socially deprived borough in the country.

LCA have however ruined the quality of lives of 1000s of residents who cannot have their windows open, spend time outside, or expect their children to do well at school..... and they wish to extend that to over 45,000 with expansion with deafening noise levels and other pollution. They also suggest that 6000 much needed new Thames Gateway homes should not be built to allow for their greedy expansion. That doesn't even take into account the 1000s of Thames Gateway homes that have already been built in the area which will be pure hell to live in and de-valued by any expansion of jets and the never ending 80-90db noise levels every 90 seconds.

LCA have failed miserably in their 'consultation' with all those affected by expansion, they consistently give out inconsistent and inaccurate information regarding the current application, consistently 'lose' complaints and show a complete lack of respect and knowledge of, and for, the communities affected by flight expansion.

So where exactly is the expertise in that? To round that off with the regular, amusing gaffs they make - we don't see much 'expertise' showing at all. Even if you are going to spin you need to be good at it - and clearly it's just not working out too well at all in Pinnochio Towers.