Boris Johnson & Sir Robin Wales of Newham are Gambling With YOUR Health and FUTURE

Bad Air Causes 4400 Londoners To Die Early Every Year
Liberal Democrat Research:

At least 4,400 Londoners are dying prematurely every year because of air pollution, according to research by the Liberal Democrats. In Tower Hamlets the expansion of flights into and out of London City airport and a possible third runway at Heathrow will increase local air pollution and noise nuisance.

London is doing badly on two measures of air quality - particles leading to premature death and the nitrogen dioxide emissions which aggravate childhood asthma. Nitrogen dioxide emissions are particularly associated with air travel, strengthening the case against a third runway at Heathrow.

Commenting, Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park, and leading campaigner against a third Heathrow runway, Susan Kramer said:

"It is almost impossible to comprehend that well over 4,000 people a year in our city are having their lives cut short needlessly. Yet despite this, Gordon Brown rammed through plans for the third runway against massive opposition.

The Government and the Mayor have to explain why they have been dragging their feet on pollution whilst massively underestimating the damage being done. People are paying for this inaction with their lives."

Leader of the Council group on Tower Hamlets Council, Cllr Stephanie Eaton said:

"Many flights into Heathrow pass directly over Tower Hamlets. Flights into and out of nearby City Airport cause noise and air pollution. The Mayor of London must address this issue before more people have their lives blighted by asthma and the disturbances of aircraft noise."

Liberal Democrats are pressing for the UK to fully comply with air quality laws in time for the 2012 Olympics.

______________________

And what is Mayor Boris Johnson doing about this? He supported expansion at London City Airport - which will add 50% more pollution to East London in an area which already exceeds EU air quality levels by 50%. This leaves East London with nothing but TOXIC air with a GROWING contribution from a TOXIC London City Airport. Asthma levels are set to continue to increase, and to stay at the highest mortality rates in under 30s in Newham in the whole of the country.

Does Mayor Johnson care about the health and welfare of East Londoners?
Does Sir Robin Wales's Newham Council care about the health and welfare of East Londoners?
They both SUPPORT expansion at ANY cost, on estimated, unreliable and flawed data provided by the disingenuous and desperate London City Airport.

They are gambling with YOUR health and YOUR future.

12 FACTS about London City Airport

• Failed to take actual reliable noise readings from 2000 to 2008

• Failed to take reliable air readings from 2000 to 2008
• Since 2006 the airport has been exceeding their air traffic movement limit of 76,000, steadily climbing to almost 100,000
• Failed to have an efficient and accurate complaints system
• Consistently deceived the community by providing incorrect and partial misinformation.
• Noise mitigation programme years behind schedule
• Noise mitigation eligibility: Only homes built or given approval after 1997 are eligible for noise management – this excludes around 99% of homes in projected noise contours.
• 46,000 additional residents across 3 boroughs will be bought into the noise contours, 100,000s of residents will be affected beyond the contour
• An estimated 1000 family homes in Greenwich will be in the extended public safety zone (crash zone)
• Drew Road Primary School is less than 200 yards from the airport terminal
• The airport is situated in the most densely populated area of the whole country
• Aviation is the fastest growing source of C02 emissions and if it continues at it's current rate will use up all the Climate Bill emission allowance, even with using carbon credits
  The climate bill accepts the effect of greenhouse gases on our environment – aviation is ignoring it and is being given preferential treatment in doing so.
  

Beckton Alps

Before

The highest point in Newham, with incredible views over London, is a slag heap of what was once the biggest gasworks in the world. It was also a dry ski slope but now lies derelict except for occasional bonfires. It is one of the 7 sites in the British Isles to have been chosen as part of the BIG ART project.

There is some discussion as to what should be put there and, as seems to be the case with anyone involved in Newham, there has been no consensus of opinion and it appears to have been put on hold for the moment. Given the amount of extra planes that will be shortly gracing our skies courtesy of the Borough of Newham I would have thought that there would be no problem in buying a couple of the redundant Boeings from the Plane Graveyard and sticking them on the site. ABC News

After







Seachanges

Buchanon Wheels Off: Toad On The Road

Charles Buchanan has disappeared from London City Airport. Why should you be interested you ask? Well for those of you who went to the shambles of the Planning Meeting at LB Newham will remember him as the smug toad who sat crossed armed laughing and smiling at protesters and residents. Such was the anger he instilled that people actually shouted at the speaker to ask him to stop his smug, smarmy little smirks.

Richard Gooding of course wouldn't have the bottle to stand up and face real people so Charlie was the canary they sent down the mine. Now that the face of expansion at the council and airport disappears it still leaves us with the disastrous consequences. We have seen communications from Charlie only weeks ago still trying to persuade people about the benefits of expansion. Well according to his Linkedin profile he's still there. Maybe his one connection will actually believe that. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/820/990

Charlie over his tenure seemed more adept at collecting titles rather than actually doing anything productive - Director of Business Development , Strategy Director and Strategy and Communications Director. His handling of objections to the airport were disasterous. The masterplan (nothing master about it at all) looks like it's to be consigned to history with everyone from Boris Johnson to the Green Party saying that it would be hard to justify anymore expansion or calling for the airport to be closed. Every single candidate in the recent Royal Docks by-election were against expansion.

Year to date the airport business is down 9.6% while Charlies little baby - The Jet Centre - is down a spectacular 35%!

One has to wonder what has happened - has Charles Buchanon been sacked? No press release from the airport and as they only announce good news - this obviously isn't! Perhaps Charlie had more of those open conversations on the DLR about the plans of London City Airport, and their cosy relationship with LB Newham?

But here at FTF we have to salute Buchanan - such was peoples ire after watching his actions at the planning meeting, here at FTF we were inundated by upset people offering help and assistance helping us go from strength to strength. Over the weekend make sure you raise a glass "to A Right Charlie!" or was that "a 'smarmy Charlie?!"

London City Airport Twist the Facts...Again

London City Airport must be getting absolutely desperate.
They have decided to use airport workers in their battle against all the negative crash headlines.

RUNWAY GROUND STAFF HAVE BEEN NAMED AND PHOTOGRAPHED ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WHARF WITH FULL PERMISSION OF LCA. IN OUR OPINION THIS COULD BE SEEN AS A SECURITY RISK. WHY IS IT THAT A PHOTOGRAPHER WAS ARRESTED AND QUESTIONED UNDER THE TERRORISM ACT, FOR TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF A WEDDING OUTSIDE THE RAMADA, WHICH IS NOT EVEN ON AIRPORT PROPERTY, BUT WHEN LCA DECIDE TO PARADE THEIR STAFF, NAMES AND AGES FOR ALL TO SEE,TO TRY AND SPIN A NEGATIVE NEWS STORY,THAT'S OK?

We are absolutely shocked that the airport would exploit these men like this in a bid to try and get public confidence back after the aviation experts stated that London City Airport is susceptible to hard landings and the consequences. It appears to be a gross security breach but clearly one that the PR spokeswoman (yes you will know who, as crass errors in PR are her signature) was happy to spin out whilst they lost control of the press for a change!

The Wharf Newspaper this week has front page headlines about the five airport workers who assisted in the crash."THE RESCUERS" are five frontline workers who dealt with the crash on Friday the 13th. Their swift action deserves its praise.

We have never seen airside security identities at any airport being exploited and compromised like this for PR means.They are pictured together , named and ages given.It makes an absolute mockery of the £2.5 million bill that the taxpayer picks up annually on behalf of the airport.

Airside workers remain anonymous for obvious reasons. In a few clicks online we were able to find contact routes for two of the men and photographs of planes and one of a previous crash at the airport that they had posted online. It also makes a mockery of the id scheme that these workers have been forced into testing.

We would not post the photo or names here but its frightening to see this wilful breach in security all in the name of spin. Last year a Sun Reporter carried a pretend BOMB through security and onto the runway at London CityAirport. Weak, failing security from an airport that should know better.

In two weeks there have been two incidents with the British Airways jets landing at the airport, (both times requiring the airport to halt operations for a period of time). And as if things couldn't get any worse for the ailing airport, a Swiss Air pilot exposing himself to security on the very same week that London City Airport claim they have the best pilots in Britain. Best pilots that throw a tantrum and expose themselves because they are asked to be security checked? It seems that they all need a reality check. What was the alternative for the pilot? Not to be searched, and then we face yet another security breach. It seems to us that the arrogance of London City Airport is catching.

(Update) London City Airport Runway Closed After Incident

It has been reported that a British Airways RJ city flyer plane which had taken off from Glasgow, carrying 25 passengers damaged it's front wheel while landing at London City Airport this afternoon. The runway was closed for a period of time following the incident. All passengers and crew were thankfully unharmed. You can see comments about the incident by clicking here.

It seems that London City Airports PR spin machine tried to keep it as quiet as possible with carefully placed information (or lack of it) in as few places as possible. Click here. The reason could be that they have had such a bad week with the snow closing the airport and having to cancel and/or divert flights to other airports. The other is that this is not the first time an incident like this has happened. Just a couple of years ago a Swissair jet managed to burst its tyres on landing and sustain fueslage damage so badly that it had to be floated out of the airport.

London City Airport has been getting more and more bad PR as more and more fact based information is coming out that they do not want the general public to see.

However such incidents once again highlight the potential risks of having an airport in the middle of the most densely residentially occupied area in the country, and the collusive and secretive methods of the airport in withholding information from the general public.

More planes = more risk.
More planes=more LCA spin to bury the negatives.

Building 1000 Is Sinking - A Bit Like Sir Robin Wales and The Hearts of Newham Residents

Yes, Building 1000 in the 'State of Newhamgrad' is sinking.

For the last month, our blog has been inundated with visitors looking for information on Building 1000. And we've just been waiting to find out why but what a good opportunity it has been to share the information of the property blight that London City Airport has bought to this part of London. And of course, how Newham went to the rescue of the beleagured, brand new building that remained empty for so long to perhaps save embarassment for himself and the airport?

It seems that it was yet another bad decision by Newham, a bit like the boroughs keystone cops that got Newham a call up to Whitehall one day, the situation was so dire.

This time, the curse of Newham and London City Airport has hit Building 1000, apart from it being a black hole for Newham taxpayers money, and for an alleged 600 jobs axed to purchase it....it now seems that Building 1000 is SINKING! In addition it's reported that there has been a lot of internal damage due to building faults see here in Newham Doublethinks informative and eye opening article.

Does this mean that London City Airport is also at threat of subsidence or sinking? Perhaps London City Airport may have been contributory to the subsidence due to excessive noise levels and the impact from Jets causing vibration and ground movement? Only time will tell.

LCAs Broken Promises, and Pork Pies: JOBS

In the London City Airport application to increase flights to 73,000 submitted on the 2nd of June 1998, the employment section still makes mind boggling reading....

"Regeneration and Partnerships do expect considerable job growth if the number of air services is extended as suggested - the economic impact study estimates that if the full increase in ATMs is allowed airport related employment will rise from 1,140 in 1997 to 4,275 in 2005 , an increase of over 3000 jobs.The point is taken that because of the need for high provision of services , estimates of employment growth at airports in Britain have tended to materialise.

We would however question the assumption that the use of additional new technology will not restrain this growth and there will be no diminishing returns as the airport expands.
The projection of 4,275 jobs may prove too high an estimate.However if , say , 1500 - 2000 or more jobs were created , even as a conservative estimate , this would represent a very welcome boost for the borough"

In the current application the airport claims 1866 jobs. And if the application goes through they claim to create another 1000.

But in 10 years from the 1998 application job figure of 1140 to the current 1866 the airport has created 726 jobs!! So what happened to the projected 4275? They haven't even hit HALF of the most conservative estimate of 1500!!!!!

An increase of 36,000 flights actually created 726 jobs over a DECADE. Now they plan to increase flights by 40,000 and create 957 jobs by 2010.

How??

Even at best case scenario and on history and current figures it would take 13 YEARS.

Then we have 328 employees on-site who are not required to provide address information as they are employed by control authorities such as the Metropolitan Police, Special Branch, HM Immigration and HM Revenue and Customs.In layman's terms its the tax payer who is paying for these jobs. So are we paying for half the jobs created?

Then we have Cityjet paying in Euros and the jobs going through Ireland. How many are there? Are they included in the 726?

From a projection of 4275 to only 726. So Even in the best case scenario and with only 29% of these jobs going to Newham , the airport has created 210 Newham jobs over a decade, of which just over 120 are direct employment at the airport.

So 210 jobs times the Newham average wage of £27,600 totals £5.7 million a year. Funnily enough just about the same as the annual security bill. But we suspect that the majority of those jobs receive far from near the average salary, even Newham's.

LCA: MET Airport Police - Insider Speaks Out

Not surprisingly some of the police that provide free security to London City Airport are fed up.

FTF has been told by a serving officer that allegedly his fully trained and armed police officer colleagues feel ''nothing more than glorified security guards''. One of their main concerns, the officer told us, was that allegedly in an event of an incident on the runway, the Police had "no right to go onto the runway, without first seeking advice from an airport director". This apparently causes some considerable anxiety to the officers as it could potentially affect their response times, and of course could reflect badly on them.

FTF is clearly concerned to hear that the Police appear to have some issues and concerns with the airport. We value the work they do, but don't think they should be having to provide it free of charge to the greedy GE and Credit Suisse share owners of the airport.

This is of course the fault of the government for allowing the Police to be used as a free security service to a private entity, and for LCA continuing to be happy to pour money into other airport bids, whilst continuing to allow London tax payers to pay for 100% of their MET Police security costs, which costs US millions of pounds each year.

Slaughter & May Advising London City Airport GIP on Gatwick Bid

The greedy shareholders of London City Airport General Electric, and Credit Suisse of train not plane fame, (they call themselves a consortium: Global Infrastructure Partners) have featured in The Lawyer with regard to their Gatwick bid:

"Global Infrastructure Partners, a consortium made up of GE and Credit Suisse, which already owns London City Airport, is believed to have turned to previous adviser Slaughter and May, led by partner Mark Horton. Clifford Chance is also understood to have a role for that client".

The old pressure pushers for Docklands appear to still be hanging in there.

All we hope is that it costs LCA and GIP a fortune, and they lose the bid. Trebles all round for us on that day!!

With LCA's operational track record of 10 years of failing to meet the most serious of environmental data collection requirements on air and noise, set within their planning agreement, and with flight delays well beyond Heathrows, we couldn't possibly recommend them for Gatwick and inflict them upon our good friends down there. With a CEO who reckons that running an airport is the ''most fun you can have with your clothes on'' , it's just too much to inflict on them, the thought!

Still, the 'lawyers' would have welcomed the instructions in these times of financial austerity! Perhaps Sir Robin Wales might even offer the taxes of Newham residents to assist the London Borough of London City Airport in their quest?

How many flights go from London City Airport? Asks LCA

If you know the answer, please do let London City Airport know, as we've been reliably informed that one of their staff appears to be in the dark about this and carried out a web search to see if they could find the answer. Oh and guess where they ended up!! FTF just never seems to be off their radar. That caused some considerable amount of amusement in team FTF.

Perhaps LB Newham have just asked LCA and Bickerdike Allen (their consultants) if they operated within the planning limits for the past year in terms of flights operated on the basis of noise factored movements. Bearing in mind the lack of constant and reliable data collection at LCA in the past, the figures they perhaps could find in such a search might be more reliable than their own claims!

Theresa Villiers Says No to Heathrow, But Yes to London City Airport?

Yet more hypocrisy from politicians. Apparently Theresa Villiers and co of the Conservative Party is dead against expansion at Heathrow, for health, quality of life and environmental issues. But it appears if the problems are transferred to East London, or other parts of the South East, it's perfectly fine!! Is this really going to turn into a West/East divide of cherry picking potential voters?

In The Times, Sam Coates reported that:

The Conservatives said yesterday that they were willing to expand airport capacity in the South East despite the party’s environmental opposition to a third runway at Heathrow.
Luton, City Airport or Southend could be allowed increased numbers of flights or an extra runway under the Tories, even though they argued against Heathrow’s expansion on the grounds that it could jeopardise the target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.

Robin Wales - Confronted Over London City Airport

In the recent explosive Mayoral 'question time' in Beckton , 'Sir' Robin Wales was questioned about London City Airport.

Before he was questioned he did a little self PR about 0% council tax rises. Don't let this fool you though! The average income for a household in Newham is £27,600, compared with £34,625 for London as a whole. So the average Newham family receives 76% LESS than these families passing through London City Airport £27,600 Vs, £116,000 and puts up with all the noise and air pollution for the pleasure.

He also tried to shout down the questioner for bringing up the 16 homes owned by a Beckton Cllr sitting in the front row of the meeting and the 5600 homeless families in Newham.

He was asked what he was most ashamed of...

(a) Why the children's choir that sung at the beginning of the meeting and that he was happy to be photographed with , why then was he happy to let them be continually exposed to choking Nitrogen Dioxide gases 50% higher than acceptable EU levels from London City Airport.
(b) Why was it acceptable for the children's education to be continually interrupted by noise from LCA - much of which is unmonitored and in breach of World Health Organisation levels.
(c) Why do LCA airport receive over £5 million a year of Tax Payers money for security and policing while crime is up in Beckton and Royal docks area and they are closing down the local police station.
(d) Why he spent over £100 MILLION of tax payers money to buy Building 1000 beside LCA even though it was classed as not fit for purpose.In fact a bit like HIMSELF!

Anyway the usual word answers came from his mouth saying that things are "not perfect at the airport, but jobs were created and this was the most important".

Then why, oh why has this happened......

Since 2005 - the date of the winning bid - the Government has been working its fingers to the bone issuing new national insurance numbers in Newham to workers taking up the new opportunities British taxpayers and British lottery payers are financing.

But what do the facts tell us? Since 2005 more than 50,000 national insurance numbers have been issued in Newham, and if you click here you can read the ever practical Frank Field's take on it all:

Suddenly Robin Wales isn't that interested in jobs for Newham people (except at the airport when it comes to planning applications: in all but words, and certainly not deeds!) It really is shameful.

Even Worse now, is it has come to light that the vast amount of workers at CityJet get paid in EUROS and their jobs and taxes are through DUBLIN!! Cityjet are one of the largest employers at the airport.

So why wasn't this declared and looked into at the expansion proposal? Probably because the true number of Newham residents employed by the airport has never been disclosed by the airport or Newham as it is so pitiful.

But when the airport and 'Sir' Robin Wales has good friends like Stephen Timms MP, that useless waste of space of a junior minister in government who supported a higher tax for the lowest earners, then it helps. Clearly anything can be 'pushed through' if it means that more of the higher tax band payers (the better off) can travel from an area (Newham) where the lowest earners pay proportionately MORE tax on their incomes, AND in addition PAY for LCA security out of their COUNCIL TAXES, whilst only dreaming of being able to use their 'local airport'! Oh, and don't forget the damage to their children's education and to their health that they have to incur as a result of the excessive noise levels.

Wales never answered the question in the end.

What should he be more ashamed of? Of course we know the answer. London City Airport.

The Guardian - Picks up our Crossrail story on London City Airport

Nice to see that Paul Vidal, reporter of the Eco Soundings column in The Guardian today, has picked up our story on the whingeing London City Airport petitioning against Crossrail.

This won't go down well with the LCA PR - more negative, but factual information about London City Airport out there in the public domain, what next? Freedom of speech, of the press and democracy? LCA better get the chill pills out! Don't forget LCA are upset, because they feel it's their human right to enjoy their business 'peacefully'! It's got nothing to do with the competition of another transport system which might take some of their custom away from jets and put it onto high speed trains of course!

January 28, 2009 The Guardian

Off the rails
Crossrail, the east-west rail line soon to be built through London, has been welcomed by commuters, government and business. But three organisations have now petitioned the House of Lords, complaining about the noise and pollution that could occur during its construction. One is London City Airport, which runs the airport, another is London City airport's freeholder, and the third is London City airport's leaseholder. FYI: London City airport wants to increase flights from the airport by 50% - flying in the face of many complaints about its own noise and pollution.

Conviction For Uncertified Flights Out of London City Airport

An eagle eyed resident noticed that the CAA had carried out a prosecution in Stratford which they suspected had to be linked to an activity from London City Airport. A freedom of information request to the CAA and we have all the information to enlighten us of yet more goings on at LCY.

It seems that illegal flights were going in and out of LCy. They were illegal as they were in breach of the Air Operator's Certificate(AOC). British North West Airlines pleaded not guilty - but were duly convicted. You can read more about the AOC here.

We at FTF can't help but question: how on earth did London City Airport allow these flights to operate, and more than once? Or did they just pass the buck and have their heads buried in the sand over this issue too? It shows a complete disregard for health and safety of the communities and users, not only by BNWA at the time, but also by London City Airport. Why wouldn't LCY have checked the AOC for the aircraft? They are always going on about these stringent conditions put upon them by the CAA, though as we know, there is little regard for following rules, or obligations from the 10 years of neglect to environmental monitoring.

_____________________________________________________________

CAA Listed and Provided Information:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/AnnualProsecutionResultsfrom01042007to31052008.pdf

The prosecution referred to is:
CAA V BRITISH NORTH WEST AIRLINES (BNWA)

BNWA operated a number of passenger flights between Sandown Airport on the Isle of Wight and London City Airport in August 2006, using Piper Chieftain PA31-350, registered as G-BBNT. In operating these flights BNWA was in breach of its Air Operator’s Certificate.

At Stratford (East London) Magistrates Court on 1 November 2007 the Company was convicted after trial of three specimen offences under Article 6, ANO 2005. They were fined £1000 on each count and ordered to pay £4000 costs. Total £7000.

Just How Toxic Is London City Airport?

About 50% more toxic than it should be according to EU limits.

In 2006 the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy published a report entitled: "Dangerous levels of toxic gas detected at most major airports" .The contents of the article are truly shocking, and yet it doesn't seem to have been addressed, to our knowledge, at all.

It found that "Levels of a toxic atmospheric pollutant exceed EU limits at most airports in England,". The most worrying was the indication that: "Over two thirds (16 out of 23) of the airports included in the CSP’s study recorded dangerously high levels of nitrogen dioxide – a noxious gas that irritates the airways of the lungs and causes breathing difficulties."

The EU says nitrogen dioxide levels need to stay below 40 micrograms per cubic metre of air (mcg/m3) to be safe, the readings at London City Airport were 50 per cent higher than the EU target. And if that were not enough, we can re-visit the issue of Newham having the highest rate of mortality in under 30s in England, and above average levels of asthma and other respiratory diseases:

Respiratory physiotherapists say the consequences of being exposed to the gas can be especially severe among people with existing lung conditions, like asthma, bronchitis and emphysema.

CSP spokesperson, Professor Grahame Pope, says:
... ‘There’s no doubt that aircraft contribute to the problem, but it should be noted that cars, buses and taxis ferrying passengers to and from these sites are dominant sources of pollution...

So what have the government and Newham done about these dangerous levels which expose EU targets? Nothing it seems, well that is apart from approving a 50% increase in flights, which will further increase nitrogen dioxide. But don't worry, RPS and the airport have said that everything will be ok, and that the pollution is nothing really to worry about!

So that's alright then. If you believe them that is.

Tax Payers Soon To Own RBS's LCA Loan?

Just a few years ago London City Airport was sold for an estimated £750m, netting a windfall for Irish tycoon Dermot Desmond who bought the Docklands site in 1995 for only £23.5m.

At that time, the credit watchdog Standard & Poor's said the deal involved a "staggering" level of debt.

Michael Wilkins, S&P's infrastructure director, said the ratio was about 27 times EBITDA earnings, four times as high as most private equity deals. The loans are taken out on floating rates, making the operation vulnerable to any monetary squeeze.

AIG Collapsed last year with Global Investment Partners (Credit Suisse and General Electric - the owners of LCA) buying their 50% share of the airport. GIP are now budding on Gatwick.

Financing for the transaction was provided by The Royal Bank of Scotland and Credit Suisse.
Royal Bank of Scotland is on course for the biggest loss in UK corporate history after revealing it expected to write down as much as £20 billion on the falling value of its assets and its investment in "Toxic Debt". The government is bailing out RBS today. The Taxpayer will now own 70% of Royal Bank Of Scotland.

As well as loans from RBS the airport relies heavily on flights to Scotland by bankers - now very thin on the ground. We wonder how many "ghost" flights and half full flights are taking off at the moment just so airlines can keep their slots? We already know that half/empty planes were in operation over a year ago from LCA.

So now you are not just annoyed by noise and choking fumes - YOU the taxpayer are covering the security bill and NOW you it seems possible that you could actually own the loan on the London City Airport! You actually couldn't make it up!

So just how far did your wages go to cover your bills this month whilst the government continues to throw money at private businesses such as London City Airport for security etc?

London City Airport Threaten Newspaper For Factual Reporting

It is strange, for over a year team FTF have wondered why SOME local papers, particularly some of those which belong to ARCHANT, most particularly the Newham Recorder have a bit of a problem in reporting balanced articles on London City Airport. By behaving in this way, they have constructively denied the communities accurate, and informative information about the effect of London City Airport expanding.

The Newham Recorder have consistently printed biased reports, all bar around two reports which were printed after a rush of complaints to them threatening complaints to the PCC. The Newham Recorder is an embarrassment to the hard working reporters and media sector who take pride and have passion in their work and their ability to deliver facts to the community.

Integrity sadly appears almost absent in some locations. But bullying and intimidation seems to be the name of the day in aviation land.

It seems that the Public Relations Trainee at London City Airport reacts to negative stories in the press with threats, or that is what they did to the Wanstead and Woodford Guardian just a week ago according to the Editors comment in the most recent edition.

Is this how London City Airport normally stops negative, but factually accurate, stories from being printed? You have to wonder. The PR trainee gets on the phone and threatens that if they print the truth they will complain to the Press Complaints Commission? We can only question if this is the normal behaviour of the PR office at the airport, or was the trainee just having a bad day, now that Hill and Knowlton have decamped.

Perhaps we should all lead by example in response to the bullying PR tactics by complaining to the PCC if inaccurate and consistently biased reporting continues in certain newspapers. We won't be complaining about the TRUTH though as that is what we want. But we've plenty of examples for a strong complaint already - about 18 months worth.

At FTF we embrace the TRUTH - telling the truth is not morally wrong, despite what some quarters appear to think if their own behaviour is anything to go by. Truth seems cheap to some when it comes at the expense of making money! Providing inaccurate information and purposely suppressing the facts to your own advantage however is morally wrong.

The freedom of the press is a precious thing - as is integrity. The Wanstead and Woodford Guardian reporter Daniel Binns and his Editor have shown enormous commitment to the community in reporting the factual information which affects their communities, and which the residents have the right to know. London City Airport doesn't appear to want anyone to know about the 9 near misses in the skies above us. It also appears they want to stop the press from printing the TRUTH.

The Wanstead and Woodford Guardian received such support for the report, that upset LCA so much, that a whole page was dedicated to the supportive letters...oh sweet joy! Don't forget to read the Editors comments, as it is an absolute gem! You will find the pages linked here shortly.

Any reporter who would like to inform us, in strict confidence, of a similar experience is welcome to contact us with details.

The 16 'Interests' of Councillor Chowdhury

The Evening Standard reported during the week that house prices in Newham have been the worst hit and have fallen by 18% . No hope of a sale than for the poor residents trapped by the Airport as a result of property blight for the foreseeable future.

But take pity on poor London City Airport Consultative Committee member Beckton Councillor Ayesha Chowdhury. With the average home price now at £257,963 her SIXTEEN properties in the ward are now estimated to be only worth a paltry £4.1 million. That's a drop, over a year of £750,000. As she does not have to declare any properties outside the borough we can only hope that she has other properties in less volatile areas. All's not lost though she has the yearly junket provided by London City Airport to look forward to in the summer..........whilst she busies herself with the concerns of local residents, unless those concerns are over aircraft noise and pollution that is! She couldn't possibly say anything objective about that at all in the State of London City Airport, whoops, State of Newham.

If she dared speak up against that deadly trio of 'friends': 'Sir' Rob Wales, R. Go, and 'The Nipper' then she'd soon fall out of favour with Newham State and have to deal with the 'consequences'....oh dear what a State indeed!

LCA Throws A Tantrum Over Crossrail, and MONEY

Christmas is over .The new year hangover has come and gone and you patiently wait to see how much this months credit card bill will be. The January Blues have well and truly arrived.

Well fear not Fight the Flights fans, we decided to cheer you up with some fun non fiction that will have you laughing till tears run down your face.

Yes it's the "Humble" petition from London City Airport against Crossrail.

3 Petitions have been put in against Crossrail to the House Of Lords by London City Airport and 'related' Businesses.

(1) City Aviation Properties Limited have put in the first. They are the freeholders of City Airport. While they have an office here in London, their accounts are registered in Jersey. Yes Jersey, that little Tax Haven. Why would City Aviation want to register their accounts in Jersey we wonder??!

(2) Marketspur Limited have put in the next. They own the head leasehold on LCA.

(3) London City Airport Limited. The airport operators.

London City Airport really don't want Crossrail on their patch. And if it's going to happen they want it on their terms. Or be heavily compensated.

So lets delve into this little masterpiece shall we, and point out some of the hypocrisy.... Perhaps make yourself a cup of tea first, its a long one! This is what the cry babies and R.Go at LCA are asking for:

(11)
(c) where a local planning authority proposes to grant permission for the development or to grant permission subject to conditions , in a manner contrary to the advice of the consultee , they must notify both the CAA and the consultee.

(d) following this notice the local planning authority may not grant planning permission before the expiry of a period of a 28 days from the date advised in writing by the consultee as the date of the relevant information.This provides the CAA and the consultee with an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State to cal in proposals for his own determination.

LB Newham (LBN) and London City Airport (LCA) DID NOT consult with the CAA on the increase of additional flights over East London. They failed to mention this and it took a member of the public to uncover this information and another to read this out in the Newham Planning Meeting on the night of the 'decision' in October 08. This is in our opinion a complete failure of duty of care to the public and a disregard for the mechanisms set up to control and promote safety. In one of the most densely populated areas with thousands of people working and living in a Public Safety Zone (PZN) , LBN and LCA have not taken advice from the most important authority and regulator. Why? And looking at point (c) while the extra flights were granted , some of the extra flights , for example early morning , were contrary to the advice from LCA so they were obliged to notify the CAA , where they not?

(19)
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.......

So is this why the CAA have not been consulted on extra flights? LCA have refused to use the methodology used by DfT in the working out of their next PSZ because the size grows enormously as a result of expansion. We have highlighted the grave concerns over the PSZ and Connaught Bridge, all of which have been dismissed by LBN and LCA. And as LBN has decided to move 2000 staff into Building 1000 , which could be within the PSZ when remodeled due to expansion, is this not a violation of the objective of the PSZ. LBN have ignored all our concerns about the PSZ and now staff are being moved into a building that looks set to be in the 'crash zone'. There will be 2000 staff , plus visitors etc all now congregating within a growing potential PSZ, Excel, Ramada, Building 1000 and residential all look to be covered. But don't worry the airport are paying off some of the landowners and leaseholders for covering their land or property with a crash zone - yes unbeknown to you they are paying to put you in danger!

(26)
.....Your petitioner also requires the Promoter to be bound personally by the specific code of practice for the works in the vicinity of the Airport in order to migrate and regulate all construction and operational impacts of Crossrail.

A Binding code of practice. Say something like a Section 106 perhaps? LCA have broken the binding Section 106 many times. Out of Hours flights , failure to give complete noise data , to name but some. When we, the public, ask LBN to hold LCA to account over these breaches of planning law, it's dismissed out of hand.

(30)
Your Petitioner is also apprehensive about the noise , vibration , dust and other environmental effects of the construction works in the vicinity of the Jet Centre which may result in a decline in the usage of the Jet Centre. Your petitioner requires the Promoter to be bound personally by a specific code of practice to minimise or mitigate such effects and a full and sufficient indemnity in respect of any financial loss it may suffer.

Section 106! Section 106! Residents around the airport have been failed by LBN to uphold the S106 for LCA. The noise suffered is unbearable.While the average noise claimed is 57db over 16 hours, Newham themselves have taken readings of up to 90db and above.

The Health and Safety Law states that there is an exposure limit of 87db for workers. Protection and training of noise starts at 80bd. Workers should and are protected against noise exposure. This begs the question - are hundreds of companies in Newham breaking the law? If a jet takes off at 92db and a postman is delivering mail and exposed to this noise should he not be wearing protective gear? After all if he hears 92 db jets every 3 minutes over 2 hours while doing his job , his average is certainly not the 57db claimed by LCA. And we are sure that residents might actually welcome dust as opposed to the choking fuel burn they have to endure daily.

(39)
Your petitioner is also greatly concerned by the wider noise , dust , vibration effects of the construction works in the community and the resulting environment that the works will create. Your Petitioner requires the Promoter to be bound by a specific code of construction practice which is fully consulted upon with the local community in order to ensure the minimum impact on surrounding residents and businesses.

Yes I bet you read that twice! First off they want the local community to be consulted. They didn't extend this courtesy to us residents after the shambolic consultation about additional flights. They want minimum impact on residents but the impact on residents from the airport is far more invasive to our lives than anything that Crossrail can do. At least at some point Crossrail will finish. The daily blight from the airport will continue indefinitely.

(40) (41) (42)
Your Petitioner is also greatly concerned that the proposed station for the Royal Docks is located on the north side of Victoria Dock. it seems to your petitioner that this station has been designed to serve inappropriately to serve principally the Excel Exhibition Centre or the northwest quarter of the docks........

Your petitioner submits that a better location for the Royal Docks station would be underneath Connaught Bridge.This would have the potential to serve all four quarters of the Royal Docks....... Your Petitioner seeks an amendment to the Bill to remove authority for the works comprised in the current proposed station to include provision for a replacement station at Connaught Bridge........

There is little evidence to suggest that consideration has been given to integration with the majority of businesses and residents in the Royal Docks..... binding assurances from the Promoter which ensure integration of surface access with surrounding businesses and residents including London City Airport.

Have a quick nip back to point (19) "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".

So now they want to move the station to Connaught Bridge in the PSZ? Yes of course they do because now it suits and benefits them. Gone is the concern to minimise the number of people congregating within the Zone. It's all about money now.

Money, Money, Money!

They do not want Excel to have the station. They want it. While businesses across the capital have given financial help to Crossrail - how much have LCA given? To move the station would cost the taxpayer £millions. LCA gave little more that £1 million to have the DLR on their doorstep leading a member of the Lords to declare "they got a good deal... a very good deal"

(52) (53) (54) (55) (56) (57) (58)
Compensation Provision

All these sections deal with compensation. LCA want money. Lots and lots of money for any disruption or effects from Crossrail. Yet another bill for the taxpayer to fork out for. Unfortunately they are not very good at sorting out their own compensation. Sound proofing and double glazing to effected residents is still going on. Few residents get full double glazing, only some of their windows. While the airport looks after their own interests, yours have long been forgotten.

And Finally a Drum roll......

(59) HUMAN RIGHTS
Your petitioner submits that in its current form and without further amendment or provision as sought by your petitioner , the Bill is incompatible with the right of your petitioner peacefully to enjoy its property and carry on trade or business.The Bill would unfairly interfere with such right contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human rights....

Read it again.
And again.

To peacefully enjoy it property.
Something that many of us cannot do because of the airport. We take it then perhaps our Human Rights contrary to Article 1 of Protocol 1 are being breached by noisy jets? Are you peacefully enjoying your property?

Funnily enough LCA want Crossrail to do what the residents want LCA to do. Protect our homes. Peacefully enjoy our properties.Follow strict guidelines.Proper compensation. Funny when the boot is on the other foot.

As observers, it looks like LCA have a problem. They do not want Crossrail. Former Mayor Livingston said if Crossrail went ahead LCA would no longer be needed. There are also compulsory order provisions in the bill that can take over areas at and around the airport.Hence putting pressure on LBN to administer the Section 106 properly.

They have got away with so much for so long with Newham. But Crossrail is not Newham Council. They can't cajole them into getting what they want. Maybe the hired help Hill & Knowlton are fighting their corner. But H&K have bigger and better paying clients in favour of Crossrail. In such a wide ranging cross London development LCA are small fry. They will try and get the community involved so they can get the puppets of Newham State council involved. The jobs and the connection from Newham to Woolwich and the benefits to communities could be immeasurable.

The link to the full objection is below. Read it and email us your feelings about the hypocrisy of London City Airport.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldbills/014/l63.pdf