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

Credit Suisse Values At Odds with London City Airport's?? or Question 1. Why would someone object to LCA expansion when we give them free food?

Credit Suisse is a major share holder in London City Airport, we thought you might be interested in their corporate responsibility statement:

Credit Suisse Group knows that the assumption of its responsibilities vis-à-vis its various stakeholders, as well as society and the environment, is one of the keys to long-term business success.

Commitment to Sustainability
We strive to take account of environmental and social issues in our business activities. The signing of international environmental and sustainability charters underscores our commitment.

Society
We cultivate an open dialog with the public, support humanitarian, cultural and charitable organizations and provide sponsorship in the fields of sports and culture.






Pictured left - River Thames - Gallions Reach - an area rich in wildlife and at the end of the east bound LCA runway.


Environment
We have pledged to take account of environmental issues in our business activities and to continuously improve our environmental performance.

That all sounds good....We find it interesting that the good values that Credit Suisse are committed to (and we commend those) are pretty absent from London City Airport's management of the consultation and in the application itself. Concern for the environment, health, pollution - no....not too much evidence of that at all. LCA are hardly doing a good job of even trying to uphold the good values that it's shareholder prescribes to.

Fight the Flights has been wondering recently just how much Credit Suisse knows about the methods which LCA use in their quest to bury the bad news to the local communities not only in Newham but beyond. They might get a good idea of some of the issues just from this blog.

Of course LCA will try and tell you that their 1/2 kilometer consultation, limited to Newham only, is representative and was 'extensive'. Funny how they didn't bother telling residents who would be in the new PSZ map area...or in the new, all encompassing and enlargened noise contour map if the application is approved.

It's all been about as representative as the appalling questionnaire they put together as part of the application which contained 'leading' questions which do not allow any negative answers to be given, only positive - so sorry to those residents who thought they'd get to express anything other than what LCA wanted to hear that day you partook in the questionnaire. Any professional researcher would identify this as being 'biased' and therefore not good practice and invalid. Such questionnaires lead researchers to question the validity and the motive of such a design.

We just call it coercive spin that cheats communities of a real voice.

Egg sandwich anyone?