Worldwide Airports - General Discussions

[Aviador]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

[textarea]Why we should recycle our airports

Yesterday’s closure of Heathrow’s Terminal 2 and its now-imminent demolition has gone relatively unnoticed by the architectural community.

It is clear somethings needs to be done at Terminal 2: the existing terminal was designed to accommodate 1.2 million passengers per year and now regularly deals with 8 million. The issue also lacks the Schadenfreude of Terminal 5’s teething problems or the political drama of the third runway battle.

Yet we should ask why airport planners continue to wipe out the old buildings and replace them with entirely new structures - in this case one costing £1bn. This approach would raise eyebrows if copied in hospital complexes, military compounds or train stations.

Colin Matthews, British Airports Authority (BAA) chief executive insists that the replacement terminal will have ‘less impact on the environment’ because it will produce 40 per cent less carbon than the existing building. Although noble, this dodges the question of how much carbon will be produced by constructing the new buildings - and just how much could be saved by re-fitting and expanding the old one. Can a new build’s eco-credentials really outweigh the environmental impact of its predecessor’s demolition and replacement?

It seems contradictory for a government who has introduced astonishingly high sustainability targets - such as all public buildings built from 2016 to be zero-carbon - to endorse such a development. Developers of eco-projects in other sectors - notably residential and offices - may feel undermined by the carbon heavy manoeuvrings of a carbon heavy industry.

Airports have the autonomy and space to implement wind and solar power schemes
Incorporating structural elements or waste material from the existing building could reduce the ground works and overall waste of the development. Aviation will have to get its own house in order, but architecture can help create the zero-carbon airport once the planes are on the ground. Airports have the autonomy and space to implement wind and solar power schemes - and might in future harness the kinetic energy of planes.

It is understandable that the airports need to keep one step ahead of competitors by being ‘cutting edge’, with beautiful precedents such as Rogers’ Stirling Prize wining Barajas Airport in Madrid, Foster’s Beijing Airport and Piano’s Kansai Airport in Japan. Maybe it is time that ‘cutting edge’ means the zero-carbon airport, built in a sustainable way as an example to the rest of the world of what can be achieved elegantly with existing structure and existing space.

BAA claims the newly envisaged terminal is intended to ‘rival’ Heathrow’s own Terminal 5. If Terminal 2 lives up to the hype, perhaps Richard Rogers will be commissioned to re-built terminal 5 in a new streamlined form, to more efficiently cope with the diminished number of visitors.

Source[/textarea]

 

[Aviador]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

[textarea]Government to cut its stake in UK air traffic control firm

Plans to reduce the Government's stake in the firm that operates British air traffic control are to be unveiled on Monday, Sky News reports. Sky's City editor Mark Kleinman said: ‘The Government is going to signal its intention to reduce its shareholding in the company. [This] is significant because it would mean the private sector potentially owning a controlling stake in it for the first time.’

The firm, NATS, provides air traffic control services at 15 of the UK's biggest airports. It also performs ‘en-route’ services for aircraft flying through British airspace. Mr Kleinman said: ‘At the moment, the Government owns 51% of NATS and most of the rest is owned by a group of airlines, including BA and Virgin Atlantic.'

‘The announcement is going to form part of a big pre-PBR push on Whitehall efficiency announced on Monday called 'Smarter Government'. It will include an update on the sale of assets, such as the Tote, NHS Professionals and a big student loans portfolio.’

Source[/textarea]

 

[Aviador]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

[textarea]UK tourism predicted to increase in 2010

Britain’s weak pound is expected to drive an increase in tourism over 2010 with visitors to the UK predicted to spend more than £17bn, although the trading environment will remain ‘challenging’.

Figures released by the VisitBritain and the International Passenger Survey suggests the UK may see an increase in the volume of inbound tourism of 0.8 per cent to 30.4m, plus a rise in visitor spend of 4 per cent on last year.

Sandie Dawe, chief executive of VisitBritain, said that although the figures show signs of recovery for the tourism industry, 2010 would continue to present challenges.

“Our forecasts suggest that whilst the prolonged weakness in the value of sterling will result in a stronger performance, particularly in visitor spend, 2010 will not see record numbers of inbound visitors or visitor spend,” she said.

“These figures suggest that Britain’s tourism is now heading back in the right direction and whilst conditions will still be tough, we believe that the exchange rate will make Britain attractive and offer exceptional value for the new year.”

Opportunities and challenges

While VisitBritain believe a growing demand for business travel and attractive sport and leisure events held in the UK will help drive tourism to Britain, the agency expects challenges such as a more competitive environment and the financial instability of some airlines to hinder the industry’s growth.

VisitBritain has now announced a trio of three-year global campaigns, under the themes of Classic, Dynamic and Luxury, that encompass traditional Britishness, youth and high revenue markets, to help drive tourism to the UK.

Source[/textarea]

 

[Aviador]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

[textarea]Business travellers say APD unfair

In a survey of 2400 business travellers, more than 57% thought the rise in Air Passenger duty (APD) in November was ‘unfair’. And 87% of people who took the Business Travel & Meetings Show (BTMS) survey are ‘strongly opposed’ to the next set of increases in November 2010.

The Government increased APD in November to £12 from £11 for a short haul economy class flight, and to £110 from £55 for a 6,000-mile plus premium long-haul flight, regardless of whether the passenger is in premium economy, business or first class. From November 2010, this highest tier will increase to £170 per flight, an increase of 112%.

The survey also revealed one of the biggest dislikes of those flying for work was phones on planes, with 82% saying they do not want mobile phones to be used on flights. The most wanted change was Wi-Fi on planes, whilst online check-in was voted as business travellers' innovation of the decade. However, although the business travellers most wanted wi-fi on planes, faster security, check-in and immigration processes topped the wish list.

Source[/textarea]

 

[Aviador]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

[textarea]British travellers 'to pay' for entry to the US

British passengers travelling to America from next week will be refused entry unless they have completed an electronic approval form issued by US authorities before departure.

The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) scheme replaces the old arrangement whereby passengers needed to fill out a green card to enter the US. The new scheme was introduced in January last year, but becomes mandatory from next Wednesday. It applies to all 35 countries that enjoy visa waiver status. An approved ESTA is valid for two years and can be used for multiple entries into the US.

US tourist tax criticised by travel industry Both British Airways and American Airlines gave warning this week that they will not accept any passengers who have not been approved through the scheme and advised that travellers fill out the online form at least 72 hours before departure.

Airlines had feared that the new rules could cause chaos at British airports, but the delayed introduction of the ESTA has given travellers time to get used to the idea.

It is free to apply for an ESTA, although that is likely to change. The US Senate voted in September in favour of charging tourists from visa-waiver countries a minimum of $10 (£7) to complete an ESTA and enter the US. The European Union is very critical of such a move.

US authorities maintain that the legislation aims to provide funds to strengthen the image of the US abroad and reverse the decline in overseas visitors in recent years. A spokeswoman for Visit USA said that although travellers need only pay the charge once every two years, the tax may have the opposite effect and deter travellers . Between 2000 and 2008 long-haul travel from the UK increased by 40 per cent, while visits by Britons to the US fell by 3 per cent. Around four million Britons visit the US each year.

“The need for travel promotion has never been greater,” said Roger Dow, chief executive of the US Travel Association, which represents all sectors of the industry. “The US must invest in explaining its security policies and attracting foreign travellers.”

John Bruton, the European Commission’s ambassador to Washington, said any fee would be counter-intuitive.

“Only in Alice in Wonderland could a penalty be seen as promoting the activity on which it is imposed,” he said.

In an online poll carried out this week by Telegraph Travel, 44 per cent of readers said that the $10 fee would put them off visiting the US.

Simon Evans, chairman of the Air Transport Users Council (AUC), the aviation watchdog, said that the new charges are simply a tax on tourism. Although the legislation must still pass through the House of Representatives, tourism officials expect the charges to be introduced this summer.

Source[/textarea]

 

[Aviador]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

$10 dollars per person doesn't sound too bad but when you look at it as $40 dollars for a family of four it adds a significant sum of money to what is already an expensive trip. I wouldn't have thought that it would be sufficient to put people off from travelling to America if that is where they wanted to go, but if a person was looking at either the US or Canada, they might now decide to stick with Canada.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

Americans can come to the UK for leisure purposes without needing a visa or visa waiver.

Australians can come to the UK for leisure purposes without needing a visa or visa waiver.

UK citizens going to the USA for leisure need a visa or visa waiver - now electronic as this post describes.

UK citizens going to Australia for leisure need a visa although it can be done via the web usually.

Why is this so one-sided?

As usual, we Britons are the mugs. We let almost anyone in with minimal checks and those we aren't too sure about are often granted temporary entry and then 'disappear' within the UK rarely to be seen again officially.

 

[Aviador]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

TheLocalYokel, I think the US plan to introduce this charge originally came about because of the UK Air Passenger Duty.

Band B (2001-4000 miles)
Includes: Bermuda, Canada, Egypt, Gambia, Jordan, Oman, Russia (east of Urals), Syria, UAE, US

Economy cabins                        Premium cabins 
 
Currently 
£40                                   £80 
 
November 2009 
£45                                   £90 
 
November 2010  
£60                                  £120

 

[Aviador]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

[textarea]Expansion grounded

Planners are juggling issues ranging from job creation benefits to nature conservation impacts as they field a wave of expansion projects from airports of all shapes and sizes.

A combination of recession and rising concern over carbon emissions might make airports seem the least likely source of planning applications. But look around the country. Aside from controversial new runways at Heathrow and Stansted, expansion is afoot from leading regional airports such as Birmingham and Bristol to obscure ones such as Lydd and Southend-on-Sea.

Airport expansion looks anomalous in the present climate, but it is driven by two convictions. One is that airlines, particularly low-cost carriers, think that they can keep growing. The other is that airports can help regeneration and attract investment, leading to sometimes extravagant claims about their effect on jobs.

For planners, the issues concern not just physical extension of airports but the pressure that their growth puts on road and rail networks, demand for parking and public concern about noise.

"Growth has been stagnant recently but the airlines are confident it will come back and they and airport operators must plan long-term," says York Aviation consultant James Brass, who advises on airport planning applications. "The impact of climate change and public concern about air transport is not clear yet."
EasyJet is among those budget airlines bullish about expansion. "We have said we will expand our fleet to 187 aircraft by this September from 174 in September 2009, so airports are right to expect growth," says a spokesman. The company now draws a quarter of its passengers from the business market, historically dominated by full service carriers such as British Airways. Business passengers need to fly between cities, which are also where the bulk of leisure fliers live.

EasyJet has disappointing news for those who hope that their local airport will expand on the basis of low landing fees, despite a remote location. "Our model is to fly from cities that people want to fly from.

"We would not go and use some airfield in the middle of nowhere just because the landing charges are low," its spokesman explains. "You can never say never, but some of these expansion plans would not interest us."

Brass agrees that air travel is unlikely to go down this route. "If airlines see a regional airport with low landing charges they might use it, whereas full service carriers would not. However, this does not mean that every airport proposition will be successful in attracting low-fare airlines. The conditions must be right and that is certainly not always the case."
Job creation benefit claims debated

Airport operators recognise that their plans must be sweetened to overcome concerns about noise, emissions and traffic. They often point to the employment benefits of expansion. But the link between airports and jobs is a rather inexact science. A spokesman for Peel Airports, which owns Liverpool John Lennon, Doncaster Sheffield and Durham Tees Valley Airports, says: "The industry rule of thumb is that one million passengers is equivalent to 1,000 jobs, although the budget carriers go a bit below that."
Last summer a row between Ryanair and Manchester Airport over landing charges led the airline to drop nine of its ten routes, a move it said would cost 600 jobs and a further 400 in which it had planned to invest.

This appeared an economic blow when unemployment was on the increase, but the airport stood by its pricing. "We don't believe that charges as low as £3 per passenger are unreasonable. Clearly Ryanair does and that is regrettable," a spokesman said at the time.

Brass observes that little is known about the effects of airports on job creation. "Work is done at the planning stage on the economic impact of airports, but little post-evaluation is done that I know of in respect of individual developments," he says.

"Employment density at airports has fallen slightly as productivity has increased, which is as you would expect. But there has not been a dramatic drop, which suggests that additional jobs are created with expansion."

He points out that budget carriers employ fewer ground staff then traditional airlines which run facilities such as executive lounges. However, he agrees that the budget business model has resulted in "significant stimulation" of the market in recent years, above what might have been achieved by traditional airlines. "This has supported significant employment growth," he says.
Easy access vital for location take-off

Amid all the talk of expansion, it may seem anomalous that one of Europe's longest runways now lies almost idle. But the fate of Manston near Ramsgate, now optimistically renamed Kent International Airport, shows that airports need good access as well as good facilities. Kent County Council's integrated transport strategy, issued in November, reports that 3.4 million residents took flights in 2007 but most travelled to one of London's four main airports. Manston is bedevilled by a "peripheral location in relation to the M25 and the rail network", the report says.
Kent is a bitter opponent of London mayor Boris Johnson's proposal for an airport on an artificial island in the Thames Estuary. It argues that Manston could fulfil this role, handling six million passengers and 500,000 tonnes of freight a year by 2033. The strategy calculates that this would create 7,500 jobs. But better road links and a station served by trains from the Channel Tunnel high-speed line would be needed.
Expansion of Kent's other airport at Lydd looks more uncertain. The airport is seeking permission for a 294m runway extension, a 150m starter extension and a terminal building that could process 500,000 passengers a year. After a series of postponements, Shepway District Council is due to decide on the airport's plans on 3 March. It already has an officers' recommendation to reject the proposal (Planning, 8 September 2009, p6).

Major project officer Terry Ellames's report warns that the proposals would have significant adverse effects on protected habitats including Romney Marsh and the Dungeness nature reserve. He maintains that these drawbacks outweigh any economic benefit: "Given that there is no overriding strategic justification for the proposals, the adverse effects make them unsustainable."

Business trips boost scheme ambitions

Southend-on-Sea Borough Council is poised to allow an extension to the town's airport, which is currently used mainly for aircraft maintenance. The airport's owner, transport firm Stobart, wants to extend the runway to attract larger aircraft. But just before a decision was due, communities secretary John Denham imposed an article 14 direction to give himself more time to consider whether to call a public inquiry into the plans (Planning, 29 January, p6).

Stobart predicts that 400,000 business trips would be made annually, "putting Southend on the business map", and that two million passengers a year could use an airport that currently handles just 48,000. It claims the scheme, which would be served by an adjacent rail station, would generate traffic flows no higher than a medium-sized supermarket at peak shopping times and estimates that 6,700 jobs would be created, 3,700 of them from business attracted by the airport.

Bristol International Airport's proposed expansion of its terminal building and car park has also yet to be decided by North Somerset Council. Just before Christmas, following local protests over traffic generation, the airport management offered a £5.4 million contribution towards a rapid bus transit scheme and other bus services and a reduction in night flights from 4,500 to 4,000 a year. Bristol aims to handle ten million passengers a year by 2019. The operator says expansion would create 3,500 jobs.

But ambitious airlines and airports would do well to heed the lessons of Sheffield City Airport. The facility opened in 1997 but its last scheduled flight took off in 2002 and it closed in 2007 to become a business park. The runway was too short for conventional aircraft and hopes that short take-off business flights would come proved wrong.

A Sheffield City Council report concluded that the airport was "nice to have" in economic development terms but not essential. The episode shows how expansion plans can be based on misplaced commercial and civic optimism. Will the rush to expand other small regional airports also end in tears?

BIRMINGHAM TAKES OFF

Birmingham is one of the few airports to have secured planning permission for a runway extension. The planned 3km-long runway will allow all aircraft to use it fully laden and increase the range of non-stop intercontinental flights it can offer.

The airport company believes that the extension, combined with spare capacity, could solve the overcrowding that affects London's airports - as long as a high-speed rail link is built. The argument that regional airports could take strain off the South East is often made, but the airlines argue that passengers would not travel further to fly.

Birmingham claims that it could take another nine million passengers "tomorrow" with the existing infrastructure. Chief executive Paul Kehoe says: "We have plenty of capacity. Linked to high-speed rail, we are uniquely positioned not only to claw back people from the region who make the long journey to Heathrow but also attract passengers from the overheated South East."

Source[/textarea]

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

[textarea]BAA strike: Who will be affected?

Members of the Unite union who work at BAA's six airports in the UK have voted in favour of strike action in a dispute over pay.

The workers balloted included firefighters, security officers, engineers and support workers. BAA has confirmed that without these key workers it would have to close the airports - Heathrow, Stansted, Southampton, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen.

Unite said it would meet on Monday. The union would have to give a minimum of one week's notice for industrial action, meaning that strikes could start in the week beginning 23 August.

If strikes do go ahead, not only passengers but many businesses will be affected.
Passengers

Some 10.9 million passengers used BAA's six UK airports in July. On average, about 300,000 passengers a day pass through the airports' doors.

That figure may be even higher during August - the peak holiday season - and people with flights booked over the coming weeks will be particularly anxious.

Luke Pollard from the travel association, Abta, said it was important for holiday makers not to panic.

"If you do have any concerns, make sure you're discussing them with your travel agent or your tour operator to make sure that you're getting all the up-to-date information and that your travel plans can be adapted if strike action does go ahead," he advised.

However, travel companies may talk you through possible options but until the exact dates are confirmed, real contingency plans cannot be put in place.

Airlines

On the face of it, 2010 has been a woeful year for UK airlines so far. Not only has the industry had to recover from the impact of the global financial crisis, but the disruption caused by the volcanic ash cloud over northern Europe further hit their profits.

Virgin estimated that the ash disruption, which closed UK airspace for six days, cost it £30m.
Man walks past empty check-in desks at Glasgow airport Airlines do not want a shutdown of airports, especially after the volcanic ash disruption

British Airways, also affected by strike action by its cabin crew, put the cost of all disruptions between April and June at £250m.

But passenger demand has been starting to grow in recent months. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), it was up 11.9% in June compared with a year earlier - so the closure of six UK airports would come as a blow.

If strikes go ahead, Ryanair has said that it would be forced to cancel 300 flights per day at Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Stansted.

A strike over the busy August Bank Holiday weekend, from 28 to 30 August, would be particularly damaging.

And it would not just be UK-based carriers that would be hit - a total of 220 airlines around the world use BAA's six airports.

Airport businesses

"Airports are some of the largest shopping centres in the country so any disruption has big implications," said Howard Ebison from No. 1 Traveller, which arranges airport transfers and pre-flight hospitality.

Shops and restaurants in the affected airports, as well as car hire and taxi services, will all be hoping the strikes do not go ahead.

If airports were closed over the August Bank Holiday it would be disastrous for airport businesses as well as airlines, Mr Ebison said, as many rely on it to hit their targets for the month.

"This year [the bank holiday] is more important than ever as businesses will be hoping to recoup some of the revenue lost from the snow and ash-cloud disruption," he added.

Tourism

There are fears that any walk-outs by BAA staff could have a knock-on effect on tourism.

The BBC's Jamie McIvor in Glasgow said that strikes could have a "disproportionate impact" on Scotland, with its three busiest airports closed, and the Scottish tourism industry could lose visitors from overseas.

And while travel companies may put in place contingency plans, such as flying from alternative airports, it may not be enough to cover London.

"If we're talking about Heathrow [being shut], there simply wouldn't be the capacity [at other airports]," warned Tom Hall from the Lonely Planet.

However, for anyone planning to holiday within the UK, train companies could see a rise in bookings.[/textarea]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10958656

This action would be so damaging to the airline industry, tourism and the economy that one can only hope it will be averted.

 

[Aviador]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

[textarea]APD redesign announcement on March 23?

Air Passenger Duty is to be redesigned in March, Travelmole reports a ‘Government source’ has said. At a meeting at Caribbean Marketplace between the UK press and Minister Ed Bartlett of Jamaica, the group were informed that the Government will make an announcement on March 23 on the future of APD.

Mr Bartlett explained to the group that after a long process of meetings, reports and general lobbying, the Coalition Government has undertaken to proceed with a detailed consultation process that will last approximately 6 - 8 weeks after which a ‘re-design’ of APD will be announced.

The Caribbean Tourism community in the form of CTO have suggested a new two-tier approach, one for long haul and one for short haul flights. The revenue neutral proposition will mean a raise in APD for short haul destinations and a lowering and reorganisation of fees for long haul. Mr Bartlett said: ‘We have the definite feeling that there is global tourism groundswell of opinion that supports a new approach to APD.'

He also believes that because of the improving economic outlook for 2012 and beyond, the level of APD tax will remain at 2011 levels for the foreseeable future but under a new structure.

Source[/textarea]

Will the new structure incorporate the previously mentioned additional London airports tax? Assuming it does, do people think it will make a great deal of difference in getting more routes served by regional airports outside of London?

He also believes that because of the improving economic outlook for 2012 and beyond, the level of APD tax will remain at 2011 levels for the foreseeable future but under a new structure.

I for one don't share Mr Bartlett's outlook on the economy. I would love to think that 2012 will be much better but right now I can't see it happening.

 

[News Guru]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

[textarea]UK Airports could be ordered to pool snow clearing equipment

UK airports could be ordered to pool snow clearing equipment and de-icer under plans being considered by the Government, the Telegraph reports. The Department for Transport is determined to avoid a repetition of the last month's chaos that saw hundreds of flights grounded at Heathrow and the Christmas travel plans of hundreds of thousands of passengers thrown into disarray.

Earlier this week Theresa Villiers told major airport operators that they must act to make sure that another period of cold weather does not bring aviation to a halt. She said: ‘While the weather was severe, it is clear that the industry needs to be better prepared. One of the things we are discussing is whether we should create a stockpile of de-icer in the future. Once it gets cold prices go up and it does become harder to get hold of.’

The newspaper also reports that Ms Villiers has instructed the airports' ‘resilience sub group’ to examine how a pooling arrangement might work. It is understood ministers believe there is no justification for equipment and de-icer being left unused in one part of the country, when other airports are struggling to cope.

The Government also believes greater emphasis is needed to make sure that links to airports are also clear. Ms Villiers said: ‘There is little point in having an airport open if passengers cannot get in or out.'

Source[/textarea]

 

[Aviador]

Re: UK Snow Clearing Vehicle Pool?

Can anyone really see that happening? I mean, generally speaking the most disruption to airports is caused by widespread snow. When Heathrow was closed, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton all had snow around the same time so I can't see how you could borrow equipment from a neighboring airport. It would also be difficult to transport the equipment, much of it would require low loader transport which could get caught up in the snow.

The Financial Times recently reported that European Union transport officials have said that airlines should be able to get compensation from airports if they "don't make industry standards".

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

You point out the obvious practical difficulties of equipment sharing, Aviador.

However, all politicians care about is their image. Press and the public began to criticise the government as much as the airports for the disruption caused by the weather last month, especiallly regarding the Heathrow fiasco.

Governments' favourite ploy when the too-difficult-to-do basket appears is to create a committee, order a public enquiry or re-organise. None are usually effective but they buy lots of time and also give governments the opportunity to scattergun the blame when next the problem appears.

I forget who once said, "When we don't know what to do we re-organise and it creates a wonderful illusion of progress" - or words to that effect.

 

[Aviador]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

Very true indeed.

Airports and the government must be banking on the weather being kind for the next couple of years or at least long enough for people to forget this winter and the last, otherwise there will be hell to pay after the quango enquiry's that are sure to follow.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

Slightly off topic or perhaps more of a tangent to the topic, but I'm old enough to remember clearly the prolonged Arctic winter of 1962/1963 when the entire country, including the usually milder South West, suffered blizzards that left several feet of snow on the ground from Boxing Day night until the end of February because the temperature barely rose above freezing in that two-month period.

I can't remember how the aviation industry coped - there weren't many regional airports of any size then anyway - but I do remember local authorities all round the country being caught out in what was a once or twice in a lifetime scenario (it hasn't returned since - December 2010 was nothing to 1963). Because of the intense press and public criticism the local authorities went out and invested small fortunes in snow-clearing equipment that summer.

What happened? We then had a decade of mild winters when we barely saw snow worthy of the name.

That's the conundrum airport owners face. Do they invest heavily in equipment they may not need for years by which time it might have been superseded by improved kit?

 

[Aviador]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

I guess people are quick to jump on the bandwagon when things go wrong. The weather 'experts' are saying it is likely that we will see another three or four bad winters before the weather cycle alters again. That is if we are to believe them. If that is the case, then people just need to ride it out and get over it. On the otherhand, perhaps airports should be forced to have a minimum requirement for snow clearing equipment similar to fire categories? This could be done any number of ways either on the basis of passenger throughput, runway and apron surface areas, size of aircraft or aircraft movements.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

[textarea]Budget 2011: Airlines startled at 'delay' to air passenger duty increase they knew nothing about

Britain's leading airlines have accused the government of concealing a looming increase in flight taxes despite claims that the air passenger duty (APD) levy will be frozen for a year.

The British Air Transport Association (Bata), whose members include British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, said they were not expecting an APD increase in the first place and were stunned by the budget announcement that a rise would be delayed for 12 months. "What increase do they mean? We never knew that there was due to be a rise. It is spin to claim that it has been deferred," said Simon Buck, chief executive of Bata.

In the short term, APD will remain fixed at a level that the airlines complain is already too high. The tax is split into four bands: £12 for an economy-class short-haul flight; £60 for an economy-class trip to a medium-haul destination such as Egypt; £75 for long-haul trips, say to China, in economy; and £85 for ultra-long-haul destinations such as Australia for passengers in the back of the plane.

Treasury forecasts indicated strong annual rises in APD are on their way. APD will rise from £2.2bn last year to £3.1bn in 2013 and £3.6bn by 2016.

Mark Schofield, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said inflation-linked tax increases would not be enough to hit the targets and warned that big rises could be likely. "Wider increases will have to come in, or there will have to be a broadening of the tax or a complete rewrite of it," he said.

Unless growth is generated by new passengers, which is considered unlikely given that UK passenger numbers have fallen for three successive years, the extra income will have to be driven by increases in the levy. Those rises were not revealed in the chancellor's speech, but they will now be introduced next April following the freeze announced in the budget.

"With the cost pressures on families, we think it would be fair to delay this April's air passenger duty rise to next year," said the chancellor.

The government confirmed that plans to charge APD on a per plane basis rather than a per passenger basis had been dropped because they fell foul of international law. That frustrated short-haul carriers including easyJet, who argue that the levy should benefit carriers with the youngest, most fuel-efficient aircraft such as budget airlines. No-frills airlines also suffer on domestic routes because the tax is imposed on every flight taking off from Britain, meaning a passenger on a domestic return trip has to pay twice. "We believe that the legal difficulties are overstated. We think they could defend a move to a per plane tax," said an easyJet spokesman. EasyJet also called for the tax to be imposed on transfer passengers.

George Osborne indicated business-jet travellers will no longer be exempt from APD, signalling the closure of a loophole. "The wealthiest should not escape the tax the ordinary holidaymaker has to pay," he said.

The Board of Airline Representatives, whose members include British Airways and bmi, the two largest airlines at Heathrow airport, said the industry's entry into the European Union emissions trading scheme next year would double the tax bill for carriers. "For air travellers to pay twice is wholly unjustified," said Mike Carrivick, the BAR's chief executive.

Even if APD stays frozen at the current level for a year, airlines have warned of potentially devastating effects for communities that rely on British tourists.

Last year, British Airways said there had been a 12% drop in arrivals in the Caribbean from Britain after APD on those routes had nearly doubled since 2009. Osborne is to also said he would review the structure of APD and look at how to "improve the existing and rather arbitrary bands that appear to believe the Caribbean is further away than California".

Douglas McNeill, analyst at Charles Stanley Securities, said the government appeared to have succumbed to fears that a per plane tax would damage the transfer traffic that is so important to Heathrow airport. "The notion of a 'per plane' duty had already been eased into the long grass; it has now been drop-kicked into the jungle. The reasons are partly related to international law, but also have much to do with the desire to preserve Heathrow's transfer traffic and the growing proximity of aviation's entry date to the EU emissions trading scheme."
[/textarea]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/2 ... enger-duty

A very pessimistic prognosis.

If it turns out to be true it doesn't bode well for the UK aviation scene.

 

[News Guru]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

[textarea]Government to let South East airports grow after 2015?

Airports in the South-East could be allowed to expand after 2015, the Evening Standard reports. The Government has ruled out a third runway at Heathrow and expansion at Stansted or Gatwick during the current parliament. But business chiefs are piling pressure on Transport Secretary Philip Hammond to end the moratorium.

The Cabinet minister will publish a paper that will explore how the industry can pave the way for expansion by cutting its carbon emissions and noise levels, the newspaper reports. Mr Hammond said: ‘Aviation has a vital role to play in supporting UK growth.’

Source[/textarea]

 

[News Guru]

Re: UK Airport News - General Thread

[textarea]CAA could have power to order airports to clear snow

New enforcement powers that would allow the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to order major airports to clear snow from runways and stands are being considered by ministers, the Telegraph reports. The Department for Transport is ready to allow the regulator to step in and instruct airport operators how they should tackle bad weather, rather than risk a repeat of the fiasco of last December when thousands of flights were cancelled and tens of thousands of passengers stranded.

Ministers have already signalled that they are considering imposing multi-million pound fines on the three regulated airports - Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick - if they are found to have performed badly or were poorly prepared. Now The Telegraph has reported they are prepared to go further by giving the CAA the power to intervene at the time, rather than imposing fines afterwards. Failure to comply with the CAA's instructions could also trigger financial penalties.

The changes are expected to be included a civil aviation economic regulation bill that is due to be introduced in the next Parliamentary session.

Source[/textarea]