Airport campaigners meet in Stroud

Last night around 9 of us met in Stroud to discuss the Staverton Airport expansion - it was a mix of folk from a variety of different organisations - only 2 of us from Stroud area so others had very kindly joined us here instead of our usual meet in Cheltenham.

Advert: from Sian Berry's London Mayor campaign

We hadn't met for a while so we so spent time catching up then looking at next steps - questions to Scrutiny, our meeting with Gloucester City plus lots of other ideas that I will share here as they develop - it was a good meeting.

It did bring home that this is a very much a David and Goliath fight - although the airport is small they are well resourced and can afford to pick Parish councillors up to take them for a jolly around the airport, provide a pack and afford paid staff to meet councillors - we campaigners are all doing it in our free time.....anyhow talking about the jolly...here below is a response from Kevin Lister....anyway more on all of this soon...

Dear Councillor,

You may have read the recent “Gloucestershire Airport Information Pack” that the airport has put on its web site. I would like to take the opportunity of making some brief comments on this report, section by section, to correct some of the misconceptions that the airport is again peddling.

History section

The report’s opening chapter discusses the past history of the airport, with the clear implication that its heritage should be justification for expansion and continuation. However, this overlooks the fact that the world has now changed. The historical pictures it shows of DC-3s operating from the airport are from a time of great optimism when we thought that the world could only get better, that everything would always get bigger and faster, and no one had heard of climate change or peak oil. Unfortunately, it is now absolutely clear that this nirvana is a thing of the past, and we must now be far more responsible in the maintenance of our planet.

We should therefore not look at old pictures of an airport as justification for expansion, but as a warning of the dangers of the naïve and incomplete thinking. Heritage is heritage, and it is something that should be confined to the past and viewed in museums.

If we need any further reminding of the fragility of the aviation industry in the new business climate that we are entering, we only need to see the bankruptcy of Skybus in the US and the recent collapse in share prices of similar companies such as Ryan Air and Easy Jet. It is inevitable that other companies that operate planes suitable for Gloucestershire Airport such as Flybe will also run into similar problems in the near future.

The Airport today

In this section, the report says “Over 10,000 passengers have used the services since September.” These flights equates to approximately 5200 tonnes of CO2 per year. Given that an “average tree” is able to lock up only about 1.5 kg of CO2 per year, then approximately 3.5 million trees are needed to absorb the amount of CO2 produced by these flights. Nowhere in the airports business plan or in Manx’s web site do I see that they have plans to grow any trees, let alone 3.5 million trees. The airport’s claim elsewhere in the report that they keep the grass length to 6-8 inches to help absorb CO2 are quite ridiculous in the context of amount of CO2 emissions from the airport.

The report goes on to say that “Manx2 have demonstrated the clear demand” for services from airport. This implies a “predict and provide” approach, which has been completely discredited by every industry sector, other than aviation. Working on this premise results in more motorways and more congestion, more building less green space, and more airports and more environmental damage.

Given the total fuel consumption and the “predict and provide” approach that the airport is advocating, their argument that “Turboprops are far more environmentally friendly than larger jets operating from major airports,” is merely green wash. All that can really be said is that turbo props are less environmentally damaging than larger jets. The simple fact is that flying is not environmentally friendly and never can be. Furthermore, the argument that turbo props are environmentally friendly totally misses the point that we need to make cuts in our CO2 emissions of over 80% to avoid runaway climate change. It is immoral to allow and facilitate additional discretionary activities resulting in large CO2 emissions when the science is so clear and the consequences for our children are so overwhelming. (See the last IPCC report which illustrates the magnitude of the problem).

The Airport’s Economic Contribution

The airport again continues to overstate its benefit to the business community. It says, “30 companies based in the area regularly use Gloucestershire Airport for corporate aircraft or air-taxi services.” This is the most carbon intensive and unsustainable way of doing business possible. It is not in our long-term interest to encourage business to operate in the manner. Also, if these resources are available, it is not a surprise that business and businessmen who do not care about the environment choose to use them. It does not mean that they are vital to local business; it merely means that they are easy to use. The frivolous use of executive airplanes is demonstrated by aviation data showing that the amongst their most frequent destinations are the holiday resorts of the Mediterranean!

Just this week an email from the airport confirmed that during Gloucester rugby Heineken cup matches they were expecting 5 commercial charter and 4 private flights. The 5 commercial charter planes being ATR2, 70 seat turboprops. They are flights for people that cannot be bothered using more efficient means of transport. Clearly, none of these flights are critical for Gloucestershire’s businesses and provide little if any economic benefit to the region.

The future

This section discusses the recent Heathrow incident and says, “Runway End Safety Areas (RESA) issues have been brought to the top of the agenda again recently, following the Boeing 777 crash at Heathrow,” as justification for the expansion works. The implication is that existing flights in and out of Gloucestershire airport are at risk and that they are operating a dangerous airport. This again does not justify an expansion. It merely demonstrates willingness by the airport management to push the safety envelope and accept bad management practises by introducing services that should not be operated. They are then using this bad management practise as a blackmail tool to argue for further expansion.

The recent flights for the Gloucester Rugby match support this case. The airport’s argument for a long time has been that they cannot operate fully laden planes in the 70-80 seat class. However, the flights for the Gloucester Rugby match have demonstrated that they are prepared to operate planes in this class. The airport is now faced with a series of serious questions to answer. Was it safe to allow these planes to operate and are these movements being used to justify the works on safety grounds, when any normally safety conscious management team would not have allowed the movements in the first place? If they have pushed the safety envelope to press their case, then they are playing with peoples lives in the pursuit of their aims.

Local residents have already lodged complaints about the exceptionally low height that these planes passed over their houses and have wondered that after the recent Biggin Hill, if they are going to be next.

The section goes on to say, “The Gloucester City Council s Overview Scrutiny Management committee recently recommended to cabinet that the project should not be supported, contrary to their own consultant’s advice.” This is incorrect. The consultants that Gloucester County Council engaged robustly analysed the business case and concluded that the proposal should not be supported. In addition, the Council also made clear that given the concerns about climate change, the airport expansion should not be supported, as this was not addressed in any robust way in the business plan.

By contrast the consultants engaged by Cheltenham Council were airport specialists and so it is no surprise that they supported the airport expansion. Their report demonstrated the necessity to substantially increase flights and operations to provide a return on investment.

The Environmental Concerns

This section starts with the comments “Gloucestershire Airport is fully committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and understands the need to meet its environmental responsibilities.” Gloucestershire airport’s past history does not demonstrate they are fully committed to reducing greenhouse gases. Only last year they produced a report saying there was no such thing as climate change. There is absolutely no way that they will be able to support the cuts in emissions that are necessary by increasing the operations from the airport.

Despite the airports claims that airplanes are becoming more efficient, these improvements are completely negated by the increasing number of planes and expanding distance that planes are being flown.

The report goes on to say, “We fully support the emissions trading scheme and strongly believe that this is the most effective market mechanism for achieving improvements in the aviation industry.” The airport should explain what they mean by this. As yet the concept has not been verified as a mechanism for reducing CO2 emissions. However, if it is successful, it will mean a massive reduction in flights, thereby negating the business case for the investment.

This whole section is fundamentally flawed. As the above extract from the IPCC report shows, we need to be reducing emissions, not be trying to burn the existing fossil fuels more efficiently, which is what the airport’s report is arguing.

Conclusion

We are fortunate to have the Gloucester Scrutiny Committee that has been prepared to see through the lies that the airport and its supporters have been putting forward. Their forward thinking decision will be looked at by other councils and organisations around the country and demonstrates the type of leadership that is needed to address the combined problems of climate change and peak oil that we will soon all be faced with. Their stance should not be challenged on the basis of the airport's self interested publicity campaign.