It seems we have Lib Dem councillors supporting and indeed pushing plans to expand the airport, we have a Lib Dem MP sort of on the fence and now at last a Lib Dem candidate against expansion. Read Cheltenham Green party's response to this here - the letter also calls into question the absurd York Aviation report commissioned by Tewkesbury Borough Council. This is a supposedly independent report yet as noted on my previous Staverton blog entry York Aviation are about promoting airport businesses not looking at how the site could be used or any environmental considerations. You can also see a report about Lib Dems supporting airport growth in many other airports around the country (scroll to bottom of link here).Below I enclose Airport campaigner, Kevin Lister's initial look at the report which he sent to York Aviation. It easily could be expanded as the report is shocking in it's lack of real analysis of the longterm economics and environmental considerations. Anyhow here is what Kevin wrote:
I have taken a quick read through your report which was commissioned by Tewkesbury Borough Council. Given the evident bias of your report to the aviation industry and the complete omission from your analysis of the climate change impacts from the development, can you confirm that the council has actually paid for this work. My comments follow below against extracts in bold italic from your report which I trust illustrate the ill-considered and ill-informed position of your report.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1.1“York Aviation LLP has been commissioned by Tewkesbury Borough Council to undertake a technical appraisal of four planning applications submitted to the Local Authority by Gloucestershire Airport.”
How does Tewkesbury Council expect to receive an unbiased report from an aviation consultant? As Cheltenham and Gloucester Council have already commissioned reports analysing the airport proposals, why did Tewkesbury not refer to these rather than wasting further council tax payer’s money.
Section 1.2 “A view as to whether there is a genuine need”
The report does not define what a genuine need is. Instead, the report takes the default position that a genuine need is based around compliance with CAA regulations. However, many of the flights operating from the airport are for weekend breaks in the Chanel Islands and Isle of Man, as well as private jets being used by the ultra wealth of this area for skiing holidays in the continent. None of this can be described as a genuine need.
Section 2.3 “These scheduled services are currently operated by 19-seater turbo-prop aircraft1, though this type of operation forms only a small element of the Airport s business.”
It is the intention of the airport and Manx to expand schedule service operations and the introduction of ILS will provide an important facility to enable them to do this. The initial business plan that was submitted with the planning applications talked of building a new terminal building as part of the long term strategy for the airport. Put simply, there is no way the airport will be able to make a return on its investment with out expanding service operations.
Section 2.4 “In 2007, the Airport handled 80,855 movements, which represents a decrease over 2006, in which the Airport handled around 88,000 movements. Much of this reduction has come from fewer training and private flights. The increasing costs of fuel have made these sectors of the market increasingly expensive.”
It is welcomed to see an aviation report finally stating the obvious and recognising that increasing fuel prices are reducing the demand for flights. However the report has not considered that the fuel prices are continuing their rise and this will lead to further falls in demand and thereby undermine the business case for the airports plans. Many medium to small airlines in the US, similar to the types of companies that will use these facilities, have now filed for bankruptcy.
Section 2.8 “In terms of possible commercial scheduled services, the facility would be limited to smaller regional aircraft, such as those 19-seaters already seen, but also some larger aircraft such asDHC Dash-8 aircraft (36-78 seats dependent upon variable), ATR-42 aircraft (50 seats) and a small variety of regional jets (Avro RJ70/85 and Embraer ERJ170/190) seating from around 70 to 90 passengers.”
Use of planes in this size range is seen by the aviation industry as a major growth sector, see here for example. This section will thus become a major emitter of greenhouse gases, despite the higher fuel efficiency of the planes.
Section 2.9 “Overall this is a small facility and unlikely to be capable of handling more than 50 passengers comfortably at any one time”
A crude estimate would suggest that given a 15 minute departure frequency, the 50 passenger capacity limit of the airport’s terminal building would be sufficient. Thus the facilities could probably support in the order of 4 planes per hour at a maximum which is a signifiicant increase on todays operations.Thus, there is clearly significant capacity within the terminal building to accommodate more passengers and planes. Furthermore, the airport has already suggested that if growth materialises they will seek to extend the terminal capacity. This can also be done quickly and cheaply in the short term with additional portacabins. Thus to say that airport will not expand operations due to limitations on terminal capacity is false.
Section 3.20 “As with the restrictions on runway 27, this can lead to some operators having to reduce the weight of their aircraft on departure, either through offloading passengers or fuel. Again this, in our view, appears to be a legitimate problem for the Airport.”
This is only an issue if the airport decides to operate and schedule larger planes from the runway. If the airports operations were restricted to only small general aviation, this would not be a problem.
Section 3.26 “The first is the provision of traffic controls on Bamfurlong Lane. These controls will be used to prevent vehicles of a height greater than 2m from travelling past the runway end when an aircraft is de parting or landing at the eastern end of runway 09/27.”
The proposed works will significantly increase the risk of an incident on Bamfurlong lane. As such, it is hard to understand how the airport’s proposals can be called safety related.
Section 4.7 “The LDA(Landing Distance Available) is also highlighted as being restrictive to other existing operators, although they are continuing to use the facility in the short term in the hope that the LDA will be increased further.”
This statement sums up the strategy of the airport and its operators. They are prepared to push operational and safety envelops to the limit so they can then say that they needfurther facilities to continue safe operations. The only reason why this debate is happening is because airliners want to increase the number of passengers using the airport.
Environmental section 5 – general comment
It is outrageous that this section of the report has not considered the climate change impact from the airport when this is the main focus of many objectors. This was a principle objection that the Gloucester Scrutiny committee made against the airports plans. If cuts in emissions are going to be made and if the aviation is subsequently included in the climate change bill the only possible result is that aviation activities will be significantly reduced. If aviation is not included in climate change bill in a way that reduced emissions, the only way to curtain its further damage to the environement is to curtail airport expansion.
In fact the reports statement in section 5.14 “Typically, much of the environmental impact of Airports is associated with surface access rather than aircraft operations,” is simply wrong and misleading.
It is vitally that this repport recongnises the IPCC conclusion that we need to make cuts in the order of 80% in our CO2 emissions to reduce the risk of runaway climate change.
Section 6.9 “There is also a risk that any annual movement level imposed today might in the fullness of time restrict important business generating movements in the future from operating once the annual movement rate reaches any imposed limit.”
It is a predictable response from an aviation consultancy to oppose any operating restrictions that will prevent the maximisation of profit. It again makes a mockery of the airport’s posit ion that they are not planning to expand and that the investment is simply targeted at improving safety.
Section 7.5 “Future airport operations will then likely remain similar in type to those of today with environmental benefits attained, over time, from the evolution of new technology as new and improved engines and air frames are introduced by operators.”
It seems to have escaped the reasoning of the authors of this report that despite a continual improvement in engine and aerodynamic efficiency of planes over the past 40 years, the total emissions have continued to rise as the expansion in the aviation industry totally outweighs any improvements made. Furthermore there is a plateau beyond which further improvements become more and more difficult. Basic science and mathematics shows that are planes are currently almost as efficient as they ever will be.
The fundemental position that we need to grapple with is that what we are doing today is far from sustainable, so it makes no sense to suggest that in the fullness of time it is acceptable for emissions to stay the same as today.
No comments:
Post a Comment