Homepage News

Beyond the horizon: The future of UK aviation – the WWRA’s response

The Government latest call for input on aviation ends 13 October 2017. Here is the WWRA’s submission. Feel free to use the ideas.

To find out more about the issue, read the Government’s report and make your own submission, read our article entitled, “The Government’s latest call for input on aviation ends 13 October 2017” – click here

 

Beyond the horizon: The future of UK aviation – the WWRA’s response

[box]

West Windsor Residents Association 

10 October 2017

Aviation Strategy, Department for Transport,

33 Horseferry Road,

London,

SW1P 4DR

Dear Sir/madam,

BEYOND THE HORIZON – THE FUTURE OF UK AVIATION

Comments from the West Windsor Residents’ Association

  • My name: Kevin Chapman
  • My email address is scorpio1954uk@yahoo.co.uk
  • Aviation impacts daily on the lives of the residents of West Windsor, Berkshire. This urban area lies immediately west of the A332, in Windsor, Berkshire.   Heathrow Airport provides work for many and flight operations cause noise and air pollution. The proposed expansion of Heathrow is a major issue.
  • I am responding as the elected Chair of the West Windsor Residents’ Association, which represents the interests of the occupants of approximately 1000 member households. Many are, or have been, involved with the aviation industry.

 

Aviation Strategy`s Aims and Objectives

  • The most important of the Policy Challenges listed is, or should be:

“maintaining high levels of safety and security”.  It is also, arguably, the most difficult.

  • The most notable absence in the perceived challenges is the absence of specific targets to address the environmental impact of expanding aviation or even obtaining a clear understanding of that impact .

This is especially important for residents of West Windsor, since government’s preferred option for an added runway is Heathrow and, as noted in the report of the Davies Commission, with its current operation this has a far greater adverse impact than any of its rivals.

Also how do you tackle the environmental impact if you do not attempt to fully understand it? For example, the government has abandoned attempts to address the concerns of the Fifth Terminal Inspector regarding noise measurement and its impact on residents.

It has also failed to consider the extent of added housing and infrastructure that is needed, if Heathrow’s airport operation is expanded.

  • “Encouraging Competitiveness” is so vague as to be meaningless!    Does this refer to meeting the hub capacity of our European rivals or competitiveness among our UK airports? Achieving one could well be to the detriment of the other.

 

  • “Keeping pace with consumer expectations” should be reworded to “properly understanding customer expectations and according appropriate priorities in addressing them”.

There is obviously a clear preference for ‘point to point’ travel but at what expense. Also there may well be a conflict between the expectations of business travellers, leisure travellers and the most convenient and profitable way perceived by airlines to address them.

 

Proposed Aims and Objectives

The first question relates to encouraging competitive markets”, as mentioned above.

  • If it relates to competing with the capacity of other hubs, it should be noted that several of those were located in areas where expansion could be achieved with minimal environmental impact. If that was not achievable, the location was moved, e.g. Charles de Gaulle, Dulles, and more recently in Hong Kong. Alternatively, the operation was sensibly split in a way that allowed competition, e.g. New York.
  • If the aim is intended to allow competitiveness among UK airports to the benefit of the passengers, how will single runway airport compete effectively with a dominant hub with three runways?
  • The reference to tackling environmental impacts is too vague. Even in Section 7, even though several paragraphs appear to recognise environmental problems, expansion is clearly given greater emphasis than improving or even protecting the environment. This is reflected in the final questionnaire.
  • This failure to give due emphasis to environmental considerations is reflected in the lack of urgency attached to changing runway alternation at Heathrow, now that Cranford Agreement has been abolished. It is now eight and a half years since the agreement was abolished and we are no nearer to achieving full runway alternation than we were then. If HAL are allowed to do so, they will delay it for a further six years. That will mean it will have taken HAL fifteen year to construct some small taxiways and hardstanding and appropriate mitigation for those adversely affected by the changes. This compares with the claim that a third runway could be constructed and operational by 2030.

The document indicates in paragraph 7.11 that Local Authorities would have responsibilities for implementing noise related restriction.   What powers are proposed for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead to address the tardiness of Heathrow Airport in this instance?

 

Strategy Principles

  • If the Strategy Principles are to be consumer focussed, market driven and evidence led, this consultation document appears to be blind to the potential outcomes that will arise from Brexit.
  • Significant factors will include:
    1. Whether the aviation construction partnership with EU fabricators will continue after Brexit
    2. The impact of the EU restructuring it air route network after Brexit
    3. The changes in trade with the EU that will occur.
    4. The relocation of EU centric business and other activities that will occur
    5. Reduction in outbound tourism, that is likely due to loss of value of the £.
  • It is astonishing that the consultation document does not invite comments on these matters. In that these outcomes are presently largely unknown, this consultation comes at the wrong time. It should be conducted when the outcomes are clearer.
  • Only then can its conclusions be ‘evidence driven’.

 

Policy Tests

  • The ‘rationale for action’ should in the first instance be to serve the interests of the UK as a whole. For far too long, the South East of England has been indulged with high levels of investment in infrastructure and economic development, to the detriment of the rest of the country.
  • Not only has this been unfair, it has also distorted the market in property and jobs.
  • Recent voting patterns at the Referendum and the 2017 general election suggest that a significant portion of the electorate is unhappy about this disparity.
  • It is therefore essential that the adopted aviation strategy and the resulting policies should redress this imbalance, in order to serve and be seen to serve the UK as a whole.
  • A further issue is the ownership of key assets by foreign investors.   The expansion of Heathrow is forecast to cost £20 billion.   This excludes the massive investment that the government will make, to provide additional infrastructure and services.   This money will ultimately come from the consumers and the taxpayers and will be sucked out of the wider UK economy. The beneficiaries will be the foreign investors who own Heathrow.   This cannot be in the national interest.
  • The strategic emphasis in this document is almost totally on expansion, with no more than a passing reference to protecting the environment. Section 7 refers to the increasing importance of the number of aircraft movements in reducing the adverse impact.   Although it proposes balancing this impact with expansion, there are no specific indications of these policies but there is a major emphasis on expansion. Reference to air pollution appears to be contained to “within airport boundaries”. In reality, much of this pollution arises outside those boundaries and, although this might not fall within the control of airports, it should fall within the remit of this Strategy document.
  • In our view, aviation strategy should place considerable emphasis on controlling the impact of its operations on the environment and should set specific targets to be met within a specified time period. Expansion should be permitted only within specified areas and only when these targets have been met. The West Windsor Residents’ Association would be happy to take part in any further consultations or discussions.

 

 

 

_____________________________

Mr. Kevin Chapman Eng Tech, MICE, MCMI, MIHIE, MCIWM

Chair, West Windsor Residents’ Association

[/box]

 

 

WWRA Office

To promote the interests and wellbeing of West Windsor residents