No Night Flights blog: 2010

Monday, 22 November 2010

Nostrildamus nose the future

See www.NoNightFlights.info for your sneak preview of what's to come...

Sunday, 21 November 2010

Buchanan in court

See: www.NoNightFlights.info for the awful truth...

Monday, 15 November 2010

New website

The No Night Flights blog is changing from an ugly duckling into a beautiful swan! Visit

www.NoNightFlights.info

to see the new version, and tell us what you think.

Wednesday, 10 November 2010

The European Commission has fined 11 airlines almost 800m euros (£690m) for fixing the price of air cargo between 1999 and 2006. Had the Commission not intervened the "deplorable" cartel "would have continued", said EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia. The illegal cartel had harmed both companies and consumers, he said.

British Airways was fined 104m euros, Air France-KLM 340m euros and Cargolux Airlines 79.9m euros. The fines follow lengthy investigations by regulators in Europe, the US and Asia, dating back to 2006. The EU said that the airlines "co-ordinated their action on surcharges for fuel and security without discounts", between early 1999 and 2006. "The carriers contacted each other so as to ensure that worldwide air freight carriers imposed a flat rate surcharge per kg for all shipments."

The Commission imposed the biggest fine - 340m euros - on Air France-KLM, which was formed from a merger in 2004 and which now owns Martinair, which was also fined. "It is deplorable that so many major airlines coordinated their pricing to the detriment of European businesses and European consumers," said Mr Almunia. "With today's decision the Commission is sending a clear message that it will not tolerate cartel behaviour."

Airline: Fine (euros)
Air France-KLM (includes Martinair): 339.6m
British Airways: 104m
Cargolux: 79.9m [Click here to read about their earlier $124m fine in the USA]
Singapore Airlines: 74.8m
SAS: 70.2m
Cathay Pacific: 57.1m
Japan Airlines: 35.7m
Air Canada: 21m
Qantas: 8.9m
LAN Chile: 8.2m

BA said it had already made a £350m provision for any possible fines over the cargo price fixing. A BA spokesman said the airline's fine fell "within the provision made by the company in its 2006/7 report and accounts". The German carrier Lufthansa escaped a fine because it alerted the regulatory authorities to the cartel. The maximum fine the Commission could have imposed on any single carrier was 10% of their 2009 turnover.

The US Department of Justice has already charged 18 airlines and several executives in its investigation of the cargo cartel and imposed more than $1.6bn (£997m) in fines. The Commission's decision will have an impact on several pending legal actions by European companies against some of the airlines. A group of firms, led by the Swedish telecoms group Ericsson and Dutch electronics giant Philips, are suing Air France-KLM and its Martinair subsidiary for 400m euros.

Saturday, 6 November 2010

Bureau Veritas request

The clever people at Bureau Veritas have peer reviewed BAP's technical noise report that accompanied Infratil's recent application. Even though it's apparently only in draft form, this provided TDC with the courage and ammunition to reject Infratil's bid.

At the recent Ramsgate Town Council meeting, Charles Buchanan said that he had not (yet) seen the BV report. Earlier that same day, the local press had been quoting figures from the BV report. As we know from previous experience with the BAP report, even early drafts turn out to have a very close resemblance to the finished report.

If any of you lovely people have a draft (or final copy) of the Bureau Veritas report, do feel free to send it in. We're bursting with curiosity, and it will help us prepare for the next round. Email it in to us and please indicate whether you DO or DON'T want us to publish it.

Thursday, 4 November 2010

Our Children Speak.........

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to you to discuss the potential night flights over Ramsgate, speaking on the behalf of all the children in Ramsgate (and other towns that will be affected by night flights).Although it may not seem like a major issue to some people, it is a concern to the locals, in particular the children.

If you were at the meeting at Chatham House, you will have heard all the points against night flights (from locals such as Sue Kennedy), and seen the huge crowd gathered to protest against Manston going ahead with their plans. I was surprised that there were five councillors missing, since this is a major debate.

Anyway, on to the points against night flights. Many of these were brought up during the course of the evening. Firstly, the harm that the noise can do to children. It has been scientifically proven that loud noises are not good for anyone, especially young children and babies. No one should be exposed to more than 50 decibels of noise (according to studies carried out by scientists) and young children and babies shouldn’t be exposed to more than 40 decibels. Yet 747’s sent from Manston can make 60-80 decibels of noise heard from Ramsgate and St. Peters. This is bad enough during the day, but the night time? It would be like sleeping through a tornado. It would be practically impossible.

According to research done by Cornell University, night flights will result in a drop in achievement of children at school. As everyone knows, children are the seeds of the future, and underachievement at school could result in disaster in 20-30 years’ time. Also, night flights will result in increasing health problems in the Isle of Thanet (source of information; World Health Organisation or WHO).

The people running the airport would argue that they could give people jobs. But would all of those jobs go to locals? No. In fact, an estimate of 16 local jobs has been predicted. Besides, Labour (who has recently sided against night flights) claimed that the promise of jobs ‘was merely an aspiration’.

Thank you for reading my letter on night flights.

Yours sincerely, Hal, aged 10. Ramsgate.

Wednesday, 3 November 2010

Planning permission needed for Manston

Comment from Cllr Clive Hart - Leader of Thanet Labour Group at TDC:

I'm pleased to see that the Conservative group at TDC agree with us that the current night flying application is unacceptable. I wish to make it absolutely clear that our Labour Group is supportive of the airport and maximising the employment opportunities it will create, but this must not be at any price for Thanet's residents.

We certainly do need to balance the economic benefits against environmental considerations. However the proposed night-time flying policy does not appear to do that and leaves far too many uncertainties, that is why we decided not to support the application.

We have not ruled ourselves out of any future debate because the current application is not being treated as a planning application and therefore the rules on predetermination simply do not apply. Indeed, one of the matters of concern in making our own decision was that we felt that any changes such as the those sought at present may well require planning permission.

Video snippets from the RTC public meeting 25th October

Tuesday, 2 November 2010

Political Posturing on Night Flights

'Dr' Simon Moores started things this morning with the question "Thanet Labour Disqualified from Taking Part in Manston Night Flight Decision?"

Playing on the total confusion around the subject of predetermination rules, our Simes suggests that the airport night flight decision is a "planning-related matter". Labour councillors, by rejecting the "current" application just as Bob Bayford did yesterday, seem to have pre-judged a planning matter publicly.

"Utter b&ll$cks", said our political/legal/planning expert. "The airport has no planning permission, and Bob Bayford keeps reminding us that he is only consulting the public out of the kindness of his own heart."

Uncle Bob Bayford weighs in late on Tuesday with a "open letter" to the Labour leader Clive Hart to ask if his party is now one of ''total opposition to 'any' night time flying activity at Manston Airport".

As much as we would like Conservative or Labour to reject them outright, neither party has. You only have to read Labour's Press Release or the Council Press Release to understand that . May I suggest that all political parties put their dummies back in their mouths, put the teddies back in the pram and read everything again. Carefully.

Just to dwell on Bob Bayford's position - "I also believe that the proposed upper level of activity is too high and needs to be reconsidered. I am not prepared to start a public consultation until these issues have been resolved."

May we suggest, Uncle Bob, that this quite clearly states that you will pre-determine an acceptable level of night time flying activity - acceptable to you, that is - before allowing an Infratil night time flying policy to go to public consultation?

Answers on a postcard please as to what rules, laws, bodies Bob is putting himself in contradiction/conflict with.

One final point to all Councillors. No Night Flights is non-party political. Red, Blue, Yellow, Green - not fussed which party you come from. We support the right of a full night's sleep, every night, to East Kent's residents. We support a successful Manston which operates as much business as it can during more sociable hours - as many successful airport across the country do. Oh, and 24,000 people so far have shown an interest in where you live in relation to the flightpath.

Sleep tight - while you can.

Monday, 1 November 2010

Consultation stops before it starts

Across east Kent, along the flightpath, all the boys and girls awoke with a thrill of anticipation. "Today's the day! Today's the day!" - they thought as they scrubbed their little faces clean, "Today's the day we finally get asked about what we want to happen to our sky". Their little eyes, once sparkling with excitement, are now bloodshot with tears of frustration and disappointment.

Yes folks, although it was once scheduled to start TODAY, the public consultation has been stopped in its tracks. Thanet District Council CEO Richard Samuel, and TDC Leader Cllr Bayford met Manston's CEO Charles Buchanan to break the bad news - his proposal doesn't merit consideration.

How did it come to this? TDC bent over backwards to accommodate Infratil's requests/demands during the British Airways World Cargo fiasco. Their embarrassment at the unseemly haste of it all (coupled with the need to bounce their neighbouring councils into agreeing at short notice to buy a pig in a poke) led them to press Infratil for a formal night flying request. Days, weeks and months passed. Which came as a surprise to anyone who had believed Infratil's talk of the pressing commercial urgency of having permission for scheduled night freight.

Eventually Infratil produced a remarkably shabby and utterly useless document that lacked a few vital ingredients - numbers, for instance. This was sent back to them, marked "must try harder". More time passed. Thanet's CEO Richard Samuel apparently prodded Infratil twice to get cracking and produce something worth looking at.

Hand on heart, I have to say I am taken aback at the rubbish Infratil have put out. To jog your memory - Infratil are a billion dollar multi-national, and they would have us believe that night freight will be the make-or-break factor for their strategic move into European aviation. It was clear, even to my untrained eye, that their proposal to TDC was riddled with unrealistic forecasts, unsupported assertions and manifestly unacceptable conditions. The "supporting" documents from BAP noise consultants are a mixed bag: the technical stuff is incomprehensible, the comprehensible stuff is laughable.

With a commendable display of common sense, and a degree of self-interest, TDC has thrown the latest tawdry offering back at Infratil. (See how TDC present the story further down the page.) As you will see, TDC have twigged that they are once again being given the runaround by the greedy kiwis. Infratil shot themselves in the feet by (i) asking for an absurdly high annual noise allowance, and then (ii) bodging the counting system so that nobody could understand what it would translate into in practice. It would appear the Bureau Veritas, employed by TDC to "peer review" the proposal, have warned them to steer clear.

A possible future problem arises from the wording of TDC's press release:

...before residents have their say, they need to know more detail and have a full understanding of exactly how many aircraft movements are being discussed. That information is difficult to gauge from the proposals that have been put to us, partly because of its technical nature and this needs further work. I also believe that the proposed upper level of activity is too high and needs to be reconsidered. I am not prepared to start a public consultation until these issues have been resolved.

To me, this carries the suggestion of an auction-style conversation between the airport owners and the council to determine what is "acceptable" long before Jo Public gets a look-in, which isn't my idea of a consultation.

From the TDC website

Plans for a public consultation on a new night-time flying policy for Manston Airport have been stopped by Thanet District Council.

The night-time flying plans were submitted by the airport to the council in late September 2010. When the plans were received, the council said it would carry out an independent review of the noise assessment report, produced by the airport as part of their application, before any consultation started. An initial draft of this report was received recently and the final report is expected soon, when it will be made public.

Following careful consideration of this draft report and taking account of the considerable public interest in the future direction of the airport, Council Leader Cllr. Bob Bayford and Chief Executive Richard Samuel met with the airport’s CEO Charles Buchanan on Monday 1 November. The airport agreed to revise the detail contained within the proposal. The council will not open any public consultation until this has been received.

The council indicated that elements of the night flying policy needed more clarification to ensure that the public could be provided with a better understanding of how it would be managed, how it would link to the business need for the plans, and examples of how many aircraft movements could potentially take place during the night. Cllr. Bayford said:

“I have met with Charles Buchanan to advise him that, after careful consideration over the last couple of weeks, the proposals that have been submitted have insufficient detail in some areas to be acceptable to the council. We’ve had an initial report through from our consultants, which has confirmed that there are areas of clarification that require further work before local residents are consulted. I believe that, before residents have their say, they need to know more detail and have a full understanding of exactly how many aircraft movements are being discussed. That information is difficult to gauge from the proposals that have been put to us, partly because of its technical nature and this needs further work. I also believe that the proposed upper level of activity is too high and needs to be reconsidered. I am not prepared to start a public consultation until these issues have been resolved. I am pleased to say that the airport has agreed to review these issues.

“The council remains supportive of the airport and maximising the employment opportunities it can create and sustain, but this cannot be at any price for local residents. As a council, we need to balance the economic benefits carefully against environmental considerations. The proposed night-time flying policy doesn’t fully allow us to do that, as it leaves uncertainties that need to be clarified before we consult the public.

“I have confirmed with the airport that they will receive a copy of our advisor’s report as soon as it’s finalised. From this, they have agreed to develop fuller information that we will consult on. I recognise, as does the airport, that this may take time, but it is important to get this right.”

Saturday, 30 October 2010

Lovely Posters

Get your lovely posters here, ladies and gentlemen. Click them to download them. Print them and put them in your window, in your car, on your pets, wherever.

Friday, 29 October 2010

Thanet Labour Group Reject Infratil Night Flying Application

Excellent news from Thanet Labour - they've rejected the ridiculous night flying application from Manston owners Infratil at a Labour Group meeting last night.

They cite the "alluded to jobs figures", "quality of life issues for the thousands who would be adversely effected" and the current "section 106 ...needing to be properly enforced and renegotiated".

They also recognise that the airport does provide "opportunity for jobs in the Thanet area but there is much much more day time capacity which could be utilised".

"Concerns were raised about the environmental and health impacts on local residents, particularly sleep deprivation caused by aircraft noise."

Couldn't agree more!

No Night Flights is not a party political group, and will equally cheer from the rooftops when local Conservative Groups and Liberal Democrat Groups come to the same conclusions.

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

Lost business

A Ramsgate resident wrote to TDC:

I would like to protest regarding the proposed night flights between 11pm and 7am at Kent International airport. They would cause a great noise pollution to the town of Ramsgate and cause the town to lose jobs and investment far greater than night flights could create. Currently a large number of the population of Thanet tolerate the current large jets that use Kent International airport however simply some will not.

To promote Ramsgate as a seaside town with constant noise pollution would be to sign a warrant for the demise of the town altogether. The town is current benefiting from an influx of Londoners like myself and my brother and his family who moved here for quality of life. I still work in London and spend my wages in Ramsgate. I regularly employ locals for work on my property for work on investment properties I have purchased in Ramsgate, to maintain my vehicles, I spend my money in the local shops have my haircut here and the list could go on. To promote night flights would be to close the door for a lot of people who would wish to live in a seaside town such as this.

I would like to let you know of a personal experience on this subject. On 7th July 2007 myself, my brother’s family, my aunt and her friend spent the afternoon on the beach in Ramsgate. We watched as every 9 minutes a 747 jumbo jet flow low over the beach as it prepared to ‘bounce’, I believe is the term, as they practise their landing at Kent International airport.

My aunt and her friend, who where preparing to retire from London both with their own houses and no mortgage where so horrified at the noise that my aunt declared she could not live in a town that had this level of noise. She is currently purchasing a property in Broadstairs. In short on 7th July 2007 Ramsgate lost over million pounds of investment because two older ladies didn’t like the noise of the jets during the day. I would expect the repercussions of night flights would be further reaching. I would say now that if they did go ahead and they wake me when they pass over my property I would not consider staying in Ramsgate. I am all for the expansion of KIA but not at the cost of the local economy or a reduction of the quality of people’s lives.

Friday, 22 October 2010

Gale's betrayal exposed: part 1

East Kent is still reeling, caught in the giddying vortex of Roger Gale's about turn. "I have never supported night flights from Manston and do not propose to do so." But that was ten days before the May 2010 general election, when he would say anything to anyone to trick a vote out of them.

Now that the election is over, and Roger has been made to feel important and powerful by a charm offensive from Infratil, his tune has changed. Whole sections of his recent article in the local press could have been lifted from an Infratil brochure. The talk is no longer of "flights" but of "flexibility" (a weasel word cynically put into Roger's mouth by Infratil's spin doctors). For example "... the proposals now on the table represent a fair consideration of the airport's likely maximum night time flexibility through to 2018 and very possibly beyond."

So let's have a closer look at the Mr Flip-flop's words...

East Kent will, very shortly, have the opportunity to indicate clearly whether we want the airport at Manston, and the jobs and transport links that are dependent upon it, to have the opportunity to grow and prosper or to close.

Oooh, Roger, just a teensy bit one-sided, don't you think? No mention of East Kent deciding whether it wants the noise, sleeplessness, ill-health, early deaths, dirt, fumes, extra lorry traffic, lower educational achievement, falling house prices and collapsing tourist trade that the huge increase in night freight will inevitably bring.

We need, I think, to be very clear that the consultation relating to night time aircraft movements, due to be independently carried out for Thanet District Council in response to an application by the airport operators, Infratil, will affect the whole future of aviation at Manston and, very possibly, in the South East.

Yes, Roger, of course the consultation about night flights at Manston could affect the future of Manston - that's the point of it. Well, most of us probably assumed that what we say in the consultation will have some kind of impact, but Cllr Bayford has poured cold water on that. If the majority of us say "No" to night flights... it might make no difference.

Ask local people if they want to be able to fly to sunshine holiday destinations direct from Manston and the answer is an emphatic “yes”. Ask the same people if they want to see more freight flights from the same airport and the response is, not surprisingly, very much more restrained. We subscribe to development that benefits us personally and we are lukewarm about development, whether it be business, retail or even housing, that impacts adversely upon our lives.

To paraphrase: "People like nice things and don't like nasty things." I think we can all go along with that one, Roger. It's completely normal - why comment on it? Do you think it's in some way wrong to oppose, to speak out against, or even campaign against something that will "adversely affect" your life, and the lives of your nearest and dearest? What we're being offered is a force-fed diet of nasty things (night flights, forever) with only the vaguest, sometime, sort-of promise of 'jam tomorrow' somewhere in the hazy future, in the form of nice holiday flights.

Click here to email Roger Gale

Gale's betrayal exposed: part 2

Emails are already winging their way to our glorious leader, David Cameron, asking whether he can condone Gale's conduct - do feel free to join in. If you get any meaningful replies, please send them in to be posted here.

The harsh economic fact is that for the foreseeable future Manston cannot survive without freight traffic and the competition for a dwindling share of that freight market is fierce. Long-haul passenger flights into Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted carry considerable amounts of belly cargo and other regional airports, such as Ostend, are able to offer highly advantageous terms, conditions, costs and hours of movement. Remove the flexibility from Manston and the essential services – Air Traffic Control, Fire vehicles, Revenue and Customs, Re-fuelling and even catering, become unsustainable. Without those services the airfield will close.

What Roger lacks the honesty to point out is that Infratil has failed to attract this apparently vital freight business for the past five years, despite their best efforts. Manston is almost empty throughout the daytime - there would be no queuing delays for incoming freight traffic. Manston repeatedly boasts of its rapid turnaround for unloading aircraft. So why isn't Manston coining it from the daytime freight traffic? Because the freight operators don't want to fly there, because it's in the wrong place. (Manston is tucked away in one corner of Britain, as are Lands End and John o' Groats.) As Roger's ex-mistress Margaret Thatcher said "You can't buck the market" and the market says No to Manston.

There is, of course, no guarantee that the present operators will prove any more successful than predecessors dating back to the original civilian proprietors, Seabourne Aviation. Current passenger trends using Flybe services to Edinburgh and Manchester are modestly encouraging and the prospect of some Sunshine Destination tour operators is, as always, on the cards. The possibility of bringing aircraft carrying the overseas 2012 Olympic and Paralympic teams directly into Kent is enticing also. These are too few swallows, though, to make a summer and it is clear that the need to attract and retain freight operators is vital to Manston's survival.

There is no guarantee that the present operators have any intention of staying any longer than they absolutely have to. Infratil have spent the last five years trying to persuade major holiday operators to use Manston and have failed - because Manston's in the wrong place, so its catchment area is too small to be commercially viable (you can't buck the market, and you can't change geography). Roger is being disingenuous to suggest that the 2012 Olympians will be flying in to Manston - they're more likely to use London City, Stansted, Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow which have the proven ability and capacity to do the job, and are already prepared.

We also have to recognise that without Manston not only will the airfield's job creating potential disappear but so, also, will any serious justification for a parkway station or the extension of the fast rail link from Ashford through to Thanet. That prospect may please those whose self-interest reflects only a demand for tranquillity but it would not bode well for future generations seeking to work and raise families in East Kent.

If Manston airport closes, that is absolutely NOT the end of the airfield's job creating potential. The 160 acre site, and the 1.7 miles of runway are freed up for brownfield development - eco-housing, farmers' markets, solar power plant, light industrial workshops, all-weather holiday park, Thanet Earth extension, etc.

Is this the same Roger who rails (ho, ho) against the current high speed link's effect on Herne Bay? Because that Roger points out that Herne Bay commuters are unwillingly subsidising the high speed service, and getting a degraded service into London in exchange. However, he is now singing the praises of more high speed links, so that more people can be disadvantaged as Herne Bay has been.

Incidentally, Roger, you write of "self-interest" as if it's a bad thing, like selfishness. It bloody well isn't.

Click here to email Roger Gale

Gale's betrayal exposed: part 3

This is the bit where Roger Gale displays his shocking ignorance of key elements of Infratil's proposal, and has the cheek to call other people dishonest.

I have consistently opposed a free-for-all night flying policy that has been espoused, in the past, by some of Thanet's councillors of both major political persuasions. I do, however, believe that the proposals now on the table represent a fair consideration of the airport's likely maximum night time flexibility through to 2018 and very possibly beyond. To represent the maximum unit quota provided for in the application as “Seven night flights per night” is mischievous if not downright dishonest. Even local journalists living on the flight path need to recognise that the purpose of the unit quota is to limit and regulate night time noise. If, though, we deny the operators the operational flexibility needed to accommodate not only scheduled aircraft movements but also the unforeseen late take-offs from overseas destinations that, inevitably, affect arrival times then we shall drive Manston's business across the Channel with the inevitable consequences.

"To represent the maximum unit quota provided for in the application as 'Seven night flights per night' is mischievous if not downright dishonest." No it isn't, you ignorant, insulting fool. That's exactly what it says in the application. Have you actually read the application, Roger? It's there in black and white, as plain as the nose on Pinocchio's face.

Roger writes "... the purpose of the unit quota is to limit and regulate night time noise"... er, yes Roger, that's the point - we all get that. There is NO LIMIT on the number of flights that Manston can schedule in the daytime, and they already have the "flexibility" that allows for late arrivals. The freight is going to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted because each of them is a better commercial proposition for the operators - you can't buck the market, Roger.

Thanet Council has indicated very clearly that it will take no decisions until the outcome of the consultation is known. That is a correct and proper position. It is also entirely right that those of us with elected responsibility should do everything possible to both recognise the legitimate needs of a potentially valuable local business while at the same time seeking to mitigate any environmental impact upon residents and the countryside that may arise from those needs.

There are many people in Thanet and across east Kent who are getting the impression that TDC have already made their decision, and will cherry-pick and selectively (mis)represent the results to support it. Your last sentence reveals a fundamental error - your job is not about businesses, the environment, or the countryside. First and foremost, your job as an elected representative is to represent the wishes and interests of your electorate. Everything else follows.

If, however, a relatively few of East Kent's residents are left with an open goal into which they may then kick “anti-airport” shots then we shall be doing the future of East Kent no favours at all. Those that want Manston (and, of course, the remaining RAF presence as well) to close have a clear duty to indicate what alternative future (Industrial development? Housing Estates?) they see for the land, what vision they have for the future of local transport infrastructure and how they intend to generate the employment opportunities that East Kent's children and grandchildren will be looking for. Protest-power without social responsibility is no more of an acceptable or honest position that would be the free-for-all night aircraft movement policy that absolutely nobody is in fact proposing.

The "clear duty" that Roger seems happy to foist on anyone actually rests with the elected representatives - always has, always will. It is a cause for public shame that Thanet District Council have consistently failed to shoulder this duty, and have no "Plan B" of any description. Roger suggests a housing development (it's a good brownfield site with decent transport links) or industrial development (small to middling workshops and light fabrication plants would create more jobs than one big factory). Others have already suggested a wider range of possibilities, but welcome to the debate, Roger.

Click here to email Roger Gale

Forked tongue

Gale's view - 4 February, 2009
"... my own constituents living in the Thanet villages and Herne Bay on the flight paths have a right to due consideration and to the greatest achievable protection from noise and disturbance that is achievable and compatible with the lawful use of the airfield. That is why I have again consistently opposed any extension of night flying at Manston..."

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

Turncoat

Ten days before the general election, Roger Gale wrote "I have never supported night flights from Manston and do not propose to do so." Click here to see for yourself. Six months later, he writes this:

Gale's View – 22 October, 2010

East Kent will, very shortly, have the opportunity to indicate clearly whether we want the airport at Manston, and the jobs and transport links that are dependent upon it, to have the opportunity to grow and prosper or to close.

We need, I think, to be very clear that the consultation relating to night time aircraft movements, due to be independently carried out for Thanet District Council in response to an application by the airport operators, Infratil, will affect the whole future of aviation at Manston and, very possibly, in the South East.

Ask local people if they want to be able to fly to sunshine holiday destinations direct from Manston and the answer is an emphatic “yes”. Ask the same people if they want to see more freight flights from the same airport and the response is, not surprisingly, very much more restrained. We subscribe to development that benefits us personally and we are lukewarm about development, whether it be business, retail or even housing, that impacts adversely upon our lives.

The harsh economic fact is that for the foreseeable future Manston cannot survive without freight traffic and the competition for a dwindling share of that freight market is fierce. Long-haul passenger flights into Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted carry considerable amounts of belly cargo and other regional airports, such as Ostend, are able to offer highly advantageous terms, conditions, costs and hours of movement. Remove the flexibility from Manston and the essential services – Air Traffic Control, Fire vehicles, Revenue and Customs, Re-fuelling and even catering, become unsustainable. Without those services the airfield will close.

There is, of course, no guarantee that the present operators will prove any more successful than predecessors dating back to the original civilian proprietors, Seabourne Aviation. Current passenger trends using Flybe services to Edinburgh and Manchester are modestly encouraging and the prospect of some Sunshine Destination tour operators is, as always, on the cards. The possibility of bringing aircraft carrying the overseas 2012 Olympic and Paralympic teams directly into Kent is enticing also. These are too few swallows, though, to make a summer and it is clear that the need to attract and retain freight operators is vital to Manston`s survival.

We also have to recognise that without Manston not only will the airfield`s job creating potential disappear but so, also, will any serious justification for a parkway station or the extension of the fast rail link from Ashford through to Thanet. That prospect may please those whose self-interest reflects only a demand for tranquillity but it would not bode well for future generations seeking to work and raise families in East Kent.

I have consistently opposed a free-for-all night flying policy that has been espoused, in the past, by some of Thanet`s councillors of both major political persuasions. I do, however, believe that the proposals now on the table represent a fair consideration of the airport`s likely maximum night time flexibility through to 2018 and very possibly beyond. To represent the maximum unit quota provided for in the application as “Seven night flights per night” is mischievous if not downright dishonest. Even local journalists living on the flight path need to recognise that the purpose of the unit quota is to limit and regulate night time noise. If, though, we deny the operators the operational flexibility needed to accommodate not only scheduled aircraft movements but also the unforeseen late take-offs from overseas destinations that, inevitably, affect arrival times then we shall drive Manston`s business across the Channel with the inevitable consequences.

Thanet Council has indicated very clearly that it will take no decisions until the outcome of the consultation is known. That is a correct and proper position. It is also entirely right that those of us with elected responsibility should do everything possible to both recognise the legitimate needs of a potentially valuable local business while at the same time seeking to mitigate any environmental impact upon residents and the countryside that may arise from those needs.

If, however, a relatively few of East Kent`s residents are left with an open goal into which they may then kick “anti-airport” shots then we shall be doing the future of East Kent no favours at all. Those that want Manston (and, of course, the remaining RAF presence as well) to close have a clear duty to indicate what alternative future (Industrial development? Housing Estates?) they see for the land, what vision they have for the future of local transport infrastructure and how they intend to generate the employment opportunities that East Kent`s children and grandchildren will be looking for. Protest-power without social responsibility is no more of an acceptable or honest position that would be the free-for-all night aircraft movement policy that absolutely nobody is in fact proposing.

You can contact Roger Gale at: suzy@galemail.com

More from the rumour mill...

Our diligent spies never rest and never sleep, even without night flights.

The latest news is that the gaggle of Kiwis visiting Thanet will be meeting our dazzling local MPs Roger Gale and Laura Sandys. As we all know from recent posts here, both MPs have publicly declared their opposition to night flights and will doubtless make this clear to our anitpodean visitors in their private meetings. Of course.

One of the topics up for discussion appears to be broadening the range of goods that can be flown in to Manston to include toxic waste. Clearly this is a bold step into a glorious and prosperous future for Thanet and east Kent. Why limit ourselves to green beans and cut flowers when there's the opportunity to take delivery of disgusting death sludge from around the world?

From Infratil's point of view, it's a no-brainer: carrying toxic filth is more profitable (hmmm, wonder why?). Permission to import this stuff, added to permission to fly freight throughout the night would give Manston airport two unique selling points, making it easier to sell.

Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Public consultation: the next steps

TDC say:

The council will be carrying out a full twelve week public consultation to gather the views of as many local people as possible in the next couple of months. This will be facilitated on behalf of the council by Ipsos MORI. Please could I encourage you to take part in this process once it begins. I will ensure that you are contacted directly with full details on how to take part once this commences.

This formal consultation process is not due to start until two pieces of technical work have been completed to ensure that members of the public are aware of the potential impacts of the proposal. The first is an independent specialist technical review of the noise impact study produced for Infratil by Bickerdike Allen. The second is a Plain English guide to ensure that members of the public are able to access full information about what the proposal will mean, in terminology that is easy to understand. Both pieces of work will be published on completion and before the full public consultation begins, to ensure that local people have all the information on the proposal before giving us their views as part of the formal consultation.

In the mean time please visit www.thanet.gov.uk for further information and to view all of the documents submitted by Infratil.

Monday, 18 October 2010

Politicians Against Night Flights

In April, a group local politicians were asked: "Do you support night flights from Manston Airport?"

Roger Gale said: "No."

Laura Sandys said: "No, I do not support night flights from or to Manston."

It's great to have such high profile local Conservative politicians agreeing with our message.

No Night Flights!!

Sunday, 17 October 2010

Infratil top brass come to Kent

All along the flight path, the whispered words are spreading like wildfire: the bigwigs of a company on the other side of the world are coming to Kent on Monday. I'm thrilled at the prospect of these well-travelled, high-spending visitors plastering shop counters with their New Zealand dollars, but I can't help wondering why exactly they're coming, and why now? I find myself being drawn to two options: end of deal; or, just possibly, a new deal.

Infratil already have their own hand-picked representative on Planet Thanet, in the form of the recently appointed Charles Buchanan. He has already been negotiating with TDC for some time. If Infratil HQ wanted to confer/plan with Mr Buchanan on strategy or progress, it would surely be easier to bring Mr Buchanan to HQ, rather than vice versa. If Infratil weren't happy with his performance or negotiating skills, they would simply parachute in an "advisor" to operate Mr Buchanan from behind (as Rod Hull does Emu).

No, I think Infratil HQ has dragged itself half-way round the world because they have the authority to strike deals with TDC that Mr Buchanan doesn't, and they've realised it's time to jolt Manston from its steady decline. Infratil have used up their supply of hype - I don't see what else they could offer TDC, or hold out as a plausible forecast. Having promised them the earth, there's not much else left.

So, having run out of carrots, it's stick time! Infratil's bigwigs will be putting the frighteners on TDC in a curious form of reversed mugging - give us everything we want, or we'll leave you alone. They will say that without night freight, they won't be able to build the passenger traffic they need for long-term profitability, and would have to pull the plug. TDC will shit their britches at the prospect of Infratil leaving: huge political capital has been invested in the airport as a high profile strategic contributor to east Kent's long-term growth; and if billionaires can't afford to make a go of it, Manston will be seen more clearly for the poisoned chalice it is. I'm assuming that TDC's first instinct would be to sell us all down the river.

Which brings me to the second (more interesting and hopeful) option: a new deal. Infratil have done their sums and have realised that Manston will not be a commercially successful airport. Infratil will know that aviation industry players, pundits and observers will have reached the same conclusion (probably before Infratil did) and as a result it will be impossible to find anyone willing to buy Manston as an airport. Unable to sell it as it is, and unwilling to just leave the keys in the front door and walk away, Infratil may well try to "re-purpose" Manston.

One of Infratil's core businesses is energy production, and increasingly now green energy production. I would be completely unsurprised to find Infratil seducing TDC with promises of free energy from the Manston Solar/Wind Farm, coupled with absurd over-projections of the resulting employment.

[Infratil may even offer to sell the site to TDC for a small, or even nominal, sum. Doubtless, Infratil's fancy-pants negotiators will run rings round the TDC old guard who have been wrong-footed, and wrong-headed, so often in the past.]

Friday, 15 October 2010

Breaking News - Council are not "in cahoots" with Manston Airport

I can't understand what would make people think such a thing! Behold the front Page of "Around Kent, A magazine for the people of Kent. Your voice, Your services." Autumn Winter 2010.

And the Back Page of same edition of "Around Kent".

Is it wise for KCC, a key stakeholder in the public consultation, to take money from a company who is asking for a major change in the hours that they wish to operate?

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

Sleepless in Ramsgate

People living under or near the flightpath of Manston airport could have their sleep shattered up to seven times a night if Thanet council supports plans from operator Infratil. The company’s application for a night-time flying policy has gone in to the local authority – and it wants as many as seven aircraft a night to fly in to the airport between 11.30pm and 6am – a period being labelled the ‘Night Time Quota Period’. Up to 1,995 planes could fly in at night during the year, which has been set as an annual limit.

The information, produced by Infratil, was submitted to the council late on Tuesday night last week. The company says the number of planes may not be that many to start with and is being applied for to allow it to press ahead with its expansion plans as set out in the masterplan document, published last year. The figures have taken more than a year to come into the public domain and are already proving divisive.

A No Night Flights campaign started last year, with the backing of the Stop Manston Expansion Group. Objectors say it will mean sleepless nights for many thousands in Thanet, as planes loaded with freight fly overhead during the small hours. Pete Binding, a Ramsgate resident who opposes night flights, said:

“Finally it’s been published and it’s even worse than we thought.”

Aircraft with a QC4 rating will not be able to make scheduled flights at night, but that accounts for only a tiny fraction of planes flying in Europe today. QC4 flights that are late or unscheduled will still be able to land, and many believe the penalty fines proposed in the application for such planes landing are simply not high enough. A fine of £1,000 will be applied, but fines for planes that take off and arrive from the west would be smaller.

Mr Binding says Infratil has “invented” the Night Time Quota Period to make night-flying hours seem shorter. He said:

“Airlines will gladly pay £1,000 for the right to fly the noisiest planes in the world into the airport at 3am.”

The areas most affected by the night flights are Ramsgate, St Nicholas-at-Wade, Monkton and Minster, but there is also likely to be opposition in Herne Bay [you can count on it! Ed.]. Thanet council will conduct a 12-week consultation on the issue before any decision is taken. Council leader Bob Bayford said:

“We know this is a hugely important issue for local people, which is why we are making these documents available to the public at the earliest opportunity. It has been made clear that people want the council’s independent assessment of this report available when the consultation starts. That’s why the formal consultation process is not beginning immediately. Of course, should people want to make their views known before we begin our formal consultation, we’d be happy to receive those. That will be followed by a thorough and extensive consultation.”

The start date of the consultation will be announced by the council soon.

yourthanet.co.uk 8th October 2010

Monday, 11 October 2010

Sickening cynicism

Night flights consultation: November to late February.
Local Election: May 5th.
Council decision on night flights: July.

This is clearly a clumsy ploy by TDC to avoid the electorate kicking the daylights out of them on election day for inflicting a lifetime of sleepless nights on them.

The consultation starts on 1st November, and will run until the second half of February (12 weeks, plus some extra to make up for Christmas and New Year). The local elections in Thanet will be on Thursday May 5th. Thanet District Council will not be deciding on the Night Flight proposal until July.

MORI, the pollsters who will probably be conducting the surveys, will presumably be collating the results as they go, and should be able to produce their findings within a few days of the consultation ending. TDC could easily decide soon after that. It's not as if all this is coming as a sudden surprise - we've had months and months of this already.

By delaying their decision until after the election, TDC councillors are giving themselves the wriggle room to tell whatever sweet lies they think the electorate want to hear, and then do whatever they like once they've got another 5 years of selfless democratic representation in the bag. Scumbags.

If you would like an "official explanation" for this evasion of democratic accountability, I suggest you ask the leader of Thanet District Council, Cllr Bayford.

Wednesday, 6 October 2010

Calling All Whistleblowers

If TDC decide to give Infratil the night flights they've asked for, it'll have a significant impact on the everyday lives of all of us under the flight path.

The elected representatives taking that decision should be as transparent as possible about the factors they are taking into account.

Some of you have already offered us interesting and valuable insider insights into what's really going on - keep 'em coming!

If you think you know something about Infratil's or TDC's plans that the wider public should know, tell us. We respect our sources' request to keep names confidential.

Alternatively, share what you know with the statutory consultative body responsible for issues between the airport and the community, KIACC.

Please contact us at NoNightFlights@gmail.com

Tuesday, 5 October 2010

Eleven very pointed questions

Here's an economy dozen of the finest, freshest questions to come marching in the door, demanding answers. I'll be weaving them into our growing compilation shortly.

QUESTION 1
Would you please ask TDC to put the Schedule 106 currently applicable to Kent International/ Manston Airport up on its website so that the electorate can see what it says?

QUESTION 2
I notice that Infratil advises KIACC of the number of passenger and cargo flights each month. Could you please email me Infratil's month by month breakdown of the number of aircraft movements for each of these categories for the period April 2009 to August 2010 or, better still, arrange for them to go up on TDC's website?

QUESTION 3
Could you please ask Infratil to give a month by month breakdown of the number of cargo flights and the number of passenger flights between 23:00 and 7:00 from April 2009 to August 2010 and either email them to me or put them up on TDC's website?

QUESTION 4
Can you assure those under the flight path that there is always air traffic control and RFF [Rescue Fire Fighting] at the airport whenever a plane lands or departs? [Any variation of 'no' in answer to this question is truly alarming for the populations of Ramsgate and Herne Bay.]

QUESTION 5
Does the current Section 106 define 'scheduled'? [I note that Alan Stratford & Assoc raised the question of the definition of 'scheduled' in 6.22 of their Review of the Section 106 in 2005. This report was commissioned by TDC and is still on their website.]

QUESTION 6
For a flight to be 'scheduled', it simply has to be done according to a timetable. Unlike a passenger airline, a cargo airline's timetable might vary considerably especially if it is flying fresh produce. The airport's Geographical and Administrative Data states that Security requires 24 hour advance notice. Customs and Immigration requires notice by 15:00/16:00 hours on the previous day depending on whether it is summer or winter. In other words, these cargo flights which are arriving and departing during the night are not emergency flights; they have a schedule which has to be notified to the airport in advance. They are, therefore, scheduled night flights. Why have the appropriate fines not been collected for the Community Fund?

QUESTION 7
Who are the legal advisers who will be helping TDC through the negotiation process for the new Section 106 and how much relevant aviation experience have they got? I understand under the FOI we are entitled to know.

QUESTION 8
Why have TDC ignored the advice regarding Enforcement and Penalties in the report they commissioned from Alan Stratford & Assoc in 2005 [pps 31, 33]?

QUESTION 9
Could TDC please explain how ignoring Alan Stratford's recommendations benefits the electorate?

QUESTION 10
Except in emergencies, all QC4 aircraft have been banned from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted between the hours of 23:30 and 6:00am since October 2005. No aircraft over QC4 are allowed to land between 23:00 and 7:00am. There is a movements limit and a noise quota. Could KIACC please explain, therefore, how QC4 aircraft come to be flying in over Ramsgate and Herne Bay at any hour of the night without penalty when this is not allowed at the UK's busiest, noisiest airports? This benefits Infratil but I cannot see how it benefits TDC's electorate.

QUESTION 11
Why has the consultation period on the night flights been reduced from 6 months to 12 weeks? Once again the benefits to Infratil are easier to see than the benefits to the electorate.

Sign the Petition .:. Join our Mailing List

Monday, 4 October 2010

Manston Noise Assessment - a series of errors

Some of the more observant members of our team here at No Night Flights towers have been reviewing the Noise Assessment Report from Bickerdike Allen Partners. They have provided me with a detailed report which highlights issues such as presented on it, including seriously underestimating the numbers of dwellings that will be affected.

They have come up with the following observations:

"The consultants report assumes that residents will sleep with closed windows"
"I note that the consultant fails to mention the "half quota" counting of westerly departures and easterly arrivals claimed in the proposed Night Noise Policy. I doubt they would approve having stated that the QC system is "successfully deployed at many major UK airports including Gatwick, Heathrow, Stansted, Manchester, Bristol and others". Incidentally, there is no justification for this claim - the only part of the LHR, LGW and STN controls which could possibly be deemed successful is the limit on the total number of movements during the QC period which was successfully defended in the house of Lords when the government tried to abolish it."
"They mention on page 3 that "it is generally accepted that the most sensitive time for people....from recent research....is during the hours of 0100 to 0600"."
"On page 4 they state that "...One of the conclusions ...was that once asleep very few people living near airports are at any risk of any sleep disturbance due to aircraft noise"".
"This means either the earlier night period wakes people up and stops them getting off to sleep or it doesn't. You can't argue both ways".
Bickerdike Allen have stated that SEL stands for "Single Event Level". Incorrect. It stands for "Sound Exposure Level" (CAA CAP725).

Onto the night time flying policy itself...

"The suggestion that quota count scores be halved for departures in a westerly direction. What happens, for example, if/when development west of the airport occurs? This is absolutely NOT how the QC system was designed to work."
"There needs to be a clause added to stop any carryover of unused quota from one year to the next."
"Seeing as the Council and Infratil are still working with Planestation's S106 agreement and always refer back to problems with this not being their agreement, there should be a clause mandating a negotiation of a new S106 and night time flying policy if the airport were ever to change hands. "
"The suggestion that Westerly arrivals/departures in the night cost "half" the normal QC point would be unique amongst all UK airports. This is effectively allowing the airport a QC count of 2,990."

We have a full report which points out many technical errors - it will be interesting if TDC's Peer Review identifies them all. If any council officers, councillors, or Consultative Committee members would like a sneak preview, please feel free to ask.

Sign the Petition .:. Join our Mailing List

Sunday, 3 October 2010

Questions, questions

The current owners of Manston Airport want to change the rules that govern night flights. This is a major change in the way the airport is used, so Thanet District Council will be launching a public consultation. Both TDC and Infratil (the airport owners) will probably be doing their best to engineer a "yes" result. Smoke and mirrors, misinformation and partial truths will all play their part.

A lot of people have a lot of good questions that need answering. What we're hoping to do is collect all those good questions in one place. You can add your questions now - use the comments at the bottom, or email us at NoNightFlights@gmail.com You can use the Comments facility at the bottom of the article to:

add a new heading
add a new question
rephrase an existing question
share any answers you have

As and when (and if) we get answers, we'll add them here, so you'll know where to come for straight answers to the questions that matter.

A: CONSULTATION

A1. What area will be covered: selected postcodes, everyone under the flight path... ?
A2. When will the consultation start and finish?
A3. How is TDC going to make sure that everyone knows about the consultation?
A4. What information will be provided before and during the consultation?
A5. Will the information provided be in plain English?
A6. Will there be a "Yes/No" to night flights question?
A7. How are the results going to be assessed and communicated?
A8. What if the majority say "No" to Night Flights?
A9. Will under-18s get the vote?
A10. How much is the consultation costing, and who's paying?
A11. Will the consultation be just on Night Flights, or on a whole new S106?
etc., etc.

B: FACTS

B1. How many planes?
B2. How noisy?
B3. What days of the week will they be flying?
B4. What times of day?
B5. What flight paths will they be using for take-offs to the East and West, and landings from the East and West?
B6. Will 2300-0700 (11pm to 7am) remain the working definition of "night"?
etc., etc.

C: Old (current) S106

C1. Why risk judicial review by extending S106 without having fully (or even adequately) enforced the existing one?
C2. Who decided not to enforce the existing S106, year after year?
etc., etc.

D: New S106

D1. How does TDC propose to monitor the new S106?
D2. How does TDC propose to enforce the new S106?
D3. What sanctions and fines are available to TDC under the new S106?
D4. Will TDC exercise the sanctions and impose fines?
etc., etc.

E: NOISE

E1. Why not have more mobile sound monitors?
E2. How much does a mobile sound monitor cost?
E3. Where can we see the latest "sound footprint" maps?
etc., etc.

F: POLLUTION

F1. Are there any analyses available to reassure us that the aquifer is clean?
F2. Is there an inspection programme in place to monitor the effects of increasing traffic on aquifer pollution?
etc., etc.

Sign the Petition .:. Join our Mailing List

Saturday, 2 October 2010

Ramsgate Town Council consultation

At the Ramsgate Town Council meeting this coming Wednesday 6th October at 7pm, Cllr David Green is going to be asking the council how best they can consult (separately, it seems, from TDC) with people in Ramsgate.

Venue: The Council Chamber, The Custom House, Harbour Parade, Ramsgate.

As we know, many of 'our' councillors appear in favour of the proposal. Councillors Jill Kirby and Brenda Rogers claimed overwhelming support for night flights following their own consultation with residents in Nethercourt 18 months ago, but when pressed, admitted that the survey had not been exhaustive but a good sample had been taken!

It would be good for Ramsgate Town Council to get a good feel for the opposition to the proposal and so we need a fair crowd. If RTC end up throwing their weight (bantam though it be) behind the proposal, it will make it harder still for us. Cllr Green is happy for questions to be submitted in advance as well as taking them on the evening. Questions can be emailed to them from their WEBSITE.

If they are, in fact, still making up their collective mind as to what they think of the proposed new night flight policy, this is the best possible time to tell them what you think - you might even tip the balance! And if you've got any ideas about how they can best run an effective consultation, do let them know.

Sign the Petition .:. Join our Mailing List

Thursday, 30 September 2010

So here it is.........

.......Infratil have finally, after 13 months of waiting, given us a figure on the flights they expect to operate at night. To summarise:

They wish to extend unrestricted operational hours from 0700-2300 to 0600-2330

Between 2330-0600 they now wish to operate scheduled aircraft which were not allowed under the previous agreement

Aircraft up to a 747 will be allowed to operate between 2330-0600

The numbers allowed will be up to 3 747's per night between 2330 and 0600, 7 days a week, 365 days a year

The very noisiest planes will be allowed to operate within these times with a meagre fine for doing so

East Midlands fines the noisiest planes £5,000-£10,000. Manston will fine these ageing aircraft only £500 to £1,000

The council are legally obliged to hold a public consultation. All documents released by the council can be found here.

Please stay tuned to this blog for further updates. Comments have been turned on. Feel free to vent your spleen. We are actively looking for people wanting to join in with fighting this totally unnecessary and life changing blight on towns and villages in East Kent.

Sign the petition, tell your neighbours, keep your eyes and ears open for events and public meetings, but most of all, tell the council exactly what you feel.

Sign the Petition .:. Join our Mailing List