Visit www.NoNightFlights.info for the full story.
(This is just a left-over bit of blog - you wait till you see the new website!)

Friday, 22 October 2010

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
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.


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.


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.


    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.


    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.


    Saturday, 5 December 2009

    $124 million to keep out of court

    It appears that Infratil's best friends Cargolux are getting their arses kicked for their part in an international criminal conspiracy. Two conspiracies, in fact.

    The US Department of Justice has accused several airlines of engaging in a conspiracy to eliminate competition by fixing the international cargo rates they charged, from at least 2001 through 2006. Three of the airlines have coughed up fines to avoid the presumably more expensive rigmarole of going through the courts. See Reuters for more grisly details. The red-handed three (and their guilt money) are:
    • Japan-based Nippon Cargo Airlines Co ($45 million)
    • Korea-based Asiana Airlines Inc ($50 million)
    • Luxembourg-based Cargolux Airlines International ($119 million)
    Dear reader, your eyes do not deceive you: that's $119,000,000 worth of naughtiness. But they are contrite:
    Cargolux Chairman Marc Hoffman said yesterday that his airline had "cooperated intensively with the DOJ and the other authorities throughout the investigation and will continue to do so." He added that the company had "reviewed and reinforced its competition compliance program." ATW Online
    Meanwhile, in another part of the globe, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has also been investigating cargo price-fixing, and collusion on fuel surcharges, between 2003 and 2006. Once again, Cargolux have sought to save themselves some hefty legal bills and have offered the ACCC A$5 million worth of 'sorry'.
    "Cargolux has cooperated intensively with the ACCC and the other authorities throughout the investigation and the legal proceedings and will continue to do so," Chairman Marc Hoffmann said. RoutesOnline
    Familiar words.

    As I typed this, and registered the fact that even the smaller fine is more money than Manston has ever made, I had a fleeting mental image of Infratil as an impressionable adolescent hanging out with crooks just because of the cash they can flash.

    It's a dirty dead-end business guys, and you're in with a bad crowd.

    Tuesday, 20 October 2009

    What's it all about?

    Manston a.k.a. Kent International Airport is an ex-RAF base in north-east Kent, just west of Ramsgate. It passed from the RAF to Wiggins, then PlaneStation, owners of EUJet (a budget passenger airline). EUJet went bust, and in August 2005 the administrators sold Manston to Infratil, a New Zealand-based multi-national infrastructure investor.

    The airport is mainly used for flying clubs, testing and training, and private planes. In 2008, less than 3% of the planes were freight or passenger flights. Infratil's growth plans for Manston are ambitious: 6 million passengers, ½ million tonnes of freight and 103,800 flights annually.

    There is a "Section 106 Agreement" (S106) between Infratil and Thanet District Council (TDC) which describes what Infratil can, and can't, do at Manston. The scale of Infratil's planned growth is enough to require the S106 to be renegotiated. The existing S106 was drawn up in 2005, and needs to be renegotiated anyway as its 3 year lifespan has expired. There would be a statutory period of public consultation lasting 6 months. This consultation period has not started (as at: 20th October 2009).

    Due to the nature of airports and air travel, many more people have a stake in this than just Infratil and TDC. East Kent residents under the flightpaths, particularly in Ramsgate, but also in the Wantsum villages, Herne Bay, Whitstable and Canterbury will all be affected to some degree. Environmental groups, transport lobbies, government bodies, wildlife groups and others all have an interest. The non-partisan KIA Consultative Committee provides a valuable forum for all the interested parties to meet and discuss.

    A key issue for local residents is noise. Obviously, the nearer a plane is (in both distance and height) the louder the noise; and if everything else is particularly quiet (at night) it will sound louder anyway. Which is why flightpaths, plane heights, flight times and monitoring matter so much to so many, and keep appearing on this site.

    TDC have a duty to do their best to regenerate and energise Thanet, which includes some of the most deprived areas of Kent. Infratil have spent £30m on Manston so far, and have yet to make their shareholders a profit. All the East Kent residents would welcome something that benefits them. We need to find a win-win-win solution.

    This is not a small decision, and the consequences will affect tens of thousands of people for years, if not decades. It's worth taking the trouble to get this one right. And everyone needs to think in the short, medium and long term.



    Monday, 19 October 2009

    Telling it like it is

    As an antidote to the heavily skewed, unfounded and wishful PR prattle that the ever-supportive Brazier presented to Louise Ellman (chair of the Transport Committee), we sent her the following:
    Julian Brazier has written to you claiming that there is widespread public support for more use to be made of Manston airport (Kent International Airport). There isn’t.

    Thanet County Council supports the airport and so does Kent County Council. Canterbury City Council, who represents a large constituency under the flight path, has significant concerns about the way in which the airport is regulated and monitored now, let alone what the impact might be were it to expand.
    The last public consultation about Manston was carried out by MORI in Thanet in 2005. Focus groups included those most affected by the flight path, i.e. Ramsgate residents. Of those:
    • 67% opposed airport expansion;
    • 78% thought noise and air pollution would be big problems;
    • 90% wanted night flying hours to be restricted.
    Thanet District Council says more recent public consultation shows support for the airport. However, they have declined to release the report that would demonstrate this, even when requested to do so by the statutory body set up to lead consultation on Manston, i.e. the Kent International Airport Consultative Committee. Claims that there is widespread support can not be substantiated. Claims that there is widespread opposition can.

    Roger Gale MP and Paul Carter (Leader of Kent County Council) are fond of saying that Manston has one of the longest runways in the UK (it hasn’t, thirteen other airports outstrip it) and that it is surrounded on three sides by sea so the impact on people is minimal. A quick look at the map will show you that the runway runs almost exactly East to West. Depending on the wind, planes come in on a straight line either over Ramsgate (pop. 39,600) or Herne Bay (pop. 35,200). That’s a lot of unhappy people on the flight path.

    In a recent meeting of Herne Bay councillors, there was unanimous cross-party support for the proposal to get a more balanced debate going about the pros and cons of Manston and to prevent the impact of the airport on Herne Bay from getting worse. This agreement transcended the normal party political divide and can not in any way be described as support for Manston to expand. Local opposition is in response to a number of issues:
    • Manston operates in an unregulated and unmonitored way, with sub standard noise monitoring; a willingness to allow unscheduled flights to land any time day or night; and an unwillingness to levy fines for planes that land outside the S.106 agreement because the Chief Executive does not want the airport to get a reputation as being “difficult”. I can substantiate all this with emails from the airport itself should you need to see more
    • Neither Ramsgate nor Herne Bay is successful. They are both slightly shabby seaside towns whose most sustainable hope for a more prosperous future is tourism. Nobody will visit and spend money in a town or on a beach under a flight path
    • Manston’s PR machine talks about the hundreds to thousands of jobs that will be created if the airport expands. Close inspection shows the vast majority of these jobs to be indirect jobs – jobs that already exist elsewhere in the UK which Manston will notionally be supporting by purchasing fuel etc. The number of real jobs that could be created is tiny. So, we have an airport whose growth plans will blight many lives whilst possibly creating a small number of jobs. As an economic decision about the best thing to do for an area, the airport makes no sense
    • The airport is built right on top of an important aquifer. Whilst the Environment Agency has recognised how critical it is to preserve this aquifer (you will be aware that the South East is the UK area with the biggest mismatch between population size and available water), the airport’s owners have done nothing to ensure that the correct measures are in place to protect it from pollution. It is already contaminated and an expanded airport will worsen the situation considerably
    • None of the infrastructure exists to support expansion. A single carriageway road comes out of the airport and the nearest public transport is three miles’ drive away
    • The airport has been in private ownership for years. Two previous owners have failed to make a go of it. Infratil are still losing money there after four years of ownership. It’s just not a sensible place to have an airport.
    So, there is no widespread local support for this airport. What you are hearing is the view of the few that have access to the media - MPs and the airport’s PR consultants. If you tap into the world to which ordinary members of the public have access - blogs; parish councils; local environmental groups – you will see massive opposition to the airport. I would love to see a more balanced debate on the airport’s future instead of being told by politicians who have not consulted the public that we all support the airport. Anything you can do to encourage this would be great.


    Saturday, 17 October 2009

    Older, better flight paths


    A red letter day, dear reader. One of my undercover researchers (codename: Casey) has unearthed a map of the routes agreed between Wiggins and TDC many moons ago. Apparently one of the lead negotiators from the TDC side was Cllr Harrison. These 'people-friendly' routes didn't make it into the Section 106 Agreement due to an oversight by, er, Cllr Harrison. Shame.

    These routes were mentioned at a meeting held at Manston, chaired by the omnipresent Cllr Harrison. I got the impression that these route maps had somehow wisped away to nothingness, lost forever to the eyes of mortals. I'm pleased to have sight of them at last. I expect Infratil and TDC will be thrilled, too. Now that they don't have to go through the rigmarole of (re)negotiating effective noise abatement routes, they can use the time they've saved to install fixed noise monitors under the newly agreed routes.

    The carefully drawn coloured lines on the map are explained by the accompanying colour-coded key.

    (Click it to big it.)
    The red route labelled 1 is the standard westward instrument departure route: by the time the plane is doubling back on itself and heading south, it's supposed to be at 3,000 feet and climbing. Route 2 is the alternative westward route; route 3 is the standard eastward instrument departure route. All of the other lines and boxes are explained in the key.

    (Click it to big it.)
    What I find interesting about this is that it so clearly shows what is achievable. The planes can fly people-friendly routes. So what do you think the odds are of anything resembling this appearing in the next S106 Agreement?


    Thursday, 8 October 2009

    YES WE CAN: make it work

    Profitable. Sustainable. Sound commercial proposition. Good corporate citizen. These are just some of the good things that happen when you work with, rather than against, those around you.

    It's not rocket science. It's not even science. It's sense.

    Infratil have paid a lot for Manston, and have spent a lot on it since. To see any kind of return on their investment, they need Manston to generate a steady and healthy profit from the air traffic it handles.

    BAA, the country's largest airport operator was recently deemed to have a near-monopoly, and has been forced to sell off some of its airports in order to increase competition. The increased competition will bring prices down as airports fight for market share. There won't be any plump, lucrative contracts left - making money will rely on the sheer volume of traffic.

    Basic business logic and a few simple facts from the real world lead us to the conclusion that there's going to be a lot more planes over East Kent. This is the time to get our heads together and figure how to manage this so that it works out as well as possible. Recently we had a bit of a mad flurry when Infratil thought they were going to get a cargo contract from BA - everything was done in a rush and nobody was very happy with it.

    Thanet District Council are planning ahead for how to deal with night flight requests. Infratil have set out their MasterPlan for the airport. Any change in the pattern of use of the airport, or growth in traffic, will mean that the S106 agreement has to be re-negotiated. The S106 is a bilateral agreement thrashed out between a few dozen people (Thanet Councillors and the senior management of Infratil) but the consequences of the agreement will affect the lives of tens of thousands of people for years to come.



    YES WE CAN: sleep

    Absolutely no night flights. Not scheduled flights. Not chartered flights. No night flights. Diversions from other airports (due to emergencies, bad weather and so on), humanitarian missions or national crisis are fine. Obviously. But otherwise... absolutely no night flights.

    I hope that's clear.

    A plane coming in to land makes a LOT of noise. At night, when everything else is that much quieter, the sound stands out against the reduced background noise, so seems louder, and is more disruptive. This much is self-evident.

    Even modern planes are noisy, and even when they're relatively high up. An enquiry at Stansted in 2007 took evidence of noise complaints that came from a roughly rectangular area 35 miles by 60 miles around the airport. The sound footprint of each aircraft is large; the combined impact of all an airport's traffic taken together is huge.

    The noise itself is stressful, as is the loss of sleep - a 10 decibel increase of noise at night raises the risk of hypertension by 14%. On health grounds for all those within earshot, night flights are a non-starter. From the point of view of quality of life, ditto.

    Economics: the aviation group of the Local Government Association reports that “no evidence has been produced by the Government or the aviation industry to justify claims that night flights have an overall economic benefit”. That sentence is worth re-reading out loud and thinking about carefully. The LGA, which covers the whole country, but concentrates on local interests and priorities has a 'Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group'. They've done their homework, they've done their sums, and they've come to the conclusion that night flights don't make economic sense.

    Matt Clarke (Infratil's Chief Exec) has said that Manston is operating at a fraction of its capacity. Surely there can be no need for them to operate night flights. As there's plenty of available daytime capacity, that should be used up first.

    Night flights: unhealthy, uneconomic, unwanted and unnecessary.


    Altitude thickness

    In the Olden Days (2005), Manston’s radar wasn’t good enough to tell them exactly where their planes were. They couldn’t tell the exact height because they only had Primary Surveillance Radar.
    In the Modern Age (2009) they also have Secondary Surveillance Radar (they buy a feed from the MoD) so they can now tell the height of planes as they pass over Herne Bay. And elsewhere, presumably.

    But they don’t record it.
    This is perplexing me. Given the aviation industry’s healthy obsession with safety statistics and analysis, I would have thought that recording the actual position, speed and direction of all aircraft within detectable range of any airport would be encouraged to the point of compulsion.
    This begs a question: when someone (like me) complains to KIA about low, noisy, off-route planes (as I have), how can they possibly be so certain that the plane was at an appropriate height, given that they have no record of it?
    Another question: for a presumably modest outlay, Infratil would be able to to publish clear, accurate information about flight patterns, like this example from Luton Airport. How can they resist? It's a very effective way of letting everyone know exactly what's happening.
    Oops. Did I just answer my own question?


    Airport expansion COSTS jobs

    Here's a press release from the nice people at AEF. (Aviation Environment Federation specialise in the wider environmental impacts and implications of air travel.) Click here for details and full report.
    This is a cracker! Jobs created at and near airports are heavily outnumbered by jobs lost in the domestic tourism and hospitality industries due to everyone disappearing abroad for 50p with EasyRyan.
    A new study of the employment provided by airports and airlines from the economist Brendon Sewill concludes that the Government should stop giving people false hopes about the number of jobs which would be created by the expansion of airports. The study, published today by the Aviation Environment Federation (AEF), shows Government claims that airport expansion will help create thousands of new jobs to help the country through the recession to be based on unreliable statistics. In fact, it finds that if the expansion results in more UK tourists going abroad then the forecast growth in air travel is likely to lead to a net loss of jobs in this country.

    Sewill shows that the old rule of thumb that 1 million extra passengers using an airport is likely to create 1,000 extra jobs is no longer valid. The efficiency of low-cost airlines means that far fewer jobs are created by airport expansion than in the past. The move towards low-cost airports, where modern technology replaces manual jobs, will accelerate that trend.

    The study reveals that, between 1998 and 2004, when the number of passengers using UK airports rose by 30%, the number of people employed directly at airports went up by only 3%. Research by York Aviation, a consultancy close to the aviation industry, found that despite a predicted increase of 110% in passenger numbers at the country’s airports between 2004 and 2030 jobs would increase by only 21%.

    Sewill argues that the York Aviation research takes no account of the number of jobs that will be lost to the UK if the number of Britons holidaying abroad continues to rise. Last year the UK’s aviation tourism deficit - the difference between what British air passengers spend abroad and visitors by air spend in the UK - was about £17 billion. That deficit is at present costing the country around 900,000 jobs.

    The Sewill study concludes that, because most of the predicted expansion is to cater for UK citizens going abroad, the Government’s plans to double the amount of air travel is likely to lead to a further net loss of 860,000 jobs by 2030.

    Brendon Sewill said: “The Government, aided by the aviation industry, is perpetrating a hoax that airport expansion is vital to the economy and will help us though the recession. Councillors and planning officers are being misled by exaggerated claims that the expansion of their local airports will create lots of extra jobs. For example, ten years ago Manchester Airport claimed that its second runway would create 50,000 extra jobs whereas in practice employment at the airport has increased by only 4,000. The Government should admit that - when spending abroad is taken into account - its airport expansion plans could actually produce a serious net loss of jobs”.



    Monday, 8 June 2009

    Complain-o-matic

    KIA may occasionally fall short of their own exacting standards, what with acts of God, circumstances being beyond their control, and life generally difficult and unfair. All too often, the upshot of this is that planes end up in the wrong place at the wrong time; too low, too late and too loud. When this happens, you may feel the need to tell them what you're thinking.

    Here are some easy ways of contacting Manston right now:

    1) Click HERE and you will magically materialise in the secret corner of their website where they hide their complaints screen.

    2) Click HERE to produce a part-completed email, pre-addressed to the only email addresses I have found that work (if you know of any others, do let me know). Give it a try.

    3) Call them on 08707 605 755.

    Email a link to this page to anyone you know who may find it useful. Please let me know if you think of any improvements.



    Friday, 5 June 2009

    Clarification

    Let's not beat about the bush on this one, I'll make it as clear as I can: no night flights. Not scheduled flights. Not chartered flights. No night flights. Unplanned arrivals: diversions from other airports (due to emergencies, bad weather and so on), humanitarian missions or national crisis are fine. Obviously. But otherwise... no night flights.

    I hope that's clear.

    A plane coming in to land makes a LOT of noise. At night, when everything else is that much quieter, the sound stands out against the reduced background noise, so seems louder, and is more disruptive. This much is self-evident.

    Even modern planes are noisy, and even when they're relatively high up. An enquiry at Stansted in 2007 took evidence of noise complaints that came from a roughly rectangular area 35 miles by 60 miles around the airport. The sound footprint of each aircraft is large; the combined impact of all an airport's traffic taken together is huge.

    The noise itself is stressful, as is the loss of sleep - a 10 decibel increase of noise at night raises the risk of hypertension by 14%. On health grounds for all those within earshot, night flights are a non-starter. From the point of view of quality of life, ditto.

    Economics: the aviation group of the Local Government Association reports that “no evidence has been produced by the Government or the aviation industry to justify claims that night flights have an overall economic benefit”. That sentence is worth re-reading out loud and thinking about carefully. The LGA, which covers the whole country, but concentrates on local interests and priorities has a 'Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group'. They've done their homework, they've done their sums, and they've come to the conclusion that night flights don't make economic sense.

    Matt Clarke (Infratil's Chief Exec) has said that Manston is operating at a fraction of its capacity. Surely there can be no need for them to operate night flights. As there's plenty of available daytime capacity, that should be used up first.

    Night flights: unhealthy, uneconomic, unwanted and unnecessary.


    Wednesday, 3 June 2009

    Councillors' replies to the petition

    Emails, petitions and links to the blog sent to all KCC Councillors for Thanet and Canterbury Districts, and all CCC and TDC Councillors.

    4 added their signatures:
    Jean Law (KCC & CCC, Con, Herne Bay) "Add my name to the petition please as I do not agree with any of these night flights."
    David Hirst (KCC, Con, Herne Bay) "I am pleased to hear of your initiative. Please add my name."
    Alan Poole (KCC, Lab, Ramsgate) "I’m totally against night flights (flights between 23:00 and 07:00). I believe they are unnecessary and should not be allowed. 16 hours a day is quite enough."
    Ann Taylor (CCC, Con, Reculver) supports, signed and will be promoting the petition at her grand-daughter's school. Excellent.

    2 abstentions:
    Ken Gregory (TDC, Con, St Peters) "Sorry, but as chair of planning it would be wrong of me , much as any other member of planning, to pre judge this issue."
    Alasdair Bruce (TDC, Con, Birchington South) "Thank you for writting to me with your concerns. As you might know that I am one of four councillors who sit on the airport working group and are currently working towards the formation of a new 106 agreement. Let me assure you that full public consultation will be engaged in prior to any announcement and that this process will be happening soon. I am sure this will be published in the local media. It is vital that a full and balanced view is sought by the four of us before any new agrement is discussed with the airport owners. Let me personally assure you that we will endeavour to secure the best outcome for all concerned."

    1 wonderer:
    Michael Jarvis (TDC, Con, Dane Valley) "Thank you for your email. I have two questions: What is the current situation with Gatwick? and how would you handle delay flights from holiday destinations arriving in the UK during that night time period?"

    No responses supporting night flights.



    Monday, 1 June 2009

    Batty

    They must be bats, wanting to fly in the dark. Not in the squeaky, blood-sucking sense. Just a bit nutso. Re-tune your ears and minds to human frequencies and I'll explain...

    Quick bit of background for newcomers:

    At the end of last year, Infratil published their draft MasterPlan, spelling out their hopes and dreams for the coming years. The projected growth in freight and passenger volumes is staggering. Both Thanet District Council and the CPRE were critical of the plan. The document will now rattle back and forth until an agreed final draft is produced, about September 2009.

    In a separate but related development, Infratil (who were hoping to win a contract with BAWC) pushed TDC into changes to the Section 106 Agreement at very short notice. These changes would have allowed them a number of night flights to support the BAWC contract. This had the effect of drawing attention to the consequences of increased traffic through Manston. The BAWC deal fell through, and Thanet Council are now starting to draw up a pre-emptive night flying policy that will see them through until 2018.

    With me so far? OK. But...

    A lot of keen and clever people have spent a lot of time studying planes and airports. Much head-banging, hair-pulling, teeth-gnashing, midnight oil-burning... you get the picture. All this hard work has been condensed down into reports, analyses and presentations which we can all get hold of - we don't have to re-do all that slog.

    The aviation group of the Local Government Association reports that “no evidence has been produced by the Government or the aviation industry to justify claims that night flights have an overall economic benefit”. That sentence is worth re-reading and thinking about. The LGA, which covers the whole country, but is focussed on local interests and priorities has a 'Strategic Aviation Special Interest Group'. They've done their homework, they've done their sums, and they've come to the conclusion that night flights don't make economic sense.

    The World Health Organisation has found that people's health is damaged if their sleep is reduced or disrupted by noise. This wouldn't just affect those under the loudest part of the aircrafts' noise footprint - it would affect everyone within earshot.

    In earlier applications for night flying, promises have been made that flights would be going in and out to the west of Manston, thus avoiding the more densely populated parts of east Kent. The key phrase in all those promises is "weather permitting".

    Fact: most of the time the wind in Britain is westerly or south-westerly. Fact: for safety reasons, pilots prefer to land into the wind. So the most sincere of promises, made with the best of intentions, will come to nought if the wind's blowing in the wrong direction. The night flights would be coming in low over Ramsgate and Thanet to land at Manston. Lots of voters, waking up grumpy, needlessly.

    Matt Clarke has said that Manston is operating at a fraction of its capacity, so there can be no need for them to operate night flights. There's plenty of available runway time throughout the daylight hours: surely it would make sense to use that up first.

    No economic benefit; proven health cost; vote-loser; unnecessary. The Airport Working Group's recommendations on the proposed night-time flying operations from 2010-2018 should be pretty straightforward: don't.