Forget Expansion; Focus on Improving the Current Situation
Heathrow has become a city state whose tentacles envelop London and the Thames Valley
The 7 demands of The Campaign
Radical but Realistic
- Ban Night Flights
- Extend Runway and Flight Path Alternation
- Retain the flight number cap at 480,000
- Reduce the number of short-haul flights using Heathrow
- Adopt World Health Organisation Noise Levels
- Impose Air Passenger Duty (APD) on Transfer Passengers
- Provide Clear Information on Flight Paths
1. Ban Night Flights
Ban night flights for an 8 hour night: 11pm – 7am.
The Department for Transport has admitted that over 500,000 people live under
the night time flight path. People woken up by night flights can become very
stressed out. A ban is operationally possible. Research carried
out by HACAN ClearSkies shows there is no good operational reason why the current
night flights can’t arrive at Heathrow during the day and leave their
countries of origin at a reasonable hour. It flies in the face of common
sense for the Government to suggest that 16 night flights are essential to the
UK economy. It has produced no research to back this up. A ban on flights
between 11.30pm and 6am is entirely realistic.
HACAN ClearSkies would go further. There is strong evidence to support an 8 hour night flight ban from 11pm until 7am. This is when most people are asleep. A night ban extended from 6am to 7am would affect many more flights. But it would force the airlines and the airport to sharpen up their operations. It would result in far fewer empty seats on day-time flights and would force the authorities to consider the position of transfer passengers – who currently account for a quarter of all passengers using Heathrow and who contribute little to the overall economy.
2. Extend Runway and Flight Path Alternation
Vary existing flight paths across London and the Thames Valley.
Extend the concept across London and the Thames Valley of aircraft switching
runways at 3pm. At present people in West London only get planes landing at
Heathrow for half the day as the aircraft switch runways at 3pm. Elsewhere residents
get no relief from the planes. The Department for Transport looking to end runway
even alternation in West London! There is no fundamental operational reason
why alternation can’t be retained in West London and extended much further.
It could work like this:
(these are outline ideas, not firm proposals and should be read in conjunction
with our demands to reduce flight numbers and move towards the adoption of World
Health Organisation noise standards. Flight path alternation should not be used
as a way to increase aircraft numbers.)
For planes landing at Heathrow. The routes they take between leaving the holding stack and joining their final approach to Heathrow in the Barnes area would be varied day by day or week by week. This would give people some relief from the planes. We are not suggesting new flight paths are created, simply that the existing ones are alternated
For planes taking off. At present there are four designated take off routes, each about two miles wide. To give people some relief, the obvious answer is to alternate the routes within the two mile band on a daily or weekly basis, but this would only be acceptable with an overall reduction inflight numbers.
Verification of the flight paths used should not be left to the aviation industry. It should be done by an independent body using the track plot data available.
3. Retain the flight number cap at 480,000
Entrench the 480,000 cap on flight numbers, with a progressive reduction
to 1995 levels by 2010
The Government accepted the recommendation of the Terminal 5 Inspector to cap
flight numbers a 480,000 per year. This should be regarded as a maximum, with
the longer-term aim being to reduce numbers to their mid-1990 levels –
before the holding stacks became so full that planes started being released
early to join their flight paths greater distances from Heathrow. A reduction
in the number of aircraft using the airport is perfectly possible – it
could be achieved by more use of larger aircraft, by airlines filling more seats
on their flights and by getting rid of short-haul flights where rail is a realistic
alternative.
4. Reduce the number of short-haul flights using Heathrow
Research by HACAN shows that there are 100,000 flights a year to and from destinations where there is already a viable rail alternative.
5. Adopt World Health Organisation Noise Levels
The UK Government has signed up to the noise levels recommended by the World Health Organisation. At night it suggests that sleep disturbance occurs when a plane reaches 45 decibels. That would rule out all night flights at Heathrow NOW! The WHO suggests that serious annoyance sets in when daytime levels average out at 55 decibels. Over half a million people experience these levels at present. A realistic target is to cut that by 50,000 a year.
- a ban on night flights at Heathrow.
- halving the numbers affected by daytime noise by 2010, ie cutting the numbers
living above the 55 decibel average by 50,000 a year. This is more challenging.
It might involve:
- stricter restrictions on the noisiest aircraft; a variation of flight paths and a reduction in the number of aircraft using the airport.
A reduction in flights is the crucial target. That is not necessarily the same as cutting passenger numbers.
Adopt the WHO noise levels. Ban night flights next year. Halve the numbers affected by unacceptable daytime levels by 2010.
6. Impose Air Passenger Duty (APD) on Transfer Passengers
Impose APD on all transfer passengers. Target date: Spring Budget 2005
Transfer passengers now account for a quarter of all passengers using Heathrow
and with T5 this will increase further. They contribute little to the UK economy.
Yet they are exempt from Air Passenger Duty. The aim should be to cut their
numbers by imposing the tax.
The Government would do well to take measures to curb the growth in transfer passengers. This could be done by imposing Air Passenger Duty (APD) on transfer passengers.
The aviation industry pays APD to the Government. It amounts to over a billion pounds a year. But transfer passengers are exempt from this. There is no logic in this at all. The passengers who contribute least to the national economy pay less tax on their tickets than anybody else! There is a strong, logical argument to impose a higher rate of tax on transfer passengers. It would have a number of beneficial effects:
- a reduction in transfer passengers would reduce the pressure on Heathrow;
- it would make it easier to meet the the noise levels suggested by the World Health Organisation;
- it would be a useful source of revenue;
- Heathrow could move away from being a sprawling mass run for the benefit of BAA and the airlines and become a more manageable size, targeting the passengers who contribute most to the UK economy.
7. Provide Clear Information on Flight Paths
Provide comprehensive, clear information to the public. Target date:
Summer 2005
At present information provision is very hit or miss. Clear information on flight
paths should be included in house searches, made available on the web and in
public libraries.
Meeting these seven demands would result not only in a better life for the residents of London and the Thames Valley, but in an airport that was tailored to meet the needs of the economy of the South-East. The sprawling monster, designed to enrich the aviation industry, would have been tamed.
