British Airways is to transfer five services from London Gatwick to Heathrow with the start of its winter schedule. The airline says that its flights to Barcelona, Gibraltar, Madrid, Malaga and Pisa will switch airports with effect from Sunday 25 October 2009.

BA is transferring passengers on affected flights to alternative flights to and from Heathrow.

Read the full article in The Times.


Isn't it amazing how many more flights can be crammed into an airport that's supposedly 99% full?

People living near Heathrow should have the right to a noise free future according to council bosses. Heathrow could become the world’s first noise free airport if plans being drawn up by environmental experts are given Government backing.

The announcement was made as BAA admitted publicly that the number of people affected by noise from Heathrow was double their previous estimates. BAA made the admission as it revealed its own noise action plan, which campaigners say makes no firm commitment to reduce noise.

Cllr Barbara Reid, lead member for aviation at the London Borough of Hounslow, which is close to Heathrow, said: “We want Heathrow to be the best airport in the world. This can only happen when the Government stop trying to make it bigger and start making it better. One of the ways they can do this is to make Heathrow a world leader in addressing the impact that noise has on local communities. That’s why our environmental experts are now working on an alternative plan to make the airport as noise free as possible.”

Read the full article at 24dash.com.


That's the approach the government should have taken, rather than asking BAA to write a noise action plan which automatically becomes goverment policy.

Reading Borough Council has become the latest local authority to join the 2M Group which campaigns against Heathrow expansion. The group, which took its name from the two million residents of the original 12 members, now represents 24 authorities with a combined population of more than 5 million people and is supported by the Mayor of London.

Wandsworth Council leader Edward Lister, speaking on behalf of 2M, said: “We are delighted to welcome Reading on board. It shows just how widely the impact of a third runway would be felt across the south east. We have built a broad coalition which comprises councils and MPs from every party, local authorities representing rural and urban areas as well as a host of environmental and residents groups. With support from so many different areas I am confident this is a battle we can win.”

A core group of 2M councils is currently seeking judicial review of the Government’s decision to expand Heathrow. The case is backed by the Mayor of London, Transport for London and environmental groups including the Campaign for Protection of Rural England.

Read the full article at 24dash.com.


Against Heathrow expansion we have the 2M Group representing 5 million people, a broad coalition of environmental and residents' groups plus a significant number of businesses which are not browbeaten by the aviation lobby.

In favour of Heathrow expansion we have BAA, BA, the DfT, Gordon Brown and the various vested interests which comprise the aviation lobby.

Come the election we shall judge the man by the company he keeps.

Sir Richard Branson has rubbed salt in British Airways' wounds by declaring BA practically worthless, and urging the government to resist any attempts to bail it out. Branson's comments will incense BA management, which this week will hold vital talks with cabin crew and ground staff over pay cuts, lay-offs and changes to working conditions aimed at saving £100m a year. Willie Walsh, chief executive, who is trying to stem big losses and has warned that BA faces a "fight for survival", wants a deal by June 30.

Branson, who founded Virgin Atlantic, BA's biggest commercial rival, said ministers should not be tempted to step in. "It would not be in Britain's interest," he said. "We and others are standing by ready to take on their routes and runway slots at Heathrow if they get into serious trouble. I thought the US government's bail-out of the car companies was a bad idea and it's the same for BA."

Virgin had looked at a bid for BA, Branson said, but concluded that the company's liabilities – in particular its pension deficit – were too great. "It's not worth much anymore because of the liabilities. We were thinking about if the shares went under 100p (they closed on Friday at 136½p), but it would be better to wait for its demise," he said.

Read the full article in The Sunday Times.


Of course the government shouldn't bail out BA. That money is needed for high speed rail.

It was close to midnight when Willie Walsh finally emerged from Waterside, British Airways' sprawling Heathrow headquarters. The airline's chief executive blinked in the lights of the waiting television crews, cleared his throat, and started to speak, his voice trembling.

"I am sorry to say that despite our efforts today we have been unable to secure further funding from our banks. The cash drain we sustained as a result of the rolling programme of industrial action by cabin crew and ground staff means we can no longer continue as a going concern. British Airways has this evening been put into administration."

This may seem a far-fetched scenario, but not according to Walsh's own doom-laden forecasts. BA is in trouble, with recession and the banking crisis – banks accounted for nearly 40% of BA's business-class traffic – pushing it to its worst-ever loss in the financial year that ended in March. In recent weeks Walsh has issued dire warnings to staff, saying that almost all the business is unprofitable, the current awful trading situation will only get worse and that the company faces "a fight for survival".

Last week he went farther, inviting all employees to work for a month without pay – following the example set by himself and Keith Williams, the finance director. Staff have even been asked to drum up business by selling tickets to friends and family under the company's "Hotline" scheme, with special cheap fares being made available last week.

Read the full article in The Sunday Times.


BA's current situation shows just how unnecessary Heathrow expansion is. Willie Walsh can't utilise existing capacity, let alone a third runway.

But perhaps the government thinks that flying BA staffers' friends and family around the world on cheap fares is a good idea?

The new transport secretary, Lord Adonis, believes a 200mph high-speed rail network in Britain will spell the end for domestic flights and short flights to Europe. In his first interview since joining the cabinet, Adonis said the market for internal flights would collapse within the next 20 years as the train becomes the preferred mode of travel.

The proposed high-speed rail network would cut journey times from London to Manchester to 1hr 22min and Glasgow to 2hr 42min. Adonis envisages that it could use French-style TGV trains.

He said high-speed rail would also replace flights from Britain to destinations including Amsterdam, Brussels, Cologne, Lyon and Rotterdam. He believes the rise of high-speed rail will help to cut carbon emissions and offer passengers more comfortable and enjoyable journeys than travelling by plane.

"High-speed rail is not only important for providing additional rail capacity between our biggest conurbations. I would like to see domestic and short-haul flights largely replaced by high-speed rail over the next 20 years," he said. "The evidence internationally is that passengers want to have the choice of making these journeys by train rather than plane, because [trains offer] greater convenience, comfort and [are] much less hassle than going through airports. This is not about the government dictating to people how to travel, but the free choices that people make when they are offered a viable and attractive alternative to flying."

Read the full article in The Sunday Times.


On the face of it, this is excellent news: the transport secretary in favour of high speed rail at the expense of short-haul flights.

However Adonis also says that Heathrow is running at 99% capacity (doesn't he follow the news? - Heathrow's utilisation is plummeting like a stone with the number of passengers falling by almost 4% last month alone) and "remains committed to a third runway at Heathrow, insisting the extra capacity will be needed because of an increase in long-haul flights."

OK, so the government said a third runway won't be used for larger aircraft. Adonis says it's needed because of an increase in long-haul flights.

How do they square that one? In the usual way - they'll get BAA to make up some new figures to show that short-haul aircraft can fly to Australia. And with no increase in noise or emissions.

Just wait for it...

Taxpayers face a bill of at least £8 billion for a new 200mph railway line from London to Manchester after the Government admitted for the first time that the service would require a huge public subsidy. Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, said that the economic and environmental benefits of the line would be so great that it was fair to consider making taxpayers fund more than half the cost. Those using the line would pay a proportion of the running costs but the capital cost would largely be borne by the public purse.

The Department for Transport is due to publish details of costs and the preferred route by the end of the year. Early estimates indicate that the line will cost at least £16 billion and as much as £30 billion if extended to Glasgow.

Under Lord Adonis’s plan, “High Speed Two” would become by far Britain’s most heavily subsidised long-distance rail line. He said: “There is currently no high-speed line in the world that has been built without a very big government subsidy and it is inconceivable that we could build a North-South high-speed line without a substantial public contribution. “I certainly wouldn’t say that the farepayer would be committed to pay the majority of the cost. But when it comes to operating costs, of course the farepayer would make a contribution.”

Read the full article in The Times.


Just so we're clear: "the economic and environmental benefits of the line would be so great that it was fair to consider making taxpayers fund more than half the cost".

Meanwhile the taxpayers' proposed contribution to the third Heathrow runway is? Zero. (Apart from the related infrasructure which has been conveniently ignored by the government).

We know there are no environmental benefits - quite the opposite - but what happened to the fantastic economic benefits of the third runway that the government has been trumpeting?

BAA has admitted that more than double the number of people are affected by aircraft noise from Heathrow than it previously estimated, campaigners have claimed. The air operator launched a 16-week consultation for its noise action plan this week, in which it said 725,500 residents were bothered by the sound of planes.

Campaign group Hacan, which is opposed to Heathrow expansion, said BAA and the Government previously averaged out noise across a 16-hour day, which found that 258,500 people lived inside the 57-decibel contour. But the EU now requires separate measurements for day, evening and night, which are combined to get the average over a 24-hour period.

John Stewart, chairman of Hacan, said: "At long last BAA has been forced to creep into the real world and admit many more than 300,000 people are affected by aircraft noise. But even this is an underestimate. The World Health Organisation estimates more than a million people are affected."

BAA has invited communities to give feedback on how it plans to manage the impact of aircraft noise between 2010 and 2015.

BAA will hold three public sessions at the Heathrow Academy, in Newall Road, off the Northern Perimeter Road, on Monday, July 6, between 11am and 2pm, on Monday, August 3, between 2pm and 5pm, and on Wednesday, September 2, between 5pm and 10pm.

Residents wishing to take part in the consultation will also be able to access copies of the action plan and a questionnaire for feedback online or by calling the Heathrow community relations team on 020 8745 5791.

Read the full article in Your Local Guardian.


This "Noise Action Plan" is proudly brought to you by the company that invented the fantasy green jumbo and amended data to show an anticipated 230,000 extra flights a year at Heathrow would have a minimal impact on noise and pollution levels.

So do you really think that they're interested in what Joe Public has to say? Or do you think they might want to get a little bit of feedback and manipulate it for their own ends?

By all means read the claptrap and go to the public sessions. But just remember who's doing the talking and where the vested interests lie.

British Airways has asked its 40,000 staff to work without pay for up to a month as the ailing airline seeks to cut costs. The group, which made a record £401 million loss in 2008 amid surging fuel prices and a collapse in premium-fare passengers, is seeking to dramatically reduce costs and has already offered staff unpaid leave or a reduction in hours.

Willie Walsh, BA's chief executive, has now gone a step further by asking staff to volunteer for between one and four weeks of unpaid work in what he says is a "fight for survival."

Mr Walsh, who said last week he would work for free in July, has set a deadline of June 24 for employees to volunteer for unpaid work. He said that the salary deductions would be spread over three to six months wherever possible. BA denied that those staff who volunteered for unpaid work would be given preference if the airline imposes a further round of redundancies.

Read the full article in The Times.



Glad to see you're leading by example, Willie! Ask the staff to work for nothing while you trouser a 6% pay rise and a possible £1.1 million in deferred share bonuses.

You're quoted as saying, "Our survival depends on everyone contributing to changes that permanently remove costs from every part of the business".

Hmmm. We can think of one way to permanently remove costs from the top of the business. And you could also stop spending millions on propaganda supporting the third runway.

The government has been accused of misleading MPs by trying to cover up lobbying of ministers by BAA, the airport operator, over the expansion of Heathrow. Conservative MPs believe they were given inaccurate replies to questions in parliament about whether Lord Mandelson's business department had met BAA to discuss expanding the airport. Justine Greening, the backbencher who asked the questions, will now ask Michael Martin, the Speaker, to investigate.

The row coincides with the release of official figures showing that, around Heathrow, illnesses caused by pollution rose by 72% from 2003 to 2008, nearly twice the national average.

BAA lobbied heavily for a third runway and was given the go-ahead in January.

Read the full article in The Sunday Times.


There is a golden rule relating to Heathrow expansion: whatever the government says, assume the opposite is true.

It usually is.

Transport secretary Geoff Hoon’s resignation provides an opportunity for the government to rethink its policy towards Heathrow expansion, according to the 2M Group. He is succeeded by Lord Adonis, formerly a junior transport minister.

Hounslow Council’s leader, Cllr Peter Thompson, speaking on behalf of 2M said: “All the local councils, residents organisations, environmental groups and business leaders who lined up to tell Geoff Hoon he was wrong about building a new airport the size of Gatwick at Heathrow will welcome his going. Lord Adonis now has the chance to draw a line under the Hoon era and take a long, hard look at just how a third runway squares with the government’s key policies on climate change. We know Lord Adonis is enthusiastic about high speed rail, but we have to get him to see that simply building a fast line to Heathrow will only increase demand for air travel when we should be putting in place a national network that provides real alternatives to short haul flights.”

Read the full article at The London Borough of Hounslow.


We agree. The government now has an opportunity to do the right thing.

But it had a similar opportunity and didn't take it when Ruth Kelly resigned, so we're not over-optimistic that anything will change.