Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-251)
Wednesday 11 June 2003
MR ROGER
WILTSHIRE, MR
MIKE SMITH
AND MS
VANESSA TAMMS
Q240 Mr Challen: Yes.
Mr Wiltshire: On the other counts
we have a good track record and I believe we can deal with the
local air quality issue that is coming out of the European regulations.
Global warming is best dealt with at international level. Linked
to that is the fact that taxation on aviation fuel is regulated,
if you like, by international agreements and it would be counterproductive
if the United Kingdom, for example, slapped a tax on aviation
fuel. You would find tankering going on which is a methodology
of minimising the pick-up of fuel at, say, an expensive place
and that would worsen global warming.
Q241 Mr Challen: We have seen that
with the lorry drivers' protest a few years ago. How about introducing
domestically some form of taxes and charges? Would you oppose
that as well?
Mr Wiltshire: We believe we should
be treated the same as any other public transport mode. We are
certainly not against rail substitution and if rail can come along
with the wherewithal to deliver that is fine. We believe passengers
need choice. We also believe some air passengers are travelling
by air to connect to the rest of the world so that is where having
a globally competitive hub at Heathrow is vital for the United
Kingdom.
Ms Tamms: I realise it is human
nature to want to do everything as quickly as possible but sometimes
you get the greatest environmental benefits if you spread those
things over time and allow the industry to adjust accordingly
and minimise the costs associated with doing so. You still get
to the environmental targets at the end by taking the longer view;
it just takes a bit longer.
Q242 Mr Challen: I can see it is
a long haul but it is that slight lack of urgency that seems to
be the problem. Have you, along with many other sectors in the
European Union, developed an environmental strategy, for example?
Mr Wiltshire: We have not as a
United Kingdom trade association. It is very much on the agenda
and something we are discussing with other parts of aerospace.
I think it is important to recognise we need to work closely with
manufacturers and they need to work closely with government to
get the right framework. We fly the aircraft, the manufacturers
produce them, and they are in turn producing aircraft based on
their knowledge of what international government regulation will
be in years to come, so it is important to get the connection
right between perhaps all three groups and I sense that is the
way things will go eventually. I cannot report any specific progress
today but I would hope we would move in that direction in years
to come.
Q243 Mr Ainsworth: You may have heard
that I was asking BAA about what thought they had given to extending
the noise charging regime to cover emissions, and they said they
had approached your industry and had not been bowled over with
the enthusiasm of your response. Did they approach your companies,
and what was your response if they did?
Ms Tamms: BAA gave the impression
that discussion was on-going—I think that is being a bit
polite about it. They did approach us and we said "No"
to taxes and charges but "Yes" to doing something about
the environmental consequences of aviation.
Q244 Mr Ainsworth: Presumably you
said "No" to noise charging when they first raised that
one?
Ms Tamms: Noise charging is already
in effect at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
Q245 Mr Ainsworth: I know, but presumably
you said "No" originally. It was a long time ago but
nobody is going to say "Yes" in a hurry I guess to any
measure of this kind?
Ms Tamms: I honestly have not
been around long enough to answer that question.
Q246 Mr Ainsworth: Did they approach
Monarch?
Mr Smith: I am not aware. This
is not directly my area and it is not a conversation I have had
with anybody else.
Q247 Mr Ainsworth: So there is no
continuing dialogue about emission charging, as far as you are
aware, contrary to what we were told earlier this afternoon?
Mr Smith: It could be it is going
on but the industry is divided up into specific areas and I would
imagine that that may well come under the general scheme of airport
charges which I am no longer actively involved in.
Mr Wiltshire: The first has been
on Heathrow which is why Heathrow airlines and Virgin Atlantic
have been involved. What is happening on air quality is that there
is a joint activity between the airlines, the airport and local
councils around Heathrow, to improve their understanding of the
problem of local air quality and to improve measuring, monitoring
and much better modelling, as was described earlier by BAA. We
believe that is the way forward. I think it is precipitate and
too early to design an economic instrument when you do not understand
the nature of the problem we are trying to address.
Q248 Mr Ainsworth: So you would support
what BAA said about commissioning new independent research about
the air quality issues raised and the cirrus effects?
Mr Wiltshire: Yes, and the work
going on today down at Heathrow would contribute to such a study.
Ms Tamms: I think BAA feel that
imposing such an emissions charge at, for example, Heathrow would
be seen as doing something meaningful towards the environment,
and Virgin Atlantic does not agree with that because it is difficult
to take decisions pertaining to aircraft fleets with such schemes.
It is very important to understand the nature of the problem before
we start imposing solutions to it and that has come a long way.
As I understand it, BAA and BA have been measuring local air quality
around Heathrow. There is only six months' worth of data available
at this stage but the results are quite encouraging and show that
even with a third runway at Heathrow, given improvements in aircraft
technology that are currently being developed by the manufacturers,
EU limits that are coming into force in 2010 could be consistently
met. However, it would also take some work at the local level
because of course a primary contributor, indeed probably the main
one, to NOx levels around Heathrow is road traffic from petrol
driven vehicles.
Q249 Mr Ainsworth: Yes but, going
back to the very first point made this afternoon by Mr Chaytor
about whether or not you were in danger of becoming a pariah industry,
I would have thought it would have been in your interest to consider
a little more carefully whether an emissions charging regime could
do something to encourage cleaner use of aircraft, the development
of clean aircraft, and to penalise those which are not doing the
right thing by the environment.
Mr Wiltshire: We believe there
will be discussions of that as part of the broader issue of how
to deal with the local air quality issue and until we know more,
and that work is going on actively as we speak, it is inappropriate
to talk of an economic instrument when there are many other solutions,
or solutions that will contribute, to a basket of solutions for
that particular problem.
Q250 Mr Chaytor: Finally, to clarify
the issue on fuel efficiency of the fleet that you mentioned earlier,
does this apply uniformly across all airlines, or is it not the
case that the big expansion recently of low cost airlines on short
European trips is built on the back of older airlines that have
simply been resprayed?
Mr Wiltshire: Could you just clarify
that?
Q251 Mr Chaytor: Your argument is
that there has been consistent improvement in fuel efficiency
of the fleet overall. I am asking whether that is the case over
all airlines, or have not the new airlines, the easyJets and the
Ryanairs that now no longer exist because they have merged, managed
to get the low cost market going on the back of using older planes
that they simply resprayed? Is not the biggest growth area in
the market dependent on older, less fuel efficient planes?
Mr Smith: My immediate answer
is no. In the very early stages for one or two of those you mentioned
possibly that is the case but witness the order by certainly easyJet
of a very large number of modern aircraft. They rely very heavily,
as we all do, on leading edge technology. In the case of Virgin
and every United Kingdom carrier we cannot get better equipment
in the market. At the risk of a intransigent, part of the problem
we face is understanding where we are expected to be. I say that
by virtue of a couple of instances which have come to mind for
us, technological developments which have occurred or are about
to occur which are focused at solving particular problems but
have adverse effects in other areas, specifically the Airbus A
380 which has been optimised to develop a lower noise footprint
but the off-set is the 2% fuel consumption off optimum, and the
same is true with aircraft developed specifically for an emissions
regime put in place in Switzerland. Likewise the fuel consumption
of engines that were specifically designed to cope with the emissions
charge have a 2 % reduction on the optimum fuel consumption, so
I think we need to know as an industry what our targets are and
just where we need to focus in on.
Chairman: Thank you. I am sorry we have
gone over time but I think that indicates the interest there is
in the subject and the topicality of it at the moment. Thank you
very much.
| 
