Aviation Strategy

Written evidence from the Save Filton Airfield Campaign Group (AS 31)

0BIntroduction

The "Save Filton Airfield" campaign group was set up in 2011 in response to an announcement by BAE Systems that they intended to close and redevelop Filton Airfield in north Bristol.

The group is made up of local engineers, politicians and employees of the aerospace industry who feel that this decision represents a threat to the future of local aerospace design, manufacturing and supporting businesses, and to the ability of Bristol to provide a complete aviation solution to the wider UK economy.

The decision to close the airfield has been dismissed in many quarters as a purely commercial decision for BAE Systems and outside the control of local or national government, despite local and national policy having asserted protection for the continuing operation of its runway and facilities.

Public consultation revealed that local opinion favoured retention of the airfield as a keystone of aerospace and aviation activities. F [1]

We would like to explain to the Committee how Filton Airfield and similar airfields under threat should be employed in addressing the overall picture for future aviation capacity needs. Whilst it is clear that there will be a requirement for large-scale capital investment in the South East of England to address long term demand in commercial passenger aviation, well equipped secondary airfields such as Filton can help to alleviate the situation in the short to medium term, at lower cost.

We consider it vital that this Inquiry addresses aviation policy which covers ALL UK airfields and not just commercial airports in the South East of England.

Current Capacity Issues

In addressing the issue of aviation capacity in the South of England, it will be important to identify where and how bottle-necks will occur in the future and over what time frame. It is clear that the imminent issue is that of commercial passenger services where demand is currently greatest – that is to say, in the South East of England.

In evaluating demand, we need to examine the current model of both international and domestic flight operations. In recent years, there has been much debate concerning the "hub" based model of passenger aviation versus the "point-to-point" model. In attempting to address this, industry players seem to have reached their own, varying conclusions. Clearly, there are merits in both models, with a trade-off between cost of operations and flexibility for customers, but the reality is that there is likely to be a balance between the two. This choice will be influenced by national policies and availability of routes, airspace and airport facilities.

In the UK there has been a trend since the early 1990s for long-haul operations to be centred on two major cities - London to serve the population in the south, and Manchester for the population in the north. British Airways has opted to concentrate all of its international operations on Heathrow and Gatwick, providing domestic feeder flights from regional airports. This has undoubtedly exacerbated the number of movements in the London area, contributing to aviation congestion there, and particularly to the pressures on Heathrow.

A city such as London requires world-class airport facilities with easy access to the city, and in the longer term a radical solution is required, be this by building a new hub airport at a new location, or by extending the physical boundaries of Heathrow.

However, neither solution is the complete answer to aviation capacity needs; a single major airport will always suffer issues as a result of heavily concentrating activity in one area: localised pollution and noise, surface access congestion, congested airspace and a lack of redundancy for emergencies. On a wider note, there is a risk that economic activity could become over centralised in the South East and leave inadequate provisions for transport, especially aviation, in the regions.

A more geographically distributed solution to aviation capacity would yield many socio-economic advantages, but policies must be drafted carefully to ensure that the needs of the whole aviation community and the public are satisfied. This will ensure that investments from both Government and the private sector will return the greatest benefit.

Providing Relief for London’s Airports

Any solutions to long-term capacity requirements of London’s airports will inevitably require significant capital investment and will not happen overnight. History warns us that large infrastructure projects are mired in drawn-out public inquiries, political and public opposition, legal issues, lengthy tendering and building programmes and issues with commissioning.

It is therefore imperative that the Government considers interim solutions that can be delivered in the short to medium term. It should examine integrated solutions involving re-organisation of commercial and ancillary aviation services. This must account for economic development policies and the changing landscape regarding surface access.

The first and most obvious solution is to identify any types of movement that occupy airspace capacity, landing/take-off slots and ground operation requirements at the most congested South East airports, and to move them to suitable secondary or regional airports.

Such movements should include:

· Short-haul commercial passenger flights

· Maintenance operations

· General Aviation (GA)

· Freight

Commercial passenger flights may seem a difficult issue to address; airlines have chosen to base operations around London due to a lack of viable alternatives, this serves only to perpetuate further demand in London.

In light of current policies concerning economic displacement from London towards the regions, Government must evaluate how much demand for these services is likely to come from other areas of the country and whether this could be satisfied instead by services from regional airports. With the advent of a high-speed rail link to Birmingham, and with fast and improving links via Heathrow and all the way through to the West of England and South Wales, it is important to examine whether demand from north and west of London could be better served by point-to-point services from airports such as Birmingham and Bristol.

However, we must be careful to ensure that increased usage at these regional airports does not jeopardise other economically important aviation activities.

Filton Airfield

Filton Airfield lies just within Bristol’s urban area, 5 minutes from the M4 and M5 motorways and the local A38 trunk road, providing it with excellent road transport links to London, the Midlands, South Wales and the South West. Also within 5 minutes is Bristol Parkway railway station which is served by high speed rail services on Great Western and Cross Country mainlines. The freight line from Avonmouth Docks passes through the airfield site and provides connections to these mainlines in all directions.

The site comprises just over 140 hectares of land and possesses a CAA Ordinary Aerodrome Licence allowing for the public transport of passengers, general aviation, commercial operations and for flying instruction and has full customs facilities. The concrete runway is significant in length at 2,467m, and is one of the widest in the UK at 91m (one of the few able to accommodate the Airbus A380). It is equipped with full runway lighting and an Instrument Landing System (ILS), a control tower, providing full radio telephony services to users, including a Lower Airspace Radar Service (LARS) for the north Bristol area using the on-site RADAR, and Category 6 fire cover. F [2] FF [3]

The airfield is owned and operated by BAE Systems (Aviation Services) Ltd. having been transferred to their predecessor, British Aerospace PLC, in 1977 and then to the current legal entity of the same company under privatisation .

In recent years it has hosted a variety of aviation businesses, including freight, aircraft maintenance, aircraft livery services, business aviation operations, medical and police helicopter operations and flying schools. Whilst BAE Systems themselves do not make significant use of the airfield, the main economic user is Airbus Operations (UK) Ltd., whose activities employ approximately 4,500 people on the site in Research & Development and manufacturing, much of which is subcontracted to GKN Aerospace.F [4] F The situation is similar at Airbus’ other UK manufacturing site at Broughton, which is also owned by BAE Systems. 

Airbus uses the airfield in two main roles. The first is to transport large wing assemblies from the manufacturing facilities to final assembly, such as the A400M military transporter aircraft wings which are shipped direct to Seville, Spain. The second is to provide the employees with shuttle flights to other Airbus sites within the UK and Europe, allowing staff to travel to technical meetings and back again, often on the same day.

Commercial passenger services for the West of England are currently only provided by Bristol Airport at Lulsgate in rural North Somerset, some 7 miles south west of the city.

The Economic Case

Decentralisation from London

The UK Government has in recent years made overtures about decentralising economic activity and power-making from London in an attempt to prevent uncontrolled growth in the South East and avoid economic stagnation in the regions.F [5] F As well as public bodies, institutions such as the BBC have already started to move some functions to regional centres, including Bristol. The financial services sector in the Bristol is also growing and will be spurred on by the Temple Quarter Enterprise Zone which will generate local business rates income as part of the City Deal. The scope for such new activity will represent an added pressure on both domestic and international transport links for the region. Domestically, it is hoped that this will be assisted by the planned upgrades to the Great Western mainline. Internationally, this will be served by local airports.

Locally displaced aviation

These high-value growth industries will require access to both scheduled flights and business aviation services. The latter are typically provided by secondary airfields where civil airport security and immigration processes do not obstruct the required fast, hassle-free transfers. Locally, commercial flights will be operated from Bristol Airport.

In 2011, Bristol Airport serviced 5.7m passengers with aircraft movements over 66,000. The airport projects growth of passenger figures to between 8m and 9m by 2015 and up to 12m by 2030.F [6] F As part of this anticipated demand, the airport is currently investing in further enhancements to its passenger facilities by expanding the terminal building and adding new air bridges, multi-storey car parking and new aprons. In the longer term, it is considering an extension to the 2,011m runway and a possible second terminal building to the south of the runway, though absolute runway capacity is anticipated to be limited beyond the 2030 projections (approx. 140,000 movements). Although much expansion is planned, no improvements to the transport infrastructure between the airport and Bristol or the M5 motorway have been included in the plans, leaving it accessible only by country roads.

General Aviation (GA) is an important sector. Nationally, it is currently valued at £1.4bn to the economy, 8% of the total Commercial Air Transport sector. 11,600 people are employed in GA, operating a fleet of some 15,500 active aircraft, and accounting for 4.6 million movements annually. This doesn’t include the value added to other businesses which rely on GA.F [7]

Mixing GA with larger aircraft affects overall capacity for an airport because under CAA regulations, movements of lighter aircraft require increased separation from large commercial aircraft due to wake vortices and also light aircraft tend to operate at lower airspeeds.F [8] F Therefore, to facilitate greater overall capacity for passenger flights, aviation policies must emphasise provision for separate GA airfields.

If regional civil airports such as Bristol are to take up demand for commercial services, we need to be very careful that there is no jeopardy to either the business aviation or GA sectors. As these are increasingly likely to be displaced from primary civil airports to make way for passenger travel, there needs to be clear policy in protecting secondary airfields in every region to provide the necessary facilities. It should also be noted that if such airfields are allowed to close, these movements must be accommodated at other suitable airfields, exacerbating the problem. Filton, for example, averages approximately 28,000 movements per annum, which would be displaced to either other secondary airfields, or Bristol Airport.F [9]

Examples of regional airports where provision should be made for local secondary airfields to alleviate potential movement separation issues include:

· Bristol

· Bournemouth

· Cardiff

· Edinburgh

· Exeter

· Glasgow

· Liverpool

· Leeds-Bradford

· Teeside

Manufacturing

The government has repeated a desire to embrace high-value manufacturing exports as way to grow the economy out of the current recession.

A prime example of this desire is the UK aerospace industry, the second largest in the world and one of the most successful sectors of UK manufacturing.F [10] F This industry is largely centred around the Bristol region for historic reasons. Nationally, the sector has a turnover of £24.2bn and directly contributes £11.4bn to the UK GDP. Civil aerospace in particular remains in a strong growth phase, with revenues increasing by 5.1% in real terms in 2011. Traditionally this sector has been supported by localised aviation capacity. No Airbus manufacturing site is currently without an operating airfield for this reason.

In the UK, the main company involved in civil aerospace is Airbus. In 2011, the company took orders for 1,608 aircraft, as airlines seek ever more efficient fleets. This leaves the order backlog at over 4,300 aircraft.F [11] F Finding manufacturing capacity to meet this demand is both a commercial and political issue as governments around the world seek a slice of the work. The main UK sites for manufacturing are at Broughton in north Wales and the site at Filton Airfield, both centres of excellence for wing design and manufacturing, working closely with sites in Bremen, Germany, and Toulouse in France. Currently this work directly and indirectly supports 140,000 jobs. F [12]

At Filton, over 2,000 engineers are employed in developing wing parts, with a further 2,500 at subcontractors GKN Aerospace. This workforce also supports EADS latest foray into defence aircraft by supplying wing assemblies for the A400M military transporter, which is assembled in Seville.

The current threat to this site from the potential loss of airfield capacity stems from a complex history with BAE Systems and its forerunners. BAE previously held a 20% stake in Airbus’ parent company, EADS, but sold this in 2006 to concentrate on what it perceived would be its core business in defence contracts. The Filton site was a result of this earlier collaboration as an offshoot of BAE’s former manufacturing operations there. BAE continue to own the airfield and underlying land and Airbus pay rent to BAE for its office and manufacturing facilities.

As the global recession has taken hold and BAE have relied heavily on defence contracts, primarily in the US, it has seen its own revenues fall, and has become increasingly indebted (to the tune of over £16bn net). As it has reduced its exposure to UK markets, it has sought to sell off real estate assets acquired during privatisation. Such real estate includes ex munitions works, manufacturing sites and airfields. It would appear that in order to maximise value from the real estate at Filton, BAE has sought a change of land use through the local planning authority (who had been given an increased house-building target of 26,400 homes – up from 21,500 - as a result of BAE’s announcement of their intention to close the airfieldF [13] F).

In order to facilitate this, Airbus were offered for sale 50 hectares of land so they could relocate their aerospace activities from BAE-owned land. In response, Airbus have claimed that they can "mitigate" the impact to future manufacturing sites by transporting wing assemblies by road to Avonmouth docks, then by sea to northern France and then by air for the last leg to final assembly (e.g. Seville). Employees attending meetings at other sites would have to use services from commercial airports such as Bristol or Heathrow. Travel between the two UK sites would have to be by road.

Perhaps, as less-than-willing tenants to BAE, Airbus felt they could continue with office operations at lower overall cost by agreeing to this deal, albeit adding to the risks and costs associated with manufacturing and transportation. However, there is genuine concern (including by employees of Airbus) that the mitigating operations being proposed could cause a threat to the viability of current manufacturing, and stifle any new large-scale projects that Filton could otherwise accommodate.

We contend that this scenario is not as might be outwardly presented by Airbus, and it will manifest itself as a major threat to the local economy. It is vital that local capacity is protected to support these operations.

Supplementary Operations

As well as secondary airfields being used to support important economic activities such as manufacturing and for relieving regional airports of conflicting aviation, there are supplementary operations that they can support which would fit in with both the desire to decentralise economic activity and relieve some capacity at congested airports.

Freight

Whilst most air freight is carried in the hold of passenger flights, there remain a substantial number of dedicated cargo services operating out of London airports carrying approximately 1.8m tonnes per annum. The two main airports handling cargo-only flights are Stansted (10,200 movements pa.) and Heathrow (2,500 movements pa.)F [14] F. With improved surface links between London and the regions, secondary airfields with sufficient facilities can be used to relieve these operations from London, freeing up capacity for more passenger flights. They are also an ideal alternative to congested passenger airports where time-sensitive logistics operations are concerned.

Maintenance

Passenger (and freight) aircraft maintenance is a necessary operation for all airlines. Much maintenance occurs during layovers at commercial airports but heavy maintenance can, and often is, provided offsite at secondary airfields. Airfields such as Filton, which have excellent links for the timely sourcing of parts and engineers, must be considered as part of aviation policy as a means to support the commercial aviation sector, and to mitigate unnecessary movements at congested airports. In particular, as the need arises to maintain very large aircraft such as the A380, there must be an adequate provision of sites with runways wide enough to handle these. In the UK, there are very few such runways. It is notable that the exceptionally large hangars at Filton can accommodate large aircraft such as Boeing 747s.

Social and Environmental Factors

As well as the arguments made here about directly and indirectly relieving capacity at the most congested airports, there are other considerations to be made concerning regional airports and secondary airfields.

Convenience

Encouraging local provision for air services has numerous benefits for the public. It minimises the need for passengers to spend time and money travelling to London airports. It can also help airlines keep their costs down by having access to a greater pool of employees.

Pilot Training

In order to achieve a sustainable supply of pilots for all aviation sectors, secondary airfields are paramount for training. The RAF also requires airfields with full commercial instrument and radio services in order to train their pilots (Filton, for example, is used by the RAF for instrument approach training, which may now have to be displaced to commercial airports.

Emergency runway capacity

Throughout the UK, adequate provision must be in place for emergency situations, both for in-flight aircraft problems and airport diversions as a result of accidents, fire, terror incidents or poor weather. In particular, as aircraft sizes increase for hub operations, there needs to be specific provision of emergency airfields with sufficiently large runways.

Support for emergency services

Most regions now rely on police air operations units and medivac and air ambulance operations. These typically require an airfield which can provide fuel and maintenance support at a location as close as possible to major regional population centres. The fast-response nature of these services are not well suited to mixing with the traffic at commercial airports, meaning suitable secondary airfields must be protected for their use.

Pollution

Over-concentration of aviation contributes to localised and global pollution. By reducing as far as possible movements in London airspace and moving as much as possible to regional airports and airfields, the stacking of aircraft on approach can be kept to a minimum, improving the fuel efficiency of flights.

Minimising surface journeys to airports also offsets car journeys, reducing road congestion and pollution along major routes.

Finally, encouraging ancillary operations such as freight, business aviation and maintenance to locations with a good local urban density (again, as is the case with airfields like Filton) reduces the need for the associated workforce and patrons to make longer surface journeys by car.

Recommendations

In light of the arguments made in this submission, the Government must take steps to reverse the trend for important airfields to be redeveloped. This requires addressing the motives for owners who take these decisions.

In the case of airfields like Plymouth and Filton, the closure decisions have arisen from the landowners’ desire to maximise real estate values in order to turn short-term profits and as a result of pressures placed on local authorities to identify housing land supply to meet government targets. Therefore it requires all Government departments to work together to avoid conflicting and potentially damaging policy as a result of a failure to understand the bigger picture.

In addition, the Government needs to be very cautious of claims made by private airfield owners, whose motives are often purely financial.

With this in mind, we make the following general recommendations:

· Reverse the automatic "brownfield" status of closed airfields until their potential can be evaluated by the DfT for aviation needs.

· Ensure there is a sufficient supply of suitable secondary airfields to support functions that are in the national interest (such as supplementary aviation capacity, pilot training or potential military requirements).

· Analyse and consider reducing central Government housing targets where they are likely to add pressure on local planning authorities to make detrimental decisions concerning airfield redevelopment.

· Aviation policy is rigidly accounted for in local planning policy.

With regards to the specific concerns of this group, we also recommend that the Government use their influence over BAE Systems to ensure that their significant holding of UK airfields is evaluated and, where necessary, ring-fenced and protected, in the national interest. We recommend that the Government liaises with BAE management to come an agreement to keep Filton Airfield open until the issues raised in this submission can be fully assessed.

17 October 2012