Aviation Strategy

Written evidence from NECTAR (AS 65)

NECTAR - the North-East Combined Transport Activists' Round Table - is pleased to send the following response to 

the Inquiry on Aviation Strategy.

NECTAR is an open, voluntary, umbrella body, established to provide a forum in which the many organisations with

an interest in sustainable transport in all its forms can develop a co-ordinated view on contemporary transport issues.

NECTAR is one of a national network of Transport Activists' Roundtables, each of which provides opportunity for the

exchange of news, studies, and information.

The main points in our response to this Inquiry are:

(a) that global warming and carbon emissions are essential factors that must always be taken into account in

forming any transport policy:

        (b) that aviation fuel exhaust is among the world's most polluting items, and is in any case a finite (and hence

        declining) resource:  and

        (c) that the need to travel by air has been grossly exaggerated, with future predictions of 'demand' becoming

        increasingly impossible to make, especially as official figures for air travel in the UK have either remained 

at the same level, or declined, during the past 4 or 5 years.

We recognise that the committee has set up its Inquiry largely to elicit views about airport provision in London and

the South East, but, with respect, we remind the committee that no attempt to work out an aviation strategy for 

any nation can be successful if it confines its attention to one rather busy region, at (by implication, at least) the 

expense of just about everywhere else.

Our detailed response answers, as far as possible, each of the Transport Committee's questions in turn.

1. What should be the objectives of Government policy on aviation?

(i) Basically, to reduce, as far as is possible, the need for flying at all. This is in the interests of a cleaner environment, 

now especially threatened by the forecasts of the 50 months left in which to avoid a global 2 degrees Centigrade 

increase in world temperatures, if these forecasts are reliable. Other factors are, first, the continuing depletion of 

world resources in general, and of fuel oil in particular, and, second, the poorer air quality around airports, 

resulting from, among other things, the considerable volume of surface traffic attracted by every airport, as well 

as from the air fuel exhausts themselves,

(ii) We recognise that air traffic levels cannot be reduced overnight: so our three specific objectives would be:

[a] to concentrate on provision of long-distance air services, mainly transcontinental and transatlantic:

[b] to develop high-quality rail links within the UK to larger regional airports, rather than short-haul internal flights:

[c]  to reduce the number of short-haul flights to and from Europe, on a basis of their redundancy for journeys 

that a rail link can cover in 4 hours or fewer. Increasingly-lengthy check-in and security times, plus the sheer 

vastness of so many airport terminal buildings, can easily triple or even quadruple the nominal flight time, 

seriously reducing any time advantage over a parallel rail journey.

(a) How important is international aviation connectivity to the UK aviation industry?

(iii) This is really a question for the industry, not for us: we comment on 'connectivity', briefly, below, at 1e and 2c in

particular.

         (b) What are the benefits of aviation to the UK economy?

(iv)    Not very noticeable, frankly - figures that we have seen show that much more money is taken out of the country

        as a result of British holidaymakers using low-cost flights than is brought into it by non-UK citizens visiting the

        country and spending time and money here. Business travellers are numerically only a small proportion of those

        who go by air, even if their per capita air fares are above the airline average.

        (c) What is the impact of Air Passenger Duty on the aviation industry?

(v)     Probably far less than some n the industry claim. As long as this duty is charged fairly, on all who travel by air -

        including those on charter flights - the impact will affect all carriers in the same way, neutralising any legitimate

        feeling of unfair competition between or among airlines.

(vi)    Insofar as the charges levied by alternative modes of transport become lower than those by air, this probably

        reflects more truly the indirect cost to the world as a whole of air travel with its concomitant (and still untaxed)

        fuel consumption, and its production of chemically-undesirable exhaust fumes. Brendon Sewill's "Fly Now, Grieve

        Later" shows in great detail how much CO2 pollution per passenger results from air travel. His figures, given in

        2005, of 300 kg per head may now have been reduced thanks to improved technology, but they are more than

        double the figure for a single-occupancy car driven along a motorway over the same distance.

(vii)   We would add that these polluting agents remain with the planet, regardless of how ingeniously some countries

        devise, and then put into effect, carbon offset trading and other 'credit' systems.

         (d) How should improving the passenger experience be reflected in the Government's aviation

strategy?

(viii)  Directly, not at all, unless the Government runs the airline. Indirectly, this may be an invitation to comment on the

        different modes of payment that a passenger faces when using some 'budget' airlines - is it acceptable to quote a

        basic fare for a flight from A to (nearly) B, when nobody can actually travel for that fare because of compulsory

        supplements? We would say not. And we would add that (if international law allows it) there should be a clearly-

        stated and enforced limit to the distance between an airport and the centre of the town or city after which it is

        named - say 15 km. If this did arise, of course, neither Heathrow nor Gatwick could advertise itself as "London",

        leaving far more scope, for good or ill, at London City Airport about which we hear far less than it perhaps deserves.

         (e) Where does aviation fit in the overall transport strategy?

(ix)    Ideally, we might say, not at all, but first, may we ask exactly what the "overall transport strategy" is at the moment?

        From some viewpoints, it looks to be "cars first, second and last, with pedestrians, cyclists and bus users nowhere".

        There is a continuing and welcome increase in the importance given to rail. But even so, the remote position of many

        UK airports demands far greater car use to reach them, for passengers, crew, and airport workers alike, than it need do.

(x)     Gatwick, Stansted, Birmingham International, Manchester and Southampton airports are better than average, with rail

         stations on their premises, sometimes astride main railway lines. Newcastle's case is not far short, serve as it is by the

         Tyneside Metro. In contrast, Luton Airport Parkway's name is dangerously misleading, given the need for a lengthy bus

         journey between station and airport.

(xi)     If comparisons between transport modes are taken a bit further, we note again that aviation fuel is not taxed at all,

         whereas that for every land mode - apart, that is from pedestrians and cyclists (!) - is.

See also our answers to 2b and 2c below.

2. How should we make the best use of existing aviation capacity?

(xii)  We question at the outset the implication that all existing capacity must be used at all. Environmental consequences far 

greater than those even from diesel-powered surface transport come from flights of every type, even when filters and 

other refinements have been added to every example of every kind of aircraft. [Cf. Sewill, op.cit., especially pp. 6 - 11.]

     (a) How do we make the best use of existing London airport capacity?

(xiii)   It depends on who "we" are. Nobody in NECTAR is qualified to run an airline. If you are asking for suggestions on what

         kind of flight should be replaced by another means of transport - rail, for instance, at whatever speed - we would strongly

         advocate much greater effort to add North of London cross-channel rail services (mainly, but not exclusively, run by

         Eurostar) to those already running from London. We add that, on the face of it, the scope for reducing air traffic 

 originating in the London area is much greater than it is anywhere else in these islands, as so many high-quality rail lines

         link London to much of the UK and to continental Europe.

Are the Government's current measures sufficient?

(xiv)    Again, it depends on what 'measures' are meant here. For the moment, we exclude the intermittent sabre-rattling about

          a third runway for Heathrow, because it has still not been made an official feature of policy - and we hope that it never

          will.

(xv)    On the other hand, the threat of more night flights across the London area (or, indeed, anywhere else) seems to us 

         sufficiently real and damaging, to all under their flight paths world-wide, to prompt once again more effective steps to

         encourage current and future air travellers on to alternative, more carbon-friendly modes. In practice, this most often

         will imply high-speed rail to and from Europe, and medium-speed rail within the UK (for now). We know that, without

         any government effort, rail's share of the market has increased very noticeably, at the expense of that by air, on some

         busy internal routes such as London - Manchester and London - Newcastle.

What more could be done to improve passenger experience and airport resilience?

(xvi) What on earth (or elsewhere) is the resilience of an airport? And why is it so closely linked here with "passenger

experience"? If it is a covert synonym for check-in and security procedures, waiting times, and distances between

departure lounge and boarding gates, any or all of which test the nervous energy of most passengers, we would

reply "quite a lot".

(xvii) Specifying the form this would take is probably not within our powers, though we do find the UK's exclusion from

the Schengen area a vexing handicap, which at present weighs more heavily on Eurostar rail passengers, with their

compulsory customs examination, security vettings and check-in processes, than we think they deserve.

(b) Does the Government's current strategy make the best use of existing capacity at airports 

outside the South-East?

(xviii) Once again, it depents on what is defined as "current strategy", and exactly how any Government can help or hinder

airports in using capacity otherwise than they do. As we understand it, the allocation of flight paths to airlines at any

airport is carried out, in the last analysis, by those in charge of each airport. We know of no Government directives

that could affect this, though we are of course aware of Government pressure on some airport authorities not to bid

for ownership of more than a certain total number of airports, and/or to sell off one or other of those that they do own.

How far this connects with use of capacity as such eludes us, so we say no more.

How could this be improved?

(xix) Not knowing what "this" is in this context, we can offer no suggestions.

(c) How can surface access to airports be improved?

(xx) By retaining and/or expanding rail links, and improving the quality and frequency of services along them. Failing a rail

link - e.g. to Leeds/Bradford airport - by somehow ensuring that a bus-link, with vehicles specifically designed to take

heavy luggage, (un)loaded easily and quickly, runs during the full length of the airport's operating day between the

airport terminal and a central and well-connected town or city centre terminus. This would normally be a main rail

station and/or a large bus station, both with adequate passenger facilities in them. The present régime at Luton Airport

(cf. 1e above), though far from ideal as a genuine rail link, illustrates what we mean here.

(xxi) Bus and coach access should also be improved as and where possible: in short, the aim should be to reduce 

  significantly the number of journeys to and from every airport that are made by car, no matter how fully-occupied 

          each car is. Newcastle Airport, for instance, has good access by public transport, particularly its Metro line: but we would 

          advocate a far greater effort by local and national government to publicise this access more widely. At present,  the only 

   airports whose rail access is nationally known are Gatwick and Manchester, since each has main-line rail services: but 

           even in these cases it could be argued that the publicity is for most people confined to the pages of the local and 

   national rail timetables.

(xxii)   A Heathrow Airport spokesperson is reported in the Guardian (October 13 2012, p.18) as saying that the airport

           subsidises local public transport so that people can travel free of charge, avoiding the need for a car. If so, it is the first

           that we have heard about it, and in the absence of better publicity nation-wide, and more specific details, it is of little

           practical use to most air travellers, praiseworthy though the airport's initiative may be. The common perception of non-

           car access to Heathrow is the premium-fare "Heathrow Express" rail service to and from Paddington, with a slow and

           crowded Piccadilly tube line as a cheaper substitute.

(xxiii)   If, in fact, provision of free public transport access to an airport (for, presumably, air ticket holders, as part of the overall

           price) is something that Heathrow is now pioneering, we encourage it warmly and hope that other airports around the

           country follow Heathrow's example as soon as possible.

3. What constraints are there on increasing UK aviation capacity?

(xxiv)  In our view, the repeated reports of melt-down at one or both poles, plus the unusual weather-patterns and changes that 

result, are sufficient to conclude that expansion of air travel of any sort at any level is unacceptably risky. (The problem is 

by no means unique to aviation: motoring and other activities using fossil fuel - buses and trains - also cause pollution and 

climate change, of course.) There is also the associated problem of excessive "growth"; the earth's resources are finite, and 

this alone poses many problems about population growth and average consumption levels. Just because there is room for 

more aeroplanes to roam the skies without bumping into each other, this does not mean that such roaming is of benefit to 

world well-being, now or in the future. 

(xxv)  So, if anything, the planet's inherent limitations impose a need to reduce, not to increase, anything that uses fossil fuels. 

 Difficult though many will find it to perceive the dangers now, they are there, and will increase as long as human 

 unsustainable activity continues.

(a) Are the Government's proposals to manage the impact of aviation on the local environment sufficient,

particularly in terms of reducing the impact of noise on local residents?

(xxvi)  Again, it depends on what form these proposals take. Much as we would applaud all help, financial and material, to 

  double or triple glaze more and more homes across the country, such measures do not reduce the impact of aviation, 

  or any other noise, on those not in such houses, never mind those working or exercising outdoors, or simply travelling 

          from place to place.

(xxvii)  A forthcoming report, mentioned in the Guardian article of October 13 (cf.§xxii above), is expected to show that a clear 

   increase in the number of deaths from air pollution occurs in areas nearest to all airports, most notably around 

   Heathrow. Possible reasons for this are the exhausts from so many cars and other road vehicles going to and from the 

   airport, which have an even greater adverse impact on air quality than do the planes themselves! We repeat, in the 

   light of these findings (by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology laboratory), the urgent need to reduce the amount 

   of traffic around all airports as part of any policy to reduce the impact of aviation.

(b) Will the Government's proposals help to reduce carbon emissions and manage the impact of aviation on

climate change?

(xxviii)  A proposal, as such, can neither reduce nor increase anything: presumably the question means to say "implementation  

   of its proposals", or similar. Even so, we do not think that a Government wish-list can do much about either carbon 

   emissions or climate change, neither of which are limited by national boundaries, nor do they seem to be as predictable 

           in their extent as even the specialist scientists have hoped they would be.

[Compelling arguments that aviation can never be climate-friendly may be found at <http:scholar.google.co.uk/scholar>.]

How can aviation be made more sustainable?

(xxix)   In three words, it cannot be. "More sustainable" is almost a contradiction in terms - the essence of sustainability is that 

   no additional resources of any sort are used.

(c) What is the relationship between the Government's strategy and EU aviation policies?

(xxx)    We are not qualified to answer this question.

4. Do we need a step-change in UK aviation capacity?

(xxxi)    Yes - but downwards, not upwards.

Why?

(xxxii)   We have already explained this in earlier answers.

(a) What should this step change be?

(xxxiii)   As already stated, downwards.

          Should there be a new hub airport?

(xxxiv)   Dogged again by an ambiguous wording, we say that there should be no new airports of any kind, hub or otherwise. 

     If, however, the intention is to ask about an upgrading to 'hub' status of an airport already existing, our answer is

             different. We know, for instance, that Heathrow is regarded as a hub, and also that some in aviation deplore the fact

     that many air users prefer to go to Amsterdam, for instance, for connecting long-distance services.

(xxxv)   We respectfully remind such people that, if they check with their atlases, they will find that large areas of northern 

            England (and all of Scotland) are about as near to Amsterdam as they are to Heathrow, and anyway the combined 

            cost of flights to, and connections via, Amsterdam (and, indeed, elsewhere in western Europe) is often significantly 

            lower than it would be via Heathrow. Depending on the ultimate destination, of course, it is arguable that going to 

            Amsterdam from the north-east and from Scotland reduces the overall air mileage quite significantly, regardless of 

            whether one route is more stress-free than the other.

   Where?

(xxxvi)   If at all, preferably in the north of England, at Newcastle, with several provisos:

(a) that it would totally replace several others in the region, so would need (or already have) first-class surface 

communications, including high-speed rail, with the areas they had served:

(b) that its aim would be to reduce overall the number of flights available, mainly by providing high-capacity and 

high-occupancy services: and

(c)  that it would reflect current aviation practice, in that - despite appearances - Newcastle's position is as near 

to that of Canada and the border areas of the United States as anywhere in southern England, or indeed 

in Scotland. Many current international flight-paths, e.g. from Frankfurt or Amsterdam to north American 

destinations, reflect this by flying along the east coast of England before veering westwards from south

Tyneside towards Glasgow, and then crossing the Atlantic ocean.

    (b) What are the costs and benefits of these different ways to increase UK aviation capacity?

    (xxxvii)  As we deny that aviation levels should be increased at all, we have logically to answer that there are none of either.

    (xxxviii) It is not irrelevant to mention here that quoted statistics* for current airport usage, as hinted at above, show that 

passenger levels are either the same as in previous years or, here and there, tapering off. Few examples of increased 

usage exist. So why seek to increase a 'capacity', when even the official figures do not show a need for it?

*2011 passenger numbers for London airports show a 4% drop from their 2007 level. Those for all airports were 8% down over

that same period. During it, rail passengers numbers increased by no less than 25%.

19 October 2012