Thames Estuary Airport – Another Reason Why Not



Heathrow Control Tower

CEO of NATS Gives the Thumbs Down to the Isle of Grain Proposal

As Stowawae wrote last November when architects Norman Foster proposed their Thames Estuary project, the area has a number of reasons why any airport there would face problems; not the least of these being the UK’s largest LNG terminal which exists alongside the proposed runways.  Not only that but the lurking danger of the wartime wreck of the “Richard M. Montgomery” poses an explosive and huge danger to nearby towns let alone the airport. 
See: http://stowawaetravelnews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/norman-foster-thames-estuary-airport.html
The Army have a saying “Time in Reconnaissance is seldom Wasted” – it’s as true for civilian projects as well as for military missions .  Richard Deakin, chief executive of Nats, had an interview with the Guardian published this past week-end in which he pointed out that from a national air traffic control perspective the Thames Estuary is one of the worst places to build a new international airport. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/apr/13/thames-hub-airport-worst-spot?INTCMP=SRCH
The architects did not consult Nats when conceiving the Isle of Grain project – whilst I am sure they would have taken into consideration the capability of the ground to support  the airport, they obviously did not take in account the air traffic control at high level nor the bird-strike danger at low level!  As the RSPB pointed out the Thames Estuary is a major bird  migratory route.    He also pointed out that the proximity of Amsterdam’s Schiphol airport would mean aircraft would be forced into much longer flight holding patterns which would mean more CO2 emissions.  Time spent in holding patterns produces huge tonnages of unnecessary CO2 .  The new airport would therefore cut across current efforts to reduce CO2 by improving European flight paths by making them more direct and also preventing use of the more efficient "continuous descent" method.

Deakin claimed that an extra Heathrow runway could cut the need for aircraft to hold in the skies before landing.  He said that…..” from an air traffic control point of view, the single biggest thing we could do to reduce CO2 in the UK is to build a third runway at Heathrow.  Heathrow holding is not about airspace – it's about lack of tarmac. I'm very confident you'd eliminate all the holding patterns in one go." 

I am reminded of a true story by a friend, the Head of the Port of London Authority.  A few years back a proposal was put forward to build a new wind farm in the Thames Estuary.  Wind farms are controversial enough on land, often creating huge public opposition.   Hence the proposers obviously thought they had cracked that particular nut by putting the wind farm in the estuary – the only thing they had not considered was that the Thames is a major highway into the UK.  They had place the proposed wind farm smack on the main channel for container ships and tankers.  Time in reconnaissance ……………!

Stowawae Takes Off!

Just to let anyone kind enough to be interested in my blogs know that I about to take off to my favourite island Barbados to get a shot or two of adrenaline riding the local Yellow Buses.  Actually you don't even have to ride in them if you hire a car - its quite likely that one will overtake you with inches to spare before barrelling off at breakneck speed only to pull up to collect a passenger or two....

Ciao everyone!

BMI Sale to IAG Challenged

Virgin Boss Fulfils Promise to Challenge EU Ruling to Allow BA to Buy BMI From Lufthansa

Yet another EU edict  (EUDICT?) regarding aviation is being challenged by Sir Richard Branson as he promised to do if the sale by Lufthansa of BMI to IAG was allowed.   The other is the challenge to the EU ETS being mounted by the US, India China and others about their carriers being included  unilaterally in the ETS which is likely to cost carriers using EU airspace a combined €1.4b annually IF they can be persuaded to pay up in 2013 when the first payments under the scheme are due to be paid.

It will be interesting to see if Virgin’s argument that the IAG/BMI deal is anticompetitive will suffice to overthrow the current ruling.  However, it’s doubtful if any of the 1200 BMI workers whose jobs are threatened by the IAG take-over will feel much relief at the temporary stay of execution.  Lufthansa is on record as saying that if the deal is not allowed they could simply close down BMI.   Whilst that would free up BMI’s slots to competitive bids at Heathrow and elsewhere – the workforce would clearly suffer even more than under the IAG purchase.  It is interesting to speculate whether Virgin’s challenge is a ploy to free up all BMI’s slots to an open to all auction OR could it be a cunning plan to set the scene to eventually snatch BMI away from IAG?

 

How Much Tax and Duty did you Say?!!!!

Beware the Treasury's Hidden Shocks in Invoices

Those of us in the UK who actually do pay taxes are all too familiar with those regular, often dreaded, brown envelopes that tell us how much PAYE or annual taxes that we have paid or are expected to pay.  These helpful documents tell us to our faces what the government of the day is taking from our income, however earned………Householders and tenants also feel the additional cut-purse activity of local councils.  We are then left to save or spend what economists and Treasury officials are pleased to call “Disposable Income” – that is that part of your income which they have not already disposed of!!!

Well that the price of living in a democracy – somebody has to pay for it!  

Now you would think that the Treasury and the Chancellor would be happy to leave it at that but NO! There are those additional taxes and fees we have to pay which I would like to call “guerrilla taxes” as they are generally hidden and strike when you are least expecting them. These then erode your “disposable income”.  There are several examples of these very effective additional revenue collectors,  two of which have ambushed me recently.  Air Passenger Duty and VAT.  Both of these were raised in the last budget.

In the case of APD the actual cost is hidden deep in the total price of the ticket.   Many people especially overseas visitors are unaware of it’s existence let alone how much it costs.  At least with  VAT it is always broken out in the final bill. However most people just reach for their wallet or purse and pay.  

I chose these examples not just because I blog on travel issues, but because of the fact that I was ambushed by both recently.  Also, my attention was drawn to how regressive APD is and what a sneaky tax VAT is – in its way just as regressive as APD at its current levels.  We are at the point where APD is already deterring those least able to pay the duty from flying.  Even worse in my view it is denying them choices of holiday destinations though cost.  Something last seen in the early 1950s days of civil flying.

In brief then……Using air miles to “buy” two Premium Economy tickets to Barbados, I was then told to actually pay £812 for APD and other fees.  Then – entirely my decision I admit, I had to pay a further £120 to secure the seats we wanted together. That’s an eye-watering £932 on top of the air-miles cost of the two seats.  Without the latter it is an open question as to whether I could afford the trip……..

The other ambush occurred when I had to reserve a hotel room for an overseas colleague who is  speaking at a London travel conference.    We all know from the media how expensive hotels are in London, especially with the Olympics approaching.  However, unfortunately I did not have the luxury of using an online hotels  price search site as the colleague was tied to using the hotel next to the conference halls where he is speaking.  First thing that happened was that I got an ex-VAT price which he approved and went back to the hotel the next morning to book it.  The offer was no longer there and the price had shot up by over £50 overnight (because of demand I was told).  That meant that at 20% VAT, just under £60 was hi-jacked by the Treasury for just one night’s stay in London when I booked the room.  A tip though!  I checked another site which came up on Google on the same page as the Hotel’s own booking site.  It headlined under the Hotel’s name and I was able to book for the same hotel at £20 less for the night.  The bill was still over £350 though inc. VAT!!  –    It is no wonder that the UK hospitality industry has been lobbying (in vain) for a reduction on hotel VAT. 

Let’s hope if inbound visitors do come for the Olympics by air they are aware of the APD and Hotel VAT costs involved in a UK visit,  otherwise they may have to resort to takeaways whilst here – Oh Lord I should have said cold pasties!   Warm ones now being subject to VAT I believe!

A Carbon Price Conundrum

What Price Carbon Credits? (Photo JBC)

EU Emissions Trading Scheme Sees Carbon Price Tumble More Than by Half Over the Past Year.

I am by no means an expert on the trading of carbon credits by Eurozone industrial companies so I checked the EU site and the following is the site’s description for the ETS:-

‘Launched in 2005, the EU ETS works on the "cap and trade" principle. This means there is a "cap", or limit, on the total amount of certain greenhouse gases that can be emitted by the factories, power plants and other installations in the system. Within this cap, companies receive emission allowances which they can sell to or buy from one another as needed. The limit on the total number of allowances available ensures that they have a value.

At the end of each year each company must surrender enough allowances to cover all its emissions, otherwise heavy fines are imposed. If a company reduces its emissions, it can keep the spare allowances to cover its future needs or else sell them to another company that is short of allowances. The flexibility that trading brings ensures that emissions are cut where it costs least to do so.’

This ‘market’ effectively establishes a price for the ‘carbon credits’ traded between companies.  The scheme is supposed to encourage the introduction of non-fossil fuel sources of electricity and to reduce the EU’s output of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas and contributor to global warming.  The system is a “carrot and stick” one as you can see.   Energy producing companies are encouraged to produce low, preferably zero carbon power.  Power consuming industries are encouraged to become more efficient.  They benefit if they are below the allowances set for them and are fined if they do not. 

It is ironic that a combination of a weak Eurozone economy, increased investment in renewable resources combined with a mild winter has actually helped to achieve one of the primary objectives of the scheme.  In fact it has over-achieved!   According to the FT (see * link below), the EU has increased non-fossil fuel power generation by 50 Gigawatts over the past two years despite the closure of Germany’s nuclear power plants.  This is due to an increase in solar and wind renewable power sources.  As a past commodities futures trader and analyst I might venture to suggest that this is a typical case of supply and demand in action rather than an effective fiscal regulatory system impacting on how we produce electricity.     

As the FT has reported*, the response to the glut of carbon trading units and the collapse in the price of carbon is to propose increasing the emissions reduction target below 1990 levels by a further10% to 30% .  The UK is a major supporter of this increase and will certainly do so in Denmark on 19th April when the increased will be discussed.  However, the UK  is also able to predict that it can already meet this target increase, unlike certain other EU countries.

Again I am not an expert in carbon trading but if the objective of the proposed 30% target (apart from decreasing dependence of fossil fuels) is also to increase the cost of carbon, then I can see a problem.   Successful countries like the UK will still have surplus credits to trade whilst others dependent on more traditional power generation will struggle to meet the target and may have to pay to buy the more expensive surplus credits. Even worse, they may be fined.  This is not something that companies in countries striving to climb out of recession will need, especially as this could inhibit their ability to invest in renewable energy sources or manufacturing efficiencies. 

Then there is the situation of the unilateral inclusion of international airlines not based in the EU in the ETS.  Whilst they do contribute to the global aviation CO² footprint of between 2% and 3% of all world CO² emissions (IPCC) the majority is obviously not sourced in or above the EU.   The airline industry as a whole is already committed to reducing greenhouse gases and noise pollution in line with current targets.  They have a vested interest in doing so as they operate on very, very small margins.  The more fuel and operational efficiencies they can achieve the more viable their businesses become.  As this blog has often underlined aviation is NOT anti climate-change legislation and the reduction of its greenhouse gas emissions through legislation.  Far from it!  The aviation organization IATA has long championed the introduction of an INTERNATIONAL aviation carbon trading scheme such as being proposed by the ICAO which already has broad international support. 

Therefore should an increase in CO² targets to 30% take place and achieve an increase in the price of carbon, it will very likely harden the stance of countries protesting the inclusion of their airlines in the EU ETS.  They have already said they will not participate in the EU ETS or pay for carbon credits when the time comes in 2013 for the first payments to be made by international carriers using EU airspace.   This is not unreasonable given that, even Greg Barker, climate change minister, in a recent Financial Times interview* said: “………………It’s what happens in the air, not what happens on the ground that counts for aviation.”

 This might be a guess too far at this stage but, if as already threatened, those countries already protesting about the ETS are provoked further to actually cancelling orders with EU industries or to take other action against the EU in terms of trade or access, the Eurozone recovery could be delayed.  Then, as a possible consequence, due to a further delayed recovery, the price of carbon could remain depressed despite the price support intervention currently being considered by Brussels. 

If anyone who really understands the ETS mechanism please do comment on my assumptions above.   No one is perfect as my wife keeps telling me pointedly..........
=========================================================================
NB You may need to subscribe to FT to view these links

* http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/473ef85c-8161-11e1-8aae00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/world_uk/feed//product&ftcamp=crm/email/201249/nbe/UKMorningHeadlines/product#axzz1rXCMF2d1

** http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b36fa102-7ce3-11e1-9d8f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1rXCMF2d1   

'Titanic' 100 years on - Sea Travel is Safer!!

'Titanic' Off Hythe on Her Fateful Maiden Voyage 1912

  

Don’t Let All the Current “Titanic” Headlines Deter You Cruising

John Barrington-Carver writes:  One hundred years ago on 15^th April as we all know, the “Unsinkable “ S.S. Titanic sank with dreadful loss of life.  More recently Europe has seen the "Herald Free Enterprise" (1987) and the “Estonia” (1994) involved in accidents involving loss of life.  These tragic events did however spur significant safety reviews and subsequent improvements in ship design and safety features.    Nevertheless accidents at sea still continue to happen despite all the modern aids to navigation and safety improvements – particularly in Africa and the Far East.  If you want to check these out try  www.mapreport.com –  

The 21^st Century has already seen a number of incidents in Europe including cruise ships such as the recent "Costa Concordia" in Italy and a Russian River Cruiser the "Bulgaria" on the Volga River, both involving loss of life, as did the  "Costa Europa"  when it hit a pier killing several crew members in Sharm al Sheikh earlier this year.  With all the automation available today, accidents are more often than not down to human error.  If you see the news around the world, the odds are that a ferry will have capsized  (especially in Asia and the Far East) mostly due to overcrowding.  Either that or the vessel has had mechanical problems leaving it adrift like the "Costa Allegra" off the Seychelles recently.  Not for nothing the words of the 1860’s Naval Hymn  “…… for those in peril on the sea.”

With three times more merchant vessels plying the oceans than in 1912 you might be forgiven for thinking the seas would be more dangerous now.  However before you start thinking about cancelling your cruise,  let me assure you that statistically cruise ships are very safe forms of transport.

 According to a report by the insurance group Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty https://www.allianz.com/static-resources/en/press/media/documents/v_1332510148000/agcs_safety_shipping_1912-2012.pdf

“Sea travel itself is generally considered one of the safest modes of passenger transport. European Transport Safety Council data ranks marine transport in Europe as the 4th safest means of passenger transport after bus/coach, rail and air. Car travel is significantly more risky, but that risk increases further for cycling and walking –around 7-9 times riskier than car travel – and further still for motorcycle/scooter travel, being 20 times riskier than car travel. US transport fatality figures for 2009 support these findings, with ship-related fatalities second safest only to air transport; however these figures do not take into account the popularity of the mode.”

To put this in context, according to the same report,  passenger fatalities for every 100 million passenger kilometres work out as follows: air & rail – 0.035%; Bus – 0.07%; Cruise ships – 0.25%; cycling and walking are 6.4% & 5.4% respectively with Motor Cycles topping the bill at 13.8%.

Today in the UK it seems that ever more intrusive health and safety rules, designed it seems to protect us from ourselves, are being introduced in all areas of everyday life. It’s my personal opinion that very often many rules are created to protect the company, building owners, or local authority from being sued by staff and the general public rather than to protect Jack or Jill Average from themselves.   Having seen some examples of bureaucratic nonsenses over the past several years which defy common sense and challenge credulity ,  I am beginning to wonder if we shall soon be required to read and sign disclaimers before boarding a plane, ship or bus/coach.  

Wherever you go though, and however you intend to travel over the Easter and summer holidays , – travel safely especially if there are no ‘Elf n’ Safety rules to ensure your wellbeing!!!   Remember the best rule always is to use your common sense and never take any aspect of travelling for granted – for instance the total stranger calling me over when I was packing luggage into the rear of the hire car at the airport pick-up was only distracting me whilst his mate was pinching a hand-bag from the car.  Howeverwhilst always taking sensible precaustions when travelling, perhaps you should avoid my wife’s late uncle’s pre flights check!  He used to fly quite often (as a passenger!)in the early 60’s and in those pre hi-jack days always tried to ask the pilots personally if they were happily married ! But then again  perhaps in the recent case of the JetBlue flight 191 in the US where the Captain had a mental breakdown mid-flight, a quick chat may have been adviseable!!

Stop Press US Visa Prices to Change April 13

FYI  Stowawae just received Press Release from US Embassy re changes to US Visa Fees

U.S. Embassy London

April 3, 2012

002/12

Visa Processing Fees to Change on April 13, 2012

In Fiscal Year 2012, the Department of State estimates it will process 10.5 million nonimmigrant visas and one million immigrant visas and as result, they are adjusting the fees for processing these visas to better reflect the costs of providing these services. 

Beginning April 13, 2012, immigrant visa fees will decrease substantially.  This is due primarily to a 

reallocation of costs associated with the processing of these visas and efficiencies we anticipate in the near future.  The fees for most nonimmigrant visa applicants will increase slightly as the current MRV fee no longer covers the actual cost of processing nonimmigrant visas.  The nonimmigrant visa fee increase will support the addition and expansion of overseas facilities, as well as additional staffing required to meet increased visa demand and accurately reflect the processing costs we incur.  For the majority of travelers to the United States who enter the country as tourists, the cost is small and when averaged over ten years, is $16 per year.

For a list of fees and further information on applying for a visa, please visit the Embassy website at http://london.usembassy.gov.

----------------

BMI BA Purchase

BA Boeing 777-300 Taking Off (Photo by Andrew Simpson)

                                             BMI – And the Winner Is BA – Or Maybe Not Quite Yet?             

IAG’s boss Willie Walsh has overcome stout opposition by Virgin’s Richard Branson as well as regulatory hurdles for permission to buy BMI from Lufthansa on condition that IAG relinquishes 14 of the 56 landing slot pairs¹  at Heathrow owned by BMI.  That is of course not yet certain should Branson decide to appeal the European Commission’s decision to allow the deal to go ahead.  BMI serves 45 routes including destinations in India, The Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe. 

A condition of the approval is that seven of the fourteen slots must be sold to carriers agreeing to provide services to Edinburgh and Aberdeen.   In addition the approval means that IAG’s carriers must provide competitors with access to seats on its UK and European services to allow other airlines (Including Virgin) to book seats for passengers who want to transfer onto IAG’s long-haul flights.  Mr Walsh has challenged Richard Branson to make good his previous promise should Virgin buy BMI to maintain flights to Scotland by taking up the slots now available for the Heathrow – Scotland routes. 

Meantime, Willie Walsh has said that IAG will maintain BMI’s current schedules.  However,  the opening up of 42 slots should now enable IAG to develop new routes to the Far East and S. America.   Whilst this will not in any way alleviate the traffic congestion at Heathrow, it will at least provide slots for connections to cities in China and other burgeoning markets.  It is perhaps an irony that in acquiring the extra Heathrow slots and connectivity, Willie Walsh’s reasons (as far as IAG is concerned anyway) for calling for a third runway  have been partially satisfied.

1 The term, “landing slot,” is frequently used to refer to slot pairs, which include a landing slot and a take-off slot.  Naturally, an airline that wishes to offer a flight between a slot-constrained airport and another city’s airport frequently uses both a landing slot and a take-off slot, so that it can both deliver passengers to that city’s airport and receive passengers from the same airport. [Ref Competitive Effects of Exchanges or Sales of Airport Landing Slots:  by James D. Reitzes, Brendan McVeigh, Nicholas Powers, Samuel Moy The Brattle Group. December, 2011]

APD 8% Rise April 1 You have to pay Increase Before you Board

APD 8% Rise Today April 1^st. -  It’s No Joke

Sadly despite appeals from all quarters, the planned 8% rise in APD has gone ahead today.

Passengers who bought tickets BEFORE 3 December last year before GDS’s (essentially central booking servers used by airlines) were updated to the new duty rates and who are flying on or After 1 April may be asked by the airline to pay up the difference before boarding – possibly at the airport when they leave the UK or perhaps at their initial departure airport if flying on a return ticket to the UK.   

Since it is down to the airline whether the cost of collection merits doing so compared to what they have to pay the UK government,  there is no clear industry-wide policy about collecting the addition APD.   If you have not heard from your airline or ticket issuer already it is possible that you will not be asked to stump up before you board.  Fingers crossed!!!

The increased APD rates coming into effect on 1 April  are in red and the amounts the old APD rates are in black.  The  increases are in green.

 Air Passenger Duty (APD)

APD distance bands are from London to the Capital City of Destination Country APD rates

(£ a passenger from 1 April 2012)

Miles from  London                                 UK Economy                          Premium Cabins

Band A (0-2000)                                     £12+ £1 = £13                           £24 +£2  =  £26 

Band B (2001-4000)                               £60 +£5 = £65                          £120 +£10 =  £130

Band C (4001-6000)                               £75 +£6 = £81                          £150 +£12 =  £162

Band D (over 6000)                                £85 +£7 = £92                         £170+£14  =  £184

 The quickest way to find which band your destination country lies in is to search “Distance from London to…………” in your search engine such as Google of Firefox.  Remember though its is the distance to the Capital city.  So even if you are flying to Hawaii,  the distance to Washington DC is the mileage that applies.