|
Press
Releases
Leisure Airlines
Oppose Gatwick Cross Subsidy
31 May
2005
Thomsonfly, Thomas
Cook, First Choice Airways, MyTravel Airways and Monarch Airlines have reacted
angrily to BAA's announcement that it plans to raise funds to build
the proposed new runway at Stansted by cross subsidisation from
passengers at Gatwick and Heathrow.
Kevin Hatton, MD of
Thomsonfly said: "The announcement by BAA is against the current CAA
position on cross subsidy and we would be outraged if our passengers
at Gatwick who have no interest in Stansted are forced to pay for a
£4bn gold plated development that has no airline support at all! "
The Charter Airline
Group has serious concerns over the ability of BAA to fund the
development and maintains Stansted should only be developed if the
users are willing to pay for it.
In light of BAA's
announcement that they intend to raise the money to fund Stansted's
second runway development by charging £1 to all passengers
travelling through Gatwick and Heathrow, the charter airlines will
now be adding their voices to the call for the Civil Aviation
Authority to stand by its statement to ensure Stansted's development
should be financially self supporting and should only encompass what
it's users are willing to pay for.
Peter Brown Chairman
of the Charter Airline Group added: "This is yet another abuse of
BAA's monopoly position of the London airports and adds to the
growing number of reasons why the BAA should be broken up. Until the
CAA can ensure BAA can fund Stansted though current users charges we
believe work should continue on the case for a third runway at
Heathrow and a second runway at Gatwick."
Notes:
The Charter Airline
Group of the UK (CAG) represents the UK's leading leisure airlines,
First Choice Airways, Monarch Airlines, MyTravel Airways, Thomas
Cook Airlines and Thomsonfly.com (formally Britannia Airways).
Between them these
airlines operate from 26 different UK airports to over 85
destinations within the EU in addition to a wide range of
destinations outside the EU, carrying over 32 million passengers per
year.
Airlines Offer a "Two
Cheers" Welcome for Gatwick Growth Proposal
4 April
2005
The Charter
Airline Group representing the UK's leading holiday airlines today gave two
cheers to the newly published Gatwick Airport Masterplan setting out the
BAA's plans for future growth at Gatwick.
Peter Brown,
Chairman of the CAG and Chief Executive of Monarch Airlines said: "Whilst we
are delighted that the BAA has confirmed that the option of a second runway
at Gatwick is both a practical and economic solution to providing additional
aviation growth in the South East, we are disappointed that it is only
suggested in the context of a failure to move forwards with an additional
runway at Heathrow. We strongly believe that there is case for additional
runway capacity being brought on line at Gatwick in its own right and the
Gatwick Masterplan confirms that. We continue to oppose any cross
subsidisation of airline charges to fund a new runway at Stansted."
"We doubt that
the figure of 45 million annual passengers at Gatwick will be achieved from
a single runway without a radical change in the average size of aircraft at
Gatwick and thus the airport will become gridlocked much sooner than either
the BAA or The Government believes. Fortunately the land will be safeguarded
to allow for a change of mind in the future when this becomes more obvious."
Notes:
The Charter
Airline Group of the UK (CAG) represents the UK's leading leisure airlines,
Britannia Airways, First Choice Airways, Monarch Airlines, MyTravel Airways
and Thomas Cook Airlines.
Between them
these airlines operate from 23 different UK airports to over 80 destinations
within the EU in addition to a wide range of destinations outside the EU,
carrying over 32 million passengers per year.'
Leisure
Airlines Respond To Government Proposals For Future Night Flying
Restrictions
29 October 2004
The Charter
Airline Group (CAG) representing the UK's leading leisure airlines Britannia
Airways, First Choice Airways, Monarch Airlines, My Travel Airways and
Thomas Cook Airlines together make the following response to the
Government's Stage 1 consultation on new night flying restrictions at
Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted to apply from 30 October 2005.
CAG airlines collectively carry over 32 million passengers annually to and
from a worldwide range of leisure destinations from around 20 UK airports.
GENERAL COMMENT
CAG airlines do not operate any series of flights from Heathrow and together
base just four aircraft at Stansted. However, their largest operation in the
UK is Gatwick where together they base about forty-five aircraft in the
summer months, somewhat fewer in the winter.
Before commenting on the detail of the consultation, we urge the Government
to take account of the findings of the report it has prepared on Attitudes
to Noise from Aviation Sources in England, in particular the findings of the
Phase 1 report of July 2004. Section 2.2 of this report made further
investigation into the impact of night noise at selected airports including
Gatwick. Following on from a number of random interviews with local
residents, paragraph 2.2.5 stated:
It was clear from the interviews that … respondents living close to LGW
appear to have lower levels of disturbance and annoyance from nighttime
aircraft noise than those living near EMA, despite the higher overall amount
of nighttime traffic at LGW. Focusing explicitly on nighttime noise in the
LGW area interviews elicited relatively low levels of concern, in contrast
to the unanimous concern expressed unsolicitedly by EMA respondents.
According to the Aviation White Paper, Gatwick sustains approximately
100,000 direct and indirect jobs both on and off-site. Many of these people,
including the writer, are also local residents and choose to live within the
airport noise contours. While this in itself does not necessarily lessen the
need to continue to strive towards further reductions in aviation noise over
the dramatic improvements achieved in recent years directly attributed to
investment in new technology by airlines, it might reasonably be argued that
the relatively few numbers of complaints made either by individuals or
(minority) elected or unelected local authorities seeking to constrain
airport activity that would almost certainly lead to lost jobs are probably
not representative of the many.
We therefore believe this should be taken into account into the calculation
of the draft RIA to be provided at stage two. To that end, it is also
pertinent to take account of the draft interim Study Report on the economic
impact of night flights in Europe, published by the EU Commission that
concludes that well over 360,000 jobs in the EU are dependent on night
flights.
ANSWERS TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS POSED
Q3. The data would be more balanced were it to include more historic
information detailing the dramatic reduction in the numbers of people
affected by aircraft noise over the past ten years or so. In 1996, almost
15,000 people lived within the Gatwick 57dBA contour - today there are just
over 4,000.
Q4. We are not convinced that the setting of specific but differing
environmental objectives at the London Airports beyond the general
objectives as set out in the UK Regulations represents a prudent or
consistent way to proceed. We are concerned there is a risk that these might
be arbitrary and discriminatory pandering to the concerns of an
unrepresentative few. There is however a role for better land use planning
to preclude further residential development in noise sensitive areas
probably by strengthening PPG24.
Q5. We agree that the QC system is appropriate for the future.
Q6(a) We could probably agree in principle with the introduction of a new
QC/0.25 band but would wish to see proper modelling as to how this might
affect quota usage before being certain.
We are content with retention of the adjustment as quoted.
(c) Over the past few years, we have consistently supported the prohibition
of QC/4 aircraft from being scheduled to operate in the NQP. While there has
been a voluntary ban, it has not been a complete success due to the
exception of the DAS Air Cargo service at Gatwick, responsible for the
majority of night infringements. However, we DO NOT support a complete
operational ban, at least not in respect of passenger aircraft, throughout
the NQP as this could have a very deleterious affect on passenger
convenience when facing delays if, due to the exceptional unserviceability
of an aircraft, the only other non-fleet aircraft available (probably
through a last minute sub-charter) is a QC/4 aircraft. This may well be the
case in peak season, particularly in respect of long-haul services. Further
delay due to the imposition of such a ban would also have serious cost
implications for passenger airlines primarily due to the advent of
Regulation EC 261/2004 giving passengers an absolute entitlement to refunds
in the event of a delay of more than five hours for whatever reason.
Q7 We support the common arrangements but with individual movements limits
and noise quotas set for each airport to meet the differing demands. The
night quota period should remain the same at each airport.
We OPPOSE any extension in the NQP, particularly in the morning period after
0600, due to the significance of this period to our programme. Each CAG
member is providing financial details separately.
It would be impossible for us to reschedule flights currently in the night
period into the daytime. Apart from there being insufficient daytime slots
to absorb these flights (at both ends of the journey), the economics of
charter relies on multiple “rotations” (return flights) per day and the
aircraft are already fully utilised during the daytime. Such restriction in
aircraft utilisation for effectively one-third of the 24 hour period would
destroy the economics and probably the viability of the operation. This is
one reason why most UK charter operators utilise modern, quiet aircraft that
generally are unhindered by night flying restrictions on noisier types.
Unfortunately it is difficult to quantify the value of any individual
flights to the business other than in general terms. It is not reasonable to
make the simplistic assumption that if certain flights were not permitted to
operate in particular time bands that it would just be the revenue from
those flights that would be lost to the business. At both Gatwick and
Stansted, CAG airlines operate intensive programmes with aircraft often
scheduled for late arrivals and early departures within the existing night
period. Were we unable to operate aircraft in the 0600-0700 period due to
increased night restrictions, it would not be possible to reschedule
operations into the daytime period due to capacity constraints. In effect
whole aircraft would become uneconomic and would be withdrawn.
Leisure
Airlines Oppose Stansted Runway Subsidy
02 August
2004
Britannia, Thomas Cook, First Choice, My Travel and Monarch Airlines who
together form the Charter Airline Group of the UK and who fly over 31million
passengers a year, have raised serious doubts over the viability of a new
runway at BAA Stansted Airport.
The
concern centres on the proposed funding for the new runway. In a joint
letter to British Airport Authority, who own Stansted Airport, the
Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, the CAG have
objected to paying higher fees at London Gatwick and Heathrow in order for
the proposed £4bn new runway at Stansted to be constructed.
Recent
events at Stansted involving Ryanair and their refusal to pay landing fees
to the BAA have raised serious doubts within the industry that BAA will be
able to fund the development of the new runway without cross subsidisation
from other London Airports.
Peter
Brown Managing Director of Monarch Airlines said “We believe Stansted should
only be developed if the users are willing to pay for it. We see no
evidence that BAA can pay for this runway without cross subsidisation and we
are left to make the conclusion that cross subsidy is the only way left to
raise the money. Until this can be otherwise adequately demonstrated, work
should continue on the case for a third runway at Heathrow and a second
runway at Gatwick, the latter option being unconstrained by the
environmental problems that plague Heathrow.”
Kevin
Hatton, MD of Britannia added, “If Ryanair, who make up 63% of the traffic
at Stansted, won’t pay their current landing fees then what hope have the
BAA got of raising the cash through increasing charges to fund a £4bn pound
development? We don’t want to see our fees increased at other BAA airports
to fund a white elephant that has little industry support. We support the
Government’s decision to expand airport capacity in the south east but
firmly believe development should only go ahead if the BAA can show that
Stansted users are willing to pay for the new runway and they will not have
to resort to cross subsidy. The white paper clearly states that new
capacity should be paid for by airport users.”
Britannia
Press Office: 01582 428180
First Choice Press Office:
01293 588714
Monarch Press Office: 01582
398287
The Charter
Airline Group's Reaction to Government White Paper on Air Travel in the UK
16 December
2003
"The Charter
Airline Group welcomes the Government's acceptance of the need for new
runway capacity to meet the anticipated tripling of demand in the next
thirty years. In particular we support the Government's stated intention to
safeguard land at Gatwick for a new wide-spaced runway both on its own
merits and in case the conditions attached to a new Heathrow runway cannot
be met. However, we are disappointed that Stansted is likely to be the first
airport in the south-east to receive a new runway and have some concerns
over how this might be funded. We welcome plans for new runway and terminal
provision at regional airports to meet demand in the future. We are ready to
address the environmental challenges brought about by such growth with a
commitment to continue to operate modern, quiet, fuel efficient, low
emission aircraft in our core fleets."
Price of Holidays
will soar if Gatwick is not Expanded
3 July 2003
Unless a second
runway is built at London Gatwick Airport, holidays will increase by up to
£100 per person, say the UK’s leading holiday airlines, air2000, Britannia,
Monarch, My Travel and Thomas Cook.
Commenting on the Government’s current consultation on airport development
in the southeast over the next 30 years, the Charter Airline Group aims to
safeguard affordable leisure travel for future generations.
“One of the greatest achievements in air travel over the last 30 years has
been its expansion from the preserve of the privileged few to become an
accessible and affordable facility for everyone,” said Peter Brown, Chairman
of the Charter Airline Group.
Currently 80% of all international travel from the UK is for leisure
purposes*. Gatwick airport is the most popular choice of airport for these
people. By 2030 passenger numbers are expected to triple to 500 million, 300
million of which would use airports in the south east of England..
“Nine out of ten Britons now holiday abroad thanks to the UK aviation
industry being the most competitive in Europe. Almost 70 per cent of leisure
travellers departing the UK are drawn from the C/D/E socio-demographic
groups. For holidaymakers living in the South East, Gatwick is their main
choice of airport. To choke off growth at Gatwick would effectively exclude
many of these people from travelling,” said Mr Brown.
As well as increasing the cost of holidays, restricting demand would also
lead to a significant impact on the environment as people are forced to
travel further afield to get to a different departure airport. For example,
if you live in Kent you may have to travel to Stansted or Luton airport.
A second runway will benefit local residents bringing holiday flights to
more destinations more cheaply and with it, substantial business benefits.
If future demand is not met there can be no growth in the holiday industry
creating massive implications for jobs, the economy and affordable travel
for everyone.
|
