White Paper - The Future of Air Transport

On 16th December 2003 the Government's issued it's White Paper - "The Future of Aviation"  - which sets out a strategic framework for the development of airport capacity in the United Kingdom over the next 30 years [White Paper and associated documents].  See also the Department's press release on the White Paper and the list of supporting reports issued by the Department in February 2004. 

Apart from the impact on individual airports throughout the UK - click here 2003 DfT Regional Press Releases about the White paper and search among the December 2003 for regional DfT Press Releases giving the details - the White Paper outlines a number of environmental and other measures of more general application:-

Chapter 3

• Noise Amelioration/Acoustic Insulation - see paras 3.10 to 3.27 and also the information below on the Control of Noise from Civil Aircraft.
• Climate Change - see paras 3.35 to 3.43
• Local air quality - see see paras 3.28 to 3.31

Chapter 4

• Regional air services to London - see paras 4.39 to 4.48

Chapter 12

• Airport master plans - see paras 12.7 to 12.9
• Safeguarding Land -see paras 12.3 to 12.6
• Blight - see paras 12.13 - 12.17
• Delivering surface access improvements - see paras 12.18 - 12.24

Attached is a three page summary of the White Paper prepared for the Liaison Group

The White Paper follows a major consultation on the future of aviation, launched in July 2002, which attracted around 500,000 responses. On 3/4th July 2003 the ACCs Annual Liaison Meeting considered a paper outlining the issues (MS Word - 24kb) and resolved to submit a number of general points for consideration by the Government in drawing up the White Paper - see paragraphs 4-8 of the Minutes the Meeting .

Following the publication of the White Paper consultative committees have been considering the implications of its proposals both locally, and more widely on the industry as a whole, and getting ready to watch over the implementation by the Government and individual airports.

Top of Page

2006 Progress Report

On 28 June 2005 Transport Minister, Derek Twigg, made a speech in which he reviewed the progress made on the Government's Aviation White Paper. This promised that a progress report on the White Paper would be made at the end of 2006 and this was published on 14th December 2006 [The Progress Report].

The progress report reaffirms the Government's commitment to the strategy set out in the White Paper, that is, support for the development of the aviation sector across the UK, predominantly through making the best use of existing capacity, and ensuring where new capacity is required its provision is in line with environmental obligations.

As part of this, the Department announced a new mechanism to help inform decisions on major increases in aviation capacity. The 'emissions cost assessment' will consider whether the aviation sector is meeting its external climate change costs. The Department of Transport launched a consultation about this in August 2007.

Other achievements detailed in the report include:

• Progress within Europe on including aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme.
• Royal Assent of the Civil Aviation Act, strengthening powers over the control of aircraft noise and local air quality.
• Industry progress in reducing the noise of the airline fleet and in addressing local air quality issues
• Improvements to passenger facilities at airports across the UK .
• Establishment of better dialogue between local communities and airport developers as a result of the publication, for the first time and after local consultation, of airport 'master plans'. These documents provide a basis for ensuring that measures to address noise, air quality, impacts on biodiversity and heritage, and issues of blight are properly considered, clearly set out and taken forward in an open and inclusive way.
• Launch of a Government scheme for offsetting all official flights.

The Government also said it would bring forward proposals to make it simpler for air passengers to offset the carbon emissions arising from the flights that they take by setting out a government standard for how such schemes should operate.

Top of Page

UK air passenger demand and carbon dioxide forecasts

The White Paper was supported by forecasts of demand for air travel at UK airports which were reported in Air Traffic Forecasts for the United Kingdom in 2000.  Further supporting analysis of demand and carbon emissions forecasts from UK aviation were set out in Passenger Forecasts: Additional Analysis and Aviation and Global Warming in 2004.

The 2006 Progress Report on the White Paper included updated passenger demand forecasts and committed the Government to publish in 2007:

• a technical note on our passenger demand forecast methods and results; and,
• revised UK aviation emissions forecasts.

The 140 page Report was published in November 2007. It sets out the Goernment's latest demand, CO2 forecasting, and appraisal methods; gives updated passenger demand and CO2 forecasts; and updates its economic appraisal results.

The headline findings are:

• If unconstrained by airport capacity, air travel demand at UK airports is forecast under the central case to grow strongly from 228 million passengers per annum (mppa) in 2005 to 495mppa in 2030 (within the range 460-540mppa).
• UK aviation CO 2 emissions are forecast to grow from 37.5MtCO 2 in 2005 to 59MtCO 2 in 2030 (within the range 55MtCO 2 to 63MtCO 2) . After 2030, the growth in emissions is projected to slow, partly due to capacity constraints slowing demand growth. By 2050 emissions are projected to flatten and reach 60MtCO 2 , within the range 53MtCO 2 to 67MtCO 2 .
• An updated analysis shows that the development of a new runway at Stansted, and at Heathrow (subject to noise and air quality conditions), supported in the Air Transport White Paper, would deliver a net economic benefit of £21-22bn (net present value, 2006 prices). The development would have a strong Benefit-Cost Ratio in the range 2.8-3.0.

The DfT say that since 2004 there have been a number of developments relevant to their forecasts of passenger demand and CO2 emissions, and appraisal results:

• In 2006 the Government published the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and the Eddington study.  Following the recommendations in these reports, the DfT has revised its Transport Appraisal Guidance to include a requirement that economic appraisal of transport schemes should include quantification and monetisation of impacts on carbon emissions.
• The Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform (BERR) has revised its projections of oil prices, while the Treasury and the IMF have updated their forecasts of UK and international economic growth.
• DEFRA has revised its guidance on the shadow price of carbon dioxide.

The Department adds it has updated its airport capacity assumptions in line with the latest plans indicated by airport operators, and the Department's process of continual development has delivered a number of incremental improvements to their forecasting methodology.

Top of Page

Adding capacity at Heathrow

The 2003 White Paper 'The Future of Air Transport' made clear that given the economic benefits to the UK, the Government supported the further development of Heathrow by adding a third runway and exploring the scope for making greater use of the existing runways. But this was subject to meeting strict local conditions on air quality and noise and improving public transport access:

• There should be no net increase in the total area of the 57dBA noise contour. This would be measured at 127sq.km which was the size of the contour in the summer of 2002.

• Government would need to be confident that levels of nitrogen dioxide (the critical pollutant) would be contained within EU limits, which will apply from 2010 or 2015 where the European Commission agrees the case for extension.

• There must be improvements to public transport access to the airport.

The White Paper promised further work and consultation on a number of issues relating to Heathrow Airport. In the light of that work, the Department in November 2007 launched a consultation on how Heathrow could be developed over the next 20 years or more. The ideas for development included:

• A proposal for a third runway and associated passenger terminal facilities, and the Government's assessment of how the strict local environmental conditions mentioned above could be met;

• A proposal to introduce 'mixed mode' on Heathrow's existing two runways as an interim measure. In considering the 'mixed mode' options the consultation would look at the position with or without additional air traffic movements;

• The results of a review of operational procedures on the existing runways - 'westerly preference' (the preferred direction of operation) and the 'Cranford agreement' (which generally prohibits easterly departures off the northern runway) - irrespective of any further changes; and

• An assessment of the effects of night-time rotation between westerly and easterly preference, and of the current trial of runway alternation in the 0600 to 0700 period.

The consultation came to an end on 27 February 2008. It was one of the largest consultation exercises ever run by the Department of Transport with summary documents sent to 217,000 households around the airport and 13 exhibitions visited by more than 5000 people. The proposals stirred up and stirred up considerable controversy over a long period.

The Government's decision was announced in January 2009 - see also the DfT's press release: In summary the announcement confirmed support for a third runway and associated passenger terminal facilities, while rejecting the case for mixed mode. Westerly preference would be retained, but the Cranford agreement would be ended. Night time rotation and early morning runway alternation are both confirmed.

Allowing 'mixed mode' to go ahead on the two existing runways would have seen them used simultaneously for both arrivals and take-offs. This would have ended the current system of runway alternation which gives local residents respite from overhead aircraft noise for at least 8 hours each day. Ending the Cranford agreement will spread noise more fairly around affected communities and extend the benefits of runway alternation to the residents of Windsor and others to the west of the airport, and Hatton and North Feltham to the east.

Top of Page

Sustainable Development Commission

On 21st May 2008 the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) published a report, prepared jointly with Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), which calls for a special commission to establish the true benefits and impacts of aviation.

Drawing on a twelve-month process of dialogue, the report, entitled Breaking the holding pattern - A new approach to aviation policy making in the UK, argued that there is widespread controversy over key data on air travel in the UK, including the benefits to the UK economy, its contribution to climate change, noise and air pollution, and the potential for technology to reduce aviation's environmental impacts. It concludes that the high levels of conflict around the effects of aviation are bad for government, the industry, and citizens, creating rising distrust and undermining policy decisions.

The Report recommended that the government should:

• Convene a special commission to compile an updated evidence base on the economic, social and environmental benefits and costs of UK aviation, seeking maximum consensus amongst stakeholders
• Consult the public and key stakeholders on the future of air travel in the UK, setting out policy options to stimulate a national debate
• Incorporate the findings and recommendations of the special commission into the Air Transport White Paper.

They also advised that the proposed expansion at Heathrow should be put on hold until the Air Transport White Paper has been reviewed. The review would also have implications for decisions on expansion at other UK airports, including Stansted.

Top of Page

Airport Master Plans

The Future of Air Transport White Paper of December 2003 set out a 30-year strategic framework for the development of airport capacity across the UK . The White Paper did not authorise or preclude any particular development, but set out a policy framework to guide decisions of future planning applications.

The White Paper invited airport operators to publish master plans explaining how their development proposals would help inform the regional and local planning process, and how they take account of local impacts and the wider environmental impacts of air travel. The Department for Transport, Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Government jointly published guidance on the preparation of master plans in 2004 [DfT Guidance][DfT's Press Release]. Airport operators will bring forward development proposals through the statutory land-use planning system in the normal way.

Master plans are developed and owned by airport operators, and the Department has no formal role in assessing or approving them. However, the White Paper committed the Government to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the policies set out in the White Paper. The Department has therefore commissioned independent experts to develop a framework setting out possible methodologies for evaluating White Paper policies, including master plans.

More than twenty of the 30 airports identified for significant development in the White Paper have now either consulted on a draft master plan, or produced a final plan. Others have made statements of intent summarising the issues their master plan will cover.

Of the airports which by April 2009 had not yet completed final or draft master plans, or made statements of intent…

• Exeter and Plymouth Airports had not yet committed to master plans because of ownership uncertainties;
• Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield has been out to consultation on its draft master plan and is now drafting the final version.
• Luton Airport published a master plan in 2005 but withdrew it in 2007 to refocus future development proposals on making the most of the existing site. A further master plan has not been produced

Top of Page

Civil Aviation Act 2006

The Civil Aviation Act 2006, which received the Royal Assent on 8th November 2006, implements important Future of Air Transport White Paper commitments to sustainable aviation and protection of passenger interests. Thus the Act:

• Clarifies and strengthens the measures available to airports for dealing with aircraft noise. This includes a greater ability to introduce and enforce noise amelioration measures beyond airport boundaries and an ability to take economic measures to reflect aircraft straying from routes designed to minimise noise. [See paras 3.10 to 3.27 of the White Paper and Control of Noise below]
• Provides explicit powers for airports to set charges which reflect local emissions from aircraft. The Secretary of State also has powers to direct airports to levy such charges. [See paras 3.28 to 3.31 of the White Paper]
• Provides powers for a levy to replenish the Air Travel Trust Fund, the purpose of which is to benefit customers of failed tour operators. This removes the need for the Government guarantee in place since 1992, and ensures the Government meets its obligations under EU law.
• Authorises local authority airport companies to undertake specified activities - such as making their expertise available to other airports and taking part in joint ventures - which are at present outside their powers. It thus makes a modest contribution to enabling local authority airports to compete on a more level playing field with privately owned airports.
• Enables the Civil Aviation Authority to recoup the costs of its Aviation Health Unit - which offers advice to air passengers, the aviation industry and to Government - by a levy from the aviation industry. This will save the taxpayer approximately £200,000 a year.
• Removes airlines' existing right of appeal to the Secretary of State in aviation route licensing cases decided by the Civil Aviation Authority thereby eliminating a layer of bureaucracy and speeding up the process.
• Clarifies the responsibilities of airport managers and police in relation to the protection and policing of airports which have been designated by the Secretary of State under section 25 of the Aviation Security Act 1982. This provision was added as an amendment to the Bill in November 2005

In the Commons stages of the Bill there were unsuccessful amendments to make the local authority responsible for setting up airport consultative committees rather than the airport operator.

The text of the Act can be seen on the OPSI website - there is a range of further information on the Act on the Department's website

In the DfT's December 2006 Progress Report on the White Paper The Future of Air Transport it is recommended (on page 32) that airport consultative committees should monitor how well the new powers in the 2006 Act are being implemented by airports. The Department wrote to all committees about this on 8th April 2008 (MSWord - 160kb)

Top of Page

The Eddington Report

In the 2005 Budget Sir Rod Eddington was jointly commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Transport to examine the long-term links between transport and the UK's economic productivity, growth and stability, within the context of the Government's broader commitment to sustainable development. The study was issued 1 December 2006 to accompany the 2006 Pre-Budget Report [The Eddington Report and related material]

The Report includes ideas for the significant reform of the planning process for strategic transport infrastructure schemes to improve efficiency and predictability without compromising fairness.

On 30th October 2007 the Department for Transport published Towards a Sustainable Transport System which is their response to both the Eddington Transport Study and the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change. The Department also issued a press release.

Top of Page

Barker Review of Land Use Planning

The Government announced in the 2005 Pre-Budget Report that Kate Barker had been asked to lead an independent review of land use planning, focusing on the link between planning and economic growth.

The final report of the review was published on 5 December 2006 and is available on the website of the Department for Communities and Local Government along with a link to a statement made that day by the Secretary of State. [Barker Report and statement]

The report included recommendations for Introducing a new system for dealing with major infrastructure projects, based around national Statements of Strategic Objectives and an independent Planning Commission to determine applications.

Top of Page

Planning for a Sustainable Future: White Paper

This White Paper, published on 21st May 2007, sets out the Government's proposals for reform of the planning system. It builds on recommendations from the Barker Review of Land Use Planning and the Eddington Transport Study and aims to improve speed, responsiveness and efficiency in land use planning.

Among other things it proposes reforms on how decisions are taken on nationally significant infrastructure projects, including energy, waste, waste-water and transport - including airport projects for a new tarmac, runway or infrastructure which increases an airport's capacity by over 5 million passengers per annum (mppa). It is proposed that decisions on such projects will be taken by a newly created independent commission “within the framework of the relevant national policy statement”.

The White Paper, and associated consultation papers and research reports, can be accessed from this page on the Department of Communities and Local Government website.

The Government's response to the many thousands of comments made in response to the White Paper was published on 27th November 2007.

Top of Page

Planning Act 2008

The Planning Bill, introduced into Parliament in November 2007, received the Royal Assent on 26 November 2008. The new Act builds on the proposals set out in the Planning White Paper and introduces a new system for nationally significant infrastructure planning, alongside further reforms to the town and country planning system. The new Act can be seen on the website of the Offie of Public Sector Information.

The IPC will only consider planning applications for esisting airports which have the effect of increasing the number of passengers by at least 10 million per year or increasing by at least 10,000 per year the number of air transport movements of cargo aircraft.

The Act makes provision for the Government to produce National Policy Statements (NPS) which will provide a comprehensive view of the case for national infrastructure development within a wide policy framework, covering economic, environmental and social issues.
 
The Government has stated its intention to produce a National Policy Statement for airports, based on the Air Transport White Paper (ATWP), which satisfies the requirements set out in the Planning Act. It will therefore be subject to an appraisal of sustainability, consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny. One option is to produce the airports NPS in conjunction with the next ATWP progress report which the Government is due to publish between 2009 and 2011. During the passage of the Planning Bill, ministers also made a commitment that the airports NPS (as well as the nuclear power NPS) would be location-specific. This means that the airports NPS will not only cover the national need, but it will also set out locations that the Government thinks are suitable for nationally significant development, and areas which it considers are not suitable “.

In January 2009 the Government published its Route Map for the implementation of the Infrastructure Planning Commission as well as a consultation document on the list of statutory consultees for National Policy Statements. The consultation closed on 20 April 2009. Click here to see the representations submitted on behalf of UKACCs.

On 30th March 2009 the Government launched a consultation seeking views on a suite of draft regulations and guidance documents. These set out the procedures for pre-application consultation on nationally significant infrastructure projects, and information an application submitted to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) should contain.  The deadline for comments is 19 June 2009

Top of Page

Review of Public Safety Zones

Public Safety Zones (PSZs) are areas of land at the ends of the runway within which development is restricted in order to control the number of people on the ground at risk of death or injury in the event of an aircraft accident on take-off or landing.

In July 2002, following a nationwide review, the PSZs at many airports were redefined and the Government issued specific Guidance (DfT Circular 1/2002 ) for local planning authorities on the control of development within them.  The basic policy objective governing the restriction on development is that there should be no increase in the number of people living, working or congregating in PSZs and that, over time, the number should be reduced as circumstances allow.

A new review of of PSZs is now in progress. In an April 2009 update the Department says that following preparatory work the revision of existing PSZs has now commenced, with revised PSZs recently being established at Southampton Airport.  Following Departmental policy these are based on traffic forecasts for 2024 (i.e. 15 years ahead); the previous PSZs used 2015 traffic forecasts

Meanwhile, it is believed that as the number of flights at an airport increases the area covered by a PSZ gets larger. Thus, people living in homes built outside the current PSZ can find themselves living within the new PSZ flowing from the current review. It is understood that in such circumstances the planning status of homes is not affected but concerns have been expressed whether such dwellings are blighted by the new PSZ reducing their value and making them difficult to sell.

Top of Page

BAA Market Investigation

On 12th December 2006 the Office of Fair Trading signalled its intention to refer the supply of airport services by BAA to the Competition Commission (CC) for more detailed investigation. It also made a recommendation that the airports regulator advise the Government on the case for the de-regulation of Manchester airport.

BAA owns Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Southampton in South East England, and Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen in Scotland. These airports have an annual turnover of £2 billion and handle over 60 per cent of all air passengers in the UK.

The OFT market study found:

• in the South East, BAA's airports handle ninety per cent of passenger trips, and these airports could under separate ownership compete to attract air passengers
• evidence of poor customer satisfaction
• significant investment at airports in the South East of England is planned. Without competition - investment could be inefficient - costly for air passengers and for the UK
• BAA's Scottish airports which carry over 80 per cent of Scottish air passengers, are not price regulated, and charges to airlines are higher than Gatwick and Stansted
• Glasgow, which faces some competition from Prestwick, has had the largest price decreases of BAA's airports in Scotland, and
• the study also found further evidence that competition between independently owned airports - such as Liverpool and Manchester - leads to improved value for air travellers.

The OFT Market Study can be downloaded from their website [OFT Market Study (pdf 2.8mb)].

Having studied the results of the consultation, the OFT on 30th March 2007 referred to the Competition Commission (CC) for further investigation the supply of airport services by the BAA in the UK [More Information]. The Competition Commission also issued a press release. The CC said it would like to hear from all interested parties, in writing, by 27 April 2007.

Following an initial period of information gathering, including visits to airports and holding hearings with interested parties, the Competition Commission in August 2007 published an Issues Statement which identifies the key questions to be addressed. [Issues Statement and Press Release]

On 22nd April 2008 the CC published a report on its ‘emerging thinking' on the investigation in which it set out its current view on competition in the relevant UK airports markets on the basis of the evidence (responses) it received and also identified areas where it was seeking further evidence by 30th May 2008. [CC Press Release]

Among the respondents to the CCs "emerging thinking" paper was the Civil Aviation Authority who sent in a paper on 24th May 2008. The CAA said it agreed that the common ownership of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted by BAA "is likely to prevent, restrict and/or distort competition". It was "now important to consider the appropriate ‘remedy' to the adverse effects of this common ownership, including divestment of airports and consequent reforms to the framework of economic regulation". [CAA Press Release]

On 20th August 2008 the CC published its provisional findings. [News release, notice of provisional findings, provisional findings report and notice of possible remedies].

The provisional findings were that there are competition problems at each of BAA’s seven UK airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Southampton in England, and Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen in Scotland) with adverse consequences for passengers and airlines. A principal cause is their common ownership by BAA. There were also competition problems arising from the planning system, aspects of Government policy and the system of regulation.

On 17th December 2008 the CC confirmed that, subject to final consultation, it would require BAA to sell both Gatwick and Stansted airports as well as Edinburgh airport. It also proposed to introduce measures to ensure that investment and levels of service at Heathrow, and possibly Gatwick and Stansted, meet more effectively the needs of airlines, passengers and other airport users. At Aberdeen airport, it proposed measures to promote investment linked to rebates on charges but in response to local pressure the CC in February proposed remedies thought to be more appropriate. The CC said also it intended to make recommendations to the Government on a more effective, and ultimately more flexible, system of airport regulation and also on aspects of government airports policy.

The CC’s provisional findings were considered by the UKACCs Working Group at its meeting on 12th January 2009 and it was agreed that a letter should be sent to the CC on behalf of the Liaison Group.

Having considered the responses to its provisional decision document the CC published its final report on 19th March 2009. The main points were that BAA must sell Gatwick, Stansted and either Edinburgh or Glasgow within two years.. They should be sold in sequence, beginning with Gatwick, then Stansted, followed by either Edinburgh or Glasgow. The sale of Gatwick was initiated by BAA in September 2008 and the sales process is already under way.

The CC also said it would require the BAA at Aberdeen to improve consultation with airlines as well as to publish certain financial and other information. In addition, the CC is recommending to the airports’ regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), that it should take certain specified action at Heathrow, the UK’s only hub airport, where BAA will continue to have substantial market power even after the sale of Gatwick and Stansted. Further, the CC is making recommendations to the Government on aspects of government airports’ policy as well as the present review of the airports regulatory regime.

Top of Page

Price Controls at BAA's London Airports and Manchester

Under the Airports Act 1986, the CAA is charged with setting price controls every five years at the BAA's London Airports (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead) as well as at Manchester. The most recent set of price controls for the London Airports was for the period from April 2008 to March 2013, On 20th December 2005 the CAA published a consultation paper on its policy for this review and describing also the regulatory policy likely to be relevant to the subsequent Manchester Airport review where the next set of price constrols will cover the period April 2009 to March 2014. The consultation document can be obtained from the CAA's website along with an Executive Summary and a 4 page non techncial guide. The closing date for consultation responses was Monday 20 March 2006

On 5th December 2006 the CAA published, for consultation, its initial regulatory proposals for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. There were separate proposals for the regulation of each airport grounded in the market circumstances of each:

• a continuation of the current price cap framework for Heathrow and Gatwick; and
• for Stansted, a recommendation to Government that it consider removing the requirement on the CAA to set price controls

Click this link to see the consultation document and associated papers - including a non-technical summary.The closing date for responses was Monday 5 February 2007.

The consultation did not cover control of airport charges at Manchester Airport. In January 2007 the CAA issued a policy consultation on price control at Manchester and there was an industry seminar. From the related documents it was clear that the CAA planned during 2007 to consider whether there remains a need to regulate prices at Manchester and also at Stansted.

On 30th March 2007 the CAA, as part of it review, referred Heathrow and Gatwick Airports to the Competition Commission along with a document setting out it's recommendations for price controls – click this link to pick up the relevant [CAA Info Alert and links to the key documents].

The Competition Commission issued its full report to the CAA on 28 September 2007, following a six-month inquiry. The CAA published the Commission's report, excised of commercially confidential information, on 3 October 2007.

On 20th November 2007 the CAA's published proposals for a final round of consultation.

On 15th January 2008 the Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, announced:

• Manchester would be de-designated so that at the end of the present (extended) price review period in April 2009 the Airport will be able to set its own charges .
• Stansted would continue to have the maximum level of its charges set by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The Government, she said, believes that this remains the best way of protecting passengers who use the airport

The Secretary of State's decision letters and accompanying documents can be found on the Department's website

The CAA on 11th March 2008 published its decisions for price controls for Heathrow and Gatwick airports for the five years ending on 31 March 2013. The CAA's package of price caps and incentives aimed to “encourage BAA to deliver genuine service quality improvements and to invest to raise the level of facilities and service that can be delivered to passengers and airlines. The outcome for passengers should be decently modern airports and consistently high service standards”.

The maximum charges set by the CAA were:

• Heathrow: £12.80 per passenger in 2008/09, an increase of £2.44 on a like-for-like basis, representing a 23.5 per cent increase in real terms from the current (2007/08) price cap, with allowed charges subsequently increasing in each of the following four years by no more than retail price index (RPI) inflation plus 7.5 per cent each year.
• Gatwick £6.79 per passenger in 2008/09, an increase of £1.18 on a like-for-like basis, representing a 21.0 per cent increase in real terms from the current (2007/08) price cap, with allowed charges subsequently increasing in each of the following four years by no more than RPI inflation plus 2.0 per cent.

There is a press briefing with more details on the CAA's website

The pre-April 2008 price controls applicable at Stansted Airport were extended for a further year until April 2009. On 29th April 2008 the CAA made a formal, mandatory reference to the Competition Commission (CC) and set out a number of options for the price control design.  The same day the CC invited evidence from interested parties to be submitted by 13th May. On 4th November 2008 the CC’s report and recommendations were made public and on 9th December 2008 and on 9th December 2008 the CAA published its proposals for Stansted's Price Controls for 2009-14. The proposals can be seen on the CAA's website along with a four page briefing.

The CAA's decision on the Economic Regulation of Stansted Airport 2009-2014 was published in March 2009. The Airport's owner, the BAA commented that it recognised the cost pressures facing the entire industry today, and that it had agreed realistic capital spending plans with airlines over the coming five years. Looking to the long-term, the BAA felt the regulator should not discourage future important investment which it accepts is necessary and they were disappointed that a large element of the full cost of developing new capacity has been retrospectively disallowed.

Top of Page

Review of the economic regulation of UK airports

On 22nd April 2008 the Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, announced a review of the economic regulation of the UK airport system. Te review will be carried out by the Department supported by a panel of experts.

The work is expected to cover three key areas:

What should be the objectives of effective economic regulation of airports?

What are the weaknesses in the current systems of regulation?

What lessons can be learned from alternative regulatory systems?

The Review will “take into account the Department's commitment to the aims of the Government's better regulation strategy and the work will ensure that the need for sector-specific regulation and the administrative costs of that regulation are kept to the minimum necessary”.

If legislation is required as a result of the Review it will be taken forward in a future legislative session. There will thus be no changes to the basis on which the current price caps at Heathrow and Gatwick airports are set. This applies also to the cap which will take effect at Stansted from 1 April 2009.

On 18th June 2008 the Secretary of State invited passengers, businesses and environment groups to provide evidence to the Department for Transport to consider as part of the review which will look at how best to provide incentives to:

* improve the passenger experience
* encourage appropriate and timely investment in additional capacity to help deliver economic growth in line with wider Government policy
* address the wider environmental impacts of aviation on airport development.

The Secretary of State also announced the names of the panel of experts who will join the Chair, Professor Martin Cave of Warwick University, in undertaking the review. The panel members were described as experts in their fields of economic regulation, business and consumer representatio.

On 18th June 2008 the Secretary of State also published a document which aimed to clarify the purpose of the review including the type of information which the Department was seeking and how to respond.

On 16th July and 10th September 2008 there were Seminars at which a number of interested orgnisations made presentations. These can also be seen on the Department's website.

Review Group's Emerging Thinking

On 27th November 2008 the Department published a letter from the Review Group enclosing a Note of the Review Group's Emerging Thinking on the issues covered by the Review. The Panel said it favoured regulation by licence, with airports of different size and market power having different licence obligations.

Consultative committees noted that the Group was also thinking that one licence condition might be to require (some) airports to have consultation procedures with local authorities and the community in relation to noise and other local impacts, such as land use and congestion.  It was not clear how this sat with the legislation with respect to consultative committees. It is thought the Department for Transport also noted this point and took steps to ensure the Panel was informed about the present network of consultative committees

Report of the Independent Panel - Consultation on the Department's Proposals

Having received and considered the report of the Independent Panel the Secretary of State for Transport on 9th March announced in a press release plans to give the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) a new primary duty to promote the interests of passengers. The plans also provide that Passenger Focus should represent air passengers as they do rail and bus users. Also announced was

• A switch to a new licensing regime for larger airports: licensing - which is common in many regulated industries - allows greater flexibility than the current system and will enable the CAA to target regulatory activity where and when it is needed to protect the interests of consumers. There would be three tiers of licence which place varying levels of control on airports depending on their market power.
• New and streamlined appeal processes to improve access to justice for those affected by regulatory decisions.
• Measures to improve outcomes for consumers by promoting the financial and operational resilience of airports, including a specific financing duty on CAA, and new licence conditions for larger airports

Full details of the proposals are to be found in the Department’s consultation document which can be seen on the Department’s website.  The 12 week consultation came to an end on 5th June 2009 .Details of the the consultation, including information about the Review and the full report of the Independent Panel, can be seen on the Department's website. See also the report prepared for the UKACCs Annual Meeting on 27/28 May 2009 in Belfast.

One of the Government's suggestions is that Passenger Focus should take over from the Air Transport Users Council (AUC)  the latter’s role as the national body responsible for airline and airport consumer matters. Passenger Focus currently handles complaints about rail and bus services outside London. This stirred up considerable controversy among consultatative committees and at the Belfast meeting it was agreed to submit an alternative proposal. See also the responses submitted by Passenger Focus and AUC.

Top of Page

Air passenger experience at Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Manchester - CAA Study

In November 2007, the Secretary of State for Transport commissioned advice from CAA on improving the through-airport passenger experience. Concern was expressed about particular pinch points where there is potential for delay and where the responsibility for delivering a good service lies with a combination of bodies.

As part of its work the CAA commissioned a passenger survey. The resulting reports can be accessed via this link to the DfT’s website. Paper 1 sets out the results of the Survey while in Paper 2 the CAA’s gives its advice on improving the through airport journey.

Top of Page

Charges for Airport Services

There is growing concern among passengers and in the media about the recent trend among some airports to introduce charges for services which were once provided free of charge as part of the airport service.  These include:

• Charges for so-called Fast Track security lanes which allow passengers to by-pass the ordinary security facilities – such facilities have already been introduced at Liverpool, Bristol, Luton, Leeds Bradford and possibly other airports.
• Charges for the transparent, re-sealable bags which must be used by passengers carrying liquids, gels and aerosols in their hand baggage –it is understood that such charges have been introduced at Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol and Luton and possibly other airports.  The BAA says that at its seven airports the bags will continue to be supplied free of charge.
• Charges for baggage trolleys – charges for baggage trolleys already operate at Manchester, Luton and Bristol and perhaps at other Airports too.
• Charges to use thepassenger drop off facility outside the airport terminal – for example Birmingham Airport charges £1 for 15 minutes for its "drop and go" car park next to the terminals, or £2 for 30 minutes and in April it was reported that Luton would introduce a £1 charge for dropping passengers off at the terminal with a 10 minute time limit.
• Airport Development Fees– since April 2007 Norwich Airport has charged each adult departing passenger a fee of £3 (£1 for children aged 2-15).  This is to “provide funding for improved check-in facilities, retail and catering and car parking as well as to improve aircraft services such as runway, taxiway and aprons, safety and security systems for safe landing, take-off and efficient management of aircraft.  A similar fee of £5 for all departing passengers under 16 years of age has been charged by Newquay Airport since 2005. Maybe delegates know of other airports where such a charge is made?

The new charges have to be seen in the context of the economic downturn. A letter sent to the Government in April 2009 by the Airport Operators Association (AOA) details how abruptly the airports' fortunes had reversed. According to the Association several airports were already making a loss, and more wouldl become loss-making as the year progressed.  The AOA’s letter called on the Government not to press ahead with new policies and legislation including Ofcom’s proposals which would mean airport’s paying significantly more for radar and VHF systems, and the Policing and Crime Bill which will mean that many airports will have to pay, or pay more,  towards the cost of airport policing.

According to many observers the financial situation leaves airports with little choice but to consider new revenue streams with many  following the example of the budget airlines' in seeking out new ways of charging passengers. The AOA says that many of the new schemes are not mandatory but give passengers “additional choice”.  That, of course begs the question whether the standard of the ordinary service is acceptable.

According to a report received by one consultative committee passenger research suggests that one of the key drivers for people using the new fast track security facility is that it offers a simple, hassle free environment and ease of navigation.  The report says that passengers using low cost carriers are generally willing to pay small supplements for ‘added benefits’ such as fast track security and airline innovations such as ‘Speedy Boarding’ and Web Check-in.

The Air Transport Users Council certainly believes passengers will be targeted with more charges but they will take up increases with the airports concerned. The budget airlines have complained that the charges are driving more passengers away and they may stop operating out of airports which have excessive charges.

There have been suggestions that the new charges have been brought about by increased airport security requirements. However, the Department for Transport said there has been no major tightening of security measures at UK airports since the alert of August 2006; indeed since then there had been several relaxations which have reduced the burden on airport operators."

Top of Page

Air Passenger Duty

In the pre-Budget Report in 2007, the Government announced that it intended to replace air passenger duty with a duty payable per plane, rather than per passenger. This it was thought would send better environmental signals and ensure “that aviation makes a greater contribution to covering its environmental costs, while ensuring that a fair level of revenue continues to be raised from the sector in order to support public services”.

In the event the Government decided not to proceed with new tax.  Instead Air Passenger Duty (APD) is to be reformed from a two-band system, to a four-band system. The four distance bands are to be set at 2,000 mile intervals from London, and destinations were categorised based on the distance from London to the capital city of the destination country/territory concerned.  The reformed APD takes effect on 1st November 2009. The travel trade is less than happy about the changes but the Treasury insist  that while distance bands will leave some countries “disappointed”, they are  “administratively simple”

Meanwhile there is ongoing disquiet about the practice of some airlines of charging fees for reclaiming APD when a passenger has to cancel a flight.  A report by Which?Holiday published in March 2009 found Jet2.com charged £40 per APD reclaim transaction, while Flybe and bmi charged £25 per person, BA between £15 and £30 per person and Ryanair £15 per person.  This compares with the current APD charge of £10 on short-haul economy flights. In some instances passengers are thus worse off if they make a claim. “Airlines should not be the automatic beneficiary of any unclaimed APD,” said the report, “we think that any administration fees that put people off claiming back the APD are unfair."  This is an issue taken up by the AUC some time ago but without success.

Top of Page

Sustainable Aviation Strategy

This Strategy, unveiled in June 2005, is the work of UK airlines, airport operators, aircraft manufacturers and NATS, the principal air navigation service provider. It is billed as the first national sustainability strategy ever produced for the aviation industry and establishes the mechanisms for monitoring and reporting on progress towards the goals and detailed commitments it sets out. The key elements are:

• Limiting climate change impact by improving fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions by 50 per cent per seat kilometre by 2020 compared with 2000 levels;
• Improving air quality by reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 per cent over the same period;
• Lowering the perceived external noise of new aircraft by 50 per cent by 2020 compared with their 2000 equivalents;
• Establishing a common system for the reporting of total CO2 emissions and fleet fuel efficiency by the end of 2005, and pressing for aviation's inclusion in the EU emissions trading scheme at the earliest possible date;
• New airport plans for community-related noise limitations, including landing and take-off restrictions where necessary.

For more information see the DfT Press Release on the Strategy, the Sustainable Aviation Website and this Summary of the Strategy

The signatory companies agreed to publish a progress report every two years measuring progress towards the Goals. The first progress report was published in December 2006. The key points include:

• Significant progress on emissions trading, supported by strong industry representations to the EU Commission – draft legislation expected later this month
• Carbon offsetting offered to BA and Monarch passengers – more schemes about to be launched 
• Support for scientific research into aviation's ‘non-CO2' effects
• Significant progress towards the targets of 50% reduction in fuel burn and noise, and 80% reduction in NOx emissions, for new aircraft in 2020 compared with the equivalent aircraft in 2000.
• Support for the Single European Sky project, with prospect of considerable efficiencies in aircraft routing across Europe
• SA signatory Airlines have published fuel efficiency and CO2 emissions - a major step towards public information on CO2 emissions from British airlines
• Creation of climate change and noise abatement Task Groups, designed to accelerate measures to reduce or mitigate the climate and noise impacts of aviation
• Continued investment in air transport and aerospace manufacturing, creating jobs and supporting business investment and tourism in the UK . (Direct air transport employment 186,000, £11.4bn contribution to UK economy. Direct aerospace manufacturing employment 124,000, £30bn of new orders in 2005.)

Top of Page

Omega

Omega is a publicly funded partnership which offers impartial, innovative and topical insights into the environmental effects of the air transport industry and sustainability solutions.

The partnership embraces nine UK universities led by Manchester Metropolitan University with Cambridge and Cranfield. Other partners include Leeds, Loughborough, Oxford, Reading, Sheffield and Southampton. It draws on the expert skills in these institutions including the environmental and social sciences, technology, business, economics, environment, politics and global regulation.

On 4-5 March 2009 Omega held a dissemination seminar when an overview report was published. The purpose was to present knowledge transfer outputs and key achievements of the first two years during which Omega has been co-ordinating research on some 40 projects divided into eight key areas.

At the time of writing (April 2009) Omega is seeking funding to continue with its work for several years.

Top of Page

Aviation and Climate Change

A Hot Issue

Over the past year or two there has been a huge escalation in public awareness and concern about climate change and the issue is now centre stage in the media. Against this background aviation is firmly in the spotlight and given the coverage it receives it would be surprising if emissions from aircraft were not perceived as already the primary cause of climate change! Looking back through the output of the UKACCs news service media:

• In December 2006 the Chancellor doubled Airport Passenger Duty. Environmental protection was cited as the justification for this although many in the industry are not so sure – they believe this was a convenient excuse for what was essentially a tax gathering measure. The tax has certainly been controversial. It applied to tickets already purchased and gave rise to litigation and there was another challenge on the basis that the tax infringes human rights (i.e. the right of people to leave the country)
• In January 2007 the Conservative Party joined the fray suggesting that domestic flights should be taxed heavily with the money used to improve the railways so that in five years' time everyone is choosing to go by train within the UK . And in March the Party announced proposals to levy VAT or fuel duty on domestic flights, or a per-flight tax on airlines, and also a green air miles scheme under which passengers would be issued with a 'green miles' allowance and forced to pay more if they took extra flights.
• “Carbon offsetting” has become one of the most popular means of attempting to neutralise CO2-generating activities such as flying. It allows consumers to contribute to projects such as tree planting to negate the effect of their flights. As mentioned in the paper on the Air Transport White Paper Progress Report, the Government will shortly be bringing forward proposals to make it simpler for air passengers to offset the carbon emissions arising from the flights that they take by setting out a government standard for how such schemes should operate.
• A Government standard is important. At the end of April EasyJet said that the carbon offsetting market is riddled with 'snake oil salesmen' determined to make excessive profits from green-minded air travellers.
• There is a new focus among the airlines on newer aircraft, better engines and bio fuels.


Top of Page

2002 Stakeholder Discussions

But the new focus on the climate change issue obscured the work going on in teh background to deal with the issues which started some long time ago. In his 2002 pre Budget Report the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government would discuss with stakeholders the most effective economic instruments for ensuring that the aviation industry is encouraged to take account of, and where appropriate reduce, its contribution to global warming, and local air and noise pollution.

These discussions took place in mid 2003. For more information please see the attached paper (MS Word - 31kb) considered by the ACCs Annual Liaison Meeting in Birmingham on 3/4 July 2003 and also the Department's website which includes copies of the consultation document and the note prepared by the Departments of the Stakeholder meetings. 

Top of Page

Emissions Trading

The Government's conclusions are included in their White Paper "The Future of Air Transport" issued in December 2003 - see above.  Chapter Three of the White Paper deals with Environmental Impacts - paragraphs 3.35 to 3.43 refer.  See also Government's Response to the Environmental Audit Committee's Report on Budget 2003 and Aviation.  The key conclusion was that the Government believed that the best way of ensuring that aviation contributes towards the goal of climate stabilisation would be through a well-designed emissions trading regime. For an international industry, an international trading regime is the best solution. The Government ths intended to press for the inclusion of intra-EU air services in the forthcoming EU emissions trading scheme,

On 20th December 2006 the European  Commission published proposals for including aviation emissions in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. The proposals were finally approved and signed off on 19th November 2008 and, following its publication in the EU's Official Journal on 13 January 2009, is now in force as EU Directive 2008/101/EC. For more information visit our European page. This includes information on the UK Government's March 2007 consultation paper seeking views on the draft Directive which were used to inform the DfT's position in European negotiations on the subject.

Member States have until 2 February 2010 to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Directive. The UK Government was quickly off the mark with an announcement on 4th March 2009 that the scheme would be supervised in the UK by the Environment Agency.  The same day the Government launched a stage one consultation about the transposition (by August 2009) of the first stage of the Directive as well the Monitoring and Reporting Decision.  This means regulations to set up a system under which operators can apply for their free allocation and also to require operators to start monitoring their activities and emissions in January 2010 in line with obligations in the Directive. Details of the consultation were sent to all members. The closing date for responses is 14th May 2009.

It is likely there will be further consultations about the transposition of the rest of the Directive into UK law.

Top of Page

Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee

On 23rd July 2007 the UK Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee pubslihed The Voluntary Carbon Offset Market

This says the airline industry must engage with the Government and accept that it needs to do more now to mitigate emissions from its planes and to encourage uptake of offsets amongst its customers as a matter of priority.

Top of Page

Emissions Cost Assessment - consultation

This consultation, launched by the Department for Transport on 7th August 2007, sets out the Government's proposals for the aviation emissions cost assessment which was announced in The Future of Air Transport progress report in December 2006. The consultation documents can be seen on the Department's website. The closing dates for comments was 30th October 2007

Top of Page

European Directive 2002/49/EC - Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise

This Directive, often known as the Environmental Noise Directive (END), came into effect in June 2002.

The aim of the END is to define a common approach across the European Union with the intention of avoiding, preventing or reducing on a prioritised basis the harmful effects, including annoyance, due to exposure to environmental noise. This involves:

informing the public about environmental noise and its effects;

the preparation of strategic noise maps for large urban areas (known as 'agglomerations' ), major roads, major railways and major airports as defined in the END; and

preparing action plans based on the results of the noise mapping exercise.

The noise action plans (NAPS) will aim to manage and reduce environmental noise where necessary, and preserve environmental noise quality where it is good.

To assist in the implementation of the END, and also the proposed National Ambient Noise Strategy (NANS), Defra in March 2004 published the report of a research study on Aircraft Noise Mapping at Heathrow Airport carried out by the CAA's Environmental Research and Consultancy Department.

The END should have been transposed into law by the Member States of the EU by 18 July 2004. However, because of the large number of complex technical details which had to be resolved, Defra found it impossible to comply with this deadline England.

Late in February 2005 Defra launched a consultation exercise on its proposals to transpose and implement the END. The consultation paper has now been removed from Defra's website but it is still possible to see the separate consultation paper for Scotland. The consultation covered proposals for the noise mapping of airports and for preparing action plans based on the results of the noise mapping exercise. And iIn November 2005 Defra asked for technical comments on the drafting of the new Regulations .



It was not until September 2006 that the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/2238) were laid before Parliament. They came into force on 1 October 2006. See also:

• DEFRA's Questions and Answers (.pdf 29 KB) on the new Regulations
• Regulatory Impact Assessment (OPSI, .pdf 250 KB)

The END is being separately implemented in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – for more information visit the Scottish Government website or that of the Welsh Assembly Government or the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland . It will be noted that Northern Ireland is well ahead in implementing the END and draft Action Plans for road, rail and airports are already available.

Top of Page

Noise Mapping

In England, and indeed for the rest of the UK, the noise mapping of airports, and the preparation of the NAPS, is the responsibility of the airport operator although in the case of airports designated under s.78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted) the noise mapping part of the work (but not the actions plans) is the responsibility of the Secretary of State.

Airport technical guidance has been produced for operators of civil airports affected by the Regulations although this does not apply to the designated airports (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted).

In December 2007 Defra published the noise maps for 18 airports in England - these can be seen on Defra's website. The noise maps for 'agglomerations' were published in May 2008.The 18 airports are Birmingham, Blackpool, Bournemouth, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds Bradford, Liverpool, London City, London Gatwick, London Heathrow, London Luton, London Stansted, Manchester, Newcastle, East Midlands, Shoreham, Southampton and Southend.  It is understood that noise maps have also been produced for Edinburgh, Glasgow, Prestwick and Aberdeen airports in Scotland.

Top of Page

Noise Action Plans

The next stage is the preparation by airport operators of Noise Action Plans (NAPS). In September 2008 Defra issued for consultation drafts of their proposed Guidance to airport operators in relation to the drawing up of these Plans. The closing date for comment was 28th November 2008.

The Guidance (.pdf - 169kb) was finalised and issued on 24th March 2009. Airport operators are required to prepare their NAPs having regard to the Guidance and according to the following timetable:

• By 1st July 2009 : Formal Consultation on draft noise action plan commences
• By 21st October 2009 : Formal Consultation ends
• By 30th November 2009 : Draft Noise Action Plan and accompanying summary to be sent to the Secretary of State for Transport and copied to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Defra says this timetable has been prepared to take account of, and correspond with, the expected progress on the preparation of the other noise action plans required by the Regulations. 

As expected the Guidance says airport operators should “engage” with Airport Consultative Committees “in the development of the draft Noise Action Plan”. The Airport should also liaise with the local planning authority and other local authorities affected by the airport, as well as NATS and airline operators. Operators may also wish to consult local amenity groups with whom they would normally engage over airport issues.  

There will then need to be consultation with the public about the draft NAP with 16 weeks allowed for the submission of comments.

The Guidance goes on to say that airport operators should “examine and reflect upon the comments” received in consultation and complete the Draft Noise Action Plan including a description of the comments received during the consultation process and a reasoned justification for the response to the issues raised. If there are any unresolved conflicts between the Airport’s NAP and the action plan for the agglomeration (where applicable), these should be reported in the NAP.

As noted above Northern Ireland is already well ahead with its Noise Actions Plans and draft plans for road, rail and airports are already available.

Top of Page

Amendment of 2006 Regulations

Meanwhile the Department in February 2009 began a consultation about a number of changes to the 2006 Regulations.  The changes of substance are:

• “Quiet Areas”:  The proposed amendment replaces a requirement to publish the names of quiet areas by way of Regulations with a duty on the Secretary of State to identify “quiet area” in such form as he may determine.  The reasons for this are given on pages 6 and 7 of the consultation document.
• Consolidated Noise Maps:  The 2006 Regulations place the Secretary of State under a duty to produce a consolidated noise map from all strategic noise maps which are adopted pursuant to Regulation 23. The proposed amendment makes this a discretionary power to produce consolidated noise maps in respect of any area based on strategic noise maps produced for rail, roads, air and agglomerations. (See page 8 of the consultation document).
• The 2006 Regulations impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish guidance setting out limit values or other criteria for the identification of priorities for actions plans. The proposed amendment would remove this duty. The proposed revision to Regulation 30 provides that the Secretary of State has the power to issue guidance to competent authorities, at any time, with respect to the exercise of their functions under the Regulations. (See page 9 of the consultation document)
• A further amendment is to remove the requirement to identify noise sources for mapping in the form of regulations. From 2011 onwards, noise sources will instead be identified in the form of published maps.

The deadline for comments is Monday 11th May 2009.

Top of Page

Draft Action Plans for agglomerations, major roads and major railways

On 20th April 2009 Defra published their 'current thinking' on the draft noise action plans for agglomerations, major roads and major railways prior to formal public consultation on the draft plans later in the summer.

The Department said that although this was not a formal consultation they would nonetheless welcome stakeholders' comments, especially about the policy aspects of the plans. The Department’s aim was to offer stakeholders the opportunity to participate in the preparation of the action plans and not just in the reviewing them at the formal consultation stage later in the summer. This would also facilitate an understanding of how the amended Regulations, currently being consulted on (see above), will work in practice.

There is more information on the Defra website

Top of Page

Control of Noise from Civil Aircraft

Among the package of papers issued with the White Paper was the Government's conclusions on the ideas it issued for consultation in July 2000 aimed at tackling operational aircraft noise from civil aircraft. Click this link for a summary of the response prepared for the Liaison Group.

The key message is that the Government would seek powers for airports to establish noise amelioration schemes. The new powers would –

• not apply to airports designated for the purposes of s.78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 – currently Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted – where noise amelioration is the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
• be voluntary - there will be no powers to compel an aerodrome to prepare a noise amelioration scheme. (If in a particular case the voluntary arrangements prove to be unsatisfactory the Secretary of State’s has powers to apply s.78.)
• not be used to unpick existing arrangements (including any planning permissions/conditions and s106 agreements).
• will not specify in detail the sanctions for non compliance but there will be Government guidance setting the minimum and maximum sanctions that aerodromes should adopt.
• operate within and immediately outside the aerodrome’s traffic circuit and beyond to include the full extent of noise preferential routes.

Amendments would also be sought to:

• make it clear that airport charges can be directly related to compliance with noise mitigation procedures;
• strengthen the powers available at airports designated under section 78, so that, for example, controls such as night restrictions can be set on the basis of noise quotas alone, without a separate movements limit. Thus controls could be related more directly to the noise nuisance, providing a more effective incentive for airlines to acquire, use and develop quieter aircraft. Other amendments will allow the Government to direct take-offs and/or landings onto a particular runway and to stipulate fines to be levied by the courts for s.78 violations.

Most of these proposed new powers are contained in the Civil Aviation Bill now before Parliament - see above.

It was as part of this exercise that the Department conducted a review of the Guidelines for Airport Consultative Committees and in fact new Guidelines were issued as part of the White Paper package on 16th December 2003 - see our Guidelines page.

Click here to see a copy of the original consultation paper.  A full summary of the responses to the consultation was issued in March 2002.

Top of Page

Attitudes to Noise from Aircraft Sources in in England (ANASE)

This long running study was launched in May 2001.  Its aim was to research how people feel about aircraft noise and especially how they perceive the relationship between noise levels and annoyance, or sleep disturbance at night, and how they would value lower noise levels relative to other environmental factors.

The results of the Study were finally published by the Department early in November 2007 - the consultants' report, together with peer reviews and Departmental statement papers, have been placed on the DfT website. See also the DfT's press release.

The Department say two key conclusions emerge from the study. First, that people are more annoyed by all levels of aircraft noise than they were in 1985, when the last major study in this field was carried out. Secondly, there is no identifiable threshold at which noise becomes a serious problem. Even relatively low levels of noise can cause some annoyance, which rises as the noise increases.

The Government say they will take these findings into account in developing air transport policy. However, as the peer review makes clear, the study could not provide a reliable way of attaching a monetary figure to the impact of aircraft noise. Pending the availability of a better alternative, the Government will apply the existing valuation for road and rail noise when assessing the economic impact of noise in the cost-benefit analysis of future aviation projects. This, they say, is in line with the procedure introduced for road and rail last year.

At their meeting at Heathrow on 11/12 June 2008 the Liaision Group received a presentation by the Department's ANASE consultants.

Top of Page

Night Flying Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted - consultation

In July 2004 the Government launched a Stage I consultation exercise in relation to proposals for the next night noise restrictions regime for these Airports which would apply for six years, beginning in October 2005 and continuing until the end of the summer season in 2011.  The closing date for comments on Stage 1 was 29 October 2004.  [DfT Press Release] [Consultation Documents].

The Stage I consultation process was challenged in the High Court by the London Boroughs of Richmond and Wandsworth on the grounds that the Secretary of State had relied on inaccurate aircraft noise statistics. After a hearing in the High Court on 13th December 2004 the case was resolved by a court order. This recorded that the parties had agreed that the Secretary of State is entitled to have regard to the operational noise of aircraft (and not merely to ICAO certification data) in formulating operating restrictions, provided that, in respect of performance-based operating restrictions at any given airport, aircraft with the same ICAO certificated noise levels are treated in the same way.

Stage 2 of the consultation process was launched on 10th June 2005 [DfT Press Release][Consultation Paper]. It had been hoped that the Stage 2 consultation could be completed in time to have a new night noise regime in place by 30 October 2005. However, the timing was affected by the General Election in May 2005 and the Government concluded it was impossible to complete the process by October while still allowing reasonable time time for consultation and analysis of the responses. Thus it was announcd in December 2005 that the present night restrictions regime would continuefor a further year from 30 October 2005 until 29 October 2006



The Stage 2 consultation paper, which took account of the responses to Stage 1, set out detailed proposals for night restrictions covering the six-year period from the end of the summer season 2006 to the end of the summer season 2012. The closing date was 16 September 2005.

The Secretary of State's decision on Stage 2 was announced in June 2006. The new regime, which lasts until 2012, recognises both a night period, 2300-0700 hours, and a night quota period, 2330-0600 hours. During the whole of the night period, the noisiest types of aircraft may not be scheduled to land or take off and they are effectively banned from doing so (other than in exceptional circumstances) in the night quota period. The next noisiest types (QC/4) may also no longer be scheduled to operate in the night quota period. In addition, during the night quota period movements by most other types of aircraft (including the new QC/0.25 category) will be restricted by a movements limit and a noise quota, which are set for each season. The seasons change with the clocks.

.Top of Page

Aircraft Noise Monitoring Advisory Committee (ANMAC)

This Committee was set up by the Department for Transport to advise them on policy relating to aircraft noise at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted - these airports are designated for the purposes of s.78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and noise amelioration is thus the responsibility of the Secretary of State. ANMAC's membership includes representatives from NATS, BAA, the Environmental Research and Consultancy Department of the CAA, the Scheduling Committees and a representative of the Consultative Committee at each of the three airports each accompanied by a technical adviser.

ANMAC meetings are held in private. This helps in the development of future policy and avoids the possibility of unnecessary anxiety among the communities affected by aircraft noise (or to raise hopes). Recently, however, the DfT has published a summary of the proceedings of the meetings.

There has been growing concern that ANMAC was now considering wider aircraft noise issues, not just those relating to the three London airports. An example of this was the further research proposed in connection with ANASE.  In view of this the UKACCs Working Group at its meeting in January 2009 looked at the terms of reference and membership of the Committee to see if any changes were needed.

The Working Group concluded that the key focus of the group continued to be the development of noise policy and the consideration of noise issues at the three designated airports in London.  There was thus a need for the discussions at ANMAC to be kept as private as possible In that ANMAC was considering wider noise issues the DfT's publication of a summary of the proceedings of the meetings was a welcome step forward. It was agreed to ask that UKACCs support service should be included on the circulation list of the summary so that member committees could be kept informed about the work of ANMAC.

UKACCs believes however that if ANMAC were to suggest changes in the management of aircraft noise or flight procedures of wider significance than just the three London airports, it is important that  these should be subject to wider involvement and consultation with other airports.

Top of Page

Public Service Obligations

The White Paper Future of Air Transport, talked about the protection of regional air access to London. It proposed clarification of the circumstances in which the Government is prepared to intervene in order to guarantee a minimum level of scheduled air services on these routes.  Specifically it proposed:

• The introduction of a voluntary early warning system whereby airlines would agree to give notice of their intention to withdraw services from a route. This would give regional bodies and the Government time to consider whether and how the route concerned could be protected.
• The clarification of criteria, which are set out, but not defined in European Regulations governing mechanisms to protect regional air services. This will allow airlines, regional bodies and the Government to make better-informed decisions when considering their policy towards air services from regional airports to London.
  

In connection with the clarification of the European criteria the Government on 7th July 2004 issued a consultation paper seeking views on the interpretation of EU Regulation 2408/92 which deals with the imposition of Public Service Obligations for the protection of such services. Specifically it asks for views on the interpretation of the following terms:

"peripheral region";
"development region";
"thin route"; and
"adequate provision of services"

Additionally views were invited on how the case for the economic necessity of imposing a PSO should be judged.

The consultation period was extended and finally closed on 8th November 2004. [2004 Consultation Paper][DfT Press Release]

On 21st February 2005 the Department published a report on the responses to the consultation paper - which it said would be very helpful in informing the Government's thinking on this policy. (Note: On 2nd March 2005, in response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the Department published copies of the individual responses).

Apart from detailed comments on the various definitions proposed by the Department a recurring theme among the responses showed that concern in the regions is focussed not just on air services to London generally but, more specifically, on services to Heathrow (and to a lesser extent Gatwick) as a major international hub - this is a particularly sore point for those regional airports which have lost their connections to Heathrow where the number of domestic destinations over the last decade has declined from 11 to 8. The proposals described in the consultation paper did not fully address these concerns. As the consultation paper made clear, according to European case law, if a region has services to any one of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, London City or Luton airports, it will be considered as having a service to London. The withdrawal or reduction of a service to Heathrow would not be enough to trigger the consideration of a PSO if together the services to other London airports were considered to be adequate. Nor would questions of interconnectivity or the final destination of passengers be part of the consideration of what is deemed an 'adequate' service.



For very similar reasons there was regret in the regions that the proposals dealt only with the protection of existing services and did not include the creation of new London services, particularly to and from Heathrow.

At the other end of the spectrum there was a feeling, typified by the response submitted by the BAA, that the imposition of PSOs might “lead to the benefits to the particular region being significantly lower than the losses to the South-East region and to the UK as a whole. The understandable desire for air access to the UK regions had to be balanced by the desire to maintain and strengthen access from the UK as a whole to the rest of the world.” The submission concluded“…a better solution would be to focus on providing sufficient capacity so that the choice between domestic and international services does not have to be made. Where such a choice does have to be made, then it would be better to consider transparent financial support for those air services which are needed and for which a clear case can be made.”

The Government's formal Guidance on PSOs was finally issued on 15th December 2005 along with a Press Release. Sadly the constraints of the PSO arrangements meant that it was not possible to address some of the key concerns outlined in the responses to the consultation.

Meanwhile, there have been developments at European level - see our European Round-up page for more information. See also the attached report on developing and preserving regional air services (MS Word 91kb) prepared for the UKACCs Annual Liaison Meeting at Manchester Airport on 21/22 June 2006. The issues were considered again at the Annual Meeting on 11/12 June 2008 when the members debated a paper submitted by Aberdeen Airport Consultative Committee and at a meeting of of the UKACCs Working Group on 12th January 2009 - see attached paper and the letter sent to the Department for Transport after the meeting. The issue was considered again at the UKACCs Annual Meeting at Belfast on 27/28 May 2009 - paper for discussion at that meeting is attached.

Top of Page

Route Development Funds

In the White Paper Future of Air Transport the Government said it believed the establishment of further RDFs in Wales and in English regions (outside the South East and East of England) could play a valuable role in establishing new direct business links from both primary and secondary airports in these areas, thus stimulating inward investment and tourism. It therefore asked the Welsh Assembly Government and the relevant English Regional Development Agencies “to consider whether they would wish to set up a route development fund to encourage the establishment of new services at airports in their respective areas, and to consider what priority they would attach to such a fund.”

An RDF operates in Northern Ireland but in Scotland the scheme was scrapped in 2007. The Scottish Government says European rules mean the scheme, introduced in 2002 by the previous administration to help secure new and enhance existing direct air services to Scotland, could not continue in its current form. It promised to honour existing contracts but wouldnot provide any new subsidies.

BAA Scotland, a private sector body, operates a route development fund worth about £14m per annum. This offers discounted airport charges and financial support for route marketing and promotional campaigns -see March 2004 BAA Press release.

The European Commission has issued new Guidelines on the financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports - again see our Euro Page for details.   The Guidelines above have an impact on the way in which Route Development Funds (RDFs) are operated at national level, in particular in relation to the size of airport eligible for start-up aid, and the restriction on ex-EU routes and carriers. The UK Government has obtained state aid approval from the Commission for the UK's RDF scheme and on 30th June 2006 it published rules and principles governing the operation by devolved administrations and regional development agencies of funds to provide start-up aid. The BAA Scotland scheme operates in the private sector. It is not, therefore, “state aid” and the new EU guidelines do not apply to the BAA's fund.

Top of Page

UK Regional Airports - Fifth Freedom Passenger Services

In June 2005 the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) published a report the impact of granting "fifth freedom" passenger services to foreign (i.e. non EU) airlines at UK regional airports.

Fifth-freedom rights are the rights of an airline of one nationality to pick up and drop passengers and cargo between airports in two other countries on a flight that originates in its own country.



The Report finds that the balance of benefits to the UK from greater liberalisation of fifth freedoms to and from regional airports is likely to be positive. This assessment is based on seven representative case studies. The report was undertaken with the agreement of the Department for Transport, which is now considering it.

The report recommends that the Government adopt a new policy presumption that favours the granting of fifth-freedom rights at regional airports subject to their impact on certain key issues. These include the UK's bilateral negotiating position with the country in question and the viability of more economically valuable UK-originating direct services.

The report also recommends that, so as to increase certainty for the airports and airlines involved, there should be a streamlined and transparent five-week procedure to make decisions about regional fifths.

The Government's response was announced on 17th October 2005. In future there will be a general presumption in favour of allowing such services, for both passenger and cargo services

Top of Page

Airspace Change Process

In 2006 the CAA's Directorate of Airspace Policy completed a consultation about the procedures to be followed to ensure effective consultation on proposals to change the use or classification of airspace in the UK.

The consultation documents can be seen and downloaded from the CAA's website along with the DAP's responses to the issues raised by those who responded during the consultation period which ended on 7th July 2006.

On 30th March 2007 the CAA issued an Airspace Change Process Guidance Document (CAP 725) which provides guidance on the various stages of the change process



Redrawing London's Terminal Control North

The new procedure is now being used in the consideration of proposals by the National Air Traffic Services (NATS) to re-draw the routes taken by aircraft in London's Terminal Control North. This is one of the most complex areas of airspace in the world, with routes in and out of major airports including Heathrow, Stansted, Luton and London City as well as smaller airports such as Southend and RAF Northolt.

Full details of the 2008 proposals can be seen on a special website set up by NATS for the purposes of the consultation. The consultation period closed on 19th June 2008 but on 23 February 2009 NATS announced that it is to conduct a new consultation on revised proposals for the TCN region. That consultation will be held later in 2009 at a date yet to be decided but unlikely to be before July 2009.

Top of Page

Airport Security

 Increased Security

The security alerts on 10th August 2006 at Heathrow, and 30th June 2007 at Glasgow, have continued to dominate airport security across the world and at many airports there have continued to be difficulties and delays for users.

Following the 2006 alert new restrictions on hand baggage were introduced including a limit of one item of hand luggage for passengers departing the UK as well as EU-wide limits on liquids and gels that can be taken through airport security. Following the attack at Glasgow measures were introduced to move vehicles further away from terminal buildings.

In an effort to speed up the security process most airports have increased the number of security staff, and to provide more passenger search facilities, in order to cope with the extra security requirements. Even so there are still periods of delay in some places.

The restriction limiting passengers to one piece of carry-on hand luggage was particularly contentious, not least because there were no such restrictions elsewhere in the world even in the US . Following months of campaigning by airlines, who complained the one-bag rule was unique to Britain and had caused a headache for passengers arriving from abroad and transferring to UK flights, the DfT started to lift the restriction early in 2007. But the relaxation was been piecemeal. The restriction was lifted immediately at 22 airports, including Heathrow, Stansted, Birmingham , Manchester , Glasgow and Edinburgh . But at Gatwick, Luton, Bristol , Liverpool, East Midlands and 35 other airports the restriction remained until the Department's officials were satisfied that the Airport in question could handle the extra workload without compromising security. The restriction finally came to an end on 7th January 2008. The maximum size for items of hand luggage is 56cm x 45cm x 25cm per bag. However, airlines apply their own operational policies governing the number of items of hand baggage which may be taken in to the aircraft cabin and this can give rise to confusion for passengers.

Liquids, gels and aerosols are only allowed in hand baggage in individual containers of 100ml. All containers must fit comfortably in one, transparent, re-sealable bag no larger than 20cm x 20cm (e.g. a freezer bag). (There are signs that the ban on liquids in hand baggage may be phased out.  According to a press report in March 2009 this is thanks to new X-ray technology which can detect liquid bomb-making ingredients like hydrogen peroxide.)

What follows needs to be seen in light of the much tenser atmosphere which flows from the dramatically changed security regime which emerged on 10th August 2006.

Working Together

In 2002 Sir John Wheeler published his Review of Airport Security. His findings and recommendations were accepted by the Government and work has been going on to implement them.

Among the recommendations was greater joint working between all security stakeholders including both the regulatory authorities and the industry. Working together he felt they could produce the most accurate assessments of the threats to airports from crime and terrorism; identify any gaps and overlaps in the existing security regimes; and plan for management of the risks involved.

Following trials at Heathrow, Birmingham, East Midlands, Newcastle and Glasgow the MATRA (Multi Agency Threat and Risk Assessment) concept was rolled out across the country in 2003. Very simply the aim is to arrive at a security plan which is jointly-owned and which can be routinely revisited to take into account future developments. These could be a change in the type, volume or profile of services operating at that airport, or responding to new or differing crime trends or threat intelligence.

However, in November 2005 the Government announced it had decided to amend the Civil Aviation Bill then before Parliament to clarify the responsibilities of airport managers and police in relation to the protection and policing of airports that have been designated by the Secretary of State under section 25 of the Aviation Security Act 1982. There are currently nine airports designated for policing purposes - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester, Prestwick, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen. The primary responsibility for policing activity at these airports lies with the Chief Constable and the airport manager must make such payments in respect of policing the airport as the manager and the relevant authority may agree. If they cannot agree, the Secretary of State may be required to determine the amount to be paid to the police by the airport manager (section 26(3)).

The Secretary of State said it had become clear that the relationship between the responsibilities of airport managers, aircraft operators and others carrying out security activities directed by the Secretary of State under Part 2 of the Act (sections 10 to 24) and of the Chief Constable whose officers police a designated airport under Part 3 (sections 25 to 31) is uncertain and also that the scope of the Secretary of State's power under section 26(3) of the Act is unclear. Given the importance of this issue to the UK's aviation security programme the Government had decided to use the Civil Aviation Bill to seek to amend the Act, to clarify the relationship between the activities of the airport manager and other directed parties at an airport, and policing activities in order to prevent disputes on this point and to provide a more independent method for settling any disputes that may arise in future. The aim of the amendment was to acknowledge that designated airports require both directed parties and police to perform activities, but that in making policing decisions the Chief Constable should be aware of the role of the directed parties and deploy his resources so that they complement those of the directed parties.

The Bill finally received Royal Assent on 8th November 2006 and the changes to the 1982 Act have taken effect. The Act also made provision for Police Services Agreements at designated airports. It is understood that new agreements have since been entered into for the policing of Heathrow London Gatwick and Stansted airports

Top of Page

Review of Airport Policing

In its November 2005 announcement the Government also said it had decided to commission an independent, wide-ranging review of policing at airports. The review aimed to identify a sustainable approach to the policing of airports which takes account of the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in protecting an airport and in particular addresses the need for funding arrangements that are objective and transparent. The review was asked to compare the present method of policing airports with that of other modes of transport to establish any differences or similarities in policing approaches, roles, responsibilities and accountabilities that may apply. The review also considered whether the principle of designation could be made to work. If not, the review was asked to propose alternative options.

The report of the Review Team was submitted to the Department for Transport in July 2006. For security reasons was not published but some aspects of what it says are contained in a statement by the Secretary of State. A follow-up statement was promised and this was received by Parliament on 14th June 2007. The statement concluded:

"Two key areas of work have been identified to be tackled nationally:

"Firstly, MATRA remains strongly recommended best practice for all airports. We maintain that such joint agency consideration of threat and risk should be the cornerstone for current and future security activity at airports. BAA and the Metropolitan Police Authority are working together at Heathrow Airport to enhance their MATRA and to develop a shared multi-agency airport security plan. More generally for all airports, work is already underway to deliver national threat assessments to airports so that all suitably security cleared MATRA members can evaluate the security situation from the same knowledge basis. It is acknowledged by all stakeholders that an enhanced MATRA process may identify improved options for tackling particular security issues. Some of these may need to be delivered by the police but it is recognised that a dedicated and permanent police presence may not be required at some airports.

"Secondly, existing legislation is being reviewed to clarify the current responsibilities of stakeholders for security at airports to assist in resolving areas of disagreement. We are taking that work forward as quickly as possible with the agencies concerned.

"Separately, complementary legislation has been introduced requiring aerodrome managers and police at designated airports to agree necessary dedicated policing resources and to clarify what the cost to the aerodrome manager should be. This is then set out in a Police Services Agreement (PSA). Some airports already have, or have had, service level agreements in place and it may be deemed by the parties to them that they remain fit for purpose and contain the requisite information to comply with the Civil Aviation Act 2006. 

"All this work is being drawn together to clarify the security responsibilities of all stakeholders at all airports and create the clear and transparent funding process recommended by the Review. No legislative changes can be made until that work is complete but we are working to identify a suitable parliamentary opportunity for this.

" Although the Review did not focus on airport security, it was an examination of a key element in the protection of our airports against a range of threats. It is naturally not a report for public disclosure, however I will make another statement providing further updates in due course."

Nothing more was heard until 2008 when new legislation was published - see below

Top of Page

New Legislation

Included in the legislative programme announced by the Government on 14th May 2008 was a Transport Security Bill. This was to implement the Review of Airport Policing. In announcing the new Bill the Department for Transport promised a public consultation on the proposals and details of this were published on 16th July 2008. To access the consultation papers visit the Department's website.The closing date for comments was 8th October 2008.

In the event the proposed legislation was included in the Policing and Crime Bill announced in the Queens Speech on 3rd December 2008 and early in January 2009 the Government published details of its response to the points made the consultation.



Top of Page

Airport Security - Funding

If passed the new Bill will allow the cost of the policing element of the airport security plan to be charged to the airport operator. In the UK this will resolve the question of who should pay for the policing of airports which has been a matter of discussion for some time.

The inequities in the funding of airport policing in the UK was among the issues addressed by the 2002 Wheeler Review. As mentioned above at airports designated for policing purposes under the 1982 Act the airport operator is required to make payments to the police authority in respect of their policing, as agreed between the two parties. At other airports the cost of policing is normally met by the police authority. Sir John felt that a new process of designation should be developed, founded on national criteria and agreed local multi-agency risk assessments. At the time the Government said it accepted this recommendation in principle. But the 2006 Review of Airport Policing recommended that the system of "designation" should be "discontinued and that policing costs should generally be met by the industry on the basis that policing forms part of an agreed airport "community" response, that costs are clear and transparent, and that policing at airports is brought within the mainstream policing agenda". In its January 2009 response to the consultation on the proposed Policing and Crime Bill (see above) the Government said "meeting security costs, whether for the requirements set out in the NASP or for policing, is a part of running an airport business and has to be built into business planning. There will be specific counter terrorist police activities that industry will not pay for and we will be explicit about this in our guidance".

Within the EU there has for some time been concern that Regulation (EC) 2320/2002 lacks any clear policy as to the financing of the additional security. This prompted the Commission to employ the Irish Aviation Authority (IAA) to carry out a study to gain a clear picture of the various security systems across and within EU Member States, and to investigate the funding of civil aviation security. The IAA's Report, expected in 2003, did not emerge until the end of 2004 and it was not until August 2006 that the Commission finally responded via a Report to the EC Council (COM 2006/431) This said that security costs in transport can be significant and that currently they are largely borne by users. The report gives some insight into the different financing mechanisms which exist in the Member States and warns that the heterogeneity of approach may distort competition. It concludes that more transparency of security taxes and charges would benefit the users of transport services and that, in general, public funding of anti-terrorist measures in transport does not constitute state aid “as it is connected with the exercise of powers that are typically those of a public authority”.

The Directive on Airport Charges 2009/12 provides that the security charges made by airports should be used exclusively to meet their security costs, including the cost of financing necessary security facilities and installations, and expenditure on security staff and operations. There is more information about the the Airport Charges Directive on our Euro Roundup Page. There is also a proposal issued by the Commission in May 2009 for a Directive on aviation security charges in Europe. The aims are to ensure transparency, non-discrimination and consultation of airlines when fixing the level of charges, as well as the cost-relatedness of security charges. It also proposes to establish an independent supervisory authority in each Member State - for full details see the EC report which acompanied the proposal and the EC Press Release.

Meanwhile there is also growing concern among airports about the increased cost of security which are said to have risen by more than 150% since new security measures were brought in after the 11 September attacks in 2001. Security costs are now said to account now for a quarter of the income of major airports.

Top of Page

Full Body Scanners

One possible method of screening persons at airports is by use of machines known as 'body scanners'. In order to decide whether or not 'body scanners' should be allowed as a method of screening people at airports and if so, under what conditions, the European Commission earlier this year conducted a consultation on the impact of the use of body scanners in the field of aviation security on human rights, privacy, personal dignity, health and data protection. The closing date for contributions was 19th February 2009

Body scanners produce an image of the body of a person showing whether or not objects are hidden in or under his clothes. The image produced is rather opaque, not of high quality and resembles a photographic negative. For a person to be screened by a body scanner, he must stand still for a few seconds either inside the body scanner (which is the size of a telephone booth) or directly in front of it. At present there are three main types of body scanner under development and testing:

• millimetre wave, using radio waves equivalent to 0.01% of the permissible dosage for mobile phones;
• backscatter, using low dosage x-rays equivalent to 2% of the dosage of radiation experienced by a passenger during a long-haul flight
• t-ray, using terahertz radiation which lies between infrared light and microwaves on the electromagnetic spectrum.

The body scanners are being developed in response to a perceived weakness in aviation security today namely the detection of non-metallic items. All passengers normally pass through walk-through metal detectors (WTMD) which should ensure that guns and knives (and some other prohibited items) are detected. If the WTMD alarms, this alarm is often resolved with a hand-held metal detector (HHMD). The use of metal detectors is complemented by selecting passengers for a hand search.

The combination of metal detectors and hand searches is currently the optimal means of detecting concealed prohibited items. However, the quality of hand searches is very variable at Community airports, as noted by the Commission in its compliance monitoring programme of airport inspections. Furthermore, passengers often find hand searches intrusive and upsetting to their dignity. Finally, the hand searching of passengers is time-consuming and labour-intensive, making it expensive to perform.

Since body scanners can detect any item concealed on a person’s body or in or under his clothes, they could be used as an alternative to the existing means of screening passengers.

Body scanners are already in use in the USA where the Transport Security Administration (TSA) announced in February 2009 that it will pilot these “millimetre wave” scanners in place of the walk-through metal detector at six airports and will evaluate their operational efficiency. The airports are: San Francisco, Miami, Albuquerque, Tulsa, Salt Lake City and Las Vegas.  It’s also on the cards that the scanners will be used in other countries such as Netherlands, Japan and Thailand.

Passengers are said to be reacting positively to the millimetre wave technology pilots currently in operation at 20 airports around the US. The new scanners will remain voluntary for passengers; those who do not wish to receive millimetre wave screening will undergo the usual metal detector screening and a pat-down.

 “Passenger privacy is ensured through the anonymity of the image” says the TSA, “the officer attending the passenger cannot view the image, and the officer viewing the image is remotely located and cannot see the passenger.”  Additionally, the image cannot be stored, transmitted or printed and is deleted immediately after being viewed. Finally, the facial area of the image is blurred to ensure privacy. 

But some groups are not so sure.  "Body scanners produce graphic images of travellers' bodies and are an assault on their essential dignity," said Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Project. "The safeguards announced by the TSA do not convince us that the technology is acceptable, and we question the supposed voluntary nature of these scanners."

If scanners of this kind are to be introduced in the UK there will no doubt be calls for safeguards to protect the privacy of passengers. There are also concerns that full-body scanners could slow down the screening process. 

Top of Page

Criminal Record Checks

At its annual meeting at Stansted in 2007 the Liaison Group heard about the correspondence between the Manchester Airport Consultative Committee and the Department for Transport about the difficulty the Airport company was experiencing in obtaining correct and complete criminal history checks from abroad for foreign nationals. The matter was again considered at the Liaison Group's annual meeting at Heathrow in 2008.

The Group is concerned that there appears to be a disparity between UK and foreign applicants in that British citizens seem to undergo a more stringent vetting process. The Liaison Group considers that any person working airside should have to undergo the same stringent checks. Attached is a copy of letter sent to the Department expressing concern about the inconsistency of arrangements as well as a copy their reply.

On 11th February 2009 the Department for Transport launched a consultation seeking views on proposals to implement overseas criminal record checks for certain transport posts.The consultation documents can be seen on the Department’s website. The proposals for consultation are a response to a recent independent review of personnel security in the transport sector which recommended that checks of overseas criminal records should be introduced where where such checks of UK records are required.

In response to this recommendation DfT said it would issue guidance to the industry to enable employers to adopt a voluntary regime, but would also discuss with industry the introduction of a mandatory check of overseas criminal history in respect of the highest risk posts. The consultation documents list a number of options for discussion. The closing date for comments is 29 May 2009

Top of Page

UK Identity Cards

It was announced in March 2008 that the Government’s planned scheme for ID Cards would begin in November 2008 with introduction of identity cards for non-EEA foreign nationals starting with those categories most at risk of abuse, including foreign nationals seeking to enter or remain in the UK as a student or on a marriage visa. Then, starting in the second half of 2009, the scheme would be extended to UK citizens with the first ID cards being issued to people working in specific sensitive roles or locations where verification of identity will enhance the protection of the public. The announcement said the first cards would be issued to those working airside in the country's airports. The first such cards will be issued at London City and Manchester Airports. This will be in the nature of a trial which, if successful, would lead on to the issue of ID cards to airside employees at other airports.

This focus on airports has given rise to a certain amount of consternation. The Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee has already expressed its disquiet while BALPA, which represents British pilots, has written to Manchester and London City airports warning that pilots would not cooperate with the introduction of the ID cards

Top of Page

E-Borders

Also of concern is the UK Government’s 'eborders' and 'border management’ programmes which represent a radical re-organisation of border and travel surveillance policy.

These programmes will mean the collection of biometric data at borders (fingerprints, iris scans), the collection of passenger-information from airlines, the profiling of passengers before they arrive or depart the UK, the retention of personal information for an indeterminate amount of time, and the sharing of this information with a number of agencies for the purpose of general policing.

The Government says these measures are being introduced to counter terrorism and to combat crime. Many organisations believe they open the way for those with more sinister motives.

Top of Page

Relaxing the Restrictions on Liquids in Hand Baggage?

The restriction on liquids in hand baggage still gives rise to huge confusion among passengers and large quantities of these fluids are confiscated at airports every day.

But there are signs now that the restriction may be phased out.  According to a press report in March 2009 this is thanks to new X-ray technology which can detect liquid bomb-making ingredients like hydrogen peroxide. A government source is reported as saying that the ban would be lifted at a limited number of airports, possibly as soon as this autumn. “The restrictions will start to be removed in six months to a year’s time and passengers will be allowed to carry any size of bottle they like inside their hand luggage, just as they were before the summer of 2006. Airports will have to demonstrate that they have invested in the technology, so it will not be a blanket lifting of the restrictions.” The source said that a BAA airport would be involved in the trial because the company had already installed advanced threat identification X-ray machines. These machines, costing more than £100,000 each, have the capacity, after a software upgrade, to distinguish between harmless liquids and potentially explosive ones.

Top of Page

More information

Please the report on Airport Security prepared for the ACCs Annual Liaison Meeting at Stansted on 13/14 June 2007. See also the DfT's July 2007 Note on the Review of Airport Policing. This was a response to an enquiry submitted by London City Airport Consultative Committee. Also attached is a copy of the paper on Airport Security considered by the Annual Meeting at Heathrow in 2008 as well as a copy of the report prepared for the Annual meeting at Belfast on 27/28 May 2009

Top of Page

Iris Recognition Immigration System (IRIS)

This new system, introduced at Heathrow as a pilot project during 2005, now also operates at:

• Heathrow Terminal 1
• Heathrow Terminal 2
• Heathrow Terminal 3
• Heathrow Terminal 4
• Heathrow Terminal 5
• Gatwick North Terminal
• Gatwick South Terminal
• Manchester Terminal 1
• Manchester Terminal 2
• Birmingham Terminal 1

The scheme allows enrolled passengers holding non-EU passports to enter the UK through a special automated immigration control barrier incorporating an iris recognition camera. The barriers, located in the Immigration Arrivals Hall, form part of Immigration and Passport Control.

Enrolment for the scheme is currently free and voluntary. Enrolment takes place in the airport departure lounge where Immigration Officers assess eligibility and enrol qualifying persons. Those who qualify to participate in the scheme have both their eyes photographed in order to capture their iris patterns. This data is stored securely alongside their personal details. The enrolment process takes about five to ten minutes.

There have been complaints that the enrolment facilities are not open often enough, and/or for long enough, and that the equipment is not very reliable.

There is more information about the scheme on the Borders and Immigration Agency website

Top of Page

Longer Queues at Immigration

A number of Consultative Committees have expressed concern about the impact of the Government's new policy of requiring more thorough checks for EU passengers at border control. This has meant increased individual passenger transaction times and thus, in the absence at many airports of sufficient staff resources to carry out the new procedures, much longer queues for EU passengers.



Committees generally accept that thorough and robust checks are essential to protect national security but in many places the added delays are unacceptable and there have been many complaints. A number of Consultative Committees have taken up the issue with the Government try to to secure improved performance by the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA). At London Gatwick it has been suggested that key performance indicators relating to queuing at immigration should agreed and published, so that all concerned are aware of the standards which BIA are seeking to achieve and the Consultative Committee has a yardstick against which it can measure performance.

Top of Page

Wind Farms - Effect on Radar

The growing emphasis on wind farms as a source of renewable energy has renewed worries about their impact on airports. For some years UKACCs members have been expressing concerns about the impact which wind farms have on the operation of radar installations and thus on the safety of aircraft.

At the 2008 UKACCs Annual meeting at Heathrow concerns were expressed about the costs incurred by airports in preparing radar assessments as a result of applications for the development of wind farms. The meeting thought such costs should be borne by the developer and not the airport.  This would also help to prevent speculative applications. Delegates also raised concerns about safety issues.  It was agreed there was a need for the CAA to produce clearer guidance on the effect of wind farms on radar and it was felt that the Government should be urged to produce guidance to local planning authorities to require developers to submit a radar assessment with planning applications.

In February 2009, the CAA re-issued CAP 764 CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines. Since the initial release of CAP 764 in 2006, the way in which aviation stakeholders and wind turbine developers interact is said to have matured, and the revised document includes updates on Government renewable energy policy and details of how all interested parties should interact.   Additionally, the scope of the document has been widened to include all aspects of aviation that may be affected by wind turbines. Appendix 7 of the document spells out a simplified method for determining if a wind turbine is in line of sight of an aeronautical radar station. Chapter 5 also provides guidance on wind turbine development planning process which encourages a pre-planning application process involving engagement and consultation with aviation stakeholders.  However, the revised document does not address the issue of who should bear the cost of undertaking a radar impact assessment

UKACCs will continue to monitor the impact of wind farms on airports and press any issues whihc arise with the CAA and the DfT.  Meanwhile BERR's website has a page devoted to windfarms which is a good source of information on the issues.

Top of Page

Access to Air Travel for Disabled People

Code of Practice

The first edition of this Code was issued in March 2003. It took a long time to appear. There was between March and June 2001 but airport consultative committees were not among those asked for their views.

The code is aimed at all those involved in air travel including travel agents, tour operators, UK airlines, UK airports (including the architects and designers who are involved in their design), ground handling companies and retailers. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC – the Government’s statutory advisers on the transport needs of disabled people) has published a companion guide for disabled people to explain what they can expect from the code.

The Code is complementary to the European Voluntary Commitments on Air Passenger Rights (see our Euro round-up page) which include a special protocol on meeting the needs of people with reduced mobility. In the UK consultative committees have a special role in monitoring those Commitments.

In the first half of 2007 the DfT said it was setting up a Working Group to review the Code in the light of recent changes in European law. At the ACCs Annual Liaison Meeting at Stansted on 13/14 June 2007 it was agreed to tell the Department that the Liaison Group would like the opportunity to be represented on the Working Group and anyway that it would welcome involvement at an early stage in the Review process so that the Working Group can consider the Liaison Group's views [See letter to DfT]. The Department did not respond.

On 1st April 2008 the DfT launched a consultation on a revised version of the Code which has been updated to reflect the new European Regulation. The Department asked for the views of air travel industry and disability stakeholders on the revised Code. The consultation closed on 23 June 2008. A copy of the full consultation document and the draft Code are attached (558kb) .

The Revised Code was finalised and published in July 2008 along with the Government's response to the consultation.


Top of Page

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 - Part 3

The Code of Practice also surfaced in the context of Government's proposals to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (DDA95). Part 3 of this Act gave disabled people important rights of access to everyday services which others take for granted. Transport infrastructure (bus stations, railway stations, airports and ports) was among the facilities covered by those provisions but there was a specific exemption for any service “so far as it consists of the use of a means of transport”. The Government's proposals for lifting this exemption for public transport and certain other transport related services were set out in detail in a consultation paper published at the end of 2002 and in November 2004 they published draft regulations for comment [Summary of Responses]. The lifting of the exemption required primary legislation and this was obtained in the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and with effect from 4th December 2006 it became illegal for transport operators to discriminate against disabled people using buses, trains, taxis, car hire and vehicle recovery services. Operators are also required to make reasonable adjustments to their services so that disabled people can use them.

In relation to aviation the agreed arrangements are that the voluntary Code of Practice should be the standard to which the industry should work but the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 includes reserve powers to allow the Government to place the Code on a statutory footing should the voluntary route prove ineffective.

The Transport Research Laboratory were commissioned to benchmark the industry against the code of practice and to carry out a monitoring exercise to find out how far the industry is working in line with the code. The Report of the TRL's study was published in August 2006. The headlines (as described in a press release of the Department) are:

• the industry needs further encouragement to follow those parts of the Code that are already covered by Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act;
• there should be increased training for travel and booking agency and airline staff;
• procedures to increase pre-booking assistance, and provision of information in alternative formats, need to be promoted further;
• consistent policies need to be developed on the carriage of disabled people and on seating allocation; airlines and their handling agent staff should have the knowledge to assess suitable seating allocation for particular needs.

This question arose again when the Code of Practice was reviewed in 2008. According to the Department's consultation paper a number of disability stakeholders had called for the lifting of the exemption from Part 3 of the UK Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) for air transport services. Two main arguments put forward to support this course of action :



The European Regulation and the DDA use different definitions of disabled person. The Regulation applies to “any person whose mobility is reduced when using transport" whereas the DDA definition of disabled does not relate solely to mobility. There is concern that the Regulation is unlikely to protect as wide a group of disabled people as the DDA. As an example, someone with HIV or cancer who has no symptoms is likely to be covered by the DDA but unlikely to be covered by the EC Regulation.

Whereas the DDA requires service providers to make unspecified "reasonable adjustments" to enable disabled people to access services, the EC Regulation lays down specific assistance which airports and airlines are required to provide. The concern here is that the prescriptive approach of the Regulation could omit an action which the DDA might consider a reasonable adjustment.

The Government said it acknowledged the differences between the two pieces of legislation but did not believe that the overall effect of these differences represented a loop-hole significant enough to justify further regulation. They had no evidence of actual discrimination occurring which would not already be addressed by the new Regulation.

The introduction of further legislation in this field, they said, would be potentially confusing for both airlines and passengers. Furthermore, the territorial scope of the DDA meant that it could only apply to services provided in the UK, thereby creating different regulatory requirements on airlines depending on the destination of the flight or where the act of perceived discrimination took place.

The European Regulation created a set of new rights for disabled people. These, said the Goernment, are enforceable through the criminal courts by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), as well as by individuals through the civil courts. They believed that the revised Code of Practice "will help the air travel industry to comply with its duties under the Regulation and to provide a better service to disabled passengers".

For these reasons, the Government decided there was not sufficient justification to lift the DDA exemption for air transport services at the present time. However, they would work closely with the complaints handling bodies and the CAA to monitor compliance with the Regulation, and would keep this decision under review.



Top of Page

People with Reduced Mobility - Work at EU Level

At European level the EU on 26th July 2006 published Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 concerning the rights of people with reduced mobility when travelling by air - for details see our EuroRoundup page

Top of Page

ACCs Progress Report

Attached is a updating report on access to air travel for people with reduced mobility (MS Word 91kb) prepared for the ACCs Annual Liaison Meeting at Stansted on 13/14 June 2007.

Top of Page

** This item is in .pdf format and to view it you will need an Acrobat Reader. This can be obtained free of charge by clicking the "Get Acrobat Reader" icon opposITE