RECENT NEWS

No night flights

Nick Barton from BAA Stansted is quoted as saying that he is delighted the new Boeing 747-800 giant planes will soon be using the airport.

What he doesn't say is that these planes will be noisier than over 80 per cent of the planes currently using Stansted and also, being cargo planes, they are most likely to operate at night.

Larger, noisier planes flying at night is the last thing that people living in this area want. If BAA cared at all about its neighbours then it would gradually reduce night flights to emergencies only.

Peter Riding
Saffron Walden

OUR COMMENT: A reminder - below is a comparison of probable noise levels illustrated by Noise Quotas. These are used to set standards for night noise and show the relative extra noise that can be expected from much larger aircraft arriving and leaving by day or night. Remember, too, it takes longer for a large aircraft to climb so noise extends over a larger area round the airport.

Pat Dale

Worst waste of water in the history of H2O!

Manchester/Dubai flight pumps 401 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, guzzles kerosene at 10.04 gallons per mile

On-board water load doubled so 14 first class passengers can have 5 minutes each in the shower at 35,000 feet!

This Wednesday September 1st 2010 sees the arrival of an Emirates Airbus A380 at Manchester, the world's largest passenger aircraft on its' first scheduled service from Ringway to Dubai. Touted as one of the "greenest" aircraft money can buy, Emirates, have ordered 90 A380s.

Airbus expects to sell more than 650 of these aircraft, the majority flying well into the 2040's. Manchester Airport has spent £10 million adapting the airport to handle aircraft this large.

But the impact all these new aircraft will have on the environment is far from benign, as Airbus, Emirates and Manchester Airport's PR flim-flam would have us believe: up to 1,300 new large aircraft like the A380 will be in our skies over the next 30 years and will contribute to an overall growing CO2 emission burden from air transport, a wholly negative addition that will only increase, not decrease, climate change impacts caused by our addiction to flying.

This is how much CO2 each aircraft will produce with both a full fuel load and flying Manchester to Dubai:

* Fuel capacity of the Airbus A380 is 131,000 litres
* Each litre of kerosene burnt results in 3.2 kilograms of CO2
* 419 tonnes of CO2 are emitted for each full fuel load
* Manchester/Dubai by A380 is around 4048 nautical miles = 127,224kg fuel consumed = 400,756 kg/401 tonnes of CO2
* That's a fuel consumption figure of 10.04 gallons per mile

Only publicising fuel efficiency figures per passenger kilometre, which is what Airbus do, could easily be misleading, given that kgs of CO2/passenger-km is a relative, not absolute, measure of how much carbon dioxide is being emitted, and could quite easily be going down even while overall emissions are going up. In other words, aircraft manufacturers and airlines could well be responsible for growing emissions even while becoming more efficient, simply by expanding the number of flights faster than the rise in efficiency.

Jeff Gazzard, MAEN spokesman, said: "There is no doubt that these aircraft are cheaper to operate because they use less fuel per passenger kilometre and are also cheaper to maintain due to their largely composite construction - good news for airlines as these economies make flying cheaper still and are used to aggressively grow the air transport industry with more aircraft flying more and more passengers to more destinations. But their environmental impact is a nightmare not a dream - this is not a green machine, it's an environment wrecker."

"The best the aircraft manufacturing industry and airlines can do is, as the A380 shows, produce efficiency gains of around 1-1.5% per year - but overall demand-led emissions growth is 4-5% per year. Result - air transport's climate change impacts get worse and worse year on year!"

"If we are serious about getting to grips with climate change, we have to start controlling and reducing the upwards curve of CO2 emissions from flying by taxing aircraft fuel and introducing tough demand management policies. We will all have to simply fly a bit less in the future."

Jeff Gazzard added: "Flying an extra 500 kilograms of water around so that 14 first class passengers can spend 5 minutes in one of the 2 onboard showers is simply the most extravagant waste of resources we've ever heard of! Emirates green credentials and efficiency boasts totally fall apart - doubling the onboard water load is nuts and equivalent to removing 5 passengers and their luggage from each flight. So much for efficiency! This has to be the single most environmentally-damaging waste of water ever in the history of H2O!!! Does Chanel not make an underarm deodorant these pollutocrats can buy and use to stay fresh whilst in the air for a few hours?"

The EU should stay away from binding limits and consider setting instead trigger values that would spark off the implementation of noise reduction measures set out in national action plans, a consortium of three consultancies has advised the EU.

The consultancies Milieu, Risk and Policy Analysis and TNO have completed a review of the EU's 2002 environmental noise directive for the European Commission. Their final reports an implementation review, an inventory of noise reduction measures, and policy recommendations were published late this month.

The consultants conclude that trigger values allow for the most cost-effective [noise reduction] measures to be adopted. Mandatory EU-wide limits would raise the political profile of environmental noise but be very costly and interfere with existing national rules. Most EU states already impose legally binding limit values and others are considering them.

The commission should consider making harmonised noise mapping methods compulsory, the consultants add, with derogations for member states on the grounds of excessive cost.

Measures to curb noise at source should be improved, the consultants say. For road traffic, reducing tyre and road interaction noise has high potential but requires tighter tyre regulations and better road maintenance.

In urban areas, plans for noise mitigation should be integrated with other planning. But forcing closer cooperation between action on noise and air quality is not recommended. The directive's text should be improved to clarify definitions such as quiet areas and major roads.

Poor quality data remains a big problem, the consultants warn. Action plans for areas with more than 250,000 people were due by January 2009, but only a small number have been finalised.

Member states' lack of expertise in noise mapping, coupled with strained financial resources, has hindered their progress on noise reduction. The consultants recommend additional guidance, workshops and training for member states to improve compliance.

In the absence of EU-wide noise limits or a legal requirement to implement noise action plans, however, some member states are questioning the ultimate purpose of the environmental noise directive.

OUR COMMENT: A mixed bag as far as local residents are concerned. What are the community considerations used when assessing the "cost effectiveness" of measures needed to lower noise levels?

Pat Dale

The most prominent climate sceptic and the most vocal advocate of the cause in the UK are to take part in their first public debate on the subject.

The "clash of the titans" will be between Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Conservative chancellor and chairman of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, and Sir David King, a former government chief scientist who once warned that climate change was "more serious even than the threat of terrorism".

The CBI will host the event at its annual climate change conference in November, and it is likely to inject renewed vigour into a deadlocked debate between two camps that seldom meet face to face and appear to be increasingly entrenched in their positions.

King, head of the Smith school of enterprise and the environment at Oxford University, told the Guardian he had accepted the challenge because he was concerned about a rise in public scepticism about climate change since the affair of the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia last year. These appeared to show that scientists had manipulated data and abused the academic review process, though they were later cleared of these charges.

"It is important to deal with the climate sceptics' arguments and deal with them fairly robustly," said King. "I usually avoid the climate sceptics because I seem to be giving them airtime. [But] Lawson is a well-known speaker, so it is not as though I'm taking somebody lightweight on."

In a written statement, Lawson said: "I have agreed to do this because this is clearly an important issue which needs to be properly debated, and those who promote the conventional wisdom on the issue are usually reluctant to engage in rational debate. The cause of reasoned debate on this issue in the UK is not helped, of course, by the fact that there is no difference between the policies of the three political parties so far as global warming is concerned."

Lawson has previously written that he accepts that global warming is happening, although he has also described climate science as "particularly uncertain". In a recent article, he repeated the sceptics' argument: "So far this century there has been no recorded warming at all."

Lawson also claims the impacts on humans have been exaggerated and is critical of current policies to tackle the problem by cutting carbon emissions, writing that the international political pledge to limit warming to 2C above the average before the industrial revolution is "devoid of either scientific basis or the slightest operational significance", and advocating mass spending on adapting to the changes instead.

King said that with 2010 projected to be the hottest year on record, it was a good time publicly to counter the claim that temperatures are not rising: although most years since 1998 had been cooler than that record hot year, they were still among the hottest years on record and above the long-term average.

Emma Wild, the CBI's principal policy adviser for climate change, said: "Both are high-profile figures and passionate advocates for their views. We expect a frank and engaging debate."

The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.

Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" once compared to Adolf Hitler by the UN's climate chief, is famous for attacking climate scientists, campaigners, the media and others for exaggerating the rate of global warming and its effects on humans, and the costly waste of policies to stop the problem.

But in a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change. "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century," the book concludes.

Examining eight methods to reduce or stop global warming, Lomborg and his fellow economists recommend pouring money into researching and developing clean energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear power, and more work on climate engineering ideas such as "cloud whitening" to reflect the sun's heat back into the outer atmosphere.

In a Guardian interview, he said he would finance investment through a tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change, for example by building better sea defences, and $100bn for global healthcare. His declaration about the importance of action on climate change comes at a crucial point in the debate, with international efforts to agree a global deal on emissions stalled amid a resurgence in scepticism caused by rows over the reliability of the scientific evidence for global warming.

The fallout from those rows continued yesterday when Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, came under new pressure to step down after an independent review of the panel's work called for tighter term limits for its senior executives and greater transparency in its workings. The IPCC has come under fire in recent months following revelations of inaccuracies in the last assessment of global warming, provided to governments in 2007 - for which it won the Nobel peace prize with former the US vice-president Al Gore. The mistakes, including a claim that the Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035, prompted a review of the IPCC's processes and procedures by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), an organisation of world science bodies.

The IAC said the IPCC needed to be as transparent as possible in how it worked, how it selected people to participate in assessments and its choice of scientific information to assess.

Although Pachauri once compared Lomborg to Hitler, he has now given an unlikely endorsement to the new book, Smart Solutions to Climate Change. In a quote for the launch, Pachauri said: "This book provides not only a reservoir of information on the reality of human-induced climate change, but raises vital questions and examines viable options on what can be done."

Lomborg denies he has performed a volte face, pointing out that even in his first book he accepted the existence of man-made global warming. "The point I've always been making is it's not the end of the world," he told the Guardian. "That's why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."

But he said the crucial turning point in his argument was the Copenhagen Consensus project, in which a group of economists were asked to consider how best to spend $50bn. The first results, in 2004, put global warming near the bottom of the list, arguing instead for policies such as fighting malaria and HIV/Aids. But a repeat analysis in 2008 included new ideas for reducing the temperature rise, some of which emerged about halfway up the ranking. Lomborg said he then decided to consider a much wider variety of policies to reduce global warming, "so it wouldn't end up at the bottom".

The difference was made by examining not just the dominant international policy to cut carbon emissions, but also seven other "solutions" including more investment in technology, climate engineering, and planting more trees and reducing soot and methane, also significant contributors to climate change, said Lomborg.

"If the world is going to spend hundreds of millions to treat climate, where could you get the most bang for your buck?" was the question posed, he added.After the analyses, five economists were asked to rank the 15 possible policies which emerged. Current policies to cut carbon emissions through taxes - of which Lomborg has long been critical - were ranked largely at the bottom of four of the lists. At the top were more direct public investment in research and development rather than spending money on low carbon energy now, and climate engineering.

Lomborg acknowledged trust was a problem when committing to long term R&D, but said politicians were already reneging on promises to cut emissions, and spending on R&D would be easier to monitor. Although many believe private companies are better at R&D than governments, Lomborg said low carbon energy was a special case comparable to massive public investment in computers from the 1950s, which later precpitated the commercial IT revolution.

Lomborg also admitted climate engineering could cause "really bad stuff" to happen, but argued if it could be a cheap and quick way to reduce the worst impacts of climate change and thus there was an "obligation to at least look at it". He added: "This is not about 'we have all got to live with less, wear hair-shirts and cut our carbon emissions'. It's about technologies, about realising there's a vast array of solutions."

Despite his change of tack, however, Lomborg is likely to continue to have trenchant critics. Writing for today's Guardian, Howard Friel, author of the book The Lomborg Deception, said: "If Lomborg were really looking for smart solutions, he would push for an end to perpetual and brutal war, which diverts scarce resources from nearly everything that Lomborg legitimately says needs more money."

Only 7% of flyers are funding green energy projects to offset the carbon emitted on their flights, according to a survey.

A study of passengers at Stansted airport revealed that 93% of those questioned did not offset their flights. Ignorance cannot be blamed: 56% of those questioned by the Civil Aviation Authority knew what the practice meant.

Asked if they had taken fewer flights over the previous year on environmental grounds, only 9% of those asked said yes. Most of this 9% took one or two fewer flights. When asked if their choice of airline had been affected by how environmentally friendly they were, only 3% replied in the affirmative.

In total 318 travellers were surveyed in September last year, the most recently available figures. British Airways and easyJet, which both allow passengers to offset their flights directly on their websites, said that the number who chose to do so this year was "static" compared to last year, without giving more details.

Carbon offsetting was first practised by individuals on a meaningful scale about five years ago in response to mounting concern over global warming. It fostered a new industry which set up green energy projects, mostly in the developing world, which consumers could fund to offset their emissions.

Initially, regulation of the new industry was lax and some projects were not properly audited to make sure that the claimed carbon emission savings were actually taking place. Even though the carbon offsetting industry is now more professional, some environmentalists believe the principle is misguided.

Friends of the Earth said: "Carbon offsetting is a con - it encourages businesses and individuals to carry on polluting when we urgently need to reduce our carbon emissions. It allows people to develop the mindset that it's OK to carry on polluting if green schemes in far-off locations make up for it."

"The greenest thing holidaymakers can do is choose a location that is closer to home, that can be reached by coach or by train. The travel industry must do more to promote nearby towns, coasts and countryside, and the government must ensure rail is a fast, convenient and affordable alternative to flying."

Germany's federal government is expected to approve the much-criticized air passenger duty at a cabinet meeting in Berlin on Sept. 1. The tax is part of a multi-billion package aimed at reducing the large federal deficit, which has widened as a result of the recent financial crisis. The tax should add €1 billion ($1.27 billion) to the federal budget. Passengers boarding flights in Germany will be charged €8 per domestic segment, €25 for medium-haul flights and €45 for long-range sectors.

But there are important exceptions: transfer services will not be charged extra, and cargo flights are not affected at all. Germany's air transport industry was caught by surprise when the plans were announced in April. Officials say they are concerned that passenger demand will significantly fall as a result of higher fares leading to the loss of 10,000 jobs.

Already in 2011, airlines expect up to 7 million fewer passengers as a consequence of the tax. They claim that the tax will lead to much less government income than predicted as a result. They also criticize that the scheme favors some airlines and airports over others. While the effect on Lufthansa and hub airports Frankfurt and Munich may be less dramatic because of the high share of transfer and higher yield, less price-sensitive traffic, low-cost carriers and airports such as Cologne/Bonn with a higher share of low cost carriers are deeply concerned their business models may no longer work.

Several recent studies also came to the conclusion that the duty could be unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. It may also infringe on European law. German airline sources indicate that a legal case against the proposal is being prepared, and legal action may be launched.

Government sources say the effects of the passenger duty may be reviewed in mid-2012. Changes could be adopted if the review concludes that it has had severe adverse effects on demand. Along with all other airlines serving European destinations, German carriers will be included in the European Union emission trading system from early 2012.

Ryanair is to pull out of George Best Belfast City Airport, claiming it cannot wait for a proposed runway extension to be built.

The airline, which has operated from the east Belfast airport since 2007, is keen to extend its services to continental Europe in addition to its five destinations in Scotland and England.

The unexpected announcement was made by chief executive Michael O'Leary in Belfast today. "It is very disappointing that the promised runway extension at Belfast City Airport has still not materialised more than three years after we opened the base at Belfast City," he said.

"In these circumstances, sadly, we have better alternative airports elsewhere in the UK and Europe, all of whom are willing and able to provide us with the runway infrastructure and low-cost facilities we need."

The airline carries some 800,000 passengers annually from the airport. Some 50 Ryanair jobs will go when services are halted on October 31st although alternative posts will be offered at other Ryanair bases. Up to 1,000 other jobs could be affected, Ryanair said. The airline's services from Derry City airport are unaffected.

A public inquiry is pending following vociferous opposition from residents in east Belfast to the proposed runway extension. Night time and other restrictions are also in place.

Rival airline easyJet questioned Ryanair's complaints about runway provision. EasyJet's commercial manager for Northern Ireland, Ali Gayward, said: “We believe that there is sufficient airport capacity in Belfast today. There must be a proper public inquiry before any decision over airport expansion is taken. Once again, Ryanair wants the red carpet rolled out for them, while easyJet and many other airlines are happy to fly from City Airport as it is today."

Liz Fawcett, spokeswoman for Belfast City Airport Watch which opposes the runway extension, said: "Residents are very pleased. [Ryanair] had a particularly unpopular 6.30am flight and certainly this will give some respite."

Independent Assembly member for east Belfast Dawn Purvis said Ryanair had thrown a "hissy fit" over the runway issue. Other political and commercial commentators regretted the decision. Katy Best, business development director at Belfast City Airport said: "We are obviously disappointed at Ryanair's decision. The airline had provided five successful routes from Belfast City Airport." She said Ryanair's passenger levels showed there was local demand for the routes served.

"I am confident that we can attract other airlines to fill the void," she added. "Our goal still remains to attract new airlines and new destinations to and from Belfast City Airport resulting in a much needed economic boost for the region."

Environment minister Edwin Poots, who ordered the planning inquiry, regretted the decision. He said continental destinations could have been served from Belfast International Airport 25 miles away, where Aer Lingus is based.

Niall Gibbons, Chief Executive of Tourism Ireland, also regretted the announcement and said inbound tourism depended on easy access by customers in target markets. "Tourism Ireland will continue its co-operative marketing efforts with the other carriers into Northern Ireland from the British market to help stimulate demand," he said.

The SDLP also regretted the announcement. North Belfast Assembly member Alban Maginness said: "We have a planning process here that is so torturous and prolonged that it can, in some circumstances, act as a deterrent to investment in business and jobs in our economy."

However Sinn Fein's Niall O'Donnghaille said: "This is nothing more than the typical type of behaviour most people will have come to expect from Michael O'Leary." The NI Retail Trade Association said the pullout would damage the North's economy as a whole.

OUR COMMENT: Is it time to have a more effective national airports policy? Should local air services, the local community and the local environment be left largely to the market interests of airlines as well as airport owners?

Pat Dale

Strikes that could have closed six UK airports including Heathrow over the bank holiday were called off last night when the Unite union said it would recommend a "much improved" pay offer to more than 6,000 workers including security staff and firefighters.

The prospect of peace in what looked set to become a damaging dispute came after talks with airport operator BAA at conciliation service Acas. The travel plans of millions of passengers over the rest of the holiday season had been put in jeopardy following the rejection of an earlier 1% pay offer. An extra rise of 0.5% had been conditional on changes being agreed to BAA's sickness agreement.

Brendan Gold, national secretary of Unite, said: "We've reached a settlement which we are prepared to recommend to our members. We will be undertaking a ballot of our members, and that will commence over the next couple of days, and last for probably about three weeks."

Union negotiators hoped members would listen to the recommendation, said Gold. "We are very pleased to be able to reassure the travelling public that we for our side have worked tirelessly to achieve a settlement."

Gold said he was confident union negotiators had reached a recommended settlement that should put an end to any strike threats in the aviation sector of BAA.

Details of the package are expected later today. About half of those previously balloted by Unite on industrial action had voted, with three quarters supporting strikes, which would have also hit Stansted, Southampton, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen airports.

The union had said members deserved a better rise, having last year accepted a pay freeze and co-operated with changes to the firm's pension scheme. Two other unions, Prospect and the Commercial and Public Services Union, will also ballot their members on the offer.

Unite had said the airports would close if strikes went ahead. The union would have to give no more than seven days' notice of any industrial action, meaning its members could walk out before the end of the school holidays.

Terry Morgan of BAA, owned by Spanish construction company Ferrovial, said: "We believe that the unions are going to recommend acceptance of our offer to their membership, and if that's the case, then we are very, very confident that any disruption to our airport operations has now been avoided."

It was important to make sure that people travelling on holiday and business over the next few weeks could do so with a high degree of confidence that their journeys were not going to be disrupted, he said. "I think it's a deal that is a fair reward for our staff, but it's also a deal that the company can afford."

Transport secretary Philip Hammond said: "I am extremely pleased that BAA and Unite have agreed a basis for settlement to end the threat of strike action. Strike action over a bank holiday would have been hugely damaging to the country. "Passengers will be relieved that they are now able to go on holiday without the fear of disruption from strikes."

Bob Atkinson, of website travelsupermarket.com, said there would have been passenger "outrage" if the strikes had gone ahead. "Consumers have already had to contend with a range of challenging travel problems in 2010 - from airports closed due to snow at the turn of the year to airspace shut down and the problems of making claims from airlines after the volcanic ash eruption, together with the BA cabin crew strikes."

"Customers now need reassurance that they will not see problems further down the road and it is time that the split-up of the BAA monopoly at London and in Scotland is resolved once and for all. When will the sale of Stansted and Edinburgh or Glasgow International go through and help to prevent consumers being held hostage to one union in the future?"

Meanwhile, thousands of British Airways check-in workers and other ground staff are voting on whether to accept savings and job losses as part of the airline's plans to cut costs.

OUR COMMENT: Now is the time for Rail and Coach to offer a more comfortable range of holidays at reasonable prices. And, what about the promised air travel tax? A tax that would provide better equality with regard to fuel prices? Surely this should be on the Government balance sheet?

Pat Dale

Just weeks after Stansted received Code F status to handle Boeing's new generation 747-8 aircraft, British Airways World Cargo has announced three of its new fleet will be based at London Stansted, operating schedules to destinations such as Hong Kong, Atlanta, Houston and Shanghai.

"We're delighted British Airways World Cargo has selected Stansted as the UK base from which three of its new generation 747-8 will operate," said Nick Barton, Commercial and Development Director for London Stansted Airport. "The new fleet will be delivered in traditional British Airways colours and we understand the first aircraft will touchdown early next year."

"Obtaining Code F status was vital to opening the doors for next generation aircraft to operate at Stansted and we're delighted with this announcement which is already sparking interest from other carriers. This is great news for Stansted and we look forward to welcoming the eagerly awaited 747-8 aircraft when it touches down early next year."

Steve Gunning, Managing Director of British Airways World Cargo says: "Our investment in the new Boeing 747-8 reinforces our commitment to the air cargo industry and demonstrates the importance British Airways places on cargo. While our decision to operate on the same schedule also reiterates our commitment to Stansted and its recent Code F status is a significant boost to the operational capacity of the airport."

"In addition, the increased range, noise reduction and environmental benefits that the 747-8 provides will significantly benefit our customers. Long-haul freighters and our freighter hub at Stansted form an integral part of our overall business strategy - providing flexibility and capacity on resilient and growing lanes - as we strive for continued excellence in all key areas of the business, including product range, customer service and, of course, network offering. I am also pleased to be continuing our relationship with our long-term freighter partners, GSS and Atlas Air."

OUR COMMENT: It is misleading to suggest that the new planes will be environmentally beneficial. Improvements in engine technologuy will not necessarily compensate for increased size and it has been stated that it is impossible to reduce levels of both noise and emissions. There could be significant implications for residents. Many cargo planes operate at night, when noise levels are ruled by the statutory imposition of limits expressed through a formula known as "Quota Counts" or "QCs".

The QC counts for Ryanair B737 and easyJet 319 are given in the table below. Both these aircraft types are the least noisy commercial passenger jets currently in operation and, as they make up over 80% of the traffic at Stansted, the introduction of B747-800 with a higher noise signature will be adverse especially if BA Cargo uses the night period generally favoured by freight operators. And a B747-800 will be perceived as still more noisier since it is normal human experience that the bigger the noise source, the larger appears the noise nuisance. And proportionally more noise complaints are made to BAA Stansted for night noise and freighters.

Pat Dale

A poll by the UK's leading airport transfer comparison website has shown the most loved and most hated airports, according to the British public. 63% said they preferred flying from a regional airport and Luton was voted the 'worst' in the UK.

Latest research by one of the UK's leading airport transfer comparison websites of 2,372 holidaymakers has found that Luton is the 'worst' UK airport, whilst Birmingham is the favourite place to fly from.

The study by www.airporttransfers.co.uk aimed to find out what travellers' attitudes were towards various British airports, so respondents were subsequently asked to reveal what they believed to be the 'best' and 'worst' in the UK. This was determined by the respondents' scores of various aspects of the airport experience, after airporttransfers.co.uk asked them to rate different phases out of 10 of the airports they had been to.

The top five 'best' UK airports, according to the poll are:

1. Birmingham
Cleanliness		9/10
Staff friendliness		10/10
Check-in efficiency		10/10
Shopping experience		10/10
Lounge areas		8/10
Security check time		7/10
TOTAL		54/60

2. Cardiff
Cleanliness		9/10
Staff friendliness		9/10
Check-in efficiency		8/10
Shopping experience		7/10
Lounge areas		7/10
Security check time		8/10
TOTAL		48/60

3. Liverpool
Cleanliness		8/10
Staff friendliness		10/10
Check-in efficiency		8/10
Shopping experience		6/10
Lounge areas		9/10
Security check time		6/10
TOTAL		47/60

4. Manchester
Cleanliness		7/10
Staff friendliness		8/10
Check-in efficiency		7/10
Shopping experience		10/10
Lounge areas		6/10
Security check time		5/10
TOTAL		43/60

5. Glasgow
Cleanliness		6/10
Staff friendliness		7/10
Check-in efficiency		6/10
Shopping experience		5/10
Lounge areas		6/10
Security check time		5/10
TOTAL		35/60

The five 'worst' UK airports, as voted by respondents, are:

1. Luton
Cleanliness		3/10
Staff friendliness		1/10
Check-in efficiency		2/10
Shopping experience		6/10
Lounge areas		3/10
Security check time		1/10
TOTAL		16/60

2. Stansted
Cleanliness		4/10
Staff friendliness		2/10
Check-in efficiency		2/10
Shopping experience		6/10
Lounge areas		4/10
Security check time		2/10
TOTAL		20/60

3. East Midlands
Cleanliness		5/10
Staff friendliness		3/10
Check-in efficiency		3/10
Shopping experience		4/10
Lounge areas		3/10
Security check time		3/10
TOTAL		21/60

4. Gatwick
Cleanliness		6/10
Staff friendliness		2/10
Check-in efficiency		3/10
Shopping experience		8/10
Lounge areas		5/10
Security check time		2/10
TOTAL		26/60

5. Heathrow
Cleanliness		6/10
Staff friendliness		3/10
Check-in efficiency		3/10
Shopping experience		10/10
Lounge areas		6/10
Security check time		2/10
TOTAL		30/60

48% said they were prepared to travel 'more than 100 miles' if it meant the airport they were flying from was 'decent' and a quarter, 26%, felt that having a bad experience at the airport could 'ruin a holiday'.

Chris Brown, co-founder of airporttransfers.co.uk, said: "For some people, the airport experience can be a stressful one, especially when faced with delays, queues and unfriendly staff. With our customers heading to various airports across the UK every day, we were really keen to find out which ones were loved and which passengers would rather avoid."

"I was really surprised to see London's four main airports voted in the top five 'worst', but I think many people are put off by larger, busier airports. Whilst all of the London airports scored relatively high for shopping experience, it seems a lot of passengers feel let down in the more important customer service areas such as friendliness of staff and check-in efficiency."

Many British people are holidaying at home this summer amid fears over tour operator problems, flight upsets and the Eurozone's debt crisis, according to research.

One in four holidaymakers (23%) are taking more UK breaks this year than last, and a third (33%) will be spending this year's main holiday on home soil, a study by motoring and leisure association CSMA Club found.

For many, the financial instability in Europe (11%) and the risk of a repeat of the ash cloud problems (6%) has deterred them from taking a break abroad. A further one in fifteen (7%) are put off by the threat of airline strikes.

However, finances remain the key factor in keeping many UK holidaymakers at home, with one in four (25%) doing so to keep a close eye on the money. The findings show the average family will spend just over £980 on a summer holiday in the UK, with Scotland, the Lake District, Devon and Snowdonia set to be the biggest beneficiaries.

Greece tops the list of countries being shunned by UK holidaymakers, with one in 10 (13%) planning to avoid the country amid fears over financial instability. Iceland (9%), Turkey and Russia (7%) and Romania (5%) made up the rest of the top five places that UK tourists are avoiding this summer.

Opinium Research carried out an online poll of 3,006 UK holidaymakers from July 2-6.

Heathrow airport had its busiest ever month for passengers in July, but airports outside London suffered flat or falling traffic. The airport operator BAA said a whopping 6.71 million passengers passed through Heathrow in July, a 3.5 per cent jump on the same month last year.

The UK's biggest airport was helped by an end to the Icelandic volcanic ash disruption and a temporary cessation in industrial action by British Airways cabin crew. A further boost to Heathrow came from continued strong traffic from overseas visitors and the fact that it remains a crucial transfer hub for long-haul flights that start outside the UK.

The main source of passenger growth at the London airport was the European market, where additional capacity drove an increase of 9.5 per cent. It also benefited from strong demand from Brazil, Russia, China and India.

"Heathrow is definitely more resilient because of the hub nature of the airport for passengers who use London to transfer to other destinations," a BAA spokesman said. "We have been saying for a while that we would have had good figures if had not been for the volcanic ash or BA industrial action." However, he warned: "We are not yet out of the woods."

Industry sources also suggested that Heathrow is benefiting from a stronger recovery in London's economy, given that business passengers account for about one-third of its traffic.

In contrast, the reliance of Stansted on low-cost airlines suggests this was behind a 7.2 per cent slump in passengers numbers to 2.02 million in July. In fact, Stansted was the worst performing of all the UK airports. Aberdeen airport suffered a 4.1 per cent slump in passengers to 276.9 million last month, which was slightly worse than 3.6 per cent fall at Glasgow. Meanwhile, passenger numbers rose marginally by 0.6 per cent at Edinburgh.

Total UK passenger numbers came in higher by 0.3 per cent at 10.95m in July.

ELECTRIC vehicles could become a more common sight across Uttlesford after it was announced that Stansted Airport has been earmarked as a location for a new plug-in charging point.

The East of England is set to become a haven for electric vehicle owners after being given the green light to apply for funding to install around 600 charging points across the region.

As well as Stansted Airport, a wider charging network for electric vehicles will be based around Bedford, Cambridge, Ipswich, Norwich, Peterborough, Luton, Hertfordshire, and Thames Gateway in South Essex.

A final decision is expected from government by December, and if all goes to plan, installation could be underway as soon as spring 2011. This will ensure that the East of England forms a key part of the UK's charging network, linking in with the adjacent charging points already being installed in London and Milton Keynes.

Chief executive of the East of England Development Agency (EEDA), Deborah Cadman OBE, said: "The transition to a low carbon economy is a necessity, not a choice. With this announcement, the East of England is set to lead the way in providing the infrastructure for local people and businesses to adopt electric vehicles."

"EEDA has been proud to coordinate this project in partnership with businesses and local authorities - a project that will build upon the East of England's position as a leader in low carbon innovation, providing the research and development platform to help develop a global electric vehicle economy of the future."

One of the main barriers to people buying electric vehicles has been concerns over the range and the battery life. The new proposal has been designed specifically to ensure that people across the South and East of England are within striking distance of the next plug-in point.

A spokesperson for the airport said: "Stansted Airport is delighted to be involved in such a ground-breaking project and we look forward to working with EEDA as the initiative progresses."

Workers at airport operator BAA have voted three-to-one in favour of strike action that could close Heathrow and five other UK airports. The ballot came after the Unite union rejected a 1% pay offer from BAA.

BAA has confirmed its airports will have to close on any strike days, as essential staff including firefighters are due to take part in the walkouts. BAA also runs Southampton, Edinburgh, Stansted, Glasgow and Aberdeen airports.

The airports operator said: "We regret the uncertainty this vote has already caused our passengers and airline customers. Fewer than half of those people eligible to vote have done so and we do not believe this result provides a clear mandate for strike action."

The union said 74.1% of the 3,054 staff who voted had said yes to strike action. The turnout was about 50% of the 6,185 staff balloted. In addition to the firefighters, the vote was also put to security officers, engineers and workers in various support roles.

Strike dates

Brian Boyd, Unite: "If strike action goes ahead, BAA faces total shutdown of six airports."

Both sides said they hoped to be able to avert the action through negotiation. No dates were given for strike action. The union said it would be meeting on Monday to discuss a plan of action. It would have to give a minimum of a week's notice for strike action, meaning walkouts could begin from the week starting 23 August.

Some analysts suggest Unite may target the August Bank Holiday weekend that starts on Saturday, 28 August, but its leaders refused to confirm that. Unite's Brendan Gold said it was not their intention to ruin people's summer holidays.

"The advice we would give to passengers is to put pressure on the company to come to reach a negotiated settlement," he told a news conference.

No strike action has previously completely closed BAA's airports. In the last planned walkout in 2002, action was called off at the last moment when an improved offer was made by the company.

POTENTIAL STRIKE IMPACT
* 220 airlines use the six airports
* 300,000 passengers daily
* 2,561 flights a day
* 10,000 staff employed by BAA

The union says BAA staff accepted a pay freeze in 2009 and has described the offer for this year - a 1% increase, with the possibility of an extra 0.5% if the union agrees to changes to the company's sickness agreement - as "measly" and "nothing short of confrontational".

BAA counters that its offer is reasonable "at a time when BAA and its airline customers are seeing a decline in passengers due to the impacts of recession and volcanic ash."

Unite is also calling for staff to receive a £450 bonus, which had been promised to them if the company had met a certain earnings target.

BAA, which is owned by Spain's Ferrovial, missed the target by 3%. However, Unite says staff deserve financial recognition for coming so close.

The company has also said there will be no additional summer bonus this year, which is usually paid if BAA makes a profit, and is worth about £700.

Unite is currently also in a dispute with British Airways, which has resulted in 22 days of strikes so far this year. The union has threatened to ballot for further strikes at the airline starting in September.

RYANAIR has said they will be forced to cancel up to 300 flights per day if BAA strikes go ahead.

The budget airline, which has a base a Stansted Airport, believes the travel plans of up to 50,000 passengers per day will be affected.

Ryanair's Daniel de Carvalho said: "There is no justification for any strikes by these selfish and underworked Unite members at a time when traffic at BAA's airports is falling and they are even less busy than they were last year. Unite must not be allowed to blackmail ordinary passengers or their families by striking during the peak holiday season."

"If the Unite union closes the BAA airports, then they should be told in no uncertain terms that pay freeze will immediately follow."

The airline reports that traffic at BAA's airports fell 4 per cent in 2009, and has fallen again by over 6 per cent in the first half of 2010.

Sincere apologies to anyone who has ever flown with his airline, and especially to those about to do so in the coming days and weeks, but once again I am suffused with admiration for Michael O'Leary of Ryanair.

Already, hundreds of hands will be reaching for the Basildon Bond preparatory to contacting the editor to question the character of this columnist. Earlier this week, indeed, this page carried a letter from a Mr Barry H White, of London N6, touching on both the hidden charges that have helped Ryanair to fifth place in the ancillary income rankings of global carriers and its latest outrage.

This one, even by Mr O'Leary's Olympian standards of cultivated chutzpah, is a cracker. Three violinists flying from Frankfurt to Stansted, en route to Norfolk to play some Bach at a charity concert, were banned from placing their instruments in the overhead luggage lockers. Being a shade jittery about entrusting their Stradivarii to the cargo hold, they were obliged to pay for extra seats into which the violins were duly strapped, at an additional cost - this being the most celebrated of "cut-price" airlines - of £1,340. Whether they were then stung under the new "four strings" surcharge mysteriously introduced 11 minutes before the flight took off is unknown.

Needless to say, the charity, which had no choice but to stump up, lividly demands a refund. Equally needless to add, Mr O'Leary couldn't give a flying fugue. Though if it transpires that the musicians had been assured that they could use the lockers, as they claim, he will issue a sincere apology of his own. He does this whenever the venomous disdain he spits out like a psychotic cobra strays into the realm of contractual breach (refusing to compensate travellers grounded by the volcanic ash cloud, in contravention of EU law), or towards the land of libel (recent posters depicting Stelios Haji-Ioannou of rival EasyJet as Pinocchio). The sincerity of O'Leary's near weekly apologies reminds you of Hughie Green richly praising the spoons-player who dropped the cutlery 23 times on Opportunity Knocks. The official Ryanair motto, after all, is "Talk to the hand..."

The delight Mr O'Leary takes in insulting anyone who crosses his path - politicians, journalists, environmentalists and preferably his passengers - is such a potent antidote to the prevailing ethos of avoiding causing offence at all costs, hidden and otherwise, that the Irishman becomes an honorary national treasure. In an age when the BBC solemnly pledges never to broadcast gags about Eammon Holmes's girth (and the best of luck to him on Ryanair; they'd make him book the entire plane), he is our stoutest bulwark against the unceasing advances of the military unit known to us all as the PC Brigade.

Whether Mr O'Leary's lone rearguard campaign to have political correctness sectioned under the Mental Health Act is any more appealing must depend on one's personal aeronautic history. A colleague, who with reckless bravery took her baby on a Ryanair flight, and will now travel to Europe only by train, seems disinclined to join me in the Michael O'Leary Fan Club. This year's annual dinner falls on September 7, by the way, in a public telephone box on the outskirts of Arbroath. Tickets are £25, with an additional £5 for each item of clothing, £10 for those with more than four teeth, £25 for each hand and foot and a £150 surcharge (per missing limb) for amputees. It should be a wild evening.

But, then, unlike my colleague and Mr White's daughter, I have never flown Ryanair, and never would. I yield to no one in my appreciation of those willing to endure character-building horror of a kind unknown in Britain since the Victorian public schools. No, as a self-respecting coward, I'd rather be force fed my own liver by Dr Josef Mengele, or even Ed Balls, than go within 500 yards of a Ryanair check-in. From this vantage point of insouciant indifference to the sufferings of others, I consider Mr O'Leary a 24-carat genius. Who else could have studied the travel plans of those desperately fleeing the planet's leading hell holes - whether by hiding in the cargo hold or strapping themselves to the undercarriage - and thought "Sure now, isn't that the way to shunt holiday makers to Magaluf"?

With London newly crowned as the global capital for public relations laundering operations on those keen to clean their sullied images, Mr O'Leary's heroism shines out more brightly than ever. Partly out of a native cockiness worthy of the young Prince Naseem Hamed, and partly to help drive the colossal profits he makes even in tough trading conditions, he actively courts hideous publicity. To quote the Millwall FC of the skies himself: "I don't give a s--- if nobody likes me... I'm probably just an obnoxious little b------. Who cares?" It's the "probably" that tickles most.

As the absolute shamelessness and pure integrity required for such an imperviousness to universal loathing are rare and precious qualities, at least outside the sphere of the genocidal maniac, I invite you to honour Bernard Manning's successor as our leading bogeyman and rise for Michael O'Leary. Which if he has his way, and adds standing-room only tickets to his bewildering array on in-flight elegances, some of you courageous souls will be doing soon enough anyway.

The world's biggest airliners could soon be on their way to Stansted.

The Civil Aviation Authority has awarded the UK's third busiest airport Code F status in a move that has already prompted calls for a night time curfew by SSE, despite a warm welcome from BAA.

The official go-ahead, which follows months of work to demonstrate the airport's operational readiness to handle aircraft such as the Airbus 380 and the new Boeing 747-8 opens the door for growth in passenger and cargo operations.

Already Stansted has been named as Emirates' alternative airport for their A380 aircraft, if they are forced to divert as a precaution or if the destination airport is unavailable - although the airport said it had no immediate plans to launch regular services.

Stansted's commercial and development director, Nick Barton, who along with the airport's managing director, David Johnson, recently visited a number of the Middle East's largest airlines which use or plan to use the A380, said: "We are delighted to have won permission to handle the world's biggest Code F aircraft, an achievement that will make Stansted even more attractive to potential carriers - both passengers and cargo.

"It's credit to the original designers of Stansted who showed astonishing vision in the 1980s to create an airport capable of handling the aircraft of the future. Our mission is to make sure the world's aviation decision makers know all about the excellent modern facilities at Stansted. Gaining Code F status gives us a competitive advantage as we focus our work and energy towards airlines from the Middle and Far East and the USA."

SSE's campaign director Carol Barbone said: "The A380 - the world's largest aircraft - and the wide-bodied Boeing 747-8 which BAA hopes to attract to Stansted are in a different league to the relative toddlers in the fleets already serving the airport. We are therefore understandably concerned that noise problems will be exacerbated, particularly at night. If and when these new super-jumbos are introduced at the airport, albeit on an emergency basis, their impact must be limited as far as possible by restricting flights to the daytime period when sleep is less likely to be disturbed."

"Noise continues to be a significant problem around Stansted where very low noise background levels make overflying all the more intrusive. Indeed, despite the falling numbers of passengers and planes using Stansted, complaints about noise made to BAA in 2009 rose by 50% compared to the previous year (excluding multiple complainers) and there was a 47% rise in the number noise infringements where aircraft noise exceeded official limits at the fixed ground monitors."

Matthew Knowles, Spokesperson for ADS, the UK's Aerospace, Defence and Security trade organisation said: "The Airbus 380 is more fuel-efficient than a hybrid car and produces less perceived noise at take-off than that experienced inside a London Underground train."

ISSUES with noisy aircraft blasting over the top of villages came to a head last Friday when over 200 people packed into Hatfield Heath village hall to air their grievances.

In the hot seat was Stansted Airport's head of environment, Dr Andy Jefferson. He was met with some angry questions about flight paths and Asia-bound jumbo jets swooping over rooftops at night. Pensioner Albert Neilson attacked the airport chief after it emerged that on average every three months engine noise drowns out village life for three entire days.

He said: "That is three days of our lives gone in three months, how many more days are we going to lose? It's all about profits for BAA - we were promised no flights at night. They need to put the goalposts back to where they were and stick to that promise."

Dr Jefferson said airport owners BAA are eager to work alongside residents and get a better deal for them regarding flights paths. He told them to lobby the Civil Aviation Authority in the hope of getting alternative flight paths approved.

Dr Jefferson said: "We are aiming to trail new waypoints with one of the airlines - this will mean that aircraft will travel between Hatfield Heath and Hatfield Broad Oak rather then directly over them. It will reduce noise for some residents, but in order to do that for all airlines the CAA has to formally adopt those points."

As a result parish councillors, the Stop Stansted Expansion Group, and BAA will be teaming up with Uttlesford MP Sir Alan Haselhurst to form a lobbying taskforce. After the three month trial, which is due to start in August, data will be gathered and presented to the CAA.

BAA is also looking to increase its fines for aircraft companies that don't obey height and direction rules. Currently Air Asia X and Ryanair are the biggest culprits - but are only fined £1000 or £500 for each contravention. Dr Jefferson said: "We want an increase to make give the fines far more weight."

SEE economics advisor Brain Ross welcomed BAA's effort to engage with the community and said that there were "grounds for optimism". He added: "Noise fines should be increased ten-fold to make them a deterrent. If planes were actually at the 4000ft point they should be, people would be a lot happier. We also need to find a common position with BAA and aim to reduce night flying."

OUR COMMENT: Too much "Do-it-yourself"? There is more to noise management than laying down flight paths and only BAA can control and enforce best practice and, even with best practice, all aircraft are noisy on take off and landing.

Pat Dale

This is why I, a former environment minister and shadow environment secretary, decided to write a new pamphlet on the issue. Green gold: the case for raising our game on climate change urges David Cameron and the new coalition government to take more radical steps on the issue, and to take the part(ies) with them.

Not only is it right for the environment to tackle the challenge of climate change sooner rather than later but there will also be large financial rewards for UK Plc if we succeed in doing so. Working towards a low carbon economy is not a "luxury"; it is essential to our future prosperity. If we fail to decarbonise our electricity industry, our transport system and our buildings we will fall behind our competitors abroad and pay a much heavier price financially in the future.

The new government has to make the biggest ever cuts in public spending at the same time as radically reforming energy, transport, taxation, planning and construction policy to step up the pace of Britain's transformation to a low carbon economy.

Two decades ago, like most people, I knew very little about climate change. When John Major made me Minister of State for the Environment in 1993 my former private secretary at the Department of Health, aware of my limited experience in this field slipped a copy of The Green Bluffer's Guide into my red box so that at least I would know what the people I was about to meet were talking about. I probably needed it, but within three months I was convinced by the scientific evidence that climate change was happening and that the risk that climate change posed to the prosperity, and conceivably even the survival, of the human species was real.

I also knew from a previous life that going green can bring financial rewards. As a young investment banker in the 1970s I raised money for an engineering company which made innovative and unusually energy-efficient domestic central heating boilers. It was so successful that within two decades my clients' original investment had multiplied 375 times, an early and striking example of how doing the right thing environmentally can also be rewarding economically. Green can be gold.

So what should we do now we are back in government?

Party members remember that, within a year of his election as Leader, David Cameron was photographed on a dog sled in the Arctic visiting a Norwegian glacier to see the effects of climate change first hand. This iconic image came to define his efforts to transform the image of the Conservative Party. Since then we have been urging voters to "vote blue, go green".

The Prime Minister has rightly expressed fears that Labour's approach to climate change in recent years was "in danger of starting to lose people". Today we need a positive message about the benefits of Britain leading the way towards a low carbon world. We must persuade people and companies that it is in their financial interests to change the way they go about their lives and businesses to protect the environment.

The Coalition Agreement pledges to increase the target for energy from renewable sources; to create a green investment bank; to reduce carbon emissions from central government by ten per cent within a year; to cancel the third runway at Heathrow; and launch a (as yet undetailed) national tree planting campaign.

But we must go much further. Market forces must be harnessed much more extensively to drive the necessary technological progress and changes in lifestyles. International cooperation is essential, not just within the EU but also with China, whose long term approach is far greener than many in the West understand, and with other countries.

My pamphlet concludes that the evidence that climate change is caused to a significant extent by human activity is compelling. More importantly it points out that climate change is not a threat to the survival of the planet but will, if not checked, end the stable climatic conditions in which the human species, one of the most recently arrived on the planet, has both multiplied in number and enjoyed huge prosperity in the last few thousand years.

Britain under David Cameron has a chance to lead a new low carbon revolution, comparable to the industrial revolution two centuries ago when we led the world and laid the foundations of a growing and prosperous economy. We can do this in four ways.

Firstly we must speed up efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions from electricity. This means more renewables, more nuclear and no new coal fired power stations without carbon capture and storage, even though the combined impact of these changes will inevitably raise consumer prices. It also means much more emphasis on energy efficiency. Significantly all these changes improve Britain's energy security too.

Secondly we must decarbonise our transport system by improving the incentives for hybrid, electric and other low emission cars, vans and trucks, and by introducing road pricing on our motorways while simultaneously transferring them to private ownership. At the same time we must follow France, Spain and China by investing in high speed rail so travellers are encouraged to switch from planes to trains for journeys up to five hundred miles.

Thirdly, as the technology to slash emissions from buildings is already available, its swifter adoption must be encouraged by radical changes to council tax and business rates which will reward those landlords, tenants and owner occupiers who invest in energy efficiency and low carbon technology are rewarded and those who do not are penalised.

Fourthly Britain should lead the way to ending the perverse incentives for poorer countries to destroy the rain forests. This requires touger action to stop the illegal timber trade and better ways of compensating forest communities who are willing to adopt sustainable policies.

David Cameron put climate change at the heart of his campaign to transform and modernise the Conservative Party. I don't doubt his personal commitment or that of other ministers and MPs. However we still have to persuade the public and the wider party that it is in Britain's economic interests to move to a low carbon economy faster than other countries.

This will not be easy, but if the carbon price rises substantially as the world economy recovers and other nations get toughter with emitters, then countries which have already invested in low carbon electricity generating capacity, low emission transport infrastructure and ennvironmentally friendly buildings will enjoy a huge advantage. Low carbon products and services will be a growth market in the medium to long term, as trends in the car industry already show.

Let's be clear also that if we don't do this other countries, including China, certainly will. The danger is that delaying decisions now will leave Britain lagging in the race to become a forward looking green economy.

All these reasons for going green are consistent with Conservative principles. The foundations of Britain's energy scurity for the next generation will be laid in the decisions of the next five years. Equally crucially the chance for Britain to lead the low carbon revolution exists today. If we don't act now, others will. It's time to show that green can be gold.

Green Gold: the case for raising our game on climate change by Tim Yeo MP is published by the Tory Reform Group

Mr Bain:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what recent assessment he has made of the case for additional airport capacity in England; [4973] (2) what his policy is on airport expansion outside the South East; [4987] (3) whether he intends to publish a national policy statement on aviation. [5065]

Mrs Villiers:
Individual proposals for airport expansion need to be judged on their merits, taking into account relevant environmental considerations. We have made clear, however, that we oppose new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, on the grounds that the adverse impacts of such development would be unacceptable. On the matter of national policy statement, the Government will issue a more detailed statement later in the summer.

Luciana Berger:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage agreement at global level on reducing aviation emissions. [8972]

Mrs Villiers:
The UK actively participates in all discussions on climate change and aviation in international forums, and particularly in the UNFCCC and in the aviation specific UN body, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

While progress in these forums has been slow, there has been some success, for example in October 2009 agreement was reached in ICAO on a global, annual average fuel efficiency improvement of 2% per annum until 2020 and on an aspirational global fuel efficiency improvement of 2% per annum to 2050. In addition, earlier this year ICAO states agreed that the organisation should work on developing a CO2 standard for new aircraft.

The steps that have been taken to date in ICAO do not go far enough in delivering a sustainable global aviation industry and the UK will continue to push for an ambitious, global approach to reduce emissions from international aviation.

Zac Goldsmith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change in its report, Meeting the UK aviation target-options for reducing emissions to 2050, December 2009. [11991]

Mrs Villiers:
We are committed to reducing emissions from transport and ensuring the right framework is in place for aviation to contribute to the UK's climate stabilisation goals. Making clear our opposition to new runways at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick is an important element to that. The Committee on Climate Change's December report was an important contribution to the evidence base, and we will consider the detail of policy and announce our conclusions on the best way to achieve our aims in due course.

The battle against global warming which has dominated the Government's environment policy has taken place against a backdrop of a "piecemeal degradation" of rural Britain, which ministers are now promising to address.

During the last Government major legislation was introduced to cut carbon emissions in order to tackle global warming. However Britain continued to lose important wildlife like farmland birds, flower rich meadows and bees. In a change of direction, the new Coalition Government has promised to bring the focus back onto endangered animals, cleaner water and other aspects of the natural environment.

The first environmental paper to be launched by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) in 20 years will focus on protecting the countryside. Helen Meech, assistant director of external affairs at the National Trust, said some "great legislation" was introduced by the last Government to cut greenhouse gases by 80 per cent on 1990 levels by 2050.

But now there is a need to introduce new laws to protect the environment that is suffering right now. Honey bees are in crisis, 97 per cent of flower rich meadows have been lost since 1930 and house sparrow numbers have decline by 10 million in the last 25 years.

"The environment agenda has been very dominated by climate change and this discussion is an opportunity to bring the natural environment back up the agenda," she said. We've lost sight of the benefits the natural world provides because they are not accountable within markets and everyone takes them for granted. Now is the time we need to start valuing all the benefits we get for free because they are being degraded."

Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary, is due to launch a discussion paper at the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew. She is calling on every area of society to contribute ideas to how Britain can stop the extinction of species on our own doorstep.

"We want everyone to contribute their views on the natural environment - whether they're concerned at the plight of the songbirds in their garden, the quality of air in their town, flooding problems worsened by people paving over their gardens or the fate of our wider countryside," she said. "We have the opportunity to be the generation that puts a stop to the piecemeal degradation of our natural environment."

Ideas that are likely to be accepted by the new Government when the white paper is published next spring include introducing a new system of 'conservation credits'. The 'bio-banking' system, as it is also known, means developers have to compensate for building on wildlife habitats by supporting conservation projects elsewhere.

The Government is also expected to consider a new designation for green spaces in towns and cities that will protect urban parks and nature reserves from development. The NHS and schools will be asked to introduce 'green exercise' and 'outdoor lessons' as part of their statutory requirements.

Farmers will have to do more to protect the environment in order to continue receiving subsidies as part of possible reforms to agriculture. Nature reserves that exist will be protected by 'wildlife corridors' and new protected areas will be set up.

More radical suggestions submitted to the discussion paper may include reintroducing species like the wolf or beaver and a ban on factory farming in England.

Conservation groups including the RSPB, Woodland Trust and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) will all be putting in ideas. Stephanie Hilborne, chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts, said it could transform the landscape of the UK. "This White Paper is potentially as meaningful as the build-up to the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act," she said.

"Back then we were reconstructing a nation and, although money was very short, nature was seen as a key part of our future. Nature is not a luxury. With the UK facing unprecedented economic uncertainty and pressures for energy generation, food production and housing, there is a risk we overlook the very basis of our economy and our society; the natural environment upon which this all depends."

The Unite union is planning a fresh test for European human rights legislation: it plans to use it against British Airways to force the carrier to reinstate ultra-cheap Caribbean flights for striking cabin crew.

Unite said on Monday that it planned a legal challenge over the decision by BA chief executive Willie Walsh to strip striking crew of their travel privileges - allowing them flights anywhere on the BA network for just a tenth of the usual fare.

"After careful consideration, Unite believes that management's action breaches European human rights legislation," said the union, claiming 6,000 crew were affected.

BA hit back saying: "Staff travel is a non-contractual perk. Cabin crew knew if they took part in strike action they would lose their travel perks. We will defend our position vigorously."

It is yet to receive formal notice of any action.

OUR COMMENT: Should we all have the right to a pollution free environment?

Pat Dale

Passengers rather than money are to become the focus of how airports in the UK are be regulated, according to new proposals announced today by Transport Secretary Philip Hammond.

Hammond's proposals would see the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) given a new primary duty to promote the interests of passengers and a supplementary duty of helping drive passenger-focused investment.

Currently, the CAA has four duties:

* To "further the reasonable interests of users of airports within the UK" including airlines;
* To promote the efficient, economic and profitable operation of such airports;
* To encourage investment in new facilities at airports in time to satisfy anticipated demands by the users of such airports; and
* To impose the minimum restrictions that are consistent with the performance by the CAA of its functions under those sections.

The CAA would also gain more effective powers to take action against airports that underperform and new powers to investigate and take action against anti-competitive behaviour.

Hammond said: "The way our airports are regulated is in urgent need of reform. The current economic regulation legislation dates from 1986, when the aviation sector looked very different from today. We must now put passengers at the heart of how our airports are run. We have already announced that we do not support the building of new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted. We want to make those airports better, not bigger and that is exactly what these measures will do."

"These changes will help drive passenger-focused investment in airports - such as in new baggage handling equipment or building new modern facilities - and they will also allow economic regulation to be used in a more targeted way and remove unnecessary bureaucracy."

Hammond also announced that pressure group Passenger Focus would not be asked to represent air passengers as had previously been proposed. "The Government believes that it is important to have strong passenger representation but that this is not the time to be make additional structural changes which will add to the regulatory burden on industry. It will therefore be exploring options for strengthening existing passenger representation arrangements," said Hammond.

"We are pleased to see the Transport Secretary's announcement today setting out his approach to reforming the economic regulation of airports. Today's announcement reflects the very constructive consultation process undertaken by the Department for Transport last year and provides clarity on the package of measures that Government will take forward in new legislation to promote both the interests of passengers and investment in Britain's airports. The measures announced today will provide important reassurance for the pension funds and other institutions who are supporting BAA's multi-billion pound modernisation programme for Heathrow."

The new legislation will include:

* A primary duty for the CAA to promote the interests of passengers. The CAA will also be given a supplementary duty to ensure that licence holders are able to finance their activities;
* A minimum credit worthiness requirement for licensed airports;
* Ring fencing provisions similar to those in place in other regulated sectors but with initial derogations from some of those provisions (including restrictions on the granting of security to lenders) where the costs of introducing those provisions would exceed their benefits;
* A requirement on the CAA to apply agreed tests when considering the removal of an airport's derogations and an appeals process that is aligned with the wider licence modification process; and
* A requirement for airports to put in place continuity of service plans.

The Government has also confirmed:

* The earlier decision not to bring in a Special Administration regime; and
* That it will not be making changes to the basis on which the current price caps at Heathrow and Stansted are set.

OUR COMMENT: No reference about the prevention and management of community and environmental effects of airport activities. Unfortunately the needs of passengers - to travel by plane - impinge on the needs of local people to avoid unnecessary and unhealthy exposure to noise and air pollution. The interests of both groups are equally important.

Pat Dale

Noise campaigners have raised concerns after Stansted Airport received the green-light to handle so-called 'super jumbo' jets.

The operator was this week awarded Code F status by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), allowing aircraft such as the Airbus A380 and the new Boeing 747-8 to operate from the airport.

Airport bosses hope the move will raise Stansted's profile and make the Essex hub more viable to a broader range of airlines, but Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) warned larger aircraft could lead to more sleepless nights for local residents.

Fresh from celebrating BAA's withdrawal of a second runway application in May after pressure from the coalition Government, SSE chairman Peter Sanders challenged the airport to prove the new carriers would not add to rising complaint figures. He said: "It's a very vague statement. At the moment complaints about noise have risen over 50 per cent from last year and a lot of them come from the A340 airbus operated by AirAsia, which operates many night flights. Stansted has permission for 35 million passenger movements a year, so there can't be any reduction in our work and we need to be just as vigilant as ever."

The official go-ahead follows months of work to demonstrate the airport's ability to handle larger planes and could pave the way for an increase in both passenger and cargo flights. Nick Barton, Stansted's commercial and development director, said: "It's a credit to the original designers of Stansted who showed astonishing vision in the 1980s to create an airport capable of handling the superjets of the future."

Some of the airlines which currently have the A380 'super jumbo' on order and could take advantage of Stansted's new status include Singapore Airlines, Qantas, Air France, Lufthansa and Emirates.

Following the decision, aircraft expert Matthew Knowles, spokesman for Aerospace, Defence and Security (ADS), said that people can expect less noise at take-off from an airbus than passengers experience in a tube train. He said: "The Airbus A380 is more fuel-efficient than a hybrid car and produces less perceived noise at take-off than that experienced by a passenger inside a London Underground train."

OUR COMMENT: We have yet to experience the noise from the new jumbo, which is claimed to be quieter than its predecessors. As with all aircraft movements, a lot will depend on the number, and the management of routes and best practice flight operations. If more capacity means less flights, then the new plane may be welcome!

Pat Dale

A project to restore three hectares of ancient marshland at the National Trust's Hatfield Forest is complete.

Work began last November to clear the dense scrub which had covered the site. The wildlife-rich marsh is home to 90 species of plants, as well as rare birds like reed bunting and water rail, which have been in decline in Essex.

"Members of the public couldn't see the marsh existed, as there was a band of scrub around the outside," said National Trust warden Adam Maher.

The 1000-year old marsh is made up of three areas - marsh grasslands, reedbeds and sedge beds. The trust is going to be using a flock of 30 Wiltshire Horn sheep to keep the successive growth of hawthorn and blackthorn down.

Warden Adam Maher will be working with volunteers to maintain the site. "The sedge bed and reed bed are going to be cut on a rotation," said Mr Maher. "They will be split into blocks of four and then cut on a four-yearly rotation and the organic growth will be removed so we are not drying up the area. Basically it's getting drier. So that's what we want to stop. We're losing the actual thing that makes the site very important," he added.

The marsh is home to four different types of orchid - common spotted, Southern marsh, pyramidal and early marsh orchid. "It's very unique that there should be this many orchids growing together," said Mr Maher.

The project has reinstated a historic view towards the lake. The next stop for the marsh project is survey work. "Starting over the summer we're carrying out surveys on birds, reptiles, moths, plants, dragonflies and other invertebrates to get the best information we can," he said.

The marsh is open all year, except when grazed by sheep. Visitors are asked to keep to the fence line path to protect the fragile habitat.

OUR COMMENT: A reminder of the urgent need to reduce air pollution from the airport, which was in danger of extending into the north western areas of Hatfield Forest.

Pat Dale

ENGINEERING experts have urged the Government to rethink its plans for aviation and airport development, including its decision to ban new runways at Stansted and Heathrow.

In its Rethinking Aviation report published today (July 20), the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) warns that a 'better not bigger' approach to airport runway capacity could seriously undermine the UK's global connectivity and competitiveness.

ICE aviation expert Simon Godfrey-Arnold said the policy could result in the UK lagging behind North European rivals that have been boosting their hub runway capacity at a considerable rate.

He added: "We agree the green agenda must be priority, and realise that when it comes to the UK's airport infrastructure needs, there are some tough political and public choices. But we believe there are choices that can secure the best outcomes for the environment, society and the economy."

The Government has ruled out building additional runway capacity in the South East as part of the aim to reduce aviation emissions. The ICE agrees that unrestrained growth in demand for air travel without quick improvements in aircraft efficiency would damage the environment and needs addressing. But it urges the Government to think carefully about the UK's long-term airport infrastructure needs and the wider implications of its decision.

OUR COMMENT: More battles ahead!

Pat Dale

AIRPORT operator BAA has hit back at Uttlesford District Council's (UDC) demands that it sell back properties bought as part of a plan to build a second runway at Stansted Airport.

The council yesterday called for an early meeting with the Secretary of State for Transport, to press for a binding commitment that residents will not have to endure a situation similar to that created by the 2002 aviation white paper.

The letter will also ask for a meeting with Philip Hammond MP, at which the council will impress upon the Government the impact of the airport on the local community and environment and ask for support to force BAA to sell back properties it purchased as part of the second runway scheme - known as G2. The council also wants to ask for a moratorium of at least 50 years on any new runway plans at Stansted.

However, a BAA spokesman said: "Stansted Airport has already made its position very clear - runways are nationally important pieces of infrastructure that only Government's can decide on, and we will respect and follow Government policy. We have already been invited to take part in Philip Hammond's S/E airports taskforce to look at the future of aviation, where we look forward to working with colleagues in the industry and Government to consider how airport capacity is best used to promote great service to passengers and to strengthen the UK's important global trading links and its future competitiveness."

"In an interview in the FT last Monday, Philip Hammond, when asked how else the country might answer the need for greater capacity, talked of the smarter use of airspace and 'spare capacity in the Stansted runway'. It should be acknowledged and recognised that all properties for G2 were purchased through voluntary schemes - not a single property was acquired via CPO."

"And neither have we decimated communities. On the contrary, we have done everything possible to keep communities going, including buying and supporting the local pub. As we said when withdrawing the planning applications, we are giving careful thought and consideration to this situation. We will adopt a responsible approach to our next steps, but there are lots of issues to consider. So far, we've had no interest whatsoever from anyone looking to buy back previously owned properties."

OUR COMMENT: Empty houses? Temporary lets? We hope not - local villages need re-populating if community life is to be properly restored.

Pat Dale

The number of trips made by Brits to foreign countries fell at the fastest rate since the 1970s in 2009, according to the Office for National Statistics. It recorded 58.6 million trips, compared to 69 million in 2008, and says the fall was mirrored by foreign visitors coming to Britain too, although not by as much (a drop from 31.1 million to 29.9 million).

ONS says the plummeting figures follows years of steady growth both into and out of the UK. Visits abroad have grown by 4% on average per year in the past 25 years and visits to the UK have grown at 3.2% on average. But business travel really suffered in 2009. A whopping 23% less visits were made by UK residents abroad for business purposes in 2009 compared to the previous year while 19% less visits were made into the UK from abroad.

Meanwhile, there was a drop of 15% in visits made from the UK abroad for holiday reasons and a drop of 6.5% for visiting friends and relatives. However, holiday-specific trips to the UK by overseas visitors rose in 2009, by 0.5 million from 10.9m in 2008 to 11.4m in 2009.

Little surprise, then, that Brits spent less abroad in 2009. We spent £5.1 billion less in 2009 despite the fact that a Brit's average length of stay abroad has extended from 9.9 nights in 2007 to 10.5 nights in 2009. Earnings from money spent by visitors from abroad coming to the UK rose, however, from £16.3 billion to £16.6 billion.

The ONS says London remains the most popular city to visit by foreigners, followed by Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingam, Glasgow, Liverpool, Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge. The other way, not many countries saw a rise in visits from Brits.

Mexico suffered a 41% fall in visits but Egypt, Jamaica and Lithuania saw rises. That said, the combined visits to France and Spain, although they did not grow, still amount to 21.3 million of the total 58.6 million visits abroad that Brits made.

BAA traffic commentary: June 2010

BAA's passenger traffic in June was affected by British Airways cabin crew industrial action at the start of the month. BAA's UK airports handled 9.5 million passengers, a drop of 1.7% on June 2009. Without the impact of industrial action, it is estimated that Heathrow would have seen 140,000 more passengers last month and would have seen a 2.5% increase on last June.

The group's Scottish airports at Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen were all affected by the British Airways industrial action, with drops of 2.0%, 7.0% and 4.0% respectively compared to June 2009. Southampton recorded a 3.7% increase and Stansted a drop of 5.2%. Group wide passenger numbers would have reached June 2009 levels without the impact of industrial action.

Overall, the UK airports recorded a drop of 3.1% in the number of air transport movements. Cargo traffic continued a period of strong growth, with tonnage up by 36.1% at Heathrow and by 33.7% at the wider group level.

OUR COMMENT: Stansted shows a significant loss of passenger traffic but a gain in cargo tonnage. We assume that this means more planes as Stansted's almost entirely short haul passenger services do not carry significant amounts of cargo. It is therefore very important that a satisfactory noise control policy is followed since cargo planes are, in general, bigger and usually noisier.

Pat Dale

In a report published today the Institution of Civil Engineers has also warned that the Coalition's decision to scrap Heathrow's third runway could also leave Britain lagging behind its European rivals. The ICE believes a twin-track approach is essential to safeguard the future of aviation while protecting the environment.

"We agree the green agenda must be priority, and realise that when it comes to the UK's airport infrastructure needs, there are some tough political and public choices," said Simon Godfrey-Arnold, one of the authors of the report. "But we believe there are choices that can secure the best outcomes for the environment, society and the economy."

The report calls for a minimum carbon price to make flying more expensive. "One of the interesting things is where is the tipping point at which people would stop flying?" he added. "Air Passenger Duty is the nearest thing we have to passing the cost onto the consumer, but that doesn't seem to have had a significant impact on demand. That would suggest that it has to be far higher than the current rate."

Stephen Joseph, executive director of the Campaign for Better Transport, backed the engineers' proposals for pushing up the cost of flying. "All the evidence suggests that aviation is undertaxed compared to its real cost. It doesn't pay VAT on its activities and we need to recognise the fact. A carbon tax is one way of doing this."

However an easyJet spokesman disagreed. "Despite many misconceptions, aviation currently only contributes to 2% of global greenhouse gases. The key to sustainable aviation is technology, not taxation. This means setting minimum standards for aircraft emissions to force airlines to use the most modern aircraft and to force aircraft manufacturers to bring forward the next generation of aircraft much sooner."

The Institution has also said the Government should reconsider its policy on airport expansion, warning the decision to scrap Labour's plans for a third runway at Heathrow could cost the country dear. "Heathrow, with its two runways, is currently operating at 99% of permitted capacity. Journey times are increasing as aircraft become stacked up in queues both on the ground and in the air."

"Capacity constraints could result in international carriers abandoning our hub airport in favour of larger and more economically attractive northern European hubs, such as Amsterdam Schiphol which has five runways and Frankfurt which has three and a fourth in progress."

A DfT spokesman defended the Coalition's stance. "The Government recognises that aviation makes a vital contribution to the economy of this country. However, we cannot simply allow air traffic growth to continue at the levels it has in the past. Doing so risks unacceptable consequences in terms of noise and local air quality, quite apart from the global impacts in terms of CO2 emissions. That is why we have been clear that our focus must be on making major airports in the south east better, not bigger."

OUR COMMENT: Are the engineers a little confused? It seems they recognize that passenger air travel flights should be cut, if so, why waste money on expanding airports?

Pat Dale

UPS has expanded its carbon neutral shipping program to 35 countries and territories across Europe, Asia and the Americas.

The integrator's initiative allows customers to pay a small fee to calculate and offset the carbon emissions associated with their shipments.

UPS became the first small package carrier in the US to introduced such a program last fall, aiming to build on its legacy of sustainable business practices. The extended offering, including a contract version for customers who want to offset the carbon impact of all their shipments, will be available from July 12.

In addition to the international expansion, UPS is dramatically expanding access to the program in the US, making it available to all shippers at UPS.com and those who use UPS CampusShip. Online retailers who have integrated UPS into their websites will be able to offer their customers access to UPS carbon neutral. Customers who visit branches of The UPS Store and other retail locations will soon have access to the option.

In the US, the fee ranges from $0.05 for a ground package and $0.20 for an air package to $0.75 for an international package. Overseas, the flat fee will vary slightly by country depending on the type of service selected and the origin and destination of the shipment.

As a part of the initial launch, UPS purchased offsets from the Garcia River Forest Climate Action Project, overseen by The Nature Conservancy and The Conservation Fund. The company will seek to extend its offset purchases to other regions worldwide in future.

"Our customers wanted a convenient, cost-effective means to address climate change in a real and tangible way", said Bob Stoffel, the senior vice president responsible for UPS's sustainability program. "To use this service simply requires ticking a box during the shipping process."

Heathrow Airport operator BAA was part of a team which came together last week to create a so-called 'perfect flight'. Nats, BAA and British Airways worked on each individual stage of the flight to ensure it was optimised for minimal delay and carbon emissions.

The tests were carried out on the 19:30 BST service between Heathrow Airport and Edinburgh Airport and data from the flight will now be gathered an analysed to understand the impact of the improvements made.

It is believed that by optimising all processes up to a quarter of a tonne of fuel could have been saved, equating to nearly one tonne of CO2.

BAA Heathrow Airport airside operations director Colin Wood said: "The benefits should include reduced taxi time, lower carbon emissions, improved air and noise quality and lower airline fuel costs."

Heathrow Airport also began gearing up for the opening of a new satellite building near Terminal Five this week with the addition of three new cars on its underground train line. When T5C opens it will provide stands for 12 addition aircraft, including eight super jumbo A380s.

Beijing International Airport has overtaken London Heathrow as the world's second busiest, in a sign of China's growing dominance of international travel. In terms of seat capacity, Beijing International is now second only to Atlanta Hartsfield in the US, according to a July 6 report by aviation analyst OAG.

Beijing's business has been boosted by a sharp growth in the number of passenger seats to Asia, a growth of nine percent which equates to some 15.3 million more seats flying to or from the region. Worldwide, the number of flights taking to the skies is set to grow five percent this month, to 2.7 million.

OAG's Peter von Moltke said that the "growth of air service in the Asia Pacific region has been strong for a number of years and can be expected to continue".

Despite the recession and turmoil in Greece, the number of flights within Europe also increased, up four percent with 623,637 flights scheduled for July. Both Central and South America and Africa also posted healthy gains in the number of flights available.

In North America, internal traffic is set to fall by 9,245 flights (a fall of one percent), but traffic to and from the region will increase by six percent to 98,403.

The World's Busiest Airports
Ranked by Seat Capacity, data from OAG

1. Atlanta Hartsfield (ATL)
2. Beijing (PEK)
3. London Heathrow (LHR)
4. Chicago O Hare (ORD)
5. Tokyo Haneda (HND)
6. Paris Charles de Gaulle (CDG)
7. Los Angeles (LAX)
8. Frankfurt (FRA)
9. Dallas Fort Worth (DFW)

OUR COMMENT: Does it matter? What about efficiency?

Pat Dale

Flying within the UK is heading for extinction, the transport secretary, Philip Hammond has claimed.

"Domestic flying in the UK will become in time a thing of the past," he told the FT in an interview on the new government's plans for aviation.

Mr Hammond, whose government has banned new runways at the country's three largest airports, Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, says fast train links will be critical to addressing growing demand for air travel. But several airlines cast doubt on the idea domestic flights would become extinct, not least the country's largest domestic operator, Flybe.

"UK domestic aviation will be unaffected by the limited, London-centric nature of any high-speed rail investment that might be forthcoming over the next few decades," it said. "Indeed, there is a very strong argument that aviation which serves regions like the West Midlands and the north-west will actually see an increase in demand as a result of high speed rail."

BA also dismissed the idea that domestic flights would end. "There will still be demand from people in the UK regions who want to fly into the hub airport of Heathrow, particularly if the high speed rail links don't link directly to Heathrow," it said.

A Ryanair spokesman said air passengers would not switch to rail in the UK "because the trains are so slow and so expensive". Both Ryanair and its budget rival EasyJet said the more pressing issue for the government was reforming the UK's air passenger duty.

Executives from other airlines, who did not wish to be named, said there was still a thriving domestic aviation industry in Germany and France, which had the best high-speed rail networks in Europe. One executive added that it took each country decades to build these networks, in times of stronger growth, meaning it was unlikely the UK would see such infrastructure soon.

Asked how else the country might answer the need for greater airport capacity, Mr Hammond talked of the smarter use of airspace and "spare capacity in the Stansted runway".

But for a more comprehensive policy response, we must await the results of an aviation working group he set up earlier this month to look at making Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted what he likes to call "better not bigger" airports.

This will take time, which is a happy prospect for most of what are known in the industry as the Flap airports: Frankfurt, London, Amsterdam and Paris. For years the acronym has described Europe's leading airports - with the later addition of Madrid, where passenger numbers overtook Amsterdam's in 2007.

Heathrow has long been the clear leader in terms of passengers. But its supremacy is under threat. The other four now have more runways and only one - Madrid - is as poorly served by high speed or national rail as Heathrow.

Over the past 20 years Heathrow has dropped from first to fifth in Europe in term of destinations served, as it has grown more congested and its rivals have boosted capacity. The number of UK regional cities Heathrow serves has shrunk from 21 to six.

It is also slipping in terms of its services to fast-growing markets such as Brazil, where it lags behind Paris and Madrid; and China, where it comes fourth after Frankfurt, Paris and Amsterdam, according to research commissioned by the British Chambers of Commerce. And now, following the government's runway decision, many say future air travel demand will drift to Heathrow's rivals, a fact some of them candidly welcome.

"It is good news for us," said María Jesús Luengo of Aena, the state-owned operator of Madrid's Barajas airport, which has four runways to Heathrow's two. "It will bring to Madrid more activity and more economic growth."

Amsterdam's Schiphol airport, which has five runways, also expects to see gains from London's decision. "In the long run, there will be a very gradual shift of traffic finding it more difficult to use London airports," said Marcel Lekker-kerk, Schiphol's director of aviation marketing.

There is puzzlement among some in the aviation industry about why Heathrow is not getting another runway when the economic case is to their mind so clear.

Frankfurt airport's operator, Fraport, which expects hourly movements - take-offs and landings - to gradually increase by 50 per cent once its new fourth runway opens next year, says the need for the extra capacity was obvious. "Our case has been that we need the new runway to maintain our current position and to strengthen the airport for the future, and without the new runway we would see traffic over time gravitate elsewhere," says Fraport spokesman Robert Payne.

"Certainly in the immediate surrounding communities it was controversial, but the overall consensus was it was a positive for economic reasons; job creation and for securing the future of the airport as a major hub with the competitive pressure we have in Europe and the Gulf regions."

Heathrow's owner, BAA, which has been asked to join Mr Hammond's working group along with airlines and relevant authorities, is diplomatic about the situation. "We respect the position of the new government," it said, adding the group was an "enthusiastic" supporter of integrated high-speed rail. But BAA said it still believes there is a shortage of airport capacity and meeting this need would strengthen trading links.

The Association of Independent Tour Operators has accused you of failing to represent the interests of holidaymakers and being "no more a dedicated Minister of Tourism" than your predecessors. How do you respond?

For the first time there will be someone waking up in the morning with the interests of the travelling public at heart and pushing their issues in Whitehall. I want to encourage holidaymakers to stay in the UK, but recognise the needs of outbound travellers, too. I have listened to the need for financial protection for those who put together their own holidays - it is a trend that is only going to increase and one we will seek to address.

Tourism contributes more to the economy than the financial and business sector yet it has received little support. Will the Government change this?

Travel and tourism contributes around £100 billion and it has been ignored for too long. As MP for Weston-super-Mare, I recognise how important tourism is - I have seen what it does for a community - and how important holidays are in financially straitened times.

Why has the Government decided to proceed with Labour's planned increase in Air Passenger Duty (see below) at a time when the industry has never been under greater pressure?

I cannot pretend that holidaymakers are not going to be affected, but we must not forget that this is one of the hardest Budgets any government has had to produce. For 80 per cent of travellers the increase is small - of only one or two pounds on a short-haul flight. But I recognise the implications for those travelling farther afield or from farther afield. It is a matter on which I will be lobbying the Treasury to consider as it explores changes to the aviation tax system - including switching to a per plane duty, which rightly will reward the airlines that travel with full planes.

How will we ensure that the Olympics will benefit tourism?

We will learn the lessons from previous events - both good and bad - such as World Cups in South Africa and Germany, the Olympics in Barcelona, Sydney and China. We have seen tourism drop in the years after events when high room rates were imposed. While I am not going to tell hoteliers how to do their jobs, it is an issue we will watch closely. Sports tourism is something that this country does well.

A recent Telegraph Travel poll found that 95 per cent of Britons feel that holidays in Britain offer poor value compared with those on the Continent. What can be done to change this?

We have to be realistic. No one is going to pretend that Britain can compete head-on with the traditional Spanish beach holiday destinations. We need to pick our battles: our heritage is second to none, we have beautiful scenery, fantastic culture and we are a compact country –our attractions are easily reachable. There is a perception that our holiday resorts are all tired and old-fashioned, and we need to change that. If we are to improve them it needs to be done in partnership with the industry. But the last thing we should be is elitist - we must look at developments that suit every price point.

The Government has ruled out a third runway or any expansion at Gatwick or Stansted. Won't this hinder growth?

Theresa Villiers is leading the South East Airports Task Force. Heathrow is still undergoing refurbishment, and we are looking at ways to use our airports more efficiently. High-speed rail offers a real alternative. Book in advance and fares are competitive with budget airlines'. Stations are more accessible, they service city centres, there are no check-in troubles, your luggage goes with you and you walk off the train and into your destination.

APD: how changes will affect passengers

The Coalition is to press ahead with the rises in Air Passenger Duty (APD) that were outlined by the Labour government. From November, there will be the following increases: from £11 to £12 on Band A flights (up to 2,000 miles); from £45 to £60 on Band B flights (2,001-4,000 miles); from £50 to £75 on Band C flights (4,001-6,000 miles); and from £55 to £85 on Band D flights (6,001-8,000 miles).

According to Treasury figures, the tax will recoup £2.9 billion next year, compared with the £1.9 billion raised in 2009/10. However, the Treasury intends to raise £3.8 billion from air travel in 2014-15, so further increases in APD could be coming.

No mention has been made of reforming the controversial banding system used to calculate APD contributions, which is decided by the distance from London to the capital city of the destination. This method has thrown up a number of anomalies. For example, passengers travelling to Los Angeles (11 hours) currently pay less in APD than those flying to Barbados (eight hours).

The November increases will be even steeper for those travelling in premium- economy, business-class and first-class cabins. APD on Band A flights will rise from £22 to £24; on Band B from £90 to £120; on Band C from £100 to £150; and on Band D from £110 to £170. Several airlines have said that they will remove premium-economy seats from their aircraft if these rises go ahead. Meanwhile, passengers on private jets remain exempt from paying any APD.

The Government is planning to "explore changes to the aviation tax system, including switching from a per passenger to a per plane duty, which could encourage fuller planes". Reforms would be preceded by public consultation, and a paper setting out options is likely in the autumn.

Any move to a per plane duty could lead to even higher taxes. Earlier this year, Telegraph Travel disclosed that, under the Liberal Democrats' manifesto proposals to switch to a per plane duty, passengers on short-haul flights would pay up to 75 per cent more as part of plans to generate £5.3 billion each year.

What the travel trade says

World Travel and Tourism Council: "Travel and tourism contributes £140 billion annually to the British economy, greater than the £114 billion contributed by the financial sector. Yet travel and tourism has received little direct support, compared with £850 billion given to the financial sector. Investment need not come from the public purse, but could begin with a serious discussion about potential barriers to growth, such as APD."

Caribbean Tourism Organisation: "The current tax structure is unfair. Because our economies are so reliant on tourism APD is effectively a tax on our countries' exports."

Abta, the travel association: "Tax on aviation in this country has risen disproportionately over the past five years. While we broadly welcome the proposed switch to a per plane duty, it is essential that ordinary people are not taxed out of flying."

easyJet: "Four out of five British travellers would be better off under a per plane tax. But the increases in November will be self-defeating. Air tax is already higher in Britain than anywhere else in Europe."

In his former role as shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, Philip Hammond drily warned that he was destined to become a national hate figure as he supervised spending reductions across Whitehall. Now, in an ironic reversal, he is preparing the case to defend transport projects from the axe.

With growing doubts over a variety of transport schemes - from London's Crossrail to an order for new InterCity trains - Mr Hammond, the transport secretary, will tell the Treasury that such projects can justify themselves economically. They are "one of the best investments the taxpayer can make", he told the Financial Times in an interview.

The presumption in Whitehall is that transport will be among the departments that bear the brunt of the pain in October, as it has in previous austerity drives. Mr Hammond is ready to go out to bat for his department, claiming that it could still escape the harshest cuts. "Transport infrastructure investment... is a way in which the government can support the private sector economic recovery," he insists.

The minister has indicated his continuing support for Crossrail - though not at any cost - and for the new high-speed rail routes that form the bedrock of Tory transport policy.

Yet there is no escaping the cold mathematics of the imminent cuts. The coalition has promised to retain one costly transport policy - free bus passes for the over-60s. At £1bn that is equivalent to a quarter of the entire rail subsidy. Philip Hammond believes he can defy the presumption that transport will be among the departments that bear the brunt of the cuts pain

A commitment to 33 per cent cuts in real terms - as some predict - would mean shaving £5bn from the department's annual budget of just under £16bn. That could create some unwelcome repercussions for the travelling public, beyond the prospect of sharply rising rail fares.

For example, Mr Hammond has already frozen an order for hundreds of train carriages destined for Thameslink. These were to replace existing trains that would then be moved to the Great Western commuter route extending from London to Oxford and Newbury. If he cancels the Thameslink order, Mr Hammond is likely to face criticism for failing to address the shortage of rolling stock on the Oxford route - one of the most heavily used in the country.

Meanwhile, the InterCity Express trains used on the rest of the Great Western line, and on main north-south routes, were due to be replaced with 1,400 carriages built by Hitachi. Their fate seems equally uncertain with that order in effect frozen.

With finances a priority, Mr Hammond last week announced plans to sell the state's 40 per cent stake in NATS, the air traffic control service, which could be worth hundreds of millions of pounds.

High Speed 1, the service from St Pancras to the Channel tunnel, is already on the market for £1.5bn. Mr Hammond told the FT that he also wanted to sell Eurostar and some land holdings owned by the same public company, London & Continental Railways. Given that Eurostar has never made a profit, however, and most of these sites are still underdeveloped, sales may still be several years away.

Environmentalists believe the coalition is retreating from a green transport policy, having ruled out road charging - a potential revenue raiser - and having in last week's Budget delayed plans for a new form of aviation tax based on passengers rather than flights.

Yet the cabinet minister, a Jaguar driver, insists he will still continue with several environmental policies, such as providing £50m of new infrastructure for charging up electric cars. There is still likely to be a subsidy for buyers of hybrid and electric cars, he indicates, although he cannot guarantee that it will match the £5,000 promised by Labour.

On Mr Hammond's desk is a new hardback copy of Fire and Steam, a history of the railways by transport expert Christian Wolmar. The book may offer him insights on how to avoid future comparisons with another figure placed in charge of transport cuts: Dr Beeching, whose brutal efficiency programme of the 1960s left him vilified by a generation of rail users and enthusiasts.

AIRPORT commercial and development director Nick Barton is on a mission to put Stansted on the world map.

In an exclusive interview, Nick Barton of Stansted Airport, the man behind the hub's route development explained why expansion remains his priority - regardless of BAA's decision to withdraw plans for a second runway in the face of Government opposition.

Despite the current challenging economic climate, he remains convinced that full use of the existing runway - up from 22m to 35m passengers a year - is a realistic target and he is devoting at least 40 per cent of his working week to attracting new business.

Following the new coalition Government's decision to block all new runways in the south east, Stansted remains the only one of London's three airports with excess capacity ready and waiting to exploited. "Stansted will get busier quicker (as a result) because the demand for international travel into London is almost insatiable," said Mr Barton.

He said: "Stansted has some of the best aerospace infrastructure in Europe, if not the world, but Stansted has only been properly in existence since 1991 and there are many people - decision-makers - who when they were learning their trade, they learned about Heathrow and Gatwick, so they don't know what Stansted has to offer. Our mission is to make sure the world's aviation decision-makers know about Stansted."

As part of the renewed push to maximise traffic, BAA is waiting to finalise permission to handle the world's largest Code F aircraft, such as the Airbus A380 and Boeing's wide-bodied 747 800, so the airport is attractive to all carriers - both passenger and cargo.

While the prime slots from the existing runway have already been snapped up by the low-cost, point-to-point carriers like Ryanair and easyJet, who both use Stansted as a base, Mr Barton is looking to lure those with bases on the Continent, like Whizz, to fill in the gaps.

The success of Air AsiaX and its route to Kuala Lumpur has opened up the Far East and Australia. The key to the service's success is the network beyond both Stansted and the Malaysian capital, with passengers connecting from down under and travelling on to the European mainland. That's potential the BAA team are keen to exploit further.

Mr Barton said the ultimate aim was to make 10 per cent of airport's traffic long-haul. Restoring the airport's ill-fated links with the United States is a priority, as is establishing services to the Middle East. He said events like the 2012 Olympics would be a further chance to showcase Stansted's charms to an international market.

While BAA must return to court later this month to again argue why it should be allowed to keep Stansted as well as Heathrow, following the sale of Gatwick to satisfy the Competition Commission, Mr Barton stressed the issue of ownership had no impact on the push to find new business.

He said: "Our strategy is to grow the airport within the constraints of the single runway. We can achieve 35m - that will be hard to do, but undoubtedly great fun."

Ryanair is to cut capacity in the UK by 16 per cent this winter as it shifts its aircraft to countries with cheaper airports and lower passenger taxes such as Spain.

Europe's biggest budget airline said it would reduce the number of aircraft at its main UK base of Stansted, where it is by far the biggest carrier, from 24 last winter to 22. According to Michael O'Leary, chief executive, the capacity cuts would result in the loss of 2,500 jobs in a full year and 1.5m passengers between November and March 2011.

The airline also plans to cut winter flights at most of its other UK bases except for Edinburgh and Leeds Bradford. "These are real losses to the UK," said Mr O'Leary. "This is a time in winter when we should be bringing more people here, particularly to London."

Stansted played down his claims. "Last winter they said there would be a reduction in passenger numbers of about 2.5m and it turned out to be about 300,000, which was largely due to the economic downturn."

Mr O'Leary, sporting a German football top three days after England's World Cup exit, also lashed out at the new UK transport secretary, Philip Hammond, who told the as they were replaced by trains. "If he thinks the future is more trains, then sorry Mr Hammond you just haven't a bloody clue," said Mr O'Leary. "It's time to stop pandering to the environmental goons and start addressing how you're going to make Britain a more attractive tourism destination."

Mr O'Leary also said his counterpart at British Airways, Willie Walsh, had done a "fantastic job" of fighting striking BA cabin crew though if Mr O'Leary had been running BA, "I would have sacked them all long ago".

The UK capacity cuts, which may be followed by others in Ireland, are similar to those it has announced in recent years for Stansted, where it says its aircraft numbers have fallen from a peak of about 30 in 2007/08 to the 22 planned for this coming winter. Analysts said this was in line with the airline's refinement of a business model focused on relentlessly paring back costs.

PASSENGERS with budget airline Ryanair could soon be able to fly standing up for just £5 as the company vows to revolutionise air travel.

Controversial chief executive Michael O'Leary said he would use a toilet tax to "change passenger behaviour" and fund the cheap flights. He defended plans to charge customers £1 to use the loo to pay for a standing area with "vertical seats" at the back of its fleet of 250 planes.

In a TV interview to be aired tonight, Mr O'Leary said his airline wanted to encourage travellers on one-hour flights to use toilets in the airport before flying so more passengers could use short-haul services. And the Irish entrepreneur said he hoped the coin-operated toilet would be introduced soon "and the other change we've been looking at is taking out the last 10 rows of seats so we will have 15 rows of seats and the equivalent of 10 rows of standing area".

A Ryanair spokesman confirmed the airline had consulted with Boeing over refitting its fleet with "vertical seats" to allow passengers to be strapped in while standing up, which would cost between £4 and £8 per person.

He said safety testing could be carried out next year, when the toilet tax would also be rolled out. The plans could involve taking out two toilets at the back of the plane to make way for the standing area. James Fremantle, of the Air Transport Users Council, said there were no rules preventing Ryanair from removing toilets on their planes and the changes could lead to cheaper flights "as long as it doesn't breach safety orders".

But a spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority said the plans were unlikely to meet safety requirements. He said: "It's aviation law that people have to have a seatbelt on for take-off and landing so they would have to be in a seat. I don't know how Mr O'Leary would get around that one. During turbulence, passengers also have to have a seatbelt on."

"Unless people were strapped to the side of the plane while standing up, it's incredibly unlikely to happen. If Ryanair wanted to introduce something like this and put forward a case that they could accommodate people wearing seatbelts somehow, the European Aviation Safety Agency would look into it and run various tests," he said.

Speaking on ITV's How To Beat the Budget Airlines, which airs tonight on ITV1 at 7.30pm, Mr O'Leary, who wore a German football shirt for a bet on Sunday, also defended online charges.

The programme comes after the airline revealed it would cut its winter capacity by 16 per cent from this year, blaming the "damaging" Air Passenger Duty. The cutbacks mean 1.5 million fewer customers than last winter will be able to travel. Martin Lewis, who hosted the programme to give money-saving tips to families going on holiday on a budget, said: "The toilet charge is the one I think is most likely to be introduced."

Michael Carrivick, chairman of the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK, says the CON-LIB coalition must revise its approach to aviation if business in Britain is to prosper...

The coalition government states in its programme that 'business is the driver of economic growth' (page 9), and that 'a modern transport infrastructure is an essential for a modern and dynamic economy' (page 31).

However, its aviation policies contradict those two objectives by banning any new runway capacity in South East England and by taxing the industry, and its users, as much as possible. Those policies effectively close the UK for more business!

The Board of Airline Representatives in the UK (BAR UK) continues to challenge the government over the contradictions of its existing transport policies and to lobby for visionary policies that meet business and environmental objectives in the decades to come.

A major factor in the UK's success has been its long-standing position as the leading global transportation hub. This position is now under serious threat as a result of previous delays in infrastructure development and now a lack of effective long term planning and solutions for South East England. The belief that airlines, passengers and freight will move either to other UK airports, or onto rail, simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

Fundamental to any transportation policy is that aviation is a highly efficient industry and a key driver to the economic prosperity of this country. The industry also continues to make efficiency gains in respect of emissions and noise and the government's isolated approach on taxation does not sit well with the EU emissions trading scheme and is negatively impacting the country's international reputation.

Much has been said and written about airports; however it is indisputable that airports and airways systems are more flexible and use less land than railways. Airports also serve as major cargo ports and a significant proportion of travellers are inward visitors and buyers.

Heathrow is a vital transportation hub and it is about time policy makers started to understand all that this entails. Gatwick Airport, good as it is, can never offer the required amount of scheduled airline connectivity on its single runway.

London needs to expand its airport capacity to meet the future needs of the country; failure to expand Heathrow will see its global importance diminish and the UK economy with it. It is illogical having a policy that prefers to see additional flights to provincial airports when visitors to the UK wish to go to London.

The final mystery to airlines and all airport users is the policy to build a high speed rail line linking London to the north which is not integrated with the main airports. This continual isolated approach to transport infrastructure is inefficient, wasteful of resources and economically damaging to the country. Government aspirations and policies appear to be at odds with each other and need to be sorted out.

Might there already be a change of heart in the government? That's far too early to say. However, there is some encouragement that the Secretary of State for Transport has established the South East Airports Taskforce. It is to be hoped that, during its deliberations, the real impact of current policies will be realised and cause a radical re-think.

Our airports need to prepare for more business, but are being denied the chance. Let's hope common sense prevails, otherwise, as the saying goes 'failing to prepare is preparing to fail'. This country simply cannot afford to do that.

Richard Gooding, CEO at London City Airport, called on the business travel community to lobby government on its plans for the future of aviation.

Speaking at the Business Travel Market at London's Excel, Gooding said the aviation industry was under increased pressure from "scary" changes to APD and constraints on expansion.

The government plans to scrap APD in favour of a per plane tax, which many airlines, including Easyjet, will welcome. But Gooding warned: "The scary bit is that the government has set out to increase the take from APD by 40%. That's going to be paid by you and your customers."

He said that as Britain is an island nation, it relies more on air transport than any other European country, and that if transport links did not keep pace with the continent, the UK may lose business. "You could argue we like the idea of Heathrow being constrained. In the short term that may be true, but we have to take a long term view. Travel will go to the continent and eventually the big institutions will move."

The Lib-Con coalition has scrapped plans to expand Heathrow and Stansted airports, and is setting up a task force to look at how the two airports, along with Gatwick, can be more productive.

Gooding said the industry needed to be more "robust" in countering constraints on aviation. "This industry has the capability of lobbying about these things. So far we've been poor," he said.

The London City CEO said that travel through the airport, of which 70% is on business, has seen a sustained rise. In the first five months of the year, London City airport has seen a 4 to 5% increase in travellers, compared to the same months the previous year.

The European Commission is to investigate who owns airport landing slots

The transport consultants Steer Davies Gleave are expected to lead the review into how slots are traded.

The potential value of the slots is enormous, with Continental paying $209 million for four pairs at Heathrow two years ago. At that time, bmi British Midland valued its slots at the aiport at £770 million, which would make the Heathrow market worth about £7.5 billion.

In theory, landing rights belong to the Government, but some airlines believe that slots are assets that should belong to them - particularly if they have paid millions for them.

If the Commission rules in their favour, it could strengthen company balance sheets. British Airways, for example, has about 41 per cent of Heathrow's slots that could be worth more than £3 billion based on the bmi valuation - more than doubling the airline's current market value.

Landing rights are traded in secret but in an attempt to pre-empt the Commission's investigation, the airline industry has decided to publicise the trades. Airport Co-ordination Limited, a company owned by the big airlines, has set up a website to allow other airport users to track the trades. Chris Bosworth, managing director, said: "We wanted to give airlines somewhere they can buy or sell slots easily."

ACL's data shows that summer 2010 has already been the busiest period for slot trading in a decade with 435 trades per week, compared with 74 in 2001. The high number this year is because of bmi, which has sold 212 slots to other carriers to raise money and reduce capacity. Virgin Atlantic has also sold landing rights to Aer Lingus.

If you had to come up with a collective noun for a bunch of airline people, what would it be? A flock? A formation? A swarm? Sometimes, especially after a day or two at a large air industry gathering, I start to think of other words, such as a "moan" or a "fret" or a "whinge". There is an old joke in the business that the whine you hear in an aircraft after the engines are turned off is just the pilots talking.

But these days, the pilots are not alone. Consider the blast of grievance emitted two weeks ago in Berlin at the annual general meeting of the International Air Transport Association, the body that acts for most of the world's oldest and best-known airlines. In front of hundreds of airline executives, Giovanni Bisignani, Iata's vivacious Italian chief, launched an assault on the "national embarrassment" of overcharging airports; the "shortsighted nonsense" of striking crews; and, to cheers from his audience, the "leeches" in travel reservation companies.

That was before he got to the "unco-ordinated bureaucratic mess" in Europe, where authorities shut down airspace for nearly six days because of the menace of a volcanic ash cloud from Iceland that many airlines say never existed.

Listening to him, it struck me that the last time I heard so much complaining, it came not from an airline boss but a passenger. One of the great paradoxes of modern flight is that so many more of us do it, yet so few of us seem to enjoy it. The world of aviation has come a long way since Howard Hughes was showing off his latest plane to Katharine Hepburn and people dressed up to go to the airport. Today, there are terrorists with explosives in their underpants and airline bosses such as Ryanair's Michael O'Leary who wants to charge people to use the lavatory, and says he would "wipe their bums for a fiver".

So what comes next? Will anything change? Or do the people making the decisions that will shape the future of flying think today's trends will merely become more marked?

It is now 16 years since the billionaire investor Warren Buffett said capitalism would have been better off if Orville Wright had been shot down at Kitty Hawk in 1903, because the industry had made a net loss ever since. Things have only grown worse. Over the past decade, airlines have lost another $50bn thanks to the September 11 terrorist attacks, soaring fuel prices and recession. The situation is especially awful for many of the household name international carriers in Europe and the US. Every other week seems to bring news of a real or longed for merger as they struggle to fend off sprightly no-frills rivals, striking workers and deep-pocketed Middle East newcomers.

Last year, the biggest airline in the world in terms of the number of passengers carried was not the American Airlines of George Clooney's hit film Up in the Air, or even its giant rival Delta, but Dallas-based budget carrier Southwest Airlines. The fifth biggest was Southwest's rambunctious Irish love child, Ryanair. These airlines fly shorter distances compared with international companies such as British Airways. But unlike BA, which has lost nearly £1bn over the past two years, they have stayed profitable. And their rise has made flying possible for millions.

Full body scanners at airports could increase your risk of skin cancer, experts warn.

The X-ray machines have been brought in at Manchester, Gatwick and Heathrow. But scientists say radiation from the scanners has been underestimated and could be particularly risky for children. They say that the low level beam does deliver a small dose of radiation to the body but because the beam concentrates on the skin - one of the most radiation-sensitive organs of the human body - that dose may be up to 20 times higher than first estimated.

Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University's centre for radiological research, said although the danger posed to the individual passenger is 'very low', he is urging researchers to carry out more tests on the device to look at the way it affects specific groups who could be more sensitive to radiation. He says children and passengers with gene mutations - around one in 20 of the population - are more at risk as they are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA.

Dr Brenner, who is originally from Liverpool but now works at the New York university, said: "The individual risks associated with X-ray backscatter scanners are probably extremely small. If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant."

Following trials, the airport scanners were officially introduced at Manchester Airport in January, at Heathrow Terminal 4 in February and at Gatwick in May this year. The most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma, according to the academic.

The cancer is usually curable and often occurs in the head and neck of people aged between 50 and 70. He points out it would be difficult to hide a weapon on the head or neck so proposes missing out that part of the body from the scanning process. "If there are increases in cancers as a result of irradiation of children, they would most likely appear some decades in the future. It would be prudent not to scan the head and neck," he added.

He recently aired his concerns to the Congressional Biomedical Caucus in the US - members of Congress who meet to exchange ideas on medical research. Dr Brenner urged them to look at his concerns but said it was important to balance any health issues against passengers' safety when flying. He said: "There really is no other technology around where we're planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It's really unprecedented in the radiation world."

The Civil Aviation Authority said the radiation received from the scanning process is the equivalent to two minutes radiation received on a Transatlantic flight. The Civil Aviation Authority, Department for Transport and Health Protection Agency insist that the technology is safe and say their tests show it would take 5,000 trips through the scanner to equal the dose of a single chest X-ray. They said in the climate of high security, it is essential that security staff use 'all means possible' to minimise risks to airline security.

The CAA said: "The device has been approved for use within the UK by the Department for Transport and has been subjected to risk assessments from the Health Protection Agency. To put the issue in perspective, the radiation received from the scanning process is the equivalent to two minutes radiation received on a Transatlantic flight."

"Recent press publications have been a little alarmist and may have heightened concern in frequent travellers who may worry about their repeated exposure. Under current regulations, up to 5,000 scans per person per year can be conducted safely."

If you are jetting off for an exotic holiday this summer, spare a thought for those you leave behind.

Because it seems that sun-seekers are responsible for leaving the rest of us languishing under grey skies - thanks to the emissions from aircraft engines. These vapour trails create clouds which, experts claim, can block out sunlight for millions. This is the reason that our skies appeared unusually blue when the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajokull was erupting, and all flights over Britain were banned.

The phenomenon occurs when aircraft fly above 25,000ft, where the air temperature is around minus 30C. This causes water vapour emitted by the engines to crystallise and form the familiar white streaks across the sky, known as contrails. These can be short-lived. But if there is already a significant amount of moisture in the atmosphere they can linger for hours, as the excess water vapour from the engines tips the surrounding air past its saturation point.

This acts as a catalyst to speed up the natural process of cloud formation. Cirrus clouds - the wisp-like formations seen at high altitude - begin to form around the contrails. Scientists say these grow into thin layers of cloud and can cover up to an astonishing 20,000 square miles of sky - or about a fifth of the UK. The level of moisture in the air at high altitudes is unrelated to weather conditions at ground level, which is why it is possible to see contrails on a clear day.

Reading University's Professor Keith Shine, an expert in clouds, said that those formed by aircraft fumes could linger 'for hours', depriving those areas under busy flight paths, such as London and the Home Counties, of summer sunshine.

"People from abroad are amazed by the number of vapour trails in the skies over London," he said. "When the air is wet enough, the cloud formed by contrails can last for hours."

Experts have warned that, as a result, the amount of sunlight hitting the ground could be reduced by as much as ten per cent. Professor Shine added: "Over the busiest areas in London and the South of England, this high-level cloud could cover the sky, turning bright sunshine into hazy conditions for the entire area. I expect the effects will get worse as the volume of air traffic increases."

In a 2009 Met Office study into the effects of contrails, scientists from a number of UK institutions used a weather satellite to track a large military aircraft as it circled over the North Sea. The team expected high-level winds to disperse its contrails without trace. But instead they helped to form clouds, which the researchers were astonished to find eventually covered a massive 20,000 square miles.

Major infrastructure stays on fast-track as planning quango closes.

A new democratic, fast track system for decision making on major infrastructure projects to support the UK's return to economic growth was confirmed today by Decentralisation Minister Greg Clark. Mr Clark confirmed that the Infrastructure Planning Commission - a quango with the power to approve major infrastructure projects - will be abolished in line with the Coalition Agreement.

It will be replaced with a new rapid and accountable system where Ministers, not unelected commissioners, will take the decisions on new infrastructure projects critical to the country's future economic growth.

A Major Infrastructure Planning Unit will be established in the Planning Inspectorate to continue fast-tracking major infrastructure projects like offshore windfarms and nuclear power stations. Ministers will take decisions on applications within the same statutory fast-track timeframe as the current regime.

In addition, all National Policy Statements (NPS), the Government's future infrastructure blueprints, will now be subject to ratification by Parliament. Ministers believe these critically important national documents must have the strongest possible democratic legitimacy.

Decentralisation Minister Greg Clark said: "New infrastructure is critical to the country's return to economic growth and we believe we must have a fast track system for major projects - but it must be accountable. The previous system lacked any democratic legitimacy by giving decision making power away to a distant quango on issues crucial to every community in the country. Today the coalition is remedying those deficiencies by putting in place a new fast track process where the people's elected representatives have responsibility for the final decisions about Britain's future instead of unelected commissioners."

Energy Minister Charles Hendry added: "A fast and efficient planning system is critical for facilitating investment in much needed new energy infrastructure. By abolishing the Infrastructure Planning Commission we will ensure that vital energy planning decisions are democratically accountable."

Matt Thomson, Head of Policy at the Royal Town Planning Institute, said: "We welcome the Government's clarification that the function of the IPC is to be retained even if the body itself is not. It is critical that there is a specialist body with the skills and expertise to consider proposals for essential major infrastructure projects to allow decisions to be made in the national interest. We believe that people's confidence in the system will be strengthened by the commitment that final decisions on major infrastructure projects will be taken by the Secretary of State within a defined time frame."

David Green, Chief Executive of the UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy said: "The UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy welcomes the Government's commitment to continuing the streamlining of the consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects, which needs to reflect the pressing national need for energy infrastructure and deliver certainty whilst ensuring meaningful dialogue on proposals with communities."

New primary legislation will be brought forward to close the IPC. Until it is in place the IPC will continue to consider and determine applications as National Policy Statements are designated to ensure there is no delay in handling applications.