RECENT NEWS

Whenever the debate over climate change is aired - flying, and the harm it does in terms of CO2 emissions, is to the fore. As you'll see from the actions elsewhere on this site, skipping a long-haul flight can be one of the most effective ways to cut our carbon footprint.

Yet the UK aviation industry claims it's responsible for only a modest 7% of the country's greenhouse gas emissions. And if that's true, can flying really be so bad?

Pub Fact
* One short-haul flight has the same potential to warm the climate as three months worth of driving a 1.4 litre car
* Less than half of Brits fly for their holidays
* The average annual income of Heathrow passengers is £54,488
* Around a third of flights from Heathrow and Gatwick are delayed by over half an hour
* In 2006, British airports handled more than 200 million passengers and it is (officially) predicted that that number will double over the next 15 years
* 56% of people are concerned about the environmental effects of air travel, but only 10% have reduced the number of flights they take
* One flight to Sydney generates emissions equivalent to driving a mini around the earth 640 times
* To avoid more expensive airspace, certain airlines for example, take longer routes to the Canary Islands, creating an extra three tonnes of CO2 per flight
* Over 10 years, all UK CO2 emissions (transport, farming, housing and construction) fell by 9%, apart from flight emissions, which doubled

What's the problem?
While aviation emissions may seem relatively low now, they are growing faster than any other source of greenhouse gases in the UK. Brits currently take 200 million flights a year but if air travel continues to increase at current rates this will rise to 600 million by 2030. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research estimates that before 2050, UK aviation emissions could exceed the emissions budget of the whole UK economy, wiping out hard-earned reductions in other areas.

What can we do?
We can fly less. Like it or not, analysts say that is the simplest way to reduce passenger numbers in time to stop dangerous levels of climate change. But there is good news: we don't have to give up flying altogether. In fact, the majority of flights are taken by a small percentage of people who fly frequently. In 2007, for example, a third of all flights were taken by just 4% of the population who took five or more flights a year. So the most effective change would appear to be for frequent flyers to dramatically cut their air miles, while those of us who fly more than twice a year cut down a little.

It needn't mean missing our holidays either: since 27% of flights from Britain go to Spain and 50% to the rest of Europe, taking the train is an increasingly viable substitute.

Choosing to fly less often, to holiday in Britain or to visit Europe by train instead of flying offer some of the most significant CO2 savings of any personal action.

Can technology help?
As yet there's nothing that will prove effective enough soon enough to significantly reduce aviation's impact on climate change, but various proposals exist to improve the efficiency of flying:

* Better air traffic management systems - this would include filling planes to capacity and therefore scheduling fewer flights.
* More efficient planes such as the Airbus A380 could reduce emissions compared to older aircraft, but it would take decades to replace existing fleets and the savings are being outweighed by air traffic growth. Planes are becoming more efficient by about 1% a year, while the industry grows by 7% a year.
* Alternative fuels - aircraft have flown on biofuel blends in recent test flights, but they are unlikely to be used on regular flights in the foreseeable future while technical issues remain to be addressed. There are also significant question marks over the sustainability of biofuels. The first manned hydrogen fuel cell plane recently carried two people in a test flight conducted near Madrid, but scaling this technology up for commercial passenger jets is expected to take at least 20 years, and would create contrails, which may further warm the climate.
* Airships - you may laugh, but an airship running on non-flammable helium is one of the least polluting forms of passenger travel. An Atlantic crossing to New York would take around 45 hours. Before you rush to buy your ticket, this route is not yet commercially viable.
* Flying more slowly - in a bid to reduce fuel, Belgium's Brussels Airlines have cut weight on aircraft and started to fly more slowly on certain routes. This adds a minute or two to journey times and saves 1 million Euros on their annual fuel bill. Planes on other routes currently fly at pre-set speeds, putting a limit on such savings.

What are the politicians doing? Political progress on reducing aviation emissions might be categorised as, at best, uneven. Unlike with trains, buses and cars, international flight emissions are not included in the Kyoto protocol (the legally binding inter-governmental contract to reduce greenhouse gas emissions). The reason for this omission, say governments, is that flights cross many international borders, making it hard to identify who's responsible for aircraft emissions.

Aviation will, however, be included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) - but not until 2011. The Department for Transport anticipates plane travel emissions will be capped at 2004/6 levels. Even then, scientists at the Tyndall Centre suggest the ETS will do little to reduce actual plane travel emissions because airlines will be able to increase passenger numbers through buying in extra permits. And they predict that the small price rise proposed for plane travel under the ETS will deter very few people from flying.

Meanwhile, UK government aviation policy - as set out in the 2003 aviation white paper - seems sure to result in large-scale aviation expansion, including a third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow. And Britain looks set to expand its airports around the country on a scale greater than that envisaged by any other European nation. Air operators claim this will benefit passengers by cutting congestion. Campaigners respond that making flying more appealing will simply increase demand, in turn increasing the need for further new airports and runways - a pattern demonstrated by recent road-building policies which, they argue, have actually increased traffic congestion.

Another criticism of Britain's aviation policy is that the industry has an effective subsidy of around £10 billion a year as no tax is levied on aviation fuel in the UK, and plane tickets are VAT-free.

The government defends its policy on the grounds that aviation is critical to supporting the UK's world status as a hub for finance, industry and tourism.

What's the climate impact of aircraft emissions?
Flying injects exhaust emissions directly into the upper part of the atmosphere, where they cause the most damage. The effects of the resulting mix of chemical reactions are complex and hard to calculate, occurring over timescales between three days and 100 years. Even so, scientists believe that between 1992 and 2050, the overall impact of these emissions will prove somewhere between 1.2 and four times that of CO2 at ground level. (Contrails add to this mix of effects. Made up of soot and water vapour, scientists know that in some weather conditions contrails cause cirrus clouds to form, which warm the climate further, though these effects are as yet poorly understood.)

What difference does this make in practice? Well, the CO2 emissions of a return flight from the UK to Malaga for example are 480kg. If you multiply by the lower estimate of 1.2, the true extent of the damage would be 570kg - the same amount of CO2 saved by recycling nearly 15,000 green bottles. At the upper end, emissions could top 1900kg.

This factor is also relevant when assessing the overall contribution of aviation to UK emissions. The government's figures on the climate change impact of flying are calculated based on domestic and international departures from the UK and suggest it contributes only about 7% of the country's CO2 emissions. But because of the extra impacts, research suggests that it's likely to create something closer to 11% of our national total.

Governments still adopt increases in economic growth as the overarching imperative and everything else really plays second fiddle. The consequence of this is that an awful lot of other policy areas tend to get downgraded. Our fear is that the costs of generating prosperity in consumption-driven economic growth actually outweigh the benefits of the growth itself.

Greenhouse-gas emissions, the impact on people's health of increasingly unhealthy lifestyles, the impact on communities, which suffer if we put economic growth before all else - these are all big costs. And they all lead to negative impacts on people's lives.

The Government has put in place an impressive set of foundations to produce a more sustainable society, but at the same time we've seen a lot of indicators heading in the wrong direction. We have more negative impacts than we have positive impacts, so the overall report card would read good progress in some areas but, overall, not a good picture.

I feel some disappointment because I would have wanted to see faster progress. The Government will be launching an Energy White Paper on 13 July, which is the sort of thing they could, and should, have done four or five years ago. And Lord Adonis, the new Secretary of State for Transport, came back recently from a visit to mainland Europe full of praise for integrated transport polices around cycling and walking. But this is basic stuff and we could have been doing what other countries have done 10 years ago.

We have a terrible record of leading the world on rhetoric and then failing to deliver in our own backyard, and that's particularly true on climate change. The new Climate Change Act is a significant step forward but I doubt that the Government is going to be blowing its trumpet very loudly about its overall record on sustainable development at the next election because I think it knows it would be on very dodgy ground.

It takes quite a long time to turn an economy from unsustainable economic growth to genuinely sustainable economic development. That is the journey we're on. I am confident that we're moving in the right direction; it's just happening much too slowly.

I'm still a member of the Green Party and I'm anxious to take on a more campaigning role. We've wasted too much time, and people know we need to move a lot faster. I'm looking forward to playing a role in ensuring that happens.

Jonathon Porritt is the outgoing chair of the Sustainable Development Commission

Just as New Labour's "new dawn" was giving way to the harsher light of hard work nine years ago, Tony Blair appointed Jonathon Porritt to chair a new Sustainable Development Commission. It was an inspired appointment. Mr Porritt has a remarkable record of a lifetime's commitment to, and technical knowledge of, the green cause. The commission was a visionary idea, albeit labelled with the stodgy concept of "sustainability" - a way of describing the central imperative of environmentalism, namely that human activity should not deplete the earth's capacity to sustain future generations.

This is the key to viable green politics: how to reconcile the square of economic growth with the circle of protecting the environment. It is the theme on which Mr Porritt has focused, including in his recent book, Capitalism as if the World Matters.

Yet Mr Porritt is now stepping down as chair of the commission, saying, as we report today: "We've wasted too much time and people know we need to move a lot faster." And the commission will publish a report this week that puts the Government in the stocks for its impending failure to meet a series of important targets. Speaking to The Independent on Sunday, Mr Porritt says: "We have a terrible record of leading the world on rhetoric and then failing to deliver in our own backyard, and that's particularly true on climate change."

Mr Blair's rhetoric and vision was important, but it was only the start of what was needed. Towards the end of his time at No 10, the rhetorical machine was increasingly cranked up, but, as Mr Porritt suggests, the follow-through was wanting. Gordon Brown never had the rhetoric, or the plausible appearance of conviction, but he did create the Department of Energy and Climate Change under Ed Miliband, and last week he set out Britain's preparations for a global deal at the Copenhagen summit later this year.

For nine years, though, progress has been too slow. One of New Labour's failings has been its "Year Zero" approach to policymaking, allied to an attention span that would make life difficult for a butterfly. Mr Porritt points out that Lord Adonis, appointed Secretary of State for Transport earlier this month, is an enthusiast for the continental model of using public transport and bicycles for more urban journeys. Yet that made sense in 1997, if not before, and John Prescott committed Labour to such a policy even before the new dawn broke.

That is a small example, but it applies across the piece. Sustainability requires a shift in the rules of capitalism, the most important being to put a higher price on carbon, in order to use market forces to reduce the output of the gases that cause climate change. That is how higher standards of living can be reconciled with preserving the eco-system. That is how the apparent oxymoron of green growth can be achieved. Not by tacking on green gestures as an afterthought to policies designed to promote growth, with the implication that we will forget them in times of recession, but by re-pricing the measurement of growth to take into account its environmental cost.

The creation of Mr Porritt's independent Commission was an attempt by Mr Blair to hold himself and his Government to account for achieving that fundamental change. Of course, it has not been a complete failure and, as an optimistic green newspaper, we prefer to see the glass as half full. Much has been achieved, but it is now time to step up the pace.

Not least because the global situation has changed. It was always the case that "environmentalism in one country" made no more sense than the socialist equivalent. It would have been better if Britain were on course to meet its target for a 20 per cent cut in carbon dioxide emissions by next year. As Mr Miliband's brother David said when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, it would be valuable to "set an example" to the rest of the world, as well as being in our self-interest to gain first-mover advantage in green technologies and markets. But it would hardly make any difference to global outputs of carbon dioxide, with coal-fired power stations being built in China faster than they can be counted.

Now, however, a new US President has transformed the prospects for a global deal at Copenhagen: the Chinese would only ever act if the world's largest polluter, America, would. The world recession also gives us a chance to start to shift towards low-carbon capitalism.

Britain could play an important role in helping to broker such a deal, but only if, nine years late, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband heed Mr Porritt's warning and finally make up for lost time.

Transport Times has long been at the forefront of innovative thinking in transport policy, and I am delighted to be making my first major speech as Secretary of State, setting out my transport manifesto, at this conference.

The subject of your conference - “door to door public transport” - is a theme close to my heart. I know it invokes the dreaded words "integrated transport policy", which Sir Humphrey Appleby famously described as "a bed of nails, a crown of thorns and a booby trap". But then his minister, Jim Hacker, didn't seem to achieve anything much at all in his many episodes as minister or indeed Prime Minister, so I am not proposing to take any lectures from him.

When it comes to tackling big challenges, I take the same approach at transport as I took for many years at education. I am an activist, not a fatalist, striving for a vision of a fundamentally better future and constantly working at a step-by-step game plan to get there. Indeed, the policy context has some strong similarities. For decades people said that there were deep intractable cultural reasons – the English class system and all that – why England had underperforming state schools, and that no government could do anything much about it. Furthermore, because the simple headline-grabbing policy solutions were mostly from the extremes of left and right – whether it was the abolition of private education from the left, or vouchers and a market free-for-all from the right – this only heightened the distrust of pragmatic Middle England that bold but sensible reform could bring about fundamental change for the better. Yet with a will and the right policies, it was possible to do so, commanding the broad confidence of the general public, by investment and reform focused on the essentials of improving teacher recruitment, school standards, school organisation and school leadership.

So too in transport. The fatalists are rife here as well. How many times have people told me that we just have to grin and bear congestion, that we in Britain are incapable of carrying through long-term infrastructure projects, that you will never get people cycling on British roads, and that our engineers simply aren't up to French, German and Japanese standards, so we will never run railways as well.

I don't buy any of that. On the contrary, there are grounds for optimism, and firm foundations on which to build. More than £150bn has been invested in transport infrastructure over the past decade. Thanks to John Prescott and Michael Heseltine, we now have High Speed One and the gloriously rebuilt St Pancras station. Thanks to John's successors, who dealt successfully with the aftermath of the collapse of Railtrack, we now have a national rail system carrying more passengers than at any time since before Beeching, with greater capacity and high levels of safety and punctuality. The bus fleet is being modernised; a national concessionary fares scheme is in place for the over 60s and disabled people; and new powers have been given to local authorities to regulate and improve bus services. Road safety has improved markedly.

As for genuinely integrated transport, under Ken Livingstone's pioneering leadership London led the way with a renaissance of buses and major improvements to the tube, supported by the successful congestion charge. A transformation is now underway of north-south and east-west London rail links, uniting overground and underground through Thameslink and Crossrail. London also pioneered integrated ticketing through Oystercard, which makes switching from bus to tube simple and ticketless, which is soon to be extended to London's overground lines.

These accumulated achievements give me confidence that, with political will and a combination of long-term vision and practical short term reforms, we can address effectively the three major transport challenges that face us - first, the provision of extra capacity on a sustainable basis; second, shifting, fast and for good, to low carbon technologies and practices within each mode of transport; and third, radically improving the attractiveness of public transport by facilitating far more door-to-door journeys wholly or in part by public transport - whether it be bike plus train, or car plus train or coach, or bus plus train, or different combinations of the above.

Let me take these three priorities in turn.

Capacity
First, capacity. It is a fact that there is a long-term increase in the demand for transport, and that increasing demand for transport is correlated with both national prosperity and personal fulfilment. The nature of these correlations is to some extent subjective and disputed; and I certainly don't see simplistic "predict and provide" as the duty of government. Our task is to balance, as best we can, the demand for transport and its economic and personal benefits on the one hand, with resource constraints and environmental impact on the other.

One of the most interesting things I read on joining the Transport department last October was Tom Vanderbilt's fascinating book on the history and nature of traffic. Vanderbilt points out that "one of the curious laws of traffic, the world over, is that most people spend roughly the same amount of time each day getting to where they need to go. Whether the setting is an African village or an American city, the daily round-trip commute clocks in at about 1.1 hours." This law of traffic, he suggests, is rooted not only in the search for a livelihood but also in something more fundamental in human nature and desire in terms of mobility and work-life balance. It is why, for example, an area of roughly seven square miles is the mean area of Greek villages to this day, and why the old core of a pedestrian city like Venice has a diameter of 5 km. What has changed over time, and from place to place, is of course how far you can get in a 1.1 hour round trip, and what this means in terms of agglomeration and economic effects.

In these respect, my less exciting but vital reading has been the Eddington report, which concludes that "a long-term strategic outlook for transport policy in the UK must extend over a 20 to 30 year time horizon", and that policy and investment should focus particularly on "those key points where economic success has concentrated demand, notably within and around urban areas, at international gateways and on busy inter-urban corridors" where "congestion, delay and reliability are already real issues."

This is precisely our policy: to focus on capacity constraints; and to do so by a combination of sensible short, medium and long term investments - not forgetting the long-term dimension, mindful, as David Begg so rightly says, that short-termism has been the British transport policy disease.

This imperative to evaluate and plan for the long-term led to the infrastructure announcements we made on 15 January, to which I am fully committed. These include an increase in motorway capacity in congested areas over the next decade, but not by means of new motorways, or even for the most part widened motorways, but rather by means of hard-shoulder running, which has now been shown on the M42 to be safe and effective. Hard-shoulder running generates extra capacity at a fraction of the cost and environmental impact of new roads or conventional widening and goes hand-in-hand with greatly improved management of motorway traffic flows - including reduced speed limits and far better information for motorists - giving motorists more predictable journey times.

On 15 January we also set a strategic framework for the future of Heathrow, recognising that extra airport capacity is crucial to Britain's prosperity and economic competitiveness over the next 20 years. But also that expansion can only happen in the context of guaranteed limits on its local environmental impact, taking effective action to tackle the climate change impacts of aviation and encouraging better public transport access.

However, the most far-reaching policy departure of 15 January in its implications for Britain's transport system was the decision to establish the High Speed Two company, and to ask it to recommend to the government a north-south high-speed rail plan by the end of the year. From my reading and international studies, it has long been clear to me - well before becoming a transport minister - that a global transport policy revolution is taking place as country after country adopts high-speed rail as its next generation backbone infrastructure. The question is not whether but when and how Britain follows suit.

Very significantly, our policy is moving in parallel with the United States. In one of his early presidential speeches, Barack Obama described high-speed rail as "a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century," and he is championing the cause powerfully. So is Governor Schwarzenegger in California, who last November won a ballot proposition for a $10bn bond to start work on a 200mph high-speed line from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Then there is France, Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, China, Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, Belgium, the Netherlands - the list goes on of countries now far beyond us in the relative scale of their high-speed rail networks. In Europe alone, 3,600 miles of high-speed line are in operation, a further 2,000 are under construction and 5,300 planned - but only 68 of them are in Britain.

The most significant long-term transport policy decision of the next year will be on taking forward plans for a north-south high-speed rail line. The need for sustainable additional transport capacity between Britain's principal conurbations; the potential to substitute lower carbon and more convenient trains for planes and cars; the potential for getting far more freight off the roads and onto rail; the social and economic benefits of high-capacity and high-speed links between the north and the south in England, and between England and Scotland – all these will be key factors in our decision early in 2010.

Low-carbon transport
Environmental factors at large, and carbon reduction in particular, will, as I say, be notable factors in determining policy on high-speed rail. Which brings me to my second key challenge as Transport Secretary - getting Britain firmly on the path to a low carbon future.

All of us here, whatever our role in the transport sector, have a duty to champion low carbon technology and practice, as part of our wider responsibility to help the UK meet our ambitious but essential climate change obligations. However, that duty is not going to be fulfilled by exhortation alone; but rather by making low carbon travel a better and steadily more viable and attractive choice within, and between, different modes of transport. As Anthony Giddens writes in his new book on the politics of climate change, "No approach [to a lower carbon future] based mainly upon deprivation is going to work. We must create a positive model of a low-carbon future - one that connects with ordinary, everyday life in the present… A mixture of the idealistic and the hard-headed is required." That is precisely my approach - a mixture of the idealistic and the hard-headed - and it is the approach I will set out in the government's transport carbon reduction strategy next month.

Technology is part of the answer. Within each mode we need to move as fast as is economically, socially and technologically viable to lower carbon options.

For road vehicles, this means government intervention on a number of fronts, from developing new vehicle standards through the EU, to supporting R&D and helping UK industry maximise the opportunities from a shift to lower carbon technology as part of what Peter Mandelson has called Britain's "new industrial strategy." We need to secure the significant improvements that are still to be had from improving the efficiency of the internal combustion engine, while also unlocking the market for the new cleaner electric and hybrid technologies that are also emerging fast.

We are taking these steps now. Yesterday I was at the launch of eight branded demonstration models of electric cars, 340 of which will soon be available for public testing at eight locations across Britain, which will be a crucial part of manufacturers' research on consumer behaviour alongside their R&D on the technology itself. The government has already pledged more than £200 million for consumer incentives, worth between £2,000 and £5,000 for motorists looking to buy electric or plug-in hybrid cars when they come onto the market, which we expect to be from 2011.

A key element in our strategy to decarbonise cars and vans is to enable motorists to make a more informed choice as to the carbon impact of the vehicles they buy. My first announcement as Secretary of State was the extension of the new car fuel economy label to used cars, and the launch of an online database of new van CO2 emissions on the Business Link website.

The purchasing power of the public sector can also help in demonstrating the potential of new technology for decarbonising road transport. So today I am announcing that, as part of a £20 million scheme, four British companies - Ashwoods, Allied Vehicles, Smith Electric Vehicles and Modec - will begin supplying low carbon and all-electric vans to selected public sector organisations within months. They will initially supply the first 100 vans to public sector bodies later this year, including the Environment Agency, HM Revenue and Customs and the Royal Mail, as well as councils from Glasgow, Newcastle and Gateshead to Leeds, Liverpool and Coventry.

There is an exciting low carbon agenda in rail too. We are examining in detail the case for electrifying the two busiest diesel-operated inter-city lines - the Great Western Main Line from London to Bristol and Swansea and the Midland Main Line from London to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. We hope to have announcements to make on this in the coming months.

For aviation and for shipping, our aim is to switch to progressively cleaner, greener aircraft and ships to reduce emissions. We expect industry to drive and adopt technological improvements that will increase efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of these sectors. At the same time we recognise that even in the longer term the decarbonisation of aviation and shipping and the switch to alternative fuel sources will be more challenging than for road and rail.

And uniquely we have set ourselves a tough national target to bring CO2 emissions from UK aviation below 2005 levels by 2050. We will achieve this, first, by the use of market-based measures. These include an effective emissions trading scheme, which is why we argued successfully for aviation's emissions to be capped within the EU system from 2012 and why Ed Miliband and I will be pressing for international aviation - as well as international shipping - to be included in any new global deal agreed at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December. Secondly, it is also essential that for planes as for cars, we drive the development and adoption of new technology, including fuel efficiency improvements in aircraft engines and airframes; improvements in air operations, both in terms of more fuel efficient practices and air traffic management; and the use of alternative fuels, provided these can be produced sustainably.

In promoting low carbon transport, there is no lower carbon or healthier means of getting from A to B, besides walking, than cycling. Cycling has for too long been the Cinderella of transport policy - adored but neglected, when in fact it ought to be central to our thinking and planning if we are serious about a low carbon and healthier future. Improved cycling facilities will be one of my key priorities as Secretary of State. It is no accident that the countries which are most serious about cycling - I think particularly of Holland and Germany - are also among those which have the most joined-up transport systems, because cycling by its very nature is a short distance mode of transport and requires good interchange facilities if it is to be a central part of a wider system.

Nearly half of all people in Britain over the age of 11 own a bike, and two in five of all journeys are under two miles so are in many cases well-suited to being undertaken by bike. The government is investing a lot more in this area; Cycling England has a three-year budget of £140 million and is doing a good deal of useful work including the designation of cycling demonstrations towns and cities from Brighton to York. Sustrans' Connect 2 is also helping to revitalise cycling and walking in 79 communities across the UK by creating new routes for the local journeys we all make every day. Thanks to Sustrans, crossings and bridges are being created over busy roads, railway lines and rivers. These connections then link into new networks of local paths to get you to where you want to go by foot or bike.

But to be frank, our record on cycling so far is mixed at best. Whilst in London cycling has more than doubled in the last ten years, in England as a whole it is down by nearly 20 per cent and cycling makes up only 1.7 per cent of all trips which does not compare at all well with other European countries. I am looking forward to discussing with Philip Darnton of Cycling England how we can bring about a step-change in numbers getting their bikes out of the shed or the garage and into use.

Door-to-door
One key factor is the ease of interchange between cycling and other forms of travel. Let me take the specific issue of the interchange between cycling and rail travel. While some 60 per cent of the population lives within a quarter of an hour cycle ride of a railway station, only two per cent of journeys to and from stations are made by bike. By contrast, in Holland, cycling accounts for roughly a third of all trips to and from rail stations. This massive difference isn't in the different genes of the British and the Dutch; it has a lot to do with the provision of facilities for cyclists at stations.

I saw this at first hand last month when I visited Holland. At this point I have a slide show [show photo slides]. The station at Leiden has properly organised and supervised parking for 4,500 bikes; by contrast all of London's rail terminals put together only have cycle storage facilities for 1,200 bikes. Leiden, a city of just 120,000 people, is planning to increase its 4,500 station bike parking spaces to 6,000 - an increase of 1,500 which is larger than the total number of spaces available at all London terminal stations.

I toured some of London's mainline stations by bike on Sunday to investigate their cycle parking facilities, and it was a sorry story, as my photos show. For the most part cycle storage is very limited, unsupervised, badly signed and difficult to access. Only at London Bridge, thanks to a new initiative by the Mayor, is there proper supervised storage - but that, again, is badly signed, not open in the late evenings and the cycle store is a five minute walk from the station.

To help tackle this problem I am announcing plans to radically improve station cycle storage. I will make available £5 million over two years for transformation projects to improve cycling storage facilities at up to ten major railway stations nationwide, including in London. This will be on top of existing improvement plans - for example our new south-central franchise, which is providing 1,500 extra cycle parking spaces - as well as 1,000 extra car parking spaces - at stations across south London, Sussex and Surrey. I see this as a model for future rail franchises nationwide.

I am asking my station champions Chris Green and Sir Peter Hall to recommend which stations would benefit most from this funding and the sorts of services that would be of most value, for example potentially including maintenance facilities as well as safe storage. I have asked them to report to me on scheme design before the end of the summer.

By enabling people to make the choice to cycle as part of longer public transport journeys we can make a massive difference not only in tackling congestion, promoting rail and protecting the environment but also in making Britain a much fitter, healthier country.

And this is just one aspect of improving transport interchanges. The report of the Door-to-Door working group being launched here today has an entire chapter on them. As the report points out, best interchange practice could be something as simple as ensuring station staff are well informed and easily identifiable and that public announcements are clear and give the right amount of detail. Or it could mean more real time information screens and greatly improved signage to make connections and onward journeys simple to understand and easy to navigate.

Buses clearly have a critical part to play, not only as a form of local transport but also in providing effective interchange with other forms of travel.

In Brighton, a partnership between the local authority and bus operator has not only brought about increases in bus patronage and user satisfaction, but also delivered real time bus information at stops right across the city, as well as in the rail station.

In Oxford, effective partnership, effective traffic restraint and bus priority means that around 40% of trips to and from the city centre are by bus, and buses link to rail services by operating from the rail station forecourt.

In Leeds, passengers can walk outside the rail station and straight onto a free bus service running around the city centre.

In Hull, the new Paragon Interchange brings together buses, coaches and trains under one roof, as well as providing better ticket offices and facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.

I want these to be models of good practice for emulation nationwide. The Local Transport Act provides the powers for local authorities and bus operators to work together to boost bus use and improve interchange, and I am keen that they do so.

Another critical dimension to improving interchange is the extension of smart ticketing across transport networks.

By extending the use of smart ticketing technology, we can transform people's perception and experience of public transport. In Japan tens of millions of people regularly use their mobile phones as their ticket to travel on railways and subways. In Hong Kong 95% of all those aged between 16 and 65 own an 'Octopus' smartcard and use it both for public transport and for paying for other goods and services.

In London, the Oyster card has transformed the travel patterns of Londoners. As I said earlier, to make it even more attractive, Oyster pay-as-you go will soon be extended to cover rail journeys in London and we are also funding the project to make London compatible with the national ITSO smartcard standard.

And there are excellent examples outside the capital as well - bus passes being used as library cards in Bracknell Forest, free transport being used to incentivise leisure centre use in Nottingham, and disposable multi-journey smartcards in Cheshire to name but a few. If we get this right then the whole country could follow London in revolutionising the connectivity of public transport, and increasing its use radically. Our intention is to publish a consultation document on smart ticketing this summer, including possible incentives to boost development and take-up.

Conclusion
In conclusion, let me return to high-speed rail, which as I say is the critical issue for decision in the next year, to which I will be giving a good deal of personal attention.

My first overseas visit as Transport Minister was to Japan, to study the bullet train revolution which has swept Japan in the past half century. At the entrance to Tokyo Central Station is a plaque which declares the Shinkansen "product of the wisdom and effort of the Japanese people".

Yet crucial to the history of the Shinkansen is the fact that it was not inevitable that it should have taken place. What happens generally seems pre-ordained, as it was both with Japan's decision to pioneer high-speed rail and our decision not to. But this is quite unhistorical. On the contrary, the phrase "railway downfall theory" was in vogue in 1950s Japan: the view that rail was an outdated technology which was set to follow horse carriages, canals and sailing ships, to be replaced by faster planes for the longest distances and by far more flexible and individualistic cars and trucks for shorter distances.

This view was indeed widely held within Japan National Railways at the time, and it was only the vision and leadership of a small group of talented managers and engineers which ordained otherwise. They concentrated on the immediate capacity requirements of the densely populated and economically critical Tokyo to Osaka corridor, convincing the government that a patch-and-mend upgrade to the existing line was too cautious for this key route and that new technology offered a much more fit-for-purpose solution. The rest, as they say, is history.

I believe we are at a similar turning point in British transport policy. It is part of a wider low carbon imperative which embraces the nation at large - but with challenge comes opportunity, and it is an opportunity which I am intent we should seize.

OUR COMMENT: Seize it and make it happen! And do not forget to bring the Aviation White Paper up to date, and recognise that the much publicised ETS cap for aviation emissions needs to be just that, a CAP, no cheating and stealing emission allowances from other industries and developing nations.

Pat Dale

Editorial by Bill Hemmings

A fascinating but frightening game of bluff is being played with global attempts to curb aviation's contribution to global warming. It is the equivalent of the emperor standing up naked and challenging all the on-lookers to say that he is wearing no clothes.

The last 12 years since the Kyoto Protocol was signed have been hugely disappointing in the field of aviation. But once it became clear two years ago that the EU was going to put aircraft emissions into its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and the Bali climate meeting called for a more ambitious set of reduction commitments than Kyoto to be agreed at this year's Copenhagen climate summit, the feeling was that aviation was under pressure to do something. There followed a battle within the aviation sector as to how far the industry needed to go to satisfy the parties at Copenhagen and keep control of aviation's climate impact within the International Civil Aviation Organisation (Icao).

That battle took the form of Icao establishing a group of 15 'wise men' (the Group on International Aviation and Climate Change, or 'Giacc') from a representative group of countries. The 15 were asked to draw up an action plan on aviation climate change. That final action plan - effectively a draft of Icao's final offering to Copenhagen - was revealed earlier this month.

If one wants to be kind about it, it is honest in its admission that there was very little consensus, and that certain states did not honour their agreements under the Kyoto protocol. But in effect it is nothing but a bunch of empty promises.

Icao promised an 'aggressive' plan of action to tackle climate change - all it has come up with is a set of 'aspirational goals' with no commitments. The wording of it admits to the ongoing conflicts within Icao between developed states wanting global action and developing countries (led by China) who, citing the UNFCCC principle of differentiated responsibility, insist that only developed countries need to reduce international aviation emissions.

The 15 also published a basket of optional market-based measures for states to choose from, but acknowledged that there was still no agreement on how cross-border measures could be undertaken. So a principal objective of the group, first raised in 2007, has still not been addressed.

Where does this leave the process? It seems a blatant invitation to the UNFCCC to take responsibility for aviation away from Icao (and shipping from the IMO) and to set emission reduction targets - and take over responsibility for developing emission reduction measures.

This so-called 'action plan' is no credible basis for the Copenhagen agreement to continue to entrust Icao with responsibility for reducing aviation emissions. The question now is: will the UNFCCC see that the emperor is wearing no clothes and take over this vitally important responsibility?

Ryanair freezes growth at 9 UK bases with immediate effect

Ryanair, Europe's largest low fares airline, today (23rd June 09) confirmed that it will freeze growth at its nine UK bases with immediate effect. Ryanair highlighted that Gordon Brown's £10 tourist tax, combined with the BAA Monopoly's high airport charges have caused the loss of over 4.5 million passengers at the BAA UK airports in the first five months of the year.

Ryanair called on Gordon Brown to scrap this £10 APD tax and speed up the sale of Gatwick and Stansted airports to prevent a further collapse in UK tourism and related jobs next winter. If the UK traffic collapse continues for the full year the UK economy will lose over 10 million passengers, 10,000 airport jobs and over £2.5billion in tourism spend in 2009 alone, with the Government losing at least £350 million in VAT receipts.

The UK is now a high cost tourism destination which is in steep decline. Ryanair urged the British Government to follow the lead of the Belgian, Dutch, Greek and Spanish Governments who have recently scrapped similar tourist taxes and/or airport charges in order to reverse falling passenger numbers and prevent further tourism and job losses.

Ryanair's Michael O'Leary said: "Ryanair will grow by 15% this year to over 67 million passengers. However, the UK will not share in any of this growth in 2009 as Ryanair (the only major European airline continuing to grow) freezes growth at our nine UK bases. Gordon Brown's £10 tourist tax will see Britain lose over 10 million passengers, 10,000 airport jobs and more than £2.5 billion in tourism spend in the UK this year alone. The Government should follow the example of their Belgian, Dutch, Greek and Spanish counterparts by immediately scrapping this stupid and regressive tourist tax to avoid any further devastation to British tourism and jobs."

"Tourism is one of the UK's most important industries and employers. It responds quickly to price changes. The Government's £10 tourist tax is making the UK an uncompetitive destination and they must scrap this tax now to prevent a further collapse of UK passenger, tourism and job numbers. While the UK keeps taxing tourists Ryanair will switch its growth to other EU countries where low cost airports are growing and where Governments are welcoming tourists not taxing them."

OUR COMMENT: It is difficult to see how a £10 tourist tax could deter most people from a holiday that will cost hundreds - statistics published claim that the fall in passengers are largely from business class passengers economizing on the costs of business travel. It would make more sense if Ryanair catered better for essential business journeys.

Pat Dale

Transport secretary Lord Adonis waded into the row between Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson and British Airways after warning there would be 'no bailouts' given to ailing airlines. The Virgin boss enraged BA when he said the Government should not rescue the struggling carrier, which admits it is in a 'fight for survival'.

Lord Adonis insisted: "We are not in the business of giving bailouts. Nor would the public expect us to. We don't see any public interest to be served by giving public subsidy."

BA has insisted that it has not sought, nor would seek, a bailout.

Sir Richard said BA had brought the matter on itself when chief executive Willie Walsh said that BA was in a 'fight for survival' and asked staff to work without pay for a month.

Sir Richard said: "Loss making and inefficient airlines should be allowed to go the wall, no matter how big or prestigious they were. The Government should not intervene to stop companies going bust. Big inefficient companies which have let their overheads grow should not necessarily survive for ever. If they do disappear it will allow new and more efficient companies to take their place."

He said Virgin Atlantic was ready to grow and take over any take-off and landing slots at airports that such a demise would create: "We're ready to expand if an airline goes bust. We just want to make sure that if an airline does go bust, the slots go back into the pot."

The Italian Government has been accused by rivals of subsidising its national carrier Alitalia, which re-emerged from liquidation earlier this year after merging with domestic rival Air One.

Sir Richard also predicted yesterday that the recession would kill off first-class travel. He made his remarks as he took off on a 25th anniversary flight to commemorate the launch of his own airline Virgin Atlantic a quarter of a century ago.

The businessman said the last 12 months in aviation had been "the most volatile in our 25 year history". He believes Virgin Atlantic will survive the downturn, but that first class travel across all airlines will "disappear for good".

Recent official figures have shown a massive slump in first and business class travel.

As a result there is a vicious price war for business class customers for a return ticket to New York with Virgin Atlantic today charging £1,098, compared to £1,049 with American Airline United, and £1,099 with Virgin's arch-rivals British Airways.

Sir Richard, whose airline offers an 'Upper Class' premium service, commented: "We have heard that our principal rivals are looking to get rid of first-class altogether. And it's high time. Who wants to spend £8,000-£9,000 on a first-class ticket when they can fly with us for less than half that? I suspect first-class travel will disappear during this recession."

The Virgin boss said his airline was "doing better than most" during the downturn, adding: "This year is going to be tough for everybody. But it's a fantastic time for passengers. I suspect they are getting the same sort of prices they were getting 25 years ago."

But despite this warning, British Airways today launched a new business-only flight from London to New York as it tries to fight back from its financial crisis.

The airline, which announced record annual losses of £401million last month, is to charge up to £5,000 return for a seat on the twice-daily flights from London City airport to JFK.

Billed as a 'City to Wall Street' flight, BA promises executives the most convenient connection between the two financial centres. It has bought two small A318 planes which will each carry only 32 passengers. Today's announcement will be seen as an aggressive move by BA to win back first-class customers.

London to New York has always been seen as the most lucrative business class route in commercial aviation, but BA has lost ground to competitors including Virgin Atlantic and Delta.

BA's chief executive Willie Walsh said today: "In the harshest trading environment airlines have experienced, we believe it is more important than ever to embrace the future and innovate. That is what this historic new route is all about."

The airline has axed more than 2,500 jobs since last summer, frozen pay and offered unpaid leave to cut costs.

The service will begin in September and tickets start at just ££1,100. Tickets for the new flights go on sale tomorrow - starting at about £2,000 for a non-refundable, non-transferable return flight on a Friday and going up to £4,900 for a more flexible weekday return.

High-paying premium passengers have declined sharply across the industry as firms slashed their travel budgets. Business-only airlines Silverjet and Eos both ceased operating last year, but BA hopes the convenience of getting to City airport in Docklands will lure customers from Canary Wharf and the Square Mile.

The east London airport also openly touts itself as a 'stress-free' alternative to Heathrow, where clients regularly complain of long queues and lost baggage. The Airbus A318s are the largest aircraft that can be flown from City. All 32 seats on the plan convert to fully flat beds.

Passengers will also be able to log on to the internet. Because the planes are so small, there will be a refuelling stop at Shannon in Ireland - where passengers will be able to clear US immigration.

BA bosses hope a 15-minute quick check-in at City airport and not having to queue for immigration at JFK will cancel out the 45-minute refuelling stop, making it as quick as other transatlantic flights.

A public inquiry into a possible second runway at London's Stansted Airport has been delayed for a second time while an appeal against an anti-competition ruling awaits, the government said on Wednesday.

The Communities and Local Government minister John Denham said in an open letter the inquiry could not be held while the future ownership of Stansted remained in doubt.

"It is clear to me that it is neither feasible nor realistic to announce the start date for the Stansted G2 public inquiry until such time as the outcome of the appeal is known," he wrote.

British airports operator BAA, majority owned by Spain's Ferrovial, is appealing against an order by competition regulators to sell three airports, including Gatwick and Stansted in London, within two years. BAA is in the process of selling Gatwick.

While there is no set timetable for the appeal process it is likely to take about 9 months, Denham said.

Nick Barton, Stansted Airport's commercial and development director, said in a statement: "This announcement does not alter the fact that new runway capacity is urgently required if the United Kingdom is to preserve its global economic competitiveness, and the case for a second runway at Stansted remains a strong one."

The inquiry was originally scheduled to have begun on April 15, but the then minister Hazel Blears delayed announcing a timetable for the inquiry.

The public inquiry into a second runway at Stansted is to be delayed by at least nine months, increasing the chances that the project will eventually be scrapped.

John Denham, the Communities Secretary, said the start of the inquiry would be delayed until after the outcome of BAA's appeal against the Competition Commission ruling that it should sell Stansted, Gatwick and a Scottish airport. The ruling is expected in February 2010 but if BAA loses it could appeal to the House of Lords. This means an inquiry is unlikely to start before the next general election.

BAA had originally hoped to open the Stansted runway in 2012 but the earliest possible opening date has slipped to 2017. The delay means proposed new runways at Heathrow and Gatwick could take precedence and remove the need for a second runway at Stansted.

The Conservatives have ruled out new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted but hinted that they might allow Luton to be expanded.

Nick Barton, Stansted's development director, said that Mr Denham's announcement "does not alter the fact that new runway capacity is urgently required if the United Kingdom is to preserve its global economic competitiveness, and the case for a second runway at Stansted remains a strong one".

Lord Hanningfield, leader of Essex County Council, which opposes the second runway, said: "This is another nail in the coffin for the Government's ill-conceived plans to force unsustainable and unneeded aviation expansion on the British people."

"A public inquiry will now not take place until after the general election, and with the Conservatives committed to opposing the second runway this is effectively the death-knell for BAA's unwanted plans. The chances of a second runway at Stansted may be effectively over but we would ask the new minister to take the brave step of admitting it."

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) has asked the Office of Fair Trading to investigate claims made after it surveyed taxi firms, bed and breakfast accommodation and guest houses within a 15 mile radius of the terminal.

The group claims that of the 28 replies to its questionnaire, there were complaints from taxi firms about its exclusive agreement with one firm, which has a dedicated pick-up area directly outside the terminal building while other operators must pick up passengers from the short-stay car park and pay for parking.

Meanwhile, accommodation providers complained against the accommodation booking desk at Stansted, which they claimed charged local B&Bs and guest houses excessive rates of commission and gave preferential treatment to airport hotels.

SSE campaign director Carol Barbone said: "There are clearly some issues here which deserve to be investigated. Local taxi firms and family-run B&Bs obviously do not feel they are getting a fair crack of the whip from BAA at Stansted and hopefully this is something which the Office of Fair Trading will pursue on their behalf."

But Nick Barton, Stansted Airport's commercial and development director, said: "It's now very clear to us the real purpose of SSE is not to oppose expansion but to attack the very existence of Stansted. It is seeking to damage the airport and, in doing so, the livelihood of the thousands of people who work at Stansted, their families and our millions of passengers."

"We are extremely proud of our track record and have an excellent reputation as a responsible business within our local community. We are always keen to spread the huge benefits the airport generates within the local area, and we work hard to encourage local businesses to take advantage of the opportunities that exist and share in our success."

"The feedback we receive from local businesses and business groups is overwhelmingly positive and we are committed to working in partnership with as many local firms as possible."

The European airport community gathered in Manchester today for the 19th ACI EUROPE Annual Assembly and Congress. On this occasion, European airport trade body ACI EUROPE addressed the economic outlook and the full range of industry challenges in the context of the worst ever trading conditions faced by its members.

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Between January and April, passenger traffic at European airports fell by more than 10% while freight traffic fell by nearly 25%, with more than 90% of airports losing traffic over that same period.

Olivier Jankovec, Director General ACI EUROPE confirmed that traffic recovery is nowhere in sight for the time being: "Air traffic is likely to remain depressed in the coming months, due to very weak passenger demand, without even considering the risks associated with swine flu or further increases in oil prices."

He also indicated that ACI EUROPE had just revised its full year traffic forecast downwards: "We are now looking at an 8% decrease in passenger traffic for the full year and a 16% drop in freight traffic - this is more than 15 times the yearly traffic decrease we experienced following 9/11."

ACI EUROPE stressed that airports are being hard hit by the crisis and that they are facing specific challenges related to the nature of their business. Jankovec said "Airports get a special double-whammy. Decreasing aeronautical and commercial revenues as a result of fewer flights with fewer passengers. Increasing costs as a result of the credit crunch. For a capital-intensive business like ours, which is increasingly reliant on capital markets, this is far from neutral. Profitability is shrinking and there will be losses this year in the sector."

SHORT-TERM vs. LONG-TERM
Airports face a unique challenge, as they need to deal with the immediate impact of the crisis without losing track of the long-term growth perspective for aviation. On airports' reaction to the crisis, Jankovec commented "Airports are not standing still. But unlike airlines, they cannot react by moving to a better market location or simply reducing the scope of their operations. They can only do one thing: make their own market location more competitive."

This explains the fact that there has not been massive increases in airport charges across Europe to compensate for falling revenues. But while airports are tightening their belts, cutting costs, freezing recruitment and reducing staff numbers –by up to 30% in some cases, they also need to keep investing now for the future.

Jankovec stressed "As economies will recover, so will demand for air services. Despite the crisis, experts still expect Europe to face an airport capacity crunch by 20302. Investing in future capacity must remain a priority."

OUR COMMENT: Aviation interests are still not facing facts. Future expansion and reducing climate change are incompatible. Now is the time to rationalize routes, cease promoting ridiculously cheap flights, improve airport services and consider how to balance the true demand for flights with the environmental realities.

Pat Dale

One in 10 routes could disappear this year and airports may face heavy losses

Jonathan Breeze, chief executive of Jet Republic, said the rise in APD - the tax paid by passengers flying out - would lead to a fall in passenger numbers and force airlines to drop loss-making routes.

The tax is to increase by up to 112 per cent over the next 18 months. On short-haul flights (under 2,000 miles) it will rise by just £2, but on a flight to Singapore, Malaysia or Australasia, a family of four will pay £340 - more than double the current rate.

The Airport Operators Association, which represents 72 airports, has written to Geoff Hoon, the Transport Secretary, saying that the increase, coming as it does during a recession, will threaten the survival of some airports.

The association predicts than one in 10 routes will disappear this year and that many airports will sustain heavy losses. Over the past year, more than 40 routes from leading airports have been abandoned in response to a fall in bookings. The number of passengers using Stansted fell by almost 20 per cent in May, compared with the same month last year, as airlines concentrated on the main hubs of Heathrow and Gatwick. The number of passengers using those two has fallen by 6.5 per cent and 3.9 per cent respectively, year on year.

Charter flights have witnessed the biggest decline: 688,100 passengers took charters last month, compared with 865,900 in May last year.

The United States was the worst affected destination. The number of passengers flying there through BAA's airports fell by nearly 10 per cent in May, compared with a decline of less than two per cent on other long-haul routes.

Airlines continue to cut fares in an attempt to keep people flying. The International Air Transport Association reported this week that economy-class fares have fallen by more than a third over the past year on transatlantic flights and by 31 per cent on flights between Britain and the Continent. IATA predicts that air fares will continue to fall for the rest of the year.

This week, a return flight to New York was being sold for as little as £219 by Kuwait Air - down from about £290 last year - while a return flight to Auckland could be bought through the online travel company Travelbag for just £439 - down from about £700 last year.

Last week, Sir Richard Branson, president of Virgin Atlantic, told Telegraph Travel: "British travellers are currently paying the same as they were when we launched the airline 25 years ago. If you have been wanting to take that trip to Australia, now is the time to do it. There are some unbelievable bargains out there."

Sir Richard also predicted that a big American airline would collapse by the end of the year, pointing out that, although fuel prices have fallen from the peak of $147 a barrel last year, they have almost doubled to $65 in the past three months. About 30 airlines have collapsed in the past 18 months, including Silverjet, Maxjet, and Oasis Hong Kong.

THE Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) shares the concerns over the number of houses owned by airport operator BAA around Stansted that are lying empty ('Empty homes fears', Broadcast June 4). This area is one of the most notable in England for historic buildings, especially medium-sized and smaller timber-framed structures dating from the Middle Ages to the 17th century.

Many of the properties now in BAA's ownership are listed as being of special architectural and historic interest. BAA, however, seems incapable of recognising their attributes.

Over the past few years, we have noticed how a significant number of BAA's historic properties have been left vacant for long periods. In such circumstances, maintenance problems are less likely to be identified and dealt with promptly, and it is surprising how quickly deterioration can occur.

In one case, for example, rainwater from a disconnected downpipe was discharging down the wall of a late 15th/early 16th century cottage for a considerable period – a straightforward fault that could have been easily rectified to avoid timber decay and other potential problems arising from penetrating dampness.

In another vacant grade II listed house, water damage recently lead to the collapse of a ceiling. What's more, where BAA has carried out work to its historic buildings it has done so with apparent indifference to the need for specialist building conservation advice.

Hence the instance in Broxted where it illegally installed plastic doubleglazed windows in a listed, thatched cottage with complete disregard to the historical context and was forced to remove them by the local authority.

After the SPAB raised concerns over BAA's treatment of its historic properties at the 'G1' public inquiry in 2007, a representative from BAA indicated he was keen to discuss these with us further.We are still awaiting his call.

Douglas Kent
Secretary Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings

Stansted Airport has today launched a 16 week public consultation on its proposed plans to continue minimising aircraft noise impacts over the next five years.

The UK's third busiest airport is seeking views on its proposed Noise Action Plan and will hold a series of noise briefings in local towns and villages affected by aircraft noise during August and September. The consultation will run until Friday, October 2, 2009.

Stewart Wingate, Stansted Airport's managing director, said: "This will be one of the most comprehensive public consultations on aircraft noise ever carried out by Stansted Airport. We want to know what people think of our draft plans for the next five years before we finalise them for submission to the Government later in 2009."

"Our challenge is to manage the issue of aircraft noise in a pro-active, professional yet sensitive way as we understand it can be a real concern for our local community. We're also determined to take appropriate actions to reduce and mitigate against aircraft noise where we can - this is the right and responsible thing to do."

Stansted is required to publish a noise action plan as part of EU and UK environmental regulations. The proposed plan will run for a five year period from 2010 - 2015 and aims to manage and, where possible, reduce the impact of noise from the various aircraft types that operate at the airport. A final Noise Action Plan will be produced by the end of 2009.

Stansted Airport's head of environment, Dr Andy Jefferson, added: "Here at Stansted we pride ourselves on the pro-active way the airport monitors and reports on both aircraft noise and track-keeping. We've also worked hard to successfully reduce the impact of aircraft noise as we've developed and grown the airport, and today we have one of the most modern aircraft fleets of any UK airport."

"Aircraft are 75% quieter than they were thirty years ago, and the industry has already set itself the target of a further 50% reduction in 2000 levels by 2020 but we know there is always more we can strive to do."

As part of the consultation, Stansted has written to individuals and groups across the Eastern region, including Members of Parliament and local authority leaders.

Copies of the action plan and feedback questionnaire are available online at www.stanstedairport.com/noise. Paper copies of either document can be obtained by calling the Consultation Hotline (answerphone) on 01279 662800 or email.

OUR COMMENT: Take part - Have your say!

Pat Dale

London airports are continuing to suffer falls in passenger numbers, but Heathrow is showing some signs of stemming the rate of losses, according to the latest figures from BAA, the airports operator.

BAA's seven UK airports handled 11.8m passengers in May, a 7.3 per cent fall on May 2008. Passenger traffic at the three London airports was down 7.4 per cent. But while Stansted lost nearly a fifth of passengers compared with last year, Heathrow's 5.4m total represents a fall of 3.9 per cent, a lower rate of decline than in previous months.

BAA said Heathrow's May figures demonstrated the international hub's "resilience and importance", adding that the 6.5 per cent fall at Gatwick was also an improvement on recent months and reflected the impact of "open skie" liberalisation of transatlantic aviation and the summer schedule.

The UK airports operator, majority owned by Spain's Ferrovial overall figures were in line with traffic trends since December, demand conditions remained weak but were not changing materially.

New low-cost services at Edinburgh helped provide the Scottish airport with a 1.4 per cent increase in traffic, the only BAA airport to see a rise, its second consecutive month of growth. But Glasgow suffered a 11.7 per cent fall, while Aberdeen was down 14.1 per cent. Southampton, BAA's smallest airport in terms of passenger numbers, fell by 12.5 per cent.

BAA said the rate of decline in domestic air traffic had worsened, with May's total down 10 per cent. Long-haul routes fell by 1.8 per cent, with North American traffic down 9.1 per cent and European scheduled traffic dropping 5.2 per cent.

A 20.5 per cent fall in European chartered traffic was actually an improvement on recent months. Air transport movements overall were down 8.8 per cent, with Heathrow's falling 2.9 per cent.

Ferrovial has been told by the Competition Commission to sell three airports - Garwick, Stansted and either Glasgow or Edinburgh - but is appealing.

Some of the world's largest airlines on Tuesday called for the industry to set global emissions targets as part of efforts to include aviation in a broader climate agreement at the end of the year.

The seven airlines, including Air France-KLM and British Airways, along with international NGO The Climate Group, have backed a range of emissions reduction targets for negotiators involved in UN-backed climate talks to consider.

Aviation is responsible for about 2 percent of global greenhouse gas pollution and that share is expected to rise. The sector is under pressure from green groups, the European Union and other governments to clean up its act, leading to the airlines to try to craft a deal to tackle emissions, or risk having a deal imposed on them.

The proposals, from carbon-neutral growth, a 5 percent reduction and a 20 percent reduction in emissions through to 2020, using a 2005 base-year, will be presented to negotiators at the latest round of climate talks being held this week in Germany.

The carriers, part of the Aviation Global Deal Group, said in a statement that participation in an international carbon trading market would be crucial to meeting their goals. Under the group's proposal, a proportion of the sector's emission allowances would be auctioned to generate revenues for climate change initiatives in developing countries.

"Based on the scenarios assessed, auction revenues of up to USD$5 billion per annum could be generated to support activities such as climate adaptation programmes and initiatives to combat tropical deforestation," the group said in the statement.

The group also proposed that airlines' carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are based on the carbon content of their annual fuel purchases and that CO2 pollution should be addressed through a global sectoral agreement, rather than a patchwork of regional schemes.

"The AGD Group believes that negotiators should set a target for the international aviation sector as part of a broader global climate agreement that would cover all international flights," the statement said. Other members of the group are Cathay Pacific, Virgin Atlantic, airport operator BAA, Finnair, Qatar Airways and Virgin Blue Airlines.

Delegates from nearly 200 countries meet at the end of the year in the Danish capital Copenhagen to try to agree on the shape of a broader climate pact to replace the UN's Kyoto Protocol, whose first phases ends in 2012.

(Reuters)

Britain and other rich countries will be asked to accept a compulsory levy on international flight tickets and shipping fuel to raise billions of dollars to help the world's poorest countries adapt to combat climate change

The suggestions come at the start of the second week in the latest round of UN climate talks in Bonn, where 192 countries are starting to negotiate a global agreement to limit and then reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The issue of funding for adaptation is critical to success but the hardest to agree.

The aviation levy, which is expected to increase the price of long-haul fares by less than 1%, would raise $10bn (£6.25bn) a year, it is said. It has been proposed by the world's 50 least developed countries. It could be matched by a compulsory surcharge on all international shipping fuel, said Connie Hedegaard, the Danish environment and energy minister who will host the final UN climate summit in December.

"People are beginning to understand that innovative ideas could generate a lot of money. The Danish shipping industry, which is one of the world's largest, has said a that truly global system would work well. Denmark would endorse it," said Hedegaard.

In Bonn last week, a separate Mexican proposal to raise billions of dollars was gaining ground. The idea, known as the "green fund" plan, would oblige all countries to pay amounts according to a formula reflecting the size of their economy, their greenhouse gas emissions and the country's population. That could ensure that rich countries, which have the longest history of using of fossil fuels, pay the most to the fund.

Recently, the proposal won praise from 17 major-economy countries meeting in Paris as a possible mechanism to help finance a UN pact. The US special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, called it "highly constructive".

The Bonn meeting is the first climate meeting at which countries are discussing texts. These cover greenhouse gas reduction and financing developing countries' efforts to combat climate change.

Analysts said last night that the talks were most likely to stall over money. Developing countries, backed by the UN, argue that they will need hundreds of billions of dollars a year to adapt themselves to climate-related disasters, loss of crops and water supplies, which they are already experiencing as temperatures around the world rise. Yet so far, as a Guardian investigation revealed back in February, rich countries have pledged only a few billion dollars and have provided only a few hundred million.

"Developing countries will no longer let themselves be sidelined. In the past, they have been brought on board [climate negotiations] by promises of financial support. But all they got was the creation of a couple of funds that stayed empty. Developing countries will not settle for more 'placebo funds'," said Benito Müller, director of Oxford University's institute for energy studies.

Saleemul Huq, of the International Institute for Environment and Development, said that until rich countries made serious pledges, the rest of the negotiations would suffer because it would be impossible to agree actions without knowing how they would be funded.

Last week, a US negotiator, Jonathan Pershing, said that the US had budgeted $400m to help poor countries adapt to climate change as an interim measure. But that amount was dismissed as inadequate by Bernarditas Muller of the Philippines, who is the co-ordinator of the G77 and China group of countries.

ICAO's Group on International Aviation and Climate Change yesterday recommended "a global aspirational goal of 2% annual improvement in fuel efficiency of the international civil aviation in-service fleet," but noticeably did not make any proposals on emissions trading.

"Given diverging views on the application of market-based measures across national borders, the GIACC recommends that the ICAO Council establish a process to develop, expeditiously, a framework for market-based measures in international aviation," it said. The European Commission is requiring that airlines operating to, from and within the EU submit plans for monitoring and reporting carbon dioxide emissions by Aug. 31 to begin the process of establishing carriers' status in the EU ETS set to include aviation from 2012

ICAO is seeking a multilateral solution to aircraft emissions. GIACC called its plan released yesterday "aggressive," saying a 2% fuel efficiency improvement "would represent a cumulative improvement of 13% in the short-term (2010-2012), 26% in the medium-term (2013-2020) and about 60% in the long-term (2021-2050) from a 2005 base level."

The group called for ICAO to take an "enhanced global coordinating role" that would enable it to "develop a carbon dioxide standard for new aircraft types," facilitate aircraft fuel consumption reporting by member states, "monitor and report progress on aspirational goals on a triennial basis... and identify any adjustments that may be required."

GIACC is aiming to report further recommendations to a high-level ICAO ministerial meeting taking place Oct. 7-9 with the aim of reaching a conclusion on aircraft CO2 emissions by the fall 2010 ICAO assembly.

OUR COMMENT: Now is the time to plan for and promote a green future for aviation - can the industry produce not only greener aircraft but also more efficient airports and better scheduled services, avoiding unnecessary and wasteful competition between airlines and airports?

Pat Dale

LONDON (Dow Jones) - U.K. airports operator BAA Limited said Monday it supported the move to a license based form of airport regulation but added it would seek to recover costs from introducing a new system. Colin Matthews, chief executive of BAA, said, "There is widespread agreement that the system put together in the 1980s needs to be modernized."

While BAA agrees that the primary duty of the Civil Aviation Authority, or CAA, should be to promote the interests of consumers, it said the CAA should also be involved in other duties, "including encouraging investment in airports, aligned with the wider framework of government policy."

BAA, which is a unit of Spanish construction company, Grupo Ferrovial SA (FER.MC), said three strategic themes must underpin any new regulatory framework, namely improving customer experience; facilitating the right investment at the right time in airport infrastructure; and coherence between aviation and other government policies, especially on environmental issues.

It added the new regime "needs to be adequately stable and robust to confront important and controversial questions including the delivery of new runway capacity."

Matthews said speedy transition to a new regulatory framework will minimize the period of uncertainty associated with the current consultation and enable BAA to finance its ongoing investment program.

However, depending on the final terms of the licensing regime, BAA may need to gain consent from its creditors, including provisions relating to termination of the license and sanctions. Gaining that consent may prove costly, BAA said, adding it would look to recover costs from moving to a new system.

A spokesman for BAA said the company would seek to recover costs in a similar method to the way investment affects the regulatory asset base, which in turn determines landing charges for airlines.

While welcoming some aspects of the proposals put forward by the Department for Transport, the industry regulator has sided with both BAA and its debt providers in opposing a "special administration regime" for the Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports owner.

This would give ministers step-in rights should BAA fail, allowing them to ensure Britain's premier airports remain open. Similar rights exist at other regulated utilities, such as energy and water companies.

The DfT's proposals have partly been inspired by growing nervousness within Whitehall over the highly leveraged finances of BAA, which has £13.1bn debts. Introducing such a regime would, however, also prevent lenders from exerting their usual rights to appoint an administrator and sell off assets to recover their money.

The holders of £4.85bn of BAA bonds claim any such regime would constitute an event of default, enabling them to demand their money back ˆ a move that would prompt a crisis at Ferrovial, the Spanish construction company that controls BAA.

In response to a consultation paper, the CAA said such a regime is unnecessary. Citing the example of Eurotunnel, the CAA argues that even if BAA was to fail, its lenders would ensure that the airports remain open.

"The experience of Eurotunnel illustrates that the owners and creditors of a heavily indebted, capital-intensive business will maintain service continuity despite significant financial distress," the CAA notes.

Adding that closure of an airport has "significantly" fewer consequences to the public than disruption to water or electricity supplies, the CAA stresses that the proposed regime would expose "airport owners and creditors to additional risk", so raising financing costs.

As such, the CAA argues, it would "have the perverse impact that airport users are exposed to higher costs". The regulator also expresses reservations over proposed regulatory change that would force it to ensure BAA is able to finance its activities.

Previously Mr Blair's chief policy adviser, Lord Adonis is the new Transport Secretary replacing Geoff Hoon after his resignation. The promotion marks a remarkable rise for the peer who has prospered against the odds under Mr Brown. He is also highly regarded by David Cameron, the Conservative leader.

However, the appointment will add to growing fears over the number of non-elected members of the House of Lords now occupying Cabinet positions.

Lord Adonis came from a deprived background but excelled at Oxford University. He represented the Liberal Democrats on Oxford city council from 1987 to 1991 but joined Labour in the mid-1990s.

He was a key member of Mr Blair's Downing Street policy unit from 1998 until 2005 and is credited with developing the Government's city academy programme. However, during this period he is thought to have clashed with Mr Brown when he was Chancellor.

In 2005, Lord Adonis was ennobled by Mr Blair and became a junior education minister. After Mr Brown became Prime Minister he retained his position before moving to a junior posting at the Transport department last year.

The father-of-two has won plaudits for his handling of his rail brief at the Department for Transport. He has firmly backed plans for more high-speed rail services and recently undertook a tour of the railways to see for himself the problems faced by passengers.

Lord Adonis is likely to come under intense pressure to reverse a decision to expand Heathrow airport.

Mr Hoon resigned amid controversy over his expense claims. The former Transport Secretary flipped his designated second home and did not pay capital-gains tax on the sale of his London flat.

The Guardian reports the appointment of the new Communities and Local Government Secretary. Hidden in the list of those it regards as having "real power" is the following information:

John Denham, the independent-minded Southampton Itchen MP with a strong local government background, has been handed the key role of communities secretary, where he will also have to try to rebuild Labour's now destroyed local government base.

OUR COMMENT: An undeservedly low profile for a minister whose record is unblemished and whose decisions can have far reaching effects on our quality of life, notably those of us who live near airports!

Pat Dale

Airport operator BAA last week said it remained committed to building a second runway at Stansted even though it could be forced to sell the airport and could face planning inquiry delays.

BAA Stansted airport commercial and development director Nick Barton said he was confident the £1.66bn proposal for a second runway would go ahead, despite a 12.6% fall in passenger numbers between April 2008 and 2009.

Speaking at NCE's "Airport Design & Engineering Conference" last week, Barton said: "There is a general growth pattern in aviation, despite periodic dips [due to things like 9/11, wars and economic downturns]. Supply will never exceed the demand. We expect a second runway will open around 2017/2018."

Fighting the Competition Commission

Barton's confidence comes despite the fact that BAA could be forced by the Competition Commission to sell Stansted along with Gatwick and either Edinburgh or Glasgow airports. The operator has put Gatwick up for sale but is fighting the Commission's ruling over the remaining airports.

"Supply will never exceed the demand. We expect a second runway will open around 2017/2018." - Nick Barton, BAA

BAA officials have also written to communities secretary Hazel Blears expressing concern that the prospect of Stansted having to be sold would make the current timetable for the planning inquiry into the expansion "less reliable".

The inquiry was due to begin on 15 April, but Blears has deferred the inquiry to give BAA time to consider the Competition Commisssion's ruling. Barton denied that BAA's concerns over the planning inquiry timetable constituted asking for a delay in proceedings.

"The application is in," said Barton. "The issue is whether the government thinks the case can be heard when the ownership is in doubt."

Buyers in sight for Gatwick

Meanwhile a BAA spokesmen said that sale of Gatwick was progressing well. Bidding is believed to be down to two bidders. Manchester Airports Group is believed to be one of them. The other is London City airport owners Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), a joint venture between General Electric and Credit Suisse.

The Lysander consortium comprising Citigroup infrastructure fund, Vancouver airport and John Hancock Life Insurance was rejected by BAA in May. The operator said it was "uncompetitive on price with no assurance of delivery". Its bid price was reported to be in the region of £1.18bn.

Speaking at NCE's conference, GIP partner Michael McGhee said the group would focus on expanding Gatwick into the low cost carrier market if its bid was successful.

"The future of short haul is low cost and we are interested in investing in low cost at Gatwick," said McGhee. "City can never serve low cost. We've got plenty of fire power to take advantage of current conditions."

Sir Richard Branson believes that a major US airline will collapse in 2009

Sir Richard, the chief executive of Virgin Atlantic, told Telegraph Travel that he expected that the current economic downturn and decline in business travel would result in the collapse of a major American airline in 2009.

"Yields are at all time low and business travel has collapsed which suggests that there will be causalities in the next 12 months," he said. "This could see a major American carrier disappearing and other casualties following."

In the past 18 months around 25 airlines have gone under, including Silverjet, Maxjet, XL Airways and Oasis Hong Kong.

Sir Richard added that although fuel prices have dropped markedly from the peak of $147 a barrel last year, they have almost doubled to $65 in the last three months, increasing the pressure on airlines.

Speaking at a press conference in Tokyo to mark the 20th anniversary of the airline's services to Tokyo, he said that Virgin is well equipped to come through the financial downturn. Earlier this month the airline announced that it had doubled its profits in the past year, in contrast to the heavy losses sustained by British Airways.

Pre-tax profits rose to £68.4 million in the 12 months to the end of February, compared with £34.8 million pounds in previous year The airline claimed that it was able to achieve these figures because it took "early and decisive" action to reduce its exposure to the global economic downturn, pointing to its policy of hedging against volatile oil prices as a key factor.

However Sir Richard added that there has never been a better time for passengers to travel. "British travellers are currently paying the same price for fares as they were when we launched the airline 25 years ago," he said. "If you have been wanted to take that trip to Australia now is the time to do it. There are some unbelievable bargains out there."

However, he warned that the proposed merger between British Airways and American Airlines, which dominate transatlantic routes out of Heathrow, would impact on British passengers.

"It is the equivalent of Coca Cola and Pepsi merging, it would not be good for consumers and would inevitable push up fares on transatlantic routes out of Heathrow," he said. "If it is allowed to go ahead it would wreak havoc in the airline industry. All we ask is to be able to compete on a level playing field."

Willie Walsh, chief executive of British Airways, has warned the airline's 41,000 staff that the group "is in a fight for survival".

The UK flag carrier is seeking to extract big concessions and productivity savings from its workforce, and is seeking to inject fresh urgency into negotiations with its unions and in particular with cabin crew. It is continuing to cut thousands of jobs, with 2,500 posts eliminated since last summer.

Conflict with cabin crew brought the airline to the brink of a strike in early 2007 costing tens of millions of pounds. Mr Walsh said two weeks ago that there had been "little progress" in negotiations with cabin crew.

A ballot on a package of reforms is under way among ground services staff and Mr Walsh said both engineering workers and pilots were expected to launch ballots soon.

He told the BA staff newspaper "the crisis facing our industry has never been more serious. There has been a significant shift in consumer attitude, with people wanting more and paying less. And things are getting worse. We haven't yet reached the bottom, and everything points towards a protracted downturn."

Mr Walsh said BA had set a deadline of June 30 to complete the talks with its unions. The airline had to deliver the "permanent change" needed to "secure our long-term survival. With time running out we've had to inject some pace and energy into these negotiations."

The airline appears to be on a collision course with key parts of the workforce, most importantly cabin crew and pilots, as the management insists on permanent structural change but the unions offer only temporary concessions.

Steve Turner, aviation national secretary at Unite, which represents BA cabin crew, said two weeks ago that the union had offered only to defer wage costs until an upturn in the company's fortunes.

It had proposed "temporary solutions to temporary problems" but would not give up permanently terms and conditions secured over many years "in response to an economic downturn that will end".

Mr Walsh has told staff, however, "temporary solutions on their own are not enough. This is the greatest challenge our industry has ever faced. Our survival depends on us permanently removing costs – and quickly."

BA disclosed two weeks ago a record pre-tax loss of £401m in its financial year to the end of March from a record profit of £922m a year earlier, the worst slump in its history. Mr Walsh ruled out any possibility of the airline receiving government aid.

Ryanair believes that it could save money if it did not have to pay for baggage handlers to transport suitcases from the terminal to the aircraft

The proposals are the latest initiatives being considered by the carrier as it continues trying to cut costs.

Michael O'Leary, Ryanair's chief executive, said the airline was ready to charge passengers for using the onboard toilets. But the company believes that it could save money if it did not have to pay for baggage handlers to transport suitcases from the terminal to the aircraft.

Currently passengers are charged £10 to put a bag into the hold. Passengers who are willing to do this would see the cost of checking in a bag reduced, but the airline was unable to say by how much.

"I am struggling to understand this," said a spokesman for Stansted Airport, one of Ryanair's major bases in Britain. "They haven't discussed this with us. There are security and practical considerations to be taken into account. For a start they would have to work out where a passenger would pick up a bag after putting it through the screening process."

"Also there are aircraft moving around the tarmac. It is hard to imagine how a grandmother or somebody with impaired mobility would be able to cope. Perhaps there is another agenda, what they are really saying is that they don't want passengers to have hold luggage at all."

The weight of luggage has been a vexed issue and it is not only airports who doubt whether passengers would be able to cope with the weight.

Earlier this year Unite, the union representing airport workers, called for passengers' luggage allowance to be cut from 32 kilograms - 70.5 lbs - to 23 kilograms, or 50.7 lbs. They said that the current weight restrictions were too high and leading to its members suffering muscle injuries.

The luggage proposals would follow on from other cuts, including removing check in desks from 146 airports across Europe - which is set to save Ryanair £44 million a year. But that has meant that its passengers have become the first in the world to pay for checking in online - with everyone having to pay £5 to do so.

It was the latest in a series of charges imposed by the airline which says its fares are the lowest in Europe. Other fees include charging £100 to change the name on a booking online and £150 via a call centre. Changing a flight costs £55 by telephone and £25 via the internet.

Meanwhile Michael O'Leary, Ryanair's chief executive, said the airline was ready to charge passengers for using the onboard toilets. "I do believe we will start charging for toilet access. If we can get rid of two of the three toilets on a 737, we can add an extra six seats."

However Mr O'Leary has ruled out proposals to charge obese passengers more for their flights because he regards the idea as impractical.

DEEP concerns have emerged over the number of empty houses around Stansted Airport and the effect they are having on local communities.

Uttlesford district councillor Susan Barker voiced her "growing sadness" over groups of houses that currently lie empty in Takeley and Molehill Green. She told Dunmow Town Council: "It is really upsetting to see so many houses not being used. It negatively affects the way communities operate."

A large proportion of the houses are owned by airport operator BAA which ran a strictly voluntary scheme allowing homeowners to sell houses onto the company in return for the market value. It was designed to allow residents to be able to move out of an area of airport expansion without being financially compromised.

A BAA spokesman said: "Over 90 per cent of the houses we own are either occupied or soon to be occupied. With the current state of the housing market, that seems to be a good ratio."

However, Takeley parish councillor Trevor Allen believes that the empty house situation is threatening to split the community and make local facilities, such as schools and shops, struggle. He said: "Takeley Primary School was struggling with small pupil numbers when this first started. We are all deeply concerned about the way BAA is looking after houses and we want them to be sold back to private owners. Many of the houses, including Grade II listed ones, are falling into disrepair and it is unacceptable."

However, the BAA spokesman said that a great deal of time and money is put in to keep them maintained and ready for letting. "We have spent £250,000 in the last three years just maintaining the Grade II listed buildings," he said. "Regular site visits are conducted and we have a team of gardeners and security workers that continue to do work every two weeks. Money is spent on refurbishment and landscaping the houses so that they are always ready to be let out by new residents."

Copenhagen - The International Air Transport Association (IATA) reiterated aviation's commitment to responsibly addressing the challenges of climate change and called on governments to deliver a global and sectoral approach to reducing aviation emissions in Kyoto 2.

"Air transport is a global industry with a good track record and ambitious targets for environmental performance. But to achieve them, we need governments to take a global approach," said Giovanni Bisignani, IATA's Director General and CEO in a statement to the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen.

Bisignani called on governments to define a sectoral approach in Kyoto 2 with global accounting for aviation's emissions through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and open access for airlines to properly regulated carbon markets. Such an approach would maintain a level playing field for all airlines and replace overlapping national and regional schemes.

A global approach is already underpinned with three ambitious industry targets: (1) a 25% improvement in fuel efficiency by 2020 compared to 2005, (2) to use 10% alternative fuels by 2017 and (3) a 50% absolute reduction in emissions by 2050. "We are already working to set an important fourth target: a date for carbon-neutral growth beyond which our emissions will not grow even as demand increases," said Bisignani.

Bisignani gave a progress report on the aviation industry's efforts to reduce emissions. "Aviation's emissions will fall by 8% this year. Some 6% of this is from the recession and 2% is directly related to IATA’s four-pillar strategy," said Bisignani.

Pillar 1 Technology: Fuel efficiency improved 70% over the past forty years, 23% in the last decade alone. This is mainly due to better aircraft and engines.

Pillar 2 Operations: "How we fly makes a difference. IATA's Green Teams are working with airlines around the world to implement best practices. This work is now saving around 30 million tonnes of CO2 each year," said Bisignani.

Pillar 3 Infrastructure: IATA's work to shorten routes is saving at least a further 30 million tonnes of CO2.

Pillar 4 Positive Economic Measures: Some 30 airlines have carbon offset programs. In June, IATA will launch an industry offset program so airlines can offer this option even more broadly.

Biofuels: Bisignani made special note of the industry progress on biofuels. "One of the most exciting recent developments is the progress being made in sustainable next generation biofuels. These have the potential to reduce our carbon footprint by up to 80%. Three years ago nobody thought biofuels could be applied to aviation. Four successful test flights in the last year prove that biofuels work. For the first time aviation could have a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. Airlines did this work without government involvement. But we could achieve much more, much faster, with a fiscal and legal framework to accelerate research and reward investment. Governments must get on board," Bisignani said.

"Working with governments, a united industry - airlines, airports, manufacturer and air navigation service provider - made air transport the safest way to travel. By working together with a coordinated global approach we can make aviation the first global industry to achieve carbon-neutral growth and a model for others to follow," said Bisignani.

OUR COMMENT: The possibility of unlimited use of biofuels has already been criticized by many experts for several reasons, the most important being that far too much land would soon be devoted to growing crops for conversion into fuel and food supplies would be seriously affected. This is already happening with maize supplies. Aviation still needs to accept that unlimited expansion of air transport is just not possible.

Pat Dale

A NEW leaflet setting out details of how to complain about aircraft noise has been launched by Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE).

The guide is designed to help people affected by noise from planes using Stansted Airport to report their concerns in a way which will help lead to improvements to noise management and better track keeping in the future.

The Concerned About Aircraft Noise? leaflet was launched to coincide with national Noise Action Week (May 18-22) to advise people on a host of neighbourhood noise issues.

More than 20,000 copies of SSE's leaflet have already been pre-ordered by 14 parish magazines in Uttlesford and East Herts districts for distribution to households across the community in the coming weeks and months. Others are expected to follow suit.

Commenting on the new leaflet SSE's noise spokesman and technical adviser on noise to the Stansted Airport Consultative Committee, Martin Peachey, said: "SSE follows up every complaint made to BAA via the SSE website and in around a fifth of cases this yields something useful in terms of our work to press the airport to improve its system of noise and track keeping."

"We do, however, urge people to complain responsibly to avoid compromising the overall noise picture statistics."

Copies of the leaflet are available on request from SSE at 01279 870558 or can be viewed online.

Under pressure from local community groups, the Vancouver airport has launched an online tool that allows people track the flight path and noise levels of arriving and departing flights, and instantly file a complaint when those flights violate noise regulations. The website, which uses a Yahoo map and real-time radar data, will help the airport assess its flight path planning and give residents living around the airport a way to have their voices heard.

"We recognize that noise associated with air travel can affect surrounding neighbourhoods," said Anne Murray, Vice President, Community and Environmental Affairs, Vancouver Airport Authority. "By putting flight and noise information at the public's fingertips through WebTrak, we hope to promote greater understanding of aircraft operations at YVR and the complex airspace in which we operate."

The Vancouver WebTrak system, which was developed by Lochard in conjunction NAV Canada, the company that operates the country's civil air navigation infrastructure, is elegant in its simplicty. Planes into or out of the Vancouver airport are displayed dynamically on top of a Yahoo map. Different types of planes get different icons, and are color coded based on whether they are inbound or outbound. Mousing over an aircraft icon displays the type of plane, its altitude and its speed, but not the operating airline (which no doubt makes the airlines happy).

The planes are tracked by radar and their noise monitored by 20 ground stations located around the airport. Decibel levels at each ground station are displayed numerically in a circle that changes color based on intensity, which makes it easy to correlate airplane activity and noise levels. For security reasons, tracking is delayed by 10 minutes, and military and police aircraft don't appear at all.

But the WebTrak does more than just monitor current activity. It stores 30 days worth of data, which means people can go back and see which plane shook the house during dinner, and will even offer suggestions if people still can't identify the offending plane. Mousing over the offending plane brings up an icon you can click through to file a complaint. "People with complaints can look on there and say I was disturbed by a plane at 3a.m. and I think it was this plane," says a resident of Surrey, one of the towns near the airport.

Communities in range of Vancouver's airport , one of Canada's largest, have been aggressive in combatting noise since flight paths over the airport were changed in 2007 resulting in more flights over crowded residential areas. The city of Richmond, BC has established an Airport Noise Citizens Advisory Task Force that partners with the airport on noise issues and also acts as a kind of watchdog. In Surrey, a group that calls itself the South Surrey Citizens Against Aircraft Noise has been especially aggressive in pushing for better noise management procedures, and lobbied hard for the WebTrak system. "Planes are not necessarily staying on the courses they've been directed to follow," said Surry resident Judy Villeneuve. "They're cutting across the community because it's shorter."

No one is claiming that the launch of WebTrak in Vancouver will actually reduce noise around the airport, but it does give area residents the information they need to keep pushing. "It levels the playing field and it allows everybody to deal with the facts," said Russ Hiebert, a member of the Canadian Parliment, after the website was launch. "Up until now, only YVR and Nav Canada had the information, and there was a belief Nav Canada wasn't being fully transparent in their disclosure of flights. No longer can there be a dispute."

Protest picnic: Staff at Lush wore Edwardian clothing as part of a stunt to raise awarness over climate change

Staff from a Wimbledon cosmetics shop were out in force yesterday persuading shoppers to do their bit in the fight against climate change.

Wearing Edwardian clothing, employees from Lush were promoting the green benefit of taking the train instead of flying as part of a campaign called "climate change is no picnic".

Shoppers even had the chance to share some picnic food outside the shop front while learning some home truths about the damage caused to the planet by mass-aviation.

The environmental initiative had the support of several organisations including anit-Heathrow expansion campaigners, Plane Stupid, founded by former Wimbledon resident Richard George.

The transport secretary will call on Thursday for an international consensus on ensuring that shipping and aviation are included in any global environmental deal in Copenhagen this year.

Geoff Hoon will tell the International Transport Forum in Leipzig, Germany, that it was "a great missed opportunity" that the two dominant international modes of transport were omitted from the last global climate change deal, signed in Kyoto in 1997.

"That led to over a decade of inaction," he will tell the conference. "We cannot afford to wait any longer. It is vital that we put that right at Copenhagen."

However, the tone of Mr Hoon's speech, which will dwell on the benefits of transport and the potential for improved technology to reduce emissions, is likely to worry many environmental campaigners on transport issues. Most believe use of some forms of transport, such as aviation, will need to fall to meet emissions reduction targets.

The International Transport Forum is an annual meeting of transport ministers and other policymakers, organised under the auspices of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The audience will include many of those that the UK has to win over if it is to get agreement on including shipping and aviation in any Copenhagen deal. Mr Hoon will call for transport policymakers to take charge of the sector's response to the climate change issue, rather than leaving it to others such as environment ministers.

"If we do not lead this debate, then others will," he will say.

Transport "will leave itself wide open to accusations that it is part of the problem, rather than part of the solution" if ministers take no action, he will add. The sector could also find solutions imposed on it that do not take account of competition or the realities of international transport, he will say.

However, much of the speech is likely to focus on potential technical solutions to aircraft and ship emissions that many environmental campaigners believe will never be sufficient to curb emissions without substantial reductions in traffic volumes.

Mr Hoon will point to changes in aircraft technology such as blended wings, a technique that reduces drag and fuel consumption, and lighter composite materials as potential ways of reducing aviation emissions. He will also point to improved engine and ship design as means of reducing ships' emissions. "Technological advances can also help to generate business and trade," he will say.

Environmental campaigners fear that a focus on potentially less polluting means of transport could distract from the need to reduce overall use of some forms of transport.

While referring to a number of potential means of curbing transport emissions, including rail electrification, Mr Hoon will avoid any reference to road-user charging. A number of reports have found charging for road use - which is officially government policy but has received far less attention in the past two years - could bring about significant emission reductions.

Expanding Bristol Airport - will it be good for the city? Bristol's Public Health doctors faced this question in 2006 during the consultation about more flights and expanded facilities.

The health of people in Bristol depends on many things, including a thriving economy, the quality of the places we live in, education for our children, the food we eat, opportunities for safe enjoyable physical activity, a fair and peaceful society, and so on. So as Public Health specialists we needed to look carefully at all the issues.

We all knew that expansion at Bristol Airport was said to be essential because it would create jobs and because everyone supposedly wants to fly more. But the downside was becoming harder to ignore. It will increase the amount of aircraft noise and the volume of traffic and congestion through local communities. This will damage health, wellbeing and education for a sizeable proportion of those living nearby.

We knew that the health damage from noise, heavy traffic, and climate change were well backed by evidence. But we wanted to be certain that we were not overlooking potential positive effects on health from new jobs, and from more people on low incomes being able to holiday abroad.

We looked at evidence from a study in Luton, and discovered that it is not the people on low incomes who are mostly using cheap flights. We also looked carefully at the reports that had been written on possible economic effects if Bristol Airport were to expand. These were the Tym Report, carried out for Bristol International Airport in October 2005, and the Whitelegg Report, done for the Parish Councils and Friends of the Earth in October 2005.

They looked at trends and forecasts, and made different predictions about economic growth, about jobs at the airport, in the supply chain for the airport, from inbound tourism, and from construction. They also suggested there would be losses to the South West economy if more tourists use cheap flights to go away for weekends and holidays.

We were surprised to find that the predictions of economic benefit in the Tym report were reached by pretty much ignoring the impending energy crunch, oil price rises, future green taxes, changes in business behaviour to reduce carbon footprints, and the impacts of recession. The University of the West of England report for Business West, published in January 2008 after our submission, also seemed to overlook these looming restraints on growth.

The fact that these matters were ignored led us to feel any possible health benefits from the economic impacts of airport expansion were actually very uncertain. Our group concluded that on health grounds the damage from airport expansion would definitely outweigh the possible benefits. We submitted our conclusions, from the West of England Public Health Climate Change Group, to North Somerset Council, on December 18, 2006 as part of the consultation.

Two years on, and the International Energy Agency has advised governments to prepare for inevitable and irreversible decline in world oil production. The Government's Stern Report has also said long-term economic damage from 'business as usual' and runaway climate change will be massively worse than the short-term economic cost of changing to a low-carbon economy.

The business case for airport expansion is now looking very shaky. Passenger numbers are down and people are looking closer to home for their holidays.

Airport bosses argue that more facilities at Bristol will create jobs and help get us out of the recession. But others say that new jobs must be in sectors with a future - such as renewable energy, local food production and local recreation.

The Bristol International Airport company has no responsibility for impacts beyond their own short-term profits. It is their job to try to persuade us expansion will be good for Bristol.

But as Public Health specialists we take a broader view and our conclusion is that expanding the airport will do more harm than good for Bristol people.

Dr Angela E Raffle B Sc (Hons) MB ChB FFPH on behalf of the West of England Public Health Climate Change Group

Dr Raffle has made her diagnosis without examining all of the evidence.

Bristol International's planning application will include detailed reports, produced by experts in the fields of noise, economics, transport and the environment. We expect these to demonstrate that the proposed development of the airport is sustainable. Without having seen these reports, Dr Raffle's verdict is premature.

The application will also include a range of mitigation measures to reduce impacts on local people - with significant contributions to road improvements, for example. Far from resulting in increased congestion, the development provides an opportunity to improve the local road network.

Similarly, Dr Raffle's claims of increased noise are wide of the mark. In fact, noise around the airport will remain at pre-2006 levels, significantly quieter than residential areas close to Bristol's busy motorways.

The Stern Review made clear that the world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting growth and development. Indeed, the Sustainable Aviation Strategy, to which Bristol International is a signatory, targets a return to 2000 emissions levels by 2050. This will be achieved by improvements in operational procedures and advances in aviation technology.

Aerospace manufacturers spend £2.5 billion a year on researching and developing new technology, with Bristol-based companies such as Airbus at the forefront.

Bristol International is not just used for holiday flights (although we do believe enabling people to travel the world from their local airport is a good thing). Strong air links help local businesses to access overseas markets and encourage inward investment.

Connections with the rest of the world also enable overseas visitors to explore Bristol and the South West, and play an important role in the region's ability to attract conferences, exhibitions and major events. Restricting the ability to fly to and from Bristol International will not reduce emissions, it will simply displace flights to airports in other regions, to the disadvantage of local travellers and tourism businesses.

The proposed development plans would deliver an airport for the South West to be proud of. Dr Raffle's argument is a prescription for failure.

Alan Davies, Planning and Environment Director at Bristol International Airport

OUR COMMENT: Alan Davies should read the Stern Report again! Let's see the plans for this new carbon free aircraft engine before any airport rushes into expansion plans.

Pat Dale

Travellers could desert UK airlines and airports over rising airport departure taxes, a poll commissioned by pilots' union Balpa showed.

As many as 76% of adults said they would prefer to fly to Australia from Amsterdam rather than from a UK airport to avoid the high Air Passenger Duty (APD) departure tax of up to £85 per passenger.

Balpa said the results were very worrying, especially as the UK Government intended to more than double APD over the next 18 months, while Amsterdam has scrapped its departure tax.

OUR COMMENT: How much does it cost to get to Amsterdam? How long does it take? AND, The Netherlands as members of the EU are part of the carbon emissions market which will soon include aviation. If properly administered all airports and airlines will be affected.

Pat Dale

The government's airport expansion policy was dealt a further blow today after BAA asked for the postponement of a planning inquiry into a second runway at Stansted.

If the request is granted, there will be little chance of a new runway being built in south-east England before 2020, with planning inquiries into expanding Stansted and Heathrow airports unable to go ahead until after the general election. In a letter to the communities and local government secretary, Hazel Blears, Britain's largest airport owner said the planning process was now "less reliable" because it had lodged an appeal against a Competition Commission order to sell Stansted.

"The timetable and the process for considering the ... applications previously contemplated by the inquiry inspector may now appear less reliable for both the communities and for BAA as a result of the current position regarding the CC's investigation, and where that might lead," said Alastair McDermid, BAA's planning director.

BAA's chances of getting permission to build a second runway at the Essex airport were already receding before it sought an inquiry postponement. Essex county council, which is leading local political opposition to the new runway, had warned that an inquiry might not end until September next year at the earliest – after the next general election. The Conservative party, ahead in the polls and the favourite to win an election, has promised to scrap proposals for new runways at Stansted and Heathrow if it gets into power.

BAA had already pushed back the earliest possible date of a second runway opening at Stansted by two years, to 2017, because there are not enough passengers to meet demand. The airport group has conceded that an expanded Stansted would not attract the necessary 35 million passengers a year until well into the next decade.

Stop Stansted Expansion, an anti-runway campaign group, urged BAA to withdraw the application altogether. "Having it hang like the sword of Damocles over the community for years is wrong. BAA should do the decent thing and withdraw the application," said Carol Barbone, campaign director at SSE.

BAA's bondholders have hired investment banking advisers Reynolds Partners amid growing fears that the Government's proposed changes to regulation could cause the airport operator's finances to unravel.

The Department for Transport is consulting on plans to introduce a "special administration" regime for the debt-laden owner of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, giving ministers special step-in rights should the business fail.

The move has partly been prompted by growing nervousness within Whitehall over BAA's highly leveraged finances, given the frozen credit markets and falling passenger traffic. BAA, which is controlled by Spanish construction group Ferrovial, is backed by £13.1bn of debt, including £9.6bn that is ring-fenced against the three London airports.

The regulatory threat is the latest problem for BAA, which earlier this week launched an appeal over the Competition Commission's ruling that it must sell Gatwick, Stansted and Glasgow or Edinburgh airports.

BAA is struggling to sell Gatwick - which it put up for sale before the Commission forced its hand - for anything close to the airport's £1.58bn regulated asset base. The two remaining bidders have only offered £1.3bn-£1.4bn.

Introducing a "special administration" regime would bring BAA's London airports in line with other regulated utilities, such as energy and water companies, giving ministers the powers to ensure vital industries continue trading.

However, the regime would also prevent bondholders and lenders from exerting their usual rights to appoint an administrator and sell off assets to recover their money. The holders of £4.85bn of BAA bonds claim any such regime would constitute an event of default, giving them the powers to demand their money back ˆ a move that would prompt a crisis at Ferrovial.

"If the DfT's expert panel get their way, there will be a trigger event and the bonds would have to be repaid," said one source close to the situation. "That would probably mean BAA having to sell Heathrow - a crazy outcome."

The DfT's consultation document acknowledges the measures "may have an impact on airports existing financing arrangements" and suggests they would only be implemented "when market conditions allow this to be achieved efficiently".

Bondholders and other lenders are scrutinising the small print of their loan agreements, however. They are aware that the loan documents for BAA (SP) Ltd - the London airports company against which £9.6bn of debt is secured - contain a "regulatory change principle".

Any "proposed or actual change" triggers a six-month standstill, prior to an event of default, when the company's lenders could stop advancing BAA cash. BAA sources insist that the mere fact of DfT's consultation does not constitute a "proposed change".

One source familiar with the lenders' position said ministers had still not fully realised the ramifications of the proposed change.

"I think parts of the Government do understand it but the question is whether they decide to put protecting the public ahead of protecting BAA and Ferrovial," said one source. "It's very Catch-22. They want to make sure the public is protected from an insolvency. But in trying to protect the public they could trigger the very insolvency they want to prevent."

BAA, its lenders and other interested parties must make submissions to the consultation by June 1. The bondholders have formed an ad-hoc committee under the auspices of the Association of British Insurers to co-ordinate their response. BAA is opposed to the new regime, while the Civil Aviation Authority, the industry regulator, is next week expected to express serious reservations.

Credit agencies have already spooked lenders with warnings that a special administration regime would prompt a ratings downgrade. Alexandre de Lestrange, an analyst at Standard & Poor's, warned clients that it would "require bondholders' and lenders' approval", adding: "This could lead to a multi-notch downgrade."

The bonds are currently rated A-, but even a one-notch downgrade to BBB+ would provide Ferrovial with a severe refinancing headache. One banker said: "Even in the good times, it's tough for a BBB+ company to issue £13bn of debt. In this market, it's impossible."

One infrastructure banker played down the threat, believing BAA's bondholders are capitalising on the regulatory issue to extract extra fees from the company. "Other infrastructure industries have that regime and it's not something that's technically unfriendly to lenders," he said. "But BAA bondholders are bound to take advantage and demand something in return for any change to their loan agreements."

The problem for BAA is not only the existing lenders, but its future ones. It must refinance £1bn of debt by March 31 2010 and a further £1bn in each of the next two years. That is not to mention £1.57bn of subordinated debt, due by April 2011, that is currently trading at just 46p in the pound - down from 80p last October.

Refinancing this lot with a weaker credit rating would be a tall order - even allowing for one potential fillip in the same DfT consultation paper. This is the proposed requirement that the CAA ensures its regulatory regime allows BAA to finance its activities - a change the regulator opposes on the grounds that it should not be required to protect poorly financed companies.

Given the refinancings coming down the runway, industry observers believe BAA will have to sell Gatwick and possibly soon. A consortium led by Manchester Airport Group and London City Airport-owner Global Infrastructure Partners are still willing buyers - even if GIP threw a strop on Monday when BAA launched its appeal. BAA insists it has "other options" for refinancing the first £1bn due. But if it does, it is being terribly coy about them.

GOVERNMENT ministers have been accused of "watering down" proposals to control aircraft noise which is blighting communities across Suffolk.

Complaints about noise from passenger jets has been steadily increasing - and with plans for new runways at Heathrow and Stansted, the number of aircraft on flightpaths over the county will double in the next 20 years. At times on the Felixstowe peninsula the noise is a constant background drone, with the sound of one plane passing over merging with the arrival of the next.

The Aviation Environment Federation (AEF) is disappointed government is set to shirk new European rules for controlling aircraft noise by passing the responsibility on to airports.

The issue should have been dealt with two years ago, but the deadline was missed and fresh consultation has now been carried out by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

An AEF spokesman said: "Since aviation is exempt from noise nuisance claims, local communities have no legal protection from excessive aircraft noise, and must rely either on the goodwill of airport operators or on local or central government regulation of airports' noise impacts."

"External regulation of aircraft noise would therefore seem to be essential if the UK government is to have any possibility of meeting its aim to 'limit and, where possible, reduce noise impacts over time'."

"We are disappointed, therefore, that the general aim of the proposed amendments appears to be a watering down of any commitments from central government to ensure that communities have some protection from noise."

The federation felt airports would argue the imposition of noise-related operating restrictions will leave them at a competitive disadvantage.

Consultation on the new regulations was completed this week and Defra is analysing responses.

Is noise from aircraft getting on your nerves? Write to Your Letters, Evening Star, 30 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AN, or e-mail eveningstarletters@eveningstar.co.uk

Controversial airports group BAA plunged deeper into the red in the first quarter, weighed down by higher debts and a costly bet on interest rates.

BAA's chances of being able to extract a higher asking price for Gatwick and Stansted airports, which it is being forced to sell by the competition authorities, were also dealt a major blow as passengers numbers fell sharply.

The total number of people passing through Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted fell 10% in the period to 24.8m as the recession hit demand for travel. But, while Heathrow's numbers fell just 6.4%, Gatwick and Stansted plunged by an astonishing 14.65.

BAA chief Colin Matthews attempted to play down the significance of weak passenger numbers on the sale of assets. He said: "Gatwick and Stansted are in fantastic locations and I think a bidder will value them on long-term passenger data, not just on one month's performance."

The Competition Commission is forcing BAA to offload Gatwick, Stansted and either Glasgow or Edinburgh airports as it seeks to break the group's stranglehold on the country's major travel hubs.

The watchdog hopes this will produce better facilities and improve service for customers. BAA is currently evaluating final bids for Gatwick, with three teams in the running - London City airport owner Global Infrastructure Partners, a team led by Citigroup, and another fronted by Manchester Airports Group.

All three offers are thought to be below the £1.6bn value placed on the hub by the industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority. Matthews said: "We have multiple-bidders, and committed bidders, but I think it will take a few weeks to get to a signature." BAA posted a pretax loss in the quarter of £316.2m, compared with a £55.6m reverse in the same period a year ago.

The group, owned by Madrid based construction company Ferrovial, said its figures were hit by a £140m charge related to complicated financial contracts called interest rate swaps, which seek to insure against fluctuations in borrowing costs.

The company was also reported a near fourfold increase in debt servicing costs to £327.2m, including the losses on financial contracts, from £80.7m. Net debt reached £9.6bn, up from £9.4bn. BAA also noted the falling value of Terminal 5 at Heathrow - or depreciation - left its mark on the group's numbers. The company said there was £122.8m of depreciation costs in the quarter, most of which was related to T5.

Heathrow's resilience bolstered by increase in transfer passengers

Evidence that traffic is stabilising, helped in April by busy Easter

Underlying decline across the group remains in line with monthly trend

Outlook remains challenging.

Passenger traffic at Heathrow and Edinburgh airports rose in April, driven principally by a busy Easter period.

BAA's UK airports handled a total of 11.5 million passengers in the last month, a decrease of 2.3% on April 2008.

This improvement on the reverse seen in March (-11.3%) was largely due to the change in the timing of Easter, which this year fell in April but last year in March. Taking the two months together (to eliminate the Easter timing distortion) reveals a decline of 6.8% which is in line with the underlying monthly trend recorded since December 2008, which has been consistently between -6% and -7%.

The results for the major markets in April showed an increase of 0.7% in European scheduled traffic but a drop of 9.9% in European charters. North Atlantic and UK domestic markets both dipped by 7.6% but other long-haul routes recorded a collective increase in passengers of 1.4%.

Reflecting its role as the UK's hub airport, Heathrow continues to prove resilient in challenging economic circumstances, with traffic during April going up by 2.6%. At Heathrow, the number of transfer passengers – which underpin the viability of many of the country's most valuable long-haul services – rose from 33% to 38% in the first three months of 2009.

Across the three London airports, traffic declined by 1.7%, with an underlying decline (looking at March and April) of 6.8%.

Edinburgh's traffic was up 3.9% in April, again due to a strong Easter. Gatwick recorded a drop of 3.0% and Stansted a decrease of 12.6%. Elsewhere, Glasgow was down by 11.6% and Aberdeen (which is negatively affected by the Easter period due to reduced oil-related activity) saw a 10.7% drop.

During April, the number of air transport movements across the group was 7.4% lower than last April and the decline in cargo tonnage accelerated to a decrease of 21.8%. The cargo figures are generally exaggerated by Easter falling in April since freight activity is normally reduced over the holiday period.

We need to expand our airports

Theresa Villiers is opposed to building more runways – but if we don't, the UK will lose out to other countries

The debate on the need for new runways on Comment is free is welcome (Count on Tories to stop the runways) but I should perhaps address some misconceptions.

Heathrow's Terminal Five provided welcome new facilities for passengers and to allow for bigger planes, but it didn't deliver a single new take-off or landing slot. It is because of the lack of runway capacity at Heathrow that airlines are forced to choose between old destinations and new – or to go elsewhere entirely. Last month alone Leeds/Bradford and Durham Tees Valley airports both lost their links to Heathrow as airlines shuffled their slots, while Air India decided to base its European hub at Frankfurt because it couldn't secure slots at Heathrow.

As the global economy tilts towards the emerging Asian economies we should all be concerned that Frankfurt has direct links with six Chinese cities. London's five airports have flights from just two, both to Heathrow – which, because of the transfer traffic it attracts, is the only UK airport which can make such flights viable.

It is little wonder that so many businesses and business organisations, such as the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, favour new Heathrow capacity within strict environmental limits; both to improve reliability and to provide space for new destinations, as is the case at Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt.

As we recover from recession it is my job as BAA's chief executive to make the business case for our proposed new runways at Stansted and Heathrow. But whoever forms the next government will need to make strategic decisions for the next few decades on where those runways should be, particularly in the south-east where no new full-length runway has been built since 1945.

The shadow transport secretary announced this month that she is against a new airport in the Thames Estuary as the mayor of London has proposed, to add to her opposition to expansion at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The pros and cons of individual runway proposals will I'm sure continue to be debated, but it is surely necessary for politicians of all parties to make difficult decisions – and those decisions are increasingly urgent if we are to keep the UK competitive in the even more globalised world that will emerge from the recession.

OUR COMMENT: BAA's Policy making ignores their own statistics! More space planned for fewer passengers!

Pat Dale

Sir, Richard Lambert, the CBI director-general, claims that transfer passengers make it possible for Heathrow to offer more destinations than would otherwise be the case ("CBI hits back on Heathrow runway", May 6).

Between 1991 and 2006, total passengers at Heathrow increased by 66 per cent (from 40.4m to 67.1m) and transfer passengers increased by 116 per cent (from 10.6m to 22.9m), yet the number of destinations served dropped by 20 per cent.

At the same time the number of flights grew, so it would be interesting to know how much of the drop in the number of destinations being served was due to airlines choosing to switch aircraft to more profitable routes, rather than to a lack of capacity.

Heathrow had nearly 23m transfer passengers in 2006 (34 per cent of total passenger numbers at that airport), while Gatwick and Stansted had around 5m (16 per cent) and 2.4m (11 per cent) respectively. Yet Gatwick offers more destinations than Heathrow and Stansted less than 30 fewer.

As for the UK being in danger of "being at the end of a branch line" from other European airports, the BAA website today shows a total of over 553 destinations served by its three London airports.

There may be some overlap but an analysis of traffic from London's five airports (BAA's three plus London City and Luton) showed they served a total of 436 unique destinations in 2006.

In comparison, its website today claims Schiphol serves 262 destinations, while Frankfurt, where nearly half of all passengers are transferring, offers 272. The numbers for Paris were not readily available.

The five London airports increased passenger numbers by 21m between 2000 and 2006, more than Schiphol, Frankfurt and Charles de Gaulle combined.

Rod Kebble
London SW14, UK