RECENT NEWS

Fresh evidence of the crisis engulfing the aviation industry emerged in the latest figures produced by Britain's air traffic control service, NATS. Soaring oil prices, record fuel surcharges and the credit crisis on both sides of the Atlantic has hit demand for flights.

The number of transatlantic flights had been expected to rise this summer as a result of the Open Skies agreement between the EU and Washington, which ends limits on which airlines can fly between Europe and the US. This should have triggered a price war, forcing down the cost of air travel as airlines poured extra seats onto the market.

But, according to the NATS figures transatlantic departures and arrivals were 3.3 per cent lower than 12 months ago, with the number of flights falling to 13,410 - 457 fewer than the previous year.

The past year has seen the demise of three niche airlines – MaxJet, Eos and Silverjet. The carriers, all of whom offered business class only services between London and New York, were unable to survive the dramatic rise in the cost of aviation fuel. In addition American Airlines dropped its Stansted to New York service.

Other provincial transatlantic flights have also disappeared including a service between John Lennon Airport in Liverpool and Newark. Continental has been reducing its frequencies.

Delta is dropping its Gatwick to New York service in the autumn and other cuts are expected in the autumn, with British Airways reducing the frequency of its services to Newark and JFK. Virgin is also planning to drop one of its daily New York services.

"Open Skies has not delivered the competitive market which was promised," said Steve Ridgway, Virgin Atlantic's chief executive. "It hasn't led to reduced prices nor has it brought the flurry of extra services that passengers had hoped for. Even if airlines wanted to start new services from Heathrow, they can't because the airport is full."

On non-transatlantic routes, flights fell by 0.9 per cent, from 143,974 to 142,738 again reflecting the falling demand at a time when the cost of travel has gone up. "The aviation industry has always been a barometer of the wider economy," said Ian Hall, NATS director of operations.

There has been mounting gloom throughout the industry, which was reflected when aviation chiefs gathered for their annual summit in Istanbul in June. Then they said that airlines were facing their biggest crisis since the slump in demand for air travel after the September 11 attacks on New York.

Flight numbers have not dropped since August 2002, the start of the industry's recovery following the terrorist outrages. In recent months airlines in all sections of the market have announced plans to ground flights.

Earlier this week the Official Airline Guide said airlines across the world were planning to cut 60 million seats – equivalent to one in 14 – from their services.

"At the moment the industry is low demand and high costs," said one industry analyst. "In the current environment, especially with the price of fuel, there is a strong economic argument for leaving planes on the ground."

OUR COMMENT: Airport expansion? A high risk gamble?

Pat Dale

BAA's airport monopoly in south-east England and Scotland is harming passenger interests, the UK Competition Commission has concluded, increasing the likelihood that the Spanish-owned company will be forced to sell some operations.

The watchdog is to unveil plans for possible reforms to ownership and regulation next week, focusing on the lack of rivals to BAA , which is owned by Ferrovial, people involved in the matter said.

The commission's findings are likely to spark debate about the future of national economic assets that are in crisis because of flight delays, underinvestment and a lack of long-term planning.

Legal observers see the findings as an important step towards an order for BAA to sell at least one of its four English airports and one of its three Scottish ones because other solutions - such as toughening regulation or changing planning laws - are out of the watchdog's control.

One observer of the probe not connected to BAA or the airlines said: "[Other remedies] in terms of the regulatory regime should be something different, or planning should be something different‚ - [are] not within the commission's power to deliver. The commission historically has been very pragmatic."

The competition watchdog's provisional findings after more than 16 months of investigation will stick closely to its suggestion this year that BAA's ownership of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and four other British airports "adversely affected" competition and might not be "serving well the interests of either airlines or passengers", people involved in the probe said.

The commission now has a little more than seven months to decide how to deal with the complex problems that have been mounting amid the lack of significant reform to a framework of airport ownership and regulation put in place when BAA was privatised more than 20 years ago.

The watchdog has asked for information from other companies, including rival airport operators, so that it can model what an industry under wider ownership might look like.

BAA has told the commission a break-up of the group would do little to expedite the building of runways in the south-east, which it claims is the main obstacle to a better deal for travellers.

The commission's probe is likely to add to the pressure on Ferrovial, which is pushing through a £10bn plan to refinance debt it took on in buying BAA in 2006.

BAA's financial returns at Heathrow and Gatwick are being squeezed by a five-year price cap regime imposed by the Civil Aviation Authority. The company also faces severe operating difficulties at Heathrow, Europe's busiest and most congested airport, because of a lack of runway capacity.

Regarding the article in the Broadcast dated July 24, 'Inquiry to see runway plans', and Roger Pellman, BAA's G2 project director' comment of: "There are huge social and economic benefits to be enjoyed from the development of a second runway."

The social and economic benefits are very debatable, as was demonstrated at the G1 public enquiry. Also since that enquiry, three trans-Atlantic routes have been axed, Ryanair has announced a reduction in aircraft movement and so has easyJet.

Perhaps Mr Pellman might wish to comment on what enjoyment will be had by people living in close proximity to the airport. They have to endure noise, pollution and the devastating effect a second runway will have on the surrounding countryside.

John Lewis
Duton Hill

The chief executive of National Express has urged the rail industry to target domestic airlines after warning that train operators need to "make our case better".

Richard Bowker, whose company owns the London-to-Edinburgh east coast franchise, said his peers should advertise that many train journeys are cheaper and more pleasant than their airline equivalent.

"I really do struggle to see why we make it so easy for people to fly domestically. When you have got such a low-carbon alternative in rail, it's something that should be positively promoted."

He added: "We should make our case better. It's up to us. There is no doubt that if you fly from Edinburgh to London the experience is not as nice. You have to make four or five journeys in total and the reliability is not as good. It's up to us to explain that to people."

Bowker spoke as National Express revealed a dip in passenger numbers on its Stansted Express service, which transports customers to Britain's third largest airport. A reduction in flights operated by easyJet and Ryanair, which have been angered by increased landing fees at Stansted, is the main cause of the drop, Bowker added. Both airlines are cutting back further at Stansted this winter, drawing suggestions from some analysts that the low-budget sector may have expanded too quickly.

"We want to have our cake and eat it," said Bowker. "We want to get more inbound and outbound flight rotations at Stansted, but we would like to get to the position where all trips between London and Edinburgh are done by train." Bowker added that National Express has teamed up with hotel chain Travelodge to launch a "Save our seaside" campaign to encourage families to holiday in the UK rather than fly abroad. "I subscribe to the view that you will see people taking more UK holidays."

An easyJet spokesman said Bowker's comments were "bizarre and misguided". EasyJet and Virgin Trains fought over a Virgin advertising campaign last year that attacked the environmental performance of airlines, in a dispute that ended with the Advertising Standards Authority throwing out the no-frills carrier's complaint.

"There are an awful lot of smoky old diesel trains out there. The lowest carbon alternative is Eurostar and you have to recognise that it is mostly powered by nuclear generated electricity," said the easyJet spokesman, who added that the demand for air travel between London and Scotland remained strong. "If travelling by air is not as pleasant or cheap as the train, why is the London to Scotland air corridor one of the busiest in the world?"

National Express reported a 4% increase in first half revenues to £1.37bn today, with profit before tax excluding impairment charges and other one-off items rising 14% to £90m. The coach, rail and bus operator, which also has significant coach interests in Spain and the US, also published a YouGov survey showing that 61% of car drivers are considering turning to public transport following the recent increase in petrol prices.

More than five million British passengers could be priced out of the budget holiday market as airlines raise their fares, bringing the era of cheap travel to an end.

Holidaymakers preparing for the traditional summer getaway this week may find that when they come to book their next break the fares have become unaffordable. Ticket prices are expected to rise by 10 per cent this year and next as the cost of oil pushes up airline fuel bills.

The dramatic increase in the price of oil, which has doubled in the past year, will almost certainly lead to radical changes in the airline industry once this summer season ends. Carriers will raise fares, cut the number of flights they offer and some well-known names will go out of business.

The fare increases will be a particular shock to holidaymakers who are accustomed to cheap flights on low-cost carriers or budget airlines, such as Ryanair and easyJet. The budget carrier concept, which was imported from the United States about 15 years ago, has altered the way people travel in Europe. Flights, costing from just £1, made weekend breaks to cities such as Barcelona or Dublin almost impulse purchases.

Traditional national, or legacy, carriers, have withered under the fierce competition from budget airlines, who have used their relentless cost-cutting to produce low prices. Passengers have been happy to forgo small luxuries such as meals, free drinks and assigned seats in return for cheap fares.

Budget flights combined with increased use of the internet to book hotels has encouraged many families to plan their own holidays rather than buy a package from tour operators. The popularity of the budget carriers has allowed them to grow rapidly, in only a few years Ryanair has become the largest airline in Europe, carrying nearly twice as many passengers as British Airways. The rapidly rising price of oil, however, means that many airlines are losing money.

Douglas McNeill, a transport analyst at Blue Oar, a City stockbroking firm, said: "Fares are clearly going up and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future."

According to analysts a 10 per cent increase in fares typically leads to a 6.5 per cent fall in passenger numbers. Budget airlines carry an estimated 45million British passengers a year. If fares rise by 20 per cent over two years, passenger demand looks set to fall by more than five million.

Martin Ferguson, business travel correspondent at Travel Trade Gazette, a specialist publication, said: "There's been talk for a while in business circles about the end of the £1 flight. It's undoubtedly true. Everything depends on the price of oil."

Budget carriers will achieve fare increases by charging extra for checking baggage and priority boarding.

Doug McVitie, aviation analyst at Arran Aerospace, a consultancy, said: "Passengers will have to get used to paying more for less. Budget airlines will introduce more charges to cover their costs and it is probably only a matter of time before some joker suggests charging for using the toilet. The whole experience of flying budget will become even more unpleasant."

British Airways, Lufthansa and Air France are increasing their fares through fuel surcharges, paid on top of the standard fare. BA's surcharge has risen three times this year and is now £218 return for its longest flights.

Another strategy open to the airline industry will be to reduce the number of flights they operate and cancelling unprofitable routes. Ryanair announced two weeks ago that it would ground eight planes at Stansted and a further four in Dublin this winter. EasyJet said last week that it would cut its capacity by 10 per cent overall and 12 per cent out of Stansted.

Reduced capacity could be bad news for second-home owners in France and Spain who bought their properties assuming that they would be able to commute using budget airline flights. The larger legacy carriers will also cut capacity, particularly on short-haul European routes. The middle tier of airlines, the small, national carriers such as Alitalia, will be squeezed hardest by rising oil prices. Analysts expect them to be pushed into bankruptcy or be bought by larger rivals.

Mr McVitie said: "The largest legacy carriers will survive because of their long-haul routes and the big budgets will survive because they will still be more affordable than other short-haul operators. Everyone in the middle is in real trouble. This industry will look very different in a couple of years."

Your ticket to better value

- Be flexible with your flight dates and times. Try flying midweek rather than at weekends

- Consider booking early. You will generally get a cheaper fare

- Be flexible with your airport. Check travel costs to and from it. Flying to or from a nearby airport can save you money

- Consider alternative, but similar destinations. If you are looking for a warm coastal destination to relax by a pool check out non-euro countries such as Tunisia

- Check the one-way fares. In some cases, you can find a cheaper flight by booking two one-way destination tickets. This is usually the case for shorter breaks

Our ticket to better value for ALL and for the future of ALL.

Travel by rail or coach, (coach fares can rival the cheap air fares, and with more comfort) - if you had planned on a long haul flight for a holiday, consider a cruise instead!

No-frills airline Ryanair dived €90.5m (£71m) into the red in the first quarter, hit by a doubling of fuel costs and "the loss of Easter".

Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary expects oil prices to fall

Chief executive Michael O'Leary said oil prices rose from $61 a barrel to $117, increasing the fuel bill 93pc to €375m. Fuel now represent almost 50pc of total operating costs, he said, compared with 36pc last year.

"Yields fell by 8pc, as we opened new routes and base and suffered the absence of Easter in the quarter which distorts the prior year comparables." he said.

Is the oil price a bubble that will burst? Who would be an airline boss?

Adjusted net profits, which excluded exceptional costs of €17.9m on 15 aircraft to disposed in 2009/10 and a €93.6m writedown of the airline's Aer Lingus stake, tumbled 85pc to €21m.

The airline warned it could make a full-year loss of up to €60m if oil prices stayed high and fares fell. Mr O'Leary said: "The emerging economic recession in the UK and Ireland caused by the global credit crisis and high oil prices means that consumer confidence is plummeting, and we believe this will have an adverse impact on fares for the rest of the year."

Ryanair said it had made use of a recent fall in oil prices and hedged 90pc of its fuel needs for September at $129 a barrel, 80pc for the third quarter at $124 a barrel, but remained unhedged for the fourth quarter.

Ryanair said yields, or average ticket prices, could fall as much as 5pc in the full year as it lowers fares to attract more passengers. The carrier had previously said it will break even this fiscal-year if oil is at $130 a barrel and yields rise 5pc.

STANSTED operator EasyJet will follow Ryanair's lead and reduce flights this winter, as problems in the aviation industry continue to grow. Spiralling fuel costs are at the centre of the decision to reduce its flight capacity by 12 per cent this winter.

Ryanair recently took the decision to cut 250 flights from the same stretch of tarmac at the beginning of July.

A spokesman for Stansted owners BAA said: "We anticipated some cuts in services by EasyJet given the difficult global economic conditions and high oil price. The winter season is always a tough time for the aviation industry but we will continue to work closely with our airline partners as they take important business decisions to re-shape their networks to best deal with the challenging circumstances that currently face us all."

Summer sun is still enticing British holiday makers to use the airport. An estimated 160,000 passengers will go through metal detectors this weekend, on their way to all the classic European holiday destinations.

It is part of the entrepreneur's DNA to be eternally – some would say annoyingly – optimistic, and few come more so than old motor-mouth Michael O'Leary, chief executive of Ryanair. Thus Mr O'Leary sees nothing but opportunity in the present downturn, from which, he confidently predicts, Ryanair will emerge bigger and stronger.

However, in the meantime he's having a much more torrid time of it than he would like. Most of this turbulence is caused by high fuel prices, but at least some of it, as Ryanair heads for its first annual loss since anyone can remember, is self-inflicted. Did he really need to keep on growing capacity in the face of self-evident signs of economic trouble to come?

The upshot is that although passenger numbers are still growing strongly – albeit not as strongly as previously hoped – yields (or the price paid per head) fell 8 per cent in the first quarter to the end of June. For the year as a whole, Mr O'Leary now expects a fall in average fares of 5 per cent, against expected growth of the same magnitude the last time he opened his mouth on such matters.

Ryanair presents this fall as a deliberate act of land grab. While other airlines are trying to raise their prices, with fuel surcharges and the like, Ryanair will be reducing its own so as to add market share. What Mr O'Leary studiously ignores is that he is himself part of the problem of over-capacity he complains of. Good for customers, no doubt, but not so good for him.

Nor has Ryanair been as brilliant at managing its fuel costs as you would expect. Up until last June, the company was completely unhedged on fuel costs, this in expectation that prices would fall. Now, with oil prices starting to fall, it emerges that Ryanair has reversed its policy and hedged itself for the second and third quarters, possibly unnecessarily.

Ryanair has also been a victim of its bag-charging policy, with some at least of the reduction in yields down to reduced checked-in baggage charges as passengers switch to online check-in and carry on baggage facilities. Next thing is that Mr O'Leary will charge you for going to the loo in an effort to compensate.

Still, on one thing Mr O'Leary is undoubtedly right. Ryanair will emerge one of the winners from the present shakeout. With already wafer-thin operating costs compared with rivals, he managed a further 6 per cent reduction in the first quarter ignoring fuel. Mr O'Leary also famously sits on a €2bn-plus cash mountain of mostly forward booking revenues. Despite mistakes, he retains a winning business model.

Hundreds of residents furious at plans to expand Heathrow are set to attend militant training camps aimed at bringing severe disruption to the airport.

Hardcore activists have enlisted the residents from some of west London's wealthiest boroughs for direct action against proposals to increase flights. They said today that they were prepared to be arrested in a new wave of non-violent "attacks" on the airport which could culminate in an invasion of Heathrow's runways.

The Government wants to expand capacity by adding a third runway and allowing planes to take off and land on the same runway, increasing the number of flights from 480,000 to 702,000 a year. The training camps and a new series of protests were agreed at a meeting organised by anti-Heathrow lobby group Hacan ClearSkies, which was also attended by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and Plane Stupid.

Residents claim their views on the expansion have been ignored by the Government and airport operator BAA. Protesters will be taught to chain themselves to BAA's headquarters, climb security fences and organise flashmobs, and will be told what to do if arrested.

There has been a series of high-profile anti-Heathrow demonstrations including last year's "climate camp" where hundreds of protesters descended on Heathrow - although the new campaign is separate from that event. In March, scores of flashmobbers attempted to disrupt Terminal 5's opening by swamping the new concourse wearing red T-shirts with the slogan Stop Airport Expansion. Their efforts were overshadowed by the chaos which engulfed the airport on the day as the new terminal went into meltdown.

The training camps will be held in September but direct action protests will be carried out only if Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly backs the expansion plans. Her announcement is due before the end of the year.

Ms Kelly's staff are analysing the 70,000 responses to a three-month public consultation which ended in February. The consultation was widely criticised as a "sham" for missing out thousands of residents affected by extra planes.

Hacan's chairman John Stewart warned of further action by activists and residents, which could culminate in an invasion of the runway. He said: "There was a palpable sense of anger. They have done the conventional things like marches, demonstrations and public inquiries and still the decision is against them. Maybe the Government will only listen if there is a threat of direct action. People feel they have nothing to lose even if it does mean being arrested, even residents of west London, many of them grey-haired, middle-aged ladies."

A BAA spokesman said: "Whilst BAA respects people's right to protest lawfully, direct action on the airport is extremely irresponsible, dangerous and illegal."

Proposals for a third runway at Heathrow airport have been met with fierce opposition from environmental groups. The detailed study, commissioned by the City of London Authority, rejects an expansion of Stansted and says building an airport in the Thames Estuary is not a credible option.

Despite "local environmental impacts" and strong opposition from business leaders, Heathrow is the "obvious preferred candidate" for extra capacity, it says.

The Aviation Services And The City report says building the third runway comes with "significant" environmental costs but the alternative, expanding Stansted, would be a less effective solution. Failure to increase the number of flights and reduce problems at Heathrow could threaten the city's role as a leading world business centre, the report says.

The authors York Aviation concede that creating a third runway at Heathrow is currently "deeply unpopular" with business leaders because of delays, traffic around the airport and security issues. They say improvements to current services are necessary to tackle such concerns.

Building an airport in the Thames Estuary is not thought credible by business leaders, they say. The authors write: "The survey and analysis undertaken in this study reinforce the requirement for good access to air services as an essential attribute supporting London's role as the world's leading business and financial centre."

"The obvious preferred candidate for expansion to meet the City's needs is Heathrow, through delivery of the third runway. However, this option appears to have the most significant cost in terms of local environmental impacts. Expansion elsewhere, most obviously Stansted, appears to have fewer environmental implications but would be a sub-optimal option in terms of the City's economic needs."

The report was welcomed by the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Policy director Dr Helen Hill said the report "proves beyond doubt" that the third runway was "essential" for business.

"London competes day-in day-out to attract business from around the world but we are starting to lose ground to other major cities because Heathrow is stretched to breaking point. We urge the Government to take this report to heart and accept that the economic case for expansion is unequivocal."

OUR COMMENT: An obvious solution? – For Whom? – "The economic needs of the city". Is there no alternative form of transport and communication? With the increased price of oil, likely to be permanently high, economic predictions, plans, and policies need to be reviewed ASAP.

Pat Dale

THOUSANDS of people would be at "significant" risk of having their idyllic lifestyles shattered if plans to build a second runway at Stansted Airport are given the go-ahead.

Babergh District Council has warned that the Suffolk environment and the quality of life for its residents could be put at risk by the controversial expansion plans. A report, discussed by councillors this week, sets out the fears and recommends lodging a formal objection to the proposals which would almost treble passenger movements every year.

The plans come just months after residents were told they could be living with the prospect of an aircraft every two minutes over their homes if flight paths are moved. Campaigners last night welcomed Babergh's stance and said there would be an enormous impact on the entire county if the second runway was approved.

Frances Bee, who has led the campaign against the flight path changes by NATS, said: "I think the second runway is an even greater threat as it would mean doubling the size of Stansted. The impact on flying over Suffolk would be enormous and it would be felt all over the county. I am delighted to hear that Babergh are objecting formally to it."

The proposals, which are contained in four planning applications referred to as the G2 Airport Project, would enable the airport to increase its annual aircraft movements from 274,000 to almost 500,000. Passenger levels would be increased from 24 million every year to 68 million by 2030.

While admitting there could be some employment benefits within the Babergh district, the council report claims this is overshadowed by the negative impact on residents. It reads: "In terms of increased volume of air traffic, it is inevitable that those within the flight paths will experience increased noise pollution. Wider effects may also be detrimental, particularly in respect of CO2 emissions and global warming. A further concern is the likely impact of traffic generation on roads within Babergh (including Sudbury)."

Plans for the second runway have already been met with opposition by Suffolk County Council, Braintree District Council and Mid Suffolk District Council.

However a spokesman for Stansted Airport has previously said it is their belief that they can develop a second runway in a sustainable way. BAA has also said expansion would create more than 13,000 jobs by 2030 and bring an extra £9bn into the UK economy.

Babergh's strategy committee will discuss the plans on Thursday.

More than 80% of those who responded were against changes to flightpaths over Suffolk and the south-east, it was revelaed today. Initial findings from a four-month consultation on proposals to redraw the aircraft route map across a large area of south-east England are published today.

The report – published on-line at nats.co.uk/TCNconsultation - provides an early snapshot of issues identified during the consultation process and how the company that manages airspace, NATS, intends to address them.

The plans included two new stacks, one south of Newmarket and one between Stowmarket and Hadleigh which would lead to aircraft stacking over villages including Lavenham while waiting to land.

A spokesman for NATS said: "The design, as proposed in the consultation, is currently undergoing review in light of the feedback received. Once this work has progressed a further feedback report will be published."

Jonathan Astill, NATS' Head of Airspace Management, said: "There have been a great many constructive suggestions made during the consultation process and we will take as long as is necessary to give them proper consideration. We will publish updates to this initial report when analysis is complete. These updates will indicate and explain any further options that we may be considering and explain the next stages of the process. It may be that there are changes we can make to the design, and that could lead to further consultation with local communities."

In total 578 responses were returned by MPs, local authorities, parish councils, environmental groups and other representative bodies. A further 14,647 responses were received from members of the public. The consultation website was visited 154,127 times and more than a million pages downloaded.

The majority of members of the public who responded (86%) opposed the proposal in its current form (in whole or in part); 13% of respondents supported the proposal in its current form. The principal concerns of those objecting to the proposals were about noise in rural areas compared to noise in towns and about spreading noise fairly across the population. Concerns were also expressed about the consultation process itself.

TODAY The Evening Star reveals the full extent of the scandal of Suffolk's skies. We show how our beautiful and peaceful county has been forced, unwittingly, to take the burgeoning burden of Britain's explosion of flights.

And that the situation is about to get a whole lot worse. Through our dogged Air Fair investigations we have already revealed:

- The issue has sparked many protests, including one backed by MP Tim Yeo

- Suffolk has become the "Clapham Junction" of the skies after it was targeted for thousands more planes - and the public didn't have a chance to comment on it before it commenced.

- Planes from every major airport in the south and Midlands now travel inbound - and outbound - over our county.

- Thousands of new flights are set to be sent in and out of Britain, via Suffolk and new "stacking" areas to ease airport congestion are to be plonked over places as diverse as Ipswich and Newmarket.

- Our elected officials, from councillors to MPs, have been powerless in the face of decisions from central government, the Whitehall-controlled Civil Aviation Authority and the flight-controlling private company Nats.

- At long last, MPs are homing in on the issue - and government ministers are being forced to take notice.

The Star, which understands the need for sensible and properly-planned growth in air transport, has met huge obstacles as it seeks to bring the facts of the Suffolk situation to the public.

So today, in a special report inside this edition, we are re-issuing a series of questions to the skymasters at Nats, the company which prides itself on being a world-class company and which boasts of five years of profit. And we bring a new revelation to the debate.

- People living below flightpaths in Suffolk are being hammered by a new system which concentrates planes on certain routes, it is revealed today.

- Day after day, night after night, residents are seeing planes flying laser beam-like on the same routes - at peak times more than one every two minutes on the same track, with more going above and below in other directions.

- The system - called Precision Area Navigation (P-RNAV) - is to be even more widely used when changes to airspace are made next year, sending even more jets over certain areas.

Suffolk is already losing its sound of silence thanks to the increase in jet noise - but, unfairly, some people are set to take the full load of the increase.

And while the new navigation system will mean some people suffering greater noise than others, undoubtedly more and more people will be affected in years ahead as Stansted and Heathrow expand and the number of planes in our skies doubles.

Meanwhile, many campaign groups, including The Evening Star would like to see planes dispersed to "spread the load" when it comes to noise, allowing communities to have quiet days and noisy days, air management company NATS says the new policy is to concentrate the planes on direct routes.

"Where possible when designing or changing routes, the Civil Aviation Authority, encourages NATS to implement a modern navigation system called PRNAV which will tend to lead to aircraft being more concentrated around the route centreline for certain parts of the route,” said NATS. - Is aircraft noise starting to get on your nerves? Write to Your Letters, Evening Star, 30 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AN, or e-mail EveningStarLetters@eveningstar.co.uk

A week of contradictions means campaigners against Stansted airport expansion have been left on a knife edge once again.

They were cut to the quick when finally the government called in the proposal they feared most – to build a second runway and bring up to 70mppa into the heart of rural Uttlesford with an airport the size of Heathrow by 2030.

However, those same politicians perversely delayed an announcement on BAA's earlier application to take the total annual number of travellers to 35m by 2015. A decision, which had been expected imminently, will not be taken until September.

SSE has accused Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Hazel Blears and her transport counterpart Ruth Kelly of "dithering" over the smaller G1 single runway scheme, unable to make a decision.

Yet Labour's planning supreme still insists she – not the local councillors who tried to halt expansion beyond 25mppa – is best placed to get to grips with G2 and slice through the policy problems a second runway would present.

By contrast, Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary went straight for the jugular when he blamed BAA, not the current cooling economic climate, for his decision to slash winter flights by 14%.

THE Government has taken control of BAA's planning application for a second runway at Stansted Airport, despite a crucial factor in its decision not yet having been determined.

On Monday the Government Office for the East of England wrote to Uttlesford District Council (UDC) to call-in BAA's G2 application for a second runway, taking away the decision from the local authority. The move comes despite the fact that no decision has yet been made on the airport operator's G1 application to increase passenger numbers on the existing runway.

Cllr Jim Ketteridge, council leader, said: "It really is unacceptable that the Government has decided to call-in BAA's second runway planning applications before publishing the outcome of the appeal against Uttlesford's refusal of the application to lift the limits on passenger numbers and aircraft movements on the existing runway."

The G1 application was the subject of a lengthy public inquiry that ended in October last year. If, when the Planning Inspectorate reveals its decision, it has been turned down, the G2 scheme will be rendered invalid.

Carol Barbone, campaign director of Stop Stansted Expansion, was shocked by the Government's decision. "It beggars belief that the Government has decided to move the process forward on BAA's second planning application before it has even decided BAA's first application," she said. "All the more so because BAA's application for a second runway assumes permission for its earlier application has been approved. The Government is now proceeding on the same basis."

The district council, which is strongly opposed to a second runway at Stansted, urged people to continue to respond to the applications.

Cllr Elizabeth Godwin, leader of the Independent group, said: "We want everyone to continue to write and to make their views known to the Government. This runway on Essex farmland must never happen. The fight is on to ensure that this threat to our area and our homes is removed forever."

You can find links to the applications by visiting www.stanstedexplained.info, or view hard copies by visiting the UDC offices on London Road in Saffron Walden. Comments on the application should be directed to Jeremy Pine, Uttlesford District Council, London Road, Saffron Walden, Essex, CB11 4ER.

The inquiry into the G2 application is anticipated to open in January next year. A spokesman for the Planning Inspectorate said a decision on the G1 inquiry would probably be announced in September.

Further momentum has been injected into the Stansted Generation 2 project (G2) with the timely 'call in' of the second runway application by the Secretary of State.

BAA Stansted's spanish owner, Ferrovial, is close to getting bondholders to agree to a multi-billion pound funding package that will underpin the building of what will be the first new runway in the South East for more than 50 years.

A new airport terminal will also be built. BAA wants to start construction in 2011 and open the new runway and terminal by 2015.

It has estimated that the scheme would bring £9 billion of economic benefits and create 13,000 new jobs by 2030. The number of passengers using the airport is expected to increase to about 68 million by that date.

The call on the new runway inquiry has pipped an impending Government deicision allowing Stansted to wing up to 35 million passengers a year as a matter of urgency.

Roger Pellman, G2 project director said: "We welcome the news that our Generation 2 (G2) planning application for the development of a second runway at Stansted has been 'called in' and will now proceed to a public inquiry next year. We are pleased the Secretary of State has acted swiftly and demonstrated a willingness to get on with the project."

"Earlier this year, BAA submitted nearly 40 separate planning applications in support of the G2 runway project following four years of detailed and comprehensive planning work to deliver a key milestone of the Government's Air Transport White Paper. We now confidently look forward to presenting our case in front of an independent inspector at the forthcoming planning inquiry."

"There are huge social and economic benefits to be enjoyed from the development of a second runway at Stansted for the East of England, London and for UK plc. We are fully committed to maximising these opportunities for millions of air travellers while at the same time doing all we can to limit, avoid and mitigate against any environmental impacts."

OUR COMMENT: They are attempting to achieve the unachievable - to have an airport cake and eat it. It also seems that the capital costs are still not forthcoming.

Pat Dale

RYANAIR will tomorrow detail plans to pull about 15 planes from Stansted this winter as the airline revises its 2008 passenger target down 1 million to 58 million. The move comes after Ryanair detailed plans to ground four planes at Dublin between October and February, cutting the airport's capacity by 12pc.

The cutbacks are designed to combat crippling oil prices, with Ryanair targeting its most expensive airports as it braces itself for breakeven next year if the black stuff stays at current highs.

Some of the planes taken out of Dublin and Stansted will be redeployed to other routes, including a new UK base also to be announced tomorrow, chief executive Michael O'Leary said yesterday. The rejig is also likely to include some reduction in services to Cork and some increase to Shannon's schedule.

"We're looking at taking about 10pc out in total, but it's not a straight forward case of taking out 20," Mr O'Leary said. "There could be 25 or 28 out on a Tuesday, and 16 out on a Friday, Saturday, Sunday. We will be significantly quieter during the week, mostly from Stansted and Dublin."

Despite plans to ground planes during the winter there are no plans to delay winter aircraft deliveries.

"Most of the winter aircraft are actually for summer schedules - what we will do is slow down the timing of new route and new base growth," Mr O'Leary said.

"Last winter we launched four bases from November to February; next spring we'll probably still add 3 or 4, but it'll be mostly in March/April. We're not going to be adding capacity during winter months."

Delaying bases and grounding planes will put Ryanair on course for 58 million passengers this year, not the 59 million originally projected. Despite this, Mr O'Leary said there was "no change" to Ryanair's market guidance.

Ryanair's other measures to combat rising oil costs include laying off 40 Dublin call-centre staff, implementing a wide-ranging pay freeze and negotiating new supply contracts. Mr O'Leary said yesterday staff numbers would continue to be reduced during the summer, with a move to check-in kiosks in Dublin and Stansted.

The airline's shares closed up almost 4pc at €2.75.

Green MEP for the South East Caroline Lucas has met with the European Commissioner for the Environment to discuss the controversial expansion of Heathrow airport, and the UK government's failure to meet EU air quality targets.

According to DEFRA, the UK will need to apply for a derogation - a temporary exemption - on the targets set under the EC Air Quality Directive to reduce pollution because it is unlikely to meet them. Even without the proposed expansion of Heathrow, air pollution in the residential areas around Heathrow currently exceeds the average annual limit for nitrogen dioxide prescribed in the Directive, and is therefore highly unlikely to be able to meet the new limit value of 40 micrograms per cubic metre by 2010 if additional aircraft movements are permitted.

In conversation with Dr Lucas and the 2M Group, a body of local councillors representing 4.5 million people in the affected areas surrounding Heathrow, Commissioner Stavros Dimas acknowledged that improving air quality is a crucial aim of the European Union's environmental policy.

Commissioner Dimas expressed concern at suggestions that the UK government is planning to further increase capacity at the airport, in anticipation of receiving a derogation. He agreed to inform the MEP if and when the UK government submits its application for derogation, to allow for a transparent process, and to give Euro-MPs a chance to voice their concerns.

Dr Lucas commented: "The Air Quality Directive targets already allow for a certain degree of flexibility, but there is no way that the UK should be entering into a development - in this case, a 12.5% increase in the capacity of the existing runways - that will further increase NO2 and PM10 levels when it is already struggling to bring these in line with EU standards."

"It is encouraging that Commissioner Dimas agrees that a UK request for derogation on the Directive would go against the spirit of the targets set by the EU to achieve cleaner air. We need clearer skies and a government which takes its environmental responsibilities seriously by adhering to EU legislation."

The UK government has launched a survey of Britain's wildlife, habitats and ecosystems to guide government policy on environmental protection, including tackling biodiversity loss.

The two-year project will give "the most comprehensive picture ever" of the country's natural environment and its benefits to society, the government says.

In a speech on Monday, environment minister Hilary Benn said it will provide a "springboard for further action to protect and enhance our natural heritage". See government press release.

BAA, the operator of Heathrow, used the low emissions figures of a non-existent green jumbo to help clinch the environmental case for a third runway. The twin-engine 450-seat "virtual" jet was invented for the environmental modelling required in the government consultation after BAA realised it would otherwise exceed the limit for noise and pollution.

According to BAA submissions, the green jumbo will account for more flights out of Heathrow by 2030 than four-engined giants such as the double-decker A380, or the new generation of Boeing 747s. It promises to be the world's quietest and cleanest jumbo.

There is just one snag: Airbus and Boeing, the world's biggest aircraft makers, have no intention of building it. "Nothing like this is on the drawing board," said one senior industry source. "I don’t think it's feasible because the size of engines that would be required for this plane to safely take off don't exist and aren't under development."

New evidence of the flawed consultation, to be shown on BBC’s Panorama tomorrow, will increase pressure on the government to review its plans for Heathrow's expansion. Ministers have already delayed the decision after a backlash against proposals to permit an extra 220,000 flights a year.

The government has been accused of acting "like a subsidiary of BAA" over its plans for Heathrow. John Hutton, the business secretary, signalled last week that Heathrow growth was likely to be approved when he pledged the government was ready to take "difficult decisions on airport expansion".

The Sunday Times revealed in March how BAA collaborated with the Department for Transport (DfT) on the official consultation and repeatedly altered the data to get the required result. It has now emerged that one of the big concerns was that four-engine jets would cause a disproportionate amount of noise and pollution if a third runway was built.

BAA initially predicted that 20% of planes taking off from Heathrow by 2030 would be four-engine jets. It subsequently cut that to 11% and then to 6%. BAA's "virtual" plane was quietly inserted into the evidence to reduce the number of long-haul four-engine aircraft. The research was used by Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, to demonstrate how Heathrow could be expanded without causing more noise or pollution.

Documents obtained by The Sunday Times under freedom of information laws show DfT officials were sceptical. Last September, days before the results were to be signed off by ministers, e-mails show officials were alarmed that BAA's predictions for a cleaner, quieter fleet might be too optimistic and would be challenged.

BAA responded that it could use "rules of thumb" for a quick fresh forecast, but there was not enough time to produce robust research for publication. It appears officials were left with no option but to use the airport operator's data and the green superjumbo.

BAA said last week its new jet was a realistic prediction. It said if such a plane was not built the number of flights using Heathrow could be reduced to ensure environmental limits were not breached.

Opponents of expansion say it is another example of how the consultation was fixed. "This is an invented plane that experts say won't be built," said Justine Greening, the Conservative MP who has campaigned against the airport's expansion. "There is a point at which a biased process became a bogus process."

The DfT said the green jumbo was intended only as an "illustrative example".

London's airports are an environmental and economic mess, made worse by government indecision. Ministers are not brave enough to rule out the massive expansion of Heathrow and Stansted, as they should, nor do they seem prepared to tackle their inadequate private operator, BAA. The company's officials were before MPs yesterday explaining why the opening of terminal 5 was so problematic, even as they plan to build a terminal 6 and to transform Stansted into a second Heathrow, with 68 mppa rather than 23mppa. Meanwhile, the transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, has postponed an announcement about Heathrow's third runway, due in August. Her intention, supposedly, is to extend local consultation, but in reality she needs to ensure that the decision to go ahead is legally watertight.

Everyone knows the government wants a third runway at Heathrow. This is the moment for it to think again. Policy has been shaped by the airline industry that expects to go on expanding. But the rapid rise in air travel, fuelled by cheap oil, shows signs of levelling off. Traffic at Stansted fell 1.6% over the last year, and the airport, supposed to become a long-haul hub, has instead lost its last transatlantic flights. Later this week the government is set to send plans for a second runway at the airport to a public inquiry – but it still thinks the runway is necessary. As with Heathrow, prevarication is the order of the day.

At some point a decision has to be taken. Does the government want to surround London with mega-airports, whatever the environmental costs? Or does it feel that the relentless increase in air travel is unsustainable? The standard of official thinking on the subject is feeble. Its cowardice was caught recently in comments from the environment minister, opposing the idea of including aviation and shipping in any overall cap on emissions because it would be "unfair" to hit the economy of Liverpool. "Why should Merseyside pay?" he asked.

Mr Woolas may only be a junior minister, but he presumably echoes the views of his bosses. The airline industry has been indulged to a great extent, without regard to wider government targets for the environment. It is impossible to reconcile the government's commitment to reducing climate-change emissions with its support for ever larger airports. Ministers say that any increase in emissions will be offset elsewhere. But since such pollution is exempt from the climate change Bill, there is no pressure for it to happen. If airport expansion is stopped, there will be an economic cost. But the environmental cost of expansion would be greater. The government faces a choice. Hesitation is no sort of answer.

OUR COMMENT: Unfortunately neither local residents nor future sufferers from the effects of climate change have the same rights of choice!

Pat Dale

The government's leverage in international climate change talks is being undermined by its domestic actions, an influential group of MPs has said.

Airport expansion plans and an over-reliance on buying in emission credits to meet domestic carbon targets are negatively affecting efforts to convince other countries to take a tough stand on climate change, the environmental audit committee has found.

"It is vitally important the UK government does not undermine its position by supporting domestic policies that run counter to climate change objectives," said chairman Tim Yeo.

"There remain real and substantial uncertainties about the pace and eventual outcome of [international] negotiations. During these complicated negotiations it is critically important that our negotiators do not lose sight of the science of climate change," he continued.

The committee also drew a firm line on international efforts to halt climate change which sidestep the UN. Should the government adopt a similarly hard line, it could find itself in direct confrontation with the US, which has previously suggested establishing a US-led initiative on global warming outside of UN efforts.

But the report places its full faith in the UN process, saying "anything done in parallel such as by the major economies meeting or the G8 will only be helpful if they support the UN process".

Passengers could face a further increase in air fares after the European parliament yesterday approved a carbon emissions trading scheme that will include airlines from 2012. Green campaigners said the plans were not harsh enough.

The airline industry is expected to pass on the extra costs, which will be at least €39.60 (£31.50) for a long-haul return flight and €9 for a short haul return trip, according to a European commission report. Airlines say the cost of the scheme could be even higher because the commission's estimates pre-dated changes that have made the emissions trading programme even more expensive.

The International Air Transport Association (Iata) said acquiring carbon credits will add $3.5bn (£1.77bn) to industry costs in 2012 - about two-thirds of the entire sector's profits last year.

"There is no assurance that any of the money will go to environmental programmes. It's time for Europe's politicians to be honest. This is a punitive tax put in place by politicians who want to paint themselves green," said Giovanni Bisignani, Iata chief executive.

He added that the scheme would hamper attempts to make the aviation industry more environmentally responsible by antagonising non-EU airlines, who are also supposed to pay for the carbon dioxide generated on flights to and from the EU. The US has objected to the proposals.

Airlines are already suffering from a record oil price, which has caused a series of bankruptcies in the US and sank Silverjet, the UK-based all-business class carrier. According to Iata, only a handful of airlines will make a profit if oil stays at those levels, with the entire industry expected to lose at least $6bn this year.

All airlines flying to and from the EU will be forced to cut their carbon dioxide emissions from 2012 under a compromise deal on the scheme approved by MEPs yesterday. The initial cut will be only 3% of average 2004/06 emission levels, rising to 5% in 2013, and airlines will be handed out 85% of their pollution permits free. MEPs also dropped earlier plans for intra-EU flights to be affected from 2011.

Friends of the Earth's Europe aviation campaigner Richard Dyer said the deal was "so weak it will have little impact on the rocketing growth in CO2 pollution from flying" and the EU should press for international aviation and shipping to be included in the next (post-2012) phase of the UN climate change treaty.

MEPs voted overwhelmingly to endorse a heavily watered-down version of proposals first launched by the EC and due to be rubber-stamped within the next few weeks. Hailing the vote, Stavros Dimas, EU environment commissioner, said greenhouse gas emissions from international air transport were increasing faster than from any other sector in the EU.

They account for only 3% of overall emissions but have grown by 87% since 1990 and could more than double on current trends by 2020.

Dimas said someone flying from London to New York and back generates as much CO2 as the average EU citizen does by heating their home for a year. He held out the threat to deepen the planned emission cuts for aviation and reduce the number of free permits from as early as 2013 under a review of the trading scheme he is now undertaking. But smaller airlines will be exempt and fast-growing start-ups will be given free permits.

Peter Liese, a German Christian Democrat MEP who helped broker the final compromise, said revenues generated from auctioned allowances should not disappear into the general state budget but be earmarked for funding green public transport through lower taxes and research into clean aircraft.

Gordon Brown is facing the prospect of another significant backbench rebellion - this time over climate change.

More than 80 Labour MPs have signed an amendment to the Climate Change Bill, which would force ministers to promise greater cuts in carbon emissions. The bill commits Britain to make at least a 60% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050. The MPs want that to rise to 80%.

Meanwhile Mr Brown hailed "major progress" at the G8 summit, as leaders agreed to halve CO2 emissions by 2050. Last year's G8 would only "seriously consider" a 50% cut in C02 but on Tuesday it said it would "consider and adopt" the goal in an international agreement.

Electric cars

Mr Brown said the deal was "beyond what people thought possible". The G8 has agreed a list of 25 areas where wealthier countries can help by cutting energy use, including abandoning traditional light bulbs and reducing power needed by appliances on standby.

The prime minister said he hoped part of that change could see households across the UK switching to electric or less-polluting cars.

This is one of the biggest issues facing domestic politics and clearly goes beyond party politics.

AT long last minister Jim Fitzpatrick has admitted the buck stops with him over noisy passenger planes flying over Suffolk and threatening to make residents' lives a misery.

Five months ago when Suffolk Coastal MP John Gummer asked a series of questions on behalf of The Evening Star, the transport minister dodged them - saying aircraft and airspace were the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority.

Now he has announced he has to approve the final plans and could intervene to change them - so today we are asking Mr Fitzpatrick a fresh series of questions and for a face to face meeting.

Air management company NATS is proposing a massive shake-up of flightpaths over the region to reduce bottle-necks in the sky and airport delays, deal with the huge increase in flights in recent years, and improve the environment.

There will be winners and losers, but the company has failed to come up with details of the biggest indicators of this - just how many planes fly on which flightpaths and how many more, or less, there will be after the changes are made.

Mr Fitzpatrick told the House of Commons an investigation into the practicality of stacking planes over the sea could be ordered in the autumn and the CAA could submit the final plans to the government for approval or order NATS to look at alternatives.

Today we ask Mr Fitzpatrick:

Where is the accountability to the public over air traffic - is the government ultimately responsible for flightpaths, airspace, numbers of planes in our skies, or has this been handed over to the unelected CAA lock, stock and barrel?

What account is taken of the effect on communities living under flightpaths when taking decisions on the number of planes flying on those routes?

Did the government's research for its own White Paper on air transport recognise the disturbance planes can cause to those living below flightpaths - what is its policy on this issue.

Planes are destroying the tranquillity of peaceful areas of Britain - Suffolk is a prime example. What is the government's view on this?

Should NATS have done some "on the ground" research over jet noise to back up its plans?

What action can you take to alter the proposals put forward by NATS that threaten to cause such misery in Suffolk?

How many commercial aeroplanes flew over Suffolk in the last 12 months?

What is the estimated maximum number of planes that may fly safely over Suffolk each day?

Is the government taking action to cut the number of flights from UK airports as part of plans to combat CO2 emissions?

Has the government ordered in depth research into pollution caused by aircraft, both the impact on the atmosphere and those living on the ground?

NATS submits its final proposals to CAA by the autumn and hopes to make the changes next year.

ONE of the biggest debates over the current proposed changes to airspace is where planes wanting to land at Stansted at busy times should wait.

Air management company NATS is suggesting two holding stacks - one over the countryside between Stowmarket and Hadleigh, and the other near Newmarket.

Residents of the dozens of villages affected say it will create a motorway in the sky above them, with a plane every two minutes, and the obvious solution would be to stack the planes over the sea.

However, NATS says it has already investigated this option - and rejected it because it would cause major disruption to flightpaths.

For residents close to the North Sea, it is still unclear whether they would suffer an impact if the stack was moved over the water and if jets would then fly in over different communities.

NATS said the stacks for planes waiting to land at peak times needed to be close enough to Stansted in order to create a steady stream with safe spacing between the jets at busy times.

"If the spacing between aircraft is more than it needs to be, fewer aircraft are able to land within a given time period and the airborne queue can get longer," said the letter from NATS' consultation team.

"This creates more emissions and exposes communities to more noise because aircraft fly above them longer. Holding over the sea would be too far away from the airports to enable air traffic control to efficiently sequence aircraft for landing at either Luton or Stansted."

"Variations in flying speeds present increasing problems with aircraft catching up with, or pulling away from, one another as the distance they need to fly to reach the airport increases."

There would also be concerns over the height and size of the holding circuit over the sea and the buffer needed around it. "An efficient hold over the sea for Luton/Stansted arrivals would operate from 20,000ft upwards," said the letter.

"This would occupy two to three times the area of a low level hold and over the southern North Sea this would interfere with many established air routes."

"Amending these routes to go around such a hold would mean significant additional route miles/emissions for all other aircraft which use this airspace."

Suffolk Preservation Society have taken a more radical view and suggested the holding areas should be on the ground at airports with take-offs made more efficient so that planes only fly when they know they will be able to land at their destination.

Should tens of thousands more planes be allowed to over Suffolk? Write to Your Letters, Evening Star, 30 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AN, or e-mail EveningStarLetters@eveningstar.co.uk

CAMPAIGN FILE: Air Fair

Government is encouraging a dramatic increase in air travel - and that will have huge consequences for Suffolk's skies and the communities which live below them.

Our Air Fair campaign agrees with and supports Stansted Airport at its current flight and passenger limits. But the campaign is against expansion of the airport which will have an intolerable impact on the quality of life of people in Suffolk.

It is against proposals to increase the number of passengers by ten million a year on around 23,000 extra flights, and against the building of a second runway which would more than double the current flights - another 300,000 a year.

The campaign wants a full review of pollution being caused by the jets - both the impact on ozone layer and on the environment at ground level - and of the increasing noise being caused by the aircraft 24/7.

We want assurances that planes will not be allowed to fly lower than the present lowest levels across Suffolk. Action must be taken to cut the noise afflicting the county and to look at the possibility of moving flight corridors on a regular basis so the same communities do not suffer noise nuisance incessantly.

The government's adviser on air quality has warned that ministers are "pulling the wool" over the public's eyes to justify building a third runway at Heathrow.

Mike Pilling, who chairs the government's expert group on air quality, said the public were being misled over claims that Heathrow's expansion would not cause unlawful and dangerous levels of pollution.

His comments came as it emerged that Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, has been forced by the scale of the public backlash to postpone her decision on expansion. It was due this summer, but sections of it are now likely to be rewritten.

This weekend the National Trust also came out in opposition to the expansion proposal and to plans by Nats, the air traffic service, to redraw flight routes across the country to ease congestion.

Pilling, who helped to devise the Department for Transport's rubric for measuring future pollution around Heathrow, said a key recommendation to consider a range of future scenarios was disregarded. He said Kelly's final conclusion that a third runway would not cause a significant increase in pollution was unreliable.

Kelly had previously pledged that the airport would be expanded only if it did not breach European Union pollution limits. "They mustn't pull the wool over our eyes," Pilling said last week. "People are much more sophisticated than that. They [the transport department] need to go back and do some more calculations."

The government has based its predictions about the impact of expanding Heathrow on a set of optimistic assumptions, including the arrival of cleaner engines. Pilling says that the more pessimistic scenarios were not tested.

"Those residents [who live near the airport] should say, 'I'm not convinced because you have not looked at all the possible changes that might happen in the future'," Pilling said.

"They [the department] claim it's clear that there won't be pollution [overruns] but they need to spend more time to show there is a very strong chance that this is the case."

His comments come after a Sunday Times investigation revealed how the transport department and BAA, the airports operator, collaborated to "fix" the environmental figures by selecting the data most likely to get a positive result.

The comments made by Pilling, who is professor of physical chemistry at Leeds University, reinforce concerns raised by the Environment Agency, which has warned that the department's case is not "sufficiently robust" to conclude that pollution levels will not breach the legal limits set by the EU.

The agency said that more consideration should have been given to variations in traffic emissions, background air quality and climate change.

Kelly is facing protests not just over plans for Heathrow's expansion but also about her entire aviation policy, with the National Trust warning this weekend that plans to redesign air routes to ease congestion threaten to spoil some of Englan'’s most tranquil areas, including the Chilterns.

Nats has tried to divert some flightpaths from urban to less populated areas, but Tony Burton, the National Trust's director of strategy and policy, said his organisation opposed the plans because of the impact on some of its properties and the damage to people's enjoyment of the countryside. One new route out of Luton airport will mean more planes flying over the Chilterns at lower levels.

Under the plans, four new holding stacks are being created to serve Stansted, Luton and London City airports. Some routes are also being changed from Heathrow, with local councils saying that 40,000 more residents will be affected by extra aircraft noise.

The government faces pressure to review both the proposals for a change in air traffic routes and for Heathrow expansion. Serge Lourie, leader of Richmond council and spokesman for the group of councils opposing expansion, said: "The Heathrow consultation has been botched from start to finish. It is an utter disgrace."

"If they are now going to start rewriting the impact assessment, then we deserve a new consultation and not the sham we've seen, in which the transport secretary announced in advance that she wanted Heathrow expansion."

OUR COMMENT: Future air pollution levels presented to the Stansted inquiry were miscalculated – revised predictions showed the ancient Hatfield Forest SSSI and National Nature Reserve would be damaged by further expansion of the airport.

Pat Dale

Voters think that taking action against climate change matters more than tackling the global economic downturn, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. The results, which will delight green campaigners, suggest that support for environmental action is not collapsing as feared in the face of possible recession.

When asked whether tackling the environment or the economy - given global economic problems - should be the government's priority, 52% said the environment and 44% said the economy. That contradicts the widespread assumption that environmental issues are seen by voters as a luxury to be put aside in tough economic times.

Almost two-thirds of those questioned also backed the idea of introducing green taxes to discourage actions that harm the environment: 63% support new taxes, against 35% who are firmly against them. The poll, commissioned as part of a Guardian series examining the impact of the economy on the environment, suggests that climate change is now a mainstream political issue, with the public appetite for action stronger than many politicians believe.

The high cost of many environmental schemes, such as the government's £100bn renewable energy plan announced last week, does not seem to have deterred voters. But the poll, reflecting findings in earlier surveys, also shows people want the government to sort out the problem rather than take on responsibility themselves.

While most people place the environment ahead of the economy as a national priority, only 19% say they would actually choose to pay more for a more expensive environmentally friendly product while shopping. Far more people, 58%, would buy a cheaper alternative, even if it was less good for the environment.

Overall enthusiasm for measures such as green taxes also fades when voters are asked to make an immediate choice in the face of economic troubles. While two-thirds back them in principle, only 30% think the government should be introducing them now, irrespective of the economy.

The number of people who oppose green taxes outright is small - only 31% say this, even after they have been asked to consider the state of the economy. But 36% say the government should delay bringing them in. That suggests ministers may have a battle on their hands if they press on with plans to increase environmentally-beneficial taxes such as increased fuel duty and higher road tax on older polluting cars.

Today's poll also throws into question whether the environment is an issue that only matters to richer, southern voters. Although women are more likely than men to place the environment ahead of the economy as an issue - 55% of women say it is a priority, against 49% of men - support for action is strong across all ages, regions and social groups.

Far from being the greenest part of the population, middle-class voters are actually more sceptical than most about the need for action, perhaps because they fear they have more to lose from increased bills and taxes. Voters in the richest AB group are the only ones to place the economy ahead of the environment as a government priority: 50% say the economy and 47% the environment. In the south-east of England 52% say the economy matters most, against 38% of Scots. Attitudes are more likely to be shaped by how much money people have and how much they might have to pay.

There is also no evidence that the environment is an issue that matters more to young people. Pensioners are almost as likely as people aged 18-24 to say climate change should be the government's priority.

ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,002 adults aged 18-plus by telephone between June 28 and 29 2008. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full results and comment from the Guardian's Green Squeeze series available at guardian.co.uk.

CAMPAIGNERS and MPs have upped the pressure on airspace bosses to rethink plans to move a flight stack over rural Suffolk.

NATS, formerly the National Air Traffic Service, wants to move a stacking area for planes heading in to Stansted Airport to an area affecting 32 Suffolk villages, centred on Lavenham.

Today, the debate reaches the House of Commons where MP Richard Spring will discuss the proposals while fellow MP David Ruffley met NATS bosses last night to implore them to move the flight stack to over the North Sea.

NATS says circling planes over rural areas will affect fewer people than the current arrangements - but campaigners claim their peace and quiet will be shattered and that no alternative options were drawn up.

Mr Ruffley, MP for Bury St Edmunds, said he had asked NATS why the air stack could not be moved over the North Sea. "We were given various reasons why that is difficult. They said a lot of military do training exercises over the sea and it would be crowded if civil aircraft were kept in a holding stack," he said.

"They said if the stack was over the sea it meant it's a longer air descent for aircraft which means they would be burning more fuel and increasing CO2 emissions. I don't see any evidence of that. I want them to go away and look at the alternative of putting a stack over the sea."

Mr Spring, who will today call on the Government to look at the way the consultation process was handled, said: "There are many people who thought the consultation was flawed because they were invited to contribute their comments over the internet which some people do not have access to and there were no alternative options."

"I am beside myself with anxiety about this. It is a big deal. I am doing everything I can on this to highlight the issues." He said he hoped the ministerial team at the Department for Transport would get involved in the matter and echo his concerns over the proposals.

Philip Gibson, who represents Lavenham on Babergh District Council, said he accepted planes had to be stacked somewhere but he felt NATS had not explained why incoming aircraft could not be stacked over the North Sea.

David Williams, of Brent Eleigh, one of the affected villages, said he and fellow residents had vowed to keep up the campaign to get the proposals changed. Last month, campaigners from many of the affected villages held a rally at NATS' headquarters in London in protest at the plans.

The deadline for comments about the proposals has now passed and NATS is preparing to publish its feedback report later this month. The recommendations will then go to the Civil Aviation Authority to decide.

A spokesman for the Department for Transport said neither his organisation nor its ministers would not be involved in deciding the proposals as that was the responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority. However he did say the CAA had "to be satisfied" with the recommendations before agreeing to them. A spokeswoman for NATS declined to comment.

SIGNIFICANT improvements to the rail service to and from Stansted Airport are being called for by an airport expansion protest group.

Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) believes that the railway serving the airport should undergo major improvements regardless of whether or not permission for a second runway is granted.

Highlighting figures that show a five per cent reduction in the number of air passengers getting to the airport by rail, SSE accused BAA of being reluctant to support investment in the local railway infrastructure, saying the airport operator was focusing disproportionately on road improvements.

John Rhodes, SSE's rail advisor, said: "Quite clearly, BAA's intention is to minimise its financial outlay while using up more and more of the available capacity on the West Anglian Main Line at the expense of local commuters. This 'cuckoo in the nest' approach is completely unacceptable."

In contrast to their call for a railway system revamp, SSE has stated its strong opposition to BAA's proposal to implement a massive new junction on the M11. The protest group also suggested that BAA's emphasis on road improvements over railway development was due to the profitability of air passengers getting to the airport by car.

Mr Rhodes said: "The Department for Transport should insist that BAA puts its hand in its pocket to help fund urgently needed track improvements. We need rail services which can comfortably meet the needs of both airport users and local commuters. We don't need massive new airport roads projects designed to keep car parking revenues flowing into BAA's coffers."

The Secretary of State for Transport, Ruth Kelly, announced in March that the Department for Transport would investigate ways to improve both the M11 and the West Anglian Main Line that links Cambridge with London Liverpool Street. These improvements could include the widening of the M11 between junctions six and eight, and the introduction of extra rail tracks from Tottenham Hale to south of Cheshunt. Mrs Kelly will provide an update on her department's investigation later this year.

A BAA spokesperson said: "The time and place for debate over our surface access proposals for a second runway will be at the forthcoming public inquiry. However, it's worth noting that some 44 per cent of Stansted passengers currently use public transport for their journey, which is the leading figure for a major UK airport and one of the highest figures in Europe."

"This is a fact that we are extremely proud of and as part of the planned surface access strategy for the G2 project we aim to improve on this excellent achievement, which will firmly secure Stansted's position as the best performing major airport in the UK."

Crowded arrivals halls and long immigration queues at London's Stansted airport were compounded by delays caused by malfunctioning transit trains last night, on the eve of the new terminal extension opening. The airport operator BAA blamed passengers holding open doors on the unmanned transit trains that transport people to satellite gates.

The system was "tripped out" and required engineers to attend to fix the problem, delaying passengers at the satellite gates, according to BAA. The airport operator confirmed that the train system has now been repaired.

On Sunday evening 14 flights were delayed, causing misery for thousands of arriving passengers as a backlog of people built up who were unable to get onto the packed transit trains.

This morning BAA opened phase one of its new terminal extension and must be hoping their £50 million investment will improve passenger experience at the airport.

An extension providing nearly 6,000 square metres of additional space in the arrivals hall, including extra desks for immigration control and another baggage reclaim belt came into operation today.

The remaining phases of the project are expected to open in December and will include new shops, waiting areas and onward transport facilities. But real improvements for passengers are still dependent on the tight turnaround of low-cost airlines operating out of Stansted and levels of staffing by the UK Border Agency that seems unable to cope with the passenger load.

OUR COMMENT: This extension was approved by the Uttlesford Council for the expansion from 15 up to 25mppa. Yet it is only just complete – at 24mppa.

Pat Dale

BAA is launching a new advertising campaign 'To fly for' to highlight the range of services at its airports. The multimedia campaign is being run across radio and press across the whole of the UK, and on TV in Scotland.

The TV commercial will feature in a six-week long campaign in Scotland across STV, Channel 4 and Five. 'To fly for' adverts will appear across a broad spectrum of programming, including Coronation Street, The Bill, CSI, Emmerdale and Big Brother.

BAA commercial director Duncan Garrood said: "We are working closely with our various partners to continually improve the airport experience for all our customers. 'To fly for' highlights these efforts as every passenger's journey benefits from some fantastic moments at the airport... moments 'To fly for'. Whether this means shopping for a treat at great airport prices, breakfasting with the family or enjoying a coffee in a quiet corner for all our passengers there will be a moment 'To fly for'."

OUR COMMENT: Is this BAA's solution to climate change fears? – "There is no need to actually fly - relax at our airport, eat drink and be merry, parking is easy, why go any further? – To Fly for – What? It's all here!" ... What a brilliant idea! Let's book now.

Pat Dale

LONDON - EasyJet has been reprimanded for greenwashing after one of its ads made misleading claims over its carbon emissions.

The national press ad for the airline claimed that an easyJet plane emitted 22 per cent less CO2 than another plane on the same route. But the Advertising Standards Agency today ruled that it did not make it clear that the figure related to emissions per passenger.

It said: "We concluded that, because the basis for the claim had not been fully explained, the ad misleadingly implied that easyJet planes were more environmentally efficient than the aircraft used by traditional airlines."

It said the figure was primarily based on the fact that easyJet planes could carry more passengers than traditional airlines. The ASA told easyJet to ensure that the basis for comparisons was explained in future ads. The airline was also cleared of misleading over a claim in the same ad that flying could be 50 per cent cleaner within ten years.

Airline chiefs have warned that soaring oil prices have pushed surcharges and other extra costs so high that passengers are being put off flying. Bosses from UK carriers agreed that for the first time prices had reached a tipping point.

Virgin Atlantic's chief executive, Steve Ridgway, said his airline's forward bookings were down, for which he blamed fuel surcharges. Speaking at a ttgbusiness/Amadeus dinner, Ridgway said: "Surcharges are not sticking at all. Our London to LA route now costs £300 in surcharges and taxes before we charge a penny for the fare. And what's more, we ain't seen nothing yet. The winter will be interesting."

The guest speaker at the dinner was British Airways‚ chief executive, Willie Walsh. He said BA's fares would have to rise to cover the airline‚s soaring fuel bill, which will top £3 billion next year. "BA cannot absorb the increase in oil prices. Fares are going to have to go up," he added.

Even easyJet, which prides itself on not levying a fuel surcharge, said it might be forced to increase its additional charges. Paul Simmons, head of brand marketing for easyJet, said: "Load factors are the same as last year. Our yields are up and our capacity is up. We've not seen the real impact of the credit crunch yet, but we will have to look at increasing additional costs. There is, however, a point of diminishing return."

Walsh predicted that sky-high oil prices would provoke more airline failures and consolidation over the next year. And he warned that the industry was facing its "most severe" challenge yet. "There is no question we will see more airline failures," he added.

"We've already seen it start in the US [Skybus, Aloha, Champion Air and ATA Airlines]; it happened to the all-business-class airlines [Eos, Maxjet and Silverjet]; and we've seen it in the Far East [Oasis Hong Kong]."

Walsh said the industry now faced the need to "fundamentally change" to survive. "After 9/11 we were able to slash fares and fill planes. Now we can't do that because the price of oil is too high. Instead we're having to ground flights."

BA reported a £900 million profit for the last financial year. But Walsh said that sort of figure would be "wiped out" next year because of the price of oil. "Fuel charges have gone way beyond what we ever thought was acceptable," he said. "Airlines have to look seriously at cost structures and efficiency. Consolidation is not a solution but it will benefit the industry and opportunities will present themselves."

The BA chief's warnings came as Stephen Bath, joint managing director of Bath Travel, said it was considering adding a surcharge to holidays using inhouse airline Palmair. This would mean forcing customers to pay more when they paid the balance of their holidays.

Bath claimed cost pressures were now so high a major operator might soon have to impose a surcharge. Abta said it gave permission this week to three more operator members to add a fuel surcharge, taking the total to 17.

OUR COMMENT: Why ask for more runways? They too will cost more!

Pat Dale

AIRPORT bosses have reacted with anger after a report linking aircraft noise with heart attacks was dramatically retracted.

Last week The Guardian reported how a study by the Greater London Assembly (GLA) concluded that stress triggered by aircraft from London City Airport was responsible for 43 attacks last year, prompting fears that a proposed increase in flights over Wanstead could lead to more health problems for people living there.

But now the GLA's experts have admitted they got their sums wrong, and "over-estimated" the number of cases. A spokeswoman for the airport said: "The inaccuracy of this report has led to the damage of the airport's reputation for no good reason."

But campaigners against the proposed flightpath changes remain defiant. "I think regardless of whether if it's one person, five people or 43 people that have heart attacks, the most important thing from the report is that there is a significant connection with aircraft noise and cardiac problems" said Anne-Marie Griffin, of the Fight the Flights group. "We shall see what the revised report says, but I would be very surprised if they denied the link now" she added.

GLA has said it "sincerely apologises for any inconvenience caused" and have removed the study from its website. A spokesman said: "It has now become evident that there is an error in one section of the Phase Two report specifically with regard to calculations concerning the risk of Myocardial Infarction (heart attacks) due to noise from Heathrow and London City airports. This means that the numbers have been over-estimated."

"We have asked the contractor who produced this report to review the calculations he used for the original version of the report. Meanwhile we have withdrawn these reports and recommend that their content is not replicated until the situation has been clarified and a corrected version issued."

According to air traffic management company NATS, new proposed changes to flightpaths to and from London City Airport could see an extra 83 planes flying over the skies of Wanstead at less than 3,000ft every day. Woodford Green, however, will see a decrease in flights if the plans are given the go-ahead.

OUR COMMENT: Bad statistics is a common fault. However, no one will deny that aircraft (and other) noise, if loud enough and frequent enough, can cause stress, and at night wakes people up which can also be stressful. Stress is one of the factors that may increase the risk of heart attacks – so, constant or repetitive loud noise is not good for our health, why pretend otherwise?

Pat Dale

The European parliament and governments have bridged their differences to reach a second-reading agreement on including aviation in the EU emission trading scheme. The Slovenian presidency brokered a deal with MEP negotiators on Thursday.

The compromise is expected to be endorsed by member state officials on Friday morning. Thereafter it will be put to a vote in the parliament on 9 July. If MEPs approve it, rubber-stamping by ministers will follow as a formality.

Full details of the deal were not yet available as ENDS went to press on Thursday, but its outlines matched expectations last week.

All flights into and out of EU airports will be included in the EU carbon trade scheme from 2012, the council's preferred date. Airline emissions will be capped at 97 per cent of 2004-6 levels in the first year of inclusion. Thereafter, the cap will be brought down to 95 per cent.

Airlines will have to pay for 15 per cent of their allowance allocation. Auctioning revenues will not be ring-fenced, as MEPs had wanted, but governments will have to report on how they spend them. They are encouraged to invest in "low emission modes of transport".

Both the emission cap and auctioning levels from 2013 may yet be revised through a separate proposal to change the EU emission trading scheme (ETS), currently also being debated by EU lawmakers.

There will be a 15 per cent limit on the use of carbon credits generated through Kyoto's flexible mechanisms. MEPs' demands for a multiplier to account for nitrogen oxide emissions and a gateway mechanism to force aeroplane efficiency improvements have been dropped.

Airlines and environmentalists were not enthused by the deal. "The policy will offset just one year's growth in emissions from the aviation sector," said T&E campaigner Joao Vieira. "We should be marking a historic multilateral deal.. but in fact we are marking a historic missed opportunity."

The Association of European Airlines (AEA) warned of carbon leakage. "Why would you pay more for your ticket if you can transit through a non-EU hub that avoids the tax that is now the ETS?" said a spokeswoman. She emphasised that the commission's impact assessment was carried out when oil only cost $40 a barrel.

Governments negotiating a post-2012 global climate agreement must agree tougher targets to avoid dangerous climate change, a group of leading experts and scientists has warned. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere must be cut down to 350 parts per million, they say.

Current objectives discussed as part of ongoing climate negotiations are to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at 450ppm to limit temperature rises to two degrees by the end of the century, or 400ppm for CO2 alone. But new scientific evidence shows that these levels are too high and can no longer be seen as safe, scientists say.

The call was made in an advertisement published this week in newspapers the Financial Times, the International Herald Tribune and the New York Times. A declaration was also published by the Swedish Tallberg foundation. "The safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350ppm and it may be less", the declaration says.

The Tallberg foundation is currently holding an international conference to discuss how to achieve this target. Global levels of CO2 are now around 385ppm. They rose by 0.6 per cent last year, according to US government agency Noaa.

The declaration was signed by leading scientists such as NASA chief scientist James Hansen. Other signatories include the European environment agency, the Stockholm Environment Institute and Irish MEP Avril Doyle, who is leading parliament discussions on plans to revise EU emissions trading rules.

NEW boss of BAA Colin Matthews has made clear his commitment to a second runway at Stansted Airport. The chief executive, who took charge in April, highlighted his hopes for growth in a keynote speech last week - and ensured the operator remains on a collision course with anti-expansion campaigners like SSE.

More than 200 invited guests ranging from regional business leaders to representatives from councils and airlines gathered at Duxford Imperial War Museum near Cambridge to hear his battle plans for Stansted.

He said: "This is an ideal opportunity to share with you two of the top priorities I have set for BAA. First for us, is to achieve consistent high standards of customer service - and that means to our airline customers as well as travellers. I am determined to deliver continuous improvement in standards across all service areas. And that applies to Stansted as much as it does to Heathrow and elsewhere."

"Second, is to demonstrate my commitment and that of BAA to the delivery of additional runway capacity to meet future demand for UK air travel - and that includes a second runway at Stansted."

"Like everyone else at the moment, we are facing up to a number of business challenges as the effects of the economic uncertainty works through the economy. Longer term economic growth is predicted beyond the challenges of the current cyclical downturn - and with it will come continued growth in demand for air travel. Stansted is at the forefront to meet that challenge."

He believed a second runway - which will enable the airport to handle 68m passengers a year by 2030 - would bring "significant benefits" to the East of England and create 13,000 new jobs.

He added: "The development will support plans for regional development, as well as underpin the investment planned for road and rail infrastructure in the region."

He acknowledged environmental concerns, but was clear: "I am acutely aware that our plans have attracted widespread public debate - and quite right too. But our focus, as always, is on achieving sustainable growth, and as our plans have taken shape during years of extensive consultation we have refined our proposals so that in terms of environmental credentials, we are at the leading edge of what it is possible to do."

SSE campaign director Carol Barbone said: "The choice of Duxford for BAA's summer schmooze is apt given that a museum is where BAA's outdated second rundway application belongs."

BA has submitted plans for a second runway and a public inquiry is expected to begin late this year or in early 2009. Meanwhile the operator and its opponents are waiting for the Government's verdict on removing the current 25m passenger cap and allowing up to 35m travellers to use the existing single runway.

Debt refinancing linked to its British Airports division BAA is on track to be finalised early in the third quarter, a BAA spokesman said on Thursday.

Spanish construction-to-services group Ferrovial has tried for over a year to renegotiate the debt in a deal aimed at cutting financial costs after original plans were delayed as bank credit dried up due to the global liquidity squeeze.

"We expected to complete early in the third quarter, that expectation still holds," a BAA spokesman said. "The timetable remains as it has been communicated over the last few months."

Banks arranging a 7.15 billion pound loan aimed to partly refinance the debt taken on by Ferrovial to buy BAA in July 2006, plus existing BAA debt, will launch this deal to investors at a bank meeting in London on Friday.

Meanwhile, talks with BAA bondholders continue as Ferrovial tries to move them into a new investment-grade structure, backed by income from its airports. Bondholder approval is essential for the deal to get underway.

One London-based BAA bondholder who asked to remain anonymous said he had his doubts whether Ferrovial would be able to get the deal sewn up to schedule, although he said the fact the banks had started the syndication process was positive.

"We still have major doubts that this deadline is achievable, it just seems too tight," he said. "There's an awful lot of documentation to get through first of all and I'm sure there will be amendments required by both the bank lenders and the bondholders. Just to get the documentation done itself can take weeks and weeks."

Ferrovial shares have been volatile as the deadline for the refinancing nears. The stock was 4 percent lower at 39.3 euros at 1220 GMT, after gaining 8.6 percent on Wednesday. (Editing by Quentin Bryar)

VERY few people have heard of it, no-one can point to it on a map or name any of its attractions - and yet you can fly there for £25.

Ever heard of Tampere?

It's one of the latest nonsense journeys to nowhere destinations - which most people call "cheap flights" but the airlines and airports brand as "affordable" - putting another plane in the sky over Suffolk.

The Evening Star carried out a snapshot survey to see whether people had heard of the Finnish town. Not one person we spoke to in Hamilton Road, Felixstowe, had heard of Tampere - and not one could even say which country it might be in.

Three people though did say the £25 price of a flight would attract them to take a trip there - simply out of curiosity and because it was so cheap. Sadly, that is a symptom of all that is bad about these flights.

People do not sit at home wondering if there is a flight to Tampere, or Balaton, Billund, Chisinau, Kaunas, Paderborn, Bergerac or Tromso, as they might dream about visiting Rome, Madrid, Sydney, Paris or Berlin.

But as soon as there is a cut-price flight to one of these obscure places, people are unable to resist and the demand is created - one of the reasons Suffolk has so many more jets flying over it these days, plaguing countryside communities with noise and fuelling worries over pollution.

There is no way of stopping it - airlines need to generate air travel to exist; airports need air companies' planes to use their runways. The government says air travel will double by 2030 and its plans are only just taking off.

Mark Davison, head of media relations at Stansted, said there was a demand for the affordable flights and if a route to a destination - however little known - was not viable it would not survive. "It doesn't matter if it is Newark, New York, or Bergerac, France - the airlines only run these services if there is a demand which makes them profitable," he said.

"The airlines look at where there is demand for a destination or interest can be created. Just because a destination may be hard to pronounce or an A level geography student couldn't find it on a map, it doesn't mean people should not go there and our surveys of people on these flights have shown there is a wide variety of reasons people might want to visit these places."

Independent travel, allowing people to explore, was part of the travel revolution, and often while Britons may not have heard of places, the people living in those places have heard of Britain and want to visit here, boosting tourism.

Balaton is in Hungary; Billund in Denmark; Chisinau Moldova; Kaunas Lithuania; Paderborn Germany; Bergerac France; and Tromso Norway.

Should the number of planes flying over Suffolk be cut? Write to Your Letters, Evening Star, 30 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AN.