Northolt - Last one out turn off the lights....
Thread Starter
Northolt - Last one out turn off the lights....
Looks like without the income of 12,000 'civvy' movements the future of Northolt looks even more uncertain than usual!
Biggie and 'London' Oxford will be relieved......
But not sure how they are going to determine the compensation figure?
COURT CASE CAUSES SAFETY REVIEW OF RAF NORTHHOLT
2015-01-26 08:37:26
London Biggin Hill Airport Press Release
1
In a landmark ruling, the U.K. Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Secretary of State have been told that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the statutory regulator required to determine safety standards for civilian aircraft using government owned military aerodromes.
Previously, as part of a policy of attracting 12,000 more business jets a year to RAF Northolt in west London, Ministers had repeatedly argued that they didn’t need to meet stricter, costlier civilian safety standards — only military ones — and that the CAA had no regulatory powers at military aerodromes.
This meant that smaller private airports reliant on business jets were being significantly undermined, as RAF Northolt became a competitor without incurring the higher costs of complying with civilian safety standards.
London Oxford and Biggin Hill Airports, represented by John Steel QC, lodged an application for a Judicial Review, arguing that military aerodromes should be regulated by the CAA and subject to equivalent safety standards that would apply to civilian airports, as mandated by the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
This Judicial Review has now clarified the position — the CAA and the Secretary of State for Transport are responsible for the safety of all civilian flights using RAF Northolt and other military aerodromes in the U.K. The safety of military flights remains the responsibility of the Military Aviation Authority.
In evidence submitted to the Judicial Review, it has been suggested that the costs to the taxpayer of meeting equivalent safety standards as would apply at a civilian airport would run into the tens of millions. For example, the MOD submitted evidence that suggested that measures to address a lack of adequate emergency runway run off areas to allow for potential under/over-shooting aircraft would alone cost in excess of £21 million at a time of defense cutbacks.
The judgment is also likely to have a major impact on an ongoing E.U competition investigation concerning State Aid, and requested by London Oxford and Biggin Hill Airports. Should the Commission finds that the MOD have been unfairly competing with the private sector the compensation bill could run into many tens of millions.
In welcoming the judgment, Will Curtis, managing director of Biggin Hill Airport in southeast London, said, “Despite a serious crash in 1996 in which an aircraft overran the runway and collided with a vehicle on the A40 trunk road, RAF Northolt evidently believed it was entitled to bypass many internationally accepted aviation safety measures — measures that civil airports such as ours are required to maintain. Lower safety standards at military aerodromes are unacceptable, not only for those in the aviation industry, but also for passengers and those in the surrounding community on the ground.
The judgment now for the first time clarifies that the CAA has statutory responsibility for safety in relation to use of RAF Northolt by civil aircraft. This is long overdue as the relevant legislation goes back to 1982. I am sure that they will want to quickly consider their position regarding the safety standards for civil aircraft at RAF Northolt.”
Andi Pargeter, managing director of London Oxford Airport said: “Today 85 percent of flights at RAF Northolt are civilian. They can continue to operate as a military airport accepting military flights, but if they want to continue accepting civilian flights, they may need to put in costly new safety measures. The question for the MOD now is will they use even more taxpayers money in order to distort the market and compete with small private businesses that support hundreds of highly skilled engineering jobs?”
Curtis added: “Using taxpayers’ money to compete with civil airports serving the same customers, is simply not equitable. As military and government flights at RAF Northolt have declined, replacing them with 12,000 civilian flights a year means it is now effectively a civil airport via the back door, despite the Airports Commission stating that it sees no long term role for it.”
Biggie and 'London' Oxford will be relieved......
But not sure how they are going to determine the compensation figure?
COURT CASE CAUSES SAFETY REVIEW OF RAF NORTHHOLT
2015-01-26 08:37:26
London Biggin Hill Airport Press Release
1
In a landmark ruling, the U.K. Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Secretary of State have been told that the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the statutory regulator required to determine safety standards for civilian aircraft using government owned military aerodromes.
Previously, as part of a policy of attracting 12,000 more business jets a year to RAF Northolt in west London, Ministers had repeatedly argued that they didn’t need to meet stricter, costlier civilian safety standards — only military ones — and that the CAA had no regulatory powers at military aerodromes.
This meant that smaller private airports reliant on business jets were being significantly undermined, as RAF Northolt became a competitor without incurring the higher costs of complying with civilian safety standards.
London Oxford and Biggin Hill Airports, represented by John Steel QC, lodged an application for a Judicial Review, arguing that military aerodromes should be regulated by the CAA and subject to equivalent safety standards that would apply to civilian airports, as mandated by the U.K. Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
This Judicial Review has now clarified the position — the CAA and the Secretary of State for Transport are responsible for the safety of all civilian flights using RAF Northolt and other military aerodromes in the U.K. The safety of military flights remains the responsibility of the Military Aviation Authority.
In evidence submitted to the Judicial Review, it has been suggested that the costs to the taxpayer of meeting equivalent safety standards as would apply at a civilian airport would run into the tens of millions. For example, the MOD submitted evidence that suggested that measures to address a lack of adequate emergency runway run off areas to allow for potential under/over-shooting aircraft would alone cost in excess of £21 million at a time of defense cutbacks.
The judgment is also likely to have a major impact on an ongoing E.U competition investigation concerning State Aid, and requested by London Oxford and Biggin Hill Airports. Should the Commission finds that the MOD have been unfairly competing with the private sector the compensation bill could run into many tens of millions.
In welcoming the judgment, Will Curtis, managing director of Biggin Hill Airport in southeast London, said, “Despite a serious crash in 1996 in which an aircraft overran the runway and collided with a vehicle on the A40 trunk road, RAF Northolt evidently believed it was entitled to bypass many internationally accepted aviation safety measures — measures that civil airports such as ours are required to maintain. Lower safety standards at military aerodromes are unacceptable, not only for those in the aviation industry, but also for passengers and those in the surrounding community on the ground.
The judgment now for the first time clarifies that the CAA has statutory responsibility for safety in relation to use of RAF Northolt by civil aircraft. This is long overdue as the relevant legislation goes back to 1982. I am sure that they will want to quickly consider their position regarding the safety standards for civil aircraft at RAF Northolt.”
Andi Pargeter, managing director of London Oxford Airport said: “Today 85 percent of flights at RAF Northolt are civilian. They can continue to operate as a military airport accepting military flights, but if they want to continue accepting civilian flights, they may need to put in costly new safety measures. The question for the MOD now is will they use even more taxpayers money in order to distort the market and compete with small private businesses that support hundreds of highly skilled engineering jobs?”
Curtis added: “Using taxpayers’ money to compete with civil airports serving the same customers, is simply not equitable. As military and government flights at RAF Northolt have declined, replacing them with 12,000 civilian flights a year means it is now effectively a civil airport via the back door, despite the Airports Commission stating that it sees no long term role for it.”
There is already a thread running on this:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ortholt-3.html
Perhaps the above comment would be better off there, and this thread could be closed? Or merge the two?
http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ortholt-3.html
Perhaps the above comment would be better off there, and this thread could be closed? Or merge the two?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hinckley
Age: 61
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK CAA Mulls London Northolt ClampdownA British High Court judge ruled on Friday that the UK CAA “has the power to impose conditions” on RAF Northolt Airport, near London, where it does not comply with civil standards, despite a growing number of lucrative commercial movements. The ruling could mean the CAA has little choice but to invoke a wide-ranging audit and that Northolt could face a cut in civil operations while it makes expensive improvements. The judicial review was set in motion through an application by London Biggin Hill and London Oxford Airports, which complained that “RAF Northolt became a competitor without incurring the higher costs of complying with civilian safety standards.” Will Curtis, managing director of London Biggin Hill, told AIN that it had estimated the traffic taken away from Biggin Hill could be costing it as much as £4 million ($6 million) a year. London Oxford and London Biggin Hill have also lodged a State Aid complaint with the EU Competition Commission, complaining that the Ministry of Defence has been unfairly competing with the private sector. The airports suggested that should they win, “the compensation bill could run to many tens of millions [of pounds].”
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Taif-Saudi Arabia
Age: 64
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In evidence submitted to the Judicial Review, it has been suggested that the costs to the taxpayer of meeting equivalent safety standards as would apply at a civilian airport would run into the tens of millions. For example, the MOD submitted evidence that suggested that measures to address a lack of adequate emergency runway run off areas to allow for potential under/over-shooting aircraft would alone cost in excess of £21 million at a time of defense cutbacks.
A quick e mail to ESCO would get them an off the shelf EMAS bed installed at the end of each runway for around $5 million.
Oh I forgot, would probably cost 20 million and 10 years for the MOD to do feasibility studies etc!!
A quick e mail to ESCO would get them an off the shelf EMAS bed installed at the end of each runway for around $5 million.
Oh I forgot, would probably cost 20 million and 10 years for the MOD to do feasibility studies etc!!
The folks elsewhere can crow about this as much as they want, but even if Northolt's civ traffic shrinks/dries up, I can't see traffic levels increasing by quite the same amount at Biggin Hill and Kidlington. Is Northolt's proximity to Heathrow and ease of access to Central London not part of its appeal?
It is worth remembering that it is but a few years since the main users of RAF Uxbridge moved across the street to Northolt. The Central Band and Music Services, The QCS, AHB(RAF) and a number of other units would need to be found homes.
Northolt has a particular attraction for the great and the good and I can't see them letting the place go easily. Mind you, when the Greens get into power and the armed forces are replaced by whatever, perhaps we won't need Northolt or anywhere else for that matter.
Old Duffer
Northolt has a particular attraction for the great and the good and I can't see them letting the place go easily. Mind you, when the Greens get into power and the armed forces are replaced by whatever, perhaps we won't need Northolt or anywhere else for that matter.
Old Duffer
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
A new role for Northolt?
OK, stop sniggering in the back, you lot. 
In the context of the foregoing, here's a new scheme by an airline CEO who clearly hasn't done any homework! And the idea of a "fast bus link" to LHR was clearly dreamed up by someone who has never lived/worked in the area!
Islanders to once again have easy access to Heathrow? « Jersey Evening Post
In the context of the foregoing, here's a new scheme by an airline CEO who clearly hasn't done any homework! And the idea of a "fast bus link" to LHR was clearly dreamed up by someone who has never lived/worked in the area!
Islanders to once again have easy access to Heathrow? « Jersey Evening Post
I doubt that the Judge thought about the 2nd order effect of this.
ALL of the RAF's Grob Tutors are civilian registered and they make up the vast majority of movements at RAF Wittering, Woodvale, Leuchars, Colerne, St Athan and Cosford. The JSAT(P) parajumping aircraft at RAF Weston on the Green is also a civvy reg aircraft and the only other movements are Oxford Gliding Club. The aircraft conducting JSAT(G) courses at RAF Halton and recruit AEF are all civvy registered as well.
I suspect that the Judge was unaware of these facts when he made the warning - it could cost the RAF a lot of money to comply!!!
LJ
ALL of the RAF's Grob Tutors are civilian registered and they make up the vast majority of movements at RAF Wittering, Woodvale, Leuchars, Colerne, St Athan and Cosford. The JSAT(P) parajumping aircraft at RAF Weston on the Green is also a civvy reg aircraft and the only other movements are Oxford Gliding Club. The aircraft conducting JSAT(G) courses at RAF Halton and recruit AEF are all civvy registered as well.
I suspect that the Judge was unaware of these facts when he made the warning - it could cost the RAF a lot of money to comply!!!
LJ
One wonders how many people living on Jersey really want/need an 'easy' link to Thiefrow that often?
If they want to get to central London, I could understand flyBe to London (Oxford), then 10 min on a shuttle to Oxford (Parkway) and 60 min on a direct train to Marylebone on the new Chiltern Railways route.
Or to LHR, one of the existing services to Gatwick, then the coach to LHR.
But a service to the spartan Northolt, then at least 30 min struggling to reach LHR through the tortuous road system or the busiest section of the M25? YGBSM, as they say....
If they want to get to central London, I could understand flyBe to London (Oxford), then 10 min on a shuttle to Oxford (Parkway) and 60 min on a direct train to Marylebone on the new Chiltern Railways route.
Or to LHR, one of the existing services to Gatwick, then the coach to LHR.
But a service to the spartan Northolt, then at least 30 min struggling to reach LHR through the tortuous road system or the busiest section of the M25? YGBSM, as they say....
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
BEagle, that's a good question. Ignoring the LoCo carriers ex-JER, BA finds it worth doing 5-a-day to LGW. Many of those pax actually want to use LHR for l/h travel, so there is certainly some demand for a JER-LHR link.
BMI dumped the route a few years ago [the day after I booked it, as it happens] ... but I have no doubt the reason is the relative value of the LHR slots, which could earn more being used for more profitable routes.
As to NHT ... fantasy land, IMO. I shall continue schlepping between LGW and LHR, although cheaper fares can be found ex-DUB, so there are other ways of skinning a transatlantic cat [once you get to DUB]
BMI dumped the route a few years ago [the day after I booked it, as it happens] ... but I have no doubt the reason is the relative value of the LHR slots, which could earn more being used for more profitable routes.
As to NHT ... fantasy land, IMO. I shall continue schlepping between LGW and LHR, although cheaper fares can be found ex-DUB, so there are other ways of skinning a transatlantic cat [once you get to DUB]
Leon - I see your argument but aren't the a/c types you mentioned already operating from much less well equipped civvy fields? I realise the judgement would impact the bases operating the larger 'biz-jet' type traffic if they aren't up to CAA spec.
The Airports Commission report, which recommended construction of a third runway at LHR (the "Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme"), had the following to say on Northolt:
Until the government announces where the new runway will actually be built, how can any offer of capacity at Northolt can be made to Flybe without giving the impression that the recommended Heathrow option has been rejected? The cost of modifying infrastructure at Northolt could only be recouped over a medium- to long-term basis; based on the comments above, this would probably not be viable if the Heathrow runway was built. The runway issue is so toxic among the Conservatives that I can't see any MOD ministers wanting to get dragged into the debate by throwing Northolt into the mix.
Northolt is a military airfield first and foremost, for example being closed to most civil traffic when Typhoons were based there during the Olympics. Business aviation can cope with such disturbance by using alternative airfields at practically no notice, making it the ideal customer for Northolt's spare capacity. Scheduled airlines not so much.
11.41 For the Heathrow Northwest Runway scheme, advice from NATS has identified a high likelihood that the new runway would have significant operational impacts on RAF Northolt, a military airfield located six miles north of Heathrow, which also accommodates a number of civilian business and general aviation movements. While the scheme would not require the end of military movements at Northolt, there is a significant risk that it might not be possible to continue to operate civilian flights from it without some impact on the capacity of the scheme (potentially on a one-for-one basis, reducing capacity by up to 7,000 ATMs).
15.14 Some respondents also argued that greater use of RAF Northolt, coupled with improved surface access links between RAF Northolt and Heathrow, could facilitate domestic connectivity. The Commission has not taken a position regarding the future use of civilian capacity at RAF Northolt. It has not, however, been convinced that there is a credible solution for providing a transfer service between RAF Northolt and Heathrow or that RAF Northolt is a viable long-term option to address Heathrow’s capacity constraints.
Northolt is a military airfield first and foremost, for example being closed to most civil traffic when Typhoons were based there during the Olympics. Business aviation can cope with such disturbance by using alternative airfields at practically no notice, making it the ideal customer for Northolt's spare capacity. Scheduled airlines not so much.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Here's one I doodled ages ago during a similar discussion elsewhere on PPRuNe ...
Sadly that idea would trash the whole new BizJet complex
Sadly that idea would trash the whole new BizJet complex
Correct if I'm wrong, but a little while back wasn't there a crazy idea to build a long taxiway linking Northolt and Heathrow? I think the idea was to use Northolt as the third runway for Heathrow, with all the terminal facilities at LHR.
I've only been to Jersey once - 24 years ago. Before the days of Internet, I went to the local travel agent to book my ticket, making 2 stipulations:
1. Not ba. (I loathed the antics of King and Marshall....)
2. Must be a regional airport, not London. (I support regional airports whenever possible, with London Airport as the last option.)
So I had a pleasant flight there and back from Lulsgate in some Fokker Friendship derivative - but I cannot recall the airline.
If fleabe have their way, who will pay for all the passenger terminal facilities, car parking etc.?
The whole idea is utter bolleaux!
1. Not ba. (I loathed the antics of King and Marshall....)
2. Must be a regional airport, not London. (I support regional airports whenever possible, with London Airport as the last option.)
So I had a pleasant flight there and back from Lulsgate in some Fokker Friendship derivative - but I cannot recall the airline.
If fleabe have their way, who will pay for all the passenger terminal facilities, car parking etc.?
The whole idea is utter bolleaux!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well they've been caught - trying to keep Northolt available for the politicians and SO's they turned to the Dark Side and let in civis to pay the bills - now they are faced with either upgrading the safety standards or or pushing the civi's out
either way it's means a lot more cash needed
either way it's means a lot more cash needed
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
But Northolt is now MANY things according to Wiki ...
So much more than just a handy airfield for No 32 Sqn's prime users
... consolidate many of its London-based operations at RAF Northolt. Under the project, RAF Bentley Priory, RAF Uxbridge, RAF West Ruislip, RAF Eastcote and the Inglis Barracks in Mill Hill were all closed between 2006 and 2010 with any remaining units transferring to Northolt. The Air Historical Branch, originally established in 1919 to provide a record of air activity during the First World War, was also relocated to RAF Northolt from RAF Bentley Priory in 2008 as part of this project. As a result, the station has been extensively redeveloped with new facilities to support these operations.
Lodger Units at Northolt include No. 600 Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force, 621 EOD Squadron Royal Logistics Corps (part of 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment RLC), No. 1 AIDU (Aeronautical Information Documents Unit), the Central Band of the Royal Air Force, the Service Prosecuting Authority, Naval Aeronautical Information Centre, the British Forces Post Office (BFPO), the Air Historical Branch and the Polish Records Office.