White Paper Challenged in Court

[jabird]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8ecb66ac-4cac-11d9-835a-00000e2511c8.html

Key reasons cited include:

* the absence of a commercial justification for a second runway at Stansted;

(I think a lot of airlines would agree with them on that one - MOL said last week that Ryanair would be opposing the current plans just as vigourously as the protestors)

* failure to make clear in the consultation that a move to the simultaneous use of both runways at Heathrow for both take-offs and landings - so-called mixed mode - could be a short-term alternative to a third runway;

* failure to consult on the extended runway proposals put forward for Luton airport;

* failure to provide information about other airport options, including an offshore site in the Thames estuary,

Also, from the Coventry Evening Telegraph:

"Stop Stansted Expansion says the Government's White Paper, published in December 2003, is "fundamentally flawed".

It "reached its conclusions in material breach of the process which should have been followed in the consultation and made substantial changes in the course of the consultation which the public were not advised about and therefore were not able to comment upon".



I'm suprised they haven't had a challenge from Warwickshire about the need to include the Rugby proposals, although the last point perhaps suggests that whatever they did, they would have met fierce criticism from somewhere. These nimbys do like to play "pass the airport", however much they claim to work with each other.

I think we all know the document was seriously flawed in many areas. But to criticise a consultation document for not consulting does seem ironic. How many other countries will have gone through this process?

And no doubt all those airport car parks today are just as full as usual with anti expansion car stickers.

[terrywilcox]

Friends of the Earth,and others of that ilk,will always complain about any development anywhere. Our experience at Doncaster with them was horrific. In spite of the massive public support for redeveloping the airport,in an area that has suffered from massive job losses,their campaign led to a lengthy public inquiry. This cost us local tax payers close to one million pounds.

Trouble is there are always some local objectors,who have genuine fears,but FoE whip up hysteria,and,frankly spread black propaganda.

[LTNman]

failure to consult on the extended runway proposals put forward for Luton airport

I think you will find that Luton Airport are quite happy with their 2160m runway. The likes of easyJet and Ryanair don’t need a longer runway and wouldn’t take kindly to having to pay for an extension that they don’t need.

[akerosid]

I can understand FR not wanting to pay for the extra runway (or indeed, anything ;) ), but at the end of the day, that airport is becoming increasingly busy and if they have long term growth plans there, surely that's the best way forward. They're taking the same approach at DUB, which is due to get its new runway sometime around 2012. However, it just seems to be very shortsighted.

Of course, I have no sympathy for many of the campaigners; there's a solid group who will use every possible loophole and delaying tactic available and there's just no reasoning with them.

[jabird]

LTNman,

Not sure how much I'd want to challenge you on your home patch, but: "I think you will find that Luton Airport are quite happy with their 2160m runway" was not exactly what their MD told me last week.

Yes, it is fine for the likes of FRs & Easy's 737s, but if they want to be a player in the medium-long haul market (Caribbean, South Africa, Canada etc), a small extension would be a viable option - but not the sort of length mentioned by the government, and presumably which is causing this latest outcry.

They weren't joined by any of the Midlands nimby groups, but of the major UK airports, I would have thought Birmingham's case for an extension must be one of the stronger ones.

akerosid, "there's just no reasoning with them" - I think the latest statement from CAECA here in Coventry is typical of this kind of group's anti-change doublespeak, even when it might be in their interests:

OBJECTIVES:

"To stop ThomsonFly, or any other airline, from running scheduled or chartered passenger flights

To eliminate night flying (11 p.m.– 7 a.m.)

To eliminate the use of older, noisier aircraft"


THE FUTURE (their policy)

“We recognise that the airport has existed for a long time. In recent years, it has developed a specialist regional role, catering for business aviation, air-mail, private pilot training and some freight. We support its continuation in that role. We would be happy to work constructively, with a responsible airport operator, to help it flourish in that specialist role.”