RAF Northolt possible move to farnborough

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

report in local Rag

Plan to bring 7,000 more flights to Farnborough
By Tim Harris
October 04, 2012

CONCERNS have been raised over new proposals to move thousands of extra flights to Farnborough Airport.

In a recently published report by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Aviation, suggestions were made to transfer 7,000 existing annual business aviation movements to Farnborough from the Royal Air Force (RAF) Northolt base.

Complaints have been made periodically by residents near the airport about disturbance and disruption from current flights.

Jenny Radley, of Sandy Lane, in Church Crookham, said: “It would be detrimental. It would certainly have a disturbing influence. If 7,000 flights are diverted from RAF Northolt to Farnborough, that would be a significant increase, and that would have a significant impact on residents in the local area.

“If the flights are out of sociable hours, it is going to disturb residents trying to enjoy their peace and quiet.”

In 2011, Farnborough Airport was granted approval by the government to increase the number of permitted annual flights from 28,000 to 50,000.

Geoff Marks, chairman of the Farnborough Airport Residents Association, said his biggest concern is that the potential 7,000 extra flight movements would not be included in the 50,000 cap.

“If these 7,000 movements at Northolt were moved to Farnborough they would be outside planning control, and that would be a major concern,” he said. “That would be completely unacceptable.

“They are all government sponsored flights. The key issues is any movements from Northolt would be above the 50,000 already granted. As a policy, it is wrong.”

A meeting of the Farnborough Aerodrome Consultative Committee will be held today (Thursday), where Mr Marks will ask TAG Farnborough Airport whether it will respond to the recommendation of the aviation group. Mr Marks admitted he is not holding out hope for much to be achieved at the meeting, and said he expects it to be ‘a fudge’.

Brandon O’Reilly, chief executive officer for TAG, commented: “It is for the government to determine future aviation policy.”

Laurie Price, advisor to the All Party Parliamentary Aviation Group, said the recommendation has been made in line with the government’s stance of effective use of airport facilities.

“The government policy is better, not bigger,” he said. “If we take the 7,000 movements from Northolt and move them to Farnborough, that would be making the best use of existing facilities.

“It makes better use of the existing runway at Farnborough. The aviation group is saying ‘we have got the facilities, but let us just manage them better than we are already’.”

In response to the comments made in objection to proposals, Mr Price said: “It is not as though people are surprised that there is aviation activity in the background. Farnborough is going well within its (flight movement) cap.”

MP Brian Donohoe, chairman of the aviation group, added: “Given what it does at present, Farnborough is the best suited of all airports in the South East to take on this business.”

Mr Donohoe said he hopes the government will consider the recommendation put forward by the All Party Parliamentary Aviation Group.

When asked if moving business aviation away from RAF Northolt would have any effect on the RAF itself, an RAF spokesman said: “We will use the airfield exactly how we want it.

“It would not impact on our operations and that is all we care about.”

[Deleted]

The All Party Group's recommendation (and that is all it is) is to free up the current Northolt civil quota of 7,000 movements p.a. and to re-allocate these to commercial airline operations to ease pressure on Heathrow and improve regional connections to London. Even if this idea was to be adopted as Government policy (and this would immediately conflict with any possible new northern runway at Heathrow) and Northolt effectively closed to business aircraft they could not simply require these to use Farnborough or indeed anywhere else. If Northolt was to be closed to them, business jet operators would be free (as now) to use their own commercial discretion as to which alternative airport in the London they would use and there are a number of factors which would influence that decision (inc price; quality; & convenience of location for the customer or travelling officials of the companies operating their own aircraft). At a current permitted average of 28 movements per day (i.e. 14 in and 14 out) it is fairly clear that this would do very little to alleviate the situation at Heathrow, particularly as a percentage of regional passengers are using London for interline purposes which would not be possible via Northolt. All in all this looks like a no brainer but will no doubt increase the blood pressure of the anti Farnborough lobby while it lasts.

[Deleted]

So, lets think this one through a bit..... Northold closes for military ops therefore there will be a nice vacant and reasonably sized runway just to the north of Heathrow. I can't quite remember which airport is looking for another runway however. Could it be..... No, surely not!

[Deleted]

Quoting the original newspaper report

"When asked if moving business aviation away from RAF Northolt would have any effect on the RAF itself, an RAF spokesman said: “We will use the airfield exactly how we want it"

Im a little confused to what will move from Northolt, if you read it the same way as I did then its just Business aviation that will move and not Military !! am I reading this wrong

[Deleted]

Evening all
I read it same as you Jeff. Civil out, Military stay.
Have fun
Terry

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

As i understood things the Civil (OK NJE mainly) offset the cost of Keeping the place open
as things stand would the Gov allow NHT to make a loss . As for Queens flight lot of them
have used FAB Recently 2 hs125 and The 146 In past year.
Its been long rumoured the Queen would like to vacate Buck House For Windsor which frankly
is closer to FAB than NHT Again makes Sence . I Have a suscpicion that should the 3rd runway
were approved NHT would have to close anyway .
With building land at a high price Thousands of homes\biz on NHT SITE Would bring a small
windfall to the chancellor again a trick this lot wont fail to grab.
What is Still unclear is what seems to be worrying the local council is the 50000 Annual movements is that Gov/mil movements would not be included but that may be irrelevant
as GOV Want to take loads of planning Regs regarding Biz\ Transport away from them.

[Deleted]

what offsets all the other military bases around the country....Conningsby, Leuchers, Yeovilton etc from losing money, I think its swallowed by government taxes !! I am struggling to understand the reasoning behind moving just the civilian stuff out...unless there are some other plans involved in this reasoning.....I personally believe this is nothing to do with LHR expansion...but have no idea on the governments thinking for the future Northolt

[Buster the Bear]

Unless the runway at Northolt is re-aligned at some considerable expense, should the third Heathrow runway be approved, Northolt would see a dramatic drop in capacity, so just HM Govt flights.

[Deleted]

Well Jeff
I can imagine a scenario that would be in line with things like politicians self interest/greed/egotism.

How about they want Northolt exclusively for military/Government use then the military will be eased out on costs basis and we will have an airport quite close to central London for 'government' use only.
If Cameron can charter a 747 for a trip to Japan (which must have been way over the top for his NEEDS), then they can commandeer an airport. Remember every body needs to economise (except of course the government) they have a bottomless supply of YOUR money.
This is no way a party orientated diatribe THEY ARE ALL as bad as each other.

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

this is the bit that nees Clarifying What exactly does this mean

==============================
“If these 7,000 movements at Northolt were moved to Farnborough they would be outside planning control, and that would be a major concern,” he said. “That would be completely unacceptable.

“They are all government sponsored flights. The key issues is any movements from Northolt would be above the 50,000 already granted. As a policy, it is wrong.”
====================================
are these GOV\MIL VIP FLIGHTS not the visiting civil biz flights ? Does the GOV sponser NJE\GMA \LNX and others i think not.unless for Royal Duties at FAB (See FAB NOTAMS)
OK Larger VIP Aircraft Such as USAF 747 Amiri 747 Use EGSS EGLL EGKK . everything ELSE
Vip can use FAB , They already Do ,

[Deleted]

Outside planning control !!! (yes I know we had a discussion about this the other night on joinme T ) my interpetation of this is that as these extra flights at Farn should be deemed outside the 50,000 limit imposed by the last agreement on Farn movements because the management at FAB didnt specifically go out and entice these to come to Farn but were given them by the Government


on an aside to this, wouldnt it be good to see all the Mil stuff, Brit and Foreign, moved to Farn ;D

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

October 10, 2012

FARNBOROUGH Airport’s response to a proposal to bring in extra flights has left concerned parties feeling "disappointed".

In a recently published report by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Aviation, suggestions were made to transfer 7,000 existing annual business aviation movements to Farnborough from the RAF Northolt base.

This led to questions about whether the potential extra flights would be included in the 50,000 annual movements permitted to TAG Farnborough Airport by the government, or in addition to this limit.

Geoff Marks, chairman of the Farnborough Airport Residents’ Association, was ready to ask TAG whether it would respond to the recommendation from the aviation group at a meeting of the Farnborough Aerodrome Consultative Committee held last week.

Proposal for 7,000 more flights
Airport complaints from outside town
Government allows flight extensions

However, Mr Marks said the matter was not discussed because "it was claimed the members had not seen it prior to the meeting".

But Mr Marks insisted the paper was circulated to members in July.

Brandon O’Reilly, chief executive officer for TAG, recently commented: “It is for the government to determine future aviation policy.”

A spokesman for TAG has since said there would be no further comment from the airport on the matter.

Mr Marks said: “I am very disappointed. I think that is a ‘safe’ response for TAG to say it is a government decision. In my view they could be more open.

“Time after time when we would expect them to be open, they do not appear to be – why respond that way?”

Mr Marks reiterated his previous concerns that a number of the possible 7,000 extra flight movements from RAF Northolt may not come under TAG’s 50,000 cap.

He said government-sponsored flights, referred to as ‘other aviation movements’, would be exempt from the limit.

“There is no cap on other movements,” said Mr Marks. “Other aviation activity could involve passengers who are government ministers, royal families and other important people.

"TAG can operate some flights outside of planning control, mainly on the status of the passengers. It is a big problem.”

Mr Marks claimed it would be impossible to know how many of the 7,000 movements would fall under this category, as TAG has no obligation to identify any of its passengers.

Government stance

A spokesman for TAG confirmed: “The planning permission and associated Section 106 agreement with Rushmoor Borough Council for the development and operation of Farnborough Airport does not contain a requirement for the airport to disclose passenger information to the council.

"However, in line with UK government policy, passenger manifests for all inbound and outbound flights are monitored by the appropriate authorities, who are based at the airport.”

While TAG is currently permitted up to 50,000 annual flights, last year the actual number was believed to be closer to 25,000.

Keith Holland, head of planning at Rushmoor Borough Council, added: “The ‘other aviation activity’ at Farnborough Airport last year was 2,000. Had things been different and they were right up against their limit, then there would be more of an issue.”

Laurie Price, advisor to the All Party Parliamentary Aviation Group, recently said the recommendation to move 7,000 flights from RAF Northolt to Farnborough was made in line with the government’s stance on effective use of airport facilities.

Mr Marks said the move would not cause a problem if TAG could confirm that any flights transferred from Northolt would come under the 50,000 movements cap, regardless of who the passengers were.

[Deleted]

Well thats lost me.... everyone seems to be arguing against themselves and with last years movements only adding up to 25,000 then the nimbys have nothing to be worried about...or am I missing their point all together !

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

are good it wasnt just me , if as they say 25000 last count +7000 + 2000 were not supposed to ask about =34000 still 16000 under 50000 permitted that -the 2000 again ERRRRRRR TILT