Latest from TAG

[Mike]

Report generated from the Farnborough News yesterday

1/10/2008

Farnborough Airport bosses want to see a tripling of flights by the largest types of jet aircraft.

Chief executive Brandon O’Reilly said the airport had adopted a deliberate policy to turn away smaller aircraft in favour of larger business jets.

The policy is designed to curb demand among aircraft operators as the airport reaches its 28,000 flights a year limit, but will also help to maximise profits for the airport’s owner, TAG Aviation.

As well as turning away smaller planes, the airport has raised its landing fees for all types of aircraft in an effort to curb the rise in demand that saw Farnborough become the fastest-growing airport in the UK in 2007, with 24% growth compared to the previous year.

With aircraft movements now pushing the airport’s 28,000 maximum limit, the operator was forced to make the changes to prevent it having to close down for days on end to prevent a breach of planning restrictions.

Speaking to gethampshire, Mr O’Reilly expressed a desire to see the airport make full use of its current 1,500 a year limit on the number of take-offs and landings of 50 to 80 tonne business jet aircraft.

Currently the airport uses around 500 such movements a year, with each movement costing the aircraft owner £2,300.

The category within the airport’s planning permission is designed specifically to include the Boeing Business Jet, based on a Boeing 737 medium-range commercial airliner, and Airbus Corporate Jet, based around the 737’s main rival, the A320.

No aircraft above 80 tonnes are allowed to use the runways outside the Farnborough Airshow.

For smaller aircraft, such as LearJet, Gulfstream and Citation jets, the cost of landing at Farnborough is between £360 and £950.

“We are just about at capacity,” Mr O’Reilly said. “We are operating at or slightly more than the level we were at last year.

“We had to reduce demand, because after 24% growth last year we had to slow that down. We have achieved that through pricing and by turning certain types of aircraft away — single engine and piston-driven engine aircraft.

"We would like to offer a broad range of aircraft facilities here. There is a demand for larger aircraft and smaller aircraft.

“The larger aircraft find it an attractive airport to come into, and we serve them well. Some of the smaller aircraft find us less attractive to come into.”

While the number of very large business jets was currently “nowhere near” the 1,500 limit, he said that the airport intended to “operate within constraints” and that increasing the number of larger aircraft was part of its plan.

There has already been a huge growth in the number of these types of aircraft using Farnborough in the last year, with an 84% increase in the first half of 2008 compared to the same period in the previous year. The total number of flights was 5% higher during the same period.

Mr O’Reilly said that the current economic slowdown had “undoubtedly” reduced demand, but added that the airport had not yet experienced swathes of cancelled flights from out-of-work City executives.

“We continue to see the numbers through that we expect, and at 28,000 [annual movements] it is not an issue as an airport operator.

James Radley, leader of Community Campaign Hart group at Hart District Council who represents Church Crookham East, said that the very large business jets flew louder and lower over the area as they took off.

"I suspect they are more annoying to residents than the smaller aircraft, although there are some particularly noisy smaller aircraft."

Mike

[Mike]

Another report from the local rag


Airrport will never operate at 100,000 flights capacity
By Pete Castle
30/ 9/2008

Farnborough Airport will never operate at full 100,000 flights a year capacity, its boss has insisted.

While the figure has been calculated as the physical capacity of the runways, environmental factors mean the figure - a fifth of the capacity of Heathrow - will never be reached, the airport's chief executive said.

The promise came as the results of the largest ever consultation on the future of the airport were published yesterday (Monday).

The survey, which was held over a seven-week period over the summer, revealed that four out of five people see no personal benefit from an increase in flights above the present limit.

In addition, nine out of ten respondents said they were concerned about the impact of noise pollution.

The results make plain the overwhelming public opposition to an expansion in the number of take-offs and landings allowed at the airport after its owner, TAG Aviation, made it clear that it wishes to expand movements past the current 28,000 limit.

The consultation document was sent to 13,500 homes around the airport, of which an impressive 1,800 — around 13% — replied by post or email.

TAG Farnborough Airport paid for the consultation as part of its preparation of an airport “master plan”, demanded by the government for its plans for aviation growth in the UK.

Airport bosses said the draft master plan, which will include detailed projections of the growth in air movements at Farnborough, will be published before the end of the year.

Airport chief Brandon O’Reilly said the results of the consultation would play an important part in helping the airport consider how it should grow over the next decade.

He said the consultation had been extended from six weeks to seven in response to the pubic demand for extra time to get in their responses.

Mr O’Reilly thanked the 1,800 people who had taken part and pointed out that the response was much higher than that received at other, much larger airports preparing their own master plans.

He said the greatest concern among the public was about noise, pointing to figures that showed nine out of ten respondents were concerned about the extra disturbance if the airport was allowed to host more jets taking off and landing.

Mr O’Reilly promised that the results of the consultation would play a major role in helping the airport plan its growth.

“The fact that 90% are concerned about noise will obviously be taken into consideration in the master plan,” he said. “It would be wrong not to do so.

“That will be balanced with the other benefits of the airfield being here.”

The work already carried out by specialist consultants had proven beyond a doubt that the airport could not host its hypothetical 100,000 a year physical capacity.

He added that the community would be given another opportunity to comment on the draft master plan when it is published later this year.

Geoff Marks, chairman of the Farnborough Airfield Residents’ Association (FARA) said the results of the consultation were “encouraging”.

“The majority of people that responded reflected the views that FARA has taken,” he said. “It will now be interesting to see the extent to which TAG take note of those views.”

Mr Marks welcomed Mr O’Reilly’s commitment to responsible development, but said it would be virtually impossible for the airport owners to both minimise disruption to residents and grow the number of flights.

He added that the details that emerged from TAG’s successful appeal on increasing the number of flights at weekends showed that TAG would still be able to expand its operations without too much difficulty, unless Rushmoor Borough Council took a firmer line on future growth.

“My concern is that the noise contour that has been invoked would allow an enormous amount of movements.

"Given Rushmoor’s misunderstanding of public safety zone policy, effectively the level of movements would be determined by the National Air Traffic Service and their mathematical modelling of risk, and that would undermine the local democratic process.

“That is something that FARA will be following up in the next few months.”

Mike

[Mike]

The local papers web site appears full of Farnborough this week

Air taxi service flying high
By Jack Sommers
25/ 9/2008

The co-founder and managing director of Europe’s first air taxi service has said Farnborough Airport is an ideal base for the business.

Peter Leiman founded Blink with Cameron Ogden, his friend from Harvard Business School, in 2006, with the intention of flying corporate clients between smaller airports with shorter runways.

“It’s ideal,” Mr Leiman said: “Farnborough is the pre-eminent business airport for London within one of the best areas in Europe in terms of catchment area of people.”

Blink offers direct flights between smaller European airports where larger airlines do not fly because the airports can
only accommodate smaller planes.

There are no check-ins or gate waiting times and passengers can arrive up to ten minutes before their scheduled departure time.

Blink has ordered 45 Cessna Citation Mustangs — light jets that can carry up to four passengers, and it already operates four.

A new plane will be delivered roughly once a month until all the planes are in operation by around 2010.

The order makes Blink Cessna’s biggest customer for the Mustang.

Mr Leiman said: “It is about a category of aircraft.

“It’s one of two aircraft that’s next generation.”

The Mustang is a very light jet (VLJ) class plane that is just 13.5 yards long, and its wingspan is 14.9 yards — compared with 77.2 and 65.2 respectively for a Boeing 747.

The small size of the Mustang means it can land at airports where the runway is 3,000 feet long or shorter.

“It allows us to offer prices that are competitive with commercial airlines,” Mr Leiman added.

“You can now get all the benefits of private jets and all the experience of commercial ones without the cost. That is the real power of what we are doing.”

The economic downturn has prompted the business community to downsize from jets with larger cabins to VLJs like the Mustang.

Mr Leiman said: “Business this month is very robust. We are doing better than we expected.”

He said the cost of an air taxi was around the same as a first class ticket on a commercial flight covering the same distance.

Mr Leiman said: “Our customers are corporate.

“Say you had a weekly meeting in Montpellier. No commercial airline flies directly from London to Montpellier.

“If you flew out with a commercial airline you would have to leave early in the morning to get there for the afternoon and you would probably have to stay overnight.

“You’d be travelling two days for a two-hour meeting every week.

“With an air taxi you can get back in the same day.

“We can fly into more than 600 airports, predominantly in western Europe where larger planes can’t fly — including Farnborough.

“A 747 can only fly into Farnborough during the airshow and even then it’s empty.”

Mike

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

And on Meridean TV Which gave its Usual load of tripe Stating that 90percent of residents were
against the idea of Expansion mainly because of noise . What should have been Said was that
90percent of those SURVEYED the vast Majority of residents were not Asked.
At Fast the other Saturday A bloke was showing the Aircraft to his young Son we spoke about
Flying and where he Lived in ashvale area where he said aircraft noise was not the problem
the local residents make it out to be but that was mainly said by the residents ASSOCIATION .
Most people took no notice as Far to busy .

[Mike]

Latest from Farnborough News group
Farnborough airport makes profit for first time

6/10/2008

Farnborough airport made a profit for the first time in its eight-year history last year.

Chief executive Brandon O’Reilly has told get Hampshire that having made a £1m loss in 2006, the 24% increase in flights brought the airport into the black for the first time in 2007, he said.

With a hike in landing fees introduced in April this year, it is likely that the profits will continue to roll in for the mainly Saudi-owned business.

“It is pleasing it is becoming a successful business,” Mr O’Reilly said. “The improved business has been created by the investment in the airport attracting people here.

“It is a quality airport, but I would also say that going forward, the success of our business will be determined by how we work with the community, aircraft operators and our customers. If we don’t do that, we can’t be a successful business.”

Geoff Marks, chairman of the Farnborough Airfield Residents’ Association (FARA), said that the fact that TAG was now making a profit showed that the current 28,000 limit made the airport a viable commercial operation without needing an expansion of flights.

Comment - Trust Mr. Marks to pick up on this point & use it to the anti's advantage

Mike

[Admin (Annette Andria)]

People are starting to notice the Very very Nimby Man . was an Aircraft Engineer so why
did he on Retirement Choose to Live close to an Airfield its his choose granted he can live
where he likes but then start a Body to get it closed or Stopped from Expanding ?

many Years ago PRE TAG When they were running an anti Airfield Campaign my to Then Youngest
Children were going to the Library and were approached to Sign a petition against the airfield
Being Sensible they Refused AGED 8 and 6 THEN . I made a complaint about this and was
told alls fair in this game we need the Support even from Kids .Shows how Desperate
Support they were ans still are. I Maintain to this Day "The Majority of farnborough Residents are not Effected by the Airport " granted Is an annoyance to Some and You can see there point of View but TAG and ATC are keen to Address these complaints But Hell will freeze over for some
to accept any form of Flying ./

[Mike]

Not totaly negative news from the Farnborough news web site

Nine out of ten worried about airport noise
By Pete Castle
25/ 9/2008

Four out of five people see no personal benefit in an increase in flights at Farnborough Airport, gethampshire has learned.

The figures, released exclusively to this website the week before their official publication, are part of the results of the largest ever consultation on the future of Farnborough Airport that was held over the summer.

The consultation document was sent to 13,500 homes around the airport, of which an impressive 1,800 replied by post or email.

TAG Farnborough Airport paid for the consultation as part of its preparation of an airport “master plan”, demanded by the government for its plans for aviation growth in the UK.

Airport bosses said the draft master plan, which will include detailed projections of the growth in air movements at Farnborough, will be published “before the end of the year”.

Speaking exclusively to gethampshire, airport chief Brandon O’Reilly said the results of the consultation showed he still had some work to do in convincing the public that developing the airport was of benefit to the area.

“The results are mixed — they are not surprising, but mixed,” he said.

“You can never do enough consultation, but we have done a reasonably good job.”

He said the greatest concern among the public was about noise, pointing to figures that showed nine out of ten respondents were concerned about the extra disturbance if the airport was allowed to host extra take-offs and landings.

Mr O’Reilly promised that the results of the consultation would play a major role in helping the airport plan its growth.

“The fact that 90% are concerned about noise will obviously be taken into consideration in the master plan,” he said. “It would be wrong not to do so.

“That will be balanced with the other benefits of the airfield being here.”

The results of the consultation also showed that 70% felt the airport was important to the local and regional economy, 43% were unaware of public safety zones, and more than half felt they were affected by air pollution from aircraft currently flying in and out of Farnborough.

For the full exclusive interview with airport boss Brandon O’Reilly, and further analysis of the results of the consultation, see the Mail, out on Tuesday, September 30.

Got a view? Click on "Comments" below and have your say. Below is a sample of comments submitted by people living around the airport in the consultation.

“Ferrying super-rich businessmen and celebrities on private jets hardly contributes to the local economy. Do they stay overnight at a local hotel or pop into Morrisons to do some shopping? No, they get into their gas-guzzling limousines and get out of Farnborough as quickly as possible.” (Resident, age 26-25)

“No doubt [TAG] employs people, as do Tesco and Asda — doesn’t mean any of you are good. Tesco can be blamed for destroying retail in Aldershot but they still contribute [to the economy]. Positive? I don’t think so!” (Resident, age 26-35)

“TAG employs a considerable number of people, thus able to plough back earnings into the economy, and attracts more business into the area.” (Resident, age 66+)

“My house price will go up! Vast improvement in facilities. Keep up the good work!” (Resident/aviation industry, age 26-35)

“I am concerned that Farnborough will become a less desirable place to live and the value of my house will reduce accordingly. I cannot see that very many jobs will be created by realising what is already spare capacity.” (Resident, age 36-45)

“How much money will come into my pocket because Elton John flies in?” (Resident, 46-65)

“[Knowledge of public safety zones] still doesn’t stop something crashing into my house, does it?” (Resident, age 26-35)

“The airfield is in a densely populated residential area. Any increase in flights will increase risk — such as the fatal crash from Biggin Hill this year.” (Resident, age 46-65)

“Despite being asthmatic and living two miles away, I am unaffected by airport pollution. The M3 emits much more pollution than the airport.” (Resident, age 36-45)

“My wife is asthmatic and any air pollution caused by aircraft flying overhead soon affects her.” (Resident, age 66+)

“The thought of aircraft noise causing loss of sleep is deeply concerning. Please do not extend hours of flying.” (Resident, age 44-65)

“Farnborough’s history is built around its aircraft background. Noise should be accepted as part of residents’ way of life.” (Resident, age 66+)

“Some days I can count one plane after another landing. They are so large too. You cannot hold a conversation in your garden sometimes.” (Resident, 26-35)

“We would be forced to move away [if flight movements increased above 28,000]. The number of flights now is just bearable. More would be unacceptable. This is our home and our lives you are playing with for your own gain.” (Resident, age 46-65)

“Unnecessary flying by rock stars for their own convenience is not eco-friendly.” (Resident, age 66+)

[Deleted]

Hi PB
I am afraid I can understand (to a degree) the apathy when it comes to voting for politicians, they are all tarred with the same brush, so it appears your vote counts for nothing, they do as they will irrespective. As for the lack of response for the TAG questionnaire I am sure you are correct in assuming most people are unaware of what goes on at the/an airport ( my personal opinion is that its a lack of encouragement from the 'flying' community).
Have fun :-)

Terry