Q

Will the expansion of the terminal allow passenger numbers to grow beyond 9 million passengers per annum?

A

It may be useful first of all to recall that the Air Transport White Paper published in 2003 estimated that the limiting capacity of Bristol International Airport with a single terminal was 8 million passengers per annum.  So we are already projecting a capacity that is beyond previous expectations.  Part of the reason for doing this is to make sure that we are assessing the impacts of our development at the high end of a range. 

Currently it is the terminal that sets the capacity limit for operations.  However this will change in the future and the number of aircraft stands that can be developed within the land constraints will be the limiting factor.  Most of the airlines operating from Bristol International Airport ‘base’ their aircraft at the airport.  This means that the aircraft are parked at the airport overnight, start their daily flight programme first thing in the morning, operate three or four return flights to a variety of destinations during the day and return late in the evening.  The operating limit is therefore determined by the number of aircraft that can be parked overnight.  The extent of the aircraft parking area that can be developed is restricted by the geography and topography of the site.  We are confident therefore that the 9 million passengers per annum capacity limit is realistic.

Q

Would it be possible to avoid the use of fields to the south of the airport for car parking if an airport hotel is not included in the Master Plan?

A

The amount of car parking displaced by the hotel is very small – just over 100 cars at the most.  Allocating the hotel site to car parking will not make any significant difference to the proposed car park strategy.

Q

Will the hotel take trade away from existing bed and breakfasts and hotels?

A

There are only a limited number of bedrooms available at existing bed and breakfasts and hotels which are convenient for Bristol International Airport, and the growth of airport operations will mean greater demand for rooms.  We see the airport hotel as being complementary to these existing overnight facilities.  The reason why an airport hotel is needed is because the demand for overnight accommodation cannot be met by the currently available facilities.  There are limited opportunities to develop overnight accommodation near the airport because of the restrictions of the green belt.  Siting a hotel at the airport provides an opportunity to meet the demand within an already developed site without further impact on the green belt and limit the need for traffic to and from the hotel on the roads surrounding the airport.  All airports of the size of Bristol International Airport elsewhere in the UK have an on site hotel operating satisfactorily alongside bed and breakfast establishments.  We are not proposing to include conference facilities in the airport hotel – the conference market is best catered for by the city centre hotels.  We expect the hotel to provide limited leisure and business facilities for the passengers and staff that will use it.

Q

Aren’t most of the people flying out of Bristol International Airport using the airport for their holidays?

A

Anti-airport opponents often quote a statistic that UK passengers flying abroad outnumber foreigners travelling to Britain by 6 to 1.  A recent press release from the Stop Bristol Airport Expansion campaign referred to the ‘Travel Trends 2005’ report recently published by the Office of National Statistics.  This in fact showed that there were 29,970 visits by overseas residents to the UK in 2005, and 66,441 visits by UK residents abroad.  This is a ratio of 2.22 to 1, not 6 to 1. 

Here at Bristol International Airport one in four passengers are on domestic flights within the UK – primarily to Scotland and Northern Ireland for which rail is not a realistic alternative for most people.  We have recorded that 80% of passengers are travelling for what are termed “leisure reasons”, but this includes travel within the UK; visiting friends and relatives (which accounted for 16% of all UK residents visits abroad in 2005, and 29% of overseas residents visits to the UK); visits by overseas residents; and miscellaneous trips such as school trips, sports club tours etc that do not fall into the holiday or visiting friends or relatives category.  The reality is that probably less than 60% of passengers are using the airport for a foreign ‘holiday’.  Potential new destinations serve both the leisure and business market.  In fact it is difficult to differentiate between the two – Paris is an important business centre in Europe and a popular city break destination. 

The Travel Trends report shows that 74% of overseas residents visits to the UK in 2005 were made using air travel.  It is obvious that air travel is vital to the UK inbound tourism market.  We estimate that there will be over 1 million extra overseas visitors using Bristol International by 2015.

Q

Is the growth of flights from Bristol International Airport costing the region £60m a year?

A

This figure appears to have been calculated by the Stop Bristol Airport Expansion group based on what appears to be an overly simplistic calculation without reference to basic economic principles.  In response to questions raised in the Master Plan consultation we commissioned leading economic consultants Roger Tym & Partners to carry out a detailed calculation of the net impact of services from Bristol International Airport on passenger expenditure in non-South West locations.  The results of this calculation are set out in the Master Plan which shows that this impact was £41m in 2004, possibly rising to £83m by 2030.  However this ‘loss’ should also be seen as part of the anticipated worldwide growth in travel and tourism and it is expected that visitor expenditure in the South West will continue to grow irrespective of the changes at Bristol International Airport.  Of course there is no guarantee that if people to chose not to holiday abroad, that the money they would have spent abroad would transfer to the local economy. Replacing overseas visitors who go to city destinations, which are well-equipped to handle the impacts of tourism, with domestic tourists who go to rural destinations, which are much more sensitive to visitors, will have a detrimental impact on the environment. Furthermore, increases in the cost of flying and any subsequent boost to domestic tourism will lead to a significant increase in emissions from private motor cars and congestion on UK roads.

Q

Is it true that the UK generates more flights than any other European country and a fifth of all air passengers worldwide arrive or leave from UK airports?

A

In 2005 228m passengers passed through UK airports.  This is indeed more than any other European country.  However as an island nation that is not entirely surprising.  The rail and road alternatives to air are not realistic options for most people for international travel.  The total number of air passengers worldwide in 2005 was 4190 million (source ACI Worldwide Airport Traffic Report), so the UK accounted for about a twentieth of all the world’s passengers, not a fifth.

Q

Does the present capacity of Bristol International Airport already allow for all flying for holiday and educational purposes?

A

No it does not.  Up to 70% of air passengers from the South West region use airports outside the region for their flights, travelling mainly by road to an airport in the South East or the Midlands.

Q

Please explain the increase in frequency of flights.  It has been reported that there will be a flight every three and a half minutes overhead.

A

In the Master Plan (para 5.13) we stated that the increase in air traffic equates to an average of between five and six additional movements per hour over the main operating hours of the airport (06:00 to 23:00) at 9mppa, compared to summer 2004.

A typical summer day in 2006 would have seen an average of around 11.5 movements per hour scheduled in this period.  Some hours would have experienced more, some less.  One hour had just three movements scheduled.  Our estimate is that this would increase to an average of around 15.5 movements an hour at 9 mppa i.e. four movements an hour more than in 2006.  Again some hours would experience fewer movements and some hours more in accordance with the peaks and troughs of the daily traffic pattern. 

It is important to note that some of the growth anticipated in the Master Plan ‘five or six movements’ has already occurred.  On average these additional movements would be evenly split between departures and arrivals. In other words, “six movements” is three aircraft landing, and three taking off.

Aircraft generally land and take off pointing in the same direction, with the runway direction chosen according to the wind direction – aircraft take off and land into the wind.  So, if the wind direction is from the west, communities to the east of the airport would see the arriving aircraft overhead and communities to the west would see the departing aircraft.  Someone living directly under the flight path would typically see half the additional movements overhead – i.e. an average of 2 flights per hour more than summer 2006.  The impact will diminish rapidly with distance from the airport – for example, communities to the south of the airport would normally only see those aircraft that are approaching the airport from destinations to the south of Bristol.

Q

There are conflicting claims on aircraft noise.  Will aircraft get quieter in the future?

A

Opponents of airport expansion have suggested that aircraft will not get quieter in the future because technological advances take a long time to come to the market.  On the other hand these same opponents have suggested that the night quota system will allow more night flights as aircraft get quieter.  These two claims are contradictory.  (And we’ve made clear that we want no change to the current night noise restrictions, and do not expect any increase in night flights,)

We are already experiencing the results of the ongoing modernisation of airline’s aircraft fleets in terms of a reduction in noise.  easyJet will soon complete the upgrade of their fleet to the latest Airbus A319’s and other airlines operating at Bristol are phasing out older Boeing 737’s in favour of the latest Boeing 737-700 and -800.  As part of flybe’s acquisition of BA Connect it has been announced that the BA Connect fleet of Embraer 145s will be phased out and replaced with Bombardier Q400 and Embraer 195s which will be quieter and more fuel efficient. 

In the longer term the aircraft manufacturers have committed to achieving a 50% reduction in perceived external noise by 2020 based on new aircraft of 2020 relative to equivalent new aircraft in 2000.  Improved operational procedures will also reduce noise and fuel burn.  Bristol International Airport is working with its airlines and air traffic control to achieve 95% of all arrivals using ‘best practice’ continuous descent approaches.  This involves aircraft descending in one continuous controlled ‘glide’ with much reduced engine use.  Using this approach aircraft will be higher on approach with a lower noise impact.

Q

Will there be increased light pollution?

A

Our proposals for a north side decked covered car park with a natural “green roof” will mean that light pollution in this area will almost be eliminated.  Lighting to car parks elsewhere will be designed to meet ‘dark skies’ guidance to reduce light pollution to a minimum.  A limited amount of additional apron lighting is required.

Q

Will the development have a negative effect on ecology?

A

The south side of the airport is already fully used for car parking and ancillary facilities.  A very small further expansion into open fields to the south of the airport is proposed.  These are of little ecological value –the area proposed comprises three small fields that were formally part of RAF Lulsgate and a field that was used to extract fill material for the runway extension in 1969.  Any adverse effect will be more than offset by our proposals to improve the biodiversity of the land to the south of Silver Zone Car Park and the green roof for the north side car park.  Our aim is to achieve an overall biodiversity enhancement.  The main aim of this will be to enhance the habitat of wildlife which uses the land surrounding the airport, many of which are legally protected.  If the development of the airport does not proceed this will not be possible.  Detailed surveys of the ecology have been undertaken to determine the best approach.

Q

Will the expanded car parks on the south side of the airport be visible from the Mendip Hill Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty?

A

It is not possible to see the existing Silver Zone Car Park from the Mendips and any extension to this car park will be similarly screened from view. 

Q

Will the airport expansion lead to the construction of new roads to the south and north of the airport?

A

The Master Plan to 2015 does not require a new road to be constructed between the airport and Bristol, or south to Weston-super-Mare.  The Greater Bristol Strategic Transport Study has identified the potential to link South Bristol to Weston-super-Mare by such a link and that there may be economic benefit to Bristol and Weston-super-Mare by so doing.  Such a road would also provide improved access to Bristol International Airport.  However a lot more work by the local authorities is required to determine whether this proposal can be formally adopted.  There are significant technical and environmental issues to be overcome before such a road is likely to be acceptable and it is important that this work proceeds as soon as possible to remove uncertainty and confusion.  Our detailed traffic studies, independently conducted, show conclusively that the development proposed in the Bristol International Airport Master Plan to deliver 9 mppa capacity does not require this link road; and that the airport development, in terms of road traffic or other impacts, will not have an adverse effect on the character of the Chew Valley, Wrington Vale and villages such as Cleeve and Congresbury.

Q

Is it true that many of the extra jobs created through airport expansion will be in low paid, menial jobs with anti-social shift hours?  These jobs will be at or near the minimum wage.

A

No evidence has been advanced to support this rather insulting claim and it is simply not true.  The airport provides employment to a highly skilled, highly motivated and well paid workforce, in a range of roles from air traffic controller, airline pilot down to shop assistants and cleaners.  Wage rates are well above the minimum wage and are generally higher than similar roles at other airports in the UK and in similar roles outside the airport.  Retention rates are very high.  Baggage handlers and check in staff are paid well above the minimum wage and there are no grounds for suggesting that these roles will not be required in the future.  Likewise shop assistants working at the airport enjoy pay rates that are both above the minimum wage and above those paid in the High Street.  We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that the limited use of employees originating from Central Europe is having any effect on local housing and services.

Q

Is aviation subsidised through tax breaks?

A

Frequent emotive claims are made that aviation enjoys a net tax subsidy through exemption from fuel tax and VAT.  These claims are made to shape public opinion when in fact, unlike road and rail transport, the industry receives virtually no payments from Government.  Not subjecting aircraft to a tax that applies to private motor vehicles is no more a subsidy than saying supermarkets receive a subsidy from Government (0% rated on food) that allows them to compete unfairly with restaurants which have to charge 17.5% VAT on food.

Taken nationally the comparison between modes of transport is broadly as follows:

Government expenditure:

• Air travel:  £70m on air traffic control and £61m funding for flights to remote Highland and Island locations in 2005;
• Rail:  £4.5 billion direct subsidies in 2005
• Bus:  £2.2 billion direct subsidies in 2005[1]

Contributions to the Exchequer:

• Air travel:  £870 million through Air Passenger Duty
• Rail:  £90 million per annum in gas oil duty
• Bus:  £577 million in fuel duty.

Therefore the aviation sector provides a net benefit of around £743m per annum to the Exchequer while the rail sector costs the public purse £4.5 billion and the bus sector costs £1.6 billion.  This puts aviation at a competitive disadvantage when compared with other forms of public transport which are heavily pump primed and make no net contribution to public finances.

Q

Is air travel the least fuel efficient form of travel?

A

Arguments are being advanced that air transport is a highly inefficient form of travel.  The reality is not so straightforward.  The low cost airlines such as Ryanair and easyJet operate fuel efficient aircraft with high seat occupancy.  On a fuel consumption per person per kilometre based on actual average occupancies the passenger aircraft has a better fuel efficiency than a car over the distance of a typical short haul flight. 

Claims are often made for the environmental credentials of rail travel.  However again when the impacts of diesel trains, such as those operating across the South West, are considered the situation is far from clear.  A study by the Commission for Integrated Transport[2] showed that for most environmental impacts air performs better than diesel powered rail (e.g. noise, land take, air quality).  We are not aware of any evidence to suggest that ferries perform better than air, and in the South West these operate primarily to serve the road transport market. 

Given that 82% of visitors to the South West travel by car[3] it is also by no means clear that there is any environmental benefit in holidaying in the UK by car compared with holidaying abroad via short-haul flights.  Whatever the actual case, it is certainly not as black and white as some like to suggest.

Claims regarding the merits of rail travel tend to overlook the practical issues connected with this form of travel for people resident in the South West.  Rail certainly provides the most logical form of public transport for journeys from, say, Bristol to London or Birmingham.  However for journeys of over 200 miles rail incurs a significant journey time penalty compared with air.  A flight from Bristol to Glasgow takes around 1 hour 15 minutes, sometimes rather less.  The same journey by train takes around 5 hours 45 minutes – four-and-a-half hours longer.

International travel from the South West by rail is only possible via London and Eurostar, involving a transfer by underground between Paddington and Waterloo stations.  With a total journey time of around 6 hours to Paris this is nearly five hours longer than the equivalent air journey from Bristol. 

It is clear that rail does not offer a realistic practical alternative for either of these journeys.

Q

Is it true that aviation has a much greater effect on global warming because of its effect on the upper atmosphere?

A

This is the least understood area of climate change and there is little scientific consensus on the upper atmosphere effects of aircraft emissions or how to measure these.

Q

Is aviation the biggest contributor to climate change?

A

No.  The UNFCCC, the world body that monitors climate change, estimates that aviation will account for 5% of world emissions by 2050.

Q

Is it true that aviation’s growth will cancel out all other savings in carbon use?

A

Estimates of this nature are based on a long term extrapolation of growth rates which are higher than Government and aviation industry expert forecasts.  The estimates take no account of the effect of market mechanisms which will limit aviation’s carbon emissions.  Draft legislation for airlines to be brought into the existing EU Carbon Trading Scheme is expected shortly. Predictions by the UK Energy Research Centre on UK aviation emissions in 2050, which featured in the media recently, would require every person in the UK to take more than six times the number of flights than at present. This seems somewhat unlikely.

Q

Will technology deliver significant improvements in aircraft fuel efficiency and environmental impact?

A

Yes.  In the short term the Airbus A350 and the Boeing 787 is likely to have at least a 30% lower fuel burn and 30% lower emissions per seat than a Boeing 767.  In the longer term there is a real prospect that, over the next 50 years, the environmental impact of aviation, per passenger-kilometre, could be cut by more than the projected increase in air traffic[4].

Q

Living next to Bristol International Airport at 9 million passengers per annum will be like living near Luton Airport.  What is it like living near Luton Airport?

A

The noise footprint of Luton Airport has reduced significantly since 1999.  The typical summer day 16 hour Leq contours are useful indicators of an airport’s noise impact.  In particular the 57dB LAeq contour is used to mark the onset of significant community annoyance with aircraft noise.  In 2005, when Luton Airport handled 9.1 million passengers, the area of the 57dB LAeq contour was 13.46km², only a little more than the area of the same contour at Bristol International Airport in 2004, which was 13.15km².  This seems to suggest that the noise impact of Luton Airport is broadly similar to the current noise impact at Bristol.  The comparison with Luton therefore provides reassurance that the growth of Bristol International Airport can be achieved without deterioration of the noise climate.  The number of dwellings affected by noise at Luton is somewhat higher than Bristol, presumably as a result of a higher overall population density.  We also note that Luton Airport is estimated to support a total of 14,400 jobs across the East of England region with many more jobs created as a result of the catalytic effect of the airport on the local economy.[5]

When comparing the two airports it is important to note that Bristol at 9 million passengers per annum, as proposed in the Master Plan, would operate from a significantly smaller site than Luton’s current 235ha. This is because Bristol would not require the aircraft maintenance facilities that are to be found at Luton.