New fleet to cut environmental impact, says Cityflyer

Green Wash true and true.

How can a BIGGER NOSIER jet plane be better for the community?

This is the real reason they want to change jets '56 per cent more efficient so it will
save us on fuel'

The commentators here are too pessimistic. I think you all should trust BA chief executive when he says it's a win-win situation for the airline, the airport and the passengers. The Embraer E-Jets are really a state-of-art jet, with fantastic performance, surprising fuel efficiency, far less noisy than concurrent planes and environmental friendly. Check it yourself: http://www.embraercommercialjets.com.br/english/content/home/

Not the answer but a step in the right direction.

Hi Sincere

You say it's quite? Please listen to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54YS7enZIKk

Please be realistic.

BG the video you post is a bit miss leading. Most of the background noise is the APU from the aircraft on the stand a few meters in front. The noise signature of the EMB is very small and after passing by the noise is only of wind blowing across the microphone as the filmer turns around. The EMB is a fantastic next step that will give a lot of benefits to the airport and the local area.
I am a local resident that lives very close on the approach to LCY. During the one week trial the EMB was significantly quieter than existing aircraft using LCY.

LCY Flyer.
I have to disagree. I am a local resident from Thamesmead. The day of the test I was home and used my noise reader. The reading hit 86db from my balcony. Noise readings from LCY when they take them(which is rare) do not take into accound buildings and reflective sounds. They do not want to see them as they are too negative. The E-190 may be cheaper to run and maybe throws out a tiny bit less C02 and other toxins but it's a loud jet when taking off over reidential homes and gardens that are so close to the runway and are in the take off and landing flight path.
I'm glad the planes don't affect your life. But I and the residents around me are living in a growing hell. All down to the greed of a company that has lied to the community for years, will not discuss the negative affects it has and will be bringing to the community and only spins positive tripe and Green Wash.

The PR from LCY is some of the worst and I'm guessing the most expensive in London if not the UK.

Lastly don't say we should have not moved near to an airport. We were told nothing about expansion and BIGGER Jets coming near are homes. The Props were not a Big issue. They do not cause the same noise pollution that a jet a Big Jet does when taking off.

Get LCY to be truthful to the communities and maybe the community would have more respect for them when trying to communicate with them

So in summary… boo hoo, poor ickle me

Hi Anon
Actually boo hoo, poor little everybody. 1,000's of residents, tenants & families. I'm not surprised of such a statement from a small minded blinkered individual who seems to have no consideration for the communities health and well being. Once they get their flight or make money from negatively affecting the communities around LCY.
It really is sad that this is the only response certain individuals can come back with.

Just to add to my comment.

How would people like to have a business, any business moved next door to your home or community and over a period of time say that they will not do something then start to do it. E.g. pumping sewerage past your front door? The local council say it's great as it's creating jobs making sure the sewerage is pumped past your home to the river. Because of this your home becomes a stinking pool and you can't sell it and it's worth less than you pay back for the mortgage. The business say it's not them and the sewerage is good for the environment. What would you do? Say oh well there's nothing I can do, my families health is getting worse, friends & family don't visit any more because of the stench let's just live with it. Or do you say NO! this is not right and you'll fight for your family and the community your living in, this is not what you moved into.

I know what I'd do

As I guessd BG, you're all about the hate. If they turned LCY into a farm you'd be launching fighttheflies and attacking the increase in hayfever..

The state of denial of the Aviation Industry is akin to that of the Tobacco Industry forty years. It is not a question of .."boo hoo poor ickle me". It is a question of an industry that is massively subsidized to the tune of £50,000 per job; it is polluting, noisy and run by a few at the expense of the many; it is ruining our country which is the most overflown in the world. It is not a question of being anti-aviation, it is a question of balance. Those of us who live under flight paths, and in the East End of London there are 13, know just how much it affects our lives and those of our neighbours. Our lives are made miserable. They say the new planes are less noisy..for the passengers maybe but not for those on the outside. Try for some intelligent comments and try and see the other side, I do.

BG just to clarify a few point from your response. The EMB is not a bigger aircraft. In fact it will reduce the number of seats from the RJ100. In doing this it will enable the flights to operate with higher performance, reducing noise and do it with a lower environmental impact. You talk about the "day of the test". I think this answers the noise issue as it was there flying for 7 days and if you only noticed it once it must be an improvement. Airplane do generate noise and environmental impact. The point i`m making is this is a massive improvement and a huge investment to try and minimize the impact. The cost effective solution was to get a whole load of old noisy and cheaply available 146`s to soldier on for many more years but instead an effort has been made to improve matters and address concerns.

HI LCY Flyer
Fair Point, I'll give you the point that the 146's are some of the worst planes created by mans hands. In response to the 7 day trial. I was at home only once during that week when they were landing and taking off. I then had the chance to collect a noise reading from my reader. My neighbors did comment about the new BIG jet they saw taking off from LCY but I'd rather just stick to what I've seen, it's only fair as I'm commenting.
I'm glad to see you have some info regarding the E-190. The only problem is that LCY have only released some of the data, not all. I've asked for the full reports on the test but with no success.
The real test will be when it starts on a daily bases. I'm skeptical to be honest, as LCY and the aviation lobby have being messing with the truth for so long it's hard to know whats real and whats not.

To finish the real problem is that London City Airport is built in the most inappropriate place in the UK, slap bang in what is technically a housing estate. There are 1,000's of homes that are being affected by the airport. The airport wants to grow, that can't be right in such a densely populated area. Real people live around here from all backgrounds. LCY will do what they want and will not let a thing like a community stand in it's way.
I'm going to make sure people know all facts about LCY even if they don't like it.

Hope the community has a great week?

G, I cannot comment on LCY airport and the way they deal with the local community. I can comment on the way the aircraft are operated in and out. There have been a few recent changes. These include a new set of arrival and departure routing. A new noise monitoring system that now fines airlines for failing to follow correct routes or exceeding noise levels. A change in policy to the size of aircraft and trying to maximize each slot with more passengers. Very strict rules on aircraft arriving late with the need to divert if they won`t make it within the operating times. The airport has been here a while now and has played its part or regenerating the docklands area. It brings development and business in and is a large employer of local people. The individual airlines all have to do there bit to be good neighbors and BA has made a real effort to lead the way in making change in terms of noise, environmental impact as well as bringing business in to the area.
I guess we won`t see you at the fun day this weekend, come on its free! and there is lots going on!

Sorry got my dates mixed up, fun day is on the 4th JULY 2009

I live locally, very close to the flight path, and I am a regular user of City Airport. Anything that reduces the environment and noise impact is good news.

I do not understand all this opposition to City Airport from groups like Fight the Flights. The airport contributes a huge amount to the local economy and is vital to the businesses and banks Canary Wharf and the City.

The problem is not that the airport is in the middle of a housing estate. These people have chosen to live on a housing estate built under existing flight paths and then start moaning and wrongly blaming the airport for house price drops. I think we all know what the "growing hell" in West Thamesmead is all about from programs like Panaorama and it is definitely not the airport.It is so wrong to try and blame City Airport for their situation of negative equity.

We live close to the City airport and have a young baby so, obviously, the noise issue has become a nightmare for us. However, we have to say that we are heartened by some of the comments by pro-aviation commenters like LCYflyer who seem genuinely concerned about being a better neighbour. Does anyone know if there is a resident’s organisation or forum where people like us can meet people like them to engage in a progressive, grown-up discussion about this. I looked at the Fight the Flights website and was horrified by its rage-filled toxicity and its stance that anyone who isn’t completely on their side is a blinkered nutjob receiving brown envelopes full of cash from LCY. Take for example the UEL, which we know very well through friends and know to be full of public-spirited people. Fight the Flights paints these good friends as scuzzy low-lifes prepared to sacrifice academic independence for bribes. UEL would be a good organisation to have involved in a progressive debate but we conclude they won’t be sitting down with FTF anytime soon. We could never ally ourselves with irrational conspiracy theorists like FTF and, presuming that is the general view, we assume by now it has become generally discredited and disregarded (sadly). In light of that is there a more sensible lobby group, can anyone tell us? We’d think about setting one up ourselves but a certain three-month-old girl might have something to say about that :) Thanks for your time.

With regard to RD's comments vis-a-vis people choosing to live under the flight paths, I would like to say that many people were living in the area long before the airport was built. City Airport promised it would never have jets; they broke that promise and they have had to develop new routes because of them. I live under the takeoff path and lived peacefully with the airport until about two years ago when they expanded the number of flights and increased the size of jets. Also they are trying to increase their leisure side as this is more profitable. I should like to remind you that there is a huge difference between 74,000 flights a year in 2007 and the proposed 180,000 flights a year. We will be listening to planes every 30 seconds. As to the comments from the Browns, I think that it is very easy to be judgmental about groups who are trying to get their voices heard. Why not leave a comment on Fight the Flights website, it will be printed as, contrary to your comment that they are "irrational conspiracy theorists", I know that they welcome input from all the community. Perhaps if you were better informed about what is really going on you would understand why people who start dealing with the airport get so frustrated. I would be happy to send you links to the documents. Also contrary to your other statement regarding UEL they are going to be listening to quite a lot of us as we discuss the impact of the airport. Please do not make quick judgements about which you do not appear to know very much. Your comment sounds as vitriolic as you say Fight the Flights is. I live in Tower Hamlets and would be happy to get in touch with you and form a residents group. There is also the LCACC - a committee including residents at the airport.
Unfortunately as City Airport only considers noise happens in Newham and not Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Redbridge, Kent and all the other areas it is rather hard to get on it. We need to widen the debate and I would welcome your input.

Our apologies to JBP and Fight the Flights. We perhaps overstated the case to make a point and we have no doubt they are well meaning people. However, we also know that, if the ultimate point is to find a way forward, we must engage with groups like Newham, UEL, LCY, the local media etc not just attack, attack, attack. It may be frustrating – but look at Northern Ireland. Engaging with terrorists to find the right result, eg democracy. With FTF, their stated aim is “Fighting Against The Lies, Fighting For the Truth”, yet we spotted at least two things we knew to be untrue authored by the FTF blogsite and website within a few minutes scanning the site – all to create a climate of confrontation and fear. If other people see that then the “facts” contained on the site won’t be believable. It’s just self-defeating. We guess what we’re saying is – you’re either an attack group that wants to confront the system with personal attacks, rival propaganda and another brand of spin – and that’s fine – or you’re a progressive group wanting to engage with the system to achieve the same aim, only quietly and methodically. All we’re saying is, we and a lot of people we’ve met, are in the latter group not the former. Good luck whoever you are. (That's enough from us, we think!)

It is very positive that the local group Fight the Flights is stimulating some debate - that has been sadly lacking in the community.

I find it strange however, that individuals feel that a residents group which publishes evidence from Freedom of Information requests, and uncovers the negative activities at the airport are called 'conspiracy theorists'. There's something very conflicting in the comments from The Browns.

I'm sure the group FTF would be more than happy to provide them with the links and evidence as the previous postee said, and answer their questions. Do facts and evidence make a group conspiracy theorists? I'd suggest only if that is how you individually wish to paint them.

If you wish to take the ostrich approach - that is well within your choice, but with a 3 month old, and the health evidence in the area, I personally would not.

Good luck with your talk with the airport - we'll all be waiting to hear of the success and how we will all benefit from it!

I have to ask the question. If Fight The Flights have been putting incorrect, false Blogs on their site. Why have they not been taken to task or taken to court? Or even been contacted by anyone directly from LCY or even Newham to correct them if that is the case..
Fight The Flights have gone down the correct roads to get both sides of the story. I.e. Contacted the airport, with no real contact back, they don't want to believe that the is an anti campaign against their expansion. Dealt with LB Newham who never really answer the question asked and keep coming back with (there will be more jobs) even though that has nothing to do with the questions on health. Met with GLA members regarding LCY, are still dealing with local councilors in regards to getting more facts that seem to be so hard to get.
I've been on the freedom of information site to see the information for myself that Fight The Flights have being using and it all seems above board to me.
If the blogs about the fumes from the jets that are having a bad affect on some of their employees are you stating that the union involved are conspiracy theorists?

We all just want the truth, thats all. Nothing more nothing less.

I agree with BG. Enough of the bourgeious Brown bull. It's called FIGHT the Flights. Fight by any means necessary. It's not called TAKE TEA AND BISCUITS WITH THE FLIGHTS. Your baby is suffering NOW. Do something.

BG, in answer to your point. People can't be bothered to rush to court or take you to task.Takes time and money. FTF is ignorable. That's its problem. Hysteria = no credibility.

Adviser, this is for you.I think that you will find that Fight the Flights has a great deal of credibility. Of course their opinions are their own but so are yours. If you trawl through all the links that are given to you on the site, you will find plenty of information and can make up your own mind. The Browns, thank you for your apology and the offer still stands. If you want more information.. ask. I am curious about one thing ..which were the two items of information that you know to be untrue? Likewise, I wish you good luck in your discussions with the airport.

Hey, JDP, I’m on your side. I work as an advisor on the campaign against Heathrow (so if you lot could take an international airport, that’d be great for us!) What I’m saying is BG’s comments are full of anger and frustration – which is essential as a starting point. But it won’t take you where you want to go. Only smart will take you there. And if I’m being cheeky I’d say, JDP, you speak for Fight The Flights cos it sounds like you’re the cool, logical, calm voice it needs.

Hey Advisor, who do you work with on the case against Heathrow expansion? I believe that Fight the Flights works closely with the campaigners against the expansion of Heathrow too!

I do believe they were lobbying a minister at parliament in a private meeting just a few weeks ago...clearly they have rather more credibility than you wish to admit.

Hi Adviser

Thanks for the reply. You say Fight The Flights is ignorable? Why then have they been getting over 1,000 hits on their Blogsite on a daily bases? Why have they been invited to meetings with GLA members, shadow ministers and councilors from boroughs negatively affected by London City Airport? Why are the getting emails on a daily bases from concerned residents from boroughs surrounding LCY asking for advice and information?
Do you call this being ignored? Fight The Flights has facts and figures that need to be brought out to the public, facts that the aviation industry and LCY do not want released as it may damage their image. Fight The Flights is not worried about image, they are worried for the health and well being of the communities surrounding a growing airport
Lastly you don't seem to be ignoring Fight The Flights, maybe you will in the future as the truth hurts too much.

I can see where BG is coming from. LCY buy PR to make them look good as not to be seen as a bad neighbor.
Fight The Flights does not seem to have the same man power or funds to buy the PR. Looks can be deceiving so a campaign group like Fight The Flights don't seem to be worried about it. Good on them willing to take all the hit's and negativity thrown at them from people who don't like what they say. I wish there were more people willing to do the same on other aspects in the community.
Thanks for listening

In the interest of a balanced argument i`d like to put some facts forward. The main argument against LCY is noise. This can only be solved by airlines upgrading aircraft and operating them in a way to be a good neighbor. That is what this article is about. It may be classed as green wash and LCY PR but its trying to put the facts forward that something is being done about it. In terms of environmental impact of aircraft, here are a few facts,

Domestic flights account for less than 1% of uk CO2 emissions from source.

Transport as a whole accounts for 23% of global greenhouse emissions which is the same as agriculture.

If we grounded every flight in the uk it would cut global man-made CO2 by 0.1%

so to compare 31.1% of emissions in the uk comes from power stations and heat production, 22% from domestic uses 21.6% from road transport and all uk and international aviation accounts for only 6% of uk Co2 emissions. This number is falling as company's like BA are investing in new aircraft to be greener. BA also offer the chance to offset your CO2 for a small price when booking your ticket.

Aviation contributes £11 billion to the uk economy (that's as much as the utillites industry.)
Aviation supports almost 700,000 jobs.

Lcy is a small part of this and the noise issue is ongoing but steps are being taken. The airport has stringent noise regulations for operators and monitors every single flight. Airlines are fined for failing to be a good neibour. Check out the LCACC website and see for yourself. Steps are being taken on the environmental issues. How do you expect action by banging your fists on the table and demanding everything to stop? would you preffer, a wasteland since the docks closed in the 1980`s? would you like to have no DLR? or not have the jubilee line extension on the route it took?

do you know how much the airport dose with the local community? well this is the latest summery.

http://www.lcacc.org/community/latestcomrep.pdf

I do not work for LCY airport. I do think its a good neighbor and works hard to improve things every year. The airlines that operate from LCY also work hard to make it a success and to minimize there impact on the local area.

Hi LCY Flyer

Respectfully please read this 2 blogs and the links attached.

http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/2009/06/clearing-air-myth-and-reality-of.html

http://londoncityairportfighttheflights.blogspot.com/2009/06/nitrogen-dioxide-dangerously-high-at.html

Regards
BG

Hi again LCY Flyer

As I commented on in a previous post, I really really hope LCY do what they say and that the LCACC really do ask the important questions and that the new jets really will reduce the noise and some of the pollution around LCY.

And as stated before history has shown us that this is not the case, I myself with my neighbors are worried that it's just hot air. I don't want it to be, I've been getting information from all over the world regarding the true effects of airports like LCY have had in their environment and it's not been good. I fly when needed, I'm not a hater of aviation.
The tobacco industry claimed for years that it did not cause the ill health of millions of it's users, I don't want to look back in 20 years and say the same for aviation expansion. You may say that I'm being ridiculous, but people said the same to people about smoking for years before the real facts were brought out.

Claiming that the DLR is only there because of LCY is pushing it though. It's been reported that TFL were not happy with the small amount they gave towards it, as they were going to benefit from it. But if that's what you believe I'll leave it at that.

We'll just at this time have to agree to disagree.
Keep getting your info out and we'll keep sourcing our info. Only the future will see who was truly right. I'm hoping it's you for all our sakes, BUT!

It seems to me that none of us want the Aviation Industry in general, and LCY in particular, to disappear. However this obsession with expansion is just too much. Heathrow, Stanstead, Gatwick, Luton, Birmingham, Bournemouth, City Airport...just add them all up. It will mean that the South-East of England is one big runway. Aviation wants to expand with no controls whatsoever in the name of economics. LCY Flyer...I do not know where you have got your statistics from but they seem rather suspect to me. Can you give me the provenance? Also I am curious..do you live under a flight path or would you buy a house or go on holiday to a resort under a flight path? It isn't just about the Brits; Canada, the US, France, Holland, Germany, Australia to name but a few all have groups that are objecting to expansion. We haven't even touched on third world countries who are much less able to complain. At some point we have to say enough is enough. If the planes sounded like hot air balloons or zeppelins then it would not matter at all. I don't know if you have been watching Wimbledon but noisy planes are flying over every minute. If I am in my home and the planes fly over the top of it I cannot hear myself speak. If you are in any of the parks in the south of Tower Hamlets you hear jets all day long. Unfortunately the jets are not vertical take off aircraft so many many other boroughs are affected other than Newham. LCY has not taken the issue of noise seriously because they do not even consider any other borough than Newham.

Hi JBP, more than happy to give provenace to my references,

Domestic flights account for less than 1% of uk CO2 emissions from source. (DEFRA Digest of Environmental Statistics October 2006)

Transport as a whole accounts for 23% of global greenhouse emissions which is the same as agriculture. (Source: Stern report Annex 7 (d))

If we grounded every flight in the uk it would cut global man-made CO2 by 0.1%
(Source : Monbiot,George,Heat:How to Stop the Planet Burning;Penguin Allen Lane 2006)

so to compare 31.1% of emissions in the uk comes from power stations and heat production, 22% from domestic uses 21.6% from road transport and all uk and international aviation accounts for only 6% of uk Co2 emissions.(Source AEA/DEFRA 2006)

Aviation contributes £11 billion to the uk economy (that's as much as the utillites industry.)
Aviation supports almost 700,000 jobs.
(Source Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF))

I live by the Victoria docks so i am 1.2 miles from RWY 10 at Lcy. I live in a property built in 2005 that meets the noise level insulation standards as offered by LCY. The only aircraft noise that effects me are the LCY takeoffs and landings. I know what i`m getting and when. I know when it will stop and start. Being further out i would be affected by overfly traffic that is nothing to do with LCY. Traffic going to LGW, LHR, BIG and all the helicopters and transit traffic. The noise footprint of the aircraft going into LCY is very small. It lasts for a small duration. I have more problems with, noisy neighbors at unsociable times, motorbikes and scooters and police and ambulance sirens in the early hours. The only one i can easy complain about is the aircraft noise as this is the only one that has a system in place and its the only one that dose not effect me!

Aircraft noise has been and continues to be a very emotive issue, and it’s at the root of most public concern over the growth of air transport. It is much more on the radar of local communities than climate change.

Noise from air transport emanates mainly from aircraft on approach, descent and terminal manoeuvres, and within the “airport complex”, from maintenance, motor support vehicles and from APUs. Further noise disturbance comes from related activity such as traffic and construction. Airports, because they are powerhouses of economic activity, become hubs which attract all manner of operations.The fact that airports are built close to major
populations or generate major population growth adds to this.12 Yet it’s fair to say that airports expand and so does air traffic however much is being done to rectify the problem.

The real facts about aircraft noise pollution are interesting.According to ICAO, using its own model,approximately 30 million people are exposed to noise based on a day nightsound level of DNL55 .Of that total around 10% were exposed to levels of noise nuisance of 65 DNL.Yet put in perspective, only 7% of individuals affected by transport noise live near
airports.The majority by far, around four fifths, live near road noise and about 13% near rail noise.Aviation noise is probably more present because it is more identifiable. Paradoxically
it is because there is also a well documented, regulated and enforced system for noise complaints around aviation in contrast to other mobile sources of noise nuisance.
(reference :- “Day/Night Level”This is equivalent to Leq but weights the night noise with a 10db noise penalty to account for the enhanced noise nuisance of night flights)
(reference :- Contrast to the lack of noise enforcement of major mobile urban noise sources such as police sirens, motorcycles (which have a very loud noise footprint) and motor scooters operating without silencers which can be louder than any turbofan jet. It becomes clear that aviation attracts complaints because it has system
of redress)
(reference data collected International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Recommended Method for Computing Noise Contour around Airports (Circ 205))

BG in reference to your blogs, In reference the CSP study the results are a bit misleading on face value. The study it self gives the readings as roadside readings at the airport and includes palces like Sandown on the isle of white and Shoreham Airport. Both of these are non airline travel places and the commercial traffic is more flight training and light aircraft charter. The results are more to do with the local transport infrastructure than the aircraft. This is a problem at airports and LCY is leading the way with fantastic puplic transport links. It also dose not state locations of the readings (Ref note 2) so one could assume that if they were on the road leading up to the airport it would also take into account industrial traffic to the local area. I`m sure the reading would be similar at Canning town with a major road and a bus depot!

In reference to the report clearing-air-myth-and-reality-of-Aviation-and-climate-change.

you quote on your site(You may wish to read the excellent report by the European Federation for Transport and environment...point 3 blows away Peter Simpson's, of British Airways Cityflier, unsubstantiated claims about the 'better for the community' Embraers he is introducing to London City Airport

Point 3 looks at the comparison of 1950`s piston aircraft and modern long haul aircraft, the most modern aircraft it compares was the A330 introduced in the 1987. The graph in annex 2 falls short of the 70% claim. in fact on the comparison of Megajoules per available seat kilometer it reaches 55% between 1950 and 1987. It bases this information on a non stop flight that the early aircraft were unable to do and so would of had a higher figure. This shows a strong and massive improvement in fuel efficacy in fact the current thinking for the last 30 years is that fuel efficacy per passenger kilometer has improved by over 50%!! this is a massive amount and a better mesure than Megajoules per available seat kilometer as you can compare it directly to the car and train! . Mr Simpsons claim of a 56% improvement over the existing aircraft the RJ100 and RJ85 so on a local LCY level this is great news!.

The other issue being addressed is the cost of flying and the economics,It is often asserted that aviation grows in an unconstrained basis because it is subsidized. It is also alleged that the true costs to passengers are not apparent. According to official UK Government figures, total central and local government public expenditure on transport over the last four years was £36 billion, nearly all of which was spent on roads, rail, bus and
tube.Taking account of the tiny fraction spent on air transport, mainly subsidies for socially necessary links to distant islands,aviation still makes a substantial net positive contribution to the Treasury.
(source UK Department for Transport:UK Transport Statistics 2006)

The point of this article was to point out that steps are being taken by BA and LCY to improve noise pollution CO2 and nitrogen dioxide emissions. This is good news for everyone. What i`m trying to say is airplanes are a easy target. They make the news for everything but they are the most controlled transport in the world. They are part of the Kyoto treaty and under EU control are now actively carbon trading and running carbon offset schemes. Every part of the operation is monitored and there is a vast amount of information available. can you say that about the car or the train?

HI LCY Flyer
Great answers, problem is there is a lot of information out there for and against. It's down to what you want to believe and which side your on. You say aviation is being picked on? If so there has to be a reason.
The noise that comes from London City Airport in my area and in surrounding areas that we get reports from is terrible and that's what people mainly complain about. That's the human aspect, not all the info that's given out by different parties. If noise from aircraft is affecting you more than other ambient/ local noise what are we to do about it? Just keep on putting out stats that say your wrong?
If there is an increase of
1.Cancer
2.Chronic obstructive pulmonary
3.Stroke
4.Pneumonia
5.COPD
6.Asthma
around LCY and other airports, do we just bring more stats to say it could be from roads, rail? Reports are easy to do, life is not so easy to structure. These issues are there, like it or not. Reports can be written and stats thrown out all we like. There's an issue and it's a common issue around airports (especially expanding, jet orientated airports).

Here's some facts I could state: A single runway equipped airport with light to medium traffic contaminates an area about 6 miles around the field and 20 miles downwind”.

As you know we could be here all day going back and forth.

As I stated in a previous comment "We'll just at this time have to agree to disagree.
Keep getting your info out and we'll keep sourcing our info. Only the future will see who was truly right. I'm hoping it's you for all our sakes"

Regards
BG

Hello LCA Flyer
You clearly went to some trouble with your reply, thank you, however there are some points you made that require clarification.

Aviation supports almost 700,000 jobs.
(Source Oxford Economic Forecasting (OEF)

First of all I suspect that you might be referring to the 200,000 direct and 500,000 in the supply chain that the chancellor referred to as being based on the OEF statistics. In fact the OEF report showed that the number of jobs in the supply chain, indirect, was in fact 176,000. This was pointed out to him and he blamed the Department of Transport who provided him with the figures

The DOT trots out statistics as if they are indisputable truths which they are not. Employment is in terms of different categories...direct on and off airport, indirect, induced, travel agents and catalytic. I will just mention an example of induced. When a pilot buys a loaf of bread in his local shop it is likely that the baker will local, however when he buys a banana from Jamaica he will be providing induced aviation employment in the West Indies. That is included in statistics.

With regard to emissions. In 2005 UK aviation produced 37.9 million tons of CO2 which is forecast to rise to 59.9 million in 2030. If I take as a ball park figure 40,000,000 tons of C02 and 400,000 jobs (which I doubt by the way) then that means each job in aviation is 10 times more damaging to the climate than the average job in the rest of industry.

You may or may not be aware that the Aviation Industry pays no tax on fuel or VAT unlike every other industry in Britain. Aviation’s expansion is fuelled by its exemption from taxes. Aviation in the UK alone is getting a £9 billion a year tax-break. These tax breaks are a large contributor to the predictions of falling costs of flying; these falling costs are what drive the huge demand increases. This works out as an incredible subsidy for each job. Therefore it is clear that Aviation does not make a substantial net positive contribution to the Treasury.

I agree with BG that statistics can be read virtually anyway we want and I also think that you and I will have to agree to disagree.

I would just like to say that I am fully aware of aircraft noise away from the airport as I live under the flight path. It is intrusive, very loud and much worse than traffic..I also live by the side of the Blackwall Tunnel Approach.

None of us are saying that there shouldn't be any planes..it is just this uncontrolled expansion at all the airports including LCA that a lot of us object to.

The sensationalist nonsense by groups like Flight the Flights has got to stop. The claim made by JBP above that there is "uncontrolled expansion" at London City Airport is rubbish. LCA has submitted an application to increase the number of flights to 120,000 per year which will allow them to make optimal use of their infrastructure. There is nothing "uncontrolled" about it. It is an application submitted to the relevant planning authorities. Thousands of businesses and travellers are looking forwards to seeing it implemented.

The hateful comments spread by Fight the Flights seem to want to suggest that LCA is a maverick organization, with local politicians and media in its pockets. The comments by the Browns above hits the nail on the head. At the outset, FTF do seem to have identified some important issues relating to LCYs reporting, which I am certain that LCY as a responsible business will seek to correct in the future. However, FTF seems to spiral out of control, launching its "rage-filled toxicity", speculation, and conspiracy theories at LCA and all who fly or park there.

It is time for a mature and constructive debate and dicsussion with residents, local councils, businesses, travellers and LCA, not ugly mud slinging.

Hi Anon

Why don't you start the process of a mature, constructive debate and discussion with the council, businesses and LCY?
Please feedback the outcome.
I'm a resident who has tried this (one of many I've been told) with no success as none of the above want to deal in negatives.
Most of the info I've received is about Jobs, infrastructure and dubious benefits. None of my questions or worries were answered.

I hope you have more luck.

Anon
In actual fight LCA are seeking an increase in ATMs which are Air Transport Movements. Small jets are .3 or an ATM or less, I think I am correct here, and larger jets are more than 1. I think that you will find that the actual flights are rather more than 120,000. In addition even without official Planning Permission, although I believe they were granted some kind of interim order in August 2007, the airport has already increased its movements to around 95,000. I consider this practice "uncontrolled". In my opinion it is the equivalent of my buying a piece of land, building what I want on it which meets neither building nor fire regulations and then applying for retrospective planning permission. Also I rather think that the increase in ATMs dovetails in with the change of ownership of the airport. Rather than "the optimal use of their infrastructure" I believe that the expansion is fueled by the amount of money paid by the current owners Swissair and GE. Also I do recall seeing a video showing how LCA plans to expand in the future, by filling in current water ways. Would you claim then that LCA needs to expand further in order to optimally use their new infrastructure?
Also, I have to say that, I find the tone of your comment less than mature and constructive.
Kind Regards

It is quite clear from the above comments that airport staff are masquerading, pretending there are residents that actually support airport expansion. . .

Browns wrote - "We live close to the City airport and have a young baby so...." - What kind of mother would want her child to go to a school where lessons are interupted by flights every 3 minutes? . . .

That is 120,000 flights which is the same as 120,000 noise disturbances!! . . .

As for the question of Newham Council being corrupt or not. Perhaps people can explain to me - why my Newham Council never bothered to write to me or my neighbours that London City Airport had put a planning Application to expand flights to 120,000. Did Newham Council act in a democratic way?

Or perhaps why my local paper the Newham Recorder made very little mention the residents plight surrounding the airport?. . .

The airport won the planning application but it has lost the broken every promise to residents about being mindful about noise. . .

The airport was never to grow this big, but the airport now blames for residents for living close to the airport. Which came first the residents or the airport? . . .

As for local Councillors - just look at the register of interests!. You have to ask why not a SINGLE LABOUR COUNCILLOR bothered to put objections to airport expansion on behalf of residents?.

When I contacted Fight the Flight campaign. I just did not believe when they said that the airport had not been carrying out Noise Monitoring for the last 8 years and was breaking the law. I wrote to Newham Council and they confirm confirmed this.

So instead of rejecting further expansion at the airport, Newham Council have rewarded the airport with more expansion.

I mean if I ran a off license that sold cigarettes to under 16, I would expect to get prosectuted. So why is the airport above the law, when it break noise monitoring?

As for jobs the airport itself employs about 406 or so people amd only a 100 are Newham. Yet the airport claim they provide jobs. My local Tesco branch employs more people than the airport and causes a lot less nuisance to me.

According to Fight the Flight web site Mary Honeyball MEP received parking space from the aiport. I have written to Mary Honeyball MEP for confirmation and have heard nothing. So why is the airport offering politicians freebies?

I chair the campaign against Heathrow Airport. We work very closely with Fight the Flights. The two campaigns have a lot in common. One, the problem for residents is the huge increase in the proposed number of flights - that will offset any benefits which may result from the introduction of quieter plans. 2. The economic claims for expansion of both airports are questionable. At Heathrow, we commissioned a major study from an independent firm of economic consultants, CE Delft, to assess the claims of the Government and the BAA that the expansion of Heathrow was essential to the continued health of the UK economy. The consultants found it was not, a fact, we believe, that has influenced the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties, six trade unions and some leading business people to come out against the expansion of Heathrow. If a similar study was done at London City, I wonder how important they would find the airport to be to the local economy. Clearly it has played a role but the fact remains that Newham was one of the poorest boroughs in the UK before the airport was built and, many years later, still languishes towards the bottom of the national league. The key question is whether investment in other industries would bring more jobs and prosperity to the borough than the continued expansion of the airport. To my knowledge, such a detailed study has never been done. The third similarity between the two campaigns is the fact that, if a good, affordable high-speed rail srvice was in place, many pasengers would choose rail over short-haul flights. If Crossrail is also built, with fast links from Docklands to Heathrow, the rationale for City Airport virtually disappears. If Newham Council were in any way forward thinking, it would be planning for life after City Airport. Instead, its councillors cling blindly, desperately to an outdated project concvincing themselves they have the best interests of the borough at heart.

It really is laughable. I am not an employee of City Airport, just a local resident and user of LCA who does not oppose its expansion. I want the expansion to take place in a context in which LCA will operate within the constraints placed upon it and fulfills its obligations on measurement and reporting of pollution and noise. The conspiracy theory which Fight the Flights tries to stoke in that only LCA employees or their PR department do not oppose expansion can be laid to rest.

To John Stewart - Crossrail will not make the rationale for City Airport disappear. City Airport has a unique offering in terms of convenience and ease of use from check-in to flight.

I agree with the comment above about the two headed Fight the Flights beast. One appears reasonned and rational, and the other more public face both here and on their website much less so. The more public face of Fight the Flights is doing a disservice to the community they claim to serve. I expect their shouted claims to represent the "Truth" is accorded with as much respect and time as that given to creationists at a scientific congress. This is a shame as there is a constructive discussion and debate to be had.

Hi RD & Fight The Flights Of Fancy

Glad your at least putting some sort of names down.

I'm sorry to say I'm not afraid to give my initials, Anon 2 is just another disgruntles resident who wants to make their point. Not me I'll always speak my mind and will never be afraid to say it's me who said it.

I've really enjoyed the too's and throw's on this comment page as it's stimulated a conversation that really need's to be discussed. I'll be honest and state I believe that people who are for the expansion seem to be sort sighted and really don't care for the health and safety of the community. They may say I'm short sighted as they want to get their flights and don't want to believe that planes can be bad for you? That's their right.

As I've said in previous comments. I hope that London City Airport will do what they say going forward and not do as they've done before. I hope that the jets do not increase illness in the community. I myself from my investigations do believe that LCY and their expansion plans will bring more negative affects to the communities, but I want to be wrong.

We know that the expansion WILL happen, but Fight The Flights WILL be watching and making sure that they Fight Against The Lies and Fight For The Truth even if London City Airport and it's pro aviation followers don't

Hello RD & Fight The Flights Of Fancy
Sorry to disappoint you but I am nothing to do with BG. Please don't make silly assumptions. There are really a lot of us from all different walks of life and beliefs who are against the expansion of LCA. In fact I was a supporter for many years but not any more. I make my own decisions. I happen to agree with Voltaire when he said "I don't agree with anything you say but I will defend unto death your right to say it." So please by all means continue to disagree with me but when I disagree with you do not assume that I am in cahoots with someone else.
TTFN

I am a local resident living in Victoria Dock under the airport flight path. The airport opens and shuts and we know that's going to happen. I knew that when I bought my property, and I only have to listen to it a few hours a day because I have a job. What bothers me more is the noise created by guests of the hotels next to Excel and some of the tenants living in the buildings here. They are drunk in the middle of the night, making a racket thoughout the night. That is much more disruptive in my eyes than scheduled aircraft. I'm up when the airport opens anyway as I have a job to go to. What I hate is being woken in the middle of the night by louts who have no respect for local residents.

As for this so-called campaign group. I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks it is just full of venom and hate. Even if they did have a legitimate argument it is lost in this mediocre revenge against airport staff. Perhaps Mr Fight the Flights applied for a job in the PR department and got rejected? I can see why. He's not very good at spin.

Goodnight.

I'm really surprised and worried about the amount of attack's against the group Fight The Flights.
I'm so pleased that there is a group out there bringing LCA and Newham to task. Why would residents be so aggressive and nasty to a group that are trying to help the community? Some of the blogs that they have written have been harsh and maybe sometimes angry. I'm not really surprised really. What do you do when it seems no one is listening?
If there are residents out there that want to question the council and LCA on there expansion plans, question them. I have and I can tell you it's hard.
I think it's time to praise Fight The Flights for bringing the issue to the public and if their tactics seem harsh good. At least they have tried and seem to be still trying to do so.
Lets try to stick together on this if your against LCA's expansion plans. I'm sure they would like to think they can break the community up and cause a rift. I hope this does not happen as we need people to speak up for the community.