RECENT NEWS

IATA is describing 2009 as "the worst year the industry has ever seen". Director General and CEO, Giovanni Bisignani, noted the industry "permanently" lost 2.5 years of growth in passenger markets and 3.5 years of growth in the freight business. The "permanent" loss of traffic is a big statement, reflecting structural shifts that are occurring in and around the industry. Some markets may never be the same again.

International demand falls 3.5% in 2009
For an industry operating on thin margins, it is highly sensitive to demand shocks such as that witnessed amid the global financial crisis. Certainly, carriers in Europe, North America and the Asia Pacific suffered from incredibly tough conditions, but the Middle East powered on in 2009.

Full-year 2009 demand statistics for international scheduled air traffic showed the industry ended 2009 with the largest ever post-war decline. Passenger demand for the full year was down 3.5% with an average load factor of 75.6%. Freight showed a full-year decline of 10.1% (in terms of FTKs), with an average load factor of just 49.1%, according to IATA.

But there were some encouraging signs as the year came to a close. Dec-2009 passenger demand recorded a 4.5% improvement compared to December 2008, with a load factor of 77.6%. While this is an 8.4% demand improvement from the February 2009 low point, it is still 3.4% below the early 2008 peak, according to IATA.

What crisis? Middle East traffic soars
Middle Eastern carriers reported an 11.2% increase in RPKs in 2009 (on a 13.6% capacity increase) and generated the fastest growth in passenger traffic at the end of the year with a stirring 19.1% increase in Dec-2009.

IATA commented, "these gains result from Middle Eastern carriers taking a larger share of long-haul connecting traffic over their hubs". The new powerhouse Middle East sixth freedom hubs continue to grow strongly as the major Middle Eastern airlines push capacity increases at double-digit rates.

What about LCCs?
The Middle East was the only structural shift referred to by IATA in its latest commentary. It did not mention the considerable impact LCCs (which are not members of IATA) are having in short-haul markets around the world, though previous IATA releases have discussed their impact on premium demand in Europe.

IATA members' international traffic fell 3.5% last year, but ICAO (whose data includes scheduled passenger traffic on airlines of Member States, including LCCs) last month reported a preliminary worldwide international decline of 3.9% in 2009. Total (international and domestic volumes) fell 3.5%, according to ICAO, as the domestic decline (-1.8%) was less severe. Indeed, there was a double-digit domestic passenger traffic increase in the emerging markets of Asia and Latin America.

ICAO noted that this domestic performance, and the "relative strong performance of LCCs in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific, helped curtail the severity of the decline in total traffic".

Heart-burn in other markets
IATA members in the Asia Pacific region, Europe and North America recorded year-on-year declines in passenger demand of 5.6%, 5.0% and 5.6%, respectively, in 2009.

Asia Pacific carriers however are benefiting most from the year-end upturn, according to IATA, with an 8.0% year-on-year improvement in December. This reflects their 35% contribution to the year-end rise boosted by the significant economic upturn in the region.

By contrast, European carriers saw a 1.2% decline and North American carriers declined by 0.4%. While both North American and European carriers saw demand improvements in the first half of the year, the second half was basically flat. North American carriers reported consistently higher load factors last year, averaging 82.2% for the full year.

Latin American carriers recorded 7.1% growth in December. Full-year traffic growth was constrained to 0.3% due to the impact of Influenza A(H1N1) fears during the second and third quarters.

Africa's carriers experienced a sharp decline of 6.8% in 2009 primarily on an "exceptionally weak first half". Their year ended with December demand at 3.1% above previous year levels.

International freight demand improving
Dec-2009 freight demand showed a 24.4% year-on-year increase, with a load factor of 54.1%, although the improvement is "exaggerated by the exceptionally weak performance in Dec-2008, which was the low point on the cycle", according to the industry body.

Freight demand is still 9% lower than the peak in early 2008. Optimism is returning to the industry as purchasing managers survey indicators reached a 44-month high in December pointing towards increased freight volumes in the coming months.

Outlook: Yields still down and profitability still distant
ICAO is quite upbeat in its traffic outlook. It noted, "in line with the improving economic situation in many parts of the world, a moderate recovery is expected for 2010 with a 3.3% traffic growth forecast" worldwide. ICAO added, "the momentum is expected to continue in 2011, on the way to full recovery and traditional growth trends of 5.5% per year".

Profitability however is a different story. Yields have started to improve with tighter supply-demand conditions in recent months, according to IATA, but they remained 5-10% down on 2008 levels.

Mr Bisignani concluded, "revenue improvements will be at a much slower pace than the demand growth that we are starting to see. Profitability will be even slower to recover and airlines will lose an expected USD5.6 billion in 2010…The worst is behind us, but it is not time to celebrate".

The quickest way to cut emissions from aircraft could be better flight management rather than new technology, an Oxford University study has found.

Better air traffic control determining how, when and where planes fly could help quickly achieve significant emission cuts. These include more direct flight paths to airports and less waiting to land.

These are the "low-hanging fruit" compared to technology improvements and existing biofuels, said Dr Chris Carey. "And they are measures that governments could make a condition of using their airspace," said Dr Carey, aviation expert at Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.

Chris Goater of the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (Canso) agrees. "Air Traffic Management plays an important role in reducing emissions," he says, pointing out that emissions could be cut by between 5% and 8% as a result of improved logistics. Other initiatives should help the aviation industry ensure "emissions are reduced to 50% of 2005 levels by 2050", he said.

Cheap and easy
"Landing and take-offs could be quicker, stacking would be reduced and planes could fly closer together by taking advantage of prevailing winds" - Dr Chris Carey, aviation expert at Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment

Better traffic control systems should also help aircraft reduce the time spent with their engines running while still on the tarmac, Dr Carey said. At the same time, better flight control systems should help them spend less time flying.

"The inaccuracy of current control systems means planes must be given a wide berth to avoid collisions," he said. "If that was improved, landing and take-offs could be quicker, stacking would be reduced and planes could fly closer together by taking advantage of prevailing winds, just as Concorde did."

Such improvements would be cheap to introduce quickly, Dr Carey insisted. "They should be implemented as soon as possible if we are serious about cutting aviation emissions," he said.

Slow and risky
In contrast, technological advances, such as better engines or reduced weight, tend to take a long time before they have an impact, because aircraft have lifetimes of 30 years or more.

In the long run, innovations that help reduce drag will help reduce emissions, as might a shift away from fossil fuels towards biofuels made from algae.

"But none of those measures can be introduced quickly and most new technology is not retrofitable," said Dr Carey. "These are all long-term innovations that we won't see for at least 30 years."

Moreover, investing in new technology is both expensive and risky, Dr Carey said. "But major technological innovations are a massive financial risk because you could be making a plane that no-one's going to buy," he said.

OUR COMMENT: Not Rocket Science and known for some time but now such policies have acquired academic status! We hope the airports and airlines take note!

Pat Dale

There are perhaps only three things extravagant about Ryanair: its appetite for cost cuts; its valuation; and its ability to generate cash. The first saw Europe's largest budget airline turn in a better-than-forecast set of results. Chief executive Michael O'Leary continued to chop out expenses during the third quarter - mostly from staff and airport charges. As a result passenger yields fell less than expected, so too profits, and Mr O'Leary boosted earnings guidance for the year to €275m versus earlier forecasts closer to €200m. The shares leapt by as much as 6 per cent.

Then there is the Dublin-based carrier's valuation. At 19 times earnings, or around twice book value, Ryanair does not enjoy a hefty premium to the broader European market, which trades at around 17 times 2009 earnings. The stock even suffers a discount to its historic price-to-book average of around 2.7 times, according to Credit Suisse. Nonetheless, this represents a whopping premium to most European airlines. If there is any value to be had, it is only relative.

Finally there is Ryanair's ability to spew out cash. Until recently, this was veiled by its rapid growth. Indeed, with around 10 per cent of the European market, there is still room for Ryanair to grow further. After all, Southwest Airlines, the US budget carrier on which Ryanair's model is based, has 18 per cent of its home market. But Ryanair recently had a recent change of heart after a rumpus with Boeing and money once destined to be spent on 200 new planes will supposedly be returned to shareholders instead - as much as €1bn by 2014. With a fair wind, Ryanair could conceivably have another €1bn to distribute by 2016. That would make €2bn handed back to investors over six years, a 40 per cent yield. That is pretty extravagant too.

The last time Stewart Wingate agreed to run an airport for a brand new owner was in 2005, when BAA sent him to Budapest after buying the city's airport in Hungary's biggest privatisation deal. Mr Wingate, then 34, did not receive a warm reception. "On day one, the unions wanted to take the entire workforce out on strike as a result of the change of ownership," he says.

His arrival at Gatwick in early December, weeks after BAA, Heathrow's owner, had sold it to the GIP infrastructure fund, was "excellent" in comparison, he says wryly. Though not without its moments. He arrived to greet a senior management team who were unaware that Andy Flower, their managing director, was about to announce his departure, let alone who would replace him.

Mr Wingate, who had been running Stansted, BAA's third-biggest airport, since 2007, spent the day telling as many of Gatwick's 2,500 staff as possible that GIP was only interested in improving the way the business was run.

That remains the message of the new boss of the second-biggest airport in the UK and busiest single-runway airport in the world. Or as he likes to put it: "We're going to become obsessed with delivering a better service to our passengers and fostering constructive and better relationships with our airlines and by doing that, we are convinced we will grow the business."

Gatwick expects to see 34m passengers this year, far more than Stansted, which handled 20m passengers last year. Budapest has 8m, about the same number as Glasgow airport, where Mr Wingate was customer services director before he went to Hungary.

But Mr Wingate, the son of a Durham design engineer, has a CV containing evidence of his ascent to ever larger endeavours. He left school at 16 with nine O-levels to follow his father and work at Black & Decker, which helped sponsor his university studies, eventually emerging with a Masters in Business Administration with distinction and a first-class honours degree in electrical and electronic engineering.

By his late twenties, he was operations director of a Black & Decker facility with 2,500 staff. Then he was sent to the Czech Republic, where he created a manufacturing site from scratch. "It went from employing one person - me - to 1,500," he says.

A skier, cyclist and golfer, he lives in Hertfordshire with his wife and two daughters, giving him a daily train commute of just over an hour to Gatwick, enough time to consider the fact that he has come to run a UK airport at a time of intense change.

The UK's three biggest airports - Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick - have shared a single owner for most of the time since the 1960s, most recently BAA, a subsidiary of the Spanish infrastructure group Ferrovial.

Complaints that this was anti-competitive led the Competition Commission to rule BAA had to sell Gatwick, Stansted and either Edinburgh or Glasgow. Having sold Gatwick, BAA won an appeal against the Commission's ruling in December, which has left the sale of the other two airports in limbo. [The Commission and BAA are in discussions on how to proceed.]

So, Gatwick remains the test case for a new era of airport competition. The evidence from abroad suggests competition can bring important changes.

In Moscow, for example, competition among the city's three airports - Sheremetyevo, Domodedovo and Vnukovo - has had a "very positive impact on aviation" according to the International Air Transport Association, the main airline trade body. Benefits included better infrastructure, improved efficiency and competitive pricing for services. Several airlines have switched airports in the past four years, lured by better prices and services.

Whether Mr Wingate will end up achieving the same at Gatwick remains to be seen. It already has cheaper airline fees: regulators allow Heathrow to extract up to £14.24 a passenger compared with £7.37 at Gatwick and £6.53 at Stansted.

Gatwick is also overwhelmingly used by holdidaymakers, rather than business trips; its largest airline customer is EasyJet, after British Airways' decision to concentrate its services at Heathrow. Mr Wingate may struggle to lure business passengers from Heathrow, but attracting leisure fliers from the bigger airport and Stansted could be easier.

In any case, the fact that he is competing at all represents a big change in the airport sector in the UK.

Gatwick is gearing up to poach airline customers from rivals Heathrow and Stansted, its new boss has warned, in a taste of the head-to-head competition to come between the country's three biggest airports. "We're competing and we're pleased to be competing," said Stewart Wingate, who ran Stansted until he was poached himself by Gatwick's new owners last year.

"I'm pretty sure there will be a number of airlines both at Heathrow and at Stansted who will be looking very closely at what we're doing and, believe you me, we'll be out talking to all of them about what our plans are, because that is the nature of competition," he said in his first interview since starting at Gatwick almost two months ago.

His comments are an early sign of how the landscape has changed since BAA, which owns Heathrow and Stansted, sold Gatwick to the operators of London City Airport just over three months ago to meet a Competition Commission ruling. The £1.5bn sale was supposed to forge competition between the three bigger airports, which have in effect been part of one group, public or privately controlled, for most of the past four decades.

Mr Wingate said he wanted to break from the practices of the "previous regime" to improve the airport, which is about half the size of Heathrow in annual passenger numbers. He wants to transform "dark and dingy" check-in areas and improve security and baggage handling.

He plans to consult on building projects with airlines, which have long argued that the UK regulatory system encouraged BAA to "gold-plate" its airports, or build elaborate and expensive projects so that it could raise landing fees.

"We'll be communicating to [the airlines] the fact that we're not actually hell-bent on continuing to invest," Mr Wingate said. "We're only interested in making fit for purpose investments that commercially make sense for our business partners and for the passenger."

He also plans to buy more snow ploughs for the airport. Some airlines were infuriated when it had to close during last month’s heavy snowfalls.

Virgin Atlantic, which has more than three times more daily flights from Heathrow than Gatwick, said some airlines could look at moving to Gatwick if it upgraded. "There's definitely scope," the airline said, adding that Gatwick would struggle to get business passengers to move from a hub such as Heathrow, which has better global connections than Gatwick.

"The loss of Gatwick has unleashed a potentially more aggressive competitor for BAA," said Roger Appleyard, head of credit research at RBC Capital Markets. But it was hard to see how extensive that competition would be, since the prices airports are allowed to charge are heavily regulated and Gatwick’s regulated airline fees are about half those of Heathrow. "Heathrow hasn't competed against Gatwick before either, so that will mean Gatwick will face new competition as well," he said.

OUR COMMENT: Improved management may be necessary but is this the best way to develop a sustainable national airport network?

Pat Dale

COMMUTERS faced an "almighty crush" to board a London-bound Stansted Express train this week - and many were left behind.

Local rail users' spokesman Simon Clifford, who has been speaking up for Observer area passengers since 1995, says at least 200 people were unable to board the 7.54am fast service to Liverpool Street on Tuesday (January 26) because there were only four coaches instead of the usual eight. As a result, it was packed with Stansted Airport travellers and their luggage before it arrived at Stansted Mountfitchet, which is only the second stop on the route.

In scenes that would have been repeated in Bishop's Stortford, a struggle ensued for a place on the carriages and hundreds had to wait for the next train. This departs four minutes later but does not arrive in London until 8.49am because it makes more stops.

Although there is usually room for airport passengers and commuters on the National Express East Anglia (NXEA)-run service, Mr Clifford said that such incidents happened "every couple of weeks".

According to the City worker, who lives in Chapel Hill in Stansted, at least 300 people were waiting at the village station when the train arrived - but fewer than 100 could fit on board. The rest had to wait for the slower 7.52am from Cambridge, where they were joined by those who had been stranded at Stortford.

Mr Clifford said: "I don't know how many people were waiting at Bishop's Stortford. The carriage was packed to its limit and you couldn't really see outside, but there was an almighty crush when the doors opened. Many people didn't bother trying to get on."

In March 2007, Mr Clifford warned the Observer that overcrowding on trains to Liverpool Street was likely to "increase beyond already dangerous levels". Fellow Stansted campaigner Sarah Davies expressed similar concerns in a BBC report that month.

An NXEA spokeswoman said the number of carriages had been cut because of a fault with an earlier train. She added the firm was adding 120 new carriages to its Liverpool Street services by next spring.

Bishop's Stortford's Labour and Co-operative Party spokes-man Paul Schroder, who fought in June's county council elections on a platform of rail reform, said: "I hadn't heard about Tuesday, but I think that whole line is over capacity - most rush-hour trains seem to carry double the number of passengers they should, with the vast majority of them standing."

"It's a difficult issue because that line's used by both air travellers and commuters, so it's under a lot of pressure. But I don't think the operators have got the balance right at all."

A new lounge opens today (January 29) for passengers flying with Ryanair out of Stansted airport. The No.1 Traveller lounge, which costs £17.50 per visit, has a bistro, fully-tended bar and business facilities - printing, fax and scanning facilities are available.

The lounge, which can seat up to 50 people, also offers free UK landline calls, free wi-fi internet access, newspapers, magazines, board games and televisions to watch. It is located opposite Gate 59 on Satellite 3, where most Ryanair international flights depart from, and is the second No.1 Traveller lounge to open at the airport.

No.1 Traveller is owned by theatre producer Phil Cameron. Commenting on the launch of the new lounge, he said: "Stansted is a major airport, with discerning passengers, creating their own travel itineraries. Low-cost travel often puts pressure on the passenger to arrive in good time and we recognize that many would welcome an opportunity to get the formalities out the way, and head out towards their gates to eat, drink and enjoy our unique service."

No.1 Traveller launched its first lounge at New York's JFK International airport in 2007, entering the UK market with a lounge in Gatwick airport, which opened in April last year.

On Monday (February 1), No.1 Traveller will be launching a new travel service for companies or individual travellers, combining chauffeured airport transfers, airport concierge services and access to the lounges.

Cameron said: "As a frequent traveller, I know how stressful and unpredictable getting to the airport can be. We've created No.1 Traveller to take the hassle and stress away, and to let the traveller actually enjoy catching a flight again. "

He plans to extend the service to major airports across the UK, with coverage of over sixty percent of the UK travel market in the next eighteen months.

The EU must press on with measures to strengthen its emissions trading scheme (ETS) such as auctioning rules and benchmarks for allocating free carbon allowances to industrial sectors at risk of carbon leakage, a senior BP executive said on Friday.

"It is not a time to change horses and jump to another track", BP refining and marketing chief executive Iain Conn told a seminar in Brussels. The EU's climate strategy was criticised following the Copenhagen debacle, prompting calls for a profound rethink.

Outside Europe, efforts to set up emissions trading schemes suffered serious setbacks particularly in the US after last week's Senate election in Massachusetts DAILY. "We remain confident that over time other international jurisdictions will move towards a compatible approach," said Mr Conn.

Another key issue is to finalise offset credit rules for the ETS's third phase staring in 2013, said the BP executive. On Monday, bank Fortis confirmed to ENDS it had delayed its planned carbon fund because of uncertainty over offset credits after Copenhagen. Other banks are pulling out of this market.

Mr Conn also said combating carbon leakage through border tax adjustments would be a "considerable" mistake, in part because of possible trade wars between the EU and other countries and the complexity of assessing products' CO2 content. Incoming trade commissioner Katel de Gucht rejects the idea.

The European Commission's new architecture is a "tremendous" opportunity to coordinate energy and climate policies, said Mr Conn. The new high representative for foreign affairs will also have a key role to play in developing Europe's relationship with major energy producers.

At a strategic level, Europe should not hesitate to act alone on climate if necessary because "it is sufficiently large for unilateral action to be credible", Mr Conn believes. But "ideally" it should seek to strengthen EU-US energy cooperation, and make sure signals to the market remain "broadly coherent".

OUR COMMENT: We await up to date news about the inclusion of aviation!

Pat Dale

Aviation: Climate Change

Baroness Wilcox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his response to the recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change in its report "Meeting the UK aviation target-options for reducing emissions to 2050" about a total increase of aviation demand of 60 per cent by 2050.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis): My Lords, I welcome the committee's advice. The report will be extremely useful for Government and the aviation industry in planning for the future. We are now engaging in further work to cost and assess policy options to meet the 2050 target. It is important that the aviation industry also focuses on operational and technological changes, which will contain the growth of aviation's carbon emissions in the short term, and then reduce them thereafter.

Baroness Wilcox: Thank you very much indeed. I thank the Minister. In the light of that target, if the Government go ahead with the third runway at Heathrow, what measures is the noble Lord planning to use to constrain the growth of aviation elsewhere?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the Committee on Climate Change stated that on its central case scenario, a 54 per cent increase in flights by 2050 was compatible with the carbon reduction targets. The full utilisation of the third runway at Heathrow would represent a 10 per cent increase in flights, so it is perfectly compatible to increase the number of flights and passengers at Heathrow while also meeting our carbon reduction targets. I emphasise that Heathrow is the busiest airport in the UK; it is also running at full capacity at the moment. Therefore, the argument for expansion of capacity at Heathrow is stronger than for any other airport.

Lord Soley: I am on cloud nine now, as someone has just said to me, "So young, so eager". I apologise to the noble Baroness. We need our transport policy for railroad and air to be integrated, as it is in Europe, if we are to benefit from the single European market. Will my noble friend respond to the letter that I sent to him asking that the regulators take account of the inter-operability of railroad and air as they do in Europe, where all forms of transport are required to drive down their emissions and not simply compete with each other in a very simplistic manner?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend in all the points that he has made.

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, given the complete and predictable failure of the Copenhagen conference and the fact that it is clear that the world as a whole will have no curbs on the growth of aviation passenger transport, can the Minister assure the House that he will look at the matter again and not do anything to curb the use of air travel for British citizens, particularly in view of his answer to the earlier question, when he expressed his desire to see greater mobility?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, we need to strike a balance. It is important that we meet our carbon reduction targets, but we are mindful of the social and economic importance of aviation, which is why we welcome the key recommendation of the Committee on Climate Change that an increase of 60 per cent in the number of passengers and 54 per cent in the number of flights is compatible with our climate change obligations.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is strong evidence at the moment that aircraft manufacturers are taking this very seriously, particularly where the next generation of aircraft is concerned? I speak as the president of BALPA.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point, and the Committee on Climate Change emphasises that the development of technology such as novel airframe configurations, advanced lightweight materials, innovative laminar airflow control techniques and more electric airframe aircraft systems all significantly improve aircrafts' environmental performance and fuel efficiency.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, what progress are the Government making in reducing groundborne emissions around airports? Clearly, the two are directly related.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the airport operators have targets for improving the efficiency of air traffic movements on the ground, all of which of course also contribute to the reduction in carbon emissions.

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I declare an interest as a supporter of the Stop Stansted Expansion campaign. Encouraged by his earlier answer, and in view of declining passenger numbers and the emissions issue, will my noble friend commit the Government to withdrawing explicitly their support for BAA's plans to expand runway capacity at Stansted and thereby end 10 years of blight on that area?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the decision on an application to expand the airport is a matter for the airport operator. However, I would not overdo the decline in air passenger numbers; if one looks at this in any historic context, they are continuing to rise sharply. In 1982, the number of air passengers was 60 million; in 1997 it was 146 million and in 2007 it was 240 million. Even in the midst of all the economic problems that we have had over the past two years, the reduction on that figure has only been very slight. There is still enormous economic and social demand for air travel, and there will be a need for additional airport capacity in the future.

Lord Elton: Is the Minister aware of how difficult it is for those who are amateurs in this field to swallow the statement that increasing traffic by 54 per cent will enable us to reduce emissions? That means that they will have to be reduced by at least 55 per cent in relation to each aircraft.

Lord Adonis: I do not wish to blind the noble Lord with facts, and I am an amateur myself in this business. Perhaps I might, however, simply give him the facts; today's aircraft are 70 per cent more fuel-efficient than the first commercial jets were, and each successive generation of aircraft is significantly more fuel-efficient than its predecessors. That will give him some idea of how it is possible to significantly expand air traffic without increasing carbon emissions.

OUR COMMENT: A number of our noble Lords including the Minister and the Report itself appear to be bewitched by the reassurances that by 2050 the emergence of new technology will solve the emissions problems of an increased number of flights.

Pat Dale

Despite significant seasonal disruption to air travel around the world over the past few weeks, one airline has proved that cold weather needn't cause chaos.

Norwegian carrier Widerøe has been the most "on-time" carrier in Europe for two months now - despite the fact that some 20 of its published destinations are inside the Arctic Circle. In December 83.99 percent of Widerøe's flights arrived within 15 minutes of schedule, securing the airline first place ahead of Spain's Vueling Airlines and Austria's Tyrolean Airways.

"The added kick here is that an airline that flies across and around the Arctic Circle has actually beaten a major airline in Spain," said Widerøe press officer, Siw Sanvik.

Widerøe admits that the winter weather in Norway has been favorable this year, although Tromsø, the city boasting northern Norway's largest airport, has an average annual temperature of 3°C (37.4°F) and is known as a particularly snow-prone area. In the US, west coast carriers recorded the best performance in December, Hawaiian Airlines topping the list with 86.55 percent of flights on schedule.

Britain's London Stansted airport was the worst-performing airport for on-time flights, according to Flightstats.com, with under 48.45 percent of flights operating on schedule because of the weather.

Tokyo Haneda airport was the most punctual at 90.72 percent, followed by Korea's Seoul airport at 85.95 percent and Tokyo Narita at 85.71 percent.

Ryanair says it is "highly unlikely" to make another bid for Ireland's struggling flag carrier, Aer Lingus, as Europe's largest no-frills airline confirmed on Thursday it was on track to substantially boost its €2.5bn ($3.6bn) cash pile over the next three years.

"There is no truth or basis to recent... speculation that Ryanair is preparing a third bid for Aer Lingus," the airline said in a statement after briefing investors on its strategy. "In the absence of any decision by the Irish [government] to sell its 25 per cent stake, a third bid by Ryanair remains highly unlikely."

Ryanair, the biggest investor in Aer Lingus with a stake of 29.8 per cent, has made two failed bids for Aer Lingus since late 2006. The first was blocked by European regulators on competition grounds and the second, in December 2008, failed after the Irish government said it undervalued the airline. Speculation has grown about a third bid because Ireland's takeover rules permit such a move from the end of January, and Ryanair looks set to bolster its balance sheet.

Ryanair executives confirmed to investors that after last year's failed talks with Boeing on buying up to 200 new jets, the airline would slash its annual capital expenditure from its current €1.2bn to €100m by the financial year ending March 2013.

As a result, Michael O'Leary, chief executive, said: "We expect our current cash reserves of €2.5bn to grow substantially by March 2013 and we plan to distribute surplus cash to shareholders from that date." Shares in both companies dipped more than 1.5 per cent in late afternoon trading on Thursday.

Separately, Ryanair lifted a threat to cancel its Italian domestic operations from later this month after resolving a dispute with Italy's civil aviation authority over passenger security arrangements.

The airline had threatened to cancel all its flights in the domestic Italian market from January 23 after the regulator, Enac, said it would allow passengers on domestic flights to use documents other than passports or official ID cards when checking in and boarding.

Ryanair, which accepts only passports or European Union ID cards, said the new policy could undermine safety. The two sides met in Rome on Thursday, after which Ryanair said the dispute had been resolved and there was no longer any threat to its domestic Italian services.

Meanwhile, Ryanair said it carried 4.9m passengers in December, up 12 per cent on the same month in 2008, meaning annual traffic grew 13 per cent to 65.3m in the 2009 calendar year.

After being described as "puerile" and "almost childish" by the Office of Fair Trading, it was only a matter of time before Europe's most combative airline boss retaliated. Ryanair's chief executive Michael O'Leary duly obliges today, but with an uncharacteristically formal response - accusing the regulator of bias and of failing to end allegedly dubious practices at other carriers.

In a two-page letter to the OFT's chief executive John Fingleton, copied to The Independent, he said his airline wished to register its "deep concern and protest" about "inappropriate and inaccurate comments" given by Mr Fingleton in an interview with this newspaper. "The false claims attributed to you in this article are indicative of a continuing and inappropriate bias by the OFT against Ryanair, which is the UK's largest international passenger airline," Mr O'Leary wrote.

In a frank interview, Mr Fingleton accused Ryanair of "almost taunting" customers by levying a £5 fee on credit card payments. Airlines are legally obliged to advertise compulsory fees up front to allow customers to shop around, but Ryanair only adds its booking fee at the end of the booking process, on the basis that passengers can avoid it by using prepaid Mastercard.

Mr Fingleton complained: "Ryanair has this funny game where they have found some low-frequency payment mechanism and say: 'Well, because you can pay with that [the charge is optional].' It's almost like taunting consumers and pointing out: 'Oh well, we know this is completely outside the spirit of the law, but we think it's within the narrow letter of the law'." He added: "On some level, it's quite puerile, it's almost childish."

In his letter dated 11 January, Mr O'Leary protested: "The role of the OFT is not to subjectively comment on the pricing policies of airlines, but to identify and confirm whether those policies comply with legislation. Ryanair's pricing policies are fully compliant with current legislation." He explained Ryanair chose prepaid Mastercard because it was more widely available abroad and denied another complaint, that it forced customers to opt out if they did not want insurance.

On the other hand, Mr O'Leary complained, the OFT had failed to take action against "three important consumer protection areas" - British Airways' "unfair and unjustified fuel levies"; websites selling Ryanair tickets "at hidden and inflated prices"; and easyJet "who continue to offer travel insurance on an opt-out basis".

SUFFOLK: The spectre of a second runway at Stansted which would send thousands more planes a year over Suffolk may still loom large at the end of this year - even if the Labour government is ousted.

If the Tories - who are firmly against the runway project - win the General Election the current plans will still be on the table waiting for a public inquiry and a decision.

Campaigners have pledged to fight on until the second runway at the airport is axed, but say it could be sometime yet.

Carol Barbone, campaign director for Stop Stansted Expansion, said: "Both opposition parties oppose as policy a second runway but if they were elected they could not force the withdrawal of the planning application, although they could put pressure on BAA."

"BAA has the right to have that application decided. Like many big companies, it is probably looking quite a way ahead - not the next government, but the one after that. If they have to sell Stansted, which I think is inevitable, then they would probably be in a position to get a better price for it if it has planning permission for a second runway."

Communities across parts of Suffolk are plagued by planes with the noise of jets ruining the county's tranquillity. A second runway could allow Stansted to handle 68 million passengers a year.

Talks are taking place between BAA and the Competition Commission over the future ownership of the company's airports, and the public inquiry into the proposed runway is on hold until this is settled. BAA said the need for a second runway will be decided at the inquiry "based on the facts and strengths of evidence".

SR Technics today announced plans to consolidate its component services organization, and all supporting functions currently performed in London-Stansted, in Zurich. This step will allow SR Technics to further improve operational efficiency and productivity to lower operational costs, resulting in a more streamlined and leaner operation.

Under this proposal, SR Technics will continue to operate its line maintenance business in the UK through its current line station network and will maintain and develop its logistics operations in the UK. It is planned to consolidate all logistics operations at the current London-Heathrow logistics center, which will drive greater productivity and assist in establishing SR Technics as a global leader in logistics management.

SR Technics is entering formal discussions regarding these proposals with the trade unions and respective employee representative bodies in the UK.

Bernd Kessler, CEO of SR Technics, said: "At the heart of the ongoing reorganization is our aim to raise our efficiency, lower our Group's overall operational costs and to further develop our operational capabilities, service offerings and global footprint. By achieving these objectives, we will tangibly improve our competitiveness and the service we provide to our customers."

"Management will work closely with the unions and employee representatives to support all employees affected by these plans at London-Stansted."

OUR COMMENT: This decision is a great shock for those working for the company in Stansted and it has not been taken because of the falling number of flights at Stansted airport. In any district there are dangers in placing too much reliance on one major stimulator of employment. Companies do not make production decisions based on the possible effects on local people.

Pat Dale

Ditch the dog; throw away (sorry, recycle) those takeaway menus; bin bottled water; get rid of that gas-guzzling car and forget flying to far-flung places. These are just some of the sacrifices we in the West will need to make if we are to survive climate change.

The stark warning comes from the renowned Worldwatch Institute, a Washington-based organisation regarded as the world's pre-eminent environmental think tank.

Its State of the World 2010 report published this week outlines a blueprint for changing our entire way of life. "Preventing the collapse of human civilisation requires nothing less than a wholesale transformation of dominant cultural patterns. This transformation would reject consumerism... and establish in its place a new cultural framework centred on sustainability," states the report.

"Habits that are firmly set - from where people live to what they eat - will all need to be altered and in many cases simplified or minimised... From Earth's perspective, the American or even the European way of life is simply not viable."

Nobel prize winner and microfinance expert Muhammad Yunus, writing in the foreword, describes the report as calling for "one of the greatest cultural shifts imaginable: from cultures of consumerism to cultures of sustainability".

Almost seven billion people are demanding ever greater quantities of material resources, decimating the world's richest ecosystems, and dumping billions of tons of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.

And any actions taken by governments, or scientific advances to deal with climate change, are doomed to failure unless individuals get back to a basic way of life, concludes the report - which recommends things like borrowing books and toys from libraries instead of buying them, choosing public transport over the car, and growing food in community gardens. In addition, all products should be designed to last a lifetime and be completely recyclable.

A seismic shift in thinking is needed, according to senior researcher Erik Assadourian, project director of the report: "Making policy and technology changes while keeping cultures centred on consumerism and growth can only go so far. To thrive long into the future, human societies must shift their cultures so sustainability becomes the norm."

But the report's findings were attacked last night by Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. "Let's face it, by 2050, the combined population of China and India alone will have grown to three billion. By then, most Chinese and Indians will have adopted an urban lifestyle. This... makes demands for radical curbs in consumerism and CO2 emissions utterly unrealistic."

People need to be persuaded of the benefits of tackling climate change, rather than be presented with a "defeatist and doomsday scenario", according to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). "Questions around consumption are not so much about the rate of it, but the fact that the full environmental impacts are not yet fully reflected in what is consumed... until environmental impacts are fully factored in, we need behaviours and/or production methods to change," said a DECC spokes-man.

Climate change scepticism is likely to surge in 2010 and could exacerbate "hardship" for the planet's poorest people, one of the world's leading authorities on climate change has told the Guardian.

Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, also dismisses suggestions that he is personally profiting from policies to tackle global warming.

Climate sceptics gained media attention in the run up to the Copenhagen climate summit after alleging that hacked emails between senior climate scientists showed that an important temperature record was flawed - a charge rejected by governments and scientific bodies. In Australia, sceptics within the party led to the ousting of the leader of the opposition over new climate laws

Pachauri predicted this year would see further scepticism. "Powerful vested interests are perhaps likely to get overactive in the coming months, and would perhaps do everything in their power to impede progress towards a binding agreement that is hoped for by the end of 2010 in Mexico City," he said. "Those opposed to action on climate change are working overtime to see that they can stall action for as long as possible."

After a weak deal in Copenhagen, Pachauri warned that allowing scepticism to delay international action on global warming would endanger the lives of the world's poorest people. "In the end, knowledge and science will undoubtedly triumph, but delay in reducing emissions of greenhouse gases would only lead to worse impacts of climate change and growing hardship for the most vulnerable regions in the world, which are also unfortunately some of the poorest communities on Earth."

Pachauri, a vegetarian, has previously described western lifestyles as unsustainable and advocated a diet including one meat-free day a week.

He singled out lobbyists in the US for attempting to delay America's climate legislation, which is crucial for a global deal but is currently stalled in the Senate. Last year the Centre for Public Integrity found that 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence US policies on climate change, while America's oil, gas and coal industry increased its lobbying budget by 50%.

Pachauri said action from President Obama would be needed on top of Senate legislation. "The passage of legislation in that country [the US] will have to be supplemented with several initiatives to be put in place by the executive branch of the government," Pachauri said.

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said Pachauri was right on the level of sceptical activity. "We are already witnessing extraordinary efforts by powerful lobbies, in the US and Australia in particular, which are opposed to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. There is a strong alliance of ideologically driven right-wingers, who reject environmental legislation on principle, and lobbyists for some hydrocarbon companies, who place the short-term commercial interests of their clients ahead of the wider public interest. Both have the common goal of delaying restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, and both use the tactics pioneered by the tobacco industry, hiding their true motivations behind inaccurate and misleading claims about uncertainties in the science."

But Tony Kreindler of the Environmental Defence Fund, which has been following US climate legislation, said the number of climate sceptic lobbyists was now being matched by companies supporting legislation to cap carbon emissions. However, he added: "Opponents of action and the old sceptics will of course ramp up their lobbying this year as well, as they do anytime the Congress is on the verge of making law. We already have a bill through the House of Representatives and a bipartisan effort underway in the Senate. The President made his commitment clear in Copenhagen to legislation because it's in our national interest. This year is not a dress rehearsal, and everyone on both sides gets that."

On the stolen emails, Pachauri said the contents did not impact on climate science, adding that "the allegations made on the basis of the stolen emails have proved incorrect."

The University of East Anglia is currently undertaking an independent review of the led by senior civil servant Sir Muir Russell. The review is expected to be published in the spring, but a university spokesman said today that Sir Russell will "determine his final timescale after completing his initial scoping exercise". He added that the university had also responded to a letter from the science and technology committee of MPs leaked- asking for an explanation of the incident. The IPCC is conducting its own review into the stolen emails.

Pachauri also rebutted claims in The Sunday Telegraph that, through advisory roles for Deutsche Bank, Toyota, Yale University, the Asian Development Bank and others, he was reaping personal financial gain from climate change policies that could be influenced by the reports of the IPCC he chairs. The article claimed Pachauri had been silent on the "highly lucrative commercial jobs", the rewards from which "must run into millions".

In response, he said: "The same group of climate deniers who have been active across the Atlantic have now joined hands to attack me personally. As for pecuniary benefits from advice that I may be rendering to profit-making organisations, these payments are all made directly to my institute, without a single penny being received by me."

The Nobel Peace-prize winning Pachauri called for greater activism and more campaigning to press governments into taking strong action on carbon emissions this year. "Society and grassroots action would have to come into their own, not only to ensure that human society takes responsibility for action at the most basic level, but also to create upward pressure on governments to act decisively. If such grassroots efforts do not spread and intensify, nation states may not be able to resolve the differences that exist between them."

OUR COMMENT: With a freezing Britain and more snowstorms looming we can reasonably expect some scepticism about rising temperatures from global warming! However, we need to remember that other European countries expect to experience snow most of the winter - we normally miss a great freeze up because of the nearby Gulf Stream bringing up warm water from southern parts. We might ask, what has happened to our protector?

Pat Dale

Britain's top business regulator has accused Europe's biggest airline, Ryanair, of "almost taunting" passengers in a strongly worded attack on its charges. John Fingleton, the chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading, described Ryanair's levying of fees for paying by card online as "puerile" and "almost childish", adding the carrier was only operating within "the narrow letter of the law".

Ryanair advertises taxes and other fees upfront but only mentions charges for paying by plastic at the end of booking on the grounds that customers could escape the fee by using an obscure prepaid card.

The no-frills carrier - along with other airlines and ticketing agencies - is being investigated by the OFT over online pricing and advertising. Of particular concern is "drip-pricing" where shoppers only discover the full cost of a service late in the booking process, which makes it difficult to shop around.

In a rare and exclusive interview, his first for 18 months, Mr Fingleton, whose organisation has previously clashed with Ryanair, criticised the airline's "funny game".

"Ryanair has this funny game where they have found some low frequency payment mechanism and say: 'Well, because you can pay with that [the charge is optional]'," he said. "It's almost like taunting consumers and pointing out: 'Oh well, we know this is completely outside the spirit of the law, but we think it's within the narrow letter of the law'."

Mr Fingleton - whose criticism elicited an angry response from Ryanair - hopes that ironing out problems on airline websites will set standards for online shopping, which is forecast to account for half of retail sales by 2020.

Under consumer law, businesses must advertise all compulsory charges. At the payment stage online, Ryanair levies a £5 debit or credit card charge per passenger, per journey, although the cost to the company is only about 30p per payment, according to the card industry. The charges can add £40 to the cost of a return trip for a family of four - several times the airline's cheapest advertised fares.

From last month, payments by Electron card that had previously been free began to attract the fee and Ryanair switched its free option to MasterCard pre-pay. Mr Fingleton suggested that Ryanair had found "some low frequency payment mechanism" to get round the rules. He said: "It's almost like taunting consumers and pointing out: 'Oh well, we know this is completely outside the spirit of the law, but we think it's within the narrow letter of the law'.

"On some level, it's quite puerile, it's almost childish. And you sort of smile, and newspapers like yours or BBC Radio 4's Moneybox do a good job in pointing this out to consumers. This is just playing silly games at the margins of it all and we might or might not go running after something like that."

The automatic addition of insurance to flights by airlines, including Ryanair, unless customers opted out, was, he said, another legal "grey area". But public anger about such charges might prove to be more effective than regulatory action, he said. "It would be silly to go after something like that every time because they would quickly change it to something else, and it's trying to establish a general principle that what's not optional is not in there. Consumer anger and frustration, and an element of transparency, often changes these things much quicker than legal action."

In July, Ryanair agreed to give more prominence to fees and charges on its website after the OFT's intervention. The OFT had been asked to act by the Advertising Standards Authority, whose rulings have been repeatedly dismissed by the no-frills airline, which carried 58 million passengers last year.

Ryanair responded to Mr Fingleton by referring to the OFT's ongoing inquiry into the long-running price-fixing of fuel surcharges, which eventually led to British Airways being fined £121m three years ago. Stephen McNamara, Ryanair's head of communications, said: "As a general rule, anything that comes from an office that has chosen to ignore fuel surcharging airlines like British Airways and remained mute while London air passengers were being ripped off by the BAA monopoly should be taken with a pinch of salt."

"Ryanair is not for the overpaid John Fingletons of this world but for the everyday Joe Bloggs who opt for Ryanair's guaranteed lowest fares because we give them the opportunity to fly across 26 European countries for free, £5 and £10."

The OFT needed to realise, Ryanair said, that its passengers could avoid costs such as baggage charges "still included in the high fares of high-cost, fuel-surcharging, strike-threatened airlines such as BA." The airline had become Europe's biggest because it was so cheap, he added.

Full-body scanners are to be introduced at Britain's airports after Gordon Brown gave the go-ahead for the technology in a move which pre-empted his own urgent review of airline security.

Despite questions over the effectiveness of the devices, the prime minister said yesterday that passengers would see their "gradual" introduction, along with hand luggage checks for traces of explosives. Even those travelling through UK airports in transit would have to go through the heightened security screening.

BAA, which runs six UK airports, said it would install the £100,000 machines "as soon as is practical" at Heathrow. Experts have cast doubt on whether the scanners are able to detect the type of explosive that 23-year-old Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is accused of using in an attempt to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day.

But Brown told BBC1's Andrew Marr show that the government would do everything in its power to tighten security. His backing of scanner technology came before Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, reports to parliament this week on the findings of an urgent review of airport security prompted by the failed attack. It also pre-empts a European commission meeting, to be held soon, on whether to endorse EU-wide use of the machines.

Four scanners have lain unused at Heathrow airport after EU advice that there were privacy and human rights implications, awaiting approval for use from the European commission, but a government source told the Guardian that these would now be deployed "with or without" the international co-operation that ministers said was needed after the recent bomb bid. The source pointed to the decision by Amsterdam's Schiphol airport to install the 17 scanners it bought two years ago but was unable to activate after receiving EU advice that there were privacy and human rights implications. This advice was used by the Department for Transport to explain why the UK's own scanners lay unused at Heathrow.

Ben Wallace, a Conservative MP who before entering parliament was involved in a British defence firm's project to test the scanner's effect, said at the weekend that the kind of low-density materials used in the Christmas Day plot would not have been detected. The machines could detect shrapnel, heavy wax and metal, but not plastics, chemicals or liquids, he claimed.

Alongside the purchase of more scanners, a government source has told the Guardian that passenger profiling is "in the mix" of the security review's recommendations. Last night US authorities announced new security screening procedures for passengers from countries listed as "state sponsors of terrorism".

The US currently lists Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism. Along with passengers flying from or through those countries, travellers from Nigeria, Yemen and Pakistan will be patted down and have their carry-on luggage searched under new procedures, according to the US transport department.

Yesterday, a BAA spokesman backed profiling. "It is our view that a combination of technology, intelligence and passenger profiling will help build a more robust defence against the unpredictable and changing nature of the terrorist threat to aviation," the spokesman said.

But Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil liberties group Liberty, warned the government against profiling. "Has no one noticed the terrorists' ability to capitalise on discrimination, or the recruits from a range of different backgrounds? Whether on the street or at the terminal, suspicious behaviour is a sensible basis for search by policing professionals; race or religion is not," she said.

It was reported last night that a Virgin Atlantic flight from Kingston, Jamaica, to London was delayed after a DVD with "Islamic content" was found on board. John McFarlane, security chief at the Norman Manley international airport in Kingston, said all passengers on last Thursday's flight were taken off the plane and re-screened after the DVD was discovered by crew. McFarlane did not say what the disc's contents were, only that it made the flight crew "uncomfortable."

Brown's swift response to the possibility that terrorists are using different types of explosive came as he admitted that Downing Street may have oversold its response to tackling the threat posed by Yemen, where the alleged bomber is thought to have been trained by an al-Qaida offshoot. Brown said on Friday that a conference planned for 28 January to address the issue of Afghanistan would now also address the "failing state" of Yemen.

At the weekend Downing Street went on to say that the prime minister and Barack Obama had agreed in a personal telephone conversation that Britain and the US would jointly fund a counter-terrorism police unit in Yemen. Yesterday afternoon the White House said it was a discussion held only at official level. Brown then admitted there had been no direct contact between the two leaders on the issue, and that the US and UK counter-terrorism initiatives had been going on "for some time".

Alistair Darling has pledged to invest in infrastructure decades into the future, by setting up Infrastructure UK to focus the government's planning to prioritise and fund infrastructure over the coming 50 years. As predicted by NCE, the Chancellor has set-up an overarching body to look at all aspects of infrastructure in the UK, with a particular focus on private sector investment.

Darling said he wanted to: "Build on the unprecedented investment in infrastructure over the last decade and ensure the UK is ready to face the challenges of the transition to a lowcarbon economy by creating Infrastructure UK, which will help facilitate private sector investment in infrastructure, and help ensure that publicly funded infrastructure is effectively prioritised and delivered."

Infrastructure UK will be chaired by ex Rio Tinto chairman Paul Skinner and James Stewart has been appointed as Chief Executive, who will move on secondment from Partnerships UK where he was chief executive..

One of the body's tasks will be to identify new revenue streams for major infrastructure, and manage the government's money earmarked for the 2020 European Fund for Energy, Climate Change and Infrastructure. It will also guide the Treasury in its infrastructure investment.

Finally, the body will actively support the development and construction of major infrastructure, reporting to the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Treasury on pushing the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Infrastructure UK will amalgamate several independent bodies - The Infrastructure Finance Unit, the Treasury's PPP policy team, and parts of Partnerships UK.

Newly appointed chair Paul Skinner said: "Effective infrastructure planning and delivery will be an important determinant of the future economic growth, particularly given the need to develop a low carbon trajectory for the UK economy."

"Substantial investment in infrastructure will be required to achieve this and Infrastructure UK will aim to achieve global best practice in the identification, prioritisation, development, funding and operation of major infrastructure programmes. These will support growth and inward investment," he said.

Infrastructure UK will also advise the Treasury and DECC on a low-carbon electricity market, and how to deliver it cost-effectively. £90M will go towards the 2020 European Fund for Energy, Climate Change and Infrastructure, which will be jointly administered by Infrastructure UK and the European Investment Bank.

This fund is designed to act as a model for introducing new private sector money into sectors such as wind, biomass, gas storage, transmission and CCS. The Fund plans to attract up to £1.36 billion of equity from a range of investors and has up to £4.5bn of associated debt co-financing waiting to be deployed.

Economic secretary to the Treasury, Ian Pearson said: "We have seen significant investment in infrastructure over the last decade. However the challenge now is to raise the bar and embrace a low carbon future. To meet this challenge, we require increased private sector investment and improved value for money. Infrastructure UK will act as a focal point for investors, developing the UK’s first strategy for national infrastructure, attracting new sources of private sector investment and advising Government on a more efficient prioritisation of public spending."

ICE Director General Tom Foulkes said: "Well-planned and strategically prioritised infrastructure investment in the UK in the coming years will be crucial for our economic recovery, and in achieving a low carbon economy. However Infrastructure UK's immediate focus must be on how vital infrastructure projects, which will underpin any recovery, can be funded in the long-term."

"I-UK will urgently need to find new and innovative ways to fund much-needed infrastructure as well as address ongoing barriers to private investment. A National Infrastructure Investment Bank, which has gained widespread political and academic support, could offer both a predictable source of funding and help infrastructure projects to attract private finance."

"It is important also that the focus is not only on building new infrastructure - there is little point in investing in the very best, most up to date infrastructure if the entire, inter-dependent network is not adequately protected from cascading system failure. Infrastructure UK will need to coordinate the various regulatory bodies and agencies responsible for protecting infrastructure to ensure a strategic joined up approach. We have seen the domino effect vulnerable infrastructure networks can have recently in Cumbria."

Respondents answered a whole series of questions on what they had done or were prepared to do to reduce their carbon emissions. Detailed results from the question as to whether they tried to avoid short haul air trips are very relevant to the problems of reducing aviation emissions.

Only 11% said they avoid taking short haul flights were possible. This may be because many of the respondents don't ever take short haul flights, so there is nothing to reduce, or it may be that respondents are taking as many short haul flights as before. It may also be a combination of the two.

Just over one third (35%) of respondents living in Luxembourg and Sweden say they avoid taking short haul flights, whilst Finns and Germans also try to avoid short distance air travel

Those who consider climate change to be a serious problem are more likely to be taking most of the simpler actions (recycling, saving energy and water etc). However, they are not more likely to have to have purchased a greener car, to be reducing their car use, or to avoid short-haul flights. Nor are they more likely to have switched to a greener energy supplier, or to have installed renewable energy generation equipment at home.

OUR COMMENT: Even the convinced seem to be avoiding action that actually might change their present life style!

Pat Dale

The legal sucker punch landed by BAA on the antitrust authorities yesterday may help the company stall the forced sale of some of Britain's best-known airports - and leave the taxpayer with a multi-million-pound bill to boot.

The Competition Commission is facing the embarrassing prospect of being ordered to redo its high-profile two-year investigation of BAA's near-monopoly, after a stinging tribunal judgment found the probe displayed "apparent bias".

Lawyers said the ruling was a dramatic late reversal for the watchdog in a case that has distilled anger about the state of Heathrow and other British airports and has become the biggest test of the country's toughened anti-monopoly rules. One solicitor said: "This could be one where you have to redo the entire inquiry. So egg on face all round."

The parties to the increasingly fractious Competition Commission investigation were last night scrambling to work out the full implications of a tribunal judgment that gives BAA a victory without saying exactly what the spoils will be. The tribunal will decide in the new year what the effect should be on the watchdog's order for BAA to sell three airports, which led the company to sell Gatwick for £1.5bn.

The share price of BAA's owner, Spanish infrastructure group Ferrovial, barely moved yesterday, reflecting uncertainty over whether the judgment would halt the sale process or merely delay it to a time when economic conditions are more to the company's liking.

BAA's win - based on links between one of the investigation panel members and a local authority pension fund that bid unsuccessfully for Gatwick - sparked an angry reaction from airlines and passenger groups who say more competition is needed to improve British airports.

The Competition Commission had paved the way for the biggest shake-up in the sector since BAA was privatised more than 20 years ago, proposing measures including increased investment in Heathrow's much-criticised services. The commission, which said it was disappointed by the ruling and was looking for grounds to appeal, will be frustrated and embarrassed by both the manner of its defeat and criticism of its handling of the case.

The ruling centred on the position of Peter Moizer, an investigator and long-standing strategic adviser to the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, which formed part of a consortium bidding for Gatwick. The tribunal was unimpressed with Prof Moizer's argument that he did not see Manchester Airport's interest in bidding for a BAA airport as "in any way bearing" on his independence or appearance of independence.

The tribunal said fair-minded observers would be "puzzled, as frankly we are, as to how that view could be maintained" in the light of the connections. Prof Moizer declined to comment.

The Competition Commission said it could not rule out that a fresh inquiry would be ordered. The watchdog declined to say how much it had spent on the BAA probe, although officials indicated investigations of this kind normally cost about £3m.

BAA declined to comment in detail yesterday, unsurprisingly given the decision it must make about how to exploit the judgment. While previous apparent bias cases suggest the company would have a good chance of having the investigation annulled, it may not relish the prospect of becoming embroiled in another two-year probe.

The one certainty is that BAA - vilified over its stewardship of Heathrow and faced with the toughest remedies the competition watchdog has ever imposed - now has an unexpected last chance to fight back.

BAA has won its appeal against the Competition Commission but it is not yet clear whether the judgment means the company will have to sell airports in London and Scotland.

In March, the airport operator was ordered to sell three of its seven UK airports: Gatwick, Stansted and one of either Glasgow or Edinburgh. But BAA, owned by Spanish infrastructure group Ferrovial, accused the Competition Commission of an "intolerable conflict of interest" because one member of the panel had links to a potential buyer. The company also argued that a decline in passenger numbers should have been considered in the decision.

Its lawyer, Nicholas Green QC, told the appeal tribunal that there was a "powerful connection" between Manchester Airports Group, one potential Gatwick buyer and Peter Moizer, a member of the inquiry. But Mr Green qualified this, saying it was a matter of "apparent bias" not "actual bias".

Prof Moizer has been a long-standing strategic adviser to the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, which joined a consortium bidding for Gatwick that included MAG and Borealis, the Canadian infrastructure fund. He resigned just before the commission's final report in March when it became clear the pension fund was involved in the Gatwick bid.

The tribunal unanimously concluded on Monday that there was "a real possibility of bias" because of the participation of Prof Moizer. But they threw out the suggestion that the Commission had failed to take account of relevant considerations when deciding on the timescale for the divestments.

BAA said it would now hold discussions with the Competition Commission, "to determine the appropriate response to this judgment". The company has already sold Gatwick for £1.5bn to the owners of London City airport in October. The Competition Commission said: "We're studying the judgment and its implications carefully."

Opponents of BAA's position of dominance over UK airports expressed disappointment. Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat transport spokesman, said it was bad news for passengers: "They are the ones who suffer when one company has a stranglehold over the UK's airports. It is not right for one company to run more than one airport in London and both Glasgow and Edinburgh airports."

Bob Atkinson, of travelsupermarket.com, said: "Regardless of the reasons behind today's announcement, it remains a fact that BAA has a stranglehold on Scottish aviation, as well as a dominant position in south-east England. It's not great news for passengers, especially from a customer service point of view."

Commission on back foot after third loss

The competition watchdog's loss on appeal in the BAA case is the third high-profile reversal of a year that has raised questions about its ability to take on the biggest companies, writes Michael Peel. The Competition Commission's latest setback - after defeats by both Tesco and Barclays bank - has taken the sheen off an organisation touted as a Rolls-Royce among global antitrust authorities.

The watchdog will enter the new year needing morale-boosting victories to show it can use the tougher powers granted it under the 2002 Enterprise Act to make companies sell assets and change their behaviour.

Mark Friend, partner at law firm Allen & Overy, on Monday called the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s ruling against the commission in the BAA case - over the appearance of a conflict of interest in the investigation - a "devastating blow". "It has been a bad year for the commission, an annus horribilis really," he said.

The different character of the defeats - the Tesco and Barclays matters were over technical questions of economic analysis - makes it hard to draw conclusions about whether it is underperforming. A more charitable school of thought holds that the watchdog is still highly rated internationally and has scored some victories in appeals by multinationals, notably BSkyB.

The commission said that given the "very important and significant" decisions it was taking, it was inevitable some would be challenged successfully. "Clearly there are always lessons to be learnt in these situations - but it's worth noting that the overall finding in each case has been upheld," it said.

Airport operators learn not to crow about others' misfortune, but BAA must be tempted. Not only is Eurostar taking most of the traditional yuletide flak from inconvenienced passengers, Gatwick (which BAA has just sold) is having more of a problem than Heathrow with snow and the Competition Commission has fallen on its backside over its plan to force divestment of two more BAA airports.

It looks as though the Commission has been caught out on a technicality - but it's an important one. One of the six members of the panel looking at BAA's market position was a strategic adviser to the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, which eventually joined a consortium bidding for Gatwick with Manchester Airports Group. Nobody alleges this potential conflict actually affected the outcome. But the appeal tribunal accepted - reluctantly, given the time and money spent on the inquiry - BAA's claim that it gave rise to an "apparent bias". The same panellist had been carefully quarantined from an earlier, less sensitive Competition Commission probe.

Campaigners to smash BAA's alleged dominance deserved better. The ruling could put two years of expensive work at risk. But they should not give up hope. The original conclusion still looks the right one: separate ownership of London's three principal airports would improve the quality of service and possibly improve capacity, too, with different proprietors competing to expand to meet demand. The probe could be re-run - at a cost (two-year inquiries come in at about £3m) but probably with a similar outcome.

For now, though, Ferrovial, BAA's Spanish owner, can enjoy its early Christmas present. It has won at the very least a breathing space to sell the other airports when the market improves. That may make up for the poor price it received for Gatwick, relative to what it paid in 2006.

The Spanish don't yet look smart. But the Competition Commission looks as prescient and as agile as a fat man who decides to brave a blizzard in ballet shoes.

December's climate summit was supposed to be the culmination of a negotiation process that began in Bali two years ago, leading to a binding agreement with emission reduction targets for rich nations. It was in fact the beginning of another round of talks.

The "Copenhagen Accord" announced on Saturday after hours of intensive negotiations angered green groups, who called it an "abject failure" and "shameful". The document recognises the two degrees goal but contains no targets to achieve it.

There are no specific emission reduction actions by developing countries and no specific commitments on long term financing for mitigation and adaptation efforts in countries most affected by climate change.

As well as being a non-binding agreement, the accord hammered out by a small group of countries including the US and China was not even adopted by the parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Instead it has been 'noted', meaning countries have acknowledged its existence but do not necessarily agree with it.

Those who had hoped for a meaningful agreement are now turning to next year's UN climate summit in Mexico. "What we've got to do in Mexico is to achieve all the things that we should have achieved here in Copenhagen," said UNFCCC chief Yvo de Boer.

Under the accord, developed countries commit to register their formal emission reduction pledges for the year 2020 by the end of January 2020, and to provide "new and additional" money amounting to $30bn a year over the three years 2010-12.

There is also a goal to mobilise $100bn a year by 2020, a figure first proposed by British prime minister Gordon Brown in June, with money coming from private and public sectors. One of the few big concessions in Copenhagen came when the US agreed to this figure.

Transparency - making sure developing countries' emission cuts are properly monitored and verified, was a big bone of contention between the US and China. Chinese officials resisted attempts to guarantee that their future CO2 reductions are accurate.

This issue epitomises the mistrust between rich and poor countries during the negotiations. In the end the Chinese agreed that their reductions funded by industrialised nations should be monitored and verified, but not self-financed measures.

The owner of Virgin Atlantic flew to Copenhagen in support of a global deal to cut airline, shipping and other transport emissions, which make up 20pc of the world's total. He wants the proceeds from such a system to support the rainforests and help developing countries tackle the effects of climate change. But Sir Richard said he drew the line at a new global tax when the industry has suffered so much in the recession.

"The airline industry has suffered a 100pc increase in taxes by this Labour Government, which are not going to environmental causes, and the danger is that this would tax the industry out of existence," he said. "That's not the way forward."

If global leaders do agree to impose a levy on shipping and airline fuels, Sir Richard urged the conference to exempt planes that use a high proportion of biofuels. He said that if no emissions trading was introduced to help airlines move gradually towards greener fuels, the industry should act alone by imposing a voluntary system and tough targets.

Emissions trading will be introduced for planes flying to and from Europe in 2012, which could mean the worst-performing airlines will see up to 80pc lower profits than the best-performing airline as a result of the system. But there are no restrictions in other parts of the world.

The aviation industry has moved to pre-empt penalties on emissions that could be imposed at Copenhagen by offering to peak its emissions by 2020. Paul Steele, director of aviation environment at the International Air Transport Association, said there was support for an emissions trading system if introduced globally, but not more taxes.

"A blunt tax on aviation will do nothing to reduce emissions but will increase the cost of trade and tourism in the least-developed countries, affecting local economies and livelihoods in those countries," Mr Steele said.

OUR COMMENT: Even Sir Richard wants an easy passage (at others' expense) for his aviation interests!

Pat Dale

At first glance, the Copenhagen climate summit seems like a Salvador Dali dreamscape. I just saw Archbishop Desmond Tutu being followed by a swarm of Japanese students who were dressed as aliens and carrying signs saying "Take Me To Your Leader" and "Is Your Species Crazy?". Before that, a group of angry black-clad teenage protesters who were carrying spray cans started quoting statistics to me about how much carbon dioxide the atmosphere can safely absorb. (It's 350 parts per million they pointed out, before sucking their teeth.) Before that, I saw a couple in a pantomime cow costume being attacked by the police, who accused them of throwing stones with their hooves.

But the surrealism runs deeper and darker than this. Inside the Bella Centre, the rich world's leaders are defiantly ignoring their scientists and refusing to sign a deal that will prevent our climate from being dramatically destabilised. The scientific consensus shows the rich world needs to cut 40 per cent of our emissions of warming gases from 1990 levels by 2020 if we're going to have even a 50-50 chance of staying this side of the Point of No Return, when the Earth's natural processes start to break down and warming becomes unstoppable. Yet the scientists at Climate Analytics calculate our governments are offering a dismal 8-12 per cent cut – and once you factor in all the loopholes and accounting tricks, it becomes a net increase of four per cent.

Privately, government negotiators admit there's no way the negotiations will end with the deal scientists say is necessary for our safety. Indeed, it looks possible that this conference won't deepen and broaden the Kyoto framework, but cripple it. Kyoto established a legally binding international framework to measure and reduce emissions. The cuts it required were too small, and the sanctions for breaking it were pitifully weak – but it was a start.

Kyoto's current phase expires in 2012, but the treaty's authors believed its architecture would be retained and intensified after that. The developing countries assumed that's what they were here to do. But the US is proposing to simply ditch the Kyoto infrastructure - won over decades of long negotiations - and replace it with an even weaker voluntary deal. In their proposal, every country will announce cuts and stick to them out of the goodness of their hearts. No penalties, no enforcement.

The era of cheap air travel is set to come to an end as Ryanair and easyJet, the budget airlines famous for their low-cost tickets, change strategy to maximise returns for shareholders. Both budget carriers have announced plans to rein back their rapid growth rates and the money saved in not buying new aircraft and opening new bases will go back to investors.

This may be good news for shareholders, but passengers will lose out as there will be less pressure on the airlines to offer promotions such as Ryanair's £1 fare deals. Ryanair, Europe's largest airline by passenger numbers and market value, announced yesterday that it would be changing strategy from 2013, when its current fleet acquisition programme comes to an end.

EasyJet announced a similar change in strategy earlier this year after a boardroom bust-up between Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou, the airline's founder, and the carrier's management.

Ryanair ends $15bn plane talks with Boeing

Ryanair's change of heart came as the budget carrier walked away from negotiations to buy up to 200 new aircraft from Boeing. This decision will have allowed rival airlines across Europe to breathe a sigh of relief as the Irish airline's double-digit growth rates will stall.

As Ryanair's fleet has expanded aggressively over the past decade, it has moved pugnaciously into new markets - much to the displeasure of Europe's existing flag carriers. Europe's older, less efficient airlines have struggled to compete with Ryanair's low fares and have lost passengers as a result. However, Ryanair has been unable to agree terms with Boeing to buy a new $6 billion (£3.7 billion) fleet of aircraft and will start returning money to shareholders instead.

The Irish-based carrier plans to take delivery of 112 new 737-800s over the next three years but the new order would have allowed Ryanair to continue adding passengers beyond 2013.

Michael O'Leary, Ryanair's chief executive, said that surplus cash would be returned to investors. His statement resulted in the share price gaining 6.5 per cent in Dublin.

Mr O'Leary said last month that Ryanair's fares could start to rise rapidly once it was no longer funding large aircraft purchases. "We would be under far less pressure to fill capacity by cutting prices," he said.

Mr O'Leary will unveil a new strategy for the airline in the first quarter of next year. Ryanair and Boeing are understood to have reached an agreement on pricing for the aircraft - probably about $25 million to $30 million each. However, Boeing is thought to have changed the terms of delivery and this was unacceptable to Ryanair.

A spokesman for Boeing said it was disappointed not to have concluded the deal but that any order had to be on commercially acceptable terms for its shareholders.

Ryanair and easyJet, Europe's largest budget airlines, have enjoyed almost continuous double-digit growth rates since the mid-1990s. Ryanair is expected to carry 66 million passengers this year and easyJet 45 million.

Sir Stelios said yesterday: "I'm delighted that Michael O'Leary now accepts what I've been saying for over a year - the era of endless fast growth and ever larger aircraft fleet is near its end."

OUR COMMENT: Can some of us look forward to some quieter nights? Has the era of cheap air travel now ended? Perhaps O'Leary would like to invest in a rail service?

Pat Dale

Living under a flight path can seriously damage your health. German researchers have discovered that people who are exposed to jet noise have a substantially increased risk of stroke, high blood pressure and heart disease. The findings are bound to provide further ammunition to anti-airport campaigners and make uncomfortable reading for world leaders at this week's climate summit in Copenhagen.

According to the unpublished study, commissioned by Germany's Federal Environment Agency, men who are exposed to jet noise have a 69% higher risk of being hospitalized for cardiovascular disease. Women living under flight paths fare even worse, logging a 93% higher rate of hospitalization with cardiovascular problems, compared with their counterparts in quiet residential areas. The study found that women who are exposed to jet noise (of about 60 decibels) during the day are 172% more likely to suffer a stroke.

The report, due to be published in January, is based on the analysis of data from public health insurers that were drawn from more than 1 million Germans ages 40 and over who live near Cologne-Bonn Airport in western Germany. "These figures are worrying. It's quite clear that living near an airport is very dangerous for your health," says Eberhard Greiser, an emeritus professor of epidemiology at Bremen University. "Jet noise is more dangerous than any other kind of road-traffic noise or rail noise because it is especially acute and sharp and it induces stress hormones."

People living close to Cologne-Bonn Airport also tended to suffer from psychological illnesses. "There was a higher incidence of depression among women who live near the airport," says Jens Ortscheid of the Federal Environment Agency. "This report should come as a warning signal to all governments and authorities that are planning to expand airports ˜ there are serious health effects which need to be considered." Ortscheid says the report is in line with previous studies on the health effects of jet noise.

In a separate study commissioned by the local Bonn authorities, Greiser discovered that women near Cologne-Bonn Airport had an increased risk of developing breast cancer and leukemia. His research found that women who are exposed to 60 decibels of jet noise at night are twice as likely to contract breast cancer. "It seems women are more sensitive to jet noise than men, but I would advise everyone to think twice about living near an airport because it's not just aircraft noise which can be deadly; aircraft emissions are also dangerous," says Greiser.

That's not what the proponents of schemes to expand airport capacity wish to hear. In the U.K., the government faces strong opposition to its plans to build a third runway and sixth terminal at the congested Heathrow Airport in London. In February, campaigners are set to mount a legal challenge against the scheme in London's high court, saying the consultation process was flawed and the plans could prevent Britain from meeting its commitments to lower carbon emissions.

German authorities face similar obstacles in their struggle to win consent to boost the capacity of airports in Berlin and Frankfurt. The expansion of Schönefeld Airport, in the southern outskirts of Berlin, has already drawn fire from environmental campaigners and residents who are demanding a ban on night flights. The new international airport - called Berlin Brandenburg - Willy Brandt, after the former German Chancellor - is due to be completed by October 2011 and will be the capital city's main hub, catering up to 27 million passengers. That means over two years, hospitals near the new airport can expect a rise of about 5,000 patients suffering from cardiovascular disease, including 1,350 men and women with a stroke, if Greiser's predictions are accurate.

Plans to expand Frankfurt's airport are also controversial. In August, a court in the state of Hesse gave a green light for the expansion of the airport but recommended imposing tougher restrictions on nighttime flights to protect residents from aircraft noise. The German airliner Lufthansa has launched legal action against the night-flight curbs, saying they threaten its freight business. But the local Green Party has renewed its calls for an outright ban on night flights, and the legal battle is set to drag on.

"The new airport at Schönefeld is crucial for the Berlin economy, as it'll provide up to 40,000 new jobs," Ralf Kunkel, a spokesman for Berlin Airports' Authority, tells TIME. "By closing all the inner-city airports in Berlin, we are relieving tens of thousands of Berliners from the perils of aircraft noise, and so there's a positive ecological balance," he says.

Greiser is convinced his report provides unequivocal evidence of the health risks associated with jet noise. "When it comes to expanding airports, governments and the courts all over the world will have to weigh the benefits of commercial interests against the danger to public health," he says. "How many additional diseases is society prepared to accept?"

Heavy taxes on passengers and a ban on expansion at regional airports will be needed to curb Britain's insatiable appetite for air travel, a climate change report will say today .

But it will still be possible to build a third runway at Heathrow, add second runways at Stansted and Edinburgh and permit an extra 140 million journeys a year by 2050 without breaking the UK's commitment to cutting carbon dioxide emissions, according to the Committee on Climate Change.

However, that 60% increase in air travel over the next four decades will come at a cost of choking off expansion at other airports including Gatwick, Birmingham, Newcastle and Bristol.

The committee - set up under the Climate Change Act 2008 to independently advise the government on how to meet its legally binding targets - warns that the British flying boom, stoked by the emergence of Ryanair and easyJet, is unsustainable.

If the aviation industry continues to grow unchecked, passenger journeys would increase by 200% in the next 40 years, but that cannot be tolerated because carbon dioxide emitted by carriers in 2050 must not exceed 2005 levels.

"This is a very challenging target," said David Kennedy, the committee's chief executive. "Don't be deceived by the fact that demand can grow. It will have to grow by much less than if we didn't care about carbon dioxide."

Today's report says ministers must consider measures including: a carbon tax on passengers; limits on runway expansion; and restrictions on flights at existing airports. Passenger growth will have to be limited to 60% over the next four decades, compared with an increase of 130% since 1990, allowing the UK a maximum of around 370 million air travellers by 2050, from 230 million currently.

"Demand can increase, but only in a limited way," added Kennedy. The committee forecasts that unchecked airline growth would shatter emissions targets, increasing passenger numbers by 200% to 695 million per year.

Asked if fares will also have to increase in order to choke off demand, Kennedy said: "The price has to cut back some of the growth, so you do have to have rising prices."

However, the report delivers a blow to campaigners against Heathrow expansion by making the theoretical case for a third runway. According to government forecasts an expanded Heathrow could handle a further 68 million passengers a year by 2030 - more than double current demand of 67 million a year - and still fit easily within the committee's growth projections. "You can see how you can do the maths and have a third runway at Heathrow and be within the 60% limit," said Kennedy.

If projections published by the DfT this year are correct, Britain could reach the maximum permitted number of flights soon after 2030. According to DfT forecasts, adding new runways at Heathrow, Stansted and Edinburgh will be the equivalent of an extra 131.2 million journeys per year by 2030. Not only would that leave no room for new runways at Gatwick, Luton, Birmingham, Glasgow, Newcastle and Bristol, but it would bar those airports from increasing passenger numbers beyond current levels.

Even with an anticipated carbon price of £200 per tonne passed on to fares, the creation of a high-speed rail network, and more use of video-conferencing to cut business travel, the committee warns that more action such as constraining airport use might be needed in order to stop the population from flying. The report singles out a "carbon tax" as one of the solutions, which would be levied on top of the £200 per tonne carbon price.

"The policy instruments which could achieve this restraint include a carbon tax on top of the forecast carbon price, limits on further airport expansion, and restrictions on the allocation of takeoff and landing slots even where airports have the theoretical capacity available," the report says.

The report calculates that the aviation industry can limit 2050 carbon dioxide emissions to 2005 levels - or 37.5m tonnes of CO2 a year - because aircraft manufacturers and airlines will improve the fuel efficiency of their fleets by 0.8% a year. Including limited use of biofuels, that will slash carbon dioxide emissions per passenger by 35%.

Under that scenario, which includes greater use of the A380 superjumbo and an increase in the amount of seats sold per flight, the number of flights in and out of the UK can increase from 2.2m a year to 3.4m.

Even then, aviation will account for a quarter of all UK emissions by 2050 because other industries will have made tougher emissions cuts.

Environmental campaigners said the government should now scrap expansion plans laid out in the 2003 aviation white paper. "Ministers have been influenced by misleading greenwash from the aviation industry for far too long - this report is a reality check which should put the nail in the coffin for government plans to allow a huge expansion in air travel," said Richard Dyer of Friends of the Earth.

The white paper had envisioned demand for flights growing to 465 million a year by 2030 - a number that is now inconceivable under the committee's projections. It said the government could rewrite its airport policy - and choose which airports expand at the expense of others - in a national policy statement that is now required under the 2008 Planning Act. The act creates an infrastructure planning commission that will refer to policy statements when it considers planning applications for infrastructure projects such as airports.

The report also marks a potential transformation in the lifestyle of millions of Britons who have benefited from a regional airport boom which gave cheap access to the beaches and cities of Europe from an airport a few miles down the road.

If the Committee on Climate Change's advice on capping growth in air travel is accepted by ministers, then the majority of the UK's remaining airports could find themselves at a standstill while the likes of Heathrow take much of the allowed growth. Under that scenario, prices will rise inexorably as demand for a weekend break to Nice far outstrips supply.

One of easyJet's most successful routes from Bristol International airport is to Alicante in Spain - 50,000 passengers last year at £100 per return ticket.

A spokesman for the airline admitted that fares at regional airports could be forced up if the likes of Bristol International, which handled 6 million people a year and is aiming for 10 million by 2020, are barred from growing. "If you follow the recommendations of the committee that might be the result."

It is likely that the report will widen the schism between budget carriers and regional airports on the one hand, and long-haul carriers such as British Airways and international hubs such as Heathrow on the other.

EasyJet argues that airports serving heavily polluting long-haul destinations should have the toughest curbs because their business plans are predicated on transfer flights, which involve passengers flying into the airport on a regional service. "Why shouldn't the government manage that growth in an environmentally responsible manner? Letting Heathrow grow means more transfer flights, which is more polluting because you have to take two flights instead of one," said the easyJet spokesman.

EasyJet's comments will make for awkward reading among fellow members of the Sustainable Aviation group, who include two of Heathrow's biggest carriers - British Airways and Virgin Atlantic. Sustainable Aviation declined to be drawn into the approaching fight over which airports deserve to grow, saying that limiting emissions through technological improvements was the answer, not cutting people's right to travel.

Four ways to curb air travel, according to the committee on climate change

1 A carbon tax on flights, which could be imposed after airlines join the European Union emissions trading scheme in 2012. The scheme alone is likely to force up fares because airlines will have to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions, but the committee says that is not enough.

2 Limiting runway growth to a select number of airports, possibly Heathrow, Stansted and Edinburgh.

3 Restrictions on take-off and landing slots at airports.

4 Setting out a new growth strategy for UK airports in a national policy statement.

The green lobby had long assumed that today's aviation report from the Committee on Climate Change would finally slay the demon of a third Heathrow runway.

Campaigners believed it would be impossible for government to proceed with a project that flatly contradicted the findings of its key advisers. Yet while opponents of the third runway will argue that the report bolsters their position, the data allows Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, to press ahead with expansion and claim it to be environmentally sound.

"We are saying there is a bigger cake in terms of how many people can fly," said David Kennedy, the committee's chief executive. "It is a political judgment as to how that cake is divided up."

When the Government announced in January a £9 billion plan to build a third runway and sixth terminal at Heathrow by 2020, it commissioned the Committee on Climate Change to advise on the impact of aviation growth on carbon emissions. The committee found that if the national carbon target is to be met passenger numbers should grow by no more than 60 per cent over the next 40 years.

In 2050, if a third runway has been built at Heathrow and is operating at full capacity, the airport will account for 20 per cent of total flights - which is consistent with meeting the Government's carbon target, the committee says. In 2005 Heathrow accounted for 22 per cent of total flights.

Lord Adonis said that the committee's findings would be taken into account when a National Policy Statement on airports is published in 2011.

According to Greenpeace and the Conservatives, the Government's figures do not add up. The report assumes that by 2050, high-speed rail will reduce demand for air travel by 8 per cent; that aircraft will become 0.8 per cent more efficient every year; and that video-conferencing will cut business travel by almost a third.

Greenpeace insists that ministers have based the expansion plan on an expected 200 per cent increase in air passenger demand - a figure that the committee has rejected as incompatible with the carbon target.

"The Government's aviation policy, the basis for their Heathrow decision, has been conclusively rejected by the Government's own advisers as incompatible with their climate targets," said John Sauven, chief of Greenpeace UK. "The Aviation White Paper and the poor decisions it led to must be ripped up in Cabinet, or ripped up in court. We urge the former, but are fully prepared to see Heathrow's third runway in the dock."

Mr Kennedy said that it was possible to "reconcile" the Government's carbon target with its 2003 White Paper. One option proposed by ministers is to expand Heathrow, Stansted and Edinburgh, but no other airports.

A source at BAA, which owns Heathrow, Stansted, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Southampton airports, said that its priority was to expand at Heathrow. "The debate now becomes more about where the new capacity is put and how it is used and we will argue that the strategic priority for the UK is to develop the long-haul network, which is only sustainable at Heathrow," the source said.

That ambition faces its first legal test in February, when campaigners will lead a High Court challenge against Heathrow expansion. They will argue that the consultation process has been flawed and that the case for a third runway is irrational since the Government acknowledges that climate change is a problem.

Richard Dyer, of Friends of the Earth, said: "The Government should abandon plans to expand UK airports and develop an aviation policy that doesn't wreck the planet."

While airlines - which have promised to reduce carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 - put their faith in biofuels, the Climate Change Committee says that these fuels are likely to have only a limited impact on emissions. "Concerns about land availability and sustainability mean that it is not prudent to assume that biofuels in 2050 could account for more than 10 per cent of global aviation fuel," its report says. "It is very unclear whether sufficient land and water will be available for growth of biofuel feedstocks given the need to grow food for a global population projected to increase from the current 6.7 billion to 9.1 billion in 2050."

The committee says that a global action plan is needed to tackle the impact of aviation and that a global cap on CO2 emissions should be set.

While the focus has until now been on carbon emissions, there is still uncertainty over the impact of aviation on global warming. The committee says that as scientific understanding of the effects of nitrous oxide emissions and vapour trails grows, restrictions placed on aviation may yet have to be tightened.

OUR COMMENT: The last paragraph shoots the messenger in the foot. How could the Climate Change Committee have ignored such a powerful greenhouse gas as nitrogen oxides, and the effect of vapour trails?

Pat Dale

A new analysis by the International Council on Clean Transportation shows that advancements in the efficiency of commercial aircraft have stagnated in the last two decades, and without an effective carbon dioxide emission standard fuel prices alone are unlikely to spur large improvements.

A UN body with the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from commercial aircraft recently took the position that a carbon dioxide standard apply to aircraft from newly introduced lines, but not those belonging to types currently in production. The new ICCT study suggests a carbon dioxide standard that also covers planes coming off existing production lines is likely needed to spur efficiency gains and reduce emissions.

Commercial aviation currently accounts for about 12 percent of carbon dioxide produced by the transportation sector. That figure will grow to 19 percent in 2050, according to International Energy Agency projections. Without effective carbon dioxide standards, aviation threatens to negate progress in cutting emissions from other modes of transportation.

ICCT researchers modeled the fuel consumption of more than 25,000 planes produced and delivered over the past 50 years. Fuel burn was simulated for full loads over design-range routes, and calculated on the basis of both seat-kilometers (i.e. passengers alone) and ton-kilometers (passengers plus cargo).

The analysis found that fuel efficiency increased 80 percent from 1960 through the end of the 1980s, with most of the progress coming during the arrival of wide-body aircraft in the late 1960s, and with the development in the 1980s of more efficient mid-range aircraft such as the Boeing 757 and 767.

During the 1990s however, efficiency gains dropped to less than one percent annually. After 2000 fuel efficiency did not improve at all on a per passenger basis, even as fuel costs rose dramatically from about 10 percent of operating expenses in 2004 to peak at more than one-third in 2008.

"Conventional wisdom holds that fuel prices drive constant improvements in new aircraft efficiency. But this analysis suggests efficiency improvements actually tend to come with the introduction of new designs, which are much less common today" said ICCT senior researcher Daniel Rutherford, who co-authored the study with researcher Mazyar Zeinali.

In the two decades that efficiency has stagnated, the introduction of new aircraft designs has slowed considerably. The lack of new designs has approximately tripled the average age of operating aircraft production lines since 1990. Efficiency improvements by manufacturers today may be going more to improving performance, range and customer amenities rather than reducing fuel consumption.

Applying a carbon dioxide standard only to new production lines, as the UN's International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has proposed, could actually prove counterproductive by encouraging manufacturers to delay the introduction of more efficient designs in favor of older, unregulated models. To avoid such an outcome, the ICCT study concludes that a standard covering aircraft from both new and existing lines would be most effective.

The new study, "Efficiency Trends for New Commercial Jet Aircraft, 1960 to 2008," is available on the ICCT website.

Never mind the carbon, what about a quiet night?

CLIMATE change is not bad news for everyone. To those living beneath the flight paths of busy airports such as Heathrow and Stansted, it brings hope of relief. Schemes to expand these airports to accommodate 570m passengers a year across Britain by 2050, up from 230m passengers today, could not possibly survive plans to cut Britain's carbon emissions by 80% by the same date, or so residents hoped.

Yet last January, to their dismay - and to the outrage of climate campaigners - ministers approved a third runway at Britain's biggest airport, Heathrow, to handle 605,000 flights a year, compared with 480,000 now. On December 8th the Committee on Climate Change, which advises ministers on cutting carbon emissions, published its report on their aviation policies. Campaigners had expected excoriation; what appeared, to their surprise, was a qualified blessing.

Greater efficiency, said the committee, would allow air travel to grow by 60% compared with its 2005 level without boosting carbon emissions. That is much less than the government, or the airlines, had planned - but much more than greens had expected, and enough to allow Heathrow's new runway to be built.

The forecast relies on several assumptions. Growth in demand would, says the committee, be constrained by a huge rise in the carbon price, to £200 ($324) a tonne by 2050 (from around £13 today), making tickets pricier. Governments would limit capacity at airports. A big shift from domestic and short-haul flights to a high-speed rail network linked to the continent (now a mere gleam in the government's eye) would also keep numbers down. And those flights that did go ahead would be cleaner, thanks to better jet-engine technology, bigger planes and more efficient flying practices, improving fuel efficiency by 0.8-1.5% each year. New biofuels that compete less directly with food production would cut carbon emissions further.

The committee's conclusions rely on technology and infrastructure that does not yet exist. That is probably inevitable when peering ahead 40 years, and Bruce Duguid, an aviation expert at the Carbon Trust, a government-funded consultancy, reckons the assumptions are pretty conservative. But privately some greens think that the supposedly independent committee has been leaned on by ministers to justify a decision they had already made.

Nonetheless, those opposed to expanding airports probably need not worry too much. The opposition Conservatives, who look likely to win the general election that must be held by June, are committed to halting the expansion of London's big airports, mainly on environmental grounds. The committee's conclusion may appear to challenge that - and, sensing vulnerability, Virgin Atlantic and British Airways, two big airlines with a vested interest in a bigger Heathrow, have resumed their attacks on the Tories' position.

But the Tories are unlikely to reverse a policy that has wide support in their south-east heartland and the backing of most newspapers. They point out that noise and air pollution tell against expanding London's airports even before climate change enters the equation. And the government's plans for Heathrow would eat up all the carbon savings predicted by the committee, leaving nothing for other airports. Asks one Tory spokesman, "Do we want to put all our eggs in one basket?"

British travellers are reluctant to cut their flying to help the environment, new research shows on the opening day of the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.

Only 13% of people are sufficiently concerned about the environmental impact of flying to cut the number of flights they take, while 15% admit that they are likely to fly more in the next year than they have in the past.

Ninety per cent of people are unlikely to change their holiday plans to reduce the environmental impact of their trip. Factors such as price and convenience are seen as being far more important, according to the study by research company TNS-RI Travel and Tourism.

The travel figures come in stark contrast to general environmental attitudes which show that the British public is becoming increasingly worried about climate change. Two thirds admit that they frequently discuss environmental issues, and 73% insist that they are 'very' or 'fairly' concerned about what the future holds.

Yet only five per cent of the 2,090 travellers polled have made a payment to offset the environmental cost of a trip and only 11% are confident that plans made by the governments of major economies will be able to tackle climate change. The company's group director Tom Costley said: "This research points to a 'hands off' approach to the question of travel and the environment."

"Even though we claim to be concerned about climate change, we prefer to consider our travel plans in isolation and avoid letting green concerns affect our flying."

"There seems to be a feeling that going on holiday is an escape from reality and everything that comes with it - including considering our role in the long-term health of our planet."

"Consumers are expecting the travel industry to take responsibility for implementing changes and improvements, rather than taking direct action themselves."

Airlines could almost double their profits on the back of carbon trading if they succeed in passing on the full price of emissions permits to their customers, according to the Carbon Trust.

The organisation highlighted a huge variation in predicted airline profitability after emissions trading is introduced in Europe from 2012. It estimates that the worst-performing airline will see up to 80pc lower profits than the best-performing airline as a result of the system.

In total, passengers flying to and from Europe will pay an extra €23bn (£21bn) to €35bn on the price of their tickets between 2012 and 2020 based on an estimated carbon unit price of €25, its new report will say next week.

This would compensate the aviation companies for the amount of permits they will have to buy if the heavy emitters do not switch to greener fuels. However, the sector is given 82pc of its permits for free - and could see huge windfall profits if it adds the value of these free allowances on to ticket prices.

The Carbon Trust also calculated that the cost of jet fuel price is likely to rise 15pc if there is a carbon price of €25. It warned jet fuel prices could rise by four times this amount if other harmful gases emitted by the industry are at some point included in the trading system.

The Carbon Trust will publish its full findings ahead of the key Kennedy report on aviation next week, led by the Government's Committee on Climate Change. David Kennedy, who leads the committee, is likely to outline draconian new controls in the UK that could involve more taxes on the sector or limits on flights and airports.

Last week, British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, BAA, BAE Systems, Airbus UK and Rolls-Royce all signed up to a new industry-led Sustainable Aviation Manifesto ahead of the report, which they fear could damage the industry. It calls for a global framework for emissions, needed to stop the "differential impact" of nationally-imposed targets that would harm the UK.

Next week world leaders and businesses meet in Copenhagen for the world summit on the environment, where aviation emissions will be a key part of the debate. The industry has pledged to return emissions to 2000 levels by 2050.

The Conservative party faces pressure from businesses to lift a moratorium on airport expansion after the government's advisory body on climate change said a third runway could be built at Heathrow without breaching emissions targets.

Business lobby group London First said the report by the Committee on Climate Change gave the Tories "headroom" to change their stance. The committee said this week that British airports could handle a further 140 million people per year and still meet a target of capping 2050 carbon dioxide emissions at 2005 levels, challenging the Tory argument that expansion should be ruled out on environmental grounds.

"After the election I would like to see the Conservative party address the issue of how we support a globally linked economy in London and the south-east," said Baroness Valentine, London First's chief executive. "There are several competent economists among senior Tories, so they must understand the necessity of international connectivity to London's continued success."

She added: "A position that says we need no extra airport capacity in the future is reducing your options somewhat once you get into government."

The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the case for a new runway at Heathrow was "compelling" and it would be reiterating that to the Conservatives. "The committee's findings this week further reinforce the case for a third runway at Heathrow and we will be making the point to all political parties that there are now no reasonable grounds to halt expansion at the airport," said Colin Stanbridge, chief executive of the LCCI.

Heathrow's owner, BAA said channelling new passengers into regional airports would cut the UK off from long-haul destinations. "The one form of aviation that we cannot substitute easily is long-haul and Heathrow can provide long-haul connections that no other airport can," said Colin Matthews, BAA chief executive.

One senior Conservative party figure admitted to the Observer that "there will be some pressure" applied to David Cameron, the Conservative party leader, and the shadow transport secretary, Theresa Villiers, in the wake of the report.

Earlier this year, Conservative frontbencher Geoffrey Clinton-Brown was slapped down after he indicated the Tories might revise the runway policy if they won the election. "It is pointless Britain cutting down on air travel only to find it goes to other European countries. So I expect this is an issue that will need to be revisited after the election," he said.

The committee's findings make it possible for any party to implement the government's 2003 aviation white paper without breaching the 2050 target. The paper recommends new runways at Heathrow, Stansted and Edinburgh, which would see just over 130 million more passengers using British airports by 2030.

Villiers and David Cameron still appear to have strong support within the party. Steven Norris, architect of the Conservative runway embargo, said he disagreed with the committee's growth projections because they do not account for a sustained spike in oil prices in the decades to come. "God is on the side of Theresa Villiers and she has nothing to fear from the Committee on Climate Change," he said.

The former Tory transport minister recommended the moratorium in the influential Blueprint for a Green Economy policy document published by Zac Goldsmith and John Gummer two years ago, and believes that technological changes such as videoconferencing will negate long-haul flying. "The committee report points to the need for more runways but I think that everything points in the opposite direction, to the death of distance."

Villiers argues the extra growth can be taken up without adding runways at the UK's largest airports - Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted - even though airports based in the south-east handled nearly six out of 10 air passengers last year, when a total of 235 million travellers flew in and out of the UK. "The bigger the expansion permitted at Heathrow, the greater the constraints that will be faced by regional airports. Labour's approach could see regions yet again lose out as regional airports are left to wither on the vine to give head room for the massive carbon footprint caused by Heathrow expansion."

The Conservative stance is supported by Birmingham International Airport's chief executive, Paul Kehoe, who fears the report will be used as an excuse to grow Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted at the expense of the rest of the UK. If London's three largest airports were allowed to develop new runways, the others would not be able to handle any more passengers than they do currently.

But failure to secure a new agreement could put the world at risk of temperature rises of more than 5C - a change in climate which he said "could only be described as catastrophic".

Temperature rises of 5C would "rewrite" where people could live and lead to serious extended global conflict, said Lord Stern, whose review for the Government set out the cost of tackling climate change.

And he warned if the Copenhagen climate talks fail it will be "deeply damaging" and difficult to recreate the opportunity the negotiations currently provide to shift the world onto a low carbon path.

He called on the European Union to show leadership ahead of the talks by making its offer to cut emissions by 30 per cent on 1990 levels by 2020 - currently conditional on efforts by other countries - an unconditional one.

That would see the UK raise its target for cutting emissions to 42 per cent by the end of the next decade, with a move away from fossil fuels in the electricity sector, better insulation of houses, increased use of low carbon cars and more public transport.

Lord Stern put the figure at between 1 per cent and 2 per cent of GDP over the next few decades, but said investments "will produce very strong returns".

Financial support for developing countries to take steps to curb their emissions and cope with the consequences of climate change is necessary in the next few years - with some $50 billion (£30 billion) a year required by 2015, he said.

Measures such as taxes on flying or carbon taxes, or using the cash raised by auctioning permits polluters buy to cover their carbon emissions under the EU emissions trading scheme, could be used to fund the financial aid.

Lord Stern, chairman of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said in order to give the world a 50/50 chance of keeping temperature rises below 2C, global emissions had to be brought down from around 47 billion tonnes to about 44 billion tonnes in 2020.

He said the pledges for emissions cuts put down by countries ranging from the US and Europe to Brazil and Indonesia were, if the most ambitious levels suggested were put into place, "not so very far away" from what was needed.

A report put out by the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, and the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy showed existing commitments by developed and developing countries could take the world most of the way to the 44 billion tonnes target in a deal at Copenhagen.

The gap could be closed by rich countries delivering their highest intentions or going even further to cut emissions and providing extra funding to help poor countries reduce their pollution, by big economies such as China coming forward with more domestic action and with reductions in global shipping and aviation.

He said the meeting in Copenhagen was the most important since the Second World War, given what was at stake, but that success could spark off the "biggest dynamic period in history".

"When we find low carbon growth, it will be more energy secure, cleaner, quieter, safer and more biodiverse," he said, adding "High carbon growth is a contradiction in terms - it will kill itself".

Ahead of the talks he said China's announcement, it planned to reduce the carbon intensity of its economy - the emissions per unit of economic output - by 40% to 45%, showed it was trying to decouple growth and pollution and that the country may go further before the end of Copenhagen.

And the US must come to agreement on financial measures to help poorer countries tackle climate change - with strong support from America for contributing finance for areas such as stopping deforestation and sharing technology, he urged.

The government's approval of a third runway at Heathrow has been endorsed by MPs, ahead of the publication tomorrow of an independent report on aviation's contribution to climate change.

The House of Commons transport committee backs the expansion of Britain's largest airport in a report published today, adding that airline passengers would be better served by a second runway at Gatwick rather than Stansted. "In view of the economic benefits to the UK, we endorse the government's January 2009 decision to support a third runway at Heathrow and an additional terminal," says the report.

It states that a second runway at Stansted is unlikely to be completed before 2019 due to planning wrangles and priority should be given instead to Gatwick, where an embargo against expanding Britain's second largest airport expires in 2019.

The endorsement of the Heathrow policy comes as the Committee on Climate Change prepares to publish its own aviation report. Alongside approving a third runway, the government introduced a target of limiting aviation's carbon dioxide emissions to 2005 levels by 2050. The committee, set up to advise ministers how to reduce carbon emissions, will report on aviation's progress towards the target tomorrow, including comments on whether a third runway will hinder the industry's ability to meet the 2050 benchmark.

A leading campaigner against Heathrow expansion said the transport committee had "failed to move with the times". John Stewart, who chairs Hacan (Heathrow Association for the Control of Airport Noise), added: "It trots out the tired, old discredited arguments in favour of Heathrow expansion. The economic case for Heathrow expansion is just no longer accepted by the majority of decision-makers."

Ministers argue that congestion-choked Heathrow needs to expand, otherwise leading businesses including financial services firms will locate their bases in countries with larger, less crowded airports. With a third runway, Heathrow would go from handling 67 million people a year to 135 million. If there is no expansion those passengers will simply go elsewhere, travelling through rival hubs in Paris or Amsterdam at considerable cost to British jobs, the government believes.

The Liberal Democrats warn today that an expanded Heathrow will cost the government billions in terms of the price of carbon dioxide generated by 220,000 extra flights a year. "In light of the new government guidance on the cost of CO2 emissions, Heathrow expansion will actually cost us billions," said Susan Kramer, the party's Heathrow spokeswoman. "Only this government could dress up a loss of billions of pounds as a reason to have a third runway. We don't need a bigger Heathrow to keep London competitive."

The Conservatives are also opposed to a third runway.

The transport committee also backed high-speed rail as a key feature of Britain's future transport infrastructure, arguing that it is "imperative" that the new network is linked to airports such as Heathrow.

Consideration should be given to building an extra runway at Gatwick rather than Stansted, a report by MPs has suggested. The Commons Transport Committee said it was "not convinced" a national case for another Stansted runway had been made.

It supported Heathrow's expansion but called for assurances that the west London airport would be linked to other major airports by high-speed rail.

The government said its position on Gatwick and Stansted was unchanged.

In January, ministers gave the go-ahead for a third runway at Heathrow, saying it was right for the UK. That move was opposed by environmentalists and people living by the flightpath.

The runway is expected to be finished by about 2019, but the transport committee voiced concerns about a "lack of clarity" on the timescale for completion. It also said it was unlikely the airport would become a hub airport for many UK cities.

Committee chairman Louise Ellman, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, said aviation was important to the regions as well as south-east England. "Heathrow is a major European hub airport but only six UK cities have flights into it," she said.

"Even with expansion, we need to improve direct access to Heathrow from the national rail network in order to maximise the economic benefits and to reduce the environmental impacts."

On Stansted, the committee report said it was unlikely a second runway could be completed at the Essex airport before 2019, the year when the current restriction on a second runway at Gatwick expires. "The government should reconsider whether the additional runway, if required, should be located at Gatwick rather than Stansted," it said.

The MPs also said they wanted the government to say how much the aviation industry was being taxed. They raised concerns over the way the industry was being left to the "vagaries of the market". And they urged caution over setting the level of the air passenger duty airport departure tax at a time when the industry is particularly vulnerable.

Old planes
Easyjet chief executive Andy Harrison, one of the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee, said the key to sustainable aviation was technology, not taxation. "This means setting minimum standards for aircraft emissions to force airlines to use the most modern aircraft and to force aircraft manufacturers to bring forward the next generation of aircraft much sooner. We must also reform perverse taxes like APD (Air Passenger Duty), which taxes full aircraft more than empty aircraft. How daft is that?" he said.

Other suggestions made in the MPs' report included:

The Civil Aviation Authority's Air Travel Organisers' Licensing (Atol) system levy to be raised and extended to cover all international flights as well as package holidays.

Higher environmental standards to reduce carbon emissions, air pollution and noise.

Old and noisy planes to be taken out of use promptly.

The Department for Transport welcomed the committee's endorsement of government backing for a third runway at Heathrow and its views on the need for good connections between Heathrow and high speed rail. A department spokesman said HS2, the company preparing the high speed rail plan, has been asked to recommend a north-south line with options for connections to Heathrow.

On expansion at Gatwick and Stansted, he added that the government's position remained unchanged.

OUR COMMENT: Not the most enlightened report to publish just before the start of the Copenhagen conference. Don't they understand what its all about?

Pat Dale

Foster + Partner's proposal for Heathrow Terminal 2 ignores the possibility of the zero-carbon airport, says Hayley Chivers

Yesterday's closure of Heathrow's Terminal 2 and its now-imminent demolition has gone relatively unnoticed by the architectural community.

It is clear somethings needs to be done at Terminal 2: the existing terminal was designed to accommodate 1.2 million passengers per year and now regularly deals with 8 million. The issue also lacks the Schadenfreude of Terminal 5's teething problems or the political drama of the third runway battle.

Yet we should ask why airport planners continue to wipe out the old buildings and replace them with entirely new structures - in this case one costing £1bn. This approach would raise eyebrows if copied in hospital complexes, military compounds or train stations.

Colin Matthews, British Airports Authority (BAA) chief executive insists that the replacement terminal will have 'less impact on the environment' because it will produce 40 per cent less carbon than the existing building. Although noble, this dodges the question of how much carbon will be produced by constructing the new buildings - and just how much could be saved by re-fitting and expanding the old one. Can a new build's eco-credentials really outweigh the environmental impact of its predecessor's demolition and replacement?

It seems contradictory for a government who has introduced astonishingly high sustainability targets - such as all public buildings built from 2016 to be zero-carbon - to endorse such a development. Developers of eco-projects in other sectors - notably residential and offices - may feel undermined by the carbon heavy manoeuvrings of a carbon heavy industry.

Airports have the autonomy and space to implement wind and solar power schemes

Incorporating structural elements or waste material from the existing building could reduce the ground works and overall waste of the development. Aviation will have to get its own house in order, but architecture can help create the zero-carbon airport once the planes are on the ground. Airports have the autonomy and space to implement wind and solar power schemes - and might in future harness the kinetic energy of planes.

It is understandable that the airports need to keep one step ahead of competitors by being 'cutting edge', with beautiful precedents such as Rogers' Stirling Prize wining Barajas Airport in Madrid, Foster's Beijing Airport and Piano's Kansai Airport in Japan. Maybe it is time that 'cutting edge' means the zero-carbon airport, built in a sustainable way as an example to the rest of the world of what can be achieved elegantly with existing structure and existing space.

BAA claims the newly envisaged terminal is intended to 'rival' Heathrow's own Terminal 5. If Terminal 2 lives up to the hype, perhaps Richard Rogers will be commissioned to re-built terminal 5 in a new streamlined form, to more efficiently cope with the diminished number of visitors.