SSE NEWS ARCHIVE - From April 2008

The sudden collapse of Oasis Hong Kong Airlines shows how quickly the tide is going out for the world's airlines as they struggle to deal with surging fuel prices and softening economic growth. Start-up carriers such as Oasis are especially vulnerable, and inevitably it is the new business models, usually dreamed up in the years of feast, that start to look most at risk in times of famine.

One of the first casualties of the accelerating shake-out was Maxjet, a pioneer of the new breed of all-business class carriers that began springing up to fly the North Atlantic three years ago. Maxjet, US-registered but listed on Aim, London's junior market, collapsed into bankruptcy at the end of last year.

It blamed its demise on fuel price inflation, tough competitive pressures and a decline in consumer spending. In addition, the turmoil in the financial markets had made it impossible to raise fresh funds.

In recent weeks, at least five other US carriers have thrown in the towel, including small charter airlines. But the casualties include Skybus, a start-up low-cost carrier with new orders in place with Airbus for 65 A319 jets, and well-known names such as Aloha Airlines with more than 60 years of history and ATA.

Leading US airlines are reducing capacity in the domestic market, grounding old short-haul aircraft and are scrambling to try to increase fares as they struggle to come to terms with an oil price of more than $100 a barrel.

In Europe, the perennially lossmaking Italian flag carrier, is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy while the Italian unions decide whether or not to accept big job cuts and a shrinking of the airline in return for a last-ditch rescue by Air France-KLM. Among the industry leaders, British Airways has already warned that profit will decline significantly during the next 12 months.

Both Ryanair and EasyJet, Europe's two biggest low-cost airlines, have issued profit warnings, with Ryanair saying its profit could fall by as much as 50 per cent under the impact of rising oil prices and falling fare levels. "When the tide goes out, you find the business models that were never really sustainable," says Chris Avery, aviation analyst at JPMorgan.

Oasis Hong Kong styled itself as a low-cost long-haul carrier but in reality it was more a low-fare airline with a mix of some of the elements of the short-haul low- cost carriers that have proved so successful, alongside some of the high-cost elements of the traditional full service, long-haul carriers.

Asia has become the world's fastest-growing aviation market and Derek Sadubin, chief operating officer at the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, a Sydney-based consultancy, says the collapse of Oasis was unlikely to stop "a proliferation of new airlines in this region in the next few years".

He says Oasis had made some specific, questionable choices, however, notably devoting almost 25 per cent of its seating capacity to business passengers, thereby reducing the total number of seats available. Oasis was also flying four-engine Boeing 747-400 aircraft, consuming more fuel than twin-engine aircraft. Furthermore, as a standalone company, it did not have the brand recognition and internet booking synergies that airlines such as Jetstar and AirAsia X can derive.

Mark Webb, Hong Kong-based transport analyst for HSBC, says the fate of Oasis "indicates that the low-cost long-haul model is problematic". He adds: "Low-cost regional and short-haul models have been working in other markets but long-haul, low-cost hasn't really worked anywhere else either. Nobody has been able to do a profitable low-cost, long-haul carrier."

Still, Stephen Miller, Oasis chief executive, last night defended his airline's business model. "It just needed a little more time and a little more network [destinations], and a critical mass of aircraft," he told the Financial Times. "What Oasis has shown is that the business model is accepted by the market."

Analysts also said on Wednesday that the demise of Oasis would not halt moves by some Asian legacy carriers to develop low-cost offshoots. Among them, All Nippon Airways, the second-largest Japanese airline, recently established an Asian strategy unit in Hong Kong to look at regional expansion opportunities and forge ties with possible joint venture partners for the launch of a low-cost airline.

Azran Osman-Rani, chief executive of Malaysia-based AirAsia X, said on Wednesday that "The Oasis example reinforces our view that a sustainable low-cost, long-haul airline model must stick to core principles of high aircraft utilisation and high seat density to achieve a sustainable cost position". He added: "But more importantly, it is always a bigger challenge to start up a new airline from scratch."

The fiasco at Heathrow's Terminal 5 has "damaged London" and BAA, the airports operator, must take responsibility for the economic cost, Tessa Jowell, the minister for the capital, has told the Financial Times.

The warning came as British Airways yesterday delayed by at least five weeks the transfer of most of its long-haul flights at Heathrow to the £4.3bn showpiece terminal. The airline and BAA said the move from Terminal 4, due on April 30, would be postponed until June 5 at the earliest to allow time to "iron out any remaining problems". Rival airlines, which are to take over Terminal 4 once BA has left, criticised the delay.

BAA and BA are under intense pressure from the government to resolve the problems. Ministers fear that the poor performance of Europe's busiest airport is damaging the economy, as executives shun the UK rather than risk suffering lost baggage, delays and cancelled flights.

"Conditions at Heathrow have damaged London," Ms Jowell said. "I suspect if you're viewing the prospect of coming to London for business... you may just simply roll it all up into the trouble you expect when you get to Heathrow."

"BAA has to be responsible in a sense for every bit of lost business to London from people making that kind of decision [not to come to the UK]." Asked whether BA should also bear responsibility, she declined to "go right through the charge sheet".

The minister rejected accusations by some business people that London's sclerotic transport system meant the city could no longer function effectively, saying: "That is the very worst perception on a bad day. There are Monday morning problems, there may be wet Friday afternoon problems, and nobody would be for one moment complacent about those, but the fact is that London is one of the most attractive cities in the world to do business in."

The government believes the damage is not irreversible. "Provided the problems are resolved and don't recur, then I think that over time people will forget this pretty disastrous first month," Ms Jowell said.

But she warned of "the risk to London's economy of failure to sort out Heathrow. And I don't just mean in terms of it becoming a functional airport, but an airport that is, as some European airports are, a positive pleasure to arrive in."

IN January, BA38 from Beijing limped into Heathrow, skimming over the airport fence and crash-landing short of the runway. It was hailed as the "great escape" for those on board, and the ramifications are still being felt in Whitehall today.

When the stricken flight passed over motorists on the southern perimeter road, the jet was said to be so low "you could reach out of the window and touch it". The drama, however, raised a worrying question for those championing airport expansion: what if it had been trying to land on the proposed third runway?

Under the plans for Heathrow's expansion, Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, intends to sandwich one of the busiest runways in the world between the elevated M25/M4 junction to the west and the residential area of Harlington to the east.

It emerged last week that the motorway junction, 650 yards from the end of the proposed runway, will be in the crash landing zone or "public safety zone" where there is an accepted higher risk of an accident.

Kelly's department failed to include maps showing this zone in the consultation documents, which critics say would have caused uproar. Department for Transport (DfT) officials have already been accused of fixing the evidence in favour of a third runway.

"It's ridiculous to put a runway so close to a major motorway junction and residential areas," said Geraldine Nicholson, who lives adjacent to the junction and chairs the No Third Runway Action Group.

"They are wanting to put this runway in one of the most built-up areas in Britain and we're being told they haven't even yet carried out a detailed risk assessment. It's crazy."

When the government's 2003 white paper backed the third runway, it envisaged it would be 1.2 miles long. It has now been lengthened, partly to accommodate a greater mix of aircraft, but also to allow flights to clear the considerable obstacles at both ends safely.

The government's consultation document states: "The position of the third runway is governed by the need for aircraft to maintain a safe distance from the elevated M4/M25 junction to the west and the Harlington church spire to the east."

To date, the row over Heathrow expansion has centred on the extra noise and pollution. Flight BA38 has focused attention on the safety problems. Tim Jurdon, manager of the aviation team at Hillingdon council, said: "The safety zones are where it's most likely there could be a crash. If it wasn't at Heathrow, we would argue there would be less risk."

Jurdon's team have drawn up the "public safety zones" at both ends of the third runway. He says the western zone crosses the M25/M4 junction. This was not disputed last week by the DfT, which said safety would be considered by any future planning inquiry.

The government's policy on airport safety zones is detailed in a 2002 circular and states that the number of people in the zones should be kept to a minimum. It says: "The basic policy objective governing the restriction on development near civil airports is that there should be no increase in the number of people living, working or congregating in public safety zones and that, over time, the number should be reduced as circumstances allow."

With a likely surge in traffic growth if Heathrow expansion is approved, the government appears to breach its own guidelines by allowing a safety zone to cross a motorway junction. They state that busy traffic routes should be considered on a par with housing developments when assessing the impact of the zones.

Geoff Marks, an executive council member of the Aviation Environment Federation, a nonprofit making organisation campaigning for sustainable aviation, said: "The fact the maps of the public safety zones are not even in the consultation document suggests the government hasn't done its job properly."

Marks said the government should consider adding airport capacity in more open areas, such as the Thames estuary, where there would be a significantly lower risk of casualties in the event of a crash. He said other large airports, such as Charles de Gaulle in Paris and Munich International airport, were located away from big cities partly to reduce the risk of ground casualties in the event of a crash.

A report commissioned by the DfT on airport public safety zones in the 1990s said it was too costly to relocate transport routes that already fell within the zones. Safety objections will be aired in a planning inquiry if the government approves the third runway this summer.

New documents released under the Freedom of Information Act also show the Civil Aviation Authority raised a series of safety concerns during the consultation process.

CAA officials were understood to have been concerned about the extra air traffic at Heathrow and the potential conflict with air traffic from nearby RAF Northolt, which is regularly used by ministers. In one DfT meeting, officials were told there was a "conflict of objectives" between expanding commercial activities at Northolt and the proposed Heathrow expansion.

The CAA also raised concerns about proposals to have gaps of just 60 seconds between planes taking off in the same direction from the two existing runways. CAA officials were concerned the proposal might breach international safety standards.

The DfT last week said "the issue of the number of people affected by any new public safety zone would need to be looked at as part of any future planning application". It failed to respond to whether allowing the M25/M4 junction to be at the end of a runway broke its own guidelines.

The department said the guidelines were publicly available and the question would be a matter for any future inquiry. The statement said: "Safety is the government's top priority. The proposals and location for a third runway at Heathrow in the consultation document have been developed with the CAA and safety considerations were taken fully into account."

The DfT said the "airspace arrangements" for Heathrow expansion had been reviewed by the CAA and approved for the consultation document. "The proposals are not definitive and would need further detailed work."

AIR chiefs say the growth in the number of people flying has slowed down dramatically. New statistics from the Civil Aviation Authority show that last year UK airports handled 241 million passengers - an increase of just 2.4 per cent on 2006, with growth in numbers at their lowest for a decade. Since the 1970s, annual growth had been six pc a year.

Experts say there are several reasons why people are thinking twice about flying - with less money in their pockets to spend on holidays being the main one. Better rail services are also having an impact on how people travel, with more people taking to the train for trips around Britain. Use of domestic flights fell by 1.9pc last year.

Despite the slow down, the air industry is still determined to press ahead with its expansion with more cheap flights and plans to expand airports, particularly Stansted and Heathrow. Currently around 1,200 jet planes fly over Suffolk every day - causing growing frustration over noise and concern over pollution.

Government believes doubling air travel over the next 20 years will boost the economy, but that will simply mean more passenger planes flying over Suffolk.

Expert Dr Harry Bush said: "The CAA's analysis shows the impact on passenger air travel of recent slowing of consumer expenditure, but also indicates a significant impact from the recovery of rail travel and from the increasing internationalisation of the UK economy, with the consequent growth in air travel to visit family members or friends in other countries."

"Looking to the longer term, demographic changes and ownership of homes abroad are also likely to buttress air travel demand, although relatively small changes in frequency of leisure travel between mid and higher levels of income suggest demand growth is constrained to some extent by factors other than income, such as availability of leisure time."

The CAA said during 2007, landings and take-offs of commercial aircraft at UK airports grew by 1.8pc to 2.5 million. At the London airports - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and London City - the increase was 2.6pc, bolstered by increases of 16pc at London City and 6pc at Luton.

A CAA spokesman said: "More regional airports are developing a greater range of services and there are now nine airports handling more than five million passengers each a year, together accounting for nearly one third of all UK passengers, while a further nine airports each handle more than one million passengers annually."

Are there too many planes flying over Suffolk?
Write to Your Letters, Evening Star, 30 Lower Brook Street, Ipswich, IP4 1AN, or e-mail EveningStarLetters@eveningstar.co.uk

FASTFACTS: Who flies most?
Half of the UK population do not fly at all in any year - those who do take more than two return trips on average.
Higher income households take more flights, single people and childless couples fly more than families, and those who own property abroad fly often.
Households with total earnings over £115,000 per year take around 60 per cent more trips per year than those earning less than £40,000.
Regional airports have continued to grow at a faster rate than London airports, and in 2007 handled 42 per cent of passengers at UK airports.

The Stern report on climate change underestimated the risks of global warming, its author said on Wednesday, and should have presented a gloomier view of the future.

"We underestimated the risks... we underestimated the damage associated with temperature increases... and we underestimated the probabilities of temperature increases," Lord Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, told the Financial Times on Wednesday. In retrospect, he said, he would have taken a much stronger view in the report on the drastic changes that would come about if greenhouse gas emissions were not abated.

In the report, he estimated the costs of climate change at between 5 per cent and 20 per cent of global gross domestic product. But these costs would be much higher if the report had taken a more aggressive stance on the probable consequences of warming. Lord Stern said data published since his report came out, in October 2006, had led him to change his mind.

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world's leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations, published the most comprehensive study of climate change science. It predicted a temperature rise of 3 degrees Celsius within the next 100 years with catastrophic consequences for the planet, unless greenhouse gas emissions were stabilised and then cut within the next decade.

"The damage risks are bigger than I would have argued. Things like the damage associated with a 5 degree temperature increase are enormous. We can't be precise about what it would be like but you can say it would be a transformation," he said. But he defended his estimates of the cost of taking action on emissions, which he put in the report at about 1 per cent of global GDP.

"Subsequent reports, [from] McKinsey, the International Energy Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have pointed to the [Stern report's] costs of action being roughly in the right ball park. Nothing [since] has led me to revise the cost of action," he said.

"I probably would have emphasised the importance of good policy [if writing the report again today] and how bad policy puts up the costs [of cutting emissions]," he added.

Lord Stern has come under attack from economists and climate change sceptics since his report, which some sceptics regard as scaremongering. Some argued that he underestimated the cost of taking action to cut emissions and overestimated the benefits to future generations.

Following the publication of his report, Lord Stern visited dozens of governments around the world to persuade them of the need to cut emissions and the low cost of doing so. His report has formed a key part of discussions on climate change policy, including the UN-led negotiations last December in Bali at which a timetable was drawn up for two years of negotiations on a successor to the Kyoto protocol.

Plane Stupid Scotland scaled the Scottish Parliament building today, in an early morning protest at Scottish Government plans to impose massive airport expansion by the back door. At 2pm the protestors voluntary walked off the building, were arrested and taken to St.Leonards police station.

The surprise occupation exposes outrageous Government proposals to ban the public and MSPs from consultations that sanction major developments, including airport expansion. The action comes the day before consultation on these National Planning Framework proposals closes. Two members of Plane Stupid Scotland occupied the rooftops of the Parliament, unfurling a massive banner saying, "Planestopping! Choose a future: No airport expansion."

Under National Planning Framework proposals, Ministers will designate a whole generation of dirty development as 'National Developments', which bypass public or parliamentary approval. Subsequent planning enquiries will be limited to design issues. The meager consultation exercise on the proposals ends tomorrow (April 15) with legislation expected in the autumn.

The NPF is being targetted for its signicant ? but stealthy - contribution to UK-wide airport expansion programmes, and the massive increase in carbon emissions that airport expansion will produce.

Plane Stupid Scotland spokesperson Tilly Gifford said: "The environmental and democratic credibility of this Framework is zero. We are facing a runaway climate threat, but the Scottish Government's reaction is to triple air traffic and use the NPF to gag affected communities. Without reducing aviation and emissions there will be no future to plan for."

The proposals list Edinburgh and Glasgow airport expansions as National Developments, reinforcing existing plans to expand all Scottish airports by 2030. As a blank cheque for massive airport expansion with no scrutiny or accountability, the NPF is recipe for disasters like Heathrow in every major Scottish city.

The planned expansion, from 14 million to 50 million passenger movements by 2030, would cause a massive rise in climate change emissions, confirming aviation's position as the fastest growing source of greenhouse-gas emissions in the UK. The program makes a mockery of the NPF's sustainability remit, and of Scotland's target of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050.

Spokesperson Richard Shore added: "Aviation is destroying our future and retreating into smoke-filled rooms is no solution. You don't get good planning by gagging the people you're planning for. We need democracy, and we need to face the fact that air traffic must shrink."

Plane Stupid Scotland is fed up with Government inaction and white elephants in the face of an unprecedented climate threat. Today's action by Plane Stupid Scotland is the start of concerted action against the National Planning Framework, as part of the growing movement of ordinary people who have decided we must act ourselves to tackle climate change.

To Americans used to seeing their President land in style on Air Force One, Gordon Brown's arrival in New York on an anonymous charter aircraft may have seemed a little undignified. The Prime Minister was forced to make an unusual choice of carrier just three weeks after dropping proposals approved by Tony Blair to avoid such complications.

BA, despite having a fleet of more than 230 aircraft, could not find a spare jet to fly Mr Brown and his entourage to the US for his three-day visit. Virgin and bmi could not help either, forcing Downing Street to go to a charter company in Essex that normally flies football teams and pop stars.

BA and Virgin said that all their aircraft were needed for scheduled services, and both denied any suggestion that they had snubbed Mr Brown; bmi only has three long-haul aircraft and they each have full schedules.

Mr Blair usually travelled overseas on a rented British Airways Boeing 777, with the Union Flag symbol on the tailfin disguising the absence of a dedicated prime ministerial aircraft. Last month, Mr Brown cancelled plans made by Mr Blair for the purchase of a VIP airliner that would have been used by the Royal Family and senior ministers.

The plane, dubbed "BlairForce One", would have cost about £100 million. Mr Blair approved the decision to buy the aircraft after having to fly to a summit in Brussels on an aircraft with Austrian livery. He may also have been concerned about the safety of private chartered aircraft after being involved in an aborted take-off when an engine blew up on the runway at Johannesburg in 2006.

Mr Brown, displaying his self-denying son-of-the-manse streak, ruled last year that ministers should take scheduled flights where possible, but the size of his entourage for the trip to the US - almost 100 aides, officials and journalists - required a dedicated aircraft. Downing Street turned to Titan Airways, based at Stansted airport, which is popular with celebrities and the super-rich for offering a discreet but luxurious service. Titan supplied a Boeing 757 that had room for 250 passengers but was modified to contain 100 reclining leather seats.

Mr Brown may have to opt for Titan again when he attends his first G8 summit in Japan in July. That month marks the start of the busiest holiday period for scheduled airlines and none is likely to have an aircraft available. BA's long-haul fleet is fully stretched after the airline lost a Boeing 777 in a crash at Heathrow in January.

An aviation industry source said: "There are good logistical reasons why no scheduled airline could help Mr Brown this time. But he may not find airlines falling over themselves to be helpful in future. With his popularity waning, what is there to be gained from carrying him, especially when any slip-up would be seized on by the media". BA, however, has reason to show gratitude towards Mr Brown. He has persisted, against the advice of some members of his Cabinet, in supporting a third runway and a sixth terminal at Heathrow.

Councils, environmental groups and members of the public have vowed to "fight to the very last breath" to stop expansion at Stansted Airport.

Crowds packed the Rhodes Centre, in Bishop's Stortford, for a rally (2 April) at which 16 speakers called for BAA's plans for a second runway to be overturned.

BAA recently lodged an application to build the runway, which would take passenger numbers from 25 million a year limit to 68 million by 2030. The airport is also waiting for the result of a public inquiry into making full use of the current runway, to increase annual passenger figures to 35 million.

Lord Hanningfield, leader of Essex County Council, told the meeting: "We are going to do everything we can to stop expansion at Stansted. I pledge to you we will put all the resources and efforts needed into stopping it."

"There is no scope for an enormous amount of infrastructure in North Essex and no economic justification for such expansion. We will fight to the very last breath."

Sir Alan Haselhurst, Saffron Walden's MP, said: "Let the drumbeat of resistance sound. We can and we will prevail."

Pat Dale

THE threat of more than 5,000 homes in an eco-town between Elsenham and Henham forced former adversaries to join forces today (Friday, April 4).

Uttlesford's Conservative MP, Sir Alan Haselhurst, made an impassioned plea for unity at an impromptu rally, held at the site the Labour Government has just revealed is now on its 15-strong shortlist for massive development.

In a consultation document made public yesterday (Thursday, April 3), housing minister Caroline Flint used the fact that the district council's Tories had earmarked the location as their preferred option for 3,000 new homes by 2021 - to the outrage of residents and the authority's Liberal Democrat members - as a reason for taking the plan forward.

The report also made it clear that a second runway at Stansted Airport was central to the case for the eco-town from the Fairfield Partnership, which has already secured a huge swathe of farmland the size of Saffron Walden for its new town - amid fears the eventual number of dwellings could approach 10,000.

The eco-town proposal, which residents and politicians fear will be in addition to the 4,200 new homes the Government has already ordered Uttlesford to accommodate, has now prompted the district's Conservatives to fight the Government, despite their previous stance.

Cllr Howard Rolfe denied there had been a U-turn and said that his party would make it clear to Ms Flint that their earlier endorsement of 3,000 homes was not a "green light" for more than 5,000 - although he and his colleagues stand accused by villagers of "serving them up on a plate" to both the developers and the Government. He backed Sir Alan, who vowed: "We are not going to have a runway or an eco-town in our midst."

The MP accused the Government of "sugaring the pill" of development with the eco-town tag and camouflaging its true intentions. He said: "There is going to be a sustained and hard fight and a battle to get through this."

After the Government's shortlist was revealed, Steve Biart, director of strategic land at the Fairfield Partnership, said: "The decision endorses the strategic merits of Elsenham as a location for a new market town within Uttlesford, which has already been recognised in the emerging core strategy."

OUR COMMENT: The Core Strategy is being reviewed, following the protests and the realisation that the Elsenham proposal itself had not been fully evaluated before the decision was taken to include it in the Core Strategy. Part of the problem is that it is not at present, with 3000 houses, a true "eco-town", it is much too near Elsenham, and too small to be sustainable. If expanded, as is suggested, it would join up with the next village, Henham, making a corridor of urban development from Stansted to Newport, overflown by aircraft if the new flight paths are approved and the second runway goes ahead. To suggest this kind of development could be called an "eco-town" is quite ridiculous. Is the inclusion in the Government's list a misguided attempt to influence the case for a second runway?

Pat Dale

MAJOR development plans for the M11 and A120 were unveiled to the public this week.

The £100 million investment from Stansted Airport owner BAA would create a new junction on the M11 as part of the expansion plans for a second runway and terminal (G2).

The proposals, which went on display at The Charis Centre, in Bishop's Stortford, last Thursday, also include a new junction on the A120. BAA hopes to expand the airport by building another terminal and second runway by 2015 and by 2030 it is expected Stansted will serve 68 million passengers a year.

East Herts Council were initially consulted by the Highways Agency last year about the improvements. An EHC spokesman said: "We welcome improvements to the M11 and junction 8 in principle, however we remain opposed to a second runway and would not want to see the improvements if they only come with the expansion of the airport."

A new junction on the M11, which would be called 8b and located north of the current junctions, is thought would best serve the existing terminal, while a second terminal would be best served from the south via existing junctions 8 and 8a plus a new A120 junction. Junction 8b would be sited north of Birchanger services and south of Church Road. It would be a two-bridge roundabout over the M11 connected to the motorway by four slip roads. The existing Trinity junction on the A120 would be replaced north of the Holy Trinity Church at Takeley.

Robert Gibson, project manager for the Highways Agency, said: "It all depends on BAA's [G2] planning application and if they are successful, it goes ahead. If not, then it doesn't go ahead. It would improve access to and from an expanded airport. "The aim would be to have it open to traffic in 2015, but it depends on the planning process which we don't have any control over."

If G2 is given the green light, the M11 and A120 would be expanded to cope with extra passengers and construction of the scheme is expected to start in 2011. It is scheduled to open for public use by 2015 to coincide with the planned launch of the new terminal and runway. It is thought the benefits of creating a new junction on the M11 and A120 would mean easier, safer and more reliable access to the two terminals by reducing traffic around junction 8.

An Uttlesford District Council spokesman said: "UDC is aware of the application and will be submitting its comments in due course, following consideration and analysis of the scheme. We will be looking at the proposals in the context of the G2 applications."

Although steps to reduce the impact on the nearby environment, such as earth mounds and planting trees, have been looked at, the plans would re-route Great Hallingbury Brook into a new parallel channel to accommodate junction 8b. A section of the A120 would be widened by 0.8 miles between the existing three- lane section and the replacement junction.

Anyone wishing to comment on the proposals has until June 26. Depending on the nature and weight of any objections, a public inquiry may be held. Comments should be sent to the Highways Agency, Major Projects Directorate, Woodlands, Manton Lane, Bedford, MK41 7LW, marked for the attention of Robert Gibson or by e-mail to sg2airportaccesstom11@ highways.gsi.gov.uk

OUR COMMENT: Traffic from a 68mppa airport (possibly 80mppa eventually) will not be contained without also widening the whole M11. Plans for utilising the relief lanes will not be enough. BAA knows it has to pay for the immediate access roads but won't finance any further work other than minor sums for local junctions - that fact emerged at the recent inquiry. So ? what about our present traffic congestion? What could it be like in 2015?

Pat Dale

THE full extent of the land grab BAA is planning for Stansted Airport's second runway was revealed today (Thursday, April 3).

The company has published details of hundreds of compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) it would require to accommodate 68m passengers a year by 2030.

Three long lists detail every parcel of land - including homes, gardens, fields, waterways, footpaths and even a cricket ground and the Three Horseshoes pub at Molehill Green - which will be swallowed up by the runway and associated buildings, new roads and the "off-setting" measures planned as part of a landscaping and replanting package.

BAA has boasted that since the second runway was first recommended in the Government's Aviation White Paper, the land required to realise the project has dropped dramatically, while opponents like Stop Stansted Expansion, the National Trust, The Woodland Trust and The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings remain horrified by the devastation and destruction they say the scheme still entails.

BAA said: "A 700 hectare site was envisaged but today planning permission is being sought for 442. Further improvements include: fewer buildings lost, less woodland lost, and fewer homes and people affected by noise." A spokesman told the Observer that the compulsory purchase lists should be read with caution.

Many of the properties named are already owned by BAA, but must be detailed because they are occupied by tenants. Other land has also been secured, or is currently under negotiation, and some of the plots specified are subject to special legal notification stipulations.

He stressed that the compulsory purchase process was starting now simply to comply with statutory requirements - but the orders were clearly dependent on achieving planning approval for the G2 project and remained "an option of last resort".

Tim Yeo opposes second runway

Villages will have their peace shattered by aircraft noise if Stansted Airport expands further, an MP has warned. Tim Yeo has realeased a statement that will be read on his behalf at a Stop Stansted Expansion Group rally in Bishop's Stortford tomorrow.

Here is Mr Yeo's statement in full:

"Firstly, I want to congratulate Stop Stansted Expansion on the really excellent campaign they run and on the very high quality of their contributions to last year's public inquiry. Everyone in the region who is adversely affected by Stansted Airport owes them a considerable debt of gratitude."

"Secondly, I must reiterate my long standing and unqualified opposition to the continued growth of Stansted Airport. Under the National Air Traffic Service's recently proposed flight paths changes, residents of communities such as Lavenham, Thorpe Morieux, Cockfield and Monks Eleigh, to name only four, would have their peace shattered by aircraft noise even with the existing numbers of flights to and from the airport."

"Any expansion in traveller numbers will cause misery to many of the communities I represent in Suffolk. A second runway would also mean the permanent loss of a huge swathe of unspoilt countryside and ancient woodlands. As BAA eventually admitted the pollution impacts of their plans for increased flights will be far more serious than it originally claimed."

"But politicians do not just have a responsibility to speak up for the interests of their constituents; they must also balance the benefits of decisions for the whole of Britain. And the growth of Stansted fails that second test too."

"As Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee I am very conscious of the fact that it cannot be justified either on environmental or economic grounds."

"The more we know about the impact of climate change the more urgently we must make sure that the cost of air travel reflects that impact. And as was made abundantly clear at the Public Inquiry, as primarily a provider of low cost holiday flights, Stansted fuels Britain's tourism deficit by nearly £20 billion, which totally undermines claims that the airport is in our national or even regional economic interest."

Mr Yeo will be speaking at a public meeting to discuss the latest proposals on flightpaths at Lavenham village hall, at 7.30pm on Wednesday, April 9.

Countries must make urgent preparations to cope with adverse health impacts of climate change that could kill millions, the World Health Organisation said on Monday.

Rising global temperatures threatened more deaths and disease from malnutrition, storms and floods, water shortages, heat waves and pollution, and insect-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, the UN agency said.

"The core concern is succinctly stated: climate change endangers human health," Margaret Chan, the WHO director-general, said in a statement to mark World Health Day. "While the reality of climate change can no longer be doubted, the magnitude of consequences, and most especially for health, can still be reduced."

Poorer nations needed help to shore up fragile health systems and better systems for disease surveillance and forecasting. She urged leaders of the Group of Eight industrialised nations to address this at their Japan summit next month.

Estimates of health impact of climate change vary, but there is widespread agreement at a global level they will be negative, substantial and affect developing countries most severely.

In a November report, the UN development programme said 600m more people in sub-Saharan Africa would go hungry from collapsing agriculture. Another 400m people would be exposed to malaria and other diseases.

Malnutrition causes about 3.5m deaths each year. Periodic drought, a main cause, is to increase. Extreme weather, especially storms and floods, threatens more deaths and injuries, and outbreaks such as cholera.

Water scarcity and torrential rainfall increase the risk of diarrhoeal disease. Changing temperatures and rainfall patterns will spread malarial mosquitoes and other insect vectors.

Heatwaves in crowded urban "heat islands" could kill many elderly, as during the European heatwave of 2003, and aggravate allergies - such as hay fever - and atmospheric pollution.

"Climate change can affect problems that are already huge, largely concentrated in the developing world, and difficult to combat," Dr Chan said.

A spy who infiltrated a direct action anti-aviation group has been exposed after making a series of elementary errors that aroused the suspicions of genuine activists.

Toby Kendall joined Plane Stupid, the group that occupied the roof of the Houses of Parliament last month, after graduating from Oxford last year. He told the activists that his name was "Ken Tobias" and said that he was deeply concerned by the impact of the aviation industry on climate change and that he wanted to help to organise protests.

But his habit of wearing a Palestinian scarf with his Armani jeans and designer shirt made some members question his identity. He was also the only member to turn up early to every meeting but had no friends in the activist community. He took part in protests, dressing as a penguin in one stunt, but always tried to remain in the background.

Plane Stupid began a mole hunt and, after feeding him false information that found its way within two days to the aviation industry, discovered his real name and employer.

Mr Kendall, 24, works for C2i International, a counter-intelligence company run by former special forces officers. It claims that its agents are "hand-picked from Special Operations at New Scotland Yard". Its website puts "aerospace" at the top of a list of industries for which it works.

BAA, which owns Heathrow, has repeatedly been targeted by Plane Stupid. When asked by The Times whether it had any connection with C2i or Toby Kendall, BAA said: "BAA can categorically state that we do not have a relationship with C2i or the individual in question."

After being asked more detailed questions, BAA said it "had no contact with the named individuals but was subject to an unsolicited pitch by C2i. We rejected their invitation to enter into an arrangement with them."

Justin King, C2i's managing director, claimed to have been unaware of Mr Kendall?s infiltration of Plane Stupid. He said Mr Kendall was employed to carry out counter-surveillance such as "debugging company offices".

He added: "The security industry is full of people on the circuit who masquerade as this and that. When they are not working for us how can we stop them from working for other people?" Asked how he felt about one of his team infiltrating a protest group, he said: "I'm not particularly happy about it. We will have to look into it."

Mr Kendall failed to return calls yesterday and appears to have gone to ground after being confronted by members of Plane Stupid.

A spokesman for the group said: "This special agent was more Austin Powers than James Bond, though the question still remains, who paid for the spy?"

British Airways pilots have attacked failings by the airline's senior management that led to the "unhappy shambles" of the opening of the showpiece Terminal 5 at Heathrow two weeks ago.

In a letter to the Financial Times [SEE BELOW], published on Monday, Jim McAuslan, general secretary of the British Airline Pilots Association, says the T5 problems were "symptomatic of British Airways' loss of focus on delivering a sound operation".

He added: "This airline can and should make Britain proud but a fundamental change of attitude is required from the very highest levels of BA management."

Banks, institutional investors and analysts need to wake up to the fact that there is "something very wrong at the heart of this company that is making our once great brand a laughing stock".

The attack from Balpa comes as the union is locked in a bitter industrial and legal dispute with the airline, and Mr McAuslan on Sunday accused BA of trying to bankrupt the union through legal actions taken in response to an overwhelming vote by BA pilots in February in favour of strike action.

The dispute centres on BA's system of pilot recruitment at its new OpenSkies subsidiary, which is planned to begin services this summer between continental Europe and the US, starting with the Paris/New York route.

The deepening rift with the pilots comes as the airline faced renewed operations problems at Heathrow over the weekend. Computer glitches with the state-of-the-art baggage system at T5 on Saturday, combined with heavy snowfalls on Sunday, led to scores of flight cancellations by BA and other airlines.

British Airways had hoped to operate a full schedule of flights at T5 over the weekend for the first time in the 10 days since the opening of the terminal. Instead the computer problems with the T5 baggage system, which BA was quick to blame on BAA, the airport operator, led to the cancellation of 24 flights on Saturday and 12 yesterday.

Heavy snowfalls on Sunday morning compounded operational problems across the airport as the frequency of flights was slowed to allow the runways to be cleared. Stands became congested owing to delays in de-icing aircraft. BAA said a total of 185 flights to and from Heathrow had been cancelled by airlines including BA, Lufthansa , Alitalia, Iberia and Virgin Atlantic.

BA was worst hit and said it had been forced to cancel 144 flights to and from Heathrow across all its terminals, more than a quarter of its total planned schedule of 534 flights, owing to the bad weather. The cancellations included three long-haul flights from Heathrow to New York and Miami. It also cancelled 44 flights to and from Gatwick.

The airline's speed in publicly blaming BAA for the baggage system computer software problems suggests the carefully-orchestrated efforts, by both the airline and airport operator, to avoid the T5 opening debacle degenerating into a damaging "blame game" are starting to break down.

Letter from Jim McAuslan
Published: April 6 2008

Sir, Failings on the opening days of Heathrow Terminal 5 are symptomatic of British Airways' loss of focus in delivering a sound operation. This airline can and should make Britain proud but a fundamental change of attitude is required from the very highest levels of BA management.

The British Airline Pilots' Association has for years pressed BA to focus on operational integrity - punctuality, baggage delivery and product quality. Get that right and the customers will keep coming back.

It is with great sorrow and acute embarrassment that BA pilots have witnessed the unhappy shambles that the opening of T5 has become. BA pilots have reacted in the right way by once again going the extra mile to solve problems and extend their working duties to maximum legal limits in order to minimize the suffering of our customers and protect the company they love and the uniform they wear. This has been done despite the background of a pending industrial dispute.

This month sees a massive increase in direct competition on BA's most lucrative routes from the home base at Heathrow. We also see consolidation on an unprecedented scale, in the likes of Air France and KLM, that has yielded benefits from synergies of a level way beyond simple cost reduction. BA's response? Messing up its home base and dabbling with aircraft operating from Paris and London City to New York.

Banks, institutional investors and analysts need to wake up to the fact that there is something very wrong at the heart of this company that is making our once great brand a laughing stock. The margins may look good (for this industry anyway) but the financial establishment's preoccupation with the bottom line has glossed over the warning signs that have been there for those with ears to listen and eyes to see.

The punctuality tables; the reports, including those from FT columnists, of quality standards nose diving; more and more lost baggage, long before the T5 debacle; the growing reluctance to answer questions; the clear irritability with differing points of view; fronting up, in full public gaze, to the prime minister on the issue of a religious cross; taking court cases to appeal and still losing; threatening its own pilot workforce's association with bankruptcy when it should have been focused on exploiting the gift-wrapped opportunity of a move to T5.

BA proclaims that 400 people (a massive 1 per cent of the workforce) turned up last weekend to help sort baggage, but two weekends ago 1,300 pilots and their families marched on BA's headquarters complaining about the creation of a European offshoot, "OpenSkies", which will use BA money and BA aircraft but not BA pilots because they may contaminate this start-up operation. No wonder team spirit and respect are in short supply.

The ramifications of what is going on in BA will be felt far more widely. Our reputation as a country has been harmed no end. Support for a third runway has taken a direct hit. When you are running a national icon you have responsibility for far more stakeholders than shareholders.

So my question to the UK's financial establishment and government on BA is this: when are you going to listen with all your senses as to what is happening inside our business and when are you going to act on how it is "led"?

Jim McAuslan
General Secretary, Balpa, 5 Heathrow Boulevard, West Drayton UB7 0DQ

DUBLIN, April 7 (Reuters) - Ryanair Chief Executive Michael O'Leary admitted his departure had become something of a "moveable feast" after saying several times over the past two years that he would go in the next two to three years. "I think at least another 10 years," the head of Europe's biggest low-cost carrier joked to reporters on Monday when asked how much longer he planned to stay. "I plan to go on and on and on like Chairman Mao."

O'Leary, who since 1994 has turned Ryanair into one of the world's most profitable airlines and become one of Ireland's richest men in the process, said he wanted to win his fight for greater competition at UK and Irish airports before going.

"Frankly, if I had a competing terminal at Dublin airport and the break-up of the London airport monopoly then I think it would be an appropriate time to go," he said at a news conference to publicise planned legal action against Ireland's aviation regulator over increased charges at Dublin airport.

O'Leary warned his plans could always change in six months, however, saying he was "not entirely wedded" to Ryanair.

"My plan has always been remarkably consistent. I intend to step down in the next two or three years," he said. "It's a bit of a moveable feast ... but one day I'll be right."

Shares in Ryanair have lost half their value over the past year due to fears about the airline's lack of protection against rising oil prices, but O'Leary repeated it would not make sense to take out insurance at current levels. "If oil prices fall below $80 a barrel we'll be hedging as much as we can for as long as we can, but there's no sign of that happening at the moment," he said.

O'Leary said the high cost of jet fuel was the main reason for Ryanair's "conservative guidance" on earnings. "At the most conservative, we're predicting that profits may fall by as much as 50 percent this year. They may rise by a small amount but that would need a very favourable combination of yields and significantly lower oil prices."

O'Leary said his recent decision to freeze pay for senior management had been met with a mixture of anger and frustration but that it was a pretty good outcome in the circumstances. "If profits are to fall by something like 50 percent in the next 12 months it won't be a pay freeze next year, there'll be pay cuts."

The airline also planned to remove even more aircraft from Stansted airport next winter than last year and introduce capacity reduction measures at Dublin for the first time. "It'll be a bigger number again (at Stansted) and the same process will start at Dublin airport."

O'Leary painted his usual bleak picture for the airline industry, describing current conditions as dreadful, but said Ryanair, which has a fleet of about 120 Boeing 737-800 aircraft, was ready to exploit the downturn by buying more. "In recent months, aircraft prices have crashed ... all of a sudden the manufacturers are starting to feel the cold draught."

O'Leary said he did not expect to snap up troubled rivals, however: "But we'll be very happy to see them all go bust." (Editing by David Hulmes)