Press Release - 7 April 2004

BAA is running scared of local community opposition and determination to overturn its expansion plans say Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) after a copy of a glossy colour BAA propaganda newsletter 'Plane Talk' designed to try to pull the wool over people's eyes was leaked to the campaign team prior to its publication.

The fact that BAA has had to resort to personal attacks on Jamie Oliver and fabrication of the facts about expansion and the impact of expansion on the community is a clear sign of the desperation which the owners of Stansted Airport are feeling. Clearly the campaign of local opposition - and the fact that it continues to gather momentum - must be having an impact upon BAA in order to provoke such an 'over-the-top' reaction.

“It's a fascinating but incomprehensible strategy which will result in people taking BAA even less seriously than ever,” said SSE Campaign Director Carol Barbone. “If BAA is so confident that it will be able to build its second runway, why is it bothering to peddle this sort of desperate drivel – particularly when we will have no difficulty whatsoever in publishing a comprehensive rebuttal.”

The leaflet seems entirely designed to deflect attention from the current tide of criticism which BAA is facing as a direct consequence of its recent announcement of minimal compensation proposals for local residents.

Carol Barbone added: “BAA exists to look after its own interests. SSE exists to represent the views of the local community. Who would you rather trust?”

PLANE TALK?  PLAIN TOSH!

Whoever compiled the BAA leaflet can't read, can't count, can't hear – but the company can't hide:

1) CAN'T READ...

(a) It's a complete fabrication to say that SSE has advocated a £100 tax on air fares as claimed in the newsletter. In fact, SSE's position is simply that aviation should pay its external environmental costs. The Government supports this policy. SSE argues that this should be phased in between 2006 and 2015 but the Government is non-committal on the implementation timescale. The impact is estimated at (on average) between £35 and £40 per ticket. Short haul flights out of Stansted would be below this average. In practice, the policy would make very little difference to the cost of flying because air fares are forecast to continue declining by about 2% a year. Phasing in the environmental costs would increase air fares (net) by about 1% a year during the period 2006 to 2015. The Department for Transport's own computer model predicts that such action would remove the need to build any additional runways in the South East – but that would be bad news for BAA's growth aspirations.

(b) It is Government Policy that aviation should meet its full external environmental costs. Why criticise SSE for this?

(c) It is BAA itself which stated (in May last year) that a second Stansted runway could not be commercially justified without cross subsidisation from Heathrow and Gatwick.

2) CAN'T COUNT...

(a) 89% of those who voted in the Uttlesford referendum opposed any new runways – not the “small minority of opponents” claimed to oppose expansion referred to by BAA in Plane Talk. Every local authority and every MP for miles around opposes expansion. That BAA continues to speak of “a small minority of opponents” is laughable, casting doubt on BAA's quality of decision-making.

(b) Even BAA's own MORI poll showed only 34% of people in favour of another runway at Stansted. Again, how can BAA speak of “a small minority of opponents”?

(c) Oh yes - BAA Stansted makes an operating profit - but not nearly enough to provide a viable return on investment. Last year (its best ever) BAA Stansted earned just 3.9% on the capital invested. BAA plc claims that its cost of capital is 7.75% + RPI. Someone needs to go back to the 'sums school' if Stansted is viewed as a financial success story!

3) CAN'T HEAR...

(a) If your dishwasher is running at 60 decibels as claimed for comparison purposes in the newsletter, then it's time to buy a new dishwasher!

(b) To suggest that light road traffic is about 70 decibels is arrant nonsense and misrepresentative unless your head is inside the exhaust manifold! In fact, 66 dBA Leq (the level at which BAA is offering to compensate some local people) is equivalent to living 23 feet from a road with a loud motorbike going past every minute for 16 hours.

(c) And if BAA believes that most local people support its plans for a second Stansted runway, it is simply not listening.

4) CAN'T HIDE…

BAA claims that it needs a massive land grab to develop airport buildings and parking rather than for a third and fourth runway as local authorities and local people alike believe the company ultimately wants. The fact is that Paris Charles de Gaulle and Amsterdam Schipol airports need THEIR enormous land grab precisely because they have four runways each (with a fifth being opened at Schipol in 2006). In other words, the use of these airports as examples within the leaflet points to confirmation that BAA isn't intending to stop at two runways. Perhaps BAA would like to sign a legally binding guarantee that it would never seek a third or fourth runway at a later date to settle the matter once and for all.

AND FINALLY…

SSE is happy to debate these issues in a civilised manner with BAA at any time and invites BAA to a public meeting in Bishop's Stortford as soon as this can be arranged - ideally towards the end of May - with an independent chairman to ensure that each side is given a fair and equal chance to state its case - and for the local community to put questions.

ENDS

Contact for further information/comment:
Carol Barbone, Campaign Director, SSE:  0777 552 3091 or email cbarbone@mxc.co.uk