All hot air

Yesterday's Telegraph carried an amazingly naive interview with Sir Nigel Rudd, chairman of airport owner BAA. Rudd's claim to be concerned about climate change/global warming is pretty transparent:

Like many bosses of consumer-led businesses, he recognises that mitigating climate change is becoming very important to customers, and that companies need to act on the issue to preserve their reputations and brands.
...
"Combating climate change is very important to us,” he says. “Clearly as far as our customers, the travelling public, are concerned, I think people want to see that we are environmentally aware."

So we'll believe him when he says he's worried about climate change, even when he says he only says it to keep his customers happy. The article is full of naive assertions about what Rudd believes or is worried about:

If, on the other hand, environmental concerns prevent the development of a third runway at Heathrow, he is worried that interconnecting flights that currently go via London will be routed to overseas airports instead. “Frankfurt flies to six cities in China now, because that’s where the economy of the world is going to grow, in the Far East,” says Sir Nigel.

Never mind that Heathrow is chock full of transatlantic flights because those are the most profitable, lets blame the lack of flights to China on a lack of capacity. Reading the article, it's clear that Rudd doesn't give a stuff about global warming. He comes close to outing himself as a climate change denier:

"Sometimes there isn’t a hugely open debate about this. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who believes that human activity is not affecting the planet, but there are a lot of people who will not speak out about the real issues, because they’re concerned they will be branded as Luddite."

An honest debate would be great. But tacked onto the interview is an even more naive piece about what BAA is doing that looks as if it was written by BAA's press office:

BAA’s approach is to lead the airport industry in managing emissions, where it has direct control over them. Where it does not have direct control, such as over emissions from flights, it seeks to encourage the airline industry and policymakers to tackle climate change.

Question for the Telegraph: do you call this journalism or are you having a laugh?

Wishful thinking will save the world

Following yesterday's letter in the Times from a collection of business leaders arguing that we do not need a third Heathrow runway, BAA chairman Nigel Rudd comes out fighting, assisted no doubt by spin doctor Tom Kelly. His weapon - optimism.

Senior figures from aviation and other interested groups will gather tomorrow in London to explain how the industry can work effectively at the heart of a global low-carbon economy.

So the purpose of the conference is not so much to confer, as to explain. It's a PR stunt.

At tomorrow's conference, we expect to hear a refreshingly optimistic note from the aircraft manufacturers Airbus and Boeing, whose new generation aircraft are making a substantial impact on the industry's carbon footprint.

Going along with the theme of optimism, aircraft manufacturers are looking on the bright side. But if optimism - not to mention self-interest - colours their claims, why should we take them seriously?

Rolls-Royce is developing an open rotor engine that can reduce carbon emissions by 30 per cent, raising the prospect of substantial reductions in CO2, and further advances could reduce engine noise by as much as 20 decibels and nitrogen oxide in the atmosphere by 60 per cent.

Can and could, not will. The whole article is an overt plea to think wishfully. Given BAA's input in permeating the Heathrow consultation with wishful thinking, it's hardly surprising.

Talk to Colin

On the Greenpeace website, Christian's blog has a few laughs at the expense of an advert from Heathrow owner BAA.

Describing Heathrow expansion as "modernisation" is just the latest flavour of BAA spin. In particular, the villagers of Sipson who are facing the demolition of their village might well be feeling quite modern enough. I'm not sure how comforting they're going to find Colin's assertion that BAA will "seek to build strong links with our neighbours, particularly those in Sipson". Perhaps he thinks building "powerful and effective partnerships" with your neighbours means getting them to demolish their own houses?

The blog says that the address given in the advert talktocolinmatthews@baa.com is that of BAA chief executive Colin Matthews. I would think that highly unlikely. Surely it's just links to a PR team. But why don't they just say his email is colinmatthews@baa.com? Perhaps because it is...

BAA incompetent liars?

The Telegraph reports with some glee that:

Gatwick Airport was closed for several ours due to snow, as it was disclosed it has opted out of a £1,000 a month weather forecasting service from the Met Office.

There were also reports that BAA had used the wrong chemical to de-ice the runway, but this was denied by the airport operator.

...

However BAA attributed the closure of the runway to an "unforecast snow flurry and a sudden dip in the temperature".

The Met Office said last night that it had predicted snow, ice and a drop in temperature and its customers at Gatwick encountered no problems. BAA insisted it had the same information from its own supplier but was unable to keep the runway open.

So the snow was "unforecast" and predicted at the same time?

Astonishing arrogance

Yesterday I read headlines like "BAA to accept air quality watchdog at Heathrow" and wondered if anyone had proposed such a thing. Apparently not. Monopoly airport owner BAA used to be the British Airports Authority and some people think it still is. It seems to think it is still part of government, as do the Department for Transport officials who let it fix their modelling on noise and pollution at Heathrow.

What an astonishing piece of spin, to propose a dodge that it thinks will get Heathrow expansion through in spite of the environmental issues. If the government did choose to take this route, whether BAA accepted it or not would be irrelevant.

Greenpeace says that "BAA's arrogance knows no bounds" and I tend to agree.

On whose authority?

BAA is the private (foreign owned) monopoly owner of most of the country's major airports. It may be colluding with the government to secure a third runway at Heathrow but it is very definitely not a public authority. It was privatised in 1986.

But according to the BBC:

The British Airports Authority (BAA) is calling for a high-speed rail link to Heathrow to complement a third runway at the west London airport.

BA on BAA

The Guardian quotes British Airways chief executive Willie Walsh as saying that Breaking up BAA, the monopoly airport owner privatised by the Tories, will not help passengers. His main argument is that the issue of concern for the Competition Commission is already being addressed. BAA, like BA, is already:

enthusiastically backing a third runway at Heathrow

That's OK then. The Guardian says that the extended consultation over the third runway:

has alarmed airline executives, who fear campaigning by local residents and environmental groups is swaying ministers.

God forbid that the government would listen to public opinion rather than vested business interests.

In BAA's pocket

The Sunday Times story about Department for Transport officials colluding with BAA to fix the results of the consultation on a third Heathrow is a real scandal. Sadly, it doesn't look as if it will be picked up as such.

It's another example of how civil servants in the Labour government see themselves as there to do the bidding of big business. The Times also revealed last October that civil servants had conspired with mobile phone companies to stop the EU cutting charges for international calls.