What happens here post Brexit or, as the title suggests, have they got inside info. So much for business being put off if when we leave.
Maybe they were behind the Drone scare in an effort to reduce the price.
The company involved (Vinci) is a specialist in the field of airport management - it already owns stakes in a dozen American airports, and in at least ten other countries.
Despite the recent drone thing, Gatwick is run very efficiently - almost 46 million passengers used the airport last year, resulting in a pre-tax profit of over £233 million; not bad for an airport that operates on one runway. Last summer (2018) Gatwick became the first airport to get a "Zero Waste to Landfill" accreditation from the Carbon Trust - it is officially a carbon neutral airport.
Gatwick's big disappointment was the government's decision not to allow a second runway. It means that it is almost impossible to get a higher rate of take-offs and landings, but there is a ray of light on the horizon, and it is probably what clinched Vinci's offer.
The company may be gambling on Gatwick's proposal to bring its existing emergency runway into general use being approved. If that happens, the airport's future will be much brighter. I don't suppose passengers could care less who owns an airport, as long as it works efficiently. Gatwick is already owned by a New-York based consortium of multi-national investors in any case, as is Heathrow.
"Zero Waste to Landfill" accreditation from the Carbon Trust - it is officially a carbon neutral airport.
What do they do with their waste? I doubt if they're slipping a few quid to man with a van to fly tip it, so where does it go? Are they ignoring the emissions from aircraft by attributing them to the aircraft operators?
Up till a few years ago, most of the high pressure gas transmission system compressors were powered by gas burning gas turbines, so the emissions were produced on site. Many GTs have now been replaced with electric drives running on electricity produced off site, thus shifting the responsibility for emissions elsewhere.
This is what the Carbon Trust has to say about it's accreditation.
Gatwick has its own waste management plant, which turns Category 1 food and packaging waste into energy which is used to power the airport's water recovery systems. It's the first airport in the world to do this.
The system is scaleable, and will be expanded to provide energy for other areas of the airport's operations. Obviously the carbon-neutral situation does not include aircraft operations - that isn't something that can currently be realistically addressed by airport operators, other than encouraging safe single engine taxiing for aircraft ground movements.
Work is being done at government level, but it will take time. In October 2016 members of The International Civil Aviation Organisation reached agreement on a global offsetting scheme for international aviation, known as the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, or CORSIA.
Otherwise, there is a good deal of research going into making Aviation Biofuel cheaper. The fuels has been available for a decade or more, but it costs more than conventional jet fuel, and getting the production cost down is not easy.
Interesting article, though "There is also the issue of fraud in waste management." is putting it mildly, with many being very economic with the truth. Shifting emissions as referred to in my previous post, is common, yet does little or nothing to reduce emissions. Offsetting against other areas, companies, countries, though widely practiced, probably has a negative impact. I regularly drive past trees that were planted a decade or so ago as part of a carbon offset scam. They're no better than the dead Christmas trees you'll see getting dumped in the coming weeks, and will have absorbed little or no carbon in their short lives.
But what Gatwick appears to be doing is the right answer. I live in an area that apparently can absorb waste, so trucks do 400 mile round trips to dump rubbish here in landfill. Far better to incinerate within 20 miles of the waste production. At least then, you're controlling and containing the emissions.
Like many, I've yet to be convinced of the so called benefits of biofuels. They were initially sold as being produced from waste biomass, but in most instances, the biomass is grown for fuel production and the true costs hidden.
Dispatches looked at wood pellets produced in America for consumption in UK power stations. The emissions are still huge, more so if you look at the full cycle from tree to power. But biomass is considered carbon neutral under EU rules.
The farcical situation is summed up by the CEO of Drax power station
On the question of Drax’s claim that by burning wood instead of coal it reduces carbon emissions by more than 80 percent, Koss admitted it didn’t include emissions from its chimneys: “We don’t count that. The government doesn’t count that. "It doesn’t include stack emissions because if we are sourcing sustainable biomass from working forests, where this is more growth than is being harvested, we see the carbon as being reabsorbed.”
Try telling an asthmatic that his respiratory problems are due to an accounting fiddle and he'll wheeze in your face.
What is Markdown?
Markdown lets you add more formatting to your post. Simply type in your post and it will display as written.
If you wish to add bold or italic characters, add a hyperlink to another website, a heading or a horizontal line, simply use the relevent icons above the text input field.
A preview of your post will appear in the grey box below. If you make a change and you're not happy, simply press the back arrow icon to undo.