Our Mission Statement
Full dispersal • • • Maximum altitude • • • Continuous Descent
"Any such increase would have devastating impacts on all communities in the vicinity of the airport"
Through the diligence of others we have recently discovered that Gatwick have just applied to reduce night flight landing charges next year, to make them significantly cheaper than the daytime charge (they are presently the same).*
We could not believe it. We still can't.
We checked, and double-checked. But, yes, this is exactly what they have done. They've admitted it, in writing.
We have, of course, suggested they reconsider. They have refused.
So we have asked the Secretary of State to Direct them to think again, as is his right under section 38 (4) and (5) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.
We'll let you work out why Gatwick might choose to do this. We think they'll regret it soon enough.
Surprised? Infuriated? I'm still almost speechless about it.
Local MPs weren't impressed either, and they all agreed to sign this letter to the Secretary of State in double-quick time. (Drafted by Tom Tugendhat's office)
This is the moment we have discovered exactly how much trust we can put in Gatwick's oft-repeated commitment to be a "good neighbour". (Or put it another way: Please give us the second runway)
And this is the moment you write to the Prime Minister and Chris Grayling (Secretary of State for Transport) and let them know exactly what you think of Gatwick's plea that they are a "good neighbour" - and your views on their right to be trusted with the platinum-plated, tax-free, ticket to expand.
I really wouldn't bother writing to Gatwick, there's no point. (But you can always copy them in).
Many of you have rightly called for a ban on night flights.
Just like Heathrow promised recently.
"The west London airport insisted today it had 'exceeded' restrictions recommended by the Commission with a proposal to ban scheduled flights between 11pm and 5.30am, which it would implement as soon as possible after a new runway was given planning consent."
At the very least there has to be a very significant premium over day-time charges to reduce the debilitating effect of being woken frequently through the night.
To actually consider reducing the cost to land a plane at night to increase night-time profits is simply indescribably heinous.
Friends, go to it:
If the PM one bounces back, there is a No.10 form here:
Perhaps for even greater effect, who knows, why not send them a postcard?
No.10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA
DfT, Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Rd, London SW1P 4DR
Of Somewhere quite near Tunbridge Wells.
Gatwick Obviously Not)
You may wish to cc any or all of the following:
(The 'Global' address is for GIP, Gatwick’s main shareholder)
* One class of particularly noisy aircraft, which accounts for only about 1% of movements, will have increased night-time landing charges.
On Twitter (@manvplane):
September 5th 2016
This newsletter goes out to well over 2,000 people on our database which grows by the day. Consequently, this may mean that it ends up in your "spam", as our first newsletter did for some. Please be sure to mark up anything from us as "not spam" to prevent that.
You can view all our Newsletters in your web browser here: http://www.gatwickobviouslynot.org/archives.php