Richard's blog

Seems to happen once a week at the moment: wake up, turn on radio, hear that Ryanair have been scolded by the Advertising Standards Agency. This time it's for naughty adverts with a saucy young lady dressed as a schoolgirl.

Ryanair, ever the tireless defenders of free-speech and justice, have refused to abide by the ruling. A while ago, the boss of the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) - Christopher Graham - told the Guardian "Ryanair has been given every opportunity to work with the ASA and get its advertising right. It faces the real threat of formal sanctions, which includes a referral to the Office of Fair Trading under the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988."

Go on Christoper. Save me from writing any more blogs about Ryanair adverts. Frankly, it's getting very dull indeed.

As the end of the Heathrow consultation gets closer, the eyes of the business community turn towards BAA. Expansion can reap financial rewards for investors, and those fat cats in trading houses across the City are always seeking to make some bucks. But is BAA a good investment opportunity?

Not according to the Times, which has dug up a report by investment bank JP Morgan. Those bankers aren't feeling optimistic about the company, claiming that “Based on existing capex facilities [the loan available to pay for capital expenditure] we expect BAA could run out of cash in Q1-2 2009”.

Ouch! Not what Stephen Nelson and his cronies want you to hear. But it's not the first time that analysts have doubted BAA's finances. Last month the Sunday Times reported that BAA was to make a year-end test of whether it was in breach of the covenants on some its loans, and last year we reported that financiers had downgraded BAA's economic status to 'junk'. Looks like that third runway might be a longer shot than we'd thought...

According to today's Times, the anti-aviation movement has "duped" the public into thinking that planes are more polluting than cars. The National Omnibus Survey shows that 40% of people think planes are the most environmentally damaging form of transport. But are they?

Survey results are like Shroedinger's cats: any statement about them can be simultaneously true and false. Aviation is the most polluting mode of transport for any given journey, but not in terms of total CO2 emissions. Cars produce 69.9 million tonnes of CO2 while domestic and international aviation emitted 37.5 million tonnes.

People often ask us what the alternative to long-haul aviation is. "Airships!" we cry. And they look at us like we're suggesting travelling in hollowed-out kittens.

Thankfully, Jamie at Loco2 is big on alternatives. In a series of blogs exploring non-aeroplane long-distance travel solutions (take that, Private Eye), Jamie has explored whether technology can provide a low-carbon means of travelling over oceans and large land masses.

Anyone who thought BAA understood 'sustainable aviation' should think again. Under interview by the London Assembly's Environmental Committee, chief exec Stephen Nelson refused to rule out a fourth runway, saying that claiming the third runway was the end of expansion would make him a "hostage to fortune".

BAA has repeatedly promised that each round of expansion would be the last. In 1995, according to the Times, BAA stated in its official newsletter: "BAA has said repeatedly that Terminal 5 will not lead to a third runway. BAA has said repeatedly THERE WILL NOT BE A THIRD RUNWAY. And BAA has been proved right. The Secretary of State has accepted the BAA view. The issue has been settled; people’s concerns have been met. What now of those who claimed BAA was not telling the truth?"

What now indeed. Apparently the areas currently up for consideration for runway four are north of the airport alongside the M4 or to the south, wiping out the villages of Bedfont and Stanwell. Needless to say, both options would require the demolition of thousands of homes. Hardly likely to engender more support for their latest plan, is it?

Delegates at the World Future Energy Summit in Dubai were shocked when a full-sized hologram of Prince Charles appeared to lecture them on climate change.

The Prince, who's come under fire before for his 'do-as-I-say' carbon footprint, decided not to fly to the conference, because jetting over there with his entourage would have produced 20 tons of CO2. Sadly the rest of the conference had all flown there to see him, but it's a start, I suppose.

They may not be the Putney Debates, but there's not a lot in it. Residents' meetings held throughout West London have been so over-subscribed that organisers have had to move the location or turn residents away.

The meeting in Putney saw over 700 people queuing to get into St. Mary's Church ("the biggest attendance at any airport meeting ever organised by the council and the biggest public meeting in 20 years" according to a local councillor). A meeting at Chiswick earlier in the week saw over 1,000 people turn up, and organisers had to persuade the local choir to hold their practice elsewhere. A meeting in Richmond-upon-Thames was attended by over 600 people.

There are meetings all over London (details after the jump), so if you have any questions about the expansion, or if you just want to make your voice heard, make sure you go to one. There's also the Central Hall rally on the 25th of February, so if you only go to one event, make it that one!

Nothing epitomises the madness of the airport expansion bubble better than Lydd airport, a strip of tarmac on the Kent coast, with plans to increase passengers from 5,000 per year to 500,000.

Lydd's future was to have been decided on the 30th of January, but the chief executive of Shepway District Council Alistair Stewart has postponed the decision so the council can examine more information on ecological and noise issues. The decision meeting will now take place in two to six months time, and the demonstration called by local campaigners has also been postponed.