Quicker flights promised in flight path shake-up
Ministers are set to announce the creation of the UK Airspace Design Service (UKADS) later which will re-design the routes planes must take over UK airspace - many of which were decided around 70 years ago.
The initial shake-up will focus on modernising the complex airspace in and around London.
Cagne, a community aviation and environment group for Kent, Surrey, and Sussex, has warned the plans could mean there would be new flight paths over houses that are not currently affected.
Ministers say the plans could allow planes to climb quicker during take off and descend more smoothly.
The plans are also aiming at helping reduce aviation's climate change impacts and pave the way for new technologies like flying taxis.
"Modernising our airspace is also one of the simplest ways to help reduce pollution from flying and will set the industry up for a long-term, sustainable future," aviation minister, Mike Kane, said.
The changes would allow the largest re-design of UK airspace since it was first formed in the 1950s.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable
In common with many parents across the country, here's a conversation that I have with my young daughter on a semi-regular basis (bear with me, this will take on some political relevance eventually). Me: "So it's 15 minutes until your bedtime, you can either have a little bit of TV or do a jigsaw, not both." Daughter: "Ummmm, I want to watch TV." Me: "That's fine, but it's bed after that, you can't do a jigsaw as well." Fast-forward 15 minutes. Me: "Right, TV off now please, bedtime." (Pause) Daughter: "I want to do a jigsaw." Now replace me with the government, the TV and jigsaw options with axing welfare cuts and scrapping the two-child cap, and my daughter with rebellious backbenchers. Politics latest: That is the tension currently present between Downing Street and Labour MPs. And my initial ultimatum is the messaging being pumped out from the government this weekend. In essence: you've had your welfare U-turn, so there's no money left for the two-child cap to go as well. As an aside - and before my inbox fills with angry emails lambasting me for using such a crude metaphor for policies that fundamentally alter the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society - yes, I hear you, and that's part of my point. For many in Labour, this approach feels like the lives of their constituents are being used in a childish game of horse-trading. So what can be done? Well, the government could change the rules. Altering the fiscal rules is - and will likely remain - an extremely unlikely solution. But as it happens, one of Labour's proverbial grandparents has just popped round with a different suggestion. A wealth tax, Lord Neil Kinnock says, is the necessary outcome of the economic restrictions the party has placed on itself. Ever the Labour storyteller, Lord Kinnock believes this would allow the government to craft a more compelling narrative about whose side this administration is on. That could be valuable, given one of the big gripes from many backbench critics is that they still don't really understand what this prime minister stands for - and by extension, what all these "difficult decisions" are in aid of. The downside is whether it will actually raise much money. The super-rich may have lots of assets to take a slice from, but they also have expensive lawyers ready to find novel ways to keep their client's cash away from the prying eyes of the state. Or, of course, they could just leave - as many are doing already. In the short term, the future is a bit easier to predict. If Downing Street is indeed now saying there is no money to scrap the two-child cap (after heavy briefing in the opposite direction just weeks ago), an almighty tantrum from the backbenches is inevitable. And as every parent knows, the more you give in, the harder it becomes to hold the line.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
No age limit on law, says Met Police chief as 83-year-old arrested at protest
The law does not have an age limit, the head of the Metropolitan Police said after an 83-year-old reverend was arrested when protesters gathered to show support for Palestine Action which has been banned as a terror group. The Metropolitan Police posted on X on Saturday afternoon saying officers were responding to the demonstration in Parliament Square, London, and later added that 29 people were arrested. The protest started at about 1.10pm and officers were seen taking people away shortly after 1.30pm. Reverend Sue Parfitt, 83, who was sat in a camp chair with placards at her feet, appeared to have been taken away by officers. A woman seen lying on the ground in handcuffs was lifted by officers and put in a police van. Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley was asked on the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg whether it was a good use of police time after the priest was pictured being taken away from the demonstration. He said: 'The law doesn't have an age limit, whether you're 18 or 80. 'If you're supporting proscribed organisations, then the law is going to be enforced. 'Officers, you could see, did it with great care and tried to preserve that person's dignity, but they're breaking a serious law. 'Palestine Action have over the last 18 months, I have to be careful what I say, because there's cases coming to trial, but some really serious criminal offences that they're accused of. There are millions of pounds worth of damage on multiple occasions. There are assaults, there are weapons used. 'It is not about protest. This is about an organisation committing serious criminality and obviously the Home Secretary was persuaded by the papers on her desk to proscribe them, that law has come into force, and if people want to defy that law, then we have to enforce it.' Palestine Action lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday which sought to stop the protest group being banned, less than two hours before the new legislation came into force at midnight. The designation as a terror group means that membership of, or support for, Palestine Action is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. A group had earlier said it was set to gather in Parliament Square on Saturday holding signs supporting Palestine Action, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. In a letter to the Home Secretary, protesters said: 'We do not wish to go to prison or to be branded with a terrorism conviction, but we refuse to be cowed into silence by your order.' The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million of damage. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident at RAF Brize Norton. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Another tantrum from the Labour backbenches is inevitable
In common with many parents across the country, here's a conversation that I have with my young daughter on a semi-regular basis (bear with me, this will take on some political relevance eventually). Me: "So it's 15 minutes until your bedtime, you can either have a little bit of TV or do a jigsaw, not both." Daughter: "Ummmm, I want to watch TV." Me: "That's fine, but it's bed after that, you can't do a jigsaw as well." Fast-forward 15 minutes. Me: "Right, TV off now please, bedtime." (Pause) Daughter: "I want to do a jigsaw." Now replace me with the government, the TV and jigsaw options with axing welfare cuts and scrapping the two-child cap, and my daughter with rebellious backbenchers. Politics latest: That is the tension currently present between Downing Street and Labour MPs. And my initial ultimatum is the messaging being pumped out from the government this weekend. In essence: you've had your welfare U-turn, so there's no money left for the two-child cap to go as well. As an aside - and before my inbox fills with angry emails lambasting me for using such a crude metaphor for policies that fundamentally alter the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society - yes, I hear you, and that's part of my point. For many in Labour, this approach feels like the lives of their constituents are being used in a childish game of horse-trading. So what can be done? Well, the government could change the rules. Altering the fiscal rules is - and will likely remain - an extremely unlikely solution. But as it happens, one of Labour's proverbial grandparents has just popped round with a different suggestion. A wealth tax, Lord Neil Kinnock says, is the necessary outcome of the economic restrictions the party has placed on itself. Ever the Labour storyteller, Lord Kinnock believes this would allow the government to craft a more compelling narrative about whose side this administration is on. That could be valuable, given one of the big gripes from many backbench critics is that they still don't really understand what this prime minister stands for - and by extension, what all these "difficult decisions" are in aid of. The downside is whether it will actually raise much money. The super-rich may have lots of assets to take a slice from, but they also have expensive lawyers ready to find novel ways to keep their client's cash away from the prying eyes of the state. Or, of course, they could just leave - as many are doing already. In the short term, the future is a bit easier to predict. If Downing Street is indeed now saying there is no money to scrap the two-child cap (after heavy briefing in the opposite direction just weeks ago), an almighty tantrum from the backbenches is inevitable. And as every parent knows, the more you give in, the harder it becomes to hold the line.
