| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| UK's Dec. Fuel Depot Fire a Major Aviation Problem |
| 2006-02-06 |
| supply at Heathrow airport in the wake of December’s fire at the Buncefield depot. But some US airlines are now saying that unless the issues of supply are resolved in a series of crisis meetings this week, passengers could soon find themselves facing lengthy delays. Although few flights have been cancelled, Qantas has been forced to re-route some passengers, while Thai Airways has been taking on fuel in Copenhagen, South African Airways in Milan and Singapore Airlines in Frankfurt. Heathrow is overwhelmingly dependent on three pipelines for its supplies of jet kerosene, one operated by Esso from a depot south of Heathrow, one by BP from its depot at Walton-on-Thames and the Buncefield depot operated by a consortium of oil companies, including Total and Chevron Texaco. The destruction of the Buncefield depot in the December fire eliminated a third of the flow of jet fuel, with no alternative source easily available to make up the shortfall. The US carriers United Airlines and American Airlines have avoided the need for technical stops by tankering in large amounts of extra fuel on their transatlantic flights to Heathrow. But they have done so only at the penalty of adding weight to the aircraft, thus incurring significant extra costs. They are particularly upset that a rationing system that favours domestic carriers is putting them at a competitive disadvantage against the rival UK carriers, in particular British Airways, as well as Virgin Atlantic. According to James May, president of the Air Transport Association, the US airlines’ trade association, non-UK carriers are spending an extra $1m (£567,000) a day to fly fuel to London. This week the International Air Transport Association is seeking to broker a revised fuel allocation scheme that would pacify the international carriers’ objections. At the same time urgent work is being conducted by the oil companies, BAA and UK government officials, to try to find ways of increasing jet fuel supplies to Heathrow to make up at least some of the shortfall. These include the use of road and rail tankers, as well as increasing supplies by pipeline via a route that would bypass Buncefield, and would use two large storage tanks at Heathrow, that were due to be decommissioned, to store and test the quality of incoming fuel. These are only medium-term fixes, however. A long-term solution is nowhere in sight to get back to pre-Buncefield supply levels and in the short term, negotiations are all about reaching a perception of a “fair” distribution of commercial and financial pain among all the airlines using Heathrow. Inevitably, British Airways is at the centre of the international row, as it has its global hub at Heathrow and alone accounts for more than 41 per cent of the takeoffs and landings. Some foreign carriers, led by those in the US, claim that the rationing scheme favours BA. They say it has not had to make technical refuelling stops at other airports en route, thus lengthening passenger journeys, and it has not been bringing in such large amounts of extra fuel from the US, thus incurring less additional cost than American or United. According to one mediator in the row, the supply situation at Heathrow is “highly complex”. He says it appears “logical” that with such a large amount of their businesses based at Heathrow, the home carriers deserve some particular support. The question is how much extra support. He also warns that if BA “starts cancelling flights and parking aircraft, it very quickly screws up the whole airport”. Heathrow is one of the world’s most congested airports and its operations are highly vulnerable to disruptions. According to another close participant in the negotiations: “If BA catches a cold, all the airlines will be sneezing by the end of the week. If BA has a problem, that very quickly has an impact on all carriers.” No one wants a replacement scheme that jeopardises operations and hits passengers. |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #1 It's a good thing there was absolutely no terrorist connection. |
| Posted by: Rory B. Bellows 2006-02-06 02:45 |