So far, BAA has sold Gatwick and is in the process of selling Edinburgh, but lodged the appeal to argue that Stansted did not serve the same market as Heathrow (which it also owns), therefore it was not anti-competitive to operate both. However, the Competition Appeal Tribunal rejected BAA’s argument.

Ryanair, which was in favour of the ruling, said that BAA had doubled passenger charges since the first ruling, and as a result, reduced passenger numbers from 24m to 18m during that time.

Ryanair’s head of communications Stephen McNamara said: “During this four year period Ferrovial (BAA’s parent) and BAA Stansted have doubled passenger charges, slashed traffic and have now announced that BAA will pay a divided of €240m to Ferrovial and its other shareholders in 2012.

“Ferrovial and the other owners of Stansted are unfairly enriching themselves at the expense of UK passengers/visitors who are suffering higher charges and third-rate service at Stansted while the CAA’s “inadequate” regulatory regime does nothing to protect airport users.”

BAA said it would consider the ruling carefully before making any official comment.

It’s Parent, AMR, had filed for bankruptcy in November and said it needs to cut staff costs by 20%, restructure debt, aircraft leases, and ground older aircraft.

It hopes to start negotiations with unions shortly as it also plans to change contracts, health benefits and pensions. Unions have responded by saying that the plans are worse than expected and they plan to fight the proposed changes.

In a letter to employees, chief executive Thomas W Horton said: “We are going to use the restructuring process to make the necessary changes to meet our challenges head-on and capitalise fully on the solid foundation we’ve put in place.”

Options are being offered by UK based low cost airlines, Easyjet and Ryanair to passengers hit by the cancellations. Spanair also said it was working with Vueling, Iberia and Air Europa to find alternatives for passengers.

The airline made the decision to cancel flights when applications for government-backed loans fell through and talks with Qatar Airways about taking a stake in the company ceased.

The airline said it was finalizing an agreement with IATA to get refunds for those with tickets that had yet to travel; and a statement on its website advised customers with reservations to contact their credit card company, insurance company or travel agency.

The Spanish government says it is taking legal action against the airline for suspending its flights without proper warning, a case which could result in a 9million euro fine.

Spanair was the country’s fourth largest airline, and this situation has led to suggestions that Europe’s debt crisis may spark airlines from the Mediterranean to the Baltic to consider mergers or risk failure.

The Etihad Flight EY045 to Dublin veered off its line in dense fog as it prepared to take off from the southbound runway at 3.19am. The Airbus A330-200 was carrying 208 passengers and crew, but none were injured, however there was some damage to the aircraft’s tyres.

According to flightstats.com, at least 35 flights were cancelled and 150 were delayed by over an hour.

China has already threatened legal action and declared it will not cooperate with the scheme. The most recent opposition has come from India, who has warned retaliatory measures are being considered. A meeting between delegates from the countries against the ETS is to be held in either New Delhi or Moscow in the near future, the result of which could affect flights to hundreds of destinations.

Chris Goater, a spokesman for the International Air Transport Association (IATA), said: “Retaliatory measures have been mentioned, and they must be avoided. It could result in a patchwork of different taxes on aviation, with airlines being taxed by two or three different governments. Airlines already have incredibly thin profit margins, so they could certainly result in higher air fares.”

The cost of the tax is being passed onto customers, as this month, Ryanair introduced a fee of 21p (€0.25) per person per flight to cover the cost of the ETS. A spokesperson for the airline, Stephen McNamara, warned that if other airlines hold off doing this, then they will be forced to raise their prices sharply when they finally do, which will impact more so on customers.

Lufthansa said it expects the scheme to cost it around £109 million this year, and has increased its fuel surcharge on European and long-haul flights by £2.50 and £8.40 respectively.

Flights have become much more expensive already with the introduction of the Air Passenger Duty Tax, billed as an environmental tax when it was introduced in 1994. There are calls for this to be lowered to offset the new ETS.

What do you think about the ETS? Please leave comments in the box below.

The panel is expected to provide oversight and advice on the CAA’s regulatory approach, and will be  sufficiently independent to hold the CAA to account and act in consumer’s interests.

CAA chair Dame Deirdre Hutton said: “The panel will provide a consumer perspective on all aspects of the CAA’s work. But its main focus will be on how regulation affects the everyday passenger experience.

“We want the panel to shine a light on the passenger experience of air travel and suggest practical solutions to problems they identify.”

The successful applicant will be expected to play a significant part in shaping their role and that of the panel, which will consist of seven consumer and aviation experts.

JetXtra was to launch flights from its Humberside Airport base to Palma and Malaga in June. Jet2 is based at Leeds Bradford Airport, 78 miles away.

JetXtra director Daniel Reilly said: “It is absolutely absurd that Jet2, a well known and generally respected airline is attempting to disrupt our services, I cannot believe they would resort to such dirty tactics to stop a new company which poses no threat to them from entering the market, especially at a time when our country is desperately in need of enterprise and job creation.

“The only similarity between our companies is the word ‘jet’, our logos and websites are completely different and Jet2 operate from Leeds Bradford Airport, serving and targeting a different market to that of jetXtra.com.”

In a twist to the situation, JetXtra has been ordered by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to stop selling flights to prevent the sale of unlicensed tickets. JetXtra had advertised that flights were covered under its partner company, CCT’s Atol. CTT holds a licence to carry just 620 passengers in the year to September and only 150 this summer, when JetXtra hopes to carry 9,000 passengers.

A CAA spokesman confirmed the reasons for stopping sales: “CTT sought permission to trade with JetXtra.com. We have not yet approved that and until we do it cannot sell holidays. We would not allow a company to sell seats it does not have a licence for.” The spokesman confirmed: “This has nothing to do with Jet2.”

However, JetXtra claimed on its website that they had stopped sales because of Jet2′s letter: “JetXtra.com have been told by the CAA . . . that until a decision is made by Jet2.com in relation to any legal proceedings, the JetXtra.com trading name will not be allowed on to the Atol licence of CTT Group.”

JetXtra’s director Daniel Reilly said: “Any customer who has already booked should not be concerned as this decision to temporarily halt trading will not affect their booking or financial protection offered under the CTT Group Atol.”

Lufthansa confirmed talks were ongoing “with several interested parties”. It’s been agreed that IAG will get a discount on the agreed purchase price for BMI if Lufthansa fails to offload bmibaby.

The local council has been looking at ways to increase capacity and jobs, and is expected to be given the go ahead as the Government are keen to increase airport capacity in the South East without adding runways.

Councillor Robin Harris, chair LLAL, the company that owns the airport on behalf of Luton borough council said: “We’re at the very beginning of a journey that builds on the tremendous success we have seen through the last decade and will ultimately bring huge benefits to Luton and the wider region – with jobs and much-needed income.”

Cllr Robin Harris said: “We will consult actively and listen carefully ahead of submitting a planning application but we must be ready to embrace market demand in the future. The benefits that will flow from the airport’s development will be realised in the local, regional and national economies.”

It is currently unclear where the extra passengers will come from, but it has been suggested that budget airlines could fill the gap and provoke strong competition with Stanstead. Good train links to London will also hopefully attract business travellers.

Tony Webber, now managing director of Webber Quantitative Consulting and Associate Professor at the University of Sydney Business School, said that although there are many factors which contribute towards fuel burnt by planes, the most important is the weight of the aircraft, so the heavier people on the plane are the more fuel will be burnt, thus raising the airlines costs significantly.

He made the comments in Business Day in Fairfax newspapers, adding that airlines will have to raise airfares to recover the additional costs, which should not be lumbered ”on those who are shedding a few kilos or keeping their weight stable”.

Between 1926 and 2008, the average weight of an Aussie female adult increased from 59 kilograms to 71 kilos and the average weight of an Aussie male adult increased from 72 to 85 kilos, according to Webber.

On a route like Sydney to London via Singapore, he said the extra passenger kilos meant around 3.72 extra barrels of jetfuel per flight is burnt, “which at current prices cost about $472″.

“This tally may not seem like a lot of money but when you add it up over all flights for a year the extra cost can all but wipe out an airline’s profits, such is the thinness of margins these days particularly on international routes.”

His comments may be contraversial, but he did concede that although he believes it to be a good idea to charge larger passengers more, that implementing it by needing to weigh each passenger at check-in, may not be quite so easy.

“As the obesity crisis worsens, however, and the price of jet fuel continues to spiral upward, such user-pay charge may be something the airlines can’t ignore for too much longer,” he said.

What do you think to these suggestions? If this were to be implemented, would it be a form of discrimination? Would being weighed at check-in be an unjust embarrassment?