Route Development & Rumours

[LBAYORKIE]

If it was wizz europe then no real problems as many parking stands would only be occupied by ryan and jet2 planes from 11pm onwards, i believe wizz tend to operate most flights into DSA between 8 and 11pm so stands would be available. But once again the LBA infrastructure is failing us.
Would be great for the airport, wizz needs a proper eastern england base with a catchment area to profit from, and it will most certainly boost pax numbers big time at what is becoming a busy LBA!

Odd flight into DSA in a morning, most are early evening through to 11pm. Having said that there only seem to be about 5 flights a day anyway. I assume based aircraft would operate to same pattern as our other based airlines, so adding to the congestion issues.

Plus, dont forget its only recently that Wizz were wanting to base 5 aircraft at DSA, albeit subject to a terminal expansion.

 

[White Heather]

Whilst I can see Wizz operating from LBA (if they drop DSA), I agree that 'more than 30 routes' is far fetched (5 or 6 probably, but more than that would require growth over a long period). Also, I don't see the need for a Wizz UK base at LBA. All destinations could be served by away based aircraft. Look at Wizz's operation at BHX. From what I recall, it was Wizz that approached BHX with regards to operating there. Yet they have never set up a base and there are no Wizz UK aircraft operating. Also, I can't see Wizz operatng from both DSA and LBA. It will be either one or the other, or neither.

Kevin

My reference to a base at LBA should it be Wizz UK is based only on the fact that Wizz UK had aircraft based at DSA until recently and it is mentioned above that (any discussions with LBA) are the result of a failed bid at DSA. It's reasonable to think therefore that they might be looking for an alternative base, though by no means certain.

If it's Wizz Europe then there's no need for a base and it's unlikely to happen anyway unless DSA closes or they decide to move out of there purely due to the current uncertainty as to its future which will surely be starting to impact on bookings. And if they did that, then it would surely only accelerate the end for DSA.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Put this another way if they come to LBA expect a big reaction from Ryanair. Possible 4th based Aircraft comes into play

I’d want the 4th based AC. I’d want the big reaction and defence from Ryanair. I’d rather have Ryanair picking up the wizz air slack from DSA and expanding their leisure offering also then LBA attracting wizz air. I don’t trust nor like wizz air and for me. They are, in my opinion, not welcome at LBA. #teamryanair.

 

[White Heather]

Worth pointing out I suppose that Wizz are very big at LTN. And guess who owns both LTN and LBA? So it's not as though there aren't already connections between Wizz and our owners.

 

[Coathanger16]

Also, I don't see the need for a Wizz UK base at LBA. All destinations could be served by away based aircraft.

It depends which routes they want to serve.

Generally speaking, routes from the UK to Eastern Europe are served by Wizz Air "Europe" using away based aircraft, whereas the more "traditional" routes to Spain, Greece, etc are operated by based aircraft from Wizz Air UK.

 

[LBA4EVER]

Worth pointing out I suppose that Wizz are very big at LTN. And guess who owns both LTN and LBA? So it's not as though there aren't already connections between Wizz and our owners.

And we always seem to be the number 1 diversion airport for wizz, a minor point but worth mentioning. Like LBAYORKIE points out DSA only receive around 5 or 6 wizz flights per day unlike say LTN who have far more flights, so this would be easily accommodated into LBA. Bit of a funny situation this as we want DSA to stay open and grow for the people of yorkshire but then again we want our LBA to grow, i guess now the demon itself the media has told the public that DSA might close its going to seriously affect bookings so potentially a downwards spiral effect, sad!
Mindu its good to see our route dev room buzzing with life!

 

[IanFarquharson]

Yes Wizz closed their DSA base so just get the Eastern European flights now, so I guess these are the ones that may relocate to LBA depending on if DSA is saved or not ?

 

[White Heather]

And we always seem to be the number 1 diversion airport for wizz, a minor point but worth mentioning. Like LBAYORKIE points out DSA only receive around 5 or 6 wizz flights per day unlike say LTN who have far more flights, so this would be easily accommodated into LBA. Bit of a funny situation this as we want DSA to stay open and grow for the people of yorkshire but then again we want our LBA to grow, i guess now the demon itself the media has told the public that DSA might close its going to seriously affect bookings so potentially a downwards spiral effect, sad!
Mindu its good to see our route dev room buzzing with life!

Yes that's the problem. We have seen airlines go under once rumours spread that they are in trouble and it's a process that just doesn't seem to be controllable. A downward spiral.

Peels actions will have made customers think twice about their bookings at DSA and if airlines see the slightest hint of a downward spiral at DSA affecting them, they will be off, with the downward spiral accelerating.

 

[XEROX]

No it isn't.

LBA management under different owners have all said a runway extension is not the problem for wide body ops here, it's terminal restrictions. They have all said that Pakistan and the USA are entirely feasible without restrictions and that they are confident that airlines will want to operate from LBA. However, these airlines have certain standards that they expect and the LBA terminal as it is now does not and can not meet these standards.

People always bang on about the runway, the hump, the Chevin, the crosswinds and the diversions, but none of these will stop an airline flying to LBA if the airport offers the right deal, a great customer experience and the likelihood of good and consistent loads. In other words profit. The diversion rate at LBA is less than 1% and this year it's probably considerably lower. Dont assume the LBA runway direction is always a problem. There are days when the wind is straight down our runway but a troublesome crosswind at other airports.

Bear in mind too that newer generation aircraft are far more capable with much more powerful engines than aircraft of the past, allowing the new types to operate profitably from shorter runways such as LBA and BRS.

But would the carriers want to bring newer planes here? I ask because surely the airline would want to maximise profits on a route and make money from cargo too? thus if they sending a £200 Million quid 787 or A350 they want it full, and as we know that wont make it from our runway but at reduced weight, it would. Agree that the Chevin etc are not an issue,

787 Figures for Runway length at max weight.
8,500 ft (2,600 m) for the 787–8
9,300 ft (2,800 m) 787–9
9,100 ft (2,800 m) 787–10

 

[SierraHotel]

Should we create a "LBA Pie in the Sky" thread?

 

[752]

Interesting one regarding Wizzair. the airport/terminal can definitely cope with Wizzair Europe's network, using the airport outside of peak times. Looking at Wizzair Network, think a good shout of routes which wont directly compete with FR would be: Bucharest, Cluj, Katowice, Vilnius, Warsaw - Chopin, Bacau, Varna, Iasi.

 

[KARFA]

But would the carriers want to bring newer planes here? I ask because surely the airline would want to maximise profits on a route and make money from cargo too? thus if they sending a £200 Million quid 787 or A350 they want it full, and as we know that wont make it from our runway but at reduced weight, it would. Agree that the Chevin etc are not an issue,

787 Figures for Runway length at max weight.
8,500 ft (2,600 m) for the 787–8
9,300 ft (2,800 m) 787–9
9,100 ft (2,800 m) 787–10

not sure what routes you are expecting that need to have a 787 at mtow? the most likely candidates are north America or ME, and neither is going to require more than 40T of fuel in an aircraft that is actually capable of carrying just over 100T.

for a hypothetical QR 787-8 to DOH which has 250 passengers (so full) and no cargo (i know, a sore point!) you are looking at a take of weight around 183T, so about 45T below mtow. unfortunately i don't have access to an accurate performance calculator for 787s so i can't tell you exactly what runway length that needs, but i suspect it is well below the figures you quoted at mtow. LBA max take off runway available is 2113/2190m.

i also note TUI seems to be quite happily operating 787-8s from BRS to Mexico from a runway which has a max take off runway available about 150m less than LBA.

i am not sure how many times we need to go through these rounds of "X aircraft can't operate from LBA because the runway is too short"?

 

[LBAYORKIE]

not sure what routes you are expecting that need to have a 787 at mtow? the most likely candidates are north America or ME, and neither is going to require more than 40T of fuel in an aircraft that is actually capable of carrying just over 100T.

for a hypothetical QR 787-8 to DOH which has 250 passengers (so full) and no cargo (i know, a sore point!) you are looking at a take of weight around 183T, so about 45T below mtow. unfortunately i don't have access to an accurate performance calculator for 787s so i can't tell you exactly what runway length that needs, but i suspect it is well below the figures you quoted at mtow. LBA max take off runway available is 2113/2190m.

i also note TUI seems to be quite happily operating 787-8s from BRS to Mexico from a runway which has a max take off runway available about 150m less than LBA.

i am not sure how many times we need to go through these rounds of "X aircraft can't operate from LBA because the runway is too short"?

This was prompted by a post stating Jordan (operating for PIA) had chosen DSA over LBA because of mtow restrictions at Leeds.

 

[Aviador]

But would the carriers want to bring newer planes here? I ask because surely the airline would want to maximise profits on a route and make money from cargo too? thus if they sending a £200 Million quid 787 or A350 they want it full, and as we know that wont make it from our runway but at reduced weight, it would. Agree that the Chevin etc are not an issue,

787 Figures for Runway length at max weight.
8,500 ft (2,600 m) for the 787–8
9,300 ft (2,800 m) 787–9
9,100 ft (2,800 m) 787–10

This is something that is frequently posted. What is always mist is no destination ftom LBA would ever require a maximum payload.

Not sure on the accuracy but a quick check on Google says the dreamliner can fly a maximum of 8200 miles. So with that in mind and assuming that would be at maximum take-off weight, unless an airline is looking at flying to Cape Horn from Leeds Bradford then I don't think the runway length is the problem it is perceived to be.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

If Jordan chose DSA over Leeds and runway length wasn't the issue then maybe cargo was the main consideration.

 

[Aviador]

If Jordan chose DSA over Leeds and runway length wasn't the issue then maybe cargo was the main consideration.

If an airline wanted to set up cargo ops from LBA it could do that itself. It doesn't need a third party to do it, just the relevant DFT/CAA compliance.

We are frequently told the airline in question doesn't tend to comply with slot restrictions. From past experience, flights from Pakistan generally tend not to comply with a great deal. So for this reason I am not too concerned if they can't offer LBA as a departure point.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

If an airline wanted to set up cargo ops from LBA it could do that itself. It doesn't need a third party to do it, just the relevant DFT/CAA compliance.

We are frequently told the airline in question doesn't tend to comply with slot restrictions. From past experience, flights from Pakistan generally tend not to comply with a great deal. So for this reason I am not too concerned if they can't offer LBA as a departure point.

I agree with last point. It wouldnt be easy for an airline to set up their own cargo operations- Customs considerations are a significant hurdle. But why would they even want to go to all the expense when other airports already offer cargo handling services?

 

[Aviador]

I agree with last point. It wouldnt be easy for an airline to set up their own cargo operations- Customs considerations are a significant hurdle. But why would they even want to go to all the expense when other airports already offer cargo handling services?

True but for the same reason why would the airport establish a cargo operation with only one (hyperthetical airline) using it.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

True but for the same reason why would the airport establish a cargo operation with only one (hyperthetical airline) using it.

I take the point but if you want to attract cargo carriers you need to provide the facilities. Airlines arent in the business of running transit sheds and can reasonably expect any airport worth its salt to provide such facilities as a matter of course.

 

[Aviador]

I understand where you are coming from but if you ask yourself is LBA ever really going to be a cargo concern the answer is no. The days of Royal Mail cargo flights and British Midland are long gone. If Jet2 were to commit to a cargo operation then I'm sure the airport would jump at the opportunity due to the size of their operation but we are where we are.