Runways, Aprons and Taxiways

[a2b1066]

Line to know how they will accomplish that, as it I’ll be tight squeeze for a A320/B738 sized aircraft.

Surely they would be more suited for aircraft types like the ATR42/72, Dash 8, Embraer 175/190 or Boeing 737-300?

It’s been mentioned a few times at work although not sure how high up on the priority list it is for the airport with all the terminal works currently taking place. However, the removal of the old Airside Ops office and baggage belt 3 building makes up the area for stand 4. Stand 5 currently has a two-way road that runs between stand 5 and 6 and then goes behind 5 all the way to the western end of the airport, past the Jet2 baggage hall until it turns right towards the fire station and the head of stand 1. I’m assuming this two-way road will be converted into the ends of stands 5 and 4 pushing back directly onto alpha taxiway and a new road will run at the head of these stands joining on from the head of stand 6

 

[a2b1066]

A terrible mockup I made using my phone what I think they’ll do to accommodate for the new stand 4 and increase in footprint of stand 5. Redirecting the road to the head of the stands although I’m unsure what that will mean for the GSE bay that Jet2 use outside the baggage hall

 

[The Pole]

Nice little 4 engine jet, low wing 146?

 

[Aviador]

I remember the original stands 4 and 5 with the road at the head of the stand. It should easily accommodate 738 or A320 aircraft as they previously did a decade and a half or so ago. The airside road layout needs changing in that location anyway.

 

[YorkshireLad]

Who are we reckoning would be the most likely to use those stands, or will it just be a free for all, like with most stands (5-15, 19)?

 

[Aviador]

Who are we reckoning would be the most likely to use those stands, or will it just be a free for all, like with most stands (5-15, 19)?

Any airline currently serving LBA. The stands are prime position for easy access from departures and to both the new domestic and international arrivals.

 

[Finger66]

Who are we reckoning would be the most likely to use those stands, or will it just be a free for all, like with most stands (5-15, 19)?

IPS, Air Blue, Eastern and Blue Islands is where my money is

 

[Severn]

Given the current full stands, Jet2’s replacement of B733s with B738s or A21Ns will necessitate new stands as quite a few of the current ones can only accommodate aircraft up to the size of B733s.
These new stands will be needed in the next year or two as the replacements are made.

 

[a2b1066]

Given the current full stands, Jet2’s replacement of B733s with B738s or A21Ns will necessitate new stands as quite a few of the current ones can only accommodate aircraft up to the size of B733s.
These new stands will be needed in the next year or two as the replacements are made.

Once the B733’s are gone, Stand 17 is the problem stand believe it or not. If a B738 or anything bigger is parked there, Stands 16 and 18 are unusable which is why it’s normally a B733 parked there or nothing at all. Normal operation through the summer is B733’s parked on 16L, 17 and 18R to maximise the space but over the past few weeks, a few of the B733’s have been parked on remote stands and B738’s have parked on 16R and 18L and 17 has just been left empty simply because there is not enough space to accommodate an aircraft in between. I can’t imagine stands 1 and 6 being upgraded in any way to accommodate a bigger aircraft as there isn’t enough space there to start with

 

[LBA4EVER]

IPS, Air Blue, Eastern and Blue Islands is where my money is

Aint it crazy that at one point all those airlines were rumoured to be starting services out of LBA with of course one already secured.

 

[jackLBA]

Just wondering, why is the A2 taxiway not being used?

 

[oldendays]

Just wondering, why is the A2 taxiway not being used?

The part of Alpha between Bravo and Alpha 1 is closed every winter as the movement rate is lower. At the least, this reduces wear and tear and also allows for maintenance.

 

[EX9]

Its supposed to stop aircraft from breaking heavily in order to exit via alpha as one of the temporary runway repairs failed twice.

 

[YorkshireLad]

Looks like A1 is open as of this morning

 

[Aviador]

The following is compiled by AI but makes interesting reading all the same. This is in relation to the airport saying it is looking to make more use of the current runway length recently discussed in the LBA general thread.

LBA:REGEN - How "Lowering the ILS" Boosts Takeoff Performance
There has been some discussion regarding LBA's plans to "lower the ILS" to increase runway distance. To clarify: they aren't changing the radio signals or landing categories—they are literally lowering the physical height of the Localizer antenna arrays.
Here is why this is a massive "hidden" win for the airport’s efficiency.

The Engineering Trick: Clearing the Slope​

Aviation safety rules require an Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)—an invisible "slope" that starts at the runway end and rises upward. If the ILS antennas are too tall, they "poke" into this slope. To stay legal, the airport has to "shorten" the usable runway so that an aircraft (even with an engine failure) is guaranteed to fly over them.
By installing new, low-profile, or "frangible" (break-away) antennas, LBA can "reclaim" the concrete that is already there but currently "blocked" by the old equipment.

The Impact on Runway 32 and Runway 14​

While Runway 32 is the primary focus, lowering the gear at both ends provides a boost to the TORA (Take-Off Run Available).

Metric	Current Status	Projected (Estimated)	The Gain
Rwy 32 TORA	2,190m	2,250m	+60m
Rwy 14 TORA	2,113m	2,180m	+67m

*Note: Landing distances (LDA) will likely remain the same due to the steep approach path needed to clear the terrain toward Guiseley/Menston.

The "60-Meter Bonus": What does it actually buy?​

It sounds small, but in aircraft performance terms, 60–70 meters is huge. Based on Boeing 737-800 performance charts for a "hot and high" day (similar to a 20°C day at LBA’s altitude):

• 
  [] Extra Payload: An extra 60m of TORA typically equates to roughly 1,200kg to 1,800kg of additional Take-Off Weight.
  [] Passenger Equivalent: That is the weight of 12 to 18 extra passengers (including luggage) that would have otherwise been "bumped" from a long-haul flight to Turkey or the Canaries on a hot day.
• Fuel/Range: Alternatively, it allows for more fuel, potentially extending the range of a fully-loaded A321neo by an extra 100–150 nautical miles.

Why it matters for LBA​

This is a clever "stealth" extension. LBA is a "tabletop" airport; extending the actual concrete is expensive and environmentally sensitive. By "sinking" the ILS antennas into the ground (or using lower profiles), they get the performance of a longer runway without laying a single new slab of tarmac.
This makes the airport much more attractive for "Neo" and "MAX" operations, which are heavier but much quieter—a win for the airlines and a slight nod toward noise reduction for the locals.

 

[KARFA]

i am not sure i understand what that is supposed to relate to - "lowering the ILS" makes no sense.

is it supposed to mean re-basing it and effectively moving the touchdown zone?

also why is it talking about TORAs when the changes are to the ILS? TORA is take off runway available, ILS is for landing, why would changing the ILS change the amount of runway available for takeoff?

is there some actual legible and coherent source for any of this?

 

[Aviador]

Subject: EGNM Infrastructure: The N1/L1 "Fog" Factor and TORA Recovery
For those tracking the airfield side of LBA:REGEN, the real "hidden" win isn't just the terminal—it’s the projected relocation of the CAT II/III holding points at N1 and L1.
Currently, LBA suffers from a "double penalty" during Low Visibility Procedures (LVPs). Not only do you have slower flow rates, but you often lose usable runway for departures because of where aircraft are forced to hold to protect the legacy ILS signal.
The Problem: The "Holding Back" Penalty
N1 (Runway 14 End): In CAT I or VFR, you can hold right at the threshold. But under current CAT II/III conditions, the ILS critical area for Runway 32 can extend quite far. If an aircraft is landing on 32, a departing aircraft at N1 can interfere with the signal.
L1 (Runway 32 End): Similar issue for 14 arrivals. If you're forced to hold back at Bravo or Charlie because L1 is "inside" the protected zone for a landing aircraft, you lose significant TORA (Take-Off Run Available). For a B738 or A321 heading to the Canaries, those few hundred meters are the difference between a full load and a seat cap.
The Solution: "Lowering" the ILS & Capture Effect Antennas
The upgrade to a Capture Effect Localizer (part of the 2025/26 airfield works) changes the physics of the signal:
Narrower "Stay Clear" Zones: Modern antennas are far more directional. They don't "splash" signal off taxiing aircraft as easily.
Relocating the Holding Points: This allows the airport to move the CAT II/III stop bars closer to the runway centerline.
Current: Standard CAT III holds are often ~150m from the centerline.
Target: Reducing this to the ICAO minimums (often ~90m-107m depending on the aircraft code) by stabilizing the signal.
Why this matters for the "Start of Roll"
If LBA can move the L1 and N1 CAT III holding points just 40-50 meters closer to the thresholds, they essentially "reclaim" that distance for every departure in the fog.
Runway 32 Departures: Entering via a modernized L1 means you aren't losing the first ~200m of concrete that happens when you're "held back" during an arrival's short final.
The "N1 Loop": Clearing the N1 area faster means the "next in line" can move up sooner without tripping the ILS sensitive alarms for the guy on the glideslope.
The Bottom Line:
When we talk about "Lowering the ILS," it’s not just about the glidepath; it’s about shrinking the "invisible bubble" around the runway. This allows N1 and L1 to stay active as full-length entry points even when the RVR (Runway Visual Range) drops through the floor. It turns LBA from a "fair weather" short-runway airport into a much more resilient CAT III operation.
Quick Nav Reference for the Post:
N1: Northwest end (Rwy 14 Thr).
L1: Southeast end (Rwy 32 Thr).
The Move: Bringing the CAT III stop-bars closer to the runway to prevent "intersection-only" departures in LVPs.

i am not sure i understand what that is supposed to relate to - "lowering the ILS" makes no sense.

is it supposed to mean re-basing it and effectively moving the touchdown zone?

also why is it talking about TORAs when the changes are to the ILS? TORA is take off runway available, ILS is for landing, why would changing the ILS change the amount of runway available for takeoff?

is there some actual legible and coherent source for any of this?

I understand it to be the localiser, hopefully we can get this confirmed. It does make sense.

 

[KARFA]

where is that from @Aviador ?

N1 and L1 are nowhere near the end of the runway so I still don't understand how moving them affects the TORA?

I understand it to be the localiser, hopefully we can get this confirmed. It does make sense.

localiser has nothing to do with takeoffs tho so still doesn't make any sense. if it makes sense to you can you explain it please?

 

[Scottie Dog]

where is that from @Aviador ?

N1 and L1 are nowhere near the end of the runway so I still don't understand how moving them affects the TORA?



localiser has nothing to do with takeoffs tho so still doesn't make any sense. if it makes sense to you can you explain it please?

At first glance my feeling is that lowering the localised aerial means that you reduce the obstacles and thus change the obstacle clearance limit - I'll leave you to Google that phrase!

 

[Aviador]

At first glance my feeling is that lowering the localised aerial means that you reduce the obstacles and thus change the obstacle clearance limit - I'll leave you to Google that phrase!

That is exactly as I understand it but it comes with additional benefits as the ILS safety areas would also be reduced meaning holding points closer to the runway would able to be used speeding up the operation.

It also likely resolves the company issue regarding "Jet2 A321Neo" aircraft ops at LBA.