Future Infrastructure Developments

leedslad said:

Brill update as always and thanks for your commitment to the cause.

Did you enquire if they will re engage regarding the direct rail link given the completely different terminal location and topography? Thanks

Click to expand...

Sorry leedslad, I wasn't able to do so. The focus on the meeting was very much on the airport rather than access to it and as ever, the meeting was chaired, so I could only ask questions when the chair allowed it. I had a long list of questions and only managed 2 or 3, all relating to the terminal itself. Questions about access arrangements are more appropriate for the full Consultative Meeting, the next of which is in March. However - what the access arrangements are, including rail options, is not a matter for LBA. It is a matter for Leeds City Council and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. They make these decisions, not LBA, so I am certain that even if I had asked, the single LBA representative who was running this meeting would not have been able to give an answer.

What I can say is that it is clear to me, based on Council documents I have read and things other Consultative Committee members have said, that the option that will be pursued is the Parkway Station. This is partly because the Council are very much focussed on also having the Park and Ride attached to it - something that couldn't be done if the chosen option was a heavy rail link terminating at the airport. As the steepest part of the rail link is the first part (climbing out of the cutting on the Harrogate line) up towards Scotland Lane, moving the terminal closer makes no difference. The topography is exactly the same.

Tarnspotter is 100% right and lighting the touchpaper is a good analogy. Also try 'sow the wind and reap the whirlwind'.

Len Fish said:

Suspect the NIMBYS will come out anyway and so will the ECO mob, despite the terminal being environmentally friendly they’ll still moan about the (minimal on the scale of things) pollution from the aircraft themselves and their likely increasing numbers. LBA management have thrown down the gauntlet to LCC. No extension to operating hours then no terminal and hence no jobs from the construction work and no extra jobs or extra wealth for the region once it’s built. With the new Government pushing for development in the North, this is as good a time as any for AMP to take a tough line with the ineffective LCC.

Click to expand...

This is why we need to be as vocal as they are to ensure this goes through.

It amazes me to think it has taken a decade to realise what most of us knew all along with regards to needing a new terminal. Whatever happens aviation wise, the old terminal needs knocking down and rebuilding. I'm sure the council knew this when they sold it.

Tarn Spotter said:

As a local I have some support for the NIMBYS. Living just over a mile away from the airport the noise after midnight during the summer months has increased greatly over the years, at a time when due to the warm weather windows wide open. We live off to the side of the runway, so away from the main noise path, it must be very noisy if you live under the flight path.
The only complaints I have received from my neighbours over the last few years is noise at night, I am a heavy sleeper but can be disturbed, my partner often not getting to sleep till after 2am.
Increasing night time hours for me is lighting the blue touch paper in my opinion and I fully supported extending the flying hours late 80's, I could support the new hours if for landing aircraft only, take off should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances.
In my opinion LCC not helping local concerns, air pollution levels at local schools 18 months ago well above approved levels, yet we scrap the link road and seem to be suggesting more local traffic acceptable, when we know it will increase when the clean air zone around Leeds comes in to force.
Locals will be up in arms on two fronts, air pollution and noise.

Click to expand...

Sorry Tarnspotter but I think you are exaggerating the impact of this. Once again, this is NOT an increase in night flying per se. In fact it is the reduction in what is recognised and counted as night time flying. There are flights at LBA that are counted as night flights here which are not counted as night flights anywhere else. How is it right that a flight (say) due to land at MAN at 2305 is a daytime flight but one landing at the same time at LBA is classified as a night flight? It just isn't and you as a businessman must understand that this is not fair competition particularly when there are in addition, restrictions on how many flights can operate within the year. Our night time at LBA lasts 1.5 hours per day longer than those at other airports, and for no good reason.

As for night time movements, almost all will be landings after 2330. Very few departures occur after this time now and it will be the same if this change is approved. Effectively if we got one extra based aircraft, then that would result potentially (not guaranteed) in one extra flight arriving after 2330. If we got two more based aircraft their could be an additional 2 landings, but this is dependent upon where they have flown during the day, their schedule, any delays etc. It isn't going to make a huge difference in terms of night movements at all. If anything the most impact will be that there may be more departures between 0600 and 0700 than we see today. However, again depending on which routes the based aircraft are operating that day, departing earlier may mean they land back at LBA in the evening earlier too, so actually reducing noise levels later in the evening.

I have to ask you guys out there to be very careful about your interpretations of this because if you start claiming that LBA is about to start increasing night flying (when it isn't) it isn't going to help the cause of getting the new terminal at all.

I will repeat - this is about the classification of what is a night flight and what isn't. NOT about increasing night flights. There is a difference.

I have to say that having posted all the detail regarding the internal layout of the terminal and the facilities it will have, all the focus is on the change in the night time definition. It isn't as though LBA is trying to do something that every other airport doesn't already have. So far, there have been no comments or questions at all with regard to the main issue here, which is the terminal!! It is disappointing that once again, despite the fantastic development that might happen, the overall focus on here is turning negative.

It didn't to me, just highlighting an important point. Well done!

White Heather said:

I will repeat - this is about the classification of what is a night flight and what isn't. NOT about increasing night flights. There is a difference.

Click to expand...

The problem is that such an application will be seen as an indication that the intention is to increase the number of night flights, whatever the applicant says to the contrary. I also can't understand why such a change would be sought if there wasn't an intention - now or at some time in the future - to increase the number of night flights. I must add that I quite understand what you are getting at in terms of quotas etc. Howver not everyone will. People may well not trust the airport no matter what they say on this one.

mode1 said:

Getting a bit tence all this reading between the lines. Whilst people are passionate about the airports future development I feel we should respect all opinions and forum members feeling even if it differs from our own. Typing in bold can come across as reading the riot act. And being told off.

Click to expand...

I do respect all opinions Mode1, but people should read what I write and not put two and two together and make 5, especially when so much is riding on this. Most supporters of LBA would be delighted to hear that the airport is now going to try and operate on a level playing field, rather than competing with one hand behind their back the whole time and statements suggesting that LBA are trying to increase night flying are just not correct. The airport is, after all a 24 hour airport and it can fly at night any time it likes. This is all about what is defined as night here and what is defined as night everywhere else.

It is disappointing to provide so much information that is positive and virtually the whole of the comments coming back and not only negatively focusing on this redefinition of night flying hours, but misinterpreting what it means too. As for typing in bold and block capitals, l it was just to emphasise what I had already said but which still was being misunderstood and is what we did at work....... but if you prefer I will use italics and bold next time. I have no intention to upset anyone who might be sensitive to such things.

airforced said:

The problem is that such an application will be seen as an indication that the intention is to increase the number of night flights, whatever the applicant says to the contrary. I also can't understand why such a change would be sought if there wasn't an intention - now or at some time in the future - to increase the number of night flights. I must add that I quite understand what you are getting at in terms of quotas etc. Howver not everyone will. People may well not trust the airport no matter what they say on this one.

Click to expand...

Nobody ever trusts an airport do they? Whatever they apply to do, some people will kick off about it, but it won't help if folk who are supposed to support the airport start saying that the airport is going to do something that is actually not the case, because they are misinterpreting what the application is for. I have explained it several times and if even airport supporters believe that actually it will result in an increase in night flying then what hope is there? If there is any increase, it will be minimal, but as I have already said, it could work both ways and actually result in a slight reduction in night time movements.

It is odd that on the committee, even the local councillors, parish councillors and all the rest (including the anti noise group) had little to say on this issue, and yet on here it seems to be going down like a lead balloon!

The frustration with airport NIMBYs is that they bought their house with a discount to the market rate due to being within earshot.

Leeds is a growing city and aviation is growing so it should come as no surprise when it needs to expand. This inconvenience is priced into the house unfortunately.

Same with people that live near stadia then complain when expansion is proposed.

I understand your opinions and respect them. I hope you understand therefore how frustrating it is when I attend a meeting, spend an hour or so reporting on it and almost all the comments that come back are negative and focused on just one point, particularly when there appears to be no basis for the negativity and the meaning of what is being sought by LBA is being misunderstood repeatedly, and despite my explanations. It would have been easier to simply not provide the report, and then all would apparently be happy! I can only assume that the terminal development aspect and what is included in it is to everyone's satisfaction, given there have been virtually no comments on it.

As for being lectured Mode1, it seems to me that you are doing precisely that to me now?? If my writing methods come across as lecturing then I apologise to anyone offended unreservedly, but as a founder of the LBA Support Group and having gone through all of this before in the past, I know only too well how ill informed rumour turns into fact and leads to a negative outcome.

We often do not agree on many things but this is a forum and other opinions are most likely to be different to your own so nothing is new there.
Remember this is a hobby and should be fun !

This is the Infrastructure, Construction & Developments thread for items such as the terminal proposals. We have a Road, Rail & Access Issues - Thread where proposals about rail and road access can be discussed to your hearts content there.

The Infrastructure, Construction & Developments thread title relates to on-airport discussions only. The owners of LBA have no direct say in how it's users get to the airport and therefore those discussions must be placed into the Road, Rail & Access thread. This is not open for discussion, any further posts about the proposed parkway will be moved. Please do not do it.

It has been reported within the forum that the airport requires more operational flexibility. Although linked to the airports application to build a new terminal I have decided that further discussions relating to the airports operational hours are to be placed in the Leeds Bradford - General Thread only. These posts maybe moved to a dedicated thread at some point if the discussion is long enough.

It has been noted that the tone of some users has been getting close to being personal and I understand passions are running high on this thread but please don't forget to respect other members of the forum. I'm not singling anybody out, we're all adult here and I trust we can move the discussion on in a sensible way with no further intervention.

@mode1 Just for the record the use of bold is totally acceptable to make a point especially if you don't want people to miss it, however if your text is in bold and in CAPITAL LETTERS, this is generally regarded as the shouting equivalent on social media.

Please let this be the last moderation post I have to make on this.

Aviador

My interpretation of the responses here to the new terminal proposals is that people are positive and excited about the news, but are simply fearful that making it dependent on changing the definition of 'night flights' brings a risk that it may not go ahead at all. It sounds to me as though people have been so worn down over the years that it's easy for optimism to quickly turn to pessimism, which is understandable.

I can appreciate both sides of this particular debate. WH has rightly pointed out that this would simply bring LBA in line with other airports - but this will obviously be spun negatively by the likes of the Yorkshire Evening Post and risks antagonising some people who might have otherwise been supportive.

The people in charge of putting together these proposals aren't daft, and I'm sure they'll have had this debate themselves internally already. Perhaps they've made the calculation that there will in any case be substantial opposition to the plans for the new terminal from the people who will naturally object to any sort of development at the airport, and that in a sense it's actually a good time to try and get these changes through for the 'night flight' definition at the same time.

As other have already pointed out, they seem to be taking quite a bold position in saying "You want us to lower our carbon emissions? Sure, we'll do that - here's our shiny new carbon-neutral terminal building. Now, if we're going to spend all this money, how about bringing this 'night flight' definition in line with the rest of the country?". It could also just be a negotiating position - ask for 1.5 hours 'extra' and maybe LCC will give them the extra hour at the start of the day whilst telling local residents they've stood firm on 'additional' flights landing after 23:00?

Comments about hours of operation have moved to the General Thread. Further posts on the matter here will be deleted.

Offint said:

Why extend flying hours....business routes and the main carriers are happy to work within normal hours it's the bucket and spade routes that come in after midnight....I thought (obviously wrongly) that they wanted more business routes with national carriers.
There's going to be such a negative response to this as we all know.

Click to expand...

I totally get your point re: Bucket & Spade and business. However i think the circle and links between them all is very much linked. You alter the hours of night time operations, you get a new terminal. A new terminal will attract airlines wanting to do business routes. A new terminal for business passengers will attract, hopefully, repeat passengers.

All in all i very much doubt there would be an increase at the end of the day on arrivals as @White Heather has pointed out however it will be the 6am-7am slot that will get an increase in departures.

Well it all esclated in here pretty quick! I just got in from work. As I was one of the first to mention flying hours I'm not bothered how many night flights there is or isn't to be honest I brought it up as more of a fear/I hope it does not affect the planning application and that non aviation people may see that application as wanting an increase in night flights.

Anyway back on topic in your post white heather I didnt see anything regarding the lounges if it's there I missed it. So are they plan on putting the 32/14 lounge and the other in? And/or is there plans for any more lounges?

It also said unspecified number of air bridges but did u see anything relating to how many stands are directly in front of the terminal? Just curious.

As far as im concerned things are looking up at the moment and im excited by the plans. I believe AMP and LBA have a very good package to offer LCC which has good environmental issues included which in turn would sell well and be ready to go! The new terminal has a modern stylish look to it with nice clean lines and you can tell by its shape inc the piers there is room to expand it. WH I no you gave us a description of how it will look inside but do you know when LBA may release images/ diagrams of how it will look inside?

Thanx WH for the excellent notes.

In terms of the terminal development, I'm not sure I understand why this hangs on the increase in night time hours. Given the proposed Parkway development and, no doubt, road alterations, I'd have stuck to that in terms of charm offensive with the community. As we've seen here, it's a contentious topic. If flying starts at 6am then aircraft noise will start earlier on the stands, with surface access traffic in the area from 3ish. Also, it will mean the Parkway will need to be nearly a 24 hour operation and that will need seismic licence changes. Given that we've lost so many based aircraft this las year ( through no fault of our own) surely there's good capacity already. We all really want this development but any matter like this will create delays and controversy.

Suppose it's a once in a generation chance to push for the hours... If they waited until terminal built then tried to push through as standalone change it might never be approved...

Guys, building have capacity limits. Also explained in White Heather's earlier post, the equipment also has capacity limits. The X-ray scanners, the baggage belts, the baggage make-up areas and stands. Everything has a limit. If AMP were to work around the current night time flying quota which is what it is, then they would need to build a larger terminal. The current plans streamline everything, it's the classic goldilocks set up where everything is just right. The need for a larger terminal plan would inevitably cost considerably more than 150m and it wouldn't be used efficiently.

Hendi said:

Anyway back on topic in your post white heather I didnt see anything regarding the lounges if it's there I missed it. So are they plan on putting the 32/14 lounge and the other in? And/or is there plans for any more lounges?

Click to expand...

There are three lounges currently. There are plans for lounges in the new terminal, I don't know whether it will exactly match the three existing ones though. However, three is a more than sufficient number for LBA so I would be surprised if there are more planned on top.