-
Please take part in the Forums4airports user survey https://forums4airports.com/threads/6469/post-270761
Future Infrastructure Developments
- Thread starter Aviador
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Moderator
- #5,303
Makes sense. For anything LBA Support Group you hit the right place to ask us questions, also hence what I said earlier to you message regards the forums4airports
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #5,304
The same can be said for many other industries, I don't see why he even thinks there's an argument there.
Heathrowflyer
Well-Known Member
Have we descended to responding to petty trolls on social media. Just ignore please, they want us to get into a debate. No one will ever win and it soon descends into insults. I've said it before but it brings us down to their level and doesn't do LBA or its business partners any favours.
I won’t be responding to those fools anymore as you say it just gets into a debate and probably then the insults which does not help anything. It will just be ignored from now on.
- Moderator
- #5,307
We only reply when needs be, like you say there is No point in replying and getting into a long drawn out debate with them trolls.
- Moderator
- #5,308
GALBA have been called out publicly for lieing by the business editor of The Yorkshire Post, Marc Cusaci.
The editor of The Yorkshire Post, James Mitchinson as posted the following.
The editor of The Yorkshire Post, James Mitchinson as posted the following.
https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/19273743.amp/
They’re liars the article says they have responded to it. Just making excuses in my opinion and knew about it all along.
They’re liars the article says they have responded to it. Just making excuses in my opinion and knew about it all along.
Sherburnflyer92
Well-Known Member
I cannot drop the word I really want to.
but I’ll guess I’ll see them(you) next Tuesday.
but I’ll guess I’ll see them(you) next Tuesday.
What’s happening next Tuesday?
Someone connected to GALBA called Ian Coatman has started an online petition on the 38 Degrees website, calling for the planning application to be called in by Robert Jenrick. I also notice that GALBA has it's own very professional website, on which, amongst other things, it goes into detail why it believes LBA does not currently have permission to increase passenger numbers to 7 mppa under the existing terminal planning approval, without submitting a further planning application once passenger numbers reach 4.5 mppa. It appears that the battle has now gone global!
If that’s true about them wanting the battle to go global its because they can’t find enough people in Leeds lol, it really doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that they are now getting people across the world to support them, as they clearly don’t have the support from people in Leeds as most people in Leeds see this terminal as a positive thing for our city and don’t follow their nonsense.
- Moderator
- #5,314
To be honest, we have known that GALBA have had the website for a long time.
For new members
The Leeds Bradford Airport Support Group has existed since the 1980s, and does so to represent the greater majority of people in Leeds, Bradford and Leeds City Region, who support their local airport, and wish to see it improved to become an airport fit to serve this region.
In the 1990s, when LBA sought approval to re-introduce 24 hour operations, (a far more contentious planning application), @White Heather collected and submitted around 17,000 letters of support, more than 4 times the opposition submitted by funded anti airport groups at the time.
From the of start of this latest effort myself @lbaspotter & @Aviador joined up with @White Heather and decided we didn't want to go down the website route, due to the on-going covid-19 situation making things more complicated we thought it would be better doing things differently.
So Initially it was just through Fourms4airports, after some more discussions we then set up our Twitter account to get a social media presence and that was followed by setting up on Facebook. By doing things differently it allowed us to get you all involved with the Petition from the very start, and in doing so we gained a good number of signatures before going publicly with the petition.
I could add a lot more but its been a very long 17 months fighting, it really has took a hell of a lot out of us.
Last edited:
What's most ironic is these groups justify global support for their cause as climate change is a global issue.
Any support for expansion outside of the immediate local area is dismissed however as they aren't the people affected by the noise & pollution caused by the airport.
These groups will constantly twist rules and facts to suit their goals. Their is no point in engaging with them as no amount of truthful scientific facts will sway them from their opinions.
100% agree here.
I do understand that climate change is a global issue, but I also believe aviation will become greener in the future and anything that can improve the environment such as the new terminal should be done.
All the other transport types out there are becoming greener an example is buses, some are even electric now.
What I’m struggling to understand from those that oppose is they would rather keep a terminal that is worser for the environment rather than one which is a lot greener.
As to the the increase of passenger numbers I can see more people who use Manchester airport from this area using LBA as there will be more public transport (the rail link) and the better facilities. Meaning more use the local airport rather than airports further afield and less ground pollution on the ground as people will be encouraged to use the public transport. And also some better options of flights which can tempt people to use LBA rather than MAN.
Heathrowflyer
Well-Known Member
You are all doing a tremendous job. People are paid full time roles to be social media influencers/campaigners and you are doing it voluntarily for the love of aviation and the region. Good on you. To be honest I feel the airport should be doing more ...but I've thought that all along.
Disclosure: I joined F4A to keep up to date with what was going on at my local airport BHX. Over time, as the terminal extension, and then new terminal plans developed I've dipped into the LBA section to keep tabs on it.
A point that has been made repeatedly is that the expansion of the airport from 4mppa to 7mppa was approved as part of a previous application and not in the one for the new terminal.
I've been looking back at the plans for the terminal extension, but can't really find anything to say that the airport had been approved to expand to 7mppa under those plans. Was expecting to find it in the conditions for approval but wasn't there?
I didn't frequent the LBA section of F4A too much back than so my memory is rather fuzzy on what happened.
A point that has been made repeatedly is that the expansion of the airport from 4mppa to 7mppa was approved as part of a previous application and not in the one for the new terminal.
I've been looking back at the plans for the terminal extension, but can't really find anything to say that the airport had been approved to expand to 7mppa under those plans. Was expecting to find it in the conditions for approval but wasn't there?
I didn't frequent the LBA section of F4A too much back than so my memory is rather fuzzy on what happened.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #5,319
@Coathanger16 it featured in the previous airport planning application which was fully approved. In the application it was marked as "Route 2030" and the actual figure mentioned was 7.1m passengers.
The current terminal has frequently handled in the region of 500,000 passenger a month. If this figure was repeated over a 12 month period the terminal can already handle 6m passengers annually.
The already fully approved application will allow for around a further 2m passengers. Strictly speaking, as there are currently no passenger caps the airport could technically handle 8mppa.
The new terminal replacement proposals are for a terminal that can handle around 7mppa. It is actually slightly smaller than the current terminal (if the previously passed plans are progressed) but significantly more efficient.
The current terminal has frequently handled in the region of 500,000 passenger a month. If this figure was repeated over a 12 month period the terminal can already handle 6m passengers annually.
The already fully approved application will allow for around a further 2m passengers. Strictly speaking, as there are currently no passenger caps the airport could technically handle 8mppa.
The new terminal replacement proposals are for a terminal that can handle around 7mppa. It is actually slightly smaller than the current terminal (if the previously passed plans are progressed) but significantly more efficient.
Upgrade Your Account
Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.
Trending Hashtags
-
#LiverpoolJohnLennonWeight: 2
-
#liverpoolairportWeight: 2
-
#EasyJetWeight: 2
-
#tenerifeWeight: 1
-
#TouristProtestsWeight: 1
-
#SpainWeight: 1