Future Infrastructure Developments

[User0001]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

The planning permission is subject to the Airport and the Council agreeing a Section 106 Agreement - basically a legally binding contract that requires to Airport to do certain things in return for planning permission being granted. The final sticking point to getting the S106 agreed is that the airport and the council can't agree on when the cash the airport have promised to fund transport developments should be released. They have agreed it will be linked to traffic levels around the airport and they have agreed on how many cars in a single hour is the maximum that should be allowed before its time to start getting concerned.
The disagreement is that the airport want to be allowed to breach this maximum number of cars on 33 separate occasions before the money is released. The council are pushing for 'zero tolerance' - as soon as it is breeched once, you pay the cash.
Next plans panel meeting is a week on Friday, where it may well be discussed again.

 

[White Heather]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

It was supposed to be thought provoking, but I suppose if you are not one of the regular contributors who people reply to, you might as well stay silent for fear of no reply, grammar police or a feeling of being put in your place.... going to have a glass of wine peed off!
Xboy999 - I not sure if it was my reply that seems to have upset you - but my response was not intended to in any way put down your suggestions and I thought my comment that it was a very valid 'out of the box' suggestion would have made that clear. My contra thoughts on the runway issue are entirely down to the fact that I have personally asked the Airport MD at Consultative Committee meetings about the runway and I, and others, have been told quite clearly that there are no plans and no need for an extension. The problems I have highlighted are such that the costs and planning issues would be prohibitive. It may be that Funchal see things somewhat differently to LBA and planning issues might not be such a problem. After all, Funchal and Madeira are heavily reliant on tourists and the airport is therefore a vital part of the island's financial security. They may not also have had to demolish half a housing estate or exhume half a cemetary, both of which are on the cards at LBA even if the runway on stilts technology was applied.

I certainly recognised your humour and my comment about not reading the thread about nostalgia was also supposed to be light hearted.

I hate the very though that my post annoyed you so I am going to have a glass or two or wine myself now. :sad:

 

[Aviador]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

[offtopic]White Heather, the grammar police issue has been resolved now ( I hope) but don't let that stop you from having a glass of wine. :drinks:

Make mine a Malt Whisky please![/offtopic]

 

[T67A]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

As I write this message to you guy's, I too am having a glass of wine.

I would have thought to start doing international routes out of LBA the runway would be an issue to airlines. Ok PIA are doing flights direct to Islamabad on the A310, but if the B777 does take over on this route, surely a fully loaded B777 would either have to do a midway stop on route because perfomance reasons due the runway not been long enough or would have to restrict the amount of passengers using the service.

It would be great seeing regularly services across the pond may be using a B767 or a A330, but once you have a wet runway at Leeds and Bradford Airport performance charts changes everything, either not to use as much fuel or not to put as much luguage on the aircraft.

White Heather is Bridgepoint aware of this and in the future have they got plans to extend the runway to resolve this problem?

 

[Aviador]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

here here...knocking back the Whisky here, cheers! :drinks:

'T67A'

Are you not aware that it isn't always the aircraft type or the passenger load that is restricted? It is normally the aircraft range that is subject to limitations. Basically it is possible for a B777 to fly direct to Islamabad with a full load of passengers. The problem arises when an airline wishes to fly further afield than Islamabad where either a stopover or a restricted load would be required.

I think we have to be realistic here and ask ourselves "is a runway extension going to pay for itself" and the answer to that is a definite NO. If you look at the destinations that are likely in the future, say; New York, Washington DC, Orlando and Dubai, they are all viable operating direct without a runway extension with the right type of aircraft equipment so why would the airport ever look to extend the runway?

On another note, subject to the PIA bringing in the Boeing 777 in the future. The airport will install green centreline lighting to assist at the 32 turning D.

Also, the airport is looking at replacing the ILS glideslope on runway 32. :smile:

 

[Aviador]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

http://www.competition-commission.org.u ... 45_4_1.pdf

I don't know if it's there but its an interesting read.

Note the minimum required for the Boeing B777-200 is 2,390m but that figure is for a fully laden aircraft ie: full of fuel and passengers.

 

[lbaspotter]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

I totally agree with what Aviador says above.

I just can’t see Bridgepoint paying for a runway extension when there is no need for one just yet.

By the way that’s the first time I have heard anything mentioned about the ILS glideslope on 32 been replaced. This would be a good move by the airport as hopefully at the same time they can get the touchdown point (Thresh hold) moved further back towards Horsforth to allow a greater landing distance so that aircraft like B757's and B767's could land in CAT3 conditions.

At the same time LBA will hopefully also get CAT2 ILS installed on runway 14 which is long over due. If I remember correctly this was under dissicussion a couple of months ago and work was to be done over the coming winter season.

So Aviador have you heard owt about the runway 14, ILS CAT2 upgrade work, has it been made official yet?

 

[empire]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

By the way that’s the first time I have heard anything mentioned about the ILS glideslope on 32 been replaced. This would be a good move by the airport as hopefully at the same time they can get the touchdown point (Thresh hold) moved further back towards Horsforth to allow a greater landing distance so that aircraft like B757's and B767's could land in CAT3 conditions.

The 32 ILS needs replacing due to it being at end of life.

To bring the threshold back on 32 would require extensive work to improve the RSEA, not to mention the costs of moving all the TDZ and approach lighting.

 

[backtrack]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

The ILS on rwy 32 is being replaced next week. However for the time being, no improvements are being made at the 14 end. Whatever happens, they dont see it viable to upgrade to CAT 3, but would consider CAT 2 in the future.

Aviador - If they minima for a B777-200 is 2,390m, we obviously fall short of that figure, how would that effect any future B777 operations from LBA?

Less fuel?
Restrictions of passenger numbers?
Luggage restrictions?

 

[Aviador]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

You misread my post, that minima was for a 'fully laden' aircraft. The requirement for a departure to ISB would not require the maximum fuel load using a Boeing 777-200. LBA would only fall 140m short of the requirement for maximum takeoff weight, so this means it is possible to fly direct from LBA to ISB with a full load of passengers, freight and a part load of fuel sufficient for the direct flight to ISB. (probably not much further though)

 

[Aviador]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

Think of it this way....

The runway required for a Boeing B747-200 at maximum takeoff weight is - 3,150m.

When Wardair operated flights to Toronto they normally routed via airports such as BHX but they did fly the route direct on at least one occasion. This was made possible because they didn't require a full load of fuel. They operated with a full load of passengers and carried freight on the flight to prove that it was possible. This was illustrated in the first issue of 'The Official LBA Handbook' to prove the capability of the airports runway. (I don't think they print this any more)

Sadly, because the days of the Wardair Boeing 747 tanking down the runway are a distant memory most people have forgotten what the runway is capable of.

 

[backtrack]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

Yes, i acknowledge your reply, and i read your post fully, hence why i offered the "Less Fuel" option on the effects of B777 operations. You mean, if for example, a B772 could operate fully laden non-stop for 9 hours, and ISB (for example) is 7.5 hours flight time, it doesnt need to fill its tanks to the maximum capacity that would see it travel the full 9 hours.

Those days of the B747 are very sadly missed, at the moment, we cant even attract regular operations of a B763 or A332, nevermind the B777.

 

[Bigman]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

Look at Birmingham. they too an A380 the other week. Try and get that off again fully loaded!!!!!

There are many big types that can get into LBA, but not fully loaded, and get out again, but without a full payload and fuel tanks.

 

[T67A]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

The statement Bigman has said "There are many big types that can get into LBA, but not fully loaded, and get out again, but without a full payload and fuel tanks". This is a true statement, which brings me back to my statement "regarding are Bridgepoint aware of this?". What airline (long haul)who would read a statement like this look at LBA?. I saw a documentary not so long ago which was a 3 part series, I think it was on BBC 2 regarding building airports?. Manchester as well as several other airports mentioned talked about when Manchester first opened the runway was built before the terminal was, later on the terminal was built with a further extension on the runway to make sure they would be able to accept the larger jets coming in. Aviador, all these quotes you are mentioning are from when test pilots do all there testing on new aircraft and should be able take off/land on a runway of so many ft/mtrs, after a while aircraft do not perform as they do from new and calculations on safety margins have to be included, I was told this when I was doing my ATPL's on performance. Other safety margins inc. temperature warm day a/c need longer distance to take off on, airport elevation also is to do with temperature, cross wind creates drag, gradient of runway creates drag if it's uphill, water on runway creates drag, etc.....! May be the extension of the runway is for a future date and for the time being concentrate short haul destinations?.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

I don't disagree that there are underlining factors that make LBA more changeable but it all depends on the aircraft type.

The Boeing 767-200 can operate fully laden with Passengers, Cargo and Fuel to fly within the maximum range of that aircraft type. Similar can be said for the A330-200, the Boeing 777-200 and the A310 and soon the Boeing 787 and A350. So destinations such as Dubai, New York, Toronto, Islamabad are already achievable from LBA.

The Boeing 767-300 can operate fully laden with Passengers and Cargo with 'sufficient' fuel to get to destinations such as Toronto or New York but the aircraft would require a fuel stop to reach destinations further afield. Similar can be said for the Boeing 747-200/300 series, A300, A330-300, Boeing 737-400, Boeing 777-300 etc etc.

T67A, Just what destinations or aircraft types do you envisage operation from LBA should the airport go-ahead with a runway extension in the future that can't already be served with the right aircraft type now?

 

[WYIA]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

Hmmm quite so Aviador,

the routes LBA can sustain right now and are more than workable is what we should be looking at. Clearly, we can not expect anything like a 747 to HGK once a week.

Runway length is not priority anymore.

Routes such as JFK/EWR, YYZ & DXB could all work with 737-700 ETOPS, 757-200ER ETOPS (200PAX), 767-200 ER ETOPS (200+PAX)
Also the A310, A330 with restrictions & the 777-200ER

I also feel seasonal/holiday routes could work and not just as Cruise flights as is currently the case. Destinations such as Orlando, The Dominican & Goa would do well me thinks.

 

[White Heather]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

However we do need to remember that airlines do not necessarily operate this type of aircraft, and they are unlikely to buy them just so they can fly out of LBA. Bridgepoint are fully aware of the airport runway capability and the issues mentioned above. All the directors are experienced airport guys who have managed airports such as Newcastle and Bristol - they are experts in their field, but obviously they have to look at viability and payback. They know that realistically, they have a chance of getting operators to do Toronto, Dubai, New York, etc, but the other long haul stuff is not going to happen. Even Manchester is struggling to keep what they have got.

Not only are LBA bosses talking to airlines to interest them in flying these routes, they are also having to take account of which aircraft types the airline operates and whether they can fly from LBA and still be profitable - and of course whether demand would be sufficient to justify such an aircraft even if they have them. These airlines may have to make a huge financial outlay themselves to come into LBA and Bridgepoint have to be realistic.

I would also point out that whils the Government White Paper recommended and supported the runway extension at LBA, the previous board (Council) also stated that there were no plans to extend the runway in the forseeable future and no requirement to do so, as their business plan did not include the type of operations that perhaps many of us would like to see. So this is not a new strategy introduced by Bridgepoint. Both boards were of the same opinion.

So, don't expect a runway extension any time soon unless half a dozen airlines sign up to operate long haul from LBA using aircraft that currently cannot be operated from this runway, and I think we all know that is not going to happen!!

 

[Aviador]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

There is a decent number of airlines available that have aircraft that can operate out of Leeds unrestricted.

There's a reasonable number of airlines that operate aircraft that can operate with a restricted range without the need to operate such flights with restricted passenger loads.

Here's a rough guide to what the options are....

Little or no restriction with a full load of passengers and fuel to reach the aircrafts maximum range.
Can operate with a full load of passengers with sufficient fuel to reach many destinations.
Can operate with a full load of passengers with sufficient fuel to reach a limited number of destinations.

Boeing B717-200 - 1,670
Boeing B737-600 - 1,690
Boeing B737-700 - 1,598
Airbus A300 B2 --- 1,676
Airbus A320-200 - 2,480
Boeing B727-100 - 2,502
Boeing B727-200 - 3,176
Boeing B737-100 - 2,499
Boeing B737-200 - 2,295
Boeing B737-300 - 2,160
Boeing B737-400 - 2,550
Boeing B737-500 - 2,470
Boeing B737-800 - 2,090
Boeing B737-900 - 2,240
Airbus A300 B4 --- 2,605
Airbus A300-600 --2,332
Airbus A310 -------1,845
Boeing B707-300 - 3,088
Boeing B707-400 - 3,277
Boeing B720 -------1,981
Boeing B757-200 - 1,980
Boeing B757-300 - 2,400
Boeing B767-200 --1,981
Boeing B767-300ER2,540
Boeing B767-400ER3,130
Boeing B747-100 --3,060
Boeing B747-200 - 3,150
Boeing B747-300 --3,292
Boeing B747-400 --2,890
Boeing B747-SR ---1,860
Boeing B747-SP ---2,710
Boeing B777-200-- 2,390
Boeing B777-200ER3,110
Boeing B777-300 - 3,140
Boeing B777-300ER3,120

 

[WYIA]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

Yes i was going to say that there are infact quite afew airlines that use the a/c i mentioned above. eg

Continental = 757 & 762
US Airways = 757 & 767
Delta = 757
Air Transat = A310
Emirates = A330

Perfect )

 

[Traveller]

Re: Infrastructure Developments

It seems a shame that after all this effort to get the airport expansion, people still only see places like New York, Toronto, Islamad and Dubai etc as the only suggestions for long haul destinations!! There's more to the USA than the East Coast!!! What about the West Coast, with LA, San Fran and even Vegas?? Referring to a previous comment on the Leeds runway, would these destinations be viable from Leeds in it's current state? Very much doubt it!! Looks like we're doomed to yet more flights to Spain and mainland Europe. I've been around the world and there are many destinations that I would rather go than joining the masses to Spain etc each year!!! Is this all that the expansion will have to offer? More of the same old, same old but in larger quantities...Oh and lots more shops to browse in as we all wait for that flight to Spain!!! Arent we lucky??!!