Future Infrastructure Developments

[White Heather]

Moving away from the parkway station, buses, taxis and other means of accessing the airport, just for a minute, I have had approval from LBA to share this message with you. It is the letter issued by Hywel Rees (CEO) to all members of the Airport Consultative Committee, ahead of the meeting on Monday.

Dear ACC Members
I am writing to update you on an exciting new chapter for Leeds Bradford Airport.

A year ago, we outlined our plans to meet the airports projected growth with an extension to the existing
terminal. After detailed modelling and analysis of these proposals, we decided we could do better, much
better. Parts of our existing terminal were built in 1965, which has constrained our efforts to make improvements in
recent years, limiting our energy efficiency, passenger flow and level of customer service. We need to invest in
LBA to ensure the long-term future and realise our ambition to profoundly change the perception and reality of
customer experience. This upgrade will create a modern, sleek and efficient airport terminal for our
passengers. It will allow us to reduce queuing times and improve the overall experience; providing better dining
and shopping facilities, extend seating, and more efficient security and immigration areas.


Our aim is to increase the quality of passenger service, rather than significantly increasing passenger quantity.
Indeed, our projected passenger demand of 7 million by 2030 remains the same, as set out in our ‘Route to
2030’ master plan, published March 2017, but we will be able to offer a better service for our passengers and
airlines.

We take our environmental commitments seriously and by 2023 this redevelopment will be integral to helping
us be net zero carbon for the emissions we control. It will be one of the most environmentally efficient
terminals in the UK, accredited as ‘excellent’ through the respected BREEAM standard. We’re also continuing
our work with our partners in local government and transport to deliver more sustainable public transport
connections to our airport and to actively participate in local offsetting schemes.

International connectivity is a key driver for our regional economy, and we cannot underestimate the vital role
that Leeds Bradford Airport plays in the future prosperity of the Leeds City Region, Yorkshire and the North in
terms of exports, investment, and productivity. It is a catalyst for inclusive economic growth and facilitates the
transfer of innovation and ideas.

The airport currently contributes £475m to the local economy every year, employing around 2,500 people and
supporting about 7,200 jobs. This upgrade has the potential to significantly increase the number of jobs linked
to the airport to 12,000 creating a number of new opportunities for the local community and boosting the
economy even further, signifying West Yorkshire’s importance in the Northern Powerhouse.

We plan on submitting the application to Leeds City Council this Spring, following extensive consultations with
local residents, stakeholders and our industry partners. If approved, we anticipate breaking ground in late-
2020, with the terminal completed in early-2023.

The new terminal will dramatically improve our service for the millions who visit Yorkshire every year and the
people of Yorkshire who travel to see friends, family, colleagues and customers around the world. It will also
give the Leeds City Region a world-class airport.


I hope you will agree that this is a hugely exciting opportunity for the region. I would encourage you to view the
project’s dedicated webpage :
www.leedsbradfordairport.co.uk/transforming-LBA for more information and to keep updated with the project’s progress. If you have any comments or questions, please don’t hesitate to contact the team and me.

Yours sincerely,




Hywel Rees, CEO of Leeds Bradford Airport

 

[a300boy]

Well he seems pretty positive ! lets see what transpires over the next few years.

 

[jw2k]

Great news about the proposed new terminal building! Fingers crossed that the Council will see that the plans, once submitted, would be so much better than the terminal extension that was proposed previously.

We'd all prefer it if the railway line were to go directly to the terminal building - but first of all it has to be feasible, and if it's feasible then the cost has to be acceptable, whether it's paid for by the airport, or from public funds, or a combination of both. Out of interest, I just looked up when the station was built at MAN, and the answer is 1993, when the airport was already handling close to 15m passengers. Perhaps if LBA were somewhere close to this figure then the cost/benefit would be more favourable, but for now I think we ought to be pleased with the plans for the parkway station.

One thing that crossed my mind is the connection between these new plans and the recently rejected plans for the new link road. Are we to assume that the councillors who killed off the link road plans last month were aware that LBA were formulating these proposals for the new terminal building? The airport must have been engaging with the planning department (amongst others) at LCC, but would councillors have known about this? If not, and if the new terminal plans are approved, then could this make the councillors think again about resurrecting the plans for the new link road?

 

[whoshotjimmi]

It's been a little while since I last posted here for a number of reasons. Chiefly, there just wasn't much to talk about. With the announcement of the *new* new terminal, I think it is time a number of things were discussed.

Let's start with something positive. I've said for a number of years that management has consistently mismanaged the airport and LBA has suffered a series of bad CEOs that has led to a situation where the airport is now in rapid decline. The good news is that Hywel Rees SEEMS to be saying the right things and trying to do the right things to turn that around. Let's forget the link road and the station and all the other disappointments that come out of the completely ineffective and irrelevant Leeds City Council, LBA now seems to be planning for a brighter future and planning to replace the terminal building - long past its sell by date - with something that is truly innovative and truly future proofed. I'm actually very interested to see what the full plan entails rather than just the snapshot that has been released thus far but, on the face of it at least, it looks impressive and will be a real step change for LBA.

You might imagine that I am not fully positive and whilst I am fully on board with the terminal update, I am very unconvinced by airport management and will remain so until the current malaise improves. No doubt I will be crucified for having an opinion but here goes....

I can't help feeling that there is a bit of smoke and mirrors with this terminal announcement. IF it ever gets built, it will undoubtedly be a very impressive piece of work. However, I am not oblivious to the fact that it amounts to essentially at least a three year delay and we have seen these promises on the terminal building come and go many times in the past. £150m is A LOT of money to spend considering the appalling recent collapse of services. There is no doubt that the Ryanair decision to all but pull out of LBA and the Flybe debacle will have come AFTER the decision to review the new terminal but I'm also certain that the new proposal will have been considered with a throughput of around 4mppa and with a maintenance of current service levels. This is no longer the case and without some significant airline input from elsewhere in the not too distant future (Ryanair claims cuts across its bases are temporary pending the ridiculous MAX situation - I happen to think it is an excellent excuse to scale back and now those routes have gone, they won't return), passenger throughput is going to collapse back to between 3-3.5mppa. Will spending that amount of money on a new terminal be justified if passenger numbers fall?

This brings me on to the next point. LBA's decline may come across as being a symptom of a Brexit fearing economy that is having an ethical dilemma about its role in climate change against a backdrop of the largest aircraft manufacturer in utter crisis but the simple fact of the matter is that as LBA has declined, its main competitors in the North have thrived. Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle have all added to their offering for 2020 and, in the case of Newcastle, some of the recent and upcoming additions are exactly what LBA would like: Loganair to Brussels, Lufthansa to Munich, for example. Why can't LBA attract these services? I'd also point out that as LBA has lost Riga, Manchester has gained Air Baltic competing on the route with Ryanair. Again, I appreciate that Ryanair's decision was recent but why is this not a potential option for LBA? LBA lost its connection with Dusseldorf on a Flybe Q400. Newcastle has a daily service with a Eurowings A319. Manchester has three services a day with Flybe (all offering cheaper fares than were ever offered from LBA, btw) and four services a day with Eurowings. Again, WHY can LBA not sustain a single flight per day with Flybe and, if Flybe isn't an option for whatever reason, WHY can it not attract Eurowings to offer something up?

Quite frankly, I could continue on the same subject for some time. This has been a consistent problem with LBA for many, many years and I simply do not see the problem as being solely connected to the terminal building or perceived accessibility of the airfield.

Undoubtedly, the terminal building needs some significant upgrade/rebuilding and this plan, albeit a further delay, clearly seeks to rectify the last 30 years of inaction. However, it will only be of any use to anybody if it is allied to stronger management that is able to forge relationships with airline partners, maintain existing service levels and building upon them with the right routes.

More to the point, as we have been let down time and time again by LBA, I will only believe it when I actually see it. Best of luck to Hywel Rees though. Hopefully he can lead LBA successfully through this transition. If not, he and LBA will lose all remaining credibility and the very future of our airport will be in doubt.

 

[Statto]

The airport owners are probably looking at their investment in the airport as a long term project of 5 - 10 years. The CEO and his team, no doubt following lots of discussion with existing airlines and potential new airlines as well as lots of analysis about economic growth and the impacts on LBA of brexit, devolution, transport improvements etc will have presented a series of choices and a recommendation to the owners. Do nothing and upgrade the existing terminal will have been on the list. However the recommendation is that the best way forward is to invest in a brand new terminal. The owners ultimately call the shots here and will then decide whether they support the recommendation and whether to give him the money to fund the project. All we know so far at least, AMP are sufficiently on-board with the idea to allow him to go public - in a big way - and proceed with detailed design and planning as well as giving him the money to invest in upgrading security and baggage processing this summer in the existing terminal (which clearly has a limited life span if the thing is going to be demolished). If AMP's view is the the best the airport could do in the long term was stagnate at 3 - 3.5M passengers, none of this would be happening.

Obviously, the airport *could* stagnate or even worse due to circumstances that we can't reasonably foresee. But as it stands today, the owners are acting in a way which indicates quite clearly I think that they are more positive on the future.

 

[Aviador]

It's been a little while since I last posted here for a number of reasons. Chiefly, there just wasn't much to talk about. With the announcement of the *new* new terminal, I think it is time a number of things were discussed.

Good to see you back here once again whoshotjimmi!

Let's start with something positive. I've said for a number of years that management has consistently mismanaged the airport and LBA has suffered a series of bad CEOs that has led to a situation where the airport is now in rapid decline. The good news is that Hywel Rees SEEMS to be saying the right things and trying to do the right things to turn that around. Let's forget the link road and the station and all the other disappointments that come out of the completely ineffective and irrelevant Leeds City Council, LBA now seems to be planning for a brighter future and planning to replace the terminal building - long past its sell by date - with something that is truly innovative and truly future proofed. I'm actually very interested to see what the full plan entails rather than just the snapshot that has been released thus far but, on the face of it at least, it looks impressive and will be a real step change for LBA.

It will be good to see the full plans to see how this all fits in within the current airport infrastructure along with the surrounding roads and access points. There are a number of questions that have already been raised that the airport will need to address such as a new fuel farm location, potentially a new air traffic control tower, fire station and Jet2 engineering building. The proposed new terminal will effectively initiate the need for the entire renewal of all the accompanying auxiliary equipment and buildings. The need to work to reduce the airports carbon footprint will need to include numerous vehicle charging stations. The list goes on.

You might imagine that I am not fully positive and whilst I am fully on board with the terminal update, I am very unconvinced by airport management and will remain so until the current malaise improves. No doubt I will be crucified for having an opinion but here goes....

I can't help feeling that there is a bit of smoke and mirrors with this terminal announcement. IF it ever gets built, it will undoubtedly be a very impressive piece of work. However, I am not oblivious to the fact that it amounts to essentially at least a three year delay and we have seen these promises on the terminal building come and go many times in the past. £150m is A LOT of money to spend considering the appalling recent collapse of services. There is no doubt that the Ryanair decision to all but pull out of LBA and the Flybe debacle will have come AFTER the decision to review the new terminal but I'm also certain that the new proposal will have been considered with a throughput of around 4mppa and with a maintenance of current service levels. This is no longer the case and without some significant airline input from elsewhere in the not too distant future (Ryanair claims cuts across its bases are temporary pending the ridiculous MAX situation - I happen to think it is an excellent excuse to scale back and now those routes have gone, they won't return), passenger throughput is going to collapse back to between 3-3.5mppa. Will spending that amount of money on a new terminal be justified if passenger numbers fall?

I can fully understand where you are coming from. The former owners of LBA, Bridgepoint did very little to progress the airport and in all honesty the council should never have sold the airport to them without a significant plan to move the airport forward. The new owners AMP Capital put plans to expand the terminal in place soon after they purchased the airport. In all honesty I was very disappointed with their initial plans for yet another piecemeal addition to the terminal building. The then airport CEO said he wanted to completely transform the terminal by turning everything around. Had AMP gone ahead with this plan it would have been a huge and very costly undertaking to carry out, so I'm not at all surprised to see new plans adopted. The latest plans are a huge commitment for AMP Capital to make and the new airport CEO Hywel Rees will have had significant and lengthy meetings with the AMP chiefs to convince them to invest in such large amount of money in LBA.

This brings me on to the next point. LBA's decline may come across as being a symptom of a Brexit fearing economy that is having an ethical dilemma about its role in climate change against a backdrop of the largest aircraft manufacturer in utter crisis but the simple fact of the matter is that as LBA has declined, its main competitors in the North have thrived. Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle have all added to their offering for 2020 and, in the case of Newcastle, some of the recent and upcoming additions are exactly what LBA would like: Loganair to Brussels, Lufthansa to Munich, for example. Why can't LBA attract these services? I'd also point out that as LBA has lost Riga, Manchester has gained Air Baltic competing on the route with Ryanair. Again, I appreciate that Ryanair's decision was recent but why is this not a potential option for LBA? LBA lost its connection with Dusseldorf on a Flybe Q400. Newcastle has a daily service with a Eurowings A319. Manchester has three services a day with Flybe (all offering cheaper fares than were ever offered from LBA, btw) and four services a day with Eurowings. Again, WHY can LBA not sustain a single flight per day with Flybe and, if Flybe isn't an option for whatever reason, WHY can it not attract Eurowings to offer something up?

We all know LBA should be doing significantly better than it is already even if there is a national commitment to limiting the nations aviation needs. As you say, there is evidence of a decline in services at LBA and during the same period as other airports have been expanding. We are all aware of the £1bn Manchester Airport Transformation Project taking place during the last year or so. LBA managers have openly admitted it is full until it's new facilities are put in place. It's all about how we get to that point, whether that be the previously approved plans to extend and transform the old terminal or the new terminal proposals.

Undoubtedly, the terminal building needs some significant upgrade/rebuilding and this plan, albeit a further delay, clearly seeks to rectify the last 30 years of inaction. However, it will only be of any use to anybody if it is allied to stronger management that is able to forge relationships with airline partners, maintain existing service levels and building upon them with the right routes.

More to the point, as we have been let down time and time again by LBA, I will only believe it when I actually see it. Best of luck to Hywel Rees though. Hopefully he can lead LBA successfully through this transition. If not, he and LBA will lose all remaining credibility and the very future of our airport will be in doubt.

I agree the new plans will inevitably lead to a delay due to the planning process. It is deeply frustrating considering we've been at this point for over a decade since Bridgepoint purchased the airport from the five West Yorkshire authorities. The environmental concerns are becoming a huge concern for many but this is a huge opportunity to make LBA the greenest airport in the UK. A new green state of the art terminal will enable the airport to engage in discussions with airlines who have previously looked at LBA and dismissed it because of it's terminal inadequacies.

 

[Aviador]

A couple more points to note with these plans.

• The new terminal will be built on top of stands 19, 20A and 20B.
• The plans indicate that November 4 taxiway becomes new apron space to enable a/c parking.
• Grass between taxiway D and stand 21C is filled in as far down as D2 enabling full sized stands.
• An airbridge is visible on the left side of the new terminal render indicating aircraft stands immediately adjacent to the terminal have airbridges with a possibility of 3

Interestingly the aircraft parked at the terminal in the render looks to be a British Airways Boeing 777-200. The chance would be a fine thing.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

Credit where it's due. AMP will be investing a large amount of private sector funding into the region. In addition to maybe getting Easyjet in the future, the real growth would ideally be long haul. I just hope they can pull it off. Bridgepoint grew traffic at Birmingham by 40 per cent and brought in BA, Ryanair and Monarch to LBA,. It's just unfortunate that this growth didnt keep going as AMP are now on the back foot following various airline losses. Easyjet on top of Monarch and previous BA and Ryanair capacity would have made 7.1 mill achievable but I'm not sure just Easyjet xould pull an extra 3 million pax out of the bag at LBA.
I agree with whoshotjimmi, for some reason airlines overlook LBA and I do not think that's anything to do with the terminal.

 

[Aviador]

I agree with whoshotjimmi, for some reason airlines overlook LBA and I do not think that's anything to do with the terminal.

Although I have made it clear in the past my thoughts on sorting the runway out, I believe LBAs inability to attract airlines has everything to do with the terminal and AMP are absolutely spot on in sorting that out first. If these plans progress we shall find out.

 

[Len Fish]

Off topic I know, but just for a bit of perspective!

Ethiopian Airlines plans to build $5 billion airport – Business Traveller

The airport would be able to handle 100 million passengers a year…

www.businesstraveller.com

 

[LBA4EVER]

Although I have made it clear in the past my thoughts on sorting the runway out, I believe LBAs inability to attract airlines has everything to do with the terminal and AMP are absolutely spot on in sorting that out first. If these plans progress we shall find out.

You took the words out of my mouth,yes the runway I feel is the next issue to correct. By moving the touchdown points back to pre 1984 on runway 32 would make a whole load of difference. The YEP published some old photos of LBA about 2 weeks back before its runway extension and you can see the touchdown area buy the tyre marks which are about 200metre from the start of runway 32 and on the flat section too, so that's around 300metre extra there without an extension to the runway. perhaps AMP might look at this,thoughts?

 

[LBA4EVER]

A couple more points to note with these plans.

• The new terminal will be built on top of stands 19, 20A and 20B.
• The plans indicate that November 4 taxiway becomes new apron space to enable a/c parking.
• Grass between taxiway D and stand 21C is filled in as far down as D2 enabling full sized stands.
• An airbridge is visible on the left side of the new terminal render indicating aircraft stands immediately adjacent to the terminal have airbridges with a possibility of 3

View attachment 15833

Interestingly the aircraft parked at the terminal in the render looks to be a British Airways Boeing 777-200. The chance would be a fine thing.

it would be great to see a pier extend out from the left side of the terminal as well, aircraft could then park on each side, plus the remaining grassed areas removed, a parallel taxiway running from the area marked hot spot upto the start of runway 32

 

[Aviador]

Off topic I know, but just for a bit of perspective!

Ethiopian Airlines plans to build $5 billion airport – Business Traveller

The airport would be able to handle 100 million passengers a year…

www.businesstraveller.com

We've had years of airport managers claiming they wanted to create "an airport that Yorkshire can be proud of" and so far they have all failed to deliver. If AMP Capital can pull this one off and deliver their new terminal project I think it's safe to say they will have fulfilled what previous owners have failed to deliver, "an airport to be proud of". Having an airport that's huge and attracts tens of millions of passengers isn't something most people want. (I'm generalising beyond this forum) They just want an airport worthy of serving our region which this will do.

 

[Statto]

You took the words out of my mouth,yes the runway I feel is the next issue to correct. By moving the touchdown points back to pre 1984 on runway 32 would make a whole load of difference. The YEP published some old photos of LBA about 2 weeks back before its runway extension and you can see the touchdown area buy the tyre marks which are about 200metre from the start of runway 32 and on the flat section too, so that's around 300metre extra there without an extension to the runway. perhaps AMP might look at this,thoughts?

Check out the displaced threshold on BHXs extended RWY33. Must be close to 500M. That's with level ground in the undershoot area too. The criteria for having suitable runway end safety areas (RESAs) are pretty challenging these days and at LBA we're getting on for 40 years since the current runway configuration was designed and no one has come forward with any alternative proposals. There must be a reason for that? I would guess that it's a far more complex and expensive piece of work than just repainting the runway markings and moving a few lights.

 

[White Heather]

Check out the displaced threshold on BHXs extended RWY33. Must be close to 500M. That's with level ground in the undershoot area too. The criteria for having suitable runway end safety areas (RESAs) are pretty challenging these days and at LBA we're getting on for 40 years since the current runway configuration was designed and no one has come forward with any alternative proposals. There must be a reason for that? I would guess that it's a far more complex and expensive piece of work than just repainting the runway markings and moving a few lights.

Yes it is more complex, very expensive, very disruptive (runway and approach lighting would need changing for starters and ILS needs changing for seconds) and very not going to happen any time soon, if ever. I have had various conversations with a succession of airport directors and ATC chiefs at LBA and all have said they would love to be able to do this to extend stopping distances, but it isn't possible at this time for technical and regulatory reasons. I have of course relayed these messages on this forum many times but these messages are either quickly forgotten or disregarded.

 

[a300boy]

Been looked at by the powers that be and discussed to death on these forums.
However a new brush might bring a new era of out of the box thinking.
Like Aviador I believe the runway is the limiting factor for our long term growth and hope the new management re visit this long overdue
problem.

 

[Statto]

Hi - there was a post earlier in the week that seemed to suggest the council were voting to not support any expansion of the airport and that this would be a potential risk to the planning application for the terminal. I found the paper and this seems to be the council's position on aviation, which seems pretty balanced to me. 3.6.4 in particular is a good message.

Aviation
View attachment 15849
3.6.1 The council recognises that the global emissions arising from aviation are significant, damaging to the environment and must be addressed in the strategy to combat global warming. Furthermore, it recognises that the planned increases to aviation in the national strategy over the next ten years will see a rise in emissions that will not be addressed by improvements to fuel efficiency or technology. The council also accepts given the scale of the global challenge that offsetting to compensate for the rise in emissions will not be sufficient.

3.6.2 Aviation growth and meeting zero carbon targets are fundamentally incompatible until such time as new technologies are developed. It is only at the point at which emissions from aircrafts have been adequately resolved that national and international aviation growth can be supported.

3.6.3 The council also recognises the contribution that the local airport makes to the local economy and the thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly, dependent on it. Any future strategy needs to take into account the impact changes to the aviation industry may have on employment and find credible alternative growth sectors. It also recognises the benefits that international travel brings, both for business and the individual. It is imperative to secure public support for any changes which limit choice or increase costs.

3.6.4 Leeds Bradford Airport represents only 1.4% of air travel and is therefore marginal in the totality of the challenge. Importantly, most people from Leeds fly from elsewhere, so other airport growth must be taken into account. In the absence of a national strategy, limiting Leeds Bradford is only likely to damage the local economy, leading to further trips to neighbouring airports, with a consequent rise in emissions. Leeds cannot therefore commit to a strategy in isolation to others. It is not appropriate for the council, by default, to export aviation to other areas.

3.6.5 Leeds does, however, accept that aviation emissions need to be contained. It will therefore participate in national and international discussions to revise growth projections, with the aim of distributing aviation share across the country in a way which minimises carbon emissions and promotes an economic rebalancing of the regions.

3.6.6 If we are asking people to stop taking internal flights, or flights to nearby European cities, there need to be reliable alternatives for people to use. Currently these alternatives are lacking both in terms of choice, capacity and reliability.

3.6.7 Leeds station is already the third busiest outside of London – and the fourth worst in the country for overcrowding at peak times. The capacity of our existing station and rail lines are already past breaking point and we need schemes like HS2 to enable people to travel longer distances more sustainably.

3.6.8 In the meantime, the council will work on a number of mitigating actions. It has already withdrawn its previous proposals for surface access, reducing the direct impact on green belt. Its revised surface access plans will concentrate on links which improve rail access. Full details of the revised proposals can be found in the Executive Board paper entitled “Surface Access to Leeds Bradford Airport, the North West Leeds Employment Hub and Proposed Airport Parkway Station” that is also on today’s agenda.

3.6.9 The council will advise people about the impact of flying and encourage people to make more sustainable travel choices. The council will also promote an offsetting scheme through which passengers can fund projects which save or sequestrate carbon within their own locality. Finally, the council will support the Airport to be a centre for innovation, working with the local universities, with the aim of developing low and zero carbon aviation which will provide the industry with a long term sustainable future.

3.6.10 Asks of Government

An ambitious national aviation strategy that integrates aviation into the national carbon roadmap, creating a level playing field for all national and regional airports;

Introduction of a frequent flyer levy to reduce demand;

Investment in rail to provide a realistic alternative to flying for domestic and European flights.

 

[leedslad]

Why aren't they also asking if govt (3.6.10) that a National Strategy limits flight numbers relative to local population... This is key for our economy.

 

[Statto]

I think they are - it’s in 3.6.5

 

[LBA4EVER]

Check out the displaced threshold on BHXs extended RWY33. Must be close to 500M. That's with level ground in the undershoot area too. The criteria for having suitable runway end safety areas (RESAs) are pretty challenging these days and at LBA we're getting on for 40 years since the current runway configuration was designed and no one has come forward with any alternative proposals. There must be a reason for that? I would guess that it's a far more complex and expensive piece of work than just repainting the runway markings and moving a few lights.

whilst in warsaw last may I spent a day at warsaws main international airport, all flights were landing runway 33, the aircraft were touching down half way down the runway which was amazing to see although the runway there is very long. google earth shows the tyre marks which are very central on the runway which ever way they land.