Future Infrastructure Developments

[flyboy]

I think it has the same ownership as the YEP, says it all if that's the case.

Fake news!. The Wharfedale and Airedale Observer is owned by Newsquest Media, whereas the YE Post is owned by JPI Media (formerly Johnston Press). The ownership of a newspaper doesn't necessarily reflect its editorial opinions and whilst the YEP will, quite rightly, report what's going on in the community and the news and views of its readers and local groups such as GALBA, local MP's, politicians and other pressure groups, in over 60 years of readership, I have never seen or detected any EDITORIAL opposition to the airport. I get heartily tired of the constant bleating and moaning on here about the YE Post and other newspapers when all they are doing is reporting what's going on in the area. Anything else is akin to you wanting censorship.

 

[Aviador]

The wording "think", and "if" should indicate to you that it was a belief not necessarily a fact. I thought I'd made that perfectly clear in my post.

As for the constant bleating on here. This is a public place and should be treated as such. We don't censor the forum unless the forum rules are broken. If forum rules are broken its usually because it is close to breaking the law.

Would you care to declare why you are so opposed to some of the supposed anti media views on here? Do you have a vested interest in these media sources?

You are of course entitled to your views and I respect that but please don't criticise others for voicing theirs.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

There is a stark imbalance between pro and anti airport articles in favour of the latter. But as I said if no one is submitting articles in support of the airport to them what are they supposed to do?

 

[Heathrowflyer]

Is it worth supporting these papers by adding comments? It just increases the footprint on the page, more comments...and thus creates a vicious circle that there is an appetite for these anti airport articles cos it whips up responses. Personally I stopped reading local media long ago

 

[a300boy]

I don’t read these newspapers and have no interest in them as they seem to be bias against anything positive about the airport at Yeadon so I vote with my feet and would not grace them with a comment.
Did anyone see the local news on television about the loss of passengers at Lba and Humberside Airports over the last 12 months but not a word about Robin Hood.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Is it worth supporting these papers by adding comments? It just increases the footprint on the page, more comments...and thus creates a vicious circle that there is an appetite for these anti airport articles cos it whips up responses. Personally I stopped reading local media long ago

Any opportunity to promote our case and dispel the fake news must be taken. There are few opportunities to get ourselves heard so every one should be grasped.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Meanwhile, I notice not a single one of you has taken the time to leave a comment.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

I guess my point is...we all go on that page, the footprint hits go higher....its then in the top 10 story section based on foot print...and then they think that negative stories about the terminal are popular so they do even more. Surely it should be LBA's Comms department job to promote the new terminal, though I'm not sure if they have one.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I'm sure the airport have a plan, however they come across as being rather arrogant by not engaging.

According to the local Labour party they had very good communications with the airport in the past but the latest airport management have a different approach and there has been no/little contact since they took control.

Irrespective of what the objectors are saying about increased flights, the council have to understand that the planning permission is about a new terminal and re designation of 30 minutes of night flying which will result in very few extra flights. How many flights can you fit into a 30 min window at a single runway airport?

The objectors seem to be using this application to persuade the council to reverse the permission, already granted to increase to 7m pax but this is a separate issue.

 

[Coathanger16]

How many flights can you fit into a 30 min window at a single runway airport?

You'd be surprised. At peak times, Gatwick handles 55 movements per hour (or 50 movements per average hour). In comparison, in August last year, on average LBA handled 7 movements per hour.

As I've said before, groups like GALBA aren't interested in listening - if you say anything that disagrees with their narrative you're either lying or on someones payroll.

Negative things are more likely to affect how people vote than positive things, hence the councillors, politicians, etc will always bow to the anti-expansion groups as pi$$ing them off will almost certainly cost more votes than pi$$ing off pro-expansion individuals.

In an ideal world, these decisions would be made by experts, not be elected bodies, but to get to that system would likely cost politicians votes so it'll never happen.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Yes but there again it's the busiest so for runway airport in the world and everything, including the parallel taxiway is set up to maximise traffic flow.

I suppose it also depends on the mix of take offs and landings but I can see LBA having more than eight movements in a 30 minute period.

What do you think?

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Meant to say I CAN'T see LBA having more than 8 movements in 30 minutes.

 

[Wardair166]

I assume these LCC councillors are aware they are assessing a terminal modernisation proposal and not an expansion proposal? It seems incredible that these councillors can have any reasonable grounds for objection?? The same can be said for GALBA and the Labour MPs!!!

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Regional newspapers these days rely more and more on press releases from organisations for their articles, particularly for their internet editions. Surfing the net, especially social media sites, is another regular source of copy. Groups such as GALBA are well organised and know the value of releasing press handouts to the local news media which can then lead to representatives being interviewed by the local newspaper or local radio/tv to bulk out the story and reiterate GALBA's (or whichever organisation is involved) views.

Reach Plc that owns nearly 250 regional titles (although not the ones being discussed here at the moment) reduced their staffing levels earlier this year - I think it was pre-pandemic - which inevitably means they are even more reliant on such sources as they do little proactive journalism. A type of story that these newspapers glean from social media often relates to people complaining about their treatment at the local airport or by an airline that serves the local airport. It's a space filler and invariably attracts comment from readers on the internet editions which is what the newspaper wants - it helps to show advertisers that people are reading the website.

All this can give an impression that a local newspaper is 'anti' an airport when really it is looking for something controversial to publish.

I've been a strong critic of this approach because a story will be published on the paper's web edition, whether about an airport or anything else, that gives the complainant's or opponent's side of an issue but the only balance is usually a remark at the end of the article/report that the airport or airline or whatever organisation is involved has been asked for a comment. That comment does not always appear in the future or if it does might not be seen by everyone who read the original article/report. In the past newspapers would usually endeavour to obtain a comment from 'the other side' before publishing the story, or if the 'other side' declined to comment the newspaper would say so (that's the 'other side's' choice but they can't complain if only one side of a picture is then painted). With the internet everything is instant and today's society seems unable to wait for both sides of a story, or that's what the news media seems to believe or perhaps finds it convenient to believe.

Newspapers can be careless in their wording. For example, my local airport's planning application was rejected by the local authority with four times as many formal objections as formal support to the local authority planning portal. Now when the issue is reported, usually in the context of the airport's current appeal, the local press invariably says that an overwhelming majority of local people is against the application which is not necessarily the case at all, because only 8,000 objections were sent to the local authority, and many of them not from local sources, whereas the immediate area population is over a million.

I've never worked in journalism but in a previous life I often had dealings with the press (not as a press officer or PRO) and remember some of the frustrations.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

It's very complicated. It's a new terminal not an extension. It's environmentally neutral but the airport plan to keep the existing terminal so that will wipe out the overall environmental benefit.

Also, it seems they are wanting not only to move the period 06.00 to 07.00 (i previously thought it was 06.00 to 06.30) from night time into day to avoid the quota but they are also wanting to increase the number of true night time flights. I suspect one of the based airlines wants to add an additional rotation to optimise use of their aircraft. I can only guess which one this is!

If LCC turn down the application this will effectively mean the airport will have to make do with the £4m terminal extension and this will in reality limit the pax throughout to 5m. So the objectors will get their way, sort of.

Given the current economic position I think the planning committee and LBA will come to a compromise and the plan we see at the moment could only be an opening gambit.

 

[Wardair166]

I was of the opinion the current terminal would be demolished not retained. I also believe the terminal extension approved last year involves a £25m investment. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Ive been told it's going to be retained and be put to a new use. I have got the £4m in my mind but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[LBA4EVER]

If approved once the new terminal is built does it not make sense to knock down the old terminal, imagine the amount of new apron space that could be laid if the old terminal, drop off and taxi areas were to be demolished! Plus of course we would be more eco friendly.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I agree with you but I am told that is not the intention.

 

[lbaspotter]

Ive been told it's going to be retained and be put to a new use. I have got the £4m in my mind but maybe I'm wrong.

I'm 100% certain I've read online within the planning application the existing terminal building will be totally demolished, as the site has been ear marked by the airport's owners for new future use. It wont be demolished straight after the change over seen as they'll have to wait until a replacement ATC Control Tower is in place.