Future Infrastructure Developments

[SNOWMAN]

Leeds Bradford Airport expansion could COST region £3.1bn over 26 years, claims think tank

A think-tank has claimed the proposed expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport could cost the region up to £3.1bn in lost economic activity by 2050.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk

if brains were made of dynamite they couldn`t blow their cap off.
sm

 

[lbaspotter]

Well Yorkshire Post ran this report earlier in the year debunking this latest report by the YEP.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

Oh I've had a go on twitter too.

 

[Superleeds123]

Leeds Bradford Airport expansion could COST region £3.1bn over 26 years, claims think tank

A think-tank has claimed the proposed expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport could cost the region up to £3.1bn in lost economic activity by 2050.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk

I’d hope the general public have more brains than those who wrote this report and see right through it.

Surely having to resort to fantasy and lies discredits any arguments these groups have?

 

[Len Fish]

Unfortunately fantasy and lies doesn’t stop the gullible believing the likes of GALBA.

 

[LBA4EVER]

I saw that article online earlier today, read the first sentence and thought are they actually taking the p*** and have I read this wrong, am I seeing things then realised it was YEP! The media seriously poisons the general public with their brainwashing s***!

 

[Aviador]

Leeds Bradford Airport expansion could COST region £3.1bn over 26 years, claims think tank

A think-tank has claimed the proposed expansion of Leeds Bradford Airport could cost the region up to £3.1bn in lost economic activity by 2050.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk

That's utter b*llocks. If that was true the nation would be bankrupt already.

 

[LBA787]

Why does it not surprise me...

I wouldn’t wipe my @rse with the YEP

See you next Tuesdays!!

 

[White Heather]

I cannot help thinking the lot that wrote this drivel must be related to GALBA, as both accuse LBA of being selective with their evidence yet both demonstrate what being selective really is and totally IGNORE the inbound tourism that LBA already generates and which would only increase. They demonstrate repeatedly that they have absolutely no understanding of aviation and seem to think that an expanded LBA would be just more Jet2 flights for outbound tourism. LBA have made it very clear that this terminal is to attract other scheduled airlines who, frankly, won't come to Leeds unless they know that they will be bringing inbound tourism too. It smacks of desperation by a load of fanatics who are constantly trying to undermine the application and, despite the period for commenting on the application now being closed, negatively influence the plans panel. Sadly they may well succeed unless the Planning Officer is totally behind this and absolutely brilliant at their job.

 

[Superleeds123]

I cannot help thinking the lot that wrote this drivel must be related to GALBA, as both accuse LBA of being selective with their evidence yet both demonstrate what being selective really is and totally IGNORE the inbound tourism that LBA already generates and which would only increase. They demonstrate repeatedly that they have absolutely no understanding of aviation and seem to think that an expanded LBA would be just more Jet2 flights for outbound tourism. LBA have made it very clear that this terminal is to attract other scheduled airlines who, frankly, won't come to Leeds unless they know that they will be bringing inbound tourism too. It smacks of desperation by a load of fanatics who are constantly trying to undermine the application and, despite the period for commenting on the application now being closed, negatively influence the plans panel. Sadly they may well succeed unless the Planning Officer is totally behind this and absolutely brilliant at their job.

Well put White Heather.

I wonder if GALBA realise that the planners may put the application forward for approval and are now making as much noise as possible (even when it’s complete fiction) to try influence the plans panel.

 

[ls27]

What has it to do with these people? It doesn't matter whether it cost 50p or £100m . It's not public money, and the cost is irrelevant.

 

[Superleeds123]

I cannot help thinking the lot that wrote this drivel must be related to GALBA, as both accuse LBA of being selective with their evidence yet both demonstrate what being selective really is and totally IGNORE the inbound tourism that LBA already generates and which would only increase. They demonstrate repeatedly that they have absolutely no understanding of aviation and seem to think that an expanded LBA would be just more Jet2 flights for outbound tourism. LBA have made it very clear that this terminal is to attract other scheduled airlines who, frankly, won't come to Leeds unless they know that they will be bringing inbound tourism too. It smacks of desperation by a load of fanatics who are constantly trying to undermine the application and, despite the period for commenting on the application now being closed, negatively influence the plans panel. Sadly they may well succeed unless the Planning Officer is totally behind this and absolutely brilliant at their job.

Unfortunately a quick search on the Twitter page of Cllr Walshaw who sits on the plans panel, shows that he has liked the tweet about the NEF report from its author.

Shows that these councillors are being influenced by complete economic lies and openly supporting GALBA’s protests.

 

[Finger66]

if brains were made of dynamite they couldn`t blow their cap off.
sm

After all they are claiming it will cost the region a "bomb"

As for parking charges on the M62
As for parking charges on the M62
As for parking charges on the M62
Is this what is called a multi story

 

[ls27]

Well I hope that Cllr Walshaw is not related to me, although I fear he may have the same history somewhere. P!llock

 

[Crashgate]

This would appear to relate to the NEF report commissioned by GALBA to respond to the update of the Environmental Statement by the airport, it obviously got little attention when it was submitted in late September so they have had to reheat it via the YEP. Very much a case of you say that and I say this. As with most things from a think tank they will push a certain agenda (unsurprisingly reflecting that of the paymasters or backers.)

 

[Bigman]

Here we go again. More GALBA bile being spouted on the Wharfedale Observer website.

 

[Aviador]

GALBA and their merry men clearly have far too much money in their funding pot to pay for all these quango think tanks to drum up supporting CLAIMS.

 

[Statto]

True. The way newspapers are set up these days means reporters just receive press releases and copy and paste them onto the website with a headline attached. I don't think the YEP or T&A are anti -airport, as such I just think the anti-airport crowd have go the time and inclination to bombard thee local papers with press releases. To be fair, it seems they always ask the airport for a comment.

Of course, if an LBA supporters group wishes to write a press release then I'm sure that would get published too. Nothing to stop a a few of us doing that. In fact, I've got a good idea for a story so message me if you want to help get it published.....

 

[Heathrowflyer]

Hi Statto...sounds like a great idea, but if its accurate and legally ok why cant the airport do it? Perhaps it would be worthwhile contacting them? They have the legal team and resources to check it out. My concern, these random press releases where we then have legal responsibility through third hand knowledge ...we are playing right into the hands of GALBA discrediting us ( which they would love) or threatening legal action. Far better to do this through the airport official channels rather than creating issues for them at this sensitive planning stage.

 

[White Heather]

Hi Statto...sounds like a great idea, but if its accurate and legally ok why cant the airport do it? Perhaps it would be worthwhile contacting them? They have the legal team and resources to check it out. My concern, these random press releases where we then have legal responsibility through third hand knowledge ...we are playing right into the hands of GALBA discrediting us ( which they would love) or threatening legal action. Far better to do this through the airport official channels rather than creating issues for them at this sensitive planning stage.

There is nothing to stop us issuing something to the press stating our support as a group but if course we are always likely to be challenged about what exactly the group is and who it represents. No more so though than GALBA. As long we don't claim to represent LBA themselves, them there is no real harm. My personal issue is that being on the Consultative Committee has in the past been used to allege that I am connected to the airport. I am not, but it's a weakness that I prefer the GALBA lot not to be in a position to use.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

I think a general support press release is a great idea.