Future Infrastructure Developments

[LBA4EVER]

Yes he can't call in LBA over a new terminal and then ignore other aviation schemes around the country . Bristol is different as it was rejected, not approved. The same may well happen with Southampton Airports runway extension.

On another note, just got home to find a Green Party flyer in my door and guess who their Weetwood Ward candidate is? Only the one, the only, Mr GALBA himself, Christopher Foren. God help us! His flyer, of course, has the GALBA poster pic showing hundreds of aircraft taking off and most of his blurb on it is anti airport.

I serve notice now that if he wins this ward, I am leaving. His flyer is now in many bits where it belongs, in the trash.

did you burn his flyer WH?

 

[Wardair166]

I would have used it as toilet paper.

 

[White Heather]

did you burn his flyer WH?

It was torn into tiny pieces and is now resident in the bin. I wouldn't waste a match setting light to it.

 

[a300boy]

I see our MP Alex Sobel has upset his boss MP Keir Starmer with a podcast he made calling business as an enemy.
I will be writing to the opposition leader asking him why his MP for this area has reversed his support for our local airport eco terminal and now wishes it to be closed and used for other unknown projects which I assume he is aware of.

 

[Len Fish]

And there we have it, an elected MP for Leeds who should be promoting the city to ensure its future prosperity, using the green lobby as camouflage for his personal vendetta against his enemy, business, with the intent of deliberately destroying projects like the LBA terminal to satisfy his own political agenda. He’s a discredited disgrace.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

How on earth he can object to the most environmentally friendly terminal in the country I dont know. He and the environmentalists should be encouraging such initiatives.

 

[LBA4EVER]

How on earth he can object to the most environmentally friendly terminal in the country I dont know. He and the environmentalists should be encouraging such initiatives.

exactly he and leeds city council should be promoting the terminal as a great thing for the city!

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

I regret ever voting for such a crap MP at the 2019 general election.

 

[White Heather]

I regret ever voting for such a crap MP at the 2019 general election.

You and me both, but back then he was pro LBA according to the statement he made in November 2019 and looking forward to future growth. I feel lied to and cheated..

 

[ls27]

When will people understand, that most politicians are in it for there own enhancement and where they can get as many voters as possible to keep them in their status.
Don't forget that I had more than 45 years of putting up with their whims and silly ideas..

 

[airforced]

Even though I keep banging on about not trusting politicians full stop nobody listens. They are all, as ls27 says, in it for themselves and can easily justify changing their tune (depending on the wind direction) as often as they please. There is only one message which rings true and that is Don't Trust A Politician.

 

[leedslad]

So at this stage there are three main hurdles left to clear?

1) call in within the next week by Jenrick
2) approval separately by Jenrick for development on Greenbelt (more of a formality?)
3) judicial review request via Galba etc

 

[fossil]

Firstly I am an aviation enthusiast. However, my glasses may be pink, but they are not rose tinted - I can see the other side. I have read the main points of the planning application and noticed that even on this board some of you were uncomfortable with certain claims by the developers. Specifically this related to the greater use of widebodies if the new terminal was built, which conveniently would also keep down additional movements. Now the reality is that the vast majority of widebody airliners cannot land on runway 14 when laden and no new terminal is going to change that. If the developers lie about that, then it raises doubts about their credibility and other claims.

 

[airforced]

I don't remember reading about the greater use of wide bodied aircraft as you describe it fossil. There may have been a mention somewhere but it, as far I recall at least, it has never been the central plank of the application as you are seem to be suggesting. Certainly there has been mentioned of newer, more environmentally friendly aircraft, as you would expect as aircraft and aircraft manufacturers are becoming more aware of the environmental needs of today and going forward. I might have missed something however but I don't think the airport has tried to do what you say. They did make a point of applying for the hours change to bring themselves in line with other airports and I imagine that they would make full use of those new times (makes sense) if the application is signed off.

 

[lbaspotter]

Where has anyone said wide-bodied aircraft can't use runway 14?

Yes they are known problems with certain types, but it veries on a number of things balance, weight and the weather eg landing distance is shorter than runway 32 and it ILS is only CATI,

But these aircraft have operationally used it in the past without problems.

To name a few, list could go on.

Monarch = A300 & A330
TUI/Thomson/Britannia = B762 & B763
Thomas Cook = A330
British Airways = B747, Concorde
British Airtours = L1011
Airtours Int'l = DC10
Corsair = 747
Wardair = 747
RAF = vc10, A400, C17 &. L1011
Iberia = A300
PIA = A310

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

You and me both, but back then he was pro LBA according to the statement he made in November 2019 and looking forward to future growth. I feel lied to and cheated..

Do not worry. I’ve made my opinion very clear what I think to him, Labour and my voting intentions at the next general election. I’ve also told him I’ll be campaigning against him with the Lib Dem’s to ensure he/Labour do not retain this seat nor do they ever re gain it back

 

[White Heather]

Do not worry. I’ve made my opinion very clear what I think to him, Labour and my voting intentions at the next general election. I’ve also told him I’ll be campaigning against him with the Lib Dem’s to ensure he/Labour do not retain this seat nor do they ever re gain it back

But the Lib Dems are also as opposed to LBA as Sobel. The Councillor around here openly opposed the terminal and distributed GALBA sourced propaganda, and refused to withdraw that and correct himself when he was corrected with the true facts. The most recent Lib Dem candidate for parliament also incuded his opposition on his campaign flyers but lost out to Sobel.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

But the Lib Dems are also as opposed to LBA as Sobel. The Councillor around here openly opposed the terminal and distributed GALBA sourced propaganda, and refused to withdraw that and correct himself when he was corrected with the true facts. The most recent Lib Dem candidate for parliament also incuded his opposition on his campaign flyers but lost out to Sobel.

If we get the diggers in the ground and it built they cannot be against it in 3 years.

The trouble is for this area is finding a decent party who accept the airport expansion but are decent and on other issues will stand up for you.

 

[fossil]

lbaspotter - unfortunately, that is not a list of a/c that have or can land on 14 when laden. Why do you suppose widebodies are so rare at LBA? The answer is that the runway LDA is inadequate. For example, 32 may be acceptable for some types like the 787, but who will do regular flights when it cannot land on the other end?
WH - (she knows by the way, but is keeping quiet). I have done some research which you may find interesting. If the slope on 14 was increased slightly from 3.5 to just 3.65, then the LDA would become similar to 32. But as 14 is a challenging landing, I would prefer more and a 3.75 degree slope would give an extra 600 ft, making the LDA about 6500ft (all distances approx). All current aircraft would have no problem with this from an operational angle. However, the drawback from a steeper approach is that the DH (decision height) would be increased and also the wx minima. In view of the wonderful wx on top of that hill, I can understand why management is not interested. What they might gain from a few extra widebodies, could be lost by more diversions away. Perhaps only viable if they knew widebodies were to be daily or based, which aint going to happen because of the runway - catch 22.
Unfortunately I cannot see the situation being rectified and sad to think that as little as 0.15 degrees may have altered LBA's development entirely. I am pretty sure that management back in the 80's failed to ask pertinent questions and had little aspiration to attract widebodies. Remember the old runway was unsuitable for most narrowbodies, so their aim was simply to meet their requirements. LBA has always had one arm tied behind its back!

 

[Aviador]

Firstly I am an aviation enthusiast. However, my glasses may be pink, but they are not rose tinted - I can see the other side. I have read the main points of the planning application and noticed that even on this board some of you were uncomfortable with certain claims by the developers. Specifically this related to the greater use of widebodies if the new terminal was built, which conveniently would also keep down additional movements. Now the reality is that the vast majority of widebody airliners cannot land on runway 14 when laden and no new terminal is going to change that. If the developers lie about that, then it raises doubts about their credibility and other claims.

lbaspotter - unfortunately, that is not a list of a/c that have or can land on 14 when laden. Why do you suppose widebodies are so rare at LBA? The answer is that the runway LDA is inadequate. For example, 32 may be acceptable for some types like the 787, but who will do regular flights when it cannot land on the other end?
WH - (she knows by the way, but is keeping quiet). I have done some research which you may find interesting. If the slope on 14 was increased slightly from 3.5 to just 3.65, then the LDA would become similar to 32. But as 14 is a challenging landing, I would prefer more and a 3.75 degree slope would give an extra 600 ft, making the LDA about 6500ft (all distances approx). All current aircraft would have no problem with this from an operational angle. However, the drawback from a steeper approach is that the DH (decision height) would be increased and also the wx minima. In view of the wonderful wx on top of that hill, I can understand why management is not interested. What they might gain from a few extra widebodies, could be lost by more diversions away. Perhaps only viable if they knew widebodies were to be daily or based, which aint going to happen because of the runway - catch 22.
Unfortunately I cannot see the situation being rectified and sad to think that as little as 0.15 degrees may have altered LBA's development entirely. I am pretty sure that management back in the 80's failed to ask pertinent questions and had little aspiration to attract widebodies. Remember the old runway was unsuitable for most narrowbodies, so their aim was simply to meet their requirements. LBA has always had one arm tied behind its back!

@fossil the runway capabilities discussion has been talked to death over the years. So I'm going to keep this as short as possible.

What aircraft can land and take-off from LBA? There simple answer is there aren't any current aircraft types that are unable to use LBA.

You use the term "laden" which is a very general term for full. A fully "laden" Boeing 787 can fly 8,500 miles so that would be fully fuelled with a full load of passengers. A flight to somewhere like India is around half that from LBA so theoretically the aircraft would only require half the fuel weight meaning a significant reduction in weight and therefore a significant improvement in take-off performance.

We know both the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 can operate from LBA, the distance an airline wishes to operate is the deciding factor as to whether it's viable from LBA.

Now the reality is that the vast majority of widebody airliners cannot land on runway 14

You specifically mention wide-bodied capabilities using runway 14 and highlight it as a specific operating restriction. The simple answer to that is additional runway LDA would be welcomed but it isn't a specific problem that would render the runway unusable by such aircraft.

What do you mean when you say "the vast majority of wide bodied airliners cannot land on runway 14", as there are are only two or three new variant types now used by most airliners which would be the Boeing 787 and the Airbus A350. These aircraft types can operate into LBA on runway 14. There maybe certain weather restrictions making runway 14 less favourable for such aircraft types but runway 32 is the main runway at LBA as it's the runway that is generally westerly facing.

When LBA handled larger types of aircraft in the past, the Boeing 747 for example was more common place with many airlines operating them. These days fewer airlines operate these larger types with most opting for slightly smaller 200-300 passenger capacity aircraft.

The main long haul destinations LBA is likely to seek to operate to in the future will be well within the operational capabilities of the aircraft which are able to operate from LBA and the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 are absolutely capable of operating such routes. The main stumbling block has always been the terminal layout and terminal capacity.

As a newbie to the forum, I would definitely recommend reading back through the threads where the subject has been tackled to death. I have personally spoke about how an extra 150m would make all the difference but I think the subject has warn itself out.

The airport has included the provision of mixed use stands which do enable 2 x wide bodied aircraft to use the new terminal. To summarise, the airport is not being disingenuous in saying these types can use LBA. Had it claimed LBA was aiming to attract flights to say Hong Kong then I'd be sceptical where as flights to the States or Middle East are still a distinct possibility with the right facilities in place.