Future Infrastructure Developments

[wawkrk]

Hi Tom,

Don't you think BA,Monarch and Thomson etc. will also raise the current value?

wawkrk

 

[tleeds]

Thanks Lbaspotter, just wasn't sure if any aircraft could park in that 180degree format...

Don't you think BA,Monarch and Thomson etc. will also raise the current value?

Hi there Wawkrk, almost definitely, however it does depend on how much the airport make from the airlines themselves; value of contract, operational fees etc. compared with how much the airport will make from the passengers whom fly with the new airlines.

For sure the fact that the 'new' airlines are now at LBA will bring massive revenue for the airport, but it is almost always through the passengers and not the airlines themselves..! Complicated stuff!

 

[White Heather]

Based on my discussions with airport management and what has been said at the JCC meetings, I would be very surprised if Bridgepoint sold up now. Despite their investment in the terminal etc, I doubt they would make much of a profit if they sold now, because since the airport was bought, the value of property generally has fallen and I feel certain that Bridgepoint feel that the airport is only just starting to reach its potential. At the very least I would expect them to continue for a few more years having invested now. Although there has been nothing said publicly, there has certainly been confirmation that what has just been done forms the first part of a phased development - as previously posted by myself.

As for LUFC Pete's comments and the issue of parking stands, Pete never misses an opportunity to have a go at Bridgepoint, although as TomLeeds has said, it was the previous owners who failed initially to develop the parking stands in accordance with the Masterplan, although they did build additional stands on a regular basis. Just like Bridgepoint, they also took a 'phased' approach. There isn't a lot of point building lots of extra stands if there are no aircraft to use them, because the terminal can't cope with the passengers the extra aircraft would bring. There is a clear logic to building the terminal first, attracting the aicraft and passengers, and then increasing the stands, and i am certain that Bridgepoint are very much aware of the need for this.

Personally I would expect a further development of the apron in the next couple of years, but it may well be that they decide to do this alongside a parallel taxiway, as doing both together makes absolute sense. The financial outlay would be large again though, and no doubt if they do it, Pete will then complain that Bridgepoint should be expanding the terminal at the same time. :whiteflag:

 

[tleeds]

Think that "thanks" Heather, should be taken more as a "like" on your post..

I agree entirely! Stands 19-24 were only constructed alongside the extra car-parks, as they were definitely going to be needed and used in the future.. was that back in 2006 or 07..?

Anyhow, the airport will be hot on the heels with planning extra-stands, I am sure they are full aware capacity now for aircraft is hitting the threshold..!

Out of interest, do the airport have to put in for planning consent if they were to add extra stands, for example along the old runway, now Taxiway November..? I ask this, as it is well inside Airport grounds, or do the council still need to officially approve it..?

 

[User0001]

Based on my discussions with airport management and what has been said at the JCC meetings, I would be very surprised if Bridgepoint sold up now. Despite their investment in the terminal etc, I doubt they would make much of a profit if they sold now, because since the airport was bought, the value of property generally has fallen and I feel certain that Bridgepoint feel that the airport is only just starting to reach its potential. At the very least I would expect them to continue for a few more years having invested now. Although there has been nothing said publicly, there has certainly been confirmation that what has just been done forms the first part of a phased development - as previously posted by myself.

As for LUFC Pete's comments and the issue of parking stands, Pete never misses an opportunity to have a go at Bridgepoint, although as TomLeeds has said, it was the previous owners who failed initially to develop the parking stands in accordance with the Masterplan, although they did build additional stands on a regular basis. Just like Bridgepoint, they also took a 'phased' approach. There isn't a lot of point building lots of extra stands if there are no aircraft to use them, because the terminal can't cope with the passengers the extra aircraft would bring. There is a clear logic to building the terminal first, attracting the aicraft and passengers, and then increasing the stands, and i am certain that Bridgepoint are very much aware of the need for this.

Personally I would expect a further development of the apron in the next couple of years, but it may well be that they decide to do this alongside a parallel taxiway, as doing both together makes absolute sense. The financial outlay would be large again though, and no doubt if they do it, Pete will then complain that Bridgepoint should be expanding the terminal at the same time. :whiteflag:

Very unfair and untrue is that statement. I congratulate Bridgepoint when they have done well and constructively ctiticise when they are lacking. On route development they have excelled in the current climate and considering APD etc but on doing the job that they won the right to do when winning the bidding process - they have been pretty poor. They promised a lot and so far have completely failed to deliver. That is the bottom line. We needed an enlarged terminal building when bridgepoint took over, what is it, 5 ish years ago? Nothing to do with the prevailing economic climate but because LBIA was massively behind where it should have been. Bridgepoint knew it back then and they know it now. The big problem that stopped them doing what they wanted to do is MONEY. They lost a lot in the recession and got cold feet on delivering on what they had promised. Yeah it's part of life but it doesn't help LBIA expand. Difficult for you to look at it rationally heather because in your role you are slightly married to the mob I'm completely independant and so I can say it how it is.

The fact is the council did construct aircraft parking stands outlined in their masterplan before the takeover. In the subsequent years Bridgepoint have had every opportunity to plan, develop and built additional aircraft parking space for short term flexibility but again have failed.

On the whole and compared to other potential operators I am happy with Bridgepoint but they really have to grasp the nettle now to do what they first promised. I really do look forward to the delayed Bridgepoint masterplan to come out so I can assess it for accuracy and waffle and firm dates.

One thing we should all realise is that big companies will only ever tell you what they want you to know and positive spin is the name of the game. The route development team do get a thumbs up :good: from me though but don't rest on your laurels. Infrastructure - get your act together!

regards,

LUFC PETE

 

[White Heather]

Pete, equally unfair is to suggest I am married to the 'mob' even if it is a light hearted suggestion Just because I am on the consultative committee doesn't mean I agree with everything the airport does. When I don't agree, I am happy to tell them. However, I do have access to information that you don't so perhaps take a more balanced view of things as a result. Sadly I am not in a position to post all the information I am given even though it just might help change your views of Bridgepoint and what they have achieved.

You admit yourself that Bridgepoint lost out in the recession,although I have no information on that. Maybe you do. However, in a recession, and with aviation particularly badly hit, it makes absolutely no sense to spend a fortune all at once developing an airport to the n'th degree only to see it under-used. They are not a bank so may well have struggled even to secure the funding in the climate at that time. Two years ago, Bridgepoint had no idea they would get BA back for example. At that time the chances of getting another LHR service were almost NIL. Only BA buying out BMi brought about that opportunity. There was also little chance of securing a Monarch base, or getting Thomson back. We were only just celebrating the announcement of a Ryanair base. The situation was looking quite bad until last year. In general there was no requirement for more aircraft stands, so why spend millions building them to stand empty? Now LBA know that the airport is going to be at capacity from summer 2013 (in terms of based aircraft) they are clearly going to have to address the situation in some way. The problem with the stands at LBA is that apart from overnight, they are half empty most of the time, so there is a huge capital outlay to construct something that is only used part of the time. As I have already said elsewhere, the additional stands are getting very close to where a parallel taxiway would also be built, so it may bet he case that given the rapid increase in movements next summer, they will be thinking of combining the two schemes together to save money.

With regard to the terminal, it should not be forgotten that the construction of the terminal is not possible until all the Council's terms and conditions under Section 106 are complied with. The nature of those is that they are not something that can just be done overnight and for example, with regard to the Forecourt Management Plan, the Council have been very difficult to please. Many of the terms have also cost a lot of money to put in place, and some take a long time to bring to fruition. They have now completed all but 2 and the last two are minor, so the airport has now confirmed it will start planning for the terminal extension in detail.

You may feel my view unfair on you, but the lasting impression given is one of criticism of the airport over the terminal, the 'bus shelter', and now the aircraft stands. You seem to expect them to do everything in a very short time irrespective of planning requirements, demand, and most of all, capital availability. Bridgepoint own many companies and obviously have to distribute capital amongst them. LBA has probably done better than most in securing funds and the indications are there are more to come over the next few years. Bridgepoint promised to spend a given amount on developing the airport and the indications are they will do that over time. Considering what has happened to the aviation industry since they took over, they (or rather their LBA management) have done a good job. Just consider the difference by 2013 over where we were at when they bought LBA! I simply cannot agree with your statement that Bridgepoint have failed to deliver. Their spend on LBA is already in excess of £20 million!

Personally I would love to see a little more focus on the positives of what has been achieved, rather than the negatives. Yes, there is always something else to do. LBA needs a bigger terminal, more aircraft stands, a parallel taxiway, more car parking, a resurfaced runway, preferably a longer runway (which Bridgepoint will not do and I have openly expressed disappointment at that, although I understand their reasoning), and better transport infrastructure (although that is not entirely within the remit of LBA to achieve), Cat3 at both ends, a proper hotel and a general sprucing up of the approach to the airport. Most, if not all are likely to feature in the new Masterplan which is currently being developed.

But, lets not forget they have: Secured and retained the PIA service; Re-secured a BA service that few would ever have believed possible; Secured a 2 aircraft Monarch base; Secured a return of Thomson to LBA; Secured a Ryanair base which has grown to 3 aircraft in 3 years; Secured further growth from Jet2.com; Expanded car parking facilities by a considerable margin; Re-developed the forecourt area and short term/business car parks; Re-developed the current terminal as stage 1 of the full redevelopment; built the first stage of the covered walkway along the apron; carried out major works (behind the scenes) on airport run-off to comply with new legislation; carried out repairs to the runway and crucially, overseen an increase in passengers when most airports saw exactly the opposite. In my book, that is a good result over a very short period of time in real terms.

Finally Tom, as far as I am aware the airport do not need planning consent to build parking stands within the airport boundaries, but I could well be wrong. I suspect LS16 may be able to anwer that one.

 

[airforced]

A well structured and comprehensive response White Heather which made interesting reading as usual. But lets not be too hard on LUFC Pete as he has, in some way shape or form, often said many of the things others are thinking and just haven't got round to saying.

Bridgepoint, or any other operator for that matter, are not in the business for altruistic reasons and as such only tend to do what is beneficial for them or what is forced upon them by others as all improvements, as we well know, do cost money. If people chip away at them they are more likely to do things of their "own" volition than if no-one bothers to "encourage" them, so in my view the odd bit of gingering up does no great harm.

I'm sure that the being married to the mob comment was made in jest as we all appreciate the time and effort you put in on the committee and your additional effort in keeping everyone on here abreast, as far as you are able, on what is going on.

 

[wawkrk]

I cannot understand why Ryanair do not put their foot down with the management and refuse to use the ridiculas Gate 5.It shows the airline in a bad light.
The queue this afternoon just jammed the narrow crumbling staircase as usual.
I had priority boarding but I had to appear to be very rude as this fed me into the main queue.
I know how to swear in Polish so it was not so nice listening to the comments about the f*****g t***er pushing in. This is not new, they have used Gate 5 quite a lot.

 

[EX9]

You will find gate 5 leads to two separate queues. And before the 'main Queue' are let up several calls are made for those with priority/reserved seating to be allowed up first. Ryanair don't care where it is boarded from as long at it gets out on time, its those who deal with it on a daily basis who put up with the abuse from such a lack of common sense which is further contributed by a new tin can channel.

 

[lbia]

The funny thing is, Ryanair prefer to use and keep gate 5 exactly as it is! Hence why no other airline uses it out of choice.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

The funny thing is, Ryanair prefer to use and keep gate 5 exactly as it is! Hence why no other airline uses it out of choice.

I've seen Jet2 use it over the last summer quite a bit. Most noteable;

BFS monday service boarded through Gate 5
AGP friday service usually boarded through Gate 5

I've heard a FAO being called through Gate 5, row number only!

As for the downstairs area i suppose they could now put an additional staircase in where food village is!!

 

[wawkrk]

Gate 5 has 2 queues leading to 1 queue, I am usually the only person in the outer queue so no queue effectively so you either wait for everybody else to pass, go to the back, or push in.
When the flight is called it's already too late with the gate stampede.
To me it's uncivilised low cost or not.

I travel low cost as it's the only convenient route sometimes.
I am not prepared to use another airport,only LBA.
If I had another choice other than to catch 3 flights, I would use it.
I expect more than 1 flight when travelling long haul of course through AMS.

Jet 2 are definately better and to me on a par with many full service airlines on short routes.
Ryanair are super efficient, but so are the companies who transport cattle to the slaughter house.

Sorry for the thread drift.

 

[EX9]

Overview of the on going walkway, it looks like they have stand 12 to complete and then as onto 13 where i think it finishes. They will then complete its attachment to the arrivals part of the building (behind the bus) throughout the winter months.

I will get you a better image of hall A but the ceiling is somewhat very disappointing, to which is basicly what you see below.

 

[EX9]

Oh yeah the drop down fittings are in, however the massive gaps and pipework that is in view is cringeworthy. I'll get a better image at some point.

 

[wawkrk]

The walkway is fine for departing pax, but when you look at the aerial photo, it makes no sense for arriving pax to walk to the other end. Surely as I posted earlier,there must be a way to get them underground into the baggage haul from around stand 9.It will become a real problem eventually as arriving pax already block departing pax.

 

[Aviador]

I don't think the ceiling looks bad at all. The flooring is still to do and frankly it makes the check-in hall area look like a mess at the moment. Hopefully once the flooring is completed the ceiling wont look as distracting. As for the spot lights, I don't think it needs them. The area looks very bright already with the low energy LED strip lights in place. I think the hall would be too bright with spot lights.

 

[Bigman]

I am surprised that no-one else has mentioned this, but LBA have put in an application to extend the time on the existing planning application for the 2 storey extension. For reference, it is showing as application number 12/04240 on the Leeds City Conucil website.

This does seem to hint therefore that we are not going to see any work done any time soon.

 

[White Heather]

Not strictly true Bigman. LBA have already said at the last JCC meeting that once they had cleared all the Section 106 requirements fully, they would commence the planning for the extension immediately. At that time, they had 2 minor issues outstanding, so were talking of starting planning soon. Of course, the detailed planning for an extension takes time - as we saw with the works just completing. There is every detail to plan, from external works such as drainage, sewage etc) to internal finishes, M&E etc. Because that is plainly impossible to do and get the extension built before the 3 year planning application expires, they need to request an extension so that they can just get on with it when they have gone through all the planning processes and secured the funding.

So this is not a negative thing - look upon it as a declaration of a continued intention to do the work. The time to worry would be if they hadn't bothered to seek an extension at all!

 

[SNOWMAN]

[warning]SNOWMAN 1,

Thank you for making a post but it was more suited to the Passenger Frequent Flyer thread so wh have moved it there.

Moderator & Administrator team[/warning]

 

[User0001]

When will the masterplan be released, anyone know?