Rumours about new destinations or airlines?

[User0001]

I honestly think LBA's only significant growth can come from home based airlines. Together, Jet2, Monarch and Thomson could deliver significant growth at LBA. I know Jet2 would love to put more aircraft in and i'm sure Monarch and Thomson could equally add an extra aircraft and make money.

Which if true requires us to believe that the airport are deliberately turning business away. You're not the first to imply this and in common with other previous posts, you don't really offer an explanation as to why this would be the case. A few extra stands is hardly complex nor is it particularly expensive and you could do it from start to finish in less than 3 months. In fact, it's so cheap and simple that even under council ownership apron extension were quite commonplace. The current owners are tendering for a replacement FIDS system at a cost of over £1m and although a welcome upgrade, why wouldn't they spend the money on extra stands if all of this potential business was queuing up at the door ?

Of course, there's another more plausible explanation, which is that based on the frequent and ongoing dialogue between airport and the airlines, the conclusion is that there actually aren't any plans from Jet2, Monarch, TUI or anybody else that require lots of additional parking spaces for summer 14. Maybe all parties have agreed that the growth that is planned can be accommodated with what there is now.

The only realistic non-based could be Brussels Airlines, maybe Aer Lingus and Turkish/Pegasus - but none of these are going to deliver growth other than a few thousand. LBA will settle at about 3.5mppa for the forseeable future. Once it gets to that point, how are Bridgepoint going to make any profit, as they are not currently.

You should download the accounts from Companies in the UK. An interesting read if you have £4.99 to spare but suffice to say you would be looking at EBITDA or net cash flow as a better measure of the airport's financial performance (or indeed any business that requires a big up front capital cost which is then subsequently depreciated through the books)

Come on LBA, get some long term investment (parking stands!!!) built, an extra 737 from Jet2, extra Airbus from Monarch and extra 737 from either Thomson or Ryanair would put LBA well over the 4mppa mark, an extra 4 parking stands could even suffice to 5mppa.

Roughly speaking, an extra 1mppa is worth £10m in revenue - most of which is profit as you don't really need more ATC or another runway. So again, why are professional investors and very experienced airport managers walking away from this easy money.

 

[lbaspotter]

So LS16 what would you do, or what should the current owners be doing?
As you seem to be backing up the airport everytime something bad is said about it, but it seems you never say anything bad about it or what you think they should be doing instead..

 

[Aviador]

So LS16 what would you do, or what should the current owners be doing?
As you seem to be backing up the airport everytime something bad is said about it, but it seems you never say anything bad about it or what you think they should be doing instead..

I wouldn't say people are saying things "bad about it", more a case of constructive criticism.

We have the masterplan update to look forward to if it is ever finalised. In the meantime we have to make do with the crystal ball.

 

[User0001]

So LS16 what would you do, or what should the current owners be doing?
As you seem to be backing up the airport everytime something bad is said about it, but it seems you never say anything bad about it or what you think they should be doing instead..

Not really. My view is that based on everything I have heard from them publicly and privately, they are very hungry for passenger growth. I would stick my neck on the line and say that passenger growth is THE most important factor that influences the value of the airport and it is therefore critical to it being a successful investment for Bridgepoint. My personal view is that they have been very successful at attracting new airlines and the growth rates compared to 2007 are very impressive compared to the market as a whole.

So I'm left scratching my head as to why, if you and a few others are correct, they have chosen to wave away passenger growth by not making relatively cheap and simple investment in parking spaces. Why on earth would they tender for a new FIDS system if for the same money (according to LBIA) they could build 4 new stands and grow passenger numbers by 1.3mppa. Pointing out that at face value this suggestion makes absolutely no logical sense at all is nothing about being pro or anti anything, it's just pointing out it makes no sense.

 

[a300boy]

LS16 We have all seen examples of employees and management making decisions that do not make sense !
Vanity, greed, lack of judgement, stupidity and many other reasons are often present and always will be. I do not suggest this is the case we have because i have no experience to judge the matter. What I do know is I have run a flying business for 25 years and have been guilty of most of those oversights at some time or another.

 

[lbia]

Hold on a minute LS16, I have mentioned nothing about the cost of the new FIDS system. I was merely pointing out that for LBA to continue the passenger growth it Has seen over the last year it needs to improve the infrastructure to allow the based airlines to grow.

The growth has come because monarch and Thomson have based new aircraft at LBA, which previously were not there. The growth before that was from Ryanair basing an extra 737 and the previous substantial increases were from Jet2 increasing their based aircraft. The whole point of my previous post was to point out that LBA will now stay pretty much flat in passenger growth until more parking stands are built so the based operators can expand again by putting in more aircraft.

I haven't said LBA are deliberately turning away business, they are as you say, hungry for passenger growth but they are totally blind if they think they can get significant passenger growth from non based airlines, as there are virtually none that would realistically operate into LBA! The LBA management of course want the best of both worlds, highest possible passenger growth with the lowest possible financial investment. Clearly you disagree with my point of view on this matter, but let's stop living in a fantasy world. Jet2 have expressed in interest in expanding at Leeds but they are sick of having their aircraft put on remote stands and more recently taxiways as there is no where to park them, and then their first wave of departures suffer delays because the Airport can't facilitate getting passengers to the remote stands - ie buses! The airport has to make money but yet again(how many times) there simply is not enough investment in the basic infrastructure to facilitate growth over the next 5-10 years.

The only way LBA will increase passenger numbers significantly is to built more places to put the aircraft, so the airlines that serve LBA can put more in!! I think you are being a bit naieve for criticising me because this is the only way of moving past 3.5mppa, if you can think of another way of getting more passengers through LBA then please share it with us.

 

[Seasider]

I believe (TLY can confirm) that this summer the Ryanair base at Bristol was reduced from 5 to 2 aircraft but the number of flights stayed the same, ie they operated more from their other bases. Now MOL is always after saving money, so if they offered him a deal to do a similar job at LBA, that could free up a couple of stands for Jet2/Thomson/Monarch to expand.

 

[Aviador]

LS16

Like users LBAspotter and lbia among others, I too would be interested to hear the positives you speak about that LBA is doing to make projects like apron and terminal expansion unnecessary at least for the time being. I don't think you answered LBAspotter's question in your responding post to him.

In the interests on keeping this thread on-track, it's worth pointing out that rumours of new routes and destinations are few and far between at the moment so is a case of no smoke, no fire?

 

[LBA787]

Well some nights through the summer we had four a/c parked on the taxiways and one nose out on stand 1 which as you can imagine was a total joke from an operational point of view. To cover that lot u need an additional 4-5 stands of 737/320 size now! Not 2014/15 which realistically will be how long it'll take to build the dam things... You then need to think about the future needs and probable growth of the airport and add another 3-4 at least meaning a total of 7-9 parking stands.

I don't want to get too carried away until we see the new airport master plan. But if we don't see designs for at least 8 new stands being built ASAP then I'm with lbia on this one. Based aircraft will always bring in higher footfall not to mention they're much more valuable to the local LCR economy which in the long run drums up more business for the airport.

:crazy:

 

[User0001]

LS16

Like users LBAspotter and lbia among others, I too would be interested to hear the positives you speak about that LBA is doing to make projects like apron and terminal expansion unnecessary at least for the time being. I don't think you answered LBAspotter's question in your responding post to him.

In the interests on keeping this thread on-track, it's worth pointing out that rumours of new routes and destinations are few and far between at the moment so is a case of no smoke, no fire?

If I take the liberty of reordering two of your sentences then you've hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned....

It's worth pointing out that rumours of new routes and destinations are few and far between at the moment [which] make projects like apron and terminal expansion unnecessary at least for the time being

I absolutely agree that based airlines will provide more growth than non-based and I absolutely agree that another phase of stellar growth from the based airlines will need more infrastructure. I don't think anyone has suggested there is a magic solution to accommodating mega-growth without further investment.

BUT, my challenge to you guys is around this idea you keep putting forward which is that the airlines are waiting in the wings as keen as mustard to add more based aircraft right now and the airport management either don't know this or are not prepared to accommodate the growth.

Is it possible that the airport don't know that airlines are looking to expand. I would say highly unlikely. It would require a failure of the airport to ask and a failure of the airline to tell. It just doesn't seem likely.

Is it possible therefore that the airport DO know that airlines are ready to commit more based aircraft but have decided not to accommodate it. LBIA seems to think so in regard to Jet2 but I'm trying to understand why the airport would act in such a way. It seems counter to the growth agenda they are following and turning business away just doesn't fit with everything we have seen so far. At this point, someone inevitably throws in the question and asks whether Bridgepoint have lost their bottle in terms of spending more money, which is why the FIDS tender is relevant to the discussion. Why would they be happy to upgrade the IT systems but not spend money on parking stands ?

So, in my view this most likely explanation is either that

- they have sat down with Monarch, Ryanair, TUI and Jet2 and there are no plans for additional based aircraft for summer 14, so they are sticking with what they have.

- they are still in negotiations with airlines / they might be being played off by the airlines who could be negotiating with other airports etc etc, which means that work on parking spaces is on hold until the airport have a deal signed.

If you were to pin me down, I'd probably go for the second option - or some variation of it. It was only in August when Kevin George, MD of Monarch, was in the airport talking on Radio Leeds that they were considering expansion in summer 14.

 

[channex 757]

Where would be the best place to build new parking stands? Would it be the best option to extend the parking area that got built a few years ago and extend it parallel with taxiway alpha down towards the runway?

 

[White Heather]

Bear in mind that parking areas cannot be within specific distances of runways, which is why runway 10/33 was taken out of use. The space at LBA for additional parking stands is restricted, and once it is used up, then its used up. No more expansion. I think they will be struggling to get another 8 or 9 stands within the space available.

I can assure everyone that LBA management are fully aware of the need for more stands. They stated this at the last consultative meeting. How many they need now, and further into the future will depend on airline demand, as stated by LS16. Clearly some are needed immediately with other later, although it would be cheaper overall to do the whole lot at once. Who knows - that might be what they are planning. I am pretty certain that they will include stands in their plans, but we will find out for sure in the not too distant future hopefully.

 

[lbaspotter]

I understand that Aer Lingus Regional is due to announce its 2014 expansion plans sometime tomorrow, So it maybe one to keep a close eye out on due to a rumour that I posted about a few weeks ago on here.

 

[Aviador]

There is a rumour circulating at the moment about Air Blue operating to ISB via Istanbul from LBA. It's one that has been discussed before on here but I see it as unlikely given the airlines recent pull-outs from BHX and MAN. A similar rumour about Turkish Airlines doing the same route via Istanbul is also doing the rounds. Perhaps this rumour throws more weight?

 

[User0001]

Cant see air blue at LBA myself after pulling all UK ops and LBA was never rumoured in expansion plans, but i suppose stranger things have happened.

 

[Aviador]

I guess the rumours will continue until PIA finally pull the plug on LBA or upgrade, one way or the other and I think most of us know the more likely outcome.

 

[lbaspotter]

There is a rumour circulating at the moment about Air Blue operating to ISB via Istanbul from LBA. It's one that has been discussed before on here but I see it as unlikely given the airlines recent pull-outs from BHX and MAN. A similar rumour about Turkish Airlines doing the same route via Istanbul is also doing the rounds. Perhaps this rumour throws more weight?

They maybe more to this than meets the eye Aviador!

I understand that PIA are looking to resurrect a deal to start a code-share agreement with Turkish Airlines. Having Turkish Airlines open a 4-5x weekly B737-800 Istanbul service from Leeds would in effect allow PIA to pull out of Leeds altogether when they finally retire the ageing A310 fleet and make an excuse for not sending in the B777.
Turkish Airlines and Star Alliance have a massive hub at Istanbul and this would not only allow for a one-stop service to Pakistan but also open up connections to even more long haul destinations without having to use Amsterdam (KLM) or Heathrow (BA).

On the other-hand last year I did post on here that I had also heard rumours of Turkish based low cost Pegasus Airlines launching a Leeds - Istanbul route. Also I agree with user001 that I don't see Air Blue coming to LBA any time soon or restarting long haul service's with there A319's or A320's. Especially not after what's just happened with them at both Manchester and Birmingham...

 

[User0001]

There is an article today that states Pegasus will open either MAN, LPL or LBA flights to Istanbul.

MAN is already served by PGS to AYT and has a proven market to IST, and Pegasus serve Sabhia Gokhen rather than Ataturk. Time will tell who gets picked.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Sadly, I think a point to point service to Istanbul, which is effectively what Pegasus will provide, will be better served from Manchester. Turkish airlines would, indeed, provide a decent through service to many places and, if the Manchester flight is anything to go by, at a significantly lower price than KLM and BA. The connection to Kilimanjaro would be high on my interest list. KLM offer the same connection, but the cost, by comparison, is ludicrous. If Turkish were to start up operations at LBA, I believe KLM would suffer the most direct competition.

In more general terms, Turkish have shown what can be achieved with hard work and a coherent management structure. Not sol long ago, they operated at a level similar to PIA. Now they have one of the largest hubs in the world. LBA would do well to tap into it.

 

[LBA787]

I cannot help thinking a Pegasus flight to SAW would be a serious let down. Do they even offer connections to the Middle East/Pakistan?

It's a poor second to a potential Turkish IST flight and that's if they are even interested! Last I heard Turkish were looking at 3x daily into MAN... They won't do both so we'll see what happens. As a supporter of LBA the best scenario I would wish to see would be for Turkish to start a daily LBA instead of increasing MAN to 3 daily.

It won't be long before they start to look at airports like LBA, GLA and BRS in the UK.

:crazy: