Road, Rail & Access Issues

[White Heather]

WH you just can’t presume anything these days, how do you know they haven’t used whats been offered to them or more importantly it may be earmarked for future payments...one thing that does amaze me on this forum there a are so many business gurus who know all the answers but have never actually ran one.
Try it boys and girls and if you survive the first 5 years I will take my hat of to you!

I know because they said so very recently in an article about Dart Group finances.

 

[Aviador]

You would be better writing to Leeds City Council to add your support and ensure LBA does have a future.

Good point @White Heather have you got your reply into LCC yet @Bigman ?

 

[leedslad]

Which is for the reasons I keep telling you but which you don't seem to accept Leedslad. They tend to accept the views of the engineers reports and projected costs so why not forget your direct email line? It will not happen, and especially now with passenger numbers likely to take several years just to get back to 4m.

Sorry know we're covering old ground but it's you doesn't seem to get it. Yes the direct rail study was conducted by experts but years ago and to a different location, elevation and distance.

If I was making an investment decision at work on their basis I'd be sacked for gross misconduct.

Inagine this... I look at two capital investment projects, option A and B. I get both costed and A is too expensive whilst B relatively cheap. So I decide on option B.

Then several years later option C presents itself. Its probably cheaper than A but has similarities to A. Meanwhile the cost of option B has tripled.

I still invest £42m in option B because I assume the years old investigation into option A is probably a bit like C.

Yes I invest £42m without fully checking option C.

My boss asks for the justification... Well A seemed a bit like C but we never checked and just went with triple cost B.

I'm not suggesting that they cancel the Parkway based on my email. I'm suggesting anyone spending £42m of public money ought to know an up to date costing for the next best option before proceeding rather than applying a years old study to a different location.

 

[White Heather]

Not going there after this, which will be my final attempt to explain to you Leedslad. and I do get it entirely. But I saw the reports and have listened to experts and seen their presentations l saying why it won't happen with heavy rail. Cost v Benefit simply doesn't stack up for an airport this size. Its you v the rest on this I am afraid.

I have also previously explained and you seem to ignore that the steepest gradient is between the main line, which is already in a cutting, and Scotland Lane so the new terminal makes no difference in terms of gradient. It's still the other side of Scotland Lane. To remove that gradient requires a tunnel or exceptionally deep cuttings neither of which is viable.

You forget also that there is a need that the train link (if built) serves passengers from Harrogate and York too, so initially a second branch from the main line would be required towards the airport just where the cutting is at it's deepest, immediately outside the Bramhope Tunnel. It would require a similar 3 way junction to the disused one at Arthington in a location that doesn't allow it. Otherwise trains from Harrogate would have to stop further down the track towards Horsforth then go back the other way, changing tracks to the Harrogate bound line so it could access the line to the airport & that would mean the driver having to run through the train to the other end. All this has to happen without disrupting the 20 minute service in each direction. It also means trains would terminate at the airport rather than stopping en route between Leeds and Harrogate.

One thing I do know is that nothing I tell you will change your mind, despite the fact I lived close to this part of the line for 12 years and know the terrain only too well. If you are so convinced by your arguments why not write to the WYCA with your arguments and get a response from them?

 

[leedslad]

But there are so many flaws in what you say?

You've seen the reports etc but neither you nor WYCA can say how much a line to the new terminal would cost? That's all I'm asking.

You say cost benefit doesn't stack up but the cost of Parkway has tripled (so cost/benefit massively reduced). Meanwhile cost of direct link logically must have fallen (therefore cost/benefit has risen). Nobody can say how close the two cost benefit cases are since nobody knows the cost of direct link to new location?

You keep mentioning gradient but again irrelevant. The entire line would need to be in a cutting, my point is that the length of cutting required is vastly reduced. Vastly reducing the length of cutting vastly reduces the cost (albeit, yes deepest section closest to existing line).

You mention Harrogate and York. York can be served via Leeds line (probably more quickly). Meanwhile Harrogate is a very small % of journeys.

Finally you or WYCA could easily change my mind. I'd just need to see the true estimated cost of a direct link to the airport rather than a guess that "it'll be expensive based on a year old report to a different location, elevation and distance). I wouldn't invest £42m of public money without at least knowing the true cost of the next best alternative.

 

[Bigman]

Maybe instead of a heavy rail link they should be looking at an elevated people mover to run from Horsforth station going around the back of the airport and extending over to High Royds. By putting it up on concrete pillars, this avoids expensive digging, tunneling and road diversions etc. People movers can also cope with much higher gradients. By extending through to High Royds, you could build a big park-and-ride interchange (which would ease the traffic going into Guiseley) and would give a quick change for trains coming from Bradford, Shipley and Ilkley. DLR is a good example of this type of thing, as is the overhead people mover at Dusseldorf Airport.

 

[White Heather]

But there are so many flaws in what you say?

You've seen the reports etc but neither you nor WYCA can say how much a line to the new terminal would cost? That's all I'm asking.

You say cost benefit doesn't stack up but the cost of Parkway has tripled (so cost/benefit massively reduced). Meanwhile cost of direct link logically must have fallen (therefore cost/benefit has risen). Nobody can say how close the two cost benefit cases are since nobody knows the cost of direct link to new location?

You keep mentioning gradient but again irrelevant. The entire line would need to be in a cutting, my point is that the length of cutting required is vastly reduced. Vastly reducing the length of cutting vastly reduces the cost (albeit, yes deepest section closest to existing line).

You mention Harrogate and York. York can be served via Leeds line (probably more quickly). Meanwhile Harrogate is a very small % of journeys.

Finally you or WYCA could easily change my mind. I'd just need to see the true estimated cost of a direct link to the airport rather than a guess that "it'll be expensive based on a year old report to a different location, elevation and distance). I wouldn't invest £42m of public money without at least knowing the true cost of the next best alternative.

Like I said Leedslad - ask the people who make the decisions to explain them. There is no point in me discussing further.

 

[leedslad]

I did. They refused. It's a negligent use of public money and I can't believe nobody else questions how wyca can invest £42m of public money whilst nobody knows the real cost of the alternative option.

I beleive the original report put the cost to connect the old terminal at £100m. Given the much shorter distance involved I think it reasonable to assume at the very least a 30% reduction in cost to £70m, even allowing for inflation.

Compare that vs £42m and for just £28m extra you'd get a direct link which nobody can deny is far preferable. Try adding a direct link by light rail at a later date and I guarantee it will cost much much more.

Furthermore what if the benefit of Parkway to economy was say £100m. Then it has cost benefit ratio of 2.4. What if benefit of direct link were £168m?... What if the true cost of direct link to new location was £65m? £60m?

The simple answer is nobody knows the answer to any of the above because nobody has properly costed it. But wyca is willing to gamble £42m on guessing.

 

[Aviador]

However strong your belief is on this @leedslad it's safe to say your idea is dead in the water. Its pointless pursuing this any further.

 

[leedslad]

Sure is whilst nobody holds their spending to account!

 

[Len Fish]

The spending of both local and central Government is held to account all the time, but it makes little difference. Just look how the cost of HS2 has skyrocketed but is still going ahead with even more taxpayer funding.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Leeds Bradford Airport plans ‘don’t make a lot of sense’, claims MP

The MP for North west Leeds has criticised plans to revamp Leeds Bradford Airport with a new £150m terminal.

www.wharfedaleobserver.co.uk

Alex Sobel has his say.

 

[LBA8098]

Old news LBA Yorkie.

 

[White Heather]

They said...exactly. Boris and Cummings say lots of things, do I believe them...obviously not.
Funny how Branson run out of money so quickly yet everything and everyone thought it was all good with our billionaire owner before COVID19...Companies say lots of things of which 99% is marketing nonsense...probably the one that will survive is FR and will make an absolute killing as will the independent shops on the High St if they can survive the next 2 months which I hope they do.
Support your local independent shops but that another thing for another time.

I don't believe politicians any more than you do, but I have no reason to accuse Jet2 owners of lying, particularly when there are shareholders involved and what they say will be verfiable through the company accounts - and no doubt through Government too.

They said they have not yet had the need to draw down the money made available to them.

I seem to recall Jet2 own, rather than lease, much of their fleet, which I would imagine reduces their outgoings at a time when income is minimal . Many airlines lease all aircraft and continue to pay leasing costs whether the aircraft is making money or not. I would have thought they were the airlines most likely to fail first. But then, I know nothing as I never ran a business!

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Companies say lots of things of which 99% is marketing nonsense...probably the one that will survive is FR

They've raised £172 million from selling extra shares which they issued, they would probably raise this double fold if they were to issue further shares. Their current share price at COP Friday is £8.82 per share, starting at £9.40 this morning. Of course share prices fluctuate throughout the day but to be in the travel industry with a share price of £8.82 is incredible in these times. This shows to me that the markets have faith in Dart Group.

Compared this to easyJet £6.80, TUI £4.21 - that is a very good share price.

I agree with @White Heather about Jet2. They own a good chunk of their fleet which is good for the company. Let's be honest whilst Phillip Meeson is still a majority share holder, Jet2 will continue to thrive. I hope.

 

[leedslad]

You can't really compare share prices per unit...

 

[rollo]

They've raised £172 million from selling extra shares which they issued, they would probably raise this double fold if they were to issue further shares. Their current share price at COP Friday is £8.82 per share, starting at £9.40 this morning. Of course share prices fluctuate throughout the day but to be in the travel industry with a share price of £8.82 is incredible in these times. This shows to me that the markets have faith in Dart Group.

Compared this to easyJet £6.80, TUI £4.21 - that is a very good share price.

I agree with @White Heather about Jet2. They own a good chunk of their fleet which is good for the company. Let's be honest whilst Phillip Meeson is still a majority share holder, Jet2 will continue to thrive. I hope.

The price of an individual share does not represent the value of an individual company when comparing with another one you also need to know the the numbers of shares issued, then multiply one figure by the other.

So if for instance TUI have four times as many shares issued as Jet2 their market value is considered to double that of Jet2. based on the figures quoted.

The current market capitalisation as of close of trading last night :

Dart grp. £2.15b

TUI £3.75b

Easyjet £3.73b

B.A (IAG) £6.2b

Ryanair £14.2b

There are many other things that potential bidders would take into account e.g. assets, debt, cash at bank, forward order book, etc. plus intangibles such as good will (Jet2 plenty, Ryanair rather less). When assessing the true value of a company market cap. is the fundamental starting point should anyone be daft enough to consider buying an airline.

 

[Bigman]

I didn't realise that this forum now incorporated Money Marketing magazine. Pretty heavy economic stuff here. For us simple Yorkshire folk, the only economics to know is 'short arms - deep pockets' and how much for my fish, chips and mushy peas?

 

[rollo]

Short arms syndrome is well alive down here in Worcestershire we possibly keep it a bit quiet and call it value for for money or tight arsed!

I'll move on.

 

[Len Fish]

I don't believe politicians any more than you do, but I have no reason to accuse Jet2 owners of lying, particularly when there are shareholders involved and what they say will be verfiable through the company accounts - and no doubt through Government too.

“In English Law misleading statements can give rise to both criminal and civil liabilities.

In terms of civil liabilities, investors may be able to bring a claim against the company or its directors if they can demonstrate they bought shares (or otherwise suffered a loss) because they relied upon a false or misleading statement made by the company or its directors.”