easyJet

[752]

Delays on A321?

Constraint on crews?

Who knows. But both of those, are ironically, what easy will also suffer with.

Interesting but then again also, how would they know about Jet2 issues? Have they publicly reported these issues I'm not sure.

All in all good to see easyJet expanding back into the regions

 

[JRP]

I can't see any airline committing to a base at LBA until it's certain that their movements won't be constrained by the night flight quota, which is of course dependent upon the outcome of the recent CLEUD enquiry. Nor can I see LBA signing up to such a base for the same reasons, but that wont stop them negotiating a deal for the future, especially one based on NEO ops, as they may be confirmed as exempt from the night movement quota.

Until that CLEUD outcome is known though, LBA is currently at capacity in summer as far as based surcraft are concerned.

When will the CLEUD outcome be made public?

 

[Statto]

I can't see any airline committing to a base at LBA until it's certain that their movements won't be constrained by the night flight quota, which is of course dependent upon the outcome of the recent CLEUD enquiry. Nor can I see LBA signing up to such a base for the same reasons, but that wont stop them negotiating a deal for the future, especially one based on NEO ops, as they may be confirmed as exempt from the night movement quota.

Until that CLEUD outcome is known though, LBA is currently at capacity in summer as far as based surcraft are concerned

Which all makes perfect sense at one level. Through another lens though, the huge investment in the extension, gutting the existing building, constructing the new stands; why are they doing all this if future growth is intrinsically linked to the legal interpretation of some byzantine planning conditions. If that’s the case, that seems a massive risk to me. And a risk on the part of the people lending them the £160m, you would have thought. So, I’m trying to get my head round alternative theories.

- maybe the airport is confident that growth can come from non-based aircraft. But if so, that could have been tested without all the work on the terminal. The airport has loads of capacity away from the morning departure rush
- maybe the airport thinks you can run more based aircraft through the existing hours. New terminal gives more processing capacity, so you can push more people through in a wave of 7am departures. Do that and save most of the movement quota for night time arrivals ? Possible i suppose, but Jet2 had 6 departures before 6:15 today. Could they reschedule those and even if they could, why would they if the result was to allow the airport to bring in a competitor to them?
- maybe the airport just think that eventually they’ll get there They’ll win the CLUED argument or they’ll apply for planning to change the hours and as tortuous as it will be, there will be some improvement vs today. The council approved the last change of hours after all. But again, seems like a big ‘maybe’ to anchor a multi-million pound loan and investment around. And why start the work on the stands now if they aren’t needed?

 

[Finger66]

All airlines can grow at LBA by using bigger, newer and quieter aircraft too.
We have the old chestnut of the Jet2 A21N situation. For example 3 x daily PMI flights on a B733 roughly equates to 2 x daily A21N flights. From a noise perspective it's a no brainer but does it work operationally for Jet2?
And absolutely this time, effort and money is not being invested without some sort of guaranteed return.
It is unfair competition if other airports get expansion approved and LBA does not!
There remains some very interesting times ahead.

 

[pug]

Given that one source for the rumour of reopening NCL had also said LBA was being planned as a base, then I’d say I’m more confident now that it’s a case of when and not if (unless of course DSA is in the running, that is another rumour from some quarters). Easyjet would deliver significant growth in critical mass overnight if they were to base, this has a gravitational effect in that it can make the job of attracting a more diverse range of services much easier because it reduces risk and focuses interest.

They wouldn’t have secured this financing agreement if they didn’t have the confidence that large scale step growth would materialise.

 

[Jerry]

And DSA in 2027

More likely to be LBA.

 

[lbaspotter]

I still believe the will be growth at LBA & new routes for summer 2026. I guess it’s a case of “watch this space”

 

[Finger66]

More likely to be LBA.

My original DSA comment was very tongue in cheek and my usual poor attempt at a bit of humour to try help us all keep sane (ish)

 

[White Heather]

It's a chicken and egg situation. There was little chance of serious growth unless the terminal was sorted. Yes, there a huge quiet spells but that's what happens with a reliance on based aircraft. What was needed was a big increase in non based , such as Ryanair provide using their Polish and Spanish based aircraft. Then, as we've been told, some of the airlines that could fill those gaps wouldn't come unless improvements were made. That included Easyjet as per the LBA CEO.

I think growth will come in 2026 from a few new airlines, and additional non based Easyjet flights. The new stands suggest theres possibly a promise of more based aircraft, but not necessarily ones thst will use night movements. Beyond that, there's scope for further growth through Jet2 introducing the A321NEO to increase capacity, possibly growth from Wizz, maybe a 4th based Ryanair and also more non based movements. Then there's the new airlines and routes LBA are targeting..

When will the CLEUD outcome be made public?

Originally we were told June, but there was a delay in completing the inquiry, so who knows?

Worth remembering too that LBAs claim that NEOs and MAXs are noise exempt are not accepted by our beloved council so that is a decision for the planning inspector.

 

[LBA4EVER]

I can't see any airline committing to a base at LBA until it's certain that their movements won't be constrained by the night flight quota, which is of course dependent upon the outcome of the recent CLEUD enquiry. Nor can I see LBA signing up to such a base for the same reasons, but that wont stop them negotiating a deal for the future, especially one based on NEO ops, as they may be confirmed as exempt from the night movement quota.

Until that CLEUD outcome is known though, LBA is currently at capacity in summer as far as based surcraft are concerned.

I did actually bring this up myself regarding the CLEUD situation, until we have a CLEUD outcome no airline such as easyjet will base aircraft at the airport esp those operating 2 or 3 sectors a day, best we can hope for are non based aircraft. A crazy stupid situation that needs to be sorted asap, bit disappointing about easy setting up at NCL, again LBA missing out!

 

[752]

I did actually bring this up myself regarding the CLEUD situation, until we have a CLEUD outcome no airline such as easyjet will base aircraft at the airport esp those operating 2 or 3 sectors a day, best we can hope for are non based aircraft. A crazy stupid situation that needs to be sorted asap, bit disappointing about easy setting up at NCL, again LBA missing out!

I wouldn't say LBA has missed out? NCL was always a strong front runner as a base as it got cancelled during covid. Speculation suggests 2027, so I wouldn't say "missed out" at all. If they went to DSA.. I would say yes LBA missed out.

The W flying from NCL currently might change into based units and it would be great to see that W flying be moved to LBA (here's hoping)

If LBA does get a easy base with the NEO/MAX exempt (from their intepretation) then what's stopping easyJet setting up a NEO base either. I find it very hard with they way other councils/the government are to not allow LBA something to bring it a level playing field and hold it back when other airports are now expanding left right and centre.

"no such airline will base at the airport" - not true Logan air for example wouldn't need night slots etc, so I think that statement is a little bold.

 

[Finger66]

"no such airline will base at the airport" - not true Logan air for example wouldn't need night slots etc, so I think that statement is a little bold.

Yes think WH has almost suggested as much without naming airlines specifically.
If this CLEUD goes against LBA then I firmly believe that is not fair competition, but even if the worst does happen, then with the now known market LBA has there will be someone (or multiples) still willing to exploit that potential. There are usually ways and means. And of course we already have a quota so pax numbers can be increased with bigger next generation aircraft without having to increase night movements. It certainly isn't all doom and gloom

 

[752]

Yes think WH has almost suggested as much without naming airlines specifically.
If this CLEUD goes against LBA then I firmly believe that is not fair competition, but even if the worst does happen, then with the now known market LBA has there will be someone (or multiples) still willing to exploit that potential. There are usually ways and means. And of course we already have a quota so pax numbers can be increased with bigger next generation aircraft without having to increase night movements. It certainly isn't all doom and gloom

BHX had the same problem, the council sided in favour of BHX, it is unfair competition and I think they could pursue further action and I'm sure an appeal would happen. Its absolutely ridiculous a handful of people who moved under the flight path can cause so much problems.

 

[Seasider]

I thought the delay to the CLEUD enquiry was until July this year.

 

[White Heather]

Yes think WH has almost suggested as much without naming airlines specifically.
If this CLEUD goes against LBA then I firmly believe that is not fair competition, but even if the worst does happen, then with the now known market LBA has there will be someone (or multiples) still willing to exploit that potential. There are usually ways and means. And of course we already have a quota so pax numbers can be increased with bigger next generation aircraft without having to increase night movements. It certainly isn't all doom and gloom

If it goes against LBA, I feel sure they will submit a planning application to vary the hours. The problem is that every time an application is approved, the Council are likely to attach punitive S106 requirements to the approval. These could include a passenger throughput limit, or various other limitations, which the support will be keen to avoid. I doubt staying as things are will be seen as an option though.

I thought the delay to the CLEUD enquiry was until July this year.

The final bits of the Inquiry were to be dealt with on line and it was suggested it would be dealt with within a few weeks, do I imagine July is when the outcome should be published.

 

[pug]

This CLEUD thing, I can’t fathom how it would stop easyJet from basing. Easyjet don’t seem to fly as many deep nights as Jet2 have started to do and they seem to get on ok at LBA. What am I missing?

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Noise limits - of none NEO/MAX aircraft.

LBA could draw up the contract that easyJet can only use NEO aircraft. As I've said many of time - easyJet's fleet expansion with NEO aircraft seems some what limited.

They also refer to Jet2 specifically as being “capacity constrained”

Trying to find this in the report but unable too...

 

[White Heather]

This CLEUD thing, I can’t fathom how it would stop easyJet from basing. Easyjet don’t seem to fly as many deep nights as Jet2 have started to do and they seem to get on ok at LBA. What am I missing?

You're missing the fact that LBA is already accused of significantly breaking it's night flight quota, 3 years running, and if they lose the CLEUDs then likely as not, LCC will take enforcement action. Assuming LBA comply, it will drastically reduce the number of early departures, and late arrivals available in summer, whether scheduled to arrive then or just delayed. JET2 will probably have to reschedule or cancel flights to stay within limits and delayed flights once seasonal limits are reached in late summer would potentially have to divert.

As Easyjet are becoming more and more package holiday orientated they are going to want to get best use out of their aircraft so early departures and late arrivals are almost certain. Certainly some flights will be delayed and they won't be impressed if they end up parked overnight elsewhere with passengers being regularly bussed back. Nor will passengers. Sure, they can still base here if they schedule to ensure they dont depart before 0700 or arrive after 2300, but are they going to take that risk? If they do take up some of these night movements, then it'll be Jet2, and to a lesser degree, Ryanair who may suffer.

Of course, LBA will appeal if the CLEUD decision goes against them buying more time, but airlines generally dont like to have the costs and risks involved associated with diverts for whatever reason, and LBA history tells us they are reluctant to base unless they know they are unlikely to face disruption due to things such as our archaic night movement limits..

Noise limits - of none NEO/MAX aircraft.

LBA could draw up the contract that easyJet can only use NEO aircraft. As I've said many of time - easyJet's fleet expansion with NEO aircraft seems some what limited.



Trying to find this in the report but unable too...

The Council havent accepted that they are exempt though. This is one if the decisions awaited.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Don't you love the anti aviation lot - bunch of freaks.

 

[pug]

You're missing the fact that LBA is already accused of significantly breaking it's night flight quota, 3 years running, and if they lose the CLEUDs then likely as not, LCC will take enforcement action. Assuming LBA comply, it will drastically reduce the number of early departures, and late arrivals available in summer, whether scheduled to arrive then or just delayed. JET2 will probably have to reschedule or cancel flights to stay within limits and delayed flights once seasonal limits are reached in late summer would potentially have to divert.

As Easyjet are becoming more and more package holiday orientated they are going to want to get best use out of their aircraft so early departures and late arrivals are almost certain. Certainly some flights will be delayed and they won't be impressed if they end up parked overnight elsewhere with passengers being regularly bussed back. Nor will passengers. Sure, they can still base here if they schedule to ensure they dont depart before 0700 or arrive after 2300, but are they going to take that risk? If they do take up some of these night movements, then it'll be Jet2, and to a lesser degree, Ryanair who may suffer.

Of course, LBA will appeal if the CLEUD decision goes against them buying more time, but airlines generally dont like to have the costs and risks involved associated with diverts for whatever reason, and LBA history tells us they are reluctant to base unless they know they are unlikely to face disruption due to things such as our archaic night movement limits..


The Council havent accepted that they are exempt though. This is one if the decisions awaited.

I haven’t seen any trends to suggest that easyjet will enter deep nights, that’s not to say they won’t, regarding the CLEUD issue directly, I cannot imagine a scenario where such large investment packages could be secured if there was any concern that they’d be artificially capped and limited by some archaic night quotas. It’s nonsensical on all fronts.