Route Development & Rumours

[radar]

The big unknown* is whether NEOs and MAXs count towards the quota or not.

My view is they shouldn’t, otherwise what motivation do airlines and LBA have to move to quieter aircraft?

(*Unknown from an outsiders point of view - I don’t work at LBA anymore)

 

[Aviador]

There is of course the option to use larger aircraft which could reduce the frequency of flights on some routes freeing up potential night slots.

Arguably I'm not convinced LBA did their due diligence with regarding night slots. They had what they wanted in the bag as part of the new terminal plans. Not progressing with the new terminal has left them with a predicament.

 

[BCFC]

Is there not a market for a domestic hopper for example..(just and example)

NQY- EXT - LTN - LBA - ABZ and back the other way?

 

[White Heather]

There is of course the option to use larger aircraft which could reduce the frequency of flights on some routes freeing up potential night slots.

Arguably I'm not convinced LBA did their due diligence with regarding night slots. They had what they wanted in the bag as part of the new terminal plans. Not progressing with the new terminal has left them with a predicament.

That's assuming that after waiting a couple of years and then going through a public inquiry, they got approval to build it AND got approval to amend the night hours. Either or both could have been refused. They would then have no new terminal, no change in hours, and no planning consent for the extension that's due to commence shortly. Not a risk they could take. Stagnation guaranteed.

Ultimately, they may have no option but to submit another planning application to vary the night movement hours but that will only be necessary if the Council refuse to accept that the MAX, NEO etc. are exempt and the airport are unsuccessful with any action they might take to resolve the issue. Last I heard the matter was still under discussion. For me, the fact that turbo props were exempt from the 1994 planning approval which introduced the night quota, suggests it was based on noise. If so there should be a Maximum dB limit above which all movements count (except when falling within the delayed flights criteria). If that is the case and if the new aircraft fall below the limit, it's wholly ridiculous for them to not be exempt. Otherwise, where's the incentive to develop quiet aircraft or for airlines to acquire them? Or for LBA to incentivise their use here.

My understanding though is that the planning approval is ambiguously written and whilst the intention of the original restrictions are clear to anyone with sense, there are some who are using the ambiguity to argue a case that suits their anti aviation agenda. The penalty for having an increasingly green bunch of councillors on the plans panel.

However, as previously stated, there is clear scope to significantly increase passenger throughout through the use of larger aircraft instead of those currently in use. As it's mainly Jet2 that fill the night quota with up to 13 or 14 overnight arrivals daily in summer, switching 737 300s to 800s and some 800s to A321NEOs will boost passengers with no additional movements. We still have long quiet spells in the mornings too - so loads of scope for foreign based flights such as Sun Express next year.

The fact is though, that if the Council's anti airport bods prevail, there is little scope for increasing the number of based aircraft unless it's clear that their schedule will not require night movements, and that's unlikely. No airline will base with such a restriction hanging over them.

 

[BarnsleyHolidays]

Is there not a market for a domestic hopper for example..(just and example)

NQY- EXT - LTN - LBA - ABZ and back the other way?

This was tried just over 50 years ago by Channel Airways using the brand name 'Scottish Flyer'. The route operated by HS748s and later Viscounts routed SEN STN LTN EMA LBA MME NCL EDI ABZ but surprisingly didn't last long!

BH

 

[LBAYORKIE]

How much of the quota will be used this year ?

WH indicated most of it.

That's assuming that after waiting a couple of years and then going through a public inquiry, they got approval to build it AND got approval to amend the night hours. Either or both could have been refused. They would then have no new terminal, no change in hours, and no planning consent for the extension that's due to commence shortly. Not a risk they could take. Stagnation guaranteed.

Ultimately, they may have no option but to submit another planning application to vary the night movement hours but that will only be necessary if the Council refuse to accept that the MAX, NEO etc. are exempt and the airport are unsuccessful with any action they might take to resolve the issue. Last I heard the matter was still under discussion. For me, the fact that turbo props were exempt from the 1994 planning approval which introduced the night quota, suggests it was based on noise. If so there should be a Maximum dB limit above which all movements count (except when falling within the delayed flights criteria). If that is the case and if the new aircraft fall below the limit, it's wholly ridiculous for them to not be exempt. Otherwise, where's the incentive to develop quiet aircraft or for airlines to acquire them? Or for LBA to incentivise their use here.

My understanding though is that the planning approval is ambiguously written and whilst the intention of the original restrictions are clear to anyone with sense, there are some who are using the ambiguity to argue a case that suits their anti aviation agenda. The penalty for having an increasingly green bunch of councillors on the plans panel.

However, as previously stated, there is clear scope to significantly increase passenger throughout through the use of larger aircraft instead of those currently in use. As it's mainly Jet2 that fill the night quota with up to 13 or 14 overnight arrivals daily in summer, switching 737 300s to 800s and some 800s to A321NEOs will boost passengers with no additional movements. We still have long quiet spells in the mornings too - so loads of scope for foreign based flights such as Sun Express next year.

The fact is though, that if the Council's anti airport bods prevail, there is little scope for increasing the number of based aircraft unless it's clear that their schedule will not require night movements, and that's unlikely. No airline will base with such a restriction hanging over them.

I think turbo props are exempt only if they dont exceed a certain weight- which is well below that of B737/A320 etc. So that clause also needs re-negotiating.

 

[White Heather]

WH indicated most of it.

I think turbo props are exempt only if they dont exceed a certain weight- which is well below that of B737/A320 etc. So that clause also needs re-negotiating.

The planning approval and what's in it, including the night quota, can't be re-negotiated to suit either party. It is what it is. The problem is understanding what it actually means.
Beyond that it's up to LBA to submit a planning application again to get changes the council have already approved once. I suspect they won't do so next time. Or if they did, they would take the opportunity to include punitive conditions that leaves LBA worse off than it already is.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

The planning approval and what's in it, including the night quota, can't be re-negotiated to suit either party. It is what it is. The problem is understanding what it actually means.
Beyond that it's up to LBA to submit a planning application again to get changes the council have already approved once. I suspect they won't do so next time. Or if they did, they would take the opportunity to include punitive conditions that leaves LBA worse off than it already is.

I dont see why it cant be treated as an amendment/variation but that doesnt make it any more or less likely to be granted of course.

If it cant be re negotiated (however that happens)then as you have said many times in the past theres no scope for more aircraft to be based at the airport.

 

[Statto]

If it cant be re negotiated (however that happens)then as you have said many times in the past theres no scope for more aircraft to be based at the airport.

Again, I don't know why this keeps being stated as if it is some absolute fact?

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Again, I don't know why this keeps being stated as if it is some absolute fact?

Again, I don't know why this keeps being stated as if it is some absolute fact?

Do you mean theres sufficient quota left for more based aircraft?

 

[Statto]

It depends on (a) how much capacity there currently is compared to the summer quota limit (b) the schedule of any new based aircraft and how many night movements they would need (c) the ability to make changes to the flying programme of the existing based aircraft to free up some night flying capacity and (d) the treatment of MAX-8s + Neos

To keep stating as fact that "there is no scope for more aircraft to be based at the airport" must mean that there are answers to all of these, and that the answers must be

(a) none
(b) lots
(c) none
(d) they count

 

[White Heather]

Again, I don't know why this keeps being stated as if it is some absolute fact?

We can base more aircraft at LBA.

If they extend the number of stands we can have as many as we can fit in. But, as the current number of based aircraft are already using up virtually every summer night movement permissible, there is little or no scope for these additional based aircraft to depart before 0700 or land after 2300 unless they are scheduled to arrive earlier than 2300 and arrive late (up to 0030), or unless the Council decide to disregard the MAX and NEO,.or unless Jet2 in particular, reduce their night movements to free up capacity.

The most likely airline to base would be Ryanair, but it's unlikely they would do so if they were likely to be locked out after 2300 at the back end of summer due to the quota being exceeded. Nor would Jet2 be happy if they were locked out due to LBA enticing any airline to base here and use up night quota to their detriment. An airline such as Loganair would probably be ok with it given the type of route they do.which doesn't entail night movements.

It's all academic at present because the terminal cannot cope with the additional passengers that further based aircraft would generate. That will change from around Summer 2025. That much is fact. It's been stated on several occasions by the airport CEO.

 

[XEROX]

Oh here we go.

• British Airways to reinstate the suspended Heathrow route.
• Jet2 to Cape Verde, Morrorco & Egypt.
• Ryanair to base 4th or possible 5th based aircraft.
• New easyJet 3x aircraft base.
• Iberia Express to Madrid
• Valueing to Barcelona
• Istanbul serviced by Turkish Airlines or Pegasus'.
• Sun Express to offer Dalaman
• Play to Keflavik.
• TUi to increase offering.
• New route to Middle East but not operated by the big airlines, eg Emirates, Qatar Airways or Etihad Airways.
• Wizz Air to continue growth into Eastern European destinations.

Re: opening up ME routes (im guessing Dubai, Abu Dhabi etc) , but not done through Emirates, Qatar or Ethiad would be difficult as +60% of UK based passengers are actually flying through ME hubs for onward connections.

Most people flying to Dubai on Emirates are not actually going to spend time in Dubai other then the airport.

 

[BCFC]

This was tried just over 50 years ago by Channel Airways using the brand name 'Scottish Flyer'. The route operated by HS748s and later Viscounts routed SEN STN LTN EMA LBA MME NCL EDI ABZ but surprisingly didn't last long!

BH

Probably 5 stops too many.

 

[Seasider]

This was tried just over 50 years ago by Channel Airways using the brand name 'Scottish Flyer'. The route operated by HS748s and later Viscounts routed SEN STN LTN EMA LBA MME NCL EDI ABZ but surprisingly didn't last long!

BH

I remember it well. If my memory serves me well, the southbound and northbound were on the ground at LBA at the same time. (depending on punctuality)

 

[White Heather]

I remember it well. If my memory serves me well, the southbound and northbound were on the ground at LBA at the same time. (depending on punctuality)

The Viscounts they used were still in basic Continental Airlines' black and gold livery if my memory serves me correct. I don't think it lasted more than a couple of months.

 

[oldendays]

I used to have a picture, printed off the Internet, of a Channel Viscount taxiing for departure with two BKS and one BMA Viscount parked in the background. The photo was taken from Plane Tree Hill circa 1969. I wish I still had it, or the IP address!

 

[White Heather]

I used to have a picture, printed off the Internet, of a Channel Viscount taxiing for departure with two BKS and one BMA Viscount parked in the background. The photo was taken from Plane Tree Hill circa 1969. I wish I still had it, or the IP address!

They were only ever on the ground a few minutes. It was literally like a bus service. They didn't take long to unload or load as there were usually only a few passengers! It was a service that simply didn't appeal especially to nervous flyers.

 

[Nethercote2019]

They were only ever on the ground a few minutes. It was literally like a bus service. They didn't take long to unload or load as there were usually only a few passengers! It was a service that simply didn't appeal especially to nervous flyers.

I seem to remember they only shut down the port side engine for pax to unload/load on occasions ….

 

[White Heather]

I seem to remember they only shut down the port side engine for pax to unload/load on occasions ….

Yes. That's my recollection too.