Route Development & Rumours

[Finger66]

Doesnt John Rahm have a lot to do with Cadiz!!!!!!!

 

[752]

One thing I think LBA is missing out on is the cruise charter business. P&O adding more destinations but LBA never features. Could the trade team get in touch and convince them in? I personally think its a big hole that LBA could benefit from.

More regional airports added to P&O Cruises 2025-26 Caribbean fly-cruise programme | Travel Weekly

Flights to run from Cardiff, Glasgow and Newcastle

travelweekly.co.uk

 

[AirBingley]

It's something P&O historically did for a few years and we actually used it a 2/3 times using the BY Manchester based 767s. There is no reason why they cannot run their Azura mediterranean cruise programme from LBA as they use the likes of TUI and Jet2 with 738s to Malta. The long haul flights tended to have more Pax and the arrivals experience at 0400 was a shocker with the number of PAX and cases and our small baggage carousels! The new arrivals hall with bring a whole new ball game........

 

[Finger66]

I tend to agree @AirBingley. I think we are just in a complete lull/abyss at the moment re new routes/airlines but once we have the new facilities available I for one am expecting a fair bit of new routes/airline news. Not saying there will be floods of it but defo more than we have right now

 

[752]

Fair points yes, happened in the past and be great to see it again in future.

 

[JRP]

Leeds Bradford Airport unveils long haul flight ambitions - BBC News

The airport's chief executive hopes to see flights to the US and Middle East within three years.

www.bbc.co.uk

Spencer is back on the scene

 

[gulftraveller]

Baffling. Does he understand how airlines work?

There are routes there, such as Chicago and Muscat, which are not even connected to Manchester. Who, exactly, does he think will operate them? In the next year or so, oil prices are likely to climb; inbound transatlantic tourism is predicted to fall because of economic woes in US (in addition to soft demand from the UK end). Even European IT operations are softening.

I can only assume this is a PR stunt.

 

[SierraHotel]

Planning consent required to increase from 4.5m pax pa to 5m pax pa?????? I was under the impression that 7m pax pa was achievable without any council intervention?

 

[White Heather]

Baffling. Does he understand how airlines work?

There are routes there, such as Chicago and Muscat, which are not even connected to Manchester. Who, exactly, does he think will operate them? In the next year or so, oil prices are likely to climb; inbound transatlantic tourism is predicted to fall because of economic woes in US (in addition to soft demand from the UK end). Even European IT operations are softening.

I can only assume this is a PR stunt.

If it is, it's on behalf of they who shall not be named, and the final paragraph is straight out of the their handbook.

Planning consent required to increase from 4.5m pax pa to 5m pax pa?????? I was under the impression that 7m pax pa was achievable without any council intervention?

The BBC are again quoting they who shall not be named without saying as much. It is they who keep saying this, not the Council. There are no planning restrictions governing passenger numbers at LBA and according to a council planning officer who attended a Consultative Meeting, planning approval would only be required if building works were required to enable the increase. As phase 2 of the current project is an internal reconfiguration only and doesn't involve any change of use, planning approval isn't needed. If it were, the airport would already have taken the necessary steps.

Whilst I take any long haul with a pinch of salt, especially with the current situation, it's true that LBA are in talks with a US carrier. For me the most positive part of this article is, that for the first time ever, our esteemed mayor has made supportive comments about LBA and it's development (without mentioning buses, walking or cycling). Now there's progress!

 

[Aviador]

Planning consent required to increase from 4.5m pax pa to 5m pax pa?????? I was under the impression that 7m pax pa was achievable without any council intervention?

This is what the article says:
"Leeds City Council said when the airport exceeded four-and-a-half million passengers a year it would liaise with it to obtain planning consent to enable expansion to five million passengers."

Even the councils own documents on the airport don't say that so it's either something new or incorrect fact checking by the BBC.

 

[Snackbar]

Baffling. Does he understand how airlines work?

There are routes there, such as Chicago and Muscat, which are not even connected to Manchester. Who, exactly, does he think will operate them? In the next year or so, oil prices are likely to climb; inbound transatlantic tourism is predicted to fall because of economic woes in US (in addition to soft demand from the UK end). Even European IT operations are softening.

I can only assume this is a PR stunt.

These is a sizeable unserved market for Saudi from the LBA especially with onward connections into India and Pakistan. Add to that the Saudi strategy to significantly promote tourism over the next decade to rebalance its economy away from oil dependence there is clearly potential for a route from LBA…

 

[leedslad]

This is what the article says:
"Leeds City Council said when the airport exceeded four-and-a-half million passengers a year it would liaise with it to obtain planning consent to enable expansion to five million passengers."

Even the councils own documents on the airport don't say that so it's either something new or incorrect fact checking by the BBC.

@White Heather please could you directly quote this at the next consultation meeting to get the definitive answer from the airport?

It is slightly concerning that this is a council quote...

 

[gulftraveller]

All true. But Saudia is of no use to connect to Pakistan (check the timetables). Plans for Saudi mass tourism are a pipe dream, particularly since the money has run out.

They operate from UK on very low margins. Would Saudia consider having two bases so close together, essentially competing with each other? I don’t know but it is the type of question CEOs should be considering. It has become fashionable for CEOs in UK to tell the world which airlines they are talking to, even if they are totally unrealistic. Maybe it simply justifies overseas trips…

Shouldn’t Mr.Hodder be banging on the doors of Lufthansa, Air France, Eurowings, Vueling, AJet etc. rather than Saudia, United or Oman Air ?

 

[Snackbar]

All true. But Saudia is of no use to connect to Pakistan (check the timetables). Plans for Saudi mass tourism are a pipe dream, particularly since the money has run out.

They operate from UK on very low margins. Would Saudia consider having two bases so close together, essentially competing with each other? I don’t know but it is the type of question CEOs should be considering. It has become fashionable for CEOs in UK to tell the world which airlines they are talking to, even if they are totally unrealistic. Maybe it simply justifies overseas trips…

Shouldn’t Mr.Hodder be banging on the doors of Lufthansa, Air France, Eurowings, Vueling, AJet etc. rather than Saudia, United or Oman Air ?

I understand they are speaking to all those - as an aside it seem the Saudis have also recently mentioned a route into NCL so obviously they are seeing potential….

@White Heather please could you directly quote this at the next consultation meeting to get the definitive answer from the airport?

It is slightly concerning that this is a council quote...

Be aware that the airport are in constant communication with the Council and WYCA and that the Councils currently planning policy remains supportive of the airports applications. I’m sure the airport would be as sure as it could be on the need and outcome of any planning applications through its ongoing discussions with the Council before embarking on this investment.

 

[leedslad]

I understand they are speaking to all those - as an aside it seem the Saudis have also recently mentioned a route into NCL so obviously they are seeing potential….


Be aware that the airport are in constant communication with the Council and WYCA and that the Councils currently planning policy remains supportive of the airports applications. I’m sure the airport would be as sure as it could be on the need and outcome of any planning applications through its ongoing discussions with the Council before embarking on this investment.

Appreciate that, but why then is the council quoting conflicting info to the BBC?

 

[White Heather]

Appreciate that, but why then is the council quoting conflicting info to the BBC?

It isn't. What the BBC correspondent is quoting is a misrepresentation of the planning requirement as repeatedly stated by they who shall not be named. I have asked the question before at the Consultative Committee when it was attended by a planning officer, and members of the plans panel too, and so have others on various occasions and the answer has always been that planning approval for passenger growth is not required as there is no passenger cap included in the planning consent. Only if the existing terminal exterior was to be changed visually would planning approval be needed , as is normal, and that isn't happening.

If there are any discussions with the Council over increased passenger throughput, it's more likely to be in connection with Section 106 requirements with the airport required to cough up towards road and public transport improvements.

 

[leedslad]

Thanks, then the article is very misleading written as it literally states "Leeds city council said"...

 

[White Heather]

Thanks, then the article is very misleading written as it literally states "Leeds city council said"...

Everything that they who shall not be named and their associates say is intended to be misleading in my view.

 

[leedslad]

Did some digging and found this, which is I suspect where the 4.5m figure is coming from

"There are various previous permissions at the airport but the two that are materially relevant to this application are; 08/06944/FU– two storey extension to the airport approved 15/12/2009 12/04240/EXT – extension of time for two storey extension to the airport approved 10/12/12 These applications formed an extension of 4452 square metres. These applications also had an s106 agreement which included the following provisions 1. Improvement highway contributions which involve three payments - Payment 1 (£125k) This was paid when the development commenced in 2016 - - Payment 2 (£425k) This needs to be paid when the number of passengers and the number of vehicles trips exceed the thresholds within the s106 agreement which has not yet been reached Payment 3 (£500k) This needs to be paid when payment 1 and 2 have been committed and when a higher number of vehicle trips have been exceeded 2. Bus contributions - These are currently paid direct to WYCA on a bi monthly basis 3. Annual forecourt surveys - These are currently undertaken 4. Travel plan monitoring fee - This has been paid 5. Within 12 months off annual passengers exceeding 4.5mppa a new planning application to be submitted with to facilitate passenger throughput to 5mppa"

https://t.co/ABOwpJeRB1

Did some digging and found this, which is I suspect where the 4.5m figure is coming from

"There are various previous permissions at the airport but the two that are materially relevant to this application are; 08/06944/FU– two storey extension to the airport approved 15/12/2009 12/04240/EXT – extension of time for two storey extension to the airport approved 10/12/12 These applications formed an extension of 4452 square metres. These applications also had an s106 agreement which included the following provisions 1. Improvement highway contributions which involve three payments - Payment 1 (£125k) This was paid when the development commenced in 2016 - - Payment 2 (£425k) This needs to be paid when the number of passengers and the number of vehicles trips exceed the thresholds within the s106 agreement which has not yet been reached Payment 3 (£500k) This needs to be paid when payment 1 and 2 have been committed and when a higher number of vehicle trips have been exceeded 2. Bus contributions - These are currently paid direct to WYCA on a bi monthly basis 3. Annual forecourt surveys - These are currently undertaken 4. Travel plan monitoring fee - This has been paid 5. Within 12 months off annual passengers exceeding 4.5mppa a new planning application to be submitted with to facilitate passenger throughput to 5mppa"

https://t.co/ABOwpJeRB1

Some further digging...

This is the S106 agreement from the prior 2 storey extension referenced above

08/06944/FU | Two storey extension to main airport terminal building to provide new entrance, improved internal facilities and associated landscaping works to the terminal building forecourt |

publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk

As mentioned above, the S106 just requires a planning permission for any further development pushing capacity above 4.5m.

Arguably this has been fulfilled by the most recent extension planning permission (what is the official stated capacity once completed)...

 

[ls27]

As an aside. If my memory serves me right Trandsev were awarded a sum of £1 million for each of the three bus routes for a contract spread over a three year period. They have ordered a fleet of hybrid buses for delivery later this year.