LBA Masterplan - 2016 - 2030

[White Heather]

Guys

As of 10 minutes ago the revised LBA Masterplan is available on the airport website to view. It will also later be made available at public libraries etc. I thought that a separate thread for the inevitable dissection of the Masterplan was warranted. I will try and post a summary of what we were told at the recent extra-ordinary meeting of the Consultative Committee for those who don't wish to read the entire document. However, just to stress, LBA management positively welcome all your views during the consultation period of 8 weeks. These should be submitted on line via the links provided and we are assured they will ALL be looked at.

For those who consider the plan is not adequate or who have disappointment for whatever reason, please express your views to LBA and take your chance to comment. This will particularly relate to runway issues I think as these are conspicuous by their absence. The other favourites (terminal, apron parking, taxiways etc) are in the plan.

Please also bear in mind I am just the messenger!!!

View media item 37972019

View media item 37982030

 

[Aviador]

I've just had a quick flick through and I feel fairly positive about the masterplan. It would be nice to see the building of parking stands and the terminal extension commence, anything really, as a sign of meaningful commitment rather than just another paper exercise.

Fingers crossed things start moving fairly shortly, but afteral we're used to waiting!

 

[Aviador]

Here is the PDF link to the new LBA Masterplan 2016

 

[leedslad]

Presumably, given no proposed runway changes there would be no meaningful change in the types of plane/landing that the airport can accept? This in turn will mean we'll essentially always struggle to attract mid-haul flights?

Can anyone "in the know" suggest - would a huge extension be required to change this, or could it be done with a few "minor" changes?...

Desk research suggests a 600m extension would be required to accommodate a Dreamliner for example - or is that too simplistic?

 

[Aviador]

The ancient old question isn't it. Both the new Airbus A350 and the Boeing 787 dreamliner can operate out of Leeds Bradford Airport using the current runway length. The problem is with the range of these flights from LBA. A couple of weeks ago I put the question to Airbus who responded with "the Airbus A350 can accept medium weight" from Leeds Bradford Airport. So the question now is what destinations are achievable with a medium weight Airbus A350?

 

[a300boy]

What would a reduced payload do to the financial viability of any route out of Lbia.
As we know freight in the hold plays a vital roll these days.

 

[White Heather]

LBA Management confirmed last week that they see no obstacle to long haul out of LBA using the latest models of aircraft - both East and West - I presumed they were referring to the Indian subcontinent, Dubai, Florida, Canada, and New York. They have been clear about this for some time and their determination that the runway does not need extending is based on this. A flight to Islamabad or New York is a medium range flight for these new aircraft types, which are lighter and far more fuel efficient, so presumably have a significantly lower take off weight together with the latest generation of aero engine.

 

[michael]

According to the internet the B787-9 has a range of 8300 nm and the A350 has 7,750 nm. From memory I think Orlando is approx 4500 nm from Manchester so Leeds would be a similar distance. This sort of equation must be the way that LBA management are thinking with the masterplan?

 

[White Heather]

LBA have discussed the operation of the Boeing 787 and A350 with the manufacturers in concluding that a runway extension would be a huge waste of money, bearing in mind the topography means it will be very expensive, difficult and unpopular with many given it would mean the destruction of the Yeadon Cemetary. They have to be realistic in understanding that even with a longer runway, the vast majority of long haul flights from the North will operate out of MAN.

 

[armadillomaster]

Some good stuff on there. Let's hope it comes to fruition.

One main point though... Taxiway.

Looks a bit of a waste of time to me... the only way it would be worth it would be to have a direct link to the end of the runway at Horsforth end as well or a full length taxiway. Which I presume wouldn't be an option?

 

[Seasider]

I read that there wasn't going to be a parallel taxiway but a larger loop at 14 end and a "shortcut" to 32 end. This would reduce the amount of backtracking, but on the diagrams this wasn't shown.
Any ideas?

 

[a300boy]

The last drawing shows an enlarged loop on runway 14 and a taxiway on the southern end of the extended new apron to a position nearer the end of runway 32 with just a short backtrack for departure needed.

 

[leedslad]

Here's what I went with:

Objective 1: I would like to see this being somewhat more ambitious, to include wording to the effect:
"including multiple daily flights to European Hub Airports with more Flag Carrier airlines"

This would greatly improve the reach of the airport Internationally with just one change of plane (eg Paris with Air France, Germany, Madrid with Iberia, Gatwick added with BA etc) - but frequency is key and would need to match the Aer Lingus/KLM/Heathrow frequencies

Objective 3: I agree that improving access is key - often from parts of Leeds it is quicker to get to Manchester which then offers much lower fares, greater desination choice and cheaper parking. Addressing the journey time is one way to make Leeds more attractive. Whilst a rail link is key, I believe there is one road option that has not been fully assessed.

I would like to see the option of building a new road from the A650/B6135 roundabout at Birkenshaw north to join the A647/A6120 Roundabout at New Pudsey fully assessed. I believe this would be transformational in reducing journey times from the wider Yorkshire region. It would vastly improve access, from J27 of the M62 and would mean airport traffic could avoid all the delays of the A6110.

3.3.1 Terminal - it is good to hear the plans are still in place for the Terminal extension - I think that the timing around building it is too vague. Rather than saying "when required", could it be more specific ie "when passenger numbers reach X per year"

3.3.2 Runway/Taxi-ways whilst not an expert in such matters, it is my understanding that currently the runway does not allow some larger aircraft to fulfill their max take off weights, nor take-off/land under certain ILS Catergories depending on weather etc. Could at least some improvements to the Runway be made to mitigate these factors? I would think that operators being able to use modern aircraft without limitation/at maximum efficiency to fly to East Coast USA/Middle East would be key aims for the airport?

3.4.2 Rail I believe absolutely that a "Parkway" station would be a mistake - I feel that changing mode to bus would be too inconvenient and mean that it would be under-used. A station based at the airport itself should be the only option - be it Tram-Train or Heavy Rail. If a Parkway is the only option, then could a monorail link or some other system that ran frequently and at zero cost be an option to consider?

Imagine trying to explain to a visitor how to get to Leeds from the airport... Stand outside the airport, make sure you find the right bus stop, wait for the bus, take a short bus ride, get off at the station, wait for a train, then get to Leeds. Nobody is going to do that!!!

 

[White Heather]

Leedslad, I hope you will take the opportunity to express those views to LBA via the link on the Masterplan? Great to read them here, but its the airport that needs to see them too.

With regard to the rail link, there is no doubt that a station at the airport (almost certainly tram train now that heavy rail has been discounted) is the preferable option, but we have to recognise that it will be 10 year at least before that could be in place and estimated cost is around £360m. The Parkway station option would be deliverable within approximately 5 - 7 years and be a fraction of the cost. In my book, we should take what we can when its available and if that is a Parkway station, don't turn it down. Whether or not we get a tram train link to the airport later, the parkway station would be useful and its usefulness can be insured by making it into a general park and ride station, with a very short link up to the (probable) airport link road. Personally I think you are over-egging the objections regarding pax using the parkway station. I would have no objection if I was using a free shuttle bus up to the airport building. It is far better than nothing at all and would put LBA on the rail network. Other airports employ parkway stations successfully so there is no reason why LBA cannot do so.

The Birkenshaw Road option is not within the gift of LBA so could not be included in the Masterplan. The proposed link road option 1 is only shown as it directly links to the airport. Options 2 and 3 are not shown, nor would any other road proposal.

Re travel times to Manchester or Leeds - I have lived in Leeds my entire life and I would defy anyone to travel to Manchester Airport in less time than to LBA from anywhere in Leeds unless they are doing the journey entirely by public transport. Leeds Station to Manchester Airport is around 1 hour 20 minutes normally. I can drive (or go by taxi) from any point in the Leeds Metropolitan District to LBA in less time at any time of day - albeit some 'research' on roads to use to avoid traffic congestion helps. If people stick to the busy routes then clearly there is more scope for delay - but there is equally scope for considerable delay travelling to Manchester. I speak from experience. Multiple experience in fact.

The Masterplan doesn't go into the little details regarding routes and frequencies, nor should it. If the document is too long and unwieldy, people will not read it. I can tell you however that what you are proposing is exactly what was discussed as an LBA target at the meeting last week.

I totally agree with regard to the runway issues. I have repeatedly expressed my views to LBA management and will be doing so again as part of this consultation process.

The terminal expansion has already started technically as the foundations have been laid, preventing any future need to re-apply for planning approval. It can be built now at short notice. I believe in the past the 4m pax per year target was used as the point whereby the terminal extension would be built. If you look at the first layout plan (2019) the terminal extension is built, so clearly Bridgepoint are expecting to build it within the next 3 years.

 

[leedslad]

Thanks Heather - already sent them in...

Didn't realise the foundations were in place already - when did they sneak those in?

Time and again I find myself using the KLM and BA flights - they are by far the most useful, so hope we can get some more regular flag carriers to hubs. I'd be quite happy with that as opposed to direct flights to other regional airports.

I have a nagging feeling if we get a Parkway it will be a nail in the coffin for any future direct line to the airport - it would surely reduce the business case even further? For me, the only way a Parkway could work would be with some fixed link (such as Monorail etc) that you can hop on every 10 mins... Shuttle bus = hassle and confusion for me.

 

[Aviador]

Some points people don't seem to have picked up on.

• "LBA also plans to provide an
  enhanced retail/food and beverage
  offer through a further increase in
  departure lounge space in 2016."
  
  
• "Long term mandatory
  developments, such as the
  upgrade of baggage screening
  technology (to be implemented
  in 2018) may also necessitate
  development and reconfiguration
  of the existing building."
  
  
• "With enhancement to the existing
  navigation infrastructure, the
  runway offers sufficient length
  to serve short and long
  haul destinations."
  
  "New Industrial
  accommodation to serve the
  growth in demand anticipated from
  an increase in air freight cargos.
  This will include direct access to
  the airside boundary required to
  facilitate the transfer on and off
  aircraft, freight transfer, caterers,
  repair and support functions."

1 So with enhanced lounge space planned for 2016 does anybody have any idea what it is and where this is likely to go?

2 Wasn't the ground area of the extended terminal originally planned to be a security search area?

3 Work to the runway is in there, it's says "enhancement to the existing
navigation infrastructure"

4 Improved air freight is tucked in there as well.

 

[Aviador]

I have to say, I do feel the latest version of the masterplan is very professionally presented unlike the previous one where the visualisations looked like something my six year old daughter could have drawn.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

I think the most interesting thing from my point of view is the inclusion of a "satellite" gate and enlarged apron areas. If this comes off, this will make far better use of the currently available space as passengers will be able to walk all the way along the stands that are most often used. This will reduce the need for bus transit (except for the very early departures and very late arrivals) which means less human interaction will be needed to meet and greet a/c. This will reduce delays and labour costs and make the airport more profitable. It will also mean that passengers will be more spread around the terminal which will relate to less congestion in the main departure lounge. Hell, stick Ryanair up there and the terminal will feel twice as big. The only potential problem I see with that is that less passengers will be in the vicinity of the retail outlets so the opportunity to fleece - sorry, entice - customers will be reduced.

A satellite gate would also be a good place to have people if bus transit is needed. Journey times to remote aircraft stands will be reduced, strengthening all of the points made above. I think these improvements could be made without expanding the terminal. Cost vs benefit? Certainly worth thinking about. Of course, terminal expansion would be beneficial in the short, medium AND long term but I am still worried about White Heather's assertion that the airport have stated 4mppa would be the trigger for its construction. There is still no plan as to how the airport intends to grow to 4mppa - only how they will grow the airport once they get there. That is a gaping flaw in my mind as it has been for many years.

And yes, I shall be making my feelings known to LBA directly!

 

[White Heather]

Whoshotojimmi, I have made exactly that point to LBA in my comments and suggested that the sooner the terminal expansion is completed, the more passengers, airlines and routes they will attract. They are only 0.6m away from the 4m pax figure anyway and I feel that with the new terminal, they will get there much quicker.

I have also raised my concerns about the complete absence of any works relating to the runway.

 

[Aviador]

I think the most interesting thing from my point of view is the inclusion of a "satellite" gate and enlarged apron areas. If this comes off, this will make far better use of the currently available space as passengers will be able to walk all the way along the stands that are most often used. This will reduce the need for bus transit (except for the very early departures and very late arrivals) which means less human interaction will be needed to meet and greet a/c. This will reduce delays and labour costs and make the airport more profitable. It will also mean that passengers will be more spread around the terminal which will relate to less congestion in the main departure lounge. Hell, stick Ryanair up there and the terminal will feel twice as big. The only potential problem I see with that is that less passengers will be in the vicinity of the retail outlets so the opportunity to fleece - sorry, entice - customers will be reduced.

A satellite gate would also be a good place to have people if bus transit is needed. Journey times to remote aircraft stands will be reduced, strengthening all of the points made above. I think these improvements could be made without expanding the terminal. Cost vs benefit? Certainly worth thinking about. Of course, terminal expansion would be beneficial in the short, medium AND long term but I am still worried about White Heather's assertion that the airport have stated 4mppa would be the trigger for its construction. There is still no plan as to how the airport intends to grow to 4mppa - only how they will grow the airport once they get there. That is a gaping flaw in my mind as it has been for many years.

And yes, I shall be making my feelings known to LBA directly!

I wouldn't get too excited about the satellite gates, they are most likely going to be the portacabins at the end of the outside walkway. We were initially told the outside walkway would be temporary and it would be movable and likely to be used further down the apron at a later stage. It looks more likely this will be staying in situ for potentially decades to come.

So far as the terminal goes, I am sure somebody said the terminal development would be triggered at 3.8m passengers not 4m. If that remains the case it's only 0.45m away from commencement.