LBA Masterplan - 2016 - 2030

[Aviador]

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

It's in there Heather!

"[hi-lighty:2isu0fdj]With enhancement to the existing
navigation infrastructure[/hi-lighty:2isu0fdj], the
runway offers sufficient length
to serve short and long
haul destinations."

It's not entirely clear but this reads to me that runway lighting and ILS equipment will be moved at some point to facilitate greater use of the runway. Basically moving the threshold to improve landing distances on runway 32. Perhaps some clarification is required here?

 

[quik999]

Moving the ILS equipment for 32 would need huge groundworks to maintain the needed critical area for the glide path. It can moved about 150m before this is needed. That doesn't sound so bad and perhaps there would be an appetite for the works, except... the masterplan then goes on to show us a diagram in the future which includes a taxiway straight thought the middle of all this! Where is the glide path then?

 

[Aviador]

It's on the opposite site of the runway. If you look, on runway 32 it's on the left side, on runway 14 it's on the right.

 

[leedslad]

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.

Isn't that already in place?

 

[Aviador]

Hi leedslad I believe it is.

 

[Bigman]

All very exciting this...but where is all the brass????

 

[White Heather]

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

It's in there Heather!

"[hi-lighty:iv14dmto]With enhancement to the existing
navigation infrastructure[/hi-lighty:iv14dmto], the
runway offers sufficient length
to serve short and long
haul destinations."

It's not entirely clear but this reads to me that runway lighting and ILS equipment will be moved at some point to facilitate greater use of the runway. Basically moving the threshold to improve landing distances on runway 32. Perhaps some clarification is required here?

I read that Aviador, and for a short while thought the same as you - except that I had been told categorically that it couldn't be done, and as it is so unclear what exactly they are intending, I just discounted the thought and assumed it was something else.

 

[Aviador]

Is it possible to get some clarity on this Heather?

 

[a300boy]

Even if these aircraft can operate into and out of Lbia with the present runway we all know non on them would be autoland capable as even the B757 cannot use the facility. Any kind of all year round service would be very likely to have problems in our bad weather months. Maybe they envisage summer only long haul operations on a charter basis. We will just have to wait and see what transpires.

 

[Tarn Spotter]

Is not the big plus that LBA is only getting 32% of the short range flight passengers from the leeds area, plenty of growth then for the airport without expanding greatly the destinations.

 

[a300boy]

Went to a friends house in Shipley the other day ! He was an aircraft electrician for BKS BA then Dan-Air at Lbia with me in the 70s and 80s. He is taking his family to Palma soon 10 of them and guess which airport he is travelling from and which side of the pennines it is.

 

[Aviador]

Manchester?

 

[a300boy]

Good guess !

 

[White Heather]

Well there are loads of flights out of LBA to Palma to choose from once the summer schedules start. But if each ticket is just £20 less, it adds up if you are going en masse - although getting to MAN is not free! Personally I will pay the extra to fly from LBA and flying from MAN would be a last resort.

Aviador, I will see if I can clarify the issue of what is meant by the navigational changes at the next meeting, which is on the 30th.!

 

[Bigman]

You would have thought that in this day and age when they can invent mobile phones that can do everything but 'beam me up Scotty', they could invent a Cat 2 system with a higher angle of approach!!

 

[White Heather]

Bigman, surely they have done? There are numerous airports around the world that need a steeper angle of approach due to mountains, buildings etc. I cannot believe that they are all operating on Cat 1 approaches. London City springs to mind - the old Hong Kong airport another - and various airports in the Alps and other mountain regions.

 

[airforced]

You would have thought that in this day and age when they can invent mobile phones that can do everything but 'beam me up Scotty', they could invent a Cat 2 system with a higher angle of approach!!

I will resist the temptation to be critical of LBA and simply ask "When might it happen?"

Any thoughts White Heather, as the question posed by Bigman is very relevant? Would it cost an arm and a leg? Has it been discussed at your meetings and if so in what sort of depth?

 

[Aviador]

Good guess !

Based on 70% of West Yorkshire flying from Manchester instead of LBA, the odds were stacked firmly on Manchester to be fair!

 

[Tarn Spotter]

LBA needs to fight for the 68% of short haul it loses to Manchester and others.
manchester has as many negitives as LBA and not much better options on short haul flights.
What can LBA do to deter people going to Manchester for short haul, they are having to put up with pain, what especially in summer do they they hate about LBA, suggest,
1) Limited terminal seating and terminal crowded
2) Additional PBB's required.
3) Covered parking required.
I would rather LBA fought for the short haul and ignored long haul in the short term.

 

[leedslad]

Over on skyscrapercity, someone suggested one solution might be to build a new terminal from scratch as close as possible to the existing rail line, on the Long Stay car parks.

I wondered if 1) this is even a viable option but 2) if the airport considered it in the masterplan...

It is a radical idea, but I wondered if it might in fact cost just as much to build from scratch as it would to try and build an extension to an odd shaped and fully operating existing terminal? Also it would resolve the problem of needing a dedicated rail link, as it would be as little as 500m to any new station on the existing line - possibly saving millions as this is easily walkable/travelatorable.

Any thoughts?