LBA Masterplan - 2016 - 2030

[Tarn Spotter]

Truthfully for us there is too much walking at LBA at the moment without a plan to increase further.
The walk from stand 12 etc to passport control is impossible for me and my OH and neither of us likes to ask for a wheelchair, but there is no seating at all along the walk.
If were going to have huge walks (500 Metres), for us 50 yards is a marathon, its needs to have rest breaks. My doctor wants us both to walk as much as possible, but without a rest point in view, it can be very scary, starting off not knowing whats round the corner, you cant just cry for help.
This is why I love LBA, their compassion for the disabled is first class, Doncaster and Manchester treats us as second class citizens, I just hope those on this forum who have a love in with Manchester never have to use their disabled facilities, I am sure their view would change. I accept passenger number are very different, but malaga having around 60% of manchester numbers does a fantastic job. Manchester puts the onus on the airlines for disabled travel, they dont seem to feel people may arrive to collect etc, try arriving in a car park and getting wheel chair assistance.
Whatever LBA does I hope it improves disabled travel.

 

[White Heather]

Leedslad, I have been saying for ages that LBA should build a new, split level terminal where the lower part of the short term car park is. Yes it would cost many millions, but it would eliminate all the problems with the current terminal. Once completed and the old terminal put out of its misery, there would be a large area available for aircraft parking - reducing the need to construct at least some of the proposed new aprons and saving some money there. It would also mean a terminal near to the site of the proposed tram/train station.

My view is that even with the terminal extension, the terminal will not suffice if ever LBA does ever reach 7m pax per year. Sooner or later the existing terminal will simply not be adequate, so they are delaying the inevitable. As someone who has managed many projects and budgets, I can say without doubt that sometimes, building a new facility that is future proofed is the better value and in the longer term, cheaper. Spend to save. I did put my thoughts to the Airport MD in my recent meeting with him and he did not disagree - but clearly the funding for such a major scheme is not there yet.

As for the possible navigational changes to the runway to enable a longer landing distance, yes it has been raised at the consultative meetings as I have raised it myself and I have also discussed it outside of the meetings with those who know about these things. I have had answers such as 'it cannot be done' through to the opposite over the years. I do recall that the new ILS mast they put in was supposed to enable such changes to be made more easily, but I understand it is still an expensive and messy business, with all sorts of changes to be made, including runway lighting. But, my view is that they were able to move the touch down point up the runway to where it is now when the extension opened, so they should be able to move it back again. What that will not solve of course is the ability of wide body heavy aircraft to operate fully laden off the LBA runway. It would only improve landing performance, particularly in bad weather and probably enable more Cat 3 landings - if the wind is in the right direction!

 

[Aviador]

Something else I have noticed is the apparent lack of new car parking areas or provision for multi-storey car parking. There's virtually no new parking of any significance, this is odd when the airport relies on car parking charges.

 

[blotbuc1]

I'm new! Take a look at the other Masterplan document, the Development Plan Surface Access Strategy. Section 2.7 relates to car parking and includes a Car Parking Delivery Plan. The plans in Appendix A show the location of the proposed car parks in more detail and include the decking of an existing car park and a potential 4 level multi-storey of 3,600 spaces!

 

[White Heather]

The Masterplan does show two new car parks between Warren House Lane and the runway - although one appears to also be the proposed location for the petrol station. I just hope they don't build a multi storey there - which would inconveniently block the view of the runway from the new pub! The logical place to build a multi storey car park is on the short stay/business car park outside the terminal - as it is already on two levels. However, they might have a problem filling it if they try to charge silly money due to its proximity to the terminal. It is also the logical location for a new terminal - but not in my lifetime I fear!!

 

[blotbuc1]

The more detailed car parking plans show the filling station site excluded from the smaller site on Warren House Lane. The larger of the two sites is the potential long stay multi-storey site. The decking to provide additional short stay is outside the terminal. Both multi-storey proposals are for the period beyond 2024.

 

[Tarn Spotter]

Whilst I accept were only planning 15 years in advance in 30 years we wont need the car parking.
Yesterday plans were released of new towns without any roads and this month my recent collegues will start the testing of driverless lorries on the M6. I visited areas in Belguim and Germany were after many years of resistance the planning of towns without cars has shown to be a workable
Roads are going to be too congested to allow us to drive our own cars and the pollution levels in Leeds alone already exceed government guidelines.
I agree with White Heather that a heath robinson repeated alterations to the exisiting terminal would be foolish, we need to have a clean piece of paper, as WH states the short term car park looks the best option. However, not sure how you can make a decision on the three traffic routes in to the airport, without knowing where the traffic finishes up at the new terminal

 

[GolfFox]

After all this time in the course of preparation I am disappointed with the contents of the Master Plan. Some of it is fine in theory but I doubt that much of significance is actually going to happen! I will wager that we will be discussing this same time next year with nothing actually undertaken! We all know planning permission had been obtained some years ago for terminal extension/revamp but nothing appears to have been done about it since.
Waiting for an operator of B787 or A350 to appear to do a 'short' 'long haul' will be like watching paint dry. I think it is a real gamble by the owners not to address the runway situation - but time will tell whether they were right.
I dropped my daughter off at the airport this morning to catch the KL 06.10 to AMS and at 04.30 the queue for the bag drop/check-in stretched way past the entrances to the other airlines queuing areas. Finished up like a rugby scrum - and the airport owners don't think that they need the upgraded/extended/new terminal NOW???
Although most of us 'locals' probably ignore this sort of thing because the convenient location of the airport is perhaps our priority, it gives a very amateurish impression to those visiting from outside the area - of which there seemed surprisingly many this morning.

 

[Aviador]

I think the problem is on paper the terminal can cope with 4m passengers a year, in practice this figure is a lot less because the airport is top heavy with summer flights. There are signs of a gradual improvement in winter operations but as you say, the terminal needs sorting now.

 

[White Heather]

After all this time in the course of preparation I am disappointed with the contents of the Master Plan. Some of it is fine in theory but I doubt that much of significance is actually going to happen! I will wager that we will be discussing this same time next year with nothing actually undertaken! We all know planning permission had been obtained some years ago for terminal extension/revamp but nothing appears to have been done about it since.
Waiting for an operator of B787 or A350 to appear to do a 'short' 'long haul' will be like watching paint dry. I think it is a real gamble by the owners not to address the runway situation - but time will tell whether they were right.
I dropped my daughter off at the airport this morning to catch the KL 06.10 to AMS and at 04.30 the queue for the bag drop/check-in stretched way past the entrances to the other airlines queuing areas. Finished up like a rugby scrum - and the airport owners don't think that they need the upgraded/extended/new terminal NOW???
Although most of us 'locals' probably ignore this sort of thing because the convenient location of the airport is perhaps our priority, it gives a very amateurish impression to those visiting from outside the area - of which there seemed surprisingly many this morning.

Golffox, I am sure you are not alone - but - based on how you feel, would it matter what was in the Masterplan, as you clearly are not convinced that any of what is in there will happen anyway? I think you are allowing the past history of LBA to cloud your thinking on this. Bridgepoint are an investment company and they are going to make nothing of their LBA investment if it is allowed to stand still - and it will do precisely that if nothing in the Masterplan comes to fruition. As for the terminal expansion - despite the frustration that it hasn't been built yet, you cannot say nothing has happened as they have recently installed the foundations - at some cost - which they would not have done had they not intended to extend it in the not too distant future. How soon is down to a combination of airlines and public opting to use the airport but at least now they can just build it at short notice without any need to re-apply for planning consent.

We have waited much longer for this plan because unlike those in the past, this one is signed up to already by Leeds Council, who are actively encouraging airport growth. In the past, the Masterplan was a list of ideas, none of which had council backing at the time of publication. Now the airport and City Council are at least singing off the same hymn sheet.

Personally I am concerned about the lack of runway extension the most - although I have known for a long time that would not happen on Bridgepoint's watch. Other than that, I am encouraged by what is in the plan, which includes a considerable number of additional aircraft stands (albeit built over time as and when the need arises), shorter parallel taxiway to the SE and enlarged loop at the NW end, both intended to enable aircraft to clear the runway quicker, the terminal, hotel, airport village, better airport access etc. There is also talk of the Navigational Enhancements which will result in the current runway being long enough to enable both short and long haul flights. For interest, I have formally logged a question for the next Consultative Committee meeting asking for clarification as to what these enhancements are, and how they will impact on the runway operations, given there will be no extra concrete - so hard to see how they could possibly impact on aircraft departures? Also, I asked for clarification as to how such changes would impact on landing capability - particularly Auto-lands in low vis conditions, given this is the main cause of diverts from LBA. As I have put this letter to the airport in advance, it should now be part of the agenda for the meeting.

I will of course let you know what we are told.

 

[a300boy]

That is about all you can do ! If they do all the things they have on the master plan they cannot be accused of doing nothing.
The mystery of the enhancements to our navigation system is of great interest to me for all the reasons you have listed. I hope you receive a satisfactory explanation that you can pass On.

 

[GolfFox]

Thanks for the comprehensive reply White Heather. Your point that the owners must protect their investment by moving forward is a good one and one I have made previously.
The point I was making here - perhaps not very clearly, is that the terminal improvements will take place when passenger numbers justify it - but - I fear that to attract more passengers to the level required to 'justify' the terminal expansion. the facility needs to be more attractive and comfortable to use. Catch 22??
Like you and a300boy I am also intrigued by the mention of 'navigation enhancements'.

 

[oldendays]

Shot in the dark but maybe 'navigation enhancements' means a new primary and secondary radar package. The Plessey Watchman, is one of the older generation S band radars and was installed at LBA in late 1989. Even though it has been modified against the 4G mobile phone spectrum, it is undoubtedly a little long in the tooth. NATS stopped using the Watchman about three years ago.

 

[White Heather]

The radar and the need to replace it has been mentioned in the past so will certainly be on LBA's list of things to do - another of those very expensive projects that Joe Public doesn't really think about when looking at investment in the airport. I think we are all agreed though that new radar, ideally ground radar, and ILS revisions are what are needed, as a package.

I did refer to the question I have raised for the next consultative meeting on the 30th. Unfortunately I have had a reply from LBA to advise that they cannot discuss anything relating to this (or anything else on the Masterplan) at the next meeting as it is still within the consultation period. My email has therefore been referred to the Masterplan Comments mailbox and I have been advised that it is unlikely I will get a specific reply. They normally just acknowledge comments as they did when I submitted my own personal comments.

I have responded to LBA to advise that if I do not get a response to answer the questions raised, I will re-submit my questions for a future meeting, after the consultation period is ended and when the Masterplan and its contents are able to be included in the agenda.

 

[a300boy]

Never Easy is it !

 

[airforced]

Good luck White Heather. It seems you will need it.

 

[quik999]

The radar and the need to replace it has been mentioned in the past so will certainly be on LBA's list of things to do - <cut>, and ILS revisions are what are needed, as a package.

No plan (or need) to replace the Watchman at present. It may be old but there is still third party support for it and it's still as good as many newer ones. It lacks wind far mitigation facilities but not yet a problem at LBA. A new radar display system is nearly ready to bring online and this will allow Mode S capability and the option to add "in fill" radar if wind farms become a problem.

I'm not sure what ILS revisions you can hope for. The equipment at LBA is all CAT3B capable and is maintained to that standard (OK the aerial for 14 Localiser is not capable of CAT3 ops but the rest of the kit is)

Surface movement radar in some form would be a bonus for poor weather ops but it once again comes down to the cost.
Also on the horizon is Electronic Flight Strips but no decision as yet.

 

[a300boy]

If only all our operators could use the Cat 3 facility and couple it with an auto land it would be so much better.
Still hoping for a fix to this long term problem of landing distance availability.

 

[White Heather]

The radar and the need to replace it has been mentioned in the past so will certainly be on LBA's list of things to do - <cut>, and ILS revisions are what are needed, as a package.

No plan (or need) to replace the Watchman at present. It may be old but there is still third party support for it and it's still as good as many newer ones. It lacks wind far mitigation facilities but not yet a problem at LBA. A new radar display system is nearly ready to bring online and this will allow Mode S capability and the option to add "in fill" radar if wind farms become a problem.

I'm not sure what ILS revisions you can hope for. The equipment at LBA is all CAT3B capable and is maintained to that standard (OK the aerial for 14 Localiser is not capable of CAT3 ops but the rest of the kit is)

Surface movement radar in some form would be a bonus for poor weather ops but it once again comes down to the cost.
Also on the horizon is Electronic Flight Strips but no decision as yet.

That doesn't quite tie up with what I have been told in the past, from within LBA's management team, but I am not in a position to debate. Re the ILS, the issue is more to do with the touch down point on Runway 32, which is on the down-slope and a good deal further along the runway than where it was previously (pre 1984). The consensus is that if it were returned to where it was, there would be a good deal more stopping distance available and probably a lot less diverts in low visibility conditions - particularly relative to Jet2 737 800s and 757s. The Masterplan refers to Navigational changes, so something must be planned that will 'enable' long haul off the existing runway.

 

[Aviador]

If we are talking long haul departures exit LBA, the only "navigation change" that can facilitate more long haul departure options is more phisical concrete. Pulling back the touchdown markers is the only option available to improve the landing distances for larger aircraft.