Jet2.com

[Len Fish]

As has been mentioned previously, seeing as though the A321Ns are still counted within the nighttime quota there is little incentive to use them at LBA currently.

 

[mullion]

MAN only finally lost the 757 last winter

 

[Finger66]

As has been mentioned previously, seeing as though the A321Ns are still counted within the nighttime quota there is little incentive to use them at LBA currently.

Whilst you are right, two daily PMI's on an A21N is the same capacity as 3x B733s. 2 rotations easily doable in the "daytime" hours. Just saying @Jet2

 

[HX3]

As has been mentioned previously, seeing as though the A321Ns are still counted within the nighttime quota there is little incentive to use them at LBA currently.

I suppose the incentive for the airline is the enhanced fuel efficiency per flight, and for the airport it may help the count overall due to higher load. For example on days of say 3 Palma flights on a 300 (6 flights including returns) one may be early and the last returning late, so may count 2 toward the quota. If an A321 is used on 2 flights (4 including returns), it may avoid impacting the quota. Passenger wise the 3x300 return is 888 passengers, 2xa321neo return is 928. So more people could be flown on two flights that depart between 7am and return before 11pm dependant on the sector. Either way this may assist the quota.

 

[White Heather]

Whilst you are right, two daily PMI's on an A21N is the same capacity as 3x B733s. 2 rotations easily doable in the "daytime" hours. Just saying @Jet2

Exactly. One way ro reduce night movements but of course there's no way Jet2 would then want their A321s sitting on the deck from late evening to early morning. They'll still end up doing that extra round trip and landing during night hours and now count towards the quota too, which as we all know, is nuts as they emit less noise than the turbo props that are allowed to operate without counting.

Aircraft maximum utilisation is why we have all the night movements and there lies the problem. Only a reduction in based aircraft and therefore late arrivals will prevent ongoing alleged quota breaches.

 

[LBA4EVER]

Or perhaps a totally different buisness plan for jet2, x2 trips to PMI, AGP, ALC etc then a late eve departure on a longer flight to the greek islands, turkey etc returning back to LBA 0700 and after? Also this would be part of the summer schedule when the LBA weather is more friendly, bad flying hrs but i know its been done before.

 

[White Heather]

Or perhaps a totally different buisness plan for jet2, x2 trips to PMI, AGP, ALC etc then a late eve departure on a longer flight to the greek islands, turkey etc returning back to LBA 0700 and after? Also this would be part of the summer schedule when the LBA weather is more friendly, bad flying hrs but i know its been done before.

It has, but not by Jet2.

 

[LBA787]

Or perhaps a totally different buisness plan for jet2, x2 trips to PMI, AGP, ALC etc then a late eve departure on a longer flight to the greek islands, turkey etc returning back to LBA 0700 and after? Also this would be part of the summer schedule when the LBA weather is more friendly, bad flying hrs but i know it’s been done before.

I appreciate the level of enthusiasm, but I just can’t see this working - it’s an incredibly intensive plan in terms of aircraft utilisation, and that’s without even factoring in inevitable delays. Realistically, maintaining that kind of schedule, especially during the summer when ATC delays are common, seems highly unlikely.

More importantly, it risks undermining one of Jet2’s key selling points. While some flight times are already less than ideal, shifting towards a model that operates predominantly through the night - especially for a family focused, package holiday brand feels completely at odds with the customer base. People will simply book elsewhere, either with other travel groups or from different airports. If implemented, this approach would likely lead to reduced demand, lower yields, and higher operating costs, making the whole thing unviable in simple terms. I’m not even factoring in things like aircraft maintenance, crewing hours, which this kind of schedule would decimate.

Operationally, we (LBA) are in a difficult position. Unless the current issues between the council and the airport can be resolved, and the quota relaxed, the only realistic outcome will be a scaled-back operation. These aircraft need to be flown to their optimum limits during the summer to generate the revenue required to offset quieter winter months. If that isn’t possible at LBA, Jet2 will inevitably look elsewhere.

At the end of the day, Jet2 plc - under Steve Heapy will focus on returns. There’ll be no room for sentiment if they believe the aircraft can be better utilised at another base. For perspective, the estimated cost of the A321neos sits around $8 billion - that’s eight thousand million dollars worth of investment. The leadership team is accountable to the board, who in turn report to shareholders. If protecting that investment means moving assets away from LBA, they’ll do it - regardless of local ties or history.

Apologies if this comes across as negative, but I genuinely believe this is one of the most serious challenges LBA has faced in its history and just when it’s getting a rather large loan to re pay too…

 

[BCFC]

I appreciate the level of enthusiasm, but I just can’t see this working - it’s an incredibly intensive plan in terms of aircraft utilisation, and that’s without even factoring in inevitable delays. Realistically, maintaining that kind of schedule, especially during the summer when ATC delays are common, seems highly unlikely.

More importantly, it risks undermining one of Jet2’s key selling points. While some flight times are already less than ideal, shifting towards a model that operates predominantly through the night - especially for a family focused, package holiday brand feels completely at odds with the customer base. People will simply book elsewhere, either with other travel groups or from different airports. If implemented, this approach would likely lead to reduced demand, lower yields, and higher operating costs, making the whole thing unviable in simple terms. I’m not even factoring in things like aircraft maintenance, crewing hours, which this kind of schedule would decimate.

Operationally, we (LBA) are in a difficult position. Unless the current issues between the council and the airport can be resolved, and the quota relaxed, the only realistic outcome will be a scaled-back operation. These aircraft need to be flown to their optimum limits during the summer to generate the revenue required to offset quieter winter months. If that isn’t possible at LBA, Jet2 will inevitably look elsewhere.

At the end of the day, Jet2 plc - under Steve Heapy will focus on returns. There’ll be no room for sentiment if they believe the aircraft can be better utilised at another base. For perspective, the estimated cost of the A321neos sits around $8 billion - that’s eight thousand million dollars worth of investment. The leadership team is accountable to the board, who in turn report to shareholders. If protecting that investment means moving assets away from LBA, they’ll do it - regardless of local ties or history.

Apologies if this comes across as negative, but I genuinely believe this is one of the most serious challenges LBA has faced in its history and just when it’s getting a rather large loan to re pay too…

As the great Sir Freddie Laker once said…an aeroplane not in the air is losing you money…then he went bust

 

[Statto]

Apologies if this comes across as negative, but I genuinely believe this is one of the most serious challenges LBA has faced in its history and just when it’s getting a rather large loan to re pay too

But everything you say in respect of Jet2 - the focus of their board, their investors, is equally true of LBA and its own business. If an unsuccessful outcome of the CLUED process has created ‘one of the most serious challenges the airport has faced’ why have the owners and management pressed on with such an aggressive and expensive investment programme. Why have lenders lent them the money to fund this?

I’m not saying you are wrong btw. But i’m trying to reconcile the idea that this CLUED thing has very serious ramifications with the actions of the airport who seem to be pressing on regardless.

 

[BCFC]

The poorly Jet2 737-300 G-GDFM came back to LBA in the early hours of this morning from FAO as EXS047A

 

[White Heather]

The poorly Jet2 737-300 G-GDFM came back to LBA in the early hours of this morning from FAO as EXS047A

And used up a night movement.

Ah well, who cares? I don't. Just another entry on the G****A spreadsheet.

 

[LBA787]

But everything you say in respect of Jet2 - the focus of their board, their investors, is equally true of LBA and its own business. If an unsuccessful outcome of the CLUED process has created ‘one of the most serious challenges the airport has faced’ why have the owners and management pressed on with such an aggressive and expensive investment programme. Why have lenders lent them the money to fund this?

I’m not saying you are wrong btw. But i’m trying to reconcile the idea that this CLUED thing has very serious ramifications with the actions of the airport who seem to be pressing on regardless.

That’s a completely fair question.

It does feel a little like the rug’s been pulled from under their feet. In the lead-up to the CLUED decision, all the messaging from LBA was confident, with a strong sense that a reasonably straightforward win was expected. Several outcomes have since gone the other way, frustratingly in favour of those whose ideology we’d hoped might finally be challenged. Sadly, this isn’t the first time politicians and councillors have let the region down, and it’s unlikely to be the last.

The investment being made - including the current works is being funded by a loan secured through the wider AMP group, not a third-party lender. These sorts of internal loans often take years to secure, and come with the expectation of a long-term return rather than short-term certainty. That’s important, because the momentum behind this programme was built when confidence in the CLUED outcome was high, and when the alternative - full formal planning wasn’t front and centre. In short, LBA (AMP) took a calculated risk, one they clearly felt would pay off following the setback of the new terminal being pulled. They pressed ahead in good faith.

Now that the CLUED hasn’t gone our way, the challenge is real and serious - because we’re now facing a planning route that brings political risk and a significant loss of control. On paper, it’s a straightforward process. In reality, the uncertainty is huge, especially with a council as hesitant and easily influenced as this one. So yes, we are where we are, but the road ahead just got much harder.

That said, some of this investment is long overdue. Arrivals were chaotic at times, and departures weren’t far behind. The new stands, for example, were arguably needed almost a decade ago when Jet2 first started parking on taxiways. They may not all be essential depending on future base allocations, but with the works already 60-70% complete, it makes sense to finish them. They provide a layer of future proofing whatever direction the planning decision takes.

Ultimately, AMP needs to protect the value of its asset. LBA still has potential - it just might take longer to realise than originally hoped. I’d expect AMP to hold onto the airport for a while longer, with the aim of securing the growth and ROI they were targeting when they bought in.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

That’s a completely fair question.

It does feel a little like the rug’s been pulled from under their feet. In the lead-up to the CLUED decision, all the messaging from LBA was confident, with a strong sense that a reasonably straightforward win was expected. Several outcomes have since gone the other way, frustratingly in favour of those whose ideology we’d hoped might finally be challenged. Sadly, this isn’t the first time politicians and councillors have let the region down, and it’s unlikely to be the last.

The investment being made - including the current works is being funded by a loan secured through the wider AMP group, not a third-party lender. These sorts of internal loans often take years to secure, and come with the expectation of a long-term return rather than short-term certainty. That’s important, because the momentum behind this programme was built when confidence in the CLUED outcome was high, and when the alternative - full formal planning wasn’t front and centre. In short, LBA (AMP) took a calculated risk, one they clearly felt would pay off following the setback of the new terminal being pulled. They pressed ahead in good faith.

Now that the CLUED hasn’t gone our way, the challenge is real and serious - because we’re now facing a planning route that brings political risk and a significant loss of control. On paper, it’s a straightforward process. In reality, the uncertainty is huge, especially with a council as hesitant and easily influenced as this one. So yes, we are where we are, but the road ahead just got much harder.

That said, some of this investment is long overdue. Arrivals were chaotic at times, and departures weren’t far behind. The new stands, for example, were arguably needed almost a decade ago when Jet2 first started parking on taxiways. They may not all be essential depending on future base allocations, but with the works already 60-70% complete, it makes sense to finish them. They provide a layer of future proofing whatever direction the planning decision takes.

Ultimately, AMP needs to protect the value of its asset. LBA still has potential - it just might take longer to realise than originally hoped. I’d expect AMP to hold onto the airport for a while longer, with the aim of securing the growth and ROI they were targeting when they bought in.

Up to this point the majority of local councillors have supported the airport.
LCC have also been 'proven*' to have had the correct interpretation of the quota agreement.

The question though has to be 'will the planning committee approve a new quota agreement if one is requested?' As you say they will be under extreme pressure not to do so from a certain lobby group and no doubt if the decision doesnt go that lobby groups way they will have a plan b.

Howrver I cant see LBA being able to borrow £150m without convincing the lenders that their plans cannot be derailed, so Im not too concerned.

The ownership of the airport is, to me, less of an issue that than retaining Vince Hodder as CEO, but I suppose they go hand in hand.

*Unless there is an opportunity for the airport to seek a review, which I believe has to be submitted within 6 weeks of the planning officers decision.

 

[Bigman]

Sadly all this could make Jet2 more likely to operate into Donny when it reopens. They could operate some of the overnight arrivals into Donny instead of LBA as they currently now do to Luton. Also close enough to minibus the crews to/from LBA.

 

[Statto]

A couple of points of clarity, the airport is now owned by Infrabridge who acquired it from AMP a few years ago.

The £100m regen loan was originally structured in July 2023 with a third party Apollo Global Management. We know it was restructured earlier this year with Barclays and NatWest on the advisory side. A consultancy group were also appointed to provide due diligence. Their post on LinkedIn reads:

“Our team provided commercial due diligence and assurance reviews across traffic, commercial, opex, and capital planning, helping to inform lender decision-making and support a financing structure aligned with LBA’s long-term goals.”

If Infrabridge were lending LBA the money themselves would they give a load of money to banks and consultancy firms to structure the loan and mark the airport’s homework? Maybe, but unlikely I would say.

I also checked the airports last set of report and accounts. Despite being signed in July 2024 - after 2 of the CLUEDs had been rejected by the council - there is no mention of the CLUEDs anywhere in the document. Any known risk to the trading outlook of a business that the directors can reasonably foresee must be disclosed. So again, it’s odd to me that it isn’t mentioned.

At the end of the day, I have no insider insight . But there’s a clear timeline of events in respect of the CLUEDs and evidence of lots of positive action taken by the airport *after* the council initially rejected them.

 

[Snackbar]

Sadly all this could make Jet2 more likely to operate into Donny when it reopens. They could operate some of the overnight arrivals into Donny instead of LBA as they currently now do to Luton. Also close enough to minibus the crews to/from LBA.

They won’t want to go to Donny and open yet another operational base - it doesn’t make financial sense….Its more likely they would increase ops at MAN where the overheads would be significantly lower….its not just aircrew it’s all the ground handling staff which would be needed….Add to that jet2 know those who currently fly from LBA won’t just up sticks and start flying from an airport 40 miles away in South Yorks - most folks would just to to MAN.

 

[pug]

They won’t want to go to Donny and open yet another operational base - it doesn’t make financial sense….Its more likely they would increase ops at MAN where the overheads would be significantly lower….its not just aircrew it’s all the ground handling staff which would be needed….Add to that jet2 know those who currently fly from LBA won’t just up sticks and start flying from an airport 40 miles away in South Yorks - most folks would just to to MAN.

They might but… the BOH base doesn’t seem to have exactly set the world on fire and they already appear to have rolled back on the third aircraft for 2026 which signals opening new bases at small airports might not be the best strategy after all. It is entirely possible that they could put some capacity into DSA to get around the CLEUD judgement but it would be a bizarre move that would probably cost them more than to just carry on as is and burden any fines that may be levied against them for breaking the rules. Natural expansion has resulted in the need to operate flights at less ‘friendly’ flight times, hence the quiet removal of that slogan some time ago, something that hasn’t gone unnoticed around the longer serving flight and cabin crew community I assure you!

I still feel there may be a more pragmatic arrangement made in due course in light of the type of aircraft likely to be used on the late night sectors. No departures after 11pm would be pretty standard, but arrivals are different and normally far less intrusive from a noise standpoint.

 

[Bigman]

They won’t want to go to Donny and open yet another operational base - it doesn’t make financial sense….Its more likely they would increase ops at MAN where the overheads would be significantly lower….its not just aircrew it’s all the ground handling staff which would be needed….Add to that jet2 know those who currently fly from LBA won’t just up sticks and start flying from an airport 40 miles away in South Yorks - most folks would just to to MAN.

Would the same not apply to TUI?

 

[Len Fish]

Perhaps now is the time for the airport hierarchy to take the gloves off dealing with the group we should not mention, making the economic case at every opportunity during meetings and in the media, blaming them as a minority NIMBY group for pushing their own selfish agenda against the wishes of the majority. They stand as a dark symbol why this country progresses at a snail’s pace.