Leeds Bradford - General Thread

[ls27]

Not sure about it being wet because it is on 'moor'. The bed rock is quite near the surface. If you remember when they cut the tunnel there was a large amount of stone to cut through and if you look at Plain Tree Hill (the old viewing area) which is higher than that airport the ground rock pretrudes in much of the area.

 

[EX9]

Hmm I'm not totally bought into that theory. I think it's safe to say the runway is fully bedded in to the land beneath given the length of time its been there. I wouldn't be too worried. The long term plan is to use the current surface as an underlay with a new surface to top dress the runway.

Not sure about it being wet because it is on 'moor'. The bed rock is quite near the surface. If you remember when they cut the tunnel there was a large amount of stone to cut through and if you look at Plain Tree Hill (the old viewing area) which is higher than that airport the ground rock pretrudes in much of the area.

Im certainty no geologist however, its not my theory. The information is from those who have knowledge on the matter.

 

[Aviador]

Im certainty no geologist however, its not my theory. The information is from those who have knowledge on the matter.

So maybe instead of making unsubstantiated claims, some hard facts wouldn't go a miss rather than just claming you know someone who knows?

I'm no geologist either, nor have I made any claim to know, but what @ls27 says is backed up by historical images of when the runway was extended.

 

[EX9]

I dont have the "hard facts" in any other format for you to evaluate. Nor do I intend to go to the extreme of trying to find substantial evidence and bring it before a forum to be scrutinised in great detail. I was only passing on information I thought others would be interested to know.


I was told first hand by staff involved in working on the airfield. Im certainly not going to be disclosing names and positions.

I have no interest in trying to prove myself, if you dont want to believe me thats your choice. The same could be said that about his theory being irrelevant unless he is qualified to make that assessment ?

I suggest making a freedom of information request to the airport if you want the professional explanation.

 

[KARFA]

It’s disappointing the attitude some people have on this forum when someone brings in new information which disagrees with their prejudice - especially when they freely admit they haven’t got the first clue on the subject.

Time for some reflection on a Sunday about how they can come across?

 

[Finger66]

It's always very difficult to get the written word to come across exactly as intended, so suspect nothing has been deliberate. This is a forum after all and we are all entitled to our opinions, which understandably will resonate at different levels with each and every one of us. We all want the best for LBA though

 

[LBA4EVER]

Before motor vehicles were banned from plain tree hill i seem to remember the ground been of a very light grey clay type surface with numerous small and large rocks up there, this of course would cover the whole area inc under the airfield.

Forums with lots of agreement and disagreements with sometimes some heated chat is in my books a healthy forum, it shows the passion.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Leeds Bradford Airport breached night-time flight limit by 747

A council investigation finds Leeds Bradford Airport operated more flights than allowed last summer.

www.bbc.co.uk

Leeds Bradford Airport breached night-time flight limit by 747

A council investigation finds Leeds Bradford Airport operated more flights than allowed last summer.

www.bbc.co.uk

On the BBC the airport made an abject apology and that there would be no more breaches. Not sure how that can happen as it seems to me there are more movements in the quota period than ever before.

 

[Aviador]

This is so ridiculous as the vast majority of "night" movements are in fact during daytime hours between 06:00 and 07:00.

All we are likely to see is those flights currently scheduled to depart at say 06:50 will now be scheduled to depart at 07:00.

As I have said previously, this will likely lead to the airport requiring to fast tracking parallel taxiway projects to enable the airport to maximise the number of movements during busiest periods.

 

[Kevin Farnell]

As I have said previously, this will likely lead to the airport requiring to fast tracking parallel taxiway projects to enable the airport to maximise the number of movements during busiest periods.

I'm no expert on LBA, but having watched some livestreams, I have to say that a parallel taxiway would be a big benefit. Maybe, not top priority (terminal and apron space are more needed), but must be up there for an efficiently operating modern airport.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

This is so ridiculous as the vast majority of "night" movements are in fact during daytime hours between 06:00 and 07:00.

All we are likely to see is those flights currently scheduled to depart at say 06:50 will now be scheduled to depart at 07:00.

As I have said previously, this will likely lead to the airport requiring to fast tracking parallel taxiway projects to enable the airport to maximise the number of movements during busiest periods.

Arent the majority are between 11:00 and 03:30. I've noted on Thursday night into Saturday mornings there are around 15 during this period. Other nights you are looking at at least 10.

 

[lbaspotter]

Not seen tonight's BBC look North yet. Guessing it's the usual drivel by Spencer Stokes and his friends at GALBA

Has either LBA or LCC issued press releases yet or has the report been made public? As I've not seen anything official yet

 

[White Heather]

On average, the limit is 90 per week. Frankly, it's hard to see how they can remain within that when they currently have 4 -6 departures pre 0700, and usually between 8 and 14 arrivals after 2300. This restriction has the potential to really cause problems, particularly given days like today when there are delays caused by the French ATC strike. Delays up to 90 minutes up to 0030 don't count. Anything else does.

As for the BBC, I have to say that the attitude of their transport reporter disgusts me. He seems unable to hide his dislike of LBA and there was clear friction between him and the airport CEO. Only the BBC would bring the issue if car parking into the equation when talking about night flights

 

[LBAYORKIE]

On average, the limit is 90 per week. Frankly, it's hard to see how they can remain within that when they currently have 4 -6 departures pre 0700, and usually between 8 and 14 arrivals after 2300. This restriction has the potential to really cause problems, particularly given days like today when there are delays caused by the French ATC strike. Delays up to 90 minutes up to 0030 don't count. Anything else does.

As for the BBC, I have to say that the attitude of their transport reporter disgusts me. He seems unable to hide his dislike of LBA and there was clear friction between him and the airport CEO. Only the BBC would bring the issue if car parking into the equation when talking about night flights

As I think you reported, the airlines had been made aware of the situation before the season started by the airport and the CEO has today reinforced that the quota will not be exceeded. Given the number of flights both you and I pointed out are operating within the quota period, perhaps it the case that they have a contingency plan in place.

 

[White Heather]

As I think you reported, the airlines had been made aware of the situation before the season started by the airport and the CEO has today reinforced that the quota will not be exceeded. Given the number of flights both you and I pointed out are operating within the quota period, perhaps it the case that they have a contingency plan in place.

Let's hope so!

 

[dmrodgers]

Given the report of the findings is still new and probably all the finer details are still to come out, do we as yet know is the new quiet jets now coming into service from Airbus & Boeing have or are being counted into this excess number of flights. From figures given I would suspect this could be the case as 747 seems an excesses number. Something the airport needs to look closely at and argue their case that these should be excluded from future calculations.

 

[Aviador]

Given the report of the findings is still new and probably all the finer details are still to come out, do we as yet know is the new quiet jets now coming into service from Airbus & Boeing have or are being counted into this excess number of flights. From figures given I would suspect this could be the case as 747 seems an excesses number. Something the airport needs to look closely at and argue their case that these should be excluded from future calculations.

The problem here is the new aircraft don't fit into any category. The current rules refers to the noise emitted from aircraft over a certain weight and it makes reference to prop aircraft being exempt. No future proofing was made such as if in future noise is reduced they need not count towards the quota so the airport really is in limbo. The argument in favour of the airport now is some of the prop aircraft from the 90s were noisier than the newest jet aircraft of today.

 

[leedslad]

Late to the party but has the sale of the airport by AMP been picked up here (presumably it has)... Mentioned on skyscrapercity forum

 

[Statto]

It was mentioned a while ago. It’s not really the case that AMP sold LBA. That makes it sound like it was a deal specifically about LBA. It wasn’t. LBA sits within a huge fund that manages infrastructure assets and ownership of the whole fund transferred from AMP to Infrabridge. Newcastle and Luton are part of the same fund, so they moved over too. Unlikely it has any bearing on the day to day running of the airport as it tends to be run on an arms length commercial basis so any financing of the terminal for example would be between the airport company and a bank or other lender.

 

[Aviador]

What company actually owns the airport now?