Leeds Bradford: General Airport Discussion & Updates

[Aviador]

we have been here before so i am certainly basing my intepretation on what has been written before.

in any case, to say it doesn't matter is rather silly. if LBA is top of the table for these kinds of things, people will be less inclined to choose to fly from that airport. this is not hard to understand. certainly saying "well we know the prices are the highest, we don't care, and if you don't like it don't buy it" is not worthy of any airport trying to grow - unless of course your aim is to be the ryanair of airports and enjoy being disliked.

I think you’re misunderstanding my point. It’s not about enjoying being disliked or not caring about the passenger experience, it’s about the inescapable reality of airport economics.

Leeds Bradford makes in the region of just £11 per passenger. An airport is a massive infrastructure asset that requires millions of pounds in constant investment, and that £11 margin simply doesn't cover it. If the bars cut the price of a pint down to £3, that lost commercial revenue doesn't just vanish into thin air. The airport has to claw it back from somewhere else to keep the lights on.

If it doesn't come from a pint, it will be added directly onto your parking charges, the cost of a coffee, the drop-off fee, or loaded onto the airlines' landing fees, which ultimately pushes up the price of your flight ticket.

When you look across the UK, airports that boast cheaper bar prices are usually either successfully rinsing passengers on other hidden fees, or they are charging their base operators much higher aeronautical fees, which means the consumer pays for it in their fare anyway. The cash has to be generated somewhere on the estate to fund the growth most of us want to see, it's simply a case of which bucket the airport decides to take it from.

 

[Cookridge resident]

It was £8.27 for a pint of Guinness this morning, and that was only achieved after navigating around four blue buckets which were dotted around between the old departure lounges and the new one. These were, of course, there to catch the leaks coming through the roof.
If you charge a premium for a service (or pint) it’s not unfair for people to expect a reasonable experience.
I understand people will now queue up to mitigate that experience, but perhaps point a finger towards the airport and their contractors to ask why the roof is leaking would be a reasonable response rather than shooting the wet messengers.
Security clearance was a breeze and the staff were delightful. I genuinely mean that as well.

 

[pug]

Maybe controversial, but my own view is that anyone posting a response from AI should show their prompt and the model used. A properly crafted prompt in the most sophisticated version paid for version of Claude is going to give you a different (and probably better) response than the basic version of Gemini or Chat GPT. And the prompt is important because unless you give it the right context, instructions, inputs etc they produce all sorts of guff; phrases like ‘a full regional hub’ for example. And the prompter can of course skew it with their own biases and opinions (see the use of AI to argue for and against DSA - some real AI slop there)

As an example

A rubbish prompt like “Explain why LBA should extend it’s runway’ will generate a different response to a better prompt

‘Act as a investment advisor to AENA.
Research the financial performance of UK regional airports, the CAA’s aerodrome licensing regulations, international passenger traffic flows in the UK and consider the economic benefits of whether LBA should expand its runway.
Be objective and consider all sides of the argument. Consider the financial and strategic aspects of the decision in the context of AENA’s investment portfolio
If your recommendation is not to extend, consider how AENA should prioritise investment in the airport”

Whilst I agree that it’s important to outline what was entered into AI to prompt a response, for want of a better word it’s the only scientific way to do it, to call things you personally don’t agree with as ‘AI slop’ is a bit rich in my view.

Sometimes to counter AI or hold it to account you simply have to feed what it’s said back to it and call it out. See the case of a certain car mechanic for example.

I’d agree that systems like Claude are the gold standard (where there to be one) in AI analytics. But my company use a free service and do so with quite a lot of trust in the system. They simply wouldn’t do this if all it returned was ‘slop’.

But ultimately I do tend to agree, whenever someone is positing an AI write up then it’s important for them to also post, verbatim, what they asked of it.

 

[Finger66]

DSA is suffering with AI
Absolute Ignorance in their case.
I don't touch AI with barge pole. Call me old fashioned but I still have 100% confidence in my own brain thank you very muchly

 

[White Heather]

yes, were they not there LBA i am sure would also be top of the list for highest parking charges too.

at the end of the day monopolies are never good for the consumer so i am quite happy there is competition which is both cheaper and has better customer service. you almost frame it as treasonous that anyone dare spend money with an alternative car park rather than giving it to LBA.

again, none of what you say is unique to LBA, other airports have costs to operate etc etc. why is LBA apparently running a high cost model which then gets passed on to the airport retailers and the customer to the extent that the prices at LBA are worse than other airports?

Karfa

You accuse me of framing it as almost treasonous that people should use other car parks. I did no such thing. I stated a fact. You tell me where, exactly, I suggested people should not use the competing car park companies. I didn't and in fact I often recommend Sentinel to friends.

It seems to me Karfa that you look for any opportunity to suggest that I am entirely pro LBA, now resorting to claiming my post says something it absolutely does not and then justifying it by some vague reference to my past record. This isn't the first time either. What I post is based entirely on what airport management have reported to the ACC over the years. Frankly, it isn't worth the hassle.

Thank you HX3 for recognising that I did not say what Karfa accuses me of and actually saying so. I appreciate it.

 

[KARFA]

It seems to me Karfa that you look for any opportunity to suggest that I am entirely pro LBA, now resorting to claiming my post says something it absolutely does not and then justifying it by some vague reference to my past record. This isn't the first time either. What I post is based entirely on what airport management have reported to the ACC over the years. Frankly, it isn't worth the hassle.

i certainly recall comments in the past when i and others have used non LBA parking where you framed it as "depriving LBA of money" as if LBA has a right to my money for parking. it is a very weird way to think about this issue. in particular, your apparent change to loving sentinel contrasts with your critical comments in the past towards them - just to be clear i always use sentinel but am in no way linked to them.

with regards to this issue of why drinks are more expensive at LBA, it is the same defensive comments that LBA has low cost carriers, and lots of costs, as if those things are unique to LBA and not to virtually every other airport in the UK.

i think there is a difference between reporting what you are told, and making that your own to the extent you defend any criticism as if it is against you personally. additionally, as we have seen, and this is not just you, but any criticism of LBA is leapt upon as if you are part of the LBA PR department, which of course makes it even weirder since you have no financial interest in the place and don't work for them.

when you report what LBA says, you can't seem to distinguish that criticism and contrary opinions to that is of what LBA has said and not you - but the problem is in your mind the two things have melded together to the extent the distinction is no longer present. why is it not possible to disagree with what you report from the ACC without you thinking it is aimed at you?

which brings us to the last point, that once you feel criticised you always end up saying that it isn't worth it and you are on the verge of giving up. i don't wish you to do so, but this response whenever someone disagrees with you is getting rather tedious. this is supposed to be a discussion board, and if you say things you should expect others will disagree. certainly i say things which others often disagree with (sometimes quite rightly!) and i am able to handle that without threatening to throw my toys out of the pram every time.

 

[HX3]

@KARFA this forum is a place for debate, and not to be personal. Your post is very direct to White Heather, comments like the problem is in your mind is absolutely not appropriate, it’s disrespectful, unnecessary and extremely rude.
We can all disagree, but there are ways and means of doing so.

 

[LsS27]

Quite frankly Karfa if you disagree with what WH reports to us as to what is said at the LBS meetings,look it up yourself on the LBA site where the minutes are published

 

[KARFA]

Quite frankly Karfa if you disagree with what WH reports to us as to what is said at the LBS meetings,look it up yourself on the LBA site where the minutes are published

ah, making the same mistake as well. i don't think and have never suggested WH is misreporting anything - in fact i don't recall anyone has ever suggested that.

however, just because LBA management says something (which is then reported on here), doesn't mean i or others have to agree with it or can't have an opinion on it.

i can acknowledge there is a difference between the messenger and the message, and that comment on the latter is not comment on the former. can you?