Airport Consultative Committee [Questions & Responses]

[Aviador]

Consultative Committee Questions by the Leeds Bradford Airport Support Group

If anybody has any questions they would like to ask the airport, please place your questions here. White Heather will try to put your questions forward at the next consultative committee meeting.

As she has already said, the time given to ask specific questions can be very limited so it may not be possible to answer all questions.

(Thanks for doing this White Heather! Also if anyone can think of a better name for the thread just say.)

 

[User0001]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

Well the meeting is this Thursday at 14:30, so probably worth giving some thought to any burning issues.

The planning application has gone in for the terminal and a decision is expected by the end of March. If not covered in the general update that the LBA management team give, it would be nice to know when they expect to start and complete the building work.

The runway works, or lack of, is another issue that might get covered off, but if not an update would be useful. I'd be explicit and ask whether there is any definite news on a increasing the landing distance on 14 and upgrading the ILS to CAT2 standard (we know CAT3 is not possible) so that all the speculation and heresay on this can be put to bed once and for all.

One thing that I imagine won't be covered by the management is route development. My question here would be along the lines of "Ryanair made some very public statements about their interest in LBA late last year. Since then they have confirmed an extra 2 aircraft for Edinburgh, an extra 2 for Bristol and an extra 1 for Bournmouth. Given these actions suggest they have confidence in the UK economy, why have they not followed up on their interest in LBA?"

Thanks in advance

 

[White Heather]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

Hi LS!6

Yes it is supposed to be the meeting this Thursday though you would never know as they haven't even sent out the Agenda and meeting notes yet! Two days notice is not very good and far less time than even the Local Authorities used to give us.

I will do my best to ask the questions you ask, provided I can get the chair to allow me sufficient time to ask them. I would hope some of them will be covered by the airport's update, but I will know better once the documents arrive.............IF the documents arrive!!

 

[User0001]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

So, how did it go?

 

[White Heather]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

Sorry - couldn't get on the PC last night.

I would summarise what we were told as follows:

Terminal: The airport has been working closely with Leeds City Planners and the appearance of the terminal extension has now changed (based on pictures shown) to a darker finish on the upper floor, with floor to ceiling windows located at irregular intervals. A decision on the plans is due by the end of March. If the decision is positive, contractors will immediately start on site doing enabling works, and the main contrctors would be on site by June. Completion will be by May 2010. Landscaping of the car park and terminal frontage will be done as part of these works.

There was a lot of criticism about the lack of a covered walk-way from the new short term car park, which is now some way from the terminal entrance, as I found out yesterday!! There are plans to put some form of walk-way from the drop off zone, but not the car park areas. The Airport representatives took the criticism on board, but made no promises, and I suspect it would be phase 2 before anything was done.

If the planners turn down the plans, there will obviously be a delay, but the airport stressed that they have been co-operating closely, with both the airport and planners compromising over their initial wishes.

Ryanair: The Airport would not say anything about any possible base by Ryanair although I specifically asked if this remained a possibility. Perhaps the presence of the Jet2 Ops Director may have influenced this, although I know from the past they will rarely, if ever, divulge information regarding airline negotiations, so no real surprise.

Thomsonfly: Airport are not negotiating with TUi regarding any increase in services by TOM from LBA. I advised them that there was considerable anger that what was our main tour operator pulled out and went to DSA, and that now they are shrinking their operation at DSA, it would seem an opportune time to get them back to LBA. At the last meeting I attended, the LBA MD stated TOM were high on their agenda - he wasn't there yesterday and the guy taking the meeting was saying nothing.

Rail link/Road link: The tram train system is to be trialled on a standard railway line at Penistone, to see how it fares. Problems may arise from the fact the tram train is a light rail system, but normal tracks (such as the Leeds- Harrogate line) are heavy rail systems, and the two may not mix - hence the trial. The airport are committed to pursuing vigourously both the tram-train link and enhanced bus services. They are also intending to pursue the required new road links, which they recognise as vital.

PIA: Indications from PIA are that a 3rd weekly flight to Islamabad will go ahead, probably operating on a Monday. However nothing has yet been confirmed.

Runway: The night time closure ends in March. Runway repairs are now starting but this is NOT a full re-surfacing and patch repairs are to be undertaken only. The runway markings are being renewed and lighting improvements undertaken. Ican't help thinking that the runway works have been scaled down from those originally mentioned?

The airport are continuing to work with the CAA regarding upgrading of Runway 14 to Cat2, but advise that this is a long process due to the local geography. (No kidding - I have been hearing this now for the past 10 years and still nothing in place!!). Similarly regarding the possible threshold changes on 32 to allow a longer landing distance.

Fuel Farm ; This project is on hold - no reasons given.

Passenger figures: January figures likely to be in line with December's (ie well down) but bookings for the summer are 'encouraging'.

Heathrow service: The airport is continuing to do all it can to retain the LHR route. The E145 was described as the best available aircraft for the route that enabled the route to remain viable at this time. There are no known proposals to re-instate the A319 in the forseeable future. I commented that the introduction of this aircraft appeared most to be a nail in the route's coffin - most seemed to agree, but all emphasized the need to retain the route if at all possible.

Can't think of much else really. Minutes of the meeting will eventually be on the web site to view as they were confirmed at the meeting as being for public interest.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

Thanks very much for taking time to write that White Heather. It's much appreciated. What was your opinion on the new renders for the terminal development?

Fuel Farm ; This project is on hold - no reasons given.

I would think that traffic levels for summer 2009 flights will remain similar to 2008 levels so wont warrant the building of the new fuel farm for around 12 to 18 months or so. It's probably a good move while the economy settles down again all being well.

 

[wawkrk]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

Is it the case that Bridgepoint are not actually investing any real money.All expansion being funded from the profits.
In the present climate profit forecasts will be downgraded so spending is curbed.
I suspect there will be more changes and reductions to the plan.
Maybe they hope the planning application for the terminal will be delayed.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

The initial Bridgepoint statement said "capital expenditure was in place for immediate capex requirements" which as far as I can tell translates that additional money has been put aside for the works to take place. Other statements in the press have said that work is "not withstanding" major reductions in services. It has to be said though that for the time being at least, there is a lot going on around the airport and things look like they are progressing as far as I can tell.

 

[White Heather]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

No problem Aviador. I think the revision to the terminal appearance is an improvement. The windows give it a more modern look, and will give passengers on the upper floor a view over towards Wharfedale, also allowing some light in in addition to that provided by the Atrium. The appearance is less 'slab like' than the pictures we have seen already, and in the pictures the upper floor is built with a different type of cladding and of a darker colour.

Wawkrk - there was nothing to suggest a negative attitude by the airport - quite the opposite. They have been working hard with Leeds planners to ensure that their requirements have been accommodated, with the intention of getting approval without any problems. The plans submitted are in accordance with the council's wishes.

The Board of Directors at Bridgepoint have instructed the airport to press ahead with the terminal developments, recognising that the current downturn allows them an opportunity to get the work done and completed in time for things improving in the future. It is also recognised that even with current terminal passengers, the present layout is hopelessly inefficient. For example the new designs eliminates the problems currently experienced with passengers crossing over each other en route from check in hall B to security.

The money has been made available and set aside, and working in the building project business, I can assure you that you do not spend serious money on architectural services if you do not intend carrying the work through. The current situation means also that tenders to carry out the works are likely to be much lower than they would be when the economic climate is better, so the cost of doing the work will be lower. The airport must be confident as they have already invited tenders, and enabling works will commence within a couple of weeks of the decision to go ahead being given - if that is the outcome.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

I've been reading this with interest and was about to make the point about lower construction costs in the current climate until I saw that Heather beat me to it.

How many aircraft stands are there currently at LBA and how many have size limitations?

What is the projected number when the amelioration is completed?

Does LBA have air bridges at present? If so how many and are more contemplated?

 

[wawkrk]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

Ok Point taken White Heather.
A real concern though is the runaway state, surface improvements and technical improvements.
We seem to be having another round of pothole filling and that is all.
The management talk about attracting medium and long haul traffic. How?
As you say, these issues have been around for a few years.

 

[White Heather]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

I agree wawkrk. There has been a definite reduction in what the airport told us at the last meeting regarding the runway - the work done was going to be significant, hence the night closure each night. The work on the runway surface hasn't even started until recently and amounts to nothing more than patching, which has been done plenty of times before over the years. When the airport was owned by the local authorities, I wasn't too surprised - after all, they don't look after the roads that well either! No explanation was given why the work has apparently been downgraded, and I didn't get the chance to ask. Frankly, I am getting tired of hearing successive airport directors telling us that the Cat 2 and displaced threshold on 32 are being looked at - I see both as safety issues, so should be a priority in my humble opinion.

Local Yokel - I am not sure how many stands we have at LBA as they keep adding to them, but I think it might be around 24 - just a guess and no doubt Aviador will be able to tell you. We have 2 air bridges only, and there are no plans to increase this within the terminal development. There is restricted apron width in front of the terminal itself, with most of the larger aircraft types parking up on stands to the East of the terminal, so even if airlines were prepared to use the air bridges (which most are not), there is no terminal to link them to from most of the stands. I believe that the last stand in front of the terminal is stand 8 which is an air-bridge and from thereon, the stands are away from the terminal. Perhaps someone can post one of those brilliant photos showing much of the Jet2 fleet which illustrate the point? I believe KLM use an air bridge and before we lost the A319, BMi used it on the LHR route. Jet2 don't and Ryanair won't. I am not sure about Thomas Cook.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

Jet2 seem happy to use the airbridges as does BMI, Thomas Cook, Thomson Airways, Air Malta, Onur Air etc etc...

Stands 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5 not suitable for aircraft over around the EMB-145 size.
Stands 6 up tp around Boeing 737-300 size
Stand 7 (Airbridge) up to around A320 size
Stand 8 (Airbridge) wide body stand Boeing 767-200, 767-300, A310, A300
Stand 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 best suited to aircraft sized A320, Boeing 737-800 but can accommodate Boeing 757-200 and Boeing 767-200.
Stand 18 up to around Boeing 737-300
Stand 19 - 24 are mixed configuration stands ie: 6 x EMB-145 or 4 x Boeing 737-300 or 2 x Boeing 757-200 and 2 x Boeing 737-300 or 2 x A330, Boeing 777, Boeing 747.
On the terminal there is supposed to be at least two additional spaces suitable for airbridge stands should they decide to use in the future without extending down the ramp.

 

[User0001]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

Heather - thanks for the comprehensive summary. Very useful.

I take it that neither John Parkin or Tony Hallwood were at the meeting then? I guess this fits in with the story that Mr O'Leary was in town and also that some of the answers around route development etc were even more wishy washy than usual. Who was there from the airport team?

It sounds like good progress is being made with the planning process and a target date of next summer to have it up and running seems like a commiittmemnt on their part to get moving with it, if the council don't hold things up.

Regarding the runway, the plan was always for a repair job - not a resurface. Granted, the scale of repairs may have been bigger in the original plans than what they've actually managed to get done, but I don't see it as a major issue. The ability to process passengers effectively in the terminal and make a few quid from them at the same time, is a much bigger barrier to getting the airport attracting new business than the runway surface. As long as it is safe, complies with CAA aerodrome licencing regs. and isn't costing the airport a fortune to maintain, why throw money at it.

ILS upgrades are of more interest to airline execs worried about their ability to operate their schedules to time over winter. Upgrading 14 is complicated and expensive - otherwise it would have happened already. In summary, CAT2 approaches are flown automatically by the aircraft to just below decision height - assuming you have visual contact with the runway at decision height, the autopilot is disengaged and the aircraft is landed manually. On 14 at Leeds the existing 3.5 degree glideslope is too steep for the aircraft to fly down to decision height automatically, so it would need to be lowered to between 3.25 and 3 degrees. The shallower the angle of approach, the closer the aircraft will be to the higher ground on the Chevin - which poses a risk of confusing the electronics on the aircraft when the radio altimiter suddenly detects it is a few hundred feet closer to the ground than it was expecting. If the CAA approve a lower glideslope and this is low enough to satisfy the aircraft manufactures limits for CAT2, then it is a case of buying and installing the kit and repositining all of the approach and runway lighting given the 14 threshold will end up in a slightly different place. To the best of my knowledge, there is no proposal at all to change the 32 threshold. The runway is CAT3 and for these approaches you need 300m of level ground before the threshold. That's pretty much what there is now, so without a major landfill exericse, it won't happen. Current diversion rates at the airport are around 60 - 100 flights per year from around 15,000 scheduled landings, with a number of these being wind rather than visibility releated.

For a bit more on CAT2, the following on you-tube of a BA embraer 145 landing in BHX gives you an idea. You here the autopilot coming off at about 80ft.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9B5v8UOKA ... 1&index=19

 

[White Heather]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

LS16

Thanks for that information which is very useful, and actually more informative as to the issues than anything we have been told at the Consultative Committee. Your point about the runway surface is taken, although what is being done, is not what we were told at the last meeting. I am sure the runway surface is safe and in fact compared to some, probably provides higher levels of grip for braking aircraft, given its concrete construction with drainage grooves. However, a pilot sitting next to me at the meeting said the runway was in a 'bit of a state' and needed more doing to it than is being done at the moment. He was disappointed and concerned that the level of work being done appears to be reduced from what he was expecting.

As far as the Runway 14 Cat 2 is concerned, my frustration comes from the fact that I have been attending these meetings now for some 15 years or more, and successive airport directors have told us that they were working with the CAA to install CAT2. We don't seem to be any closer now than we were 10 years ago based on what we are being told, and although the diversion rates through low vis are lower than most anti airport people would have us believe, they are still higher than many regional airports. We were told on Thursday at the meeting that on that day, with heavy fog, quite a number of the flights would have got in with Cat2, on 14. whereas all diverted until mid afternoon.

Re the displaced threshold on 32, I don't doubt what you say at all - you clearly know about this - but again, we have been told repeatedly that the airport was looking at moving the touch-down point closer to the Horsforth end of the runway to provide a longer landing distance - in fact this was one of the reasons given why a runway extension would not be necessary - not by this board, but by the previous council owned board. When I asked about this on Thursday, I was told it was still 'being looked at' with the CAA.

You are correct that Tony Hallwood and John Parkin did not attend. The meeting was taken by Carl Papworth, who is relatively new to the airport.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

Thanks for information re parking stands.

LS16
The meeting was taken by Carl Papworth, who is relatively new to the airport.

Does the LBA consultative committee not have an independent chairman/woman at its meetings?

 

[White Heather]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

Yes Local Yokel - the chair is independent. The airport representative was Carl Papworth who provided most of the information. He was assisted by someone from ATC regarding aircraft track keeping and another chap who was the project manager in relation to the terminal development.

 

[Seasider]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

I have just had an enjoyable and interesting 10 minutes reading the above posts. I don't get across to the airport often and I need this kind of forum to keep me up-to-date. No "slagging off" other contributors/Airports/Airlines, just clear and lucid comments.
Thank you all very much.

 

[Aviador]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

Following on from what has been said about the ILS and runway length. John Parkin has said in various press releases over the last year or so that the runway does not need extending because modifications to the ILS and threshold will improve aircraft performance.

As far as I am aware, the application to do the relevant work to runway 14 is still with the CAA for careful consideration. I would imagine that the CAA are still looking into whether or not it is feasible to do the work whilst maintaining the required safety margins. I am of the opinion that the work required to improve the runway surface was closely linked to the moving of the lighting and threshold, hence the return to another wave of patch up repairs. It would after all be silly to carry out major runway surface improvements to then have to dig parts of it up again to move lighting.

With regards to 'LS16's comments about moving the 32 threshold. Although it would require significant landfill to do this, it wouldn't be a major feet of engineering as such. In fact most of the aircraft parking apron has been built on landfill. By creating a leveled area at the start of runway 32 would also provide a safer overrun area for landing traffic on runway 14.

 

[Bigman]

Re: Consultative Committee Questions

24 stands at present. Stands 2 and 3 can only take SA227/J41 (small stuff!!). Stands 7 and 8 have airbridges.