Airport Consultative Committee [Questions & Responses]

[LBA4EVER]

Whether the new flying hours start during construction or once the terminal is fully built surely makes no difference at all unless iv missed something, main point to raise is that we thought this would be the sticking point but thankfully extended daytime hours were approved!

 

[White Heather]

Whether the new flying hours start during construction or once the terminal is fully built surely makes no difference at all unless iv missed something, main point to raise is that we thought this would be the sticking point but thankfully extended daytime hours were approved!

It won't make any difference as you say. There is no chance of LBA exceeding it's night time quota any time soon courtesy of Covid. The quota is all that stops LBA allowing more flights between 0600-0700 and after 2300. This year they have used only a fraction of their allowance and, for the time being, they can transfer 10% of any unused quota into the following year. The quota for this year, and next, is likely to increase therefore. The ability to carry over the 10% will cease under the new daytime arrangements.

 

[leedslad]

Was it clear WH if the panel will have to vote on what is agreed by the Planning Officer? Seemed to be what was suggested by the Panel? That could take a couple of months to come around allowing time for negotiation etc.

 

[White Heather]

Was it clear WH if the panel will have to vote on what is agreed by the Planning Officer? Seemed to be what was suggested by the Panel? That could take a couple of months to come around allowing time for negotiation etc.

Yes, whatever is negotiated will have to go back for final approval by the Plans Panel and then, it has to be signed off by the Secretary of State. Lots of time for GALBA to save up in their piggy bank for a Judicial Review.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I think another condition was for a 'sterile period in the middle of the night' (timing unspecified) during which, apart from emergencies, no flights would operate. There was also a suggestion that only 'the quietest aircraft be allowed to operate in the early morning (and after 23:30?). I think the rest of the conditions were around less contentious issues, apart maybe from the airports contribution to the Parkway, although allowing an 'open' taxi rank could cause some contractual issues with Arrow.

As you say the minutes need to be read as numerous conditions/restrictions were mentioned and I suspect all of them will have to be discussed with LBA.

 

[Wardair166]

In respect of the proposed Parkway facilitiy, is there any decision date as yet?

 

[White Heather]

I think another condition was for a 'sterile period in the middle of the night' (timing unspecified) during which, apart from emergencies, no flights would operate. There was also a suggestion that only 'the quietest aircraft be allowed to operate in the early morning (and after 23:30?). I think the rest of the conditions were around less contentious issues, apart maybe from the airports contribution to the Parkway, although allowing an 'open' taxi rank could cause some contractual issues with Arrow.

As you say the minutes need to be read as numerous conditions/restrictions were mentioned and I suspect all of them will have to be discussed with LBA.

I think any suggestion of limiting aircraft types overnight in a sterile period may have been dropped as neither were mentioned yesterday, even by the Plans Panel member in attendance, and my recollection is that it was Cllr Campbell who asked for the sterile period and because he couldn't have his way, he rejected the plan, despite its impact on the job availability within his ward.

No chance that LBA would, as a 24 HR airport , agree to a sterile period, as it would yet again result in the diversion of already late aircraft. Such a limit would also go well beyond the bounds of a Section 106 agreement. It would amount to a complete variation to the Planning Approval granted in 1994.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Hopefully you are right.

 

[airforced]

Just going back to an earlier post (can't recall who posted it) I too got the distinct impression that the new hours would only come into effect once the new terminal was completed and open for business. Time will tell though.

Edit: It was LBAYORKIE at post 598

 

[White Heather]

Just going back to an earlier post (can't recall who posted it) I too got the distinct impression that the new hours would only come into effect once the new terminal was completed and open for business. Time will tell though.

Edit: It was LBAYORKIE at post 598

The fact is, it's up for negotiation. The Councillors suggesting something doesn't necessarily mean it's a given. It might be agreed, it might not. My view is that as there is virtually no chance of going beyond the annual night time quota before the terminal is built, it won't be a show stopper for LBA, whereas a night time quiet period would be a real issue for the reasons given above.

 

[Aviador]

It was Cllr Campbell who suggested a night curfew of some sorts but as he decided to vote against the plans he didn't form part of the majority vote and therefore his suggestion can't be included in the amendments.

 

[Len Fish]

My understanding also. I also have same concerns about the new CEO. Its not just him who's low profile, the airports PR machine has been conspicuous by its absence for quite some time now.

For the moment the war in public, both for and against, is over given the decision. What follows now is the political push in the background to ensure that the Councillors don’t change their mind before the plans come back to them with the required amendments and that the Minister doesn’t call in the decision or if he does to make sure he endorses it. Then of course there’s the legal aspect of a judicial review, although I suspect GALBA are realising the decision is watertight (ironically the lesson of similar cases won by opposition groups has made Councils far more careful in ensuring that there are no legal loopholes to be exploited).

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

It was Cllr Campbell who suggested a night curfew of some sorts but as he decided to vote against the plans he didn't form part of the majority vote and therefore his suggestion can't be included in the amendments.

He compared us to London Heathrow. At that point I knew his intelligence was as much as a bird flying towards a 757-200 taking off at LBA.

 

[White Heather]

He compared us to London Heathrow. At that point I knew his intelligence was as much as a bird flying towards a 757-200 taking off at LBA.

He didn't show up for yesterday's Consultative Meeting, and rarely does these days. Perhaps just as well.

 

[Aviador]

Back in December I thought I saw said Cllr on Yeadon High Street. I made a fool of myself and called the gentleman over to discuss all things airports and the chap laughed and said, you're not the first person to do that. He looked just like him. I'm guessing said Cllr will be practically in hiding now given the amount of jobs the airport supports people living in the Yeadon area.

 

[White Heather]

Cllr Ryk Downes has now written to the Planning Officer with a list of demands for the airport to meet under Section 106. The list is virtually the same as the issues brought up on the 11th, so it seems he is just jumping on the bandwagon and trying to earn brownie points personally by being able to point out later what he got the airport to pay for. Among other things, he wants the existing terminal demolished within 3 years and a restriction on early and late flights so that only the quietest aircraft types will operate.

It depends on what the definition of quietest is! That would seem to exclude Jet2 as their 737 800s are not as quiet as the MAX, so would be a backward step. No point having the additional hours if you can barely use them due to airlines not basing the latest.types here. If they agree to that, they have to draw the line below the 737 800 so they can operate.

It seems to me that having agreed the plan, certain councillors are seeking to actually add restrictions that will not be acceptable operationally to LBA.

 

[Aviador]

How is that even possible if he isn't even on the Plans Panel? Isn't he Lib Dem anyway, I can't imagine the Labour ruled administration taking much notice of him.

 

[White Heather]

How is that even possible if he isn't even on the Plans Panel? Isn't he Lib Dem anyway, I can't imagine the Labour ruled administration taking much notice of him.

His letter, also signed by another Councillor, presumably also Lib Dem, has been published by one of the members in an LBA Facebook group.

 

[airforced]

The fact is, it's up for negotiation. The Councillors suggesting something doesn't necessarily mean it's a given. It might be agreed, it might not. My view is that as there is virtually no chance of going beyond the annual night time quota before the terminal is built, it won't be a show stopper for LBA, whereas a night time quiet period would be a real issue for the reasons given above.

I agree totally with what you say. That is why I said Time will tell.

I think though, that the suggestion chimed with the panel and will therefore, I think, be part of the position the planning people will take to LBA when they discuss the matter further. It would also be seen as a sensible move, I think, from LBA's standpoint to agree it if was put before them. There may some semantics surrounding such an imposition that LBA would, I imagine, want to discuss with the Council in order for the Council to say that LBA have agreed to this that and the other subject to whatever, so that the matter can move forward with a minimum delay.

I hope I have explained myself in the few words I have used.

 

[Mick_LUFC]

It won't make any difference as you say. There is no chance of LBA exceeding it's night time quota any time soon courtesy of Covid. The quota is all that stops LBA allowing more flights between 0600-0700 and after 2300. This year they have used only a fraction of their allowance and, for the time being, they can transfer 10% of any unused quota into the following year. The quota for this year, and next, is likely to increase therefore. The ability to carry over the 10% will cease under the new daytime arrangements.

Very interesting. I worked there from 2000-2015 and never knew that.