Airport Consultative Committee [Questions & Responses]

[quik123]

I believe the plans for 3 carousels were drawn up during the tenure of Dave Laws (once described to me by a senior manager as 'that idiot of a CEO'). He was intent on cutting costs so even if the planning called for more capacity he would reduce it. He even removed lifts to cut cots in one set of plans. Thankfully the current plans look much better and hopefully go ahead.

 

[Aviador]

How do you know that there's the same amount of space? The entire internal layout has been changed.

The size of the extension hasn't changed. I've added the previous plans to my above post.

 

[White Heather]

The size of the extension hasn't changed. I've added the previous plans to my above post.

No it hasn't but if the layout internally has been changed the area occupied by baggage reclaim might be larger.
Anyways, we will find out in due course, but I'll be amazed if, after all this time and effort, they give us a baggage reclaim that doesn't do the job .

 

[lbaspotter]

Daft question, but seen as can't do it from here in Turkey
Has anyone had a look on the Leeds City Council planning portal to see if the planing application has beeb updated to include new revised design layout?

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

It's an 83% increase in ALL seating in the terminal, including bars, eateries, lounges and general seating, which actually is quite a lot.

How much of those will be for general use? Is my main concern. As we all know actually bums on seats in bars lounges etc creates revenue. General seating doesn’t.

Though passenger flow is good in terms of banks of departures. Afternoon isn’t as crowded as it use to be - I remember the days of 2 757’s in 10 minutes around 220/30, then further 75 and couple 800’s at 315ish.

 

[HX3]

Could space be being created in the main baggage reclaim by baggage facilities being in the undercroft? Looking at the indicative plan, space next to the 3 carrousels looks to be baggage logistics, so maybe locating that underneath has created more space in the dedicated area?

 

[Aviador]

Daft question, but seen as can't do it from here in Turkey
Has anyone had a look on the Leeds City Council planning portal to see if the planing application has beeb updated to include new revised design layout?

I looked earlier and didn't notice any changes.

 

[quik123]

It may be that instead of 3 huge carousels they are going for 5 medium sized ones so that they have a better chance of each carousel being dedicated to a specific flight. Three giant ones would almost certainly not be sufficient at busy times and would result in two flights' luggage going on the same carousel at peak times.


It's an 83% increase in ALL seating in the terminal, including bars, eateries, lounges and general seating, which actually is quite a lot.

Quite a lot us just the same as 83%. My point is that it's fun to use statistics to hide actual numbers. How many seats will there be?

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Quite a lot us just the same as 83%. My point is that it's fun to use statistics to hide actual numbers. How many seats will there be?

That's where % are very clever. As 1000 to 1830 is an 83% increase.

250 to 457.5 is an 83% increase.

 

[White Heather]

Could space be being created in the main baggage reclaim by baggage facilities being in the undercroft? Looking at the indicative plan, space next to the 3 carrousels looks to be baggage logistics, so maybe locating that underneath has created more space in the dedicated area?

I looked earlier and didn't notice any changes.

That's because there are none. They dont need planning consent to change the interior layout. They probably have to notify that changes have been made for the record. Whether such notification is published I wouldn't know.

Quite a lot us just the same as 83%. My point is that it's fun to use statistics to hide actual numbers. How many seats will there be?

No idea. My point is that if there's 1000 now across the entire terminal then there's 1830 afterwards. 2000 now , 3660 after. A substantial increase .

I've no idea how many seats there are in total now, but we were told there would be an increase in both retail and non retail seating. I can't report what we are not told. We will all need to wait 3 years I guess until it's all done. There have been plenty of complaints to LBA about lack of general seating, but equally, there have also been complaints about not enough bars/eateries and that getting a seat in them is difficult at times, so I'm sure they will try to cater for both sides.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

I've no idea how many seats there are in total now, but we were told there would be an increase in both retail and non retail seating. I can't report what we are not told. We will all need to wait 3 years I guess until it's all done. There have been plenty of complaints to LBA about lack of general seating, but equally, there have also been complaints about not enough bars/eateries and that getting a seat in them is difficult at times, so I'm sure they will try to cater for both sides.

There in lies the problem I’m sure every member doesn’t want. How to strike the balance.

 

[leedslad]

Great update thanks WH! And good news to see progress at long last.

However I seem to recall the proposal was a very ugly, Industrial shedlike design with few windows unfortunately?

Kudos also to GALBA for ensuring the airport expands in a less eco-friendly way (Vs the carbon neutral brand new option proposed)

 

[White Heather]

Great update thanks WH! And good news to see progress at long last.

However I seem to recall the proposal was a very ugly, Industrial shedlike design with few windows unfortunately?

Kudos also to GALBA for ensuring the airport expands in a less eco-friendly way (Vs the carbon neutral brand new option proposed)

Yes, huge own goal by those clever idiots.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

I suspect most members on here would agree with those sentiments.







Well....no, actually.

I stopped posting here about a year ago because of the personally insulting and attacking posts being made towards me when I had the audacity to criticise airport management for their poor supervision of third party contractors but I keep checking in now and then to keep up to date because, like everyone here, I am interested in the ongoing development of the airport.

In this situation, BCFC has offered a response to a situation that, frankly, is just a little bit ridiculous. Whether you agree with the actual wording of the statement or not, you have to accept that the airport has a significantly negative perception among the people that use it so issues such as a non-functional escalator are just another rod with which to beat it.

LBA, factually, has a 3.2 on Google Reviews, a 2/10 on Skytrax and 3.5 on flight radar - all among the lowest in the UK.

Additionally, you have to accept that there are certain things that LBA management just aren't very good at certain things and this has been a feature of the airport for decades. For example, the Flybe banner in the cafe that was advertising flights to Dusseldorf and Newquay fully five years since they ended (I've not been to the airport since January so it may now have gone but the fact that it was there even in January of this year is breathtakingly poor).

When it comes to the committee report, there is no doubt that White Heather puts in the effort but she is also badly let down by the information provided by the airport at times. I remember an update not that long ago, for example, reporting with confidence that LBA management was satisfied that night quotas had not been breached. And yet, here we are with them having admitted to the charge, regardless of the reasons for doing so. As such, as positive as the news from the report is, there will be a degree of skepticism to how all of these works progress and how positive the outcome of these works will be.

Which brings me back to the escalator and BCFC - and I apologise for mentioning it after a request by Aviador to leave it there (even though a number of people continued on afterwards - more on that in a moment). OF COURSE there is a solution to it. It's an escalator, for crying out loud. It's just that the solution costs money and there is unlikely to be any appetite to spend a boat load of money on something that will be getting replaced in the not too distant future anyway. Had LBA management reported the situation to the committee in those terms and had the committee update then honestly reflected this position, the response to it might not have been as extreme. As it is, the update did note that the attempt to slow it down to turn it on had failed so it was switched off again, which is ridiculous, whether you like it or not.

Now, that brings me to the response to BCFC's post. Someone suggested that it was disrespectful to White Heather. I don't believe it was. I believe it was an honest reflection of how the ordinary airport user would respond to a such a poor management explanation of an issue that, rightly or wrongly, is causing so much ill feeling among customers. It just happened to reference the wording of the update that White Heather provided, which is said to be an accurate reflection of what LBA management has reported.

As for the response to the post itself....

BCFC did not personally attack or insult anyone here. Granted, the post was somewhat incendiary but there was no attempt to make it personal. However, five responses then DID make it personal, two of which were particularly insulting. Having experienced this kind of response from forum members myself when I have dared to criticise the airport, I think we can safely assume that there is a precondition for people to robustly defend the airport, regardless of topic or quality of argument, in an unnecessarily personal way.

However, when members (some of whom lambasted BCFC) criticise 3rd parties such as the 'useless' government, 'pathetic' council and 'clever idiots' of GALBA, the general feeling is that this is perfectly ok and nobody steps in to lambast these posts, regardless of how baseless said posts may be.

The only way that LBA is going to thrive, develop in the future is if ALL stakeholders align and come to some agreements and, ultimately, the people who are responsible for this is LBA management as nobody else needs to do anything to achieve their goals. It would help enormously if LBA didn't score so many own goals - toilets not working, not enough seating, escalator not working, incorrect and outdated signage, mistaken belief about night quotas and so on.

If people like BCFC respond in such a way that outlines the frustration the general public sometimes has towards LBA, accept that is how people feel, even if you don't like it, and use that feedback to improve the airport. However and whatever the post, I encourage everyone to have a little look in the mirror and ask whether some of the personal responses that are evident in this forum are appropriate and whether it might be better advised to not behave in that way.

Well....no, actually.

I stopped posting here about a year ago because of the personally insulting and attacking posts being made towards me when I had the audacity to criticise airport management for their poor supervision of third party contractors but I keep checking in now and then to keep up to date because, like everyone here, I am interested in the ongoing development of the airport.

In this situation, BCFC has offered a response to a situation that, frankly, is just a little bit ridiculous. Whether you agree with the actual wording of the statement or not, you have to accept that the airport has a significantly negative perception among the people that use it so issues such as a non-functional escalator are just another rod with which to beat it.

LBA, factually, has a 3.2 on Google Reviews, a 2/10 on Skytrax and 3.5 on flight radar - all among the lowest in the UK.

Additionally, you have to accept that there are certain things that LBA management just aren't very good at certain things and this has been a feature of the airport for decades. For example, the Flybe banner in the cafe that was advertising flights to Dusseldorf and Newquay fully five years since they ended (I've not been to the airport since January so it may now have gone but the fact that it was there even in January of this year is breathtakingly poor).

When it comes to the committee report, there is no doubt that White Heather puts in the effort but she is also badly let down by the information provided by the airport at times. I remember an update not that long ago, for example, reporting with confidence that LBA management was satisfied that night quotas had not been breached. And yet, here we are with them having admitted to the charge, regardless of the reasons for doing so. As such, as positive as the news from the report is, there will be a degree of skepticism to how all of these works progress and how positive the outcome of these works will be.

Which brings me back to the escalator and BCFC - and I apologise for mentioning it after a request by Aviador to leave it there (even though a number of people continued on afterwards - more on that in a moment). OF COURSE there is a solution to it. It's an escalator, for crying out loud. It's just that the solution costs money and there is unlikely to be any appetite to spend a boat load of money on something that will be getting replaced in the not too distant future anyway. Had LBA management reported the situation to the committee in those terms and had the committee update then honestly reflected this position, the response to it might not have been as extreme. As it is, the update did note that the attempt to slow it down to turn it on had failed so it was switched off again, which is ridiculous, whether you like it or not.

Now, that brings me to the response to BCFC's post. Someone suggested that it was disrespectful to White Heather. I don't believe it was. I believe it was an honest reflection of how the ordinary airport user would respond to a such a poor management explanation of an issue that, rightly or wrongly, is causing so much ill feeling among customers. It just happened to reference the wording of the update that White Heather provided, which is said to be an accurate reflection of what LBA management has reported.

As for the response to the post itself....

BCFC did not personally attack or insult anyone here. Granted, the post was somewhat incendiary but there was no attempt to make it personal. However, five responses then DID make it personal, two of which were particularly insulting. Having experienced this kind of response from forum members myself when I have dared to criticise the airport, I think we can safely assume that there is a precondition for people to robustly defend the airport, regardless of topic or quality of argument, in an unnecessarily personal way.

However, when members (some of whom lambasted BCFC) criticise 3rd parties such as the 'useless' government, 'pathetic' council and 'clever idiots' of GALBA, the general feeling is that this is perfectly ok and nobody steps in to lambast these posts, regardless of how baseless said posts may be.

The only way that LBA is going to thrive, develop in the future is if ALL stakeholders align and come to some agreements and, ultimately, the people who are responsible for this is LBA management as nobody else needs to do anything to achieve their goals. It would help enormously if LBA didn't score so many own goals - toilets not working, not enough seating, escalator not working, incorrect and outdated signage, mistaken belief about night quotas and so on.

If people like BCFC respond in such a way that outlines the frustration the general public sometimes has towards LBA, accept that is how people feel, even if you don't like it, and use that feedback to improve the airport. However and whatever the post, I encourage everyone to have a little look in the mirror and ask whether some of the personal responses that are evident in this forum are appropriate and whether it might be better advised to not behave in that way.

@whoshotjimmi

Good to see you posting again albeit under these circumstances. I actually took your comments quite personally as you effectively knock the way the forum is run.

Just to be clear Forums4airports is not a side kick of TripAdvisor and I make no apology for saying this is not a platform for comments like "sh*t show of an airport" etc.

I think on balance Forums4airports offers a platform where people can have their say. It's not always what others want to read but so long as the debate is kept sensible and constructive everyone can have their say and share their views.

The forum has a feedback area for future posts like this, alternatively you should use the report function or you can email me directly at [email protected]

 Aviador

 

[KARFA]

I am grateful WH posts to this forum and all the information she brings on to here.

i think the problem is that often criticism of LBA - and there is a lot to criticise, although the reports of the extension sound very encouraging - are often treated by WH as criticism personally of her, and also some seem to feel the need to defend LBA to the death and shout down any opinion that the airport isnt wonderful . Just look at the recent escalator issue, which is unquestionably rubbish and looks bad.

let’s be clear, criticism of the airport or information brought to the forum is not criticism of WH and shouldn’t be treated like that. but then how can we have reasonable discussion when someone starts threatening to leave (yet again) when she takes it all so personally?

and yes I am sure this post will prompt yet another threat to leave.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Well....no, actually.

I stopped posting here about a year ago because of the personally insulting and attacking posts being made towards me when I had the audacity to criticise airport management for their poor supervision of third party contractors but I keep checking in now and then to keep up to date because, like everyone here, I am interested in the ongoing development of the airport.

In this situation, BCFC has offered a response to a situation that, frankly, is just a little bit ridiculous. Whether you agree with the actual wording of the statement or not, you have to accept that the airport has a significantly negative perception among the people that use it so issues such as a non-functional escalator are just another rod with which to beat it.

LBA, factually, has a 3.2 on Google Reviews, a 2/10 on Skytrax and 3.5 on flight radar - all among the lowest in the UK.

Additionally, you have to accept that there are certain things that LBA management just aren't very good at certain things and this has been a feature of the airport for decades. For example, the Flybe banner in the cafe that was advertising flights to Dusseldorf and Newquay fully five years since they ended (I've not been to the airport since January so it may now have gone but the fact that it was there even in January of this year is breathtakingly poor).

When it comes to the committee report, there is no doubt that White Heather puts in the effort but she is also badly let down by the information provided by the airport at times. I remember an update not that long ago, for example, reporting with confidence that LBA management was satisfied that night quotas had not been breached. And yet, here we are with them having admitted to the charge, regardless of the reasons for doing so. As such, as positive as the news from the report is, there will be a degree of skepticism to how all of these works progress and how positive the outcome of these works will be.

Which brings me back to the escalator and BCFC - and I apologise for mentioning it after a request by Aviador to leave it there (even though a number of people continued on afterwards - more on that in a moment). OF COURSE there is a solution to it. It's an escalator, for crying out loud. It's just that the solution costs money and there is unlikely to be any appetite to spend a boat load of money on something that will be getting replaced in the not too distant future anyway. Had LBA management reported the situation to the committee in those terms and had the committee update then honestly reflected this position, the response to it might not have been as extreme. As it is, the update did note that the attempt to slow it down to turn it on had failed so it was switched off again, which is ridiculous, whether you like it or not.

Now, that brings me to the response to BCFC's post. Someone suggested that it was disrespectful to White Heather. I don't believe it was. I believe it was an honest reflection of how the ordinary airport user would respond to a such a poor management explanation of an issue that, rightly or wrongly, is causing so much ill feeling among customers. It just happened to reference the wording of the update that White Heather provided, which is said to be an accurate reflection of what LBA management has reported.

As for the response to the post itself....

BCFC did not personally attack or insult anyone here. Granted, the post was somewhat incendiary but there was no attempt to make it personal. However, five responses then DID make it personal, two of which were particularly insulting. Having experienced this kind of response from forum members myself when I have dared to criticise the airport, I think we can safely assume that there is a precondition for people to robustly defend the airport, regardless of topic or quality of argument, in an unnecessarily personal way.

However, when members (some of whom lambasted BCFC) criticise 3rd parties such as the 'useless' government, 'pathetic' council and 'clever idiots' of GALBA, the general feeling is that this is perfectly ok and nobody steps in to lambast these posts, regardless of how baseless said posts may be.

The only way that LBA is going to thrive, develop in the future is if ALL stakeholders align and come to some agreements and, ultimately, the people who are responsible for this is LBA management as nobody else needs to do anything to achieve their goals. It would help enormously if LBA didn't score so many own goals - toilets not working, not enough seating, escalator not working, incorrect and outdated signage, mistaken belief about night quotas and so on.

If people like BCFC respond in such a way that outlines the frustration the general public sometimes has towards LBA, accept that is how people feel, even if you don't like it, and use that feedback to improve the airport. However and whatever the post, I encourage everyone to have a little look in the mirror and ask whether some of the personal responses that are evident in this forum are appropriate and whether it might be better advised to not behave in that way.

I am in agreement with that.

 

[Finger66]

I think we need to move on from the last few posts before this whole thread takes a very very dangerous turn for the worse.

Going back to an 83% increase in terminal seating. If for arguments sake we say the airport is handling 4mppa, then 83% of that is 3.332m. Add those together and we have 7.332mppa - circa half a million over the total the new terminal is designed to handle so in context I think 83% should be more than adequate for many a year to come

 

[White Heather]

I am grateful WH posts to this forum and all the information she brings on to here.

i think the problem is that often criticism of LBA - and there is a lot to criticise, although the reports of the extension sound very encouraging - are often treated by WH as criticism personally of her, and also some seem to feel the need to defend LBA to the death and shout down any opinion that the airport isnt wonderful . Just look at the recent escalator issue, which is unquestionably rubbish and looks bad.

let’s be clear, criticism of the airport or information brought to the forum is not criticism of WH and shouldn’t be treated like that. but then how can we have reasonable discussion when someone starts threatening to leave (yet again) when she takes it all so personally?

and yes I am sure this post will prompt yet another threat to leave.

Ok, my last word on this.

Firstly, I do NOT take it personally if someone criticises the airport. People can think what they like, though it is frustrating when every bit of news I provide gets ignored and someone focusses solely on one issue, labelling the airport as an embarrassment because one escalator which works fine, is switched off due to H&S directives. And when people claim that it should be 'fixed' but haven't a clue how.

The reality is that the layout and construction of the building means there is no easy fix that wouldn't require external alterations, requiring planning consent. Yes, LBA have had years and years to sort it, under various owners. None have, despite all the complaints . That tells you something- or should. LBA meet their H&S requirements by providing a lift, just feet away. A lift few bother to use. Complaining is easier apparently.

What I do take exception to are comments such as the one last week, which was pure sarcasm, clearly intended to suggest I am a 'know it all'. That LBA dont know the answer, but I do. Admin asked for an apology - a request ignored. I simply report on what we are told, but my background of working in Estate Management and Construction means I also understand the difficulties and constraints of certain building methods and designs. Clearly, not everyone does and not everyone seems able to view the airport with some perspective. In my humble opinion, claiming that an airport that has recovered dramatically from the pandemic and on target for it's highest ever annual passenger throughput is an embarrassment, because an escalator cannot be used is ludicrous.

I also take issue with the very fact that last night and again this morning we are in a situation where I am 'being discussed' with the obvious suggestion that I over- react and make idle threats to leave (again!). More sarcasm.

As for 'leaving', I actually didn't say that. I said if personal comments are made against me for doing the reports or commenting then I would stop posting. That isn't the same as leaving.

I put a lot of effort in to provide you guys with information, and yes, it's nice when some members appreciate that. I know most do. Some dont, and some seem undecided. This week's meeting involved 3 hours of my time attending the airport, plus another 2 hours typing out the reports (on a phone), and the vast majority are pleased at what they read, but not all. That's up to them. The comment made about the escalator taken in isolation isn't the issue. It's that plus the previous comment, aimed directly at myself, from the same member that's the issue for me

I've been on the Consultative Committee now for some 34 years, attending 4 times a year, and reporting on here since 2009. I'm not getting any younger, and you have no idea what goes on in my private life. So, maybe I am over sensitive to something that seems to me, and to some others, to be personal. Whether it was meant to be isn't the issue. It's up to members to ensure that their responses read as intended. If I misinterpreted that post and hit back without justification, then I apologise, but others clearly read it the same way.

The fact is, I can do without this. If such things are causing me to worry, then whether I'm being over sensitive or not, I have to ask myself if it's worth it. Answer? Probably not. Perhaps my time is up and I should now bow out of the Airport Consultative Committee.

So, if anyone wants to put their name forward as a permanent member of the Committee and take over, just PM me please and let me know your details as I will need to write to the Chair to resign and ask permission for a replacement to take over from an agreed date.

The requirement is that you will be required to attend 4 meetings per year, usually at 2pm.

You will need to be familiar with chaired meeting protocols.

Failure to attend 2 meetings running will result in membership being reconsidered.

Reporting back is a requirement so producing the report on here is a necessity, not an option.

You will be the named representative of the Airport Support Group .

In the future, as and when the airport has plans that may need support , you may be asked to provide that support by whatever means, working with LBA, or independently.

 

[Aviador]

@Finger66

Wholeheartedly agree.

Absolutely no more on the above in the forum. Do it through the Direct Message system or use the feedback forum. If you post it here it will be removed so you are pre warned

I don't think anybody has asked yet but are there any further plans to add additional airbridges to the new extension? I know they featured in the now cancelled new terminal so wondered If this was something the airport was trying to do? It would make sense particularly if they intend to increase the number of larger aircraft using the airport.

 

[White Heather]

@Finger66

Wholeheartedly agree.

Absolutely no more on the above in the forum. Do it through the Direct Message system or use the feedback forum. If you post it here it will be removed so you are pre warned

I don't think anybody has asked yet but are there any further plans to add additional airbridges to the new extension? I know they featured in the now cancelled new terminal so wondered I'd this was something the airport was trying to do? It would make sense particularly if they intend to increase the number of larger aircraft using the airport.

None were shown on the plans Aviador, or mentioned other than in connection with Gate 5, Which is in the old building.