Airport Consultative Committee [Questions & Responses]

[White Heather]

Excellent report as ever WH. Thanks you

Link bridge to ground level walkway commences 9th September.

Can someone please clarify what the link bridge is/looks like?

As far as I know, it's a sloping walkway between the first floor departures and ground floor bus shelter walkway, but unfortunately I was too busy writing notes to study the building drawings shown in the meeting. They did say it's above the ramp into the basement that will be used by baggage dollies etc.

 

[pug]

Interesting update thanks @White Heather.

Regarding the active ACP, I was of the understanding that the application to take some of the CTR that used to be North West of DSA Class D had been dropped by LBA management? Is this not the case? The latest I had (which admittedly was at the beginning of this year) was that LBA wanted new departure routes to the North East and none of the area affected was within what was/is DSA Class D? Regardless, the CAA appears to be playing the game which I imagine will be getting some backs up! Least I suppose if things go in favour of DSA and the airspace is reinstated as was, LBA will benefit by being able to complete CDA using that controlled airspace, even if DSA itself isn’t using it!

There are numerous reasons for Jet2 having lower load factors this year, many of them strategic which I will not go into. However, results appear to be positive regardless of this fact.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

As far as I know, it's a sloping walkway between the first floor departures and ground floor bus shelter walkway, but unfortunately I was too busy writing notes to study the building drawings shown in the meeting. They did say it's above the ramp into the basement that will be used by baggage dollies etc.

Must be a long ramp to get an acceptable angle.

 

[White Heather]

Interesting update thanks @White Heather.

Regarding the active ACP, I was of the understanding that the application to take some of the CTR that used to be North West of DSA Class D had been dropped by LBA management? Is this not the case? The latest I had (which admittedly was at the beginning of this year) was that LBA wanted new departure routes to the North East and none of the area affected was within what was/is DSA Class D? Regardless, the CAA appears to be playing the game which I imagine will be getting some backs up! Least I suppose if things go in favour of DSA and the airspace is reinstated as was, LBA will benefit by being able to complete CDA using that controlled airspace, even if DSA itself isn’t using it!

There are numerous reasons for Jet2 having lower load factors this year, many of them strategic which I will not go into. However, results appear to be positive regardless of this fact.

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly. All I know is that the LBA submission (known as the 'Gateway' ) was rejected again with apparently, goalposts being moved again and the CAA continuing to be very vague regarding what exactly they are expecting. But this time, they have suddenly stated that when making it's proposals LBA must take account of DSA, presumably due to certain MPs getting involved following the recent written demands that DSA airspace is ring fenced, so whatever LBA propose, it now has to work in conjunction with both Manchester airspace and DSA airspace too , so it's bound to have some impact on flight routings heading East into Europe, and back again . It's certainly not going to be helpful, but would be less of an issue if someone, somewhere, (looking at you CAA!) took the initiative and said to the Doncaster Mayor that they can preserve airspace but not on the grand scale they had before.

Of course we could now end up with LBA having to redesign it's proposals taking into account the previous DSA airspace only to find later that DSA mk 2 doesn't 'take off' leaving less efficient routings put forward that could have been much better. Some certainty is needed to avoid so much wasted time, effort, and cost, as all this has to be funded by the airport .

I'm not really clued up that much on all of this, just basing my report on the information provided yesterday by the LBA Head of ATC. What is clear is that the demands relating to preserving DSA airspace is complicating an already complicated process, with uncertainty and delays created. It seems to be that the integrated plans for the entire North of England is now effectively on hold due to the actions taken and interference of MPs . It was pointed out that from a CAA perspective, the process of decommissioning DSA airspace is now at its final stage so without the political interference, it may well have been formally removed in the near future.

 

[pug]

Sorry, I'm not sure exactly. All I know is that the LBA submission (known as the 'Gateway' ) was rejected again with apparently, goalposts being moved again and the CAA continuing to be very vague regarding what exactly they are expecting. But this time, they have suddenly stated that when making it's proposals LBA must take account of DSA, presumably due to certain MPs getting involved following the recent written demands that DSA airspace is ring fenced, so whatever LBA propose, it now has to work in conjunction with both Manchester airspace and DSA airspace too , so it's bound to have some impact on flight routings heading East into Europe, and back again . It's certainly not going to be helpful, but would be less of an issue if someone, somewhere, (looking at you CAA!) took the initiative and said to the Doncaster Mayor that they can preserve airspace but not on the grand scale they had before.

Of course we could now end up with LBA having to redesign it's proposals taking into account the previous DSA airspace only to find later that DSA mk 2 doesn't 'take off' leaving less efficient routings put forward that could have been much better. Some certainty is needed to avoid so much wasted time, effort, and cost, as all this has to be funded by the airport .

I'm not really clued up that much on all of this, just basing my report on the information provided yesterday by the LBA Head of ATC. What is clear is that the demands relating to preserving DSA airspace is complicating an already complicated process, with uncertainty and delays created. It seems to be that the integrated plans for the entire North of England is now effectively on hold due to the actions taken and interference of MPs . It was pointed out that from a CAA perspective, the process of decommissioning DSA airspace is now at its final stage so without the political interference, it may well have been formally removed in the near future.

So in essence yet again the politicians and local authority leaders are trying to stick their ore in and tell everyone that DSA is the major airport that the north needs and therefore focus should be on that, in spite of the fact the industry all but rejected it last time around.

What a mess.

 

[White Heather]

Must be a long ramp to get an acceptable angle.

I can't even see any sign of such a bridge on the plans. First I've heard of it yesterday. The pier and walkway overlap too so (being honest) I've no clue where it is it what it will look like.

 

[GolfFox]

Here is my summary of today's LBA Consultative Committee Meeting.

*. Airspace Change Programme.

Once again the proposals out forward by LBA were rejected by the CAA , who are changing direction , failing to clarify what they want, and apparently being inconsistent. LBA are not happy and had a meeting at Gatwick recently to try and clarify what they actually want. Not only are these rejections wasting time and effort but they are costing the airport financially.
The CAA have now indicated that although DSA remains closed, LBA need to take account of their (previous) existing airspace in case the Doncaster Councils demands are met. This, despite a general acknowledgement that the DSA airspace was ridiculously big for the traffic handled and would be even more so, if it reopened. A preserved DSA airspace constricts LBA airspace making continuous descents for example, more difficult to achieve as those inbound from central Europe would descend through DSA airspace.
Meanwhile, the delay to the LBA proposals is now impacting on the MAN and LPL proposals, and expected to delay everything for 7 months. There is clearly considerable unrest within the industry that unreasonable demands made by the South Yorkshire Mayor and Mayor of Doncaster are being picked up by MPs and causing major delays to the Airspace Change process .

*. LBA Engagement with travel industry.

A presentation was given by Nathan Stephenson, LBAs liaison with all areas of the travel industry, including On Line, Travel Agencies, and Tour Operators. He outlined the steps being taken to enlighten all these outlets as to the development of LBA, what it offers now and in the future and to establish solid working relationships on a partnership basis. Feedback from the industry is relayed to the LBA management and leads to remedial action. This role has been suspended in 2019/20 but reprised last year. On occasions, all members of the LBA Executive Team have accompanied Nathan on these visits.

LBA are also now undertaking training courses at LBA specifically for the travel industry.

*. LBA Regen

A presentation by Steve Hudson, Programme Director.

The two phases of the terminal project were explained again. I've explained it before and there's nothing new. Phase 3, which is separate to the terminal, relates to the construction of new stands. This element was not part of the presentation.

Confirmed that the roof installation commenced 25th July.
M&E installation commenced 28th August.
Link bridge to ground level walkway commences 9th September.

Concrete floor slabs to all levels complete 28th November.

New baggage handling system installation starts 25th November.

The project is on schedule. Completion due April 2025.

Terminal extension go live date is 1st May 2025.

Phase 2 enabling works will commence from February 2025. Completion for Phase 1 opening and includes temporary routings for passengers to access the new area.

Phase 2 is highly complex and consists of many sub-phases.

*. Business udate, Vince Hodder

The airport is doing really well.
1.5m pax in the last 3 months, with the last week in August the busiest ever at LBA.
August was also the busiest ever month in the airport's history.

This is despite the loss of 40k seats annually from Wizz due to the ongoing fleet reduction as a result if the P&W engine issues. Wizz are very pleased with LBA loads, having load factors across their LBA routes exceeding 90%. It was reiterated that Wizz have said that their route performance at LBA is superior to that at DSA and they do NOT intend returning to a reopened DSA. Wizz have indicated their intent to restore full service as and when their full fleet becomes available.

Sun Express are delighted with the Antalya route, showing a highly unusual 87% load factor in their first season - hence the increase next year.

Almost all LBA operators are increasing their ops next year to some degree.

LBA are very happy at getting more routes out of easyJet. These are seen as proving flights which, it is hoped, will lead to further expansion and in due course, potentially, a base. easyJet are now far more open to LBA expansion than they were just 3 years ago.

Jet2 load factors are up to 3.5% lower than expected, predominantly due to their pricing strategy. They are happy to sell at higher prices with a few empty seats rather than lower costs just to fill the aircraft.

LBA have had meetings with the Council of Mosques regarding opportunities to serve the Muslim market. Previous attempts at restoring a direct ISB route have come to nothing but discussions have identified the benefits instead of operating to Saudi Arabia, as this provides links to Pakistan but also serves an increasing demand among younger generation Muslims for holidays abroad in countries that have a Muslim culture. LBA and representatives from the Council if Mosques have therefore been in discussions with Saudi carriers and there is hope that something might be available from the winter 2025 season.

Later this month, LBA is hosting a full day and evening event involving management and numerous representative's from the travel and tourism industry & other interested parties with the main guest being the Chief Executive of Loganair, who are considering LBA for the future.
Routes to London Heathrow (code share with BA), Aberdeen, Southampton and Newquay are all on the agenda for LBA.

A new role, Head of PR will start in October. LBA have taken on board the comments and criticisms regarding the need for PR and working within the community on issues such as noise.

The Parkway Station remains on the agenda for the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) but has not been discussed now for quite some time despite badgering by LBA. (No doubt trams, cycle lanes and the like are the priority). LBA now expect that the Parkway Station will not be delivered before late 2027 (previously 2026). When a Leeds City Councillor was asked about this, (who is on the Plans Panel), his response was to ' Ask the Mayor', as this scheme is entirely under the control of WYCA.

And finally, CLEUDs & Night Movements.

Fasten your seatbelts!

As you know, despite the evidence provided, LCC refused CLEUDs 3 and 4 many moons ago. Since then they have asked for several delays to consider CLEUDs 1 & 2. LBA have agreed to these.
The next deadline is Friday 6th. LCC have indicated a decision will be given on CLEUD 1 on Friday. LBAs understanding is that once again the Council will reject it.

However, LCC have requested a further 2 month delay before dealing with CLEUD2, which is considered to be THE most relevant.

You will be pleased to learn that LBA appear to have run out of patience and have rejected the further extension. Their expectation is that despite the mass of evidence submitted, LCC will not budge from their insistence that the airport operate in accordance with the original planning approval as they are disregarding certain aspects relating to future technology as outlined by a specific NOTAM mentioned.

LBA has therefore advised LCC of it's intention to appeal. The documents are already drawn up for the two CLEUDs previously rejected and work is underway on the remaining two.

Speaking as an observer, it seems to me that LCC have always intended rejecting all four in the knowledge that the airport would appeal, and if they win that appeal the Council can wash their hands of it and say they tried. Not our fault guys! But if course, if LBA win, it is their fault. Some common sense is needed here.

Night Movements.

LBAs total night movements will pass the Councils limit if 2920 in mid September. At this point, the Group that shall not be named will issue another press release claiming LBA has exceeded the limit for a 3rd year running. There will be much wailing and knashing of teeth among the anti airport fraternity, LBA will respond as previously.

However, based on LBAs interpretation of the rules, they will not exceed the limit and are predicted to be well below the 2920 limit after QC 0.25 aircraft, delays and other exemptions are taken into account.

This is now clearly an impasse so the airport appealing seems the best way forward. Should the airport lose their appeal though, the implications don't bear thinking about.

The Council say the airport is breaking the rules but are doing nothing about it. Just as they haven't done for the last 15 years -hence the CLEUDs which they seem to be in denial about!

Meanwhile LBA are adamant the Council are interpreting the rules incorrectly (in my view, to suit their agenda).

And so it goes on!

That's all folks

Thanks WH for the detailed summary. The CLEUD does need sorting one way or the other and then everyone can plan accordingly.

 

[LBA4EVER]

I can't even see any sign of such a bridge on the plans. First I've heard of it yesterday. The pier and walkway overlap too so (being honest) I've no clue where it is it what it will look like.

Im sure I've seen the image of the bridge/ramp,im not 100% on this but its basically part of the entrance/exit out of the terminal extension obviously non airside, the first floor is level with the top of the old banking so the bridge is required to get from the first floor to ground level unless there are steps and escalators inside.

 

[White Heather]

Im sure I've seen the image of the bridge/ramp,im not 100% on this but its basically part of the entrance/exit out of the terminal extension obviously non airside, the first floor is level with the top of the old banking so the bridge is required to get from the first floor to ground level unless there are steps and escalators inside.

They were talking yesterday though about it linking to the walkway and being above the ramp into the undercroft, both if which are airside.

 

[LBA4EVER]

They were talking yesterday though about it linking to the walkway and being above the ramp into the undercroft, both if which are airside.

Thats me puzzled too then haha

 

[lbaspotter]

Thats me puzzled too then haha

Great update as ever @White Heather.

Can’t wait to see more of the orange mob Airbuses next summer and some tartan livered aircraft operating the reinstated domestic links. Especially a BA Codeshare to Heathrow.
Now I wonder if a change of CEO at the said airline has helped?

Think I know what the link bridge is. It carries the walkway that links the new baggage hall in the extension to the arrivals waiting area in the existing building over the service yard/undercroft.

See below area marked green.

 

[White Heather]

Great update as ever @White Heather.

Can’t wait to see more of the orange mob Airbuses next summer and some tartan livered aircraft operating the reinstated domestic links. Especially a BA Codeshare to Heathrow.
Now I wonder if a change of CEO at the said airline has helped?

Think I know what the link bridge is. It carries the walkway that links the new baggage hall in the extension to the arrivals waiting area in the existing building over the service yard/undercroft.

See below area marked green.

View attachment 31218

Sounds very much as LBA4ever described it then, and not at all how it sounded at the meeting. There again, it's hard writing non stop notes and looking at plans on the screen at the same time, especially when they're only shown for a few seconds. Glad that little mystery is sorted anyway.

 

[leedslad]

Much appreciated update as always

Did they respond to your query re the Planning requirements for passenger number increases as part of the S106?

I have emailed the airport just now and asked for clarification..

 

[LBA4EVER]

Great update as ever @White Heather.

Can’t wait to see more of the orange mob Airbuses next summer and some tartan livered aircraft operating the reinstated domestic links. Especially a BA Codeshare to Heathrow.
Now I wonder if a change of CEO at the said airline has helped?

Think I know what the link bridge is. It carries the walkway that links the new baggage hall in the extension to the arrivals waiting area in the existing building over the service yard/undercroft.

See below area marked green.

View attachment 31218

By looking at the above image it also explains why the entrance road and car park drop off area does not need to be moved across more towards the extension, this was a question a raised some time back.

 

[White Heather]

Much appreciated update as always

Did they respond to your query re the Planning requirements for passenger number increases as part of the S106?

Yes, way back, at time time I wrote. They said they were confident that there is no planning approval needed as they have said all along, and as a speaker from Leeds City Council Planning Department also confirmed a few years ago . That said, the way the Council is now you can imagine that it's an issue that will need to be discussed as the Council seem to take more notice of they that shall not be named than they do of anyone else.

 

[Aviador]

During the planning process for the new terminal one of the planning officers answered a question about terminal capacity of the current building. The planning officer replied with "there are no passenger limits or restriction allowing the terminal to handle as many passengers as it can reasonably pass through the building.",or words to that effect. That hasn't changed.

 

[White Heather]

During the planning process for the new terminal one of the planning officers answered a question about terminal capacity of the current building. The planning officer replied with "there are no passenger limits or restriction allowing the terminal to handle as many passengers as it can reasonably pass through the building.",or words to that effect. That hasn't changed.

Exactly what the Planning Officer said who attended the LBA CC, though I've no doubt there will be some within the Civic Hall corridors that will be studying the planning approvals looking for a way of re-interpreting the wording so as to challenge the airport's right to grow.

 

[lbaspotter]

Great update as ever @White Heather.

Can’t wait to see more of the orange mob Airbuses next summer and some tartan livered aircraft operating the reinstated domestic links. Especially a BA Codeshare to Heathrow.
Now I wonder if a change of CEO at the said airline has helped?

Think I know what the link bridge is. It carries the walkway that links the new baggage hall in the extension to the arrivals waiting area in the existing building over the service yard/undercroft.

See below area marked green.

View attachment 31218

Found a better document which shows the proposed link corridor/bridge on the Leeds City Council Planning Portal.

 

[Snackbar]

So despite the airport saying no to an extension of the review of the remaining application the Council are going to ignore that and continue to review it! What a shambles LCC are! https://www.barryanderson.org.uk/news/update-cleud-application-leeds-bradford-airport

 

[White Heather]

So despite the airport saying no to an extension of the review of the remaining application the Council are going to ignore that and continue to review it! What a shambles LCC are! https://www.barryanderson.org.uk/news/update-cleud-application-leeds-bradford-airport

Cllr Anderson attended the meeting on Wednesday too, for the first time .

I note it simply says that the Council cannot agree to the one relating to a continual breach but fails to explain why. That beggars belief as we all know for a fact that this type of aircraft has been operating at night without challenge by the Council for more than 10 years. The evidence is there yet they refuse to acknowledge it. It seems to me the Council are terrified of admitting their failures which have led to this situation.
The final one, yet to be determined, which is seen as vital for the night flying in the future seems like a sham. LBA are expecting another refusal given the outcome of the first three despite the evidence submitted. Why the constant delay when the evidence is seemingly ignored..The airport are appealing the outcome of the three refusals and the non determination of the remaining one. Either way they are not hanging around any further and clearly prepared to go as far as necessary.

From a personal point of view, I have now lost all faith in Leeds City Council to objectively make a decision relating to the airport.