LUTON - 6
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, with little or no investment at Luton, and no long-term investment plan, one has to question the sustainability of the place under longer-term LBC ownership?
£320 million has been invested to the benefit of the airport in the last 3 years. £300 was spent on the M1 and a further £20 million on the airport approach road.
I have no doubt without this investment El Al would not have come to Luton, as access to the airport has been transformed. Its just a shame that the traffic delays start on the final half mile to the terminal in the early morning.
Last edited by LTNman; 17th Jun 2009 at 05:33.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£300 million to double the amount of traffic going into the same traffic system that even £20 million didn't solve.
What was the £20 million for? Turning the roundabout into a u-turn and funds to pay the men in hi-viz's directing traffic for the next 10 years til someone realises it doesn't work?????
Unbelievable . . . .
What was the £20 million for? Turning the roundabout into a u-turn and funds to pay the men in hi-viz's directing traffic for the next 10 years til someone realises it doesn't work?????
Unbelievable . . . .
I second Buster. LBC were a disastrous operator of the airport, and are a disastrous owner of it. If it had been properly privatised, more investment would have been made between 1999 and 2008, and Essex rural given much more of a run for its money, despite the cross-subsidies.
It all goes to show that public ownership is the kiss of death - always
It all goes to show that public ownership is the kiss of death - always
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M1 Widening Etc
Please correct me if I am wrong but the 300 million spent on widening the M1 was nothing to do with the local council it was a Ministry of Transport decision to take the extra traffic going up to Milton Keynes, Northampton and the Midlands. The motorway was going to be widened up to junction 14 but that has been abandoned for the time being. I agree the entry\exit area for the airport is farcical and somebody (or a committe!) should sort it out.
The problem with the running and finance of the airport I thinking goes way back to the 1980s when the Council wanted to invest and expand the airport but was not allowed to borrow money by a government run by a certain woman (I use the word loosely!) who was determined to sell off the British Airports Authority as it was called then. Unfortunately the Councils hands were tied so dont blame it all on the people involved over the last 10 years.
I wait any comments please.
The problem with the running and finance of the airport I thinking goes way back to the 1980s when the Council wanted to invest and expand the airport but was not allowed to borrow money by a government run by a certain woman (I use the word loosely!) who was determined to sell off the British Airports Authority as it was called then. Unfortunately the Councils hands were tied so dont blame it all on the people involved over the last 10 years.
I wait any comments please.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nt639, I am looking left...no chip...now I am looking right...no chip, plenty of fur though!
nt639, what in my previous post is not fact?
Yet another fine set of figures from Essex's finest! Must be hemorrhaging the BAA, how sad! Just look at what a more level playing field (at last) in terms of fees has done to Stansted!
Just how are the BAA or whoever buys it, ever going to pay for runway 2?
Anyway, with little or no investment at Luton, and no long-term investment plan, one has to question the sustainability of the place under longer-term LBC ownership?
Every single passenger flying through Heathrow helped contribute to the construction of the 'new' Stansted facilities, therefore the airlines and their customers were paying more than they needed to in order to use Heathrow. Not a problem apart from the BAA's monopolistic muscle as they were/are still operating Gatwick and Stansted as well.
As for LBC, in the medium term, they did a blindingly good deal for the town's folk, but the 'concession fee' means that the income stream for the incumbent airport operator is funneled into the Town Hall and not the airport infrastructure, thus the 'make do and mend' attitude of late. Luton is effectively in a 'care & maintenance' Programme until the airport is handed back to LBC.
nt639, what in my previous post is not fact?
Yet another fine set of figures from Essex's finest! Must be hemorrhaging the BAA, how sad! Just look at what a more level playing field (at last) in terms of fees has done to Stansted!
Just how are the BAA or whoever buys it, ever going to pay for runway 2?
Anyway, with little or no investment at Luton, and no long-term investment plan, one has to question the sustainability of the place under longer-term LBC ownership?
Every single passenger flying through Heathrow helped contribute to the construction of the 'new' Stansted facilities, therefore the airlines and their customers were paying more than they needed to in order to use Heathrow. Not a problem apart from the BAA's monopolistic muscle as they were/are still operating Gatwick and Stansted as well.
As for LBC, in the medium term, they did a blindingly good deal for the town's folk, but the 'concession fee' means that the income stream for the incumbent airport operator is funneled into the Town Hall and not the airport infrastructure, thus the 'make do and mend' attitude of late. Luton is effectively in a 'care & maintenance' Programme until the airport is handed back to LBC.
Last edited by Buster the Bear; 18th Jun 2009 at 08:46.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me......I have been laughing so much. After reviewing your posts of anti-Luton you seem to have a bee in your bonnet.
I am not defending any charges by the Airport, but excuse me. Luton has been swimming backwards for years due to fat cats in Essex - fact!
It still attracts new business fact! It has a great catchments area - fact!
It suffers from a concession agreement by Luton Council - fact!
Norwich passengers (each) pay a £5 development fee.
Norwich, I struggle to see any benefit for customers within the London or Northern home counties. Even of I lived in Suffolk, would I choose it over connections at City, Stansted or Luton?
I am not defending any charges by the Airport, but excuse me. Luton has been swimming backwards for years due to fat cats in Essex - fact!
It still attracts new business fact! It has a great catchments area - fact!
It suffers from a concession agreement by Luton Council - fact!
Norwich passengers (each) pay a £5 development fee.
Norwich, I struggle to see any benefit for customers within the London or Northern home counties. Even of I lived in Suffolk, would I choose it over connections at City, Stansted or Luton?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hemel Hempstead
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
El Al a 777-200 today?
Hi people
Im a driver for Arriva and operate on the 321 route from Watford to Luton Airport, while banging along from Harpenden today towards Luton I see El Al departing low and slow and to me it looked very much like a 777, can anyone confirm this?
Glenn
Im a driver for Arriva and operate on the 321 route from Watford to Luton Airport, while banging along from Harpenden today towards Luton I see El Al departing low and slow and to me it looked very much like a 777, can anyone confirm this?
Glenn
Compton3Bravo -
You are correct in one respect - the M1 widening was a Government decision; nothing to do with LBC. It's one of the few things Governments should do - build roads. Unfortunately they even get simple decisions like them wrong - viz scrapping the M1 widening scheme from J10 to Milton Keynes.
In the 80s, the Government failed to force the full privatisation of all the airports from Government/Municipal ownership. They did much that was good but failed to go far enough.
The concession granted by LBC was flawed because it made an attempt to retain the airport in LBC's ownership. This was bound to mean that investment would only be made at the start of the concession period, to allow a private operator to maximise their return before handing the asset back to its owners. We now have the situation where LBC owns an asset but has prevented it from being fully developed because it doesn't suit their narrow political aims (return for Luton ratepayers during foreseeable electoral cycles). A more far-sighted commercial owner would have seen the opportunities available from expanding into Hertfordshire, and made the investment. LBC were so fixed on their short-term political objectives, and hamstrung by classic local government parochialism that they have effectively stifled the next phase of development.
If LBC had had the true long-term interests of Luton ratepayers at heart, they would have sold the freehold as soon as it became clear that they were not the airport's optimum owner. Luton could have been rate-free for years!!!
You are correct in one respect - the M1 widening was a Government decision; nothing to do with LBC. It's one of the few things Governments should do - build roads. Unfortunately they even get simple decisions like them wrong - viz scrapping the M1 widening scheme from J10 to Milton Keynes.
In the 80s, the Government failed to force the full privatisation of all the airports from Government/Municipal ownership. They did much that was good but failed to go far enough.
The concession granted by LBC was flawed because it made an attempt to retain the airport in LBC's ownership. This was bound to mean that investment would only be made at the start of the concession period, to allow a private operator to maximise their return before handing the asset back to its owners. We now have the situation where LBC owns an asset but has prevented it from being fully developed because it doesn't suit their narrow political aims (return for Luton ratepayers during foreseeable electoral cycles). A more far-sighted commercial owner would have seen the opportunities available from expanding into Hertfordshire, and made the investment. LBC were so fixed on their short-term political objectives, and hamstrung by classic local government parochialism that they have effectively stifled the next phase of development.
If LBC had had the true long-term interests of Luton ratepayers at heart, they would have sold the freehold as soon as it became clear that they were not the airport's optimum owner. Luton could have been rate-free for years!!!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why sell it when the council is awash with airport money? I see the main news item in the local rag is a story about a council donation of £81,800 to the main Mosque so they can spend the money on preventing violent extremism.
Sounds like a lot of money but it was funded by just 16,380 passengers paying a £5 concession fee. From the council’s point of view the airport is an asset that was built by the council so now they are reaping the reward.
Sounds like a lot of money but it was funded by just 16,380 passengers paying a £5 concession fee. From the council’s point of view the airport is an asset that was built by the council so now they are reaping the reward.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently 'the roundabout' is getting traffic lights ! Along with this, traffic wardens are to give fixed penalties to anyone dropping off outside of the pay-zone! Ah, you couldn't make it up!
I predict a riot.
I predict a riot.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traffic calming measures at Luton require Traffic Wardens!
Whilst the tinimal is within a cul-de-sac and folk drive cars, access will always be carnage!
I have more repeats than ITV.....well one day, folk on here will listen to an old wise bear...or maybe not!
With 50 more Wizzjets coming, Luton will turn cerise and not orange!
Whilst the tinimal is within a cul-de-sac and folk drive cars, access will always be carnage!
I have more repeats than ITV.....well one day, folk on here will listen to an old wise bear...or maybe not!
With 50 more Wizzjets coming, Luton will turn cerise and not orange!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despatched a friend at the "Drop off zone"today and noticed that the work has started for the barriers.
Appears that they arent reversing the layout of the figure of eight if i am correct.If this is so it will be one hell of a PR disaster on 1st July.
Assume also that the trffic lights will be of a temporary type to start as i doubt they can get permanent ones erected in time.
On a different note Windjet start Luton-Forli on 2nd July and still absolutely nothing on the Airports website-Do they want it to be a success!!!!
Anybody know who will be handling them at LTN?
Appears that they arent reversing the layout of the figure of eight if i am correct.If this is so it will be one hell of a PR disaster on 1st July.
Assume also that the trffic lights will be of a temporary type to start as i doubt they can get permanent ones erected in time.
On a different note Windjet start Luton-Forli on 2nd July and still absolutely nothing on the Airports website-Do they want it to be a success!!!!
Anybody know who will be handling them at LTN?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full details here News from June 2009 - London Luton Airport
At the moment early morning traffic is controlled by parking staff who stop traffic to allow cars to exit the drop off area. Traffic lights will automate the process but will not fix the problem and could make the queues worse due to rigid control sequences. Entry and exit barriers will slow the traffic even more and reduce flow rates.
The success or failure of the alterations will depend on how many cars can be kept out of the central area by the free use of the midterm car park. If successful will a bus every 10 min cope with demand? On the other hand how many motorists will read the road signs on a route that is familiar?
At the moment early morning traffic is controlled by parking staff who stop traffic to allow cars to exit the drop off area. Traffic lights will automate the process but will not fix the problem and could make the queues worse due to rigid control sequences. Entry and exit barriers will slow the traffic even more and reduce flow rates.
The success or failure of the alterations will depend on how many cars can be kept out of the central area by the free use of the midterm car park. If successful will a bus every 10 min cope with demand? On the other hand how many motorists will read the road signs on a route that is familiar?
Last edited by LTNman; 21st Jun 2009 at 05:28.