LEEDS 5
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it would be fitting for someone in office to apologise to Thomson and their customers for them having to operate (multiple flights) from another airport to the one they chose to fly from. I would like to apologise to Thomson who have repeatedly given the airport a chance.
As a proud Leeds originating inhabitant I find what the region offers in terms of modern, efficient and sensible 21st century civil air transport needlessly deficient and quite frankly embarrassing. Nobody expects perfection but can we not aim just a little bit closer to sensible?
As a proud Leeds originating inhabitant I find what the region offers in terms of modern, efficient and sensible 21st century civil air transport needlessly deficient and quite frankly embarrassing. Nobody expects perfection but can we not aim just a little bit closer to sensible?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes well some of Jet2's customers will not be that happy having to trek back from another airport miles away in thick hill fog well after midnight after long journeys from Spain.
Jet2 do like the place but I'm sure they'd like an alternative that can actually stay open in mid Summer for their planes to land.
It's amazing that some of the local spotters criticise Thomson! A 4 hour + heavily delayed flight through the night with tired passengers all the way from Rhodes that was delayed because the previous LBA flight from Greece was also diverted to MAN in the night in yes you've guessed it - low cloud. 25 minutes of holding at LBA in the early morning with no chance of thick low cloud lifting and then they get criticised for their 'operational decisions'! But then they cannot understand why they don't base another plane at LBA!
Jet2 do like the place but I'm sure they'd like an alternative that can actually stay open in mid Summer for their planes to land.
It's amazing that some of the local spotters criticise Thomson! A 4 hour + heavily delayed flight through the night with tired passengers all the way from Rhodes that was delayed because the previous LBA flight from Greece was also diverted to MAN in the night in yes you've guessed it - low cloud. 25 minutes of holding at LBA in the early morning with no chance of thick low cloud lifting and then they get criticised for their 'operational decisions'! But then they cannot understand why they don't base another plane at LBA!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you well know, Thomsons for some reason regularly divert to MAN when it suits them and its often convenient to blame Leeds weather. The event you are alluding to has a bit of a hole in Thomson`s (and yours) argument. The aircraft ahead and the one behind it managed to land there without problem. The question you could pose is why did Thomsons inconvenience their passengers and not for the first time..
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 successive days of aircraft diversions in mid June - not mid January! You wont hear the local lib dem MP talk about this though, just that he wants a train line building up the hill to add an extra 2 million passengers to an airport on a tiny hill top that cannot handle modern aircraft due to its tiny runway and fog in the middle of Summer!
The only airport that has markings for 777s and yet none has actually landed! When were they built again? Don't worry though because the Dreamliner can operate from LBA when it gets built - what's that I here? It's already built and been flying for years!
The only airport that has markings for 777s and yet none has actually landed! When were they built again? Don't worry though because the Dreamliner can operate from LBA when it gets built - what's that I here? It's already built and been flying for years!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you well know, Thomsons for some reason regularly divert to MAN when it suits them and its often convenient to blame Leeds weather. The event you are alluding to has a bit of a hole in Thomson`s (and yours) argument. The aircraft ahead and the one behind it managed to land there without problem. The question you could pose is why did Thomsons inconvenience their passengers and not for the first time..
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you will find is that ALL airlines do things 'that suits them' - its how they make some money. The more things they can do that suits them the more money they will make. One of the main things that really really suits airlines is being able to land because the airport has not been built on a hill top.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most likely that the Thomson aircraft & crew combination were not certified for the approach required and the following aircraft was. There may also me differences in minima, which allowed the following aircraft to land.
It's not a conspiracy. It's not operationally easier to have aircraft on one side of the Pennines and passengers on the other. It's costly for the airline, to shuffle aircraft, passengers and crew around. The captain made a call that he/she couldn't safely get into LBA on that occasion, or was limited by minima. It happens at every airport, everywhere. The only airline that never diverted is the airline that never flew.
It's not a conspiracy. It's not operationally easier to have aircraft on one side of the Pennines and passengers on the other. It's costly for the airline, to shuffle aircraft, passengers and crew around. The captain made a call that he/she couldn't safely get into LBA on that occasion, or was limited by minima. It happens at every airport, everywhere. The only airline that never diverted is the airline that never flew.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody is saying it is a conspiracy. It is a failure. It is something that can be improved. Yes it happens at all airports but it happens at LBA much more frequently than those airports and unlike some regions we can change that for the better. You are wrong it is operationally easier to have aircraft on one side of the Pennines because that airport works more efficiently and is not built on a 700ft hilltop with a short runway.
Yes airlines will continue to operate from LBA but these events reduce the profitability and that is exactly why some routes end prematurely and many are never started. It also affects the fare price and hence the demand.
In any walk of life you try to improve. I don't want Yorkshire air transport to be near the bottom of the league I want it to be pushing the top of the league.
If and when your flight to Cork has to divert that costs money and somebody has to pay (either directly or indirectly). Guess who it is? So when you're choosing which flight to take you may very well chose the airport with the cheaper fare.
Yes airlines will continue to operate from LBA but these events reduce the profitability and that is exactly why some routes end prematurely and many are never started. It also affects the fare price and hence the demand.
In any walk of life you try to improve. I don't want Yorkshire air transport to be near the bottom of the league I want it to be pushing the top of the league.
If and when your flight to Cork has to divert that costs money and somebody has to pay (either directly or indirectly). Guess who it is? So when you're choosing which flight to take you may very well chose the airport with the cheaper fare.
Here we go again
How are you going to manage that? Let me guess, build a new airport in a better location maybe? How do you pay for that? Because...
I don't want Yorkshire air transport to be near the bottom of the league I want it to be pushing the top of the league
...that costs money and somebody has to pay (either directly or indirectly). Guess who it is?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem with this statement is you are not measuring against anything. Yes LS are big at Leeds but how much bigger would they be with a bigger catchment, more accessible airport, longer runway and better weather. Efficiency drives down cost. Guess who saves?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a good point though - somebody has to pay! You either pay the extra fare price for the fewer and less frequently flown routes from a less than ideal airport / or you pay to travel to an airport that maximises efficiency through location and airfield characteristics or you pay to have that latter airport slowly developed in your own region through taxes. Whichever option the public pays. But with the latter option you are investing in your own region and get immediate payback. Nobody pays me back for travelling to Manchester and parking for a simple flight to Florida - that is the definition of flight tax.
Last edited by LEEDS APPROACH; 12th Jun 2016 at 16:52.
Paid for through taxes? So you want to pay for a new facility with public money to compete with existing private operations? Are you a lawyer??
If it is a private project how will it be paid for? Increased charges to airlines? They may save a bit through efficiency gains from fewer diversions, but I would have thought not enough to cover the extra charges required.
Surely the cost of paying for a new airport will...
If it is a private project how will it be paid for? Increased charges to airlines? They may save a bit through efficiency gains from fewer diversions, but I would have thought not enough to cover the extra charges required.
Surely the cost of paying for a new airport will...
....reduce the profitability and that is exactly why some routes end prematurely and many are never started. It also affects the fare price and hence the demand.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember this is LBA thread. Taxes for the roads, piggy bank for the airport - just like NCL etc. At last no more journeys to Edinburgh and Manchester for us North Easterners.
And now back to 208M AMSL.
And now back to 208M AMSL.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept the point that LBA has many physical limitations, both the airfield and the terminal building are sub-optimal. I accept that the region shouldn't be settling for sub-optimal, but the decision to move to Leeds East cant be seen in isolation. Leeds East is not well located for the West Yorkshire region as a whole (its too far east for Huddersfied, Halifax and Bradford - risking leakage to MAN), the weather isn't a lot better, the runway is short, has no ILS capability and there no surface links (but installation would be relatively easy). Essentially, LEA would be a brand new airport - which could be sorted out IF the airport weren't privatised, or LEA were owned by Bridgepoint, IF the government weren't hellbent on underfunding all infrastructure and public service in the country and IF you ignore the 25 million passenger a year neighbour, well connected to the region by road and rail, with services across the UK, Europe, massive growth to North America and now Asia. MAN is about to commence its own transformation project which will make it even more attractive to airlines and passengers.
I don't get your point about ORK. ORK is also an airfield with similar typography, weather and crosswind problems. Even worse its a Cat II airfield, with little hope of ever becoming Cat III due to the typography. ORK feels similarly hamstrung by limitations around the airfield, runway sruface and length. So, although the terminal is far superior to LBA, the airfield itself still has its share of issues and there are numerous diversions to Shannon and Dublin each year - winter and summer. Yes, there is a risk that "my" LBA-ORK may become MAN-SNN on a given day.
LBA and ORK are similar in many ways, both have heavyweight neighbours. Both have to accept their role is supportive, allowing major markets to access the regions by air, with smaller aircraft, less frequently. They also allow the region to reach popular destinations, often the "bucket and spade" market. As bad as things may appear, there are neighbors who are worse off. Waterford and HUY spring to mind.
I don't get your point about ORK. ORK is also an airfield with similar typography, weather and crosswind problems. Even worse its a Cat II airfield, with little hope of ever becoming Cat III due to the typography. ORK feels similarly hamstrung by limitations around the airfield, runway sruface and length. So, although the terminal is far superior to LBA, the airfield itself still has its share of issues and there are numerous diversions to Shannon and Dublin each year - winter and summer. Yes, there is a risk that "my" LBA-ORK may become MAN-SNN on a given day.
LBA and ORK are similar in many ways, both have heavyweight neighbours. Both have to accept their role is supportive, allowing major markets to access the regions by air, with smaller aircraft, less frequently. They also allow the region to reach popular destinations, often the "bucket and spade" market. As bad as things may appear, there are neighbors who are worse off. Waterford and HUY spring to mind.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leeds Approach. You keep banging on about LBA short runway."a runway extension only half of which can be used for landing"
You do realise that in general aircraft need much less runway to land than to take off I assume? 5900ft is suffice for most aircraft. As for Thompson they seem to have higher minimas than say Jet2 and Ryanair whilst using the same aircraft. That is not LBAs fault there is a CAT3 ILS though only CAT1 on 14. You constantly belittle LBA for being on a hill. Have you ever looked at LTN or BRS? They seem to do ok as does LBA. Why dont you just stump up the Millions needed to upgrade Leeds East and make its runway as long as LBA then maybe see if you can move the main conurbations in Yorkshire a little closer....
You do realise that in general aircraft need much less runway to land than to take off I assume? 5900ft is suffice for most aircraft. As for Thompson they seem to have higher minimas than say Jet2 and Ryanair whilst using the same aircraft. That is not LBAs fault there is a CAT3 ILS though only CAT1 on 14. You constantly belittle LBA for being on a hill. Have you ever looked at LTN or BRS? They seem to do ok as does LBA. Why dont you just stump up the Millions needed to upgrade Leeds East and make its runway as long as LBA then maybe see if you can move the main conurbations in Yorkshire a little closer....
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I accept the point that LBA has many physical limitations, both the airfield and the terminal building are sub-optimal. I accept that the region shouldn't be settling for sub-optimal, but the decision to move to Leeds East cant be seen in isolation. Leeds East is not well located for the West Yorkshire region as a whole (its too far east for Huddersfied, Halifax and Bradford - risking leakage to MAN), the weather isn't a lot better, the runway is short, has no ILS capability and there no surface links (but installation would be relatively easy). Essentially, LEA would be a brand new airport - which could be sorted out IF the airport weren't privatised, or LEA were owned by Bridgepoint, IF the government weren't hellbent on underfunding all infrastructure and public service in the country and IF you ignore the 25 million passenger a year neighbour, well connected to the region by road and rail, with services across the UK, Europe, massive growth to North America and now Asia. MAN is about to commence its own transformation project which will make it even more attractive to airlines and passengers.
I don't get your point about ORK. ORK is also an airfield with similar typography, weather and crosswind problems. Even worse its a Cat II airfield, with little hope of ever becoming Cat III due to the typography. ORK feels similarly hamstrung by limitations around the airfield, runway sruface and length. So, although the terminal is far superior to LBA, the airfield itself still has its share of issues and there are numerous diversions to Shannon and Dublin each year - winter and summer. Yes, there is a risk that "my" LBA-ORK may become MAN-SNN on a given day.
LBA and ORK are similar in many ways, both have heavyweight neighbours. Both have to accept their role is supportive, allowing major markets to access the regions by air, with smaller aircraft, less frequently. They also allow the region to reach popular destinations, often the "bucket and spade" market. As bad as things may appear, there are neighbors who are worse off. Waterford and HUY spring to mind.
I don't get your point about ORK. ORK is also an airfield with similar typography, weather and crosswind problems. Even worse its a Cat II airfield, with little hope of ever becoming Cat III due to the typography. ORK feels similarly hamstrung by limitations around the airfield, runway sruface and length. So, although the terminal is far superior to LBA, the airfield itself still has its share of issues and there are numerous diversions to Shannon and Dublin each year - winter and summer. Yes, there is a risk that "my" LBA-ORK may become MAN-SNN on a given day.
LBA and ORK are similar in many ways, both have heavyweight neighbours. Both have to accept their role is supportive, allowing major markets to access the regions by air, with smaller aircraft, less frequently. They also allow the region to reach popular destinations, often the "bucket and spade" market. As bad as things may appear, there are neighbors who are worse off. Waterford and HUY spring to mind.
Cork airport and its population catchment are miniscule compared to a well located airport within Yorkshire and it is ridiculous to compare them. Yes the weather is pretty similar at Cork and LBA.
The reason why Manchester airport (the big neighbour you mention) has done so well is hugely down to abject failure to place an airport in the correct location within Yorkshire. That is now very slowly going to change. I don't accept a failing hospital or train station in this region and therefore I don't see why anyone who cares about Yorkshire should accept a failing airport (just as they wouldn't do in Manchester, Birmingham or Edinburgh for example). We most certainly can do better and we must do better.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leeds Approach. You keep banging on about LBA short runway."a runway extension only half of which can be used for landing"
You do realise that in general aircraft need much less runway to land than to take off I assume? 5900ft is suffice for most aircraft. As for Thompson they seem to have higher minimas than say Jet2 and Ryanair whilst using the same aircraft. That is not LBAs fault there is a CAT3 ILS though only CAT1 on 14. You constantly belittle LBA for being on a hill. Have you ever looked at LTN or BRS? They seem to do ok as does LBA. Why dont you just stump up the Millions needed to upgrade Leeds East and make its runway as long as LBA then maybe see if you can move the main conurbations in Yorkshire a little closer....
You do realise that in general aircraft need much less runway to land than to take off I assume? 5900ft is suffice for most aircraft. As for Thompson they seem to have higher minimas than say Jet2 and Ryanair whilst using the same aircraft. That is not LBAs fault there is a CAT3 ILS though only CAT1 on 14. You constantly belittle LBA for being on a hill. Have you ever looked at LTN or BRS? They seem to do ok as does LBA. Why dont you just stump up the Millions needed to upgrade Leeds East and make its runway as long as LBA then maybe see if you can move the main conurbations in Yorkshire a little closer....
Different airlines have different minimas - absolutely correct! Therefore the airport satisfies all those minimas. So yes it is the airport's fault! You make the airport able to do the job. That's what Leeds City Region need to do - make their airport able to do the job.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh boy..LBA is not 6400ft it's 2250m or 7380ft. I'm sorry I must be simple, how is it LBAs fault that TOM use different Minima on their 738s to both Jet2 and Ryanair? The aircraft is certified to a CAT3 limit by Boeing if TOM decide not to use the lowest minimas available whereas others do how can the airport do anything??