Hi everyone, long time reader first time poster.
I finally decided to take the plunge and post because the emotive subject of surface access has taken prevalence recently and it is a subject which interests me.
Runway32/14 mentioned building a new airport next to the M1 and, whilst that does sound far-fetched (and indeed will never happen); the theory is sound and the benefits enormous. As far as I am aware, the main usage of the land around that area is landfill so, potentially, in a number of years this will be unused, undesirable land. It sits next to the M1 motorway with close links to the M62 and A1 which would put it within a 45 min drive of the likes of Sheffield, York etc. and 1 hour of Hull and North East Manchester. It would be sat directly next to a railway line with rapid links to other population centres as well as the centre of Leeds and also next to the A63 - which is a newly built and completely underused road - direct into the centre of Leeds (10 mins to the bus and rail stations). The runway, due to the local geography, would be south west facing and have a length of upwards of 3,000m. Aircraft routed into and out of the airport would automatically miss local population centres (other than the small village of Swillington) Too good to be true? Definitely. As I said before, it would never happen. As it is, the owners of LBA are forced to strive to improve a site of limited space with a sub standard length runway, with geographical limitations, that is (incredibly) prone to bad weather and rubbernecks with greenbelt land along the most congested corridor in Leeds/Bradford. And it is with this in mind that the subject of surface access has to be looked at very carefully.
It is entirely true what people say about the "Ryanair effect". People care about their hard earned spondulics, more now than ever, and it is entirely reasonable to think that growth can happen purely on this basis - Liverpool, Bristol, Luton - all perfect examples of how this is possible. But that is not the only force at work here. We are at a stage now where the airport is flirting with longer haul operations, where the feasibility of routes such as New York and Dubai are being questioned. In essence, the next stage of development. What should also be considered is the fact that within 5 to 10 years, the world will see the likes of aircraft (787 and A350) whose operational capabilities will be ideally suited to runways of the ilk of LBA. In essence, technology is bridging the gap that is created with the problem of a short runway, which effectively eliminates that issue. The problem then lies in trying to attract airlines that will operate these aircraft to the field. And that is where the surface access issue raises its head. Whilst the likes of Ryanair, Easyjet, Flybe, BMIBaby, Jet2 etc are quite happy to operate with existing facilities as long as they get the lowest price possible, flag carriers such as Emirates, Ethiad, American Airlines, Continental etc (the airlines that a long haul operation would theoretically utilise) have more stringent stipulations for operating that service. Terminal development is a given - to expand passenger operations, the terminal has to be able to deal with a higher throughput of passengers. News is (potentially) good with that in mind with the promise of a redeveloped terminal building which leaves surface access as the remaining problem.
LBA has a huge problem in trying to attract long haul operations - Manchester. Effectively, what LBA has to do to attract such a service is compete with them or provide a compelling enough argument to show why an extra service can be accommodated. Lack of a rail link and average to poor road links (depending on your point of origin) do not bode well in that argument. The airline needs to see the potential of the route and the perceived inability of people to get to the airport from surrounding areas (areas that have a rail link with Manchester) would undoubtedly negatively affect any negotiation. Whilst the likes of Ryanair are able to chop and change at will, a flag carrier will put a lot more planning and organisation into a long haul link and then expect it to easily achieve all targets (targets will be very tough) and add to profitability. In order to meet all the criteria for sending that aircraft to LBA, the marketability of the airport has to be spot on. So, in summary, new planes able to operate off existing runway - check. Terminal able to handle 5mppa - check (possibly). Potential customer base? Millions in Yorkshire and the North East, all of whom will be quite happy to and many of whom will find it much easier to travel to Manchester for the same flight. Manchester, the airport with longer runways, better equipment, bigger terminal building, dedicated railway station with links to most of the North of England, dedicated motorway, years of experience of long haul that is not prone to bad weather - in other words, the obvious choice. That is why surface access is a big issue and why the future of the airport should be looked at with that in mind.
I have read a lot of comments on here about surface access and people tend to take one side or the other. I don't think there is a definite side on which to sit - the airport has the ability to expand without vastly improved surface access but - along with other, fixable inadequacies - will not be able to reach its full potential.
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']James[/FONT]