Originally Posted by
brian_dromey
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.
LEA is well located for not just West Yorkshire but the whole of Yorkshire and the North East and would have a catchment population much bigger than the whole of Eire - and so I completely disagree with you about that. I have completed reams of research on catchment area study for both private and public transport and the potential therein. You really must do proper research on this rather than just spout. For instance how long does it take on the train to go from Huddersfield to abeam LEA against how long on the train from Huddersfield to MAN? [btw nobody uses the train from Huddersfield to LBA] I have proved the case with fact and figures on that thread time and time again. As for risk of leakage - the leakage is actually happening right now from not just Huddersfield, Bradford and Halifax but from Leeds, Sheffield, Hull and York etc etc as well as those towns you mention and many others simply because of where LBA is located (miles from the motorway and main rail network) and its very poor airfield characteristics (as I look out now it is in LVPs for the 4th day on the trot). Leakage like no other area in Europe! The weather is a lot better over the year at LEA.
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.