Originally Posted by
HOODED
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 if an aircraft cannot land at an airport it wont be able to take off from that airport? Therefore landing distance (LDA) takes precedence unless you build the planes at the airport which is exactly what they used to do. We have moved on from Lancaster bombers though and 6400ft perpendicular to prevailing wind is completely insufficient for a modern 21st century large populated city region.
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.