How can LBA expand ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Querty "lots off diversion"
No not really, sure compared with Manchester and PIK but if or more to the point when they get round to another 300m and cat2 on R14, then i don't think it would be any worse than EDI, which had a few this week. Most operators are at least Cat 2 these days and that helps a lot.
Sure there is limited scope to delvelope it in the way Manch has grown, but no one expects that.Bristol is on a foggy hill and Cork is wet anf foggy most the year but they have all seen growth the last couple of years. i think Leeds could go to 3.5m pax in the next couple years, until Donny opens any way, then most the charter stuff might clear off down there, time will tell, in the mean time i wish Leeds well.
No not really, sure compared with Manchester and PIK but if or more to the point when they get round to another 300m and cat2 on R14, then i don't think it would be any worse than EDI, which had a few this week. Most operators are at least Cat 2 these days and that helps a lot.
Sure there is limited scope to delvelope it in the way Manch has grown, but no one expects that.Bristol is on a foggy hill and Cork is wet anf foggy most the year but they have all seen growth the last couple of years. i think Leeds could go to 3.5m pax in the next couple years, until Donny opens any way, then most the charter stuff might clear off down there, time will tell, in the mean time i wish Leeds well.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And lets not forget Luton or should that be London Luton also on top of a hill and suffers from low cloud but still does very well. It has a shorter runway than LBA too although it's all available as it hasn't been CAA'd by an enforced threshold move during runway extension approval. It is also more into wind and has the London cathment area. By my mind despite all LBA's problems it should be on a par with Newcastle/Bristol in terms of movements and passenger throughput. I just hope it continues to grow towards it's potential, just as I hope all UK airports do. There'll be more jobs for us all then hopefully!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leeds, UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting posts... while I can't see the road links improving much, I think a rail link could seriously be considered. The Leeds - Harrogate line runs within a mile of the terminal building, with not a whole lot in between them. A branch line to the airport could make LBA something it never has been - easy to get to. It'd take less than 20 mins from central Leeds. Extending the runway at the 14 end would be an unviable option, I think, because you'd have to build another tunnel etc. for the road.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Moved back to enemy territory... Leeds!!
Age: 50
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that they've announced that LBA will be getting an on-site Trevelodge. From the description given it would appear to be located in or near the current Exec Club car park.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: THE BIG SUNNY SANDPIT
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that the new hotel will be situated on the far side of whitehouse lane, opposite the car park. At about 75m from the terminal it will be a lot closer that the 'Holiday Inn Leeds/Bradford Airport' which must be about 3 miles away and is the only Hotel currently claiming to be at the airport.
However i do have my doubts about this project. A few years ago i was told by the LBA marketing representative, who was at the Great Yorkshire Show, that the airport hotel would be completed before the new departure lounge was opened!!!
Who was telling porky pies? There has been a new arrivals and catering facility built since then and still no hotel.
And now for something completely different.
The local rag this week has run an article which is basically about what Jet2 are doing to reduce the noise problem for local residents.
"Jet2 were the miscreants for flying off course but they have assured us that with their new electronic tracking devices the problem has been solved" said a local resident.
Is this new electronic tracking device called radar?
"They have changed their flightpath and altered pilot protocol so planes ascend more quickly" said another resident.
Unless the new protocol involves changing the laws of phyics with regard to gravity, higher climb rate equals more power equals more noise and if i am not mistaken, more complaints from the folk of Yeadon.
I do love reading the weekly aticles about LBA, they are so amusing.
However i do have my doubts about this project. A few years ago i was told by the LBA marketing representative, who was at the Great Yorkshire Show, that the airport hotel would be completed before the new departure lounge was opened!!!
Who was telling porky pies? There has been a new arrivals and catering facility built since then and still no hotel.
And now for something completely different.
The local rag this week has run an article which is basically about what Jet2 are doing to reduce the noise problem for local residents.
"Jet2 were the miscreants for flying off course but they have assured us that with their new electronic tracking devices the problem has been solved" said a local resident.
Is this new electronic tracking device called radar?
"They have changed their flightpath and altered pilot protocol so planes ascend more quickly" said another resident.
Unless the new protocol involves changing the laws of phyics with regard to gravity, higher climb rate equals more power equals more noise and if i am not mistaken, more complaints from the folk of Yeadon.
I do love reading the weekly aticles about LBA, they are so amusing.
Last edited by nibor; 3rd Nov 2003 at 05:12.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: THE BIG SUNNY SANDPIT
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point.
I spend so much time there with a beer in my hand that i forgot they have beds also.
Do they advertise themselves as Yeadon Stoops Leeds/Bradford Airport or is it just Yeadon?
I spend so much time there with a beer in my hand that i forgot they have beds also.
Do they advertise themselves as Yeadon Stoops Leeds/Bradford Airport or is it just Yeadon?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Moved back to enemy territory... Leeds!!
Age: 50
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you put LBA in to the location search on the website it comes up with that as a Travel Inn site. That bit better than a Travelodge, in my opinion.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at the figures, not many diversions due weather as a percentage. The Hotel! Is this the same one they were going to build a few years ago? Whenever! The Noise Problem! All a/c must follow the SIDS, end of story.
To all the local residents, all aircraft will follow the same routing until ICAO or the CAA decide otherwise.
To all the local residents, all aircraft will follow the same routing until ICAO or the CAA decide otherwise.
Guest
Posts: n/a
At least Sandy faced the Menston mob!
If i was in his shoes i would have gone armed with a photo of what a 733 looks like (from underneath) and the same for Ryanairs bags of ****e.If the airport managers had balls they would tell ryanair to take their crappy aircraft and fly them in Ireland and when MOL threatens to take his bat and ball home, tell him to do just that and make sure his noisey smokey 732 go with him, meanwhile get Jet2 to Dublin 4 times a day.Whilst we are on noise i'd tell Eastern that if they won't pay for push backs then they can push off as well, powering back off stand is a health and safety issue and it won't be long before the hard working ground crews start sueing the airport for noise damage, that sort noise level should have been banned with mill loomsGrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!
If i was in his shoes i would have gone armed with a photo of what a 733 looks like (from underneath) and the same for Ryanairs bags of ****e.If the airport managers had balls they would tell ryanair to take their crappy aircraft and fly them in Ireland and when MOL threatens to take his bat and ball home, tell him to do just that and make sure his noisey smokey 732 go with him, meanwhile get Jet2 to Dublin 4 times a day.Whilst we are on noise i'd tell Eastern that if they won't pay for push backs then they can push off as well, powering back off stand is a health and safety issue and it won't be long before the hard working ground crews start sueing the airport for noise damage, that sort noise level should have been banned with mill loomsGrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few points to clear up:
nibor - the hotel project a few years ago was the plan by the McDonald Hotels Group to build a fairly substantial hotel in much the same area as the current project. They decided against it in the end.
There have been other plans before that, dating back to 1990 I believe, so I doubt you were being lied to. The difference this time is that the airport themselves are funding the build project and will own the building. They will effectively lease it out to a hotel operator.
A few people have mentioned wx diversions. The data for the last few years is as follows (numbers in brackets are for Bristol)
1999: 55 (185)
2000: 132 (183)
2001: 103 (161)
2002: 83 (120)
With 10 months gone in 2003, LBA has accumulated around 30.
Bristol of course has more ATMs and the true measure is not the absolute number but the number relative to the number of movements. I suspect this puts them about even.
Its also worth pointing out that of the LBA numbers, the vast majority are related to low cloud base and fog as opposed to x-wind limits. X-winds may lead to a few interesting approaches for the crew and sore throats for ATC with the constant wind-checks, but it's not that big a deal.
Finally, a few points about Finningley. Firstly lets remember that Peel Holdings themselves are positioning Finningley as a regional airport for South Yorks and North Notts and are forecasting a throughput of 2 million passengers by 2015, i.e. it will be the same size as LBA is now, 10 years after it opens.
Secondly, Peel presented the following information to the public enquiry which demonstrated where people form South Yorks currently fly from.
MAN 60%
EMA 15%
BHX 6%
LBA 5%
HUY 2%
Various London 12%
With estimates of the number of air passengers generated from the Yorkshire region ranging from 6m-8m, it seems pretty clear that whilst neither LBA nor Finningley is in the right place to handle all of this traffic, there is room for both to co-exist.
The issue for both, as I mentioned earlier in the context of LBA, is how to win back traffic from MAN. If people think Peel / Finningley will be any better than LBA has been to date, its worth noting that despite the tremendous transformation that Peel have done at LPL, success has been largely the result of Easyjet. In terms of winning business back from MAN, Peel at Liverpool have been no more successful than LBA has been, arguably less so.
682
nibor - the hotel project a few years ago was the plan by the McDonald Hotels Group to build a fairly substantial hotel in much the same area as the current project. They decided against it in the end.
There have been other plans before that, dating back to 1990 I believe, so I doubt you were being lied to. The difference this time is that the airport themselves are funding the build project and will own the building. They will effectively lease it out to a hotel operator.
A few people have mentioned wx diversions. The data for the last few years is as follows (numbers in brackets are for Bristol)
1999: 55 (185)
2000: 132 (183)
2001: 103 (161)
2002: 83 (120)
With 10 months gone in 2003, LBA has accumulated around 30.
Bristol of course has more ATMs and the true measure is not the absolute number but the number relative to the number of movements. I suspect this puts them about even.
Its also worth pointing out that of the LBA numbers, the vast majority are related to low cloud base and fog as opposed to x-wind limits. X-winds may lead to a few interesting approaches for the crew and sore throats for ATC with the constant wind-checks, but it's not that big a deal.
Finally, a few points about Finningley. Firstly lets remember that Peel Holdings themselves are positioning Finningley as a regional airport for South Yorks and North Notts and are forecasting a throughput of 2 million passengers by 2015, i.e. it will be the same size as LBA is now, 10 years after it opens.
Secondly, Peel presented the following information to the public enquiry which demonstrated where people form South Yorks currently fly from.
MAN 60%
EMA 15%
BHX 6%
LBA 5%
HUY 2%
Various London 12%
With estimates of the number of air passengers generated from the Yorkshire region ranging from 6m-8m, it seems pretty clear that whilst neither LBA nor Finningley is in the right place to handle all of this traffic, there is room for both to co-exist.
The issue for both, as I mentioned earlier in the context of LBA, is how to win back traffic from MAN. If people think Peel / Finningley will be any better than LBA has been to date, its worth noting that despite the tremendous transformation that Peel have done at LPL, success has been largely the result of Easyjet. In terms of winning business back from MAN, Peel at Liverpool have been no more successful than LBA has been, arguably less so.
682
Guest
Posts: n/a
682FT
An interesting post, what do you think the effect of upgrading the 14 approach to CAT2 would be? in respect of the fog/low cloud diversions. Crosswind by their nature tend to blow through fairly quickly and in any event once the cold front goes through and its 290 ish then 50knts is still well in most aircraft 30-35 crosswind limit, an interesting approach non the less !!
An interesting post, what do you think the effect of upgrading the 14 approach to CAT2 would be? in respect of the fog/low cloud diversions. Crosswind by their nature tend to blow through fairly quickly and in any event once the cold front goes through and its 290 ish then 50knts is still well in most aircraft 30-35 crosswind limit, an interesting approach non the less !!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The effect of CAT2 on 14 would be significant as a peculiarity of the airport is that the RVR at the 14 touchdown point tends to higher and improves more quickly than the 32 end. And so often when the low-cloud and drizzle is blowing in from the south, the 32 end is below CAT2 limits and the 14 end is between 300m - 400m. Why this is, I've no idea but the ability to land in 300m on 14 would comfortably take about 50 or so diversions out of the annual total.
Sadly I am led to believe its a no go. The current 3.5 degree glide is unsuitable for CAT2 ops and proposals to lower it to something around the 3.1 - 3.2 mark are unacceptable to the CAA on the basis of insufficient clearance over the high ground to the North.
The best that can be hoped for is to 'top and tail' the runway at both ends to try and improve the CAT3 performance on the 32 end, e.g. sort out the 32 undershoot (possibly in connection with a new turning loop) and tarmac over the 100m grass overrun at the 32 stop-end. Both might eek out enough additional LDA to allow greater use of CAT3 than is seen at the minute. Although I'm sceptical that even this is feasible on the basis that the significant amount of earth excavated from the multiflight development was dumped in the hollow behind taxiway 'D' and not into the 32 undershoot
Of course 80 odd diversions each year equates to about 2 days worth of business. The airport, when deciding where to invest in the airport infrastructure, may well take the view that improving the airport for the other 363 days a year is more worthwhile.
682
Sadly I am led to believe its a no go. The current 3.5 degree glide is unsuitable for CAT2 ops and proposals to lower it to something around the 3.1 - 3.2 mark are unacceptable to the CAA on the basis of insufficient clearance over the high ground to the North.
The best that can be hoped for is to 'top and tail' the runway at both ends to try and improve the CAT3 performance on the 32 end, e.g. sort out the 32 undershoot (possibly in connection with a new turning loop) and tarmac over the 100m grass overrun at the 32 stop-end. Both might eek out enough additional LDA to allow greater use of CAT3 than is seen at the minute. Although I'm sceptical that even this is feasible on the basis that the significant amount of earth excavated from the multiflight development was dumped in the hollow behind taxiway 'D' and not into the 32 undershoot
Of course 80 odd diversions each year equates to about 2 days worth of business. The airport, when deciding where to invest in the airport infrastructure, may well take the view that improving the airport for the other 363 days a year is more worthwhile.
682
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Flying Scotsman
The noise abatement procedure at Leeds (R32) pre dates Jet2 ops, so whats changed? clearly you have managed to "pour oil" on the troubled Menston waters, so have you changed your ops and if so how? if you are now sticking to the noise abatement procedure,then what people are saying is that either you weren't flying the SID's correctly before or that your FMS kit wasn't?
Any way i don't find your kit that noisey, compared to Ryanair that shakes the whole of wharfdale
The noise abatement procedure at Leeds (R32) pre dates Jet2 ops, so whats changed? clearly you have managed to "pour oil" on the troubled Menston waters, so have you changed your ops and if so how? if you are now sticking to the noise abatement procedure,then what people are saying is that either you weren't flying the SID's correctly before or that your FMS kit wasn't?
Any way i don't find your kit that noisey, compared to Ryanair that shakes the whole of wharfdale
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: THE BIG SUNNY SANDPIT
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Flying Scotsman
The two statements that I quoted are from a newspaper article. I used them to show how the press seem to get things a little wrong when they interview the general public.
I was not having a go at you airline in any way, I actually quite like the way Jet2 have jumped in to LBA and are starting to mix it with the big boys.
However I did assume that every airline, especially based ones, would follow the noise preferential routing as a standard practice.
If this was not previously the case with yourselves then I would have expected an apology to the locals would have been in order.
The question still remains, how can an aircraft get more lift without increasing thrust, reducing weight or reducing drag?
It can'not. This was the point of the statement.
As with KAT TOO I do not class Jet2 as causing a noise problem.
The two statements that I quoted are from a newspaper article. I used them to show how the press seem to get things a little wrong when they interview the general public.
I was not having a go at you airline in any way, I actually quite like the way Jet2 have jumped in to LBA and are starting to mix it with the big boys.
However I did assume that every airline, especially based ones, would follow the noise preferential routing as a standard practice.
If this was not previously the case with yourselves then I would have expected an apology to the locals would have been in order.
The question still remains, how can an aircraft get more lift without increasing thrust, reducing weight or reducing drag?
It can'not. This was the point of the statement.
As with KAT TOO I do not class Jet2 as causing a noise problem.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: yeadon
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STEADY ON
The reason that I started this topic was to find out what other people thought could be done to improve LBA.
I have enjoyed reading the replies and there have been well reasoned arguments from both sides.
I hoped that there could be an indepth discussion without people resorting to mud throwing or insults.
I was mistaken.
I had a giggle at the post from 'nibor' and took it in the context it was clearly written in.
The Flying Scotsman
You seem to have missed the point slightly. 'nibor' said that there would be more complaints from the residents of YEADON not MENSTON.
Yeadon is the bit right next to 32 and along the climb out.
Menston is the bit 3 miles away that you trying to reduce the noise impact at.
Will a steeper climb cause more noise for Yeadon while reducing it for Menston?
I have enjoyed reading the replies and there have been well reasoned arguments from both sides.
I hoped that there could be an indepth discussion without people resorting to mud throwing or insults.
I was mistaken.
I had a giggle at the post from 'nibor' and took it in the context it was clearly written in.
The Flying Scotsman
You seem to have missed the point slightly. 'nibor' said that there would be more complaints from the residents of YEADON not MENSTON.
Yeadon is the bit right next to 32 and along the climb out.
Menston is the bit 3 miles away that you trying to reduce the noise impact at.
Will a steeper climb cause more noise for Yeadon while reducing it for Menston?
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Flying Scotsman
Once again thanks for your prompt reply. The `mean track` problem is quite common and it doesn't much matter enroute, but as you say on the POL1W (and NELSA/WAL) westerly SIDs it does.One other question whilst your here/ill what do you use as an acceleration Altitude.
Get well soon
cheers
Once again thanks for your prompt reply. The `mean track` problem is quite common and it doesn't much matter enroute, but as you say on the POL1W (and NELSA/WAL) westerly SIDs it does.One other question whilst your here/ill what do you use as an acceleration Altitude.
Get well soon
cheers
