LEEDS
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding 28/10. If this runway is closed (in my view, yes) what would the flying clubs do in strong, out of limits crosswinds across 32/14. Answer not fly and therefore lose money. Who has invested a significant amount of money in the southside expansion, the owner of multiflight. Who can say whether or not this gentleman has made an agreement with LBA that they cannot close it for x amount of years. After all I wouldn't invest my money in a large project only to find out that my flying club end up losing money in the future.
A Fokker 70 had the figures to enable it to land on 28/10 if the conditions were correct.
The management have a choice, who do we keep happy? Jet 2 and improve parking, Multiflight and keep the club flying, The owning councils and try to make a profit.
In my view the only way forward for LBA is to take out 28/10 and use it for parking (or part of it), if the flying club cannot fly then so be it. Speculate to accumalate as they say. At least this way 2 out of the 3 above will be happy.
I cannot see the workforce being 2000+, if your calculations are correct then there must be more than 42 people in each section you have listed (I doubt it). Also many of the sections come under one idividual company. Lets look at the staffing,
Airside ops manager 1 person
Immigration 2, maybe 3 people
Customs 2 or 3
Tels 5 or 6
Eastern Airways flight crew 20 at most
Ground maintenance 4
Garage maintenance 3 or 4
Customer service 5
Airport company IT 4
Tels 24hr availability 1
These are only experienced estimates. There are only 2 of the list which I can see employing more than 42. Jet2 flight crew and security. Please prove me wromg but I'm pretty sure I'm correct.
A Fokker 70 had the figures to enable it to land on 28/10 if the conditions were correct.
The management have a choice, who do we keep happy? Jet 2 and improve parking, Multiflight and keep the club flying, The owning councils and try to make a profit.
In my view the only way forward for LBA is to take out 28/10 and use it for parking (or part of it), if the flying club cannot fly then so be it. Speculate to accumalate as they say. At least this way 2 out of the 3 above will be happy.
I cannot see the workforce being 2000+, if your calculations are correct then there must be more than 42 people in each section you have listed (I doubt it). Also many of the sections come under one idividual company. Lets look at the staffing,
Airside ops manager 1 person
Immigration 2, maybe 3 people
Customs 2 or 3
Tels 5 or 6
Eastern Airways flight crew 20 at most
Ground maintenance 4
Garage maintenance 3 or 4
Customer service 5
Airport company IT 4
Tels 24hr availability 1
These are only experienced estimates. There are only 2 of the list which I can see employing more than 42. Jet2 flight crew and security. Please prove me wromg but I'm pretty sure I'm correct.
Closure of 27/09 is long overdue. I watched last Saturday whilst a Britannia 767-200 landed on 32 and backtracked to hold short of 27/09; and an Astraeus 737-700 taxied up the North/South to wait at the end of 32 for departure. Both aircraft were held for at least five minutes - all to allow a C152 (or whatever it was) to do a touch-and-go on 27. The fuel burn alone for Britannia and Astraeus must have cost far more than the entire C152 detail earned the airport. Only when the C152 had cleared the track could the 767 taxi down 27/09 onto its stand and the 737-700 depart. Quite farcical. The airport needs to get a grip on what is generating its revenue.
I remember the Capital 146 departing on Runway 10 once; and for those who are a bit older, does anyone remember the British Midland/Airways Cymru 1-11 (G-WLAD)? Its arrival on Runway 28 (positioning back after another spell of being tech one evening) frightened the living daylights out of everyone in the Aero Club bar. However, its time has come. Time to shut 27.
I remember the Capital 146 departing on Runway 10 once; and for those who are a bit older, does anyone remember the British Midland/Airways Cymru 1-11 (G-WLAD)? Its arrival on Runway 28 (positioning back after another spell of being tech one evening) frightened the living daylights out of everyone in the Aero Club bar. However, its time has come. Time to shut 27.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does anyone remember the British Midland/Airways Cymru 1-11 (G-WLAD)?
Oh yes, very well. Halcyon childhood years.
From another post it looks confirmed that Jet2 will be acquiring a pair of B757's frrom the desert, both to be intiallly based at LBA. Looks like one is required for the new TFS services, but which other routes? AGP must be favourite given the demand and current frequencies, but that probably still only accounts for one aircraft. Given that they are allegedly due to be introduced for the winter timetable then my guess for the other aircraft would be spanish destinations, MJV and ALC perhaps?
Oh yes, very well. Halcyon childhood years.
From another post it looks confirmed that Jet2 will be acquiring a pair of B757's frrom the desert, both to be intiallly based at LBA. Looks like one is required for the new TFS services, but which other routes? AGP must be favourite given the demand and current frequencies, but that probably still only accounts for one aircraft. Given that they are allegedly due to be introduced for the winter timetable then my guess for the other aircraft would be spanish destinations, MJV and ALC perhaps?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commercial problem, unfortunately some of the controllers cannot see the financial consequences concerned in such an event. My view is hold the light a/c off or send it around. Keep the big boys moving. The management again, as my previous post suggests, will not tackle this scenario and therefore come to the conclusion that there is some sort of agreement between multiflight and LBA to keep the small runway open.
Maybe if the Airline management from BMI or JET2 complained to LBA then something would be done (come on guys). If I was held on the ground for a short time due to a light a/c doing a touch and go then I would not be happy.
I have just found out that the situation could have been eased by the 757 being able to turn left onto the alpha taxiway, however it was measured inccorectly by 1m (ish). But rather than the airport spending money to allow it to do so they chose not to therefore making it unusable for 757's to pass stands 1 to 5 on the alpha taxiway.
Maybe if the Airline management from BMI or JET2 complained to LBA then something would be done (come on guys). If I was held on the ground for a short time due to a light a/c doing a touch and go then I would not be happy.
I have just found out that the situation could have been eased by the 757 being able to turn left onto the alpha taxiway, however it was measured inccorectly by 1m (ish). But rather than the airport spending money to allow it to do so they chose not to therefore making it unusable for 757's to pass stands 1 to 5 on the alpha taxiway.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North East
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS 119.5 I think you'll find that controllers are there to provide a service no matter who it is. They are also there to provide safety and are not conerned directly with the financial side of things. Remember if you make an aircraft go round that has already lined up it is still an active runway regardless if it makes a touch and go. On top of that if you do make a light aircraft hold for the departure of a large aircraft it not only has to wait for the runway to become free again but also has to wait for the wake from the departing aircraft in your case a 737-700 to settle down. So I think you should lay of the controllers, these people have a stressed enough job as it is without people moaning about the way they do their job. Remember that aviation should be safety first, not financial first and definately not spotter satisfaction first.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Onion
I agree, but the airport company and major airlines would make far more money if the controllers made decisions to allow this. Such as sending g/a a/c around to expedite commercial use. I am well aware of all the safety aspects surrounding such circumstances, but some controllers will put g/a a/c as priority and in a commercial aviation world they cannot be put as priority against a commercial airliner. Vortex is bo**ocks, and does not enter the scenario if you are clever enough. If the departing a/c rotates before 28 then yes another orbit if not then no problem I agree with safety first but to hold two commercial flights for the sake of a cessna doing a touch and go is ridiculous
I agree, but the airport company and major airlines would make far more money if the controllers made decisions to allow this. Such as sending g/a a/c around to expedite commercial use. I am well aware of all the safety aspects surrounding such circumstances, but some controllers will put g/a a/c as priority and in a commercial aviation world they cannot be put as priority against a commercial airliner. Vortex is bo**ocks, and does not enter the scenario if you are clever enough. If the departing a/c rotates before 28 then yes another orbit if not then no problem I agree with safety first but to hold two commercial flights for the sake of a cessna doing a touch and go is ridiculous
Join Date: May 2005
Location: italy
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poor old Leodis got your management head on have we probably been at LBA for the last thirty years wow all that experience and you still think breaches in security, poorly trained staff lack of investment is a narrow minded comment on this wonderful thread of yours well i suppose i better let you and Mr LBA swap somemore new routes together
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there & everywhere
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ciampino
It may have escaped your attention but the title of this thread is called 'Leeds Expansion' and not 'let''s throw childish little digs at LBA & Leodis'
Please give it a rest. It's very boring and very childish.
It is great to see a regional airport doing so well. The rapid expansion may have outstripped some of the facilities but it takes a lot longer to build a new terminal, stands etc than to introduce a new flight. It also depends on the reliability and strength of these new routes. There is no point building a £X million terminal and stands if the routes and airlines don't work. Wait a couple of years, see if they establish and grow, then act on the plans.
A similar thing is happening at MME. Peel Holdings have great plans for a new terminal and stands etc but they are waiting to see how bmi baby and Ryanair fair before cutting the turf.
It may have escaped your attention but the title of this thread is called 'Leeds Expansion' and not 'let''s throw childish little digs at LBA & Leodis'
Please give it a rest. It's very boring and very childish.
It is great to see a regional airport doing so well. The rapid expansion may have outstripped some of the facilities but it takes a lot longer to build a new terminal, stands etc than to introduce a new flight. It also depends on the reliability and strength of these new routes. There is no point building a £X million terminal and stands if the routes and airlines don't work. Wait a couple of years, see if they establish and grow, then act on the plans.
A similar thing is happening at MME. Peel Holdings have great plans for a new terminal and stands etc but they are waiting to see how bmi baby and Ryanair fair before cutting the turf.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport staff levels
119.5 The jobs you have mentioned are the airport company staff. The figure of 2000+ is based on official employment records for airports and related businesses set at 1000 jobs per 1 million passengers. Therefore LBA's employment totals will actually be nearer to 3000 related jobs. This figure is comprised of employment on and off site, airport company staff, business partners and related businesses. This can include anything from shops through to taxis which have increased business generated by the airport. Astraeus employ approximately (25) airline cabin crew and pilots, if you times this by 9 then you will get the approximate figure for the based Jet2 crew (225). Security must have approximately (80) staff, servisair maybe (60), Aviance say (40). There must be at least (40) fire service crew etc. So nearly 500 people with just the above mentioned!
Ciampino: - your words say it all, I need not comment!
Ciampino: - your words say it all, I need not comment!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North East
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS I am unfamiliar with the ground plan at Leeds yet know that the controllers at Leeds are as good as any in the country so you would be adviced to allow them to make the decisions. For instance it will only be the controllers who have upto the minute info on the slot situation so the departing 737-700 may of been in the situation where it made no difference. Also the situation you refere to is utilising the runways to their full as well. Also MATS 1 states you should not use a runway as a taxiway so I suggest that you get onto the airport owners. Also on this note how much longer really did the 737 have to wait when it also had to wait for the back tracking aircraft. Again I say it is the controllers decision on the spot to decide on who uses the runway and when.
Flightrider my posts are also aimed at you.
Flightrider my posts are also aimed at you.
The 737 was right on the end of its ATC slot when it got airborne and I can tell you now that this was not a factor in terms of holding it. It could not get airborne until the 767 had vacated from its backtrack along 14; and the 767 could not vacate 14 until the Cessna had done its touch-and-go. Farcical. The 767 was at a standstill for at least four minutes ahead of the intersection; and the 737-700 had backtracked from the north/south to the end of 32 before the 767 came to a halt. Probably about a tonne of fuel burnt between the two to allow the Cessna to do the touch-and-go, I reckon.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mats pt 1 states that you should not use a runway as a taxiway
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long way off i'm sure but I understand that plans are now been put together for a taxiway running from A2 to E1 straight through the BP fuel farm. Apparently the CAA are advising that this work should be done as soon as possible. If and when this ever happens it will make a great difference.
Also just to keep people upto date with things. Work on the new Irish gate is to commence next week. A small extension to the building will be added to process passengers onto the ramp from the first floor area above the airside cafe. I think (and hope) this is to be a short-term measure.
Need more airbridges!!
Also just to keep people upto date with things. Work on the new Irish gate is to commence next week. A small extension to the building will be added to process passengers onto the ramp from the first floor area above the airside cafe. I think (and hope) this is to be a short-term measure.
Need more airbridges!!
Last edited by Leodis; 16th May 2005 at 16:42.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: EGLL
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A parallel taxiway from A2 direct to E1 would interfere with the instrument landing strip. The taxiway would have to be further North which would mean making a bigger bridge across the road. I cannot see this happening for many, many years to come. The first problem is parking and the closure of 28/10, but as I have said earlier the agreement between LBA and Multiflight is not known regarding this. I cannot see major investment for major expansion happening only minor investment for short term reactive expansion occurring.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt there is any "agreement" between Multi and LBA regarding 28/10. The Southside investment has been a joint initiative on the part of LBA and Multi, with both parties contributing funding and the overall direction being to create an engineering / executive handling service. The use of 28/10 for the flying club will (rightly or wrongly) have been secondary to the investment decision.
As for this old 'reactive' rubbish again, don't people realise the airport is run as a standalone business and recieves no public subsidy of any description, nor has it done so since at least 1987. It funds expansion from out of its own profitability or by securing third party commercial lending based on its projected financial performance. In short, it gets no handouts and would be unwise (and unsuccessful) if it tried to mortgage itself to the hilt to create a facility now that could cope with 5 million passengers x number of years down the line. And of course all the growth in passenger numbers is coming from airlines that pay very little, so as a business it is actually no more profitable than it was back when there were half the number of passengers.
If the airport wants all of
1) new terminal
2) apron expansion
3) parallel taxiways
4) ILS upgrades
5) public transport / road improvements
6) etc
..then there is little alternative than to get a private investor involved with deep pockets and plently of time on their hands to wait for payback on the cash they'd be investing. This isn't the call of local management at LBA, but of the local authority shareholders and until / if they act, Ed & Co will have to fund investment as they have been doing; which incidently, they should be given a reasonable amount of credit for what they have achieved over the past few years.
682
As for this old 'reactive' rubbish again, don't people realise the airport is run as a standalone business and recieves no public subsidy of any description, nor has it done so since at least 1987. It funds expansion from out of its own profitability or by securing third party commercial lending based on its projected financial performance. In short, it gets no handouts and would be unwise (and unsuccessful) if it tried to mortgage itself to the hilt to create a facility now that could cope with 5 million passengers x number of years down the line. And of course all the growth in passenger numbers is coming from airlines that pay very little, so as a business it is actually no more profitable than it was back when there were half the number of passengers.
If the airport wants all of
1) new terminal
2) apron expansion
3) parallel taxiways
4) ILS upgrades
5) public transport / road improvements
6) etc
..then there is little alternative than to get a private investor involved with deep pockets and plently of time on their hands to wait for payback on the cash they'd be investing. This isn't the call of local management at LBA, but of the local authority shareholders and until / if they act, Ed & Co will have to fund investment as they have been doing; which incidently, they should be given a reasonable amount of credit for what they have achieved over the past few years.
682
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
682, I find it interesting that the list of wants does not include runway improvements! The state of 14/32 is such that at least a resurfacing on the older bit should be a priority. As you rightly point out however, unless someone with deep pockets comes along the infrastucture will not keep up with growth which is a sad result of the airports current success.