LUTON

[LTNman]

Luton would need an increase of 24% compared to last August to pass the 1,000,000 barrier. The July increase was 21.7% with the trend of a slowly dropping percentage increase each month since the peak of around 33%, which occurred around March. My guess is that we will have to wait to around June or July 2006. Of course I could be completely wrong.


Runway questions

1/ If Gatwick can achieve 30million passengers on one runway why does LTN need two seeing that Luton are becoming experts in keeping costs down.

2/ Why does Luton need a 3000m runway which is still not long enough for fully loaded 747's and not needed by easyjet or Ryanair type operators?

3/ Would the extra length be cost effective in generating extra business compared to LTN’s 2160m existing runway?

4/ Apart for a few cargo flights how many Stansted's movements could not use LTN's existing runway ?

[LGS6753]

Runway

The extra runway investment would presumably allow:

More payload availability for marginal destinations. These would presumably include Egypt and the future charter destination - Dubai.

It would allow ETOPS aircraft to reach the US East Coast and Canada. Luton has had almost no transatlantic charters over the years. 3000m would make these more likely. By cutting out stops at Bangor, Florida flights would be more cost-effective.

A longer runway with high-speed run-off taxiways would increase the movement capacity. I don't think there's room at present for full-length taxiways to both 26 and 08. If there were, capacity would increase.

In short, little change to the European routes, but the chance for more medium and long haul.

[nickmanl]

LTNman, doesn't the growth at Luton depend on low cost airlines and charter airlines, none of which operate 747's and I doubt they will in the future. I really can't see BA or Virgin basing 747's at Luton, and American airlines hardly use them nowadays anyway.

A 3000m runway would surely allow for the further away destinations to be operated by charter airlines. First choice have those 787's on order, and a 767 or A330 would have no trouble lifting off for transatlantic flights of this length of a runway, both of which have operated to the US before from Luton.

The 777 (I know it was travelling light) took off with ease carrying the England squad to Dubai for the 2002 World Cup.

[CAP670]

1/ If Gatwick can achieve 30million passengers on one runway why does LTN need two seeing that Luton are becoming experts in keeping costs down.

Luton doesn't need two runways and the intention isn't to operate them in a Heathrow mode, but instead, as Gatwick does at present.

2/ Why does Luton need a 3000m runway which is still not long enough for fully loaded 747's....?

Incorrect - the obstruction environment at Luton means that 3000 metres as a Take-Off RUN is perfectly adequate for a fully loaded B747 going long-haul, because the Take-Off DISTANCE would be longer due to the elevation of the airfield. In any event, Manchester operates perfectly well with a Take-Off Run of 3048 metres.

3/ Would the extra length be cost effective in generating extra business compared to LTN’s 2160m existing runway?

The comparative cost has shown that it's actually less expensive to construct a new runway than to infill the land to the east end of the existing runway.

The Project 2030 initiative is absolutely NOT some half-baked LIA/LBC 1980s-style 'fag packet' exercise being undertaken by Luton Town Hall's Highways Dept., such as has been the historic means of doing business at LTN. It's a multi-million pound project by the new airport operators who actually know something about running big airports, and who have engaged a range of international consultants to advise on the required infrastructure and to draw up the necessary options and plans.

To grasp what's actually going on, LTNman, you need to 'think outside the box' and whilst you're at it, dump the 1980s Luton mindset together with your flares and kipper ties....

[LTNman]

I do think outside the box, well I like to think I do. The questions about the runway were more to do with stimulating a discussion about the future of LTN which it has done. Thanks!

[Buster the Bear]

Stansted has:

05R 05L 23R 23L

Gatwick has:

08R 08L 26R 26L

Luton wants?

08R 08L 26R 26L

No mention on the consultation document put out to local folk that Luton would have 2 continual operational runways, just a 'new' runway.

My guess, and I am only a bear, is that the existing runway would become emergency/contingency/taxiway. 3000m to depart from, with less to land on, thus keeping the aircraft 'higher' on final approach than using the 3000m thresholds, so keeping the noise down? Modern jets do not need huge runways to land upon, mind you, what needs 3000 meters for departure?

BMI to base a Jungle Jet, what next, BA to follow BMI up the M1????

3000m runway, BMI moving in, what next? Ryanair buying A380's and operating them to the USA!

Buster.....It must be my medication!

[Powerjet1]

King Pong

With the BMI aircraft spending five hours at LTN between the first & second flight to BRU, I would have thought that would have been ripe for another destination such as a daily MUC to be slotted in. That particular route has not been served since the demise of Debonair and was one of its best routes at the time. Would imagine that would do well.

[Buster the Bear]

Cork, Knock, Newcastle, Liverpool, Manchester, Jersey, Leeds (my outside guess, re-crews?), a French second home owner destination, Rotterdam, Munich is quite possible? Where do the Vauxhall/Renault Kingairs originate from?

A single rotation would dictate a leisure route within 1.5 hours from Luton?

[LTNman]

Looking at the contours on my Ordnance Survey map, any new runway would have to be off set by quite a distance to avoid land that drops away quite steeply at the 08 end as it follows the railway line. My guess is that a new runway will be proposed around a mile to the south of the existing runway, which would put it just north of Chiltern Green. It might also not have a 08 / 26 orientation due to the lack of 3000m of relatively flat land following that direction. My guess is that a new runway will point more towards a northeast – southwest direction. By doing this approach and takeoffs will avoid flying over all towns including Luton and Stevenage.
The circle marks a position just south of where I think the runway could be. http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.c...e=25000&icon=x
Note the spot measurements shown on the map of 151m just south of Diamond End, 146m just north of my circle and the 150m contour line to the west of Chiltern Green. A new airport would then be created in between the two runways.


Remember each contour line represents 10m/ 30ft of rising or falling land which means a new runway will not be placed next to the existing runway as Gatwick did. Land just south of the existing LTN runway peaks at around 160m but drops to 120m at around where a new 3000 m 26L runway would start.

[CAP670]

It might also not have a 08 / 26 orientation due to the lack of 3000m of relatively flat land following that direction. My guess is that a new runway will point more towards a northeast – southwest direction

LTNman, this orientation was examined in detail and rejected because of the adverse airspace and route interaction with Heathrow traffic (especially when Heathrow is landing 09L/09R) and Bovingdon to the southwest of LTN.

The 'final' choice - based on the consultants' and NATS' input - will be published for wider public consultation in the near future.

Rest assured that for the supporters and users of LTN as opposed to the NIMBYs and NOPEs, that choice will - if all goes well - in some seven years propel Luton directly from League Division 3 into League Division 1 and will give BAA and Stansted the sort of head-on competition that could otherwise, only be introduced by transporting Manchester Airport down the M6 and M1 to a location just south of Luton.

As for Runway 08L/26R, the chosen alignment, length and layout and the various 'environmental trade-offs' will leave you sleeping more peacefully for most of the night, and also absolutely staggered...

[LTNman]

I thought that by swinging the runway so it had more of a Stansted heading would improve things in that direction. Forgot about Heathrow and the Bovindgon stack.

I still recon that a new runway will be proposed close to my circle no matter what direction it points. No doubt where ever it is put there will be people who are at the moment sleeping in ignorant bliss who are about to become vocal campaigners against the airport.

So is Hertfordshire about to get its first international airport????

[King Pong]

So lets look forward say 25 years. Luton has a new 3000m runway and a new terminal built on Hertfordshire land. The old runway is now hardly used and the old existing aprons are now only used for executive jets, cargo and aircraft that are in for maintenance. BA who moved out of Gatwick to Luton is one of Luton’s biggest airlines.

So here are the questions.

Would TBI continue to pay a concession fee to Luton Council seeing that their passengers never touched Luton soil?

If the town’s borders were moved to encompass the new airport would a fee then be due?

If TBI closed and dug up taxiway links to the old airport and then handed it back to the council at the end of its concession could the council claim ownership of the new airport, which was leased out for 30 years?

[OLNEY 1 BRAVO]

Vauxhall/Renault King Air's

Buster - they come from Toussus Le Noble .. i.e. Paris.

[nickmanl]

I know its hypothetically speaking but the airport isn't really looking at flag carries for their development, although if they decide to base a few aircraft at luton I'm sure there will be no objection.

LTN is looking at the growth to come from the low cost and charter airlines, and BA are already thinking about withdrawing their daily IOM service.

[CAP670]

(ACDL)

So lets look forward say 25 years

King Pong - the first question to be addressed is whether Airport Concessions and Development Limited (ACDL) still has the Concession to run LTN. TBI before it was subsumed by ACDL expressed a desire to extend to 50 years which would take the Concession to around 2050. This represents a far more realistic business deal for ACDL than the 30 years originally let, simply because of the vast expenditure necessary to reverse the previous 20 years decline under the penny-pinching incompetent ownership of Luton Borough Council (LBC).

If ACDL does still have a Concession - new or extended - then whatever concession fee is agreed, it would still be paid to LBC.

Although the proposed Project 2030 development lies in parts of Herts, there is a precedent in that some years ago, the county boundary between Sussex and Surrey was jinked to fully encompass Gatwick at the time of further development. There's no reason why this could not again be done.

Irrespective, ACDL would still presumably pay business rates and one assumes that if the boundary wasn't altered, this would be to both councils on a proportionate basis.

Not sure if ACDL has the right to close down and dig up the 'old' i.e. existing Airport, anyway.

One thing is almost 99% certain. If the Concession does expire in 2030 and LTN goes back into direct LBC control, any further progress would immediately cease and the place would once more, simply fall into a steady decline.

LBC and its 'management' were incapable of effectively marketing and efficiently running LTN when it was handling just 1.5M annual passengers 85% of whom were 'bucket and spade' punters.

It's almost inconceivable that LBC would have or would be able to employ a management team with the ability to effectively market and efficiently run LTN at +/- 30M annual passengers!

My money's on an extended or re-negotiated Concession with ACDL - that way, LTN continues to move ahead with a professional and specialist management whilst LBC (and perhaps also eventually Herts CC) stand around with their grubby hands outstretched...

[TightSlot]

Working in the cabin for a UK charter operator out of LTN, I'm experiencing a high volume of complaints from customers on boarding at the new gates, about:

• The distance to walk to the gates
• An extreme shortage of seats airside
• Sometimes an excessive number of steps

Does anybody know if there are any plans to improve any of these issues, and if so, of the timescale?

Many thanks in anticipation.

[ezpz]

EZY cabin crew have now been instructed inform passengers on descent that they may experience delays at immigration, and recommend they use the toilets before landing. Not exactly giving a great first impression of LTN.

Passengers are now getting lost in the baggage hall because they have to do a 180 degree turn to enter the customs hall. Saw loads wandering around looking for the exit.

I hope they complete the redevelopment work soon.

[LTNman]

Working in the cabin for a UK charter operator out of LTN, I'm experiencing a high volume of complaints from customers about the distance to walk to the gates :

Charter airlines only use the new pier which is the short walk. Ryanair passengers and some easyjet passengers get the long walk so I don't know why your passengers are moaning.

An extreme shortage of seats airside

Agreed this is a real problem that can’t be resolved in the new lounge due to the lounge actually being a shopping centre. Shops earn money for the airport while seating doesn’t. What passengers don’t realise is that the old lounge is still open and has several hundred empty seats but it’s a 15 minute return walk to access them.

Sometimes an excessive number of steps

poor design but at the end of the day people are lazy now and don't like walking up and down stairs.

EZY cabin crew have now been instructed inform passengers on descent that they may experience delays at immigration, and recommend they use the toilets before landing. Not exactly giving a great first impression of LTN. Passengers are now getting lost in the baggage hall because they have to do a 180 degree turn to enter the customs hall. Saw loads wandering around looking for the exit.

It's not finished yet and should improve in a few weeks. Don’t know why there is a problem with immigration as it is twice the size of the old facilities with 9 desks. Might have more to do with a lack of staff but that is an issue for the government.

[Buster the Bear]

Lack of seats airside, long distance walking, now who complained about the same during early July?

Now you need to have a 'pee' before you land as locating a 'loo' could well be a challenge after you disembark!

What a laugh...NOT!

[TightSlot]

Thanks LTNman for your thoughts. It is interesting that, although presumably factual and accurate, there is not one of those answers that I can relay to a customer and that will make them feel better about their complaint.