LUTON
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitchin
Posts: 1,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
£1.5 Billion is an awful lot of money for Luton, but then again, you have to speculate to accumulate!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With this substantial sum emarked for expansion at LTN, (25% of which to be spent to complete Phase 1 by late 2007
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitchin
Posts: 1,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London Luton Airport Community newsletter enclosed in the free local newspaper last night giving brief summary details of the proposed expansion, map of the development etc. Comments page for completion & return by 27 Jan 06. Being delivered to some 300,000 homes in the area. Several roadshow/exibititions taking place on Nov/Dec at various towns.
From various radio/tv programmes in the last 48 hours, many people seem alarmed & surprised by the scale of the deveopment, and I think the airport operator is going to find it tough in the months ahead getting it through.
From various radio/tv programmes in the last 48 hours, many people seem alarmed & surprised by the scale of the deveopment, and I think the airport operator is going to find it tough in the months ahead getting it through.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London FIR
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With this substantial sum emarked for expansion at LTN, (25% of which to be spent to complete Phase 1 by late 2007
The interim Phase 1 "max out" programme requires only planning permission, and LLAO has several cards up its sleeve that will assuage the local NIMBY populus and the local NOPE (environmentalist) fraternity.
However, to have - by the Winter of 2007 - a runway and associated ground facilities that can accommodate and sustain a full-blown 32 movements per hour (which is currently the declared hourly throughput but is presently difficult to achieve on a constant basis) and the resultant passenger activity (12m/year?) is an admirable aim that will definitely expose several 'weak links in the chain' few of which will have been resolved in 24 months, viz:
1. Local roads - grossly inadequate during 'rush hour' even today
2. Airport roads - ditto
3. M1 motorway between Junctions 10/10A and the M25 (southbound) and Junction 13 (northbound) - ditto
4. Road links eastwards to A1M - ditto
5. Adjacent London terminal airspace - ditto
6. Interaction with other London airports'/airfields' routes (e.g. London City, Northolt and even now...Southend) - a major impediment
7. Ability to depart aircraft from the existing Runway 26 at less than two minute intervals (because of the noise abatement turn away from Luton) - impossible.
8. Airport railway station (an excellent facility) that can't accommodate HST trains (platforms too short) - an 'own goal'
9. Airport railway station passenger hall - wong side of the line for ease of access to/from the Airport (see # 1 above).
Nevertheless, with ACDL's obvious cash and heavy-weight intent, some very searching questions will no doubt be asked in 24 months time about those issues (above) that remain and which are not directly within the airport company's control or its ability to resolve!
Should be interesting...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitchin
Posts: 1,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAP670
Agree with you 100% on the 'weak links' which will probably get even worse in the short term, before they get better.
Thameslink(or rather the new operator - Nat Express are currently the favourite) are hopefull of extending the Parkway platforms to take 12 car trains but work will not start until late 2007/early 2008. They are also working with LLAOL regarding the feasibility of building a major coach interchange at Jct 10. Quite where this will leave LTFC, who are still intent on building a new stadium at Jct 10, who knows?
From the consultation document , the airport are predicting 10.2m pax for 2006, 11.1m for 2007. Annual increases thereafter, of between 0.6m & 0.9m pax, up to 2012, when the proposed replacement runway would come into play. At that point, predicted pax nos increase from between 1.5m & 3.0m annually up to 2020.
Agree with you 100% on the 'weak links' which will probably get even worse in the short term, before they get better.
Thameslink(or rather the new operator - Nat Express are currently the favourite) are hopefull of extending the Parkway platforms to take 12 car trains but work will not start until late 2007/early 2008. They are also working with LLAOL regarding the feasibility of building a major coach interchange at Jct 10. Quite where this will leave LTFC, who are still intent on building a new stadium at Jct 10, who knows?
From the consultation document , the airport are predicting 10.2m pax for 2006, 11.1m for 2007. Annual increases thereafter, of between 0.6m & 0.9m pax, up to 2012, when the proposed replacement runway would come into play. At that point, predicted pax nos increase from between 1.5m & 3.0m annually up to 2020.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London FIR
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair supports the development of low cost airport facilities in the south east, and will work closely with Luton International Airport to help it achieve these exciting plans
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitchin
Posts: 1,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reaction by easy was not quite so positive... noticed this snippet in the local paper given by spokeswoman Samantha Day.
"We generally have a good relaionship with Luton Airport and are in favour of the expansion plans.
"There are question marks in the area of cost. We would not be in favour of expansion at any cost. It needs to be consistent with low cost airlines needs.
"We wouldn't want to be priced out of the market as a result of expansion."
Expect to see more "war of words" between easy & ryan over LTN on several issues, during the coming weeks & months. Things going to get "mighty hot."
"We generally have a good relaionship with Luton Airport and are in favour of the expansion plans.
"There are question marks in the area of cost. We would not be in favour of expansion at any cost. It needs to be consistent with low cost airlines needs.
"We wouldn't want to be priced out of the market as a result of expansion."
Expect to see more "war of words" between easy & ryan over LTN on several issues, during the coming weeks & months. Things going to get "mighty hot."
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Wouldn't you like to know!
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is more than enough room at Junction 10 for a football ground, coach interchange and hotels etc, so I don't see why this represents a challenge.
The owner of the land is a Sheila Watson Challis, whose husband is Mike Watson Challis who is currently life president at Luton Town Football Club.
This land is earmarked for the ground, make no mistake about that.
The owner of the land is a Sheila Watson Challis, whose husband is Mike Watson Challis who is currently life president at Luton Town Football Club.
This land is earmarked for the ground, make no mistake about that.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: North of 50N
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The owner of the land is Sheila Watson Challis, whose husband is Mike Watson Challis ...
Somehow, I doubt it!
Buster wrote -
'Good news re Helvetic'
Sorry, I don't agree. Helvetic is reducing fleet from 6 to 4 aircraft, and reducing its number of destinations. That's not good news. It will make profits harder to achieve, and will reduce their market visibility. (But not the visibility of their aircraft
). I hope they aren't another Volare.
Future 737 -
You are quite right about catchment areas - Luton's catchment area (defined by population living within 1 or 2 hours' driving time) is the biggest in the UK after LHR. Luton is also very well located from a surface access point of view.
Unfortunately, I can't see it overtaking STN or LGW in terms of pax throughput. STN currently processing 20m+, that's more than LTN's planning by 2014, and is before infrastructure or efficiency improvements. Also both STN and LGW are BAA airports, who share marketing costs, and can cross-refer airlines wishing to fly into more than one London airport (and there's a lot of those).
But more news:
Aer Arann has announced a twice daily LTN-IOM service from 24 Nov using '50 seat' ATR 42s (is that right?). Although welcome, I suggest this will finish off the BACX 146 operation, so there will be 2 movements but the same (or similar) capacity on the route.
'Good news re Helvetic'
Sorry, I don't agree. Helvetic is reducing fleet from 6 to 4 aircraft, and reducing its number of destinations. That's not good news. It will make profits harder to achieve, and will reduce their market visibility. (But not the visibility of their aircraft
). I hope they aren't another Volare.Future 737 -
You are quite right about catchment areas - Luton's catchment area (defined by population living within 1 or 2 hours' driving time) is the biggest in the UK after LHR. Luton is also very well located from a surface access point of view.
Unfortunately, I can't see it overtaking STN or LGW in terms of pax throughput. STN currently processing 20m+, that's more than LTN's planning by 2014, and is before infrastructure or efficiency improvements. Also both STN and LGW are BAA airports, who share marketing costs, and can cross-refer airlines wishing to fly into more than one London airport (and there's a lot of those).
But more news:
Aer Arann has announced a twice daily LTN-IOM service from 24 Nov using '50 seat' ATR 42s (is that right?). Although welcome, I suggest this will finish off the BACX 146 operation, so there will be 2 movements but the same (or similar) capacity on the route.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitchin
Posts: 1,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny that. I emailed AA just over a week ago and their email reply flatly refuted any IOM-LTN operation, although they said it might be someting they would look at next summer.
As LGS has stated, the BACX is likely to be killed off by this move. Obviously LTN management have tried to prempt any move of BACX withdrawing the route which has been on the cards for some time now,with AA now a willing source.
As LGS has stated, the BACX is likely to be killed off by this move. Obviously LTN management have tried to prempt any move of BACX withdrawing the route which has been on the cards for some time now,with AA now a willing source.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helvetic, good news in the sense that they are retaining Luton as a destination as they rationalise thier operations.
BA to IOM is still bookable for next year, not too sure that there is the demand for around 200 seats each way per day? Aer Arann 's timings are certainly not aimed at the business traveller.
These extra movements should give the folk in the tower something to do this coming quiet winter (Ha Ha Ha Ha!)
BA to IOM is still bookable for next year, not too sure that there is the demand for around 200 seats each way per day? Aer Arann 's timings are certainly not aimed at the business traveller.
These extra movements should give the folk in the tower something to do this coming quiet winter (Ha Ha Ha Ha!)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If BACX stop Luton, the 146 is just going to sit on the ground on the IOM for several hours a day. Providing they can cover the operating costs of the service I see no reason why they will stop anytime soon, as there really isnt any other sensible place for that 146 to fly to on a weekday lunchtime.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Roxton, UK
Age: 47
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So will Mr & Mrs Challis be putting up the necessary funds to improve the roads so that these can accommodate their football customers as well as the airport's passengers and the hapless local residents who also might care to use the adjacent roads in this area...?? Somehow, I doubt it!
To quote a government website....
Section 106 agreement
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a Local Planning Authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation, with a land developer over a related issue. The obligation is sometimes termed as a 'Section 106 Agreement'.
Such agreements can cover almost any relevant issue and can include sums of money.
S106 Agreements can act as a main instrument for placing restrictions on the developers, often requiring them to minimise the impact on the local community and to carry out tasks, which will provide community benefits.
Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a Local Planning Authority (LPA) to enter into a legally-binding agreement or planning obligation, with a land developer over a related issue. The obligation is sometimes termed as a 'Section 106 Agreement'.
Such agreements can cover almost any relevant issue and can include sums of money.
S106 Agreements can act as a main instrument for placing restrictions on the developers, often requiring them to minimise the impact on the local community and to carry out tasks, which will provide community benefits.
DeepC
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Armed with a map of the new proposed airport boundary I took a ride out into the countryside to see what sort of countryside will be lost. Even a pro airport supporter like me was shocked at what will disappear particularly at the eastern end of the new runway. 8 attractive country lanes, homes, hedgerows and ancient woodland all set in rolling Chiltern countryside will disappear. Before people here give their total support for expansion they need to take a ride out to the country lane that passes through Diamond End Wood and ask themselves is it worth it. I for one was left feeling very sad. With the announced expansion of Stevenage and land at Wigmore reserved for future housing the future is definitely not green. 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happily, all I can see from my Bear Palace are lanes, hedgerows, fields and open countryside, but I understand fully what you are saying. The new runway however, will not remove too many houses unlike runway 2 at Stansted. Breachwood Green should actually be quieter? Runway 3 at Heathrow will remove whole communities.
A few hectares of land seldom used by the vast majority of 'local' folk will hardly be a loss? Comforting to know that Someries Castle will remain intact, and who knows, maybe even more accessible?
So will Luton Hoo be overflown from the new runway, I am not too sure that the developers of this ex stately home will be too impressed?
Conservation is very important, so I hope that any land assumed by the plans will be offset by projects funded by the consortium to preserve and enhance the countyside. I just hope the environmentalists do not find any wild bears on the land to be developed, otherwise it will never happen!
Actually, creating facilities for the 'spotters' will ensure that the local 'pond life' are fully cared for.....Whoops...Only joking (Ha Ha Ha)!
A few hectares of land seldom used by the vast majority of 'local' folk will hardly be a loss? Comforting to know that Someries Castle will remain intact, and who knows, maybe even more accessible?
So will Luton Hoo be overflown from the new runway, I am not too sure that the developers of this ex stately home will be too impressed?
Conservation is very important, so I hope that any land assumed by the plans will be offset by projects funded by the consortium to preserve and enhance the countyside. I just hope the environmentalists do not find any wild bears on the land to be developed, otherwise it will never happen!
Actually, creating facilities for the 'spotters' will ensure that the local 'pond life' are fully cared for.....Whoops...Only joking (Ha Ha Ha)!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is from a train enthusiast:
"Inter-city trains aren't 12 coaches. I think you'll find that Thameslink are increasing to 12 coaches and that's why they need to lengthen the platforms. They'll be doing this at every Thameslink station, not just Luton Airport Parkway."
"Inter-city trains aren't 12 coaches. I think you'll find that Thameslink are increasing to 12 coaches and that's why they need to lengthen the platforms. They'll be doing this at every Thameslink station, not just Luton Airport Parkway."