LEEDS -3
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm...I managed to convince some of my colleagues that the land was going tgo be redeveloped as a housing estate. After a quick discussion, they all agreed that this made sense with DSA and MAN not too far away and given the famous Leeds traffic congestion. However as I thought Balfour Beatty would be preferred it shows how much I know 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all know that the probable under the table handshake is by far the most important deal here. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see something pop out of the woodwork from the council chambers after the smoke has cleared.
On a serious note though, I feel that Bridgepoint will be good for the airport given that the airport must remain an airport. With that in mind no company would take the place on without wanting to develop the site into a much more healthier acquisition to sell to an airport operator at a later date for a far greater price.
On a serious note though, I feel that Bridgepoint will be good for the airport given that the airport must remain an airport. With that in mind no company would take the place on without wanting to develop the site into a much more healthier acquisition to sell to an airport operator at a later date for a far greater price.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Leeds Yorkshire England
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A300boy
Lets face it they can only be better than we have had for the last thirty years so lets give them a chance ! Maybe they will have an ideas promotion so we can all chip in with our suggestions.
Bridgepoint is most unfortunate. It means that the airport cannot benefit from any of the opportunities of being part of a group of airports to do "bulk deals" with airlines for new services, which is something that Peel Holdings and Manchester Airports seem to be doing with some degree of success between other UK regional airports.
It also means that they will probably have to pay the going rate for any construction requirements. Being majority-owned by a large construction firm would have had its advantages in terms of access to resources at (presumably) very competitive rates. With the Balfour Beatty bid, they would have been ideally placed to build up the infrastructure at a lower price, then realise a significantly higher sale price some years later. Heaven knows, enough investment in infrastructure is needed - road access improvements, extra starter/run-off strips on each end of 14/32, extending the pier down the side of the main apron etc.
It is probably the worst of all worlds as far as the airport is concerned. One is bound to wonder whether the airport's largest airline customer has been involved behind the scenes, so as to ensure that the winning bidder was someone whom it could still push around to do what it wanted.
It also means that they will probably have to pay the going rate for any construction requirements. Being majority-owned by a large construction firm would have had its advantages in terms of access to resources at (presumably) very competitive rates. With the Balfour Beatty bid, they would have been ideally placed to build up the infrastructure at a lower price, then realise a significantly higher sale price some years later. Heaven knows, enough investment in infrastructure is needed - road access improvements, extra starter/run-off strips on each end of 14/32, extending the pier down the side of the main apron etc.
It is probably the worst of all worlds as far as the airport is concerned. One is bound to wonder whether the airport's largest airline customer has been involved behind the scenes, so as to ensure that the winning bidder was someone whom it could still push around to do what it wanted.
I'll stick with Bridgepoint.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On the move
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My favourite to buy the airport was always Bridgepoint.
I had a sinking feeling it could happen because I think Sir Graham Hall may have played on his connection with Yorkshire Forward.
It would have appealed to councillors that LBA would not loose it`s Yorkshire identity (and name).Also, the councils get their money but do not have to worry too much about huge politically sensitive expansion plans ever taking place.
So what do we know so far.
Improvement in the quality of the runway. Re-surfacing?
Lots of new shops. Where?
Improved restaurants, the existing ones?
More routes, how? this one is the real puzzle.
Some deal with Jet2?
Huge start up incentives for Ruskin Airways etc?
I hope I am completely wrong in my cynical assessment.
wawkrk
I had a sinking feeling it could happen because I think Sir Graham Hall may have played on his connection with Yorkshire Forward.
It would have appealed to councillors that LBA would not loose it`s Yorkshire identity (and name).Also, the councils get their money but do not have to worry too much about huge politically sensitive expansion plans ever taking place.
So what do we know so far.
Improvement in the quality of the runway. Re-surfacing?
Lots of new shops. Where?
Improved restaurants, the existing ones?
More routes, how? this one is the real puzzle.
Some deal with Jet2?
Huge start up incentives for Ruskin Airways etc?
I hope I am completely wrong in my cynical assessment.
wawkrk
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wawkrk, how do you resurface a concrete runway? I guess the old surface is just covered with asphalt? As for Bridgepoint lets just wait and see if they're out to make a quick buck, if so expect to see things happen fairly quicky. I myself don't see it happening, more likely they'll grow the airport slowly and then sell it off for a profit.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On the move
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Wawkrk, how do you resurface a concrete runway? )
I am not an expert but I imagine the old surface needs to be broken up to a reasonable depth before the new surface is laid. Hopefully this time using asphalt which is easier to maintain.
I am not an expert but I imagine the old surface needs to be broken up to a reasonable depth before the new surface is laid. Hopefully this time using asphalt which is easier to maintain.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless that was part of the deal, I would not have thought so. I would imagine that they could tear the Masterplan up and start again if they wanted to.
How long will it take to break up the concrete surface and relay it? Will everyone have to decamp to Donnie for the duration?
How long will it take to break up the concrete surface and relay it? Will everyone have to decamp to Donnie for the duration?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On the move
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There aint going to be a masterplan with the huge 70m that Bridgepoint plan to invest. Most of it going on shops. No new terminal. Forget the cobbled runway.We cant even dream about an extension.
So, a shopping centre it is then.Well Leeds & Bradford councils.
I hope we at least get a new motorway from Leeds to Donny.
Good luck Donny
So, a shopping centre it is then.Well Leeds & Bradford councils.
I hope we at least get a new motorway from Leeds to Donny.
Good luck Donny
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On the move
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bridgepoint
So 70m to invest over 10 years.
New terminal 40m
Re-surface runway 20m
300m extension 40m
Parallel taxiway 30m
Technical aids etc 10m
More apron space 20m
So about 160M
Proposed investment 7m per year.
Profits in 2007 5m so 2m spent
Profit in 2008 6m so 1m spent
Profit in 2009 8m so 1m recovered.
And so it goes.
Most of the talk is about more shops and much bigger duty free, why?
What percentage of flights are outside the EU?
I doubt if any of the above main investments will take place.
The existing council owners could have done the same if they had not taken the money.
I reckon Peel Holdings will have fallen off their boardroom chairs with laughter.
They cannot believe their luck.
All we need now is Jet 2 to scram away to DSA and that will be the end.
If I have got it all wrong, then I will be very pleased.
wawkrk
So 70m to invest over 10 years.
New terminal 40m
Re-surface runway 20m
300m extension 40m
Parallel taxiway 30m
Technical aids etc 10m
More apron space 20m
So about 160M
Proposed investment 7m per year.
Profits in 2007 5m so 2m spent
Profit in 2008 6m so 1m spent
Profit in 2009 8m so 1m recovered.
And so it goes.
Most of the talk is about more shops and much bigger duty free, why?
What percentage of flights are outside the EU?
I doubt if any of the above main investments will take place.
The existing council owners could have done the same if they had not taken the money.
I reckon Peel Holdings will have fallen off their boardroom chairs with laughter.
They cannot believe their luck.
All we need now is Jet 2 to scram away to DSA and that will be the end.
If I have got it all wrong, then I will be very pleased.
wawkrk
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wawkrk - almost all of the above is at best ubsunstantiated and at worst made up. Do yourself, and everyone else a favour by saving the debate for when we all have some facts and understanding of what the new owners are proposing. I say "new owners" rather than Bridgepoint because I have seen nothing yet which confirms they are still the preferred bidder ahead of the Barclays Private Equity bid. Both have until Monday to confirm their bids after having had 6 working days from the 5th to review the final and most commercially sensitive due dilligence reports.
Making stuff up in the meantime and then arguing that it's not good enough seems a waste of effort.
682
Making stuff up in the meantime and then arguing that it's not good enough seems a waste of effort.
682
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On the move
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK 682, your points are taken.
At this stage nobody knows what are the development costs, so we can only guess.Maybe I am a doom and gloom monger.
But, if it is true what has been stated on another website.
70m over 10 years, then I have a point.
It has been said many times, that the new owners need to spend at least as much again as they paid for the airport.
We all know what needs to done and I just don`t see it on what has been said so far.
At this stage nobody knows what are the development costs, so we can only guess.Maybe I am a doom and gloom monger.
But, if it is true what has been stated on another website.
70m over 10 years, then I have a point.
It has been said many times, that the new owners need to spend at least as much again as they paid for the airport.
We all know what needs to done and I just don`t see it on what has been said so far.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry 682 I have to stand by WAWKRK on this. This is an appropriate place to speculate and to raise possible concerns and / or points of interest. If not, what is the point of the forum?
It is not surprising that nothing has been made public in the interim period. The two bidders will be holding in-depth discussions with LBIA management to find out the 'warts and all'. We will just have to wait a few more days.
Would Barclays Private Equity be any better as an owner? Barclays Bank PLC are very good at making profits (i am an account holder of thirty years standing!
) but how good are they at investing in airports? I presume they are one and the same 
It is not surprising that nothing has been made public in the interim period. The two bidders will be holding in-depth discussions with LBIA management to find out the 'warts and all'. We will just have to wait a few more days.
Would Barclays Private Equity be any better as an owner? Barclays Bank PLC are very good at making profits (i am an account holder of thirty years standing!
) but how good are they at investing in airports? I presume they are one and the same
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I have to stand with 682ft on this on, wawkrk I am sorry you are generally a good poster but there really is no need for that type of outlook.
If Bridgepoint buy, they buy. LBA is a cracking airport I think we all agree with that but it also has its flaws. Whatever happens...happens. I am not going to get into a debate about what might happen; time has shown that all sorts of injustices happen, if it happens here it happens.
I will not lose sleep over it, as much as I like LBA, and I would have thought neither will most other folks.
Give things a chance......
If Bridgepoint buy, they buy. LBA is a cracking airport I think we all agree with that but it also has its flaws. Whatever happens...happens. I am not going to get into a debate about what might happen; time has shown that all sorts of injustices happen, if it happens here it happens.
I will not lose sleep over it, as much as I like LBA, and I would have thought neither will most other folks.
Give things a chance......
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This question is asked over and over again.
It depends on the aircraft type basically.
The Boeing 757 cannot make a direct trip to Canada or New York from runway 32 at Leeds without a restrictive take-off weight because of the Chevin. The Boeing 767-200 and 767-300 wouldn't have a problem. As for the new Boeing 787 I don't know.
The runway would benefit with an extension to both ends. A runway extension to the end of runway 32 would allow for greater stopping distances for instance, but it wouldn't really help the situation for a 32 departure. For the same reason, an extension to the North West end would increase the take-off run on runway 14.
The airport would benefit the most from an extension to the end of runway 14 at the South East end of the runway. By extending the runway at that end, margins would be improved at both ends of the runway for take-off and landings.
It depends on the aircraft type basically.
The Boeing 757 cannot make a direct trip to Canada or New York from runway 32 at Leeds without a restrictive take-off weight because of the Chevin. The Boeing 767-200 and 767-300 wouldn't have a problem. As for the new Boeing 787 I don't know.
The runway would benefit with an extension to both ends. A runway extension to the end of runway 32 would allow for greater stopping distances for instance, but it wouldn't really help the situation for a 32 departure. For the same reason, an extension to the North West end would increase the take-off run on runway 14.
The airport would benefit the most from an extension to the end of runway 14 at the South East end of the runway. By extending the runway at that end, margins would be improved at both ends of the runway for take-off and landings.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On the move
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to my earlier contoversial posting.
I know this is old news but maybe not everybody saw it.
Bridgepoint's bid chairman, Sir Graham Hall, said that the company planned to add routes to more destinations, as well as increasing the number of flights, if it was successful in its bid. It had achieved similar goals at Birmingham Airport, before selling its stake to other investors.
Sir Graham said the company would also work to improve the quality of the airport and its runways, while also increasing the number of passengers it can handle. It would also improve the airport terminal's shops and restaurants.
wawkrk
I know this is old news but maybe not everybody saw it.
Bridgepoint's bid chairman, Sir Graham Hall, said that the company planned to add routes to more destinations, as well as increasing the number of flights, if it was successful in its bid. It had achieved similar goals at Birmingham Airport, before selling its stake to other investors.
Sir Graham said the company would also work to improve the quality of the airport and its runways, while also increasing the number of passengers it can handle. It would also improve the airport terminal's shops and restaurants.
wawkrk