LEEDS -3
)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On the move
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see LBA is showing 60 departures today. Is this the most we have seen?
I remember thinking 15 was impressive in the early days when we had a couple of Britannia flights on the same day.
What has always neen evident at LBA is the fact that the airport has always been strong on scheduled flights and weak on charters.
Leeds for a number of years I seem to remember having had more scheduled flights than Luton.
I remember thinking 15 was impressive in the early days when we had a couple of Britannia flights on the same day.
What has always neen evident at LBA is the fact that the airport has always been strong on scheduled flights and weak on charters.
Leeds for a number of years I seem to remember having had more scheduled flights than Luton.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Posts: 1,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its official at last. LBA has new owners, Bridgepoint Capital aquired LBA today May 3rd 2007.
Bridgepoint acquires Leeds Bradford International Airport
Leeds Bradford International Airport (LBIA) has been sold to European private equity firm Bridgepoint in a transaction totalling £145.5 million following a decision by five West Yorkshire councils to sell 100% of the share capital in the airport.
Commenting on the successful acquisition of the airport, Sir Graham Hall, who will now become chairman of LBIA, said: “Work can now begin on taking our airport up a league in every sense. LBIA is a key asset for our region and we want to build on its recent success and consolidate its role as the dominant international airport serving Yorkshire and Humberside.”
Adrian Williams, a director at Bridgepoint added: “We have a clear vision for the future success of LBIA – a future which will deliver benefits for everyone who uses it. Our aim is that the new LBIA will be one of which the staff and the region will be justifiably proud.”
Under the Bridgepoint strategic plan for the airport, a £70 million capital expenditure plan will be implemented to provide additional terminal capacity to accommodate anticipated growing passenger volumes and to meet more immediate infrastructure requirements. Specifically, the plan is built around:
investment in, and development of, the existing airside and landside infrastructure to enhance capacity
development of the route network to increase number of destinations, frequency and to double passenger capacity to seven million by the year 2015
further development of the LBIA's commercial revenues in areas such as retail and food & drink.
Bridgepoint has invested in the airport sector in the past. In 1997, it became the largest private investor in Birmingham International Airport (BIA) as part of a financing programme to fund the ongoing development of the airport. It sold its stake in December 2001 and during this five year period international connections at BIA grew by 70%, traffic grew by 40% (reversing leakage to neighbouring airports) and capital expenditure reached almost £200 million.
Leeds and Bradford councils each owned 40% of the airport with the remainder split equally between Kirklees, Wakefield and Calderdale. Although the councils will have no financial stake in LBIA, they retain a ‘special share' to protect the name of the airport and to ensure its continued operation as an international airport.
The airport was formally advertised for sale in November 2006 in a process run by Ernst & Young, with legal advice prepared by DLA Piper. Bridgepoint was named preferred bidder on 4 April 2007.
Debt for the transaction was provided by Royal Bank of Scotland. Advisers to Bridgepoint in the transactions included: Rothschild (corporate finance), Addleshaw Goddard (legal), Ernst & Young Private Equity (transaction support and tax structuring), Airport Strategy & Marketing, Concession Planning International, Drivers Jonas, TPS Consult (commercial due diligence), ERM (environmental), Marsh (insurance).
Leeds Bradford International Airport (LBIA) has been sold to European private equity firm Bridgepoint in a transaction totalling £145.5 million following a decision by five West Yorkshire councils to sell 100% of the share capital in the airport.
Commenting on the successful acquisition of the airport, Sir Graham Hall, who will now become chairman of LBIA, said: “Work can now begin on taking our airport up a league in every sense. LBIA is a key asset for our region and we want to build on its recent success and consolidate its role as the dominant international airport serving Yorkshire and Humberside.”
Adrian Williams, a director at Bridgepoint added: “We have a clear vision for the future success of LBIA – a future which will deliver benefits for everyone who uses it. Our aim is that the new LBIA will be one of which the staff and the region will be justifiably proud.”
Under the Bridgepoint strategic plan for the airport, a £70 million capital expenditure plan will be implemented to provide additional terminal capacity to accommodate anticipated growing passenger volumes and to meet more immediate infrastructure requirements. Specifically, the plan is built around:
investment in, and development of, the existing airside and landside infrastructure to enhance capacity
development of the route network to increase number of destinations, frequency and to double passenger capacity to seven million by the year 2015
further development of the LBIA's commercial revenues in areas such as retail and food & drink.
Bridgepoint has invested in the airport sector in the past. In 1997, it became the largest private investor in Birmingham International Airport (BIA) as part of a financing programme to fund the ongoing development of the airport. It sold its stake in December 2001 and during this five year period international connections at BIA grew by 70%, traffic grew by 40% (reversing leakage to neighbouring airports) and capital expenditure reached almost £200 million.
Leeds and Bradford councils each owned 40% of the airport with the remainder split equally between Kirklees, Wakefield and Calderdale. Although the councils will have no financial stake in LBIA, they retain a ‘special share' to protect the name of the airport and to ensure its continued operation as an international airport.
The airport was formally advertised for sale in November 2006 in a process run by Ernst & Young, with legal advice prepared by DLA Piper. Bridgepoint was named preferred bidder on 4 April 2007.
Debt for the transaction was provided by Royal Bank of Scotland. Advisers to Bridgepoint in the transactions included: Rothschild (corporate finance), Addleshaw Goddard (legal), Ernst & Young Private Equity (transaction support and tax structuring), Airport Strategy & Marketing, Concession Planning International, Drivers Jonas, TPS Consult (commercial due diligence), ERM (environmental), Marsh (insurance).
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Norfolk but my Heart is still in Leeds
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bridgepoint
I wonder what £70 million pounds would pay for?
Runway extension?
Parallel taxiways?
the one thing that keeps coming up is more retail. Why do they think that when people what to travel they want to shop first?
I am glad that they are trying to have a bigger growth in pax numbers than the masterplan 7 million as instead of the 5 million in the masterplan.
Big T
Runway extension?
Parallel taxiways?
the one thing that keeps coming up is more retail. Why do they think that when people what to travel they want to shop first?
I am glad that they are trying to have a bigger growth in pax numbers than the masterplan 7 million as instead of the 5 million in the masterplan.
Big T
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On the move
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am glad someone else brought up the subject of continuous reference to retail. This seems to be the main point from the outset. Maybe Bridgepoint won the deal because they allowed the idiot councils to keep the airport name.There ain`t going to be a runway extension for the proposed spending.
I was shot down in flames for being negative in previous postings about what this mob are going to do. I still think the 70m is over 10 years.In which case don`t expect too much. They are not even proposing the badly needed new terminal, but yet another extension.
I was shot down in flames for being negative in previous postings about what this mob are going to do. I still think the 70m is over 10 years.In which case don`t expect too much. They are not even proposing the badly needed new terminal, but yet another extension.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SE of Compton
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The economics of airports has changed - in the old days you made money from charging the airlines per head carried. The locos changed all that....now the airline supplies the passengers and the airport makes its money out of the ancillaries.
The current set-up cannot earn enough in ancillaries to grow the business. £70 million will help terminal development which will include capacity enhancement and must include better retail.
Better terminal capacity and earning potential might allow the new airport company some more flexibility on route development which the Council ownership couldn't provide.
But don't flame retail, all the big airport companies do it....its the way of the business.
Yes Cat II on 14 and some tinkering with the runway would be beneficial but there's no point blowing pots of cash on things that although grandiose do nothing to get more pax / routes.
The current set-up cannot earn enough in ancillaries to grow the business. £70 million will help terminal development which will include capacity enhancement and must include better retail.
Better terminal capacity and earning potential might allow the new airport company some more flexibility on route development which the Council ownership couldn't provide.
But don't flame retail, all the big airport companies do it....its the way of the business.
Yes Cat II on 14 and some tinkering with the runway would be beneficial but there's no point blowing pots of cash on things that although grandiose do nothing to get more pax / routes.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Leeds
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a price of c.£145m, there needs to be a significant change in the business to get an adequate return over a 5-8 year horizon. The £145m looks like it is commercial lending, meaning interest payments of c.£7m per annum and the £70m capital expenditure will need to be financed too. Crudely, you need the airport to be valued at £300m by the end of the 5 / 8 year investment horizon. It will not fetch 30 times earnings given the current price is based on potential earnings and at a more realistic 15-20 times earnings, the airport will have to be making £15m - £20m profit p/a compared to £5m at the moment. That’s 3 or 4 x current profitability, so doubling passenger numbers and increasing average profit per passenger by 50%-100% is about what’s required. Unsurprisingly therefore the new Chairman, Sir Graham Hall, was on the TV moments after the deal was struck saying the 3 priorities were;
1) More routes and destinations (to double the passenger numbers)
2) More terminal space (obvious)
3) More retail (to drive up the average profitability per customer)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/new...tm?bw=bb&mp=rm
On the earlier news bulletin and on the local radio this evening, he also mentioned that road and public transport links were a key priority. On both occasions he was already putting pressure on the former owners to use some of their sales proceeds to fund transport improvements and we have to assume he's been lobbying hard on this during the sale process. He was planning to make an imminent visit to his old pals at Yorkshire Forward to tap them up for trasnsport funding also.
In this context, major runway extensions, parallel taxiways, brand new terminals are not part of the plan because they are not necessary and are too expensive to deliver any sort of adequate return on investment. CATII on 14, a starter strip are less expensive and might make enough of a difference to some operators who are being persuaded to base or ramp up operations.
Of greater interest in the short term is really the question of how they intend to double passenger numbers. There’s no doubt there's some further upside from Jet2 if the holidays side of the business takes off and a few of their city destinations from MAN might make an appearance. Unlikely they’ll push another 3m through the door though and equally unlikely that private equity investors of 25 years experience merrily stump up £215m of investment without having a high degree of confidence that the business can grow. I would be amazed if a key part of the offer process wasn’t some fairly detailed discussions with airlines about route development opportunities and the probability of them coming off. I rather thought Coasting’s “surprising news” was going to provide some of the answers, but unless we have wildly different views on what constitutes a surprise, I haven't seen anything.
682
1) More routes and destinations (to double the passenger numbers)
2) More terminal space (obvious)
3) More retail (to drive up the average profitability per customer)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/new...tm?bw=bb&mp=rm
On the earlier news bulletin and on the local radio this evening, he also mentioned that road and public transport links were a key priority. On both occasions he was already putting pressure on the former owners to use some of their sales proceeds to fund transport improvements and we have to assume he's been lobbying hard on this during the sale process. He was planning to make an imminent visit to his old pals at Yorkshire Forward to tap them up for trasnsport funding also.
In this context, major runway extensions, parallel taxiways, brand new terminals are not part of the plan because they are not necessary and are too expensive to deliver any sort of adequate return on investment. CATII on 14, a starter strip are less expensive and might make enough of a difference to some operators who are being persuaded to base or ramp up operations.
Of greater interest in the short term is really the question of how they intend to double passenger numbers. There’s no doubt there's some further upside from Jet2 if the holidays side of the business takes off and a few of their city destinations from MAN might make an appearance. Unlikely they’ll push another 3m through the door though and equally unlikely that private equity investors of 25 years experience merrily stump up £215m of investment without having a high degree of confidence that the business can grow. I would be amazed if a key part of the offer process wasn’t some fairly detailed discussions with airlines about route development opportunities and the probability of them coming off. I rather thought Coasting’s “surprising news” was going to provide some of the answers, but unless we have wildly different views on what constitutes a surprise, I haven't seen anything.
682
Guest
Posts: n/a
Airport Masterplan
I've just had a gentle perusal through the airport masterplan 2005-2016.
Runway Extension:
"The White Paper states that a runway extension of some 300 metres may be desirable in the future. However, the airport has no plans or operational requirement for a runway extension at the present time. The situation therefore will be reconsidered in future reviews of the Masterplan for the period of time AFTER 2016."
So why should the new owners be prioritising runway extensions ahead of much of the other content of the masterplan if the previous owners (the local authorities) didn't sanction it?
I think the extension fans need a cold shower.
Parallel Taxiway:
682AMSL - I may have to differ on this one slightly:
"A parallel taxiway would be needed around 2010" (on 32). If the analysis behind this is accurate (with current capx at 20 movements per hour) then this must surely be essential.
Incidentally a 14 parallel taxiway is also in the long grass.
Now that is more pressing - thats three years away - that I presume must be in the Bridgepoint investment plan (assuming the bids were evaluated against something like the Masterplan).
Runway Extension:
"The White Paper states that a runway extension of some 300 metres may be desirable in the future. However, the airport has no plans or operational requirement for a runway extension at the present time. The situation therefore will be reconsidered in future reviews of the Masterplan for the period of time AFTER 2016."
So why should the new owners be prioritising runway extensions ahead of much of the other content of the masterplan if the previous owners (the local authorities) didn't sanction it?
I think the extension fans need a cold shower.
Parallel Taxiway:
682AMSL - I may have to differ on this one slightly:
"A parallel taxiway would be needed around 2010" (on 32). If the analysis behind this is accurate (with current capx at 20 movements per hour) then this must surely be essential.
Incidentally a 14 parallel taxiway is also in the long grass.
Now that is more pressing - thats three years away - that I presume must be in the Bridgepoint investment plan (assuming the bids were evaluated against something like the Masterplan).
Last edited by TheDesertFerret; 3rd May 2007 at 21:32.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Yorkshire Zone
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just hope they 'market' - 'sell' the airport better than LBIA did.
I remember when EZY approached LBIA with an offer, But LBIA would not negotiate, they went to LPL instead!!
The name will also change, As the Airport will have nothing to do with Leeds or Bradford anymore.
There's alot to do??
I remember when EZY approached LBIA with an offer, But LBIA would not negotiate, they went to LPL instead!!
The name will also change, As the Airport will have nothing to do with Leeds or Bradford anymore.
There's alot to do??
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: reality
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not so sure that is correct.
The name will contractually remain Leeds Bradford International Airport
As for the other point based on information from several independent sources during 2004 (excuse my simplistic view):
EZY = LBA
EXS = BHX
within one week:
EZY = NCL
EXS = LBA
I think Anderson got the last laugh in that one.
The name will contractually remain Leeds Bradford International Airport
As for the other point based on information from several independent sources during 2004 (excuse my simplistic view):
EZY = LBA
EXS = BHX
within one week:
EZY = NCL
EXS = LBA
I think Anderson got the last laugh in that one.
Last edited by BombardierCR7; 4th May 2007 at 02:06. Reason: incorrect airport code
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On the move
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don`t think a full runway extension is required at this stage but LBA needs to be able to handle direct flights to Canada,Florida and the Indian continent etc.for example.Also it needs Cat3 landings for 757/767 sized aircraft.
In the future, there will be more direct flights to long haul destinations from regional airports.The Boeing 787 will be the catalyst for this.
These projects take a lot of planning so I think they must be part of the initial strategy.
In the future, there will be more direct flights to long haul destinations from regional airports.The Boeing 787 will be the catalyst for this.
These projects take a lot of planning so I think they must be part of the initial strategy.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
682ft: Congratulations on an objective, realistic posting.
The priorities have to be pax flow through the terminal as it is a nightmare at present. CSZ needs radically redesigning.
Retail is vital; it's the one area in which pax are voluntarily contributing to the airport's revenue and is not to be sneered at.
Runway extensions and parallel taxiways are 'sexy' for the spotters but manageable at present, so they are a lower priority than getting the terminal sorted.
Access to the airport is dependent on getting a clear route to the M62 and M1, and therefore at least in part to improving the Leeds Ring Road (which is horrendous). Unless you live in Otley or Harrogate, access to LBIA is 'not good' and MAN or Donnie will be more attractive.
The priorities have to be pax flow through the terminal as it is a nightmare at present. CSZ needs radically redesigning.
Retail is vital; it's the one area in which pax are voluntarily contributing to the airport's revenue and is not to be sneered at.
Runway extensions and parallel taxiways are 'sexy' for the spotters but manageable at present, so they are a lower priority than getting the terminal sorted.
Access to the airport is dependent on getting a clear route to the M62 and M1, and therefore at least in part to improving the Leeds Ring Road (which is horrendous). Unless you live in Otley or Harrogate, access to LBIA is 'not good' and MAN or Donnie will be more attractive.
The new stands are finally open for use. Last night we had a (tech) KLM F70 on 24 and a Jet2 737 on 21. I'm afraid I can't help thinking this job has been done on the cheap though. For a start, there are no green taxiway centreline lights at all (they stop around N3), only edge blue lights. Also, the apron floodlights scarcely illuminate the portion of concrete between the end of the greens and the edge of the apron. Finally, there are no stand signposts, just numbers painted on the concrete, which aren't all that easy to see in poor light/rain/poor visibility. Mind you stands 12-18 have never had signposts either and they've been around for years. If the airport is serious about using these new stands regularly I fear improvements may be necessary although I accept at the moment they will be mainly used for "overspill" purposes. Wonder if Bridgepoint will do owt about them ?
BTW, I have heard quite recently that the terminal building may be a listed structure on account of its curved frontage. Could anyone in the know confirm or deny this ? It could explain why the b****r hasn't yet been pulled down and replaced with something more suitable for an expanding airport.
BTW, I have heard quite recently that the terminal building may be a listed structure on account of its curved frontage. Could anyone in the know confirm or deny this ? It could explain why the b****r hasn't yet been pulled down and replaced with something more suitable for an expanding airport.
The original building is incorporated in the existing structure but you can only really tell from landside exterior. It's pretty much from the site of the info desk to O'Briens on the ground floor. Most of the building on either side has been added on over the last twenty three years or so. Another source tells me it was built the wrong way round as well. It should have been concave facing airside and convex landside apparently. Beats me why it was built like that in the first place. A straight-sided building would have been more practical and easier to extend. Still, forty years on it's probably too late to do anything about it, especially if it has some sort of protected status.