LUTON - 6
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went to the future Luton consultation today and picked up a bit more info about the councils plans.
For starters they don’t include Ocean Sky, as they want Ocean Sky’s proposed new apron for terminal traffic.
The new multi-story car park will contain around 3,500 spaces with the drop off area inside the car park.
No plans have been drawn up for reconfiguring the terminal but just the area required for the proposed modest expansion of the terminal building.
For starters they don’t include Ocean Sky, as they want Ocean Sky’s proposed new apron for terminal traffic.
The new multi-story car park will contain around 3,500 spaces with the drop off area inside the car park.
No plans have been drawn up for reconfiguring the terminal but just the area required for the proposed modest expansion of the terminal building.
I also went along to this today - I thought the people running it were a bunch of amateurs who didn't have a clue what they were doing.
For a start, if you're going to expand an airport, surely you should know the length of your existing runway? One bloke said 2,800m.
One girl said most of the issues were outside her expertise. Why is she involved then? Surely the developer/council would bring in aviation specialists to deal with this sort of thing?
When questioned several times, they had no idea how much the project was going to cost. Although, relatively, I don't think the project would cost that much but that's not the point - if you're trying to convince the public, at least be prepared and organised!
There were also no specific plans apart from less check in desks (ie. security section).
And when asked who's going to pay for it - the answer was the next operator. Now, how many operators or private investors, in the current economic climate can afford £100 million(s) to pay for this - especially as there are only 14 year terms?
Without doubt this project needs to happen - but the people hoping to deliver it have filled me with no confidence.
Just one thing (I'm not a pilot) that I'd like some clarification on: The runway at 2,160m will obviously restrict the types of aircraft and its load. Would I be right in thinking the B767s and B777s that El Al have used, according to their takeoff run at MTOW are too big for the runway (obviously you don't need a full fuel tank to Tel Aviv). I realise you see in places like PJIA you have B747s taking off; but surely there is a safety risk? Are there special regulations?
For a start, if you're going to expand an airport, surely you should know the length of your existing runway? One bloke said 2,800m.
One girl said most of the issues were outside her expertise. Why is she involved then? Surely the developer/council would bring in aviation specialists to deal with this sort of thing?
When questioned several times, they had no idea how much the project was going to cost. Although, relatively, I don't think the project would cost that much but that's not the point - if you're trying to convince the public, at least be prepared and organised!
There were also no specific plans apart from less check in desks (ie. security section).
And when asked who's going to pay for it - the answer was the next operator. Now, how many operators or private investors, in the current economic climate can afford £100 million(s) to pay for this - especially as there are only 14 year terms?
Without doubt this project needs to happen - but the people hoping to deliver it have filled me with no confidence.
Just one thing (I'm not a pilot) that I'd like some clarification on: The runway at 2,160m will obviously restrict the types of aircraft and its load. Would I be right in thinking the B767s and B777s that El Al have used, according to their takeoff run at MTOW are too big for the runway (obviously you don't need a full fuel tank to Tel Aviv). I realise you see in places like PJIA you have B747s taking off; but surely there is a safety risk? Are there special regulations?
Last edited by Dannyboy39; 8th Mar 2012 at 21:46.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point about safety risks. Most aircraft departing runway 26 leave from the intersection giving a take-off distance of 6000ft, no doubt in part as it increases the flow rate. The full length of the runway is 7086ft. Taking off from the begining of the runway gives an extra 1000ft of stopping distance if there is a problem so has to be a safer option.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Luton
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several years ago I witnessed one particular departure that literally had about 300 feet of runway left. I am aware of another person who has seen something similar and who too was concerned.
I was so concerned that I sent the airport an email saying that these short take offs are portentialy a safety hazard!
LTN Man is right that there should be sufficient runway lengh available in the event of an aircraft developing a fault during its take-off run. Why they allow short take-offs is in my mind wrong.
Dannyboy, I have witnessed 4 Boeing 747's at Luton over all these years. In fact two of them were chartered to bring in football supporters. They were both full in terms of passengers but the return flight was not particularly long so using the 7086ft runway was not a problem. In addition I have seen the big Russian Antanov 124.
There have been several near misses over many years with Boeing 727'S. They are regarded simply as mid sized jets, so its not the size that particurly matters but the engine power-and making sure its cargo is correctly distributed throughout the cabin!
Looking at all the media hype and in particular these anti-airport campaigners who continue to feed NON-FACTUAL stories on their web sites, I think we should have a LOVE LUTON AIRPORT EXPANSION GROUP!
I was so concerned that I sent the airport an email saying that these short take offs are portentialy a safety hazard!
LTN Man is right that there should be sufficient runway lengh available in the event of an aircraft developing a fault during its take-off run. Why they allow short take-offs is in my mind wrong.
Dannyboy, I have witnessed 4 Boeing 747's at Luton over all these years. In fact two of them were chartered to bring in football supporters. They were both full in terms of passengers but the return flight was not particularly long so using the 7086ft runway was not a problem. In addition I have seen the big Russian Antanov 124.
There have been several near misses over many years with Boeing 727'S. They are regarded simply as mid sized jets, so its not the size that particurly matters but the engine power-and making sure its cargo is correctly distributed throughout the cabin!
Looking at all the media hype and in particular these anti-airport campaigners who continue to feed NON-FACTUAL stories on their web sites, I think we should have a LOVE LUTON AIRPORT EXPANSION GROUP!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is need for caution in this debate about safety and longer runways.
The accpeted wisdom is that V1 is the point at which you must be able to stop - beyond that you are not going to whatever happens pretty much. You carry the probem into the air.
All operations will conform to that performance prameter.
If one considers operations from the LTN 26 intersections say with an A319 unsafe then that would probably make all smilar operations from Southend unsafe.
Or perhaps operating an A340-300 from Delhi on a hot (43 C) windless day unsafe.
In all these cases there may be insufficient distance to stop just past V1 but one can stop at V1.
If you want to be able stop all the way to rotation that would change the face of air transport opeations.
The accpeted wisdom is that V1 is the point at which you must be able to stop - beyond that you are not going to whatever happens pretty much. You carry the probem into the air.
All operations will conform to that performance prameter.
If one considers operations from the LTN 26 intersections say with an A319 unsafe then that would probably make all smilar operations from Southend unsafe.
Or perhaps operating an A340-300 from Delhi on a hot (43 C) windless day unsafe.
In all these cases there may be insufficient distance to stop just past V1 but one can stop at V1.
If you want to be able stop all the way to rotation that would change the face of air transport opeations.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 1,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTNman I think you are saying that if runway length is available you should take it- can't dispute that.
One then comes to a definition of available-if ATC ask whether you can accept an intersection departure they have their reasons (avoidance of delay/traffic deinsity) so do you take it.
Then a straight commercial ops decision- backtracking takes time, wears brakes and tyres, uses fuel. Does that justify intersection departures?
Companies seem to differ on policies for this. At LTN Easy, Ryanair and less commonly Wizzair seem to accept intersection departures; I know sectors are often longer and that prohibits alone but I am sure they are are lighlty loaded sometimes and could on a Palma or Reus but TOM and MON flights don't seem to.
Is this pilot decision or SOP governed?
One then comes to a definition of available-if ATC ask whether you can accept an intersection departure they have their reasons (avoidance of delay/traffic deinsity) so do you take it.
Then a straight commercial ops decision- backtracking takes time, wears brakes and tyres, uses fuel. Does that justify intersection departures?
Companies seem to differ on policies for this. At LTN Easy, Ryanair and less commonly Wizzair seem to accept intersection departures; I know sectors are often longer and that prohibits alone but I am sure they are are lighlty loaded sometimes and could on a Palma or Reus but TOM and MON flights don't seem to.
Is this pilot decision or SOP governed?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LUTON-CONSTANZA
I see Kon Tiki Sky are advertising return flights to Constanza with a B737-500 for this summer although does not seem bookable. Also there are proposing a service to Skopje via Antwerp (I kid you not) from Southend from 1 May probably with a 146.
Kon Tiki Sky say that twice weekly LTN-CTD flights will start 18th June, bookable from 1st May.
However, this operation has been called into question on the SEN thread, and its website doesn't inspire confidence.
However, this operation has been called into question on the SEN thread, and its website doesn't inspire confidence.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitchin
Posts: 1,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAOL have today published their proposals for expansion of the airport. In comparison to Luton Borough Council's plans, these are more modest, talking about growing the airport to 15/16 million pax over the next 10 years. LBC are looking at 18m by 2020.
The developers I spoke to last week stressed that they weren't really that interested in 18m pax - they wanted the capacity, but certainly didn't expect to hit close to that mark straight away.
The current runway, with taxiway extensions has a capacity of 32 ATMs an hour, which means it can go up to 30mppa utilising this exisiting infrastructure.
The current runway, with taxiway extensions has a capacity of 32 ATMs an hour, which means it can go up to 30mppa utilising this exisiting infrastructure.
Full Master Plan:
Masterplan - London Luton Airport
Not much changes really. One improvements are a new pier which wouldn't actually increase the amount of stands and an extension of the current taxiways.
LLAOL’s main proposals for the future of the Airport are:
By 2030, the Government’s Department for Transport forecasts that demand for air travel through London’s airports will be 180 million passengers per year. Within this, London Luton is forecast to grow to 15-16 million passengers.
I haven't got the numbers to hand, but how do the forecasts differ so greatly? I've been critical of exponential forecasting in the past, but surely these forecasts completely under-estimate traffic in the next 18 years. Surely LTN will grow by more than 50% in 18 years? Since 1999, the airport has grown about five times!
Masterplan - London Luton Airport
Not much changes really. One improvements are a new pier which wouldn't actually increase the amount of stands and an extension of the current taxiways.
LLAOL’s main proposals for the future of the Airport are:
- Dualling the road from the Holiday Inn roundabout along Airport Way into the heart of the Airport, the ‘Central Terminal Area’.
- Bringing the currently unused parts of the terminal building back into active use.
- Extending the front of the terminal building to create a new entrance foyer with more passenger seating and retail areas on the upper level.
- Building a new southern ‘pier’ with gates for passengers to gain access to their aircraft.
- Reorganising the internal layout of the terminal building to create a more logical route through the building from check in, through security to passenger waiting lounges and then to the aircraft boarding gates. This will also apply to arriving passengers who will have an easier route from their aircraft through to immigration
- control, baggage reclaim and then out of the terminal building.
By 2030, the Government’s Department for Transport forecasts that demand for air travel through London’s airports will be 180 million passengers per year. Within this, London Luton is forecast to grow to 15-16 million passengers.
I haven't got the numbers to hand, but how do the forecasts differ so greatly? I've been critical of exponential forecasting in the past, but surely these forecasts completely under-estimate traffic in the next 18 years. Surely LTN will grow by more than 50% in 18 years? Since 1999, the airport has grown about five times!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitchin
Posts: 1,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the front of the old/arrival/current terminal will all be "woven together" into a much more pleasing external appearance. The "Tin" should vanish thank god.
Also, it seems Security will move down to ground level, with 18 new passenger lanes. Seems to be possible because of the infill at the front linking the old/new terminal. Will they have any staff to man it though. The old terminal will then house 8 international and 1 domestic baggage reclaims.
The road improvements in the CTA do seem, on paper, to be reasonable. See plans on the website. These plans definitely seem to be concentrating on improving the passenger experience with modest pax expansion, as opposed to LBC, who seem to want huge passenger expansion at whatever cost.
Also, it seems Security will move down to ground level, with 18 new passenger lanes. Seems to be possible because of the infill at the front linking the old/new terminal. Will they have any staff to man it though. The old terminal will then house 8 international and 1 domestic baggage reclaims.
The road improvements in the CTA do seem, on paper, to be reasonable. See plans on the website. These plans definitely seem to be concentrating on improving the passenger experience with modest pax expansion, as opposed to LBC, who seem to want huge passenger expansion at whatever cost.