LUTON - 6
''According to the video the runway still lacks parallels to each end and rapid exit taxiways''. It does appear this is the case Buster.Such a wasted opportunity to get max use from the runway length by not having parallel taxiways join runway at the turning circles.
Paxing All Over The World
Dualling the road from the Holiday Inn roundabout along Airport Way into the heart of the Airport, the ‘Central Terminal Area’.
Whilst it would have been more expensive at the time to put the road in a tunnel under the new taxiway, the cost of duelling now will be high. If they had have put a tunnel in, they could have created a one-way dual carriageway and have a simple, decent, through access system. But it would have cost more money then.
I sit to be corrected.
And the six pack becomes an eight pack.
Is there physically enough space to extend out the pier to enable one more stand?
Is there physically enough space to extend out the pier to enable one more stand?
I think both plans have its good and bad points - I just wish both parties would just work together for the common good! Something that baffles me at this - why do the airlines/airport continue to complete disregard airbridges for the Eastern apron? I know Ryanair and easyJet don't want to pay for it, but surely carriers like El Al, Monarch, Thomson et al wouldn't mind a few to offer a better passenger experience - especially if you're trying to market a higher standard of product than Ryanair?
In my opinion...
Future Luton Optimisation
Advantages
-More contact stands - better customer experience and less bussing.
-High speed run-offs - increased capacity; more pax.
-Less space used for car parking (ie. multi-storey car park)
Disadvantages
-Unprofessional and amateurish presentation in comparison to LLAOL/Abertis.
-No idea of cost - probably will cost £200m?
-Possible severance payment to Abertis of £300m coming out of Luton residents' council tax!
LLAOL/Abertis
Advantages
-Lesser cost.
-More detailed and quantifiable plan - ie. more belts, security lanes etc.
-Professional approach with backing of industry players.
-Aesthestically pleasing with use of the 1970s terminal.
Disadvantages
-They STILL haven't grasped the ridiculous surface access arrangements - the roundabout in the plan will still cross in/outbound traffic.
-Under-estimating demand? Growth of only less than 3% a year for 18 years?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FEBRUARY FIGURES
A total of 581,993 passengers used the airport in February up 1.4 per cent on last year. Rolling 12 month figure is 9,523,405 up 8.2 per cent. Interestingly Air Transport Movements were down 1.6 per cent at 4,718.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that the costs of operating into Gatwick have trebled for Flybe in recent times. I assume Luton airport marketing team are banging the door down in Exeter?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disadvantages
-They STILL haven't grasped the ridiculous surface access arrangements - the roundabout in the plan will still cross in/outbound traffic.
First thoughts are the councils plans are too ambitious, too expensive and are not detailed. Also the council sees a reduced roll for business aviation so they can squeeze in more stands.
The airport operators plans on the other hand seem to be on the cheap which should keep costs down. Too many stands will require bussing the passengers to their aircraft though.
The major difference between the two plans is how far the new pier extends and whether a new apron should be built in the short term carpark.
Not sure which is the best option for the future of LTN
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Luton
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LLAL v LLAO
From what I can see from LLAO plans is quite simply cosmetic work and by no means any major investment!
In relation to LBC pland being considered too costly etc, the fact remains that the Spanish operator is enduring significant passenger losses at its two other UK airports and Luton's progress should not be undermind as a result.
Albertis are very clever to state that since they took control of the airport that passenger levels have trebled! That is a false statement!
What they should have stated was that with 4.1 million passengers handled in 1998 and as a result of Easy jet year on year growth-since its formation in November 1995 we have helped the airport maintain growth to what it is today.
In terms of real growth, and from its passenger levels in 1973/1974 the airport is real terms and when compared to other airports does appear to be stale!
However irrelevant of all the above, I can not understand why it appears that the runway will never be extended and why from LLAO plans they appear to position taxiways that no longer use the full lengh of the runway!
Just maybe, Albertis should be given a twenty year extension to their current lease agreement but on the condition they invest an immediate (very) significant amount of money-should they have any?
If based on 1973/1974 we should by now have surpassed 16 million passengers already.
In relation to LBC pland being considered too costly etc, the fact remains that the Spanish operator is enduring significant passenger losses at its two other UK airports and Luton's progress should not be undermind as a result.
Albertis are very clever to state that since they took control of the airport that passenger levels have trebled! That is a false statement!
What they should have stated was that with 4.1 million passengers handled in 1998 and as a result of Easy jet year on year growth-since its formation in November 1995 we have helped the airport maintain growth to what it is today.
In terms of real growth, and from its passenger levels in 1973/1974 the airport is real terms and when compared to other airports does appear to be stale!
However irrelevant of all the above, I can not understand why it appears that the runway will never be extended and why from LLAO plans they appear to position taxiways that no longer use the full lengh of the runway!
Just maybe, Albertis should be given a twenty year extension to their current lease agreement but on the condition they invest an immediate (very) significant amount of money-should they have any?
If based on 1973/1974 we should by now have surpassed 16 million passengers already.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I remind LeeBakerStreet the reason for not extending the runway is because on the 26 end it would go into Hertfordshire and you know what Herts CC think about Luton Airport (all the pain and no gain). I may be wrong on this but the Alpha taxiway cannot be extend to the end of 26 because it would also go into Hertfordshire but I(maybe wrong on this - I am sure somebody will put me right on this. I know for a fact that the lead-in lights are in Hertfordshire and of course the 08 end cannot be extended because the land drops away as everybody knows.
Taxiway Alpha would go into "Century Park" (whatever is happening with that?).
When I questioned the FutureLuton team last week, they told me they couldn't extend the runway (at 26) because of physical land constraints, which to me, sounds a load of rubbish.
When I questioned the FutureLuton team last week, they told me they couldn't extend the runway (at 26) because of physical land constraints, which to me, sounds a load of rubbish.
'physical land constraints'......a large amount of infill required to complete the exercise. This is not an impossible engineering task but would require co-operation from those in Hertfordshire.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It is not impossible to extend the runway at the eastern end but the amount of infill required was phenomenal, I can't remember the figures now when we looked at it but it would have required almost every dumper truck in the UK. The 'Herts County are anti' argument is a red herring or it was in my day.
Even more problematical was extending twy A keeping it at the same distance from rwy as now. Even more infill required or you would have to bend the twy closer to the rwy which would would mean the Cat II/III holds being where they are now.
Nothing insurmountable, just depends what you want to live with.
Even more problematical was extending twy A keeping it at the same distance from rwy as now. Even more infill required or you would have to bend the twy closer to the rwy which would would mean the Cat II/III holds being where they are now.
Nothing insurmountable, just depends what you want to live with.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: -
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find Abertis' plans for the airport a little disappointing and lacking some vision... It seems they are content to continue to let Luton to being the Cinderella airport of London.
BUT, to be fair to them, for the forseeable future the Low Cost Carriers are probably going to continue to be the primary driver for growth at the airport. This particular market, wants to see value for money, and by building an airport that is going to cost millions to fund and means increasing fees will only drive them away.
We need to be realistic, even though the airport has attracted the likes of EL AL and Adria in the last few months and years. The "traditional full fare" airlines really do not have any desire to fly from Luton, they want to fly from Heathrow and Gatwick, where they can make more money on their tickets, hence why easyJet has such an infatuation with LGW!
Stansted boasts the fancy terminal, the air bridges, on-site railway station, longer runway, infastructure, etc, etc, and they can't even pull in these carriers! They even managed to loose their only long haul route to Kuala Lumpa with Air Asia X to Gatwick, with the airline stating they could earn more on flights from their. (I would however point out, the route was dropped altogether shortly after they moved it to LGW, because of the increases in APD.)
I don't see everyones infatuation with the airport having a longer runway... Why is this needed? I don't see airlines clambering to operate larger aircraft or long haul routes from the airport!
Even the airports resident airlines like Monarch and Thomson, don't seem to have have a desire to operate long haul routes.
Bristol airport only has a 6000ft runway and Thomson manages to operate 767 flights to Florida from their. Exeter airport has a similar length runway and manages to handle flights to Toronto with Air Transat A310's.
London and UK's most popular longer routes are to the likes of New York and Dubai, a 757/767/A330 could easily use the existing runway, with minimal restrictions. There is no such airline trying to operate such routes from the airport, and they wouldn't consider operating larger aircraft until the route proved successful with the above aircraft types.
Airports like Birmingham do at least have an argument for a runway extension, which they are currently doing. As they have a market for long haul flights, as they operate twice daily flights with 777-300ER's to Dubai with Emirates, also 777's with PIA to Pakistan and United Airlines 757's to Newark. Along with your chartered traffic across the pond.
Even if the Luton can attract larger aircraft to the airport with a longer runway. The number of flights will be in single digits, like a weekly cargo flight with a 747, and this will barely pay for the extension!
I think us LTN fans, should try and remain grounded, and remember the kind of markets that the airport currently serves, and be realistic in what it can achieve going forward.
BUT, to be fair to them, for the forseeable future the Low Cost Carriers are probably going to continue to be the primary driver for growth at the airport. This particular market, wants to see value for money, and by building an airport that is going to cost millions to fund and means increasing fees will only drive them away.
We need to be realistic, even though the airport has attracted the likes of EL AL and Adria in the last few months and years. The "traditional full fare" airlines really do not have any desire to fly from Luton, they want to fly from Heathrow and Gatwick, where they can make more money on their tickets, hence why easyJet has such an infatuation with LGW!
Stansted boasts the fancy terminal, the air bridges, on-site railway station, longer runway, infastructure, etc, etc, and they can't even pull in these carriers! They even managed to loose their only long haul route to Kuala Lumpa with Air Asia X to Gatwick, with the airline stating they could earn more on flights from their. (I would however point out, the route was dropped altogether shortly after they moved it to LGW, because of the increases in APD.)
I don't see everyones infatuation with the airport having a longer runway... Why is this needed? I don't see airlines clambering to operate larger aircraft or long haul routes from the airport!
Even the airports resident airlines like Monarch and Thomson, don't seem to have have a desire to operate long haul routes.
Bristol airport only has a 6000ft runway and Thomson manages to operate 767 flights to Florida from their. Exeter airport has a similar length runway and manages to handle flights to Toronto with Air Transat A310's.
London and UK's most popular longer routes are to the likes of New York and Dubai, a 757/767/A330 could easily use the existing runway, with minimal restrictions. There is no such airline trying to operate such routes from the airport, and they wouldn't consider operating larger aircraft until the route proved successful with the above aircraft types.
Airports like Birmingham do at least have an argument for a runway extension, which they are currently doing. As they have a market for long haul flights, as they operate twice daily flights with 777-300ER's to Dubai with Emirates, also 777's with PIA to Pakistan and United Airlines 757's to Newark. Along with your chartered traffic across the pond.
Even if the Luton can attract larger aircraft to the airport with a longer runway. The number of flights will be in single digits, like a weekly cargo flight with a 747, and this will barely pay for the extension!
I think us LTN fans, should try and remain grounded, and remember the kind of markets that the airport currently serves, and be realistic in what it can achieve going forward.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with everthing gilesdavies says. The airport needs a return on any investment. If they spend millions extending the runway just for the odd flight why spend the money as they won't get it back.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Luton
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway and slogan
When I was refering to longer runway, I was in fact refering to inside the boundery. I am sure that the runway could be extended by at least 900 feet. Some of you might consider that you need a stop area at the end of the runway ends, but as stated and known, the a/c do not even use the full lengh runway anymore so stop areas would prove worthless-because literally the aircraft are roatating just short of the runway ends!
I think with Lutons population as it is, there could be long haulf flights to India or Pakistan (which almost happened several years back).
Whilst the megga carriers who fly daily to LGW and LHR from USA, I am sure smaller American airlines would like a piece of the action and am sure Luton could have accomodated had it not been sleapy for so long.
But dont get me wrong, I am more for the airport being busy and when you consider New York La Guardia, having similar lengh runways, I am sure with extra stands and more taxi-way Luton could evolve into a very busy hub without increasing its boundery.
Having commuted to West London each day, Luton Airport is far more easier and quicker to get to that Stansted and Gatwick and even London City!
Which leads me to "Londons Local Airport". Just maybe LLAO got that slogan right.
I think with Lutons population as it is, there could be long haulf flights to India or Pakistan (which almost happened several years back).
Whilst the megga carriers who fly daily to LGW and LHR from USA, I am sure smaller American airlines would like a piece of the action and am sure Luton could have accomodated had it not been sleapy for so long.
But dont get me wrong, I am more for the airport being busy and when you consider New York La Guardia, having similar lengh runways, I am sure with extra stands and more taxi-way Luton could evolve into a very busy hub without increasing its boundery.
Having commuted to West London each day, Luton Airport is far more easier and quicker to get to that Stansted and Gatwick and even London City!
Which leads me to "Londons Local Airport". Just maybe LLAO got that slogan right.
aceatco, retired
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: one airshow or another
Posts: 1,431
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not sure what you are referring to. You are not required to have a Stopway but are required to have Runway End Safety Areas (RESA). The two are different.
Luton has a 61m stopway at the western end which adds to the Accelerate - Stop Distance and Emergency Distance which may help some operators with take-off field length performance.
Whatever you do with a runway you do need a 90m RESA at each end.
I think gilesdavies has it right.
Luton has a 61m stopway at the western end which adds to the Accelerate - Stop Distance and Emergency Distance which may help some operators with take-off field length performance.
Whatever you do with a runway you do need a 90m RESA at each end.
I think gilesdavies has it right.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The operators master plan video is now complete at Masterplan movie - London Luton Airport
Summer schedules
Starting this week:
1 New airline:
Adria to LJU 4 pw
3 New destinations:
AHO on FR 2pw
REK on EZY 3pw
ROM on ZB 4pw
plus above
1 New route:
EZY to CFU 1pw
Lots of frequency increases:
ALC 5 up to 15 ZB/EZY
BCM 3 to 5 JOR
BEG 3 to 4 WZZ
BZR 2 to 4 FR
BOD 3 to 6 EZY
BTS 3 to 6 FR
BRQ 3 to 4 WZZ
BUH 12 to 20 JOR/WZZ
BOJ 3 to 4 WZZ
FAO 3 to 7 EZY
GIB 3 to 7 ZB
IOM 3 to 4 BE
JER 3 to 4 BE
LCA 1 to 4 ZB
AGP 8 to 20 EZY/ZB
MLA 3 to 7 FR
MXP 9 to 13 EZY
NCE 7 to 12 EZY
FNI 4 to 7 FR
PRG 12 to 14 WZZ
SKP 2 to 3 WZZ
TFS 5 to 8 ZB/FR
TGM 3 to 4 WZZ
WAW 21 to 25 WZZ
Seasonal re-starts:
BXN 3pw ZB
DLM 4pw ZB
FAO 5pw ZB
GRO 7pw FR
MAH 1pw ZB
MJV 7pw FR
PMI 7pw EZY
PSA 4pw EZY
REU 4pw FR
TPS 2pw FR
VAR 2pw WZZ
Offset by seasonal reductions:
GVA 33 to 14 EZY
GNB 2 to 0 EZY
NOC 7 to 5 FR
TLL 4 to 3 FR
Health warnings:
Taken from LLAOL website
Compares flights last week to flights from 25/3
Excludes 'charters' - mainly TOM
Many additional flights commence in the first week in May (not included above)
1 New airline:
Adria to LJU 4 pw
3 New destinations:
AHO on FR 2pw
REK on EZY 3pw
ROM on ZB 4pw
plus above
1 New route:
EZY to CFU 1pw
Lots of frequency increases:
ALC 5 up to 15 ZB/EZY
BCM 3 to 5 JOR
BEG 3 to 4 WZZ
BZR 2 to 4 FR
BOD 3 to 6 EZY
BTS 3 to 6 FR
BRQ 3 to 4 WZZ
BUH 12 to 20 JOR/WZZ
BOJ 3 to 4 WZZ
FAO 3 to 7 EZY
GIB 3 to 7 ZB
IOM 3 to 4 BE
JER 3 to 4 BE
LCA 1 to 4 ZB
AGP 8 to 20 EZY/ZB
MLA 3 to 7 FR
MXP 9 to 13 EZY
NCE 7 to 12 EZY
FNI 4 to 7 FR
PRG 12 to 14 WZZ
SKP 2 to 3 WZZ
TFS 5 to 8 ZB/FR
TGM 3 to 4 WZZ
WAW 21 to 25 WZZ
Seasonal re-starts:
BXN 3pw ZB
DLM 4pw ZB
FAO 5pw ZB
GRO 7pw FR
MAH 1pw ZB
MJV 7pw FR
PMI 7pw EZY
PSA 4pw EZY
REU 4pw FR
TPS 2pw FR
VAR 2pw WZZ
Offset by seasonal reductions:
GVA 33 to 14 EZY
GNB 2 to 0 EZY
NOC 7 to 5 FR
TLL 4 to 3 FR
Health warnings:
Taken from LLAOL website
Compares flights last week to flights from 25/3
Excludes 'charters' - mainly TOM
Many additional flights commence in the first week in May (not included above)