LUTON - 6
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 Wizzair loads have been somewhat astonishing recently and rather better than some other UK airlines considering the current financial plight the world is in!
Are the Luton PAX stats for Jan out yet? easyJet have scythed back their Programme, but Wizz have upped their's.
STN down 8% PAX, 15% movements.
Are the Luton PAX stats for Jan out yet? easyJet have scythed back their Programme, but Wizz have upped their's.
STN down 8% PAX, 15% movements.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly, they're not out yet. Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and almost all of the other big airports, have added up their figures and sent them to the CAA - but not Luton.
I seem to remember that they were also late with their figures last month - so what is going on? Is it an attempt to bury bad news - or did their calculators get buried under the "four feet of snow" that apparently affected the airport but seems to have missed all the surrounding area, which only got a foot of the white stuff?
I seem to remember that they were also late with their figures last month - so what is going on? Is it an attempt to bury bad news - or did their calculators get buried under the "four feet of snow" that apparently affected the airport but seems to have missed all the surrounding area, which only got a foot of the white stuff?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitchin
Posts: 1,405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the Luton PAX stats for Jan out yet?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luton Pasenger figures
As you say the figures are one of the last to be released and always have been - do not know why though. Figures for Februrary might not be as bad as you think as this week a number of charter flights are due in for the Arsenal-Milan match which should make up for some of the cancelled services and do not forget the flights which did manage to operate were almost certainly full to capacity with Monarch and Thomson delaying some of the services for 24 hours to let the conditions improve.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: -
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Sylhet
Im very Sceptical about this, they have been supposed to be launching flights to Bangladesh and Middle East for the last two years...
Luton has been mentioned for ages as their London base for the service then all of a sudden last year is was changed to Stansted and they are now back is Luton.
They have chopped and changed what equipment they will be using too, now it is A320's, back last year they claimed they had secured leasing with 767's and 757's to offer non-stop flights to asia.
Luton has been mentioned for ages as their London base for the service then all of a sudden last year is was changed to Stansted and they are now back is Luton.
They have chopped and changed what equipment they will be using too, now it is A320's, back last year they claimed they had secured leasing with 767's and 757's to offer non-stop flights to asia.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: -
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone give me any details of the flights that arrived for the Football on Tuesday? Thanks!
Would have either been a 737, 757 or 767...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NATS are stating that flights within the London TMA were down by 10%, if Luton can mirror this, or do better then no wonder Ferrovial are flogging off Stansted!
Across-the-board decrease in January flights - NATS
Across-the-board decrease in January flights - NATS
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24/02/2009 Tuesday
BEE081P A BIRMINGHAM 9:20 E95
BEE8222 D PRAGUE 10:00 E95
AP9030 A ROME (FIUMICINO) 23:00 321
BPA9811 A ROME (FIUMICINO) 23:15 752
AP8031 D ROME (FIUMICINO) 23:50 321
These were Tuesdays flights but they were actually spread over 4 days. ( was there a match in Prague?)
BEE081P A BIRMINGHAM 9:20 E95
BEE8222 D PRAGUE 10:00 E95
AP9030 A ROME (FIUMICINO) 23:00 321
BPA9811 A ROME (FIUMICINO) 23:15 752
AP8031 D ROME (FIUMICINO) 23:50 321
These were Tuesdays flights but they were actually spread over 4 days. ( was there a match in Prague?)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luton's Passenger figures
Luton's data is now available. January's flights are -14.1% on Jan 2008 and passenger numbers are -11%.
Seems to be a similar picture to Stansted and Manchester, although Birmingham fared much better (-6% & -1.2%), as did Heathrow and Gatwick.
Picking up on an earlier point, why on earth does Luton fail to make the CAA's reporting deadline month after month? Can't do much for the management's image, and the figures are bound to get out eventually.
Seems to be a similar picture to Stansted and Manchester, although Birmingham fared much better (-6% & -1.2%), as did Heathrow and Gatwick.
Picking up on an earlier point, why on earth does Luton fail to make the CAA's reporting deadline month after month? Can't do much for the management's image, and the figures are bound to get out eventually.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt most of that decline was due to easyJet hacking their winter timetable?
Luton's flights were actaully down by 14.6% in January. I wonder how the biz jet movements are holding up as Farnborough's were down 30% in January!
Luton's flights were actaully down by 14.6% in January. I wonder how the biz jet movements are holding up as Farnborough's were down 30% in January!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M1 Airport Link road
The following are answers I have recieved from the council regarding Airport Way:
Many apologies for not getting back to you sooner I have only just been made aware of your enquiry today.
I totally agree with everything in your statement below with respect to resources on the project. I have been involved in numerous meetings over the last week with the Contractor and they have committed to 'getting the road open' by the 31 March 2009, I am sure you will share my scepticism with regard to this latest commitment based upon previous experience. However, I am aware that the contractor is mobilising additional resources and proposing to work 7 days a week rather than 5 days. The next logical question is why was this not done sooner, a question only the Contractor can answer.
I will answer your questions the best I can:-
Q1/ Why does this project constantly miss key dates?
1) The programmes received from the contractor have largely not been realistic and therefore have been rejected.
Q2/ Where do these dates come from?
2) The Contractor produces and manages the programme of works.
Q3/ Why will an 18 month project actually take 3 years?
3) We have encountered various issues with construction difficulties, weather impact & unforeseen statutory undertakers works
Q4/ When a date is missed, is a reason given by Birse, as to why they can't meet the deadline?
4) If a date is missed reasons are given although not always accepted
Q5/ Is the contractor drip fed money every month, which is why there are so few men actually working on site.
5) The contractor is paid each month for work completed in the previous period based upon their original contract commitment
Q6/ What was the original cost of the project and what is it now?
6) The original construction contract value was approx. £16m, this has not changed.
7/ Who is paying for any shortfall?
7) -
Q8/ Was a penalty clause put into the project for late completion? If it wasn't why not?
8) Yes
Q9/ Why has the council started a new set of roadworks on the diversion route and could this work not be delayed until the diversion is finished?
9) The works in Kimpton Road were specifically delayed to be undertaken after the completion of the ELC scheme, unfortunately due to the over runs on the ELC this has forced the Kimpton Road scheme to be undertaken at the same time due to end of financial year constraints.
I hope this addresses some, if not all of your queries.
Many apologies for not getting back to you sooner I have only just been made aware of your enquiry today.
I totally agree with everything in your statement below with respect to resources on the project. I have been involved in numerous meetings over the last week with the Contractor and they have committed to 'getting the road open' by the 31 March 2009, I am sure you will share my scepticism with regard to this latest commitment based upon previous experience. However, I am aware that the contractor is mobilising additional resources and proposing to work 7 days a week rather than 5 days. The next logical question is why was this not done sooner, a question only the Contractor can answer.
I will answer your questions the best I can:-
Q1/ Why does this project constantly miss key dates?
1) The programmes received from the contractor have largely not been realistic and therefore have been rejected.
Q2/ Where do these dates come from?
2) The Contractor produces and manages the programme of works.
Q3/ Why will an 18 month project actually take 3 years?
3) We have encountered various issues with construction difficulties, weather impact & unforeseen statutory undertakers works
Q4/ When a date is missed, is a reason given by Birse, as to why they can't meet the deadline?
4) If a date is missed reasons are given although not always accepted
Q5/ Is the contractor drip fed money every month, which is why there are so few men actually working on site.
5) The contractor is paid each month for work completed in the previous period based upon their original contract commitment
Q6/ What was the original cost of the project and what is it now?
6) The original construction contract value was approx. £16m, this has not changed.
7/ Who is paying for any shortfall?
7) -
Q8/ Was a penalty clause put into the project for late completion? If it wasn't why not?
8) Yes
Q9/ Why has the council started a new set of roadworks on the diversion route and could this work not be delayed until the diversion is finished?
9) The works in Kimpton Road were specifically delayed to be undertaken after the completion of the ELC scheme, unfortunately due to the over runs on the ELC this has forced the Kimpton Road scheme to be undertaken at the same time due to end of financial year constraints.
I hope this addresses some, if not all of your queries.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Road
LTN Man - you missed the most important question...
Why oh why have they removed the roundabout and replaced it with traffic lights, and how are they going to deal with the tailbacks onto the M1 in the Summer???
Why oh why have they removed the roundabout and replaced it with traffic lights, and how are they going to deal with the tailbacks onto the M1 in the Summer???
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was sent to me a while back:
We are aware of the impact that the temporary configuration of the signals are having on the traffic and have been raising these concerns with the contractor who is responsible for temporary works and have asked them to address the problems, this has been raised at all levels from site up to Director level.The signals that are operating at the moment at Gipsy lane are on a temporary configuration and are operating under lane restriction constraints so will be far less efficient than the permanent signal arrangement, however I believe that further adjustments can be made in the short term to alleviate some of the traffic congestion.
The new signals at Gipsy Lane were part of the original design prepared in 2003. The signals, although introduce a break in the flow of the main traffic, will manage the flows much better as traffic flows increase. As the scheme has been design to cater for traffic growth for the next 20-30 years a roundabout would not cope with the predicated traffic growth, certainly not the size of the old roundabout, to stand a chance of coping it would have to be something akin to Junction 10 roundabout of the M1 which there is simply not enough room to accommodate at this junction.
The signals will be operated by a MOVA system which is effectively an intelligent vehicle actuation system, which can learn and record traffic flows and adjust itself to cater for the greatest demand at different times of the day, which you would expect to be the A1081 from the M1 towards Hitchin in the morning and the opposite in the evening, therefore greatest green time should be given to the highest demand but still allow green time to the side road.
Once the MOVA system is activated and all lanes are operating I am sure you will see a dramatic improvement. As for the roundabout v signals debate this would only ever be realised in the longer term but as signals have replaced the small roundabout we will not have a direct comparison to make.
I trust that this helps you understand some of the issue relating to the evolution of this junction.'
We are aware of the impact that the temporary configuration of the signals are having on the traffic and have been raising these concerns with the contractor who is responsible for temporary works and have asked them to address the problems, this has been raised at all levels from site up to Director level.The signals that are operating at the moment at Gipsy lane are on a temporary configuration and are operating under lane restriction constraints so will be far less efficient than the permanent signal arrangement, however I believe that further adjustments can be made in the short term to alleviate some of the traffic congestion.
The new signals at Gipsy Lane were part of the original design prepared in 2003. The signals, although introduce a break in the flow of the main traffic, will manage the flows much better as traffic flows increase. As the scheme has been design to cater for traffic growth for the next 20-30 years a roundabout would not cope with the predicated traffic growth, certainly not the size of the old roundabout, to stand a chance of coping it would have to be something akin to Junction 10 roundabout of the M1 which there is simply not enough room to accommodate at this junction.
The signals will be operated by a MOVA system which is effectively an intelligent vehicle actuation system, which can learn and record traffic flows and adjust itself to cater for the greatest demand at different times of the day, which you would expect to be the A1081 from the M1 towards Hitchin in the morning and the opposite in the evening, therefore greatest green time should be given to the highest demand but still allow green time to the side road.
Once the MOVA system is activated and all lanes are operating I am sure you will see a dramatic improvement. As for the roundabout v signals debate this would only ever be realised in the longer term but as signals have replaced the small roundabout we will not have a direct comparison to make.
I trust that this helps you understand some of the issue relating to the evolution of this junction.'
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Home Counties
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And another thing.......
Is not the position of those traffic lights which are causing long queues of standing vehicles inside the 1:10,000 area of the Public Safety Zone something of a no-no? That is, I believe, an area which shouldn't contain large numbers of squashy items such as people for any appreciable length of time, especially if they're immediately adjacent to their own tank of highly combustible material? Or have I misunderstood?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find this is within current policy making, from the council web site.
Within the Public Safety Zones planning permission will not be granted for:
Development within Public Safety Zones
Within the Public Safety Zones planning permission will not be granted for:
[A] any development, including extensions and changes of use, which is likely to result in more people:
(i) living in the property, unless it is for the purpose of enlarging or improving the living accommodation for the benefit of existing residents; or
(ii) working or congregating at the property or site; or
short-stay car parking (where the maximum stay is expected to be less than six hours); or[C] distribution depots, sorting depots or retail warehouses; or
[D] children’s playgrounds, playing fields or sports grounds; or
[E] sports clubhouses; or
[F] any other development likely to result in significant numbers of people being present at a site on a regular basis.