LEEDS 5

[LBIA]

Now this is a bit more interesting as you've got to start somewhere I suppose. If all goes well we might see a Boeing 787 Dreamliner in the future as Local businesses along with LBA management are to start discussions with Air India about linking Yorkshire with direct flights to India at a meeting in London this evening. So I guess they have given up trying to persuade PIA to come back and use that Boeing 777.

Business representatives to start lobbying for Air India flights to Yorkshire

INDIA'S flag carrier airline Air India will tonight hear why it should add Yorkshire to its global destinations.

Representatives from the Yorkshire Asian Business Association (YABA) and Leeds Bradford Airport are in London to present at a Microsoft-hosted event focused on collaborations with India.

The meeting, which will also hear from Cobra Beer founder and chairman Lord Bilimoria, follows on from discussions in November when the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) met with YABA in Leeds.

Tony Hallwood, aviation development director at Leeds Bradford Airport, and YABA chairman Amarjit Singh are part of the delegation that will be lobbying to add a route that would provide a significant boost for both the airport and for international trade in the region.

Mr Singh hopes that tonight will be the start of strategic links between Yorkshire's international airport, Air India and FICCI.

He said: "We are trying to encourage and facilitate the relationship between Air India, Leeds Bradford Airport and FICCI, which represents 200,000 Indian businesses, some of which are keen to create joint ventures or work in partnership with UK businesses."

[HOODED]

Well the 787 is the right aircraft if you are going to do long haul ex LBA. Can't see it happening though, BHX has a large Indian populous LBA doesn't. Now if a Pakistani airline had 787s........

[crewmeal]

Church Fenton has more chance of up and running before PIA get 787's

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Ryanair

"We need more aircraft and an ongoing good deal for us to be able to take more of the capacity that we have coming on stream to work.

"The region needs the best marketing plan within Britain to get people around Europe to visit Yorkshire.

"So I would always ask that never say that the marketing plan for getting Europeans to visit Yorkshire is good enough, just constantly do what we are doing about 'always getting better'. Always work at it because the guys over in Liverpool and Manchester are working on their plan to get people to choose Liverpool or Manchester over choosing Yorkshire.

It's really quite clear what RYR are getting at as regards LBA. Sort the airport out (as much as possible) and give us a better deal. Hence the drop in routes.


The airport appears to be stagnating now under the current owners.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Originally Posted by Manchester Kurt

Rubbish analogy, the railway is regulated and state owned.

The DfT mandate a minimum service, own the tracks and own the trains.

The WCML makes a profit.

Leeds airport was sold by the local authority to a private enterprise, a private enterprise that has shareholders that expect a return on their investment and not to be a charity interested in developing the West Yorkshire economy.

You've taken the west coast rail analogy far too literally and deep. Forget the train analogy and concentrate on the butcher analogy.

You talk about DfT mandating a minimum service but so do the Yorkshire public. Shareholders may well be disappointed if they expect a return on their investment because there's been no where near the amount of investment that was declared to be spent when the airport was sold. Big money was required to be spent not just a tarting up of the historic terminal but on the whole LBA infrastructure package.

Perhaps the owners have realised that there is not much more can be done on the present Yeadon site that would get value for money? It's a serious question, not just concerning road and rail links to Yeadon but also spending on taxiways and apron space etc Why spend millions of pounds on a capped airfield just to get 2 or 3 more million passengers?

There is no logic in throwing good money after bad. Church fenton would not be a capped airfield in terms of space.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

A BA A319 and a citation spent approximately 15-20 minutes in the hold this morning. Not exactly sure why although I'll have a stab at too slippery a runway.

It's not right good is it? It will certainly not have been overlooked by BA.

When is the SAS Copenhagen advert going to be replaced? - seems a tad odd to be advertising an airline and route that operates from a competing airport. Actually potentially taking passengers away from KLM.

You know what they say though - "desperate times call for desperate measures..."

[Fairdealfrank]

"So I would always ask that never say that the marketing plan for getting Europeans to visit Yorkshire is good enough, just constantly do what we are doing about 'always getting better'. Always work at it because the guys over in Liverpool and Manchester are working on their plan to get people to choose Liverpool or Manchester over choosing Yorkshire.

Dear oh dear, we've got north vs. south over on the Ringway thread, it looks like we're restarting the war of the roses with this Lancashire vs. Yorkshire nonsense.... Time to get a grip?

[Bagso]

7A Merseyside, Mancunian, Yorkshire axis would be rather good. I don't think the poster was arguing one over the other i think they were perhaps suggesting Yorkshire needs to compete at same level.

Can I recommend the Yorkists look at the Visit Britain website !

The clue s/b in the title. It isn't ....it's 95% London.

And this is what tourists visiting the UK to include Yorkshire are being directed to !

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Originally Posted by LEEDS APPROACH

A BA A319 and a citation spent approximately 15-20 minutes in the hold this morning. Not exactly sure why although I'll have a stab at too slippery a runway.

It's not right good is it? It will certainly not have been overlooked by BA.

When is the SAS Copenhagen advert going to be replaced? - seems a tad odd to be advertising an airline and route that operates from a competing airport. Actually potentially taking passengers away from KLM.

You know what they say though - "desperate times call for desperate measures..."

I would like to reply to a PM I had a few days ago that was in connection with the post I made (above) regarding holding aircraft at LBA.

I am certainly not criticizing the staff of LBA who work so hard to keep things operating - in fact it is completely the opposite. They are probably the hardest working staff of any airport in Britain. The point I am trying to make is that you are having to work so hard because of the poor circumstances of the airport. Of course if you have an airport nearly 700 feet above sea level it is going to be prone to icing, snow, gales and low cloud etc and yes safety will always be number 1 priority. This is why politicians should go out of their way to ensure that airports are developed in the best locations with suitably long enough runways that point into the prevailing wind. An airport developed on flat land at Church Fenton would not be prone to Icing, crosswinds and snowed in runways anywhere near as much as LBA and hence planes would not have to hold as much or divert to other airports as much. If a passenger is held above the airport or frequently diverted to other airports he or she will be more inclined to book the next flight from an airport where this is less likely to happen. What you might see as a minor irritant could be seen by many passengers as an airport that all too frequently is not able to do its job (ie landing and departing its passengers on time). Leeds and Yorkshire needs an airport that is best placed to efficiently and effectively do its job of moving passengers on schedule. I believe an airport developed at Church Fenton would be infinitely better at doing this than the airport at Yeadon.

"Holding at LBIA Could I ask if you work at the Airport?
The team at Leeds, worked incredibly hard this morning, and safety is everyone's number 1 priority. If Aircraft are held for a while in order to ensure safety, I see this as a minor irritant.

Regards."

[Manchester Kurt]

Leeds Approach you repeatedly make comments along the lines of the people of Yorkshire demand and expect to have an airport of a standard higher than the current offerings and that the population expect the state to play a part in delivering this.


On this basis, would you imagine this to be a major political issue in the May General Election?

[HOODED]

Leeds Approach. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet re Church Fenton. Whilst I admire and agree with much of what you are saying. This simply won't happen. LBA is in the right place conurbation wise but the wrong place geographicaly. Unfortunately it has managed to serve the region well for years, and yes I know not to its full potential. We will always loose pax to MAN and yes with some money spent (parking small runway and terminal extensions better access roads etc) we could reduce this substantially. CAT3 has helped reduce the diversions. Better snow clearing and dicing kit would too. The cost of doing some of these would be high but no where near the cost of developing Church Fenton into what LBA currently is. It is also not exactly next to The massive conurbation that LBA is. DSA was the new Yorkshire airport a while ago which had the runway parking and terminal but I haven't seen The airlines switch in droves. Sorry but LBA will soldier on I'm afraid.

[LBIA]

"LEEDS APPROACH" you'll be pleased to know that the SAS Scandinavian Airline's Copenhagen advert has now been replaced.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Originally Posted by HOODED

Leeds Approach. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet re Church Fenton. Whilst I admire and agree with much of what you are saying. This simply won't happen. LBA is in the right place conurbation wise but the wrong place geographicaly. Unfortunately it has managed to serve the region well for years, and yes I know not to its full potential. We will always loose pax to MAN and yes with some money spent (parking small runway and terminal extensions better access roads etc) we could reduce this substantially. CAT3 has helped reduce the diversions. Better snow clearing and dicing kit would too. The cost of doing some of these would be high but no where near the cost of developing Church Fenton into what LBA currently is. It is also not exactly next to The massive conurbation that LBA is. DSA was the new Yorkshire airport a while ago which had the runway parking and terminal but I haven't seen The airlines switch in droves. Sorry but LBA will soldier on I'm afraid.

I don't have a bee in my bonnet about CF but in time it most certainly will become the airport that properly serves West Yorkshire and indeed the whole of Yorkshire. CF is actually quicker to get to for huge areas of the W. Yorks conurbation as I've proved logically beyond any doubt on the CF thread. With an upgraded or dedicated link road from the A1 CF would be even more ideal. Obviously people in North Bradford and West Leeds would have to travel slightly further but on average people from all parts of Yorkshire and the Humber would be able to get to CF much quicker and easier. There would be substantially less leakage to Manchester from anywhere in Yorkshire including Halifax and Huddersfield because of the good motorway and existing rail link to CF.

Quite simply there is absolutely no logic or value for money in throwing yet more millions of pounds at an airport that cannot properly do the job. You wouldn't have a railway station in Leeds that cannot properly do the job so why would you have an airport? Even spending millions of pounds cannot resolve the problem of too high an airport with too short a wrong direction runway on a bumpy hill-ask any pilot on this planet if LBA has any prospects going forward and you will get the same reply. It is no coincidence that very little has been done infrastructure wise since the runway extension built over 30 years ago. Did you know only virtually half of it can be used for landing from the North? Nearly a thousand feet of lost runway due to its hilly location. If they cant land then unfortunately they cant take off. We had wide body flights 30 years ago and now we have none - progress eh! Isn't Yeadon doing well!?


LBA has not served this region well for years - I completely disagree with you. Perhaps you are just used to the level of service and like so many stoic 'take it on the chin' Yorkshire folk balk at demanding better? If you don't stand up to things you'll fall for anything. 3 million passengers a year for an airport serving a population of a small country is utterly risible. LBA with its airfield failings and inaccessibility has served another region very well over the years and that's exactly how they want it to remain. They would dread the day that CF was established as a civil airport for Yorkshire.

As I've stated many times now finningley airport is completely in the wrong place for an airport to even serve Sheffield let alone be an airport for the whole of Yorkshire. It would never be able to bring about the closure of Yeadon because it is too far away (despite its brilliant long runway and flat building land). Yorkshire must have one airport in the best central location and CF is absolutely ideal if a phased in run down of Yeadon could be agreed upon by all parties and politicians. If the opportunity is missed or denied then the region of Yorkshire and the Humber will never have an airport that can suitably and effectively do the job in my opinion.

Yes the SAS Copenhagen advert has at last been replaced by an advert for Dubai! You couldn't make it up. Where are the emirates flights to Dubai? What happened to the PIA flights to Pakistan? Proper airports handle proper aeroplanes on proper runways.

[Ringwayman]

If the airlines were THAT bothered about Yorkshire then they would be flocking their in their hordes to serve any airport in Yorkshire. AA is using 757s to MAN, UA will be doing the same to NCL. What's preventing them doing the same to LBA - it's not as if a 757 can't operate to EWR as Jet2 do it at Christmas.

You are again spending money that no-one has in (a) developing Church Fenton to be better than LBA and (b) closing LBA down. After all, you are going to compensate all interested parties at LBA, aren't you?

[LAX_LHR]

You are again spending money that no-one has in (a) developing Church Fenton to be better than LBA and (b) closing LBA down. After all, you are going to compensate all interested parties at LBA, aren't you?

Don't forget, as Leeds Approach said in the CF thread, he is not interested in economics.


He just wants the big shiny airport parachuted in with no care for cost, and all of those airlines to flock in with complete disregard for any yield and load potential.


In other words, LA wants Changi in Yorkshire.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Originally Posted by Ringwayman

If the airlines were THAT bothered about Yorkshire then they would be flocking their in their hordes to serve any airport in Yorkshire. AA is using 757s to MAN, UA will be doing the same to NCL. What's preventing them doing the same to LBA - it's not as if a 757 can't operate to EWR as Jet2 do it at Christmas.

You are again spending money that no-one has in (a) developing Church Fenton to be better than LBA and (b) closing LBA down. After all, you are going to compensate all interested parties at LBA, aren't you?

No because as I've clearly stated many passengers will not use LBA because it is easier to jump onto the motorway or train and go to MAN and airlines know that. A potential Yorkshire airport has to be in the IDEAL location and Yeadon never will be. Airlines will not risk going into LBA on a scheduled flight because of the diversion probability. Jet2 Newark flights have indeed diverted to Manchester. So you've perfectly proved my point. You are a fan of MAN and so it's in your interest for Yeadon to continue.

[HOODED]

Leeds Approach. I am well aware that landing from the North you loose SOME runway as I did my PPL at LBA. Half is somewhat of an exaggeration though. The runway is 7380 feet extended from 5400 ft many years ago. I seem to remember it was extended at the Northern end and the new 2000ft bit has the displayed threshold on it....Half really!! LBA on 14 has less than 2000ft unusable of the 7380ft. Also 747s have landed that way, tight but doable. Are you aware that modern wide body aircraft like the 787 and A350 are much less reliant on huge long runways? Are you also aware that departing off 14 where length is more important you have a take off distance of over 10000ft due to no obstacles. Guess we will just have to beg to differ. Have a look at Luton....on a hill, short runway, not much space but hey they're still going. I look forward to landing at Yorkshire Tadcaster Airport after LBA has closed. I can then drive home to North Leeds in just short of the time it would have taken to have Landed at DSA or MAN.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Originally Posted by LAX_LHR

Don't forget, as Leeds Approach said in the CF thread, he is not interested in economics.


He just wants the big shiny airport parachuted in with no care for cost, and all of those airlines to flock in with complete disregard for any yield and load potential.


In other words, LA wants Changi in Yorkshire.

Let me try to explain slowly to you LAX. The economics are utterly critical to any airport but try to understand I am looking at this from a purely aviation point of view. Centre of catchment, ease of travelling from catchment, ability of airport to do the job efficiently. I've crunched the figures. IF and it's a big IF LBA was to close and CF was to be developed - Yorkshire passengers would use CF airport as it would easily be the most convenient and easy airport to get to from all areas of Yorkshire and the Humber. Yes base fares from MAN would be cheaper certainly to begin with but this would be countered by the ease and cost of getting to CF and the much greater reliability of CF doing the job of landing and departing passengers on time (compared to Yeadon).

The yield would be greater than is present at Yeadon because the airport at CF would be more attractive to a bigger population and CF would be the airport of choice for more people. If you cannot accept that then we'll just have to disagree. Why do you think the yield demand would be less than at Yeadon? People from Hull and Sheffield go to MAN and EMA at present over Yeadon but if an airport at CF was developed this would in time become their airport of choice due to the ease of getting there and its reliability as airport. People from Leeds and Bradford would also use CF. People from the North East who stay on the train to MAN would be able to get off over an hour earlier at CF. The REALITY catchment of CF would be greater because of the better airfield circumstances.

It's not a vanity project of big new shiny airfield it basic economics proven beyond any doubt. The only thing that will stop it is politics and more aptly politicians.

[LEEDS APPROACH]

Originally Posted by HOODED

Leeds Approach. I am well aware that landing from the North you loose SOME runway as I did my PPL at LBA. Half is somewhat of an exaggeration though. The runway is 7380 feet extended from 5400 ft many years ago. I seem to remember it was extended at the Northern end and the new 2000ft bit has the displayed threshold on it....Half really!! LBA on 14 has less than 2000ft unusable of the 7380ft. Also 747s have landed that way, tight but doable. Are you aware that modern wide body aircraft like the 787 and A350 are much less reliant on huge long runways? Are you also aware that departing off 14 where length is more important you have a take off distance of over 10000ft due to no obstacles. Guess we will just have to beg to differ. Have a look at Luton....on a hill, short runway, not much space but hey they're still going. I look forward to landing at Yorkshire Tadcaster Airport after LBA has closed. I can then drive home to North Leeds in just short of the time it would have taken to have Landed at DSA or MAN.

You need to check your runway available distances mate and then you will understand exactly where I am coming from. The actual runway length has little to do with anything. TORA / LDA .The problem is airlines look at worst case scenarios before deciding to operate certain routes and aircraft. (PIA). It's not the good days it's the bad days! If you cannot land every time - then you cant land! If you haven't landed then you sure as hell cant take off again - that is Yeadon in a nutshell.

[LAX_LHR]

Leeds Approach,


You are looking at this project far too simplistically. Population does not automatically mean people will use it.


Just look at BHX, huge city on its doorstep, huge industry areas, easily accessible to millions more yet handles just shy of 10million per year, with outlying areas using LHR/MAN/EMA/LTN/STN and BRS. That's a fraction of its potential thanks to the other airports.


So explain to me why CF would be so vastly different? Like I say, you have a far too simplistic 'Yorkshire pride' view on this, and you seem to be answering rather defensively against any critics, which quite frankly puts many off and I'm wondering why Ive even bothered t be frank.