Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

LEEDS 5

Old 27th Jan 2015, 18:43
  #2381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Usually in a bar!
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Leeds Approach

Whilst I can admire someone's enthusiasm for aviation there has to come a point at which that enthusiasm needs a dose of reality.
You clearly know nothing about airlines or airports as your posts show, to me and many others it seems. Your continued belief that Yorkshire deserves a "proper" airport is spotter fantasyland not the real world.
I agree that LBA is not ideal but it does seve a purpose. Nobody is going to spend millions on CF hoping it will bring in the airlines and passengers.
You mention nobody compensating EMA. Why would they??
However you are suggesting that CF is developed but that would mean closing LBA so you would absolutely need the current owners onside. There is no way you could get the funding and commitments for CF if LBA is still going to be operational.
LBA can grow but there is only one major airport for the North and that is clearly shown by the airlines and routes from it. People will always have to go to a bigger airport to get the range of services it can offer. It doesn't mean Yorkshire
shouldn't have more offerings from LBA but "crunching" some numbers as you say you have done is not going to change anything.
SAS lasted how long? I doubt it was because of the location of LBA. More to do with passengers not using it. Flights to Pakistan have been and gone. Why? Because it's better to consolidate at one big airport for long haul in most cases. That's just a couple of examples but it shows that just lobbing money at CF, economics doesn't really matter that much to you, won't work.
Homo Simpson is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2015, 19:01
  #2382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Homo Simpson
Leeds Approach

Whilst I can admire someone's enthusiasm for aviation there has to come a point at which that enthusiasm needs a dose of reality.
You clearly know nothing about airlines or airports as your posts show, to me and many others it seems. Your continued belief that Yorkshire deserves a "proper" airport is spotter fantasyland not the real world.
I agree that LBA is not ideal but it does seve a purpose. Nobody is going to spend millions on CF hoping it will bring in the airlines and passengers.
You mention nobody compensating EMA. Why would they??
However you are suggesting that CF is developed but that would mean closing LBA so you would absolutely need the current owners onside. There is no way you could get the funding and commitments for CF if LBA is still going to be operational.
LBA can grow but there is only one major airport for the North and that is clearly shown by the airlines and routes from it. People will always have to go to a bigger airport to get the range of services it can offer. It doesn't mean Yorkshire
shouldn't have more offerings from LBA but "crunching" some numbers as you say you have done is not going to change anything.
SAS lasted how long? I doubt it was because of the location of LBA. More to do with passengers not using it. Flights to Pakistan have been and gone. Why? Because it's better to consolidate at one big airport for long haul in most cases. That's just a couple of examples but it shows that just lobbing money at CF, economics doesn't really matter that much to you, won't work.
You were from Manchester but now you're in a bar! PIA were all set to fly 777s in- the margins of a short runway are too tight. The diversion record makes it a non starter. Hence no service. LBA wanted it.

SAS twice a week not very useful. People from Yorks staying on the motorway / train to MAN's many flights. Inaccessibility. Only Leeds city to feed the service. You doubt it is the location-but it is extremely important to potential passengers.

MAN will have its longhaul but there will be a fairer split of services. I don't think MAN and its fans in a bar would want a fairer split!
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2015, 19:14
  #2383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by roverman
Big population=big airport. Yes, but the airport isn't necessarily right next to the big population. For example Rotterdam/Den Haag/Utrecht in the Netherlands - a sizeable population and much industry. Rotterdam has a small airport for local needs, the main airport being Amsterdam Schipol.
This works fine with fast road and rail connections.

Leeds/Bradford/West Yorks has a local airport with better services than Rotterdam. The main airport is Manchester which has good and improving road and rail links. No need spending more money at Church Fenton to provide something which is already available. Can you honestly expect CF to have anything like the range of flights MAN has. Ever?
Rotterdam, the hague, Utrecht much closer to AMS and catchment is into the sea. Leeds is at crossroads of the urban north of England. Rotterdam population 600 thousand I think. Yorkshire is 5.3 million. Not even comparable. Hull cr has population of 600 thousand - its a little bit further away from MAN than Rotterdam is from AMS.

Church Fenton (Yorkshire International) would not have the range of flights of MAN but the ratio would not be 6 or 7 to 1 as it is at present. "No need creating a profitable airport at Church Fenton for 5.3 million when we can just keep paying and struggling across the busy and snowy M62-eh"

Last edited by LEEDS APPROACH; 27th Jan 2015 at 19:28.
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2015, 21:19
  #2384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
People outside of Leeds and Bradford are just not interested in the slog to get there and a poxy mile long link road will change very little.
Unscientific analysis using google maps and going by road to Church Fenton and LBA with MAN thrown in

Sheffield: to Church Fenton: 1h 2m. to LBA 1h 12m. to MAN 1h 15m
York: to Church Fenton 30m. to LBA 50m. to MAN 1h 31m
Scarborough: to Church Fenton 1h 18m to LBA 1h 41m. to MAN 2h 20m
Scunthorpe: to Church Fenton 59m. to LBA 1h 15m. to MAN 1h 49m
Doncaster: to Church Fenton 43m. to LBA 1h 4m. to MAN 1h 27m
Hull: to Church Fenton 1h 4m. to LBA 1h 25m. to MAN 1h 54m
Barnsley: to Church Fenton 51m. to LBA 54m. to MAN 1h 6m

Some "slog" when we're talking ease of access to Church Fenton instead of LBA are seeing journey times saved venture from under 5 minutes to 23 minutes.

Looking at the Google Map image, I wouldn't exactly say it's going be easy to expand the runways (remember, you want a "proper" airport - whatever that means - in place of LBA so a minimum longer runways to have "proper" planes to "proper" destinations).

Then this assumption that 4 million more passengers will magically appear out of thin air because there's a "proper" Yorkshire airport. Can we have a list of these airlines and destinations that would spring up? MAN has single daily services to a handful of US destinations and MAN is serving the whole North of England. Airlines aren't going to cannibalise what may be a borderline route by adding a similar service over the Pennines so they can "enjoy" 2 loss making routes for a while before either waving bye-bye to the North of England in it's entirely or retrenching to back to MAN.
Ringwayman is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2015, 21:54
  #2385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In the absence of any real news about LBA and its operations, it might be pertinent to point out that the Mods patience is not infinite...The same rants and essays became evident on another thread and it was closed down..I suggest some thought might be given in that direction folks....
paully is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2015, 22:39
  #2386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by paully
In the absence of any real news about LBA and its operations, it might be pertinent to point out that the Mods patience is not infinite...The same rants and essays became evident on another thread and it was closed down..I suggest some thought might be given in that direction folks....
There isn't any news that's the point. The Mods will make their own minds up when to pull a thread. No thread has been pulled. If you think it's a ridiculous thread and pie in the sky then don't comment.

The issue is serious. Edinburgh and Glasgow have international airports and yet a region in England with more people than both cities combined does not even have a service to Brussels. The current service to CDG is worse than air UK's service 35 years ago and yet we are meant to just accept it.
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2015, 22:48
  #2387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If there's no service to Brussels and limited to Paris, you need to work out that this is a direct correlation to demand. Not rocket science and not some mad conspiracy to keep the MAN routes going at all cost, Shaving minutes of a passenger's travel time is not going to influence where a passenger flies from.
Ringwayman is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2015, 23:00
  #2388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Approach.....you are certainly right..This is a pie in the sky bit of nonsense..and I am perfectly free to comment, within the rules, as I have done and reserve the right to do so again. You have made your point,as you are entitled to do, but to make it ad nauseum does your cause no good.....Softly softly catchee monkey
paully is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2015, 23:06
  #2389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ringwayman
Unscientific analysis using google maps and going by road to Church Fenton and LBA with MAN thrown in

Sheffield: to Church Fenton: 1h 2m. to LBA 1h 12m. to MAN 1h 15m
York: to Church Fenton 30m. to LBA 50m. to MAN 1h 31m
Scarborough: to Church Fenton 1h 18m to LBA 1h 41m. to MAN 2h 20m
Scunthorpe: to Church Fenton 59m. to LBA 1h 15m. to MAN 1h 49m
Doncaster: to Church Fenton 43m. to LBA 1h 4m. to MAN 1h 27m
Hull: to Church Fenton 1h 4m. to LBA 1h 25m. to MAN 1h 54m
Barnsley: to Church Fenton 51m. to LBA 54m. to MAN 1h 6m

Some "slog" when we're talking ease of access to Church Fenton instead of LBA are seeing journey times saved venture from under 5 minutes to 23 minutes.

Looking at the Google Map image, I wouldn't exactly say it's going be easy to expand the runways (remember, you want a "proper" airport - whatever that means - in place of LBA so a minimum longer runways to have "proper" planes to "proper" destinations).

Then this assumption that 4 million more passengers will magically appear out of thin air because there's a "proper" Yorkshire airport. Can we have a list of these airlines and destinations that would spring up? MAN has single daily services to a handful of US destinations and MAN is serving the whole North of England. Airlines aren't going to cannibalise what may be a borderline route by adding a similar service over the Pennines so they can "enjoy" 2 loss making routes for a while before either waving bye-bye to the North of England in it's entirely or retrenching to back to MAN.
Providing a link road over very flat land, sparsely populated, to Church Fenton (a la finningley)would reduce those figures markedly. It is not just the time of journey it is the ease of journey. It can take nearly an hour from motorway to LBA during certain times of the day. Initially there would only be a runway extension on the northerly runway upto around 7800 - 8000ft. This would be a considerably longer usable runway than LBA due to shorter runway displacement. LBA is right on limits but CF would allow DXB and florida. Instead of SN A319 at MAN it would be Dash8 at CF and RJ100 at MAN. A fairer ratio that more accurately reflects the two conurbations.

The regional airport of MAN has benefitted due to LBA being partially developed in the wrong place. Don't you think somebody from Grimsby or Hull should be able to fly to Florida on a perfectly profitable route from this side of the pennines without having to travel 100s of miles to the north west?

Can you honestly deny that what the real worry is - is that an airport developed at CF will be able to do what LBA never has and never will be able to do - Act as a suitable, accessible airport for the whole of Yorkshire and negate the need to travel to MAN?
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2015, 23:14
  #2390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ringwayman
If there's no service to Brussels and limited to Paris, you need to work out that this is a direct correlation to demand. Not rocket science and not some mad conspiracy to keep the MAN routes going at all cost, Shaving minutes of a passenger's travel time is not going to influence where a passenger flies from.
It is a direct correlation of demand - only people within the enclosed Leeds city region are using LBA- the other critical 2.5 million people are staying on the motorway and train to an airport that is not fog bound or suffering 50mph crosswinds. A suitable airport in a suitable place and well connected just like MAN ie lets battle on a level playing field. I think you just know it will hurt MAN more than Yeadon will ever be able to.

It should happen but southern and north western politicians will make it not happen just like they did with the trams.
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 07:47
  #2391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LEEDS APPROACH, a while ago I asked if you thought this would be an election issue in May, you didn't respond.
Manchester Kurt is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 09:04
  #2392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Somewhere up there
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LA

I admire your enthusiasm and persistence but I think you should also know when to quit.
You've thrown a proposition out there for debate and that's your right and privilege. Fair enough.
But you've been trounced in that debate and now you should gracefully withdraw.

Summary points:
1. There are already too many airports in the North of England
2. The business case for another one cannot be made.
3. All the arguments about a Yorkshire International were previously made in respect of Finningley. The relative failure of that venture will, in itself, be enough evidence to scare off all potential investors in CF whether they are private or public.
4. LBA isn't going to just disappear.
5. If it was 'forced' to close, the owners would demand and receive very substantial compensation for their loss. The government would not be paying this, nor the Yorkshire LAs, nor a private company. So who would?
6. There is nothing stopping SAS or AF or LH serving LBA - or Yorkshire right now - nothing. They don't. Why would the existence of a so called 'proper' airport change that?
7. The Vale of York is a well known 'fog spot' in any case.
8. You are railing (with some justification) about decisions that were taken decades ago and in economic terms are practically irreversible.
9. Cost of associated infrastructure: airfield upgrade, terminal construction, new link roads, rail link (?) would run into hundreds of millions. There are better opportunities to spend the nation's wealth and better opportunities for the reduced number of private airport developers and operators too. This will never be an investment priority.
All names taken is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 16:45
  #2393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by All names taken
LA

I admire your enthusiasm and persistence but I think you should also know when to quit.
You've thrown a proposition out there for debate and that's your right and privilege. Fair enough.
But you've been trounced in that debate and now you should gracefully withdraw.

Summary points:
1. There are already too many airports in the North of England
2. The business case for another one cannot be made.
3. All the arguments about a Yorkshire International were previously made in respect of Finningley. The relative failure of that venture will, in itself, be enough evidence to scare off all potential investors in CF whether they are private or public.
4. LBA isn't going to just disappear.
5. If it was 'forced' to close, the owners would demand and receive very substantial compensation for their loss. The government would not be paying this, nor the Yorkshire LAs, nor a private company. So who would?
6. There is nothing stopping SAS or AF or LH serving LBA - or Yorkshire right now - nothing. They don't. Why would the existence of a so called 'proper' airport change that?
7. The Vale of York is a well known 'fog spot' in any case.
8. You are railing (with some justification) about decisions that were taken decades ago and in economic terms are practically irreversible.
9. Cost of associated infrastructure: airfield upgrade, terminal construction, new link roads, rail link (?) would run into hundreds of millions. There are better opportunities to spend the nation's wealth and better opportunities for the reduced number of private airport developers and operators too. This will never be an investment priority.
Nobody has even been able to offer any kind of counter argument to anything I've stated. I've backed up the debate with irrefutable facts and figures about connection times to Church Fenton, LBA's far from ideal runway and airfield characteristics (as I watch another RYR diverting in a gale force snow storm), why finningley cannot properly represent Yorkshire (shown by its historic downward passenger figures), how LBA is cut off from the motorways and how it can take an hour from airport to motorway. Oh and I may have mentioned Yorkshire's huge population. Everything has been covered logically so I'm not quite sure where I've been 'trounced' as you put it!?

Every one of your points I've covered ad nauseam. A businessman has stated that he intends to run scheduled European flights from Church Fenton - I think I know what he's getting at. There's one of the most popular GA airfields just 2 or 3 miles away!? Very much thin end of the wedge from here. If all goes to plan it will have a huge affect on MAN. It has been needed for years - Yorkshire has lost billions upon billions of pounds because of politicians.
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 16:51
  #2394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LA, that is twice you have ignored my question about whether you think this will become an election issue come May.


Suggests you know it won't.


Suggests you realise that not only is there no economic case but also no political case for this to happen.


Whilst your enthusiasm is laudable, your inability to recognise that there is no economic nor political imperative explains why you fail to understand the current position and why things will not change.


You see airlines and airports as social services, there to benefit the local population, fundamentally that is where your position is broken.
Manchester Kurt is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 17:02
  #2395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Clarty Waters, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 945
Likes: 0
Received 30 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by LEEDS APPROACH
Nobody has even been able to offer any kind of counter argument to anything I've stated.....
I think, with that statement, we've entered the realms of the absurd........
Andy_S is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 17:03
  #2396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nobody has even been able to offer any kind of counter argument to anything I've stated

I think you'll find nobody has offered a 'counter argument' because you need a convincing case to begin with for anyone to be able to 'counter argue' against it.....
LAX_LHR is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 17:17
  #2397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Manchester Kurt
LA, that is twice you have ignored my question about whether you think this will become an election issue come May.


Suggests you know it won't.


Suggests you realise that not only is there no economic case but also no political case for this to happen.


Whilst your enthusiasm is laudable, your inability to recognise that there is no economic nor political imperative explains why you fail to understand the current position and why things will not change.


You see airlines and airports as social services, there to benefit the local population, fundamentally that is where your position is broken.
Fair play to you Kurt, at least you don't hide where you're from. Sorry I forgot your posts - No I don't think it will be an election issue. Young tax payers do expect to be treated fairly though (much more than the old stoic Yorkies who just put up with crap). How come someone in Manchester gets to ride on a brand new tram direct to an airport with a direct flight to Florida when someone in Leeds has to go on a drafty old bus to an aerodrome on a hill to watch his flight to Dublin (before America) have to divert in a gale? We pay the same taxes so the services should be more equal.
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 17:23
  #2398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm just surprised the mods haven't called enough on this, given what happened on the MAN thread, when in my view most of the debate then, although lengthy, was well articulated and reasoned. It was labelled as drivel and not directly concerned with MAN airport although the issues under discussion affected MAN. This debate seems focused on the alleged benefits of Church Fenton by one contributor. Perhaps it would be better if folk stopped responding.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 17:26
  #2399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by LAX_LHR
I think you'll find nobody has offered a 'counter argument' because you need a convincing case to begin with for anyone to be able to 'counter argue' against it.....
Which bit don't you agree with? There is absolutely no reason why there should not be a 'fit for purpose', well connected airport for the West of the pennines and one for the East of the pennines.

7 million people in the west and 5.3 million people in the east. Why is that an unrealistic ask?
LEEDS APPROACH is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2015, 17:36
  #2400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The tram line was paid for locally, through local taxes with a huge payment from the airport. Maybe you should be complaining that your local population aren't calling for you local politicians to fund improvements in the links to the airport, as happened in Manc in 2004.

Remember when I posted a link to local transport priorities in West Yorkshire?

Why would central government fund a scheme that's not even a local priority in West Yorkshire?

The fights are clearly commercial decisions, something you seem to struggle with the concept of.

The reason it won't happen is because their is limited local demand politically and no economic case.

Simple.

Updated: LA you seem very poorly informed...

A new Metrolink line to the Airport is also under construction. It will extend from the South Manchester Line at Chorlton and run on 14.5km (9 miles) of new track via Northern Moor, Baguley, and Wythenshawe to Manchester Airport with 15 stops. The line is planned to open in 2016. The scheme is being financed by local funding as part of the Greater Manchester Transport Fund Programme.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...Xdc0taImM8BS-A

Seems if you took the time to better understand how the real world operates you'd better understand why it's as it is.

Suppose the question back to you is if you think all areas should be treated equally in terms of infrastructure development, then why should Leeds get centrally funded https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...-Aimprovements when Manc had to fund it locally? Thought you wanted it to be 'fair'?

Last edited by Manchester Kurt; 28th Jan 2015 at 17:59.
Manchester Kurt is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.