LEEDS 5
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LBA vs LEA
Leeds Approach. Just for clarification.
LBA 32/14 2250m 7382ft
LDA 14 1802m 5912ft
LDA 32 1916M 6286ft
LEA 24/06 1712m 5617ft
34/16 1666m 5466ft
LDA 24 and 06 1712m 5617ft
LDA 16 1666m 5466ft
LDA 34 1466M 4810ft
Now given the CAA would probably insist on a displaced threshold for AT movements at LEA these figures would likley reduce even more.LBA has displaced thresholds both ends as part of the runway extension approval 32 was moved 14 was due to high ground on approach. Aircraft land light due to fuel being significantly less than at take off( not rocket science) and hence LDA is significantly less than TODR. The current aircraft using LBA most 737 757 A320 have no problems on this "short" runway despite increased glideslope angle on 14. The airport has handled 747 767 727 DC10 DC8 707 Tu154 L1011.I wonder if LEA would be able to if the CAA insisted on an undershoot. Yes I know LEA could extend but we all know how much that will cost.
So please stop calling LBAs runway short especially when comparing it to Church Fenton, LEA or Tadcaster international or whatever it's called these days. Thanks.
LBA 32/14 2250m 7382ft
LDA 14 1802m 5912ft
LDA 32 1916M 6286ft
LEA 24/06 1712m 5617ft
34/16 1666m 5466ft
LDA 24 and 06 1712m 5617ft
LDA 16 1666m 5466ft
LDA 34 1466M 4810ft
Now given the CAA would probably insist on a displaced threshold for AT movements at LEA these figures would likley reduce even more.LBA has displaced thresholds both ends as part of the runway extension approval 32 was moved 14 was due to high ground on approach. Aircraft land light due to fuel being significantly less than at take off( not rocket science) and hence LDA is significantly less than TODR. The current aircraft using LBA most 737 757 A320 have no problems on this "short" runway despite increased glideslope angle on 14. The airport has handled 747 767 727 DC10 DC8 707 Tu154 L1011.I wonder if LEA would be able to if the CAA insisted on an undershoot. Yes I know LEA could extend but we all know how much that will cost.
So please stop calling LBAs runway short especially when comparing it to Church Fenton, LEA or Tadcaster international or whatever it's called these days. Thanks.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: England
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leeds Approach. Just for clarification.
LBA 32/14 2250m 7382ft
LDA 14 1802m 5912ft
LDA 32 1916M 6286ft
LEA 24/06 1712m 5617ft
34/16 1666m 5466ft
LDA 24 and 06 1712m 5617ft
LDA 16 1666m 5466ft
LDA 34 1466M 4810ft
Now given the CAA would probably insist on a displaced threshold for AT movements at LEA these figures would likley reduce even more.LBA has displaced thresholds both ends as part of the runway extension approval 32 was moved 14 was due to high ground on approach. Aircraft land light due to fuel being significantly less than at take off( not rocket science) and hence LDA is significantly less than TODR. The current aircraft using LBA most 737 757 A320 have no problems on this "short" runway despite increased glideslope angle on 14. The airport has handled 747 767 727 DC10 DC8 707 Tu154 L1011.I wonder if LEA would be able to if the CAA insisted on an undershoot. Yes I know LEA could extend but we all know how much that will cost.
So please stop calling LBAs runway short especially when comparing it to Church Fenton, LEA or Tadcaster international or whatever it's called these days. Thanks.
LBA 32/14 2250m 7382ft
LDA 14 1802m 5912ft
LDA 32 1916M 6286ft
LEA 24/06 1712m 5617ft
34/16 1666m 5466ft
LDA 24 and 06 1712m 5617ft
LDA 16 1666m 5466ft
LDA 34 1466M 4810ft
Now given the CAA would probably insist on a displaced threshold for AT movements at LEA these figures would likley reduce even more.LBA has displaced thresholds both ends as part of the runway extension approval 32 was moved 14 was due to high ground on approach. Aircraft land light due to fuel being significantly less than at take off( not rocket science) and hence LDA is significantly less than TODR. The current aircraft using LBA most 737 757 A320 have no problems on this "short" runway despite increased glideslope angle on 14. The airport has handled 747 767 727 DC10 DC8 707 Tu154 L1011.I wonder if LEA would be able to if the CAA insisted on an undershoot. Yes I know LEA could extend but we all know how much that will cost.
So please stop calling LBAs runway short especially when comparing it to Church Fenton, LEA or Tadcaster international or whatever it's called these days. Thanks.
So please stop calling LBAs runway short especially when comparing it to Church Fenton,
Somebody who should know told me anything less than 2000m was regarded as suboptimal by US operators.
Including the TriStar three have gone off the end after 14 landings. Any extra concrete though would need to be at the Scotland Lane end (the Chevin being an immovable obstruction) and involve earthworks to rival those at St Helena, or a Funchal style 'viaduct'. Are Bridgpoint going to spend that sort of money?
Last edited by Airbanda; 14th Jun 2016 at 10:01.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malaga
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading Airbanda's comments has given me a great idea! If you tunnel from the Leeds to Harrogate railway line to the airport somewhere from the existing Bramhope tunnel then you could use the spoil to extend the runway at the Scotland Lane end. People are always suggesting better rail links to the airport so....why not kill two birds with one stone...all you need is a bit of EU funding!!!
Malaga
Malaga
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading Airbanda's comments has given me a great idea! If you tunnel from the Leeds to Harrogate railway line to the airport somewhere from the existing Bramhope tunnel then you could use the spoil to extend the runway at the Scotland Lane end. People are always suggesting better rail links to the airport so....why not kill two birds with one stone...all you need is a bit of EU funding!!!
Malaga
Malaga
It's not just the runway. It's the runway, the elevation, the orientation, the lack of space but even more importantly the geographic location allied to accessibility. If you moved LBA with its short, wrongly aligned runway and poor space and poor elevation directly 19 miles ESE you would have a Bristol airport and its passenger throughput.
The ultimate question that LA has refused, consistently, to answer; who is going to pay for a new airport within such a close proximity to a brand new airport near Doncaster?
The above posts are pointless, the airlines continue to operate from LBA quite happily, there is no evidence to suggest that any long haul operators are deterred from operating due to runway constraints. The real reason is due to MAN being not far away. No new airport is going to change that.
The above posts are pointless, the airlines continue to operate from LBA quite happily, there is no evidence to suggest that any long haul operators are deterred from operating due to runway constraints. The real reason is due to MAN being not far away. No new airport is going to change that.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ultimate question that LA has refused, consistently, to answer; who is going to pay for a new airport within such a close proximity to a brand new airport near Doncaster?
The above posts are pointless, the airlines continue to operate from LBA quite happily, there is no evidence to suggest that any long haul operators are deterred from operating due to runway constraints. The real reason is due to MAN being not far away. No new airport is going to change that.
The above posts are pointless, the airlines continue to operate from LBA quite happily, there is no evidence to suggest that any long haul operators are deterred from operating due to runway constraints. The real reason is due to MAN being not far away. No new airport is going to change that.
Of course airlines are happy! - What do you expect them say? "were going to a new airport in 10/15 years.
They're not deterred by runway constraints and poor location? - Yes they're at MAN with no runway constraints and ideal location relative to their catchment! You couldn't have more evidence.
All the evidence says that he's not going to pay. He's bought it for use by GA whilst maximising profitability of the entire site for non-aviation related purposes, including a film studio (not exactly conducive to an airport operation)..
No, they go into MAN as that's where the bulk of demand in the North is centred, the facilities were developed to cater for that.
So, still irrelevant to what's happening in the real world at LBA.
No, they go into MAN as that's where the bulk of demand in the North is centred, the facilities were developed to cater for that.
So, still irrelevant to what's happening in the real world at LBA.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 6 miles 14
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LA how exactly is LBA in the wrong place to serve Yorkshire. It's between 2 of its largest Cities with Harrogate to the north Dewsbury and Wakefield to the south. Doncaster has its own airport. Tadcaster is not exactly the centre of Yorkshire comerce, you could argue it would serve York well I guess. The real shame, for me, is that none of the money the councils made from the sale of LBA were spent on the promised improved road links..This I agree is LBAs biggest problem at the moment, not lack of space, being on a hill, runway in wrong direction etc etc. As for the cost of a small extension at the Scotland lane end the cost benefit isn't really there. The cost of extending the runway at CF putting in ILS and building a terminal however.....good luck with that!
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: England
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me who thinks LBA actually does quite a good job, after all, its a very small airport with limited capacity and capability. We have a major double runway, three terminal airport roughly 50 miles away yet LBA continues to be a busy airport with based airlines and European routes, despite all its shortcoming it runs a fairly decent schedule all year round. Not to mention GA, Multiflight and private owners.
Look at the likes of DTV, very similar to LBA but with arguably a better runway, yet has no traffic to speak of.
It is limited by its catchment, plane capability and the myriad rules, regulations and bylaws which strangle aviation, yet it has a solid plan and solid revenue. Please stop talking it down.
Look at the likes of DTV, very similar to LBA but with arguably a better runway, yet has no traffic to speak of.
It is limited by its catchment, plane capability and the myriad rules, regulations and bylaws which strangle aviation, yet it has a solid plan and solid revenue. Please stop talking it down.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Private owners are now a minuscule part of the movements at Leeds. I'm one of them.
Most have been priced out of existence.
Multiflight, and the new incarnation PTT however, make GA still quite a strong presence for a regional airport.
Most have been priced out of existence.
Multiflight, and the new incarnation PTT however, make GA still quite a strong presence for a regional airport.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Posts: 1,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair have just announced a further 2x new routes from Leeds/Bradford to Bratislava and Vilnius commencing from the start of the winter 2016/17 schedule in October.
Bratislava = 2x weekly MON & FRI
Vilnius = 2x weekly TUE & FRI
See press release: http://www.leedsbradfordairport.co.u...3/07072016.pdf
Bratislava = 2x weekly MON & FRI
Vilnius = 2x weekly TUE & FRI
See press release: http://www.leedsbradfordairport.co.u...3/07072016.pdf
If you look at Leeds East Church Fenton you can see they are paddling rather fast to keep afloat. They have managed to lease one hangar off to the film company and park the cross runway up with new cars, other than that the airfield isn't taking in much cash.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the evidence says that he's not going to pay. He's bought it for use by GA whilst maximising profitability of the entire site for non-aviation related purposes, including a film studio (not exactly conducive to an airport operation)..
Yes because we don't live in China - this is the natural beginning of a fledgling airport. Exactly as planned.
No, they go into MAN as that's where the bulk of demand in the North is centred, the facilities were developed to cater for that.
No they go into MAN because that airport is in the correct geographic location and is accessible and can fully do the job of handling all aircraft types (just like very close Edinburgh and Glasgow do).
So, still irrelevant to what's happening in the real world at LBA.
Yes because we don't live in China - this is the natural beginning of a fledgling airport. Exactly as planned.
No, they go into MAN as that's where the bulk of demand in the North is centred, the facilities were developed to cater for that.
No they go into MAN because that airport is in the correct geographic location and is accessible and can fully do the job of handling all aircraft types (just like very close Edinburgh and Glasgow do).
So, still irrelevant to what's happening in the real world at LBA.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: LEEDS
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LA how exactly is LBA in the wrong place to serve Yorkshire. It's between 2 of its largest Cities with Harrogate to the north Dewsbury and Wakefield to the south. Doncaster has its own airport. Tadcaster is not exactly the centre of Yorkshire comerce, you could argue it would serve York well I guess. The real shame, for me, is that none of the money the councils made from the sale of LBA were spent on the promised improved road links..This I agree is LBAs biggest problem at the moment, not lack of space, being on a hill, runway in wrong direction etc etc. As for the cost of a small extension at the Scotland lane end the cost benefit isn't really there. The cost of extending the runway at CF putting in ILS and building a terminal however.....good luck with that!
No council in their right mind will build link roads to an airport in the wrong place that cannot handle all aircraft types and is one of the worst in the country for diversions. It's called throwing good money after bad. That's why there isn't a motorway to LBA. You build motorways to airport's which will remained uncapped and have future potential. Of course small scale link roads are planned because they are and will be needed whatever becomes of the Yeadon site in distant years. Bridgepoint themselves agree that a new airport will potentially be needed and seeing that the airport has no cargo flights or wide bodied flights you can understand this.