LUTON - 7
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ocean Sky
Photo taken looking across what was the flying club building and car park.
Taken from what was the old green hangar
Britannia's old building has been filled in on the ground floor and gained a canopy.
Ocean Sky's other apron has been redesigned
Was Buster's friend also having a look?
Taken from what was the old green hangar
Britannia's old building has been filled in on the ground floor and gained a canopy.
Ocean Sky's other apron has been redesigned
Was Buster's friend also having a look?
Last edited by LTNman; 28th Oct 2012 at 09:42.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imposter the Bear! A limited cull is required!
Great images LTNman, looks like quite a lot more apronage to park bizjets?
Interesting use for the old 'Pizza Hut'!
Great images LTNman, looks like quite a lot more apronage to park bizjets?
Interesting use for the old 'Pizza Hut'!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exciting times at LTN. Good luck with the developments, hopefully just in time for the eventual improvement in the economic cycle. The five runway scheme looks somewhat fanciful; what's the chances of a second runway, do you think....?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Luton
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alloy, had the runway have been extended years ago, then I am sure the airport would have surpassed the 18 mpa figure already!
I estimate (from Google Earth) that perimeter fence to fence from each end of the runway there is approximately 9000 feet. Surely with a bit of landscaping they could extend the runway to at least 8000 feet? This would leave runway 08 end to still have a stop area, and 26 end to have a ramp built containing the lighting system and being used as a stop way (if ever required)?
The difference of 1000 feet could make 787's viable?
I estimate (from Google Earth) that perimeter fence to fence from each end of the runway there is approximately 9000 feet. Surely with a bit of landscaping they could extend the runway to at least 8000 feet? This would leave runway 08 end to still have a stop area, and 26 end to have a ramp built containing the lighting system and being used as a stop way (if ever required)?
The difference of 1000 feet could make 787's viable?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Al tube.
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many runways that are built on not the most forgiving topography, (Funchal/Madeira on stilts, Huesca on top of earth terraces both spring to mind), where there is a will there is a way to get around the constraints of the topography that would open up other posabilities but the lack of a full length taxiway indicates there is not a will.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: -
Posts: 747
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alloy, had the runway have been extended years ago, then I am sure the airport would have surpassed the 18 mpa figure already!
While airports like Stansted may have achieved this figure, it is nothing to do with the runway length.
I've just plucked a figure out of thin air, but I would say about 98+% of their traffic could be serviced from a runway the same length as Luton! Especially when you consider both airports are currently operating the same sort of traffic. Low cost carriers which operate 737 and A320 family aircraft, and charter traffic up to 757 size...
Stansted does have a healthy cargo business that attracts MD-11's and 747's, but there is no more than a handful of them a day. The rest being A300's, 737, 757 and 767, which LTN can already serve.
The long haul traffic STN has attracted in the past was Continental with a 757 to Newark, which could easily operate out of Luton. Bristol has a shorter runway that LTN and they use to host a similar service a few years back.
The other long haul traffic, has been and gone and couldn't be sustained, for example Air Asia X service to Kula Lumpa with a an A340-300, and American Airlines to Chicago with a 767-300 (which with some restrictions could operate from LTN).
Luton would have the same issues with Long Haul traffic as Stansted does.
Birmingham is in the process of extending its runway to 9-10,000ft. They are hopeful this will attract further long haul routes. I'd be interested to know who that is, which cannot already utilise their existing 8500ft runway?
Emirates and PIA already operate 777-200/300's from the existing runway. The only candidate I can think of is, Emirates upgrading to the A380. But an extra length runway just for their use, seems a little extravagant.
If other airlines want to operate further distant routes, I would expect these to be opened up with 767/787/A330 which could all operate from the existing runway.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with gilesdavies. For the amount of money it would cost in building the extra length I can’t see them getting their money back in the short to medium term or even the long term. As it is most aircraft now depart from the intersections and don’t even use the full 2160m.
Luton does not have the space to increase the size of the cargo stands so the cargo airlines would not use a longer runway very often and I can’t see that much if any demand from the airlines to operate long haul passenger services as there isn’t that much demand from Stansted.
Luton does not have the space to increase the size of the cargo stands so the cargo airlines would not use a longer runway very often and I can’t see that much if any demand from the airlines to operate long haul passenger services as there isn’t that much demand from Stansted.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The performance of the 787 makes long haul a possibility, but not with APD being so high. A parallel extension to each end and more stands will enhance the hourly movement rate especially with Stansted in mortal decline.
Whoever buys Essex International is going to have some hefty interest repayments over the longer term!
Whoever buys Essex International is going to have some hefty interest repayments over the longer term!
I estimate (from Google Earth) that perimeter fence to fence from each end of the runway there is approximately 9000 feet. Surely with a bit of landscaping they could extend the runway to at least 8000 feet?
-Monarch could possibly start operating some A330 services? Or whatever long haul aircraft they could lease in the long term?
-Thomson could operate a couple of B787 services? Although I thought the purpose of the B787 was to operate from a wider range of airports with bottlenecks such as this?
-easyJet, Wizz Air and Ryanair certainly aren't going to operate heavy aircraft types anytime soon. Definitely not Flybe.
-El Al operate B777s occasionally. Won't require a full fuel tank anyway. I doubt El Al would want to be operating their B747s out of Luton.
A bigger issue is probably wingspan restrictions.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bigger issue is probably wingspan restrictions.
Even with the proposed new extended taxiways that almost reach the end of the runway would the runway rate be any higher if they went right to the end of the runway as next to nothing would backtrack.
Last edited by LTNman; 30th Oct 2012 at 17:24.
The South stands aren't exactly ideal though are they? Not yet anyway until they extend a pier that far south. Its a lot of bussing around to the main terminal; one of the masterplan's cornerstones is to increase the number of contact stands. (I also don't understand why the airport hasn't put at least 6 airbridges on Pier A and plan more on the proposed Pier B).
Thomson and Monarch for instance may want to make use of their Boeing Goldcare arrangements by doing heavy B787 maintenance in H60, H127 and H61 rather than at some of their outstations.
Thomson and Monarch for instance may want to make use of their Boeing Goldcare arrangements by doing heavy B787 maintenance in H60, H127 and H61 rather than at some of their outstations.