LUTON -8
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One issue with bizjets is the lack of non-aero revenue (the few pax on board compared with busy scheduled flights don't tend to use car parks/go shopping/utilise restaurants, etc.) so there is a balance to be struck between the number of bizjet movements and scheduled pax services.
There are obvious benefits too, of course, given that they have so relatively few passengers per flight (150 less people and bags to process through security, find space for in terminal, etc).
I don't know what Luton's policy is regarding landing fees etc but I imagine they charge more during premium/peak hours than during "shoulder" periods and off-peak periods.
I imagine it comes down to money, capacity, and acceptable delays...
There are obvious benefits too, of course, given that they have so relatively few passengers per flight (150 less people and bags to process through security, find space for in terminal, etc).
I don't know what Luton's policy is regarding landing fees etc but I imagine they charge more during premium/peak hours than during "shoulder" periods and off-peak periods.
I imagine it comes down to money, capacity, and acceptable delays...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is the strictest constraint (after all major works are complete) ?
- security capacity when entering the departures area
- the main departure lounge area (particularly near Pret-a-Manger / Boots)
- the number of usable gates
- the size of the immigration arrival hall or the capacity by immigration officials to process pax per hour
- vehicle capacity on the approach road (presumably solved once the transit to the station is built)
- something else
- security capacity when entering the departures area
- the main departure lounge area (particularly near Pret-a-Manger / Boots)
- the number of usable gates
- the size of the immigration arrival hall or the capacity by immigration officials to process pax per hour
- vehicle capacity on the approach road (presumably solved once the transit to the station is built)
- something else
The redevelopment brief was to bring all area's up to handling 18 million passengers.
It is hard to say what the weak link will be as next to nothing is finished yet but there are serious issues with the drop off area that still can't cope with an airport with 15 million passengers despite the duel carriageway being all but finished during the morning peak.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Luton
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contined growth
'I've seen at Geneva airport there are tunnels to remote gate islands - would such an approach increase capacity at Luton ?[/QUOTE]
@davidjohnson, I believe that yes a 'self sufficient' satellite building can be built to the east of the airfield (remaining within boundary) accomodating for between 15 and 20 /A/C stands. Passengers will book in as normal in the current terminal and then directed to a travelator / underground link (that includes vehicle access for airport operations etc) to the east side. As LTNMan states the current issue is traffic in the CTA area. But this will only be viable with 'real' money! The key in all of this and potential future growth for the airport is not one nor two and not even three but more multi story car parks (accommodating at least 2000 spaces each) being built around the site but within it's boundary and freeing up land! The eastern side of the airfield remains imperative! But more importantly it is 'real' investment that is paramount in Luton's continued growth!
@davidjohnson, I believe that yes a 'self sufficient' satellite building can be built to the east of the airfield (remaining within boundary) accomodating for between 15 and 20 /A/C stands. Passengers will book in as normal in the current terminal and then directed to a travelator / underground link (that includes vehicle access for airport operations etc) to the east side. As LTNMan states the current issue is traffic in the CTA area. But this will only be viable with 'real' money! The key in all of this and potential future growth for the airport is not one nor two and not even three but more multi story car parks (accommodating at least 2000 spaces each) being built around the site but within it's boundary and freeing up land! The eastern side of the airfield remains imperative! But more importantly it is 'real' investment that is paramount in Luton's continued growth!
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find that all over the world airports above a certain size have to provide the facilities, and then the encouragement, to ensure that a large proportion of their PAX use public transport. After all, 2 million a month, is 70,000 a day, and if they're leaving a car while they go away for a week...... You would be covering the whole of Luton in car parks too far from the terminal to walk so you might as well have left the car at home.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L.B.S & your continued growth.....Perhaps not too many worries for you with those concerns,the Spaniards are undoubtedly aware that MAG & that airport to the East are driving forward with definite published commitments which will soak up area growth & who knows, when a certain pax total is achieved will trigger a considered request for a 2nd R/W...Will the Spaniards have the heart to throw many more Euros at the place after completion of the ongoing works to compete or are they more likely to just sweat the assets like MAG actually do anyway....There is/was enough space before the piecemeal developments within the so called CTA,but successive operators have failed to bite the real bullet due probably to that great commercial reality called short termism exacerbated by the tangle of ownership & operator which LTN is... with the owner extracting huge proceeds & the latest incumbent operator having to spend their own money for a large proportion of any eventual proceeds to go the same way....It does not help the case either with the Hertfordshire county border within a stones throw & being against expansion.....Just thinking.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passengers will book in as normal in the current terminal and then directed to a travelator / underground link
The redevelopment brief was to maximize passenger numbers inside the airport boundary which is what is happening now.
The terminal is surrounded on 3 sides by aprons and on the 4th side by a new bus station which after 2 years still isn't finished. The only expansion option for the terminal would be to move the bus station which sits on quite a chunk of land maybe to the site of easyjet's hangar but there would be so many problems associated with extending the terminal that I can't see it happening and if it did it will be years away.
It is worth remembering that Aena stated that the theoretical capacity of the airport was 16 million passengers. This was reluctantly upped by a further 2 million by Aena after pressure from the council but Luton is on a plot of land that is only around 245 acres and with the airport stating that the airport won't be expanded onto their newly acquired land at Wigmore Park I can't help but think this is a lost opportunity.
At a risk of repeating myself the council planning officer has already stated that new aprons can't be built on the former council tip. Time will tell of that was an accurate statement but with no one even hinting at further expansion if it did happen it would be years away.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Construction update
In the summer of 2016 the airport published a document with the finish dates of the various projects. It has to be said that most of them are way off target.
Main terminal extension. Summer 2017 (at least a year late)
Pier A extension. Autumn 2016 (complete)
New pier. End of 2017 (possible)
Pedestrian Walkway Summer 2016 (competed 6 months late)
Short Term car park. Autumn 2016 (appears to have been abandoned)
Baggage Reclaim. End of 2017 (at least a year late)
Mass Passenger transit. End of 2020.
Multi-Story car park. Autumn 2016 (completed December 2016)
Dual Carriageway. Autumn 2016 (May / June 2017)
The dual carriageway is almost finished with work remaining on the central reservation
It is now almost 17 months since the contractor took control of the former bus station and still not a hint of the missing section of infill being started.
As can be seen some of the windows of the first floor of the left hand building have also been removed now while a tent like material has been erected to protect the new infill that was put up several months ago.
One of the new entrances takes shape.
The new taxi rank is almost finished.
Once the taxi rank opens the final section of the drop off zone can be completed under the walkway but as there are already plenty of spare kerbsides it is debatable if it is actually needed. Even without the proposed 4 pedestrian crossings this U bend reduces traffic to a walking pace.
Pier B is now being clad.
Taxiway Bravo extension crosses the compass bay
There have already been accidents within the bus station and it is easy to see why with buses reversing in all directions.
Main terminal extension. Summer 2017 (at least a year late)
Pier A extension. Autumn 2016 (complete)
New pier. End of 2017 (possible)
Pedestrian Walkway Summer 2016 (competed 6 months late)
Short Term car park. Autumn 2016 (appears to have been abandoned)
Baggage Reclaim. End of 2017 (at least a year late)
Mass Passenger transit. End of 2020.
Multi-Story car park. Autumn 2016 (completed December 2016)
Dual Carriageway. Autumn 2016 (May / June 2017)
The dual carriageway is almost finished with work remaining on the central reservation
It is now almost 17 months since the contractor took control of the former bus station and still not a hint of the missing section of infill being started.
As can be seen some of the windows of the first floor of the left hand building have also been removed now while a tent like material has been erected to protect the new infill that was put up several months ago.
One of the new entrances takes shape.
The new taxi rank is almost finished.
Once the taxi rank opens the final section of the drop off zone can be completed under the walkway but as there are already plenty of spare kerbsides it is debatable if it is actually needed. Even without the proposed 4 pedestrian crossings this U bend reduces traffic to a walking pace.
Pier B is now being clad.
Taxiway Bravo extension crosses the compass bay
There have already been accidents within the bus station and it is easy to see why with buses reversing in all directions.
Last edited by LTNman; 13th May 2017 at 19:06.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGS6753
According to the planning application the following was stated.
Rail Mode Share 30%
Total Peak hour demand per direction 1567
Peak demand for MPT per direction per Mainline train= 163
Peak 15mins =489
Equivalent Intra Peak hour demand =1958
It is estimated that the MPT will remove the equivalent of 120 buses per day.
There are no plans for the bus station to be relocated at the Stirling Place end of the MPT, in fact there will be no drop off at that location.
As has been previously commented on , only passengers with rail tickets will be able to access the MPT terminal therefore deterring the public from using this option.
Whether it stays like this we will have to wait and see.
According to the planning application the following was stated.
Rail Mode Share 30%
Total Peak hour demand per direction 1567
Peak demand for MPT per direction per Mainline train= 163
Peak 15mins =489
Equivalent Intra Peak hour demand =1958
It is estimated that the MPT will remove the equivalent of 120 buses per day.
There are no plans for the bus station to be relocated at the Stirling Place end of the MPT, in fact there will be no drop off at that location.
As has been previously commented on , only passengers with rail tickets will be able to access the MPT terminal therefore deterring the public from using this option.
Whether it stays like this we will have to wait and see.
Has there been any update regarding encouraging Easyjet to move their main office out of Hangar 89 to somewhere other than Luton airport - e.g. to move to office space about a mile or more away ? If Easyjet did move to an alternative location nearby, how could the land currently used by Hangar 89 be reused for airport expansion - perhaps 2 or 3 more gates ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MPT has been renamed and is now called DART (Direct Air to Rail Transit) as for its capacity I asked that question at the consultation and was told it will depend on how many carriages they decide to put on it.
The airport owns a large piece of land from Kimpton Road to the station. Origional plans showed another multi-storey car park which did not appear on later plans. I guess there is nothing stopping the coach station moving down to Parkway which would then become a transport interchange with rail, coach and Dart all on one site.
Trouble is I doubt the airport would have joined up thinking. I can remember many years ago the proposal was to put a landslide terminal over the railway tracks at Parkway. After passengers had checked in the Dart would take passengers to the terminal which would be pure airside. Not sure how checked in luggage would get from the station to the apron though.
Events have moved on since then so it would never happen now as the airport is just too busy.
The airport owns a large piece of land from Kimpton Road to the station. Origional plans showed another multi-storey car park which did not appear on later plans. I guess there is nothing stopping the coach station moving down to Parkway which would then become a transport interchange with rail, coach and Dart all on one site.
Trouble is I doubt the airport would have joined up thinking. I can remember many years ago the proposal was to put a landslide terminal over the railway tracks at Parkway. After passengers had checked in the Dart would take passengers to the terminal which would be pure airside. Not sure how checked in luggage would get from the station to the apron though.
Events have moved on since then so it would never happen now as the airport is just too busy.
Last edited by LTNman; 13th May 2017 at 21:31.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has there been any update regarding encouraging Easyjet to move their main office out of Hangar 89 to somewhere other than Luton airport - e.g. to move to office space about a mile or more away ? If Easyjet did move to an alternative location nearby, how could the land currently used by Hangar 89 be reused for airport expansion - perhaps 2 or 3 more gates ?
I had thought it could have been a location for the Dart station but now it would make a great location for a bus station if the terminal was extended again. Apart from that I can't see a use for it apart from maybe a further extension to the baggage reclaim area although with careful planning a new check-in area could be created but a route to departures would need to be put in.
On the last page where I have done a construction update yesterday there is a good photo of the hangar opposite the new taxi rank but it would be a major walk from even the existing drop off area before it moves further out in the next year or so. which would be a good enough reason why a new check -in area there won't ever happen.
As can be seen hangar 89 is a massive building that used to take in 4 737's as well as offices so the site would be a handy addition.
Below is the old stand layout showing hangar 89
Last edited by LTNman; 14th May 2017 at 06:24.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Luton
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16.1 million
@buster the bear,
You have been in this forum long enough to know it is wrong to give fake or misleading news.
16.1% growth yes, but not 16.1 Million passengers!
January/February next year should produce those levels of passengers!
EasyJet has in the last couple of years grown from 15 based aircraft to the current 23. I anticipate another 7 aircraft to be deployed from Luton during the next 12-24 months.
The airport is doing fantastic 'in terms of passenger level growth' but equally it's management need to resolve the CTA traffic problems and lack of 'seating' in the terminal building and in addition whilst the airport is seeking more fast rail services into London, they should equally address the issue of arriving flights to Luton during the early hours on Sundays between 01.00 and 05.00 but with no trains operating until after 06.00 hours. It is all very well to promote train travel to the airport, but the rail company needs to supply the services.
You have been in this forum long enough to know it is wrong to give fake or misleading news.
16.1% growth yes, but not 16.1 Million passengers!
January/February next year should produce those levels of passengers!
EasyJet has in the last couple of years grown from 15 based aircraft to the current 23. I anticipate another 7 aircraft to be deployed from Luton during the next 12-24 months.
The airport is doing fantastic 'in terms of passenger level growth' but equally it's management need to resolve the CTA traffic problems and lack of 'seating' in the terminal building and in addition whilst the airport is seeking more fast rail services into London, they should equally address the issue of arriving flights to Luton during the early hours on Sundays between 01.00 and 05.00 but with no trains operating until after 06.00 hours. It is all very well to promote train travel to the airport, but the rail company needs to supply the services.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new taxi rank has now opened so we will find out by the late May bank holiday about the true issues with the drop off zone as work has now started on the missing section under the bridge.
It is not looking good as traffic continues to back up down the hill towards Parkway at around 6am and this is after a second lane has been opened from the Holiday Inn.
The extra length of the drop off zone will achieve little as even now there is plenty of spare kerbside.
I would have thought the zone could have been easily modified by bringing in traffic from the other end into two lanes rather than one lane with a horseshoe bend in it but the airport have just carried on regardless.
It is not looking good as traffic continues to back up down the hill towards Parkway at around 6am and this is after a second lane has been opened from the Holiday Inn.
The extra length of the drop off zone will achieve little as even now there is plenty of spare kerbside.
I would have thought the zone could have been easily modified by bringing in traffic from the other end into two lanes rather than one lane with a horseshoe bend in it but the airport have just carried on regardless.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone wants to see exactly what is wrong with the design of the drop off zone then watch this video from 26 minutes as someone has done a dashcam of their drive into the CTA. Fortunately the car arrives just as the queue is forming and no prizes for guessing where the queue ends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o714c80Qprg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o714c80Qprg
Last edited by LTNman; 16th May 2017 at 21:11.