Luton-9
LBS...Your enthusiasm for expanding LTN at any cost is well known on this thread. However, many of us who have always been big supporters of the airport in the past can see that the current situation with LLC & LLA is simply becoming a farce and its time for change!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? At the expense of the environment, destruction of open land and building a huge terminal on the doorstep of a large residential area. Not to mention the ever increasing debt level being accrued by a local council that seems to be happy to cut local services, whilst it meets it's repayment burden?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Waters edge
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FF
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But much longer runways attracting bigger aircraft. Stand capacity as well, no room for more stands above what is planned. Currently LGW has 57 based airbuses!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The council is actually looking at 38million which is a figure already seen in some council publications. There are plans for an additional apron to achieve this figure.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.llal.org.uk/press-release.html
Just to make it clear, as stated above, the true figure is 36-38 million. The only reason it was dropped was that the council found out that by going for the upper figure they would have to pay for major M1 improvements. By going for 32 million they avoid the costs but they can then give themselves planning permission to add another 4 million later.
. Under the London Luton Airport (LTN) Vision for Sustainable Growth 2020-2050, passenger capacity would go from 18 million to 36-38 mppa, and the airport would accommodate 240,000 annual air traffic movements.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Waters edge
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FF
The 2020 Initial Co-ordination Report has been published by ACL.
If I read it correctly it shows no S20 FlyBosnia, no Air Serbia or Smartwings. In fact, the only operators are EasyJet, WizzAir, Ryanair, Blue Air, Level/Vueling, Sun Express, TUI, El Al, Freebird, DHL and MNG.
From the initial schedule, there are reduced ATMs by DHL, El Al, TUI and Vueling.
The ridiculous and bureaucratic passenger cap is obviously taking its toll across the board. In the peak week only 10 airlines will operate (Putting EZY/EJU together, WZZ/WUK together and Level/Anisec/Vueling together).
If I read it correctly it shows no S20 FlyBosnia, no Air Serbia or Smartwings. In fact, the only operators are EasyJet, WizzAir, Ryanair, Blue Air, Level/Vueling, Sun Express, TUI, El Al, Freebird, DHL and MNG.
From the initial schedule, there are reduced ATMs by DHL, El Al, TUI and Vueling.
The ridiculous and bureaucratic passenger cap is obviously taking its toll across the board. In the peak week only 10 airlines will operate (Putting EZY/EJU together, WZZ/WUK together and Level/Anisec/Vueling together).
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it looks like the last Air Bosnia flight will be on 18 April. Not too surprising really, the airline is really struggling to keep going with one of there two Airbus aircraft has been returned to the lessor. On most days there is just one return service to Rome.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2020 Initial Co-ordination Report has been published by ACL.
If I read it correctly it shows no S20 FlyBosnia, no Air Serbia or Smartwings. In fact, the only operators are EasyJet, WizzAir, Ryanair, Blue Air, Level/Vueling, Sun Express, TUI, El Al, Freebird, DHL and MNG.
From the initial schedule, there are reduced ATMs by DHL, El Al, TUI and Vueling.
The ridiculous and bureaucratic passenger cap is obviously taking its toll across the board. In the peak week only 10 airlines will operate (Putting EZY/EJU together, WZZ/WUK together and Level/Anisec/Vueling together).
If I read it correctly it shows no S20 FlyBosnia, no Air Serbia or Smartwings. In fact, the only operators are EasyJet, WizzAir, Ryanair, Blue Air, Level/Vueling, Sun Express, TUI, El Al, Freebird, DHL and MNG.
From the initial schedule, there are reduced ATMs by DHL, El Al, TUI and Vueling.
The ridiculous and bureaucratic passenger cap is obviously taking its toll across the board. In the peak week only 10 airlines will operate (Putting EZY/EJU together, WZZ/WUK together and Level/Anisec/Vueling together).
An award, that's new for Luton!
https://www.airport-technology.com/n...accreditation/
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not a ridiculous and bureaucratic passenger cap. They are just following the conditions of the previous planning application. They got away with it over the breach of the night noise limit for a number of years but now they have been rumbled.
I have no sympathy as LLAOL and the council have brought this on themselves. The council offered massive incentives to LLAOL to grow passenger numbers as fast as possible. They knew what the limit was and how fast it was approaching yet they wait until the 11th hour before doing something about it. Maybe they were arguing about whether LLAOL, LLAL or the council should put in the planning application to bust the councils own limit. Maybe the council has had to offer LLAOL more incentives to do their dirty work so their "dodgy" planning committee can approve it.
I have no sympathy as LLAOL and the council have brought this on themselves. The council offered massive incentives to LLAOL to grow passenger numbers as fast as possible. They knew what the limit was and how fast it was approaching yet they wait until the 11th hour before doing something about it. Maybe they were arguing about whether LLAOL, LLAL or the council should put in the planning application to bust the councils own limit. Maybe the council has had to offer LLAOL more incentives to do their dirty work so their "dodgy" planning committee can approve it.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: 2DME
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the scale of proposed expansion (i.e. in excess of 10 million increase in passengers) this is classed as a nationally significant infrastructure project and so is not determined by the local planning authority. The government will make the decision on whether to grant the necessary development orders, not the planning committee.
As a freemarketeer, I reiterate that the cap is ridiculous and bureaucratic. It is ridiculous because it limits the ability of passengers to fly from/to where they want, and airlines to use the airport they choose. It is bureaucratic because it gives the decision on where flights can be offered from to the bureaucrats of Luton Borough Council, or some Government planning quango.
These people don't know best. If passengers, airlines and the airport authority are happy to allow more passengers to use the airport, why should a bunch of unelected, non-specialist bureaucrats stop them? If the airport becomes overcrowded, passengers and airlines will choose to go elsewhere, or put pressure on the airport to increase capacity.
At all times, all the participants know that operations must be safe and comply with the regulations that apply everywhere else. But setting a cap on passenger numbers is intellectually indefensible - it has no impact on noise, pollution, air or ground congestion. It merely inconveniences the "man in the street" who wants to fly.
/Rant mode off.
These people don't know best. If passengers, airlines and the airport authority are happy to allow more passengers to use the airport, why should a bunch of unelected, non-specialist bureaucrats stop them? If the airport becomes overcrowded, passengers and airlines will choose to go elsewhere, or put pressure on the airport to increase capacity.
At all times, all the participants know that operations must be safe and comply with the regulations that apply everywhere else. But setting a cap on passenger numbers is intellectually indefensible - it has no impact on noise, pollution, air or ground congestion. It merely inconveniences the "man in the street" who wants to fly.
/Rant mode off.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the scale of proposed expansion (i.e. in excess of 10 million increase in passengers) this is classed as a nationally significant infrastructure project and so is not determined by the local planning authority. The government will make the decision on whether to grant the necessary development orders, not the planning committee.
Last edited by LTNman; 20th Feb 2020 at 05:31.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a freemarketeer, I reiterate that the cap is ridiculous and bureaucratic. It is ridiculous because it limits the ability of passengers to fly from/to where they want, and airlines to use the airport they choose. It is bureaucratic because it gives the decision on where flights can be offered from to the bureaucrats of Luton Borough Council, or some Government planning quango.
These people don't know best. If passengers, airlines and the airport authority are happy to allow more passengers to use the airport, why should a bunch of unelected, non-specialist bureaucrats stop them? If the airport becomes overcrowded, passengers and airlines will choose to go elsewhere, or put pressure on the airport to increase capacity.
At all times, all the participants know that operations must be safe and comply with the regulations that apply everywhere else. But setting a cap on passenger numbers is intellectually indefensible - it has no impact on noise, pollution, air or ground congestion. It merely inconveniences the "man in the street" who wants to fly.
/Rant mode off.
These people don't know best. If passengers, airlines and the airport authority are happy to allow more passengers to use the airport, why should a bunch of unelected, non-specialist bureaucrats stop them? If the airport becomes overcrowded, passengers and airlines will choose to go elsewhere, or put pressure on the airport to increase capacity.
At all times, all the participants know that operations must be safe and comply with the regulations that apply everywhere else. But setting a cap on passenger numbers is intellectually indefensible - it has no impact on noise, pollution, air or ground congestion. It merely inconveniences the "man in the street" who wants to fly.
/Rant mode off.
What about if a builder got planning permission to build a 1000 houses. You seem to be saying he should then be allowed to ignore that permission and build as many as he likes if the demand is there.
Also it isn’t the council deciding where people can fly to as it remains the airlines that pick and choose where they fly. They can introduce new services by dropping weak destinations. What has happened is that for this year only it stops new airlines coming to Luton. If you consider the fact that for years no new airline has wanted to come to Luton this isn’t a big deal.
Finally you mention more choices for passengers. Luton’s restrictions means that ELAL will fly from Stansted this summer so I assume you are delighted.
Last edited by LTNman; 20th Feb 2020 at 05:38.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Luton
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You make no mention about the residents and communities that would be affected by increased passenger numbers that are presently protected by the existing planning permission. In your eyes they don’t matter. The planning committee is meant to way up all views and opinions before making a decision about an increase in numbers. The fact that they won’t is well known. You seem to be advocating that any planning permission should be ignored.
What about if a builder got planning permission to build a 1000 houses. You seem to be saying he should then be allowed to ignore that permission and build as many as he likes if the demand is there.
Also it isn’t the council deciding where people can fly to as it remains the airlines that pick and choose where they fly. They can introduce new services by dropping weak destinations. What has happened is that for this year only it stops new airlines coming to Luton. If you consider the fact that for years no new airline has wanted to come to Luton this isn’t a big deal.
Finally you mention more choices for passengers. Luton’s restrictions means that ELAL will fly from Stansted this summer so I assume you are delighted.
What about if a builder got planning permission to build a 1000 houses. You seem to be saying he should then be allowed to ignore that permission and build as many as he likes if the demand is there.
Also it isn’t the council deciding where people can fly to as it remains the airlines that pick and choose where they fly. They can introduce new services by dropping weak destinations. What has happened is that for this year only it stops new airlines coming to Luton. If you consider the fact that for years no new airline has wanted to come to Luton this isn’t a big deal.
Finally you mention more choices for passengers. Luton’s restrictions means that ELAL will fly from Stansted this summer so I assume you are delighted.
You have been over the years promoting airport expansion and getting more aircraft, airlines and passengers through the door.
Now because you brought a house very near to the said airport and the airport is going to get even closer to you, its nothing but whinge, whinge, whinge, you are a true NIMBY of the highest order.