Luton-9
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the whole shebang is in great danger of being caught out financially & politically now the good times are over.
We can only hope!....scrutiny isn't a word LLAL & LBC even come close to understanding!
We can only hope!....scrutiny isn't a word LLAL & LBC even come close to understanding!
For some strange reason they are refusing to answer the question stating it is confidential so yet another secret is being kept from the Council taxpayers. Now why would that be? The suspicion is that it doesn’t meet the requirements and they don’t want to admit it.
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Between the check-in desks
Posts: 444
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to satisfy HM Treasury Business Case guidelines including the Commercial Case, Strategic Case, Economic Case, Financial Case and Management Case.
Looking back on old posts brings up the following points (sorry Manx):
Up front costs of existing service to the council. £0
Up front costs of Dart service to the council £243m
Running costs of existing service to the council £0
Running costs of Dart service to the council £££
Terminal capacity of Luton Airport without Dart service. 18m passengers.
Terminal capacity of Luton Airport with Dart service. 18m passengers.
Average existing travel time. 6 minutes
Average published Dart travel time. 5 minutes
Cost per second for each second saved. £4m
Reasons to build. To help DCO application. Could be needed one day subject to DCO approval so worth a gamble it will be approved. To remove building costs burden for the new airport operator for the first stage to the existing terminal if a second terminal was approved. To improve passenger perceptions before arriving at overcrowded terminal which could lead to a zero passenger gain based on 2019 passenger levels.
I can see the reluctance of answering the FoIR. I am sure there are positive reasons to build including our excitement here but would it meet HM Treasury requirements?
Last edited by Spanish eyes; 10th Oct 2020 at 06:37.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19 mppa
Luton 19mppa Consultation - Home
Just to enable EZY to switch 319s to 320 and WUK 320s to 321 without breaching 18M limits and good times come back, asumming no capacity loss to the likes of LGW with now Norwegian added to the list of casualties their. My thoughts, are Red Nose giving up or selling their LGW slots?
As others have said, the jumps to 20.5 - 22M mppa will need at least the NE 6 pack and terminal extensions in place.
Just to enable EZY to switch 319s to 320 and WUK 320s to 321 without breaching 18M limits and good times come back, asumming no capacity loss to the likes of LGW with now Norwegian added to the list of casualties their. My thoughts, are Red Nose giving up or selling their LGW slots?
As others have said, the jumps to 20.5 - 22M mppa will need at least the NE 6 pack and terminal extensions in place.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deception and lies come to mind. Why can't the application for 19m just be honest, as even if it was honest it would still be passed by the planning committee who know what is expected of them by their Council masters? Why are they putting in applications at 1m at a time and not just put an application in for 22.5m when even an application for 22.5m would still be passed, as that is below the Councils aim of 38m?
As we all know, night flights have been reduced in the summer period, as it breached the night noise contour lines. The application to increase the noise contour lines is so that both day and night flights can be increased so removing the ban on business jets and other one off flights at night.
One thing LLAOL/LLAL/Council is not and that is transparent.
What they mean is that the airport owner will decide the application. Conflict of interest seeing the Council has never ever turned an application down involving expanding the airport. I would think Heathrow and Gatwick would love it if their owners could approve planning applications.
Which will not make any difference.
Yet they have announced separate plans last year to build a new apron, which was delayed due to Covid. They have already claimed this new apron is part of the old proposal to expand the airport to 18m but was never built. This means they will build it but will claim it is not required for 19m so can't be classed as new physical development. Well I have a full set of plans for that application and this proposed apron is not on it.
Spot the missing apron. The only missing development that was never built is the area in red as this was the final phase for 18 million. This new missing apron is required for 19m, we all know that here but Jo Public doesn't. As I said at the top of the post, lies and deception and all in an attempt to reduce the numbers replying to the consultation. Why they think they need to do this is a mystery when any plan will be passed but there is a mind set at the airport that has deep roots.
Growth in passenger numbers to 19mppa will result in an increase in the number of daytime flights on peak days but will not increase the number of night-time flights.
We are proposing to modify the wording of Condition 10 to amend the day and night noise contour until the end of 2027
Our Responsible Business Plan ensures we are transparent
To realise our ambitions we must gain approval from the local planning authority.
Luton Council, as the local planning authority, will decide whether to grant permission for the proposals,
Before we seek this approval, we are holding a consultation to provide an opportunity for you to have your say and shape our plans.
Our proposals to increase passenger numbers to 19mppa will not require any physical development
Spot the missing apron. The only missing development that was never built is the area in red as this was the final phase for 18 million. This new missing apron is required for 19m, we all know that here but Jo Public doesn't. As I said at the top of the post, lies and deception and all in an attempt to reduce the numbers replying to the consultation. Why they think they need to do this is a mystery when any plan will be passed but there is a mind set at the airport that has deep roots.
Last edited by LTNman; 10th Oct 2020 at 17:46.
Greetings all. With the sad demise of Monarch Engineering, which Boeing/Airbus MROs are still on the field? Cheers!
Boeing 737/757/767/787 - TUI H61 (heavy checks) - No third party
Airbus narrow body - EZY H89 (minor checks only) - No third party
Wizz - Storm Aviation (Line only)
Ryanair - (Line only)
Boeing 737/757/767/787 - TUI H61 (heavy checks) - No third party
Airbus narrow body - EZY H89 (minor checks only) - No third party
Wizz - Storm Aviation (Line only)
Ryanair - (Line only)
Last edited by boeing_eng; 10th Oct 2020 at 21:35.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet they have announced separate plans last year to build a new apron, which was delayed due to Covid. They have already claimed this new apron is part of the old proposal to expand the airport to 18m but was never built. This means they will build it but will claim it is not required for 19m so can't be classed as new physical development. Well I have a full set of plans for that application and this proposed apron is not on it.
Anyhow it is all history as it was approved so can be actioned upon when needed.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pabely
Yes I know where you are coming from, as LLAOL used the same reasoning in the past to justify the new apron.
The best way to think about it is that someone builds a 5 bedroom house but decides to use a bedroom as a study, as it isn't needed as a bedroom. Later the owners decide they now do need 5 bedrooms but want to keep the study. As they already had planning permission to build a 5 bedroom house they just build an extension to give them back 5 bedrooms but without applying for new planning permission.
Now substitute 5 bedrooms for 5 aprons and LLAOL now want a 6th. LLAOL plan to build a new apron to give them a capacity of 18 million passengers except they already have that capacity but then claim it is not needed for 19 million passengers.
As for the owners of the house they now have a 6 bedroom house but claim it only has 5 bedrooms.
The statement that there will be no physical changes is wrong. As I keep saying lies and deception in my opinion, which isn't needed, as a blank piece of paper would be passed by the planners at Luton because they are not willing to say no to any airport planning application.
As for the new apron, it hasn't been approved, as it doesn't need planning permission, even though it has never shown up on any plans submitted to planning to build it.
Yes I know where you are coming from, as LLAOL used the same reasoning in the past to justify the new apron.
The best way to think about it is that someone builds a 5 bedroom house but decides to use a bedroom as a study, as it isn't needed as a bedroom. Later the owners decide they now do need 5 bedrooms but want to keep the study. As they already had planning permission to build a 5 bedroom house they just build an extension to give them back 5 bedrooms but without applying for new planning permission.
Now substitute 5 bedrooms for 5 aprons and LLAOL now want a 6th. LLAOL plan to build a new apron to give them a capacity of 18 million passengers except they already have that capacity but then claim it is not needed for 19 million passengers.
As for the owners of the house they now have a 6 bedroom house but claim it only has 5 bedrooms.
The statement that there will be no physical changes is wrong. As I keep saying lies and deception in my opinion, which isn't needed, as a blank piece of paper would be passed by the planners at Luton because they are not willing to say no to any airport planning application.
As for the new apron, it hasn't been approved, as it doesn't need planning permission, even though it has never shown up on any plans submitted to planning to build it.
Last edited by LTNman; 12th Oct 2020 at 13:50.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plans are in the public domain but in the top right hand corner of each PDF it does state total Stand counts rising from 43 to 47! I put this down to the loss of stands 16/17/80/81 which would have been -4
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It still doesn't need planning permission, as per the case officers report so won't be applied for.
The question to consider is are the proposed 8 new stands needed for expansion above 18 million or are they maintaining the status quo seeing that stands 80 and 81 have never been Code C stands and only 3 Code C stands from 16/17 will be taken over by Signature and moved to the east of taxiway Foxtrot. The airport will still end up with 5 new stands.
Part 8 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) namely being development on operational land, by a relevant airport operator (or its agent), in connection with the provision of services and facilities at a relevant airport. As such the proposal is permitted development and the Council has no objection.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Luton
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is exactly the time to try to raise the capacity limit. Apart from the most emphatic of protesters, most locals will give this less attention than they would otherwise, thinking that more flights won't happen for years and thus not worth getting involved in the fight
It appears to me that all the constant negative comments in this forum are due to this forum having been taken over by activists!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lee Baker Street.
I hear LLAL have sent you another personal letter wanting details about who owns your house. Did you reply or ignore? Could I suggest that this should be of a concern for you as only certain areas and people considered special have been targeted and there is a reason for that.
There are no activists on this forum just supporters. Legitimate issues and questions are raised, as they deserve answers. Whether people here like the questions, the often healthy debate and even the answers is another question. I accept you are not one that likes some posts and there will be others that have the same views.
All large public facing organisations run propaganda machines while suppressing information. LLAL/LLAOL/LBC are no different, as all three like to control the agenda. This forum can sometimes give an alternative view, which folk here are free to ignore.
I hear LLAL have sent you another personal letter wanting details about who owns your house. Did you reply or ignore? Could I suggest that this should be of a concern for you as only certain areas and people considered special have been targeted and there is a reason for that.
There are no activists on this forum just supporters. Legitimate issues and questions are raised, as they deserve answers. Whether people here like the questions, the often healthy debate and even the answers is another question. I accept you are not one that likes some posts and there will be others that have the same views.
All large public facing organisations run propaganda machines while suppressing information. LLAL/LLAOL/LBC are no different, as all three like to control the agenda. This forum can sometimes give an alternative view, which folk here are free to ignore.
Last edited by LTNman; 14th Oct 2020 at 06:17.
Lee Baker Street...In the last week or so you have accused those who are critical of the current financial situation between LLAL & LBC as being both Liberal Democrat supporters and activists! I am am neither and instead have always 100% supported of the airport which has provided me with a long term decent job.
Rather than resorting to name-calling because you don't like the narrative, why don't you put forward some reasoned arguments in support of the current stance that is being adopted by by LBC & LLAL so we can debate the issues. Clearly, Covid has had a dramatic effect on the whole industry but it has also exposed in all its gory detail the financial transactions that LBC would definitely prefer its local residents are kept in the dark about! Why is that?.....unfortunately the expand at any cost argument just doesn't stack up any more! (not that it ever did!)
Rather than resorting to name-calling because you don't like the narrative, why don't you put forward some reasoned arguments in support of the current stance that is being adopted by by LBC & LLAL so we can debate the issues. Clearly, Covid has had a dramatic effect on the whole industry but it has also exposed in all its gory detail the financial transactions that LBC would definitely prefer its local residents are kept in the dark about! Why is that?.....unfortunately the expand at any cost argument just doesn't stack up any more! (not that it ever did!)
Last edited by boeing_eng; 14th Oct 2020 at 21:38.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19m passengers, by 2030? This winter will see annihilation of the aviation sector in the northern hemisphere. Covid-19 surfaced at back end of last winter. Covid-19 loves the cold, so what we have seen March-October are the foundations of numerous future airline failures, more downsizing and airports finally giving up and closing for good. Even when a vaccine is available, it might need boosters every 6 months. Bookmark this page and see if Buster and his Crystal Ball foretold the future correctly? I'll also wager that LBC are taken into 'Special Measures?'
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA have confirmed that the airport told them that 622,035 passed though Luton in August despite LLAOL claiming that the actual figure was 820,828. CAA figures are always higher than LLAOL figures due to the inclusion of infants so this is a first. Seeing the LLAOL figures are quite detailed it seems strange that such a precise incorrect figure was sent to the CAA.
i will have a definitive answer next month as to what has happened.
i will have a definitive answer next month as to what has happened.
Last edited by LTNman; 15th Oct 2020 at 05:08.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19m passengers, by 2030? This winter will see annihilation of the aviation sector in the northern hemisphere. Covid-19 surfaced at back end of last winter. Covid-19 loves the cold, so what we have seen March-October are the foundations of numerous future airline failures, more downsizing and airports finally giving up and closing for good. Even when a vaccine is available, it might need boosters every 6 months. Bookmark this page and see if Buster and his Crystal Ball foretold the future correctly? I'll also wager that LBC are taken into 'Special Measures?'
LLAOL have yet to build the missing taxiway by runway 25 to increase the runway capacity and need a new apron for 19 million. Both projects are on indefinite delay so with the ticking clock on having to hand the airport back, the time to get their money back on future projects is decreasing by the day.
Last edited by LTNman; 15th Oct 2020 at 08:08.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got to say, used LTN for the first time this week, arrived from GLA wed night, departing back there shortly, and the experience has been great. Seamless transfer to Parkway Station and through security in less than 2 mins at 1pm on a Friday.
A lot of cleaners to be seen too, well done!
A lot of cleaners to be seen too, well done!
