Luton-10
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No summer slots according to ACL.
The Gatwick flight which Flyr is running lands at 17:00 so no issues parking at Luton, well before the Wizzair wave in the later evening.
Don't know how this leaves thr Blue Air slots, they obviously have value.
https://travelradar.aero/blue-air-ta...ing-huge-debt/
Also I note that ACL imposed 4 final penalty notices on EZY for operating flights without agreed slots in S22 at Luton.
The Gatwick flight which Flyr is running lands at 17:00 so no issues parking at Luton, well before the Wizzair wave in the later evening.
Don't know how this leaves thr Blue Air slots, they obviously have value.
https://travelradar.aero/blue-air-ta...ing-huge-debt/
Also I note that ACL imposed 4 final penalty notices on EZY for operating flights without agreed slots in S22 at Luton.
Last edited by pabely; 31st Dec 2022 at 20:04.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Different slot allocation as they do not use the terminal- see planning condition rule 10 and PATM allocation. Lots of factors. A one off flight by say a 737 football team charter is very different from a service 7 days a week for 26 weeks using the terminal.
Once EZY/WZZ/RYR run all movements they are allowed, biz traffic will once again be constricted. I bet SEN can't wait!
Once EZY/WZZ/RYR run all movements they are allowed, biz traffic will once again be constricted. I bet SEN can't wait!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Between the check-in desks
Posts: 445
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been told that there are plenty of slots availability for summer 23. ACL are showing slot capacity and not slots taken due to runway constraints. I was also told that slot capacity would increase if the airport completed its planned taxiway extension to runway 25 but has decided it isn’t needed right now.
Last edited by Spanish eyes; 1st Jan 2023 at 11:29.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why, and I quote from the ACL Initial Coordinator's Report "Three new carriers (Sky Express, Eastern and Emerald Airlines) have tried to gain slots at Luton Airport, which have been placed on the waitlist. EAT & MNG got 16 new slots?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slots are not the issue, which is why the cargo airlines have got new slots. The issue is the number of seats that are on sale and the assumption of load factors.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There you have it then. No slot availability for commercial flights is because of terminal capacity constraints, not runway capacity which goes against Government policy "Having analysed the responses, the Government has confirmed that it is supportive of airports beyond Heathrow making best use of their existing runways."
This will only get worse as more aircraft are replaced, 320/321 and 319/320.
The 18m annual limit is outdated.
I hope the 19m limit is approved and further 21m limits are brought forward so the best use can be made a realistic goal.
If not we will just see continued stream of Global Express and Gulfstreams continuing which do not help the airport owner and bring further income and employment benefits to the town.
This will only get worse as more aircraft are replaced, 320/321 and 319/320.
The 18m annual limit is outdated.
I hope the 19m limit is approved and further 21m limits are brought forward so the best use can be made a realistic goal.
If not we will just see continued stream of Global Express and Gulfstreams continuing which do not help the airport owner and bring further income and employment benefits to the town.
If not we will just see continued stream of Global Express and Gulfstreams continuing which do not help the airport owner and bring further income and employment benefits to the town.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Padely
Just like Luton Rising (Temperature), clearly you have no interest in the passenger experience, which will only get worse. The environment, global warming, people affected by aircraft noise or creating anything other than low paid terminal and apron work so the airport can function by keeping the town impoverished. You just need to view the state of the cars in the terminal staff car park.
It would appear that all you are interested in is counting aircraft and cramming people in through the front doors for that classic Luton experience.
As for income, what income? The Council got a tidy income when it didn't have grand plans. Now it gets no income from the airport due to greed and incompetence. There is a nice article in The Times today about the Dart. At least 2 years late, it is not expected to open until at least Easter and is a third over budget. So who has paid for it then? Why the very people that will never use it who are the same people who are having their Council services savaged. As for the airport operator, they are counting the ££££££££ and laughing all the way to their Spanish and Australian shareholders.
Where is your balance?
Just like Luton Rising (Temperature), clearly you have no interest in the passenger experience, which will only get worse. The environment, global warming, people affected by aircraft noise or creating anything other than low paid terminal and apron work so the airport can function by keeping the town impoverished. You just need to view the state of the cars in the terminal staff car park.
It would appear that all you are interested in is counting aircraft and cramming people in through the front doors for that classic Luton experience.
As for income, what income? The Council got a tidy income when it didn't have grand plans. Now it gets no income from the airport due to greed and incompetence. There is a nice article in The Times today about the Dart. At least 2 years late, it is not expected to open until at least Easter and is a third over budget. So who has paid for it then? Why the very people that will never use it who are the same people who are having their Council services savaged. As for the airport operator, they are counting the ££££££££ and laughing all the way to their Spanish and Australian shareholders.
Where is your balance?
Last edited by LTNman; 2nd Jan 2023 at 11:06.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is your solution? Build loads of greenfield airports Iike India, China & Middle East? Demand is not going to go away.
Don't hide behind the Green debate.
I have a friend who works delivering new cars. During the recent cold snap they could not deliver any fully electric cars for fear of no access to specific charging points and if snow did come and they get stuck. They are told do not put radio on or use heater too much.
You talk about load paid jobs, I'm afraid that is the Industry now, that will not change.
I am saying make the best use of what we have got.
Never heard you moan about your subsidised Council Tax for X number of years in the 90s & 00s.
The airport operator cannot hide from paying its obligations for much longer.
As for the DART, mistakes have been made but that is one thing which will help the airport experience.
TUI for example got savaged by customers who missed flights due to airport access issues.
Don't hide behind the Green debate.
I have a friend who works delivering new cars. During the recent cold snap they could not deliver any fully electric cars for fear of no access to specific charging points and if snow did come and they get stuck. They are told do not put radio on or use heater too much.
You talk about load paid jobs, I'm afraid that is the Industry now, that will not change.
I am saying make the best use of what we have got.
Never heard you moan about your subsidised Council Tax for X number of years in the 90s & 00s.
The airport operator cannot hide from paying its obligations for much longer.
As for the DART, mistakes have been made but that is one thing which will help the airport experience.
TUI for example got savaged by customers who missed flights due to airport access issues.
Paxing All Over The World
When DART is open and I have to drop/collect, I shall certainly look at using it, rather than going up the hill. I hope they are going to provide suitable car accomodation for that. Not just assuming pax arrive by train.
LTNman's case is that the regulators know best - how many passengers can comfortably be accommodated in the terminal, that elected politicians are the best people to decide on matters of passenger comfort.
I'm afraid I disagree, and I'm more in sympathy with Pabely's approach. Let the market decide. Passengers know what they will put up with in return for low fares, not the government. If the airport was privately-owned, which it should be, the owner/operator could decide how much to invest and when. If passengers didn't want to use the facilities, or the airlines felt it didn't satisfy their needs, they would go elsewhere.
At present, Luton Council's residents are paying, through reduced local services, for the lack of business acumen of their local councillors. Surely that's indefensible. The question is, are they bright enough to vote for another party to manage the council's business interests? I suspect not.
I'm afraid I disagree, and I'm more in sympathy with Pabely's approach. Let the market decide. Passengers know what they will put up with in return for low fares, not the government. If the airport was privately-owned, which it should be, the owner/operator could decide how much to invest and when. If passengers didn't want to use the facilities, or the airlines felt it didn't satisfy their needs, they would go elsewhere.
At present, Luton Council's residents are paying, through reduced local services, for the lack of business acumen of their local councillors. Surely that's indefensible. The question is, are they bright enough to vote for another party to manage the council's business interests? I suspect not.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point made by PAXboy. I have never considered passengers being dropped off or picked up by car from the Dart station at Parkway, who are travelling to and from the airport.
Using the drop off zone at the airport means the airport operator earns and keeps £5 per car, as that is not subject to a concession fee. Using the short term car park earns a minimum of £9.50 for 30 minutes again for the airport operator.
Using the Dart means the airport owner earns £4.90 per passengers that the Council keeps and that will go towards the cost of the Dart but will never end up at the Town Hall, as the debts are too large.
I would imagine the forecourt at Dart Parkway will only allow a few minutes to drop off. There will be no car parking as such on that side of the railway tracks. I am not sure how someone with a just a Dart ticket can use the railway station on the other side of the tracks with the car park, although if they can that car park will be cheaper to use but the money goes to the railway operator.
LGS6753 view is to let the market decide and not the government or regulators. The problem with that approach is who protects the residents and the public that is not flying? This is the problem we have had at Luton now for years.
The airport operator puts in a planning application to the airport owner to not only increase passenger numbers to 19m but more importantly to relax existing noise restrictions, which will extend the noise contours further out so allowing more noise to affect more people.
The airport owner approved the application because it was not interested in how many people were disturbed not only in Luton but surrounding villages and towns, as it was only interested in looking after number 1. This would result in not only more daytime noise but more night-time noise when people are trying to sleep.
Pabely just wants more aircraft, more noise, more extreme weather and more pollution because he likes counting aircraft so also supports low paid jobs. This is understandable, as this is a website for aviation fans. His justification is to avoid new greenfield airports yet that is Luton’s solution. The Council intends to build a brand new airport at Luton on a greenfield site and connect it to the existing runway and taxiways. That new airport is proposed to get 1000’s of new car parking spaces meaning further congestion on the roads. As for the Dart? That is just a smoke screen that will be eventually sold off for next to nothing when the Council thinks no one is looking, leaving the residents paying the bill for generations.
Oh for an added bonus, according to The Times, the cost of the Dart has now increased to an eye watering £300m or put another way is costing £130,000 per metre, which is a staggering amount for a Council that has always complained of being hard up. Well it is hard up now, that is for sure.
So this is confirmation that it will run at a large loss.
Using the drop off zone at the airport means the airport operator earns and keeps £5 per car, as that is not subject to a concession fee. Using the short term car park earns a minimum of £9.50 for 30 minutes again for the airport operator.
Using the Dart means the airport owner earns £4.90 per passengers that the Council keeps and that will go towards the cost of the Dart but will never end up at the Town Hall, as the debts are too large.
I would imagine the forecourt at Dart Parkway will only allow a few minutes to drop off. There will be no car parking as such on that side of the railway tracks. I am not sure how someone with a just a Dart ticket can use the railway station on the other side of the tracks with the car park, although if they can that car park will be cheaper to use but the money goes to the railway operator.
LGS6753 view is to let the market decide and not the government or regulators. The problem with that approach is who protects the residents and the public that is not flying? This is the problem we have had at Luton now for years.
The airport operator puts in a planning application to the airport owner to not only increase passenger numbers to 19m but more importantly to relax existing noise restrictions, which will extend the noise contours further out so allowing more noise to affect more people.
The airport owner approved the application because it was not interested in how many people were disturbed not only in Luton but surrounding villages and towns, as it was only interested in looking after number 1. This would result in not only more daytime noise but more night-time noise when people are trying to sleep.
Pabely just wants more aircraft, more noise, more extreme weather and more pollution because he likes counting aircraft so also supports low paid jobs. This is understandable, as this is a website for aviation fans. His justification is to avoid new greenfield airports yet that is Luton’s solution. The Council intends to build a brand new airport at Luton on a greenfield site and connect it to the existing runway and taxiways. That new airport is proposed to get 1000’s of new car parking spaces meaning further congestion on the roads. As for the Dart? That is just a smoke screen that will be eventually sold off for next to nothing when the Council thinks no one is looking, leaving the residents paying the bill for generations.
Oh for an added bonus, according to The Times, the cost of the Dart has now increased to an eye watering £300m or put another way is costing £130,000 per metre, which is a staggering amount for a Council that has always complained of being hard up. Well it is hard up now, that is for sure.
So this is confirmation that it will run at a large loss.
The delays have prompted the value of the Dart project to be written down in the airport’s accounts by £184 million.
Olver [the CEO] has confirmed that the first public passengers will not travel on it until the start of the summer season before Easter in April.
“These are very complex systems. Our primary focus is safety and we have taken time to make sure we get the customer experience right,” Olver said.
He dismissed the writedown in the value of the Dart as a “non-cash, technical accounting issue” based on the rail link operating at breakeven.
“These are very complex systems. Our primary focus is safety and we have taken time to make sure we get the customer experience right,” Olver said.
He dismissed the writedown in the value of the Dart as a “non-cash, technical accounting issue” based on the rail link operating at breakeven.
Last edited by LTNman; 2nd Jan 2023 at 16:07.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turning the question around you can like the town or village where you live. That doesn’t mean you would support your council’s plans to double its size.
Yes of course I have flown from Luton. I am a big supporter of the airport, which is why I have for years done construction updates, but not of secret deals and a lack of accountability by elected officials whose main aim is to hide the truth.
Just try and ask an awkward question to an official or councillor like what was the business case for building the Dart?
Sorry Sir, this is confidential information so we won’t give you an answer
Yes that was a real question and answer.
The truth is that there was never a business case because if there was then most of the cost would not have been written off.
Yes of course I have flown from Luton. I am a big supporter of the airport, which is why I have for years done construction updates, but not of secret deals and a lack of accountability by elected officials whose main aim is to hide the truth.
Just try and ask an awkward question to an official or councillor like what was the business case for building the Dart?
Sorry Sir, this is confidential information so we won’t give you an answer
Yes that was a real question and answer.
The truth is that there was never a business case because if there was then most of the cost would not have been written off.
Last edited by LTNman; 2nd Jan 2023 at 16:50.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes LTN man has always been a good supporter of the airport and is right to question the councillors motives.
Large infrastructure projects by councils should always be questioned as they will never have direct recovery of costs but there is always a wider recovery by pulling in investment by other means.
Do the residents of the Humber Bridge regret it bring built?
Unfortunately a bigger town or village means more paying into the local system but in the case of Herts, Beds & Bucks they are heading south on a commute rather than working locally.
Business needs to be encouraged to be local, which involves as prosperous airport.
My current employer moved it's main UK office to Hampshire, from EC1, directly because of it's access to LHR, LGW and FAB, yes directors do travel on corporate planes.
Departures on BUZAD or COPTON criss-cross the Luton area from STN, LHR & LCY, restrictions in the local area ie LTN, do not solve anything in making the area more attractive to employers- or do the jobs go to Essex, Surrey & Berks or abroad and Beds just becomes more a commuter town (city)?
Large infrastructure projects by councils should always be questioned as they will never have direct recovery of costs but there is always a wider recovery by pulling in investment by other means.
Do the residents of the Humber Bridge regret it bring built?
Unfortunately a bigger town or village means more paying into the local system but in the case of Herts, Beds & Bucks they are heading south on a commute rather than working locally.
Business needs to be encouraged to be local, which involves as prosperous airport.
My current employer moved it's main UK office to Hampshire, from EC1, directly because of it's access to LHR, LGW and FAB, yes directors do travel on corporate planes.
Departures on BUZAD or COPTON criss-cross the Luton area from STN, LHR & LCY, restrictions in the local area ie LTN, do not solve anything in making the area more attractive to employers- or do the jobs go to Essex, Surrey & Berks or abroad and Beds just becomes more a commuter town (city)?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole idea of bringing in an airport operator to run the airport on a concession basis was to remove all risks from the Council while allowing the airport to expand. The operator had to agree to invest in the airport infrastructure in return for a set number of years to recoup the investment and to share the profits. Additional investment meant additional years. The issue was that investment was always done on the cheap when they could get away with it.
The blurring of the lines was inevitable as the concession agreement started to run out of years but then why wasn’t the concession just extended again for the building of the Dart? LRT must have approached the airport operator to build the Dart but no agreement was made. Maybe they could see it was going to be a financial disaster and an opportunity to buy it at a knock down price after the Council built it.
The concession was meant to finish in 2028, it was then extended to 2031 and now 2032 as a freebie. The tables have been further turned with the Council allowing the operator to keep £45m in concession fees, after paying nothing for two years. Money that would have gone to provide Council services.
I think we can forget any new operator taking over the concession in 2032. A secret deal will be done with LLAOL, as they seem to be the masters now. The Council will claim they have a good deal but will not explain why. No doubt the fee per passenger will be reduced for the next concession period, which I expect to be for at least a hundred years assuming LRT doesn’t go bankrupt first.
The new concession will be expected to pay off LRT debts as a lump sum, invest around £3bn for airport infrastructure and to pay a concession fee.
The blurring of the lines was inevitable as the concession agreement started to run out of years but then why wasn’t the concession just extended again for the building of the Dart? LRT must have approached the airport operator to build the Dart but no agreement was made. Maybe they could see it was going to be a financial disaster and an opportunity to buy it at a knock down price after the Council built it.
The concession was meant to finish in 2028, it was then extended to 2031 and now 2032 as a freebie. The tables have been further turned with the Council allowing the operator to keep £45m in concession fees, after paying nothing for two years. Money that would have gone to provide Council services.
I think we can forget any new operator taking over the concession in 2032. A secret deal will be done with LLAOL, as they seem to be the masters now. The Council will claim they have a good deal but will not explain why. No doubt the fee per passenger will be reduced for the next concession period, which I expect to be for at least a hundred years assuming LRT doesn’t go bankrupt first.
The new concession will be expected to pay off LRT debts as a lump sum, invest around £3bn for airport infrastructure and to pay a concession fee.
Last edited by LTNman; 2nd Jan 2023 at 21:51.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nevertheless Luton Rising, the council body that is in charge of the project, told the outlet the £184m extra costs for the airport were a “non-cash, technical accounting issue.” I wonder if I overspent, Santander would accept that excuse and hide the debt 
https://www.cityam.com/opening-of-lu...lloon-to-300m/
https://www.cityam.com/opening-of-lu...lloon-to-300m/
Last edited by Buster the Bear; 2nd Jan 2023 at 22:01.
I think we can forget any new operator taking over the concession in 2032. A secret deal will be done with LLAOL, as they seem to be the masters now. The Council will claim they have a good deal but will not explain why. No doubt the fee per passenger will be reduced for the next concession period, which I expect to be for at least a hundred years assuming LRT doesn’t go bankrupt first.
I would be very surprised if either company or council wishes to take on or offer such a long term commitment.
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 2nd Jan 2023 at 22:09.