Luton-10
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of diversions handled yesterday due no doubt to weather related issues - Peaceair A320 (TUI), three easyJets, Enterair from Gatwick, two BAs from Heathrow and a ASL Airlines B737 from Birmingham which departed to Gdansk. Three easyJet cancellations late evening with both Ryanair and Wizz operating a full schedule. I would think the new stands came in useful. Also quite a number of executive jets returning from Istanbul.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luton Rising Temperature accounts are now published for the year ending 31st March 2022
Losses for the published 12 month period stand at £232.1million. The year before was bad enough with loses of £109.7m. In 2019/20 the years loss stood at £3.3m. Add them all up and the total is £345.1m for the airport owning company.
Not to worry, the Council has deep pockets, as they try to hush it up.
Losses for the published 12 month period stand at £232.1million. The year before was bad enough with loses of £109.7m. In 2019/20 the years loss stood at £3.3m. Add them all up and the total is £345.1m for the airport owning company.
Not to worry, the Council has deep pockets, as they try to hush it up.
Last edited by LTNman; 12th Jun 2023 at 18:50.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Just out of sight
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=LTNman;11449932]Luton Rising Temperature accounts are now published for the year ending 31st March 2022
Losses for the published 12 month period stand at £232.1million. The year before was bad enough with loses of £109.7m. In 2019/20 the years loss stood at £3.3m. Add them all up and the total is £345.1m for the airport owning company.
Does that figure include the cost of the DART
Losses for the published 12 month period stand at £232.1million. The year before was bad enough with loses of £109.7m. In 2019/20 the years loss stood at £3.3m. Add them all up and the total is £345.1m for the airport owning company.
Does that figure include the cost of the DART
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No but it would include the interest payments on the £313m borrowed to build the Dart up to 31st March 2022.
This is what happens when the unpaid directors of LRT, who are unskilled talentless people from off the street, are appointed as directors just because they happen to be councillors. They really do bring nothing to the table.
I find it remarkable that a company that was created to be zero risk, by just collecting rents and fees and employing no staff ended up as a debt ridden basket case due to greed and incompetence.
This is what happens when the unpaid directors of LRT, who are unskilled talentless people from off the street, are appointed as directors just because they happen to be councillors. They really do bring nothing to the table.
I find it remarkable that a company that was created to be zero risk, by just collecting rents and fees and employing no staff ended up as a debt ridden basket case due to greed and incompetence.
Last edited by LTNman; 12th Jun 2023 at 22:38.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Under the flight path
Posts: 2,603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No but it would include the interest payments on the £313m borrowed to build the Dart up to 31st March 2022.
This is what happens when the unpaid directors of LRT, who are unskilled talentless people from off the street, are appointed as directors just because they happen to be councillors. They really do bring nothing to the table.
I find it remarkable that a company that was created to be zero risk, by just collecting rents and fees and employing no staff ended up as a debt ridden basket case due to greed and incompetence.
This is what happens when the unpaid directors of LRT, who are unskilled talentless people from off the street, are appointed as directors just because they happen to be councillors. They really do bring nothing to the table.
I find it remarkable that a company that was created to be zero risk, by just collecting rents and fees and employing no staff ended up as a debt ridden basket case due to greed and incompetence.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be the case that in the long run the airport will have to be sold off to clear its debts but it should never have been allowed to get into that position.
The concession agreement meant that the airport operator took the financial risks in return for additional years added to the concession agreement. Sounds good in principle but the result was a terminal extension built on the cheap while the Council funded Dart was a Rolls Royce job.
The reason the terminal was built on the cheap and left unfinished was because the concessionaire would be expected to walk away when the concession ends as they only rented the building. The noteworthy thing about the Dart is that they refused to fund it. Seeing the auditors have stated that £187m of the build cost is unrecoverable maybe it was a sound decision even with more years added to the concession.
So why was the Dart actually built and why did the airport operator refuse to fund it apart from the finances not adding up? The truth is that for an 18m passenger capped airport the £313m spent won’t add a single passenger to the airport. It was built in anticipation of Terminal 2 being approved. Even if T2 is approved it was not for the Council to build it but the concessionaire tasked with building a second Terminal.
The role of the directors of LRT is to exercise independent judgement and to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence. So did they ask the question what happens if T2 is rejected by the planning inspectors? If they did how did they justify the cost of the Dart? I suspect it didn’t happen but when one of the directors includes someone who works in the Chemists at Asda and a travel agent, is it really surprising.
The concession agreement meant that the airport operator took the financial risks in return for additional years added to the concession agreement. Sounds good in principle but the result was a terminal extension built on the cheap while the Council funded Dart was a Rolls Royce job.
The reason the terminal was built on the cheap and left unfinished was because the concessionaire would be expected to walk away when the concession ends as they only rented the building. The noteworthy thing about the Dart is that they refused to fund it. Seeing the auditors have stated that £187m of the build cost is unrecoverable maybe it was a sound decision even with more years added to the concession.
So why was the Dart actually built and why did the airport operator refuse to fund it apart from the finances not adding up? The truth is that for an 18m passenger capped airport the £313m spent won’t add a single passenger to the airport. It was built in anticipation of Terminal 2 being approved. Even if T2 is approved it was not for the Council to build it but the concessionaire tasked with building a second Terminal.
The role of the directors of LRT is to exercise independent judgement and to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence. So did they ask the question what happens if T2 is rejected by the planning inspectors? If they did how did they justify the cost of the Dart? I suspect it didn’t happen but when one of the directors includes someone who works in the Chemists at Asda and a travel agent, is it really surprising.
Last edited by LTNman; 13th Jun 2023 at 06:28.
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: UK & Estern Europe
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No but it would include the interest payments on the £313m borrowed to build the Dart up to 31st March 2022.
This is what happens when the unpaid directors of LRT, who are unskilled talentless people from off the street, are appointed as directors just because they happen to be councillors. They really do bring nothing to the table.
I find it remarkable that a company that was created to be zero risk, by just collecting rents and fees and employing no staff ended up as a debt ridden basket case due to greed and incompetence.
This is what happens when the unpaid directors of LRT, who are unskilled talentless people from off the street, are appointed as directors just because they happen to be councillors. They really do bring nothing to the table.
I find it remarkable that a company that was created to be zero risk, by just collecting rents and fees and employing no staff ended up as a debt ridden basket case due to greed and incompetence.
Must be more exciting things to discuss than this topic that gets recycled over and over again.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 59
Posts: 3,612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizzair all 321NEO by 2025
Hopefully something more interesting https://airlinergs.com/wizz-air-to-s...21neo-by-2025/
More stress on the 18m pax limit.
More stress on the 18m pax limit.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airport is full overnight, all stands full.Very little chance of new Airlines appearing, in fact with Sun Express moving we will just be left with the big three EJ, Ryan and Wizz providing over 90+% of all passengers.
A quick look today saw 23 EJ based A/C (14 x A320 9 x A319 )
11 W9 based A/C ( 9 x A321 2 x A320 )
6 FR based A/C ( 3 x 738. 3 x Max8 )
1 TUI based A/C ( 738 )
A point of discussion could be would the Airport be better off with W9 gone?
How many of their routes are already flown by one or both of the other two eg TLV , BOJ , KRK , PRG , HRG, LCA , DLM , SPU, SSH , SKG ,KEF , ATH, BZG, KUN .
Then there are the duplicate routes served by W6.
Who would fill the void , more EJ , more FR or even a small Jet2 base.
As I say I am playing devils advocate but it’s open to discussion.
If only one airline can fly any specific route... then the remaining airlines have no reason to compete and act as monopolists. Prices would rise significantly, and the number of people flying through LTN would tumble.
LTN needs Wizz more than it might seem. Both Easyjet and Ryanair have become rather risk-averse in their choice of new routes... great for their shareholders, but not so great when it comes to long term route development for LTN. Wizz is the only major LCC which seems to spot the hidden opportunities that are non-predictable. LTN is fortunate to have such a route diversity from the pink-and-purple crowd - it gives LTN a strong niche. If Jet2 opened at LTN, it would just be routes to the likes of Antalya, Faro, Malaga and Mallorca
LTN needs Wizz more than it might seem. Both Easyjet and Ryanair have become rather risk-averse in their choice of new routes... great for their shareholders, but not so great when it comes to long term route development for LTN. Wizz is the only major LCC which seems to spot the hidden opportunities that are non-predictable. LTN is fortunate to have such a route diversity from the pink-and-purple crowd - it gives LTN a strong niche. If Jet2 opened at LTN, it would just be routes to the likes of Antalya, Faro, Malaga and Mallorca
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 13th Jun 2023 at 13:38.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 59
Posts: 3,612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: UK & Estern Europe
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the new apron space about to open and room for 4-5 aircraft, could they not be used for expansion of overnight based aircraft or are they being used for another purpose? However that would put severe strain on the terminal having another carrier based here in the Morning and Evening peak periods.
Im not so sure if LTN needs another airline basing at the airport, but more an airline to serve the airport from else where in Europe...
Like back in the days when SkyEurope had a very healthy schedule from Luton, without having a base here... Maybe an airline like Vueling, Voletea, Transavia or Play?
Real shame to be loosing Sun Express used them 2-3 years ago and were a very decent airline.
Im not so sure if LTN needs another airline basing at the airport, but more an airline to serve the airport from else where in Europe...
Like back in the days when SkyEurope had a very healthy schedule from Luton, without having a base here... Maybe an airline like Vueling, Voletea, Transavia or Play?
Real shame to be loosing Sun Express used them 2-3 years ago and were a very decent airline.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airport is capped at 18m, which it reached in 2019 despite the lack of new stands.
No sign of the results of last years Pubic Enquiry for 19m. Maybe it is being withheld until the DCO result is published? It would be a strange case if the 19m application was rejected while the 32m application was approved.
No sign of the results of last years Pubic Enquiry for 19m. Maybe it is being withheld until the DCO result is published? It would be a strange case if the 19m application was rejected while the 32m application was approved.
Last edited by LTNman; 13th Jun 2023 at 19:02.
