Luton-10
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 59
Posts: 3,612
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.
.
.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The extra stands frees up the use of overnight airliner parking on stands 16-17 and 11-15 thus better for Signature & attracting a Tennant to the old MAEL hangers.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 59
Posts: 3,612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
19m will only keep things standing still with larger aircraft coming online, no need for extra parking when a 319 》320 or 320 》321 or 738 》 7M8.
21m is only 20% increase in pax over 18m, about the same as replacing a 320 with a 321 so actually produces no extra movements yet is more efficient on fuel/CO2 per pax!
Even more reason to approve the increase in max pax limit - official government guidance to make best use of infrastructure!
What's the official passenger handling capacity per year for LTN's terminal, without any substantial building work or planning permission, ignoring the 18m cap ? And how many pax could it handle, subject to not breaching any fire/safety laws ?
Yes, allowing for seasonality of demand.
Could one squeeze 25m pax per year through the existing terminal ?
Yes, allowing for seasonality of demand.
Could one squeeze 25m pax per year through the existing terminal ?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Under the flight path
Posts: 2,603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the official passenger handling capacity per year for LTN's terminal, without any substantial building work or planning permission, ignoring the 18m cap ? And how many pax could it handle, subject to not breaching any fire/safety laws ?
Yes, allowing for seasonality of demand.
Could one squeeze 25m pax per year through the existing terminal ?
Yes, allowing for seasonality of demand.
Could one squeeze 25m pax per year through the existing terminal ?
ACL publish detailed charts of runway and terminal capacity by day/hour.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The terminal capacity is set by how many passengers can be processed each hour rather than removing all the seating. That in turn will be set by how many people can pass through security, how many check-in desks are available, how many gates there are, how many baggage belts there are and the ability of border force to process passengers on a space that is already not big enough.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Luton
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The terminal capacity is set by how many passengers can be processed each hour rather than removing all the seating. That in turn will be set by how many people can pass through security, how many check-in desks are available, how many gates there are, how many baggage belts there are and the ability of border force to process passengers on a space that is already not big enough.
Last edited by Lee Baker Street; 15th Jun 2023 at 10:01.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 59
Posts: 3,612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't it published today that May 2022 was >1.5m (can't see exact figures as it was behind a paywall).
Compare May 2019 is was 1,636,872 so almost pre-covid levels, annual 18m pax being reached is possible this year.
Compare May 2019 is was 1,636,872 so almost pre-covid levels, annual 18m pax being reached is possible this year.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Birmingham
Age: 62
Posts: 1,018
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luton's best ever month was 1,897,129 in August 2019
What happens if more than 18m pax have passed through LTN before 31-Dec ?
Is this just a slap-on-the-wrist outcome, or does somebody have to take this seriously ? Is it just a case of paying a small fine (totalling maybe £10,000 even if there are 19m pax) or would ticket sales later in the year potentially need to be suspended or flights cancelled ? Who enforces any penalty - is it essentially Luton council issuing a fine against itself ?
Is this just a slap-on-the-wrist outcome, or does somebody have to take this seriously ? Is it just a case of paying a small fine (totalling maybe £10,000 even if there are 19m pax) or would ticket sales later in the year potentially need to be suspended or flights cancelled ? Who enforces any penalty - is it essentially Luton council issuing a fine against itself ?
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: .
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is if they continually breach it LBC could hit them with an enforcement notice, which the airport could appeal. If the notice is upheld by the Planning Inspectorate and they continue to breach then it can go to the courts as a potential criminal offence with fines etc.
I doubt it will ever get that serious - a slight breach wouldn't lead to much IMO.
I doubt it will ever get that serious - a slight breach wouldn't lead to much IMO.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 59
Posts: 3,612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BHX5DME I got the figures off the LLA web site
This from a Simply Flying article today
"When reached by Simple Flying, an airport spokesperson confirmed a short-term plan to increase annual capacity to 19 million passengers, which will play a key role in unlocking the airport’s economic potential over the next few years. The application is currently being reviewed by the Secretaries of State for DLUHC and Transport"
Few years is 2 Max - then the other four pack and engine run-up bay relocation.
This does sort out terminal throughput capacity, move entrance south so you no longer get wet from Car Park and genuinely arrive from DART into terminal, two stories so security can be reconfigured plus better access to a proposed walkway to stands 90-93 & 18-25 without losing retail space?
This from a Simply Flying article today
"When reached by Simple Flying, an airport spokesperson confirmed a short-term plan to increase annual capacity to 19 million passengers, which will play a key role in unlocking the airport’s economic potential over the next few years. The application is currently being reviewed by the Secretaries of State for DLUHC and Transport"
Few years is 2 Max - then the other four pack and engine run-up bay relocation.
This does sort out terminal throughput capacity, move entrance south so you no longer get wet from Car Park and genuinely arrive from DART into terminal, two stories so security can be reconfigured plus better access to a proposed walkway to stands 90-93 & 18-25 without losing retail space?
Last edited by pabely; 15th Jun 2023 at 20:59.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger comfort was never high on the list of priorities. 19m would just mean squeezing another half a million into departures and another half a million into the corridors before Border Force.
Flying is no longer a pleasure, which is a reason why I have almost given up on the torment. The year 1999 was good, new terminal and around 5m passengers and I think that was the quoted capacity.
Flying is no longer a pleasure, which is a reason why I have almost given up on the torment. The year 1999 was good, new terminal and around 5m passengers and I think that was the quoted capacity.
Last edited by LTNman; 15th Jun 2023 at 21:27.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 59
Posts: 3,612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger comfort was never high on the list of priorities. 19m would just mean squeezing another half a million into departures and another half a million into the corridors before Border Force.
Flying is no longer a pleasure, which is a reason why I have almost given up on the torment. The year 1999 was good, new terminal and around 5m passengers and I think that was the quoted capacity.
Flying is no longer a pleasure, which is a reason why I have almost given up on the torment. The year 1999 was good, new terminal and around 5m passengers and I think that was the quoted capacity.
I take it you do not commute to London on M1 or train & tube it in London.
There is plenty of capacity if flights were allowed outside the busy AM and evening periods but they are not due to the stupid 18m limit.
Look at tomorrow, between 14:00 and 16:00 there are few flights, easily get more flights in, Wizzair do their daily departing Tel Aviv & Antalya at these times and terminal relatively quiet so why 18m limit?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With that logic the existing terminal could cope with 32m then with no need for T2. And who set and agreed that stupid limit?
Last edited by LTNman; 15th Jun 2023 at 22:29.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 59
Posts: 3,612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You also know who set the limit, the planning committee because it would not be political not to do such a thing.
"Luton Airport is subject to planning condition 10 of planning permission 12/01400/FUL which limits the annual number of main terminal passengers (measured on a rolling 12-month basis) (the "Planning Condition 10 Limit"). To adhere to the Planning Condition 10 Limit, London Luton Airport Operations Limited may declare a restriction on the total number of scheduled passenger flights operating through the main passenger terminal during a scheduling season."
It's a bit like London City where the whole concept was around Dash 7s, now you have A220-300s. Max terminal limits have to rise and terminal throughput. Doesn't always = extra movements.
Luton is not proposing extra runway length for A380s to arrive, just scale up with existing runway to newer larger Airbus & Boeing products but a 18m or 19m limit restricts this.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18 million was set as the limit, as that was what the Council said was the calculated maximum capacity of an expanded Terminal after studying a can of sardines while Albertis used a shoebox for their calculation. Nothing to do with planning who would have approved any limit, as they were the Council. That terminal limit was then used as the benchmark for the rest of the airports infrastructure projects that were increased to match the terminal capacity.
The plans for 21.5m passengers under phase 1, again using the existing terminal but expanded a fraction, is based on a study of vacuum packing sardines.
There was a big dispute with the airport operator who said the maximum capacity was between 15 and 16m. This resulted in the Council threatening to take the franchise away while the operator said they would claim £300m compensation before caving in.
Page 6 paragraph 1.11
https://www.luton.gov.uk/Environment.../STR%20013.pdf
The plans for 21.5m passengers under phase 1, again using the existing terminal but expanded a fraction, is based on a study of vacuum packing sardines.
There was a big dispute with the airport operator who said the maximum capacity was between 15 and 16m. This resulted in the Council threatening to take the franchise away while the operator said they would claim £300m compensation before caving in.
Page 6 paragraph 1.11
https://www.luton.gov.uk/Environment.../STR%20013.pdf
Last edited by LTNman; 16th Jun 2023 at 06:03.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: .
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldnt a certain threshold above 18m had seen the last application in 2013 called in as a National Infrastructure application and determined by the Planning Inspectorate? Therefore the 18m allowed it to be determined by the council, who voted it through.
