Luton-10
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I looked TUI had a debt to value ratio of 107%, debts higher than the value of the company. Cheap finance keeps TUI alive. Contrast this with Jet2; “30 August, our ‘own cash’ balance excluding customer deposits was £1.52 billion, an increase of £0.46 billion on 31 March 2021.” I bet airport management wished they had not (allegedly) turned the potential Jet2 base away to Stansted! I understand that 'self handling' was (allegedly) the financial reason! Anyway, in Wizz and DART they trust....
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think Luton could accommodate the size of the Jet2 operation at STN, yes we all know they did have a serious look though.
Jet2 has been propped up with the following from their own accounts "This liquidity has been raised from a diversified range of funding sources including: the utilisation of our £65m Revolving Credit Facility; the drawing down of the Bank of England’s Covid Corporate Financing Facility (“CCFF”) of £199m; the financing of unencumbered owned mid-life aircraft for £102m; the sale of Fowler Welch, our non-core Distribution & Logistics business, for gross proceeds of £99m; plus two oversubscribed equity placings raising gross proceeds of £594m, for which we are grateful to our Shareholders for their support."
TUI also issued more shares and numerus debt deferral and asset sales but more importantly is finding things easier in EU than UK.
LTNman Planning consent 19/01683/GPDOPD was for 6 stands and reconfiguration of run-up bay - Application Permitted. (Plans show stands 16/80/81 no longer commercial use so no net gain)
Planning for the works which the picture highlight was through 21/00437/AMEND which again was Approved.
Everything else so far for the 19m planning application (Not approved yet) does not show any new aprons.
The other stands you talk about are for the jump to 20.5/21m pax but I don't think we have seen any formal planning application for that yet, only on dream plans.
Can't comment on the who is who in each part of LLAOL & LLAOL but smells like normal local government, at least they have not built themselves grand new offices in the town at tax payers expense like some councils do and then find them not fit for purpose!
Jet2 has been propped up with the following from their own accounts "This liquidity has been raised from a diversified range of funding sources including: the utilisation of our £65m Revolving Credit Facility; the drawing down of the Bank of England’s Covid Corporate Financing Facility (“CCFF”) of £199m; the financing of unencumbered owned mid-life aircraft for £102m; the sale of Fowler Welch, our non-core Distribution & Logistics business, for gross proceeds of £99m; plus two oversubscribed equity placings raising gross proceeds of £594m, for which we are grateful to our Shareholders for their support."
TUI also issued more shares and numerus debt deferral and asset sales but more importantly is finding things easier in EU than UK.
LTNman Planning consent 19/01683/GPDOPD was for 6 stands and reconfiguration of run-up bay - Application Permitted. (Plans show stands 16/80/81 no longer commercial use so no net gain)
Planning for the works which the picture highlight was through 21/00437/AMEND which again was Approved.
Everything else so far for the 19m planning application (Not approved yet) does not show any new aprons.
The other stands you talk about are for the jump to 20.5/21m pax but I don't think we have seen any formal planning application for that yet, only on dream plans.
Can't comment on the who is who in each part of LLAOL & LLAOL but smells like normal local government, at least they have not built themselves grand new offices in the town at tax payers expense like some councils do and then find them not fit for purpose!
TUI also issued more shares and numerus debt deferral and asset sales but more importantly is finding things easier in EU than UK.
Yes, TUI's non-UK operations are currently doing fairly well (all things considered) and a good job too!
Hangar 61 has been kept busy with mainly Dutch, Belgian and German aircraft over the last season....
Yes, TUI's non-UK operations are currently doing fairly well (all things considered) and a good job too!
Hangar 61 has been kept busy with mainly Dutch, Belgian and German aircraft over the last season....
LTNman
I don’t disagree with the rhetoric… I know of at least one airport director that I wouldn’t even have run my own business let alone the airport, however naming and shaming and disparaging them isn’t required on this forum.
I don’t disagree with the rhetoric… I know of at least one airport director that I wouldn’t even have run my own business let alone the airport, however naming and shaming and disparaging them isn’t required on this forum.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not naming and shaming as its public information. These people are politicians and are accountable to the electorate yet hide behind a company that operates in secret, runs up huge debts and produces no minutes despite being an arm of the Council.
pabley
Planning consent 19/01683/GPDOPD didn't need planning permission as it was permitted development. It even states that on the council planning application website.
The latest thinking has changed and could well change again. 19/01683/GPDOPD shows an apron with 6 aircraft in two rows back to back with the centre line and two run up bay stands. The latest plans show 4 stands all in one direction, 3 stands around the engine run up bay and 3 stands in the former drop off zone.
That is because the stands for 19m are part of the permitted development. Having 2 aprons on the wrong side of two taxiways is not a good solution. I assume the stands between the South and Eastern Aprons would be built first but who would foot the bill?
pabley
Planning consent 19/01683/GPDOPD didn't need planning permission as it was permitted development. It even states that on the council planning application website.
The latest thinking has changed and could well change again. 19/01683/GPDOPD shows an apron with 6 aircraft in two rows back to back with the centre line and two run up bay stands. The latest plans show 4 stands all in one direction, 3 stands around the engine run up bay and 3 stands in the former drop off zone.
Everything else so far for the 19m planning application (Not approved yet) does not show any new aprons.
Last edited by LTNman; 3rd Sep 2021 at 05:58.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With larger Gulfstream 700s, Global Express 7500/8000 and later Falcon models coming online any extra tarmac will be used overnight irrespective of pax quotas.
10 years time they will be busy part of T2 or the ever growing VVIP market.
10 years time they will be busy part of T2 or the ever growing VVIP market.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was under the impression one of those distant aprons will be indeed used for long stay biz jet parking. In ten years time I doubt T2 will even be open even if permission was granted.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open or just not finished? I think we both agree the land will be used for something, shame they couldn't work something out with Gulfstream, a sizable operation down at FAB now.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed LLAL was not interested in offering enough land to Gulfstream, as it would have had an impact on potential airport passenger capacity. Now Signature just use the ex Gulfstream hangar for storage except a couple of days ago it looked completely empty joining all the other empty hangars.
The hangar line is inside the Enterprise Zone for potential redevelopment so I wouldn’t be surprised if all the hangars eventually get knocked down with the exception of TUI. Enough space there for Gulfstream to build on the Monarch hangar sites but Gulfsteam wanted exclusive use of an apron or at least enough stands fronting any new hangar to avoid aircraft getting trapped. LLAL were not interested and said no.
Screenshot showing that all the hangar line are in Enterprise zone 2B as land available for redevelopment. In fact every airport hangar except EasyJet’s hangar has been included inside one zone or another as potential development sites. More hotels?
The hangar line is inside the Enterprise Zone for potential redevelopment so I wouldn’t be surprised if all the hangars eventually get knocked down with the exception of TUI. Enough space there for Gulfstream to build on the Monarch hangar sites but Gulfsteam wanted exclusive use of an apron or at least enough stands fronting any new hangar to avoid aircraft getting trapped. LLAL were not interested and said no.
Screenshot showing that all the hangar line are in Enterprise zone 2B as land available for redevelopment. In fact every airport hangar except EasyJet’s hangar has been included inside one zone or another as potential development sites. More hotels?
Last edited by LTNman; 4th Sep 2021 at 09:57.
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Luton
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTN man I get the point you are making and can't say I particularly disagree but the to be clear the directors you mention are not "directors of the 5th largest airport" in the UK! They are directors of the small council company that owns the airport. A huge difference, because despite what they would like you to think (and probably believe themselves) LLAL has no involvement in the running of the airport and only has dreams for its future.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
avidspotter. Your comments would have been true say 5 years ago but they have been dipping their toes into things that put the very existence of LLAL at serous risk. The directors should have stepped in and stopped it. Some would argue that they were negligent in not protecting the company from financial risk when it was meant to be a zero risk company employing no staff.
The airport operator LLAOL was always meant to be the money source for capital project so what has happened? LLAL has run up debts of £283m for the Dart while LLAOL hasn't spent a penny. This doesn't stop LLAOL hinting that they are running the show despite no involvement. The Dart will be run by LLAL so exposing the company and the Council to further risks. Total LLAL debts now exceed £600m and rising while LLAOL says thank you very much as the LLAL bulldozers grade the land for LLAOL for free.
The airport operator LLAOL was always meant to be the money source for capital project so what has happened? LLAL has run up debts of £283m for the Dart while LLAOL hasn't spent a penny. This doesn't stop LLAOL hinting that they are running the show despite no involvement. The Dart will be run by LLAL so exposing the company and the Council to further risks. Total LLAL debts now exceed £600m and rising while LLAOL says thank you very much as the LLAL bulldozers grade the land for LLAOL for free.
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Luton
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear what you're saying but the only thing LLAL and its directors are in charge of is, a very expensive (as you point out) dream! I suspect when it opens, even the Dart will be operated by a contractor, possibly even the airport operator?
Perhaps their change in stance in recent years is a result of a lack of control over the operation? Just a thought.
Perhaps their change in stance in recent years is a result of a lack of control over the operation? Just a thought.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doppelmayr, who built the trains have a 5 year contract for day to day maintenance of the trains, track and running gear with an option for an extension These will be highly paid jobs compared to the airport average with management roles including operations centre manager paying £50,000 and technical operations manager.
Then there will be a selection of low paid jobs that will be contracted out to a third party who will manage the day to day passenger operation. I expect they in turn will subcontract out some of the duties like cleaning but that is just a guess.
I have heard nothing about the airport operator running the Dart and I doubt they will but that could change in 10 years time when the franchise chances and so might be a condition of the franchise.
Separately, there is the question of why is LLAL even building the Dart when it was never required for a 18 million passenger airport that was achieved in 2019? Within the existing airport footprint using the existing terminal the plan is for an extra 3.5 million passengers so is that the secret justification? £283m seems an awful lot of money to spend for an additional 3.5 million passengers. I can see why LLAOL said no as there was no financial case for its construction. Also despite repeated Freedom of Information requests to the Council they have refused to supply the business case based on H.M. Treasury Five-Case Business Model for Public Authority Funded Projects as there wasn't one.
LLAL holds the operators licence and carries all the financial risks. That will be something they will be keen to off load but might find difficult to achieve within 10 years.
Then there will be a selection of low paid jobs that will be contracted out to a third party who will manage the day to day passenger operation. I expect they in turn will subcontract out some of the duties like cleaning but that is just a guess.
I have heard nothing about the airport operator running the Dart and I doubt they will but that could change in 10 years time when the franchise chances and so might be a condition of the franchise.
Separately, there is the question of why is LLAL even building the Dart when it was never required for a 18 million passenger airport that was achieved in 2019? Within the existing airport footprint using the existing terminal the plan is for an extra 3.5 million passengers so is that the secret justification? £283m seems an awful lot of money to spend for an additional 3.5 million passengers. I can see why LLAOL said no as there was no financial case for its construction. Also despite repeated Freedom of Information requests to the Council they have refused to supply the business case based on H.M. Treasury Five-Case Business Model for Public Authority Funded Projects as there wasn't one.
LLAL holds the operators licence and carries all the financial risks. That will be something they will be keen to off load but might find difficult to achieve within 10 years.
Last edited by LTNman; 5th Sep 2021 at 07:08.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except under T2 expansion plans car journeys will increase by 60% despite the Dart increasing rail travel from 15.7% to Gatwick levels if passengers meet LLAL forecasts. No one mentions this. Also LLAL has no public transport strategy regarding east west travel. LLAL has already admitted that the A505 is expected to grind to a halt for eastbound traffic thus the plan to use residential roads to get traffic to T2 from the east and that road improvements will be required all the way from the A1M at Stevenage including in Hitchin as per the consultation documents.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get me started on Hitchin, commuted there 20 years ago at it was a nightmare then and that was nothing to do with airport, just what I saw as a poor Transport policy in Herts.
How long can these "Directors" of LLAL continue the smoke and mirrors tactics to mislead and basically hide what is really going on from the towns council tax payers?. Without Covid they may well have continued to manage to get away with it but surely now its time for some professionals to get involved and de-risk this whole mess before things get any worse!!
Anything that improves access to Luton Airport and the whole currently unpleasant experience should be welcomed.. At least DART is a welcome improvement..next...please sort out the terminal experienced....lack of seating in particular. I do appreciate that the location is part of the problem.