Luton-10
LTNman
Why is it that supposedly intelligent business managers fall hook line and sinker for stuff like this? LIA aren't the only ones, Standard Life Aberdeen did so earlier this year.
Why is it that supposedly intelligent business managers fall hook line and sinker for stuff like this? LIA aren't the only ones, Standard Life Aberdeen did so earlier this year.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will just call them LRT from now on when referring to the owners of the airport here, as I can't be asked to use the stupid name of Luton Rising. As well as Luton Rising Temperature (LRT) other appropriate names could be Luton Rising Debt (LRD), Luton Rising Pollution (LRP) or Luton Rising Noise (LRN). Yes, this is going to be the gift that keeps on giving. Well done to whoever thought this through.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Between the check-in desks
Posts: 445
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To add to the mix
Luton Rising Damp (LRD) due to the state of the terminal
Luton Rising Vacancies (LRV) as no one wants to work here.
Luton Rising Charges (LRC) as they squeeze the public.
Luton Rising Damp (LRD) due to the state of the terminal
Luton Rising Vacancies (LRV) as no one wants to work here.
Luton Rising Charges (LRC) as they squeeze the public.
Some of the assessment of Luton airport seems a little bleak. It has a large route network and a robust flow of passengers - many airport managers would happily swap their problems for those of Luton's
DJ6 -
Agreed. The problems other posters have been complaining about are political, because the airport is in the hands of local government, who have a clear conflict of interest because they are also the planning authority.
The airport's business fundamentals are good though. One, two or three based carriers (Wizz, Easy and Ryanair) who would take more slots if they became available, and other operators who would use a low-cost facility close to the northern edge of London if they could get (more) slots.
The facilities are far from ideal - too small and crowded - but development of additional facilities (T2 and more aircraft parking) is inhibited by politics - either the shrill shrieks of the greens, the local NIMBYs, or the inward-looking local authority unwilling to expand into Hertfordshire.
Agreed. The problems other posters have been complaining about are political, because the airport is in the hands of local government, who have a clear conflict of interest because they are also the planning authority.
The airport's business fundamentals are good though. One, two or three based carriers (Wizz, Easy and Ryanair) who would take more slots if they became available, and other operators who would use a low-cost facility close to the northern edge of London if they could get (more) slots.
The facilities are far from ideal - too small and crowded - but development of additional facilities (T2 and more aircraft parking) is inhibited by politics - either the shrill shrieks of the greens, the local NIMBYs, or the inward-looking local authority unwilling to expand into Hertfordshire.
Paxing All Over The World
As far as I know, Hertfordshire has said that it would not allow expansion across the border? I'm guessing because it would be politically easier to say no and the major economic benefits would fall into Bedfordshire.
Last edited by PAXboy; 25th Nov 2021 at 02:57. Reason: typos
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Council owned company LRT is trying to influence the planning decision by its own Council in this letter. While most here will support the views in the letter there is something rather unsavoury about it as the letter admits there is a clear conflict of interest that should be ignored. Also while the application is in the airport operators name we all know it is the Council's idea.
As for the Council's declared Climate Emergency, aircraft flying into the airport are excluded which is rather convenient.
Dear David Gurtler,
Re LONDON LUTON AIRPORT, AIRPORT WAY, LUTON
Application No. 21/00031/VARCON
We are not making this application – it is being made by LLAOL, the operators of the airport.
Nonetheless, as the owners of the airport, we have a lot at stake here, as, I would suggest, do the communities of Luton and the surrounding areas.
I am grateful for this chance to explain why.
The proposed increase in the passenger cap from 18 million passengers per annum (mppa) to 19 mppa is not just about an immediate need to increase capacity.
Indeed, as of course you are aware, current passenger numbers are way lower than they were in the last pre-pandemic year, 2019, when they reached 18m. Passenger numbers are projected to recover to those pre-pandemic levels, but this won't happen immediately.
Why then, is LLAOL making this application, and why is it so important that it is approved?
Sending the right signal
This is about accelerating the airport’s recovery and safeguarding the long-term economic wellbeing of the airport. Airlines that choose to use LLA need to feel that this is an airport that can allow them to grow.
Airlines plan new routes more than a year in advance. Without providing reassurance to them that there is space for them to develop and accommodate new routes, LLA is at risk of losing out to other airports in the London system that do have spare capacity. Luton and our sub-region would lose out on those additional jobs and the boost to the local economy.
Yet there is a greater danger still. If airlines see an airport that is not attuned to their future growth, it also puts a question mark in their minds about where to base their current routes. At Luton, we know only too well from the past of how damaging it is when airlines leave, and how hard it is to then win them back.
What about the environment?
We understand the natural and reasonable concerns that councillors and members of the community may have about the environmental impact of increasing capacity.
We should point out that this application does not require any additional construction – it makes the best use of the current site and facilities (in line with Government policy).
LLAOL have undertaken a full Environmental Impact Assessment which shows that any adverse effects the project may have on the surrounding environment will be minimal. They have also committed to implement plans to continue reducing their carbon footprint with a view to being carbon neutral by 2026 and net zero by 2040.
When the additional capacity is used (which won't be for some time), they would expect only a small increase in the noise footprint. LLA already has some of the most stringent noise conditions in place at any UK airport, including a ban on the noisiest types of aircraft, and a ban on ad-hoc flights during the night-time period.
Regarding road traffic, any potential increase would be mitigated by the introduction of the Luton DART, in spring 2021, aimed at tempting a growing proportion of passengers away from their cars and on to the train.
As for airline carbon emissions, we accept that the impact is largely out of LLA’s hands, with reductions depending on industry-wide adoption of greener technologies, and genuine offsetting. However, the airport will play its role by incentivising the deployment of the newest, most efficient aircraft types, and working with partners to identify how it transforms its infrastructure to accommodate future aircraft and fuel types such as hydrogen. Whatever the level of adoption, the stark truth is that these flights will be operating anyway – stopping them at Luton will just send them elsewhere.
This is not a cost-free decision
To conclude, I want to make the clear point that this is not a cost-free decision. Consider what is at stake. Many jobs at LLA and among the companies based at the airport have been jeopardised by the recent decline in passenger numbers. The airport is one of the largest employers in the region – in 2019, the airport employed 10,000 people directly, with another 17,000 employed in the supply chain.
Further, through our company, LLAL, income generated from the airport funds 15% of the Council’s frontline services, with a further £8.5m in a typical year contributed to support community groups.
And let’s not ever forget the benefits the facility provides to the people of our region –enabling us to connect with friends and families, to have a life experience with loved ones, or to allow the flow of essential goods and services that businesses, and we as customers, rely on.
Approving the application will ensure that the airport makes a positive statement that it is a good partner for airlines who want to grow their businesses. Turning down the application will send the opposite message, with potentially extremely serious ramifications for jobs, for the regional economy, and for our communities.
Yours sincerely,
Graham Olver
CEO and Corporate Director London Luton Airport Ltd (Council employee)
As for the Council's declared Climate Emergency, aircraft flying into the airport are excluded which is rather convenient.
Dear David Gurtler,
Re LONDON LUTON AIRPORT, AIRPORT WAY, LUTON
Application No. 21/00031/VARCON
We are not making this application – it is being made by LLAOL, the operators of the airport.
Nonetheless, as the owners of the airport, we have a lot at stake here, as, I would suggest, do the communities of Luton and the surrounding areas.
I am grateful for this chance to explain why.
The proposed increase in the passenger cap from 18 million passengers per annum (mppa) to 19 mppa is not just about an immediate need to increase capacity.
Indeed, as of course you are aware, current passenger numbers are way lower than they were in the last pre-pandemic year, 2019, when they reached 18m. Passenger numbers are projected to recover to those pre-pandemic levels, but this won't happen immediately.
Why then, is LLAOL making this application, and why is it so important that it is approved?
Sending the right signal
This is about accelerating the airport’s recovery and safeguarding the long-term economic wellbeing of the airport. Airlines that choose to use LLA need to feel that this is an airport that can allow them to grow.
Airlines plan new routes more than a year in advance. Without providing reassurance to them that there is space for them to develop and accommodate new routes, LLA is at risk of losing out to other airports in the London system that do have spare capacity. Luton and our sub-region would lose out on those additional jobs and the boost to the local economy.
Yet there is a greater danger still. If airlines see an airport that is not attuned to their future growth, it also puts a question mark in their minds about where to base their current routes. At Luton, we know only too well from the past of how damaging it is when airlines leave, and how hard it is to then win them back.
What about the environment?
We understand the natural and reasonable concerns that councillors and members of the community may have about the environmental impact of increasing capacity.
We should point out that this application does not require any additional construction – it makes the best use of the current site and facilities (in line with Government policy).
LLAOL have undertaken a full Environmental Impact Assessment which shows that any adverse effects the project may have on the surrounding environment will be minimal. They have also committed to implement plans to continue reducing their carbon footprint with a view to being carbon neutral by 2026 and net zero by 2040.
When the additional capacity is used (which won't be for some time), they would expect only a small increase in the noise footprint. LLA already has some of the most stringent noise conditions in place at any UK airport, including a ban on the noisiest types of aircraft, and a ban on ad-hoc flights during the night-time period.
Regarding road traffic, any potential increase would be mitigated by the introduction of the Luton DART, in spring 2021, aimed at tempting a growing proportion of passengers away from their cars and on to the train.
As for airline carbon emissions, we accept that the impact is largely out of LLA’s hands, with reductions depending on industry-wide adoption of greener technologies, and genuine offsetting. However, the airport will play its role by incentivising the deployment of the newest, most efficient aircraft types, and working with partners to identify how it transforms its infrastructure to accommodate future aircraft and fuel types such as hydrogen. Whatever the level of adoption, the stark truth is that these flights will be operating anyway – stopping them at Luton will just send them elsewhere.
This is not a cost-free decision
To conclude, I want to make the clear point that this is not a cost-free decision. Consider what is at stake. Many jobs at LLA and among the companies based at the airport have been jeopardised by the recent decline in passenger numbers. The airport is one of the largest employers in the region – in 2019, the airport employed 10,000 people directly, with another 17,000 employed in the supply chain.
Further, through our company, LLAL, income generated from the airport funds 15% of the Council’s frontline services, with a further £8.5m in a typical year contributed to support community groups.
And let’s not ever forget the benefits the facility provides to the people of our region –enabling us to connect with friends and families, to have a life experience with loved ones, or to allow the flow of essential goods and services that businesses, and we as customers, rely on.
Approving the application will ensure that the airport makes a positive statement that it is a good partner for airlines who want to grow their businesses. Turning down the application will send the opposite message, with potentially extremely serious ramifications for jobs, for the regional economy, and for our communities.
Yours sincerely,
Graham Olver
CEO and Corporate Director London Luton Airport Ltd (Council employee)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deferred payment of £45m for 3 years
http://BBC News - Luton Airport oper...herts-59388493
Does LLA (Luton Rising) get full payment from LLAOL after this time or reduced during covid period?
http://BBC News - Luton Airport oper...herts-59388493
Does LLA (Luton Rising) get full payment from LLAOL after this time or reduced during covid period?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your link doesn't work so try this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...herts-59388493
This isn't a deferred payment it is a gift to LLAOL shareholders from the town's council taxpayers with £45m withheld over the next 3 years.
Graham Olver, chief executive of Luton Rising (Temperature), said
There is a half truth in that statement, as the Council has already admitted months ago that there would be no LRT dividend paid to the Council due to LRT debts for years. As for protecting the "vital investment we make every year in voluntary and community services to improve people's lives" how can that be if the Council is gifting money to the airport operator?
Seems that Force Majeure measures will actually continue for years and that LLAOL are calling all the shots. So who did the negotiating with the airport operator? Whoever it was needs sacking. It should be noted that the airport directors have no experience of being directors, as their day job could be working on the checkout at Sainsbury's. As such they could have been sold anything.
This isn't a deferred payment it is a gift to LLAOL shareholders from the town's council taxpayers with £45m withheld over the next 3 years.
Graham Olver, chief executive of Luton Rising (Temperature), said
"Importantly for Luton residents, this has also been achieved with no direct impact on council tax, and continues to protect the vital investment we make every year in voluntary and community services to improve people's lives."
Seems that Force Majeure measures will actually continue for years and that LLAOL are calling all the shots. So who did the negotiating with the airport operator? Whoever it was needs sacking. It should be noted that the airport directors have no experience of being directors, as their day job could be working on the checkout at Sainsbury's. As such they could have been sold anything.
Last edited by LTNman; 23rd Nov 2021 at 16:05.
Three new Ryanair destinations, all currently served by Wizzair from Luton, CTA also by EasyJet.
Bourgas Sat/Tue 9/4/22 on
Catania Sat/Tue 29/3/22 on
Lublin Sun/Mon/Wed/Thu/Fri 27/3/22 on
All the above are on based aircraft.
Bourgas Sat/Tue 9/4/22 on
Catania Sat/Tue 29/3/22 on
Lublin Sun/Mon/Wed/Thu/Fri 27/3/22 on
All the above are on based aircraft.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
compton3bravo
Yet ACL shows they have been allocated no slots, typically you cannot read too much into ACL, more what appears in booking engines and then tyres touching down at the threshold!
Yet ACL shows they have been allocated no slots, typically you cannot read too much into ACL, more what appears in booking engines and then tyres touching down at the threshold!
Falcon666
Yet there are still a number of aircraft in storage on the new taxiway and presumably a number of other slots not going to be used. Time to remove the Covid slot waiver.
Yet there are still a number of aircraft in storage on the new taxiway and presumably a number of other slots not going to be used. Time to remove the Covid slot waiver.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by pabely; 25th Nov 2021 at 20:42.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New hold for Luton dispersing the noise and in theory, vastly increasing the tack distance to touchdown, especially on runway 07. I am sure it is all carbon neutral, or maybe not! https://www.airinternational.com/art...space-decision
Isn't this year old news ? There was a public consultation a while back with some people ( around Huntingdon and further east I think) were concerned about aircraft at 8000ft overhead.