Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Luton-10

Old 23rd Jan 2022, 20:29
  #1141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
It is being reported online that the return fare for the Dart will be £4.80 return, which is a pound more than the shuttle bus.

There are a few errors in the article including the cost of the dart, which is now at least £273m
https://busandtrainuser.com/2022/01/...-for-take-off/

Last edited by LTNman; 23rd Jan 2022 at 21:17.
LTNman is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2022, 11:48
  #1142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
With 70/30 slots having to be used S22 announced today, will that affect WZZ with it's planned route movements to LGW? Perhaps we will see a few new routes launched from LTN as fillers?
Any unused slots maybe leased out?
pabely is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2022, 18:29
  #1143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: UK & Estern Europe
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pabely
With 70/30 slots having to be used S22 announced today, will that affect WZZ with it's planned route movements to LGW? Perhaps we will see a few new routes launched from LTN as fillers?
Any unused slots maybe leased out?
I don't really see it being the case, we will see many new routes with Wizz...

Previously high frequency routes like Warsaw, Bucharest, Sofia, Cluj-Napoca, Budapest, etc are currently operating at 1-2 flights a day and come April/May time these are being ramped back up to pre-pandemic levels of 3-4 flights a day.

This is how Wizz so dramitcally increased the number of desitinations they flew to from LTN during the pandemic, by reducing frequencies on the routes to major Eastern European cities, as demand was a lot lower and transferred the slots to operate the new routes.

All it takes is for Wizz to reduce frequency by one daily flight to one of these above cities and they could potentially open up 2-3 routes to leisure destinations, with that one daily slot, and use it to operate twice weekly flights to oither destinations.

With rising tensions in Russia and Ukraine, it could be possible we see these slots switched to new routes, depending on how this worrying situation develops.
gdiddy is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2022, 07:39
  #1144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
No big wave of WZZ arrivals & departures this morning, that time of year before half term & mid week. Only upwards from here...
pabely is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2022, 16:48
  #1145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Under the flight path
Posts: 2,641
Received 14 Likes on 5 Posts
Does anyone know...
Volume has been lower than expected during January so pax numbers will be running below plan.
The reason for not approving applications for extra slots in S22 was ostensibly due to the 18m cap being reached.
So does this mean that some applications for slots will now be allowed, from Wizzair (6072 slots requested but not approved), Ryanair (788), Blue Air (558), Easy Jet (526), SkyUp (186), Sky Express (150), Flyr (136), TUI (56) and Sun Express (44)?
However I realise it's getting a bit late to add flights, so not all of these requests will remain.
Is the cap based on 18m only, or on summer capacity, or peak week capacity, terminal capacity or some other metric?
Thanks.
LGS6753 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2022, 17:49
  #1146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
I assume the information you seek might be in here in rule 3

Local rule 3

https://www.acl-uk.org/wp-content/up...Seat-Limit.pdf

Existing summer plan

https://www.acl-uk.org/wp-content/up...ion-S22-v1.pdf


Last edited by LTNman; 26th Jan 2022 at 18:09.
LTNman is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2022, 19:08
  #1147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ostend
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
they are operating at ... LHR
hydroplane is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2022, 20:07
  #1148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by hydroplane
they are operating at ... LHR
Sky Express & Blue Air yes until they get squeezed out of LHR.
pabely is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2022, 02:39
  #1149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: UK & Estern Europe
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is Vueling Returning to LTN?

Just been looking on ACL's website and can download an interactive PowerPoint presentation with all the slot allocations for LTN in Summer 2022...

It appears Vueling have 26 slots a week at LTN allocated to them! Are these a legacy of when they did operate from the airport 2-3 years ago and still sitting on the slots or are they returning?



I can see nothing on Vueling's booking system for LTN.

Does the same use it or loose it rule apply to slots at LTN as at the likes of Heathrow and Gatwick, or can they just sit on them and use them as when they want in future years? I was just wondering if maybe they are leasing out the slots to another airline, like Wizz or Easy, but as Vueling are the owners of the slots, I assume it would still show as them on the ACL records.

The ACL document can be downloaded using below link and selecting the file "LTN S22 Initial Coordination Report".
https://www.acl-uk.org/latest-airport-info/#
(You do need to register your details when downloading. As its not my work, I don't feel its right to distribute the direct link without going through the appropriate registration.)
gdiddy is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2022, 06:46
  #1150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
I suspect these are the AMS flights which they will come back to, as Level.
Whether they will be forced to use or loose them on the 80/20 rule is an interesting point which I don't know if it applies to LTN.
pabely is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2022, 15:15
  #1151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm sure Luton Rising have a plan.......

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/lat...ns-28-01-2022/
Buster the Bear is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2022, 18:31
  #1152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Like the plan involving spending £273m on the Dart that doesn’t actually increase the airports capacity without government approval for airport expansion. Jumping the gun comes to mind.
LTNman is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2022, 22:56
  #1153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Buster the Bear
I'm sure Luton Rising have a plan.......

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/lat...ns-28-01-2022/
Who are New Ecomonics Foundation, a charity whos obvious agenda is one sided?
Manston??..
pabely is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2022, 23:56
  #1154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
The first part of the plan is to increase the paper value of the airport three fold. I guess this means they can borrow more money against the asset. All this money is due to be paid off by the new franchise holder in 2032 as a lump sum. LRT intention is that the new franchise holder then pays a billion or two to double the size of the airport and then also pays a fee for each passenger to the Council. Any change goes to the franchise holder.

I wonder if there is a business case for this approach?

Last edited by LTNman; 29th Jan 2022 at 00:12.
LTNman is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2022, 21:59
  #1155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Grrr

Originally Posted by LTNman
LRT intention is that the new franchise holder then pays a billion or two to double the size of the airport and then also pays a fee for each passenger to the Council. Any change goes to the franchise holder.

I wonder if there is a business case for this approach?
Only in York.

Financial suicide, as by 2032, the cost of flying will be so highly taxed, it'll go back to how it was in the 1990s, one holiday per year.
Buster the Bear is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2022, 07:20
  #1156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
If anyone has two hours to spare then have a listen to the Council’s Finance and Governance committee meeting on YouTube, where the Councils auditors were making speeches.

Despite the pandemic not starting until 2020 the auditors still won’t sign off any accounts from and including 2018/19 over issues with the airport.

They are also saying that due to risks and uncertainties, lending to LRT should be paused until the council has undertaken further appraisals on the ownership and its interest in LRT as soon as the Dart goes live.

Also there should also be no further commitment made to lend more money to LRT until such time that there has been further work undertaken on the financial, legal and commercial aspect of future schemes that are underway and that a clear feasibility and viability study on how those schemes will be financed.

The auditors also stated there is material uncertainty on the valuation of investment properties and the recoverability of debts and debenture loans to LRT.
LTNman is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2022, 07:46
  #1157 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Between the check-in desks
Posts: 448
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I can’t see the Dart covering its yearly running costs if interest payments on its loans are taken into account. Then it will need to be extended to reach a second terminal at more cost. Rather than increasing the value of Luton Rising’s portfolio I see it as a possible liability and annual expense, which will decrease the airports value.
Spanish eyes is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2022, 20:03
  #1158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,920
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Spanish eyes
I canít see the Dart covering its yearly running costs if interest payments on its loans are taken into account. Then it will need to be extended to reach a second terminal at more cost. Rather than increasing the value of Luton Risingís portfolio I see it as a possible liability and annual expense, which will decrease the airports value.
Sorry, when was the DART ever said it has to be self financing and has to stand on it's own two feet?
It is only a cog in the bigger scheme of things?
If you take that view the Gatwick Monorail has been and still it a big loss maker for them.
It's all about a better experience, is it not?
pabely is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2022, 08:21
  #1159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Luton
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by pabely
Sorry, when was the DART ever said it has to be self financing and has to stand on it's own two feet?
It is only a cog in the bigger scheme of things?
If you take that view the Gatwick Monorail has been and still it a big loss maker for them.
It's all about a better experience, is it not?
pabely you make a good point. In particular if I had my way I would want 1000 more seats in the terminal to better the customer experience. However the Dart most definitely will make the experience far better in terms of connectivity. In effect a better experience will lead to passengers returning to the airport, time and time again, meaning even initial losses can lead to far more in revenue in the long term.
Lee Baker Street is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2022, 08:21
  #1160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,975
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Interesting statement from papely about the Dart not being required to stand on its own two feet. For a business case to meet H.M. Treasury guidelines for public money investments the Dart would have to fulfil the five business case model.

Strategic Dimension – What is the case for change, including the rationale for intervention?

Economic Dimension – What is the net social value of the intervention compared to continuing with business as usual?

Commercial Dimension – Can a realistic and credible commercial deal be struck? (Who will manage the risks?)

Financial Dimension – What is the impact of the proposal on the public sector budget in terms of the total cost of both capital and revenue?

Management Dimension – Are there realistic and robust delivery plans? How can the proposal be delivered?


Freedom of Information requests were submitted by the Information Commissioner after a request for the business case by residents was rejected.

This was the final reply to the commissioner:

“We have considered your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The Luton DART was subject to a rigorous business planning process which followed the Five Case Model. The final business case was approved by the LLAL Board of Directors on 9th October 2017. The business case includes extensive references throughout the document to commercial information of London Luton Airport Limited and includes commercially sensitive information from all the tender submissions for the construction and operations contracts. As such the final business case is considered commercially confidential to LLAL and is not available for wider release.

So the answers remain a secret from the residents who are the owners but then the company has more secrets than North Korea. This puts into doubt that a robust business case actually exists.


I would think the town’s council taxpayers would be expecting the Dart to stand on its own two feet without it making a loss and to pay off its debts, as they are repeatedly told they are the true owners of LRT. If the deliberate hidden intention was that they would have to subsidise the operation when they won’t even use it would cause uproar. The whole point of LRT existence is to benefit the town and to provide income in the form of a dividend that will support public services and not to improve the passenger experience. That is the job of the airport concessionaire who spends as little as possible on the passenger experience.

The Gatwick monorail is different, as it is part of the airport infrastructure. The Dart is a public transport operator with its own government operating license to get people to and from the airport for the price of a ticket. It replaces a far from ideal Thameslink operation that cost the council taxpayers nothing.

We have to remember that LRT and Luton Borough Council are one of the same. LRT have no staff because they all work for the Council, they all even have Council email addresses. Even LRT jobs for the Dart are advertised by the Council.


The latest Dart job is this nice little number at £250-£300 a day. Will it affect Luton Rising’s balance sheet? Seems not as the Council seems to be pick up the wage bill for LRT employees.

https://www.google.com/search?channe...:1643618167568

Last edited by LTNman; 31st Jan 2022 at 08:49.
LTNman is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.