Luton-10
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LBC are judge and executioner, hopefully central government will intervene and make the decision impartial?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not directly related to Luton but Waterford Airport has secured permission to extend runway to 2287m which will open up it's reach. Always did well when Aer Aran did the route from Luton with it's ATRs.
I also note that Bristol Airport has had is pax cap increase approved after going to Central Government so Luton should not be afraid to such referral.
I also note that Bristol Airport has had is pax cap increase approved after going to Central Government so Luton should not be afraid to such referral.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I stated last week and now confirmed. In fact this has been the plan for years. The only thing that has changed is pushing out the timescales.
proposals:
timescales subject to change.
Phase 1:
2025-2027
Expansion of Terminal 1 and associated facilities
to increase capacity from 18 to approximately 21.5 million
passengers per annum (mppa).
•
Phase 2:
2032-2040
Construction of new Terminal 2 and associated
facilities to increase airport capacity to 27 mppa. There will
later be further expansion of Terminal 2 and associated
facilities to increase to 32 mppa
proposals:
timescales subject to change.
Phase 1:
2025-2027
Expansion of Terminal 1 and associated facilities
to increase capacity from 18 to approximately 21.5 million
passengers per annum (mppa).
•
Phase 2:
2032-2040
Construction of new Terminal 2 and associated
facilities to increase airport capacity to 27 mppa. There will
later be further expansion of Terminal 2 and associated
facilities to increase to 32 mppa
Last edited by LTNman; 8th Feb 2022 at 08:36.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To save me hunting for phase one again I am looking at it now.
Changes to existing terminal
To accommodate the forecast passenger demand in the first phase of development (up to 21.5 mppa), our proposals include new facilities and extensions to increase the capacity of the existing terminal building. A set of potential solutions have been assessed in order to define the best way to accommodate the future demand at Terminal 1.
The following extensions have been assessed in the PEIR. However, these may be adapted and refined to meet future operational needs, dependent on how the demand evolves over the next few years. Should alternative options be adopted, the location, scale and nature of the extensions will be similar to those described and are not considered to give rise to materially different effects to those reported in the PEIR. Additionally, any remodelling works to increase the capacity of key facilities such as check-in, security check point, outbound baggage system, and inbound baggage system would not require additional buildings and would be delivered within the existing terminal.
• An extension of the current building to the north (ground floor only) to increase the existing passenger queuing area at Immigration, ncluding remodelling and optimising the layout of desks and e-gates.
• An extension of the existing building to the south side is proposed to increase the terminal area at both ground and first floor levels. At ground floor level, this would provide additional space for key facilities such as security search and check-in. At the first floor level, the additional area would provide additional space for the departure lounge to increase the provision of seating for departing passengers. Other options provide
additional departure gates within the existing terminal building by optimising and extending the use of some functions of the departure gate areas to the south.
• An increase in the number of departure gates (3 to 4 gates) is required to manage the growth in demand planned in Phase 1. A set of options have been explored to find the best solution which will be defined depending on
how the demand in the peak evolves over the next few years. One option is to build a new bussing gate facility external to the existing building in order to operate the departures from the new aircraft stands. Other options provide additional departure gates within the existing terminal building by optimising and extending the use of some functions of the departure gate areas to the south.
• In addition to the proposed extensions to the existing terminal, various terminal areas would be remodelled to increase the capacity of the terminal within the current terminal footprint.The proposed changes would increase the capacity of the terminal to approximately 21.5 mppa, which would be supported by the early construction
of some new stands on the site to be used eventually for Terminal 2.
To accommodate the forecast passenger demand in the first phase of development (up to 21.5 mppa), our proposals include new facilities and extensions to increase the capacity of the existing terminal building. A set of potential solutions have been assessed in order to define the best way to accommodate the future demand at Terminal 1.
The following extensions have been assessed in the PEIR. However, these may be adapted and refined to meet future operational needs, dependent on how the demand evolves over the next few years. Should alternative options be adopted, the location, scale and nature of the extensions will be similar to those described and are not considered to give rise to materially different effects to those reported in the PEIR. Additionally, any remodelling works to increase the capacity of key facilities such as check-in, security check point, outbound baggage system, and inbound baggage system would not require additional buildings and would be delivered within the existing terminal.
• An extension of the current building to the north (ground floor only) to increase the existing passenger queuing area at Immigration, ncluding remodelling and optimising the layout of desks and e-gates.
• An extension of the existing building to the south side is proposed to increase the terminal area at both ground and first floor levels. At ground floor level, this would provide additional space for key facilities such as security search and check-in. At the first floor level, the additional area would provide additional space for the departure lounge to increase the provision of seating for departing passengers. Other options provide
additional departure gates within the existing terminal building by optimising and extending the use of some functions of the departure gate areas to the south.
• An increase in the number of departure gates (3 to 4 gates) is required to manage the growth in demand planned in Phase 1. A set of options have been explored to find the best solution which will be defined depending on
how the demand in the peak evolves over the next few years. One option is to build a new bussing gate facility external to the existing building in order to operate the departures from the new aircraft stands. Other options provide additional departure gates within the existing terminal building by optimising and extending the use of some functions of the departure gate areas to the south.
• In addition to the proposed extensions to the existing terminal, various terminal areas would be remodelled to increase the capacity of the terminal within the current terminal footprint.The proposed changes would increase the capacity of the terminal to approximately 21.5 mppa, which would be supported by the early construction
of some new stands on the site to be used eventually for Terminal 2.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The strange thing is that anyone familiar with the terminal would wonder why this infill wasn't done as part of the 18m application as the terminal has an odd shape from the front and side. In fact number 2 on the plans was meant to have been done as part of the 18m build but was cut out late in the day to save money. Now they face extra cost and disruption.
Note the apron in front of the the multi story that isn't highlighted in blue. Clearly outside the DCO proposal
Note the apron in front of the the multi story that isn't highlighted in blue. Clearly outside the DCO proposal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Between the check-in desks
Posts: 445
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feet up reading the reports.
This is a meaningless statement as there is already a legally binding noise agreement that was broken for 3 year on the trot. The solution was for the concessionaire to put in a planning application to the owner to exceed it which was granted.
Knowing the area and reading the report the first plan outside the present boundary is to bulldoze the towns official Country Wildlife Site. Doesn't seem very green to me.
Air noise
We will establish a ‘Noise Envelope’ which sets out legally binding and enforceable limits and controls to manage air noise.
We will establish a ‘Noise Envelope’ which sets out legally binding and enforceable limits and controls to manage air noise.
We take our environmental responsibilities incredibly seriously.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For an additional cost of £20m to the cost of the DCO spot the difference.
Old
New
Basically it is the removal of 6 stands needed for 36-38m as it was too expensive to put them in due to earthworks. Nothing to do with the last consultation, as no one was told about the secret plan.
The plan was to apply for 32 million but build for 36-38m. Once approved they would eventually give themselves planning permission for an extra 6m passengers. By doing it this way the Council would avoid the cost of upgrading the M1 and also claim that there was no new infrastructure needed. The problem was that a valley got in the way of the 6 stands.
Old
New
Basically it is the removal of 6 stands needed for 36-38m as it was too expensive to put them in due to earthworks. Nothing to do with the last consultation, as no one was told about the secret plan.
The plan was to apply for 32 million but build for 36-38m. Once approved they would eventually give themselves planning permission for an extra 6m passengers. By doing it this way the Council would avoid the cost of upgrading the M1 and also claim that there was no new infrastructure needed. The problem was that a valley got in the way of the 6 stands.
Last edited by LTNman; 11th Feb 2022 at 20:51.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Between the check-in desks
Posts: 445
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So where are the workers to fill these potential jobs? At the moment there is a recruitment crises as those that have left don't want to come back and new workers don't want 24/7 shift patterns including Christmas Day for £9 an hour.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: No fixed abode
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also the Pier intended to be built for the new 4 a/c stand by the MSCP and link to the South Stands is missing.
Is this now scrapped or is the intention to just bus them as is current?
Is this now scrapped or is the intention to just bus them as is current?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 60
Posts: 3,808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unite the Union seem very happy with the pay rise which has been secured, they acknowledge this is a sector recruitment crises, not just a Luton problem. Gatwick having same issues getting staff for the reopening of the South Terminal.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Between the check-in desks
Posts: 445
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most people are not in a union. Plenty of jobs on the notice boards at £8.91 an hour. If you are lucking you get a contract. If you are unlucky it is a zero hours contract. And what do you get for working on Christmas Day or 3 in the morning? Why the same £8.91 an hour. . The airlines want ever bigger discounts so where do the savings come from?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Falcon 666 wrote
Looks like the pier has gone. We have to remember LLAOL don't like spending money and it is them who would fund it.
Sounds like they now have no idea how to get passengers to the aircraft steps. From the consultation documents.
When the size of the phase one Terminal 1 increase to its footprint is taken into account it is tiny yet it is meant to handle an additional 3.5 million passengers.
As the photo shows, floor space can still just be seen so clearly there is excess capacity!
Also the Pier intended to be built for the new 4 a/c stand by the MSCP and link to the South Stands is missing.
Is this now scrapped or is the intention to just bus them as is current?
Is this now scrapped or is the intention to just bus them as is current?
Sounds like they now have no idea how to get passengers to the aircraft steps. From the consultation documents.
An increase in the number of departure gates (3 to 4 gates) is required to manage the growth in demand planned in Phase 1. A set of options have been explored to find the best solution which will be defined depending on how the demand in the peak evolves over the next few years. One option is to build a new bussing gate facility external to the existing building in order to operate the departures from the new aircraft stands. Other options provide additional departure gates within the existing terminal building by optimising and extending the use of some functions of the departure gate areas to the south.
• In addition to the proposed extensions to the existing terminal, various terminal areas would be remodelled to increase the capacity of the terminal within the current terminal footprint.
• In addition to the proposed extensions to the existing terminal, various terminal areas would be remodelled to increase the capacity of the terminal within the current terminal footprint.
As the photo shows, floor space can still just be seen so clearly there is excess capacity!
Last edited by LTNman; 9th Feb 2022 at 09:30.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Between the check-in desks
Posts: 445
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the good news is that it has been announced that security staff are the latest workers to secure big pay rises due to a recruitment crises in part due to a lack of Eastern Europeans to fill vacancies who always seemed to work for peanuts, so holding the wage rates down. I know there will be outrage at that suggestion but it is a painful fact that should be accepted.
First we had the care bears who went on strike last year after a proposed wage freeze. Now some have secured pay rises of 20% for those that hold HVG licences while others have secured less than inflation rises of 4.3%.
https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-e...d-pay-dispute/
Now security staff who were screwed for years have had the last laugh by getting rises worth £1800.
This wasn't a case of Luton Airport recognising the value of its staff but more of a case that they could not get anyone to now work the shift pattens for the wages offered after their T&C where changed just before Covid.
https://www.lutontoday.co.uk/busines...crease-3560066
Good for them I say.
So will the costs be passed on to the airlines?
First we had the care bears who went on strike last year after a proposed wage freeze. Now some have secured pay rises of 20% for those that hold HVG licences while others have secured less than inflation rises of 4.3%.
https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-e...d-pay-dispute/
Now security staff who were screwed for years have had the last laugh by getting rises worth £1800.
This wasn't a case of Luton Airport recognising the value of its staff but more of a case that they could not get anyone to now work the shift pattens for the wages offered after their T&C where changed just before Covid.
https://www.lutontoday.co.uk/busines...crease-3560066
Good for them I say.
So will the costs be passed on to the airlines?
Last edited by Spanish eyes; 10th Feb 2022 at 15:59.
Costs won't be passed on immediately... contracts prevent that. But you can be absolutely certain that the millisecond that a contract becomes up for renewal discussions, it will be
Paxing All Over The World
To highlight just two examples in the Phase 1 statement, given by LTNman and thanks for your continued research and information in this forum.
Fabulous non statements that ramble and say nothing other than, we will change these things as we need to and when we want.
I am still not convinced that carriers are going to find the same level of pax as they enjoyed pre-Covid. The UK is (I suggest) heading into a recession that will take several years to work through. Bear in mind that the 2008 crash took more than five years and some people only just got back in balance before Covid. I have already made myself unpopular in the Heathrow forum by saying that R3 will never be built. So I shall say that the second terminal here is a lot further off than some would like to think.
A set of potential solutions have been assessed in order to define the best way to accommodate the future demand at Terminal 1.
However, these may be adapted and refined to meet future operational needs, dependent on how the demand evolves over the next few years.
I am still not convinced that carriers are going to find the same level of pax as they enjoyed pre-Covid. The UK is (I suggest) heading into a recession that will take several years to work through. Bear in mind that the 2008 crash took more than five years and some people only just got back in balance before Covid. I have already made myself unpopular in the Heathrow forum by saying that R3 will never be built. So I shall say that the second terminal here is a lot further off than some would like to think.
Last edited by PAXboy; 11th Feb 2022 at 08:52.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a whole can of worms to consider over these proposals.
A two terminal solution is also going to be a far more expensive option regarding running cost when its competitor (Stansted) just keeps increasing the size of its single terminal so keeping costs down. Two lots of everything planned at Luton including security staff and separate terminal infrastructure to be maintained.
Phase 2a claims to be for a new terminal with a capacity of 5 million passengers. Assuming Luton's 3 major carriers remain and don't go bust it is already too small to handle all of Wizz's or Easyjet's traffic leaving them in a congested Terminal 1 unless they have a split terminal operation. This would leave Ryanair and any small carrier heading for T2 but then T2 is further away from the A roads and M1 on a shocking road network
The access road for Terminal 2, that is mean to be finished by now, is unaffordable, as it was the Council who was going to fund it. Now under Phase 2a proposals it will now only be part built with a massive gap in the middle leaving traffic battling along Percival Way, which is the road that hugs the hangar line. It's a dogs dinner solution. It gets worse even when T2 is expanded to 32m , as traffic to and from the A1M and heading for Terminal 2 will still be expected to use minor roads on a housing estate to get to the airport. It will be worse than Southend. This missing link though will be put in sometime after 2032.
Artist impression shows a swanky new terminal but this is a section of the proposed approach road from the M1 that will not be upgraded and is part of the missing link
A two terminal solution is also going to be a far more expensive option regarding running cost when its competitor (Stansted) just keeps increasing the size of its single terminal so keeping costs down. Two lots of everything planned at Luton including security staff and separate terminal infrastructure to be maintained.
Phase 2a claims to be for a new terminal with a capacity of 5 million passengers. Assuming Luton's 3 major carriers remain and don't go bust it is already too small to handle all of Wizz's or Easyjet's traffic leaving them in a congested Terminal 1 unless they have a split terminal operation. This would leave Ryanair and any small carrier heading for T2 but then T2 is further away from the A roads and M1 on a shocking road network
The access road for Terminal 2, that is mean to be finished by now, is unaffordable, as it was the Council who was going to fund it. Now under Phase 2a proposals it will now only be part built with a massive gap in the middle leaving traffic battling along Percival Way, which is the road that hugs the hangar line. It's a dogs dinner solution. It gets worse even when T2 is expanded to 32m , as traffic to and from the A1M and heading for Terminal 2 will still be expected to use minor roads on a housing estate to get to the airport. It will be worse than Southend. This missing link though will be put in sometime after 2032.
Artist impression shows a swanky new terminal but this is a section of the proposed approach road from the M1 that will not be upgraded and is part of the missing link
Last edited by LTNman; 11th Feb 2022 at 12:07.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course those with long memories will remember that this is not the first time a second terminal has been built at Luton. Luton has a love affair with tin shed terminals so this one was built I guess in the 80's or 90's as a domestic terminal but was never opened as a passenger terminal. Out of sight and attached was the spectators building. I used to look though the locked door of the link building to see check-in desks doing nothing.
