125 burst 2 tires on landing and had to be towed from the runway. easy had to return to the tinminal as it was low on fuel.

easy had to return to the tinminal as it was low on fuel!

BLIMEY that must have been some wait at the holding point! It must have been dinner time in the tower!

As for departure separation, the idea is that by the time the 2nd outbound contacts the London TMA, there will be a minimum of 3 miles horizontal and/or 1000ft vertical separation between the two on the same or similar routes and not catching up the flight ahead. A big issue with parallel taxiways to the end of the departing runway and in Luton's case, intersection and full length departures. No good departing an ATR ahead of an Airbus! My source is wikibeardia!

Hopefully Mr Bust has on order some ear plugs come March 12th 2009! The future is P-RNAV according to NATS and its current consultation!

I am going to apply for a 5 mile exclusion zone round my village, or place an order for ack ack guns!

You are dating yourself, Level bust, the in word now is 'manpads'.

Out of date food scavenged from a smelly skip has been served to easyJet passengers, an ex-catering worker told the Mirror newspaper. He said that he was told to climb into a car park bin to find sandwiches because there was not enough food for an inflight meal order. The 10 packaged Bacon Bloomers were dusted down and unwittingly given to passengers on no-frills flights out of Luton Airport even though they were two or three days past sell-by dates.

After the tip off, the Mirror launched a surveillance operation and other staff at the world's largest inflight caterer, Gate Gourmet, confirmed that they had also reused discarded food. Another employee told them: ‘I wouldn't fly easyJet and I would never buy the food. We know how we did it.’

Neil Harding, 28, who worked at the Luton warehouse until January, added: ‘If there is a mix-up in the order and after things have been disposed of, they realise there is a problem with that day's delivery. That was when food was fished out of the bins and used a day or two later than it should be.’

Staff interviewed by the Mirror said that the firm could not cope after winning a contract in October to supply meals and drinks for up to 60 Luton easyJet flights a day. A worker at the plant - which operates under its old name Fernley Aviation despite being taken over by Gate Gourmet - said: ‘When we first started, anything happened, and we didn't give a **** if it was out of date.’ Another said: ‘The food is left for hours before it's put in the fridge. I wouldn't fly easyJet. Well, I might if I absolutely had to, but I wouldn't eat the food.’

Whistleblower Mr Harding also told the newspaper that some staff had not yet had criminal record checks as required by the Department of Transport. He said: ‘Food is packed in the warehouse and sent into the hold of the planes. It is therefore essential that no one could work there who could be considered a threat to security. This was not the case.’

After the Mirror confronted Gate Gourmet, is says that former employees were called at home by panicking bosses. The firm, which supplies food for 250 airlines including British Airways, said an urgent investigation had been launched.

Its spokesman told the Mirror: ‘Fernley has received no reports from employees about non-compliant activities, nor have there been any reports of expired products by airline crews or passengers. Safety and security are our highest priorities.’ And easyJet said: ‘We expect the highest of standards from all of our suppliers and are investigating.

Yummy...
 

:yuk:

How nice, at least we all now know to stop by Pret before any LTN flight if your gonna be feeling peckish:E

I believe there was an editorial error:

It should have read: 'Out of date food scavenged from a skip has been served to smelly easyJet passengers.' :p

Notice that today and on two others each week, Wizz have 6 arrivals into LTN in the space of 15mins between 0725 & 0740, the first being from Poznan. Other days it is 5 within 45 mins except sat when it is 4. Wizz really do seem to have made a great success at LTN.

Luton runway closed for about 35 mins; no arrivals had to divert; one departure had to refuel. What's "dinner time" got to do with anything Buster? Unlike their bretheren at various South Coast locales, the ATC guys at Luton don't have the splendour of subsidised restaurants and bijou coffee shops in which to laze about when they're at work... And according to London Terminal Control, 20 minutes holding still = "no delay" (try telling that to easyJet, Ryanair, SkyEurope, Wizzair, etc...) so the arrival "delay" was actually only about 15 minutes! :8

Shaheen
 

The revised start date for the Shaheen Air International flights to Pakistan was 30th March, now just over a week away.

Presumably this date will be missed?

Spirit
 

Anyone know what the SPIRIT Airbus is doing up on Stand 10?

Bought by ZB or maintenance?

JSW.

I believe it is a new aircraft for Monarch.

Changing the subject I see the North West Corner has 2 new lighting towers which are painted in orange and white stripes. Just goes to show how little there is going on at Luton these days when lighting towers catch my attention.

Leased by ZB, to be G-OZBR with ZB decals until re-paint. :ok:

It is outside until the aircraft in H7/8 departs, when its "C" check will continue to completion in H7/8.

First Luton post here for 2 weeks which must be a record. Just goes to show how little is going on.

Monarch Airlines' managing director Tim Jeans has condemned Luton airport for charging high aircraft parking fees, but failing to develop its potential.

Monarch’s managing director said the airline was charged £7,000 a day for every aircraft parked at the airport for more than 48 hours, compared with £1,000 at Manchester.

He added that money was not being invested into developing the airport by its owner, Luton Borough Council. The airport is managed and operated for the council by a private consortium.

Jeans claimed the terms of the agreement between the council and operator meant there was no incentive to develop its infrastructure.

“The lack of vision on the part of the council is a crying shame,” he said. “The terms of the franchise make it more advantageous for it to sweat the assets than to invest in the airport.

“The council should recognise its position as part of the London airport system and stop looking at creaming off £2 per plane that takes off.”

Jeans said Monarch was looking at other airports to use as a fifth base when it takes delivery of another Airbus A321 in August.

An airport spokeswoman said parking charges had been set to discourage airlines keeping aircraft at the airport because it was congested at peak times.

Poor chap sounds a bit confused! "£2 per plane that takes off" would yield just over £100,000 per year, and you don't get a lot of infrastructure for a sum like that.

Come to think of it - why should Luton Borough Council pay for developments at an airport that they have franchised out to another body? Or does Tim Jeans think that LBC could do a better job of developing the airport by running it directly from the Town Hall.

Many people have made their views clear on that issue in previous posts, calling the Councillors idiots, clowns, etc. That always did sound rather harsh, but the task of running an airport is probably beyond the skills of the average local politician.

antilla wrote What:confused::confused::confused: Think you need a basic maths lesson. Try £10 million per year or £100 million over the next 10 years


Your missing the point. Due to the franchise agreement heavy investment can only take place in the initial years, which will allow a sufficient payback period before the franchise holder has the walk away. We have already past that point so say goodbye to any major investment. The bad news is that there is still another 20 years to run on the current agreement.

No, LTNman, I don't need a maths lesson. I think that you need a reading lesson!

The 2006 Annual Monitoring Report, the latest currently available, shows that there were close to 58,000 departing aircraft in 2006. At "£2 per plane that takes off", that amounts to £116,000 in 2006.

I know, and you know, that this is nowhere near the true figure - so I was just pointing out that Tim Jeans (if correctly quoted) seems to have got his figures in a twist.

I'll give you that one :8 That will teach me not to be so smug

But eh I think you will find it is £2 per Passenger and not the mis-print of £2 per aircraft

How very sad that the only postings about Luton in over two weeks concern the age-old issue of LBC vs. LLAO, and a rather ill-tempered exchange between two PPRuNe contributors.

As for the Concession having 20 years left to run, I think you'll find that in about six years time, there will be an almighty movement of tectonic plates in the Luton area causing a number of tiles to fall off the Town Hall's roof... :hmm: