No not at all, just councils are nearer to the ground than westminster, they are the ones who approve planning applications and have to deal with local business.

I gather the pressure group's claim that Luton Borough Council decide on a planning application, on err.... LBC's own asset, is not the case?

I see that Google street view has been updated at the airport and now includes the CTA. In the view work is about to begin on Ocean Sky's new FBO.

Concrete is now finally being poured for the new Ocean Sky ramp.

The old Britannia Admin building was also recently partially demolished around here.....Plenty of airport history disappearing recently:hmm:

Half the building was only knocked down last week with the other half staying. I was going to take some photos this weekend but I am away. I will post some next week when I am back home.

http://i48.tinypic.com/344bc4w.jpg

Here you go.....taken when the grabber was in action! The building has been pulled down as far as the entrance area (8 windows to the left)

So when was that originally constructed?

I recal visiting the Britannia building verious times with my father who would collect his wages. That period was about 1976/1977 so the building was there then.

Some of you may recall the large Boeing 737 model on show in the 1st floor window with the models top removed and showing the cabin interior?

150M capacity!
 

OMG! Who has submitted these plans, not the council or the operator....:rolleyes:
Heathrow battle: How Luton could be
Or just a way to sell newspapers?

Pabely,

No one can deny Luton is best positioned and with so few homes around this site- south of the current location why shouldn't Luton be considered?

We have M1, M25, 4 train tracks and only 21 minutes by fast train from London west end.

The only thing I would change is re-aligning the 4 runways to 09/27 headings then Stevenage would no longer be direct under the flight path!

Yes I agree 09/27 would be much better but hits some other villages but between Stevenage & Welwyn. This only has a chance if Herts & Bucks get on-board (and a slice of the profits).......assuming LBC remain as leasor?
The additional of M1/A1(M) full link and further railway upgrades to bring easy access from west & north is a must.

It's all pie in the sky though!

Is that really Luton I'm looking at in the picture?! :oh:

Supposedly the Evening Standard is a "quality" newspaper, but some of those comments are disgusting. :mad:

Dannyboy39 - Isn't the Evening Standard just reporting (albeit somewhat after the event) the report that is referenced in post 31 and debated by many in subsequent posts. Or am I deluded??:confused:

This seems a very similar proposal, but the source quoted by the Standard is a design company, whereas the original report was from a think-tank.

5 runway Luton
 

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/402/1080746921.jpg

As can be seen 4 new runways south of the existing runway on the flatlands of Hertfordshire. So that’s 2 proposals now in less than a month. Artists impression taken from above junction 10 of the M1

Green runways - nice!

Existing runway for bizjets, using revamped terminal exclusively for corporate paxs ?????????

From Travel Mole:

Monarch allows extra bag on board scheduled flights

Monarch has increased its hand baggage allowance from one to two bags in response to customer demand.
From 1 November, passengers can carry up to two pieces, for example a cabin bag and a handbag, or a small overnight bag and a laptop bag.
But the two bags together must still not exceed the dimensions of 56cm x 40cm x 25cm and a weight of 10kg.
On board, one of these items must be placed under the seat in front whilst the other can be placed in the overhead locker.
New gauges will be installed at airports to help passengers check their baggage is within the size range.
The new allowance applies to all of Monarch's scheduled flights, except those departing London Luton Airport where only one item of hand baggage measuring 56cm x 40cm x 25cm may be carried due to airport operator regulations.
The hand baggage allowance for Monarch charter flights (those with a flight number beginning MON) remains unchanged at 5kg and the dimensions should not exceed 56cm x 40cm x 25cm.
"Our passengers have told us how important it is for them to be allowed two items and, working with our airport partners, we have been able to change our policy to suit them," said Kevin George, Monarch Airlines MD.

What's that all about? :=

Only one piece of hand luggage per person can go through security at Luton as 2 pieces takes twice as long to pass though the X-ray machine.

Luton 2006 plans but with 2 runways.

1 is the existing CTA
2 was the proposed drop off terminal
3 was the proposed new terminal


http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/1234/4runways.png

October snow! Can't remember that happening before.

2008 - LTNMan. I remember it well, going to an LTFC game and being abandoned after 7 minutes.

Ocean Sky
 

Photo taken looking across what was the flying club building and car park.

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9126/p1030134t.jpg

Taken from what was the old green hangar

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/7757/p1030136k.jpg

Britannia's old building has been filled in on the ground floor and gained a canopy.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1511/p1030140i.jpg

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1143/p1030138p.jpg


Ocean Sky's other apron has been redesigned

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9739/p1030146xw.jpg

Was Buster's friend also having a look?

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2701/p1030148i.jpg

Imposter the Bear! A limited cull is required!
Great images LTNman, looks like quite a lot more apronage to park bizjets?

Interesting use for the old 'Pizza Hut'!

I guess it won't be long before the 10ft high wooden sound barrier fences go up thus cutting off the views from landside of these aprons forever.

Bring back the flying club!!!

Exciting times at LTN. Good luck with the developments, hopefully just in time for the eventual improvement in the economic cycle. The five runway scheme looks somewhat fanciful; what's the chances of a second runway, do you think....?

A full length single runway would help.

Full length runway needed?

Why, has it shrunk with all the rain this year?

It looked the same length when I took off on it this morning!

By the time you landed it was 2ft shorter!

A proper full length taxiway would be a good start! The length of the runway can be restrictive for some services.

Alloy, had the runway have been extended years ago, then I am sure the airport would have surpassed the 18 mpa figure already!

I estimate (from Google Earth) that perimeter fence to fence from each end of the runway there is approximately 9000 feet. Surely with a bit of landscaping they could extend the runway to at least 8000 feet? This would leave runway 08 end to still have a stop area, and 26 end to have a ramp built containing the lighting system and being used as a stop way (if ever required)?

The difference of 1000 feet could make 787's viable?

There are many runways that are built on not the most forgiving topography, (Funchal/Madeira on stilts, Huesca on top of earth terraces both spring to mind), where there is a will there is a way to get around the constraints of the topography that would open up other posabilities but the lack of a full length taxiway indicates there is not a will.

Really???

While airports like Stansted may have achieved this figure, it is nothing to do with the runway length.

I've just plucked a figure out of thin air, but I would say about 98+% of their traffic could be serviced from a runway the same length as Luton! Especially when you consider both airports are currently operating the same sort of traffic. Low cost carriers which operate 737 and A320 family aircraft, and charter traffic up to 757 size...

Stansted does have a healthy cargo business that attracts MD-11's and 747's, but there is no more than a handful of them a day. The rest being A300's, 737, 757 and 767, which LTN can already serve.

The long haul traffic STN has attracted in the past was Continental with a 757 to Newark, which could easily operate out of Luton. Bristol has a shorter runway that LTN and they use to host a similar service a few years back.

The other long haul traffic, has been and gone and couldn't be sustained, for example Air Asia X service to Kula Lumpa with a an A340-300, and American Airlines to Chicago with a 767-300 (which with some restrictions could operate from LTN).

Luton would have the same issues with Long Haul traffic as Stansted does.

Birmingham is in the process of extending its runway to 9-10,000ft. They are hopeful this will attract further long haul routes. I'd be interested to know who that is, which cannot already utilise their existing 8500ft runway?

Emirates and PIA already operate 777-200/300's from the existing runway. The only candidate I can think of is, Emirates upgrading to the A380. But an extra length runway just for their use, seems a little extravagant.

If other airlines want to operate further distant routes, I would expect these to be opened up with 767/787/A330 which could all operate from the existing runway.

I agree with gilesdavies. For the amount of money it would cost in building the extra length I can’t see them getting their money back in the short to medium term or even the long term. As it is most aircraft now depart from the intersections and don’t even use the full 2160m.

Luton does not have the space to increase the size of the cargo stands so the cargo airlines would not use a longer runway very often and I can’t see that much if any demand from the airlines to operate long haul passenger services as there isn’t that much demand from Stansted.

The performance of the 787 makes long haul a possibility, but not with APD being so high. A parallel extension to each end and more stands will enhance the hourly movement rate especially with Stansted in mortal decline.

Whoever buys Essex International is going to have some hefty interest repayments over the longer term!

What difference would a 2,500m runway make compared to the existing 2,160m runway? Not a lot to be honest. The benefits don't outweight the costs.

-Monarch could possibly start operating some A330 services? Or whatever long haul aircraft they could lease in the long term?
-Thomson could operate a couple of B787 services? Although I thought the purpose of the B787 was to operate from a wider range of airports with bottlenecks such as this?
-easyJet, Wizz Air and Ryanair certainly aren't going to operate heavy aircraft types anytime soon. Definitely not Flybe.
-El Al operate B777s occasionally. Won't require a full fuel tank anyway. I doubt El Al would want to be operating their B747s out of Luton.

A bigger issue is probably wingspan restrictions.

Would think anything too big would go on to the South stands. No problem there in parking a couple of 747's at the same time, as they have done it already in the past.

Even with the proposed new extended taxiways that almost reach the end of the runway would the runway rate be any higher if they went right to the end of the runway as next to nothing would backtrack.

The South stands aren't exactly ideal though are they? Not yet anyway until they extend a pier that far south. Its a lot of bussing around to the main terminal; one of the masterplan's cornerstones is to increase the number of contact stands. (I also don't understand why the airport hasn't put at least 6 airbridges on Pier A and plan more on the proposed Pier B).

Thomson and Monarch for instance may want to make use of their Boeing Goldcare arrangements by doing heavy B787 maintenance in H60, H127 and H61 rather than at some of their outstations.