Certainly at BHX , the Airport figures being quoted are a lot higher than actual figures. Have seen huge numbers of cancellations on Turkish routes in the last few days alone

The official figures are out together with a breakdown of passenger types. 820,828 is indeed the figure so have the CAA got it wrong?

https://www.london-luton.co.uk/Londo...3134fa61a5.pdf

BHX figures are always in line with the CAA ones

Ok, so you agree with me that there's plenty to criticise. I'm interested to see what's going on at the airport. Nobody is suggesting censorship of any points, what a bizarre conclusion to have drawn. The point is that the specific point has already been made multiple times. When somebody posts a comment and then slips in an otherwise unrelated paragraph at the end of the post that just repeats that the council is doing X and the locals are impacted by Y but using a different order of words, what's that adding? I'm sure we all want to read more and see the issue exposed, but it's difficult to ignore so much frequent repetition of the same point - it becomes unreadable.

That approach is now starting to copied by somebody randomly throwing unrelated comments about "spotters" (I assume, they think that to not want repetition in debate is somehow the sign of being a spotter though I would have thought anyone spending days watching plane at Luton will be exposed to multiple easyJet and Wizz and so they're quite open to a bit of repetition). It's a bit like how political debate has now been reduced to people just labelling/dismissing others as 'left' or 'right' so they don't have to actually engage their brain in an adult conversation.

Anyway, apologies for derailing this thread further. I haven't worked into Luton for many a year but have been rather amazed at how much its visibly changed since the last time that I did. And if I can't see the wood for the trees in the content of the typed comments, the photo updates are nonetheless of real interest and I'll return just to check for those.

I missed this report from June. Seems the new Luton Airport Express train service, which continues on to Corby has been put back until May 2021. It was meant to start in December.

https://www.harborough-rail.org.uk/h...ory/timetables

Also noticed last week that the Dart trackbed now has a dedicated tracked two car yellow maintenance vehicle running on it that is being used for trackside work. The vehicle looks like a self powered trolly with a cab and trailer.

Other old Dart news that I don’t remember reporting regards the Council now becoming a transport operator.
LLAL claim they have no staff with the Council providing the management for LLAL. Does this mean this will change next year with LLAL employing staff directly? I don’t think so.

Does it mean the Council will provide the staff? Again unlikely.

Will the existing Thameslink staff operating the shuttle bus be subject to a Tupe? Don’t know.

Will LLAL put out the staff required to tender so it is staffed by a third party company? Very likely, so expect more zero hour minimum wage contracts at the airport, as the work will go out to the bidder with the lowest staff costs.

CAPA reporting today

London Luton Airport launches consultation on changes to annual passenger capacity

Behind paid firewall so cannot see detail. The +18M pax limit I assume.

Wouldn’t think this relevant or worthwhile at present!

This is exactly the time to try to raise the capacity limit. Apart from the most emphatic of protesters, most locals will give this less attention than they would otherwise, thinking that more flights won't happen for years and thus not worth getting involved in the fight

Agreed. When the public is looking the other way, they are less likely to object vociferously.

Let’s make one thing clear, it doesn’t matter if the entire population of the UK wrote in and objected it would still get passed, which makes the so called consultation a total farce and an affront to the democratic process. The Council has already publicly stated they want 32 million passengers so this is just part of that process, which the Council will decide themselves.

Supporters and objectors alike should just do nothing, as writing in will make no difference to the outcome. I can even tell you now how the vote will go, even down to the actual votes and who will vote for and against.

Manoeuvres in the dark of course.

Luton Council attempting to add paper value to the real estate...(as with most airports in the South)

Perhaps will take more though to escape the financial & legal quagmire the airport is in.

Without having to rehearse all the reasonings again if the proposal is for 32m the decision making process will/would be taken out of Council hands.

The consultation and application is being put in by the airport operator ( LLAOL) and not the airport owner (LLAL) but have no doubt who is pulling the strings.

I have had a 2 minute read and found this bizarre claim.

So they don't intend to provide any extra overnight stands? Let's remember that in normal times there are no spare stands and LLAOL have already announced plans to build another 6 pack apron and alter the run up bay for 2 extra stands. Regarding the overcrowded terminal, which is often standing room only, I have seen the outline plans for a terminal extension running at a 45 degree angle at the front of the terminal and have published them here I think last year.

Honesty is something that doesn't comes easy at Luton, as there will be two more applications to increase the total to either 22million or 22.5 million passengers, as that is the latest calculation that has been made as the true capacity of the CTA. Remember that 12m, 16m and 18m have already been stated as the airports maximum capacity within its existing boundary. The increases are being calculated by reducing the passenger comfort level with extreme amounts of overcrowding planned. The terminal extension is very modest, as the bus station will not be moved. It will add a few more check-in desks but I have not seen any plans to add baggage belts or increase the immigration hall, which are located at the back of the terminal. If the statement about no physical development is true then the terminal extension will go in at around 20m with the airport drip feeding modest applications to avoid a possible DCO for the CTA so they can approve their own applications.

My own conjecture was based on the previously mentioned figure of 32mppa.
The above then is a very modest squeezing of facilities or more evidently of the passengers.

32mppa is with T2, 22.5mppa is still only using existing T1

32mppa/T2 a distant planning & pre Covid dream.
T1 ? being THE terminal then with a modest squeeze excepting perhaps a larger one on the suffering customer.

Only expansion outside the boundary will be part of the DCO excluding the dual carriageway to a second terminal, which was sneaked in via an unrelated application by LLAL and will be funded directly by the Council and not LLAL except they have no money. As can be seen some applications come from the concessionaire (LLAOL) while others come via the airport owner (LLAL). As I said a few posts back all three, including the Council, are as thick as thieves.

Even that figure is BS as the true figure is 36m and always has been. It was only reduced to save the cost of upgrading the M1. If they get planning permission for 32m they will eventually put in an application to bring it back to 36m so avoiding a bill for the M1.

"When the tide goes out"...as Mr Buffet famously said.

Perhaps the whole shebang is in great danger of being caught out financially & politically now the good times are over.

Ok I have made a mistake in my claim that the airports true figure was 36 million passengers and not 32 million so I apologise. It was actually up to 38 million as LLAL forgot to remove this old press release.

https://www.llal.org.uk/press-release.html

Chuckles...

Perhaps the whole shebang is in great danger of being caught out financially & politically now the good times are over.

We can only hope!....scrutiny isn't a word LLAL & LBC even come close to understanding!

There is an outstanding complaint to the Information Commissioners Office that the Council is refusing to answer Freedom of Information Requests about whether the Council followed key legal principles regarding the Dart, as it is a significant project that needs to satisfy HM Treasury Business Case guidelines including the Commercial Case, Strategic Case, Economic Case, Financial Case and Management Case.

For some strange reason they are refusing to answer the question stating it is confidential so yet another secret is being kept from the Council taxpayers. Now why would that be? The suspicion is that it doesn’t meet the requirements and they don’t want to admit it.

Interesting stuff. If the council are forced to answer the questions it should make for interesting answers.

Looking back on old posts brings up the following points (sorry Manx):

Up front costs of existing service to the council. £0
Up front costs of Dart service to the council £243m

Running costs of existing service to the council £0
Running costs of Dart service to the council £££

Terminal capacity of Luton Airport without Dart service. 18m passengers.
Terminal capacity of Luton Airport with Dart service. 18m passengers.

Average existing travel time. 6 minutes
Average published Dart travel time. 5 minutes

Cost per second for each second saved. £4m

Reasons to build. To help DCO application. Could be needed one day subject to DCO approval so worth a gamble it will be approved. To remove building costs burden for the new airport operator for the first stage to the existing terminal if a second terminal was approved. To improve passenger perceptions before arriving at overcrowded terminal which could lead to a zero passenger gain based on 2019 passenger levels.

I can see the reluctance of answering the FoIR. I am sure there are positive reasons to build including our excitement here but would it meet HM Treasury requirements?

19 mppa
 

Luton 19mppa Consultation - Home
Just to enable EZY to switch 319s to 320 and WUK 320s to 321 without breaching 18M limits and good times come back, asumming no capacity loss to the likes of LGW with now Norwegian added to the list of casualties their. My thoughts, are Red Nose giving up or selling their LGW slots?

As others have said, the jumps to 20.5 - 22M mppa will need at least the NE 6 pack and terminal extensions in place.

Greetings all. With the sad demise of Monarch Engineering, which Boeing/Airbus MROs are still on the field? Cheers!

Deception and lies come to mind. Why can't the application for 19m just be honest, as even if it was honest it would still be passed by the planning committee who know what is expected of them by their Council masters? Why are they putting in applications at 1m at a time and not just put an application in for 22.5m when even an application for 22.5m would still be passed, as that is below the Councils aim of 38m?

As we all know, night flights have been reduced in the summer period, as it breached the night noise contour lines. The application to increase the noise contour lines is so that both day and night flights can be increased so removing the ban on business jets and other one off flights at night.

One thing LLAOL/LLAL/Council is not and that is transparent.

What they mean is that the airport owner will decide the application. Conflict of interest seeing the Council has never ever turned an application down involving expanding the airport. I would think Heathrow and Gatwick would love it if their owners could approve planning applications.

Which will not make any difference.

Yet they have announced separate plans last year to build a new apron, which was delayed due to Covid. They have already claimed this new apron is part of the old proposal to expand the airport to 18m but was never built. This means they will build it but will claim it is not required for 19m so can't be classed as new physical development. Well I have a full set of plans for that application and this proposed apron is not on it.

Spot the missing apron. The only missing development that was never built is the area in red as this was the final phase for 18 million. This new missing apron is required for 19m, we all know that here but Jo Public doesn't. As I said at the top of the post, lies and deception and all in an attempt to reduce the numbers replying to the consultation. Why they think they need to do this is a mystery when any plan will be passed but there is a mind set at the airport that has deep roots.
https://i.imgur.com/cSQ9Bfy.jpg

Greetings all. With the sad demise of Monarch Engineering, which Boeing/Airbus MROs are still on the field? Cheers!

Boeing 737/757/767/787 - TUI H61 (heavy checks) - No third party
Airbus narrow body - EZY H89 (minor checks only) - No third party

Wizz - Storm Aviation (Line only)
Ryanair - (Line only)

Looks like EL AL resumes Luton operations on March 1st 2021

Looking at the Planning Portal they were no longer including the Signature stands 16/17/80/81 for airlines so the new 6 pack is actually no extra overnight capacity so has no link to the 19mppa.
Anyhow it is all history as it was approved so can be actioned upon when needed.

pabely
Yes I know where you are coming from, as LLAOL used the same reasoning in the past to justify the new apron.

The best way to think about it is that someone builds a 5 bedroom house but decides to use a bedroom as a study, as it isn't needed as a bedroom. Later the owners decide they now do need 5 bedrooms but want to keep the study. As they already had planning permission to build a 5 bedroom house they just build an extension to give them back 5 bedrooms but without applying for new planning permission.

Now substitute 5 bedrooms for 5 aprons and LLAOL now want a 6th. LLAOL plan to build a new apron to give them a capacity of 18 million passengers except they already have that capacity but then claim it is not needed for 19 million passengers.

As for the owners of the house they now have a 6 bedroom house but claim it only has 5 bedrooms.

The statement that there will be no physical changes is wrong. As I keep saying lies and deception in my opinion, which isn't needed, as a blank piece of paper would be passed by the planners at Luton because they are not willing to say no to any airport planning application.

As for the new apron, it hasn't been approved, as it doesn't need planning permission, even though it has never shown up on any plans submitted to planning to build it.

LTNman Check out Planning application 19/01683/GPDOPD - supporting documents STAND PROVISION FUTURE LAYOUT vs STAND PROVISION EXISTING LAYOUT
Plans are in the public domain but in the top right hand corner of each PDF it does state total Stand counts rising from 43 to 47! I put this down to the loss of stands 16/17/80/81 which would have been -4

It still doesn't need planning permission, as per the case officers report so won't be applied for.
The question to consider is are the proposed 8 new stands needed for expansion above 18 million or are they maintaining the status quo seeing that stands 80 and 81 have never been Code C stands and only 3 Code C stands from 16/17 will be taken over by Signature and moved to the east of taxiway Foxtrot. The airport will still end up with 5 new stands.

”Not worth getting involved in the fight.”

It appears to me that all the constant negative comments in this forum are due to this forum having been taken over by activists!

Lee Baker Street.

I hear LLAL have sent you another personal letter wanting details about who owns your house. Did you reply or ignore? Could I suggest that this should be of a concern for you as only certain areas and people considered special have been targeted and there is a reason for that.

There are no activists on this forum just supporters. Legitimate issues and questions are raised, as they deserve answers. Whether people here like the questions, the often healthy debate and even the answers is another question. I accept you are not one that likes some posts and there will be others that have the same views.

All large public facing organisations run propaganda machines while suppressing information. LLAL/LLAOL/LBC are no different, as all three like to control the agenda. This forum can sometimes give an alternative view, which folk here are free to ignore.

Lee Baker Street...In the last week or so you have accused those who are critical of the current financial situation between LLAL & LBC as being both Liberal Democrat supporters and activists! I am am neither and instead have always 100% supported of the airport which has provided me with a long term decent job.

Rather than resorting to name-calling because you don't like the narrative, why don't you put forward some reasoned arguments in support of the current stance that is being adopted by by LBC & LLAL so we can debate the issues. Clearly, Covid has had a dramatic effect on the whole industry but it has also exposed in all its gory detail the financial transactions that LBC would definitely prefer its local residents are kept in the dark about! Why is that?.....unfortunately the expand at any cost argument just doesn't stack up any more! (not that it ever did!)

19m passengers, by 2030? This winter will see annihilation of the aviation sector in the northern hemisphere. Covid-19 surfaced at back end of last winter. Covid-19 loves the cold, so what we have seen March-October are the foundations of numerous future airline failures, more downsizing and airports finally giving up and closing for good. Even when a vaccine is available, it might need boosters every 6 months. Bookmark this page and see if Buster and his Crystal Ball foretold the future correctly? I'll also wager that LBC are taken into 'Special Measures?'

The CAA have confirmed that the airport told them that 622,035 passed though Luton in August despite LLAOL claiming that the actual figure was 820,828. CAA figures are always higher than LLAOL figures due to the inclusion of infants so this is a first. Seeing the LLAOL figures are quite detailed it seems strange that such a precise incorrect figure was sent to the CAA.

i will have a definitive answer next month as to what has happened.

I suspect the application by the concessionaire (LLAOL) is being pushed by the airport owner (LLAL) so it can be banked even through LLAOL might never see the day when it is needed before the concession runs out.

LLAOL have yet to build the missing taxiway by runway 25 to increase the runway capacity and need a new apron for 19 million. Both projects are on indefinite delay so with the ticking clock on having to hand the airport back, the time to get their money back on future projects is decreasing by the day.

Got to say, used LTN for the first time this week, arrived from GLA wed night, departing back there shortly, and the experience has been great. Seamless transfer to Parkway Station and through security in less than 2 mins at 1pm on a Friday.
A lot of cleaners to be seen too, well done!:ok:

LTN pax traffic 575,000 in September marking a drop of 66%.

I wonder what figures will be sent to the CAA as either passengers are 50,000 down on August of down around 250,000.