I think you are close to the mark with your drawing although you have shown a supersized terminal around 4 times the size of the 1999 terminal. In reality for another 18 million passengers the new terminal would be much smaller.

Very surprised not to see Gibraltar added next summer.

So was I but I'm sure these new routes were well into planning before MON went under so maybe later? Some ex-MON Luton based crew would have been useful here but EZY are looking at more leased airbuses so perhaps waiting for them to be secured.

2018
 

Next year there will be over 30 new services as Wizz have yet to announce their new routes and Easy has not yet finalised their programme.

If Thomas Cook have a good summer then they might consider a winter operation?

I agree with LTNman that your terminal is far too big, by reducing its size would allow for piers to be built with stands for between 18 and 24 A/C.

Lee Baker Street...
A very healthy figure stated for new services to be started how does the MON demise affect that number?.

Yay Reus! Nice to have some choice other than Ryanair and Jet2

SSB -

afaik MON only served a couple of destinations from LTN without competition, those being Stockholm (recently) and Gibraltar.

In mid-November Wizz announced new destinations of Larnaca (ex-MON), Tirana, Bratislava, Talinn and Lviv. Ten days later, they announced the acquisition of the MON slots, so presumably there is more to come.

Not all of them, just some. Just a thought I wonder if Wizz might start Athens as they are going to expand their services from there next year.

Thanks for the response & info LGS6753.
Will be interesting how numbers in ALL categories will compare 2018 over 2017.

So with the LLAL/council looking ahead 30 years to 2050 with a new masterplan for next summer what happens in 2020 when the airport is probably full again?

Wonder if we'll see the pier added for the south apron but the possibility of jetways being introduced to the existing terminal seems very slim. I'll eat humble pie if they do but Luton cannot simply survive with low-cost airlines, way too much competition then. We'll need to see a wider markets opened up. As said before, Luton would be able to operate 787's since they have better takeoff performance from shorter runways and Bristol clearly shows that with TUI doing transatlantic from Bristol's 6,500 ft runwayand Luton's is just under 500ft longer so can't see why that couldn't be done. Also the A32Xneo series also have better takeoff performance so destinations further afield should be achieveable.

As I was saying about Jetways, they'd bring a much wider variety into Luton therefore the airport will be able to reach its full potential. Even if they added 2/3 to pier A then a couple to pier B it'd be better than none surely. We'll just have to wait and see though what happens.

Still more pain before gain.

Herts not to happy https://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/op...ncil-1-8287630

Is this an ideal time for Herts to come onboard in some way and bring in Bucks.

Beds already working with Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire & Cambridgeshire on The Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford (CaMkOx) arc so is this ideal time for infrastructure powerhouse???

Same old, same old from Herts CC. Wonder how many who live in Hertfordshire fly from Luton? Quite a lot I would imagine.

Yes, I do !

When I did there were plenty of neighbours who were drivers, crew, airport cleaners, chauffeur drivers and engineers, many still are.
Herts CC sometimes forgets that LLA is a big employer. When BAe closed Hatfield airport many found employment at Luton.
Hatfield now could have been the FAB of North London and the likes of Signature, Harrods and others could have been consolidated there freeing up slots, but I won't start up about that little bit of history.

With you with the sentiment at least if only as it has become the standard universal,seen everywhere,housing & business style park.
Several historic buildings listed happily.
A FAB sandwiched tho between LTN & STN would have been "interesting" however in ATC terms.

Monarch demise
 

The fact is southside, the demise of Monarch (who was actually my favorite airline) will have no bearing on next years figures, in the sense from now on Luton will maintain continued growth. Whilst approximately 870,000 passengers have been lost, Ltn's other airlines operating to most of Monarchs routes will carry them instead.

Wizzair has yet to announce new routes.

EasyJet has more aircraft to be based at Luton. I anticipate A/C 24 will join the fleet soon (unless it is already here), and a further 6 more over a couple of years.

LGW and LHR are possibly so saturated that only STN and LTN can offer any further growth in this region.

The only thing that has 'ever' stopped LTN's development is finance and imagination! But the tide is now turning. The most important factor is that jobs will be produced that will benefit the unemployed from Harpenden to Henlow, St Albans to Silsoe, Luton to Loughton, Stevenage to Sandy and all the other towns, villages and hamlets local to the airport.

Towards the end of activity at Hatfield Luton radar effectively handled the inbounds.

In coming years outbounds wouldn't be a problem either. Surely we will have all tower ops at say Swanick within15 years with visibility provided by cctv.

I remember it well and the ATC boys did a good job keeping the VFR traffic away from multiple inbounds to Luton 26 & Hatfield's 24 when they were all buzzing the Brookmans Park Stack or transiting to Elstree.
I remember on busy days Hatfield's inbounds were directed to Barkway rather than attempting VFR!

You forgot to mention Latvia, Poland etc. I trip on the staff bus reveals most of the jobs don't go to the locals but to Eastern Europeans who will work for less.

But don't they live in UK, pay UK taxes and spend money locally?

Much the same as the Auf Wiedersehen, Pet years when the Brits invaded Germany & Spain, were they working for less than those locals?

I agree there is growth still & for 2018 but I am genuinely confused about the carve up of the MON "space" at LTN & wonder in some posts if there is a mistaken double counting factor at present.
Other issues stopping LTN`s development have been/are the very important factors of actual physical constraint & national & very importantly local politics.All well rehearsed tho in the forum with local politics already in the news again.
But anyways an interesting 2018 for STN & LTN....Happy days.

The difference between say Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton is that Luton is owned by its council so will always have the full support of the council as they get much of the profits. This is why there are never any public inquiries regarding the airport.

Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted expansion is opposed by their councils so get bogged down for years in public inquiries.

LTNman.

Yes elements of reality there but totally in the case of Luton Council as you state.

However say in the case of STN,Uttlesford District Council responsible for planning is on side nowadays after major long running public enquiries which approved growth to 35m together with all the required infrastructure & are only overseers nowadays regarding build within the boundary.

They will shortly however be approached for permission to go to 43.5m.MAG are conducting local presentations for feedback & have already amended the new max fig once.

I would hazard to suggest that a doubling of LTN`s traffic as per aspirations would be a decision that may well be removed from Luton Council`s remit this time so would go to a major planning enquiry...which as you imply takes many years & did in STN`s case.

I believe the latest growth to 18m at LTN only escaped major scrutiny/inquiry last time because of & with as you say support from the Council & then effectively being nodded thru by the relevant Government Minister.

National/Governmental politics I mentioned has always favoured the growth of STN & therefore has constrained LTN in the past.

With local politics I was really referring to Hertfordshire County Council in whose jurisdiction any logical breakout from LTN`s airfield boundary would be thus requiring their permission...& that ain`t never gonna happen.

As it stands HCC has already made statements this week to protect Herts residents from noise from LTN.

But overall growth & aspired growth for both STN & LTN can only be a good thing.

The airport now have control of Wigmore Valley Park to the north and east of the airport. No consultation with the park users, which was given to the community 40 years ago but was managed by the council. This is where any expansion will go and not to the south.

Never saw that coming :E

Right O..
Yes I have noticed your mentions of the Wigmore Park area concerning different aspects of the airport site.
Interesting then..

https://i.imgur.com/IxciS7z.jpg

The blue areas are the enterprise zones all controlled by the airport. Zone 1B is most of Wigmore Park apart from the northern edge. The land is flat and at the same height as the rest of the airport. Zone 1C is the long term car park and Zone 1D is due to get a second taxiway. If zone 1C and 1D became airside then the airport would gain another 40 odd stands and a new terminal thus doubling the size of the airport.

If the DART link carried on in a straight line the next stop would be Wigmore Park.

Any development to the north the Alpha taxiway will inhibit ground movements unless an additional taxiway is created north of Alpha. To shift 50 movements per hour requires numerous RETs and taxiways and not the Bravo extension cheap option.

They might not even want 38 million passengers and 50 flights an hour. In any negotiations you initially ask for more than you want and then settle for what you really want which could be a lot less.

Fundamentally, the same problem exists whether it is 20 million or 38 million passengers per year, the entire taxiway system must be substantially upgraded. Adding another terminal north of the runway compounds the problem. Once you get interaction of inbound and outbound flights, taxiway delays are inevitable, thus the use as an example, of inner and outer taxiways.

Maybe why we never heard anything about a Southern pier serving Stands 20 - 23?

There are three places where a new terminal could go. Within the CTA on the only patch of ground left which is next to the proposed second multistory. It could then have a simple pier to the south stands and use the existing station for the DART and drop off area.

On the negative side the CTA can't cope with 15 million passengers let alone 38 million. All the other new stands required would have to linked by a tunnel or bridge across taxiways Delta and Foxtrot.

The other locations are either in the long term car park for a smaller development or inside Wigmore Park for the biggy but both these locations contain the towns former rubbish dump and are very toxic.

Also the local residents who bought homes knowing that a large park sat between them and the airport will kick off big time if the airport use the park although the airport would get away with a smaller development if it stayed within the airport boundary.

Eilat
 

Easyjet are rumoured to be at Eilat airport considering opening flights. Do wonder if this could be another route for LTN in the winter months and will take over from the ZB service.

The 2 old Eilat airports are due to be closed soon and replaced by the new single Eilat airport. The problem is that while not on the scale of Berlin, Eilat's new airport is somewhat delayed and there are various issues yet to be resolved around its day-to-day operation. If I was in the Easyjet team looking at Eilat, I would want to understand very carefully the plans for the new airport to be sure it would definitely be open by autumn 2018

I see a total of 24 easyJet aircraft are needed for their first wave tomorrow. I must try to get out more!

Start of school get away!

Not for another few days.

Thomas Cook
 

Looks as though the Thomas Cook base for Summer'18 must have been nothing but a knee jerk reaction to Monarch going under as would appear to no longer be happening! Nothing but a few W patterns left in their booking system.

Maybe they couldn't get the aircraft to operate it but presumably it will just become another overnight aircraft absorbed by expansion from EasyJet or Wizz.