Not much of a diversion, Seen a Norwegian and a British Airways, both from the States, DY diverted to CPH and BA is on its way to FRA, both we’re heading to LGW. :eek:

The Wizzair Poznan-Luton has diverted to Newcastle!

Also an STN-bound FR from Sweden currently heading somewhere in France

Really not bad at all up here , dry and a slight breeze.

Wizz Air from Cracow diverted to BHX
https://www.newsflare.com/video/3378...ara-crosswinds
SS

I see it installed wrong way round. I believe on 3D rendering was also other way round.

The superstructure is being covered in scaffolding again after being covered when it was by the Ibis. I assume for the painting of the 5 shades of grey to a single grey.

There has been some debate here whether the consent sort by LLAOL to add new stands were more than the 48 originally approved in the 2015 planning application.

I have provided the evidence submitted by LLAOL that they consider they are still within the existing limit with the existing stand layout of 43 stands and the proposed layout of 47 stands. Seems that cargo stands don't count.

As can be seen stands 16-19 will revert back to Signature and will be called just stand 16.

In the original application Signature stand 80 was meant to be 3 terminal stands and stand 80 was meant to be 1 terminal stand . Also on the hangar line there was one extra stand making 48 in total plus cargo.

Now
https://i.imgur.com/ejhy6FP.jpg

Proposed
https://i.imgur.com/ozi717z.jpg

Have stands 80/81 and Cargo ever been used for sheduled Aircraft? I did imply on a previous post about stand 16 going back to Signature full time.

Ocean Sky put in the planning application for stands 80 and 81 in 2013. They then appeared on the airports expansion plans for terminal stands. I have never seen either stand used for terminal passengers although I have seen an easyjet parked on there once. Cargo stands have been used for diverted passenger aircraft but then so has taxiway extension to Taxiway Bravo

NOT wanting to start a LTN v STN war ..... just a heads up that El AL are reintroducing TLV-STN-TLV services from June, they appear to be complimentary to the Luton services not "instead of" and are bookable on the EL AL website.

I think it should be posted on the Luton thread, if only to stop the questions regarding a possible airport switch, I think it a very relevant post.

EL AL are dipping their toes back into Stansted because they cannot get extra flights into Luton due to seat capping at Luton. Also there could be an argument that there is less competition.

Slots at Heathrow are traded for money. Is there any reason why slots at Luton should not be bought/sold ? Yes, I know people would have laughed at the idea 5 years ago

I'm wondering if the likes of Vueling or SunExpress might be persuaded to move to Stansted in exchange for some cash from El Al...

The cap is only expected to last this year with a planning application from the council’s business partner being heard soon. There is no doubt about the outcome as it is council policy to ignore objections as it puts its own interests first, which makes a mockery of Luton’s corrupt planning process.

It wasn’t that long ago that the airport operator stated that the airports capacity was 16 million but the bully boys at the council wanted more with the airport operator eventually conceding. Now according to reports here the operator has put in an application for 19 million which makes me wonder if it is actually the council putting in the application to itself via the company that is running the concession. This I would imagine is linked to the other planning application to relax noise limits as the operator doesn’t wish to comply.

This is a classic tale of abuse of power by a local authority where there are no checks and balances and where the planning committee goes through the motions to make everything appear legal but the process is not impartial.

Spanish eyes, I must be one of many Luton tax payers who ‘demand’ LBC allow the airport to reach its potential which will entail continued growth. In turn there will be employment opportunities for those seeking work.

For decades the airport was under used and now it has the potential to become the UK’s 3rd Airport (yes 3rd Airport) and I live within twenty five seconds of departing aircraft from the runway over south Luton.

You claim or have inferred that the council is breaking the Law. Can you please state exactly what Laws have been broken.

I await your response...

No I haven't said the council was breaking the law, I said it was an abuse of power.

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/defau...uncill-d92.pdf

"Members of a planning committee, Local Plan steering group (or full Council when the local plan is being considered) need to avoid any appearance of bias or of having predetermined their views before taking a decision on a planning application or on planning policies"

The airport is a limited company and so should be treated like any other limited company.


Now tell me they all go into that meeting with an open mind when it is council policy to expand the airport at any cost. Even airport supporters, and I am one of them, can see something is not right here. So who is really pushing this application? Couple of clues here from the past with the then airport operator saying the capacity was 16 million.


Or here when the council wanted more and had a big falling out.

AirportWatch | Second consultation at Luton Airport ? this time it?s the Master Plan

Any successful business with year on year increases should be given the opportunity to expand,

Really? Many of our most successful and growing businesses are completely illegal. Going back a few decades we had very successful and growing tobacco businesses. Times change.

LBS...Your enthusiasm for expanding LTN at any cost is well known on this thread. However, many of us who have always been big supporters of the airport in the past can see that the current situation with LLC & LLA is simply becoming a farce and its time for change!

Really? At the expense of the environment, destruction of open land and building a huge terminal on the doorstep of a large residential area. Not to mention the ever increasing debt level being accrued by a local council that seems to be happy to cut local services, whilst it meets it's repayment burden?

Just interested to know at what point would even you say enough is enough, 32m, 50m, 100m or more?

The only way to go above 32M pax would be a second runway and build South and thus bring Herts into the party!

Err, LGW currently around 46m on a single runway, STN planning more than 35m on a single runway. The LTN plan talks of 32m, for which - with the right runway capacity tools and configuration - one runway is more than enough.

FF

But much longer runways attracting bigger aircraft. Stand capacity as well, no room for more stands above what is planned. Currently LGW has 57 based airbuses!

The council is actually looking at 38million which is a figure already seen in some council publications. There are plans for an additional apron to achieve this figure.

Was, https://futureluton.llal.org.uk/

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

Just to make it clear, as stated above, the true figure is 36-38 million. The only reason it was dropped was that the council found out that by going for the upper figure they would have to pay for major M1 improvements. By going for 32 million they avoid the costs but they can then give themselves planning permission to add another 4 million later.

A single runway should comfortably be able to support 250K movements per year, and the DfT forecasts agree. Luton already sees an average of more than 160 pax per Air Transport Movement, this could give a theoretical runway capacity of 40m. The overall trend will continue to see increasing size of aircraft and passengers per flight. Its the transition of the multi sector a day A319 type through to A321 that will make the most difference, not the one rotation per day wide bodies. Of course there would need to be other changes, taxiways, stands etc. as well as loss of the existing corporate activity at LTN (much of which is already planned and in some cases already happening). The further expansion of LTN, STN and LGW is all more likely than R3 at LHR. None of it is certain of course.

FF

The 2020 Initial Co-ordination Report has been published by ACL.

If I read it correctly it shows no S20 FlyBosnia, no Air Serbia or Smartwings. In fact, the only operators are EasyJet, WizzAir, Ryanair, Blue Air, Level/Vueling, Sun Express, TUI, El Al, Freebird, DHL and MNG.
From the initial schedule, there are reduced ATMs by DHL, El Al, TUI and Vueling.

The ridiculous and bureaucratic passenger cap is obviously taking its toll across the board. In the peak week only 10 airlines will operate (Putting EZY/EJU together, WZZ/WUK together and Level/Anisec/Vueling together).

Yes it looks like the last Air Bosnia flight will be on 18 April. Not too surprising really, the airline is really struggling to keep going with one of there two Airbus aircraft has been returned to the lessor. On most days there is just one return service to Rome.

Yes 18M cap is hitting hard now.
An award, that's new for Luton!

https://www.airport-technology.com/n...accreditation/

It is not a ridiculous and bureaucratic passenger cap. They are just following the conditions of the previous planning application. They got away with it over the breach of the night noise limit for a number of years but now they have been rumbled.

I have no sympathy as LLAOL and the council have brought this on themselves. The council offered massive incentives to LLAOL to grow passenger numbers as fast as possible. They knew what the limit was and how fast it was approaching yet they wait until the 11th hour before doing something about it. Maybe they were arguing about whether LLAOL, LLAL or the council should put in the planning application to bust the councils own limit. Maybe the council has had to offer LLAOL more incentives to do their dirty work so their "dodgy" planning committee can approve it.

Given the scale of proposed expansion (i.e. in excess of 10 million increase in passengers) this is classed as a nationally significant infrastructure project and so is not determined by the local planning authority. The government will make the decision on whether to grant the necessary development orders, not the planning committee.

As a freemarketeer, I reiterate that the cap is ridiculous and bureaucratic. It is ridiculous because it limits the ability of passengers to fly from/to where they want, and airlines to use the airport they choose. It is bureaucratic because it gives the decision on where flights can be offered from to the bureaucrats of Luton Borough Council, or some Government planning quango.

These people don't know best. If passengers, airlines and the airport authority are happy to allow more passengers to use the airport, why should a bunch of unelected, non-specialist bureaucrats stop them? If the airport becomes overcrowded, passengers and airlines will choose to go elsewhere, or put pressure on the airport to increase capacity.

At all times, all the participants know that operations must be safe and comply with the regulations that apply everywhere else. But setting a cap on passenger numbers is intellectually indefensible - it has no impact on noise, pollution, air or ground congestion. It merely inconveniences the "man in the street" who wants to fly.

/Rant mode off.

In any one year over half the population don't fly at all, and 15 % make 70% of all flights. So what does the man in the street want?

Sorry you are wrong. The application for 32 million will indeed go to Government as a DCO but mini applications by LLAOL to increase capacity in small chunks up to a maximum of 22.5 million passengers within the airports existing boundary can and will be decided by the local planning authority. The first application for an extra million is on the councils planning portal.

You make no mention about the residents and communities that would be affected by increased passenger numbers that are presently protected by the existing planning permission. In your eyes they don’t matter. The planning committee is meant to way up all views and opinions before making a decision about an increase in numbers. The fact that they won’t is well known. You seem to be advocating that any planning permission should be ignored.

What about if a builder got planning permission to build a 1000 houses. You seem to be saying he should then be allowed to ignore that permission and build as many as he likes if the demand is there.

Also it isn’t the council deciding where people can fly to as it remains the airlines that pick and choose where they fly. They can introduce new services by dropping weak destinations. What has happened is that for this year only it stops new airlines coming to Luton. If you consider the fact that for years no new airline has wanted to come to Luton this isn’t a big deal.

Finally you mention more choices for passengers. Luton’s restrictions means that ELAL will fly from Stansted this summer so I assume you are delighted.

LTNMAN, You are getting very boring with your Airport bashing.
You have been over the years promoting airport expansion and getting more aircraft, airlines and passengers through the door.
Now because you brought a house very near to the said airport and the airport is going to get even closer to you, its nothing but whinge, whinge, whinge, you are a true NIMBY of the highest order.