Luton issues warning to Easyjet
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was based at LTN for a year, and actually found it pretty user-friendly compared to other large airports. Yes, the cul de sac is a hassle, but it will eventually go.
I don't think it is possible to extend the runway... the western end slopes very steeply, and the other end has no available land (I think the Hertfordshire border runs very close to the threshold, and the county would want lots of money).
The major problem, to my mind, is the lack of a direct link to London. There was once talk of bringing a rail link all the way to the terminal, but apparently this was too hard/too expensive, so now pax must catch a bus to the railway station. Not ideal if you have heavy bags!
I don't think it is possible to extend the runway... the western end slopes very steeply, and the other end has no available land (I think the Hertfordshire border runs very close to the threshold, and the county would want lots of money).
The major problem, to my mind, is the lack of a direct link to London. There was once talk of bringing a rail link all the way to the terminal, but apparently this was too hard/too expensive, so now pax must catch a bus to the railway station. Not ideal if you have heavy bags!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Raw Data mentions the rail link.
I don't think that there has been the intention for many, many years to have a railway station actually on the airport. There was however a proposal to have some sort of people mover between the site of the new Luton Parkway station and the terminal.
The reason for not having a dedicated station was quite simple (although possibly wrong!). Luton looked at the experience of Stansted shortly after the station was opened there. It was seen that whilst the shuttle train from central London was used heavily, all the services from other parts of the country had been suspended through lack of passengers. As Luton was looking to passengers from the south and east Midlands as well as the London area, they reasoned that as those trains already travelled along the Midland mainline, they wouldn't go up a "branch line" to the airport but would stop at a new station closer to the airport.
History lesson over!
I don't think that there has been the intention for many, many years to have a railway station actually on the airport. There was however a proposal to have some sort of people mover between the site of the new Luton Parkway station and the terminal.
The reason for not having a dedicated station was quite simple (although possibly wrong!). Luton looked at the experience of Stansted shortly after the station was opened there. It was seen that whilst the shuttle train from central London was used heavily, all the services from other parts of the country had been suspended through lack of passengers. As Luton was looking to passengers from the south and east Midlands as well as the London area, they reasoned that as those trains already travelled along the Midland mainline, they wouldn't go up a "branch line" to the airport but would stop at a new station closer to the airport.
History lesson over!
Guest
Posts: n/a
OLNEY 1 BRAVO:
Not quite. When my company opened a base there a few years ago, a specific promise was made that a (light) rail link would be taken all the way to the terminal, in fact a LLA person even showed me (I was Base Captain) the land set aside for the track. One change of management later, that plan was shelved as being too difficult or expensive, can't remember which. Not long after that, we closed our base there- for a variety of reasons, but one was the lack of promised infrastructure. We now have a base at LCY which serves us a lot better than LLA ever could.
Could be wrong, but only if a few LLA folk were telling very big porkies!
Not quite. When my company opened a base there a few years ago, a specific promise was made that a (light) rail link would be taken all the way to the terminal, in fact a LLA person even showed me (I was Base Captain) the land set aside for the track. One change of management later, that plan was shelved as being too difficult or expensive, can't remember which. Not long after that, we closed our base there- for a variety of reasons, but one was the lack of promised infrastructure. We now have a base at LCY which serves us a lot better than LLA ever could.
Could be wrong, but only if a few LLA folk were telling very big porkies!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Raw, yup it was too difficult and too expensive, and a lack of investment as well, might still be on the back burner, dedicated coach/bus road might also be the way forward though.
Spoiler,
A runway on stilts in Hertfordshire? whatever next? simply won't do old chap!. Proposals were to infill at 26 threshold end, but where do you get that qauntity of mud?. Not to mention two new rivers just started running again after 50 years north and south of the 26 threshold, and on clay too, which is nice!.
Just a quick hint, look at the environment (in total) around LTN,LHR,LCY and LGW, and compare and contrast with STN. Ask why BAA want to expand so much at STN, and not LGW, i.e. new terminal, look at land management, airspace management, and STN new runway? I think so!
Spoiler,
A runway on stilts in Hertfordshire? whatever next? simply won't do old chap!. Proposals were to infill at 26 threshold end, but where do you get that qauntity of mud?. Not to mention two new rivers just started running again after 50 years north and south of the 26 threshold, and on clay too, which is nice!.
Just a quick hint, look at the environment (in total) around LTN,LHR,LCY and LGW, and compare and contrast with STN. Ask why BAA want to expand so much at STN, and not LGW, i.e. new terminal, look at land management, airspace management, and STN new runway? I think so!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thought i should put my oars in on this thread 
682ft AMSL, nope no displaced thresholds at LTN, no steep terrain problem, just that you launch of an aircraft carrier style runway
I always find it amusing that some people slag LTN off,sure it ain't perfection, and lack of credible management in the past has been an achilles heel.
At my company our scheduled loads are always near full(not sleazy), and the pax in general like LTN. Why its simple,a short walk to any gate,reclaim bags in 10 minutes or less, railway staion no further than at any other London Aiport, and good road links...
The really best thing about the airport though, is that the runway, or road to the M1 lead you away from LTN town, which really is a dump
682ft AMSL, nope no displaced thresholds at LTN, no steep terrain problem, just that you launch of an aircraft carrier style runway
I always find it amusing that some people slag LTN off,sure it ain't perfection, and lack of credible management in the past has been an achilles heel.
At my company our scheduled loads are always near full(not sleazy), and the pax in general like LTN. Why its simple,a short walk to any gate,reclaim bags in 10 minutes or less, railway staion no further than at any other London Aiport, and good road links...
The really best thing about the airport though, is that the runway, or road to the M1 lead you away from LTN town, which really is a dump
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jumpseater........Regarding the extension of Rwy 26 all of 2000ft or so into Herts, from what I understand discussions have already be held with the appropriate authorities. Technically the project is quite possible without infilling to any great degree.
As for STN, I think we're forgetting the embattled local residents here (remember all the protests about London's Third Airport in the 1960's & 70's?)In addition, there have been several Government white papers in the past stating that the environmental problems there are in many ways, similar to those at
LGW.
As for STN, I think we're forgetting the embattled local residents here (remember all the protests about London's Third Airport in the 1960's & 70's?)In addition, there have been several Government white papers in the past stating that the environmental problems there are in many ways, similar to those at
LGW.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Spoiler,
If memory serves me, 2,000ft on LTN's runway still leaves it inside the airport and Bedfordshires boundary, if only by a few inches! possibly some cute planning there!. It will need a very large amount of infill to provide an appropriate cleared and graded area, and still where does it come from and how do you get it there?. If you bulldozed the town that might provide the hardcore base and help EGGW out as well
I remember the Cublington/Wing Thurleigh and Luton options for the 3rd London airport though not in any great detail. Most of the problems came from lack of infrastructure I recall as there were no easily upgradable road or rail links at the time. With respect the last thing I'd forgoten is the local's, look again at Gatwick, the least damaging environmental option means destroying Charlwood, at Stansted its largely open fields in the Uttlesford area, and as opposed to Luton it's flat and has relatively cheap land for the South East. Second runway at Gatwick gives entertaining ATC issues at the very least, much less so near Stansted with it's less congested airspace.
So back to sunny Luton, Stansteds potential really is far greater and easier to achieve than that of Luton, and after T5 at Heathrow is approved, where else would you develop?
[This message has been edited by jumpseater (edited 10 April 2001).]
If memory serves me, 2,000ft on LTN's runway still leaves it inside the airport and Bedfordshires boundary, if only by a few inches! possibly some cute planning there!. It will need a very large amount of infill to provide an appropriate cleared and graded area, and still where does it come from and how do you get it there?. If you bulldozed the town that might provide the hardcore base and help EGGW out as well
I remember the Cublington/Wing Thurleigh and Luton options for the 3rd London airport though not in any great detail. Most of the problems came from lack of infrastructure I recall as there were no easily upgradable road or rail links at the time. With respect the last thing I'd forgoten is the local's, look again at Gatwick, the least damaging environmental option means destroying Charlwood, at Stansted its largely open fields in the Uttlesford area, and as opposed to Luton it's flat and has relatively cheap land for the South East. Second runway at Gatwick gives entertaining ATC issues at the very least, much less so near Stansted with it's less congested airspace.
So back to sunny Luton, Stansteds potential really is far greater and easier to achieve than that of Luton, and after T5 at Heathrow is approved, where else would you develop?
[This message has been edited by jumpseater (edited 10 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
In respone to Jumpseater, I'm pretty sure that Luton was never an option for the third London airport in "those days". The options were, as you say, Cublington/Wing (remember "No wings at Wing"), Thurleigh, plus Foulness Island in Essex. The first two were thrown out, mainly on environmental grounds, leaving Foulness, which was renamed the more appealing Maplin.
Maplin was eventually also thrown out in the multiple mid-1970s economic crises (I think by the Wilson Government in 1974), throwing us all back to Square One. The slack was taken up to some degree by T4 at LHR and more so by the eventual expansion at STN in the 1980s.
Now we're back to Square One yet again. As for LGW I'm pretty sure the local authority has said no new runway there until at least 2020 or maybe 2040. STN is the only place in the southeast for really significant runway expansion. It could be more or less built within existing airfield grounds, eg. a new 05/23 to the northwest of the existing one, which would use the old terminal area, wouldn't conflict with the existing rail tunnel, and would require only modest land acquisition in the northeast corner. It may, on thinking about it, conflict with the Hilton Hotel, car park and road network, but I am sure that can all be dealt with.
I am not a structural engineer, but I think major expansion of the runway at LTN is not possible. Just drive around the perimeter roads. The comparison with an aircraft carrier is very apt. It's not the point anyway - what LTN needs is a full parallel taxiway and improved traffic patterns around the terminals instead of the cul de sac (maybe that is in process of change, as others have said above...)
Maplin was eventually also thrown out in the multiple mid-1970s economic crises (I think by the Wilson Government in 1974), throwing us all back to Square One. The slack was taken up to some degree by T4 at LHR and more so by the eventual expansion at STN in the 1980s.
Now we're back to Square One yet again. As for LGW I'm pretty sure the local authority has said no new runway there until at least 2020 or maybe 2040. STN is the only place in the southeast for really significant runway expansion. It could be more or less built within existing airfield grounds, eg. a new 05/23 to the northwest of the existing one, which would use the old terminal area, wouldn't conflict with the existing rail tunnel, and would require only modest land acquisition in the northeast corner. It may, on thinking about it, conflict with the Hilton Hotel, car park and road network, but I am sure that can all be dealt with.
I am not a structural engineer, but I think major expansion of the runway at LTN is not possible. Just drive around the perimeter roads. The comparison with an aircraft carrier is very apt. It's not the point anyway - what LTN needs is a full parallel taxiway and improved traffic patterns around the terminals instead of the cul de sac (maybe that is in process of change, as others have said above...)
Guest
Posts: n/a
DH you're right re Luton and 3rd airport options, they did have about the same time though plans for a 3km or thereabouts north/south runway, solved the hill problem but put Herts(Harpenden), in the firing line and also Bovingdon, which was still open as an airfield at that time. Idea scrapped due lack of cash and environment/operations problems I think.
PS new runway at STN would be south east of the field I believe, puting current terminal in the centre of a staggered H, laid on its side, if that makes sense.
PS new runway at STN would be south east of the field I believe, puting current terminal in the centre of a staggered H, laid on its side, if that makes sense.
Guest
Posts: n/a
David H......You are correct in that the construction of a second runway at LGW before 2019 is technically prevented by a legal agreement between the BAA and the County Council.
I accept that STN is the most likely location for a second runway in the SE. However,the BAA have already submitted draft proposals to increase the max throughput of STN from 15 million passengers per year (expected to be reached in 2004) to 25 million per year. The BAA proposes to accommodate this growth within the existing airport boundary, without the need for a second runway and with further development of the existing terminal rather than a new terminal building.
As for extending the runway at LTN, just look whats been done at Funchal (similar work is planned at SFO and elsewhere)
I accept that STN is the most likely location for a second runway in the SE. However,the BAA have already submitted draft proposals to increase the max throughput of STN from 15 million passengers per year (expected to be reached in 2004) to 25 million per year. The BAA proposes to accommodate this growth within the existing airport boundary, without the need for a second runway and with further development of the existing terminal rather than a new terminal building.
As for extending the runway at LTN, just look whats been done at Funchal (similar work is planned at SFO and elsewhere)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Phase 2 development plans at Luton includes either extending the new terminal southwards or Building terminal 2. Putting in a full length parallel taxiway that will join the runway at the ends thus giving a longer TORA though there are no plans to extend runway 26/08 due to the drop beyond the runway.
Phase 3 development includes the possibility of building a new terminal by the new railway station and converting the existing new terminal to pure airside. The two buildings would be linked by a people mover. One half of the road tunnel under Alpha7 has been reserved for this use.
Phase 3 development includes the possibility of building a new terminal by the new railway station and converting the existing new terminal to pure airside. The two buildings would be linked by a people mover. One half of the road tunnel under Alpha7 has been reserved for this use.
