This also spills over to local authority attitudes too. Doncaster Council chucking everything at DSA to save it, with no mention of a green agenda, or the money pit that it is. Compare this to many Leeds councillors' attitude to LBA which annoyingly (for them) continues to be successful in spite of their opposition
Media portray Leeds Bradford airport unfairly.
- Thread starter Aviador
- Start date
White Heather
Elite Pro-Member
Quite a amazing really given they are both controlled by the same party.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #43
I just read this morning that Labour are scrapping £28bn green prosperity scheme they pledged. So yes, definitely lots of mixed messages. Is Labour LCC still in its own climate emergency or is moving away from this now?
What is clear is whichever party is in power, it just goes to show they will always put their own interest first.
What is clear is whichever party is in power, it just goes to show they will always put their own interest first.
Coathanger16
Well-Known Member
All that will do is reduce their funding, which will either be made up by the government (and therefore the taxpayer anyway) or with less funding available, they'll just retreat to London and Manchester/Salford.
- Dec 30, 2009
- 4,076
- 333
How will they link that to coverage of the airport?
Hopefully it will shut them down and finally we can say goodbye to this dreaded organisation that seems to be there for the minority and not the majority, the bbc have got one hell of a lot to answer for!!
- Dec 30, 2009
- 4,076
- 333
I think they are a fantastic institution and should be cherished. The only element of the service they provide that I dont like is the local BBC reporting on the airport.
Seriously! What have you been taking.. Haha
“… and we are working with the Council to ensure that conditions of the planning consent are understood by all parties and adhered to.”
Just wondering what this actually means in terms of the night flying arrangements as you would have thought all that would have been settled prior to the public announcement. Does it suggest some behind the scenes negotiations to get things changed, for example the new generation of aircraft not being counted? Might explain the apparent capitulation of the LBA management.
Just wondering what this actually means in terms of the night flying arrangements as you would have thought all that would have been settled prior to the public announcement. Does it suggest some behind the scenes negotiations to get things changed, for example the new generation of aircraft not being counted? Might explain the apparent capitulation of the LBA management.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #51
All we understand is the airport and the council are working to resolve the current issues. We shouldn't assume anything from that however, we do know under the current rules prop aircraft are exempt yet some of the old prop aircraft when the rules were made were noisier than the newest Jet aircraft. Make of that what you will.
- Moderator
- #52
My gut feeling is that LCC will have these planned discussions with LBA and a compromise will be found so to help each other. LCC won't want to be seen to risking the lifelyhoods of all employees whom work at LBA.
With future investment into the local economy by LBA the is too much too lose, especially If LCC finally sort out the parkway rail station.
It's in both interests to work together to find a compromise. That's why I think the Airbus NEo's, Boeing 737-MAX and Embraer-E2 won't count towards the quota and eventually allow LBA to grow to 7 million pax a year as planned . Which would totally annoy the objectors.
You cannot compare the noise
Boeing 737-200 to to Boeing 737-MAX,
DC9 to an Airbus A320Neo
BAC111 to a Embrear 190-E2
Oh not forgetting the regular
TU154, B722, & Concorde
With future investment into the local economy by LBA the is too much too lose, especially If LCC finally sort out the parkway rail station.
It's in both interests to work together to find a compromise. That's why I think the Airbus NEo's, Boeing 737-MAX and Embraer-E2 won't count towards the quota and eventually allow LBA to grow to 7 million pax a year as planned . Which would totally annoy the objectors.
You cannot compare the noise
Boeing 737-200 to to Boeing 737-MAX,
DC9 to an Airbus A320Neo
BAC111 to a Embrear 190-E2
Oh not forgetting the regular
TU154, B722, & Concorde
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #53
The 737-200 and some of those other old types weren't chapter 3 compliant and weren't allowed to use LBA during the night after restrictions were relaxed.
The 737-300 and 757-200 were compliant and those were the types we saw using the airport after restrictions were relaxed.
The 737-300 and 757-200 were compliant and those were the types we saw using the airport after restrictions were relaxed.
Kevin Farnell
Honorary Member Of Forums4airports
Personally, I don't think it's a laughing matter. A young man lost his life in that accident. I agree that what the presenter said, was ill informed at best, but in this case, there are more important factors.
- Dec 30, 2009
- 4,076
- 333
I suppose you could look at it like that. I didn't. Suppose we are all different.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #60
A successful airport is a crowded hustling and bustling airport. A failed airport is a calm and tranquil airport. It's just the way of the world. I'm fairly sure these rags don't make any money these days anyway. I saw that article yesterday and immediately scrolled on to the next news topic from a more news worthy organisation. I'm only guessing as Leeds was only the third worst, the two airports that trumped Leeds were also busy airports so I'm guessing Manchester and Bristol?
Similar threads
- Locked
