Leeds Bradford Airport’s Expansion Plans Under Public Inquiry

[northsouth]

I have my ticket for Bramhope on 11th August

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I have my ticket for Bramhope on 11th August

Thats great. I think you will find it very informative. Let us know how it goes.

 

[Aviador]

Also quietly let them know you're part of the support group.

 

[752]

I think one solution which could ease the night slot quota going forward would be for airlines (Jet2 & Ryanair) who are operating flights at 6:50 & 6:55 say, to push them back to 07:00 so they are not using up a night slot, giving them back. We all know the block times both Ryanair and Jet2 use are exaggerated and with it being first wave departure, it wouldn't effect the arrival time / the flights the rest of the day.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I think one solution which could ease the night slot quota going forward would be for airlines (Jet2 & Ryanair) who are operating flights at 6:50 & 6:55 say, to push them back to 07:00 so they are not using up a night slot, giving them back. We all know the block times both Ryanair and Jet2 use are exaggerated and with it being first wave departure, it wouldn't effect the arrival time / the flights the rest of the day.

They already hold these flights back until 07:00 when possible.

 

[Aviador]

I think one solution which could ease the night slot quota going forward would be for airlines (Jet2 & Ryanair) who are operating flights at 6:50 & 6:55 say, to push them back to 07:00 so they are not using up a night slot, giving them back. We all know the block times both Ryanair and Jet2 use are exaggerated and with it being first wave departure, it wouldn't effect the arrival time / the flights the rest of the day.

The requirement to backtrack for departure reduces the number of movements the airport can accommodate to between 15 and 20 per hour. A 'movement' refers to either an arrival or a departing aircraft. Shifting more departures to after 07:00 could potentially deley other flights beyond 08:00. A parallel taxiway might alleviate this problem somewhat, potentially allowing between 20 and 22 movements per hour or perhaps up to 26 movements with a full-length parallel taxiway and ground movement radar.

Without persuing additional night time movements this will be the only way to achieve more flights during the current operating hours. By removing departure flights out of the 06:00 - 07:00 hour it frees up those movements for arrivals during the so-called 'night time'.

 

[The Pole]

Just back from holiday so maybe missed post.
Have LBA lost the appeal?

 

[hzrd]

Just back from holiday so maybe missed post.
Have LBA lost the appeal?

Yes.

 

[White Heather]

Just back from holiday so maybe missed post.
Have LBA lost the appeal?

Lost 2, won 1. Sadly, the one they won, really doesn't matter. The two they lost, mattered a lot. LBA are now in discussion with the council and considering their next options.

 

[michael]

Maybe LBA should apply for a full new runway and terminal..............it seems to be the way they do things in London AND with government backing even if the prat of a Mayor is against it 🤣

 

[The Pole]

Lost 2, won 1. Sadly, the one they won, really doesn't matter. The two they lost, mattered a lot. LBA are now in discussion with the council and considering their next options.

Well that stinks! 40 year old restriction?
No wonder they country is ******
Feel sorry for next generation. Will anyone have any common sense?
It will all be A I

 

[Statto]

Well that stinks! 40 year old restriction?
No wonder they country is ******
Feel sorry for next generation. Will anyone have any common sense?
It will all be A I

A fair enough response if the airport had applied to update the 1993 planning permission through the normal process. But they didn’t. They approached it through this CLUED route and as a result they had to prove they had continuously breached the night flying planning conditions for 10 years. At which point it was nothing really to do with the planning policies of the local council but a legal argument about the interpretation and application of planning law. And the airport- on two separate occasions - failed to win the legal argument.

And when they did apply via the usual planning route, they were successful. Of course they did this as a single planning application tied to the new terminal. So when they abandoned plans for the new terminal and built the extension instead, the extended night flying hours permission went with it.

 

[White Heather]

A fair enough response if the airport had applied to update the 1993 planning permission through the normal process. But they didn’t. They approached it through this CLUED route and as a result they had to prove they had continuously breached the night flying planning conditions for 10 years. At which point it was nothing really to do with the planning policies of the local council but a legal argument about the interpretation and application of planning law. And the airport- on two separate occasions - failed to win the legal argument.

And when they did apply via the usual planning route, they were successful. Of course they did this as a single planning application tied to the new terminal. So when they abandoned plans for the new terminal and built the extension instead, the extended night flying hours permission went with it.

I have already made the point that should the airport re-apply to the council to amend the night time hours to what was previously approved, it would seem very odd if this time, they chose to reject it, particularly given the apparent pro airport government policy. It's the almost inevitable S106 add ons and potentially other restrictions being attached that will concern the airport.

 

[Statto]

True - but is there any airport in the country that doesn’t operate with S106 restrictions? I don’t think anywhere has a blank cheque to operate on an unrestricted basis or without ensuring that they make a contribution to public transport etc.

So I think its about updating them and making sure they make sense for the 2030s and not the 1990s. Night flying restrictions that were designed in an era when DC9s, BAC 1-11s and TU-154s we’re at the airport are probably well overdue a review. There are all sorts of approaches to noise mitigation that could be taken that are far more sophisticated than what we have today

 

[BCFC]

Well that stinks! 40 year old restriction?
No wonder they country is ******
Feel sorry for next generation. Will anyone have any common sense?
It will all be A I

Yet countries like China continue to prosper… absolutely amazing airports, train links, subways etc and all because they don't put up with all this nonsense, if its needed its built, end of.

 

[White Heather]

True - but is there any airport in the country that doesn’t operate with S106 restrictions? I don’t think anywhere has a blank cheque to operate on an unrestricted basis or without ensuring that they make a contribution to public transport etc.

So I think its about updating them and making sure they make sense for the 2030s and not the 1990s. Night flying restrictions that were designed in an era when DC9s, BAC 1-11s and TU-154s we’re at the airport are probably well overdue a review. There are all sorts of approaches to noise mitigation that could be taken that are far more sophisticated than what we have today

Couldn't agree more. I suspect a passenger cap would be more likely what LBA really don't want rather than S106 requirements relating to public transport or road improvements. Such schemes get expensive but reflect growth and success. An imposed passenger cap simply prevents growth beyond what the council feel comfortable with. Its the last thing LBA want.

That said, they've already confirmed that all options are on the table whilst they take legal advice relating to the CLEUDS decision. If they dont go to the High Court, then I would expect a planning application. I really don't think they have any other option but to do so. Doing nothing isn't an option.

 

[Aviador]

BBC News - Plans for pubs to get greater protection from noise complaints - BBC News

Plans for pubs to get greater protection from noise complaints

It will also be easier to open new pubs in disused shops under licensing reforms planned by the government.

www.bbc.co.uk

Perhaps the airport should become a designated pub and all the aircraft operating through the night could also be considered pubs as they all have a bar.

 

[Finger66]

@Aviador that wouldn't work as they who shall not be named want all aircraft bar'd!

 

[Len Fish]

Great idea, instead of scrapping the near end of life Jet2 733s turn them all into old fashioned pubs and trendy bars to cater for all tastes. The Cockpit Arms and Boeing’s Bar spring to mind.

 

[Finger66]

The Tech Tavern could be another one!

Perhaps we actually do have an idea here as we could create an LS 733 bar as part of our desired redevelopment of Plane Tree Hill into an official viewing area. Now of course we know that won't happen but would be a sure fire way to gather more support for LBA in these challenging times.