LUTON

[CAP493]

...the airport will have to face the stark truth that they will have to spend some money and cure the problem.

Responsibility for the local roads around LTN and for the airport access road ('Airport Way') as far as the Ibis Hotel Roundabout, together with Percival Way lies firmly with the local authority - Luton Borough Council (LBC). Whilst LLAO could - and certainly should - do something about the hopelessly inadequate terminal road system beyond that roundabout up to the Terminal Building, the rest of the surface infrastructure is, as has been said many times previously, out of LLAO's control to improve.

LBC appears totally disinterested (as one LLAO middle manager recently remarked "...they're only interested in what they can make out of the Airport") and the Dept for Transport now seems unlikely to stump up any public funds for local road improvement.

One of the issues that might just force the situation is the need to ensure that all local authority emergency services vehicles can access the airport site within the minimum stipulated time in response to an emergency situation requiring them to attend (this could include a major fire in the Terminal Building, and not simply an aircraft-related incident). If these emergency services judge that at peak times with a log-jam of traffic up the hill from the Airport Roundabout and beyond the Ibis Hotel Roundabout, they cannot any longer meet their Home Office prescribed emergency response times then some action might be taken.

Of course, ABERTIS could always 'take the bull by the horns' and do what it does in Spain, i.e. build a new road and then operate it as a toll road for all users except for bona-fides LTN passengers...

[Jes]

Roads are the responsibility of County or Unitary authorities, not Borough, so LBC certainly is disinterested, but, I suggest, is not uninterested.

[antilla]

That's nice! LBC gets all the income from the passenger levies, etc. (~£12 million last year), but the County Council has to pay for the road infrastructure to cope with those passengers! Is it any wonder that the system is grinding to a halt?

Why shouldn't the airport (or LBC) pay for solving the transport problems that its rapid expansion is creating?

Or, putting it another way, why should the County Council pay to support a private company and a Borough Council that just pockets its income from the airport's operations?

[King Pong]

Originally Posted by LTNman

I see that airport revenue is taking a pounding due to the activities of the off airport car park companies. Never seen the mid term car park so empty over the Christmas period. The mid term used to be bursting even when there were only 4 or 5 million passengers using LTN. At £12.50/£13.00 per day, I'm not surprised.

And the rest, prices vary from £11.50 to £15.00 per day dependent on length of stay. 100 yards down the road there is an illegal operation operating without planning permission from a disused factory who charge £6 per day. The council have been trying for months to close the place according to an airport spokesman I met at one of the 2030 road shows. I think he went on to say that car park revenue was the airports biggest source of money. This car park operator is only small beer compared to the operator at Slip End. This was another site that started life without planning permission. In some ways these operators are leeches. They feed of the airports investment but contribute nothing.

[Powerjet1]

Re: LUTON

Daily Luton to Lisbon with easyjet from 1 March.

[nickmanl]

Re: LUTON

It will be interesting to see the prices on the Luton - Lisbon route. Go struggled to make the route work from Stansted and I always heard Lisbon were unfriendly towards locos with high fees.

I assume Easy have negotiated some sort of deal with the airport or are they just running out of places to put all those shiny new aircraft?

[LGS6753]

Re: LUTON

Easy are also starting flights from Lisbon to Milan MXP and Paris CDG. The website shows the flight as 'Lisbon-Luton' rather than the other way round. Until the timings are shown on the website, we can't be sure, but this could be either a Lisbon-based aircraft (new base) operating 6 sectors a day, or a Luton-based aircraft operating a VW pattern, leaving LTN early and returning late. (Or a CDG based or MXP based aircraft).
This would accommodate the extra LTN based airframe, but could these 6 sectors be crewed legally from LTN?

[Powerjet1]

Re: LUTON

or a Luton-based aircraft operating a VW pattern, leaving LTN early and returning late. (Or a CDG based or MXP based aircraft).
This would accommodate the extra LTN based airframe, but could these 6 sectors be crewed legally from LTN

Seems to be a LTN based aircraft. Outbound ex LTN 06.25 - 09.05, departs from Lisbon 14.25 arriving back in Luton 17.05.

With all the changes taking place, with various bases going over to the bus in 2006, understand LTN will be base to 19 737-700s by Sept 06.

[andyafc]

Re: LUTON

Gd news about Lisbon, but still not sign of those buses at Luton

[Buster the Bear]

Re: LUTON

Under the recently departed easyJet senior management, Luton was to become a 'bus' base during the latter part of 2007. To put it bluntly, their focus was not on Luton for expansion!

Hopefully the larger number of based 700's can be parked over night come the autumn and that the new regime is now FULLY committed to their home base? This fleet expansion will coincide with the move from orangeshrinkwrappedLand to H89, so hopefully Buster will be invited to the 'knees up'!

p.s. The down loadable spell checker is fantastic, you should try correctly typing with huge paws!

[Powerjet1]

Re: LUTON

With easy starting Lisbon from Luton in March, wonder if Monarch Schd might decide to compete on the route like they do with Alicante, Malaga & Faro. Monarch are going twice daily(most days) to Lisbon from LGW so I suppose its possible.

[Buster the Bear]

Re: LUTON

Monarch to operate in competition with easyJet to Lisbon from Luton, well dafter things have happened, nothing would surprise me!

[CAP493]

Re: LUTON

"...why should the County Council pay to support a private company and a Borough Council that just pockets its income from the airport's operations?

From Bedfordshire County Council's Provisional Local Transport Plan, 2006 to 2011:"First we will prepare Bedfordshire for the challenges of growth by helping to deliver the substantial infrastructure investment programme already committed. Secondly, we will consolidate our position by managing our networks better and improving local transport facilities. Thirdly we will pursue a policy of 'infrastructure before growth' to avoid making transport conditions worse and seek further investment in transport projects..."

If it's not down to Luton Borough Council but instead, it's down to Beds County Council, such investment would appear to accord entirely with the County Council's medium-term transport strategy.

Pity that so far, on all counts the situation is very firmly one of 'NATO' (No Action Talk Only).

IMHO - apart from the obvious and ever-present environmental objectors, be they NIMBYs or NOPEs - there are two main impediments to LTN's continued expansion: congestion on the ground i.e. access roads and congestion in the air i.e. local airspace. But at least the latter issue is receiving the attention and sustained effort to resolve that it deserves.

There is no way that a site atop a hill, served by 1970s-style roads, can hope to efficiently process and cope with the road traffic associated with a passenger throughput topping 9m to 10m/year.

So whether it's LBC or Beds CC who is responsible, someone somewhere needs to get off his/her butt and start working on a viable solution that can be implemented in one to two years from now.

[antilla]

Re: LUTON

Originally Posted by CAP493

There is no way that a site atop a hill, served by 1970s-style roads, can hope to efficiently process and cope with the road traffic associated with a passenger throughput topping 9m to 10m/year.

Is it then a question of improving the transport infrastructure to cope with 9 or 10 million passengers a year, only for the passenger numbers to rise still further and require even better transport infrastrucure?
Doesn't someone need to take a longer look and ask whether this is really the right place for an airport that wants to be larger than Gatwick before spending serious money on abortive infrastructure projects?

[ebenezer]

Re: LUTON

Originally Posted by antilla

Is it then a question of improving the transport infrastructure to cope with 9 or 10 million passengers a year, only for the passenger numbers to rise still further and require even better transport infrastrucure?
Doesn't someone need to take a longer look and ask whether this is really the right place for an airport that wants to be larger than Gatwick before spending serious money on abortive infrastructure projects?

An interesting point, antilla, but of course it's difficult to see who has the 'right' to prevent any commercial company expanding its operation provided that it obtains the necessary planning permissions and operates in accordance with these.

Arguably, even after twenty-five years, the road access to Gatwick compared to say, Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester and even East Mids is frankly cr*p unless you're attacking the place from the M23 (which of course, runs out just north of the M25 never having been extended [as was the original plan] to connect directly with London's South Circular Road) or Horsham/Crawley/Horley. Gatwick's east/west road links are hardly improved from when its operation was around 10m ppa (its eastbound road links are just as bad as Luton's and westbound you run out of dual carriageway immediately beyond Horsham.)

Despite this, Gatwick has mushroomed into the UK's # 2 Airport in terms of movements and passengers, and so road access doesn't in itself, appear to be a major drawback.

Even though Gatwick has - with Birmingham - arguably the best rail links of any UK airport a majority of passengers still use road transport to get there.

Whilst Luton's rail links are now extremely good (notwithstanding the crass decision to connect with the Airport from 'the wrong side of the tracks'), the proportion of passengers using road transport to reach Luton is probably higher than at Gatwick and so upgraded road links must surely be essential to accommodate growth beyond 10m ppa even if only to relieve the pressure on the adjacent town's roads which are pretty hopeless anyway.

Widening the nearby M1 whilst undoubtedly improving traffic flow (cf. the now widened M25 near Heathrow) will - without improvements nearer to the Airport - simply enable the hapless Luton passenger to be desposited more quickly, into the traffic snarl ups near Capability Green and along 'Airport Way'.

And given easyJet's and Ryanair's policy of making you pay through the nose to switch flights if you don't arrive in time, it would seem sensible for LLAO to adopt a more aggressive policy in relation to this issue as it's their business that will ultimately suffer, and not the local town or county council's.

[LTNman]

Re: LUTON

http://www.stoplutonairport.org/

Anyone care to comment?

[Jordan D]

Re: LUTON

Comment apart from that I'd like to SLAP them?

Jordan

[TOM1977]

Re: LUTON

Wizzair's Website showing new direct route from Zagreb to London Luton.
Can only see this on the route map, but cannot see any further information ??

[Powerjet1]

Re: LUTON

Wizzair's Website showing new direct route from Zagreb to London Luton.

Seems to be 4 x weekly wef 27 March 06.

[Buster the Bear]

Re: LUTON

Wizzair sample week in June 06. Times are for departures.

Mon
7.45 Poznan
7.55 Gdansk
8.00 Zagreb
8.25 Warsaw
12.00 Budapest
12.50 Katowice
18.55 Warsaw
20.35 Katowice
20.45 Gdansk

Tue
7.55 Gdansk
8.25 Warsaw
12.00 Budapest
14.25 Katowice
17.00 Zagreb
18.55 Warsaw
20.35 Katowice

Wed
7.45 Poznan
7.55 Gdansk
8.25 Warsaw
12.00 Budapest
12.50 Katowice
18.55 Warsaw
20.35 Katowice
20.55 Gdansk

Thur
7.55 Gdansk
8.25 Warsaw
12.00 Budapest
13.50 Poznan
14.40 Katowice
18.55 Warsaw
20.35 Katowice

Fri
7.45 Poznan
7.55 Gdansk
8.25 Warsaw
12.00 Budapest
12.50 Katowice
14.25 Zagreb
18.55 Warsaw
20.35 Katowice
20.45 Gdansk

Sat
7.55 Gdansk
8.25 Warsaw
14.25 Katowice
19.15 Budapest
19.25 Warsaw
20.35 Katowice

Sun
7.45 Poznan
7.55 Gdansk
8.25 Warsaw
12.50 Katowice
14.25 Zagreb
18.55 Warsaw
19.15 Budapest
20.35 Katowice
20.45 Gdansk

Total 55

This works out at around 825,000 pax per year at 80% load!