Future Infrastructure Developments

[Aviador]

Does that mean the airport no longer has to commit to starting the external works before the three years is up?

I don't think your pdf link is working because it is http(s) 's' for secure. If you download it you should be able to submit it to the forum as an attachment.

 

[User0001]

Does that mean the airport no longer has to commit to starting the external works before the three years is up?

I don't think your pdf link is working because it is http(s) 's' for secure. If you download it you should be able to submit it to the forum as an attachment.

It wouldn't let me attach the file. I got the message The extension pdf is not allowed.

But to answer the question, then no, the airport still have to comply with the 3 year time limit. But what the statement below shows, is that what they are proposing to the council is that "forecourt works" mark the start of the terminal develoment.

"Condition 1 - following discharge of pre-commencement conditions, the forecourt works will begin, the first phase of the terminal works"

So, they are in the process of getting the pre-commencement conditions discharged - which in English is that the council will agree that all of things the airport need to do before any work can start, have been done and the airport are free to start work

The airport will then commence some "forecourt works" which they and the council will agree is the start of the of the development and therefore the condition that work must have started by December 2012 will have been met. As there is no limit (that I can see) on when the work has to be completed by, it will be up to the airport has to how quickly they wish to complete this.

When I spoke to the management in November, the intention was to build the external structure first and then the internal mods would follow. It now seems they will go the other way round and modify the existing first floor area first and then extend it out into the forecourt as a second phase at a later date - not withstanding that they obviously are planning to do something in the airport forecourt that is significant enough to satisfy the council that work has begun. There are rules that mean things like moving the drains or doing soil sampling cannot be counted as the start of the development. so it will be interesting to see what this is.

It seems obvious to me that with the economy still fragile and the comments Heather mentioned about the impact of high oil prices, that the management and the owners do not have enough confidence to commit to the full extension. They will have a much better idea than us about the plans airlines have for next summer and to what extent more capacity will be needed in the short term. Many I'm sure will say it is needed now ! That they are committing to something - up to £7m including VAT - is probably a good sign that, assuming no shocks and surprises, they believe a rise in passenger numbers next summer is likely.

Equally, I suspect they aren't expecting in excess of 4 million passengers within the next 18 months or so, so they have decided on approach which means they don't have to spend all of the money in one go, but also that they don't have to go back for planning permission

 

[White Heather]

Great post LS16, thanks for clarifying all that. Although I am sure we would all love to see the rather tired exterior of the airport sorted quickly, the most important thing is getting more capacity airside within the terminal, and the solution that the airport seem to be using seems sensible in the circumstances, as it cures the main problem first and protects their position with regard to planning permission. I am sure though that there will be ongoing problems in security which will only go away when they do the rest of the work. They have indicated many times that they have new equipment for the security area, but cannot introduce it into the confined space currently available. If there is any further increase in passenger numbers, they are going to need this larger security zone sooner rather than later. I am not sure though, with the move towards on line check in, how urgently the enlarged check in area is going to be required.

 

[Seasider]

Good comment White Heather, I hadn't realised but I would imagine that 50% (guess) of passengers check in on line so even allowing for bag drop, they won't need as many desks.

 

[Aviador]

The airport will then commence some "forecourt works" which they and the council will agree is the start of the of the development and therefore the condition that work must have started by December 2012 will have been met. As there is no limit (that I can see) on when the work has to be completed by, it will be up to the airport has to how quickly they wish to complete this.

When I spoke to the management in November, the intention was to build the external structure first and then the internal mods would follow. [hi-lighty:r624lwqy]It now seems they will go the other way round and modify the existing first floor area first and then extend it out into the forecourt as a second phase at a later date - not withstanding that they obviously are planning to do something in the airport forecourt that is significant enough to satisfy the council that work has begun.[/hi-lighty:r624lwqy] There are rules that mean things like moving the drains or doing soil sampling cannot be counted as the start of the development. so it will be interesting to see what this is.

From what I gather it's looking like the parts of the terminal that slop outwards on the East side of the building are going to be re-aligned and straightened to allow for the second phase of the development. As this work is only to facilitate the second phase, it is unlikely to be aesthetically pleasing.

 

[Aviador]

I've heard nothing official yet but what I said previously does tie in with what LS16 has already said,

"planning to do something in the airport forecourt that is significant enough to satisfy the council that work has begun"

Image: taxiclub.co.uk

Perhaps re-aligned and squared off is a better way of wording it as opposed to "re-aligned and straightened" as I said in my previous post.

Supposedly there are big changes coming throughout the terminal not just with the new mezzanine level.

 

[tleeds]

Surely refurbishing the current terminal satisfy's the council that work is being done?

 

[tleeds]

I don't know if anyone realised this but, when was Stand 1 reconfigured? If you look at the link below and view the docking chart stand W/E has been removed and stand 1 is now in a 'U' configuration.
Any Idea's why?

http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/in ... d=137.html

 

[oldendays]

Nose-in parking is forbidden on stand 1 because the tailfin of any aircraft thus parked would butt into the protected strip for the RW14 approach. The touhdown zone for RW14 is roughly abeam stand 1. So any aircraft parking on this stand has to face nose-out. I think the largest/longest aircraft that can fit comfortably on stand 1 is a Dash 8-400. The stand was reconfigured some time in the last year.

On a slightly related note, I do hope the airport management take departure/arrival gates and pedestrian passenger access into account when they finally get to grips with the terminal. For far too long we have been saddled with a farcical situation of, simply put, not enough gates for too many stands and inadequate walkways. This frequently means that pax on arriving flights are held on their aircraft until pax for a neighbouring aircraft have boarded, thus slowing down turnrounds. Then there is the issue of Servisair and Jet2 boarding agents having to compete for gates for outbound flights. It's really not good enough and must be addressed. I suppose this is what happens when the terminal is at one end of the apron and the bulk of the stands are at the other end. The situation has been worsened by the arrival of the Ryanair base. Not that I am sorry to see Ryanair at LBA, far from it. The more the merrier in my opinion but the airlines and their customers and agents deserve better. How about a covered walkway from the terminal going all the way down to stand 16 ? It would need to be partly built on stilts but if Funchal's runway can be... More "walking" stands might also mean Jet2 don't have to tow their aircraft as much as they do just now.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

[offtopic]

How about a covered walkway from the terminal going all the way down to stand 16 ? It would need to be partly built on stilts but if Funchal's runway can be...

That's exactly what they have at Bristol Airport to service the remote western apron.

The walkway is an interior passageway that runs from the main terminal area at first floor level on supports and is over 400 metres long. It was completed last year at a cost of £7 million.

It's reduced the need for bus movements to stands but attracts regular complaints from passengers because of the distance they have to walk and the fact that access from the apron is via stairs or lift.[/offtopic]

 

[bobleeds]

"How about a covered walkway from the terminal going all the way down to stand 16? It would need to be partly built on stilts but if Funchal's runway can be..."

I have thought for a long time that a modular structure like the terminal one at Heathrow which runs out up to gate 74 etc. (from which many LBA services used to depart). It is essentially a prefabricated oval shaped steel structure on stilts with adequate room for the walkway, and seating by the various departure gates/airstairs.

At a LBA such a structure could run from the food cour area down to stand 16 and even onwards at a right-angle up to stand 24. It could br set above the embankment down to the car parks so not to impede apron or roadway space with lifts staircases down, and the option of airstairs. Automatic Parking Guidance units could also be fitted as appropriate. The seating areas at the gates would also alleviate overcrowding in the main building as people usually go straight to the gate once it is announced.

 

[tleeds]

From what I have seen the car-park situated in front of the apron i.e.- stands 9, 10 - 14 seems fairly unused. I do know that the council’s plans by 2030 were to build a long terminal all the way to stand 16 which would, presumably, accommodate baggage on the bottom floor, arrivals on the first and departures on the second floor with air-bridges to Stand 16 itself - but we can all dream.....

I wonder if the airport would actually consider putting some sort of permanent building/structure to a few more stands maybe to Stand 13 and not just some glass bus-shelter type of covering?! It would only have to house comfortable seating and a maybe a cafe and I think people would really appreciate it..

 

[White Heather]

I am fairly certain that something to address this is on the minds of Bridgepoint. However, there is so much to do at LBA, and there isn't a bottomless pit of money to do it with. They are having to prioritise what they do, and I imagine the terminal developments will come first. Perhaps something like this can and will be tagged on to a future phase of the terminal development. However, we were warned at the last JCC meeting that the decision to allow off airport parking (Sentinel and the Avro Factory) will reduce airport income and impact on the speed at which they can carry out the alterations and additions. It seems that whilst the airport is part of Bridgepoint, only a limited amount of the funding comes from the company itself and the airport has to make money itself before re-investing in the airport facilities. I would imagine that this is going to prove quite tricky for the directors. It seems certain that any developments such as described here are several years away yet, which seems certain to bring about further problems relating to gates and access to stands. I would imagine therefore that rather than further based aircraft, airlines like Ryanair will opt to introduce more routes but using aircraft bases abroad and with arrival times that tend to infill the quieter times rather than adding further pressure at peak times.

It will be interesting to see the new Airport Masterplan, which is being developed now, the original having to be reviewed at all airports as far as I am aware. We can expect to see the intended developments over the next 10 - 15 years mapped out on there.

 

[tleeds]

Does anyone know when the Airport will be releasing a copy of the new layout of the terminal?

 

[lbaspotter]

That’s like answering million dollar question, which everyone wants to know.

 

[Aviador]

Does anyone know when the Airport will be releasing a copy of the new layout of the terminal?

So far as I know the only pubically available details at the moment has been the requests for tenders.

 

[tleeds]

Okay, thanks a lot Lbaspotter and Aviador. So when do we anticipate it being released. Surely It can't be too long until they hold a press conference and formally announce the commencing of the development??

 

[Aviador]

It needs to be signed off by Bridgepoint before that can happen but let's hope it's soon.

 

[tleeds]

Yes, lets hope it is, thanks again Aviador.

 

[White Heather]

What is needed at LBA is a single storey extension from the main terminal, running the length of the apron, served by a moving walkway (which works preferably!), and with seating areas at each gate. There would be one gate serving each stand (or every two stands). That would allow passengers to be moved to their gate from the main departure area shortly before their flights are due to board, providing more space in the main concourse and allowing folk time to wander down to their aircraft (or take a ride on the walkway). I am certain that would work. The question is when they would consider such a scheme and how easy it would be to construct. It couldn't be on the existing apron area as that would restrict movement for vehicles etc, possibly requiring the stands to be moved back, so, as I believe someone else has posted, it would have to be built up alongside the apron. Since the ground level drops away steeply, such a walkway would have to be built up from the lower level. Difficult, but certainly possible.