Pakistan International Airlines

[yorkie40]

Why carnt they move the touchdown zones back then?? Because the runway is long enough to handle a lot bigger aircraft than it does now, would be much cheaper than extending the runway. :good:

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Good afternoon

Could you explain further what you mean by this. Do you mean a new 777 daily flight at lbia, or something else?

Hello Aviation Academy and welcome to the forum.

You may have since realised from subsequent posts to yours that the daily B 777 flights are rumoured to begin at MAN, not LBA.

 

[muscleboy33]

By taking the touchdown point back on runway32 by 300metres would help a great deal plus its the flat section of the runway. Would it be possible to take the touchdown point back 100-200metres on runway14 as that would also help?

 

[The Pole]

Its a lot more involved than just moving the TDZ back. Lightning, ILS etc need moving as do the markings. It has been discussed at great length on here in the past. Also the aircraft would be marginally lower over Horsforth, so there was also mention of increasing the ILS from 3 degress glide to 3.5 to over come this!
To be honest, even when aircraft fly a visual approach I have never seen one touch down earlier!

 

[Aviador]

With the standard 3 degree glide, landing aircraft won't be significantly lower over Horsforth.

This picture of Concorde landing shows the aircraft close to touching down on the piano keys. That's 300m from the intended touchdown marker and it's also the previous location of the touchdown markers before the runway extension back in the 80's. It's where the touchdown markers would need moving back to if LBA is ever to be seriously considered by more long haul carriers.

[album]289[/album]

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I know I have mentioned this before, but when the runway was extended, the fact that the touchdown point would be moved further down 32 (33 as it was then) was used to placate the residents of Horsforth. Responses from a previous post lead me to believe that noise reduction over Horsforth was not the reason for moving the TDZ but a consequence of standardising the approach angle. Whatever the reason, I am sure that if it was economically or H&S viable the airport would have moved it back by now.

This really brings us back to the fact that the only was to increase the landing and take off distance of 32 is to extend the runway- which is not going to happen, unless there are any EU grants out there I am not aware of!

In any case, I don't see how landing distance can be the main concern given that aircraft are generally much lighter when landing. Surely the main issue is the take off run available for large/long haul aircraft, as evidenced by the fact that most westbound long haul flights have to refuel en-route to their destination veg in the Caribbean.

 

[White Heather]

I am certain that when the Masterplan is finally publicised, additional parking stands will be included as a high priority, BUT I hasten to add I have seen nothing to confirm this. Once they are, they will not take too long to construct. My reasoning is based purely on discussions at the Consultative Committee and the observations made by LBA, although it has to be said that even if they do expand the parking stands, it will not be very long before the airport is full again.

We all need to face up to the fact that the area of land occupied by LBA is not very big by airport standards and the land itself is not very level either, which doesn't help at all.

Muscleboy33, moving the touch down point at the 14 end of the runway is a non starter. To achieve touchdown where they do now requires a 3.5 degree glide-slope to clear the Chevin by the required height. Bringing the touch down point back nearer the Chevin end of the runway would require an even steeper approach to maintain that clearance, which I don't think will be acceptable.

Whilst we may only need 300m at the Horsforth end to make a real difference, that 300 metres includes the remains of a fairly deep reservoir that would need to be filled in, and would move the runway 300 m closer to Scotland Way, with the result that runway lighting would then be extended right into the housing area. Effectively, the likelihood of compulsory purchase of properties and the complete re-modelling of the housing area. Achievable but painful and very expensive. When the Government White Paper some years back more or less gave the nod to the runway being extended, it didn't actually consider the impact or cost of doing so. As I said previously, the cost v benefits calculations don't add up. If they don't add up for just moving the touch down point back towards Horsforth because of all the extra costs linked to the work, they certainly won't add up for a runway extension.

I think it is fair to say that LBA could easily operate to capacity (even with the additional parking stands and terminal expansion when they arrive) without any significant long haul flights because if we ever operated to our true potential on short/medium haul flights (most of which remain vastly under-served or not served at all) LBA would quickly be at capacity and with very little further expansion room - which is why LBA management are actively trying to ensure that the airport is utilised more during the day by non based a/c and not so dependent on the based a/c which by definition, are missing for most of the day.

Sadly the best we can hope for (I believe) is, another operator to Pakistan (eventually), possibly India, and Dubai (in both cases provided the right aircraft are operated) and heading West, Florida, Canada and hopefully New York - again using the right equipment. Beyond that, I can't see it happening, nor do I think LBA will be even thinking about it as long as the short and medium haul destinations remain under served.

 

[muscleboy33]

So even though the runway was extended by 600metres, due to the fact the touchdown point was then moved aprox 300metres further down the runway, in theory we only have around 300metres more lda! Madness!

 

[White Heather]

Blame the politicians, NIMBY's and anti airport protestors who kicked off so much this was the outcome. It is why myself and others formed the Airport Support Group - so that next time (which was the 24 hour operations issue), they didn't have it all their own way. Frankly, we did well at the time to even get the runway extension, such was the opposition. It is a shame that just changing it back again is so expensive, because of the lights, ILS, and the fact that changing it all when the airport is operational probably means periods of closure - no lights, no ILS. Nothing is simple.

 

[muscleboy33]

Imagine if the runway was extended by 300metres and touchdown point moved back 600metres! We would be laughing but just a dream

 

[Aviador]

White Heather is spot on regarding the reasons PIA's is withdrawing from LBA. I have no doubt that operational margins will be playing a part in PIA's decision. If LBA could accept larger aircraft routinely without so many operating restrictions I don't think PIA would necessarily be choosing Manchester over LBA. The workable albeit marginal operating restraints LBA suffers from will inevitably increase costs for the airlines with increased risk of low visibility diversions. LBA's vision: "Creating an outstanding regional airport, connecting Yorkshire with the World". They have an awful lot of proving before they can call themselves "outstanding". LBA might think it's not worth spending money on these kind of improvements but without them they risk falling so far behind other outstanding regional players like EMA and NCL who are going continental with their aspirations.

 

[Bigman]

...and you wonder why they start talking about a new purpose built airport!!

 

[airforced]

A new airport somewhere else would be a good idea. Everyone poo-pooed the idea when it was last raised, purely on financial grounds but it would be a good idea if funds (from wherever) could be found for the very reasons why this particular thread has got legs. Lets face it LBA is never going to move up into the next league when a bit of money here and a bit of money there will only be spent trying to patch the obvious shortcomings we all know are there.

I doubt though that such funds will ever be available, in my lifetime at least, so we will always be faced with an unsatisfactory make do and mend approach which in reality will do nobody any good whatsoever - so lets face it LBA is forever destined to be a second rate regional airport with all those in the know realising that and making their plans accordingly.

Sorry but the truth hurts sometimes.

 

[a300boy]

!00 % agree with that statement. We are a bit like Leeds United now stuck in the lower division and no prospect , or even a will , to re join the premier division. I hope Bridgepoint achieve there aims for the airport then sell it on as they did Birmingham and maybe the next owners would see things in a different light. Whilst agreeing that development is difficult, the present site is capable of much more with the
Investment we all crave. Do you not have to speculate to accumulate ? How do other airport like Ema Newcastle and the like invest so heavily in infrastructure as they must have similar revenue stream issues with low cost airlines accounting for a large number of movements.
White Heather makes a very good case for Bridgepoints position and maybe some of us were deluded to think they would spend vast amounts of money to bring the airport up to the standard we wanted. I also believe the operational limits of our runway have been a part of the PIA decision to cease flights. If PIA had started to use the B777 we may have hung on to the couple of flights a week. Whilst take off data suggests the B777 could operate to Islamabad the landing distances in my view are far too marginal for safe large aircraft regular operations. Thats the way it is and the ways to fix it have been discussed at length and seem to be too expensive to persue.

 

[rmac]

I would rate a Premier Div airport as those over the 9million mark, Edin Birmingham and Luton will pass 10 million shortly. Then we have the next division of those around the 5 million mark, ie Newcastle Liverpool, Bristol etc. Leeds hasn't got up to this number yet so rather than hoping for a few long haul routes such as ISB the airport needs to attract the likes of Turkish Airlines to Istanbul, Aer Lingus regional to Dublin and Cork, SAS daily to Copenhagen, later Stockholm. More German routes and maybe Iberia to Madrid, Brussels Airlines , etc. At the same time more from jet2, Monarch and how about EasyJet, not forgetting keeping BA and hopefully a nightstopper! Once the 5 million is in sight and by then new aircraft such as the 787 etc are more common then perhaps Dubai and maybe even New York might be contemplated. But the infrastructure needs to be there too, stands etc but, I think most importantly and this is not down to Bridgepoint but rather Leeds City to provide better access, preferably a rail link but a new access road. An improved terminal will help also and hopefully by then the large catchment area around Leeds and Bradford will have developed an enthusiasm and 'love' of their local airport. It will then be firmly in Div 1, where it belongs but not the Premier Division.

 

[a300boy]

rmac !! I will be delighted if you are correct in your projections. Maybe some of us are far too negative and should appreciate what we have.

 

[scousefowler]

LBA needs investment in its infrastructure, no doubt about it. It needs new infrastructure just to service the demand from lo-co airlines, and to facilitate growth in this sector. We need to forget about long haul and concentrate on this. The question is whether Bridgepoint are in a position to carry out this investment.........

 

[Aviador]

PIA provided LBA with a constant year round service. Unfortunately LBA cannot rely on the likes of Jet2 to do this. I think They operated as few as three flights on some days during the winter. Leeds needs to attract airlines that are willing to provide year round services. Beyond Europe, other than Islamabad there's only routes like Dubai, Doha and New York that could offer future year-round services.

 

[lbaspotter]

I understand the airports management are currently putting in quite a lot of effort to try and save the PIA Islamabad - Leeds service and even more to get that long promised but failed Boeing 777 upgrade.

I hear and have read elsewhere that the route has always been seen as a high maintenance contract for the airport owners so for them to be able to present their case that there is life beyond Manchester, it shows that local people are willing to use the service from there door step.

So the biggest fear for LBA at the moment has got to losing the route altogether without any kind of replacement service been in place!

 

[rmac]

So the debate seems to be about whether LBA can handle a 777 on a regular basis. There are those on here who seem to doubt that whilst there are others who seem to suggest that it is feasible and LBA management are keen to demonstrate this. I do not know. It has been stated that NCL has a regular 777 from a runway not much longer than LBA's but without some restrictions, ie the Chevin, also Dubai is not as far as ISB. I got the impression that serious money was needed to improve the runway length, etc to attract regular L Haul so it seemed prudent to spend what money is available to improve parking stands, etc and to encourage other airlines to open up the more short haul routes to Europe which I think is very much needed. After all Edinburgh, Birmingham, even Bristol have more business type flights to Europe than LBA for cities of a similar size. If it is possible to have regular 777 flights with PIA, or whoever, then great -I am all for it.