Read the forum code of contact
By: 10th October 2005 at 23:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Leeds has already got its runway extension its down the road at Finningley!!. :)
By: 11th October 2005 at 09:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-A friend of mine works fueling the planes @ LBA.....
He says that there is a rumour that there will be an extension to the Horsforth end of the runway......
Anybody got any idea if this is true or not???
By: 11th October 2005 at 09:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Hi.For the LBA to really prosper it needs a further runway extension to at least 9,500ft to be able to cope with fully fueled and full passenger loaded aircraft.
You have to remember that Leeds is only marginally over an hour from MAN, which would make the business case for a major runway extension difficult because flights would be more viable from MAN, and would reduce the potential demand for an LBA service.
With a 9,500ft runway it is pretty sure that 767-300s and even 747s could use the airport economically without having to stop off at another airport en route.
MAN has longer runways, and 767s can be severly restricted on the hottest of days. When BA operated MAN - LAX they often had to offload passengers because they couldn't get off the runway with the fuel requirements. East Coast USA I would accept would be fine with that runway. The 767 does not have the greatest runway performance for heavily ladden flights.
Accounting for the fact that LBA is higher above sea level (affecting runway performance) it is useful to remember that BRS has a 2011m runway (shorter than LBA) and accpets daily New York 757 flights, as does NCL (with roughly the same length runway as LBA). If the airlines saw the market at Leeds they could at least tap into it now, especially givent he strategies of American and Continental to serve more points from their hubs with lower capacity aircraft.
By: 11th October 2005 at 11:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Did the government white paper not call for a runway extension of some 300m?(Horforth end) This would push the length to around 8,400ft.
Similar to Birmingham,field elevation 325ft. Runway direction same as LBA.
And, Trans-Atlantic services.
LOT Polish operate 3 weekly flights to New York from Krakow using 767-300.
Runway length 8,400ft elevation 795ft, summer temps sometimes +30deg. A much longer flight than it would be from LBA.
By: 11th October 2005 at 16:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Yet another thread about LBA, I like!
LBA will be getting a 300 ft extension in the next few years, if I remember rightly what someone said at college, I think its 200ft at 32, and 100 ft at 14, could be wrong though!
By: 11th October 2005 at 16:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-LBARULES,
I think you mean metres!
wawkrk
By: 11th October 2005 at 16:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Probably did, lol, im not up with the metric and imperial differences!
By: 11th October 2005 at 17:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'm not sending you to get 2 litres of Stella, then! ;)
By: 11th October 2005 at 18:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Is there enough space to extend the Horsforth end of the runway... that little housing estate (Scotland) is pretty close to the runway as it is!
By: 11th October 2005 at 20:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'm not sending you to get 2 litres of Stella, then! ;)
LMAO, you wouldn't say no! :D
GZYL, I hope so, thats apparantly where they are extending it!
By: 11th October 2005 at 21:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Seems a very strange move that! I mean... the aircraft already fly low over those houses.... and the extension will put them even lower.... there is loads of space on the other end of the runway... just farmland... why not extend it that way?
By: 12th October 2005 at 09:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-The runway needs to have the displaced threshold at 32 end extended in order to give greater landing distance but more importantly,longer take off run.
This is because of climb performance limitations caused by the Chevin some 2 miles distant.
The the current distance to the nearest houses is about 2000ft.
At 14 end which also helps in other ways, a 2000ft extension would be possible but not neccesary.
Obstacle clearance limits set by the CAA do not seem to make sense to the general public (like me).
The limits I believe for a large twin jet are based on single engine climb performance in
an emergency.Although a modern large twin jet can climb faster on a single engine than a 4 engined turboprop could manage on 3 engines in the old days.Maybe as aircraft performance continues to improve,this problem may be eliminated.
By: 12th October 2005 at 20:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Aircraft need to be able to clear a 50 foot obstacle at the end of the runway. This must be possible with one engine inoperative IIRC.
Blimey.... with the 300m extension.... that means aircraft will be 350 ish metres away from some peoples living rooms! NOISY!
By: 13th October 2005 at 09:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Is any of this going to be affected by the new wind farm that is to be built near the airport????
I believe it is on the approach path at the chevin end????
Posts: 128
By: nordjet415 - 10th October 2005 at 23:24
Hi.
For the LBA to really prosper it needs a further runway extension to at least 9,500ft to be able to cope with fully fueled and full passenger loaded aircraft.
Does anyone think that the current 7,400ft runway is feasable and economical for transatlantic services ( bearing in mind the odd summers day when the tempreture is around 80 degrees and the wind is calm ) or would a runway extension be better. ?
Are there any plans or rumours for a further runway extension and if so, at what end of the runway ?
With a 9,500ft runway it is pretty sure that 767-300s and even 747s could use the airport economically without having to stop off at another airport en route.
cheers
nordjet415