LAA/4/C - Folkestone & Hythe District Council
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
LAA/4/C
APP/L2250/V/10/2131934 & APP/L2250/V/10/2131936
SECTION 77 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – REFERENCE OF
APPLICATIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMUNITIES AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (INQUIRIES PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND)
RULES 2000
APPENDICES TO THE
PROOF OF EVIDENCE OF LOUISE CONGDON
BA (Soc Sci), MTD
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CASE
In respect of:
Planning Application Reference: Y06/1647/SH (New Terminal
Building)
Planning Application Reference: Y06/1648/SH (Runway
Extension)
relating to land at London Ashford Airport, Lydd, Romney Marsh, Kent,
TN29 9QL
Originated by: Louise Congdon
Dated: 20th December 2010
Reviewed by: Niall Gunn
Dated: 21st December 2010
York Aviation
DEVELOPMENT OF A PASSENGER TERMINAL, A RUNWAY
EXTENSION AND IMPROVED ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS AT
LYDD AIRPORT, ROMNEY MARSH, KENT
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CASE
APPENDICES
Contents
Page
APPENDIX A: LOUISE CONGDON CURRICULUM VITAE....................................i
APPENDIX B: LONDON ASHFORD AIRPORT COMMERCIAL STRATEGY ....viii
APPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF THE CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING TERMINAL....
.....................................................................................................................xix
APPENDIX D: DETAILED DEMAND PROJECTIONS ....................................xxviii
APPENDIX A: LOUISE CONGDON CURRICULUM VITAE
i
LOUISE CONGDON
MANAGING PARTNER
EDUCATION/QUALIFICATIONS:
BA (SOC SCI) Hons. Geography, Class 2.1, University of Sheffield 1974
Master of Transport Design, University of Liverpool 1976 (including thesis on National
Airport Planning)
EXPERIENCE:
Louise is an experienced airport planner and strategist with over 33 years’ experience in
the aviation industry for the UK CAA, Birmingham and Manchester Airports; at a senior
management level for 17 years. She joined York Consulting to set up York Aviation in
September 2002.
During her time at Manchester Airport, Louise played a key role in influencing UK and
European aviation policy debates from the 1980's. This included direct contact with
Government and the European Commission. She has extensive experience of UK and
European policy as it relates to airports and air transport more generally. At Manchester
Airport, Louise was latterly responsible for Corporate Strategy, Business Planning and
overall aviation policy development for Manchester Airport PLC. Prior to that Louise
headed up the Airport’s planning function, including responsibility for air traffic forecasting.
Louise gave the main evidence on the need for and capacity of the second runway at the
Public Inquiry in 1994/5 and gave evidence at other public inquiries. She was a Director
of Ringway Handling Services and part of the team that managed the acquisition of East
Midlands and Bournemouth Airports, including specific responsibility of competition
clearance.
Since establishing York Aviation, Louise has advised a number of clients, including the
Department for Transport and key public sector agencies, airports, investors and airlines,
on air traffic forecasting, economic impact of airports, business strategy and viability,
transactions, route development and airport development in the UK and Europe. In
particular, she has advised regional development agencies on the economic importance
of regional airports such as Carlisle, Norwich and Southend as well as undertaking an
economic appraisal of City of Derry Airport for Derry City Council. Louise was responsible
for the national response by the Regional Development Agencies to the 2002 and 2003
consultations prior to the publication of the Future of Air Transport White Paper.
ii
CAREER PROFILE:
Managing Director/Managing Partner, York Aviation, 2002-
Manchester Airport Group, Group Research & Intelligence Manager, 2001-2
Manchester Airport plc, 1980-2001, General Manager – Strategy 1994-2001
West Midlands County Council, Air Transport Engineer, 1979-80
Civil Aviation Authority, Scientific Officer/Higher Scientific Officer, 1976-9
EXPERIENCE WITH YORK AVIATION
England’s Regional Development Agencies: Aviation and Airport Strategy Study
(2002), Study into the Case for Route Development Funding (2004) and Study into
Heathrow Development Options (2007-8);
Advantage West Midlands and West Midlands Regional Assembly: Assessment of
the economic impact of Airport Expansion in the West Midlands (2005);
North West Development Agency, One NorthEast and Yorkshire Forward: Position
Statement on the Development of Airports in the North of England (2002);
UK Department for Transport: Consultation Seminar Chair and advice on analysis
framework (2002);
UK Department for Transport: Development of the RDF Appraisal Framework
(2004/5);
Leeds/Bradford Airport: Preparation of Response to the Future Development of Air
Transport in the North of England (2002) and Technical Vendor Due Diligence in
connection with the sale of the Airport (2006/7);
ACI EUROPE: Economic and Social Impact Study of Europe’s Airports (2002-3);
Lyon Saint Exupéry Airport: Economic Impact Study (2003);
Scottish Enterprise, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Scottish Executive:
Development of an Economic Appraisal Framework for new Air Services (2003-4);
City Hopper Airports: Preparation of passenger forecasts for Wolverhampton,
Blackpool and Exeter Airports (2003-5);
North West Development Agency: New Route Development Study (2003) and
establishment of the Air Services Development Fund (2004-5);
North West Development Agency: Appraisal of the economic case for NWDA
support for Carlisle Airport, including Business Plan analysis (2003-5);
North West Development Agency: Air Transport Cluster Mapping Study (2003);
Cumbria Inward Investment Agency: A feasibility study for establishing helicopter
services from West Cumbria to the airports serving the region. (2003);
Air Route Development Northern Ireland: Economic appraisal of the value of
investment to support new air routes from Northern Ireland Airports. (2004);
iii Renaissance South Yorkshire: Study into maximising the potential economic
benefits from Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield. (2003-4);
North West Leicestershire District Council: Examination of the air traffic forecasts for
Nottingham EMA Airport. (2004);
Yorkshire Forward: Study into Support for Air Transport Opportunities. (2004);
Laings: Due Diligence Advice regarding acquisition of a European Airport (2004)
and Pardubice Airport, Czech Republic (2007);
Sheffield City Council: Advice on the Economic and Financial Viability of Sheffield
City Airport (2005);
London City Airport: Economic and Social Impact Study (2005 and 2010), Air Traffic
Forecasts (2007-10), Capacity and Coordination Analysis (2008/9);
Plymouth City Council/Sutton Harbour Holdings: Study into the Potential for
Plymouth City Airport, including economic and financial considerations (2005);
East of England Development Agency: Study into the Socio-economic impact of the
development of Southend Airport (2005) and Norwich Airport (2006/7);
SEEDA: Advice in relation RPG airports policy (2006) and the DfT Consultation on
Adding Capacity at Heathrow (2008);
Birmingham International Airport: Passenger and movement forecasts (2005-7);
Ryanair: Regulatory Policy Advice in relation to Stansted and Dublin Airports,
including advice in relation to the Terminal 2 development at Dublin Airport and
expert witness at Public Hearing (2005-2010);
Stansted Airlines Consultative Committee: Advice in relation to the development of
Stansted Airport, expert witness at G1 Public Inquiry, input to the CAA quinquennial
review and CC Market Investigation (2005-2009);
Dublin Airport Consultation Committee: Advice in relation to the regulation of Dublin
Airport (2009)
London Luton Airport Ltd: Preparation of Air Traffic Forecasts and advice on
development options (2006-2010);
easyJet: Advice in relation to Berlin Airport development (2006);
Advice in relation to the acquisition of London City Airport for successful bidder
(2006);
Sochaczew Council (Poland): Pre-feasibility study for the conversion of a military
airfield (2006);
TAG Farnborough: advice in relation to an increase in business aviation weekend
movements at Farnborough Airport and expert witness at Public Inquiry (2007);
iv Birmingham International Airport: Air Traffic Forecasts and Economic Case for
runway extension (2006-2009)
City of Derry: advice on Governance Options (with Ernst & Young) (2006/7), advice
in relation to the Business Plan (2008), Economic and Business Case Appraisal,
Soft Market Testing and preparation of full Information Memorandum (2009);
Farallon Capital: advice on Airport Acquisition in South Africa (2007);
Galaxy Asset Management: Advice in relation to Acquisition of Concession to
operate Beauvais Airport (2007);
City of London Corporation – City of London Air Service Study (2008);
States of Guernsey – Economic Appraisal of Runway Extension options (2009).
BAA Aberdeen – Route Development Feasibility Study (2010)
Manchester Airport - Aviation Pricing Strategy (2010)
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol – Economic Impact Study (2010)
Belfast City Airport – Preparation of Need Case for Runway Extension Public Inquiry
(2010)
Lydd Airport - Preparation of Need Case for Runway Extension Public Inquiry (2010)
EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO YORK AVIATION
Public Inquiries:
Birmingham Airport New Terminal (1979-80);
Manchester Airport Second Runway: Principal Witness on Need and Demand
(1994);
Liverpool Airport: Witness on Policy and Demand (1995);
Doncaster Finningley Airport 2001/2: Witness on Policy and Demand for the
Consortium of Airports opposing the development (2001/2).
Stansted Generation 1 – Witness on demand (2007)
Elvington Aerodrome Hangar Development – Witness on need and demand (2008)
UK Government Policy:
Member of the Reference Groups for Regional Air Services Studies, Forecasting
Advisory Group and Commercial Trends Study. Expert Panel Member –
Technology Study;
v Chairman of the Department of Transport's RUCATSE Regional Airport Sub Group
and member of the Main Group 1991/3 considering airport capacity in the London
area;
Oral Evidence to House of Commons Transport Select Committee on European
Aviation 1991, UK/US Aviation Relations 1994, UK Airport Capacity 1996, Regional
Air Services 1999; UK/US Air Services 2000;
Member of UK Delegation to UK/US air service talks 1992-2002;
Chair of the Airport Operators Association (AOA) Government and Industry Affairs
Committee and member of the AOA Executive Committee 1995-2002;
European Policy:
Advisor to ECOSOC on the European ‘Single Sky’ 2002;
ACI EUROPE - Chair Technical & Safety Committee 1991-1993, Member Policy
Committee 1995-2002, Rapporteur/Member Task Forces on Economic Impact,
Airport Competition (State Aids), Slot Allocation and Airport Charges;
ACI EUROPE representative to the European Civil Aviation Conference APATSI
Group 1992-1997 and the European Commission’s Ad Hoc Working Group on
Airport Capacity;
Corporate Responsibilities - Manchester Airport:
Corporate Strategy and Business Planning, including pricing policies (1992-2001);
Review of Long Term Business Strategy (1999);
Business Reviews of Security, Motor Transport, Car Parks and Information
Services;
Preparation of Passenger and Movement Forecasts;
Management of the Slot Allocation Process for MA;
Director of Ringway Handling Services Ltd (1997-2001);
Part of the acquisitions team for National Express Airports Group, including Merger
Clearance submission and air traffic forecasts;
Member of the economic regulation team for quinquennial reviews;
Response to the EU State Aids case brought against Manchester Airport.
viPlanning – Manchester Airport:
Negotiations with British Rail and Government to secure the Rail Link and Southern
Spur (1987-1993);
Functional briefs for capacity enhancement schemes for Terminal 1, Terminal 2 and
the Second Runway;
Preparation of the Development Strategy update 1987 and the Draft Development
Strategy to 2005.
viiAPPENDIX B: LONDON ASHFORD AIRPORT COMMERCIAL
STRATEGY
viiiix
x
xi
Airport Growth Strategy
October 2010About LAA
• Small regional airport serving Kent and East Sussex with
additional benefit of London access
• Historic passenger throughput of 250,000+ per annum
• Supporting the Scheduled, Charter and General Aviation
markets
xii
• Range of on-site support services including FAL Aviation
and Phoenix Aero Engineering
• Supporting 48 full time jobs in Romney Marsh
• £1m turnover for 2009
• £1.6m net loss for 2009
• Accumulated operational losses of £12mInvestment strategy
• FAL Holdings acquired Lydd Airport (LAA) in 2001
• Acquisition basis focused on forecast long term growth in
UK air transport sector and predicted congestion in
London airport system
• FAL is fully committed to developing LAA into successful
xiii
small regional airport
• FAL has invested £30m in total since 2001
• £15-20m capital plan for proposed expansion supported
by FAL HoldingsBarriers to commercial growth
• Inadequate runway length for viable commercial air
services
• Poor/not fit for purpose terminal proposition for major
airlines (built in 1954)
xiv
• No Instrument Landing System (ILS)
• Limited Airport Fire Service capability – CAT 2
• Limited Air Traffic Control (ATC) service
• Inadequate aircraft parking stands
• Sub standard runway surface
• Distance/travel time from Greater London marketRecent Investment
• Upgraded ILS – £1m
• Enhanced Airport Fire Service capability – now CAT 6 -
£1m
• Resurfaced runway – £1.5m
xv
• 14 acre aircraft parking stands development – £2m
• Enhanced ATC capability and service – £0.5m
• Terminal upgrade & FBO - £2mRemaining issues
• Runway extension required for commercial services –
Charter and Low Cost Carriers not willing to commit to
LAA without extension to address full payload issue
• New terminal – modern, efficient facility required for
quality passenger experience and swift airline
xvi
turnaround timesAttracting commercial services
• Runway length adequate for viable commercial services
• Modern, efficient terminal facilities
• Competitive aeronautical charging structure
• Flexible approach to pricing
• Extensive apron and aircraft parking facilities
• In-house aircraft handling operator/FBO
xvii
• In-house line maintenance capability
• Limited ATC restrictions – outside London Terminal Management
Area (TMA)
• Unrestricted slot availability
• Geographic proximity to Continental Europe
• Vastly improved surface access connections to Greater London and
neighbouring Kent towns by High Speed Rail (38 mins journey time
from central London to Ashford International)Alternative (Fall Back) strategy
• Maximise all operations using existing 24HR runway
availability
• Target Executive Jet and General Aviation sectors as
capacity becomes constrainted at other London/SE
airports
• Target more cargo/freighter tonnage citing 24HR runway
xviii
availability
• Target heavy maintenance, painting, and internal re-fit
operators
• Review operational support availability and headcount to
reduce on-going losses
• Scale back capital investment programmeAPPENDIX C: ANALYSIS OF THE CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING
TERMINAL
xixForecasts and Capacity
1. The forecast scenarios show two types of commercial passenger operations as
likely at LAA:
Firstly, 78 seat Dash8-Q400 operations predominantly to UK domestic
destinations with limited operations to international points.
Secondly, international charter operations or low fares operations using 189
seat Boeing 737-800, (B738), or equivalent in size aircraft types, such as the
Airbus A320.
2. To test the capacity capabilities of the current LAA passenger terminal, we have
reflected the forecasts in terms of typical daily patterns of operations. In the
absence of a new terminal, at 300,000 passengers per annum, we envisage that the
Airport would be handling four Q400 rotations per day all year and two B738
rotations per day for the summer charter season with limited numbers during the
winter months. Such a pattern of operations would likely require that up to two
aircraft, either two Q400 or one each of Q400 and B738, to be parked at the Airport
at the same time with overlapping rotations and hence passengers, arriving and
departing, being within the terminal building simultaneously. With all operations
forecast to be operated by non-based aircraft then the likely operating window will
be across 5 hours during the middle part of the day for most of the operations.
3. With this in mind, we have considered the capacity of the passenger terminal in its
current layout and then what it might be if the layout within the existing building is
modified.
Capacity of Current Passenger Terminal
4. To place the airport layout in context, we have, at Annex A, presented an annotated
extract of the Lydd Airport AIP Aerodrome Chart that illustrates where the three
apron areas, passenger terminal and control tower, (VCR), are located. The runway
03/21, running from south-west to north-east, is to the east of all these facilities.
5. At Annex B, we present an annotated extract of the Lydd Airport AIP Aircraft
Parking Chart. This highlights the three apron areas, with Bravo Apron being where
all commercial passenger aircraft such as the Q400 and B738 can be parked along
with other flights such as larger GA aircraft, such as corporate jets. Charlie Apron
has a weak structure and is where the light GA turboprop aircraft are parked. The
third apron area, Delta, is unavailable for use as this sits within the runway
instrument strip, edge highlighted, that prevents the parking of any type of aircraft.
6. The passenger terminal is located close to and to the west of this runway instrument
strip and we understand that parts of the terminal building structure infringe the
parallel 1 in 7 transitional slope from the runway. In front of the terminal are two car
parking zones; the one immediately to the front of the terminal has a tarmac surface
and capacity of around 150 spaces, the second area nearby is an overspill parking
area with an unfinished surface and space for around 50 cars; total is 200 spaces.
xx7. At Annex C, we have annotated a plan provided by LAA that illustrates the current
terminal layout. It also includes the location of two proposed baggage belts; one for
the improved handling of outbound baggage from the check-in desks via a baggage
x-ray machine to a sort area, the other is an arriving baggage carousel. Neither of
these belts has been procured, although the feasibility of their installation has been
confirmed.
8. We have used colours on the plan to highlight key areas as well as annotation. The
pink zone is the check-in area with its two desks and post office style queuing
arrangement. Adjacent in yellow is the landside café and restaurant area with
around 240 mainly catering style seats and tables.
9. Behind the check-in zone in violet is the baggage sortation area. The red zone is
the outbound security search area. There is space for two channels each with an
Archway Metal Detector and x-ray machine. LAA already has such equipment.
10. The green zone is the single departure gate that currently has 50 seats and space
for a further 30 seats. There is access to toilet facilities but no catering or retail
outlet.
11. To the left of the departure gate, marked in orange, is the arrivals area, comprising
the location of the proposed arrival baggage reclaim carousel and supporting control
authority and customs accommodation.
12. The left hand wing of the terminal comprises the Aero Club facility at the top. In the
middle in blue is the VIP area, which is also used for domestic arriving and departing
passengers. We understand that currently the aforementioned departure lounge
and arrival facilities are for international passengers only. However, Lydd Airport
has obtained an in principle agreement with control authorities that domestic traffic
can be handled through here in an either or scenario; i.e. if no international
passengers are present then domestic passengers can be processed through the
area. This could pose some restrictions on the simultaneous handling of flights.
Otherwise the alternative handling of domestic passengers through the VIP area will
take place.
13. All commercial passengers will be bussed to and from the aircraft as all commercial
flights will be parked on Apron Bravo, see Annex B, which is too far from the
terminal for passengers to walk.
14. Our assessment of the capacity of the terminal in its current layout has considered
the facilities and arrangements outlined above. With only two check-in desks and a
small departure gate capable of accommodating up to around 80 passengers, this
limits the size of aircraft which can currently be accommodated.
15. Assuming all flights are operated by non-based aircraft, the likely turn round time
between the arriving and departing movements will be typically 25 to 30 minutes.
This means that a single aircraft will in effect have arriving passengers being
processed through the terminal at the same time that the departing passengers are
present. Indeed, it is likely that all/most departing passengers will have been
processed through security in to the gate room at the same time that the arriving
flight is parked.
xxi16. Given these limitations, it will only be possible to handle the expected Q400 flights
with 78 seats on a one at a time basis with the terminal as it is currently configured.
17. If the Airport was able to attract such operations independently of charter operations
(which we do not believe is likely), four Q400 rotations per day as indicated by our
market analysis would equate to only 156,000 passengers per year. It may be
possible that LAA Airport can attract a fifth Q400 per day, if so then the throughput
would be 195,000 passengers per year.
18. Hence, our assessment is that the current terminal layout can support Q400
operations only at a realistic maximum of typically five rotations per day and so
giving the terminal a capacity of approximately 200,000 passengers per annum.
Capacity of Modified Layout of Passenger Terminal
19. We have considered how a reorganisation of the internal layout of the existing
building might enable the predicted higher annual throughput, with the runway
extension in place, to be handled. In making this assessment, we have relied on
information supplied by LAA.
20. To increase capacity, the check-in and departure gate capacity must be increased in
size to at least enable an aircraft of the size of a B738 to be handled and, ideally,
allow two aircraft to be handled concurrently, either a B738 and a Q400, or two
Q400 aircraft at the same time. Even this will limit the scheduling flexibility for B738
operations as two movements by such aircraft could not be handled simultaneously.
21. At Annex D, we illustrate an alternative layout showing how such modifications
could be made. The original layout can be seen in the background.
22. This rearrangement has a switch between the locations of the check-In and security
search to provide additional space. The check-in area, in pink, would have space
for four or five desks and a much larger queuing area in front of it. It is also located
immediately in front of the main entrance to the terminal. The search area, red,
would have more space to process a larger number of passengers although the
level of equipment would be unchanged at two channels.
23. Behind the check-in area, in violet, is a relocated and expanded area for the
baggage sortation, inclusive of the x-ray processing of hold baggage. It should be
noted that the proposed new baggage belt would need to be relocated.
24. The large green area is the new departure lounge which is now almost four times
the size of the original departure gate and represents a shift of area from landside to
airside, most of this new lounge area being the current landside café seating area.
This departure lounge would have sufficient space to accommodate a full load of
passengers from two flights, a B738 and a Q400, as well as provide dedicated
airside catering and retail facilities. A set of existing landside toilets would also
switch to airside to service this lounge. We believe the control authorities will permit
‘common use’ of this lounge for departing international and domestic flights as is
now typical at other UK airports.
xxii25. The orange arrivals area is largely the same, although slightly smaller. The
proposed new arrivals carousel reclaim belt would be in the same location as that
indicated in Annex C. We envisage that there will need to be some separation by
time of international and domestic flights in this area.
26. The landside café and seating area would need to be relocated to the front right of
the terminal, yellow in Annex D, in the space occupied by the current kitchen and
some of the airport offices. This new yellow zone could also have some limited
landside retail outlets.
27. The displaced airport offices might be able to be relocated to the first floor office
area, although we understand that this is fully occupied. Alternatively, portacabin
type accommodation may need to be provided nearby to provide additional office
accommodation for airlines and handlers.
28. The VIP and Domestic area remains as currently set out and operated.
29. With these rearrangements to the layout in place then LAA would be able to handle
two aircraft on a short turn round simultaneously, provided there were two separate
exit doors forming two independent gates from the departure lounge. Hence, with a
modified layout, the existing terminal would be able to handle a maximum of
300,000 passengers per annum assuming the likely pattern of operations with four
or five Q400 and two B738 sized rotations per day during the summer months.
30. Finally, regarding car parking. The current 200 spaces may need to be higher to
support charter and regular scheduled operations for an annual throughput of
300,000. It may be possible to identify other areas of land along the approach road
that can function either as public overspill parking areas or for most of the staff car
parking so freeing up all spaces close to the terminal for use by the public.
31. Our forecasts suggest that growth beyond 300,000 passengers a year will be
achieved by the addition of more B738 or similar type movements. The current
terminal is too small to allow two such aircraft to be handled simultaneously as
would be required to support a throughput of 500,000 passengers a year.
xxiiixxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvii xxvii
APPENDIX D: DETAILED DEMAND PROJECTIONS
xxviiiTable D.1: Lower Growth Passenger Forecasts 2010-2030
Year
Destination 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Alicante 2,722 5,443 10,206 10,206 20,506 20,506 20,506 20,506 20,506 20,506 20,506 37,632 38,572 39,537 40,525 41,538 41,538 41,538
Barcelona 20,412 20,412 20,412 20,412 20,412 20,412 20,412 20,412
Belfast 17,179 17,643 18,119 22,287 22,844 23,415 24,000 24,600 25,215 25,846 26,492 27,154 27,154 27,154
Dublin 18,270 18,764 19,270 24,690 25,307 25,940 26,588 32,704 33,521 34,359 35,218 36,099 36,099 36,099
Edinburgh 18,210 18,702 19,206 19,725 20,258 24,917 25,540 26,178 26,833 27,504 28,191 28,896 29,618 30,359 30,359 30,359
Faro 2,722 5,443 10,206 10,206 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 33,581 34,420 35,281 36,163 36,163 36,163
Geneva 1,997 3,994 3,994 3,994 3,994 3,994 3,994 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443
Glasgow 17,985 25,876 26,575 27,292 28,029 28,786 35,407 36,292 37,199 38,129 39,083 40,060 41,061 42,088 43,140 43,140 43,140
Grenoble 1,997 1,997 3,994 3,994 3,994 3,994 3,994 3,994 5,443 5,443 5,443
Ibiza 2,722 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 17,411 17,846 17,846 17,846
Jersey 998 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 7,488 7,488 7,488 7,488
Lanzarote 7,484 7,484 7,484 7,484 7,484 7,484 7,484
Larnaca 2,722 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690
Madrid 20,412 20,412 20,412
Malaga 2,722 10,206 20,412 20,412 20,412 20,412 30,618 35,381 35,381 35,381 35,381 35,381 55,151 56,530 57,943 59,392 59,392 59,392
Malta 2,722 10,206 10,206 10,206
Murcia 11,733 11,733 11,733 11,733 11,733 11,733 11,733
Naples 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206
Nice 20,412 20,412 20,412 20,412 20,412 20,412 20,412 20,412
Palma 2,722 10,206 13,199 13,529 13,868 17,057 17,483 17,921 18,369 18,828 18,828 18,828
Paphos 5,443 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206
Tenerife (TFS) 10,206 10,206 10,206 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690 17,690
Turin 2,722 2,722 5,443 5,443 5,443 10,886 10,886 10,886 10,886 10,886 10,886
Venice 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206
Lyddair 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Total Passengers 2,000 2,000 2,000 7,444 38,356 84,869 93,543 142,512 165,410 186,078 236,158 249,318 257,116 301,096 373,550 423,882 430,676 461,517 498,436 498,436 498,436
Source: York Aviation
xxixTable D.2: Higher Growth Passenger Forecasts 2010-2030
Year
Destination 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Alicante 2,722 5,443 10,206 10,206 20,506 20,506 20,506 20,506 29,121 29,849 42,833 43,904 43,904 43,904 43,904 43,904 43,904 43,904
Belfast 17,179 17,643 18,119 26,001 26,651 27,317 28,000 28,700 28,700 28,700 28,700 28,700 28,700 28,700
Dublin 47,174 47,174 47,174 47,174 47,174 47,174 47,174 47,174 47,174 47,174 47,174 47,174 47,174 47,174 47,174
Edinburgh 18,210 18,702 19,206 19,725 20,258 29,070 29,796 30,541 31,305 32,087 32,087 32,087 32,087 32,087 32,087 32,087
Faro 2,722 5,443 10,206 10,206 17,690 17,690 20,412 20,412 20,412 35,381 38,222 38,222 38,222 38,222 38,222 38,222 38,222
Geneva 1,997 3,994 3,994 3,994 3,994 5,443 5,443 10,886 10,886 10,886 10,886 10,886 10,886 10,886
Glasgow 20,157 25,876 26,575 27,292 28,029 28,786 41,308 42,341 43,399 44,484 45,596 45,596 45,596 45,596 45,596 45,596 45,596
Grenoble 2,722 5,443 10,674 10,941 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700 15,700
Ibiza 2,722 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443 10,206 10,206 10,206 18,402 18,862 18,862 18,862 18,862 18,862 18,862 18,862
Jersey 998 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744 3,744
Lanzarote 5,443 5,443 7,484 7,484 7,484 7,484 7,484 7,484 7,484 7,484
Larnaca 2,722 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 23,533 24,121 24,121 24,121 24,121 24,121 24,121 24,121
Malaga 2,722 10,206 20,412 20,412 20,412 30,618 30,618 35,381 35,381 35,381 61,243 62,774 62,774 62,774 62,774 62,774 62,774 62,774
Malta 2,772 2,772 2,772 2,772 2,772 2,772 2,772
Murcia 11,447 11,447 11,447 11,447 11,447 11,447 11,447 11,447 11,447
Naples 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206
Nice 22,463 22,463 22,463 22,463 22,463 22,463 22,463 22,463 22,463
Palma 2,722 5,443 10,206 10,206 10,206 19,415 19,900 19,900 19,900 19,900 19,900 19,900 19,900
Paphos 2,722 5,443 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206 10,206
Tenerife (TFS) 10,206 18,808 19,316 24,749 25,368 26,002 35,381 35,381 35,381 35,381 35,381 35,381 35,381 35,381
Turin 2,772 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443 5,443
Lyddair 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Total 2,000 2,000 2,000 7,444 40,528 84,869 140,717 181,622 218,073 236,019 293,172 320,882 373,266 481,287 499,073 499,073 499,073 499,073 499,073 499,073 499,073
Source: York Aviation
xxxYou can also read
