SOUTHEND 5
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Under my cap
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In all my years in the business it's always been the case that airports and spotters love diversions while handling agents loath them - for reasons alluded to above.
Seriously folks you'd be better investing in lottery tickets than trying to build a business on diversions, it's about the only thing worse than trying to build a business on GA traffic without a share of the handling/ancilliary services pie.
Seriously folks you'd be better investing in lottery tickets than trying to build a business on diversions, it's about the only thing worse than trying to build a business on GA traffic without a share of the handling/ancilliary services pie.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Rochford
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an effort to be lean and efficient Southend will have just enough staff on duty to cover the days planned movements. Nothing wrong in that but if the planned movements are just a couple of flights over a couple of hours and a mass of City diversions turn up then the diverted aircraft will just sit there maybe an hour or two waiting for the passengers to be off loaded.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was another website which had a couple but I can't find it right now but will keep looking.
Reviews of London Southend airport (SEN)
Reviews of London Southend airport (SEN)
Review submitted by Magnus Knight on 27/09/12, vote ********** (1)
As an ex-pat I had the misfortune to get diverted to Southend from London City. We had to sit on the aircraft for what seemed like hours as the airport did not have any staff to offload the passengers and luggage. I elected to catch a train to London instead of catching a coach that was laid on. BIG MISTAKE. The train was dirty old commuter stock and stopped at every station as it made slow progress to London. Hopefully I will never have to use this airport again and why it thinks it is a London Airport when it is so far from the big smoke is a mystery to me.
As an ex-pat I had the misfortune to get diverted to Southend from London City. We had to sit on the aircraft for what seemed like hours as the airport did not have any staff to offload the passengers and luggage. I elected to catch a train to London instead of catching a coach that was laid on. BIG MISTAKE. The train was dirty old commuter stock and stopped at every station as it made slow progress to London. Hopefully I will never have to use this airport again and why it thinks it is a London Airport when it is so far from the big smoke is a mystery to me.
Last edited by Pain in the R's; 31st Dec 2015 at 05:56.
There were four LCY diversion on 24/09/12 (which I assume is the day referred to by Magnus Knight), these being 1 x Cityjet RJ85, 1 x BACF E190 & 2 x Cityjet F50. I don't have the times for those but it's certainly possible they arrived in short order so there could have been some delay in disembarking the pax. Mind you people do have a tendency to say things like "for what seemed like hours" when it was perhaps 20 minutes don't they?
This morning's SEN-ALC diverted en route into LGW with a pax medical emergency this; let's hope there's a happy outcome to that incident.
Happy New Year everyone.
This morning's SEN-ALC diverted en route into LGW with a pax medical emergency this; let's hope there's a happy outcome to that incident.
Happy New Year everyone.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know if it is still the case but pilots were often heard to moan on the ground handlers frequency at LTN about the time it was taking to get the passengers off. The priority was always the planned movements so everyone else would wait so SEN is no different to other airports.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: essex
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEN is well used to handling LCY diverts over the years and its a fairly regular feature in bad winters, even before the new terminal etc, so in general its not a prob.
Although a lot of regular LCY pax are used to being off the plane and through the terminal in a matter of a few minutes so any delay and train journey more than 10mins will seem 'hours' to those people.
SEN is probably the best option for LCY diverts, but agree its not something to base a business case on. But I've often wondered if BA could schedule some of its Saturday LCY arrivals into SEN (1 or 2 end up there most summer weekends) which would then free up those a/c for a further 1-2 saturday afernoon / Sunday morning rotations, maybe for a tour operator?
Although a lot of regular LCY pax are used to being off the plane and through the terminal in a matter of a few minutes so any delay and train journey more than 10mins will seem 'hours' to those people.
SEN is probably the best option for LCY diverts, but agree its not something to base a business case on. But I've often wondered if BA could schedule some of its Saturday LCY arrivals into SEN (1 or 2 end up there most summer weekends) which would then free up those a/c for a further 1-2 saturday afernoon / Sunday morning rotations, maybe for a tour operator?
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just reading some of the come
commentary about the Dublin route and lack thereof and the remarks about Flybe putting up some competition for the London City - Dublin route.
The topic of the Dublin route had been debated to death on here. AerLingus Regional have a great track record of developing the Dublin routes from all over the UK, most in direct competition worth Ryanair. Southend didn't work, just as Edinburgh didn't work (easyJet). These routes may have been profitable ( few will know the precise facts), but clearly they were not profitable enough on a commercial basis. London Dublin is one of the most hourly contested and busy European routes and Southend didn't prove attractive to the travelling public.
The demand to destinations on the East side of England have always been marginal from The Island of Ireland, notably Manston, Southend, Norwich, Humberside..... All tried and tested. Southern are relying on a catchment of 600k locally, which is significant, though they need to develop the airport as an inbound route to London. That's not an easy ( pardon the pun) task.
As for seriously suggesting that premium paying business passengers who like the trimmings and their executive club and convenience of LCY switching to Southend, that is plain nonsense.
I wish Southend Airport well, I've flown there a bunch of times when easyJet did BFS and it was great, but it always felt like I was very far from London when I arrived, though it was only 50 mins.... If the Dublin route is to work easyJet would need to come onto the route at reasonable frequency and stock at it, but as it's to the Irish Republic, highly unlikely they'll touch it...
commentary about the Dublin route and lack thereof and the remarks about Flybe putting up some competition for the London City - Dublin route.
The topic of the Dublin route had been debated to death on here. AerLingus Regional have a great track record of developing the Dublin routes from all over the UK, most in direct competition worth Ryanair. Southend didn't work, just as Edinburgh didn't work (easyJet). These routes may have been profitable ( few will know the precise facts), but clearly they were not profitable enough on a commercial basis. London Dublin is one of the most hourly contested and busy European routes and Southend didn't prove attractive to the travelling public.
The demand to destinations on the East side of England have always been marginal from The Island of Ireland, notably Manston, Southend, Norwich, Humberside..... All tried and tested. Southern are relying on a catchment of 600k locally, which is significant, though they need to develop the airport as an inbound route to London. That's not an easy ( pardon the pun) task.
As for seriously suggesting that premium paying business passengers who like the trimmings and their executive club and convenience of LCY switching to Southend, that is plain nonsense.
I wish Southend Airport well, I've flown there a bunch of times when easyJet did BFS and it was great, but it always felt like I was very far from London when I arrived, though it was only 50 mins.... If the Dublin route is to work easyJet would need to come onto the route at reasonable frequency and stock at it, but as it's to the Irish Republic, highly unlikely they'll touch it...
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: southend
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other Airlines
When you look at the departure & arrivals boards for SEN there are few movements between 07-00 & 10-00 surely this time could be used by a none based company/companies to assess viability of use as there are plenty of train arrivals and departures during this period ( up to eight an hour) and the same applies between 16-30 & 19-30, this could surely be good for bussiness travelers allowing a full day at work in town.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question - technically speaking is there still scope to extend RWY 24. This will impact Nestuda Way but as that roads declining gradient relative to the RWY, from a civil engineering standpoint the RWY could be projected and extended towards the A127 but construct the RWY section on piled pillars taking it over Nestuda. Opening up the future potential for other aircraft to support the airport. Thoughts?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mik3bravo,
You'll notice I said 'unkikely they'll touch it'. However, Ryanair currently cannot serve SEN due to 738 and current runway. So the competition from Ryanair would be ex-STN...
EI-BUD
You'll notice I said 'unkikely they'll touch it'. However, Ryanair currently cannot serve SEN due to 738 and current runway. So the competition from Ryanair would be ex-STN...
EI-BUD
mik3bravo
The answer to your question is that an extension to runway 23 (it changed recently from 24 due to magnetic variation over time) is not technically feasible.
SEN is classified as a Code 3C aerodrome due to its runway width of 36m and as such is subject to a maximum declared TODA of 1799m. The runway is in fact 1856m in length and it would be necessary to widen the runway to 45m in order to declare the use of even that extra bit of pavement. That's where the problem lies as Eastwoodbury church would then come within the runway strip width so the full existing 1856m couldn't be declared usable let alone any further extension.
I used the word 'feasible' earlier because it would be theoretically possible to move the church and overcome the other obstacle problems that a widened runway would encounter. Any extension to the south-west would likely be extremely limited as a 240m RESA would still have to be provided; this currently being the land between the end of the starter extension and Nestuda Way.
All definitely a non-starter I would say.
The answer to your question is that an extension to runway 23 (it changed recently from 24 due to magnetic variation over time) is not technically feasible.
SEN is classified as a Code 3C aerodrome due to its runway width of 36m and as such is subject to a maximum declared TODA of 1799m. The runway is in fact 1856m in length and it would be necessary to widen the runway to 45m in order to declare the use of even that extra bit of pavement. That's where the problem lies as Eastwoodbury church would then come within the runway strip width so the full existing 1856m couldn't be declared usable let alone any further extension.
I used the word 'feasible' earlier because it would be theoretically possible to move the church and overcome the other obstacle problems that a widened runway would encounter. Any extension to the south-west would likely be extremely limited as a 240m RESA would still have to be provided; this currently being the land between the end of the starter extension and Nestuda Way.
All definitely a non-starter I would say.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ef - thank you for your good explanation. Seems the airfield is boxed in which adds to its list of 'challenges'. The place is a terrific infrastructure resource in the area and I sense from the many contributor posters on here, we're all frustrated with the 'challenges'. Let's hope the new hire management positions get can-doers on the payroll capable of delivering positive change and good progress for this airport and it's surrounding locality through employment opportunities. The flight schedules to abondoned destinations needs sorting for those that make commercial sense.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a pity that there is not a cheap 50-60 seat airliner available which I believe could do well on some routes from SEN (at the right price and convenient times) especially on routes dumped by Easyjet both at Southend and Gatwick. I am a frequent visitor to Dusseldorf and the airport always seems so busy. Now that EZY plan to dump that route from LGW, I am sure it could work from SEN, in addition to a few domestic routes. I am still amazed Malta isn't on the departures board.
Is there anybody interested in the huge empty hangar previously filled by ATC Lasham? I wonder if the Stobart marketing team have been out searching.
Is there anybody interested in the huge empty hangar previously filled by ATC Lasham? I wonder if the Stobart marketing team have been out searching.
Exactly what I would have thought as well.
In the same way that an easyJet base at SEN to some extent reduces the attractiveness of SEN to similar operators then the Stobart Air base does likewise to operators of 50-70 seat aircraft.
Without the Stobart Air operation SEN might be attractive to VLM for example to operate the type of routes that tophat27dt suggests but why in that case does Stobart Air not operate such additional routes themselves? Instead they reduce their SEN capacity by 50% at a time when SEN itself is seeing a decline in pax numbers. There are only two rational explanations for that as far as I can see:
1) They don't believe that there are any additional viable routes from SEN for their size of aircraft.
2) They are not prepared to make the operational capacity available to operate any additional routes which they may identify as viable.
In 2014 Stobart Air had a substantial daily (in most cases) SEN operation with 3 x DUB, 2 x RNS, 2 x ANR, 1 x GRQ, 1 x CFR, 1 x FMO and 1 x MST. That comprised a three aircraft operation which has dwindled to the present one aircraft. So, is it a case that SEN just cannot support a substantial short-haul operation or is it that Stobart are simply the wrong people to be doing it? My judgement is that it is the latter. One illustration (to my mind anyway) of muddled thinking is that they replace the AT75 with an AT43 at the start of this winter thus providing capacity more in line with demand at lower operational cost. Then they do a volte face in December and put the AT75 back on the route permanently if the booking web site seat plan is anything to go by.
On the subject of the ex-ATC Lasham hangar I'm sure they are working hard to find a new tenant and I wouldn't be surprised to see that bearing fruit in the not too distant future.
In the same way that an easyJet base at SEN to some extent reduces the attractiveness of SEN to similar operators then the Stobart Air base does likewise to operators of 50-70 seat aircraft.
Without the Stobart Air operation SEN might be attractive to VLM for example to operate the type of routes that tophat27dt suggests but why in that case does Stobart Air not operate such additional routes themselves? Instead they reduce their SEN capacity by 50% at a time when SEN itself is seeing a decline in pax numbers. There are only two rational explanations for that as far as I can see:
1) They don't believe that there are any additional viable routes from SEN for their size of aircraft.
2) They are not prepared to make the operational capacity available to operate any additional routes which they may identify as viable.
In 2014 Stobart Air had a substantial daily (in most cases) SEN operation with 3 x DUB, 2 x RNS, 2 x ANR, 1 x GRQ, 1 x CFR, 1 x FMO and 1 x MST. That comprised a three aircraft operation which has dwindled to the present one aircraft. So, is it a case that SEN just cannot support a substantial short-haul operation or is it that Stobart are simply the wrong people to be doing it? My judgement is that it is the latter. One illustration (to my mind anyway) of muddled thinking is that they replace the AT75 with an AT43 at the start of this winter thus providing capacity more in line with demand at lower operational cost. Then they do a volte face in December and put the AT75 back on the route permanently if the booking web site seat plan is anything to go by.
On the subject of the ex-ATC Lasham hangar I'm sure they are working hard to find a new tenant and I wouldn't be surprised to see that bearing fruit in the not too distant future.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all comes down to profitability, and not lack of will.
SEN-DUB was a loss maker.
SEN-MST and ANR were loss makers
RNS and GRQ do OK, they are pretty solid as recent loads seems to indicate.
I personally don't see what the issue is with Stobart. Yes they tried a large operation and it didn't work, so the cut back to one that does. Is that not good business practice?
VLM at SEN? Never work, they're too expensive and the F50 is even slower than the ATR! Plus they have very limited brand awareness now in the area and would be competing against the big boys with a very expensive product.
SEN is a cheap as chips market, it may develop a business market in the future but at the moment, that is sown up by LCY and to an extent, STN.
SEN-DUB was a loss maker.
SEN-MST and ANR were loss makers
RNS and GRQ do OK, they are pretty solid as recent loads seems to indicate.
I personally don't see what the issue is with Stobart. Yes they tried a large operation and it didn't work, so the cut back to one that does. Is that not good business practice?
VLM at SEN? Never work, they're too expensive and the F50 is even slower than the ATR! Plus they have very limited brand awareness now in the area and would be competing against the big boys with a very expensive product.
SEN is a cheap as chips market, it may develop a business market in the future but at the moment, that is sown up by LCY and to an extent, STN.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Rochford
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEN?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEN have been chasing Jet2 to open a base here within the last few years, probably because they have a fleet that can operate from SEN's runway. Would an on-site maintenance facility of their own make a base more viable in the future?
Putting commercial flights aside, The Dart Group private plane (G-IFIT) was spotted at SEN on 21/12/15 and made another visit on 31/12/15 (MAN-SEN-LBA) so maybe that has fueled speculation. Regardless, it would be nice to see the hangar back in use and jobs returning to the site asap.
Putting commercial flights aside, The Dart Group private plane (G-IFIT) was spotted at SEN on 21/12/15 and made another visit on 31/12/15 (MAN-SEN-LBA) so maybe that has fueled speculation. Regardless, it would be nice to see the hangar back in use and jobs returning to the site asap.
Last edited by tws123; 3rd Jan 2016 at 18:03.