SOUTHEND 5
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Peterborough
Age: 61
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Essexman...... Palma is slightly different to Mahon, you can't compare them
As for why the top two would not operate is because they would need to open an operating base. Otherwise they would have to position aircraft to SEN for each rotation. The cost of this is a non-starter. Not being negative about SEN, it's just a matter of fact.
As for why the top two would not operate is because they would need to open an operating base. Otherwise they would have to position aircraft to SEN for each rotation. The cost of this is a non-starter. Not being negative about SEN, it's just a matter of fact.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK. So they would need to make a major investment in a base at an airport dominated by EZY. I wonder if they'd change their minds if EZY decide to reduce or withdraw their own base? Maybe they feel the south eastern holiday airline market is saturated already.
I still think SEN would be well advised to talk to continental carriers, offering them a rapid transit London gateway. No doubt they already have, but I hope the contact is ongoing and persuasive.....
I still think SEN would be well advised to talk to continental carriers, offering them a rapid transit London gateway. No doubt they already have, but I hope the contact is ongoing and persuasive.....
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Peterborough
Age: 61
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, but there's not a hope in hell of either operator opening a base. Burstin had the right idea in the past and filled their flights to capacity.
Although I shouldn't say it Air Malta, should be approached a two times a week flight would sell very well. I think previous experience has shown this for SEN and it is a bit of a no brainier to be honest, I could almost guarantee that a UK carrier would bulk buy seats on it........... Perhaps I should apply for a job with Stobart (sorry had a pre Christmas drink!)..........
Although I shouldn't say it Air Malta, should be approached a two times a week flight would sell very well. I think previous experience has shown this for SEN and it is a bit of a no brainier to be honest, I could almost guarantee that a UK carrier would bulk buy seats on it........... Perhaps I should apply for a job with Stobart (sorry had a pre Christmas drink!)..........
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dubai
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NEILE 1: Why would that be? Is it because of the runway restrictions at SEN making their own aircraft marginal, or the exception conditions re. obstacle clearance, or Stobart Air management's lack of initiative/co-operation/common sense, or a belief that they won't fill their aircraft, or the early and late train issues, or a lack of awareness of the potential of SEN....... or a combination of the above....... or something else entirely?
Its all of the above in some form or other but there are some particular parts that are top of the list.
Runway length and lack of turn offs when operating on 24 which affects runway occupancy and hourly movement rate.
Obstacle clearance
Stobart Management trying to play with the big boys with no experience in running airports and definitely not exceeding.
However add this into the equation.
The airlines have no trust in SEN ability to handle their aircraft. Only when 2 million pax is reached can airlines bring in their own professional handling companies under EU law. Until then SEN can do all the handling which at the moment is done on an extreme shoestring and penny pinching and operating as a jack pf all trades and master of none,
Also the state of the taxiways are a disgrace and not fit for a car park let alone a growing international airport.
Its all of the above in some form or other but there are some particular parts that are top of the list.
Runway length and lack of turn offs when operating on 24 which affects runway occupancy and hourly movement rate.
Obstacle clearance
Stobart Management trying to play with the big boys with no experience in running airports and definitely not exceeding.
However add this into the equation.
The airlines have no trust in SEN ability to handle their aircraft. Only when 2 million pax is reached can airlines bring in their own professional handling companies under EU law. Until then SEN can do all the handling which at the moment is done on an extreme shoestring and penny pinching and operating as a jack pf all trades and master of none,
Also the state of the taxiways are a disgrace and not fit for a car park let alone a growing international airport.
Last edited by southern duel; 21st Dec 2014 at 20:19.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Peterborough
Age: 61
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southern Duel.....
Ouch, I thought that SEN were making an effort with their previous investment. Don't really get the runway occupancy comment or hourly movement rate. I would not say Southend faces a flow control issue to be honest. I think I will leave this for other readers to add their comments to this one........
Ouch, I thought that SEN were making an effort with their previous investment. Don't really get the runway occupancy comment or hourly movement rate. I would not say Southend faces a flow control issue to be honest. I think I will leave this for other readers to add their comments to this one........
Last edited by Neile1; 21st Dec 2014 at 21:02.
As I know the identity of southern duel and recent history perhaps his rant is not unexpected.
I do agree with him regarding the current taxiway situation but he probably doesn't know that this should be resolved fairly soon. Runway occupancy hardly seems a problem at the current flow rates and even the climb path obstacles on 24 don't actually cause much operational difficulty and SEN is not alone in having that situation.
As for his criticism of aircraft handling, I don't see how SEN's very good on-time departure record supports that contention and neither would an airport win the Which? Best Airport award two years running as poor handling would be bound to feed through to passenger dissatisfaction. I think there may have been staff reductions this year in some areas but again SEN is not alone in trying to keep costs down. I use SEN quite frequently and am also often there to attends meetings and have never seen sloppy, inefficient handling or whatever deficiencies he may be suggesting.
It all rather smacks of sour grapes to me.
I do agree with him regarding the current taxiway situation but he probably doesn't know that this should be resolved fairly soon. Runway occupancy hardly seems a problem at the current flow rates and even the climb path obstacles on 24 don't actually cause much operational difficulty and SEN is not alone in having that situation.
As for his criticism of aircraft handling, I don't see how SEN's very good on-time departure record supports that contention and neither would an airport win the Which? Best Airport award two years running as poor handling would be bound to feed through to passenger dissatisfaction. I think there may have been staff reductions this year in some areas but again SEN is not alone in trying to keep costs down. I use SEN quite frequently and am also often there to attends meetings and have never seen sloppy, inefficient handling or whatever deficiencies he may be suggesting.
It all rather smacks of sour grapes to me.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway occupancy is no more an issue at SEN than it is at LCY and they have significantly more movements.
Lots of regional airports have a back track issue, LCY, BHD to start
airline screw handlers on cost it's the same everywhere and it seems to me sen do rather well
Lots of regional airports have a back track issue, LCY, BHD to start
airline screw handlers on cost it's the same everywhere and it seems to me sen do rather well
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dubai
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Express
not sour grapes at all. Just saying it as it is !
Re: Runway Occupancy and hourly movement rate you obviously have no idea what they mean and how it affects the overall operation.
An aircraft landing on 24 has to do a 180 at 06 and backtrack all the way to "Alpha" as this is the preferential routeing due to "Bravo's" condition.
This means an aircraft would probably need up to 4 to 5 minutes on the runway before another one can be established on the ILS let alone land (MATS part II). This puts the max hourly rate at something like 10 an hour maximum. Not good.
Re: the handling. it may have won some nice awards but we are talking about extra flights here ( not what is currently happening). SEN will not be able to cope with extra airlines on the current set up and as most people who have an understanding of airports will know, airlines wish to have the flexibility of using handlers they want not ones that they are being forced to use.
I wont touch on other safety issues !! I will leave the regulatory authority to that.
I also notice Express that you have no comment to make on the state of the taxiways or the experience or competence of SEN management in running an airport. Have a read of CAP700 sometime it might enlighten you !
not sour grapes at all. Just saying it as it is !
Re: Runway Occupancy and hourly movement rate you obviously have no idea what they mean and how it affects the overall operation.
An aircraft landing on 24 has to do a 180 at 06 and backtrack all the way to "Alpha" as this is the preferential routeing due to "Bravo's" condition.
This means an aircraft would probably need up to 4 to 5 minutes on the runway before another one can be established on the ILS let alone land (MATS part II). This puts the max hourly rate at something like 10 an hour maximum. Not good.
Re: the handling. it may have won some nice awards but we are talking about extra flights here ( not what is currently happening). SEN will not be able to cope with extra airlines on the current set up and as most people who have an understanding of airports will know, airlines wish to have the flexibility of using handlers they want not ones that they are being forced to use.
I wont touch on other safety issues !! I will leave the regulatory authority to that.
I also notice Express that you have no comment to make on the state of the taxiways or the experience or competence of SEN management in running an airport. Have a read of CAP700 sometime it might enlighten you !
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to have missed what Expressflight said in his post: "I do agree with him regarding the current taxiway situation but he probably doesn't know that this should be resolved fairly soon."
southern duel
I'll ignore your rather silly comments on my knowledge of such matters.
As far as CAP 700 is concerned it's often the appropriate application of the requirements in relation to the current size and scope of operations that's equally important - ring any bells?
I totally agree that watching an A319 backtrack from Alpha for a 06 departure made me wince the other day but ATR operations didn't suffer from that restriction last time I was there, so only around 50% of ops are so affected. If you had read what I said you would note that this problem is acknowledged and remedial action should shortly take place I believe.
I have no reason to doubt the competence of the current SEN management team, although I would agree that the direction from the top could sometimes be more reality focused.
Anyway, let's not get into a row over this at this time of year and agree to differ.
I'll ignore your rather silly comments on my knowledge of such matters.
As far as CAP 700 is concerned it's often the appropriate application of the requirements in relation to the current size and scope of operations that's equally important - ring any bells?
I totally agree that watching an A319 backtrack from Alpha for a 06 departure made me wince the other day but ATR operations didn't suffer from that restriction last time I was there, so only around 50% of ops are so affected. If you had read what I said you would note that this problem is acknowledged and remedial action should shortly take place I believe.
I have no reason to doubt the competence of the current SEN management team, although I would agree that the direction from the top could sometimes be more reality focused.
Anyway, let's not get into a row over this at this time of year and agree to differ.
Pain in the R's
Rumour was some of the taxiways have started to "crumble", and by making the "heavys" use Alpha taxiway only they can prolong the life of the rest. I'm sure someone on here will have a more accurate answer though!
What is wrong with the taxiways? I know some of them are not the standard width, which is a bit like the runway, so can't be used by the Airbus but is that it?
Taxiway Alpha is the new one laid down when the new terminal was built and it links its stands and the 'old' apron stands to the runway 24 holding point. It now constitutes the preferred taxiway for all A319/320 movements.
Taxiway Bravo is the old cross runway 15/33 and links the 'old' and new aprons to runway 06/24 at a point about one-third its length from its north-east end. Its bearing surface has caused problems with A319s holding on it awaiting backtrack clearance for a 06 departure. It currently has an off-centre centreline (if you see what I mean) avoiding the problem area and is used for aircraft smaller than the A319 and that type also if necessary.
Taxiway Charlie runs across the 'old' apron from the new terminal and its bearing strength is suspect. A319/320 aircraft tend to avoid using it if at all possible although all other aircraft can use it as far as I know for clearing 24 after landing or backtracking for departures on 06.
I believe the plan is to rebuild Charlie and have a new taxiway to replace Bravo, but I'm not sure of the timescale exactly.
Taxiway Bravo is the old cross runway 15/33 and links the 'old' and new aprons to runway 06/24 at a point about one-third its length from its north-east end. Its bearing surface has caused problems with A319s holding on it awaiting backtrack clearance for a 06 departure. It currently has an off-centre centreline (if you see what I mean) avoiding the problem area and is used for aircraft smaller than the A319 and that type also if necessary.
Taxiway Charlie runs across the 'old' apron from the new terminal and its bearing strength is suspect. A319/320 aircraft tend to avoid using it if at all possible although all other aircraft can use it as far as I know for clearing 24 after landing or backtracking for departures on 06.
I believe the plan is to rebuild Charlie and have a new taxiway to replace Bravo, but I'm not sure of the timescale exactly.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to clarity about 06/24 Runaway. I get two information about length of Runaway. In Airport Magazine saying
06/24 5,023x121ft (1531M)
Wikipedia
06/24 6,089 x121 (1856M)
Which is true total ? Can you tell me which is true feature size ?
06/24 5,023x121ft (1531M)
Wikipedia
06/24 6,089 x121 (1856M)
Which is true total ? Can you tell me which is true feature size ?
Last edited by tayair6; 23rd Dec 2014 at 14:28.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to clarity about 06/24 Runaway. I get two information about length of Runaway. In Airport Magazine saying
06/24 5,023x121ft (1531M)
Wikipedia
06/24 6,089 x121 (1856M)
06/24 5,023x121ft (1531M)
Wikipedia
06/24 6,089 x121 (1856M)