SOUTHEND
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEN also has a runway that is to short so I doubt anything will be diverted there from STN. This is why there are hardly any diversions now with the exception of the odd LCY aircraft. The short runway is the limiter to any expansion which some threaders seem to be unaware of. It cannot service a full 737 or Airbus, this is one of the main rerasons it lost all of its holiday traffic in the 70's.
HZ 123
I doubt that many 'threaders' on this topic are unaware of SEN's limiting runway - indeed, much discussion has taken place here on that very point.
It is certainly a fact that when RAL reconfigured the runway to meet current CAA RESA requirements, they had expected to be able to offer slightly greater distances than has proved to be the case in that they had anticipated that B737 operations would be commercially feasible. Despite my fervent hope that Flybe may make SEN a hub, the restricting runway has certainly put something of a spoke in the wheel as the EMB-195 will be significantly performance limited - perhaps so much so as to make it's operation at SEN impractical.
SEN are now trying to make a virtue of the short runway by suggesting that it will protect regional cariers' routes from predation by the likes of Ryanair. True, but only useful if the regionals' aircraft themselves are not excessively payload limited as well.
That's one of the reasons I stated in my last post that "pessimism is one thing and perfectly valid", so how about also answering the questions I posed you in that posting for our general enlightenment?
I doubt that many 'threaders' on this topic are unaware of SEN's limiting runway - indeed, much discussion has taken place here on that very point.
It is certainly a fact that when RAL reconfigured the runway to meet current CAA RESA requirements, they had expected to be able to offer slightly greater distances than has proved to be the case in that they had anticipated that B737 operations would be commercially feasible. Despite my fervent hope that Flybe may make SEN a hub, the restricting runway has certainly put something of a spoke in the wheel as the EMB-195 will be significantly performance limited - perhaps so much so as to make it's operation at SEN impractical.
SEN are now trying to make a virtue of the short runway by suggesting that it will protect regional cariers' routes from predation by the likes of Ryanair. True, but only useful if the regionals' aircraft themselves are not excessively payload limited as well.
That's one of the reasons I stated in my last post that "pessimism is one thing and perfectly valid", so how about also answering the questions I posed you in that posting for our general enlightenment?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Protect the regional airline's routes? Would SEN have its own catchment area? If SEN management is promoting a 45 minute train connection from Liverpool St, the catchment area will include anyone in Central London who wants to travel and is considering travel through LHR , LGW, LTN and STN. So Dash 8-400s would be competing against jets on all major routes.
Perhaps the market for SEN would be all the smaller French towns which Buzz used to serve - places within 300 miles of SEN.
Perhaps the market for SEN would be all the smaller French towns which Buzz used to serve - places within 300 miles of SEN.
Well, SEN naturally does have its own catchment area which I would define as those who live within the same travelling time from SEN as they do from the other London area airports (including time spent being bussed from their remote car parks), plus those who wish to avoid the ever increasing hassle at those other airports. That should amount to several million potential customers I would have thought. The proposed rail station only serves to increase that market even further surely? As Barnaby the Bear says, "the train would be the best bet".
I'm not sure that flying on a Q400 as opposed to a B737/A319 features particularly highly on the average person's priorities - unless there is a choice of competing carriers from the departure airport itself. This is exactly RAL's point on this - Flybe (or whoever) isn't at risk of establishing a Q400 route only to find that Ryanair/Easyjet muscle-in with a 737/A319.
I agree entirely with your suggestion that routes to 'niche' destinations such as Caen should have good potential from SEN as that would automatically attract pax from other London airport catchments which do not serve those destinations at all.
I'm not sure that flying on a Q400 as opposed to a B737/A319 features particularly highly on the average person's priorities - unless there is a choice of competing carriers from the departure airport itself. This is exactly RAL's point on this - Flybe (or whoever) isn't at risk of establishing a Q400 route only to find that Ryanair/Easyjet muscle-in with a 737/A319.
I agree entirely with your suggestion that routes to 'niche' destinations such as Caen should have good potential from SEN as that would automatically attract pax from other London airport catchments which do not serve those destinations at all.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly right Expressflight. I was in no way suggesting SEN is going take flights from EGSS. But for domestic and Europe, could easily provide a good 'alternative' to the busier London airports with any one of the Turbo prop carriers out there.
Ask the majority of people in the Southend area who is frustrated by travelling to EGSS, EGGW, EGKK ot EGLC with EGMC on the doorstep. The answer is very common.
The bofins would have calculated the 'real' catchment area of Southend, and it wouldn't feature so highly with the East of England Development agency, and the Thames Gateway if it was not with potential.
Money needs to be spent clearly. But I would imagine thats subject to an operator saying yes.
There has been so much talk of something happening, and its now is a case of waiting to see what develops. If nothing it seems like a huge waste of potential.
Plus I want to park for free at my rele's. Cheaper and quicker than EGSS as I said.
Ask the majority of people in the Southend area who is frustrated by travelling to EGSS, EGGW, EGKK ot EGLC with EGMC on the doorstep. The answer is very common.
The bofins would have calculated the 'real' catchment area of Southend, and it wouldn't feature so highly with the East of England Development agency, and the Thames Gateway if it was not with potential.
Money needs to be spent clearly. But I would imagine thats subject to an operator saying yes.
There has been so much talk of something happening, and its now is a case of waiting to see what develops. If nothing it seems like a huge waste of potential.
Plus I want to park for free at my rele's. Cheaper and quicker than EGSS as I said.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Isle Du Cyber
Posts: 933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Catchment area
In the days of Channel Airways and after them British Air Ferries there must have been the a lot of people travelling from Southend so where are they or there reletives now going to Gatwick Stansted or even London City and paying a lot to get there when there is a perfect airport on a lot of people door step.
We cannot turn the clocks back but if airline like Flybe are trying the local authorities should give as much support as possible as it effects a lot of people not onlt the traveling public but the airport workers.
We cannot turn the clocks back but if airline like Flybe are trying the local authorities should give as much support as possible as it effects a lot of people not onlt the traveling public but the airport workers.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The situation with the E195 seems unfortunate, but can it be resolved?
How many airports are there which either:
a) Don't have a long enough runway themsevles to handle 737 / A319s
b) Don't have a large enough market to warrant the 3x weekly 737-800s that FR seem to be experimenting with - think all of U2's local hops are still daily+ from London?
c) Don't want to beaten into the ground by the more aggressive locos, but aren't sufficiently important hubs to generate regular scheduled links into LHR or LGW?
Flybe have always done well into France, so why couldn't SEN match many of their SOU routes? What are the ATC issues at SEN compared to other London airports - this seems to be something LYX was selling itself on, but SEN seems more able to tap in to a ready market.
I doubt that France alone would make a viable case for an airport. Let's not forget the UK too - certainly SEN-BHD could be much more attractive than STN-BFS if the timings were good (not just 2X daily like AB's STN-BHD).
Must be a few corners of the UK which can't get into the other London hubs because of slot restrictions - DND, Carlisle, Isle of Wight, Scottish Highlands & Islands, etc. Then add in places like BRN, and maybe a few niche markets in Germany & Scandinavia. Make a good offer to RE to move over from LTN........
It seems utterly bizarre to be talking about what is effectively going to be London's 7th international gateway, but I think there is a niche here which the other airports are either too congested or too expensive (LCY) to fulfill.
How many airports are there which either:
a) Don't have a long enough runway themsevles to handle 737 / A319s
b) Don't have a large enough market to warrant the 3x weekly 737-800s that FR seem to be experimenting with - think all of U2's local hops are still daily+ from London?
c) Don't want to beaten into the ground by the more aggressive locos, but aren't sufficiently important hubs to generate regular scheduled links into LHR or LGW?
Flybe have always done well into France, so why couldn't SEN match many of their SOU routes? What are the ATC issues at SEN compared to other London airports - this seems to be something LYX was selling itself on, but SEN seems more able to tap in to a ready market.
I doubt that France alone would make a viable case for an airport. Let's not forget the UK too - certainly SEN-BHD could be much more attractive than STN-BFS if the timings were good (not just 2X daily like AB's STN-BHD).
Must be a few corners of the UK which can't get into the other London hubs because of slot restrictions - DND, Carlisle, Isle of Wight, Scottish Highlands & Islands, etc. Then add in places like BRN, and maybe a few niche markets in Germany & Scandinavia. Make a good offer to RE to move over from LTN........
It seems utterly bizarre to be talking about what is effectively going to be London's 7th international gateway, but I think there is a niche here which the other airports are either too congested or too expensive (LCY) to fulfill.
There looks to be only one possible way of increasing runway distances at SEN.
The runway itself is unextendable due to the location of Eastwood church at the S/W end - it would itself intrude into the Runway Strip. It does look, however, that if the present Runway Strip could be extended by just 90 ft (up to the wall of the church in effect) it would then be possible to have a greatly increased Clearway, thus increasing TODA on 24 considerably. The present Clearway is only some 200 ft in length as the Clearway cone as it exists would include the church if it were extended from its present starting point. If the Clearway started 90 ft further along the runway its cone would just miss the church.
To achieve the above it would be necessary to include the church graveyard in the Cleared Strip, as well as a small part of Eastwoodbury Lane (this being closed by lights/barriers when the runway is being used for pax departures/arrivals).
I don't know if RAL have looked at this and dismissed it as not feasible (for example, would standing gravestones be allowed in the Cleared Strip?).
If the above could be achieved it would, I estimate, give a very worthwhile increase in TODA on 24.
There also looks to be some scope to extend the Runway Strip at the N/E end as well, by about the same amount, but resulting in only a small increase in TODA due to the location of the railway line although TORA should increase by 90 ft on both runways.
LDA would not, of course, be increased by either of these changes.
A useful plan of the runways, including Runway Strip width and Clearways can be found on the SEN website on the Property page, development land section.
Any thoughts anyone?
The runway itself is unextendable due to the location of Eastwood church at the S/W end - it would itself intrude into the Runway Strip. It does look, however, that if the present Runway Strip could be extended by just 90 ft (up to the wall of the church in effect) it would then be possible to have a greatly increased Clearway, thus increasing TODA on 24 considerably. The present Clearway is only some 200 ft in length as the Clearway cone as it exists would include the church if it were extended from its present starting point. If the Clearway started 90 ft further along the runway its cone would just miss the church.
To achieve the above it would be necessary to include the church graveyard in the Cleared Strip, as well as a small part of Eastwoodbury Lane (this being closed by lights/barriers when the runway is being used for pax departures/arrivals).
I don't know if RAL have looked at this and dismissed it as not feasible (for example, would standing gravestones be allowed in the Cleared Strip?).
If the above could be achieved it would, I estimate, give a very worthwhile increase in TODA on 24.
There also looks to be some scope to extend the Runway Strip at the N/E end as well, by about the same amount, but resulting in only a small increase in TODA due to the location of the railway line although TORA should increase by 90 ft on both runways.
LDA would not, of course, be increased by either of these changes.
A useful plan of the runways, including Runway Strip width and Clearways can be found on the SEN website on the Property page, development land section.
Any thoughts anyone?
Close off the lane by the church, and lay down the tombstones. Or change them to plastic frangiable ones! Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has all be done before, hence the short runway as is. There will be no road closure and there is no way the tombstones, church or anything else is going to be moved. Rochford Council put this to bed 2 years ago and anyway the costs to move the church were prohibitive. Much of this has been covered on previous threads. End result despite all your enthusiam is a runway that is to short. Finally as someone who also lives part time in SEN most of the locals and do not know that the airport exists and care even less, on a good day STN is 40 minutes away, LTN 70 minutes and LGW about 90 minutes. I hope that I am totally wrong but its best chance is as a housing estate provided much needed revenue to the Council.
HZ 123
You're not related to that stalwart old anti-Southend Airport campaigner, the late Bill Budge are you?.
I'm sorry, but it's complete rubbish to say that most Southend residents don't know the airport exists and couldn't care less about it. There is more local enthusiasm for the airport now than at any time I can remember - mainly because Joe Public is more used to flying than ever before and wants his departure point to be as local as possible.
I must remember to contact you the next time I want to drive to STN, LTN or LGW, so that you can tell me if 'today' is a good day or not for the journey. If you were to allow just 40 minutes from leaving home in Southend to walking into the terminal at STN you wouldn't catch many flights as you well know.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made against the likelihood of SEN's plans reaching fruition without resorting to myth and inaccuracy.
As you must surely know, there already IS the temporary closure of Eastwoodbury Lane by lights/barriers for every public transport movement and I'm certainly not saying that it's definitely possible to increase the TODA on 24: all I am saying is that I would like to think that every avenue has been explored fully before accepting that nothing can be done.
You're not related to that stalwart old anti-Southend Airport campaigner, the late Bill Budge are you?.
I'm sorry, but it's complete rubbish to say that most Southend residents don't know the airport exists and couldn't care less about it. There is more local enthusiasm for the airport now than at any time I can remember - mainly because Joe Public is more used to flying than ever before and wants his departure point to be as local as possible.
I must remember to contact you the next time I want to drive to STN, LTN or LGW, so that you can tell me if 'today' is a good day or not for the journey. If you were to allow just 40 minutes from leaving home in Southend to walking into the terminal at STN you wouldn't catch many flights as you well know.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made against the likelihood of SEN's plans reaching fruition without resorting to myth and inaccuracy.
As you must surely know, there already IS the temporary closure of Eastwoodbury Lane by lights/barriers for every public transport movement and I'm certainly not saying that it's definitely possible to increase the TODA on 24: all I am saying is that I would like to think that every avenue has been explored fully before accepting that nothing can be done.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sunny Side Up :)
Age: 60
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey ! Bill Budge theres a name from the past!
I remember my uncle who lives on the Southend Road, Rochford, having Bill "on Board" to get the two RAF Belfasts shifted from the Eastern Boundry, when they were parked there he lost his signal for BBC1
, they were still there years later, so i guess he couldnt help.
I have to agree with Express, with regard to local residents wishing the airport was better utilised. I regularly transport passengers to STN & LGW and they all comment on how nice it would be to use SEN for shorthaul routes. I cant get to STN in 40mins though but can do LGW in 55 ! ( sorry is that advertising 
)
I remember my uncle who lives on the Southend Road, Rochford, having Bill "on Board" to get the two RAF Belfasts shifted from the Eastern Boundry, when they were parked there he lost his signal for BBC1
, they were still there years later, so i guess he couldnt help.I have to agree with Express, with regard to local residents wishing the airport was better utilised. I regularly transport passengers to STN & LGW and they all comment on how nice it would be to use SEN for shorthaul routes. I cant get to STN in 40mins though
but can do LGW in 55 ! ( sorry is that advertising )
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is possible to get to EGSS in an hour, EGKK in an hour etc. etc. etc. But it can also take 2 to 3 hours when the more and more frequent accidents occur.
EGLC as we know is virtually full to capacity, with little or no room for expansion. (See reports on selling price of EGLC)
Once you get to the larger airports you have to queue with the other thousands travelling to get through the ever tougher security.
Having a smaller regional airport, on a direct line to London as an alternative choice would clean up. . . . . . . Oh look theres SOUTHEND!!!!!!!
The runway length is a problem for the longer range aircraft, but I am sure it is not one that can't be sorted, without resorting to knocking a church down with a congregation of 25!
That is for the Bof's, RAL and SRG to sort out.
To say it would generate more income as housing is laughable when you talk about the 1250ish (says it on the board outside) jobs already at the airport. Alot with skills which can only be used at an airport (Engineers, Handling, ATC etc) generating income for the local area and Thames Gateway as a whole.
Some people seem interested..... Don't know how much truth there is in it...http://www.echo-news.co.uk/search/di...pes_a_lift.php
EGLC as we know is virtually full to capacity, with little or no room for expansion. (See reports on selling price of EGLC)
Once you get to the larger airports you have to queue with the other thousands travelling to get through the ever tougher security.
Having a smaller regional airport, on a direct line to London as an alternative choice would clean up. . . . . . . Oh look theres SOUTHEND!!!!!!!
The runway length is a problem for the longer range aircraft, but I am sure it is not one that can't be sorted, without resorting to knocking a church down with a congregation of 25!
That is for the Bof's, RAL and SRG to sort out.
To say it would generate more income as housing is laughable when you talk about the 1250ish (says it on the board outside) jobs already at the airport. Alot with skills which can only be used at an airport (Engineers, Handling, ATC etc) generating income for the local area and Thames Gateway as a whole.
Some people seem interested..... Don't know how much truth there is in it...http://www.echo-news.co.uk/search/di...pes_a_lift.php
Last edited by Barnaby the Bear; 27th Sep 2006 at 16:59.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sunny Side Up :)
Age: 60
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just stumbled across the article SMALLPILOT has just mentioned, below is the text, sorry its a bit long, but if i just put a link, it will disappear in a few days on this news site - makes interesting reading.
"Dutch airline gives airport hopes a lift"
By Geoff Percival
Royal Dutch airline KLM could be expanding to Southend Airport with several business flights a day, it has been revealed.
The news of an international airline being interested in coming to Southend is a boost for the airport's regeneration proposals.
Originally, a planned new railway station and terminal building were scheduled to be in place by 2000 and now the aim is for 2012 to tie in with the London Olympics.
Southend Business and Tourism Partnership is being asked to back the idea.
The airport's operators have been working with Tony Le Masurier, former general manager of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines in the UK, who now runs his own commercial consultancy, TLM Consulting.
In a letter to partnership members, Mr Le Masurier said: "The object is to establish an operation which will serve the main European and intercontinental destinations through a feeder service several times a day from Southend to a European city.
"Although several European cities would be suitable, the best option is undoubtedly Amsterdam, from where all the world's main business centres are accessible on a daily basis."
Mr Le Masurier said a number of meetings had been held with KLM and the next would be at the airport in mid-October.
He added the company was restricted in future growth in the UK due to restrictions on flights from airports in the South East, particularly at peak times.
He said Southend would be an opportunity for the firm and it was important to put forward a good case for the airport at the meeting.
He added: "We want to maximise the value of our forthcoming meeting with KLM and would be interested to hear from any local organisations which would be supportive of such an operation in the future.
"We need to be able to demonstrate to KLM the local community would use this service so any expression of support, or any indication of likely routes - and even possible numbers - would be most helpful at this stage."
2:30pm Wednesday 27th September 2006
"Dutch airline gives airport hopes a lift"
By Geoff Percival
Royal Dutch airline KLM could be expanding to Southend Airport with several business flights a day, it has been revealed.
The news of an international airline being interested in coming to Southend is a boost for the airport's regeneration proposals.
Originally, a planned new railway station and terminal building were scheduled to be in place by 2000 and now the aim is for 2012 to tie in with the London Olympics.
Southend Business and Tourism Partnership is being asked to back the idea.
The airport's operators have been working with Tony Le Masurier, former general manager of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines in the UK, who now runs his own commercial consultancy, TLM Consulting.
In a letter to partnership members, Mr Le Masurier said: "The object is to establish an operation which will serve the main European and intercontinental destinations through a feeder service several times a day from Southend to a European city.
"Although several European cities would be suitable, the best option is undoubtedly Amsterdam, from where all the world's main business centres are accessible on a daily basis."
Mr Le Masurier said a number of meetings had been held with KLM and the next would be at the airport in mid-October.
He added the company was restricted in future growth in the UK due to restrictions on flights from airports in the South East, particularly at peak times.
He said Southend would be an opportunity for the firm and it was important to put forward a good case for the airport at the meeting.
He added: "We want to maximise the value of our forthcoming meeting with KLM and would be interested to hear from any local organisations which would be supportive of such an operation in the future.
"We need to be able to demonstrate to KLM the local community would use this service so any expression of support, or any indication of likely routes - and even possible numbers - would be most helpful at this stage."
2:30pm Wednesday 27th September 2006
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: on the edge
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The uncomfortable truth for many here is that HZ123 is correct with his comments about the runway length and the Rochford council decision not to move any church, graves etc and the costs were prohibitive.
My view is that turboprop transport is in rapid decline, people want jet transport and as good as the Dash 8-400 is, their days are numbered in passengers eyes.
Also, the comments about Southend residents not caring or being oblivious about their airport is sadly correct, broad brush, yes, not far off the truth.
People look to STN and LGW.
SEN will remain a dead duck with just a limited offering for storage and maintenance facilities unless it gets a decent runway and thereby attract the Airbus family of holiday jets.
My view is that turboprop transport is in rapid decline, people want jet transport and as good as the Dash 8-400 is, their days are numbered in passengers eyes.
Also, the comments about Southend residents not caring or being oblivious about their airport is sadly correct, broad brush, yes, not far off the truth.
People look to STN and LGW.
SEN will remain a dead duck with just a limited offering for storage and maintenance facilities unless it gets a decent runway and thereby attract the Airbus family of holiday jets.
DarkStar
There was never any realistic prospect of moving the church, it being a listed building and due to the vociferous opposition of its congregation, so the economics of doing so were thus never tested.
Far from being in "rapid decline" turboprop aircraft in the 30 to 80 seat category have never been more popular with VLM recently announcing they are not replacing their large F50 fleet and Flybe stating that it was largely through the excellent economics of the Q400 that they had successfully survived the oil price increases of the past year. In fact, it always surprises me to see so many turboprops at the regional airports that I visit.
The Evening Echo is nowadays very supportive of SEN, something which was unheard of just a few years ago, so there is certainly no excuse for residents not being aware of the situation and I don't believe that they are generally unaware that there is the real prospect of a range of destinations being offered next year.
You say "people look to STN and LGW", well of course they do at the moment - no point at looking at SEN when it doesn't offer any flights is there? I think you are wrong in suggesting that Joe Public would prefer to travel to STN, LTN or LGW to catch his B737/A319 (with all the hassle involved) rather than flying on a Q400 to PMI or ALC. I don't think the SEN-JER route has suffered through not offering jet equipment and the speed of the Q400 means there is very little difference in block times on even a 2.5 hour sector. LCY also certainly doesn't seem to put people off by offering largely turboprop routes.
If SEN is to remain a "dead duck" unless it gets "a decent runway", then a dead duck it will remain as there is no prospect of extending the Runway Strip (it's the 300 m wide Strip which is impossible to achieve, not just the runway itself) beyond the amount I suggested in an earlier post - not while the church remains at one end and the railway line at the other. So, it will be by use of aircraft such as the Q400/ATR42 & 72 etc., plus perhaps the F70/A318 that SEN will either sink or swim. Don't be under any illusions either that SEN will survive by just serving as a maintenance and storage airfield - at the end of the day that will not produce sufficient revenue for survival.
There was never any realistic prospect of moving the church, it being a listed building and due to the vociferous opposition of its congregation, so the economics of doing so were thus never tested.
Far from being in "rapid decline" turboprop aircraft in the 30 to 80 seat category have never been more popular with VLM recently announcing they are not replacing their large F50 fleet and Flybe stating that it was largely through the excellent economics of the Q400 that they had successfully survived the oil price increases of the past year. In fact, it always surprises me to see so many turboprops at the regional airports that I visit.
The Evening Echo is nowadays very supportive of SEN, something which was unheard of just a few years ago, so there is certainly no excuse for residents not being aware of the situation and I don't believe that they are generally unaware that there is the real prospect of a range of destinations being offered next year.
You say "people look to STN and LGW", well of course they do at the moment - no point at looking at SEN when it doesn't offer any flights is there? I think you are wrong in suggesting that Joe Public would prefer to travel to STN, LTN or LGW to catch his B737/A319 (with all the hassle involved) rather than flying on a Q400 to PMI or ALC. I don't think the SEN-JER route has suffered through not offering jet equipment and the speed of the Q400 means there is very little difference in block times on even a 2.5 hour sector. LCY also certainly doesn't seem to put people off by offering largely turboprop routes.
If SEN is to remain a "dead duck" unless it gets "a decent runway", then a dead duck it will remain as there is no prospect of extending the Runway Strip (it's the 300 m wide Strip which is impossible to achieve, not just the runway itself) beyond the amount I suggested in an earlier post - not while the church remains at one end and the railway line at the other. So, it will be by use of aircraft such as the Q400/ATR42 & 72 etc., plus perhaps the F70/A318 that SEN will either sink or swim. Don't be under any illusions either that SEN will survive by just serving as a maintenance and storage airfield - at the end of the day that will not produce sufficient revenue for survival.
Apron Resurfacing
The resurfacing of SEN's main apron stars this morning - work that some may feel was well overdue.
It seems that the stand positions may also be modified, with the first row of the the GA park having been withdrawn permanently.
Nice to think that the scheduled services anticipated to start next year will have shiny new stands on which to arrive.
It is also reported on another forum that SEN is now KLM's preferred LCY diversion airfield.
It seems that the stand positions may also be modified, with the first row of the the GA park having been withdrawn permanently.
Nice to think that the scheduled services anticipated to start next year will have shiny new stands on which to arrive.
It is also reported on another forum that SEN is now KLM's preferred LCY diversion airfield.
Flybe? NO
I have just received an email from a very high level saying that Flybe "has no further plans to operate out of SEN at this time".
So that's the end of that rumour then.
So that's the end of that rumour then.