SOUTHEND

[approach24]

Expressflight

On 4th Sept I posted a link to a document produced for the EEDA by a firm of aviation consultants. On page 44 of the document is a section which reports on feedback re Southend from various airlines.

"we spoke to Flybe , which confirmed it has plans to start a range of services from Southend in Spring 2007, with potentially 2 based aircraft and additional visiting services on a "W" pattern".

Elsewhere in the document reference is made to charges agreed with Flybe

"We understand that the Southend Airport Business Plan reflects initial charges negotiated with Flybe for the first 4 years".

Flybe also state that Runway length is not an issue currently but could be in the longer term.

Additionally, I've been told that a speech to guests at the Airshow, the RAL chairman talked about Flybe coming to Southend in 2007.

If your latest information is true, I wonder what has gone wrong since June ?

[Barnaby the Bear]

Probably Flybe purchasing the EM195 and replacing the 146's. More black stuff required therefore unable to fully load flights to Southern Europe.
They haven't put SEN into their summer 2007 schedule and I note 'at this time' is quoted.
Flybe are the launch customer for the EM195. Its performance on shorter runways is yet to be proven. . So maybe 2008?... Who knows?
Maybe Flybe's loss is another operators gain... Time will tell.
There are other fish in the sea. Lets hope they swim to Southend!


I notice on the Echo's website that another crossing to Kent to ease the QE2 bridge is being investigated. A long time away, but all adds to easier access and more customers. That and the proposed Footy stadium, shopping, Hotel and conference centre can only add to the business appeal required to strengthen the previously mentioned KLM talks.

[GBALU53]

Connections

With only the Saturday service to Jersey once a week in the summer 2006 there heart was not there in the first plcae was it a real schedule or part charter.
When the summer of 2007 comes around i am certian there will be a charter service down to Jersey.
Going back to the sixties Southend had srong connection with the Channel Islands that have now been all but lost.

[Expressflight]

The extracts as quoted by Approach 24 from the EEDA document serve to make the latest news all the more depressing as, at that time, Flybe obviously envisaged a substantial SEN operation commencing Spring 2007.

So what has happened to cause a change of plan?

Even if the EM195 cannot operate from SEN (these would presumably have operated the "W" pattern routes), the two based Q400s would have supported a pretty viable route network on their own. Were they perhaps not convinced that the re-vamped terminal and/or new terminal would become reality? Perhaps they thought that commencing operations in Spring 2007 while the existing terminal re-working was going on would prove too disruptive.

As I received the information in a private email I cannot disclose the source and can say only that if the sender doesn't know what's going on, then nobody would. Of course, the wording doesn't rule out routes for the future so who knows, but it must be a major setback to SEN's 2OO7 plans - quite where 1,400 pax a day will come from now I cannot imagine.

Incidentally, I wonder if Buster the Bear could confirm that, in this post of 4 September 2006 which stated that SEN services would begin by "an established low cost airline from March next year", he was referring to Flybe.

[Buster the Bear]

Expressflight, this was the airline.

[approach24]

I've just been shown yet another report dated Sept 2006 (and available on the web) by some consultants with a significant section devoted to SEN. Some brief extracts:

On the new terminal and rail interchange;

"RAL has secured full planning consent for the proposed new passenger terminal,which it must act on before November 2006 (and we understand this to be the intention), but only outline consent for the rail interchange. The consent for the terminal however is conditional on the rail interchange opening at the same time asthe new terminal. The train operating company (as well as RAL), however, take the view that a stop at the Airport would only be viable if there were also a new commuter parkway station further to the east (again in the Green Belt), and Rochford are unwilling to support a parkway development".

"But at present, a new terminal is hung up for the ack of a business case for the new rail halt. Additionally, we understand that Rochford DC is resistant to the notion of further loss of Green Belt land for a parkway station"

"There is also further controversy as neither the airports consultants (the most recent specialist to advise on the Airport’s potential) nor reportedly prospective airlines for Southend appear to be wholly convinced that the Airport actually needs either a new terminal or the proposed railway station to achieve its target passenger numbers. The consultants feel that the railway station would have some impact on passenger numbers, but that the targets could be achieved without.
Much more critical, in the consultants view, will be the Airport’s ability both to keep charges low and to offer the financial inducements to airlines needed in the early yearsto compensate for the costs to them of the reduced passenger yields achievable at Southend because of the constraints imposed by the runway length. The Consultants express a concern that investment in a terminal and interchange will make both of these inducements infeasible."

On the EMB 195 and the runway

"There are also difficulties in landing the Embraer 195 in some weather conditions, which is one of the aircraft used by Flybe."

Some of the Recommendations

Further study might be helpful in clarifying some of the issues:

• an aviation freight market study could be undertaken in order to fully understand its potential. The consequences of freight expansion, including land take and surface access, should be understood as part of this process;
  
  
• more detailed study of the surface access implications, and the feasibility, costs and benefits of resolving them, for traffic growth for development scenarios that include freight and more than the 2mppa proposed by the Master Plan developments; and
  
  
• more detailed examination into the feasibility, and potential benefits and costs, of lengthening the runway (financial as well as non-monetary costs and benefits).

So, the new terminal and rail interchange seems to have hit the buffers and the only way forward seems to be lengthening the runway....haven't we been here before a few years ago !!??
Unless RAL have some unexpected news very soon regarding airlines coming to SEN, it's difficult to see where they go from here.

[frostbite]

Changing the subject for a moment.

Does anyone know what the elderly military bird was, doing circuits around 15:00 today? Too distant for me to make it out properly, but it sounded great.

[Jamie-Southend]

Thats not good news at all...wonder where it all goes now???


"Frostbite" B-17 Sally B departed this afternoon after a brief stay, and a fresh lick of paint.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1120351/M/

[frostbite]

Thanks for that, Jamie. Funnily enough, I thought 'Sally B' but decided it couldn't be as it's not there any more!

[Barnaby the Bear]

There are many reports out there at the moment, written by many consultants. It may seem to be doom and gloom, but planning issues always slow things down. There are ways of sorting these issues out. Southend has massive potential in the short and long term.
Look at the EEDA, Thames Gateway, London 2012,http://www.investinsouthend.co.uk, Read the Rochford Councils website etc. etc.
I wouldn't get too down hearted just yet.

[Expressflight]

I agree with Barnaby.

For a start, a report which concludes that SEN should investigate becoming a freight hub doesn't carry much credence with me considering the runway requirements of virtually all freighters and the fact that most contract freight flights take place at night. What better way to lose the support of your local community.
Incidentally, who published this report and what was its main focus - not SEN presumably?

Let's also forget this red herring about runway extensions. Other than the possibility of a bit of 'tweaking' (along the lines I suggested in an earlier post) SEN is going to have make do with its present configuration. Any suggestions otherwise only serve to muddy the waters. Minds need to be concentrated on attracting operators whose equipment is suitable for operation from the present runway, as is RAL's present strategy.

Let's wait to see what results from RAL's present negotiations before writing off SEN's prospects.

Nothing in that report changes the present situation, although a decision obviously needs to made sooner than later as to whether construction of the new terminal is to begin or whether a better short term solution might be to redevelop the existing terminal in line with the planning application recently lodged with RDC. Either option is likely to at least keep potential operators on board.

[approach24]

The report in question was published on behalf of "Renaissance Southend" and the section on SEN is just part of the overall report. You need to bear in mind that the small extracts I posted clearly don't put things in the same context as if you were reading the whole section related to SEN. The report also uses many of the observations made in the report produced for the EEDA earlier this year and one of the main issues both reports highlight is that RAL are going to struggle to fund both the construction of the new terminal and railway interchange and also keep charges low enough to attract operators.
I agree that turning SEN into a freight hub is an unlikely proposition, but it is actually linked in the report to their discussion on lengthening the runway;

"Runway lengthening would see an additional 150m added to the runway to take it up to 1800m. Land required for the extension is in the possession of Southend Borough Council but extension would entail closing a road and moving a church. There are also significant cost issues. Efforts previously to find an acceptable option for lengthening the runway have not proved successful. A longer runway, however would open up very significant new possibilities for the Airport, principally":

• passenger expansion: Significant further growth in passenger numbers appears possible if the runway was lengthened. Larger low-cost carriers such as Ryanair and Easyjet and chartered flights might be attracted. The Airport’s retained consultant has suggested that growth up to 4 or 5 mppa might be possible,assuming that Stansted’s proposed Runway 2 was not opened. (However, Ferrovial, the new owners of BAA, have said that BAA’s development plans will be adhered to)and
  
• freight expansion: There might be possibilities for significant growth in the freight industry. The Airport’s retained consultant has suggested that organisations such as TNT, UPS and Parcelforce might be interested in running some operations out of the airport. There could be significant additional job effects if the freight industry was to grow.

So, despite highlighting all the problems associated with lengthening the runway, they take the view that it's worth another look....will it happen, - can't see it myself.
The report does actually highlight that SEN is an assett to the town, but concludes;

"The main benefit is that in time Southend’s economy may develop the capacity to take
advantage of the Airport – and may be unlikely to develop this capacity without it, not
withstanding the availability of air services within an hour’s travel (Stansted, Luton and
London City)".
.

[GBALU53]

Qantas 707

Which Company at Sothend is involved in getting this boeing 707 back flying

[Barnaby the Bear]

Just to add to my last post, if you read Flight this month it states that the turbo prop regional market is booming. This is likely to be SEN's target. EGLC is bursting and SEN is the most likely airport to take the increasing demand in that sector. The turbo prop market is ideal with SEN's existing runway configuration, not ignoring the increasing coporate sector.

Which Company at Sothend is involved in getting this boeing 707 back flying

QANTAS heritage I believe has been mentioned

[mary_hinge]

Originally Posted by GBALU53

Which Company at Sothend is involved in getting this boeing 707 back flying

QANTAS, ATC Lasham and Air Livery.

[Barnaby the Bear]

http://http://www.southendairport.net/Master%20Development%20Plan%20REV%20C%20.pdf

Using the above link from the Airport website. I was wandering why the threshold at the 06 end is displaced so far? Is it because the road at the end is not permanantly closed? Or again is it the church?
Clearly if the cone at the end was further up, the church would be in this area making physical extension difficult. But surely there must be a way of decreasing the runway displacement, thus gaining at least a some extra useful landing tarmac?
Any thoughts or technical insights?

[Expressflight]

To answer the second part of Barnaby's query first, the Clearway cone starts from the end of TORA. This point is defined as 60m in from the end of the Runway Strip. If the cone was extended from the current end of TORA then it would, indeed, include the church.
However, if the Runway Strip (not the actual runway) could be extended slightly as I suggested, the Clearway cone would start from further S/W along the actual runway and would thus miss the church.

As far as the displaced threshold is concerned I had always assumed that it was the road which required this and that when the road could be temporarily closed (as is now the case) that this would have resulted in the threshold being moved S/W somewhat. I was surprised when this did not happen so assumed that it must be the church which is the limiting factor. Indeed, if you look at CAP168 Chapter 4.3 you will see that the church falls within the Approach Surface (fig 4.5) BUT it falls within this surface wherever the threshold is located so I assume there must be some form of dispensation from the CAA for this obstacle. On the face of it, it would appear to be slightly safer if the threshold was further S/W as a landing aircraft would then be very near its touchdown as it passed by the church and, naturally, more precisely aligned with the runway.

I don't know for certain if the above are the facts but I'm sure RAL would have made every effort to have the threshold relocated if possible.

[frostbite]

I find it a little odd that that pair of s/d houses at the end of the runway are still standing.

They have (both, I believe) recently come up for sale, and appear to have been sold to new residents rather than sold for demolition.

Surely, they would figure more highly in any future extension, being directly in line as opposed to the church which stands to the side?

[Expressflight]

That's a good point concerning those two houses.

I see on the aerodrome chart that they are 32 feet above airfield elevation and, as Frostbite says, they are marginally closer to the runway extended centreline than the church (although not actually directly in line). I wonder if they are the limiting factor as to the displacement of the threshold.

I shall try to find out.

[Barnaby the Bear]

They have (both, I believe) recently come up for sale, and appear to have been sold to new residents rather than sold for demolition.

The new residents will probably complain about the noise. Unless someone else has bought them!

As far as the displaced threshold is concerned I had always assumed that it was the road which required this and that when the road could be temporarily closed (as is now the case) that this would have resulted in the threshold being moved S/W somewhat. I was surprised when this did not happen so assumed that it must be the church which is the limiting factor.

I don't suppose you remember the declared distances prior to the RESA works? Like you say, seems a tad strange after they moved the ILS and flattened the ground to produce the RESA.