SOUTHAMPTON
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S13 summary (So Far)
Summer looks fairly quiet so far, just 4 airlines guaranteed and overall reductions from our largest tenant.
Aurigny:
No real changes here to the ACI route, same as last Summer ~3 daily and 4 daily plus loads of extra weekend flights (up to 12!) in the peak months.
Blue Islands:
Again, no real changes JER and GCI stay at around 3 daily each with some of the weekend and peak flights being operated by ATR's.
Eastern:
Identical to S12 - ABZ 11 weekly and BRU 6 weekly.
Flybe:
New Routes:
BCN: 3 weekly E195
NTE: Daily Q400 (Cont. from winter)
Dropped Routes:
FRA: 6 weekly Q400
INV: 1 weekly Q400
TUF: 2 weekly Q400
Reductions:
AVN - 1 weekly (Down from 4 in S12)
CFE - 1 weekly (Down from 3 in S12)
BZR - 2 weekly (Down from 3 in S12)
NCE - 3 weekly (Down from 4 in S12)
RNS - 5 weekly (Down from 6 in S12)
DUB - 18 weekly (Down from 20 in S12)
MAN - Showing as all Q400 (Some flights were E195 in S12)
AMS - Fri morning E195 flight downgraded (all Q400 for S13)
Increases:
GLA - GLA based flights changed/upgraded to E195 (from E175 in S12)
EDI - Almost all E195/E175 (vs E195/Q400 in S12)
Skybus:
Said to be dropping the 3-6 weekly IOS flights next Summer although some are in the SOU timetable at the moment but this could easily be a mistake.
Thomas Cook:
'New Route'
VRN - 1 weekly Flybe Q400 (Selling seats and holidays on the Flybe flight)
PMI, MAH and IBZ all return as they were last summer operated by a chartered Flybe E195.
Thomson:
'New (Returning) Route'
PMI - 2 weekly Flybe E195 (Selling seats and holidays on scheduled Flybe flights)
Vueling:
Will not return next year - 'replaced' by Flybe on BCN route.
Aurigny:
No real changes here to the ACI route, same as last Summer ~3 daily and 4 daily plus loads of extra weekend flights (up to 12!) in the peak months.
Blue Islands:
Again, no real changes JER and GCI stay at around 3 daily each with some of the weekend and peak flights being operated by ATR's.
Eastern:
Identical to S12 - ABZ 11 weekly and BRU 6 weekly.
Flybe:
New Routes:
BCN: 3 weekly E195
NTE: Daily Q400 (Cont. from winter)
Dropped Routes:
FRA: 6 weekly Q400
INV: 1 weekly Q400
TUF: 2 weekly Q400
Reductions:
AVN - 1 weekly (Down from 4 in S12)
CFE - 1 weekly (Down from 3 in S12)
BZR - 2 weekly (Down from 3 in S12)
NCE - 3 weekly (Down from 4 in S12)
RNS - 5 weekly (Down from 6 in S12)
DUB - 18 weekly (Down from 20 in S12)
MAN - Showing as all Q400 (Some flights were E195 in S12)
AMS - Fri morning E195 flight downgraded (all Q400 for S13)
Increases:
GLA - GLA based flights changed/upgraded to E195 (from E175 in S12)
EDI - Almost all E195/E175 (vs E195/Q400 in S12)
Skybus:
Said to be dropping the 3-6 weekly IOS flights next Summer although some are in the SOU timetable at the moment but this could easily be a mistake.
Thomas Cook:
'New Route'
VRN - 1 weekly Flybe Q400 (Selling seats and holidays on the Flybe flight)
PMI, MAH and IBZ all return as they were last summer operated by a chartered Flybe E195.
Thomson:
'New (Returning) Route'
PMI - 2 weekly Flybe E195 (Selling seats and holidays on scheduled Flybe flights)
Vueling:
Will not return next year - 'replaced' by Flybe on BCN route.
Last edited by adfly; 21st Oct 2012 at 20:31.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brussels
Age: 74
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that Eastern are cancelling the Southampton to Brussels route on 11 November so your list for next summer is wrong. I have been flying the route for over 3 years now, firstly with Flybe then Eastern, looks like I will have to find another way again.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a shame, although the timings weren't particularly business friendly a better timed double daily flight could have done far better. I wonder if SN would consider SOU-BRU now on one of their leased BE Q400's @ 6 or 12 flights per week, ideally timed nicely for long haul connections if its the former. Also been mentioned via the airports social networking pages that they are interested in re-starting the Cork route, I would imagine with EI Regional if it were to happen.
Last edited by adfly; 23rd Oct 2012 at 22:10.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transit Factory
Very sad to hear it closing down (500 jobs lost) but a pretty good option if the airport were wanting to expand runway wise... I would imagine such an expansion would help introduce some new jobs to replace those lost too!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I perhaps should have mentioned a bridge would be needed too! But assuming it can be done so for a not too excessive cost then it could be an option for extending the runway by ~200m and also increasing the RESA's a little too.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burying the M27 would make the most sense seeing as a busy motorway at the end of a runway is an accident waiting to happen. Would be costly but as shown by crossrail etc it can be done.
If the runway ever was expanded though they would most likely expand the other end into the old railway works. It’s a shame BAA don't spend a bit more money at SOU, with a longer runway they could wipe out their nearest competitor Hurn. More importantly though they need to build some bigger stands for the erj175's!
If the runway ever was expanded though they would most likely expand the other end into the old railway works. It’s a shame BAA don't spend a bit more money at SOU, with a longer runway they could wipe out their nearest competitor Hurn. More importantly though they need to build some bigger stands for the erj175's!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would suggest the cheapest and most likely option would be for BAA to purchase the Ford site and then relocate the businesses from the airport on to there ie. Royal Mail, thus freeing up a large area of pan space, something that SOU is sadly lacking at present. Surely this is a higher priority than runway extension!!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Granada, Spain
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rivet joint... as a busy motorway at the end of a runway is an accident waiting to happen.
Photo of Cessna 550*Citation II G-JETB - Aviation Safety Network
and
Air Accidents Investigation: 5/1994 G-JETB
stewyb... Surely this is a higher priority than runway extension!!
Fuel load, when combined with pax load and runway length have always been a limiting factor at SOU. By tunneling the M27 the current alignment of RW 02/20 might gain an extra 1500 feet before trampling heavily on neighbouring areas. In reality extensions are needed at both ends... but Eastleigh Council and the people of Eastleigh might just have a few very justifiable objections... especially when there is a perfectly adequate runway on a far more acceptable compass heading just 15 nm away...
As stewyb suggests, with the closure of the Ford plant, an opportunity exists to relocate all non-aviation related businesses, not just the Royal Mail, to the south side of the M27.
BOH needs airline business badly but the support infrastructure like public transport is crap; SOU has difficulty coping at peak times because of runway capacity and the lack of a taxiway necessitating constant backtracking, but the support infrastructure by road and rail is brilliant.... Surely the time has come for these two airports to actually cooperate rather than compete...
Just a thought...!
pp
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The glasshouse, a stone's throw from you
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the time has come for these two airports to actually cooperate rather than compete...
Just a thought...!
Just a thought...!
However, how much would it cost to improve BOH's ground transport links versus SOU's costs to improve it's aerodrome characteristics? Throw in what you'll get for sale of the then redundant land (Gravel pit for BOH, prime industrial use for SOU with good communications) .
Just a thought!
Last edited by pottwiddler; 28th Oct 2012 at 11:00.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phalconfixer: - That was indeed the incident I was eluding too. I think this incident in itself provides enough of a reason for a runway extension even just for safety reasons.
I think people need to stop getting carried away with the Ford plant idea though. Nimbys won't even concede the LHR needs more runway so there is no chance such a construction would take place. Be far easier to just expand into the barely used railway works to the north which has been an option for years yet still no action! The Ford's site is likely to be reserved for manufacturing use but when they realise that this country doesn't do that any more it will be turned into housing with maybe 10% of the land retaining a manufacturing use.
Stewyb: - Your absolutely right. BE are investing in an aircraft that has too high a tail to be parked on nearly all the stands lining the runway and yet still no action from the clowns at BAA? Guess they have invested in chewing gum bins in the terminal though
. The bottom line is a small piece of tarmac that would barely cost anything could solve the backtracking issue and create the stands to the north east.
Phalconfixer: - As Pottwiddler said, no chance. I don't want to get Hurn enthusiasts excited but there is no big desire from people to fly from there and certainly no one wants to fly there. The Government/ Local authority are not going to portion a large part of their infrastructure budget to provide better road links for an airport that is just not needed. 50mil was just spent on a new terminal and no joy! SOU on the other hand just needs it own owner to reach into its deep pockets and lay a bit of tarmac!
It really is so hugely frustrating, look at Southend, similar transport links to SOU and EZY move in like a flash. I am fairly sure that if SOU had enough stands to support a couple of based A319's then EZY would move in. Anyone agree?
I think people need to stop getting carried away with the Ford plant idea though. Nimbys won't even concede the LHR needs more runway so there is no chance such a construction would take place. Be far easier to just expand into the barely used railway works to the north which has been an option for years yet still no action! The Ford's site is likely to be reserved for manufacturing use but when they realise that this country doesn't do that any more it will be turned into housing with maybe 10% of the land retaining a manufacturing use.
Stewyb: - Your absolutely right. BE are investing in an aircraft that has too high a tail to be parked on nearly all the stands lining the runway and yet still no action from the clowns at BAA? Guess they have invested in chewing gum bins in the terminal though
. The bottom line is a small piece of tarmac that would barely cost anything could solve the backtracking issue and create the stands to the north east.Phalconfixer: - As Pottwiddler said, no chance. I don't want to get Hurn enthusiasts excited but there is no big desire from people to fly from there and certainly no one wants to fly there. The Government/ Local authority are not going to portion a large part of their infrastructure budget to provide better road links for an airport that is just not needed. 50mil was just spent on a new terminal and no joy! SOU on the other hand just needs it own owner to reach into its deep pockets and lay a bit of tarmac!
It really is so hugely frustrating, look at Southend, similar transport links to SOU and EZY move in like a flash. I am fairly sure that if SOU had enough stands to support a couple of based A319's then EZY would move in. Anyone agree?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Afraid not, pretty sure its not costing EZY much to operate from SEN at the moment and any sort of major discount would no doubt not go down well with Flybe. While SOU has a good catchment its not a patch on East London/Southend/Essex.
Also re the E175's the CAA have been down recently (thanks LSM for clarifying this!) and gave approval for them to use the stands perpendicular to the runway (6-14) and they have been seen parked on them a couple of times already so that may no longer be an issue.
I agree the idea of moving the Royal Mail Depot across the M27 would help free up space for 5(?) stands the same size as 2-5 are currently (can take up to E190/5, 733/4/5,) or they could have 4 73G/A32X width stands instead which would be more attractive to charters and locos. The only issue I see is with convincing Royal Mail to move a fairly major centre and all of the costs and hassles associated with doing so.
The extended taxiway to the runway (i.e perpendicular from around where stands 13/14 are to the runway) is an obvious way to free up some of the runway/taxiway constrains and should also reduce the number of late flights during busy times (which is surprisingly high).
A runway extension will also benefit safety and an extra ~200m tarmac will do more to improve the range of places the current aircraft could reach (Canaries, Greece, Turkey, Tunisia, Malta) rather than fill the airport with wide-body's which should ensure it does not have too much of a negative impact on the local area. However the NIMBY opposition, noise concerns and Eco-mentalist groups would be a noticeable hurdle which would have to be overcome.
Finally some current news:
We've lost an E195 to BHD (Just 1 for the winter!).
Nantes has also now started.
Also re the E175's the CAA have been down recently (thanks LSM for clarifying this!) and gave approval for them to use the stands perpendicular to the runway (6-14) and they have been seen parked on them a couple of times already so that may no longer be an issue.
I agree the idea of moving the Royal Mail Depot across the M27 would help free up space for 5(?) stands the same size as 2-5 are currently (can take up to E190/5, 733/4/5,) or they could have 4 73G/A32X width stands instead which would be more attractive to charters and locos. The only issue I see is with convincing Royal Mail to move a fairly major centre and all of the costs and hassles associated with doing so.
The extended taxiway to the runway (i.e perpendicular from around where stands 13/14 are to the runway) is an obvious way to free up some of the runway/taxiway constrains and should also reduce the number of late flights during busy times (which is surprisingly high).
A runway extension will also benefit safety and an extra ~200m tarmac will do more to improve the range of places the current aircraft could reach (Canaries, Greece, Turkey, Tunisia, Malta) rather than fill the airport with wide-body's which should ensure it does not have too much of a negative impact on the local area. However the NIMBY opposition, noise concerns and Eco-mentalist groups would be a noticeable hurdle which would have to be overcome.
Finally some current news:
We've lost an E195 to BHD (Just 1 for the winter!).
Nantes has also now started.
Agree with the points made by Adfly and Rivet Joint, extension of the runway southwards is a complete non starter. Apart from the cost of a bridge over the M27 the motorway surface from JCT 5 eastwards would need re-profiling to provide the standard 4.8 clearance for high sided vehicles. This is not possible.
Quite apart from this road issue, significant southward extension of 20 take-off distances is not possible due to multiple trees and the hill which penetrate obstacle protection surfaces. I understand that a recent survey has thrown up additional trees (little b***ers keep growing) which have resulted in additional take-off weight restrictions (around a tonne less) for the E195/E170, which I believe was a contributory factor requiring recent ALC/AGP flights routing via Bournemouth.
North is the only way to go, but again obstacles in the 20 approach area (rail yard, sheds and houses in Campbell Road) prevent extension of the current very short landing distance on 20. This again, especially with a wet runway, is performance limiting. Years back having killed off Air Europa B737-800 operations, following multiple diversions when the runway was wet.
If SOU is to prosper it needs another low cost carrier with A319/A320, something that is not going to happen until a usuable runway (both ends) in the order of 1800-1900 metres is available, and there is somewhere to park them. Unfortunately BAA's owners do not appear committed to any such investment, content to make a small annual profit and maybe wait for the next buidling boom before declaring the business no longer viable and selling off the site for non aviation development.
Quite apart from this road issue, significant southward extension of 20 take-off distances is not possible due to multiple trees and the hill which penetrate obstacle protection surfaces. I understand that a recent survey has thrown up additional trees (little b***ers keep growing) which have resulted in additional take-off weight restrictions (around a tonne less) for the E195/E170, which I believe was a contributory factor requiring recent ALC/AGP flights routing via Bournemouth.
North is the only way to go, but again obstacles in the 20 approach area (rail yard, sheds and houses in Campbell Road) prevent extension of the current very short landing distance on 20. This again, especially with a wet runway, is performance limiting. Years back having killed off Air Europa B737-800 operations, following multiple diversions when the runway was wet.
If SOU is to prosper it needs another low cost carrier with A319/A320, something that is not going to happen until a usuable runway (both ends) in the order of 1800-1900 metres is available, and there is somewhere to park them. Unfortunately BAA's owners do not appear committed to any such investment, content to make a small annual profit and maybe wait for the next buidling boom before declaring the business no longer viable and selling off the site for non aviation development.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another classic day at Sou today, all arrivals on time (if not early) yet the standard 10 min delay (if not more) on ALL departures. Surely the airlines, chief of all BE, have raised this issue with the management? As discussed before it clearly arises out of the frankly embarrassing practice of aircraft having to backtrack the runway. Seriously, what is their issue with laying a minute piece of tarmac from the last stand up to the end of the runway!? Surely this small part of their masterplan is worth bankrolling to protect the commodity that their main customer base craves: TIME! The latest news story on their website is about BE implementing their summer time table, we are now in December. Enough said 
.
.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
delays at SOU...
todays departure delays may not have been helped by last nights incident when an Eastern J41 was unable, on landing, to vacate the runway for ??? reasons ( anyone know why?) resulting in the last 5 Flybe flights of the day being diverted elsewhere and this morning's early Aberdeen Eastern departure cancelled. I believe this is the second Eastern J41 incident this year at SOU that has resulted in the airports temporary closure! Who pays the diversions bill?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point about the diversions. Although with the basic ILS (level 1?) diversions are common practice. Plus it is every day that departures leave late. There really is no excuse for the lack of investment, Boh have invested circa 50mil and have 1 plane based half a year. Seriously if BE pack their bags and move up the road to Boh then Sou only have themselves to blame. I cannot stomach another news story on chewing gum bins or the airports fire crew pretending to do some work.