SOUTHAMPTON
The problem with the extending the taxiway is the fact that it would have to be parallel to the runway (safeguarding issues). The problem with that is that Mitchell Way turns in towards the runway too. Therefore you have to straighten that out, and to do that do SOU own the land next to the railway station, would moving the road affect the railway track etc. You'd have to move the Glidepath to the other side...etc.. it all mounts up to a big job and a big cost.
http://www.southamptonairport.com/st...e-SOU_maps.pdf
Granted, runway crossing would be needed, but not back-tracking for 20, and all the issues Pottwiddler mentions above would be avoided?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The glasshouse, a stone's throw from you
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may increase capacity but crossing a runway is introducing a hazard, surely that cannot be part of SOP's? What about procedures for low visibility?
Is crossing the runway anymore dangerous than backtracking down it? I'd have though the less time spent taxying on the active runway the better?
Clearly a taxiway on the appropriate side of the runway would be better, but is crossing the worst option?
Clearly a taxiway on the appropriate side of the runway would be better, but is crossing the worst option?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would not the cheapest and most efficient/quickest way be to extend the taxiway out from the northern apron to the runway, there would only be a very small backtrack to the end of 20 and would considerably free up time for all planes arriving and departing. simples
It may increase capacity but crossing a runway is introducing a hazard, surely that cannot be part of SOP's? What about procedures for low visibility?
What do you think Air Traffic Controllers get paid for?
Rivet Joint, St Germain et al
Cheap is the success story for GPS based approaches, no ground equipment to maintain and no staff required for maintenance, plus an approach that is on the runway centreline, not offset as the current VOR/DME and NDB/DME approaches are. GPS was talked about three+ years ago, its not rocket science, where are the approaches?
An ILS for RWY 02 is not going to work, there is no business case for it It would have to be off-set to avoid Townhill Park hill. The resultant minima penalty would not be significantly different from the current non-precision approaches. A GPS approach may not improve the current minima, but you at least know exactly where the runway is when you pop out of cloud!
When the runway was being re-surfaced, myself and colleagues obtained an informal estimate to have a taxiway installed from the north end of the apron (around Stand 14). With the asphalt plant on site together with the contractors, price £40K. The perm "p***ing in the wind" comes to mind when we proposed it to the then BAA management!
Cheap is the success story for GPS based approaches, no ground equipment to maintain and no staff required for maintenance, plus an approach that is on the runway centreline, not offset as the current VOR/DME and NDB/DME approaches are. GPS was talked about three+ years ago, its not rocket science, where are the approaches?
An ILS for RWY 02 is not going to work, there is no business case for it It would have to be off-set to avoid Townhill Park hill. The resultant minima penalty would not be significantly different from the current non-precision approaches. A GPS approach may not improve the current minima, but you at least know exactly where the runway is when you pop out of cloud!
When the runway was being re-surfaced, myself and colleagues obtained an informal estimate to have a taxiway installed from the north end of the apron (around Stand 14). With the asphalt plant on site together with the contractors, price £40K. The perm "p***ing in the wind" comes to mind when we proposed it to the then BAA management!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN: That is interesting indeed. certainly begs the question as to why this small amount of investment isn't being made. Maybe it would be better to find another owner who is prepared to put their hands in their pockets.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You only need to look at Gatwick, Edinburgh and Manchester to see what a difference being BAAless (sorry HAHless) makes. Sadly I think BAA will keep SOU due to its proximity to LHR and for the sake of keeping the airports they operate 'varied', for PR's sake.
Suppose we assume 2 things:
1 - BAA / HAH is not going to see any significant monopoly inquiries in the UK for the next 10 years, having sold Gatwick, Stansted and Edinburgh
2 - Flybe is restored to good health in the next 2 years and remains the dominant carrier at Southampton.
As owner of both LHR and SOU, how much capacity does HAH have to make things difficult if Flybe launch new routes to major business centres (eg Madrid) in competition with Heathrow ?
1 - BAA / HAH is not going to see any significant monopoly inquiries in the UK for the next 10 years, having sold Gatwick, Stansted and Edinburgh
2 - Flybe is restored to good health in the next 2 years and remains the dominant carrier at Southampton.
As owner of both LHR and SOU, how much capacity does HAH have to make things difficult if Flybe launch new routes to major business centres (eg Madrid) in competition with Heathrow ?
Rivet Joint
I can answer that simply, a significant part of the problem lay with a succession of technically deficient appointees to the roles of Operations Director and Airport/Managing Director. For many years blissful ignorance reigned with a refusal to listen to those of us who had the competence to identify the problems and the long term impact on airport development.
The location of the Short Term car park relative to Stands 7-12, and the restrictions it causes to size of aircraft which can park thereon (only currently circumvented by the CAA's agreement to permit the owners to fudge the CAP 168 obstacle clearance rules), is a monument to this.
For many years my colleagues and I pushed for a northern taxiway. After the missed opportunity when the asphalt making plant was on-site during re-surfacing, future attempts were kicked into touch by the party line that there was insufficient room to build it. Funny how, when more car parking space was needed, the ILS Glidepath equipment was replaced (to make it more obstacle tolerant) and a car park was built where the taxiway could have gone!
And as for declining to buy the site where the Post Office building was eventually erected, removing the chance of extending the current apron and building an extension to the current Terminal Building? Why do that when you can build a new Terminal 2 miles from the current one on the east side, on a green field site, having to duplicate staffing and services, and create a near nightmare scenario when trying to get people between the two buildings (either a tunnel, not forgetting to divert the main gas pipeline which runs around the northern boundary; or a road with traffic lights to ensure obstacle clearance due the adjacent runway end). Should be interesting to see what the minimum flight connection times for PAX transferring between Terminals would be!
I can answer that simply, a significant part of the problem lay with a succession of technically deficient appointees to the roles of Operations Director and Airport/Managing Director. For many years blissful ignorance reigned with a refusal to listen to those of us who had the competence to identify the problems and the long term impact on airport development.
The location of the Short Term car park relative to Stands 7-12, and the restrictions it causes to size of aircraft which can park thereon (only currently circumvented by the CAA's agreement to permit the owners to fudge the CAP 168 obstacle clearance rules), is a monument to this.
For many years my colleagues and I pushed for a northern taxiway. After the missed opportunity when the asphalt making plant was on-site during re-surfacing, future attempts were kicked into touch by the party line that there was insufficient room to build it. Funny how, when more car parking space was needed, the ILS Glidepath equipment was replaced (to make it more obstacle tolerant) and a car park was built where the taxiway could have gone!
And as for declining to buy the site where the Post Office building was eventually erected, removing the chance of extending the current apron and building an extension to the current Terminal Building? Why do that when you can build a new Terminal 2 miles from the current one on the east side, on a green field site, having to duplicate staffing and services, and create a near nightmare scenario when trying to get people between the two buildings (either a tunnel, not forgetting to divert the main gas pipeline which runs around the northern boundary; or a road with traffic lights to ensure obstacle clearance due the adjacent runway end). Should be interesting to see what the minimum flight connection times for PAX transferring between Terminals would be!
As owner of both LHR and SOU, how much capacity does HAH have to make things difficult if Flybe launch new routes to major business centres (eg Madrid) in competition with Heathrow ?
Can't see HAH doing that, even if there were multiple daily flights from SOU to the likes of MAD, FRA, ZRH, FCO, CPH, ARN etc. I can't see that making much more than a small dent in traffic to those destinations through LHR.
And even if they did make a dent, and a few short-haul rotations were removed at LHR, that would just mean they have more slots available to use more profitably for bigger a/c flying to more attractive long-haul destinations.
And, if Flybe fails, SOU fails, surely that would not be in HAH's interest either?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN: You certainly have great knowledge on the issue. It seems everything from the toilets to the frequent departure lounge refreshes have seem investment yet the most airside has seen is a couple of solar powered taxi lights that last time I checked were not even there any more. I think anyone who uses LHR, especially T5, would be forgiven for thinking that BAA/HAH are focused on retail rather than transport infrastructure.
I guess SOU is kind of stuck with a HAH/BE combo who both lack any real drive. Still, I guess its a better way to do business than to invest 40mil on a new terminal when two planes on the deck constitutes a busy day
.
I guess SOU is kind of stuck with a HAH/BE combo who both lack any real drive. Still, I guess its a better way to do business than to invest 40mil on a new terminal when two planes on the deck constitutes a busy day
.
Wycombe - not saying that HAH would want Flybe to fail. More that in much of Surrey and north Hampshire there are a lot of wealthy people. If SOU becomes too well connected to other European hubs, the possibility of connecting in (say) Madrid reduces the number of people who might be interested in a LHR-LIM nonstop route.
I'm wondering if it's perhaps in HAH's interest to put some sort of limiter on SOU's growth on routes to major hubs, encourage just routes to UK/Ireland/beach/small French airports instead, and retain all the passengers potentially travelling long haul to go to Heathrow instead. In effect, HAH keep all the cream at LHR but dump the less desirable offcuts at an outstation.
Of course whether HAH actually act in this way is a separate question entirely.
I'm wondering if it's perhaps in HAH's interest to put some sort of limiter on SOU's growth on routes to major hubs, encourage just routes to UK/Ireland/beach/small French airports instead, and retain all the passengers potentially travelling long haul to go to Heathrow instead. In effect, HAH keep all the cream at LHR but dump the less desirable offcuts at an outstation.
Of course whether HAH actually act in this way is a separate question entirely.
Rivet Joint
You got it in one, most of the money went landside, hence the hole that they are now in with having to spend serious money for the airport to develop further. Time for HAH to offload the problem?
You got it in one, most of the money went landside, hence the hole that they are now in with having to spend serious money for the airport to develop further. Time for HAH to offload the problem?
.........and I never mentioned the OPS Director, anxious to impress, took over a survey project, got 02 & 20 mixed up, and had the survey done on the wrong end of the runway!
In the 1990s the CAA recognised that there was a distinct lack of technical expertise at many UK airports. These were the days of non aviation companies looking at airports as gold mines and snapping them up, what ever happened to National Express' venture into the airport business? The CAA brought out a document (CAP 700) to set out technical skills necessary to manage airports, problem it is only a code of practice, albeit that the ANO Article 211 requires that an applicant for an Aerodrome Licence is "competent". Unlike pilots or controllers you don't have to take exams to prove competency to become an Aerodrome Licence holder. A fancy CV will do!
In the 1990s the CAA recognised that there was a distinct lack of technical expertise at many UK airports. These were the days of non aviation companies looking at airports as gold mines and snapping them up, what ever happened to National Express' venture into the airport business? The CAA brought out a document (CAP 700) to set out technical skills necessary to manage airports, problem it is only a code of practice, albeit that the ANO Article 211 requires that an applicant for an Aerodrome Licence is "competent". Unlike pilots or controllers you don't have to take exams to prove competency to become an Aerodrome Licence holder. A fancy CV will do!
2006 airport masterplan
The 2006 master plan makes an interesting read. I love the way every airport confidently predicts they will grow. In Southampton's case they were expecting to rise from 1.8m pax to 3 m by 2015 but currently dropped to 1.7m Why can't the plan be to continue as they are with just under 2m passengers with existing infrastructure? Did they build the proposed new stands, taxiway or new car park?
http://www.southamptonairport.com/st...y_MP_Nov06.pdf
bb
http://www.southamptonairport.com/st...y_MP_Nov06.pdf
bb
bad bear
No taxiway, no additional aprons, extended the Short Term Car Park (more money in parking cars than aeroplanes) and built another Car Park where a northern taxiway could have gone. But they did provide new restaurant and coffee facilities and upgraded the toilets!!!!!!
No taxiway, no additional aprons, extended the Short Term Car Park (more money in parking cars than aeroplanes) and built another Car Park where a northern taxiway could have gone. But they did provide new restaurant and coffee facilities and upgraded the toilets!!!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Basingstoke
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOU - misconceptions of missed development opportunities
TCAS Fan, Rivet Joint et al....for the benefit of all of the thread watchers on here, I have to say my piece to make sure that everyone gets a fair opportunity to make their minds up that SOUs perceived lack of development is the fault of the misplaced notions of Ops Directors with other agendas, or were the decisions simply as a result of economic and planning circumstances at the time. My SOU tenure was relatively short during 1998-2003, but long enough to have gained a valuable insight in to many of the decisions that were taken at the time. TCAS Fan-very good points raised but your memory is failing you chum. The cost of the northern taxiway was a key consideration for the runway resurfacing in the late 1990s but it just was not viable to construct it at the time. The finished (lit) cost of the taxiway was closer to £340000, arguably 'cheap' but not when you have just 550000 passengers a year and comparatively small scheduled aeroplanes to pay for it. It seems, with hindsight, to be a poor decision but actually at the time, it simply didn't stack up. The runway finish in a grooved Marshall asphalt was the absolute necessity because of safety concerns. The Ops Director at the time, a civil engineer, whilst not meeting your perception of a competent person was the one person who could mobilise a significant construction effort that saw the fastest runway resurfacing project in BAA history. Perhaps, though, that doesn't meet your criteria for a competent person but in the eyes of airlines and passenger safety, I'd say that it pretty much ticks all of the boxes. One important point worth making also, is that the northern taxiway construction has to cross the runway and can't run parallel to the runway on the western side. This isn't about centreline clearances, it is necessary to meet a planning condition that states that no part of the permitted airport development can be closer than 300m to any domestic housing on Southampton Road.
On the subject of the Southern business park site where the post office now resides, again a simple matter of economics. There was no loco airline on the horizon when this land came up for sale, which when added to the 600k or so passengers that the airport was handling, the £21m price tag for a piece of land that the airport couldn't afford to develop and wouldn't need until it got to 2.9m passenger per annum, just didn't stack up. Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing but do not do the 'Ops Directors' the dis service of making people think that these things were never considered.
I'll close by saying that I generally admire the way that people contribute to the threads in here, but to lay the blame at the feet of individual in senior positions rather than giving some credence to some decisions taken on an economic basis is somewhat poorly judged.
On the subject of the Southern business park site where the post office now resides, again a simple matter of economics. There was no loco airline on the horizon when this land came up for sale, which when added to the 600k or so passengers that the airport was handling, the £21m price tag for a piece of land that the airport couldn't afford to develop and wouldn't need until it got to 2.9m passenger per annum, just didn't stack up. Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing but do not do the 'Ops Directors' the dis service of making people think that these things were never considered.
I'll close by saying that I generally admire the way that people contribute to the threads in here, but to lay the blame at the feet of individual in senior positions rather than giving some credence to some decisions taken on an economic basis is somewhat poorly judged.
