SOUTHAMPTON
Biarritz and Toulon were both routes flown from from BOH in S15, so it seems BEE consider they are worth operating again. Bastia was flown from SOU last year.
Although I'm sure it would have been preferable to (re-)launch these a bit earlier, the S16 offer from SOU is now looking quite good, and on some routes (eg, BOD, LRH, EGC) has the most capacity they have ever offered (AFAIK).
Although I'm sure it would have been preferable to (re-)launch these a bit earlier, the S16 offer from SOU is now looking quite good, and on some routes (eg, BOD, LRH, EGC) has the most capacity they have ever offered (AFAIK).
stewyb
Over to Flybe to get a northern taxiway, numerous have tried since they arrived at SOU, including myself. They appear to have succeeded in getting a better deal at SOU by the temporary stay at BOH, a northern taxiway could save them considerably more by removing the bottleneck at B1 when two or more are held awaiting the long backtrack, and delaying pushback from adjacent stands.
Over to Flybe to get a northern taxiway, numerous have tried since they arrived at SOU, including myself. They appear to have succeeded in getting a better deal at SOU by the temporary stay at BOH, a northern taxiway could save them considerably more by removing the bottleneck at B1 when two or more are held awaiting the long backtrack, and delaying pushback from adjacent stands.
stewyb
When I tried it was around £40K to join up from Stand 14 to the runway, due to the asphalt plant on site while resurfacing the runway. At todays prices, in the millions!
Cheapest option is to join up from Stand 14, but this must stay south of the ILS GP antenna, still requiring a part backtrack. Taxiway cannot go further north without closing down a car park, bean counters would never agree to that!
Next problem with a west side taxiway is a planning condition that prevents aircraft taxying closer to houses in Southampton Road (due to noise) than they would be while on the runway. Consequently a short backtrack would be necessary.
The best solution (IMHO) would be crossing the runway at TWY B then north on the east side, extending past the existing 20 threshold, linking up with a much need starter strip on the north end of the runway. Gets rid of the bottleneck at B1, avoids the back track, thereby speeding up departure flow, and will provide a link with the new Terminal 2, if that ever happens.
Hopefully the Post Office will move out (to a larger facility on the old Fords factory site?)before too long and airport bean counters work out that even paying a premium for the PO site will be a lot cheaper than building a remote terminal in the north east corner.
When I tried it was around £40K to join up from Stand 14 to the runway, due to the asphalt plant on site while resurfacing the runway. At todays prices, in the millions!
Cheapest option is to join up from Stand 14, but this must stay south of the ILS GP antenna, still requiring a part backtrack. Taxiway cannot go further north without closing down a car park, bean counters would never agree to that!
Next problem with a west side taxiway is a planning condition that prevents aircraft taxying closer to houses in Southampton Road (due to noise) than they would be while on the runway. Consequently a short backtrack would be necessary.
The best solution (IMHO) would be crossing the runway at TWY B then north on the east side, extending past the existing 20 threshold, linking up with a much need starter strip on the north end of the runway. Gets rid of the bottleneck at B1, avoids the back track, thereby speeding up departure flow, and will provide a link with the new Terminal 2, if that ever happens.
Hopefully the Post Office will move out (to a larger facility on the old Fords factory site?)before too long and airport bean counters work out that even paying a premium for the PO site will be a lot cheaper than building a remote terminal in the north east corner.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The glasshouse, a stone's throw from you
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN
I take it that you mean a diagonal taxiway from Stand 14 to the runway , joinging just south of the PAPI's but outside of the ILS GP critical area. That would be better rahter than a perpendicular to the runway taxiway as it would reduce backtracking.
Cheapest option is to join up from Stand 14, but this must stay south of the ILS GP antenna, still requiring a part backtrack. Taxiway cannot go further north without closing down a car park, bean counters would never agree to that!
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bournemouth
Age: 54
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Flybe offering less seats to Palma on the DHC 8 compared to last year on the EMB 195 I shouldn't think it will be a problem filling the aircraft.
The price difference between Volotea and Flybe to Palma is incredible and I only hope that the former make a success on their new operation from SOU and hopefully expand for summer 2017.
The fact that Flybe are using a DHC 8 on the Palma route in 2016 may actually deter passengers from booking especially as regulars on the route have been used to flying the EMB 195 and even more so now Volotea are around offering a jet service and undercutting the extremely high fares that Flybe charge.
The price difference between Volotea and Flybe to Palma is incredible and I only hope that the former make a success on their new operation from SOU and hopefully expand for summer 2017.
The fact that Flybe are using a DHC 8 on the Palma route in 2016 may actually deter passengers from booking especially as regulars on the route have been used to flying the EMB 195 and even more so now Volotea are around offering a jet service and undercutting the extremely high fares that Flybe charge.
Potwiddler
TWY must intersect the runway south of the GP antenna and holding point no closer than current A1 & B1 distance from RWY centre line, 105 metres for a Precision CAT 1 runway, if my aged brain is still working. Could be angled to intersect slightly less than 90 degrees, just about where I remember most Q400s ended up on their landing roll, unless the training captain (if he is still SOU based) was PF (no pun intended), in which case a stop at Bravo was common place.
TWY must intersect the runway south of the GP antenna and holding point no closer than current A1 & B1 distance from RWY centre line, 105 metres for a Precision CAT 1 runway, if my aged brain is still working. Could be angled to intersect slightly less than 90 degrees, just about where I remember most Q400s ended up on their landing roll, unless the training captain (if he is still SOU based) was PF (no pun intended), in which case a stop at Bravo was common place.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brighton uk
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like Flybe have been tinkering with the summer sun routes again and it now looks like the EMB 195 will operate ALC and PMI on some days making full utilisation of the aircraft now in the afternoon as well
Alicante is now 4 x EMB 195 and Palma 3 x EMB 195
Guess the aircraft will now be permanent fixture at Southampton on need to position in from BHX each day ?
Alicante is now 4 x EMB 195 and Palma 3 x EMB 195
Guess the aircraft will now be permanent fixture at Southampton on need to position in from BHX each day ?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southampton stands
What is the largest aircraft that can park on Southampton's stands 6-14?
I have noticed that a 737 was on stand 11,but I thought that over a certain height there was a problem with ILS Glideslope interference?
I have noticed that a 737 was on stand 11,but I thought that over a certain height there was a problem with ILS Glideslope interference?
Problem with Stands 6-14 is that anything with a tailfin above about 9.5 metres causes the "transitional surface", i.e. a 1:5 slope extending out from a point 150 metres from the runway centre line. This is one of the complex obstacle limitation surfaces that are designed to protect the runway. However I understand that SOU may have been given some form of waiver from this by CAA.
Second problem is at least Stands 6-12 were constructed to take a lower weight of aircraft than Stands 1-5. Suspect that this also applicable to Stands 13-14.
Maybe someone out there who is still gainfully employed at SOU can elaborate.
Second problem is at least Stands 6-12 were constructed to take a lower weight of aircraft than Stands 1-5. Suspect that this also applicable to Stands 13-14.
Maybe someone out there who is still gainfully employed at SOU can elaborate.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southampton
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe if the 737's and Airbus are parked tail in then stands 6-14 do not have an issue with tail height. Regarding the weight limitation for stands 6-12 I have certainly in my time seen 757's, Airbus 319,320 and an IL76 parked on those stands before the height restrictions were put in place.
Second problem is at least Stands 6-12 were constructed to take a lower weight of aircraft than Stands 1-5. Suspect that this also applicable to Stands 13-14.
NATS | AIS - Home
Zantopost
Il 76s parked nose out or parallel to runway, I believe only two visits. Even so tailfin height probably penetrated the transitional. Still remember one almost solved the rail sheds problem due to its very low approach!
Cannot recollect any 75's parking 7-12, if they have suspect nose out as fuselage length would extend over airside road and into TWY.
Groundloop correctly points to AIP AD2 entry ref bearing strength.
Has someone been cheating and parking overweight aircraft on part of the apron? Remember A319/320s parked overnight on 13 or 14, nose out of course, empty and prior to fuelling.
Il 76s parked nose out or parallel to runway, I believe only two visits. Even so tailfin height probably penetrated the transitional. Still remember one almost solved the rail sheds problem due to its very low approach!
Cannot recollect any 75's parking 7-12, if they have suspect nose out as fuselage length would extend over airside road and into TWY.
Groundloop correctly points to AIP AD2 entry ref bearing strength.
Has someone been cheating and parking overweight aircraft on part of the apron? Remember A319/320s parked overnight on 13 or 14, nose out of course, empty and prior to fuelling.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southampton
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS, yes the 757 was doing one of the student exchange flights I believe and parked on the old stand 10 I think. That was one of the 2 that had the stand centre line curving round to face back out at about 45degrees to the runway nose out. The IL76 was parked on the current 7 or 8 stand area looking at the photo I have of it. This was obviously quiet a few years ago so maybe they are more careful now about the stand weights!
