SOUTHAMPTON
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southampton stands
Some interesting points on the stands,but looking at the Nats info it seems stands 6-14 have a lower strength rating then 1-5,however there has even been a a321 on stand 13/14 in the past,how does this equate ?.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Basingstoke
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Basingstoke
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a pavement maintenance calc for overloading a declared bearing strength. Put what you want on the apron, it just means that it is likely to need maintenance sooner than planned. If stands 7 - 9 took an IL76, it's unlikely that a 320/321 will hurt it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Basingstoke
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA Stats Dec/2015
Passengers down 10.7% in December, leaving the provisional passenger figure for 2015 at 1,775,789, a 2.9% decrease on 2014, which is disappointing considering the general upward trend elsewhere. Fortunately things are looking significantly more promising for 2016 with Flybe expanding plus new flights from KLM, Aer Lingus, Volotea and Thomas Cook.
Never a good thing when an Airports performance is so heavily dependent on one operator.
Unfortunately, unless another one acquires a big fleet of aircraft types that are compatible with the constraints on ops at SOU, and move in to compete with Flybe, that seems likely to remain the case.
The fact that Flybe re-trenched to some extent at SOU in 2015 (and opened a base at BOH) cannot have helped.
As Adfly says, Flybe are showing a significant expansion (compared to 2015) for 2016 and the Airport have obviously been working to get some other operators in, so it is looking more positive.
As a fairly regular user, SOU works great for me when flying domestically. All the upsides are landside (road, rail, parking close to Terminal etc etc) and all the downsides are airside - as documented regularly on here.
Unfortunately, unless another one acquires a big fleet of aircraft types that are compatible with the constraints on ops at SOU, and move in to compete with Flybe, that seems likely to remain the case.
The fact that Flybe re-trenched to some extent at SOU in 2015 (and opened a base at BOH) cannot have helped.
As Adfly says, Flybe are showing a significant expansion (compared to 2015) for 2016 and the Airport have obviously been working to get some other operators in, so it is looking more positive.
As a fairly regular user, SOU works great for me when flying domestically. All the upsides are landside (road, rail, parking close to Terminal etc etc) and all the downsides are airside - as documented regularly on here.
Wycombe
I share your views on lack of iairside nvestment, unless Airbus come up with a Neo+ SOU have a definitely finite expansion capability unless some serious airside investment is made with the runway length, and possibly its width.
I share your views on lack of iairside nvestment, unless Airbus come up with a Neo+ SOU have a definitely finite expansion capability unless some serious airside investment is made with the runway length, and possibly its width.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southampton Passenger figures
Are the disappointingly passenger figures a direct result of the soon to end Bournemouth Flybe operation?,
or is the airport underperforming for other reasons?
Also what would be maximum number of passengers the airport could realistically expect with the present airside limitations?
or is the airport underperforming for other reasons?
Also what would be maximum number of passengers the airport could realistically expect with the present airside limitations?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would imagine the drop off in numbers is a direct result of the Bournemouth operation. With regards to terminal capacity at SOU, I seem to recollect a figure of 3mil being talked about when built. Maybe wrong and someone can confirm?
RW20
A bit of a puzzler, so many factors to consider. Any significant increase is going to be driven by demand, the size of each aircraft (runway limitations apply) and the runway utilisation. If first two are maximised runway utilisation will need to increased by TWY improvements (i.e. the northern TWY). The name of the game being the ability for NATS to reduce spacing between successive arrivals, and increase departure rates (i.e. not dictated by need to backtrack either for 20 departure or after 02 landing).
The other limitation is the airport operating hours that dear old BAA signed up to (i.e. the Section 106 Agreement) to smooth the passage of planning consent when the airport was 're-developed.
Going to be a while before we need the Terminal 2 shown in the Airport's retrospective Master Plan. Would guesstimate at the current Terminal and Aprons (with some mods to the latter) are good for 3 million+. Not going to get to this with JS41s and ATR 42s. See how many PAX BOH shift with a fraction of SOU's movements.
A bit of a puzzler, so many factors to consider. Any significant increase is going to be driven by demand, the size of each aircraft (runway limitations apply) and the runway utilisation. If first two are maximised runway utilisation will need to increased by TWY improvements (i.e. the northern TWY). The name of the game being the ability for NATS to reduce spacing between successive arrivals, and increase departure rates (i.e. not dictated by need to backtrack either for 20 departure or after 02 landing).
The other limitation is the airport operating hours that dear old BAA signed up to (i.e. the Section 106 Agreement) to smooth the passage of planning consent when the airport was 're-developed.
Going to be a while before we need the Terminal 2 shown in the Airport's retrospective Master Plan. Would guesstimate at the current Terminal and Aprons (with some mods to the latter) are good for 3 million+. Not going to get to this with JS41s and ATR 42s. See how many PAX BOH shift with a fraction of SOU's movements.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS
Thank you for the assessment of the airport requirements to gain significant passenger increases.
The fact that the necessary airside improvements have not been implemented over the many years that the airport has existed in its present state ,does not bold well for what is needed for the airport to move forward! Surely there comes a time when the question will be asked: "Do we want a thriving developed airport", or is the land valuable enough to be used for housing and commercial use,given the shortage of such land in Hampshire.
The fact that the necessary airside improvements have not been implemented over the many years that the airport has existed in its present state ,does not bold well for what is needed for the airport to move forward! Surely there comes a time when the question will be asked: "Do we want a thriving developed airport", or is the land valuable enough to be used for housing and commercial use,given the shortage of such land in Hampshire.
RW20
Sadly, for all its regular users and the staff who run the day to day operation (having to suffer often poor management direction) a site sell off for non aviation development, bearing in mind its potential value, is always an option if the owners want a quick return on their investment.
Eastleigh Borough Council have always promoted a strategic gap from Southampton, which the airport has always provided. With the current economic climate, the income generated for them by non aviation development might be too much to resist. Remember, all but the last few hundred metres of the runway is in the Borough.
Sadly, for all its regular users and the staff who run the day to day operation (having to suffer often poor management direction) a site sell off for non aviation development, bearing in mind its potential value, is always an option if the owners want a quick return on their investment.
Eastleigh Borough Council have always promoted a strategic gap from Southampton, which the airport has always provided. With the current economic climate, the income generated for them by non aviation development might be too much to resist. Remember, all but the last few hundred metres of the runway is in the Borough.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Basingstoke
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as the Airport is the Eastleigh Borough second largest rate payer, I doubt that they would encourage the sold to be sold for non Aviation use? I think that you have to ask yourself if the Airport is happy with the status quo. If passenger numbers grow significantly (+390k pax pa) then the level of investment needed to sustain that growth will be disproportionate to any increase in profitability, primarily because it will be the airlines (sorry Airline, Flybe!) that has to bear that cost and pass it on to their passengers. That, of course, will not happen. To be sustainable, SOU needs to settle around the 2.1m passengers pa. Increased throughput in GA traffic will help support the profitability at that figure, with short stop, high yield jet traffic that doesn't need too much handling space to make it work. For those of you that are expecting growth to 60k + movements pa, forget it. TCAS FAN has a very intelligent and well informed approach to just how sustainable SOU actually is, and summarises well the history of lost opportunities. I say, look forward and identify high yield opportunities that keep the business sustainable rather than a model that will require massive investment for a very uncertain future beyong 2.2mppa. Just sayin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Basingstoke
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But as the Airport is the Eastleigh Borough second largest rate payer, I doubt that they would encourage the Airport to be sold for non Aviation use? I think that you have to ask yourself if the Airport is happy with the status quo. If passenger numbers grow significantly (+390k pax pa) then the level of investment needed to sustain that growth will be disproportionate to any increase in profitability, primarily because it will be the airlines (sorry Airline, Flybe!) that has to bear that cost and pass it on to their passengers. That, of course, will not happen. To be sustainable, SOU needs to settle around the 2.1m passengers pa. Increased throughput in GA traffic will help support the profitability at that figure, with short stop, high yield jet traffic that doesn't need too much handling space to make it work. For those of you that are expecting growth to 60k + movements pa, forget it. TCAS FAN has a very intelligent and well informed approach to just how sustainable SOU actually is, and summarises well the history of lost opportunities. I say, look forward and identify high yield opportunities that keep the business sustainable rather than a model that will require massive investment for a very uncertain future beyond 2.1mppa. Just sayin'
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StGermain: You spout all that pessimism yet you clearly don't know the airport or live locally. The potential at SOU is huge, I compiled a long lost of its USPs sometime ago and will drag it up at some point. The only limit at SOU is airside investment, or the lack thereof. If you think investment would be daft take a look at that shower down the road. MAG made serious investment despite the fact they had no airlines to satisfy and seemingly none on the horizon. The problem with SOU was that it was owned by BAA and was the runt of the litter. It's now seemingly owned by an investment vehicle and will continue to be an asset to park some money in. SOU just needs to be owned by a company that works and makes it's money from the transport sector. MAG, stobart etc.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Basingstoke
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rivet Joint: cheers for your reply. I live 10 miles from SOU, use it twice a month and have done since 2002. You need to look at the original purchase criteria that BAA applied to SOU during purchase and redevelopment. If you think or feel that it was the 'runt' of BAA, you are ill informed and the basis for any argument otherwise is flawed. TCAS FAN-care to enlighten him with the details.
All I will say is that SOU delivered everything and more that was asked if it in BAA ownership. As for investment, they pumped £32m in to a land locked site to prove its capability and it did just that, shaking off its debt and becoming cash positive in just 8 years. Show me another uk regional airport that has done that. And please don't say Bournemouth!
All I will say is that SOU delivered everything and more that was asked if it in BAA ownership. As for investment, they pumped £32m in to a land locked site to prove its capability and it did just that, shaking off its debt and becoming cash positive in just 8 years. Show me another uk regional airport that has done that. And please don't say Bournemouth!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StGermain: not sure what point you are trying to make. BAA for the large part owned both LGW and LHR alongside SOU so pumping money into It was always going to be counter productive. I suspect as much as anything it was a strategic purchase to stop someone else coming along and creating a sizeable operation out of SOU. I admit I have not done any research to back that claim up however. Its a case of speculate to accumulate but unfortunately SOU has never had the privilege of having an owner with the balls or the foresight to make it happen. I have no doubt that if they made the investment, U2 would create a sizeable base out of SOU.