SOUTHAMPTON
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does make you wonder why the airlines that use SOU have not kicked up a fuss about the endless cancellations whenever there is the slightest bit of fog
If weather diversions were a problem then who the hell would fly to/from, or risk flying to/from, either BRS or LBA?
Commercial aviation is what is written on the label, it's a commercial business, and if any particular route, or routes, don't provide for a viable profit then the operators would surely pull the plug.
Clearly routes to/from SOU are holding their own and SOU is fortunate enough to have such an alternate as BOH close by, this isn't about spotters, it isn't about monthly statistics, it's a commercial business and, somewhat fortunately, for the owners of SOU it appears to be viable.
Shamrock7seal
If my aged memory is correct they could be accommodated on Stands 2-5, and Stands 7-12 and 13-14 if they are pushed back onto the Stand, parking nose out. Practically speaking the latter two options are doubtful as turnarounds would be a nightmare, plus there will probably be weight limitations on 7-14 as the apron has a lower strength. Additionally if the aircraft have winglets this may limit parking on adjacent Stands due to wingtip clearance issues.
Other problem is where are BEE E175/195s going to park? BEE will not be too impressed if they have to park nose out on 7-14.
All this is a result of a lack of planning by the then world class BAA airport group, and one of their Airport Directors who refused to listen to his technical experts and built the multi-storey car park too close to the boundary fence, thereby preventing lengthening of Stands 7-12 to accommodate longer aircaft.
If my aged memory is correct they could be accommodated on Stands 2-5, and Stands 7-12 and 13-14 if they are pushed back onto the Stand, parking nose out. Practically speaking the latter two options are doubtful as turnarounds would be a nightmare, plus there will probably be weight limitations on 7-14 as the apron has a lower strength. Additionally if the aircraft have winglets this may limit parking on adjacent Stands due to wingtip clearance issues.
Other problem is where are BEE E175/195s going to park? BEE will not be too impressed if they have to park nose out on 7-14.
All this is a result of a lack of planning by the then world class BAA airport group, and one of their Airport Directors who refused to listen to his technical experts and built the multi-storey car park too close to the boundary fence, thereby preventing lengthening of Stands 7-12 to accommodate longer aircaft.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN
I'm not sure about limitations of weight on stands 7-14,having seen a Airbus 321 on stand 13/14 I presume the weight is lower then a laden 319?.Also in years gone by I have seen Spanish 757 student charters fully laden on what is now stand 11/12.
I'm not sure about limitations of weight on stands 7-14,having seen a Airbus 321 on stand 13/14 I presume the weight is lower then a laden 319?.Also in years gone by I have seen Spanish 757 student charters fully laden on what is now stand 11/12.
RW20
I was part of the airport re-development project team and saw the design Spec' for what was to be the "new" apron. If you check the UK AIP EGHI AD 2 entries you will see bearing strength drops from PCN 40 to PCN 23 from Stand 5 onwards. If my memory serves me correct the change in strength occurs diagonally from the.SE tip of the Terminal SE across Stand 5. Presumably the lower of two PCNs is declared Stand 5.
You mention fully laden B757, may have been a full PAX load but with only around a two hour flight, a very light fuel load. All B75' ops out of SOU are very weight limited due to runway length, they rely on the brute force of two RB211s to get out with a full load, remember the Tenerife flights?
As for the 321, seem to remember that was an empty aircraft overnight parking.
I was part of the airport re-development project team and saw the design Spec' for what was to be the "new" apron. If you check the UK AIP EGHI AD 2 entries you will see bearing strength drops from PCN 40 to PCN 23 from Stand 5 onwards. If my memory serves me correct the change in strength occurs diagonally from the.SE tip of the Terminal SE across Stand 5. Presumably the lower of two PCNs is declared Stand 5.
You mention fully laden B757, may have been a full PAX load but with only around a two hour flight, a very light fuel load. All B75' ops out of SOU are very weight limited due to runway length, they rely on the brute force of two RB211s to get out with a full load, remember the Tenerife flights?
As for the 321, seem to remember that was an empty aircraft overnight parking.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a 737-800 on stand 14 during the week with winglets. They could always build the apron to the west of the airport that was suppose to be built by 2015? Taking a bus to a plane is not that much of a logistical nightmare.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If SOU were serious about extra apron space, this would seem the ideal time for negotiations to be happening for the Royal Mail to relocate across to the new business park on the old Ford site. An opportunity for a close by relocation will not present its self again and the airport should be having discussions to this effect. However i'm sure this won't even be on the airport owners radar!
EK77WNCL
To protect aircraft landing and taking off there are a number of obstacle limitation surfaces which project out from the runway centre line. Firstly a flat surface extending out to 150 metres (the runway strip), then a 1:7 inclined surface extending up from the edge of the strip (the transitional surface). The latter is the problem as it should not have any obstacles penetrating it.
A Q400 tail fin is low enough to permit parking nose in on 6-14, E195/A319/B738 are not. The latter parked on Stand 5 slightly penetrates the transitional, but CAA have issued an exemption to permit it.
To protect aircraft landing and taking off there are a number of obstacle limitation surfaces which project out from the runway centre line. Firstly a flat surface extending out to 150 metres (the runway strip), then a 1:7 inclined surface extending up from the edge of the strip (the transitional surface). The latter is the problem as it should not have any obstacles penetrating it.
A Q400 tail fin is low enough to permit parking nose in on 6-14, E195/A319/B738 are not. The latter parked on Stand 5 slightly penetrates the transitional, but CAA have issued an exemption to permit it.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southampton
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know not strictly a Sou question but I would have though in relation to the transitional area and height of park aircraft tails, that London City would have a problem with the A319's and E190's. I know they park sort of tail in at LCY but the distance between runway centreline and parking stands appears to be significantly less that that at Sou.
Steve
Steve
Steve
The dimensions of the protected surface are dependent upon the available take off run (which may be less than the physical runway length) and whether or not it has instrument approach procedures.
Runways are grouped into four numbers, referred to as codes starting with the lowest Code 1 covering runways with a take off run of up to 799 metres. Next is Code 2 (which includes LCY). SOU is a Code 3.
As LCY is Code 2 the runway strip is only 75 metres wide with the 1:7 transitional surface starting at its edge. Hence the ability to have the apron closer. Nose out parking is possibly required to keep tail fins below the Transitional Surface, especially the E190s and A318.
The dimensions of the protected surface are dependent upon the available take off run (which may be less than the physical runway length) and whether or not it has instrument approach procedures.
Runways are grouped into four numbers, referred to as codes starting with the lowest Code 1 covering runways with a take off run of up to 799 metres. Next is Code 2 (which includes LCY). SOU is a Code 3.
As LCY is Code 2 the runway strip is only 75 metres wide with the 1:7 transitional surface starting at its edge. Hence the ability to have the apron closer. Nose out parking is possibly required to keep tail fins below the Transitional Surface, especially the E190s and A318.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN
Thank you for the detailed description of the apron restrictions,surely with Flybe operating only 1Emb195
On a daily basis ,there is opportunity for 3 -A319 to be based ,the rest of the Dash 400 using 6-14 stands.
I suspect however Flybe stranglehold of the management would make any other airline a non starter.
Thank you for the detailed description of the apron restrictions,surely with Flybe operating only 1Emb195
On a daily basis ,there is opportunity for 3 -A319 to be based ,the rest of the Dash 400 using 6-14 stands.
I suspect however Flybe stranglehold of the management would make any other airline a non starter.
RW20
I would suggest that any A319 operator would be looking at different destinations that would not upset BEE. If the airport wants to crack 2 million PAX per year and grow further they cannot let BEE rule the roost.
IMHO BEE shot themselves in the foot when they opted for the E175 with down rated engines, thus losing the opportunity to expand their SOU operations due to take off weight restrictions caused by the limited runway length.
I would suggest that any A319 operator would be looking at different destinations that would not upset BEE. If the airport wants to crack 2 million PAX per year and grow further they cannot let BEE rule the roost.
IMHO BEE shot themselves in the foot when they opted for the E175 with down rated engines, thus losing the opportunity to expand their SOU operations due to take off weight restrictions caused by the limited runway length.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN - Completely agree with you, remember Flybe putting out a press release in 2010 shown below suggesting they were going to base 4 or 5 at SOU to boost the city routes and launch various new European destinations, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Helsinki, Milan and Stuttgart were mentioned.
Flybe's new investment a major boost for Southampton International Airport (From Daily Echo)
Don't think SOU has had any E175's based for any length of time actually...
Flybe's new investment a major boost for Southampton International Airport (From Daily Echo)
Don't think SOU has had any E175's based for any length of time actually...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
July/August CAA Stats
Finally available for SOU, passengers up 11% to 206,717 in July and 16% to 218,792 in August meaning the rolling year is now just 0.2% down on last year. I have based the French routes on them operating for all of each month, although the actual loads may be slightly higher if this wasn't the case. I have based the BMI load factors on an all E145 operation as usual.
New routes (Jul/Aug):
Biarritz: 40 pax & 51%/59 pax & 76%
Cork: 53 pax & 73%/59 pax & 82%
Dusseldorf: 45 pax & 57%/ 47 pax & 60%
Lyon: 34 pax & 44%/27 pax & 35% (Both seem very low...)
Munich: 21 pax & 43%/20 pax and 41% (Do wonder if there is room for two carriers on this route)
Toulon: 46 pax & 59%/71 pax and 91%
New routes (Jul/Aug):
Biarritz: 40 pax & 51%/59 pax & 76%
Cork: 53 pax & 73%/59 pax & 82%
Dusseldorf: 45 pax & 57%/ 47 pax & 60%
Lyon: 34 pax & 44%/27 pax & 35% (Both seem very low...)
Munich: 21 pax & 43%/20 pax and 41% (Do wonder if there is room for two carriers on this route)
Toulon: 46 pax & 59%/71 pax and 91%
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 1,063
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
adfly, re. that old story in the local paper (7th Nov. : sorry, just seen it now). That seems to have been a regular tactic that was used by Flybe to get press coverage. Here in Newcastle they launched something as insignificantl as a (from memory...) twice or thrice weekly service to Aberdeen a few years ago and they got themselves on the front page of the local rag by adding the bit about possibly adding destinations in Germany, Scandinavia Italy etc. Those routes never materialised but it got them on the front page of the paper.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adfly
Considering the poor figures on the Munich route,I wonder how long BMI will continue to do battle with Flybe.Can you confirm that we will not see Austrian airways this winter?
It seems that ski routes are well down on last season.
Considering the poor figures on the Munich route,I wonder how long BMI will continue to do battle with Flybe.Can you confirm that we will not see Austrian airways this winter?
It seems that ski routes are well down on last season.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cork appears to be doing very well considering it had only been operating for less than 6 months when these figures were released. Being available on the Aer Lingus booking engine is obviously helping the figures and the ability to walk over the road and be in London rapidly as well. I met some travellers when we used the route that had done just that as it was easier and quicker than using Heathrow or Gatwick to their final destination. The Channel Island flights are also popular for this reason. Having a rail link on your doorstep is a massive advantage to any airport.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMS - F70's
Does anyone have a rough idea of how long SOU is to see the f70's on the AMS route?
Am aware that they are all due to go by the end of next year and SOU is NOT listed as one of the last destinations due to be swapped with the E190.
So does anyone know when they are scheduled to be swapped? Looking on the KLM website it's still showing F70 next March but i guess this could be changed.
thanks in advance
Am aware that they are all due to go by the end of next year and SOU is NOT listed as one of the last destinations due to be swapped with the E190.
So does anyone know when they are scheduled to be swapped? Looking on the KLM website it's still showing F70 next March but i guess this could be changed.
thanks in advance