SOUTHAMPTON
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up in the clouds
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vectisman: That is simply not true, in fact I am a vocal supporter of SOU and believe it to be an untapped goldmine. If I blow of some steam at the frustration that SOU could have EZY operating a small base serving some useful destinations if some long overdue investment was finally forthcoming then that is understandable.
My personal view (not to mention of others on this forum):
- There is room to extend runway to the north (within the airport's existing demise). If I was a truly ambitious MD then I would be looking to buy the railway works and extend further but no just a little bit extra within the existing demise.
- More stands are needed to accommodate numerous larger aircraft to be in at the same time (this can be achieved in many different ways). Buy the RM depot? Relocate that ridiculously placed car park? Build some stands on the land to the North West?
- Planes having to backtrack down the runway is not only an unnecessary constraint on operations but also dangerous (not to mention embarrassing). A strip of tarmac is not expensive. Spain builds whole airports in the middle of deserts for no good reason. Are we less ambitious than them? BOH had 40mil ploughed into it. Again is SOU less ambitious than them? We are talking about some bloody tarmac.
- The ILS is so ancient that it’s no longer being managed by the aviation governing body (we are not talking about Apple here, bloody NATS who themselves are hardly at the forefront of technology) Apparently this year. Has it been turned off?
- The runway lights are crap. You get the picture and all these points have been talked to death.
Seeing as my opinions (supported by other people) are too honest for you Vectisman, let me highlight a pertinent (and quite hilarious) extract from the article: -
"before taking up the planning and development director role at Southampton Airport, which was based around completing the airport’s master plan. Nine years on, he has never looked back".
Anyone who has studied the master plan will tell you that not a single element of their master plan has ever been implemented and now it all makes sense why (he was in charge). I think it would have been more appropriate for the writer to have said "Nine years on, he has never looked forward". There are numerous other gems in the article as well, such as him claiming credit for investment in the highways and the railway station. Like I said a few pages ago, the only meaningful investment has been in the retail element and the parking (i.e the two things that fleece the passengers). I am more than happy to be convinced otherwise
My personal view (not to mention of others on this forum):
- There is room to extend runway to the north (within the airport's existing demise). If I was a truly ambitious MD then I would be looking to buy the railway works and extend further but no just a little bit extra within the existing demise.
- More stands are needed to accommodate numerous larger aircraft to be in at the same time (this can be achieved in many different ways). Buy the RM depot? Relocate that ridiculously placed car park? Build some stands on the land to the North West?
- Planes having to backtrack down the runway is not only an unnecessary constraint on operations but also dangerous (not to mention embarrassing). A strip of tarmac is not expensive. Spain builds whole airports in the middle of deserts for no good reason. Are we less ambitious than them? BOH had 40mil ploughed into it. Again is SOU less ambitious than them? We are talking about some bloody tarmac.
- The ILS is so ancient that it’s no longer being managed by the aviation governing body (we are not talking about Apple here, bloody NATS who themselves are hardly at the forefront of technology) Apparently this year. Has it been turned off?
- The runway lights are crap. You get the picture and all these points have been talked to death.
Seeing as my opinions (supported by other people) are too honest for you Vectisman, let me highlight a pertinent (and quite hilarious) extract from the article: -
"before taking up the planning and development director role at Southampton Airport, which was based around completing the airport’s master plan. Nine years on, he has never looked back".
Anyone who has studied the master plan will tell you that not a single element of their master plan has ever been implemented and now it all makes sense why (he was in charge). I think it would have been more appropriate for the writer to have said "Nine years on, he has never looked forward". There are numerous other gems in the article as well, such as him claiming credit for investment in the highways and the railway station. Like I said a few pages ago, the only meaningful investment has been in the retail element and the parking (i.e the two things that fleece the passengers). I am more than happy to be convinced otherwise
Can you clear one thing up for me, where are you getting your facts about the ILS? The existing ILS was implemented in 2010 along with an AGL upgrade which included stop bars. It is to CAT1 standard with minima comparable to other CAT1's . It is still supported and it isn't owned by NATS. I am guessing that you are referring to SAM DVOR which is still supported by NATS. It will be decommissioned in the coming years as part of a national project. This will have an affect on the VOR approach for 02 only.
The back track issue does not currently have an impact on landing or departure rates with the current volumes of traffic. It is not ideal but you take a look at what would need to be moved to allow for a continuous taxiway - ILS Glide slope, DME, Fuel farm etc.... It is not as simple as laying a strip of tarmac. You could have a runway crossing and continue the taxiway up the eastern side but that has separate issues relating to runway incursions risk and getting power to the other side. All of a sudden doesn't seem that simple when you apply some logic to it?! How many deserts are there in Spain where the Spanish government have built an airport for it not to go bust...?
Buying rail yards... can you imagine how much that would cost!? you seem to think that AGS has an endless wad of cash.... The airport could levy a development fee but look at the outrage that causes!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
destinationsky
A very good account indeed, I was going to reply to Riverjoints post but I didn't see the point as he clearly has his views even if they are rather negative at times.
To him it's just a bit of 'bloody' Tarmac but clearly it's more than Tarmac he forgets about power supply, lighting, drainage, earth movements, etc he clearly doesn't have a clue to costs otherwise he wouldn't have suggested the airport buying the rail yards and it's AGS that pull the purse strings not the Airport Director.
A very good account indeed, I was going to reply to Riverjoints post but I didn't see the point as he clearly has his views even if they are rather negative at times.
To him it's just a bit of 'bloody' Tarmac but clearly it's more than Tarmac he forgets about power supply, lighting, drainage, earth movements, etc he clearly doesn't have a clue to costs otherwise he wouldn't have suggested the airport buying the rail yards and it's AGS that pull the purse strings not the Airport Director.
Destinationsky
"The back track issue does not currently have an impact on landing or departure rates with the current volumes of traffic. "
I can speak from personal experience - it does!
Not only does the gap between successive arrivals need to be extend beyond the absolute minima of 3-4 miles (minimum permitted longitudinal radar separation and wake vortex), quite frequently with RWY 20 in use a log jam occurs with pending departures at Hold B1, preventing pushbacks from some adjacent Stands and arrivals being able to taxi onto Stand.
"The back track issue does not currently have an impact on landing or departure rates with the current volumes of traffic. "
I can speak from personal experience - it does!
Not only does the gap between successive arrivals need to be extend beyond the absolute minima of 3-4 miles (minimum permitted longitudinal radar separation and wake vortex), quite frequently with RWY 20 in use a log jam occurs with pending departures at Hold B1, preventing pushbacks from some adjacent Stands and arrivals being able to taxi onto Stand.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up in the clouds
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Destinationsky
"The back track issue does not currently have an impact on landing or departure rates with the current volumes of traffic. "
I can speak from personal experience - it does!
Not only does the gap between successive arrivals need to be extend beyond the absolute minima of 3-4 miles (minimum permitted longitudinal radar separation and wake vortex), quite frequently with RWY 20 in use a log jam occurs with pending departures at Hold B1, preventing pushbacks from some adjacent Stands and arrivals being able to taxi onto Stand.
"The back track issue does not currently have an impact on landing or departure rates with the current volumes of traffic. "
I can speak from personal experience - it does!
Not only does the gap between successive arrivals need to be extend beyond the absolute minima of 3-4 miles (minimum permitted longitudinal radar separation and wake vortex), quite frequently with RWY 20 in use a log jam occurs with pending departures at Hold B1, preventing pushbacks from some adjacent Stands and arrivals being able to taxi onto Stand.
So about the ILS, you've still not responded to that?
You can speak from personal experience but believe it or not, so can I. And I'm pretty sure that my experience allows me to look at it more objectively than most.
destinationsky
Merely correcting the statement that the backtracks do not currently impact on landing or departure rates, no mention of business case justification for a taxiway.
Sorry I may have missed something, to what ILS comment are you awaiting a response to?
Merely correcting the statement that the backtracks do not currently impact on landing or departure rates, no mention of business case justification for a taxiway.
Sorry I may have missed something, to what ILS comment are you awaiting a response to?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Up in the clouds
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies, the ILS comment was aimed at Rivet Joint!
I am just interested to know where the information came from that the ILS is unsupported and not to CAT1 standard
I am just interested to know where the information came from that the ILS is unsupported and not to CAT1 standard
destinationsky
Sorry to muscle in on your exchange with Rivet Joint, I too am curious as to his "unsupported" statement. Was not the Localiser replaced about 2-3 years ago?
If my memory is correct the Glidepath may have been replaced around 10-15 years ago when a new antenna was installed due to a decision to build a new car park, where the northern taxiway should have gone!
Consider it doubtful that NATS would countenance trying to maintain an unsupported navaid, unless they possibly own all of the spares for it.
Sorry to muscle in on your exchange with Rivet Joint, I too am curious as to his "unsupported" statement. Was not the Localiser replaced about 2-3 years ago?
If my memory is correct the Glidepath may have been replaced around 10-15 years ago when a new antenna was installed due to a decision to build a new car park, where the northern taxiway should have gone!
Consider it doubtful that NATS would countenance trying to maintain an unsupported navaid, unless they possibly own all of the spares for it.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has Flybe completed the Summer 17 sun routes from Southampton?,if so it seems a big reduction in flights,and there seems no further developments on these routes from other airlines, surely a missed opportunity!,that can only benefit rival airports like Bournemouth.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brighton uk
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the moment it looks like the E195 comes down from Manchester operates daily to either FAO , ALC or AGP then operates back up to Manchester where its needed up there in the afternoon with the same crew all the way round
This year I believe there was a lot of positioning crew up and down to MAN to operate these routes as no based crew out of SOU to operate the E195 so it could well be cost as well that only allows 1 rotation out of SOU next year
This year I believe there was a lot of positioning crew up and down to MAN to operate these routes as no based crew out of SOU to operate the E195 so it could well be cost as well that only allows 1 rotation out of SOU next year
It would appear that BEE have put a Thursday FAO service into the booking engine. More frequency to come maybe?
It appears to be a yield management exercise, announcing flights one at a time, then seeing how well they fill up?
It appears to be a yield management exercise, announcing flights one at a time, then seeing how well they fill up?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know that Thursday Faro flight has been there since the release of the schedule, Faro seems to initially continue from the winter at 2 weekly, then the Thursday flight disappears during June/July before returning for the summer holidays.
Hopefully we will see some changes in the next couple of weeks as we reach the peak holiday booking season, as I would be very surprised if the current number of flights on any of the Spain/Portugal remain as they are for next summer.
Hopefully we will see some changes in the next couple of weeks as we reach the peak holiday booking season, as I would be very surprised if the current number of flights on any of the Spain/Portugal remain as they are for next summer.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
inOban
Local tour operator, it's not the case but what 'local' tour operator would be in a situation to do that, we don't have any 'local' tour operators in our area capable of doing that.
The only tour operator that comes to mind is TUI and they are not offering Faro from SOU in 2017.
Adfly sums it up well enough!
Local tour operator, it's not the case but what 'local' tour operator would be in a situation to do that, we don't have any 'local' tour operators in our area capable of doing that.
The only tour operator that comes to mind is TUI and they are not offering Faro from SOU in 2017.
Adfly sums it up well enough!
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Scotland and NE England there is a large travel agency (Barrhead Travel) which, apart from selling holidays from the major tour operators, organises a few on its own account. And of course there are a number of specialist operators which like to offer their customers flights from a wide selection of local airports.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am fully aware of Barrhead Travel and I know that they are HUGE in Scotland and the North East but we don't have a comparible company like Barrhead Travel in our region especially one that has a tour operation of their own. The only company locally that was capable of doing that was Bath Travel as in Palmair but they stopped serving SOU over 10 years ago and was more of a BOH operation.
As I posted before Adfly sums it up well.
As I posted before Adfly sums it up well.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No flights operating again because of fog. Meanwhile BOH is fine and taking the diversions. Can anyone confirm if conditions are any better in BOH? If I was BE I would be seriously annoyed by SOU's complete lack of effort/investment to try and ease the problem. It happens so frequently! BOH only need to get a direct link to the motorway and I reckon BE would move their base. Of course the pension fund that own SOU and the grinning goon they have installed as MD won't have smelt the coffee by then. Meanwhile we all suffer and SOU just put their hands in the air saying what do you want us to do about it? Pathetic.
Basically it's because SOU has CAT I ILS and BOH has CAT III. That will not change at SOU due to the physical characteristics of the airfield unfortunately. So not really "pathetic" on the part of the owners. It's hardly as if SOU is the only airfield affected today and these types of event are mercifully rare.