SOUTHEND - 3 The new beginning
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, for a bit of factual accuracy Air Exel operated Maastricht from STN for many years, ceasing in the post-9/11 full service apocalypse.
Comparing with RTM is ridiculous, RTM is on the doorstep of AMS in a completely different part of the country. It's like saying a route to Newcastle wouldn't work because one to Liverpool wasn't too popular.
FR fly to Maastricht, but with timings that aren't too business friendly.
Comparing with RTM is ridiculous, RTM is on the doorstep of AMS in a completely different part of the country. It's like saying a route to Newcastle wouldn't work because one to Liverpool wasn't too popular.
FR fly to Maastricht, but with timings that aren't too business friendly.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: uk
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
photoman27
Easyjet today have confirmed that they will be basing a 4th aircraft at London Southend Airport from June 2013 new routes will include Berlin 6 x weekly & Krakow 4 x weekly, great news!!.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also flights to Marrakech, Sharm El Sheikh and Sofia have been confirmed by EasyJet this morning from STANSTED. the STN-ALC route is to axe in June 2013 along with frequency cuts in a few others as one aircraft is pulled out at that time. Clearly this is the aircraft that will move to Southend so it will happen!
Last edited by FRatSTN; 26th Oct 2012 at 10:56.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Chester
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it's nothing to do with the runway length. It's more to-do with the width and other factors. And no the limit is not A319. The airport is limited to aircraft the size of 757,A321,727,707 without passengers. With passengers your looking at A320 or 737.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With passengers your looking at A320 or 737.
The runway lengths are similar, but the runway at SEN is quite narrow.
London Southend Airport has one runway 06/24.
BBA. Starter extension at eastern end of length 135m
Length = 1856m Width = 37m
Surely with the growth at SEN which is impressive, the runway will need to be widened.
Last edited by Ernest Lanc's; 26th Oct 2012 at 20:45.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the runway @ SOU is only 37/38m wide and it can take up to 757's and A321's with passengers no problem. Is there an additional factor which stops this from being the case @ SEN?
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes ,i know the 757,737 727,707 321 and 320 use SEN without passenger no problem with width runway . i think it restrict to limit weight of plane .... that CAA policy rule is start for SEN
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Staines
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone have a view on what the loads have been like on the OLT Express flights from and to Dresden this week? I see the we're operating a Fokker 50 earlier in the week, but reverted back to the Fokker 100 yesterday and today (Friday).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The runway at SEN is 37M wide.
I was replying to http://www.pprune.org/7488309-post1169.html #1169
I noticed the absence of a mention of a 575 or a B737-800.
BLK has a main runway 10/28 length 1869m and a width of 46m.
I have flown on an A320 and 757 are used at BLk for time to time.
However according to LTNman, when FR operated Stansted/Dublin and Girona from BLK with their 737-800. It was with some of the front seats roped off.
I was replying to http://www.pprune.org/7488309-post1169.html #1169
I noticed the absence of a mention of a 575 or a B737-800.
BLK has a main runway 10/28 length 1869m and a width of 46m.
I have flown on an A320 and 757 are used at BLk for time to time.
However according to LTNman, when FR operated Stansted/Dublin and Girona from BLK with their 737-800. It was with some of the front seats roped off.
Last edited by Ernest Lanc's; 26th Oct 2012 at 21:31.
The runway width, per se, does not make any direct difference to the performance limitations of any of the aforementioned aircraft. SEN is a Code 3C airport but the 757 is a Code 4D aircraft, by virtue of its wingspan which is approx 5m above the Code 3 limit. My understanding from a previous reading (and I think it must be in ICAO Annex 14 though I haven't the time to research it now) is that it is a general principle that an aircraft can operate commercially "one below" its code, but that specific CAA approval may be required and there may be a limitation to the number of operations.
The irony is that the runway performance of the 757 is far better than either the A321 or the 738 (which are Code 3), and it would be a very capable aircraft from SEN's runway. But in talking of (e.g.) the 738 we have to bear in mind that different operators use different take off thrust ratings. So with the 738 the 24000lb thrust aircraft is not much use commercially at SEN but the 27000lb thrust version as used by some UK operators would have a rather better payload/range profile.
Then there are different configurations and seating densities, or Weight Variants to use the Airbus term. It does not help operations from SEN that the versions most likely to be potential users of SEN are the heavyweight high density seating variants. The issue is not so much whether commercial operations are possible but whether they are commercially attractive to the operator in the light of restrictions on range or payload.
In comparing runways at different airports some caution is necessary. Rather than simple length of paved surface, declared distances TODA TORA and ASDA are a better comparison. Then there are factors which is not possible to evaluate by casual inspection such as slope and second segment climb. The only really reliable picture emerges when an individual operator evaluates performance of its own aircraft against all the parameters of the individual runway.
And a final point is that regardless of the above considerations none of these aircraft (A321, 738 and 757) can operate commercially from SEN at present because they require RFF7 whereas SEN operates to RFF6. But that could be addressed readily by SEN spending the money on the upgrade if it could see the expenditure was justified.
The irony is that the runway performance of the 757 is far better than either the A321 or the 738 (which are Code 3), and it would be a very capable aircraft from SEN's runway. But in talking of (e.g.) the 738 we have to bear in mind that different operators use different take off thrust ratings. So with the 738 the 24000lb thrust aircraft is not much use commercially at SEN but the 27000lb thrust version as used by some UK operators would have a rather better payload/range profile.
Then there are different configurations and seating densities, or Weight Variants to use the Airbus term. It does not help operations from SEN that the versions most likely to be potential users of SEN are the heavyweight high density seating variants. The issue is not so much whether commercial operations are possible but whether they are commercially attractive to the operator in the light of restrictions on range or payload.
In comparing runways at different airports some caution is necessary. Rather than simple length of paved surface, declared distances TODA TORA and ASDA are a better comparison. Then there are factors which is not possible to evaluate by casual inspection such as slope and second segment climb. The only really reliable picture emerges when an individual operator evaluates performance of its own aircraft against all the parameters of the individual runway.
And a final point is that regardless of the above considerations none of these aircraft (A321, 738 and 757) can operate commercially from SEN at present because they require RFF7 whereas SEN operates to RFF6. But that could be addressed readily by SEN spending the money on the upgrade if it could see the expenditure was justified.
Last edited by Tagron; 26th Oct 2012 at 23:07.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STN-ALC 12 weekly will end on 16th June. Can't imagine EZY will end a route like that before the high (summer) season starts without a replacement (SEN-ALC).
So I think SEN-ALC will also see some additional flights (maybe double daily from current 6 weekly) + SEN-SXF 6 weekly + SEN-KRK 4 weekly + maybe some new flights to BCN (cause STN-BCN will be canceled too) and a 4th aircraft is required.
So I think SEN-ALC will also see some additional flights (maybe double daily from current 6 weekly) + SEN-SXF 6 weekly + SEN-KRK 4 weekly + maybe some new flights to BCN (cause STN-BCN will be canceled too) and a 4th aircraft is required.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London, UK & Europe
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STN-ALC 12 weekly will end on 16th June. Can't imagine EZY will end a route like that before the high (summer) season starts without a replacement (SEN-ALC).
So I think SEN-ALC will also see some additional flights (maybe double daily from current 6 weekly) + SEN-SXF 6 weekly + SEN-KRK 4 weekly + maybe some new flights to BCN (cause STN-BCN will be canceled too) and a 4th aircraft is required.
So I think SEN-ALC will also see some additional flights (maybe double daily from current 6 weekly) + SEN-SXF 6 weekly + SEN-KRK 4 weekly + maybe some new flights to BCN (cause STN-BCN will be canceled too) and a 4th aircraft is required.