SOUTHEND 5
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Essex
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard this morning that Easyjet have pulled one aircraft from SEN as a protest of lack of attention in rectifying the state of the taxiways. They will only go back up to 5 if SEN sorts it.
To my knowledge the state of the taxiways has been an issue since late 2013 when they promised then to sort it.. Even to the extent that the had to divert the taxiway centreline on "Bravo" to give it a longer lifespan.
This may also be the reason why no one is taking the responsibility of updating the aerodrome manual etc which is way out of date as mentioned in a previous post.
They better be careful of that knock on the door from the CAA.
To my knowledge the state of the taxiways has been an issue since late 2013 when they promised then to sort it.. Even to the extent that the had to divert the taxiway centreline on "Bravo" to give it a longer lifespan.
This may also be the reason why no one is taking the responsibility of updating the aerodrome manual etc which is way out of date as mentioned in a previous post.
They better be careful of that knock on the door from the CAA.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEN probably do make more money per passenger on paper, the point you've all missed is sen are the airport, handler, caterer, retailer, fueller, exec lounge operator, car park operator etc. it's 100% in house. So it will APPEAR that they charge more per passenger but in reality they don't. In reality the other airports only charge for a part of these services and the rest of the revenue goes to third parties which will not reflect in the apparent revenues of the airport but are still charges borne by the airline at every Airport.
Heathrow charge a minimum of £1,500 for an a319 to depart. That's a minimum and only the runway charge ... Do Sen charge more? Not a chance.
The fact that Sen is not attracting airlines is because it's a viscous and competitive market place ...
These reports are useless and don't mean anything, as has been said what is agreed is commercially sensitive and only the parties involved actually know.
Heathrow charge a minimum of £1,500 for an a319 to depart. That's a minimum and only the runway charge ... Do Sen charge more? Not a chance.
The fact that Sen is not attracting airlines is because it's a viscous and competitive market place ...
These reports are useless and don't mean anything, as has been said what is agreed is commercially sensitive and only the parties involved actually know.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I beg t differ but …
The agents may pay a concession to the airport (some do some don't) and this may be included in the airports aeronautical revenue but this is not indicative of what the airline pays.
Eg is airline x is paying £450 a turn for an A319, the agent may pay the airport 10% at most, more likely less and this maybe included in the charges listed as the airport, but these reports will not include the full £450 as this will show in the handling agents accounts and is not split by airline/airport as a rule.
I stand by what I said, that SEN is a particular case as it is unusual for an airport to do everything.
But even if this isn't completely true, anyone who maintains SEN are charging airlines more than any other airport in London is seriously deluded. easyJet simply would not be there if that was the case ...
The agents may pay a concession to the airport (some do some don't) and this may be included in the airports aeronautical revenue but this is not indicative of what the airline pays.
Eg is airline x is paying £450 a turn for an A319, the agent may pay the airport 10% at most, more likely less and this maybe included in the charges listed as the airport, but these reports will not include the full £450 as this will show in the handling agents accounts and is not split by airline/airport as a rule.
I stand by what I said, that SEN is a particular case as it is unusual for an airport to do everything.
But even if this isn't completely true, anyone who maintains SEN are charging airlines more than any other airport in London is seriously deluded. easyJet simply would not be there if that was the case ...
Adria
The drop down menu on the Adria website now shows both Maribor and Zagreb as destinations from SEN, although Adria don't currently serve Zagreb at all according to their route map. Work in progress perhaps.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Essex
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adria
Also Graz appears as London destination from SEN on the destination list (not the drop down menu). Graz has been trying to get a London connection for some time and had applied for EU help. I think this is just because Maribor is about 45mins between both Zagreb and Graz and that this is merely advertising a wider populous. They suggest you use Maribor to get to Zagreb and Graz.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: essex
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southend Flyer - not sure your info is quite correct as EZY only have 3 based aircraft at SEN. 5 were there last year if you included the 320 operating the twice weekly Tenerife flight in the winter.
i agree the taxiway Bravo has been looking very sad for some considerable time and the re-aligned centre line looks like something from a comic. I can understand EZY not being very happy about it. The management really need to get that taxiway back up to standard urgently if they intend to attract more carriers. Bravo is only used when absolutely necessary, i guess to preserve its surface, and most times EZY have to use taxiway ALPHA to enter or leave the runway which involves a taxi along its entire length for 24 arrivals and 06 departures. occasionally they use taxiway CHARLIE but that seems to involve quite a tight turn on and off the runway.
i hope the new MD will be making this a priority on his shopping list and that money being spent by Stobart at Carlisle is not precluding necessary maintenance expenditure at Southend.
i agree the taxiway Bravo has been looking very sad for some considerable time and the re-aligned centre line looks like something from a comic. I can understand EZY not being very happy about it. The management really need to get that taxiway back up to standard urgently if they intend to attract more carriers. Bravo is only used when absolutely necessary, i guess to preserve its surface, and most times EZY have to use taxiway ALPHA to enter or leave the runway which involves a taxi along its entire length for 24 arrivals and 06 departures. occasionally they use taxiway CHARLIE but that seems to involve quite a tight turn on and off the runway.
i hope the new MD will be making this a priority on his shopping list and that money being spent by Stobart at Carlisle is not precluding necessary maintenance expenditure at Southend.
How can senior management not realize what a negative message it sends out? It can only be due to an unwillingness to spend money on rebuilding/realigning taxiway Charlie that perpetuates the situation; money that would surely be well spent.
Last edited by Expressflight; 7th Apr 2015 at 17:46.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe their view is that they have already spent a small fortune on the airport so would like some return on their investment first before committing to spend more money.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTNman and Expressflight both have valid points however I'd be very surprised if the airport redevelopment went ahead without at least a tacit agreement from Easyjet (pre any formal agreement) as to the scope of works to be carried out. For them now to complain seems to be at odds with their role as anchor tenants. The annual results are due to be published soon and if there isn't a profit there is unlikely to be further investment in the infrastructure. Granted taxiway upkeep and maintenance should be in the long term Capex plan but I'm sure Stobart directors (on behalf of shareholders) will be looking for some kind of return on the current investment before they splash out more cash.
I heard this morning that Easyjet have pulled one aircraft from SEN as a protest of lack of attention in rectifying the state of the taxiways. They will only go back up to 5 if SEN sorts it.
I see that the deficiencies of taxiway B no longer appear as a NOTAM item but can be found in the Textual Data section of the AIP. This does not bode well for chances of early rectification.
Taxiway C meets the minimum width requirements for a Code 3C airport and for A320 and B 737 operation but as I understand it will have to be realigned eventually to comply with current requirements. Also centreline lighting will be required for the whole length to avoid the need for a leader vehicle in Low Visibility Procedures. I would have thought the need is not yet considered pressing given the low volume of movements.
This may also be the reason why no one is taking the responsibility of updating the aerodrome manual etc which is way out of date as mentioned in a previous post.
They better be careful of that knock on the door from the CAA.
They better be careful of that knock on the door from the CAA.
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Essex
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good comments guys and yes the taxiways meet the minimum measurement requirements as laid down in CAP168 however ............................ they are well below the required PCN and have been for some time. Taxiway Alpha has a PCN of 47 (published correctly in the AIP) However the published figures of "B" and "C" are 26 well they are more like 15 at the moment. An A319/A320 dependeing on surface require at least 39 (if my memory serves me right)
This can be tolerated but only on a very infrequent basis.
These taxiways when they are used frequently cause a large amount of FOD/stones to be prevalent on the surface causing an ingestion hazard.
Taxiway Bravo and the diverted centreline was purely a temporary measure to prolong the life of it ( A good decision at the time) . However because of the AIP entry it now seems more permanent.
However this taxiway situation also cuts down the flexibility of any operation or situation. If "Alpha" ever had a problem (disabled aircraft or concrete failure) they would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
Re: The New MD he is NOT the accountable manager. This is held by the current Ops Director so if anything goes wrong the Ops Director will be the one along with the "named persons" (not that there any of those in the 2013 manual still in post) and the ones sitting before the CAA or judge !.
The new MD would probably not fit into the accountable role anyway as defined in CAP700 which is quite clear the experience/competency required as it does for any named person.
Re: the website I agree leaves a lot to be desired. I think they were getting there with documentation (safety instructions) etc but it all seems to have stopped. I presume the Aerodrome Manual was due to be updated as well.
I think SEN are still trying to play with the big boys without success or any in depth experience in actually running an operational airfield and are just trying to "wing it" on a day to day basis.
Good discussion
This can be tolerated but only on a very infrequent basis.
These taxiways when they are used frequently cause a large amount of FOD/stones to be prevalent on the surface causing an ingestion hazard.
Taxiway Bravo and the diverted centreline was purely a temporary measure to prolong the life of it ( A good decision at the time) . However because of the AIP entry it now seems more permanent.
However this taxiway situation also cuts down the flexibility of any operation or situation. If "Alpha" ever had a problem (disabled aircraft or concrete failure) they would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle.
Re: The New MD he is NOT the accountable manager. This is held by the current Ops Director so if anything goes wrong the Ops Director will be the one along with the "named persons" (not that there any of those in the 2013 manual still in post) and the ones sitting before the CAA or judge !.
The new MD would probably not fit into the accountable role anyway as defined in CAP700 which is quite clear the experience/competency required as it does for any named person.
Re: the website I agree leaves a lot to be desired. I think they were getting there with documentation (safety instructions) etc but it all seems to have stopped. I presume the Aerodrome Manual was due to be updated as well.
I think SEN are still trying to play with the big boys without success or any in depth experience in actually running an operational airfield and are just trying to "wing it" on a day to day basis.
Good discussion
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note from the revised AIP that the Church perimeter is now classified as frangible. This is good news as the old stone wall was definitely a safety risk and that could well have put some prospective airlines off. Does anyone know what the stone wall was replaced with?
The trees at the end of RWY24 don't look good on the aerodrome chart but they have been there since the start of operations by Easyjet and no problems have arisen so far.
The problem has been clearly identified as a RW24 second segment climb issue. There were ongoing discussions on this thread on this topic last year which included inputs from pilots actively involved in SEN operations. During this debate it became apparent there were plans to lop offending trees but there has been no news of actual developments.
The reference is not the Aerodrome Chart. It is the Type A Obstacle Clearance Chart.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 easyjet aircraft ended up at Stansted yesterday due to fog at Southend.
Your flight has been delayed due to your aircraft last night having to divert to Stansted airport due to low visibility in Southend. As a result we were unable to get the aircraft back into Southend on time ready for your flight this morning. We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause you.