SOUTHEND 5
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just found the distances for an intersection departure from 08 which is comparable to Southend's full length
TORA = Takeoff run available. The length of runway declared available and suitable for the ground run of an airplane taking off
TODA = Takeoff Distance Available – The length of the takeoff run available plus the length of the clearway, if clearway is provided.[6]
(The clearway length allowed must lie within the aerodrome or airport boundary. According to the Federal Aviation Regulations and Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) TODA is the lesser of TORA plus clearway or 1.5 times TORA).
ASDA= Accelerate-Stop Distance Available – The length of the takeoff run available plus the length of the stopway, if stopway is provided.[6]
Luton
TORA 1688m
TODA 2532m
ASDA 2162m
Southend
TORA 1739m
TODA 1799m
ASDA 1739m (23 end)
LDA 1604m
PDF here of all airports https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...L-g2DQ&cad=rja
TORA = Takeoff run available. The length of runway declared available and suitable for the ground run of an airplane taking off
TODA = Takeoff Distance Available – The length of the takeoff run available plus the length of the clearway, if clearway is provided.[6]
(The clearway length allowed must lie within the aerodrome or airport boundary. According to the Federal Aviation Regulations and Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR) TODA is the lesser of TORA plus clearway or 1.5 times TORA).
ASDA= Accelerate-Stop Distance Available – The length of the takeoff run available plus the length of the stopway, if stopway is provided.[6]
Luton
TORA 1688m
TODA 2532m
ASDA 2162m
Southend
TORA 1739m
TODA 1799m
ASDA 1739m (23 end)
LDA 1604m
PDF here of all airports https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...L-g2DQ&cad=rja
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would Wizz want to fly to Krakow from Southend or any other UK airport for that matter. Besides being a large Ryanair base Katowice - a large Wizz base - is only 80 kilometres from Krakow with excellent connections by rail, motorway etc. For my six pennyworth I cannot see Wizz wanting to fly from Southend it would only dilute traffic from Luton and especially now setting up a base there.
I cannot see Wizz wanting to fly from Southend it would only dilute traffic from Luton
2. Cost?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi LTNman
The TODA figure is important but it's also the 'second sector climb performance' which is the phase of takeoff after the TODA (screen height - 35' for a turbine aircraft on departure) to the point where the aircraft accelerates.
As someone said earlier at LTN it's essentially unobstructed and the same is true for SEN on 05
But 23 has a number of obstacles (I think mainly trees from memory) which mean aircraft are required to achieve a minimum climb gradient which they must be able to manage single engine - hence the quite restricted performance from runway 23.
For us we often would find that a slight tailwind on 05 was less limiting than the equivalent headwind on 23!
However, I don't think it's a major issue for operators out of SEN certainly on the Airbus, for the sort of operations they would want to attract.
Things that limit performance are high temperatures or low QNH. In order to achieve the climb they have to restrict the takeoff weight. It's why very occasionally the Airbus stops for extra fuel on the way to the canaries.
The 738 on the hand has an issue landing and stopping I believe, but having never flown it wouldn't like to say for certain.
The TODA figure is important but it's also the 'second sector climb performance' which is the phase of takeoff after the TODA (screen height - 35' for a turbine aircraft on departure) to the point where the aircraft accelerates.
As someone said earlier at LTN it's essentially unobstructed and the same is true for SEN on 05
But 23 has a number of obstacles (I think mainly trees from memory) which mean aircraft are required to achieve a minimum climb gradient which they must be able to manage single engine - hence the quite restricted performance from runway 23.
For us we often would find that a slight tailwind on 05 was less limiting than the equivalent headwind on 23!
However, I don't think it's a major issue for operators out of SEN certainly on the Airbus, for the sort of operations they would want to attract.
Things that limit performance are high temperatures or low QNH. In order to achieve the climb they have to restrict the takeoff weight. It's why very occasionally the Airbus stops for extra fuel on the way to the canaries.
The 738 on the hand has an issue landing and stopping I believe, but having never flown it wouldn't like to say for certain.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: essex
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
runway width
I dont pretend to understand the ins and outs of how an airport works, it has been said that the runway is not wide enough to take larger planes (737.800)... because of the church.....but SEN has acres of spare ground opposite the church ,why cant they take some of the land to widen the runway, surely this will please the church people, the planes would be further away, less noise,...everybody happy.....simples
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Daws Heath Essex
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont pretend to understand the ins and outs of how an airport works, it has been said that the runway is not wide enough to take larger planes (737.800)... because of the church.....but SEN has acres of spare ground opposite the church ,why cant they take some of the land to widen the runway, surely this will please the church people, the planes would be further away, less noise,...everybody happy.....simples
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: essex
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tree restriction on 23 departures
As mentioned by Cumbrian Boy above, i cannot recall seeing any trees close to the end of the runway and i wonder if our experts on here can enlighten me.
Surely Stobart could approach the owners to discuss the financial removal and put up a good case due to restricting the aircraft operations using that runway and the ultimate revenue loss.
If Stobart are serious about attracting more carriers and services, this must be at the top of their priorities right now.
Surely Stobart could approach the owners to discuss the financial removal and put up a good case due to restricting the aircraft operations using that runway and the ultimate revenue loss.
If Stobart are serious about attracting more carriers and services, this must be at the top of their priorities right now.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont pretend to understand the ins and outs of how an airport works, it has been said that the runway is not wide enough to take larger planes (737.800)... because of the church.....but SEN has acres of spare ground opposite the church ,why cant they take some of the land to widen the runway, surely this will please the church people, the planes would be further away, less noise,...everybody happy.....simples
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The runway is definitely not long enough for a fully loaded 737-800. A B737-400 or -700 can handle it, but there are limited numbers of those in Europe and now that Jet2 have selected STN they are unlikely to appear at SEN. So we're stuck with Airbuses, Avros, E-jets, SSJs and C-series.......plus turboprops of course.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my view the runway width isn't an issue. It does slightly restrict the ILS to a worse that CAT I capability but with SEN's weather record it doesn't have such a big impact. Yes they have the odd day when it's closed and end up with a few diverting away, but every airport has that.
it's generally accepted upgrading to CAT II isn't worth the effort, it's either CAT I or CAT III and CAT III at SEN would be a non starter and for the significant investment it wouldn't have any gain, in my opinion.
The 737-800 'issue' if you can call it that. Well, who cares? I think an anchor tenant in easyJet is sufficient. I do think there is potential in the charter / Package holiday market at SEN but the Airbus can fill that gap happily.
As for the rest, I'd say it's likely to be more regional that works and with Stobart Air (aka FLyBE) with the E-jets and ATRs I think that operation would suit SEN well.
As for the current routes - it's way too early to tell how things are doing, but I think they will settle down, one or two may go, and a few new ones may appear until they get the mix right, but it's a great project and I think it will find its feet and do OK ... that;s if it isn't killed by the negativity and armchair CEOs on here in the meantime of course ...
it's generally accepted upgrading to CAT II isn't worth the effort, it's either CAT I or CAT III and CAT III at SEN would be a non starter and for the significant investment it wouldn't have any gain, in my opinion.
The 737-800 'issue' if you can call it that. Well, who cares? I think an anchor tenant in easyJet is sufficient. I do think there is potential in the charter / Package holiday market at SEN but the Airbus can fill that gap happily.
As for the rest, I'd say it's likely to be more regional that works and with Stobart Air (aka FLyBE) with the E-jets and ATRs I think that operation would suit SEN well.
As for the current routes - it's way too early to tell how things are doing, but I think they will settle down, one or two may go, and a few new ones may appear until they get the mix right, but it's a great project and I think it will find its feet and do OK ... that;s if it isn't killed by the negativity and armchair CEOs on here in the meantime of course ...
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my view the runway width isn't an issue.
Then it restricts ILS capabilities, perhaps a shame that Stobart's have thrown such a bucket load of money in to SEN yet they shall remain in the lower leagues whilst they have such a handicap.
The 737-800 'issue' if you can call it that. Well, who cares?
But SEN should care, if as suggested the majority of B737's in Europe are 800's then that is a hell of a lot of potential business SEN could be missing out on, then there are these MAX and NEO thingies, whatever they are, coming along whilst with the runway width as it is SEN can't even accept a wide body.
As Tophat previously remarked it's great to see Airbus's launching to the Canaries, that's the Canaries and not Spain
, but there could be so much more if only they could, or would, widen the runway.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Harry I have to disagree.
I wasn't thinking of Ryanair when I said that, I was being realistic in what SENs role is in the South East.
Mentioned wide bodies is laughable, SEN will never attract that. STN has tried and failed many times, it is just not what SEN is about.
The runway width, yes it restricts the airport slightly, but my point is, that does not make a material impact to the overall picture of SEN. I know there are some on here that think SEN should develop into a massive multinational airport, but the hard and fast reality is, whilst it may serve London, it is still a regional airport and will remain such. Sooner or later either Heathrow or Gatwick will get a second runway, and soak up a ton of additional airline capacity, and SEN will always be the 6th airport of London - it's just a fact. I'm not dismissing or criticising SEN at all, just being realistic.
So, going back to my points earlier, the fact the SEN isn't CAT III is fine, because even it it was, it wouldn't change anything in terms of the potential of SEN. A longer runway won't make the airport any more attractive to airlines.
Trust me when I say, airlines do NOT chose airports to operate from on the basis of the facilities they have. Jet2 did not go to STN because they had a longer runway and CAT III capabilities.
If an airline needed a 2,500m+ runway then for the type of operation they will be looking at their options will be LHR or LGW, or at a push, STN. SEN wouldn't feature on their radar, even if it had a 3,000-4,000m runway!
Airlines go to the airport where the demand is, and SEN will always be the 6th airport in London ...
That said, I genuinely think SEN is doing well and will continue to do well in the future and like I said I am not dismissing SEN, but I think the airport is doing the right thing to develop what it has and make it work for the type of operation it is suited to and not spend money on project for which it won't get a return
I wasn't thinking of Ryanair when I said that, I was being realistic in what SENs role is in the South East.
Mentioned wide bodies is laughable, SEN will never attract that. STN has tried and failed many times, it is just not what SEN is about.
The runway width, yes it restricts the airport slightly, but my point is, that does not make a material impact to the overall picture of SEN. I know there are some on here that think SEN should develop into a massive multinational airport, but the hard and fast reality is, whilst it may serve London, it is still a regional airport and will remain such. Sooner or later either Heathrow or Gatwick will get a second runway, and soak up a ton of additional airline capacity, and SEN will always be the 6th airport of London - it's just a fact. I'm not dismissing or criticising SEN at all, just being realistic.
So, going back to my points earlier, the fact the SEN isn't CAT III is fine, because even it it was, it wouldn't change anything in terms of the potential of SEN. A longer runway won't make the airport any more attractive to airlines.
Trust me when I say, airlines do NOT chose airports to operate from on the basis of the facilities they have. Jet2 did not go to STN because they had a longer runway and CAT III capabilities.
If an airline needed a 2,500m+ runway then for the type of operation they will be looking at their options will be LHR or LGW, or at a push, STN. SEN wouldn't feature on their radar, even if it had a 3,000-4,000m runway!
Airlines go to the airport where the demand is, and SEN will always be the 6th airport in London ...
That said, I genuinely think SEN is doing well and will continue to do well in the future and like I said I am not dismissing SEN, but I think the airport is doing the right thing to develop what it has and make it work for the type of operation it is suited to and not spend money on project for which it won't get a return