Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Southend-2

Old 22nd Jun 2019, 17:00
  #3221 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 434
Sorry forgot to say.

I'm not rubbing my hands in glee or anything else. When I fly short haul I fly EZY more than any other airline and this adds up to a huge amount of EZY flights every year. On average I flew EZY every 9 days last year. I fly short haul with other operators and long haul. Whilst it's difficult to compare long haul and short haul standards of service, EZY make my top 3 overall.

I like EZY and their onboard service, their pricing strategy, their route network, and above all else, their crew who are the unsung heroes of the whole operation.

I don't want EZY to throw pax of their aircraft due to op restrictions and I hope it never happens. I was just reporting on a rumour network what I was told.
asdf1234 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 18:45
  #3222 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 395
Originally Posted by asdf1234 View Post
Looks like temperatures at SEN will hit 30c next Tuesday and Wednesday. Heard on the grapevine that Easyjet will be telling the last 15 pax to arrive at the check in desk that they won't be flying on those days due to operational restrictions. Not sure which flights are affected by this but assume it will be the A320 flights. Can anyone confirm the schedule
for the A320s next Tuesday and Wednesday?
All the forecasts that I can find predict a maximum temperature at SEN of 26c on Tuesday then 25 & 24 on Wednesday and Thursday. It is Central London where 30c is forecast. It is a not uncommon situation for inland areas to be hotter than the coast because the coast is cooled by the north easterly breezes coming off the North Sea, and NE winds are forecast to predominate all next week. On that basis I would suggest that performance problems are unlikely to arise.
Tagron is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 19:46
  #3223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: U.K.
Posts: 395
Originally Posted by asdf1234 View Post
I honestly don't know which aircraft type (319 or 320) was potentially subject to the restriction, other than it was EZY and not FR.

I too would like to see how the 738s perform, especially given they seem to have the SFP mod. Their larger payload would suggest a greater propensity to restrictions on 23 on a hot and humid day but maybe the SFP brings improvements over the 319/320. Only time and experience will tell.

Of course, a 05 departure should avoid any restrictions but again, only time will tell. Let's see what happens next week.

In retrospect was it wise for Stobart to restrict the declared distances on the runway? And could they now increase those declared distances to allow unrestricted ops on hot and humid days? As far as I could tell, limiting the declared distances was a cost saving measure centred on RFFS resources.
It was hardly Stobart's choice to restrict the runway declared distances. The reason was regulatory, ICAO policy as implemented by UK CAA. Because of the narrow runway the airport was designated as Code 3C status a requirement of which was that the maximum declarable TODA was 1799m. That compares with the total length of paved runway available which is more like 1990m including stopways and clearways. However even if the regulatory constraint could be alleviated any performance advantage would seem to be apply only to RW05. The issue with RW23 is the rising ground to the south west of the airport which affects the Second Segment Climb segment and the One Engine Inoperative obstacle clearance climb gradient This appears to be the controlling issue in the RTOW calculation in the heavier weight take offs from RW23. In this case there would be no benefit from increasing the declared distances as the obstacle clearance limitation would remain.

The determining factor of RFFS category is not in any way connected with runway length (as far as I am aware). but is a function of the length of the fuselage of aircraft using an airport regularly. . So for A320 operations (fuselage length 37.75m) RFF6 was adequate but for the B738 (39.47m) was required, 39m being the changeover point. So SEN has equipped and operated to RFF7 since the start of Ryanair ops.
Tagron is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 20:24
  #3224 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by Tagron View Post
All the forecasts that I can find predict a maximum temperature at SEN of 26c on Tuesday then 25 & 24 on Wednesday and Thursday. It is Central London where 30c is forecast. It is a not uncommon situation for inland areas to be hotter than the coast because the coast is cooled by the north easterly breezes coming off the North Sea, and NE winds are forecast to predominate all next week. On that basis I would suggest that performance problems are unlikely to arise.
Well done on the weather forecasting but does not address my point about EZY refusing 15 pax st SEN when the weather is too hot....
asdf1234 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 20:30
  #3225 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by Tagron View Post
It was hardly Stobart's choice to restrict the runway declared distances. The reason was regulatory, ICAO policy as implemented by UK CAA. Because of the narrow runway the airport was designated as Code 3C status a requirement of which was that the maximum declarable TODA was 1799m. That compares with the total length of paved runway available which is more like 1990m including stopways and clearways. However even if the regulatory constraint could be alleviated any performance advantage would seem to be apply only to RW05. The issue with RW23 is the rising ground to the south west of the airport which affects the Second Segment Climb segment and the One Engine Inoperative obstacle clearance climb gradient This appears to be the controlling issue in the RTOW calculation in the heavier weight take offs from RW23. In this case there would be no benefit from increasing the declared distances as the obstacle clearance limitation would remain.

The determining factor of RFFS category is not in any way connected with runway length (as far as I am aware). but is a function of the length of the fuselage of aircraft using an airport regularly. . So for A320 operations (fuselage length 37.75m) RFF6 was adequate but for the B738 (39.47m) was required, 39m being the changeover point. So SEN has equipped and operated to RFF7 since the start of Ryanair ops.
So why not widen the runway? And then address the issues with the trees on the A127? SEN wants to be a London airport, they can't be when they are forced to refuse pax due to runway limitations and trees.
asdf1234 is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 21:27
  #3226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 642
Runway cannot be widened unless it is extended further due to CAA runway restrictions.

Last edited by shamrock7seal; 23rd Jun 2019 at 11:41.
shamrock7seal is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2019, 21:58
  #3227 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 250
There’s not many days when the heat causes a problem.
When there is little prevailing wind Southend will pick up an easterly breeze at the hottest part of the day from early afternoon onwards. The early morning rush hour will never be affected
SARF is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 07:10
  #3228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 300
Originally Posted by shamrock7seal View Post
Runway cannot be widened unless it is extended further due to CAA runway restrictions.
That sound like total rubbish. There are many standard width runways (150ft) that are shorter than Southend. The painful truth is that Southend is marginal for both easyjet and Ryanair. If fog doesn't get passengers in the winter then the summer heat will. Just call it a double wammy. What was the story with the protruding church? I know that affects the runway but I can't remember how.
Pain in the R's is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 07:46
  #3229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 922
Southend is marginal for both easyjet and Ryanair.
I would prefer the word restricted. Marginal rather gives wrong impression - it would be marginal of the take off weight wasn't restricted if necessary to prevent it being marginal!
22/04 is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 09:51
  #3230 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 7,150
Southend used to have a bit of a history with its short runway and the railway line that passes it although Stobart has added a bit of length since those days.
LTNman is online now  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 10:15
  #3231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 2,311
LTNman

I remember that accident very well; Sunday 9th October 1960 around lunchtime. Aquaplaning was the cause on that occasion. As you say, the paved surface is of much greater length nowadays; no RESAs in those days, and the newly grooved runway seems to be performing well according to a few RYR crew that I've heard from.

No doubt you also remember the Aer Turas DC-7 that spectacularly overran the runway at LTN many years ago.
Expressflight is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 11:07
  #3232 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 7,150
I might be the only one not to know about this website until a few minutes ago. Have a look in the history section for the prangs and everything SEN.
http://saadonline.uk/
LTNman is online now  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 11:38
  #3233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 642
Originally Posted by Pain in the R's View Post
That sound like total rubbish. There are many standard width runways (150ft) that are shorter than Southend. The painful truth is that Southend is marginal for both easyjet and Ryanair. If fog doesn't get passengers in the winter then the summer heat will. Just call it a double wammy. What was the story with the protruding church? I know that affects the runway but I can't remember how.
Granted this is second hand info - was told that due to the specifics of the runway approaches at both SEN and SOU the runways cannot be widened to 45m given their length, similar at LCY. I also find this odd and would like to understand it more.

Perhaps someone more technical can explain why this is (supposedly) the case?
shamrock7seal is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 11:58
  #3234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 7,150
Scoping report makes no mention of why the runway can't be made wider but it is still a very interesting read
https://saeninfo.files.wordpress.com...report_v03.pdf
LTNman is online now  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 12:28
  #3235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 893
Originally Posted by Pain in the R's View Post
That sound like total rubbish. There are many standard width runways (150ft) that are shorter than Southend. The painful truth is that Southend is marginal for both easyjet and Ryanair. If fog doesn't get passengers in the winter then the summer heat will. Just call it a double wammy. What was the story with the protruding church? I know that affects the runway but I can't remember how.

​​​​​​Between them, easyjet and Ryanair have 7 aircraft based at SEN. Their choice. Nobody held a gun to their heads.

The boundary wall of the church is 49m from the runway centre line, the church spire 105m. Stobart have just spent 10 million on resurfacing the runway, If they wanted to widen it (assuming that is possible) they would probably have to spend that amount times ??? so I don't think it's going to happen. Unless, of course, Warwick Brady is willing to forgo any future bonus.
DC3 Dave is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2019, 22:55
  #3236 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 4,354
Must have dispensation , as a licenced runway needs 75m from runway centreline to a holding point. 49m is ridiculously close and the runway is narrower than a standard. A runway excursion could end up with an impact with that wall. When you look at it on Google Earth, I am surprised the CAA permit commercial movements. As for the spire in poor weather.......! If I applied to build a wall 49m from the runway at Luton, I know what the answer would be (ignoring who owns the land).
Buster the Bear is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 05:34
  #3237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 434
Originally Posted by Buster the Bear View Post
Must have dispensation , as a licenced runway needs 75m from runway centreline to a holding point. 49m is ridiculously close and the runway is narrower than a standard. A runway excursion could end up with an impact with that wall. When you look at it on Google Earth, I am surprised the CAA permit commercial movements. As for the spire in poor weather.......! If I applied to build a wall 49m from the runway at Luton, I know what the answer would be (ignoring who owns the land).
Mention is made in the AIP for SEN that operators acknowledge the risk posed by the proximity of the church.

4 5 WARNINGS a) It is a condition of operating at the airport that the operator accepts that St. Laurence Church and graveyard are permanent obstacles within the runway instrument strip and that they take account of them to the extent necessary to ensure a safe operation. Operators must refer to the airport conditions of use, and the pilots briefing pack on the LSACL website. Church roof is at 78 ft amsl at 94 m from runway centre-line, spire at 114 ft amsl, 105 m from runway centre-line at approximately 200 m north-east of Runway 05 threshold, lit with a single red obstacle light. Frangible fence around Church graveyard up to 9 ft agl (56 ft amsl), at closest 49 m from Runway centre-line. Operators should refer to obstacle data at AD 2.10 and charts at AD 2.24
asdf1234 is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 08:07
  #3238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Between the check-in desks
Posts: 140
Is not "dispensation" a single word for "we will turn a blind eye and hope for the best" Dispensation must have been granted for historical reasons but rules are made for good reasons. Fortunate that this Britannia 757 in the second photo didn't land at Southend. Seems to me that safety is and has been compromised at Southend for years. Short narrow Cat 1 runway runway with a church well inside the safety zone with both Ryanair and Easyjet flying on their limits but as the poster above has stated Stobart exonerates itself by saying we take no responsibility if anything happens despite the breach of safely rules as we have an exemption.


Spanish eyes is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 10:51
  #3239 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: East London
Age: 37
Posts: 1,037
You would hope aircraft wouldn’t be attempting to land at SEN in the conditions present at Girona that night. Also worth noting the 757 could just as easily have skidded off the other side and ploughed into the DC9 (which for an extra Daily Mail sensationalist worst-case scenario could have been full of holidaymakers) - that could also have been pretty nasty.
AirportPlanner1 is online now  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 10:53
  #3240 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 893
There was a plan to demolish the church, or even lift it off its foundations and move it. Then in 2002, grade 1 listed status was granted following a campaign.

But there is no cover up, or dark dealings. easyjet, Ryanair, Air Malta and Loganair have all carried out their risk assessments and made their decisions taking into account the obstruction.

Last edited by DC3 Dave; 24th Jun 2019 at 13:09.
DC3 Dave is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.