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

Southend-2

Old 24th Jun 2019, 11:44
  #3241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Daws Heath Essex
Posts: 416
[QUOTE=Spanish eyes;10501604]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.


[/QUOTEOn the basis of your argument LCY would still be a bit of derelict dock surrounded by stagnant water and tower blocks. I think perhaps the CAA are better arbiters of safety.
Planespeaking is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 13:18
  #3242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 878
Blimey! They didn't take long to start clamping down!

https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/177...iven-100-fine/

But be warned, Glyn. Theresa May tried that red lines approach......
DC3 Dave is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 13:23
  #3243 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,005
Always good fun to rehash old arguments, but this was decided in favour of SEN's continuing commercial movements over a decade ago. SEN is by no means alone in having dispensations. LCY must have. In my time as a passenger I particularly enjoyed landing at Funchal where the runway is extended onto a Southend Pier lookalike, and at Longyearbyen where the runway threshold is the chilly Arctic waters. I never flew in to Kai Tak but that must have been interesting too............
Barling Magna is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 17:08
  #3244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 7,092
Glyn Jones, CEO of Stobart Aviation said: “As the airport grows, the approach roads will inevitably get busier. This could become dangerous if there are lots of vehicles stopping illegally, and that could lead to accidents. We are taking this action to avoid this situation.
Isn't he of Luton descendancy? Nice little earner for the hill top Bedfordshire airport. A car with a camera sticking out of its roof on a pole sits a good 100m away on an adjoining service road to photograph any car that pulls into a bus stop around a quarter of a mile from the terminal and well outside the CTA. A case of a pound for me, a pound for you, a pound for me, a pound for you.
LTNman is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 18:51
  #3245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 551
I think the runway width issue needs to be fully understood. There are small ex-wartime airfields around the UK which have runway declared distances of less than 800m but have a width of 45m. In Southend's case the runway width is published as 36m which means to be compliant with EASA requirements (implemented by UK CAA as the EASA recognised National Authority) the TODA/ASDA declared distances should not exceed 1799m. I don't know if there's enough space to increase the declared distances and have a runway end safety area (RESA) length at either end that meets the minimum length requirement of 90m but if they were to increase above 1799m then the minimum runway width should be 45m. I imagine to do this would be very costly. Also as mentioned the obstacle environment after take-off may limit any extra take-off weight should the declared distance take-off element be increased. No doubt aircraft performance experts will know more about this..
Musket90 is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 19:48
  #3246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: IoM & Luton
Age: 55
Posts: 1,705
Originally Posted by LTNman View Post
Isn't he of Luton descentancy
Yes and when he left the road layout was in a terrible mess!
pabely is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 22:00
  #3247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 641
Originally Posted by Musket90 View Post
I think the runway width issue needs to be fully understood. There are small ex-wartime airfields around the UK which have runway declared distances of less than 800m but have a width of 45m. In Southend's case the runway width is published as 36m which means to be compliant with EASA requirements (implemented by UK CAA as the EASA recognised National Authority) the TODA/ASDA declared distances should not exceed 1799m. I don't know if there's enough space to increase the declared distances and have a runway end safety area (RESA) length at either end that meets the minimum length requirement of 90m but if they were to increase above 1799m then the minimum runway width should be 45m. I imagine to do this would be very costly. Also as mentioned the obstacle environment after take-off may limit any extra take-off weight should the declared distance take-off element be increased. No doubt aircraft performance experts will know more about this..
Thank you for clarifying that Musket90 I knew that a restriction like this existed but couldn't find any published guidelines about it.
shamrock7seal is offline  
Old 24th Jun 2019, 22:58
  #3248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,185
Fortunate that this Britannia 757 in the second photo didn't land at Southend.
You could say that of several hundred other airports too. The Britannia 757 came to a halt (minus engines removed by the airport perimeter fencing) way beyond the safety zone afforded at a great many airports, which is part of the reason it took the RFFS team so long to actually damn well find it after the accident. It was a matter of providence that it happened to be at Gerona where the relatively benign terrain around the airfield afforded far better prospects of avoiding injury to those aboard and around than would have been the case at many airports.

Apply the same path divergence off 23R at Manchester and you'd be through and beyond the Aviation Viewing Park on the way to last orders at the Romper, off 08L at Gatwick and you'd be in South Terminal and off 33 at Birmingham and the old noise bunding for the cross runway would have provided a hard stop.

It's a grossly exaggerated (and perhaps deliberately provocative) view to condemn Southend as unsafe on the basis of the excursion path of the 757 at Gerona. That accident would certainly have had a far more insidious outcome if it had happened at many, many other airports. That it did not is something for which those aboard can be thankful, yet it has been recognised as an outlier in such incidents which has established no basis to review the safety zones applicable at all airports and any permitted derogations from them.

Flightrider is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2019, 09:26
  #3249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Belgium
Posts: 15
Originally Posted by davidjohnson6 View Post
Is the new startup airline called Air Antwerp close to being able to put seats on sale or is that still a long way off ?
Just noticed I never answered this one.
Air Antwerp is waiting for its AOC at the moment. If all goes well, they expect to be selling tickets by August and fly as soon as September. Apparently they are now preparing 2 Fokker 50 and are planning a rapid expansion once they get their ticket sale going.
rocker6346 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2019, 12:51
  #3250 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,005
Good luck to them.......

https://www.loganair.co.uk/clda/
Barling Magna is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2019, 12:58
  #3251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 7,092
I wonder how much each passengers is being subsidised by the taxpayer?
LTNman is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2019, 13:12
  #3252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Daws Heath Essex
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by LTNman View Post
I wonder how much each passengers is being subsidised by the taxpayer?
It's hardly going to be hundreds and thousands of pax so I don't suppose HMRC and the great British public will feel the burden! It might just work and it's called enterprise. After all if it hadn't been for enterprise LTN would be a housing estate by now.
Planespeaking is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2019, 13:35
  #3253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 7,092
The lower the passenger count the higher the per passenger subsidy. I can understand subsidies for island communities but someone is having a laugh when there is a twice hourly train service to London.

Say 50 minutes train travel from London to Southend, check-in 2 hours before departure and a 1 hour 25 minute flight. Total 4 hours 15 minutes while Virgin trains offers 2 trains an hour in as little as 3 hours 16 minutes.

Nice one.
LTNman is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2019, 14:17
  #3254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: East London
Age: 37
Posts: 1,025
Originally Posted by LTNman View Post
Say 50 minutes train travel from London to Southend, check-in 2 hours before departure and a 1 hour 25 minute flight. Total 4 hours 15 minutes while Virgin trains offers 2 trains an hour in as little as 3 hours 16 minutes.

Nice one.
What is the travel time from Brentwood, Chelmsford, Southend or Upminster to Carlisle or wider Lake District area by road or rail? At 4x weekly off peak it is surely these passengers the service is hoping to attract.

Even if they ran a twice daily business schedule, the overall travel time looks quite competitive depending where in London youíre actually heading and where in Cumbria you started. 2 hour check-in is quite generous especially at the Carlisle end where 45 mins should be more than enough.
AirportPlanner1 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2019, 14:27
  #3255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Daws Heath Essex
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by LTNman View Post
The lower the passenger count the higher the per passenger subsidy. I can understand subsidies for island communities but someone is having a laugh when there is a twice hourly train service to London.

Say 50 minutes train travel from London to Southend, check-in 2 hours before departure and a 1 hour 25 minute flight. Total 4 hours 15 minutes while Virgin trains offers 2 trains an hour in as little as 3 hours 16 minutes.

Nice one.
It's a worry I feel another sleepless night coming on!!
Planespeaking is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2019, 14:58
  #3256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 7,092
So the subsidy is not for Carlisle - London passengers but people living in Brentwood, Chelmsford, Southend and Upminster. Sorry I misunderstood. As for business passengers sheep farmers would be reluctant to leave Shep the dog to look after the farm. This has nothing to do with Southend but the principle of subsidising air routes for the benefit of Stobart.
LTNman is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2019, 15:06
  #3257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Daws Heath Essex
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by LTNman View Post
So the subsidy is not for Carlisle - London passengers but people living in Brentwood, Chelmsford, Southend and Upminster. Sorry I misunderstood. As for business passengers sheep farmers would be reluctant to leave Shep the dog to look after the farm. This has nothing to do with Southend but the principle of subsidising air routes for the benefit of Stobart.
Sorry can you run that by some of us who have lives and haven't got the time to decipher cryptic comments.
Planespeaking is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2019, 16:19
  #3258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: East London
Age: 37
Posts: 1,025
Originally Posted by LTNman View Post
So the subsidy is not for Carlisle - London passengers but people living in Brentwood, Chelmsford, Southend and Upminster. Sorry I misunderstood. As for business passengers sheep farmers would be reluctant to leave Shep the dog to look after the farm. This has nothing to do with Southend but the principle of subsidising air routes for the benefit of Stobart.
All the evidence Iíve seen points to inbound tourism being the economic benefit derived from these flights. Look at the Loganair story linked above, does it mention Cumbrian sheep farmers investing in the city or does it talk about the Lake District and how many people visit? Yes Iím sure it is win-win for Stobart but itís disingenuous to suggest its being subsidised for business pax to central London against the train.
AirportPlanner1 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2019, 17:37
  #3259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 244
Think of it as HS3 but cheaper
SARF is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2019, 18:06
  #3260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,879
I'm sure the main commercial point to the service will be to attract inbound traffic to the Lake District but only time will tell whether it will be successful.
Jamesair 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.