Southend-2
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Red Four, that has cleared up the confusion I think. So if in the agreement a small Cessna = an A320 you can maybe see why Stobart are keen to promote their 5 touch and goes for a fiver offer.
I understand that this was as a sop to the local anti-airport campaigners at the time, who were widely circulating a conspiracy theory (what changes!) that the airport was going to be a massive Stobart Freight hub, because of the Eddie Stobart trucking link then. They even went as far as putting this arrant nonsense in a leaflet delivered door-to-door, in order to stir up more replies to the Council/JAAP.
The new rail station (they said) was just a cover for a Stobart siding to facilitate an unlimited rail/air freight interchange all through the night, so the Councillors had their ears bent and put this restriction in place in the S.106.
Unfortunately, in terms of the SEN Section106 agreement, 'ATMs' meant all movements, however small the movement. This should really be changed to Air Transport Movements in the sense most in aviation understand it (but Councillors never understood aviation!).
The new rail station (they said) was just a cover for a Stobart siding to facilitate an unlimited rail/air freight interchange all through the night, so the Councillors had their ears bent and put this restriction in place in the S.106.
Unfortunately, in terms of the SEN Section106 agreement, 'ATMs' meant all movements, however small the movement. This should really be changed to Air Transport Movements in the sense most in aviation understand it (but Councillors never understood aviation!).
expect to see cax sold in the next couple of years too.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...& even more sensible not to trust them if DC3 Dave`s last comment is anything to go by.
CAX... perhaps Stobart betting the farm on the ever receding plans for Freeports in the UK.
CAX... perhaps Stobart betting the farm on the ever receding plans for Freeports in the UK.
I struggle with some of Stobarts strategies, but anybody who imposes such a cackhanded restriction deserves to have its boundaries fully explored....
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not cackhanded at all as has been discussed it is a planning safety provision for the local populous against predatory & desperate companies such as Stobart are evidently proving to be.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The likes of MAG will get through this crisis because, although they are bleeding badly, they probably have more than enough left circulating to live to fight another day.
Stobart have lost so much blood over the last year that it will take more than a couple of units of plasma to survive.
But they have pulled off a Lazarus trick before.
Not cackhanded at all as has been discussed it is a planning safety provision for the local populous against predatory & desperate companies such as Stobart are evidently proving to be
Chosing to impose a limit on freight flights by linking them to the overal number of flights operated seems to fit the description of 'cackhanded' to me...
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Taking advantage of every possible loophole" is pretty much condemned when viewed in individuals & is viewed by society & the media as underhand & is certainly no fit way for a household company to run & be trusted to run a supposed London Airport & is without precedent & frankly shocking.
You may not condemn Stobart but perhaps many of the affected good burghers of Southend may choose to differ.
The reasons for Stobart fighting for survival have been pretty much explored in the forums but with much being the result of their own hubris is no excuse then to plague the residents with more controversial cargo flights for Amazon by sleight of hand as you suggest & support.
You may not condemn Stobart but perhaps many of the affected good burghers of Southend may choose to differ.
The reasons for Stobart fighting for survival have been pretty much explored in the forums but with much being the result of their own hubris is no excuse then to plague the residents with more controversial cargo flights for Amazon by sleight of hand as you suggest & support.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Taking advantage of every possible loophole" is pretty much condemned when viewed in individuals & is viewed by society & the media as underhand & is certainly no fit way for a household company to run & be trusted to run a supposed London Airport & is without precedent & frankly shocking.
You may not condemn Stobart but perhaps many of the affected good burghers of Southend may choose to differ.
The reasons for Stobart fighting for survival have been pretty much explored in the forums but with much being the result of their own hubris is no excuse then to plague the residents with more controversial cargo flights for Amazon by sleight of hand as you suggest & support.
You may not condemn Stobart but perhaps many of the affected good burghers of Southend may choose to differ.
The reasons for Stobart fighting for survival have been pretty much explored in the forums but with much being the result of their own hubris is no excuse then to plague the residents with more controversial cargo flights for Amazon by sleight of hand as you suggest & support.
My father gave me a lot of advice. One thing that stuck was, before you buy a property, invest in an ordinance survey map. Look for roads, railways, streams, factory estates, sewerage works, quarries, flightpaths from airports - anything in fact that may have the potential of blighting your life before you buy.
It’s an airport. It has responsibilities. They are defined.
Last edited by DC3 Dave; 24th Oct 2020 at 20:07.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wise words which I fully support re the surroundings check lists of course- ("Gee said the American tourist remarking on Windsor Castle but why did they build it so close to the flightpath?")
One cannot insure against every blight that may arise in the future but down to local & civic functions to protect or mitigate against those that may & in this instance in the pursuit of a disordered business plan.
One cannot insure against every blight that may arise in the future but down to local & civic functions to protect or mitigate against those that may & in this instance in the pursuit of a disordered business plan.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the Wells Avenue residents complain about night flights (and I would never wish to silence them), I think it’s worth remembering that the current agreement saw the number of permitted night flights being reduced from over 900 to 120 per month when that happens night after night
.
.
I am sure the council did not envisage 737 freighters being used at night. If they did why did they ban passenger flights at night? Also there is a bit of a difference between what traditionally come in at night carrying freight and now so the locals have a valid grievance.
Last edited by LTNman; 24th Oct 2020 at 21:14.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHOA! Fake post!
I posted I think it’s worth remembering that the current agreement saw the number of permitted night flights being reduced from over 900 to 120 per month.
LTNman says I posted 120 per month when that happens night after night.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
Those in charge should scroll back read my words then see how they were altered and act.
Posts 4572 and 4574. Check them out for yourselves.
I posted I think it’s worth remembering that the current agreement saw the number of permitted night flights being reduced from over 900 to 120 per month.
LTNman says I posted 120 per month when that happens night after night.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
Those in charge should scroll back read my words then see how they were altered and act.
Posts 4572 and 4574. Check them out for yourselves.
Last edited by DC3 Dave; 24th Oct 2020 at 22:48.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do we have, a lovely terminal open for a few hours per week & Ryanair, anything else I have missed?
A few cargo flights will not pay the bills. A few Jota positioners will not pay off the debts.
Gatwick has an abundance of slots available come March.
Not too sure how Stobart exit this?
Maybe a begging letter to Beijing?
A few cargo flights will not pay the bills. A few Jota positioners will not pay off the debts.
Gatwick has an abundance of slots available come March.
Not too sure how Stobart exit this?
Maybe a begging letter to Beijing?
I think that Red Four (post 4559) has put it well. My take on it is only slightly different.
The reason why the councils imposed a limit on the number of freight movements was I believe not about any aviation issue such as noise which was covered in other provisions of the S106.. It was about road traffic. Stobart of course was a major trucking operator and the Councils were concerned about the possibility of unlimited numbers of Stobart heavy trucks being introduced into the somewhat poor local road infrastructure.. The Councils could not directly control the number of trucks but they could do so indirectly by limiting the number of flights, hence the volume of cargo and the consequent trucking requirement. Stobart would have gone along with this because all their efforts were concentrated on developing SEN as a passenger airport. At the same it would have been extremely foolish commercially to give away.the right to operate cargo flights entirely. Why they came up with the formuila that they did makes little sense to me.
I am quite sure that both Stobarts and the Council would have dismissed the protestors predictions of road/rail/airport interchanges as impractical concepts that were not worth considering. In any case these were not part of any Planning Application so could not become the reason for the imposition of any planning conditions.
The problem with the S106 is that like all such agreements it ends up as a compromise and it is not unusual for such a compromise to fail to completely satisfy all parties. I have no doubt that those who drew up the agreement believed that they had reached a satisfactory conclusion. But the hard fact of the matter is that the document is defective in some areas because its authors simply did not know enough about practical aviation, and it shows in the failure of detail. It leads to the sort of debate that goes on endlessly in the make believe world of this thread . Whereas in the real aviation world the airport and airline operators find a way of complying with its requirements and get on with life.
The reason why the councils imposed a limit on the number of freight movements was I believe not about any aviation issue such as noise which was covered in other provisions of the S106.. It was about road traffic. Stobart of course was a major trucking operator and the Councils were concerned about the possibility of unlimited numbers of Stobart heavy trucks being introduced into the somewhat poor local road infrastructure.. The Councils could not directly control the number of trucks but they could do so indirectly by limiting the number of flights, hence the volume of cargo and the consequent trucking requirement. Stobart would have gone along with this because all their efforts were concentrated on developing SEN as a passenger airport. At the same it would have been extremely foolish commercially to give away.the right to operate cargo flights entirely. Why they came up with the formuila that they did makes little sense to me.
I am quite sure that both Stobarts and the Council would have dismissed the protestors predictions of road/rail/airport interchanges as impractical concepts that were not worth considering. In any case these were not part of any Planning Application so could not become the reason for the imposition of any planning conditions.
The problem with the S106 is that like all such agreements it ends up as a compromise and it is not unusual for such a compromise to fail to completely satisfy all parties. I have no doubt that those who drew up the agreement believed that they had reached a satisfactory conclusion. But the hard fact of the matter is that the document is defective in some areas because its authors simply did not know enough about practical aviation, and it shows in the failure of detail. It leads to the sort of debate that goes on endlessly in the make believe world of this thread . Whereas in the real aviation world the airport and airline operators find a way of complying with its requirements and get on with life.
Last edited by Tagron; 25th Oct 2020 at 01:22. Reason: Minor
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHOA! Fake post!
I posted I think it’s worth remembering that the current agreement saw the number of permitted night flights being reduced from over 900 to 120 per month.
LTNman says I posted 120 per month when that happens night after night.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
Those in charge should scroll back read my words then see how they were altered and act.
Posts 4572 and 4574. Check them out for yourselves.
I posted I think it’s worth remembering that the current agreement saw the number of permitted night flights being reduced from over 900 to 120 per month.
LTNman says I posted 120 per month when that happens night after night.
Should be ashamed of yourself.
Those in charge should scroll back read my words then see how they were altered and act.
Posts 4572 and 4574. Check them out for yourselves.
Unlike most airports Southend is very close to residential areas. I find it bad enough and I live a mile away and parallel to a longer runway. Once on the ground there is then the taxing so it isn’t even a 10 second blast of noise.
Last edited by LTNman; 25th Oct 2020 at 08:10.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More bad news - Wizz seem to have given up until mid-December although they’ve also dropped LGW to Bucharest over the same period. In fact on some days even LTN is down to one daily. So it’s going to be even quieter over the next few weeks. Perhaps not a real surprise.
Not sure when this was announced, perhaps at very short notice.
Not sure when this was announced, perhaps at very short notice.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More bad news - Wizz seem to have given up until mid-December although they’ve also dropped LGW to Bucharest over the same period. In fact on some days even LTN is down to one daily. So it’s going to be even quieter over the next few weeks. Perhaps not a real surprise.
Not sure when this was announced, perhaps at very short notice.
Not sure when this was announced, perhaps at very short notice.