Southend-2
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re fire services strike action over Christmas:
Southend Airport fire workers vote to strike | Echo
Contingency in place. So I interpret this means business as usual and zero impacts to flights as result of this planned strike action.
However Stobart Aviation, who have owned and operated the airport since 2008, insist there are contingencies in place to ensure there is no disruption.
Contingency in place. So I interpret this means business as usual and zero impacts to flights as result of this planned strike action.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Para 5.3: The central principle of the Joint Area Action Plan (JAAP) is that the airport can expand its operations to enable up to 2 million passengers to be carried annually.
Para 6.1: The s106 legal agreement which controls amongst other things, passenger numbers and includes flight restrictions...
Para 5.30: The airport has consent to operate within the parameters as restricted by the s106 legal agreement that accompanied the planning consent for the runway extension; this limits passenger numbers and restricts flights.
Seems that airport capacity is indeed constrained by the s106 agreement.
I don't know to which Rochford Council memo you are referring and I cannot lay my hands on the Section 106 agreement at the moment. I have found a Rochford District Council document entitled 'London Southend Airport - Operational Controls Summary Table' which makes no reference to a limit on annual passenger numbers.
I believe the 2mppa figure was that used in connection with granting planning consent for the original terminal building construction in around 2010. This has now of course been considerably enlarged under a later planning consent so presumably a higher number was envisaged at that point.
I believe the 2mppa figure was that used in connection with granting planning consent for the original terminal building construction in around 2010. This has now of course been considerably enlarged under a later planning consent so presumably a higher number was envisaged at that point.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The memo is that produced for the forthcoming planning committee meeting on the 14th December (see link above). The capacity for the airport has not been revised and stands at 2m pax as per the s106 agreement that the airport operator is legally obliged to comply with.
Hopefully someone can find a copy of the S106 agreement to confirm one way or the other if a 2mppa limitation appears in the document. From memory I don't think it does but cannot be certain and the RDC Controls Summary Table I mentioned certainly doesn't include any reference to a limit of passenger numbers which seems odd.
The original S106 agreement as an appendix to this doc.
https://www.southend.gov.uk/download...reement_300410
https://www.southend.gov.uk/download...reement_300410
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick read of the document which is the original s106 agreement and the variation to it in 2012 shows that the limit is on ATMs and not pax numbers. The airport is limited to 53,300 ATMs annually and the forecasts by the airport's own consultants suggest that would equate to approximately 2m pax. The relevant paragraph is 3.41 on page 79 of the pdf document.
ATMs are defined as any fixed or rotary wing take off or landing. In effect an ATM need not have any terminal passengers (such as flying club activity). Someone with more time than me might want to model pax numbers based upon max atms in a year given the mixed nature of the aircraft fleet at SEN and taking into account average yields on those flights and discounting all non-pax flights from the calculation!
ATMs are defined as any fixed or rotary wing take off or landing. In effect an ATM need not have any terminal passengers (such as flying club activity). Someone with more time than me might want to model pax numbers based upon max atms in a year given the mixed nature of the aircraft fleet at SEN and taking into account average yields on those flights and discounting all non-pax flights from the calculation!
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't sense antagonism towards the airport from local politicians (other than those opposed to aviation in general). So many of them want to be associated with the mainly good PR in the local press, and are happy to take photo opportunities or quote positively whenever they can.
These agreements can be reviewed if problematic. I would expect support for growth, not least because growth = jobs.
On a slightly more negative note, unless something changes in the next few weeks, no-one need fear exceeding 2 million pax for some time.
These agreements can be reviewed if problematic. I would expect support for growth, not least because growth = jobs.
On a slightly more negative note, unless something changes in the next few weeks, no-one need fear exceeding 2 million pax for some time.
Last edited by DC3 Dave; 8th Dec 2017 at 06:11. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The concern the local authority has seems to be for the local road network not being able to cater for increased pax numbers. In the s106 agreement there are two threshold pax figures, 1.5m and 2m. Once the first is breached the operator of the airport has to contribute towards the local authority's transport scheme should insufficient pax use public transport to arrive at the airport. This is escalated again at the 2m pax threshold.
The key phrase here is "should insufficient pax use public transport to arrive at the airport." Currently the minimum percentage target for public transport arrivals is being exceeded so the provisions of that clause would not apply.
I see that my recollection that there was no 2mppa limit within the S106 agreement was correct while much of the discussion of the past few days was based on an assumption that such a limit existed. Let's move on.
I see that my recollection that there was no 2mppa limit within the S106 agreement was correct while much of the discussion of the past few days was based on an assumption that such a limit existed. Let's move on.
asdf1234
Whatever the ATM limit was based upon in 2010 the fact is that 53,300mpa is the only limiting factor on airport capacity within the strictures of the S106 agreement. Yesterday you stated "The capacity for the airport has not been revised and stands at 2m pax as per the s106 agreement that the operator is legally obliged to comply with." Not so.
Whatever the ATM limit was based upon in 2010 the fact is that 53,300mpa is the only limiting factor on airport capacity within the strictures of the S106 agreement. Yesterday you stated "The capacity for the airport has not been revised and stands at 2m pax as per the s106 agreement that the operator is legally obliged to comply with." Not so.
I would consider something around 10,000 for the first month of operations on SEN-DUB to represent a very successful re-launch of the route. Anything below 7,500 would be somewhat disappointing.