Southend-2
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Daws Heath Essex
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[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.
[/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.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......
https://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/177...iven-100-fine/
But be warned, Glyn. Theresa May tried that red lines approach......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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............
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
Fortunate that this Britannia 757 in the second photo didn't land at Southend.
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.
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Belgium
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Daws Heath Essex
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if they ran a twice daily business schedule, the overall travel time looks quite competitive depending where in London you’re 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.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Daws Heath Essex
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Daws Heath Essex
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.