Southend-2

[WHBM]

E) THE STOBART JET CENTRE IS OPEN AND ACCEPTING FLIGHTS. THE OPERATIONS OFFICE WILL BE ACCEPTING HANDLING REQUESTS DAILY BETWEEN 0800 AND 1600UTC, FOR ANY HANDLING REQUESTS OUTSIDE OF THESE HOURS PLEASE CONTACT OPS(A)STOBARTJETCENTRE.COM OR CALL [phone] WITHIN THE OPERATING OPENING TIMES FOR PRIOR APPROVAL AND PPR.

The whole purpose of high end execs using a business jet is to get to key meetings, which of course are normally in offices between 0800 and 1600, and thus to use the jet to get to and fro outside these times. Likewise, you pay all that money to go when you are ready, and not to fit in with airline or others timetables. One would have thought a professional jet centre would understand this.

[davidjohnson6]

Have there been a non-trivial number of movements (or requests for movements) handled by Stobart Jet Centre outside these hours in the last 14 days ? Wondering if there is sufficient business to justify opening outside these hours

[SWBKCB]

Can't see anything in the NOTAM that says flights won't be handled? PPR doesn't seem an excessive request.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

Can't see anything in the NOTAM that says flights won't be handled? PPR doesn't seem an excessive request.

With these sorts of flights, you are all booked and ready to go at 1700, boss doesn't turn up, looked like there was a chance to nail that contract here and now so spends a few more hours, best the crew get to know about what's going on is they phone from the car at 2000 with "we'll be there in a few minutes, let's go".

The recent issue with the LOT VIP flight departing a regional Polish airport VFR after airport hours with the Polish president on board, running late, is a typical example.

[SWBKCB]

Yes - and you seem to be assuming that Stobart aren't flexible enough to handle that situation?

[LTNman]

Can't see anything in the NOTAM that says flights won't be handled? PPR doesn't seem an excessive request.

Meanwhile down the road at Stansted Harrods are open 24/7, as is Luton. I assume the demand just isn't there to justify extending the normal operating hours but then with 8 to 4 standard operating hours I can't see that being very attractive. Reminds me of a couple of years ago when Easyjet arrived late back into SEN. Sometimes they got in and sometimes they ended up at Stansted.

[AirportPlanner1]

Originally Posted by DC3 Dave

My comments were very much tongue in cheek as were, I assume, yours.

Or would you like to back up your 20 pax on a flight would be busy for them statement? But don’t be selective. Across all routes please and over a reasonable period of time.

To be fair to the poster loads on some of the original ATR routes were really low and I think that average stats would back that up. Certainly my experience of Antwerp first time round was something like 15, 10 and 8 but it did much better second time. Overall I found numbers to be erratic rather than consistently low, I was a regular traveller to MAN with loads varying from 8 to virtually full although about 25 northbound and 30 southbound seemed about average for my journeys.

[DC3 Dave]

Originally Posted by AirportPlanner1

To be fair to the poster loads on some of the original ATR routes were really low and I think that average stats would back that up. Certainly my experience of Antwerp first time round was something like 15, 10 and 8 but it did much better second time. Overall I found numbers to be erratic rather than consistently low, I was a regular traveller to MAN with loads varying from 8 to virtually full although about 25 northbound and 30 southbound seemed about average for my journeys.

Thank you. I am happy to take you on your word of your own experience. I clearly remember you reported on the route during its life. So 25 to 30 would be a good load to MAN ( 3 times a day I recall)

My own experience tells me I never made it to Rennes, because I didn’t want to pay £250 + return when I fancied the trip for purely leisure reasons. And I made it to Groningen on an aircraft that was around 80% full both ways (around 60 pax).

All I would say if anyone wishes to make statements saying that 20 pax would be considered busy across all Flybe branded routes from Southend clearly should take the time to
look at the freely available CAA stats.

[Barling Magna]

Hawthorne only contributes to the Southend thread, and only negatively at that.

[southside bobby]

Row over SEN night flights continues to rumble on...

"Local Tory leaders have slammed SEN night flights,pledging to explore every possible avenue to have them removed"

[DC3 Dave]

Originally Posted by Barling Magna

Someone at SEN has woken up to other means of generating income - even if only in tiny amounts!

"London Southend Airport is offering five or more visual touch and go circuits for £5. The offer is applicable to aircraft with MTOW of 1.4T and below. PPR is required via Southend ATC and bookings can only be made a maximum of 24 hours in advance for non-based aircraft. Bookings are limited and will be made on a first come first served basis.5 or more touch and go's must be completed to qualify for the deal. Landing for parking will entail further fees."

Do these touch and go circuits count as movements? Or would the offer likely increase the amount of GA activity generally? There is a lot of talk here about night cargo flights but there is another restriction not often mentioned.

There is a limit on the number of freight flights which can operate each year, which is 5,330 or 10% of the total ATMs in a quota year.

Now look at the ATM count for September, a little over 1,800 which would allow for just 6 cargo movements per day, although going over in a particular month would not be a problem if it all worked out over a quota year.

So 10 additional GA movements allows 1 additional cargo.

[asdf1234]

Originally Posted by DC3 Dave

Do these touch and go circuits count as movements? Or would the offer increase the amount of GA activity generally? There is a lot of talk here about night cargo flights but there is another restriction not often mentioned.

There is a limit on the number of freight flights which can operate each year, which is 5,330 or 10% of the total ATMs in a quota year.

Now look at the ATM count for September, a little over 1,800 which would allow for just 6 cargo movements per day, although going over in a particular month would not be a problem if it all worked out over a quota year.

So 10 additional GA movements allows 1 additional cargo.

There is an annual cap on ATMs of just over 53k. The airport cannot exceed that amount. Cargo cannot exceed 10% of the annual cap.

[DC3 Dave]

Originally Posted by asdf1234

There is an annual cap on ATMs of just over 53k. The airport cannot exceed that amount. Cargo cannot exceed 10% of the annual cap.

My understanding is that if the annual cap is not reached then cargo is limited to 10% of the actual annual ATMs. Is that not correct?

[southside bobby]

If what appears to be implied here is perhaps correct then it may be hoped local papers &c are not visiting the forum...Oh hang on.

[LGS6753]

Surely ATMs are Air Transport Movements. This being the case, GA movements are irrelevant when calculating permitted cargo flights.

[SWBKCB]

Now look at the ATM count for September, a little over 1,800 which would allow for just 6 cargo movements per day, although going over in a particular month would not be a problem if it all worked out over a quota year.

Surely ATMs are Air Transport Movements. This being the case, GA movements are irrelevant when calculating permitted cargo flights.

60 non-GA movements a day in September?

[DC3 Dave]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

60 non-GA movements a day in September?

Sorry. My apologies. 1800 movements. 225 ATMs about 90% down on Sept 2019.

So is the max permitted number of cargo flights based on 10% of the total permitted annual ATMs, or 10% of the actual total?

[SWBKCB]

Apologies for wandering off topic, just curious as to why you would have a seperate limit for freight flights?

[Red Four]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

Apologies for wandering off topic, just curious as to why you would have a seperate limit for freight flights?

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!).

[rowly6339]

Just a few things,

the £700m was a valuation of the airport by the company who wanted to buy a 25% share.

Stobart are obsessed with the aviation side of the business and are more than happy to keep spending money on it in the belief that things will get better which is why they had a capital raise and are desperate to sell the only part of the group that actually makes a profit which is Stobart Energy.

talks are still ongoing regarding the sale of the airline and leasing business with the board then putting all their eggs in the sen basket.

expect to see cax sold in the next couple of years too.