Southampton-2

[SWBKCB]

Originally Posted by Albert Hall

Eastern's first NCL today had 1 passenger out and 2 back. They will need this to build up very quickly indeed to be sustainable as the losses from that kind of adventure rack up fast.

And this mornings SOU-NCL-SOU flight is cancelled - the 145 is off to Manchester instead of the 170.

[Jetscream 32]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

And this mornings SOU-NCL-SOU flight is cancelled - the 145 is off to Manchester instead of the 170.

Hence my post #2109

[rog747]

Originally Posted by Sotonsean

But what would stop easyJet operating to Southampton from their European bases. As the domestic routes have virtually been filled now by Eastern and Loganair I can't see easyJet contemplating competing on those routes.

Although the runway extension is needed at Southampton so that aircraft flying further afield to the Mediterranean airport's can do so without any payload restrictions but those destinations have been flown from Southampton's runway in the past with no real issues except for weather related.

In the past Air Europa B733 and B734, Iberoworld A320's, Spanair A320's, TUI 733/757, Vueling A319 have all used Southampton to fly direct to Alicante, Barcelona, Ibiza, Malaga, Menorca and Palma so why couldn't the likes of easyJet be able to do the same with a A319/A320.

There is obviously the demand within the Southampton catchment area for those destinations.

Obviously in the current climate it would be difficult for airlines to commit to opening up those routes but if it wasn't the case I can't see it being too much of issue. If it wasn't for the current situation I could have least seen a couple of them being resumed from Southampton.

Once everything settles down and there is confidence again amongst the airline's I can see some if not all gradually being reinstated at some point.

Ideally I would like to see easyJet fly to Southampton from Alicante, Barcelona, Faro, Ibiza, Malaga, Menorca, Nice, Palma and they could possibly do that from their respective European bases without the need for a Southampton base, not initially anyway.

As those routes would not be aimed at the business market or those necessarily needing a early departure ex Southampton the timing of the flights and the schedules would be irrelevant.

Hopefully in the next few weeks we will see Dublin reinstated with Aer Lingus Regional and Amsterdam with KLM. With Paris previously being a popular and busy route with Flybe I'm sure that another airline will resume flights at some point and hopefully Air France will make a return.

The French regional routes are probably lost forever which is a shame as Bergerac and Limoges were both popular routes from Southampton.

But all in all we can be pleased with the fact that the likes of Eastern Airways and Loganair have been very quick to backfill the key domestic routes and I have no doubt regardless of the current situation affecting the airline and travel industry that future airlines and routes will be announced from Southampton Airport.

If it wasn't for the current climate I'm sure that we would have had more good news regarding Southampton.

Thanks for your concise reply and yes I agree EZY could operate some more flights into SOU from UK or near-Euro bases (like the GVA now) - I kinda hinted at that ref the BFS.

I gather that EZY has differing SOP's to the likes of Volotea, Air Europa Enter Air Etc and have their own performance data for SOU making MED destinations not currently possible without the obvious and expensive load penalty out of SOU.
The 757 & the 737-300/400 was a different beast, I might add.
The 737-700 works for SOU but they are old and sadly no wants them (KLM is letting go of their fleet)
Volotea tried doing their own schedules from SOU in addition to their TUI charters but they pulled out of those after a year or 2.

KLM pulled out in amazement from SOU on their AMS saying they couldn't make it work - I am therefore pessimistic KLM will come back.
CDG - who will pick this one up - ? AF used to do it using on of their French franchise carriers years before Flybe - was it TAT or Brit Air? (superb dinner on it I recall lol)
Aer Lingus pulled off SOU in a similar vane - Do you think they will come back?

I love SOU and the rail link - works great - Just need some more routes...

BTW all of the holiday routes you mentioned are easily got down the road at BOH

[adfly]

Originally Posted by Jetscream 32

Hence my post #2109

It is a little concerning, however I think the flights to NCL between 11/03 and 16/03 were only on sale from 1-2 days before the first flight, originally only MAN was bookable starting on 11/03. This will likely have a further negative impact on numbers for the first few flights. Hopefully things will pick up next week.

[SWBKCB]

In the past Air Europa B733 and B734, Iberoworld A320's, Spanair A320's, TUI 733/757, Vueling A319 have all used Southampton to fly direct to Alicante, Barcelona, Ibiza, Malaga, Menorca and Palma so why couldn't the likes of easyJet be able to do the same with a A319/A320.

There is obviously the demand within the Southampton catchment area for those destinations.

Hmmm - the central conundrum which has never been resolved on this thread. A long list of operators and routes which are no longer and then the assertion that there is "obviously the demand"?!

[rog747]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

Hmmm - the central conundrum which has never been resolved on this thread. A long list of operators and routes which are no longer and then the assertion that there is "obviously the demand"?!

All of those carriers you mention above old chap were purely and mainly the chartered aircraft each summer series by the relevant Holiday Co./Tour Operator whom in the past was mainly Thomson's, with Palmair doing a wee bit plus one or two others.
Today that is filled by Volotea but only to Palma now, as Mahon and Ibiza for S20 are both cancelled

[SWBKCB]

But if there was sufficent demand for decent money to be made, somebody would be servicing? The list of operators who have started SOU and then dropped it is impressive.

[rog747]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

But if there was sufficent demand for decent money to be made, somebody would be servicing? The list of operators who have started SOU and then dropped it is impressive.

The long list of Operators (airlines) is purely because the Holiday Tour Operator (or it''s seat broker) has chosen a different airline to charter for that season -
It is not the airline who has chosen to drop SOU...
We still have the main route as always (sold for many years by Thomsons/TUI) which is a summer Palma IT charter series.
Sadly lack of demand (or perhaps non-availability of an aircraft) for their Ibiza series this season means the holiday flights using Volotea were cancelled.

[The Nutts Mutts]

Still not completely clear what Eastern's plans for aircraft utilisation at SOU are. The SOU-BHD-SOU timings fit nicely between the NCL and MAN morning and afternoon rotations, but the BHD aircraft is an ATR 72-600 according to their booking engine. It could be an error on the website which will be fixed in due course.

[destinationsky]

I am still struggling to understand why people think that EZY are the saviours in all this?! There are no routes that would suit their business model and if Flybe etc could not fill an aircraft with 70-80 seats, how would you fill an Airbus with double that? With the global airline industry suffering due to coronavirus, I would highly doubt that any airline the size of EZY would commit to anything new for at least 6-8 months.

Ref the runway extension, don't bank on it. Any major infrastructure project will now be expected to demonstrate how it complies with the Paris Accord otherwise it will be very difficult to pass any judicial review. We only have to look at the delay to LHR R3. The starter strip would in theory lead to an increase in movements, a shift in traffic and different operational characteristics which would all lead to increase in co2, NOx, noise etc. The airports planning application was woeful in mitigating any of these aspects. The airport will struggle to get out of this one and it is sadly a result of to much reliance on one carrier. No matter what the management do now, it will be a struggle.

[Albert Hall]

Since the days of many of the named operators flying 737-300/400 aircraft from SOU, there have been changes to the safety criteria around calculating required runway lengths. This has, in broad terms, increased runway requirements by 15% to add a safety buffer. On short runways, that directly impacts on capacity and therefore viability.

A further factor is that several of the issues at SOU are obstacles - trees. Trees grow. Over time, obstacles that were not particularly limiting have now become so. That's why the airport is engaged in a major tree removal project to mitigate these obstacles. A new Type A obstacle chart will then be required after a survey to identify and chart which obstacles have been removed. Only once that official chart is available can airlines then recalculate their performance data to see how big an improvement has been achieved based on a particular aircraft's lifting capability at a particular temperature with wet/dry runway conditions.

It's therefore not really relevant to look back 20 years and say "Airline X did this". So much has changed.

[RW20]

Originally Posted by destinationsky

I am still struggling to understand why people think that EZY are the saviours in all this?! There are no routes that would suit their business model and if Flybe etc could not fill an aircraft with 70-80 seats, how would you fill an Airbus with double that? With the global airline industry suffering due to coronavirus, I would highly doubt that any airline the size of EZY would commit to anything new for at least 6-8 months.

Ref the runway extension, don't bank on it. Any major infrastructure project will now be expected to demonstrate how it complies with the Paris Accord otherwise it will be very difficult to pass any judicial review. We only have to look at the delay to LHR R3. The starter strip would in theory lead to an increase in movements, a shift in traffic and different operational characteristics which would all lead to increase in co2, NOx, noise etc. The airports planning application was woeful in mitigating any of these aspects. The airport will struggle to get out of this one and it is sadly a result of to much reliance on one carrier. No matter what the management do now, it will be a struggle.

Clearly put and very close to reality that some contributors on this blog seem unable to grasp!.Southampton clearly will be fighting for its future over the next few months,
The runway extension application is now virtually a non starter,unfortunately the present management track record on developing and management of the airport is dire,in fact the present state of the airport is down to there mismanagement,and with the coronavirus it becomes a critical issue.

[rog747]

Originally Posted by Albert Hall

Since the days of many of the named operators flying 737-300/400 aircraft from SOU, there have been changes to the safety criteria around calculating required runway lengths. This has, in broad terms, increased runway requirements by 15% to add a safety buffer. On short runways, that directly impacts on capacity and therefore viability.

A further factor is that several of the issues at SOU are obstacles - trees. Trees grow. Over time, obstacles that were not particularly limiting have now become so. That's why the airport is engaged in a major tree removal project to mitigate these obstacles. A new Type A obstacle chart will then be required after a survey to identify and chart which obstacles have been removed. Only once that official chart is available can airlines then recalculate their performance data to see how big an improvement has been achieved based on a particular aircraft's lifting capability at a particular temperature with wet/dry runway conditions.

It's therefore not really relevant to look back 20 years and say "Airline X did this". So much has changed.

Spot on there Albert Hall

[RoyHudd]

SOU would be much better off competing with Farnborough as a GA hub. Great rail links to London, shortish runway, nice facilities for low volume traffic.

Or possibly developed as a housing complex.

FlyBe are not being resurrected in any shape or form in this country. Face it. SOU is time expired, as are many other smaller airports, MME springs to mind.(Sorry, bit blunt, but being a realist)

[RW20]

Originally Posted by RoyHudd

SOU would be much better off competing with Farnborough as a GA hub. Great rail links to London, shortish runway, nice facilities for low volume traffic.

Or possibly developed as a housing complex.

FlyBe are not being resurrected in any shape or form in this country. Face it. SOU is time expired, as are many other smaller airports, MME springs to mind.(Sorry, bit blunt, but being a realist)

No need to complete as SOU time has come,it's prime land for housing,in the next 12months it will happen!

[Rivet Joint]

Originally Posted by RoyHudd

SOU would be much better off competing with Farnborough as a GA hub. Great rail links to London, shortish runway, nice facilities for low volume traffic.

Or possibly developed as a housing complex.

FlyBe are not being resurrected in any shape or form in this country. Face it. SOU is time expired, as are many other smaller airports, MME springs to mind.(Sorry, bit blunt, but being a realist)

Location: Up north. I guess that goes a little way to explain your ignorance but not completely. As with any transport infrastructure it is there to cater for demand. What will never change is the fact people want and need to fly to Southampton. Its one of the fastest growing cities in the UK and 1.7 million cruise passengers alone outweighs most regional airport's potential market. So maybe think before you post absolute nonsense.

[Rivet Joint]

Originally Posted by destinationsky

I am still struggling to understand why people think that EZY are the saviours in all this?! There are no routes that would suit their business model and if Flybe etc could not fill an aircraft with 70-80 seats, how would you fill an Airbus with double that? With the global airline industry suffering due to coronavirus, I would highly doubt that any airline the size of EZY would commit to anything new for at least 6-8 months.

Ref the runway extension, don't bank on it. Any major infrastructure project will now be expected to demonstrate how it complies with the Paris Accord otherwise it will be very difficult to pass any judicial review. We only have to look at the delay to LHR R3. The starter strip would in theory lead to an increase in movements, a shift in traffic and different operational characteristics which would all lead to increase in co2, NOx, noise etc. The airports planning application was woeful in mitigating any of these aspects. The airport will struggle to get out of this one and it is sadly a result of to much reliance on one carrier. No matter what the management do now, it will be a struggle.

With that logic perhaps you can explain how EZY and FR exist today? There would have been no market at any airport for their business model before they existed, and some how they became the massive operations they are today. Hampshire is one of the most wealthiest counties in the country, and a large part of LGW's traffic comes from here. LGW like most London airports are slot restricted, hence growth at SEN. You only have to look at what routes EZY and FR are opening at SEN to see what they would do at SOU. BE's business model was completely different, and the fairs were double if not triple what a low cost operator would charge. BE was also badly run so you cannot use it's failure as an example of there not being a market.

I agree with you that the runway extension looks unlikely but not impossible.

[Rivet Joint]

Originally Posted by SWBKCB

Why does it need to be a base? EZY operate loads of domestic flights out of BFS, including to none bases like BHX and IOM.

And if the ground operation is that bad, do you expect KL, AF, and EI to return, runway extension or not?

Did you not answer this in your subsequent post stating how many airlines have come and gone? All such airlines operated one route largely to fill a gap in a schedule. Those type of routes never last, which is why a base is key for SOU to succeed, not to mention all the local employment it creates. The key routes need to be able to leave SOU early. EDI, GLA, DUB, BFS, MAN, NCL, AMS and CDG could all probably justify a twice daily airbus.

None of the above operators you mentioned would use airbus sized aircraft, it would be there regional subsidies.

[RW20]

As always River joint you are actually rude with your criticisms of contributors who don't follow your view. It's clear to Many that SOU doesn't have the airside capacity to attract Easy or any other Air bus operator ,indeed the stands havnt been adjusted as planned to even accommodate one Air bus .The airport is stuck with its limited capabilities,and it's highly unlightly that there will any investment for some time if ever!The aviation industry is in free fall,indeed it will be extremely hard for the airport to survive the double whammy of flybe and coronovirus.

[adfly]

More small good news from Eastern

A small break from the bickering...

Eastern are increasing Manchester from 11 to 16 weekly from 23/03 when Belfast starts with a new later flight. Currently shows the early and late flights as an ATR72-600 and the middle one as an E170. I suspect the middle one will become an ATR as well, then they will have a fully utilised based aircraft flying 3x SOU-MAN and 1x SOU-BHD. Newcastle remains 11 weekly on the E145 for the time being.

Considering the bleak outlook for aviation at the moment I think Eastern are approaching this well, adding a sensible amount of capacity to the routes, however they will still rely on word of mouth and advertising to an extent to establish themselves amongst local businesses. I feel that (this is purely opinion) the lack of border concerns also lessens the negative influence on people wanting to travel on domestic flights, so they may see a lower fall in demand.