Southampton-2
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brighton uk
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They do at the moment , and I would imagine that this will still be a big sticking point in the future development , if the local council say a big fat " NO " to any increased hours it would be pretty restrictive still for any new LCC coming into SOU as many still arrive well past the curfew hours , at the moment
It could we'll be a deal the council stick with , along with local residents , agreeing to the runway extension but a trade off with opening hours ?
It could we'll be a deal the council stick with , along with local residents , agreeing to the runway extension but a trade off with opening hours ?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN
A couple of technical questions about the runway extension !
Will the approach lights/ILS be usable in its current state for 20 given a changed threshold?,and will 02 landing distance increase?
A couple of technical questions about the runway extension !
Will the approach lights/ILS be usable in its current state for 20 given a changed threshold?,and will 02 landing distance increase?
SWKCB
A Section 106 Agreement, which SOU signed up to to smooth the passage of planning consent for the original airport re-development, specifies the environmental measures that the airport must comply with. Included therein are the restrictions on operating hours.
Unless this has been changed recently the airport cannot plan to have flights scheduled after 2300. It does not prohibit an arrival/departure after this time in the event a scheduled flight is delayed, albeit I believe that such occurrences are limited to 10 per month.
After BAA gave away most of the family silver to secure the original planning consent, I cannot see the current operator agreeing to further restrict airport hours.
A Section 106 Agreement, which SOU signed up to to smooth the passage of planning consent for the original airport re-development, specifies the environmental measures that the airport must comply with. Included therein are the restrictions on operating hours.
Unless this has been changed recently the airport cannot plan to have flights scheduled after 2300. It does not prohibit an arrival/departure after this time in the event a scheduled flight is delayed, albeit I believe that such occurrences are limited to 10 per month.
After BAA gave away most of the family silver to secure the original planning consent, I cannot see the current operator agreeing to further restrict airport hours.
RW20
As the (landing) threshold for 20 will not change (unless half of Campbell Road and the rail sheds are demolished) the approach lights in the starter strip will obviously need to be flush fitting.
LDA for 02 may increase by a small amount amount. This will be determined by the remaining space beyond the runway end and and the boundary fence.
As the (landing) threshold for 20 will not change (unless half of Campbell Road and the rail sheds are demolished) the approach lights in the starter strip will obviously need to be flush fitting.
LDA for 02 may increase by a small amount amount. This will be determined by the remaining space beyond the runway end and and the boundary fence.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN
Thanks for the technical answers!
On the question of operating hours, surely the 10 per month after 23-00 arrival/departures should cover any late flight possibilities,but the question is :is the airport geared for the extra costs i.e ATC,fire cover, customs etc?
Thanks for the technical answers!
On the question of operating hours, surely the 10 per month after 23-00 arrival/departures should cover any late flight possibilities,but the question is :is the airport geared for the extra costs i.e ATC,fire cover, customs etc?
RW20
Something will have change from the current wing and a prayer operation whereby volunteers are often sought to cover late arrivals. The bean counters will no doubt prevail until an increasing amount of early morning departures do not happen as the aircraft are in BOH, EXT, LGW etc having diverted because nobody volunteered.
Something will have change from the current wing and a prayer operation whereby volunteers are often sought to cover late arrivals. The bean counters will no doubt prevail until an increasing amount of early morning departures do not happen as the aircraft are in BOH, EXT, LGW etc having diverted because nobody volunteered.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the doghouse (usually)
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The piece of work they released today has been a long time in coming and I get the impression a lot of thought and work has gone into it. Like an earlier poster alluded to, I don't think it's a coincidence that they hit 2 million passengers, then mentioned expansion plans, then easyJet show up, and now a masterplan which appears to start with a runway extension and quotes new routes and operators using larger aircraft.
This masterplan won't be purely speculative, based on discussions with airlines there will have been some level of confidence that growth will happen before they committed to this course of action.
I'm not a betting man but I reckon the references to A320 aircraft indicate that easyJet could be a likely beneficiary of the future facilities, and the references to 737-800 aircraft, in my mind, would point to Jet2.
If they're releasing plans for public consultation involving big stuff like a runway and terminal extension then I'm sure they'll have considered smaller details like opening hours and availability of ATC and fire services, as it's these smaller things that make the big stuff possible.
This masterplan won't be purely speculative, based on discussions with airlines there will have been some level of confidence that growth will happen before they committed to this course of action.
I'm not a betting man but I reckon the references to A320 aircraft indicate that easyJet could be a likely beneficiary of the future facilities, and the references to 737-800 aircraft, in my mind, would point to Jet2.
If they're releasing plans for public consultation involving big stuff like a runway and terminal extension then I'm sure they'll have considered smaller details like opening hours and availability of ATC and fire services, as it's these smaller things that make the big stuff possible.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, talk about what a difference a day makes! First and foremost, this very welcome news, and perhaps it suggests there is an airline secretly driving this investment. Strange how some progress is being made since David Brent went to Bristol?
However, lets not get carried away. Some quick pros and cons I have noticed: -
+ The starter strip which was not expected and should help add flights to further destinations and with less restrictions;
+ Extended terminal with covered walkway for the majority of the stands;
+ Creation of more larger stands so more large aircraft can be handled at once;
+ Possible unlocking of the north east land;
- What is with the half arsed additional taxiway by stand 14? Aircraft will still have to backtrack the runway like they would do on a dirtstrip in the outback. Utterly woeful decision not to do a full length taxiway if all the equipment is going to be on site to do the pointless part (and presumably relaying the runway which is due?). I have said this before, look at the arrivals and departures on any given day and even planes that arrive early leave late. This is not efficient;
- Why are the first set of improvements shown on a plan which is indicative of the year 2027? Nearly 10 years away? Absolutely no part of the last masterplan was ever implemented, probably on the augment demand did not warrant it. In another 10 years time SOU will be in exactly the same position as it is today, and was in 10 years ago at the time of the last master plan. Investment facilitates growth(!), growth cannot happen with out investment(!), LOOK AT SOUTHEND!
- The creation of 4 larger stands has resulted in 1 stand being lost. This means there will be 13 stands rather than 14. That is going backwards;
- What is the obsession with parking? One of the most blessed airports for transport connections should not be obsessed with wasting precious land with mass car parks. Are they really happy to unlock the land to the north east just to build a bloody car park? What about unlocking it for more stands, to move the cargo and business aviation hangers to free up larger stands next to the runway, or maybe just maybe, trying to lure one of the big aircraft manufacturers or MRO providers to create a large repair/maintenance hangar that would create lots of jobs and business. Nope, car park, or shop, or car park and shop maybe;
- This masterplan is a watered down version of the previous masterplan. That is going backwards;
-Will these fairly minor improvements, which lets not forget will take 10 years to implement (so we are told), be enough to lure an Easy Jet or Jet2? Would a 4 aircraft base be enough for them? As it stands, the Volotea 717 spends well over an hour on the ground (even though its suppose to be only 30 minutes), what is going to happen when SOU is expected to handle 4 large sized aircraft at once? Will a circa 10% bigger terminal and half arsed taxiway increase the efficiency enough? Not likely. I suspect the improvements shown in the indicative land use for 2037 would be required to lure an Easy Jet or a Jet2, and they should not need 20 years to justify, they are very much required today.
Some good news, but a missed opportunity for me. Interested to hear what others think though.
However, lets not get carried away. Some quick pros and cons I have noticed: -
+ The starter strip which was not expected and should help add flights to further destinations and with less restrictions;
+ Extended terminal with covered walkway for the majority of the stands;
+ Creation of more larger stands so more large aircraft can be handled at once;
+ Possible unlocking of the north east land;
- What is with the half arsed additional taxiway by stand 14? Aircraft will still have to backtrack the runway like they would do on a dirtstrip in the outback. Utterly woeful decision not to do a full length taxiway if all the equipment is going to be on site to do the pointless part (and presumably relaying the runway which is due?). I have said this before, look at the arrivals and departures on any given day and even planes that arrive early leave late. This is not efficient;
- Why are the first set of improvements shown on a plan which is indicative of the year 2027? Nearly 10 years away? Absolutely no part of the last masterplan was ever implemented, probably on the augment demand did not warrant it. In another 10 years time SOU will be in exactly the same position as it is today, and was in 10 years ago at the time of the last master plan. Investment facilitates growth(!), growth cannot happen with out investment(!), LOOK AT SOUTHEND!
- The creation of 4 larger stands has resulted in 1 stand being lost. This means there will be 13 stands rather than 14. That is going backwards;
- What is the obsession with parking? One of the most blessed airports for transport connections should not be obsessed with wasting precious land with mass car parks. Are they really happy to unlock the land to the north east just to build a bloody car park? What about unlocking it for more stands, to move the cargo and business aviation hangers to free up larger stands next to the runway, or maybe just maybe, trying to lure one of the big aircraft manufacturers or MRO providers to create a large repair/maintenance hangar that would create lots of jobs and business. Nope, car park, or shop, or car park and shop maybe;
- This masterplan is a watered down version of the previous masterplan. That is going backwards;
-Will these fairly minor improvements, which lets not forget will take 10 years to implement (so we are told), be enough to lure an Easy Jet or Jet2? Would a 4 aircraft base be enough for them? As it stands, the Volotea 717 spends well over an hour on the ground (even though its suppose to be only 30 minutes), what is going to happen when SOU is expected to handle 4 large sized aircraft at once? Will a circa 10% bigger terminal and half arsed taxiway increase the efficiency enough? Not likely. I suspect the improvements shown in the indicative land use for 2037 would be required to lure an Easy Jet or a Jet2, and they should not need 20 years to justify, they are very much required today.
Some good news, but a missed opportunity for me. Interested to hear what others think though.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RW20
As the (landing) threshold for 20 will not change (unless half of Campbell Road and the rail sheds are demolished) the approach lights in the starter strip will obviously need to be flush fitting.
LDA for 02 may increase by a small amount amount. This will be determined by the remaining space beyond the runway end and and the boundary fence.
As the (landing) threshold for 20 will not change (unless half of Campbell Road and the rail sheds are demolished) the approach lights in the starter strip will obviously need to be flush fitting.
LDA for 02 may increase by a small amount amount. This will be determined by the remaining space beyond the runway end and and the boundary fence.
I'm not a betting man but I reckon the references to A320 aircraft indicate that easyJet could be a likely beneficiary of the future facilities, and the references to 737-800 aircraft, in my mind, would point to Jet2.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't see any operation from an expanded SOU warranting both EZY & Jet2 at this stage. This has the hallmark of the orange lot and discussions have already taken place with the airport for future routes (summer sun in particular), plus the 10 highlighted European cities that the airport have mentioned today as having a high demand from local passengers are nearly all served by EZY!
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, talk about what a difference a day makes! First and foremost, this very welcome news, and perhaps it suggests there is an airline secretly driving this investment. Strange how some progress is being made since David Brent went to Bristol?
However, lets not get carried away. Some quick pros and cons I have noticed: -
+ The starter strip which was not expected and should help add flights to further destinations and with less restrictions;
+ Extended terminal with covered walkway for the majority of the stands;
+ Creation of more larger stands so more large aircraft can be handled at once;
+ Possible unlocking of the north east land;
- What is with the half arsed additional taxiway by stand 14? Aircraft will still have to backtrack the runway like they would do on a dirtstrip in the outback. Utterly woeful decision not to do a full length taxiway if all the equipment is going to be on site to do the pointless part (and presumably relaying the runway which is due?). I have said this before, look at the arrivals and departures on any given day and even planes that arrive early leave late. This is not efficient;
- Why are the first set of improvements shown on a plan which is indicative of the year 2027? Nearly 10 years away? Absolutely no part of the last masterplan was ever implemented, probably on the augment demand did not warrant it. In another 10 years time SOU will be in exactly the same position as it is today, and was in 10 years ago at the time of the last master plan. Investment facilitates growth(!), growth cannot happen with out investment(!), LOOK AT SOUTHEND!
- The creation of 4 larger stands has resulted in 1 stand being lost. This means there will be 13 stands rather than 14. That is going backwards;
- What is the obsession with parking? One of the most blessed airports for transport connections should not be obsessed with wasting precious land with mass car parks. Are they really happy to unlock the land to the north east just to build a bloody car park? What about unlocking it for more stands, to move the cargo and business aviation hangers to free up larger stands next to the runway, or maybe just maybe, trying to lure one of the big aircraft manufacturers or MRO providers to create a large repair/maintenance hangar that would create lots of jobs and business. Nope, car park, or shop, or car park and shop maybe;
- This masterplan is a watered down version of the previous masterplan. That is going backwards;
-Will these fairly minor improvements, which lets not forget will take 10 years to implement (so we are told), be enough to lure an Easy Jet or Jet2? Would a 4 aircraft base be enough for them? As it stands, the Volotea 717 spends well over an hour on the ground (even though its suppose to be only 30 minutes), what is going to happen when SOU is expected to handle 4 large sized aircraft at once? Will a circa 10% bigger terminal and half arsed taxiway increase the efficiency enough? Not likely. I suspect the improvements shown in the indicative land use for 2037 would be required to lure an Easy Jet or a Jet2, and they should not need 20 years to justify, they are very much required today.
Some good news, but a missed opportunity for me. Interested to hear what others think though.
However, lets not get carried away. Some quick pros and cons I have noticed: -
+ The starter strip which was not expected and should help add flights to further destinations and with less restrictions;
+ Extended terminal with covered walkway for the majority of the stands;
+ Creation of more larger stands so more large aircraft can be handled at once;
+ Possible unlocking of the north east land;
- What is with the half arsed additional taxiway by stand 14? Aircraft will still have to backtrack the runway like they would do on a dirtstrip in the outback. Utterly woeful decision not to do a full length taxiway if all the equipment is going to be on site to do the pointless part (and presumably relaying the runway which is due?). I have said this before, look at the arrivals and departures on any given day and even planes that arrive early leave late. This is not efficient;
- Why are the first set of improvements shown on a plan which is indicative of the year 2027? Nearly 10 years away? Absolutely no part of the last masterplan was ever implemented, probably on the augment demand did not warrant it. In another 10 years time SOU will be in exactly the same position as it is today, and was in 10 years ago at the time of the last master plan. Investment facilitates growth(!), growth cannot happen with out investment(!), LOOK AT SOUTHEND!
- The creation of 4 larger stands has resulted in 1 stand being lost. This means there will be 13 stands rather than 14. That is going backwards;
- What is the obsession with parking? One of the most blessed airports for transport connections should not be obsessed with wasting precious land with mass car parks. Are they really happy to unlock the land to the north east just to build a bloody car park? What about unlocking it for more stands, to move the cargo and business aviation hangers to free up larger stands next to the runway, or maybe just maybe, trying to lure one of the big aircraft manufacturers or MRO providers to create a large repair/maintenance hangar that would create lots of jobs and business. Nope, car park, or shop, or car park and shop maybe;
- This masterplan is a watered down version of the previous masterplan. That is going backwards;
-Will these fairly minor improvements, which lets not forget will take 10 years to implement (so we are told), be enough to lure an Easy Jet or Jet2? Would a 4 aircraft base be enough for them? As it stands, the Volotea 717 spends well over an hour on the ground (even though its suppose to be only 30 minutes), what is going to happen when SOU is expected to handle 4 large sized aircraft at once? Will a circa 10% bigger terminal and half arsed taxiway increase the efficiency enough? Not likely. I suspect the improvements shown in the indicative land use for 2037 would be required to lure an Easy Jet or a Jet2, and they should not need 20 years to justify, they are very much required today.
Some good news, but a missed opportunity for me. Interested to hear what others think though.
And not a application for development!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, talk about what a difference a day makes! First and foremost, this very welcome news, and perhaps it suggests there is an airline secretly driving this investment. Strange how some progress is being made since David Brent went to Bristol?
However, lets not get carried away. Some quick pros and cons I have noticed: -
+ The starter strip which was not expected and should help add flights to further destinations and with less restrictions;
+ Extended terminal with covered walkway for the majority of the stands;
+ Creation of more larger stands so more large aircraft can be handled at once;
+ Possible unlocking of the north east land;
- What is with the half arsed additional taxiway by stand 14? Aircraft will still have to backtrack the runway like they would do on a dirtstrip in the outback. Utterly woeful decision not to do a full length taxiway if all the equipment is going to be on site to do the pointless part (and presumably relaying the runway which is due?). I have said this before, look at the arrivals and departures on any given day and even planes that arrive early leave late. This is not efficient;
- Why are the first set of improvements shown on a plan which is indicative of the year 2027? Nearly 10 years away? Absolutely no part of the last masterplan was ever implemented, probably on the augment demand did not warrant it. In another 10 years time SOU will be in exactly the same position as it is today, and was in 10 years ago at the time of the last master plan. Investment facilitates growth(!), growth cannot happen with out investment(!), LOOK AT SOUTHEND!
- The creation of 4 larger stands has resulted in 1 stand being lost. This means there will be 13 stands rather than 14. That is going backwards;
- What is the obsession with parking? One of the most blessed airports for transport connections should not be obsessed with wasting precious land with mass car parks. Are they really happy to unlock the land to the north east just to build a bloody car park? What about unlocking it for more stands, to move the cargo and business aviation hangers to free up larger stands next to the runway, or maybe just maybe, trying to lure one of the big aircraft manufacturers or MRO providers to create a large repair/maintenance hangar that would create lots of jobs and business. Nope, car park, or shop, or car park and shop maybe;
- This masterplan is a watered down version of the previous masterplan. That is going backwards;
-Will these fairly minor improvements, which lets not forget will take 10 years to implement (so we are told), be enough to lure an Easy Jet or Jet2? Would a 4 aircraft base be enough for them? As it stands, the Volotea 717 spends well over an hour on the ground (even though its suppose to be only 30 minutes), what is going to happen when SOU is expected to handle 4 large sized aircraft at once? Will a circa 10% bigger terminal and half arsed taxiway increase the efficiency enough? Not likely. I suspect the improvements shown in the indicative land use for 2037 would be required to lure an Easy Jet or a Jet2, and they should not need 20 years to justify, they are very much required today.
Some good news, but a missed opportunity for me. Interested to hear what others think though.
However, lets not get carried away. Some quick pros and cons I have noticed: -
+ The starter strip which was not expected and should help add flights to further destinations and with less restrictions;
+ Extended terminal with covered walkway for the majority of the stands;
+ Creation of more larger stands so more large aircraft can be handled at once;
+ Possible unlocking of the north east land;
- What is with the half arsed additional taxiway by stand 14? Aircraft will still have to backtrack the runway like they would do on a dirtstrip in the outback. Utterly woeful decision not to do a full length taxiway if all the equipment is going to be on site to do the pointless part (and presumably relaying the runway which is due?). I have said this before, look at the arrivals and departures on any given day and even planes that arrive early leave late. This is not efficient;
- Why are the first set of improvements shown on a plan which is indicative of the year 2027? Nearly 10 years away? Absolutely no part of the last masterplan was ever implemented, probably on the augment demand did not warrant it. In another 10 years time SOU will be in exactly the same position as it is today, and was in 10 years ago at the time of the last master plan. Investment facilitates growth(!), growth cannot happen with out investment(!), LOOK AT SOUTHEND!
- The creation of 4 larger stands has resulted in 1 stand being lost. This means there will be 13 stands rather than 14. That is going backwards;
- What is the obsession with parking? One of the most blessed airports for transport connections should not be obsessed with wasting precious land with mass car parks. Are they really happy to unlock the land to the north east just to build a bloody car park? What about unlocking it for more stands, to move the cargo and business aviation hangers to free up larger stands next to the runway, or maybe just maybe, trying to lure one of the big aircraft manufacturers or MRO providers to create a large repair/maintenance hangar that would create lots of jobs and business. Nope, car park, or shop, or car park and shop maybe;
- This masterplan is a watered down version of the previous masterplan. That is going backwards;
-Will these fairly minor improvements, which lets not forget will take 10 years to implement (so we are told), be enough to lure an Easy Jet or Jet2? Would a 4 aircraft base be enough for them? As it stands, the Volotea 717 spends well over an hour on the ground (even though its suppose to be only 30 minutes), what is going to happen when SOU is expected to handle 4 large sized aircraft at once? Will a circa 10% bigger terminal and half arsed taxiway increase the efficiency enough? Not likely. I suspect the improvements shown in the indicative land use for 2037 would be required to lure an Easy Jet or a Jet2, and they should not need 20 years to justify, they are very much required today.
Some good news, but a missed opportunity for me. Interested to hear what others think though.
Did you not see the second diagram for 2037 where it clearly shows the second apron on the other side of the runway with there stands, cargo centre, control tower, fire station, hangars.
Although 2037 seems a ridiculously long way off these plans should be brought forward far sooner, I should imagine that stands 1-5 would be aligned first along with the taxiway and starter strip.
With regards to the full length taxiway I don't think that is an option as it would be too close to the homes on Southampton Road plus the fuel farm and local radar would have to be moved which is an extra cost, Luton has managed for years without a full length taxiway with far more movements than Southampton.
I personally think that the ''new'' master plan is an excellent one and far more then I expected, so without being so pessimistic as yourself which I find very strange considering your rampant posts concerning lack of any air side development.
Lets get this six week consultation over and let the builders start ASAP ready in time for Easyjet to base three A320 at the airport.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering your constant posts banging on about lack of air side development and the lack of any good management your negativity surprises me.
Of course it's a plan we're all aware of that but a plan is better than no plan and this plan looks far more realistic than the previous one made by your good old buddy Mr David ''Brent'' Lees
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would say Flybe caused SOU to go after the LCC's in a bigger way when they threatened to move some services to BOH unless they got a better deal. This is now backfiring on Flybe as they will most likely face much more competition and may event struggle to expand or grow their ops from SOU if the LCC's muscle in taking overnight stands.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's make some fun assumptions then. easyJet could offer 2 million passengers a year with the following destinations and frequencies:
GLA double daily
EDI double daily
BFS double daily
NCL double daily
INV 2 weekly
KEF 2 weekly
JER 3 weekly
BCN daily
FRA daily
TXL daily
PRG 4 weekly
MAD daily
CPH daily
GVA 3 weekly
ARL daily
FCO daily
LIN daily
VCE 4 weekly
I work that out at just over 2m pax assuming a 90% load factor and 320NEO 186 seats. (Better performance on the TORA and LDA) 4 or 5 aircraft could do this schedule.
GLA double daily
EDI double daily
BFS double daily
NCL double daily
INV 2 weekly
KEF 2 weekly
JER 3 weekly
BCN daily
FRA daily
TXL daily
PRG 4 weekly
MAD daily
CPH daily
GVA 3 weekly
ARL daily
FCO daily
LIN daily
VCE 4 weekly
I work that out at just over 2m pax assuming a 90% load factor and 320NEO 186 seats. (Better performance on the TORA and LDA) 4 or 5 aircraft could do this schedule.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's make some fun assumptions then. easyJet could offer 2 million passengers a year with the following destinations and frequencies:
GLA double daily
EDI double daily
BFS double daily
NCL double daily
INV 2 weekly
KEF 2 weekly
JER 3 weekly
BCN daily
FRA daily
TXL daily
PRG 4 weekly
MAD daily
CPH daily
GVA 3 weekly
ARL daily
FCO daily
LIN daily
VCE 4 weekly
I work that out at just over 2m pax assuming a 90% load factor and 320NEO 186 seats. (Better performance on the TORA and LDA) 4 or 5 aircraft could do this schedule.
GLA double daily
EDI double daily
BFS double daily
NCL double daily
INV 2 weekly
KEF 2 weekly
JER 3 weekly
BCN daily
FRA daily
TXL daily
PRG 4 weekly
MAD daily
CPH daily
GVA 3 weekly
ARL daily
FCO daily
LIN daily
VCE 4 weekly
I work that out at just over 2m pax assuming a 90% load factor and 320NEO 186 seats. (Better performance on the TORA and LDA) 4 or 5 aircraft could do this schedule.
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easyjet would look at a lot of city destinations. Whether theyd operate domestic routes there with Flybe being so strong on that I'm not sure they would.