Southampton-2
Apologies if I've missed something, but other than the Easyjet Swiss seasonal ski fights, is there any evidence that EZY are interested in a base at SOU ? I thought ths article indicated otherwise?
30-Second Interview – Neil Garwood, Managing Director, Southampton Airport
30-Second Interview – Neil Garwood, Managing Director, Southampton Airport
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are also forgetting Poland and eastern Europe which could open up. Wizz have a huge base at Luton but hardly anything at Gatwick due to slot constraints so Southampton could be a nice logical catchment gap to fill. Wizz flight times to and from Poland would mean no payload penalties either. Perhaps they could do Prague and Copenhagen. They tried BOH 10 years ago but for some reason that didn't work - perhaps related to public transport to/fro the airport. Taxis are too bloody expensive. But a train or bus into Southampton would fit that target market well.
Rivet Joint
Suprisingly enough the current take-off run avaiable (TORA) for RWY 02 (1723m) is greater than that on RWY 20 (1650m). This is due to a requirement for the latter to have a 60 metre overrun (the "strip end", plus a runway end safety area (RESA) ) for the same purpose and to protect the undershoot for the reciprocal runway. The latter ends about the top of the bank which goes down to the M27.
As mentioned in a previous post the RESA width is supposed to be twice the runway width. Due to the top of the bank running diagonally across the RESA, the full double runway width is not attainable for the complete RESA, hence the "fudge" that I previously mentioned. If/when the starter strip is installed CAA may insist on clawing back the missing part of the RESA width which will reduce the increase in 20 TORA from the intended full 170 metres.
In respect of any increase in 02 landing distance available (LDA), as the same applies to 02 (ie strip end + RESA) an increase of 20m may be possible, more is possible dependant upon any extra land (at twice runway width) available beyon the end of paved surface. To avoid a wing tip hitting a fence when the aircraft lines up, one must assume that there will be- hopefully this has been considered??????
Suprisingly enough the current take-off run avaiable (TORA) for RWY 02 (1723m) is greater than that on RWY 20 (1650m). This is due to a requirement for the latter to have a 60 metre overrun (the "strip end", plus a runway end safety area (RESA) ) for the same purpose and to protect the undershoot for the reciprocal runway. The latter ends about the top of the bank which goes down to the M27.
As mentioned in a previous post the RESA width is supposed to be twice the runway width. Due to the top of the bank running diagonally across the RESA, the full double runway width is not attainable for the complete RESA, hence the "fudge" that I previously mentioned. If/when the starter strip is installed CAA may insist on clawing back the missing part of the RESA width which will reduce the increase in 20 TORA from the intended full 170 metres.
In respect of any increase in 02 landing distance available (LDA), as the same applies to 02 (ie strip end + RESA) an increase of 20m may be possible, more is possible dependant upon any extra land (at twice runway width) available beyon the end of paved surface. To avoid a wing tip hitting a fence when the aircraft lines up, one must assume that there will be- hopefully this has been considered??????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if I've missed something, but other than the Easyjet Swiss seasonal ski fights, is there any evidence that EZY are interested in a base at SOU ? I thought ths article indicated otherwise?
30-Second Interview – Neil Garwood, Managing Director, Southampton Airport
30-Second Interview – Neil Garwood, Managing Director, Southampton Airport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its common consensus that the expansion of the airport will attract a LCC and EZY to my mind stand out as the optimum choice. They already have a presence, albeit winter seasonal, but have indicated that if successful would look at other routes. The masterplan/social media makes mention on many occasions that the runway lengthening will attract A320 type aircraft and EZY are transitioning to these with the CEO/NEO. I have it on good authority that talks have taken place over future route possibilities and those city destinations highlighted in yesterdays press release are nearly all operated by EZY. I do however agree with you that a 4/5 base operation is a way down the line and if EZY do come in, I envisage no more than 3 as this is their minimum base level at present in Bordeaux & Newcastle (more than enough to operate a dozen routes or so). Time will tell!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point and can foresee BE continuing the Med sun routes using the E75, leaving EZY to carry out city destinations in Europe along with any further untapped sun routes!
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming that they have any spare for Southampton. By 2020 they'll have 15 with 1 as a spare that'll leave 14 to spread around CWL, EXT/NWI, DSA, SOU, MAN and BHX.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a question related to the starter strip runway extension.
how many meters are required between ‘obstacles’ like the rail shed buildings and the jet engine blast zone? It looks very tight to me. Not sure the entire 170m proposed could actually be used.
how many meters are required between ‘obstacles’ like the rail shed buildings and the jet engine blast zone? It looks very tight to me. Not sure the entire 170m proposed could actually be used.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at the end of 23 at Southend if you want to know what tight is. They have to deal with a golf course and railway line on top of it. I would say there’s more room at SOU and in any case, the starter extension will be for take off only, the landing distance on 20 will remain the same so no detrimental affect with obstacles like rail sheds!
Last edited by stewyb; 20th Sep 2018 at 16:22.
Nakata77
Simply put, apart from ensuring wing tip clearance for aircraft lining up, the issue of obstacles is really only relevant in respect of protecting landing aircraft from them. SOU's runway 20 is a Code 3C Precision Category 1 instrument runway. If you are in to complex puzzles try reading CAP 168 references to this runway Code requirements. CAP 168 is of course available FOC on the CAA website.
As the threshold (by definition the earliest point of for landing an aircraft) isn't going to change on 20, other than a blast fence/bank mentioned below, no additional obstacle issues are relevant to the starter strip.
The question of jet blast (bearing in mind the rail yard next door), and any mitigation of it is a safety management issue which the airport will need to resolve. If deemed necessary, any blast fence/bank is going to need to be of such height that it doesn't infringe the complex obstacle free surfaces needed to protect landing aircraft. I would speculate that its height will need to be around 3 metres or less. As you speculate, addition of 170 metres could prove a little ambitious if the jet blast issue cannot be resolved with a relatively low fence/bank.
Hopefully all the operational issues have been looked at in detail before the Master Plan was published, if not then a number of management staff will again have egg on their faces, something that used to be an all together too frequent occurence with previous management regimes. Rather than me bang on about them all again, if you've got time on your hands you will see them mentioned in many of my posts over the last 6 + years.
Simply put, apart from ensuring wing tip clearance for aircraft lining up, the issue of obstacles is really only relevant in respect of protecting landing aircraft from them. SOU's runway 20 is a Code 3C Precision Category 1 instrument runway. If you are in to complex puzzles try reading CAP 168 references to this runway Code requirements. CAP 168 is of course available FOC on the CAA website.
As the threshold (by definition the earliest point of for landing an aircraft) isn't going to change on 20, other than a blast fence/bank mentioned below, no additional obstacle issues are relevant to the starter strip.
The question of jet blast (bearing in mind the rail yard next door), and any mitigation of it is a safety management issue which the airport will need to resolve. If deemed necessary, any blast fence/bank is going to need to be of such height that it doesn't infringe the complex obstacle free surfaces needed to protect landing aircraft. I would speculate that its height will need to be around 3 metres or less. As you speculate, addition of 170 metres could prove a little ambitious if the jet blast issue cannot be resolved with a relatively low fence/bank.
Hopefully all the operational issues have been looked at in detail before the Master Plan was published, if not then a number of management staff will again have egg on their faces, something that used to be an all together too frequent occurence with previous management regimes. Rather than me bang on about them all again, if you've got time on your hands you will see them mentioned in many of my posts over the last 6 + years.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks TCAS FAN that was articulately put.
This development at SOU plays into Ryanairs hands in a big way for their BOH hub. In order to extract maximum pressure on BOH to reduce charges they will no doubt start talks with SOU. Interesting times. Look at what they are dong with Laudamotion - pitching Airbus against Boeing to get a better 'BOEING' deal. Look at what they are doing with Southend - pitching Stansted against Southend to get a better 'STANSTED' deal.
If Ryanair started a few services at SOU it would be VERY interesting indeed. It may even prevent easyJet and Jet2 considering SOU due to space constraints.
BUT BUT BUT does SOU have the ability to actually provide a deal low enough for FR? Perhaps not.
If easyJet go into LHR when the 3rd runway is operational, Ryanair will absolutely go into SOU.
This development at SOU plays into Ryanairs hands in a big way for their BOH hub. In order to extract maximum pressure on BOH to reduce charges they will no doubt start talks with SOU. Interesting times. Look at what they are dong with Laudamotion - pitching Airbus against Boeing to get a better 'BOEING' deal. Look at what they are doing with Southend - pitching Stansted against Southend to get a better 'STANSTED' deal.
If Ryanair started a few services at SOU it would be VERY interesting indeed. It may even prevent easyJet and Jet2 considering SOU due to space constraints.
BUT BUT BUT does SOU have the ability to actually provide a deal low enough for FR? Perhaps not.
If easyJet go into LHR when the 3rd runway is operational, Ryanair will absolutely go into SOU.
shamrock7seal
Removing one stand to accomodate 4 A320/B738 is about as good as it gets if U2 and FR are potential players. I have my doubts that CAA will agree to parking them nose in on the current Stands 7-12 due to the tailfin height being in such close proximity to the runway and thereby penetrating one of the obstacle free surfaces. One of multitude of past c*** ups that I eluded to in my post # 832.
Consequently a number of options are available, lengthen Stands 7-11 (don't think 6 is worth consideration due to the proximity of the Terminal)? Possibly prohibitively expensive due to having to demolish part of the short-term car park (oh dear back to the c*** ups again!). Demolishing the Tower (remote Tower as LCY and move Solent APP to Swanwick?) the Fire Station and reclaming the hire car parking might provide one or two sufficiently large stands. Not much else unless the Royal Mail building comes up on the market, wasn't the site part of the original airport? Must stop keep banging on about c*** ups!
I consequently doubt that SOU can sustain both U2 and FR in the foreseable future unless something major happens to release development land adjacent to the current apron. From past experience you don't offer FR a deal, they offer you one!
Removing one stand to accomodate 4 A320/B738 is about as good as it gets if U2 and FR are potential players. I have my doubts that CAA will agree to parking them nose in on the current Stands 7-12 due to the tailfin height being in such close proximity to the runway and thereby penetrating one of the obstacle free surfaces. One of multitude of past c*** ups that I eluded to in my post # 832.
Consequently a number of options are available, lengthen Stands 7-11 (don't think 6 is worth consideration due to the proximity of the Terminal)? Possibly prohibitively expensive due to having to demolish part of the short-term car park (oh dear back to the c*** ups again!). Demolishing the Tower (remote Tower as LCY and move Solent APP to Swanwick?) the Fire Station and reclaming the hire car parking might provide one or two sufficiently large stands. Not much else unless the Royal Mail building comes up on the market, wasn't the site part of the original airport? Must stop keep banging on about c*** ups!
I consequently doubt that SOU can sustain both U2 and FR in the foreseable future unless something major happens to release development land adjacent to the current apron. From past experience you don't offer FR a deal, they offer you one!
Last edited by TCAS FAN; 21st Sep 2018 at 06:54. Reason: spelling correction
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks TCAS FAN that was articulately put.
This development at SOU plays into Ryanairs hands in a big way for their BOH hub. In order to extract maximum pressure on BOH to reduce charges they will no doubt start talks with SOU. Interesting times. Look at what they are dong with Laudamotion - pitching Airbus against Boeing to get a better 'BOEING' deal. Look at what they are doing with Southend - pitching Stansted against Southend to get a better 'STANSTED' deal.
If Ryanair started a few services at SOU it would be VERY interesting indeed. It may even prevent easyJet and Jet2 considering SOU due to space constraints.
BUT BUT BUT does SOU have the ability to actually provide a deal low enough for FR? Perhaps not.
If easyJet go into LHR when the 3rd runway is operational, Ryanair will absolutely go into SOU.
This development at SOU plays into Ryanairs hands in a big way for their BOH hub. In order to extract maximum pressure on BOH to reduce charges they will no doubt start talks with SOU. Interesting times. Look at what they are dong with Laudamotion - pitching Airbus against Boeing to get a better 'BOEING' deal. Look at what they are doing with Southend - pitching Stansted against Southend to get a better 'STANSTED' deal.
If Ryanair started a few services at SOU it would be VERY interesting indeed. It may even prevent easyJet and Jet2 considering SOU due to space constraints.
BUT BUT BUT does SOU have the ability to actually provide a deal low enough for FR? Perhaps not.
If easyJet go into LHR when the 3rd runway is operational, Ryanair will absolutely go into SOU.
Anyhow, i think the airport are really pushing for a route network in to European capitals like those already mentioned and this is something that Ryanair cannot offer
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Dorset
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly if any of this happens great news for everyone in the South/South West - would love to see EZ fly to Berlin, Prague, Barca, Valencia er al, -surely there is information out there on the likely demand for these, EZ will know from their bookings where the sales come from, currently you either travel to London or BRS for such flights, is the demand there for more than bucket and spade from rhe South/ South West without reducing theiir PAX at these airports? I certainly hope so, it would be great to fly to any of these form SOu. EZ don’t often opt for a head to head with FR unless demand is super high for the route PMI (FR at BOH) maybe such a route. As for FR, they have changed hugely as they have grown and they actually fly into the cities themselves if there is demand, the days of 50 mile coach trips are not their only options, just have a look at their route map, finally EZY, Jet2, FR, BE - Sou isn’t Bristol or BOH for that matter as far as expansion goes it’s very limited, sheer lack of additional space within and outside. So likelihood is, if any it will be one of the 3 going in or serviced in W’s from EU Bass there are still likely to be restrictions, curfews etc, for example TUi and FR schedule post Sou curfew flights back to BOH, it’s max utilising their assets not having them restricted or diverted down the road and impacting next day. Non based aircraft has to be the way forward at least to start. Let’s keep our fingers crossed! The more recent new additions, vueling volotea etc decent sized operators, lasted a season or two at SOU, so these changes can’t come quick enough, they must have pulled out for a reason.
Last edited by FrequentlyFlying; 21st Sep 2018 at 07:40.
Take a look at the end of 23 at Southend if you want to know what tight is. They have to deal with a golf course and railway line on top of it. I would say there’s more room at SOU and in any case, the starter extension will be for take off only, the landing distance on 20 will remain the same so no detrimental affect with obstacles like rail sheds!
With the greatest of respect to all the enthusiasm shown here with the latest press announcements from SOU,
however to slightly put the brakes on all the budding airline CEO's, in regard to the newly announced nominal runway extension plan for SOU as mentioned in the interview, it will be enough he said, to enable ''existing aircraft types'' to lift payloads and fuel (thereby to minimise WAT restrictions/limitations) to destinations existing, and to those further afield.
(IE: the heavily restricted SOU-JSI on an EMB jet would be able to lift more pax, and not likely be faced with a possible tech stop at Brussels)
Those current jet types include A319/A320 and EMB family of jets.
derated engine marks of the A319's and the EMB's will benefit from this, plus the A320 will likely be able to lift a less restricted pax load to perhaps the Greek Islands, or Canaries without a tech stop (or having to plan for one)
all making the economics attractive to operators.
I know there have been one-offs and a few series of charters with 738's, but
I do not think that the 737-800NG or the 737MAX will likely see Ops from SOU as the runway will still be too short to make profitable and economic use.
My friends flying these aircraft for DY and Jet2 have said that SOU is far too restrictive, and is not suited to their type of operations.
GIB springs to mind where these 737's do not go.
As for FR - I see they are venturing soon into SEN with the 737, so we will watch with interest on their operations from there.
however to slightly put the brakes on all the budding airline CEO's, in regard to the newly announced nominal runway extension plan for SOU as mentioned in the interview, it will be enough he said, to enable ''existing aircraft types'' to lift payloads and fuel (thereby to minimise WAT restrictions/limitations) to destinations existing, and to those further afield.
(IE: the heavily restricted SOU-JSI on an EMB jet would be able to lift more pax, and not likely be faced with a possible tech stop at Brussels)
Those current jet types include A319/A320 and EMB family of jets.
derated engine marks of the A319's and the EMB's will benefit from this, plus the A320 will likely be able to lift a less restricted pax load to perhaps the Greek Islands, or Canaries without a tech stop (or having to plan for one)
all making the economics attractive to operators.
I know there have been one-offs and a few series of charters with 738's, but
I do not think that the 737-800NG or the 737MAX will likely see Ops from SOU as the runway will still be too short to make profitable and economic use.
My friends flying these aircraft for DY and Jet2 have said that SOU is far too restrictive, and is not suited to their type of operations.
GIB springs to mind where these 737's do not go.
As for FR - I see they are venturing soon into SEN with the 737, so we will watch with interest on their operations from there.
Further to our posts # 779-784, have just come off the M27 westbound at JCT 5, somone is having a laugh with the state of vegetation surrounding/obscuring the 02 approach lights. If I was their Aerodrome Inspector I would have cancelled my appointment and stopped by at the airport to see Airside Operations with an invitation to take me down to see the approach lights.
Although I could only see one approach light that is immediately south of the edge of the westbound carriageway, this was totally obscured on the approach side by a tree/bush a metre or two higher than the approach light fitting!
As an EASA Certified Aerodrome SOU is required to operate under a Safety Management System, this is apparently not working as it should be!
Although I could only see one approach light that is immediately south of the edge of the westbound carriageway, this was totally obscured on the approach side by a tree/bush a metre or two higher than the approach light fitting!
As an EASA Certified Aerodrome SOU is required to operate under a Safety Management System, this is apparently not working as it should be!