Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Southampton-2

Old 23rd Nov 2019, 09:50
  #1881 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Southend requires aircraft to backtrack on their runway, and they are handling 2.5m pax per annum currently with a projection to 10mppa.

I don't see a parallel taxiway being as critical as additional car-parking. You have to get your priorities right and in this case SOU does have its priorities right.

No airline will say 'oh we can't fly into SOU because they don't have a full length taxiway' it will just require a work-around. What is important is the minimums for the runway lengths and any associated payload penalties. What's also important is being able to deal with a wider catchment area - hence the need for additional car-parking.
shamrock7seal is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2019, 15:53
  #1882 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would have thought that most of the objections would be ruled inadmissible. Unlike, say, the proposed developments at Luton, everything is within the the current boundary which is zoned for its current use. Just as you can't object to plans for housing across your back fence if the land is already zoned for that. Too bad if it spoils the view. As regards the entirely valid green agenda, surely the USP of SOU is its train station. There's no reason why most of its passengers need to come by car, which by increasing congestion and emissions could be a valid objection.
Perhaps the only longstay parking should be for electric vehicles?
inOban is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2019, 16:16
  #1883 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: EGJJ
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by shamrock7seal
Southend requires aircraft to backtrack on their runway, and they are handling 2.5m pax per annum currently with a projection to 10mppa.

I don't see a parallel taxiway being as critical as additional car-parking. You have to get your priorities right and in this case SOU does have its priorities right.

No airline will say 'oh we can't fly into SOU because they don't have a full length taxiway' it will just require a work-around. What is important is the minimums for the runway lengths and any associated payload penalties. What's also important is being able to deal with a wider catchment area - hence the need for additional car-parking.

You only have to back track at Southend if the runway use is 05.
welkyboy is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2019, 17:19
  #1884 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 50+ north
Posts: 1,178
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by welkyboy
You only have to back track at Southend if the runway use is 05.
And itís about 300 metres less than will be necessary for RWY 20 when the extension is completed.
TCAS FAN is online now  
Old 23rd Nov 2019, 17:24
  #1885 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by welkyboy
You only have to back track at Southend if the runway use is 05.
Then that's not a big issue,as our weather predominantly is westerly .Its plan and clear that the ommision of the new taxiway will be a concern if the SOU prediction of a 50% pax and movements increase.
​​​​​​
RW20 is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2019, 06:45
  #1886 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: London
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i'm still not convinced that back-tracking is an issue. Even Luton requires some back tracking at both ends and they're nearing 20m pax a year. For an airport the size of SOU anything up to 6m pax a year should be easily absorbed especially if aircraft size increases as a result of the extension
Sharklet_321 is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2019, 08:03
  #1887 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sharklet_321
i'm still not convinced that back-tracking is an issue. Even Luton requires some back tracking at both ends and they're nearing 20m pax a year. For an airport the size of SOU anything up to 6m pax a year should be easily absorbed especially if aircraft size increases as a result of the extension
I agree this will not have a material affect on airport operations, my only point was they would undertake works when they already have equipment on site and would save time and money!
stewyb is online now  
Old 26th Nov 2019, 07:53
  #1888 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 50+ north
Posts: 1,178
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by stewyb


I agree this will not have a material affect on airport operations.....
With all due respect unless you are/were a Southampton ATCO I would suggest that you are not qualified to make this statement.

I see that Luton has now been added to the discussion, little or no relevance to SOU. Their RWY 08 requires about a 200 metre backtrack, and 26 a 400 metre backtrack, with other taxiways to permit a landed aircraft to vacate. Nothing near the 1000 metre or so baktrack at SOU when the extension is completed.
TCAS FAN is online now  
Old 26th Nov 2019, 13:53
  #1889 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With a 1000mtrs backtrack,SOU must be the longest in UK regional airports.
If the starter strip was approved,there would be increased inbound traffic,departing 320 types could sustain significant delays!.Not the best recipe for attracting the likes of Easy I would suspect
RW20 is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2019, 17:29
  #1890 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Southampton
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Backtracking

The irony is that by objecting to the expansion plans on environmental grounds, aircraft will continue to have to backtrack r/w 20 which means holding other aircraft in a take off queue behind both other take offs and/or landing burning fuel unnessesarily. However, when 02 is in use backtracking can be avoided by departing from the south taxiway intersection as the performance of Dash 8 on the short routes should be able to accommodate full loads.
autoland12feet is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 11:31
  #1891 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: London
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rumour about Aer Lingus on BOH thread but this is very unlikely. Could it be a cover for a potential new Southampton service?
Sharklet_321 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 14:27
  #1892 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sharklet_321
Rumour about Aer Lingus on BOH thread but this is very unlikely. Could it be a cover for a potential new Southampton service?
Why would they need to 'cover' it if it was SOU?
benm345 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 15:18
  #1893 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by benm345
Why would they need to 'cover' it if it was SOU?
Unfortunately for many years SOU management has focused on Flybe,this has had a detrimental effect on any potential airlines using SOU. Unless this changes there will always be limited scope for any airlines operating from SOU .Over the years many airlines have tried operating from the airport,but sadly without exception they have all pulled away,why you might ask?. The answer is simply that the Flybe hold continues to strangulate operations from the airport, ironically it continues to reduce services from SOU and the PAX numbers continue to decline!
RW20 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 16:18
  #1894 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 7,825
Received 22 Likes on 15 Posts
Over the years many airlines have tried operating from the airport,but sadly without exception they have all pulled away,why you might ask?. The answer is simply that the Flybe hold continues to strangulate operations from the airport, ironically it continues to reduce services from SOU and the PAX numbers continue to decline!
Really?? So it's SOU management and Flybe's fault that airlines keep coming and going? Or maybe it's because the market isn't that strong.
SWBKCB is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 18:05
  #1895 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 712
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SWBKCB
Really?? So it's SOU management and Flybe's fault that airlines keep coming and going? Or maybe it's because the market isn't that strong.
Chomp chomp. People will never learn.
Rivet Joint is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 20:00
  #1896 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by RW20
Unfortunately for many years SOU management has focused on Flybe,this has had a detrimental effect on any potential airlines using SOU. Unless this changes there will always be limited scope for any airlines operating from SOU .Over the years many airlines have tried operating from the airport,but sadly without exception they have all pulled away,why you might ask?. The answer is simply that the Flybe hold continues to strangulate operations from the airport, ironically it continues to reduce services from SOU and the PAX numbers continue to decline!
So why would Aer Lingus apply for BOH slots it if was actually a cover for a SOU flight? Nice informative answer but it doesn't answer the question at all, unless you're implying Aer Lingus are trying to hide their intentions from Flybe/Connect?

I believe Aer lingus and Flybe currently have an agreement offering connections onwards through DUB, so I'm sure Flybe would be one of the first to know if this was about to change.
benm345 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 20:48
  #1897 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,016
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You are unable via the Flybe website to book a connecting flight to America via Dublin and Aer Lingus.
Buster the Bear is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 21:17
  #1898 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Buster the Bear
You are unable via the Flybe website to book a connecting flight to America via Dublin and Aer Lingus.
You are able via the Aer Lingus website to book a connecting flight to America via Dublin.
benm345 is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2019, 21:19
  #1899 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Buster the Bear
You are unable via the Flybe website to book a connecting flight to America via Dublin and Aer Lingus.
But not just Sou - Dub via Aer Lingus site. Odd agreement.
benm345 is offline  
Old 28th Nov 2019, 06:20
  #1900 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Buster the Bear
You are unable via the Flybe website to book a connecting flight to America via Dublin and Aer Lingus.
But you can book one on the Aer Lingus website.
PDXCWL45 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.