Southampton-2
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TFS JOTA flights
Jota Aviation have been busy with their RJ100 G-JOTS
97Y economy configuration, 31 inch seat pitch
SEN - LGW - AGP - SOU - TFS - AGP - BHX - SEN
Why LGW-AGP-SOU? - I don't know - Maybe Cruise ship pax were sent from Tenerife up to AGP on local flights?
SOU-TFS was maybe to pick up P&O Ship's crew/staff/Engineers/Parts to take down to TFS?
Looks like the Cruise Ship pax were repatriated TFS-AGP-BHX
Flights below in reverse order -
11 Dec 2019 Malaga (AGP) Birmingham (BHX) (ENZ803) 3:06 — 16:19 — (Cruise ship pax - flight from AGP an hour faster than the day before)
Landed 18:26
10 Dec 2019 Tenerife (TFS) Malaga (AGP) (ENZ817F) 2:27 — 15:46 — (Cruise ship pax)
Landed 19:13
09 Dec 2019 Southampton (SOU) Tenerife (TFS) (ENZ817) 4:02 — 19:08 — (Quick flight for a 146 4h 02m TFS nonstop - empty?)
Landed 23:10
09 Dec 2019 Malaga (AGP) Southampton (SOU) (ENZ817P) 4:10 — 14:30 — (Very LONG flight time 4h 10m - No tech stop - strong headwinds?)
Landed 17:40
08 Dec 2019 London (LGW) Malaga (AGP) (ENZ802) 2:31 — 21:57 — (2h 31 m Not bad for a 146 to AGP nonstop - empty?)
Landed 01:28
97Y economy configuration, 31 inch seat pitch
SEN - LGW - AGP - SOU - TFS - AGP - BHX - SEN
Why LGW-AGP-SOU? - I don't know - Maybe Cruise ship pax were sent from Tenerife up to AGP on local flights?
SOU-TFS was maybe to pick up P&O Ship's crew/staff/Engineers/Parts to take down to TFS?
Looks like the Cruise Ship pax were repatriated TFS-AGP-BHX
Flights below in reverse order -
11 Dec 2019 Malaga (AGP) Birmingham (BHX) (ENZ803) 3:06 — 16:19 — (Cruise ship pax - flight from AGP an hour faster than the day before)
Landed 18:26
10 Dec 2019 Tenerife (TFS) Malaga (AGP) (ENZ817F) 2:27 — 15:46 — (Cruise ship pax)
Landed 19:13
09 Dec 2019 Southampton (SOU) Tenerife (TFS) (ENZ817) 4:02 — 19:08 — (Quick flight for a 146 4h 02m TFS nonstop - empty?)
Landed 23:10
09 Dec 2019 Malaga (AGP) Southampton (SOU) (ENZ817P) 4:10 — 14:30 — (Very LONG flight time 4h 10m - No tech stop - strong headwinds?)
Landed 17:40
08 Dec 2019 London (LGW) Malaga (AGP) (ENZ802) 2:31 — 21:57 — (2h 31 m Not bad for a 146 to AGP nonstop - empty?)
Landed 01:28
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rog747
Regarding the Jota LGW-AGP-SOU flights on 9th December, LGW-AGP was a revenue flight while the AGP-SOU sector was a positioning flight and the SOU-TFS was a revenue flight. I've no idea what the payload was on that sector I'm afraid.
Regarding the Jota LGW-AGP-SOU flights on 9th December, LGW-AGP was a revenue flight while the AGP-SOU sector was a positioning flight and the SOU-TFS was a revenue flight. I've no idea what the payload was on that sector I'm afraid.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Age: 74
Posts: 2,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RW 20
Provided SOU has a grooved runway the B738SFP will be able to use SOU with inbound pax in exactly the same way that those aircraft operate at SEN. Theoretically RYR could set up a SOU base using such aircraft, as it has at SEN, although that is probably unlikely.
Provided SOU has a grooved runway the B738SFP will be able to use SOU with inbound pax in exactly the same way that those aircraft operate at SEN. Theoretically RYR could set up a SOU base using such aircraft, as it has at SEN, although that is probably unlikely.
Nice little airline Jota
EDIT-
Just read the SOU-TFS trip was to pick up parts and P&O engineers for the ship.
Last edited by rog747; 14th Dec 2019 at 06:57. Reason: edit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RW 20
Provided SOU has a grooved runway the B738SFP will be able to use SOU with inbound pax in exactly the same way that those aircraft operate at SEN. Theoretically RYR could set up a SOU base using such aircraft, as it has at SEN, although that is probably unlikely.
Provided SOU has a grooved runway the B738SFP will be able to use SOU with inbound pax in exactly the same way that those aircraft operate at SEN. Theoretically RYR could set up a SOU base using such aircraft, as it has at SEN, although that is probably unlikely.
RW 20
Provided SOU has a grooved runway the B738SFP will be able to use SOU with inbound pax in exactly the same way that those aircraft operate at SEN. Theoretically RYR could set up a SOU base using such aircraft, as it has at SEN, although that is probably unlikely.
Provided SOU has a grooved runway the B738SFP will be able to use SOU with inbound pax in exactly the same way that those aircraft operate at SEN. Theoretically RYR could set up a SOU base using such aircraft, as it has at SEN, although that is probably unlikely.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does have a grooved runway but last time I saw it the grooving isn't fully doing the job. Unlike most runways SOU's is not cambered, it has a crossfall west to east. There is a gully joining drains on the east side. The drains were not doing the job with water sitting in the gully and causing water to back up into the grooving instead of draining it away.
Apart from Ryanair,who else has short field performance 738s?.I would imagine that even with the proposed runway extension there could be only a handful of airlines who could operate into SOU with 738s(the mainstay of most airlines).With this in mind if seems that the airport management may be putting there eggs in one basket,i.e. Easy 320 operations!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TCAS FAN
Apart from Ryanair,who else has short field performance 738s?.I would imagine that even with the proposed runway extension there could be only a handful of airlines who could operate into SOU with 738s(the mainstay of most airlines).With this in mind if seems that the airport management may be putting there eggs in one basket,i.e. Easy 320 operations!
Apart from Ryanair,who else has short field performance 738s?.I would imagine that even with the proposed runway extension there could be only a handful of airlines who could operate into SOU with 738s(the mainstay of most airlines).With this in mind if seems that the airport management may be putting there eggs in one basket,i.e. Easy 320 operations!
TCAS FAN
Apart from Ryanair,who else has short field performance 738s?.I would imagine that even with the proposed runway extension there could be only a handful of airlines who could operate into SOU with 738s(the mainstay of most airlines).With this in mind if seems that the airport management may be putting there eggs in one basket,i.e. Easy 320 operations!
Apart from Ryanair,who else has short field performance 738s?.I would imagine that even with the proposed runway extension there could be only a handful of airlines who could operate into SOU with 738s(the mainstay of most airlines).With this in mind if seems that the airport management may be putting there eggs in one basket,i.e. Easy 320 operations!
Apart from any increased take-off weights on RWY 20 due to a combination of the tree reduction south of the runway (anyone know if this was ever completed) and the northern extension, a performance limiting factor will be the LDAs for both runways, especially with a wet runway. RWY 20 LDA cannot increase with the northern extension, RWY 02 may. That said, as I mentioned in a previous post, SOU already has slightly longer LDAs than SEN.
As mentioned in my post #1928, if not already cured, the runway drainage issue needs to be resolved to reduce the need to report the runway state as "wet/wet/wet", in order to minimise the chances of the landing weight limitations that this causes.
Last edited by TCAS FAN; 14th Dec 2019 at 13:57. Reason: spelling correction
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the two operators previously mentioned, I am not aware which others have the taken up the SFP option.
Apart from any increased take-off weights on RWY 20 due to a combination of the tree reduction south of the runway (anyone know if this was ever completed) and the northern extension, a performance limiting factor will be the LDAs for both runways, especially with a wet runway. RWY 20 LDA cannot increase with the northern extension, RWY 02 may. That said, as I mentioned in a previous post, SOU already has slightly longer LDAs than SEN.
As mentioned in my post #1928, if not already cured, the runway drainage issue needs to be resolved to reduce the need to report the runway state as "wet/wet/wet", in order to minimise the chances of the landing weight limitations that this causes.
Apart from any increased take-off weights on RWY 20 due to a combination of the tree reduction south of the runway (anyone know if this was ever completed) and the northern extension, a performance limiting factor will be the LDAs for both runways, especially with a wet runway. RWY 20 LDA cannot increase with the northern extension, RWY 02 may. That said, as I mentioned in a previous post, SOU already has slightly longer LDAs than SEN.
As mentioned in my post #1928, if not already cured, the runway drainage issue needs to be resolved to reduce the need to report the runway state as "wet/wet/wet", in order to minimise the chances of the landing weight limitations that this causes.
Excellent explanation on SOU limitations,let's hope the SOU managemet push through the tree problem South of RWY 02 and the runway drainage problem.However it's doubtful that this will be resolved,given the past track record. It appears also that given the runway extension happens,the additional take off available for RW20 is handicapped by above problems,lets hope that an airline can be found to suit the airports limitations.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very much doubt it. They have confirmed that they are not going to be creating the additional taxi-way to reduce the backtracking times which is pretty mad in itself. Apparently this will only be done when the airport reaches a certain level of traffic, which is pretty flawed logic. I highly doubt they would ever spend the money just for that small piece of work, it will surely need to be grouped into a bigger infrastructure project like the runway extension. Maybe with their “sustainable growth” motto they are looking to expand in incremental steps to placate residents, but SOU is short in so many areas when it comes to handling larger planes and the tight turnarounds someone like U2 will demand. The fact that they have focused on the runway extension as their first step is an interesting one though, and suggests this has been triggered by talks with someone.
suggests this has been triggered by talks with someone
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's more lightly that SOU have gone for the limited runway extension on the basis that they hope to attract a LCC. The taxiway,runway drainage problem, and take off RW20 tree obstructions are basic essentials to have in place to have any realistic operations from a LCC,two of these could be fulfilled,but not the taxiway?. It's a questionable decision.How and when are the stands being upgraded to 320/738 standard?
So it's either a speculative "build it and they will come" approach - in which case you'd expect all the bells and whistles, or there's a deal in place, in which case they've got a fair idea of what the customer wants.
Hopefully it's not the third option....
Hopefully it's not the third option....
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Referring back to RW20’s comment about the stands, is there any more info about work being done on them? If I’m correct, the logical idea for the stands would be to remove stand 1 (the tiny one where Aurigny used the trislander and then enlarge the width of the other stands. Also investment in better infrastructure airside to accommodate the movement of larger aircraft with bigger loads would be needed wouldn’t it?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Referring back to RW20’s comment about the stands, is there any more info about work being done on them? If I’m correct, the logical idea for the stands would be to remove stand 1 (the tiny one where Aurigny used the trislander and then enlarge the width of the other stands. Also investment in better infrastructure airside to accommodate the movement of larger aircraft with bigger loads would be needed wouldn’t it?
Ladies and Gentlemen - Straight from the horse's mouth - SOU airport posted on their Facebook this morning -
Quote:
Another great reason to #LoveSouthamptonAirport
An extra bit of runway won't mean larger aircraft, it will simply enable airline operators to use their planes more efficiently, which would spell out more exciting destinations for business and pleasure!
Show your support for SOU by visiting http://bit.ly/35mrZ3f and leaving a comment.
We won't operate any larger or nosier aircraft than we do now....Extra runway will simply allow us to use existing size aircraft so you can fly further to more destinations.
- Unquote
So it seems there you have it.
I think this gives a much clearer picture as to what SOU is at last hopeful to be working to and as to which airlines they may seek to come to SOU.
Existing A319/A320, maybe the A320Neo too? will hopefully be able to operate economically to say - Malaga, Faro, and possibly Greece and the Canaries with a workable payload, without the need for a Tech stop under normal conditions.
(Have we had a Neo in yet on the GVA?)
Be minded that EZY are disposing of their A319's in due course.
IMHO I doubt we will see the Boeing 737-800NG, 737M -8 200, 737M -8 or 9 or 10, nor any A321 size aircraft at SOU.
These leaves Ryanair and Jet2 both out of the frame, together with TUI, & say Enter Air and Smartwings who both operate IT charters for UK Tour Operators.
The 737-700 or 737M - 7 (149 or 172 pax) could be ideal but the -700 is too old now, and the new MAX-7 is still grounded, and no one has ordered it in Europe...
(link is the PPA to the Council)
I have purposefully left out Flybe (Virgin Connect) here as we have no idea as to their fleet (and new aircraft procurement) and their business plans for SOU, either for leisure/sun/ski, or businessman flights.
Quote:
Another great reason to #LoveSouthamptonAirport
An extra bit of runway won't mean larger aircraft, it will simply enable airline operators to use their planes more efficiently, which would spell out more exciting destinations for business and pleasure!
Show your support for SOU by visiting http://bit.ly/35mrZ3f and leaving a comment.
We won't operate any larger or nosier aircraft than we do now....Extra runway will simply allow us to use existing size aircraft so you can fly further to more destinations.
- Unquote
So it seems there you have it.
I think this gives a much clearer picture as to what SOU is at last hopeful to be working to and as to which airlines they may seek to come to SOU.
Existing A319/A320, maybe the A320Neo too? will hopefully be able to operate economically to say - Malaga, Faro, and possibly Greece and the Canaries with a workable payload, without the need for a Tech stop under normal conditions.
(Have we had a Neo in yet on the GVA?)
Be minded that EZY are disposing of their A319's in due course.
IMHO I doubt we will see the Boeing 737-800NG, 737M -8 200, 737M -8 or 9 or 10, nor any A321 size aircraft at SOU.
These leaves Ryanair and Jet2 both out of the frame, together with TUI, & say Enter Air and Smartwings who both operate IT charters for UK Tour Operators.
The 737-700 or 737M - 7 (149 or 172 pax) could be ideal but the -700 is too old now, and the new MAX-7 is still grounded, and no one has ordered it in Europe...
(link is the PPA to the Council)
I have purposefully left out Flybe (Virgin Connect) here as we have no idea as to their fleet (and new aircraft procurement) and their business plans for SOU, either for leisure/sun/ski, or businessman flights.
Last edited by rog747; 15th Dec 2019 at 10:17. Reason: flybe virgin connect
