Southampton-2
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 729
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,843
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?
Perhaps the only longstay parking should be for electric vehicles?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: EGJJ
Posts: 224
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: London
Posts: 490
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 884
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 629
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
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
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.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Christchurch
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts