Southampton-2

[Dropoffcharge]

I was personally confident that after consultation the odds would be in favour, let's be honest you're never going to please everyone, but with the Uni bods throwing their 2p in, I'm not so sure now.

[inOban]

Since objectors are more likely to comment than supporters, I would have thought that 60:40 is remarkably positive. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the objections are ruled inadmissable under planning rules.

[RW20]

Originally Posted by inOban

Since objectors are more likely to comment than supporters, I would have thought that 60:40 is remarkably positive. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the objections are ruled inadmissable under planning rules.

opposition is building steadily ,the outcome is likely to be delayed into 2021,meanwhile BOU continues to increase routes and pax at a great rate!
Good management and sustained investment always shine through,something SOU hasn't taken on board. Difficult times ahead I think.

[SWBKCB]

meanwhile BOU continues to increase routes and pax at a great rate!

And you continue to get the code for Bournemouth wrong!

[destinationsky]

I am for the expansion before anyone tries to shoot me down. However, if you read the objectors comments, a majority of them make some very good points, particularly in relation to noise and environmental issues. The airport has put together a fairly poor submission which does not do anything to appease these issues. Noise wise, the increase in use of Airbus/Boeing variants will change the noise environment and increase the noise contours, pushing them further out, particularly to the North. The locations selected to do baseline monitoring were poorly thought through and serve no relevance to people who are/will be affected by noise owing to increase of traffic. The consultation events were inadequate and there should have been more of them and over a longer period. Away from this planning application, the noise action plan does nothing to address the future noise environment which would at least show a commitment to address any noise concerns as the airport grows.

The airport (and all people who have submitted positive comments) seem to rely on one positive environmental metric - the fact that the lengthening of the runway will stop cars travelling to LGW or LHR. Will it really?! Unless I have missed it there is no quantifiable study done on this? That claim will rely on a range of operators coming in and increasing the route options so much so that you get a good timetable with good flight times, along with airline competition which will drive prices down. Lets not forget that the airport MD travelled to LHR for onward travel to Scotland owing to poor flight times from SOU. This growth will take years to achieve. Coupled with the fact that stand capacity for larger aircraft is restricted, increased use of A319/320 family aircraft will not provide an increase in routes until this issue is addressed. As for the NEO, the aircraft has restrictions on engine stabilisation and warm up times. In essence, after start up, you have to wait a period of time before power can be applied. This alone will impact on capacity so wouldn't pin hopes on that aircraft being the saviour - as a lot of people on here think.

The starter strip will only provide a demonstrable benefit for certain modes of operation - namely 20 deps and 02 arrivals. What about the other directions? All being said, there are better things that the airport could be doing to increase movements and improve their environmental metrics - improve stands, improve the airspace, implement SIDS/STARS earlier than gvmt mandate and a whole lot more. Instead of saying that cars will be taken off the road, try doing something that will provide a more obvious benefit.

I do hope that the airport will expand, but not enough has been done to address the environmental concerns. And these concerns will stop expansion.

Before I face the inevitable attacks, I live very close to the airport, I do get overflown by both arrivals and departures and the noise doesn't bother me. BUT I have experience of how this type of application should be managed.

[RW20]

Originally Posted by destinationsky

I am for the expansion before anyone tries to shoot me down. However, if you read the objectors comments, a majority of them make some very good points, particularly in relation to noise and environmental issues. The airport has put together a fairly poor submission which does not do anything to appease these issues. Noise wise, the increase in use of Airbus/Boeing variants will change the noise environment and increase the noise contours, pushing them further out, particularly to the North. The locations selected to do baseline monitoring were poorly thought through and serve no relevance to people who are/will be affected by noise owing to increase of traffic. The consultation events were inadequate and there should have been more of them and over a longer period. Away from this planning application, the noise action plan does nothing to address the future noise environment which would at least show a commitment to address any noise concerns as the airport grows.

The airport (and all people who have submitted positive comments) seem to rely on one positive environmental metric - the fact that the lengthening of the runway will stop cars travelling to LGW or LHR. Will it really?! Unless I have missed it there is no quantifiable study done on this? That claim will rely on a range of operators coming in and increasing the route options so much so that you get a good timetable with good flight times, along with airline competition which will drive prices down. Lets not forget that the airport MD travelled to LHR for onward travel to Scotland owing to poor flight times from SOU. This growth will take years to achieve. Coupled with the fact that stand capacity for larger aircraft is restricted, increased use of A319/320 family aircraft will not provide an increase in routes until this issue is addressed. As for the NEO, the aircraft has restrictions on engine stabilisation and warm up times. In essence, after start up, you have to wait a period of time before power can be applied. This alone will impact on capacity so wouldn't pin hopes on that aircraft being the saviour - as a lot of people on here think.

The starter strip will only provide a demonstrable benefit for certain modes of operation - namely 20 deps and 02 arrivals. What about the other directions? All being said, there are better things that the airport could be doing to increase movements and improve their environmental metrics - improve stands, improve the airspace, implement SIDS/STARS earlier than gvmt mandate and a whole lot more. Instead of saying that cars will be taken off the road, try doing something that will provide a more obvious benefit.

I do hope that the airport will expand, but not enough has been done to address the environmental concerns. And these concerns will stop expansion.

Before I face the inevitable attacks, I live very close to the airport, I do get overflown by both arrivals and departures and the noise doesn't bother me. BUT I have experience of how this type of application should be managed.

At last a realistic and factual analysis of the planning application, and not a rose tinted appraisal that some contributors( and we know who they are) have on the SOU blog.
There will be a whole host of objections to the planning application,what will happen if the extension doesn't happen?
There is very little the airport can or more to the point will do! Its difficult to see any substantial growth happening over the next few years with the runway and airside structure currently in place.

[Wycombe]

The airport (and all people who have submitted positive comments) seem to rely on one positive environmental metric - the fact that the lengthening of the runway will stop cars travelling to LGW or LHR.

I was a positive responder and didn't put it that way. I live around 40 miles from SOU and approximately the same from LHR, so there is no positive or negative environmental impact change in terms of which airport I drive to.

For me the reason I use SOU for domestic flights is that it is so much quicker to pass through for this type of flight than LHR. It's quite possible for me to be back at home 40 miles away an hour after landing at SOU. At LHR I'd still be trying to get out of the Airport for most of that time.

I agree that the airport have not helped themselves with the quality of their submission. More detail could have allayed some of the objectors who are clearly concerned that there will be a big increase in movement numbers and aircraft size.

[FrequentlyFlying]

As I have stated before in my post it really does need every positive voice expressed and NO 60 / 40 against is not a positive however you look at it. It’s shocking as you don’t have to be local to express a comment. The lack of ‘address’ mentioned above is worrying - it will be taken apart by organisations against it. If you work there or have an interest in the airport it’s fair to say optimism is perhaps clouding your view of the impact of a (albeit small) orange fleet based here. FACT. This will create a huge uplift in pollution noise and air. This should have been tackled full on in the application. My considerable experience in working within an LA and Planning tells me either they are playing a long game or they cut corners in the application (did it on the cheap) - BUT... I would not give up hope as the Govt we have now have clear form at lying down in front of bulldozers to stop airport expansion and passing full scale expansion next day. If application falls then the appeal is where the real opportunity stands, which makes their lack of address now even more strange. For this application and most definitely if it does go to appeal then the comments and information provided in the opportunity to comment is critical. Make a positive comment NOW if you haven’t. Mention travelling and local economy and balance of capacity. Whatever path your comment takes MAKE ONE. Every organisation against will be sending out mail shots advising comment content. Volume really matters. My gut feeling is rejected at planning (and only if the consultant being used has their cards in line) success on appeal as Govt Will need to show some positivity. But climate change isn’t going away - 10 years ago was the time for this application. Complete failure has left SOU where it is.

[Buster the Bear]

With environmental concerns relating to the expansion of aviation and airport now growing, one can only think the Southampton missed the boat (pardon the pun). Expansion should have been completed years ago, but no doubt it fell victim of shortermism, profit for shareholders.

[destinationsky]

The biggest issue with Southampton was (and probably still is) is that it is the small fish in a big pond when you consider the other airports in their group. Heathrow when it was part of BAA/HAH took precedence in terms of investment and I would assume that Glasgow is now the same. BUT, Southampton was always guilty of spending money in the wrong places - over a million on the toilets a number of years ago, for example. Airside always suffered.

I really do not think that EZY will come in and make a base of SOU. Especially considering the current EZY ops are not the UK arm of the company (I am happy to be corrected on that) And also considering their proposed plans for other UK airports.....

As for the delay to LHR R3, do not think that this will be positive news for Southampton - Why would it? Even with capacity filling up, LHR serves more routes with more choice than SOU. SOU does cater for the more "unusual" French destinations but that is their niche BUT BA at LHR are already starting up some routes that SOU serve. Don't be fooled into thinking that SOU will see a massive boost due to the runway delay. It simply won't as the airport is not attractive to the airlines, even with the starter strip. Upgrades of stands, baggage capacity, airspace constraints and associated services need to vastly improve. Also, Heathrow does have some spare capacity and that will start to be released over the next few years - well ahead of R3 and SOU's starter strip.

Hate to be a naysayer but it probably is time to take off the rose tinted glasses.

[RW20]

Originally Posted by destinationsky

The biggest issue with Southampton was (and probably still is) is that it is the small fish in a big pond when you consider the other airports in their group. Heathrow when it was part of BAA/HAH took precedence in terms of investment and I would assume that Glasgow is now the same. BUT, Southampton was always guilty of spending money in the wrong places - over a million on the toilets a number of years ago, for example. Airside always suffered.

I really do not think that EZY will come in and make a base of SOU. Especially considering the current EZY ops are not the UK arm of the company (I am happy to be corrected on that) And also considering their proposed plans for other UK airports.....

As for the delay to LHR R3, do not think that this will be positive news for Southampton - Why would it? Even with capacity filling up, LHR serves more routes with more choice than SOU. SOU does cater for the more "unusual" French destinations but that is their niche BUT BA at LHR are already starting up some routes that SOU serve. Don't be fooled into thinking that SOU will see a massive boost due to the runway delay. It simply won't as the airport is not attractive to the airlines, even with the starter strip. Upgrades of stands, baggage capacity, airspace constraints and associated services need to vastly improve. Also, Heathrow does have some spare capacity and that will start to be released over the next few years - well ahead of R3 and SOU's starter strip.

Hate to be a naysayer but it probably is time to take off the rose tinted glasses.

Consultation period now ends on the 16-01,then there be a public meeting,followed by extensive objections.Realistically there is no way any work will start in the spring.
The whole affair has followed the airports recent years of to little to late policy.Times have changed now,the airport isn't in a Good place,and without Flybe,or soon virgin,it certainly woudnt excist.

[adfly]

Originally Posted by RW20

Consultation period now ends on the 16-01,then there be a public meeting,followed by extensive objections.Realistically there is no way any work will start in the spring.
The whole affair has followed the airports recent years of to little to late policy.Times have changed now,the airport isn't in a Good place,and without Flybe,or soon virgin,it certainly woudnt excist.

Please stop repeating the same doom and gloom message over and over again, it's fine to make the point a couple of times, but now it's at the point of adding nothing to this thread.

[rog747]

Overnight and out of the blue it seems - Flybe in big trouble - Blimey where did this come from? I though VS Connect was inputting £100m to rejuvenate the airline.

Seems even the staff knew nothing - Wish them well of course, but this is grim news for all and will be devastating for SOU airport should Flybe go under.

[shamrock7seal]

I think it could be good for SOU if other operators come in; there would be more opportunity for Aurigny, Blue Islands, Loganair possibly, easyJet even...

[AirportPlanner1]

Originally Posted by shamrock7seal

I think it could be good for SOU if other operators come in; there would be more opportunity for Aurigny, Blue Islands, Loganair possibly, easyJet even...

The problem for SOU is that an all-out collapse could well bring down Blue Islands and Eastern with it. Loganair could replace some of the routes but it would be at much higher fares - this might be more sustainable but would drastically reduce pax numbers. EZY coming in is a massive IF, and even if they did the frequency of existing services wouldn’t be replicated. They may also have more of a leisure focus competing with Bournemouth so the south coast as a whole would be a lot worse off

[The Nutts Mutts]

I really hope Flybe pull through. Not just for SOU, but firstly for their employees and for the UK regional economy in general- a lot of places would feel their absence.

From a local perspective, this news is obviously out of the blue. I hope it acts as a kick up the backside to Eastleigh Borough Council and focuses their minds on the fact that SOU at the moment is dependent on a carrier which is on shaky ground. If EBC wish to have a thriving regional airport still operating within their borough,with the economic benefit that brings, then they need to permit it to expand in order to serve a wider market and acquire a greater depth of services and operators.
If SOU is to be viable long term it needs that runway extension. Hopefully this news, as unwelcome as it is, will increase the likelihood of planning permission being granted.
Best wishes to the Flybe staff today, what a horrible thing to go through once again. Fingers crossed for you all.

[Planespeaking]

Originally Posted by shamrock7seal

I think it could be good for SOU if other operators come in; there would be more opportunity for Aurigny, Blue Islands, Loganair possibly, easyJet even...

The big word there is 'if'. Regrettably over recent years SOU has been shedding operators, so much so that Flybe now has a stranglehold on the airport's viability.

Both Flybe and SOU have been badly managed for years, Flybe by inept over -expansion and costly leasing deals, and SOU with lack of airside/operational investment and future proofing, hence the fleeing of existing operators and the inability to attract new ones.

I just hope a way can be found through this for the sake of both airline and airport staff.

[FrequentlyFlying]

Hopes with anyone working for Flybe.
No this won’t influence the local Council one way or another -they didn’t put the over reliance on one airline and they did not make the application that is seemingly very light on data and fact and actually could be argued contradictory in its detail of what ‘expansion’ this extension brings. Data light is sloppy to say the least. It is a Liberal Council that has Green issues high on list of priorities.
its critical that those that bought Flybe put in the funding promised or an enquiry should look at what exactly they bought and promised. A bonfire of inherited contracts and carve up of capacity at one airport or two, Phoenix with no baggage from ashes hopefully isn’t one of the reasons!
SOU will survive but it needs real strong management to get the details missing from the application ready for any appeal, should that happen, which will be judged with guidance from Central Govt which could be positive for the airport should it not get through planning.
The hige positives of SOU should never be underestimated, it has the transport links others can only dream of.
Once again, hopes with all connected or employed by Flybe and let’s hope it’s a desperate attempt to get that funding released and nothing more!

[SWBKCB]

SOU with lack of airside/operational investment and future proofing, hence the fleeing of existing operators and the inability to attract new ones

What makes you say that it's the lack of investment etc that has deterred operators?

[Sharklet_321]

One could argue the lack of strategic thinking at SOU in the last 5-10 years (ie reducing reliance on one carrier) would be partially to blame if SOU suffers from this.