Southampton-2
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 629
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your Usual over optimistic view,and unacceptable remarks aimed at the contributors who have different ,but valid and equally important view as you.
Clearly you need to open your eyes to the fact that the airport cannot be sustainable on its existing and proposed near future routes.
Its tough times for the airport,with an uncertain future.
Clearly you need to open your eyes to the fact that the airport cannot be sustainable on its existing and proposed near future routes.
Its tough times for the airport,with an uncertain future.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the larger types include A321s?
A 321 can operate off the current runway, as I believe it already has. As highlighted by other posts its mainly a question of the Max take-off weight can be accomodated ie combination of PAX, their bags, fuel and therein range that the aircraft can operate to. If the airline can make money from what's available, it they'll consider it.
Operation of the 321 with the combination of the current RWY 20 TORA 1650M and obstacles in the take-off climb area (Marhill Copse trees, now hopefully removed) there isn't a lot going for the 321, or should I say "the 321 isn't going far"?.
Given the improved TORA 1799M with the northern extension and the south end trees removed it opens up a lot more possibilities, especially for the Neo Please don't ask me exactly what as I don't have current performance charts. Look at what EZY have acheived with similar TORA at SEN.
Operation of the 321 with the combination of the current RWY 20 TORA 1650M and obstacles in the take-off climb area (Marhill Copse trees, now hopefully removed) there isn't a lot going for the 321, or should I say "the 321 isn't going far"?.
Given the improved TORA 1799M with the northern extension and the south end trees removed it opens up a lot more possibilities, especially for the Neo Please don't ask me exactly what as I don't have current performance charts. Look at what EZY have acheived with similar TORA at SEN.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Waters edge
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking Ahead
On July 30th 2020, SOU airport owners (Ferrovial) - which own AGS (Aberdeen Glasgow and Southampton Airports), issued their First Half results for 2020: https://static.ferrovial.com/wp-cont...entation-1.pdf
AGS is on page 11. You can see what they say about money. Assuming planning approval for the SOU runway extension is granted - it should be - that does not mean that the airport owners (who also own a large share of Heathrow - pages 9&10), will be willing to pay for it.
On the basis of current indications, it is not unlikely that all AGS airports could be sold to raise cash needed by Ferrovial elsewhere - (eg. LHR).
In the meantime, SOU will do just fine backfilling the Flybe routes, but in common with other airports in Europe, recovery to even 2019 levels will take years, extension or not.
https://www.iata.org/en/iata-reposit...ravel-outlook/
FF
AGS is on page 11. You can see what they say about money. Assuming planning approval for the SOU runway extension is granted - it should be - that does not mean that the airport owners (who also own a large share of Heathrow - pages 9&10), will be willing to pay for it.
On the basis of current indications, it is not unlikely that all AGS airports could be sold to raise cash needed by Ferrovial elsewhere - (eg. LHR).
In the meantime, SOU will do just fine backfilling the Flybe routes, but in common with other airports in Europe, recovery to even 2019 levels will take years, extension or not.
https://www.iata.org/en/iata-reposit...ravel-outlook/
FF
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: España
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see that London City, a commercially viable airport has put the brakes on all further planned development; the same can be said about airports in the Manchester Airport group. I cannot realistically see Southampton's owners being willing to commit to any capital expenditure until the future aviation picture becomes much clearer - they will want to see a clear pathway to get a return on their investment which is not possible in the current climate. I think it's time for some on this thread to face the facts and take a "reality check".
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the doghouse (usually)
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AGS have publicly stated their intention to continue with the runway extension project, indeed they're running a very active PR campaign to gain support for the extension. Pretty much all the AGS backroom staff at SOU were made redundant (right up to the MD)... apart from those working on the runway extension. They're the only ones who survived the cull and remain there today.
Is that staffing working on getting the extension built or getting through the planning process? Clearly land with permission for development is more valuable than land without.
If AGS are that committed to getting the extension built, surely they must be confident they can attract new business that will can make the investment pay, otherwise the business case just doesn't stack up.
If AGS are that committed to getting the extension built, surely they must be confident they can attract new business that will can make the investment pay, otherwise the business case just doesn't stack up.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that staffing working on getting the extension built or getting through the planning process? Clearly land with permission for development is more valuable than land without.
If AGS are that committed to getting the extension built, surely they must be confident they can attract new business that will can make the investment pay, otherwise the business case just doesn't stack up.
If AGS are that committed to getting the extension built, surely they must be confident they can attract new business that will can make the investment pay, otherwise the business case just doesn't stack up.
Obtaining planning permission for a project like this costs hundreds of thousands of pounds just in surveys, plans etc, let alone the salaries for the whole team that SOU hired to manage the project. If they had no intention to implement the extension immediately they would put the whole process on hold straight away. LCY is not a comparison to SOU, nor is LHR. Those airports were expanding to facilitate expected growth. As Logan confirmed, even the regional planes that currently fly from SOU can not operate properly, so the extension is needed to support existing operations, and also the move to larger planes that aviation is on a whole moving towards. We are not going to see a manufacturer invest in any new planes below the 80 seat market again. I am not sure why there is such a stigma attached to larger jets anyway, as this will result in less aircraft taking off and landing, and therefore less frequent noise disturbance.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The infrastructure changes, of which I am personally confident shall be approved, will be constructed for the long term future of the airport and not by people with short term visions and suggesting now is not the time to invest. Aviation and travel will at some point return to those levels seen prior to Covid and SOU needs to be in a position to capitalise. The entire project is costing circa £15m and is for a minimal length of extra tarmac and several hundred additional car parking spaces. Quite frankly this costing pales in to insignificance versus airport projects elsewhere and what's more AGS have categorically stated on several occasions that the money is there to be spent. Bored of hearing arguments why the airport will or will not survive and hope for the regions sake that in 12 months time things will be changing for the better!
AGS have categorically stated on several occasions that the money is there to be spent.
Most of the money invollved in getting the planning permission will already have been spent - clearly it makes sense to have a final push to get it over the line and have it in your back pocket. What would be interesting to know is whether this is what the people referred to are are doing or whether they are pushing on to the next stage and are plannning to be pouring concrete.
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were these statements pre or post-COVID?
Most of the money invollved in getting the planning permission will already have been spent - clearly it makes sense to have a final push to get it over the line and have it in your back pocket. What would be interesting to know is whether this is what the people referred to are are doing or whether they are pushing on to the next stage and are plannning to be pouring concrete.
Most of the money invollved in getting the planning permission will already have been spent - clearly it makes sense to have a final push to get it over the line and have it in your back pocket. What would be interesting to know is whether this is what the people referred to are are doing or whether they are pushing on to the next stage and are plannning to be pouring concrete.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 321
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you see the irony & double standards in your post here Rivet? You can't have it both ways, so which is it?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brighton uk
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couldn’t agree more !!
There are only two people on this forum , one who continually complains and the other who continually
“ feeds “ the troll while telling everyone else in a patronising manner not to
Everyone else just carry on as normal with your postings !!
There are only two people on this forum , one who continually complains and the other who continually
“ feeds “ the troll while telling everyone else in a patronising manner not to
Everyone else just carry on as normal with your postings !!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Waters edge
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what boss of AGS said publicly post Covid
No, is the blunt answer.
The SOU MD and his colleagues said quite at length to empathise it (the runway extension and changing the obstacle clearances) was to enable current types (A319 and the better performing A320Ceo and A320Neo) to take off with a more economical payload and also to be able to fly to further afield destinations.
The A321 (even the Neo) would not be able to operate without taking large penalties, it would be a restricted airport for crewing this type due to the risk of tail strikes.
Besides a 220-235 seater is not in any way viable or on the horizon for SOU.
Likewise and we have had the come up time & time before about the Boeing 737-800NG - Again this type is not suitable for SOU's runway in its current or the planned form, even the SFP a/c.
You may have seen the odd visit of an A321 and the 737NG but these were one off's.
The only Boeings that can perform with ease out of SOU are the 737-300 and 400 and the 757-200. (both almost historic now)
The MD-95/Boeing 717 of Volotea seems to be OK but I would imagine when it has a full load and bags for Palma, and a very hot day the flight planning is interesting.
The SOU MD and his colleagues said quite at length to empathise it (the runway extension and changing the obstacle clearances) was to enable current types (A319 and the better performing A320Ceo and A320Neo) to take off with a more economical payload and also to be able to fly to further afield destinations.
The A321 (even the Neo) would not be able to operate without taking large penalties, it would be a restricted airport for crewing this type due to the risk of tail strikes.
Besides a 220-235 seater is not in any way viable or on the horizon for SOU.
Likewise and we have had the come up time & time before about the Boeing 737-800NG - Again this type is not suitable for SOU's runway in its current or the planned form, even the SFP a/c.
You may have seen the odd visit of an A321 and the 737NG but these were one off's.
The only Boeings that can perform with ease out of SOU are the 737-300 and 400 and the 757-200. (both almost historic now)
The MD-95/Boeing 717 of Volotea seems to be OK but I would imagine when it has a full load and bags for Palma, and a very hot day the flight planning is interesting.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southampton
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...The SOU MD and his colleagues said quite at length to empathise it (the runway extension and changing the obstacle clearances) was to enable current types (A319 and the better performing A320Ceo and A320Neo) to take off with a more economical payload and also to be able to fly to further afield destinations....
Can SEN do it with a similar TORA? I believe that the answer is "yes". Look at the opportunities available with a capability to operate a 3.5 - 4.0 hour sector length.
As for TFS, its already been done off the current runway and its trees off the south end, by TUI's (nee Thompson) B752s.
As for TFS, its already been done off the current runway and its trees off the south end, by TUI's (nee Thompson) B752s.