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

Southampton-3

Old 9th Jan 2024, 18:47
  #2721 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
While we are all here as we support aviation and Southampton maybe I am the only person here that has real concerns that the world has hit record temperatures last year while England floods this year, Yet Southampton Airport and everyone here wants to increase routes and more than double pollution by burying their collective heads in the sand.

Maybe if the airport had concerns about the environment, instead of trying to get trees cut down maybe they should only allow growth if aircraft pollution doesn’t increase above 2023 so supporting sustainable fuels to show the world they have green credentials. My understanding is that aircraft are the most polluting form of public transport.

I have no doubt the argument is that the difference Southampton could make is so negligible it isn’t worth making the effort. The trouble with that philosophy is that with that attitude nothing will ever change if every company has the same excuse.
Pain in the R's is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2024, 18:56
  #2722 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 5,675
Likes: 0
Received 22 Likes on 17 Posts
Originally Posted by Pain in the R's
While we are all here as we support aviation and Southampton maybe I am the only person here that has real concerns that the world has hit record temperatures last year while England floods this year, Yet Southampton Airport and everyone here wants to increase routes and more than double pollution by burying their collective heads in the sand.

Maybe if the airport had concerns about the environment, instead of trying to get trees cut down maybe they should only allow growth if aircraft pollution doesn’t increase above 2023 so supporting sustainable fuels to show the world they have green credentials. My understanding is that aircraft are the most polluting form of public transport.

I have no doubt the argument is that the difference Southampton could make is so negligible it isn’t worth making the effort. The trouble with that philosophy is that with that attitude nothing will ever change if every company has the same excuse.
The pro-environment argument that SOU should limit CO2 emissions to no more than 2023 is a valid one... but it assumes that SOU will not be significantly disadvantaged against its peers. For the time being, LHR, LGW and many other UK airports will happily go on allowing pollution (caused either by themselves or their airlines), spout greenwash and make money for shareholders. If one believes action should be taken, then one should push for something to be done via legislation / treaty over a wide geographical area so that all airports and all people living in different areas bear some of the economic pain or limitations on their actions. It's not reasonable for SOU to be expected to save the world voluntarily and ignore their investors while other airports carry on without giving a damn.
davidjohnson6 is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2024, 19:05
  #2723 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I thought airports, or some of them, have made it clear they are responsible for their activities excluding pollution from aircraft which is a matter for the airlines to tackle.
DC3 Dave is online now  
Old 9th Jan 2024, 19:16
  #2724 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Between the flower pots
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Very true but it is easy for an airport like SOU to become net zero but they can’t ignore what flies into and out of their airport as that is the big polluter and not the baggage trolly.
Pain in the R's is offline  
Old 9th Jan 2024, 21:14
  #2725 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: London
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by davidjohnson6
The pro-environment argument that SOU should limit CO2 emissions to no more than 2023 is a valid one... but it assumes that SOU will not be significantly disadvantaged against its peers. For the time being, LHR, LGW and many other UK airports will happily go on allowing pollution (caused either by themselves or their airlines), spout greenwash and make money for shareholders. If one believes action should be taken, then one should push for something to be done via legislation / treaty over a wide geographical area so that all airports and all people living in different areas bear some of the economic pain or limitations on their actions. It's not reasonable for SOU to be expected to save the world voluntarily and ignore their investors while other airports carry on without giving a damn.
you have just described what is happening globally. Why should Heathrow do this if Schiphol isnít?
Sharklet_321 is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2024, 08:01
  #2726 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: winchester
Posts: 32
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pain in the R's
While we are all here as we support aviation and Southampton maybe I am the only person here that has real concerns that the world has hit record temperatures last year while England floods this year, Yet Southampton Airport and everyone here wants to increase routes and more than double pollution by burying their collective heads in the sand.

Maybe if the airport had concerns about the environment, instead of trying to get trees cut down maybe they should only allow growth if aircraft pollution doesnít increase above 2023 so supporting sustainable fuels to show the world they have green credentials. My understanding is that aircraft are the most polluting form of public transport.

I have no doubt the argument is that the difference Southampton could make is so negligible it isnít worth making the effort. The trouble with that philosophy is that with that attitude nothing will ever change if every company has the same excuse.
Someone else who has fallen for the net zero industry madness.
andymartin is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2024, 08:11
  #2727 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,065
Received 258 Likes on 144 Posts
Originally Posted by andymartin
Someone else who has fallen for the net zero industry madness.
Doing stuff that helps mitigate the increase in global temperatures is desirable, no actually its essential and is happening with steps being taken both by airports and airlines; the latter by employing more fuel efficient aircraft.

As an industry 'net zero' is not achievable, any airline or airport that claims it is, or is working towards it is simple engaged in corporate marketing 'green wash'.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 10th Jan 2024, 20:54
  #2728 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bournemouth, UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This twaddle, sorry I mean debateÖ would be more suited to ĎJet Blastí. SOU wonít win any friends amongst the operators by taking a moral high ground that others arenít.

Last edited by Knife-Edge; 10th Jan 2024 at 22:15. Reason: Typo
Knife-Edge is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2024, 23:07
  #2729 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pain in the R's
While we are all here as we support aviation and Southampton maybe I am the only person here that has real concerns that the world has hit record temperatures last year while England floods this year, Yet Southampton Airport and everyone here wants to increase routes and more than double pollution by burying their collective heads in the sand.

Maybe if the airport had concerns about the environment, instead of trying to get trees cut down maybe they should only allow growth if aircraft pollution doesnít increase above 2023 so supporting sustainable fuels to show the world they have green credentials. My understanding is that aircraft are the most polluting form of public transport.

I have no doubt the argument is that the difference Southampton could make is so negligible it isnít worth making the effort. The trouble with that philosophy is that with that attitude nothing will ever change if every company has the same excuse.
Nice to have Dave Angel on the group. No airport currently can take this stance as the technology isn't there to allow it. SAF is just bullsh*t and a convenient sticking plaster that will never allow airlines to be truly "green". Aircraft are becoming greener but it's all a matter of scale. 20-25% reductions are a nice start but considering aviation is about 3% of the problem, even if the industry achieved 100% reduction it would be meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Get China/USA/India/Russia/Japan to make massive reductions in their emissions and we stand a chance. Aviation emissions are a sideshow and distraction to the real problem so get over it. Renewable electric/battery/hydrogen fuel cell technology is the only way that airlines will be truly green. It all costs money and passengers don't want to pay because they've become used to the Ryanair/Easyjet/Wizz marketing b*llocks of sub £50 return flights. The general public needs to accept that a flight to Malaga from London needs to cost £199 return for it to be sustainable economically and environmentally year-round. It ain't gonna happen.
TartinTon is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2024, 07:48
  #2730 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 8,378
Received 360 Likes on 209 Posts
Your problem is that Aviation is VERY visible in the west - activists can't do much about India & China but they can act on airlines and airports. Compared to even cargo shipping aviation is small beer - but its still seen a s a "luxury" by many
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2024, 08:03
  #2731 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,065
Received 258 Likes on 144 Posts
Originally Posted by Asturias56
Your problem is that Aviation is VERY visible in the west - activists can't do much about India & China but they can act on airlines and airports. Compared to even cargo shipping aviation is small beer - but its still seen a s a "luxury" by many
The elephant in the (leisure) room is cruising. Unlike cargo vessels that serve an economic purpose thousands of people bobbing around on the ocean in floating apartment blocks pumping out CO2 and worse 24/7 are in more urgent need of attention than aviation but generally go under the environmental radar.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 11th Jan 2024, 10:09
  #2732 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cavokblues
Why do you assume it's the airport and not simply Ryanair trying to add a bit of extra growth from an airport they've long operated from?

There is no technical reason why Ryanair couldn't operate all but two of their Bournemouth flights out of Southampton. Maybe SOU airport should have approached Ryanair?

Originally Posted by Skipness One Foxtrot
Can you supply some evidence of "desperate" BOH "giving big incentives" now that it's "not sustainable"? Any proper business would indeed be prepared to offer a sensible incentive if there was a chance of a good outcome. It's not enough that SOU succeed, BOH MUST ALSO FAIL.

See also GLA vs. EDI, PIK vs. GLA, INV vs. ABZ, NCL vs. MME, LPL vs. MAN vs. LBA, BRS vs. CWL and every airport with "London" in the name vs. each other...
An educated guess. Seeing as none of us are party to internal confidential business discussions and this is a rumours forum I assume thatís acceptable. Let me explain the evidence. As stated before, the timing of the spike in growth. Itís been done exactly around the time the runway was declared open. This is a common and long standing business tactic to bury the news of a competitor. Secondly, BOH wrote numerous letters to the planning department objecting to SOU extending its runway. Whilst this is not unusual the content of the letters were strangely personal and dramatic in their content, evidencing a real fear at BOH being present. The letters are still publicly available if anyone wants a read. Thirdly, FR are well known for driving a hard bargain and will move out of an airport instantly if charges are not kept at the bare minimum. Again, a simple google or basic aviation knowledge will back that up.

So, taking the above into account. BOH have evidenced in writing on their own letterhead that they were incredibly scared about SOU having a longer runway, the operator that has done the growth is notorious for driving a hard bargain and the timing of the announcements are conveniently around the same time SOU is promoting its new runway I think an educated guess can be made that BOH have offered some incentives for FR to fly some more routes. It of course also makes anyone considering SOU think a little harder if the range of routes down the road increases.

Turning to FR, as is well known on this thread and has been discussed more than enough the 737 is not a good fit for SOU. So you can forget about FR which personally and Iím sure a lot of people share this opinion is a good thing. Of course FR rather than no one is better but they are a last resort and not as good a fit as EasyJet who are a bit more premium and better to deal with both for a business and a passenger. So letís focus on A320 operators. Itís likely to be EasyJet and maybe the odd route from Wizz. Jet2, Volotea, Vueling outside bets.

I see the latest way to derail the thread is this being up the eco concerns from a very aptly named poster (pain in the Ö indeed). You have to question the motives of someone that calls himself that and then proceeds to post stuff to antagonise people. I wonder if he has posted the eco concern on all airport threads? Didnít think so. Oh and to destroy that narrative I see itís been announced that air traffic is now back at 99% of the levels from 2019 and hundreds of new jets on order from all the big players for growth. Yeah cause for concern this eco stuff. Come on guys, donít take the bait from these people.
Rivet Joint is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2024, 10:24
  #2733 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: .
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinions I suppose.

However, I don't see any huge technical reason why a 189 seat 738 is not right for a SOU but a 186 seater A320 is.

I've a feeling that is fuelled purely by people's personal feelings towards the individual operators of the aircraft.

Personally, I've never really found a huge difference between Ryanair and easyJet. Much of a muchness in my experiences.
cavokblues is online now  
Old 11th Jan 2024, 10:28
  #2734 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 50+ north
Posts: 1,251
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by cavokblues
.....................

However, I don't see any huge technical reason why a 189 seat 738 is not right for a SOU but a 186 seater A320 is.

..................
Just compare the take-off performance between them, that provides the reason why!
TCAS FAN is online now  
Old 11th Jan 2024, 10:40
  #2735 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The 738 is a lumbering monster to get off the ground compared to the rather more nimble 319/320/321. Airbus is a perfect fit for SOU and that would also include the 220!
SouthernAlliance is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2024, 10:58
  #2736 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: .
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yet SEN, with a shorter TODA than Southampton's currently, had no problems whatsoever with Ryanair operating 3x 738s to the likes of Barcelona, Malaga and Faro?

Air Berlin used to send regular 738's back in the day. As did several other operators, albeit probably with capacity reductions.

The new runway isn't overly prohibitve to it operating out of the airport.
cavokblues is online now  
Old 11th Jan 2024, 11:12
  #2737 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cavokblues
Yet SEN, with a shorter TODA than Southampton's currently, had no problems whatsoever with Ryanair operating 3x 738s to the likes of Barcelona, Malaga and Faro?

Air Berlin used to send regular 738's back in the day. As did several other operators, albeit probably with capacity reductions.

The new runway isn't overly prohibitve to it operating out of the airport.
New runway length isnít the problem, obstacle clearance off R20 (Marlhill Copse) is. This may change if the airport gets its way and has these trees felled/reduced
SouthernAlliance is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2024, 11:28
  #2738 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: .
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
TODA isn't simply the runway length, it's the distance for obstacle clearance.

And in any case, at the recent planning appeal decision refusing the felling of the copse, the inspector said he was provided no information on the commercial viability of operators at the airport and how the trees would impact that. Seems a huge oversight if they're so detrimental?
cavokblues is online now  
Old 11th Jan 2024, 11:37
  #2739 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by cavokblues
TODA isn't simply the runway length, it's the distance for obstacle clearance.

And in any case, at the recent planning appeal decision refusing the felling of the copse, the inspector said he was provided no information on the commercial viability of operators at the airport and how the trees would impact that. Seems a huge oversight if they're so detrimental?
hence the recent appeal has gone back in I believe on the grounds of CAA safety
SouthernAlliance is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2024, 11:55
  #2740 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 8,526
Received 81 Likes on 56 Posts
Originally Posted by cavokblues
TODA isn't simply the runway length, it's the distance for obstacle clearance.

And in any case, at the recent planning appeal decision refusing the felling of the copse, the inspector said he was provided no information on the commercial viability of operators at the airport and how the trees would impact that. Seems a huge oversight if they're so detrimental?
If you read the last inspectors report, you can almost see him shaking his head at the approach the airport had taken.
SWBKCB is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.