Southampton-3
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,236
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: London
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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'.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bournemouth, UK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This twaddle, sorry I mean debate… would be more suited to ‘Jet Blast’. SOU won’t win any friends amongst the operators by taking a moral high ground that others aren’t.
Last edited by Knife-Edge; 10th Jan 2024 at 22:15. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the road
Posts: 914
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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...
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...
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 I’m 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 let’s focus on A320 operators. It’s 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 … 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? Didn’t think so. Oh and to destroy that narrative I see it’s 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, don’t take the bait from these people.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: .
Posts: 461
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: .
Posts: 461
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 200
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: .
Posts: 461
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 200
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?
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?
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?
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?