Southampton-3
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Norwich
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's the weather here, and you really want to get home tonight, then you could ask them to reroute you to LHR LCY or BRS and they will pay for a Taxi home...
If the problem is there then they will HOTAC you...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks all! Winds at AMS say KLM. Reducing flight numbers to compensate. Just the luck of the draw....1525Z metar gives 160/17 knots......forecast worse later. We'll hotel here and take the KL0915 tomorrow option. Regards.
Hopefully KLM accommodating and feeding you. If you are staying at the airport Hilton would appreciate if you would PM me with your opinion of it.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dorset
Posts: 681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a case of the individual aircraft being able to handle the crosswind limits, but of ATC capacity at the airport being reduced due to increased separation for bad weather. If you had 1,000 movements planned at Amsterdam today and ATC can only handle 800 then 200 flights have to be cancelled and regrettably one of them is the Southampton flight.
Going back to the rest of the thread, I'm led to believe that the A320 will have performance limitations at Southampton. It all comes down to runway surface, temperature and QNH as to whether those limitations will be operationally restrictive on any given day for a flight to Alicante, Palma or wherever else. Reducing the height of the trees so that they are no longer limiting obstacles will make the A320 performance restrictions less likely to be encountered than if they remain in place. So (for example) you might have a 20% chance of a performance restriction with the trees which drops to an acceptable 5% chance if the trees are lopped.
And Flybe 3.0? It's beginning to shape up as though Flybe 3.0 is very much in the making, although with a different name (not as green as it sounds) and a different aircraft type (ATR72). It has all the hallmarks of an airline trying to find a gap in the market in need of filling, and the chances of that being profitable are next to nil, from all I can see.
Going back to the rest of the thread, I'm led to believe that the A320 will have performance limitations at Southampton. It all comes down to runway surface, temperature and QNH as to whether those limitations will be operationally restrictive on any given day for a flight to Alicante, Palma or wherever else. Reducing the height of the trees so that they are no longer limiting obstacles will make the A320 performance restrictions less likely to be encountered than if they remain in place. So (for example) you might have a 20% chance of a performance restriction with the trees which drops to an acceptable 5% chance if the trees are lopped.
And Flybe 3.0? It's beginning to shape up as though Flybe 3.0 is very much in the making, although with a different name (not as green as it sounds) and a different aircraft type (ATR72). It has all the hallmarks of an airline trying to find a gap in the market in need of filling, and the chances of that being profitable are next to nil, from all I can see.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Quote)
And Flybe 3.0? It's beginning to shape up as though Flybe 3.0 is very much in the making, although with a different name (not as green as it sounds) and a different aircraft type (ATR72). It has all the hallmarks of an airline trying to find a gap in the market in need of filling, and the chances of that being profitable are next to nil, from all I can see.
Only mention of a route so far on the web I could see was Edinburgh - Southampton - Edinburgh, unless anybody else found anything different.
And Flybe 3.0? It's beginning to shape up as though Flybe 3.0 is very much in the making, although with a different name (not as green as it sounds) and a different aircraft type (ATR72). It has all the hallmarks of an airline trying to find a gap in the market in need of filling, and the chances of that being profitable are next to nil, from all I can see.
Only mention of a route so far on the web I could see was Edinburgh - Southampton - Edinburgh, unless anybody else found anything different.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR PARK ALERT. FIFTY POUND "overstay" penalty if your flight is delayed. Afternoon KLM cancelled due weather at Amsterdam.........rebooked by KLM onto next morning's flight. Car park booking expired 2300 22nd Feb........landed 23rd Feb 0900......£50......yes!!!!!.......£50 penalty.
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR PARK ALERT. FIFTY POUND "overstay" penalty if your flight is delayed. Afternoon KLM cancelled due weather at Amsterdam.........rebooked by KLM onto next morning's flight. Car park booking expired 2300 22nd Feb........landed 23rd Feb 0900......£50......yes!!!!!.......£50 penalty.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that the answer...."claim it back". No wonder the car park is so empty. Top floor not even used these days!!! I can't get over the £50 penalty for an unplanned delayed flight overstay after a full week parking booking.......for just a few night-time hours. Shame. Here is an idea for the Airport people.....optional £5 per booking overstay insurance. It would help OAPs like me.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of RWY 02 alternative arrangements have already been made with provision of a RNP IAP plus NDB/DME IAP. The current VOR/DME IAP could therefore be dispensed with.
In the case of RWY 20 ILS is the primary IAP with NDB/DME as a back up. The VOR/DME IAP has always been next to useless as it cannot be flown by CAT C aircraft. From what I recollect from past instrument procedure design work is due to the position of the VOR/DME site in relation to the RWY 20 centreline.
Provision of a RNP IAP for RWY 20 is at present impracticable due to controlled airspace constraints which would result in aircraft leaving controlled airspace when flying the procedure, as is already the case with the NDBDME and VOR/DME IAPs. This problem is not going away for at least 2-3 years (or more) until the current tortuously slow Airspace Change Process finally comes to a conclusion. That's assuming that SOU's highly paid consultants get the final airspace design right to ensure all aircraft remain within controlled airspace when flying IAPs for RWY 20.
NATS are not known for their generosity so somewhat doubt that the VOR/DME is being retained for purely IAPs at SOU when, from that noted above, there is no significant operational advantage for SOU. Or possibly NATS are taking money from SOU to keep it running without SOU realising this?
In the case of RWY 20 ILS is the primary IAP with NDB/DME as a back up. The VOR/DME IAP has always been next to useless as it cannot be flown by CAT C aircraft. From what I recollect from past instrument procedure design work is due to the position of the VOR/DME site in relation to the RWY 20 centreline.
Provision of a RNP IAP for RWY 20 is at present impracticable due to controlled airspace constraints which would result in aircraft leaving controlled airspace when flying the procedure, as is already the case with the NDBDME and VOR/DME IAPs. This problem is not going away for at least 2-3 years (or more) until the current tortuously slow Airspace Change Process finally comes to a conclusion. That's assuming that SOU's highly paid consultants get the final airspace design right to ensure all aircraft remain within controlled airspace when flying IAPs for RWY 20.
NATS are not known for their generosity so somewhat doubt that the VOR/DME is being retained for purely IAPs at SOU when, from that noted above, there is no significant operational advantage for SOU. Or possibly NATS are taking money from SOU to keep it running without SOU realising this?
Even with the VOR removed the DME might remain until the programme to rationalise DME does something with it. The VOR rationalisation programme started in 2008 and still hasn't removed most of the VORs so I would expect the DME might still be there for some time. DME safeguarding requirements aren't quite so onerous as those for VOR though.
Is that the answer...."claim it back". No wonder the car park is so empty. Top floor not even used these days!!! I can't get over the £50 penalty for an unplanned delayed flight overstay after a full week parking booking.......for just a few night-time hours. Shame. Here is an idea for the Airport people.....optional £5 per booking overstay insurance. It would help OAPs like me.
Surely the 164m Runway Extension, and any other previously limiting Airfield parameters are already now sufficient and safe for EasyJet to operate their A320's on the planned summer series of flights to Palma, Faro, and Alicante without any undue Payload limits?
I was going to ask TCAS FAN the same Q as asked above by Sharklet_321
''What implications, if any, does this (The Tree Felling) have on the RWY 20 performance issues ?''
So,
my Q to TCAS FAN is:
Would this tree work be a factor in improvements to possibly permit loaded 737-800/737M-8 operations in the future?
We know the runway length and the width are OK for the Type, but the limits for such 737 Ops at SOU currently are, I believe, the Approach and Obstacle/clearway issues for arrivals and departures on RWY 20.
Is that so?
Thanks in advance....
I was going to ask TCAS FAN the same Q as asked above by Sharklet_321
''What implications, if any, does this (The Tree Felling) have on the RWY 20 performance issues ?''
So,
my Q to TCAS FAN is:
Would this tree work be a factor in improvements to possibly permit loaded 737-800/737M-8 operations in the future?
We know the runway length and the width are OK for the Type, but the limits for such 737 Ops at SOU currently are, I believe, the Approach and Obstacle/clearway issues for arrivals and departures on RWY 20.
Is that so?
Thanks in advance....
In respect of obstacles that impact RWY 20 approaches, from what I recollect, surprisingly the large rail shed south of Campbell Road, not the one north of it, limits the OCH and also requires displacement of the RWY 20 threshold. If this were to be removed it is probable that the OCH could be lowered by a minimal amount (few feet) but reduction of the distance that RWY 20 is displaced could be possible to increase the 20 LDA. This would require modifying the approach lighting, moving the PAPI and ILS GP, which together may make it not financially viable for any increased LDA realised.
ILS CAT 2 on RWY 20 would require removal of the previously mentioned shed, removal of the railyard south of Campbell Road, together with possibly reduction of height of the rail shed north of Campbell Road and extension of the approach lighting. All considered, CAT 2 probably not a financially viable option for the reduction of OCH by about 100 FT.
The minimum extension of the approach lighting system required would be 720 metres which would take it past the rail shed north of Campbell Road. So seriously doubt that this is ever going to happen.
More relevant for bad weather ops, ie fog, is the current RVR minima for an ILS approach. Best case for the CAT I ILS that SOU has would be RVR 550 metres. This only attainable if 720 metres or greater approach lighting is available. With the current 434 metres of lighting and the current OCH a RVR minima of 700 metres is possible.
What SOU can provide for approach minima, while not ideal, is obviously acceptable to operators who are naturally aware of an increased risk of diversion if fog prevails. They have been very lucky this winter.
SOU has the advantage of a standby CAT III airport just down the road which can normally accommodate diversions, and it doesn’t cost them a penny for this facility!!!!
You mention “loaded” in respect of 737-800/737M-8, by this I assume you mean fully loaded, ie max take-off mass (MTOM), the answer is no. A fully laden B737-800 requires around 2300 metres TORA, whereas an A320neo requires around 1951 metres.
Similar to SEN, SOU is never going to accommodate either aircraft at MTOM, but can still provide enough TORA/TODA to accommodate many economically viable routes at take-off eights less than MTOM.
The Marhill Copse trees still often have an impact on take-off performance. The runway extension has improved this by being able to start the take-off roll 164 metres further north away from it. I however suspect that there is still an impact, albeit less than the pre-extension runway.
In order to optimise take-off weights, as mentioned in an earlier post of mine, the icing on the cake would be the extension plus reduction of many trees in Marhill Copse.
Its now a waiting game to see what, if any, impact on take-off performance the removal of the 14 trees reported by SouthernAlliance will have, if it goes ahead. Assuming the felling takes place imminently, as mentioned in my post #2839, its going to mid/late summer before a new Type A chart is published. Until this happens aircraft operators cannot quantify the impact on take-off weights.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a start huge long standing and respected airlines are phasing out the A380 as it’s too expensive to operate yet one individual somewhere with a paper airline thinks he can operate them on possibly the most competitive route in the world?
As for flybe mk3 all the q400s are pretty much all spoken for and it’s hard enough to get parts for ATRs let alone find spare ones that are operable. Ask LM.
Interestingly the BHD route saw a 12% increase in December to 7,080 passengers despite EZY operating to BFS with 2,638. Proof that EZY doesn’t always take passengers away from other carriers?
Dublin also saw a 29% increase to 6,070. Great figures for Emerald and showing the value of using 70+ seater regional aircraft like BE use to. It’s a real shame LM use old 50 seater jets on their SOU routes. I bet they are missing out on passengers especially as those aircraft mean the tickets have to be expensive. Emerald’s prices are pretty reasonable.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly I am somewhat flattered that you have confidence in my technical expertise. While I am not qualified to provide a definitive answer in respect of take-off performance I will attempt to provide some insight into the current performance limiting obstacle situation.
In respect of obstacles that impact RWY 20 approaches, from what I recollect, surprisingly the large rail shed south of Campbell Road, not the one north of it, limits the OCH and also requires displacement of the RWY 20 threshold. If this were to be removed it is probable that the OCH could be lowered by a minimal amount (few feet) but reduction of the distance that RWY 20 is displaced could be possible to increase the 20 LDA. This would require modifying the approach lighting, moving the PAPI and ILS GP, which together may make it not financially viable for any increased LDA realised.
ILS CAT 2 on RWY 20 would require removal of the previously mentioned shed, removal of the railyard south of Campbell Road, together with possibly reduction of height of the rail shed north of Campbell Road and extension of the approach lighting. All considered, CAT 2 probably not a financially viable option for the reduction of OCH by about 100 FT.
The minimum extension of the approach lighting system required would be 720 metres which would take it past the rail shed north of Campbell Road. So seriously doubt that this is ever going to happen.
More relevant for bad weather ops, ie fog, is the current RVR minima for an ILS approach. Best case for the CAT I ILS that SOU has would be RVR 550 metres. This only attainable if 720 metres or greater approach lighting is available. With the current 434 metres of lighting and the current OCH a RVR minima of 700 metres is possible.
What SOU can provide for approach minima, while not ideal, is obviously acceptable to operators who are naturally aware of an increased risk of diversion if fog prevails. They have been very lucky this winter.
SOU has the advantage of a standby CAT III airport just down the road which can normally accommodate diversions, and it doesn’t cost them a penny for this facility!!!!
You mention “loaded” in respect of 737-800/737M-8, by this I assume you mean fully loaded, ie max take-off mass (MTOM), the answer is no. A fully laden B737-800 requires around 2300 metres TORA, whereas an A320neo requires around 1951 metres.
Similar to SEN, SOU is never going to accommodate either aircraft at MTOM, but can still provide enough TORA/TODA to accommodate many economically viable routes at take-off eights less than MTOM.
The Marhill Copse trees still often have an impact on take-off performance. The runway extension has improved this by being able to start the take-off roll 164 metres further north away from it. I however suspect that there is still an impact, albeit less than the pre-extension runway.
In order to optimise take-off weights, as mentioned in an earlier post of mine, the icing on the cake would be the extension plus reduction of many trees in Marhill Copse.
Its now a waiting game to see what, if any, impact on take-off performance the removal of the 14 trees reported by SouthernAlliance will have, if it goes ahead. Assuming the felling takes place imminently, as mentioned in my post #2839, its going to mid/late summer before a new Type A chart is published. Until this happens aircraft operators cannot quantify the impact on take-off weights.
In respect of obstacles that impact RWY 20 approaches, from what I recollect, surprisingly the large rail shed south of Campbell Road, not the one north of it, limits the OCH and also requires displacement of the RWY 20 threshold. If this were to be removed it is probable that the OCH could be lowered by a minimal amount (few feet) but reduction of the distance that RWY 20 is displaced could be possible to increase the 20 LDA. This would require modifying the approach lighting, moving the PAPI and ILS GP, which together may make it not financially viable for any increased LDA realised.
ILS CAT 2 on RWY 20 would require removal of the previously mentioned shed, removal of the railyard south of Campbell Road, together with possibly reduction of height of the rail shed north of Campbell Road and extension of the approach lighting. All considered, CAT 2 probably not a financially viable option for the reduction of OCH by about 100 FT.
The minimum extension of the approach lighting system required would be 720 metres which would take it past the rail shed north of Campbell Road. So seriously doubt that this is ever going to happen.
More relevant for bad weather ops, ie fog, is the current RVR minima for an ILS approach. Best case for the CAT I ILS that SOU has would be RVR 550 metres. This only attainable if 720 metres or greater approach lighting is available. With the current 434 metres of lighting and the current OCH a RVR minima of 700 metres is possible.
What SOU can provide for approach minima, while not ideal, is obviously acceptable to operators who are naturally aware of an increased risk of diversion if fog prevails. They have been very lucky this winter.
SOU has the advantage of a standby CAT III airport just down the road which can normally accommodate diversions, and it doesn’t cost them a penny for this facility!!!!
You mention “loaded” in respect of 737-800/737M-8, by this I assume you mean fully loaded, ie max take-off mass (MTOM), the answer is no. A fully laden B737-800 requires around 2300 metres TORA, whereas an A320neo requires around 1951 metres.
Similar to SEN, SOU is never going to accommodate either aircraft at MTOM, but can still provide enough TORA/TODA to accommodate many economically viable routes at take-off eights less than MTOM.
The Marhill Copse trees still often have an impact on take-off performance. The runway extension has improved this by being able to start the take-off roll 164 metres further north away from it. I however suspect that there is still an impact, albeit less than the pre-extension runway.
In order to optimise take-off weights, as mentioned in an earlier post of mine, the icing on the cake would be the extension plus reduction of many trees in Marhill Copse.
Its now a waiting game to see what, if any, impact on take-off performance the removal of the 14 trees reported by SouthernAlliance will have, if it goes ahead. Assuming the felling takes place imminently, as mentioned in my post #2839, its going to mid/late summer before a new Type A chart is published. Until this happens aircraft operators cannot quantify the impact on take-off weights.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Lower Upham
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly no chance of any of the railway works, sheds or infrastructure being relocated or removed as the railway works and depot has seen a big upturn in business over the last few years and is continuing to expands its activities.
it seems clear from TCAS FAN's excellent explanation to my question it maybe possible to have future 737-800 operations if all or most of the Parameters outlined in the answer are implemented (which would be a long way off, and expensive).
Some 738 operations could maybe then be possible, but only if such an operator felt it was to safe to do so, but I would think we would be looking at much shorter routes which do not fit with the HGW loads that TUI etc operate at.
It is pretty clear that this Type of aircraft still would not be able operate to the kind of loadings, and fly to the holiday destinations that TUI and Jet2 for instance, operate to.
Plus, IMO I don't think Ryanair would ever fancy SOU anyway, due to the diversion risks and lack of NAVAids.
Where's a nice Boeing 757 when you need them....LOL
SOU-Tenerife - yes no problem - load it up and off we go.