Southampton-3
This is the most recent thread:
Southampton-3
And this is the last post
Not a lot of things have moved on from then
Southampton-3
And this is the last post
The economics and covid has allowed very strong arguments to surface for the extension to never happen,and I'm sure the airport are now rather concerned.
Bournemouth airport however has in place all the requirements for holiday traffic should it return to normal (which is nowhere certain).
The question remains can SOU survive with what will be dwindling domestic traffic, the area might only require one airport in the future,Bournemouth has the runway,aids and stand capacity to provide the requirements.With transport links urgently needed to be improved,could then be the last link required.
Bournemouth airport however has in place all the requirements for holiday traffic should it return to normal (which is nowhere certain).
The question remains can SOU survive with what will be dwindling domestic traffic, the area might only require one airport in the future,Bournemouth has the runway,aids and stand capacity to provide the requirements.With transport links urgently needed to be improved,could then be the last link required.
That might explain why a Southampton based person has such a bee in their bonnet?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I can say is that the airport and owners are 100% fully committed to seeing this project through to a successful completion!
Last edited by stewyb; 3rd Feb 2022 at 22:44.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brighton uk
Posts: 1,099
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meantime back in the real world ….
TUI have contracted BA cityflyer to continue operating the Palma flights for this summer with a stand alone flight in the afternoon on a Saturday, instead of Volotea
BA cityflyer are also operating on a Sunday to Palma a shared flight with TUI holidays
It does come unfortunately at a cost with Tuesday services with Volotea now cancelled for this summer
TUI have contracted BA cityflyer to continue operating the Palma flights for this summer with a stand alone flight in the afternoon on a Saturday, instead of Volotea
BA cityflyer are also operating on a Sunday to Palma a shared flight with TUI holidays
It does come unfortunately at a cost with Tuesday services with Volotea now cancelled for this summer
Last edited by MARKEYD; 3rd Feb 2022 at 21:47.
Flybe disappeared 2 years ago, and its revival is unlikely to grow to the same size for a long time. Soton cannot rely on one carrier any more
The future of commercial passenger aviation is 100+ seat aircraft, not sub-75 seat aircraft
SOU can either extend its runway and hope to survive long term... or be assured of long term decline into irrelevancy. I hope only that the extension planned is enough
Think of how airports with grass runways acted in the years post WW2... or examine the case of Sheffield STOLport
The future of commercial passenger aviation is 100+ seat aircraft, not sub-75 seat aircraft
SOU can either extend its runway and hope to survive long term... or be assured of long term decline into irrelevancy. I hope only that the extension planned is enough
Think of how airports with grass runways acted in the years post WW2... or examine the case of Sheffield STOLport
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheffield's problems included subsidence. Even the biggest airports can be affected, for example Burtonwood was the largest US base in Europe. A forty years plus career in aviation at a variety of airports leads me to disagree with your 100+ seating capacity remark......regional airport success for the business community pax depends on frequency and connectivity. As for the runway extension, it will be practically useless without a major upgrade in landing aid and associated lighting.....and the LDA is not being increased anyway. Even now there is still the comical circling approach due lack of Regulated airspace.
Even now there is still the comical circling approach due lack of Regulated airspace.
Sheffield's problems included subsidence. Even the biggest airports can be affected, for example Burtonwood was the largest US base in Europe. A forty years plus career in aviation at a variety of airports leads me to disagree with your 100+ seating capacity remark......regional airport success for the business community pax depends on frequency and connectivity. As for the runway extension, it will be practically useless without a major upgrade in landing aid and associated lighting.....and the LDA is not being increased anyway. Even now there is still the comical circling approach due lack of Regulated airspace.
IMHO it appears that a new thread has already brought with it a number of factually incorrect/misleading statements. I will deal with those above first, the other will be addressed in my next post to another player.
While I do not dispute any subsidence issue with Sheffield City, my perception is that its financial viability came into doubt when operators pulled out due to a lack of Controlled Airspace and provision of a Radar Surveillance service. This resulted in a number of Airproxes involving Sheffield traffic when operating in Class G airspace (aka bandit country!). Interest in using the airport soon diminished.
SOU is in need of the extended declared distances that the runway extension will bring in order to increase the viability of destinations beyond southern Spain and the Balearics. I would however point out that the 02 LDA could well increase, albeit that this would be a bonus beyond the increased TORA/TODA that are sought. Linked to both LDA and TORA is the change to take-off performance calculations afforded by the new contaminated runway criteria that was introduced worldwide in November 2021. Unlike the previous criteria there is now no performance penalty when a runway is reported WET, providing that any water is 3MM or less in depth and the runway surface is such that it does not require declaration of SLIPPERY WET.
Based on evidence seen at SEN the A320's & B738s (presumably SFP) can handle LDA's less than that already available at SOU.
On the subject of upgrades to landing aids and lighting, we have already done that one to death at Southampton-3. Any discussions with current/prospective operators will have probably covered this in that it is impracticable to make significant improvements. So any continued interest will have apparently accepted what is going to be available. Look at LCY's limits!
The "comical circling approach" has also been done to death on Southanpton 2 & 3, what I used to refer to as a Winchester 2 arrival on 20 as you got to see Winchester twice! To their credit SOU's owners are at last looking to resolve this by embarking on an Airspace Change Proposal to extend the CTA to the north. This was temporarily suspended due to Covid, but is imminently about to restart.
Last edited by TCAS FAN; 6th Feb 2022 at 10:46. Reason: typo
yes, the people who are currently using that airspace cant just disappear so this is another good reason why Southampton should not expand. As many people have said there is a perfectly good airfield just a few miles to the west with plenty of regulated airspace and wasting the scarce resource that is airspace having two very quiet airfields with two portions of airspace is not a good use of that resource. If we look at the arrivals board there are not that many arrivals from the north, particularly during the hours that the airspace to the north is actually very busy, so no pressing need to extend the airspace north.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 43
Posts: 766
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mods, please close down this thread.
Nothing has changed at SOU to warrant a question over its future and it has been started by a longstanding troll with the intention to antagonise other users. I can speak from personal experience that this individual is driving other users away from visiting this site as a result of their trolling. They have been at this for the best part of two years now so surely a ban is in order. Enough is enough surely?
The fact anyone would question whether a private business is right to invest its own money in its own property is mind blowing but of course the intention here is not to instigate a healthy debate.
Nothing has changed at SOU to warrant a question over its future and it has been started by a longstanding troll with the intention to antagonise other users. I can speak from personal experience that this individual is driving other users away from visiting this site as a result of their trolling. They have been at this for the best part of two years now so surely a ban is in order. Enough is enough surely?
The fact anyone would question whether a private business is right to invest its own money in its own property is mind blowing but of course the intention here is not to instigate a healthy debate.
TCAS FAN, "I refer you to UK AIP ENR 1.6, para 1.4.1 which specifies this." very interesting ! I would love to know why the procedure allows a platform at 1,500' where the base is 2,000'. I feel sure there is a story there? it looks at first glance that an aeroplane maintaining 2,500 to the west and be within the airspace till capturing the glide but I guess not.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mods, please close down this thread.
Nothing has changed at SOU to warrant a question over its future and it has been started by a longstanding troll with the intention to antagonise other users. I can speak from personal experience that this individual is driving other users away from visiting this site as a result of their trolling. They have been at this for the best part of two years now so surely a ban is in order. Enough is enough surely?
The fact anyone would question whether a private business is right to invest its own money in its own property is mind blowing but of course the intention here is not to instigate a healthy debate.
Nothing has changed at SOU to warrant a question over its future and it has been started by a longstanding troll with the intention to antagonise other users. I can speak from personal experience that this individual is driving other users away from visiting this site as a result of their trolling. They have been at this for the best part of two years now so surely a ban is in order. Enough is enough surely?
The fact anyone would question whether a private business is right to invest its own money in its own property is mind blowing but of course the intention here is not to instigate a healthy debate.
There's been healthy debate since,but I note you have not been evident. The airport to survive needs to move away from UK destinations ,but it's limitations are apparent and the long going Runway extension may be put on the back burner further to financial restrictions
I worked through a number of airport owners’ regimes, including Bl**dy Awful Airports Plc who were originally responsible, due to a lack of long term planning, for the state of the airport that the current owners bought into.
Although not perfect the current owners are the first to have invested in securing a future for the airport by applying for a runway extension and also solving the lack of controlled airspace that BAA chose to accept, rather than challenge, when CAA re-designed controlled airspace into what is now the Solent CTA.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should Southampton be successful with their City of Culture bid for 2025, even more reason why a local airport could help with tourism.
If the planned start up Odyssey (?) at London City were planning to operate to New York from London City with a two-twenty fleet, the major issue that the airport may face is a lack of large stands. Slightly extending the runway will certainly benefit attracting airlines.
If the planned start up Odyssey (?) at London City were planning to operate to New York from London City with a two-twenty fleet, the major issue that the airport may face is a lack of large stands. Slightly extending the runway will certainly benefit attracting airlines.
TCAS FAN, "I refer you to UK AIP ENR 1.6, para 1.4.1 which specifies this." very interesting ! I would love to know why the procedure allows a platform at 1,500' where the base is 2,000'. I feel sure there is a story there? it looks at first glance that an aeroplane maintaining 2,500 to the west and be within the airspace till capturing the glide but I guess not.
The instrument approach descent profile should be considered when designing Controlled Airspace, in that an ICAO Annex 11 Standard, which the UK said it complied with but ignored when the present Controlled Airspace was designed in the late 1980s, required (and still does) that IAP are enclosed within Controlled Airspace.
I am not aware of any action taken by the BOH airport operator, past or present, to resolve this issue.
Radar vectoring to the IAP will require sufficient track miles to permit ATC to provide a base leg and then a closing heading to intercept the LLZ, with ideally a period of level flight before GP intercept. Hence the IAP entry to warn of the likelihood of leaving Controlled Airspace, which should of course be of adequate extent (IAW Annex 11) to contain aircraft within.