Southampton-3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The June Pax numbers for SOU are a little dissapointing ,indeed the airport will have diffuculty making the quoted break even figure of 1.2 mill for 2023.
Given that Bournemouth are still increasing flights and paxs numbers,its inperative SOU attract an airline to carry the number of paxs to return it to profitability asap.
Given that Bournemouth are still increasing flights and paxs numbers,its inperative SOU attract an airline to carry the number of paxs to return it to profitability asap.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don’t believe their forecast for 2023 was ever 1.2m, instead more like 750k which they should hit. If they can get some summer flying for next year and the odd additional route maybe year round, including MAN x 3 daily with Loganair, 1m could become much more achievable by 2024 year end!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not the forcast that I was refering to,its the quoted figure of 1.2 mill pax by Steve Szazlay operations Manager .When consultations were ongoing for the extension he said that the airport was losing 4million a year,and 1.2 million paxs were the break even baseline. If so then its a long way off on the current figures.
Last edited by stewyb; 17th Aug 2023 at 07:53.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least one, and presumably several, Southampton scheduled carriers will not be using the extension anytime soon.
The runway extension was “opened” by NOTAM with new runway declared distances, however the procedures for updates to AIP information have not been concluded. If you look at the UK AIP September and October planned updates there’s no mention on the runway extension at Southampton. So no official charts, no surveys of new obstacles based on the new runway surfaces and surrounding areas.
Until official data is available from the likes of Jeppesen, Lido et al, via UK AIP updates, the extension is un-useable. No charts. No performance data using the new extension in either direction.
The runway extension was “opened” by NOTAM with new runway declared distances, however the procedures for updates to AIP information have not been concluded. If you look at the UK AIP September and October planned updates there’s no mention on the runway extension at Southampton. So no official charts, no surveys of new obstacles based on the new runway surfaces and surrounding areas.
Until official data is available from the likes of Jeppesen, Lido et al, via UK AIP updates, the extension is un-useable. No charts. No performance data using the new extension in either direction.
Join Date: Dec 2022
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NOTAM is official and therefore the increased declared distances can be used operationally for take-off performance purposes, and in the case of RWY 02 improved landing distance. That said it may be possible that some operators may have not have yet updated their own performance charts for SOU to reflect the improved declared distances.
My post 1901 explains where we go following the NOTAM.
Unless the new blast fence/wall north of the runway is of such height that it penetrates the RWY 02 Type A TOCS surface, which I sincerely doubt that it does, nothing has changed with obstacles. Albeit those south of the runway are farther away from the start of take-off point.
Last edited by TCAS FAN; 18th Aug 2023 at 07:33.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Southampton
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly many thanks for the confidence expressed in posts.
The NOTAM is official and therefore the increased declared distances can be used operationally for take-off performance purposes, and in the case of RWY 02 improved landing distance. That said it may be possible that some operators may have not have yet updated their own performance charts for SOU to reflect the improved declared distances.
My post 1901 explains where we go following the NOTAM.
Unless the new blast fence/wall north of the runway is of such height that it penetrates the RWY 02 Type A TOCS surface, which I sincerely doubt that it does, nothing has changed with obstacles. Albeit those south of the runway are farther away from the start of take-off point.
The NOTAM is official and therefore the increased declared distances can be used operationally for take-off performance purposes, and in the case of RWY 02 improved landing distance. That said it may be possible that some operators may have not have yet updated their own performance charts for SOU to reflect the improved declared distances.
My post 1901 explains where we go following the NOTAM.
Unless the new blast fence/wall north of the runway is of such height that it penetrates the RWY 02 Type A TOCS surface, which I sincerely doubt that it does, nothing has changed with obstacles. Albeit those south of the runway are farther away from the start of take-off point.
I know - but you might have thought more care would be taken to show off this welcome addition. Even a ground level well framed snap would have looked better 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There should actually be some sort of general celebration for this as, in these eco warrior days, there is so little possibility of new or improved aviation infrastructure.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And so it’s been proved right. More hysteria. It’s only been open a few days, give things time to catch up! Aircraft are physically taking off from the new tarmac, what more evidence do you need? There was a calibration flight the other day.