How, exactly, could have this been prevented?

SEN is not the only airport that its local residents object to by any means. Drew Primary School in Docklands is situated around 150m from the stands at LCY. They claim their kids are affected by the air quality. Don't forget LHR. When the 3rd runway works commence Boris will be laying in the path of the bulldozers on behalf of all the great unwashed.



Note to Expressflight: I post from the basement of Dakota Lodge, in my hair shirt, whipping my thighs in a repentant act of self-flagellation. How could I ever have doubted you?

wonder how much the newspapers paid for her non story?

The local newspaper that is publishing the features now has a follow up & in another cheque book waving exercise according to the above post has interviews now with more residents all with very similar tales of how they are affected.

Funnily enough in the very same edition the local rag is carrying the Business Park development story which appears to be written in a very positive manner so perhaps no agenda on their behalf as alluded.

Totally totally shocked that it could be assumed newspapers might pay for stories.

It is though a nice little earner for the local paper in syndicating their copy around the world.

If it gets movement from local politicians the council & the airport operator then it is effective publishing notwithstanding that failing of PR & foresight & mindfulness from Stobart.

Just in case people are scratching their heads, DC3 Dave, in post # 2787, 'slightly' doubted my prophesy that early and late SEN trains would appear in the Greater Anglia May timetable. I didn't doubt that he would keep his word but thank him all the same. Being totally honest I had hoped those trains would start running in early June so I was wrong on that score.

So now they should just say "No comment"? That would go down well.

If they want to defuse the situation somewhat they could make Charlie 2 (more than 200m East of Charlie 1) the holding point for aircraft queuing for a 05 departure. That would make hardly any impact on runway occupancy times but then they may not be keen to give any ground for fear of demands for more.

Having been peripherally involved in an organisation where an issue has gone viral, SEN might find it is living with the "noisy, smelly airport" for a while - newspapers might be next weeks chip wrappings but the internet has a loooong memory.

What could have been done - my point is, looking at a map it should be obvious there was going to be an issue, so what was done?

Changes to holding points would be a start, but why wasn't it done earlier? Looking at the articles on the web, there's a chainlink fence - no earthworks or blast fence?

400 odd complaints, all get the response "the aircraft concerned was operating normally, legitimately and within the Airports operating framework" and nobody spots a problem?

The airport is only going to get busier, so the problems isn't going away - somebody needs to get a grip and start managing.

A blast fence wouldn't be appropriate but an acoustic barrier would be a possibility. Mind you they would then probably complain that their view was spoilt!

Wonder if anybody from Stobart has googled "noisy smelly airport" this morning?

The fact of the matter is the extension to the west was probably never meant to happen in the original airfield layout of years gone by and this is clearly borne out by the houses/church almost touching the runway. Homes being 40m or so from the charlie taxiway is incredibly close and surprised this was allowed to stay with plans for the expansion back in 2011. What is done is done although my recommendation would have been to relocate charlie further east of its existing location to mitigate these issues. What is clear is that any further expansion of the airport will be even more closely scrutinised and I personally don't believe the airfield has the geographical size to accommodate any further traffic, it is space limited and problems would then revolve around backtracking issues etc so the target of 10mppa is way off and likely never to happen!

Southend taxiway story is everywhere :-)https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3a16e4cdd8.jpg

To improve the situation could Stobart not take out the bend in charlie and re-position it straight to runway entrance, this would at least double the distance from homes to taxiway?

This is no PR disaster, the airport name and Ryanair images are being emblazoned inside the minds of the the entire UK population. This is worth millions in awareness building.

Secondly there is little 'real' sympathy to anyone living SO close to an airport.

Shamrock7seal: Got it in one! But the knockers love it because they can bury the good news about the extra early/late train, a previous point to knock the airport on.

I do have sympathy for the families. living next to a sleepy airport that got planning to expand and re opening a taxiway that leaves them with serious noise blight is a very bad break and morally needs to be put right either by discontinuing the use of the offending taxiway, providing noise bunds or offering to purchase the property at a price that covers the complete costs associated with the move.

bb

Does anyone believe there are people out there, about to book their next flight to the Costas, who will be inclined to rule out Southend Airport because of the recent publicity?

It's all the other matters usually debated here, such as queues through security, transport links, destinations and times will be the factors that influence choice.


​​​​​​
​​​​​

No one here should have to explain/defend the SEN position that should be the responsibility of the airport operator.That they have not is the reason for virtually all the comment & continued comment here.

It does not perhaps stop people booking but in future it might hamper the numbers & volume of flights on offer now the affair is out in the open & politicians councils & lobbyists may feel able to hijack the agenda.

My concern would be around the management approach - this episode smacks of some of the goings on at Carlisle.