If it's the departure on 13th November that you're talking about the most surprising thing was why it didn't depart on 05 rather than 23 as the wind was 170/08. As you say, not helpful in keeping the neighbours happy.

i think for the ASL aircraft, from what I have heard them say when listening in to Southend Radar, that wind would present an unacceptable tailwind.

I don't believe it is helpful to try and second guess the operational/safety decisions taken by the pilots on the night - we were not there.

For instance, a reported wind of 170/08 kts could actually be hiding a wind speed of up to 17 kts without it being reported as a gust, or even apparent - the crew would know this and factor it in appropriately. The direction of 170 degrees could also be hiding a significant element of variationin direction (up to 55 degrees) before it was reported as such, which could mean a further chunk of potential tailwind to be assessed rather than just the bare 170 direction might suggest. Any peaks of wind speed (up to 17 kts) would be more likely to have a veered (more westerly) tailwind component, compared to the lulls in speed.
On top of this, there is the forecast 2000ft wind to be taken into account immediately after getting airborne, which would have, on average, have been from a more westerly direction and at at a higher speed than 170/08 kts.

All that maybe fair enough but the original poster raised the subject in the context of SEN's efforts to minimise neighbourhood noise. Bearing in mind that 05 is officially the preferred noise abatement runway I think it's reasonable to discuss the prevailing conditions for that particular departure and whether or not might they have permitted a 05 departure. As a one time Ops Director I support the fact that the flight crew should make the decision on which runway to use and I'm sure they are used to preferred runways being suggested/offered in their line of work.

I'm familiar, for example, with the tailwind components that EZY accept on 05 at SEN for second segment climb restriction reasons on 23. I'm sure they take everything into consideration including the METAR wind history which had been very consistent in this case. On three other days last week that departure used 05 with winds of 170/05, 160/07 and 140/02.

Personally I’d always take off into the wind where possible. Safety first .. even if it’s within operational llimits

There are times when it’s safer to take off with a tailwind due to other issues.

Runway 05 at Florence is an extreme example. Huge hill on the climb out. Even with a massive headwind the performance penalties are huge, so you’ll leave half of your passengers behind, and the emergency turn for an engine failure on departure is dramatic to say the least. Far safer to depart on the reciprocal runway with a within limits tailwind, all your passengers, and a nice flat climbout ahead.
RWY05 Florence

So similarly if second segment climb is an issue on 23 at SEN by taking off into wind you may well still be able to lift less payload. Putting you at risk of having to leave passengers or bags behind, or being able to load less fuel... fuel which you may need later in the flight for other reasons. If it was always safety first without any practical or commercial considerations, all runways would be 4000m long with flat terrain surrounding them. But we operate in the real world.

Elsewhere on pprune, good friend of this thread, AirportPlanner1 has indicated rumours of HOP looking at certain former BE routes. If correct, does anyone believe the Stobart’s established destinations Rennes and Caen could make a comeback in 2021?

2021 sounds a little early for Caen or Rennes to restart. Perhaps one should consider the idea of a 2022 restart instead ?

If you read the comments in the context of the previous posts, I don't think that's what he was saying. He said HOP! operate international flights from some French regional airports that flyBe used to fly to. Not the same as saying they are looking at former flyBe routes. Sure he'll be along to clarify :ok:

I certainly didn’t say they were looking at former BE routes more generally, but that if rumour of ‘Air France’ doing regional from Southampton is true then Hop! is plausible based on what I know and have seen of their network.

As for turning up at SEN, I’m not an expert on regional France but can safely say no chance. If they touch London at all it would be short-term into LHR to slot-sit for Skyteam. I’m afraid for the foreseeable future any London-Rennes is dead. If anyone desperately needs to get there it’s a relatively short ride from Nantes which is fairly well served. And one of the few French destinations I’ve been to recently.

I agree that there is very little chance of RNS or CFR being served from LON in the foreseeable future.

HOP will be suffering from the fact that French government aid to AF was given on the proviso that 'unnecessary' domestic routes be dropped so they may in due course look to establish more short haul international routes. When normal times return; perhaps in Autumn 2021(?) no doubt both CFR and RNS will be looking to re-establish their LON links but it must be doubtful that SEN will benefit next time around.

EZY return?
 

"In the Summer 2021 season, easyJet also plans to restart operations from London Southend." Click here for news article.

Someone seems to know something we don't?

I have speculated before that may be the case, although I would consider Summer ‘22 to be more realistic.

Well it's just a rather throwaway line at the end of the article with no detail whatsoever. I would need to see some supporting words from EZY themselves before I would give it credence.

I’d need to see actual flights taking off full of passengers to believe it personally.

Article amended
 

The reference to Southend has been deleted early this afternoon.

Remember, in the post-Trump world there is no such thing as “Fake News.”

The same again this morning. 23 departure with a right turn and downwind leg overflying just about every populated area in the vicinity.
No reason why they couldn't fly south east after a 23 departure and head for the continent after Lydd. Seems the operator is keen to save a few quid on Jet A1 at the expense of the local population's sleep. Poor form for a 3:30am flight.

I recommend a careful read of the interim results. The best bit is the admission that as the owners are no longer having to pay incentives to airlines to use the airport, the losses were reduced compared to what they would have been if the airport was open. Overall the report is more gloom and doom despite the turd polishing reported in the press.