Expressflight ... I wasn't having a pop at SEN or Stobart but at the press ... If they can't even gtet the basics right what hope is there!

H W

I didn't realise your question was connected to the Echo story. I thought it was just a reasonable request for clarification of the ownership status of SEN. The Echo reportage was inaccurate? Surely not!

Lease
 

126 years remaining. Rent payable is £175k per annum rising with RPI starting 2015.

I understood you. I am afraid the local rag is run by delinquents and college rejects who cannot link three words together to make any sense...but the chief editor signs every thing off to keep the local residents happy (or not)

SEN reduce free drop off time from 15 minutes to 5 minutes..

A bit of a rush, but it may be to keep traffic moving with the rapid increase of pax numbers.

Be interesting to see how the various "favourite airport" survey results stand up to the increased numbers.

A very big mistake in my view. OK, reduce it to 10 minutes free if (and that's a big 'if') it's to reduce congestion but not 5 minutes. A cynical commercial opportunity seems the more likely reason.

Remember that the drop off is in the short term car park. 5 minutes simply won't work in my opinion. I would not be surprised to see a new priority drop off area being introduced soon - chargeable, of course.
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/1604...s/?ref=mr&lp=9

Time it. Arrive barrier...find parking space...assist three people out of the car and their luggage from the boot...hugs and wave goodbye...get back into car....race to exit barrier before 5 mins...or stop and pay in queue..not sure what system you have....it's impossible for most people, and the taxis who have already written negative views....sack that lady now.

New Taxiway 'Z' Became live yesterday

GLASGOW
 

I see it has been reported today that Ryanair is dropping 20 routes from Glasgow, including Stansted. I wonder how much, if at all, SEN will benefit from this?

I make no criticism of SEN in their response to the "Beast from the East" (the weather not Harry) but please Mr or Ms Spokesperson, don't describe delays of up to 5 hours so far as "minor". Try saying something like conditions are extremely challenging but our staff are committed to doing everything possible.........blah blah.. etc.
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/1605...t_due_to_snow/

WHAT: Clearly Southend Council got a shocking deal for the rate payers. |In 2015 Abertis sold a controlling stake in Luton for £502 million to Aena. This for a lease that ends in 2031. On top of that the airport operator pays a fee of around £2.63 per passenger to the council. Southend council is earning the equivalent of 14p per passenger which will reduce as more passengers pass through the airport.

Apples and pears - what was the status of both airports at the time of the deals??

@LTNman, depends how you look at it. If the airport was costing the countil £x m a year in losses, plus in need of significant investment, then they went from a huge deficit to making a profit of £175k a year without having to do anything.

Didn't cost the council anything as Regional Airports owned it and sold it for £20m to Stobart. 'Tis indeed a terrible deal for the council but when did a local authority ever seal a good deal with a private operator (I'll give you a clue - never).

But Stobart's didn't buy the airport, they don't own it!

They can buy the lease which is what I think Stobart’s did. It has been argued that the Ltn deal was too good for the council as it could have impacted investment.

With the Southend deal the council is getting a minimal sum per passenger which decreases as the passenger figure goes up so the council do not get to share the airports success despite ultimately still owning it. No doubt it might have been seen as a good deal at the time but not any more.

But then how would the council have raised the funds to develop it from a pretty much run down semi-Stolport in to what it is today?

The council didn't develop it. Stobart did.

I think that was Harry's point.

A lease is agreed which includes a clause about guaranteed investment. This is basically what happened at Luton way back in 1994 in the days before Easyjet when Luton still had low passenger figures.

These are the two news reports on how maybe Southend Council should have acted. Seems to me that Southend Council got shafted.

Passenger figures Jan 2018
 

Vienna 647
Lyon 699
Paris-CDG 3370
Rennes 3362
Cologne 1054
Dublin 4768
Malta 2110
Amsterdam 14150
Groningen 1850
Faro 2690
Alicante 4380
Barcelona 2015
Malaga 3201
Arrecife 2922
Teneriffe 3011
Geneva 7100
Prague 2357
Budapest 690
Glasgow 1877
Manchester 2828
Paris-Orly 44 (divert)
Dusseldorf 93 (divert)
Milan 43 (divert)

I believe I have asked this question before, but are the passengers figures above, arrivals and departures?
I noticed sometimes when a flight is diverted in with, say, 62 pax from Luxembourg, then waits on the ground for 2 hours whilst pax are bused from LCY, and departs with 50 pax, only the 62 is shown in the figures. Just wondering.

Normally CAA stats show arrival+departures. No idea how diverts are counted

In that case it shows more about the ineptitude of Southend local government and the shrewdness of private enterprise. It also gave London a modern efficient and award winning airport.

As the airport develops no doubt the local authority will reap revenue as local authorities always do.

January
 

My attempt using tophat27dt figures from the CAA and FR24 for the number of rotations

Vienna 647............40 pax....36% Load Factor
Lyon 699...............58 pax....37%
Paris-CDG 3370....130 pax....83% A319
Rennes 3362..........54 pax...75%
Cologne 1054.........38 pax...32%
Dublin 4768...........38 pax...33%
Malta 2110..........132 pax...73% A320
Amsterdam 14150.124 pax..80% A319's
Groningen 1850......36 pax..50%
Faro 2690.............135 pax..86% A319's
Alicante 4380........146 pax..87% a mix of A319/320's
Barcelona 2015.....112 pax...72%
Malaga 3201.........133 pax..85% A319
Arrecife 2922........162 pax..90% A320
Tenerife 3011.......167 pax..93% A320
Geneva 7100.........142 pax..91% A319
Prague 2357...........49 pax...42%
Budapest 690.........58 pax...58%
Glasgow 1877........32 pax...27%
Manchester 2828...22 pax....31%

Any additions or corrections welcome and I suppose the only thing to say is that is was January and perhaps Stobart should have been a bit harsher with reducing some frequencies.

Pete

You couldn't compare Southend and Luton then. At the time the future of Southend was by no means guaranteed, the investment was a massive risk, and that it took London City (in a better location by anyone's count) so long to find it's feet was a worrying warning.

And in fact while the future does not seem more secure now, you still can't compare Southend and Luton. A guarantee of success for Southend is by no means there. That Stobart have had to step in and run flights themselves is not the most sterling indication of the world's brightest future. That it isn't fully comfortable with receiving the most common aircraft and sending them to the most popular destinations is unfortunate (I like Southend in it's own way, but it's not a way that makes up for runway length in exactly completely the same was as Canary Wharf and the City of London do for London City).

Southend has of course been helped along by the ongoing failure to build the third runway at Heathrow, and while it seems that it may continue for ever, Southend may have problems if that changes.

Back in the days when I was young LTN, well airliner wise it was a holiday IT airport, Britannia, Monarch, I recall Laker 1-11's doing some ski flights and military charters, LTN had some freighters and not much besides, look at it today!

STN, in the mid 80's pretty much all STN had were some three based Air UK sheds and one Dan-Air jet for summer IT seasons, it had freighters and kind of ressembled what the other side of SEN looked like last time I was there ... A knackers yard :) When they totally redeveloped STN, new terminal, underground railway line etc. etc. etc. people were laughing it and referring to it as a white elephant and if it wasn't for the introduction of LCC's it might still be a white elephant perhaps!

So, yes, Stobart have taken a big financial risk with SEN, a risk that nobody else was prepared to take on, and good luck to them.

If you looked at aerial shots of the airport for every year of the last ten you would see just what has been achieved. Is it a white elephant? No. Is it an unqualified success? No. But if Stobart want to keep investing then it's a big thumbs up from me.

That’s not true, no it wasn’t a bustling hub but they also had a based Britannia 737 year round, Air France a couple of times daily, Aer Lingus at least daily, various overseas-based IT operators heading to Spain/Yugoslavia/Bulgaria/Romania etc, flights to Canada, lots of inbound charters from Scandinavia and a random assortment of short-lived scheduled operators and charters. So nowhere near as bleak as you portray.

OltonPete

I agree with your EZY numbers and some of your figures for BEE but my calculation for the latter shows:

BUD 42%
CGN 32%
DUB 31%
GLA 27%
GRQ 51%
LYS 54% BEE (36% EZY)
MAN 30%
PRG 42%
RNS 59%
VIE 35%

I think that is because the number of BEE flights actually operated according to my records is at odds with your numbers. The LYS numbers need to be split between EZY and BEE flights so I think that is the reason for the large difference between us on that route. Like you I stand to be corrected for any errors.

I think it was actually a good idea to maintain the higher frequencies, at the expense of load factors, in order to build customer confidence in these new routes.

For quite a while after the new terminal opened at STN you could pull up outside, help those flying into the terminal with their cases, find the desk, grab a paper from WH Smith and go back to the car and drive away. It was seriously that quiet. In relation to SEN, it just goes to show that amazing things can happen, but there has to be demand for what you have on offer, and we know Southend can only attract a minority of those operating in and out of London's airports, no matter how hard it tries.

Question is: Is there enough business available out there to get a realistic slice of that minority?

I remember those days well. Flights and passenger numbers were actually substantially up compared to the mid-80s due to Ryanair coming over along with a few new scheduled routes by the likes of Luxair and Air Exel. But the size of the place made it incredibly quiet even when at its busiest.

On Saturday afternoons in the winter, there only used to be a couple of departures after about 1pm and one of those was a 30-seater.

STN in the 70's and 80's was pretty much a quiet backwater then just a few sheds and hangar's - a dumping ground for old jets and for maintenance plus a few charters

Channel AW had gone bust by 1972 as had Lloyd International

yes the Vikings from scandinavia stil invaded enmasse on a sunday evening plus some ABC affinity and military charters to the USA and Canada ran in the summers which included ONA World BMA Saturn universal CPair and Wardair BUT the place was very very quiet much of the days
infact it was a treat to see a movement

don't think BY based a 737 there until much later on
cargo started to increase with many 707 and DC8's

it was not until maybe the very late 80's that things slowly began to pick up with Air UK and KLM etc and the new terminal and infrastructure in 1991

the rest is history with Easyjet gaining access by buying GO and massive expansion plus Ryanair buying Buzz and then some

So I guess the point in relation to SEN is that if you back yourself and your vision then success may follow.

or you may get lucky and be in the right place at the right time, whether you planned to be there or not. i.e. I don't think STN was developed with the LCC boom in mind.

Plenty of places in Spain to demonstrate the other side of "build it and they will come"!

Cancellations
 

Another 16 cancellations so far today. Not a great day for travellers either going to or from SEN!

True but perhaps some of the SEN destination airports were closed.