Think the runway length , restrictions etc was discussed back in July and various aircraft performance etc

Now its a new thread it might take some searching to find it

Yes this discussion was discussed at length. Basically obstacles largely restrict SOU's operating performance and new lights and landing systems would yield little improvement. I personally still find that hard to believe or more to the point that SOU is not doing all they can to tackle the obstacles but maybe with the arrival of new planes like the C Series it is accedemic.

SOU announced around the EZY announcement that they would reveal plans for significant investment in the autumn. We have been here before with the investment usually turning out to be refreshed toilets or a larger duty free. I have noticed that they have been hiring a few people in their ops and planning team recently so perhaps we are finally going to see something worthwhile happen. By my reckoning we are now in the autumn so they need to get on with it.

Mahon summer 2018
 

Thomson have just added menorca for summer 2018 from Southampton departing Saturday afternoons chartered by Flybe .
Col

Good find uptoncol, flight time of 2:45 out and 3:05 back would suggest it is to be operated by a Q400. Nice to see Mahon return.

That's what I was thinking ,
I went to Mahon back in 2013 from sou on the 195 chartered by Thomas cook ,a nice aircraft ,perhaps they will see how the booking s go and maybe upgrade to the 195

Also glad to see Mahon back.

With regards to the easyJet ticket price discussion the other day, I noticed today that Southampton is the only UK airport not to be a departure option on the easyJet holidays website. BOH is there, as are all the others. Hopefully this will be rectified soon as this may restrict booking potential?

Flying out of SOU last night, I noticed a lot of vehicles and containers in a compound over the far side of the airfield. Could this be preparations for the much needed improvements to the airfield?

GCIlover

Snow moving equipment?

TCAS FAN
There has been no further announcements on Southampton development ,can we expect any airside improvements?The airport seems to be steadily increasing in passenger numbers,surely it is approaching maximum numbers for the existing terminal?

Airport already confirmed earlier this year that no terminal extension will be required at this stage and I believe it is capable of handling circa 3m per annum so a long way to go!

RW20

Wish I knew, I threw in the towel many years ago after too many opportunities for airside improvements were missed, failure to provide a northern taxiway connection to the runway while there was an asphalt plant on site resurfacing the runway (a figure of around £50K was mentioned), extension of the short term car park up to the fence thereby preventing any extension of Stands 7-12 to take larger aircraft nose-in, failure to fully address the tree problem at the southern end (if you currently drive along the M27 take a quick look at the RW 02 approach lights buried in the trees-that's the tip of the iceberg) to permit increases in take-off weights, just a few past frustrations.

Still waiting for a significant announcement from the airport operators, haven't seen any planning applications for a runway starter strip or northern taxiway extension, so not holding my breath.

Under the original Section 106 Agreement drawn up with Local Planning Authorities when the airport site was redeveloped, contrary to many past Airport MD's publically voiced statements, an application for a runway extension can be made provided that it is not extended beyond 2000 metres. Nice as that would be its never going to happen unless a large part of Campbell Road housing is demolished and the rail yard and sheds are removed. Moving aircraft noise closer to Eastleigh is of course another factor that would most probably prevent it. A 150 metre northern starter strip, within the existing boundary fence may be successful, however the issue of an access road to the to permit development of the north eastern corner then comes into play, as does a large gas pipeline which around the northern end of the runway.

As mentioned on another thread a very limited 137m extension to the take off field length would have no tangible effect on existing operations (within 2hrs) in terms of payload limitations

Anything over 2hrs would still carry payload penalties so what's the point of extending it?

I disagree, if Southend can make the likes of Tenerife, Lanzarote and Malta work, then why not SOU with similar runway dimensions, even if both are payload restricted!

stewyb - if there are payload penalties then it means the fares will need to be higher. If people are prepared to pay more to fly from their local airport then that makes total sense but often this isn't the case. Operating payload penalty flight also makes sense if you are far away enough from competitors without restrictions. With SEN they are pretty distant from STN (an hours drive) so there may be a niche, but with SOU it's literally in Ryanair's core BOH catchment and too close to LHR's outer catchment.

stewyb

SEN does not have the performance limiting tree and hill obstacle problem that SOU has for 20 departures. SOU cannot move the hill, but could do something with the trees, something I wrote a report on for them in 2000!

Who owns the land populated by said trees and is it indeed possible to remove/reduce?

Nakata77.......with all due respect MAG would claim I feel that just an hour`s drive in deepest Essex is very seriously within STN`s catchment...& then you state SOU is within LHR`s outer catchment...confliction in that statement as well ?...

stewyb

From memory I believe that all of the performance limiting trees are on publically owned land, ie Southampton City Council. I had a long conversation with their then (2000) arboriculturist (tree man!) who was of the opinion that reduction of tree height could be negotiated.

While SOU has an offset take-off procedure, to avoid the hill, the problem trees were too close to the runway end to permit the necessary turn on to the offset take-off, thereby preventing use of its much better performance limiting obstacle environment .

Addition of a northern starter strip could mitigate the obstacle problem, but I do not have current aircraft performance data to determine if it will permit an early enough turn onto the offset take-off.

i think he means inner and outer catchments

Any reason why the reduction of the trees was not followed through? Useless management? I think the long incumbent team have already proved they will not invest if there is a cheaper option. Look at the VOR removal for an example. Rather than install a new ILS they were exploring a cheaper GPS based system. Not sure what happened in the end.

They are probably banking on enhances in aircraft opening the door to new opportunities. Let's not forget LCY has routes to Greece and shortly to Iceland. Let's also not forget they have a route to New York. I guess they can probably get away with charging premium prices but so can SOU to a certain extent.

The real hope for investment surely is more and/or bigger stands. Also taxiways to avoid backtracking. These are absolutely musts if they want to open the door to EZY. As other posters have pointed out the starter strip would make little difference. Then again the runway is due a resurface so might be an oprtunity to make it happen.