That's killed LTNman's retirement plan to move to Essex for a quieter life!

The Tuesday arrival from Antalya is scheduled in at 00:05 local according to the easyJet Holidays website.

Just wondered whether anyone knows whether an EZY A320 neo has a better range from SEN than a 320 ceo. The neo will need less fuel for any given destination but it is a heavier aircraft so do the two balance each other out?

According to the copy I have of the Section 106 agreement passenger flights are limited to between 0630L and 2300L in general, with the exception that 90 flights per month may be scheduled to land between 2300L and 2330L.

In addition delayed ATMs can land after those times; for aircraft with a QC count of more than 1.0 such movements shall count towards the 120 per month night quote, whereas aircraft with a QC of less than 1.0 shall not count towards that quota.

I read recently (sorry forgotten where) that weight and thrust are very close, one of the advantages of the NEO - certainly where SEN is concerned - is lower V speeds so less runway required.

QC Count. Can anyone confirm the following, would explain a lot given what Expressflight has shared with us:

It is [also] around 17dB quieter than Chapter 4 and also meets, and beats, Chapter 14 criteria as well,” he said. “In London it has the QC [Quota Count] system based on the noise levels of aircraft and the A320neo is QC exempt for arrivals and QC exempt for departures, apart from maximum take-off weight.”

Thanks to markhillmam.. and FRatSTN for this topic, which I find interesting.

Delighted to see SEN getting this new lease of life, all thanks to easyJet. So much potential exists. Personally I loved the airport experience and used it a number of times prepandemic.

I understand this to be true also, that FR only used the SFP models at SEN which bore the registrations EI-GX? E.g. EI-GXJ, GXL etc. In the case of NWI I can see that to date since the launch in April they've had 737-800 model and max or as they like up call it -8200. Cannot see examples of the SFP model.

In relation to the 320CEO V NEO discussion,I don't have exacts on this but it would seem that if the USP of this aircraft (NEO) is lower fuel burn and lighter weight, it would stand to reason that the plane could fly the same distance with less feel, hence it should be lighter and needs less runway than predecessor. This logic gets clouded when we then talk about the differing configurations of 320s. They come in differing seating capacities. In relation to my example above I'm thinking 186 seat CEO v 186 NEO. We know that there are CEOs of 180 & 186 and NEOs of 186 & 188. Clearly extra pax between models would negate the benefits of weight saving on fuel for the same journey.

These longer sectors to Turkey will really treat this topic and I'm sure we'll see some interesting debate on here too that effect.

The easyJet announcement of the re-opening of the SEN base was very specific on the subject of it being 186 seat A320-neo aircraft that would be based there. I wonder if these A320neos will embody the SHARP modification (SHort AiRfield Package) which offers similar airfield performance benefits as does the Boeing 737NG SFP (Short Field Performance). I don't know if easyJet have had any aircraft delivered with this embodied but a number of the destinations announced so far would certainly seem to benefit from it. The noise footprint of the 320neo is considerably smaller than that of the 320ceo so that might also have been a consideration and was mentioned in the Press Briefing.

A reliable source also informs me that this Summer's use of away-based aircraft to operate SEN's routes will be repeated in 2025 to the extent of some 25 weekly rotations; in effect the equivalent of a 4th based aircraft. My take on all this is that easyJet may consider that SEN now offers the solution to their Essex/East London customers needs and that the STN base will not be re-opened. If that is the case I can envisage the SEN base growing further.

I thought the above was a great post that summarised perfectly where we are right now.

I believe the next release of seats from EZY is due in the coming week and that should confirm the continued use of away based aircraft.

On the back of that, how many based aircraft can SEN accommodate? 10?
At what point can they lockout the Harps?

I estimate there are 22 stands available, from Google maps satellite image. There are 17 marked out but some of those are around the Jet Centre which I assume they’d want to safeguard. There are 10 stands directly linked to the terminal, I think the max number of based aircraft previously was 9 (4x EZY, 3x FR, 2x BE/STK).

Given there have been 9 previously, albeit 2 were ATRs, I guess 12 based aircraft is realistic. But probably the upper limit is about 14 or 15, also thinking about terminal, parking and road network capacity.

EasyJet cannot re-open the STN base after surrendering all their slots to Ryanair. There's no more capacity for overnight/based aircraft at STN at least for the next few years. It was a short-sighted view to close STN as a base anyway. NCL and SEN were arguably more justified closures at the time as not only smaller bases but also there remains a fairly open opportunity to return. Of course LGW and LTN remain the key strategic focal points for EZY, but the STN foothold was more valuable than many seem keen to accept, mainly in the form of 7 first wave slots in one of the most congested aviation markets in Europe.

People always jump to the same common denominator regarding STN which everyone will say is Ryanair. The reality is now however, EZY has re-aligned it's strategic growth into package holidays, so the competitive pressure of Ryanair's cost base on a low-cost flight only product is less impactful. Instead, the likes of Jet2 become more of a direct competitor which EZY holidays is obviously keen to engage in. One of the key successes to the package holiday product is providing convenient, local offerings with national coverage, something Jet2 has come leaps and bounds from their original focus on Northern regions. Inevitably, had EZY kept the STN base going, they wouldn't be flying the same rather random mix of routes such as BIO, PRG, LJU, MUC as before Covid, but rather a number of routes to Spain, Greece, Turkey and North Africa to align with the holiday product, more targeted at a catchment around North/East London and East of England. This alongside flying the domestics and AMS as they do now on non-based aircraft could've allowed them to develop a fairly sizeable operation at STN equivelent to maybe 11-12 based aircraft with no doubt some quite favourable commercial terms. There then would've still been a smaller local market that could support SEN. Pie in the sky as some may think that sounds, with the order book of aircraft EZY have, they will struggle to give much of that to London without STN playing a part. It's important to recognise the next London airport poised to be able to offer any kind of meaningful capacity benefit in the next few years is STN, but it would still be extremely difficult to build back up the size of operation they had from scratch with competing slot requests from other airlines.

They tried to consolidate capacity at LGW after the STN and SEN base closures, only to find what anybody could've probably predicted which was a sub-optimal slot holding through short-term leasing and not having the resourse requirements to fulfil the size of the operation. Consequently they've reduced their LGW slot holding this summer by I think something like 3 based aircraft worth of flying. Interesting therefore how that tallies with the re-opening of SEN as a 3 aircraft base. EZY will be only far too aware of a reducing market share in the overall London market as they've not been able to hold on to the LGW capacity they perhaps wanted to. LTN is at it's planning cap, STN is not currently a viable option so SEN is the obvious solution and I think that's principly why we've seen this for Summer 2025. I'm sure there will be opportunity for some EZY growth in LGW, LTN and SEN over the coming years, but I'm convinced that closing the STN base will have some quite painful long-term implications on EZY's ability to grow, or even maintain it's market share, in London as a whole.

That is about to change with the planning conditions for an extra million passengers about to be reached but in reality due to lower passenger figures last year there is spare passenger capacity at Luton assuming they can secure slots.

The problem is getting to Luton by car due to the fire that closed the drop off area. The airport was gridlocked this morning with one mile queues on the main approach road as 4 lanes of traffic from 3 different roads become just one lane for the drop off area.

It is a shame Easyjet have not opened a base for this year to capitalise on Luton’s woes.

Steady on people. Great news about three EZY based aircraft bu they will probbly pay nothing or very little to the airport in the short term so talking about a large number of based aircraft is rather premature. Steady as she goes for now,

So we know the airport has found a way of accepting later arrivals whilst presumably sticking to the rules. In order to get the most out of the remaining time available to each aircraft, I would not surprised to see an earlier start to each day as well. The alternatives would be two daily rotations or three that include two hops to AMS/JER/CDG or the like.

There will be a reaction to longer hours from a vocal minority locally. So, as Compton suggests, steady as we go.

I agree - living near an approach path a find that the official statements about CEO vs NEO noise (and 738 vs MAX) aren't reflected in the real world, especially in the early hours. I can't tell them apart.

Exactly, there is no meaningful difference

So a breach of trust is acceptable by companies that don’t care and try to wriggle out of agreements that they were happy to once accept. I find it quite shameful personally where big corporate finds it justifiable to ignore what they don’t like while everyone else has to obey the rules.

To be clear there has been no change to the Section 106 Operational Controls. My 2018 copy allows up to 90 Passenger Flights per month to be scheduled to arrive between 2300 and 2330 and every year, pre-Covid, arrivals were scheduled during that 'shoulder period' as it is described. Such movements are included in the 120 per month night quota. Late running scheduled flights are also permitted to land after 2300 without any time constraints.

So there has been no 'massaging' of the operational controls as far as I can see and they have not "found a way of accepting later arrivals" as provision for those is already clearly laid down.

Expressflight, is spot on as usual.

Statement from the airport

Tbf, we are now talking about flights that are scheduled to arrive after 11:30 and whether the lower noise level of the 320neo makes it exempt from being included in the night quota. I’m not saying that is the case, but for sure I am curious and a little puzzled.

Edit: There is more information posted. It is wait and see time methinks.

Looking at some of the flight times for the easyJet Holidays in 2025 they seem to schedule 60 minute turnrounds at destination. Is this a change from 2024 when I thought 30 minutes is still the norm.