|
SKOJB
Do you think these numbers would be possible after the covid situation has passed ?,if the answer is yes,then the claim that we need the extension to attain 1.2 million passengers to break even,is somewhat incorrect then.As with the change in use from current a/c originally to larger aircraft they are hoping for now,is something people complaining about the plans will pick up on and cause a feeling of suspision,and won't help something the authorities should have realised |
Rivet Joint
You mention pricing. I looked up my last KL916 ticket SOU to Amsterdam 4th March 2019. It was one-way as I was flying back from DUS later in the week. KLM Ticket price.............................................£13.00 AIRPORT Passenger Service Charge............£22.00 UK Passenger Duty.........................................£13.32 Total....................................................... ..........£48.32 I wish to differ from the claim that flight prices are high.....TAXES are High.....the airlines get next to nothing. [Evidence available.....I still have the ticket] |
They'll be no justification for the massive airspace grab planned then.
|
SKOJB
The 1.7m-2.0m figure was good but these were achieved with FlyBe being the main operator, 2020-21 are more or less written off so we wont know SOU post FlyBe annual pax figure for a for more years yet. |
Buster the Bear
What airspace grab? SOU doesn't have any airspace proposals published at the moment. Prior to the new Farnborough airspace, the last airspace change involving SOU was ATC voluntarily reverting part of the Solent CTA to class G (uncontrolled) above Lee-on-Solent as they weren't using it in normal circumstances and it was of more benefit to general aviation in the area. |
Flight resumptions
Bringing us back to what is happening now, and hopefully injecting a little positivity as well I've put together the current planned flight resumptions. There is a chance that some of the international flight dates may change but I'm personally quite confident in the domestic/CI/IOM ones as it stands. I've put an asterix next to anything that looks like it is likely to change and two for stuff that looks like it's gonna disappear (yes I am aware to an extent none of it is particularly stable...). Frequency's based on departing flights (couple of the BA routes have additional or less inbound flights due to positioning etc)
Recently the only services have been Aurigny to Guernsey and Blue Islands to Jersey, both operating 3 weekly (M, W, F). 29/03 Aurigny increasing Guernsey to 5 weekly (Mon-Fri) 01/04 Eastern resume Belfast City, 2 weekly (Thurs/Fri, then Mon/Fri) 12/04 Loganair resume Newcastle, 4 weekly (Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun) Eastern increase Belfast City to 4 weekly (Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun) 26/04 Blue Islands increase Jersey to 9 weekly (2x Mon and Fri) 01/05 **Blue Islands resume Guernsey 21 weekly Loganair resume Glasgow, 5 weekly (Thurs-Mon) Loganair resume Edinburgh, 5 weekly (Thurs to Mon, Sun and first Sat flight operate via GLA until 17/05) 08/05 Loganair increase Newcastle to 5 weekly (Sat flight added) 17/05 Aurigny increase Guernsey to 21 weekly Loganair increase Glasgow to 8 weekly (Thurs-Mon, 2x Thurs, Fri, Mon) Loganair increase Edinburgh to 9 weekly (Thurs-Mon, 2x except Sat) *Eastern resume Leeds Bradford, 11 weekly (on weekdays there are 2 flights bookable southbound but only 1 northbound, looks like a glitch...) Eastern resume Manchester, 11 weekly Eastern resume Teesside, 5 weekly 24/05 KLM Cityhopper resume Amsterdam, 7 weekly 28/05 Blue Islands increase Jersey to 21 weekly 29/05 Volotea (TUI) resume Palma, 1 weekly BA Cityfler start Bergerac (2 weekly), Faro (1 weekly), Malaga (3 weekly), 30/05 Loganair increase Glasgow to 11 weekly Loganair increase Edinburgh to 11 weekly Loganair increase Newcastle to 11 weekly Eastern increase Belfast City to 6 weekly BA Cityflyer start Palma (1 weekly), Mykonos (1 weekly), Ibiza (1 weekly) 01/06 Aurigny resume Alderney, 14 weekly 07/06 Blue Islands start Manchester, 18 weekly *Blue Islands start Dublin, 7 weekly 21/06 Loganair increase Glasgow to 25 weekly Loganair increase Edinburgh to 25 weekly Loganair increase Newcastle to 18 weekly 22/06 Loganair start Isle of Man, 3 weekly 24/06 Eastern start Rennes, 3 weekly 25/06 Eastern start Dublin, 4 weekly Eastern start Gibralter, 2 weekly Eastern start Nantes, 3 weekly 26/06 BA Cityflyer start Alicante (1 weekly) Limoges (1 weekly), Nice (1 weekly), Florence (2 weekly) BA Cityflyer increase Palma (2 weekly), Ibiza (2 weekly), 27/06 BA Cityflyer start Edinburgh (1 weekly), Berlin (1 weekly) BA Cityflyer increase Bergerac (3 weekly) 28/06 Blue Islands increase Jersey to 23 weekly 29/06 Blue Islands increase Manchester to 19 weekly 01/07 Blue Islands resume Guernsey 12 weekly 06/09 Eastern increase Belfast City to 11 weekly Let me know if there's any mistakes or changes and I will update this post. |
Fantastic work. I was wondering what was happening with the BHD flights especially but good to see updates and positive moves on domestic flights
|
Originally Posted by Buster the Bear
(Post 11017950)
They'll be no justification for the massive airspace grab planned then.
If the ACP is sucessful IMHO any increases will be focussed on providing contiguous airspace to permit an acceptable descent gradient in order to permit straight-in approaches from the north, to replace the current "Winchester orbit" necessary to lose height. This will of course result in fuel burn reductions and thereby reduce CO2 emissions. Again IMHO there could be the possibility to raise parts of the CTA lower limit south of the airport, for the benefit of GA. |
Thanks adfly, i think TUI are using BA for their Saturday charter
|
It's showing as Volotea when you do a dummy booking on the TUI website.
|
Immaterial as cannot see much operating abroad in any case!
|
SOU Runway Planning Council meeting adjourned at 00.45 this morning after 11 hours of deliberations -
No decisions reached and Meeting will reconvene tonight at 18.00 Bournemouth & Dorset Echo pages reports that Bournemouth airport has objected due to, that it can offer what Southampton airport wants. Southampton Council already objects to any runway extension. There's currently now a discussion about whether to defer the Planning decision.... Public opinion poll yesterday by Echo newspapers - 80% For v 20% Against What a mess for a 164m bit of pavement |
With local elections in a few short weeks, its unlikely that politicians will want to vote on any contentious decision, and risk losing their seat. More likely a council decision after May 6, I still think the extension will get the green light. Much less clear whether the money will actually be spent by the current airport owner. This is likely to drag on for a good while yet.
|
"after 11 hours of deliberations "
just remember the Planning Committee do this for free in their own time..................... |
This is democracy working. At Luton where the airport owner is the planning authority so gets to vote on its own planning applications this would have been waved through in under an hour.
|
LTNman is well aware that Luton is in the last chance saloon when it comes to their own form of local democracy so stated.
|
With that level of public support behind it, it will be a brave group of councillors to turn it down. It may take time to get there, but this surely has to get through?
|
Asturias56
Not quite. Cllrs get an allowance and usually Cllrs on a committee get an additional allowance. In some councils this can easily equal a full time job salary for what is usually a couple of evenings a month. regarding the polls in a local paper it’s hardly scientific. It would be interesting to know if any of the parties have done polling on the airport being an issue. Sadly this is usually kept private and just passed to the candidates so we won’t know. |
Adfly
With all this activity - some of which is the envy of most regional airports in the UK - how on earth can it be that SOU is unviable in its current form which is the main argument behind the extension? |
Good points,the runway extension application will no doubt go to Government approval,so this time next year we might hear more!
The big question is will the airport owners fork our for this given that passengers numbers from the airport will be limited to mostly internal routes,and more importantly will the value of the land for building be the ultimate winner?.It's going to be a interesting next few months! |
Surely if the full council approve it, that's it unless the government calls it in, which seems unlikely for a minor extension, or someone can convince the Law that there have been irregularities in the process in a judicial review.
|
Unfortunately not. The green loony toons will almost certainly appeal. Amazing how all these morons are always no where to be seen when the port expands like they are currently with the fifth cruise terminal being built. Even more amazing how the port doesn't have to even obtain planning for such a huge structure yet a bit of extra tarmac within SOUs own land has to. Lets not forget Southampton Council pilling on support for the cruise terminal but objecting to the runway extension. What's the lesson? If you want something done don't leave it up to local authorities. This is a planning decision and the council's own planning department have recommended it for approval. Support from respondents to the planning permission was predominantly in favor of the extension. There is nothing to discuss but of course these eco mentalists like to get on social media and attend all the meetings and not surprisingly intimidate the spineless councilors. Meanwhile the silent majority who back the extension seem to not surprisingly be to busy to give up two days of their lives to say their piece. God knows how these eco mentalists put food on their tables, can't imagine anyone is paying them to climb trees and stand outside parliament every other week. I bet all of them would look at you blankly if you asked them what an A320Neo was which just about sums up the validity of their argument. It will be approved by the government so lets wait until then.
|
The law must be different in England. Here, while the applicant can appeal against refusal, there is no right of appeal by objectors if permission is granted. Causes great anger in communities.
|
Ironic but it sounds like the most likely complaint and one to appeal if the airport wins is actually Bournemouth airport on the grounds of unfair ability if having the extension for Southampton to take business away from Bournemouth. Didn’t seem to stop hurn letting EasyJet in to fly Edinburgh and Belfast which could arguably be core routes for Southampton and Southampton’s core business without a runway extension. Case of we have the longer runway which I don’t believe Sou argued against at the time but how dare you try and make airbus a320’s become viable from your runway! Can see this getting ugly between the two airports.
|
The competition aspect didn't seem to bother BOH a few years ago when they tried to poach Flybe from SOU.
|
In England there is no third party right of appeal against a planning decision of a local authority.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...fings/sn06790/ Those aggrieved can apply for a Judicial Review which is a challenge to the way in which a decision was made, not the decision itself. https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the...dicial-review/ |
Rivet Joint
"Morons", "Green Looney Toons", "Eco Mentalists". A bit OTT? |
What do you expect,this is Rivet Joint your talking about!
|
Just a point that nobody in any of the meetings or on the forums seems to have touched upon. How long is Southampton's runway? How long is London City's runway? How many pax did SOU have prior to the pandemic and Flybe's demise? How many pax did London City have prior to the pandemic? SOU is a regional business airport, always has been always will be. BOH is the holiday airport, always has been always will be. The argument that SOU cannot continue to thrive as a regional business airport with the odd longer flights to Spain etc without a 164M runway extension is utter rubbish. The claim that 2500 jobs will be at risk? Why? The difference between SOU and LCY is that one is in the City of London and the other the City of Southampton. If the business needs of SOU only justify a throughput of up to 2 million pax a year then so be it. It doesn't stop the occasional charter flights to Palma, Alicante, Malaga and Faro etc going ahead as they were when Flybe operated them before and BA City Flyer / Volatea have said they will operate in future with the current runway length. The longer charter flights and low cost airlines will stay at BOH. Why does this "status quo" have to change? Will someone please give us a convincing case why an extra 164M of tarmac is required to continue with a business that was already thriving before? Businessmen don't need business flights from SOU to Spain and beyond - FULL STOP. Not going ahead isn't going to destroy the business SOU already had - FULL STOP! The list of summer 2021 airlines and destinations posted on here on the 28th March suggests to me that a very healthy state of affairs is already in the planning with no runway changes whatsoever. That's seven airlines operating to nearly 30 routes all over Europe as far as Gibraltar and Mykonos. Please correct me if I'm wrong or I might have missed something glaringly obvious?
|
Runway extension approved in the early hours by EBC
|
approval
To expand on that -
The application to extend the runway at Southampton Airport has been approved by EastleighBC Full Council voted 22 to 13 with one abstention. Southampton Airport have been given permission to extend its runway by 164m. However, passenger numbers will be capped at 3m per year and noise implications. EBC states - The decision to permit the application is subject to a range of conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement addressing important issues arising during the construction and operational phases of the development, including environmental air quality and noise issues, health, transport and ecological issues, together with a Carbon Strategy to reduce emissions from the airport’s own operations, and a plan to encourage employment of local residents. |
I am genuinely happy this got approved as it will benefit the entire region and not just SOU or it’s immediate surrounds.
My question for people in the know is: 1) when is this likely to be built? And how long would construction take? Most airlines are at a fraction of their size at the moment. 2) does 164m allow unrestricted A320 ops to Cyprus/Greece/Canaries? If so this is the death of BOH since the catchment is larger at SOU and finally 3) Given prevailing winds/weather, what % of time will aircraft have to offload luggage or restrict payload if they have to operate from the other end (without the starter strip)? |
mrshubigbus sums it up nicely, as far as I am concerned. There has been a lot of overkill attached to this process & decision by both sides. I can’t see how it will be the death knell of Bournemouth, either.
It’s only 164m at one end, after all ! |
I do not think ''unrestricted'' Ops or payloads can ever be expected from SOU even using 180 seat A320NEO types.
There will always be occasions and routes where payloads will be limited. This is not an 7 or 8000' runway! Easy Jet were flying from SEN to the Canaries with a 10-15 seat loss. I do not think BOH has anything to worry about. SOU will not overnight expect to be able to fill 180 seat aircraft yet. That type of new business has to build - Once Covid allows Business to re-start and Travellers to act more normally then we will should see the rewards of more choice. The new BACF Summer program was a great start albeit now likely further delayed to most or many of their leisure routes. These flights use a 98 seat EMB Jet. CDG/AMS and DUB are all crucial Feeder Hubs for onward travel - I would like to see those back in strength. Plus the UK feeder network restored which SOU was famous for. |
Re “when will it be built?” If it was up to me I’d get cracking first thing Monday morning before someone comes up with more objections or Swampy starts digging.
|
Excellent news for SOU. The next battle should be in about ten years’ time when the 3 million pax cap is reached then! But that’s great progress for the airport.
|
So what’s the cost of providing the extra 164m? It then comes down to extra revenue generated per year that needed that new length vs the cost of the build and the interest charges on the loans.
Will there be a parallel taxiway as in increased length will decrease the existing flow rate? |
As another poster has said, get the spades in the ground ASAP!
There is no parallel taxiway planned for this stage of works. There was in the previous master plan. In the new plan they indicated that the runway would be linked to end of the stands at some point which would cut the backtracking time a bit. I guess the volume is not there to proceed with that yet but it seems silly not to put that bit down whilst all the machinery is there for the extension works. Also lets not bring the SOU v BOH debate back on this thread as it is irrelevant. They are very different businesses and FR and BY are very unlikely to ever operate at SOU given their preference for a 1960s derived plane in the 737. Also BOH's sun routes are well established and will always be served. If I was BOH I would be focusing on growing the new cargo ops which have a lot of potential that SOU will never be able to serve. would like to think it would be much more productive for us to discuss what airlines could be possible candidates to open routes at SOU. It does not just have to be a low cost operator. Maybe the extension will enable ops for other CRJ, ERJ, A220 etc ops? I know some of the variants of those regional jets cannot operate at SOU at the moment. |
Looking at the here and now, the Loganair E145's should benefit, and I think the larger CRJ's are a sub optimal choice on the current runway. There is a fairly considerable number of CRJ900's operated by Lufthansa and SAS in Europe, so being able to operate their smallest jets at Southampton more feasibly would be no bad thing...
On the topic of a parallel taxiway, a full length one would presumably be very costly, but surely a short one running from the stand 13/14 area to the runway could be a useful addition. Takes nearly 50% off the backtracking distance for an aircraft departing runway 20, and should allow the majority of flights arriving on runway 02 to not need to backtrack. See my crude drawing on Google Earth... https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....8f916e671.jpeg |
Sharklet_321
1/ At present, concrete will start to be poured this winter with construction taking 34 weeks 2/ not sure although imagine any routes of this length will still be load limited (aka SEN to TFS with EZY), if SOU can attract a few sun routes with EZY/Wizz etc, there could be some dilution with BOU. BE operating to the Med always had a very loyal customer base from SOU so you could see some leakage of pax from the New Forest and beyond to SOU if the airline offering and pricing is attractive and there are route duplications, vice versa local catchment will continue to use BOU for other destinations not served from SOU 3/ take off from 02 is circa 25% of all departures and the starter strip will not be useable for TORA, therefore issue could be with weight restrictions during these times |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:16. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.