adfly

Have to agree with the northern taxiway, no idea why they cannot extend out to runway as per your diagram and with equipment on site during construction, seems illogical to me. This same mistake was made 20 years ago when they had the opportunity during runway resurfacing and would have cost pence instead of pounds!

oh thank the lord, I couldn't have faced any more of this will they/wont they.
Id be surprised if it made a huge difference tbh with a sudden flurry of new destinations and operators...
But glad the NIMBYs dont get it all their own way for once.

LTNman

Is the cost more or less per metre than HS2?

"The next battle should be in about ten years’ time when the 3 million pax cap is reached then!

this is exactly the sort of post that people shouldn't make - it's a gift to the swampies and any appeal against the decision (and I'm sure there'll be one)

stewyb

Let us be clear, what has been granted is permission for a runway extension, not a starter strip which would only be usable for take-off on 20 and would not necessarily have to be full runway width.

The, as yet to be approved by CAA, intended declared distances will include a small increase in 02 TORA and LDA.

you are quite right although TORA only improves by 20m or so. If 02 is in use for departures, question remains if a 320 could lift off with increased payload to the same extent as 20 after the extension?

Slowly but surely...
 

Few snippets of good news.

- Today is the first day where there will be a flight on a weekend for a number of weeks (Eastern to Belfast City)
- Belfast City increases to 4 weekly services (Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun)
- Loganair return tomorrow with flights to Newcastle initially 4 weekly (Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun)
- Auringy appear to almost exclusively be using the E195 on Guernsey to Southampton flights at the moment, possibly an indication of increasing demand to use the only current mainland airlink to Guernsey.
- Inbound Blue Islands flight tomorrow appears to be fully booked - I expect the above applies to a lesser extent (Jersey also has a couple of BA/easyJet flights at the moment)

SKOJB

Although I am not versed in the science of performance calculations, may I suggest a simplistic comparison with SEN who have a TORA/TODA 1739/1799M for both runways? What do EZY/RYR achieve with that?

On occassions in my distant past we had a number of jet operators requesting a 02 departure, with a tail wind, due to the improved declared distances and obstacle environment - even with the rail shed!

TCAS CAN
Thank you for your observations,one thing I'm not clear about is the LDA for 02,given that it's a runway extension,why isn't 164 metre not being added on to the 02 data?
And how will the this effect the ILS minima for 20?

The runway must have a strip surrounding it which is generally obstacle free, to cover the eventuality of an aircraft leaving the paved surface. For 02/20 this strip is 140 metres each side of the runway centreline extending for 60 metres before the threshold (ie earliest point of landing) and beyond the end of the declared TORA/LDA. Additionally there needs to be a Runway End Safety Area (RESA) extending outward from the strip ends for a minimum of 90 M as a safety buffer to counter an accident involving an undershoot or overrun. Consequently most of the extension is in fact the 02 strip end and RESA.

Should be no impact on the ILS minima for 20.

TCAS FAN

Thank you,
As always a informative reply,and to the point!

adfly

It would be a shame if the airport operator repeats the previous mistake of not extending the taxiway system. to counter the increased 20 backtrack problem that the runway extension will cause, during the time that the plant is on-site during construction.

While a taxiway change,as indicated, will require CAA approval, it may not require planning consent, being possible under Permitted Development Rights. Is there a Town and Country Planning expert who could comment on this?

From memory the Section 106 Agreement related to the original planning consent for BAA's re-development only included future development at the north end of the runway which I believe was due to noise issues for those living in Southampton Road and Campbell Road.This has obviously been satisfied by the recent extension planning consent.

On the subject of the Section 106 Agreement (which is still in place), there is a provision in it covering runway extension whereby the expectation is that an application for an extension should not be made, but if it was it should not exceed a total runway length of 2000 metres. The expectation of no application was subsequently interpretted by a past airport MD as the runway can never be extended, something that he used to frequently quote to all and sundry.

This was the same MD who had the Short Term Car Park built, against the advice of his Ops staff (me included), up to the western apron edge, thereby stopping most future Stand development to accomodate nose-in B737/A320 parking.

How I miss Bl***y Awful Airports Plc!

Business travel will not return to previous pre-COVID, pre-Brexit, thriving-Flybe levels, not for many years, if at all. Most pundits consider it will have declined by 50% by the time it reaches post-pandemic stability. This will therefore primarily facilitate more profitable leisure Ops.

The key question is what will the new Landing Distance Available (LDA) be on RWY 02 if currently 1650m and on RWY 20 if currently 1605m? Thereby what passenger load advantages will aircraft be able to land with on a declared WET runway thereafter, over and above what they can land with now?

Are they to still get away with the reduced RESAs despite a runway physical change? Grandfather rights do not exist and in theory a distance change should come with 240m RESAs at either end which would of course shorten the declared runway lengths (they're only 90m today, the absolute minimum permitted).

Please excuse repetition of a sentence from my post #408, comparing SOU with SEN, with a SEN LDA 1604 "What do EZY/RYR achieve with that"?

Again, please refer to my post #274 with respect to new rules that come in on 4 November relating to reporting of a wet runway. It would appear unless the runway is known to be slippery when wet the current automatic penalty for wet runway will no longer apply.

From what I understand grandfather rights still apply to many aspects of runway 02/20.

With the revised declared distances and ‘grandfather rights’ in place, the airport now seems capable of conducting a limited schedule of Airbus ops post extension. Will be interesting to see which airline shows their cards first as several sun routes will be taken on fairly quickly I am sure!

Suspect that few if any will until construction of the extension starts.

Agreed although who’s your money on (just having a bit of fun)?

My understanding is that at least two new up and running operators, plus a new start up, are monitoring the development. Beyond that I couldn’t possibly comment!

New Type A obstacle charts have been published in the past few days, following AGS buying the main tree problem area south of the runway, Marhill Copse, and apparently carrying out tree work to reduce their impact on 20 departures.

Comparing the new chart with the old the whole exercise would appear to be a complete non event. The highest tree has reduced from 149 to 148 FT with some other trees between Marhill and the runway end having grown in height!

I am missing something?

As you probably know, the airport failed with their recent application to remove the largest trees in the copse ie Monterey Pines, and I believe thinning of the woodland has primarily taken place with very limited felling. Not sure what action the airport is taking but assume an appeal against this decision would be forthcoming!

Thank you, I was not aware of the failed application.

TCAS FAN

I'm interested if you have any views on the news that Win ACC have written to the Secretary of state to call in the Decision allowing for the Runway extension quoting Article 31.This seems to have worked in delaying Leeds development.Action on Climate Change.

All I can do is express surprise as aircraft on final for 20 do not overfly the city of Winchester so any impact is going to be minimal. Could it be the well heeled residents of Twyford and Shawford, within the Winchester constituency, who have put them up to it?

Also, could this be the consequence of the apparent AGS' own goal, discussed in posts # 342-345, of indicating the need for an extension is to cater for larger aircraft? This is of course factually incorrect as there is nothing larger going to use the airport than can already do so.

Which while being factually correct, is itself a twist. They are clearly spending the money so that airport becomes more attractive to operators of larger aircraft than the norm at SOU, so there is an expectation that there will be more of them so a greater impact on those on the ground.

They aren't going to all this expense to make LM's EMB operation more efficient.

Just another throw of the dice in the convoluted, seemingly never ending planning process in the UK, which is why we have some of the least adequate infrastructure in western Europe, be that road, rail, air or sea port. Until the pantomime is brought to heel the UK is going to struggle getting the appropriate infrastructure in place in anything approaching a timely manner. Always has done, well at least post WW2, and seemingly always will do.

SWBKCB

Quite simply IMHO all the general public, including the anti-airport lobby, now see is "larger aircraft".

Have you read the letter that’s been submitted? that in itself will be turned in to a paper aeroplane and swiftly sent back to Eastleigh!

Have read it.

There appear to be similarities with Leeds. Their expansion is a new Terminal Building, to support an increase of passenger throughput they currently have. SOU's is similar, facilitated by a runway extension to increase the destination opportunities and therein passenger throughput, not primarily to permit larger aircraft to use the airport.

Time will tell whether the letter is taken seriously.

One big difference here was Leeds had to go in to SofS as this was written in to their Section 106 and that the application was adjacent to green belt

Hopefully this in SOU’s favour. From what I remember of their Section 106 the only runway extension requirements have been mentioned in an earlier post of mine, ie the intent was that an application to extend shouldn’t be made, but if it was the total runway length should not exceed 2000 metres.

Reborn Flybe plans summer restart | Travel Weekly

stewyb

interesting differences,but I think there will be significant appeals to call in the Runway extension given the the ever growing opposition.
There's a long way to go before the work happens!

Further to above,looks like a growing number of opposition groups asking for the government to call in the planning permission,looks increasing likely that it will be take some time or will ever happen?

for once in your life, let’s be a glass half full type of person!😂

S21 Summary
 

The below is likely subject to change but here is a summary of the planned flights from Southampton this summer. I remain confident that it will be a considerably better one than last year, even if it is still a long way from what was once considered normal. I've based the summary on week commencing Mon 12th July.

Auringy

Alderney - 14 weekly D28
Guernsey - 14 weekly AT7

BA Cityflyer (all served by E190's, 2 overnight Fri, 7 overnight Sat)

Alicante - 1 weekly
Bergerac - 3 weekly
Berlin - 1 weekly
Edinburgh - 1 weekly
Faro - 1 weekly
Florence - 2 weekly
Ibiza - 2 weekly
Limoges - 1 weekly
Malaga - 2.5 weekly
Mykonos - 1 weekly
Nice - 1 weekly
Palma - 2.5 weekly

Blue Islands (1x ATR72-500 based)

Dublin - 7 weekly
Guernsey - 12 weekly
Jersey - 23 weekly
Manchester - 19 weekly

Eastern Airways (2x ATR72-600 based, 1x E190 part based?)

Belfast City - 6 weekly AT7
Dublin - 4 weekly J41 (seems odd, flight times don't tie up with any other J41 flights - suspect it will actually flown by a based AT7)
Gibraltar - 2 weekly E90
Leeds Bradford - 10 weekly J41
Manchester - 11 weekly AT7
Nantes - 3 weekly AT7
Rennes - 3 weekly AT7
Teesside - 5 weekly J41

Loganair

Edinburgh - 25 weekly ER4
Glasgow - 25 weekly ER4
Isle of Man - 3 weekly AT7
Newcastle - 18 weekly ER3

KLM Cityhopper

Amsterdam - 7 weekly E75

TUI

Palma - 1 weekly 319 (Volotea)


Total weekly departures = 231 (around 330 in S19, and 210 planned for S20 post Flybe but before the true extent of Covid was realised)
Average daily departures = 33 (around 47 in S19)

Largest airlines:

Loganair - 71 weekly departures (Blue Islands probably have the most seats due to the average aircraft size being a fair bit bigger)
Blue Islands - 61 weekly departures
Eastern Airways - 44 weekly departures

Are you related to rivet joint?
Its clear that there is growing opposition to the EBC decision,this will impact on when any work might start.
The airport can and will be able to sustain profitable operations given BA use it for Summer operations in the future.Domestic services will be compromised,so survival depends on Covid restrictions,and not on a small runway extension.

Clear where? Inside your head?
The anti-airport groups are still anti-airport, but the majority of people seem to be pleased and relieved that the extension has finally been granted, going by replies and comments across various media outlets and social media sites.
There was always a silent majority who supported the airport and were in favour of the runway extension, the green groups simply shouted louder and used more hyperbole.
Of course the opposing groups will be writing to Robert Jenrick, it's pretty much their only option left.

easyJet
 

If the rumour of easyJet securing LHR slots is true then SOU can kiss goodbye to any potential easyJet base - LHR is too close and basically taps into the same catchment.

Nevertheless routes like GVA and the odd thicker route (ALC, AGP?) might work on a w-basis post extension.

shamrock7seal

No problem, I am certain the airport would accept a few W pattern EZY routes and a based Wizz aircraft for a select choice of destinations

I think that is unnecessarily pessimistic l1/ I think the odds of EZY getting sufficient slots to form a decent base at LHR at the right sort of timings, with historic rights, are miniscile and 2/ if they did, against the odds, get those slots they would doubtless use them for higher yield business oriented routes rather than the sort of leisure destinations that would do well from SOU.