DJ6 - How about improved safety for existing operations? As they say, there’s nothing quite as useless as runway behind you (unless it’s air above you).

davidjohnson6

Have you heard of Southend airport? You might want to look at what a small extension did for their business. Flybe, EasyJet and Ryanair for a start. Yes COVID has affected their ops but that is not surprising.

The green bunch like to make their voices heard but it is almost always on the back of no research. The boss of Loganair has come out in the past to say that SOUs runway affects their ops. They use tiny ej-145s with 50 seats. The extension will mainly help existing and the reintroduction of previous ops. Of course the green mentalists are too narrow minded to stop and think before opening their mouths.

Rivet Joint, people are entitled to argue for and prioritise different things and we would live in a much happier world if we could do so without lobbing insults about.

There is a legitimate argument that a longer runway = larger aircraft = less CO2 per passenger, but an equally good one to say that claim is absurd greenwashing and that a longer runway may just as well = more flights = more CO2. I think davidjohnson6's question is a very reasonable one.

The parallels with Southend are limited given a very different catchment area and, possibly, unfortunate given the extent to which its present prospects...

A cautionary tale...

Planners advise & Councillors decide!

agreed although with the recommendation being to approve, any future appeal to central government is more likely to succeed!

It will go to government decision,so 12 months,but is it really a viable operation given covid 19? I don't believe it is!

Don't think a 777 from SOU to NYC has ever been suggested, but depending on the nature of the recovery, I think the example of Southend is a good one - can't say I'm an expert on the repective areas but the impression I get is that the catchement area of SOU is a wealthier one?

If we keep the discussion sensible and restrict it to narrow body operations around Europe, who are you excluding from operating from SOU?

RW20

i think you have to keep COVID 19 out of any discussion about this decision as you could argue under COVID restrictions there isn’t one airport in the uk that is a viable operation !

Aero Mad

I agree and I welcome healthy debate. Cannot see where I insulted davidjohnson6? The green mentalists yes, but I think we all need to stand up to them.

SOU and SEN literally could not be more similar. Both smallish regional airports with wealthy catchments served by their own train stations. Also both on the outskirts of London so the argument of how successful they can be given their proximity to the bigger airports in London applies to both. Arguably SOU is better placed for success as the catchment is more wealthy and being the biggest cruise turnaround port in Europe alone results in 2 million visitors. The fact that SEN attracted both of the big low cost operators after some investment and a runway extension is definitely a good example of what SOU could achieve after its works are completed. Of course with Covid hanging around for a while yet we are unlikely to see the low cost operators just yet. In my opinion they definitely will when things improve though. A pension owned company does not invest £15m without a fairly certain return. In the meantime it will greatly assist the existing regional operators with their operations. I think the q400 was the only type that could operate relatively unrestricted from SOU. All the rest were impacted I believe. Of course people see them operating from SOU and think the runway is long enough for them to operate at their full potential. The extension is not just about enabling airbus sized jets to operate. I am sure the green mentalists have no idea how noisy a Neo engine airbus is compared to the bottle rockets attached the 195s that use to operate.

Can we discuss some specific potential airline-aircraft-route triple combinations that might be enabled by a runway extension at SOU to 1900m without resorting to metaphorically vaguely waving hands around ? Hopefully, we can come to some sort of idea about what benefits the extension might really have to the air connectivity of the region and how worthwhile an extension would be

Safety:
wombat - I agree there is a safety case, but I suspect that the shareholders (despite public protestations otherwise) will not agree to spending the money without a very good chance of increased revenue. Thus, new routes becomes critical to an extension taking place.

Network Airlines
SOU has historically functioned reliably as a regional airport, connecting people to major cities.
I thought maybe Air Nostrum to Madrid but this cannibalises LHR - will IAG want this ?
I'd like to think that LH might take a look at FRA - but wondered why an extension is necessary when LH already serve LCY. Eurowings to DUS with a 319/320 seems like too many seats to fill. I did wonder about LX with an A220 - but they'd probably look at Bristol beforehand
I also thought of Hop, but again if they don't even do Bristol, is SOU really going to attract them any time soon ?
Finally - would an Aer Lingus ATR really need the runway extension ?

LCCs
I'm afraid I just don't see Easyjet wanting to significantly dilute Gatwick or Bristol. They might add EDI, GLA, JER, BFS, AMS, CDG as a non-based or W operation but is the runway extension really necessary for 1 hour hops in an A319 ? If it was not for Covid, I think Loganair might have had a bit more competition 12 months ago
I see Wizz wanting to focus on their turning LGW into a 2nd London base - SOU is unlikely to be of interest
Volotea also came to mind, but it all seems a bit of a leap of faith

The only thing I could see is maybe Ryanair (more so than TUI) wanting to move their BOH routes to SOU. I'm wondering if SOU's terminal is capable of two 738s departing around the same time. To my untrained eyes, SOU's terminal seemed to be designed for lots of departures of smaller seat aircraft throughout the day, rather than fewer departures of 150+ seat aircraft. Additionally, is SOU sufficiently obstacle free (not the same as SEN) and would 1900m be enough for a Ryanair 738 even in bad weather ?

Summary
Extending will definitely help, but is 1900m enough to make a serious difference bearing in mind the fleet of various airlines and the routes people likely want to fly, compared to what is fly-able without an extension ?

Worth reading
 

Southampton Airport
https://simpleflying.com/klm-ba-city...mpton-airport/

I've made a booking to sample Eastern's route to GIB in May, the availability of a day return was simply too good to resist!

I made a booking within 24 hour's of Gibraltar being announced. I'm taking my 81yo mother on a day trip. As you mentioned, it's simply too good to resist.

I noticed on the Southampton Airport network map on the link provided that Alicante is included. On further investigation it appears that BACF have added now Alicante which is scheduled to start on the 26 June 2021.

Looking past the summer schedule I wonder if BACF will announce any winter destination's from Southampton Airport such as Chambery.

With regards to Eastern basing their EMB-190 at Southampton Airport for summer 2021, I'm surprised that they have not announced any further destination's to the previously announced Gibraltar. With Gibraltar operating twice a week on a Mondays and Friday what will the aircraft be doing on the remaining five days.

Probably recovering from it exhausting flight to GIB lol

You just need to hope the wind and cloud base are within limit otherwise it will be a day trip to Malaga's departure lounge, not so appealing.

Regarding Southampton’s apron parking stands could they adopt something similar to Newquay where the aircraft park nose-in - but diagonal - as opposed to parallel, so as to avoid the tail-fin issue with runway instrument proximity?

As I indicated in an earlier post the nose-in parking issue has slightly diminished due to the ICAO reduction of a Code 3/4 instrument runway strip from 150 to 140 metres, therein resulting in a displacement east of the origin of the 1:7 Transitional Surface (aka sideslope) which causes the limitations on tallfin height.

Assuming that the runway extension planning application is successful and we would then be looking at the A320 as a common visitor, moving away from nose in parking on Stands 7-14 (Stand 6 not possible to modify) would result in a loss of at least three Stands (two or more between 7-12 and one between 13-14). IMHO not worth it unless all schedules are to be operated by A320 or something with a similar fuselage length/wingspan.

As discussed on the Southampton-2 thread either consolidation of Stands 1-5 or placement of intermediate Stands (1A-4A) can provide four A320 compliant nose-in Stands. As mentioned earlier Stand 6 cannot be modified, due to proximity of baggage make-up area, Stands 7-14 are problematical as they are narrow and short (width circa 33M and length 34M), and as previously mentioned in an earlier post the apron bearing strength is less than 1-5 which may/may not be a problem.

Assuming that the bearing strength is not a problem for 7-12 if the boundary fence is moved back into the car park where currently hire cars are parked it could be possible to provide an A320 compliant Stand (11A?) albeit resulting in a temporary loss of one Stand when being used.

Similarly, assuming that bearing strength is not a problem, with modification of the boundary fence and minor taxiway modification an intermediate A320 compliant A320 nose-in Stand 13A could be possible.

Longer term if demand requires, by removal of the current (or previous?) Cargo Building, diversion of the landside road leading to Long Term parking and removal of the Fuel Depot buildings to the north side of the Depot could provide space to accomodate A320 compliant nose-in Stands 13/14/15?

TCAS-Fan

As always a well thought out reply. For the foreseeable, stands 1-5 being replaced with 4 A320 parking spaces and maybe as you have also suggested, stand 12 being modified and pushed back in to the car park to also accommodate A320. Therefore 5 stands being able to accommodate larger aircraft I see as being more than adequate for the time being

Depending on whether the A320's are night stopping or merely visiting a Multi Choice Apron (MCA) might work.
Allows for five smaller turboprops aircraft to night stop then A320's to be turned around during the day.
If the night closure hours lead to low cost carriers preferring not to night stop as has been suggested in some quarters then this could be a flexible solution.

Sharklet_321

No need. Even when a low cost operator opens up a base it is unlikely to be more than 4-5 aircraft for the first couple of years. SOU could accommodate 5 larger aircraft currently.

Also, just a general comment when researching something you should always first check the primary source, i.e. SOUs own website. The masterplan (link below) clearly shows where SOU plan to accommodate larger aircraft going forward. It amazes me that rather than use the internet to carry out their own research people subscribe to the ramblings of TCAS FAN who evidently has not worked at the airport for many years so is out of touch with what is planned.

https://www.southamptonairport.com/m...ble-growth.pdf