Plenty of visits? Has there ever been a time when there has been more than, say, five flights a week?
Then compare to this thread and the discussions about how many such a/c could be based...

Thankyou, which the media then take this to read "larger aircraft"? Maybe not a case of sloppy journalism but an own goal caused by a sloppy document published by the airport operator?

I think we are splitting hairs here - the intention of the runway extension is clearly to try and attract more 737/A320 size a/c on a daily basis compared to the regional airliners which operate from the airport at present.

Initially it was stated in the first application to "allow existing aircraft to travel further and without weight penalties" then suddenly the application changes and mention of bigger aircraft are being bound around. A certain MOL has stated that RYN equipment would not be suited to SOU in a post extension world, that leaves the orange army with there fleet, who have incidentally to date still not committed to anything substantial from SOU should the extension go ahead.

SWBKCB

Shame that the airport didn't stick to the statement apparently made in the initial application (mentioned in post 344). I doubt that the nays among the committee, and their constituents that they look to appease in order to get re-elected, have the background knowledge to appreciate this. Their focus is possibly on "larger aircraft" and the perceived noise and pollution that they would generate.

Wrong message?
 

I have to say I'm not too suprised that at this stage the councillors have voted the extension down. It is an easy scapegoat for them to present to voters that that are acting to tackle climate change (but please don't say anything about SCC and the port...) by refusing it. I remain reasonably confident that on a whole council or even government level there is a good chance of the extension being approved.

I do feel the airport have quite got the right tune in how they have prevented a few of their ideas though.

'Larger aircraft' - I feel they should emphasise this as a redistribution of what type of traffic the airport will see as the extension will not really open up the possibility of any 'larger' aircraft than currently operate (maybe a 321N would just about work for PMI length routes, but seems very unlikely?). This could instead be presented as 'we expect the airport to go from a traffic mix of 60x 80 seat prop + 10x 120 seat jet + 2x 180 seat jet to something like 40x 80 seat prop + 15x 120 seat jet + 10x 180 seat jet to demonstrate how they can see growth through slightly less flights but on slightly larger aircraft.

Regarding noise, the prospect of less flights could be promoted more clearly, and also comparisons between aircraft. I'd be interested to see just how much noisier a 320 CEO/NEO would be compared to a Q400 of E195, as I suspect there may not be much difference. Unless the contrary is true then it feels like this is a good way to reassure those concerned about noise and the prospect of huge aircraft suddenly being commonplace at the airport.

On an environmental side, I'd be interested to see the comparison between the impact the airport has on the local air quality and that of the port. I expect you could remove the airport entirely and Southampton would still have air quality issues in the centre of town. A prominent argument on environmental grounds is that NOx emissions in the worst case may triple (can't remember the figure but it's out there). That is obviously not good but it needs some context to show how that impacts the overall air quality and NOx emissions in Eastleigh and Southampton. Not much value in protesting about one big looking number if it is orders of magnitude below the overall levels of pollution in the area, and therefore making very little difference in the grand scheme of things.

It might be that all of these details are in the information the airport has provided, but even as an interested outside I've not found them, so it feels to me as though they have not presented the finer details of the case strongly enough. The emotive 'approve the extension to save the airport' is a good headline, with some logic behind it (i.e. airport breaking even at 1.2m passengers), but I think the finer details have not been emphasised enough and this has benefitted the against case.

A great shame the decision went the wrong way but I guess not unexpected. Most runway extensions end up going for appeal so looks like it will end up that way. The fact remains that SOU have ticked all the boxes planning wise for the extension and the government will pass the planning accordingly.

It just shows what a joke local authorities are who always resort to satisfying the individuals that scream the loudest. I would hazard a guess that the majority of the people who support the extension are normal people with jobs and families and who hardly ever use social media to thrust their opinions on others. Those who opposed sensible decisions as a result of narrow mindedness always seem to have the time to campaign with their placards and constantly push out miss information on social media. I bet the majority of residents who took part in the meeting were against the extension which is completely biased.

Regardless of the above and correct me if I am wrong, circa 60% of the respondents to the planning permission were in favour of the extension. In a sensible world that should be the figure the councillors look to when assessing local support and clearly it gives them a mandate to support the extension. Their decision in some ways is pure corruption as the planning submission was recommended for permission by the local authorities own planning department(!) and public support was in its favour. Unfortunately this point will not be pushed as mentioned above the people that support are normal people who will just get on with their lives. We are living in very dangerous times where the minorities get their own way as they shout the loudest and the majority live in a compromised world as a result.

Yet this application would not benefit the business community as only the holidaymaker that would use larger aircraft?

adfly

Good points!
I'm afraid however that with the existing covid restrictions there's going to be difficult times ahead. Clearly BA operations this year are going to be very limited!
I'm not sure that the proposed runway extension is a necessity ,maybe for survival GA aviation could be explored along with restricted opening hours.Leave the Sun routes and further afield destinations to Bournemouth who have the infrastructure to accommodate.

LTNman

I think the airport being better connected to more of Europe has some benefit to local business, even if it's not multiple daily flights to a destination. I'm sure even having a few flights a week to somewhere (ideally year round being the biggest caveat) can benefit the regions businesses and could support or aid inbound trade to an extent as well. Yes said flights will be predominantly leisure or VFR, but that does not mean that businesses would not benefit at all as well.

LTNman

Luton based resident offering his expert judgment on Southampton? Aware of the international port? The fact that it is the biggest cruise turnaround port in Europe (I.e. where the most cruises in Europe start and end)? That is 2 million passengers alone to tap into let alone all the staff on the ships. The biggest port in UK for car exports? The huge container port visited by ships from all over the globe? The two international universities with a huge amount of foreign students? The fact the new forest and south downs national parks are either side of the airport and are holiday destinations for continental Europe? The huge oil refinery? The international boat show which is one of the largest in Europe? The national oceanography centre? Huge hospital which is one of the leaders in the research of cancer? Huge Portsmouth naval base? The base for countless other maritime, cruise, insurance etc companies? Etc etc etc.

Not to mention with its own train station and motorway junction it is undoubtedly the best connected airport in the region so businesses across the surrounding counties could use it if better connected.

I won’t be going on the Luton thread and passing judgement on their passenger base anytime soon.

Not an expert at all but nor is the Hampshire Chamber of Commerce it would seem. You haven’t put forward a valid reason why the business community needs new holiday routes served by larger aircraft?

I can see why holidaymakers would want these potential new routes though.

Rivet Joint

such a huge demand from all the mentioned,is 164 odd meters of tarmac on a hemmed in tiny airport going to be big enough to support the demand,I hardly think so.

Who on earth mentioned the "mad dogs" & also the visiting IL76...those surely would be enough to scare the natives & inspire a "sloppy" piece of journalism into the bargain.

Back in the day the IL76 sometimes so frightened the locals at STN (& also the airport operator at times if truth be told) that it eventually took the unilateral action to ban them.

After SOU has now failed to keep it local it may possibly be difficult to imagine Southampton Council having the courage of their convictions by overruling democratically elected Councillors & a very large green agenda thus making national headlines.

The PM for the Government is being advised in all matters green by his very own Princess Nut Nut to the detriment of the industry on here & with a planned exemplar grandstand at COP 26 any unwelcome media distraction is not to be welcomed.

Greta will be there.

The announced new coal mine in Cumbria has now being reigned in.

Best hope is to frame the argument as Building Britain/Backing Britain as some of the posts here appear as "robbed" football supporter commentary but it should be noted the PM appears mostly interested in his own short term ism.

LTNman

As mentioned before, whilst the extension will open up more leisure options, it will also greatly help existing operations become more operable. I used the Munich flight when BM operated it a number of times and some of the seats had to remain empty to operate it. The 50-150 seat regional jets would be used on business routes and they currently cannot operate at full potential.

As for leisure, do you think such flights are only about Brits going to the south of Spain to sunbath for a week? I know that’s some airports market but the catchment here is rich and potentially has more sophisticated tastes. City breaks can be served which will also cater for business demand, Berlin for example which BA are operating. Also as mentioned above, the south of England is a holiday destination for continental Europe so it is inward holiday passengers as well. Not to mention continental Europe and anyone else internationally that wants to cruise Europe needs to come here to start their cruise and leave here when it ends.

As things stand the prices for flights at SOU are large as a result of the operational limitations, it’s a whole different story when prices can come down by at least 50%.

So to answer your question the extension is not just about bigger aircraft, it’s existing operations. Plus there are lots of routes where aircraft could serve both leisure and business needs.

j4leaphill

Care to share which airline you are the CEO of? Ever heard of economies of scale?

southside bobby

Agreed the green agenda is becoming a big problem but we are not talking about a new coal power station here, although you would think it judging by some of the residents comments.

I would hope that it falls within the same bracket as HS2 and other transport infrastructure. HS2 is causing huge damage to the environment including various woodlands being cleared and yet it was approved. Hopefully a small runway extension within the airports existing boundary should be fine.

Demand is most definitely there for the extension, from what I can see the airport has handled between 1.7m-2m pa for over a decade. This for a regional airport I would suggest is very good and if they can add a few additional routes, it will easily add on another 500k

Bizarre that you apparently have to live in Southampton or be an airline CEO to comment now.

People are allowed to be sceptical as to what help the new runway will actually be, surely?