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.