Don’t believe their forecast for 2023 was ever 1.2m, instead more like 750k which they should hit. If they can get some summer flying for next year and the odd additional route maybe year round, including MAN x 3 daily with Loganair, 1m could become much more achievable by 2024 year end!

Its not the forcast that I was refering to,its the quoted figure of 1.2 mill pax by Steve Szazlay operations Manager .When consultations were ongoing for the extension he said that the airport was losing 4million a year,and 1.2 million paxs were the break even baseline. If so then its a long way off on the current figures.

Hopefully 2024 will be a little more reflective of their break even ambitions

What the heck - a banana shaped runway?


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c6261229bb.jpg

Ski jump!

At least one, and presumably several, Southampton scheduled carriers will not be using the extension anytime soon.

The runway extension was “opened” by NOTAM with new runway declared distances, however the procedures for updates to AIP information have not been concluded. If you look at the UK AIP September and October planned updates there’s no mention on the runway extension at Southampton. So no official charts, no surveys of new obstacles based on the new runway surfaces and surrounding areas.

Until official data is available from the likes of Jeppesen, Lido et al, via UK AIP updates, the extension is un-useable. No charts. No performance data using the new extension in either direction.

This is interesting,so officially the extension is unusable until nats aip is published in the future?
TCAS FAN please clarify!!

Unofficially all airlines apart from BA have utilised it already

Firstly many thanks for the confidence expressed in my posts.

The NOTAM is official and therefore the increased declared distances can be used operationally for take-off performance purposes, and in the case of RWY 02 improved landing distance. That said it may be possible that some operators may have not have yet updated their own performance charts for SOU to reflect the improved declared distances.

My post 1901 explains where we go following the NOTAM.

Unless the new blast fence/wall north of the runway is of such height that it penetrates the RWY 02 Type A TOCS surface, which I sincerely doubt that it does, nothing has changed with obstacles. Albeit those south of the runway are farther away from the start of take-off point.

Thank you for a clear explanation of the declared distances,I would presume that all operators would want to update there charts asap!

Nothing bent on what I assume to be the original copy on the SOU contractor’s app.

I know - but you might have thought more care would be taken to show off this welcome addition. Even a ground level well framed snap would have looked better :=

Thanks to Horizon Imaging Ltd, who I assume is the drone operator, here is the image on the contractor's app.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....dec802105.jpeg
Bootiful!

PS Nothing to stop you using the new bit for take-off but with the "old" perf figures - used to do that all the time at LGW.

Have you got a “before” photo as not sure how it used to look?

What's that odd shaped bit of tarmac near the piano keys - presumably not a turning circle, as that would be marked?

Thats the old turning circles, first installed when the runway was first constructed in the 1960s, a second added after initial construction.

Here it is.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7beae018c3.jpg

There should actually be some sort of general celebration for this as, in these eco warrior days, there is so little possibility of new or improved aviation infrastructure.

And so it’s been proved right. More hysteria. It’s only been open a few days, give things time to catch up! Aircraft are physically taking off from the new tarmac, what more evidence do you need? There was a calibration flight the other day.

Now that the runway extension is done and dusted, was getting bored so decided to have a look at the "Navigators Quarter" development, which includes the AGS land to the east of the runway, what used to be the 10/28 grass runway many many years ago.

This development is outlined in a website:

https://www.navigatorquarter.co.uk/

You may find it amusing to look at the home page graphics to see what some clown has done to show the runway extension!

The proposed development includes three parcels of land, "Railside" (the current old Locomotive Works site), "Riverside" (east of Campbell Road) and "Skyside" (the AGS land).

On a positive note "Railside" could benefit SOU as the current large/high Loco Works sheds will be demolished. These are a potentially weight limiting obstacle for RWY 02 departures. The question is "how will it be accessed?". All that is currently available is the narrow Campbell Road bridge, with two sharp bends on it. Must be great fun navigating an articulated truck around it.

Same question for "Riverside", only current access is Campbell Road bridge. Doubt if the Campbell Road residents are going to be impressed with all the extra traffic.

Finally, the one that I've previously been banging on about, "Skyside".

Firstly the "SAM" VOR/DME will need de-commissioning, has been talked about in past as part of an on-going NATS UK VOR reduction plan, anyone know the latest on when it goes?

Then of course is the issue of access. Would appear that the only viable option is around the north end of the runway. Just how is this going to work? In a past life the proposed site development was discussed with the somewhat naive view that "no problem, we will install traffic lights which ATC can control", the ATC response was to tell BAA where they could stick their traffic lights, and of course it was not north of the runway!

The next, potentially amusing episode is awaited.

I believe there will be access to all 3 Navigator sites from the airport road and will perimeter around the north of the airfield with a cutting dug at the head of R20

Concur with MARKEYD and flight only release dates are usually Nov/Dec for the following summer. At that point there will be some route announcements for SOU so no need to panic!

Have a look at Google Earth, albeit that it will be a while before the runway extension appears. It should become evident how many rail tracks are in the way, no way is there an economic option for access to Railside from the airport site.

If everything is to access from the airport side, is someone going to fund a new bridge from Wide Lane north of the Terminal and/or replace the current chicane on the current Wide Lane Bridge? In the case of the latter, the airport perimeter road is going to get very busy with 2 million + passengers and Navigator Quarter traffic!

This is beginning to look like something akin to the new Global Airlines! When does the Navigator Quarter merchandise go on sale?

Judging by the illustrations on that website, it does look like the perimeter track round the end of 20 is the way in and out of all three sites (look at the trucks in the illustration). Certainly a very constrained site unless somebody starts adding bridges over the railway lines.

Get a grip sonny. Those aircraft did not need the extra length. Success will be measured on aircraft that need the extra length.

And that doesn’t always happen instantly. Look at LCY. It was years before it was booming.

I’d love to know from what knowledge base you make that statement. The additional runway length has made a massive difference to the E145 performance. I understand ATR72 aircraft which have seen payload restrictions off R20 are seeing similar improvements.

You should remember this contributor has some extreme views. Im sure SOU will be seeing many airbuses in the near future.

Summed up nicely. Forget ATR 72’s, which seem to actually need 1315m at maximum takeoff weight but will use what is available. Success or failure here will be judged on Airbuses.

The plural of Airbus is Airbi.:ok:

The runway extension is apparently completed? If so has someone at SOU forgotten about this NOTAM (C3536/23) that is still current until 25 September?
A)EGTT/QFAAH/IV/BO/A/000/999/5057N00121W005
B)2306270530 C)2309252145
E)AD OPERATING HOURS
MON-SAT 0530-2100
SUN 0630-2100
ANY EXTENSION TO OPR HR WILL ONLY BE GRANTED IN EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES DUE TO RWY EXTENTION WORKS AND ONLY WITH PERMISSION
OF THE AIRPORT DUTY MANAGER (02380 627113)

whats the rush?

That’s great to hear. Do you know what sort improvements for those aircraft it has had? Carry more passengers, burn less fuel etc? Hopefully it results in lower ticket prices.

So where is the evidence? Looking up the manufacturers spec for the ATR72, it stated that at maximum takeoff weight the aircraft needs only 1315m. Why did those figures not apply at SOU?

1315m is at ISA conditions - which assumes no wind 15°C, 1013mbar ambient pressure etc... Aircraft performance can drop off considerably when these values deviate. Those distances also don't factor in the effect of any obstacles around the runway.

The distances available and performance figures remain the same for departures from runway 02 at 1723m TODA. Airlines would have to factor in the shorter distances available for runway 02 for any new route calculation.

This is incorrect ,the declared distance for TORA 02 is 1745mtrs.

But because of the shorter distances it is reasonable to assume that 02 will not be used if the wind is calm so when 02 in use there will always be some headwind to improve performance. There are other examples of regular A320 operations into airfields where one direction is very limiting. The best example that comes to mind is Florence.

Prior to the runway extension during calm or light wind conditions on occasions we received requests when runway 20 was in use for use of runway 02 in order to take advantage of the better TORA, even if this resulted in a slight tailwind component. Now that the extension is in use the situation means that 20 has the superior TORA.

I cannot for one moment believe that AGS made the large capital investment in SOU without having spoken to prospective new operators to ascertain what they need to consider operating from SOU. While now less than 20, I feel sure that operations from 02 would have been considered by prospective operators.