|
Originally Posted by SKOJB
(Post 11365730)
As I mentioned previous, it seems from the latest S106 that no additional planning is required for this taxiway and therefore it would surely be remiss not to add a bit more tarmac out from stand 14 to runway with equipment already being on site
|
I find it impossible to believe that you could build that taxiway (even then) for circa £40k. Are you sure that that wasn’t just for the asphalt topping and excluded the substantial foundation necessary to achieve an appropriate LCN?
|
Originally Posted by willy wombat
(Post 11367350)
I find it impossible to believe that you could build that taxiway (even then) for circa £40k. Are you sure that that wasn’t just for the asphalt topping and excluded the substantial foundation necessary to achieve an appropriate LCN?
|
I've just been quoted over a grand for a few potholes in my drive! :{
|
Originally Posted by willy wombat
(Post 11367350)
I find it impossible to believe that you could build that taxiway (even then) for circa £40k. Are you sure that that wasn’t just for the asphalt topping and excluded the substantial foundation necessary to achieve an appropriate LCN?
|
Originally Posted by SouthernAlliance
(Post 11367463)
PCN35 already on taxiway A/B so same load bearing I assume would be used for taxiway C
|
Originally Posted by TCAS FAN
(Post 11367475)
That was our plan for the abortive attempt at what would have been an extended TWY A. With 400+ metres lopped of the 20 backtrack with an extended TWY A, life would have been so much simpler for both 20 & 02 ops, the added bonus being a frequent ability for many 02 arrivals to vacate without needing a backtrack
|
Originally Posted by TCAS FAN
(Post 11367475)
That was our plan for the abortive attempt at what would have been an extended TWY A. With 400+ metres lopped of the 20 backtrack with an extended TWY A, life would have been so much simpler for both 20 & 02 ops, the added bonus being a frequent ability for many 02 arrivals to vacate without needing a backtrack
Surely it would be lunacy not to implement this taxiway when construction eventually starts?.If movements increase post extension it could be costly if its not inplace! In addition to the start of the runway extension ,I wonder why the aircraft stands 1-5 havnt been reconfigured for A320 parking ? |
Originally Posted by RW20
(Post 11367497)
TCAS FAN
Surely it would be lunacy not to implement this taxiway when construction eventually starts?.If movements increase post extension it could be costly if its not inplace! In addition to the start of the runway extension ,I wonder why the aircraft stands 1-5 havnt been reconfigured for A320 parking ? |
Originally Posted by RW20
(Post 11367497)
TCAS FAN
Surely it would be lunacy not to implement this taxiway when construction eventually starts?.If movements increase post extension it could be costly if its not inplace! In addition to the start of the runway extension ,I wonder why the aircraft stands 1-5 havnt been reconfigured for A320 parking ? As you have probably deduced, the lunacy kicked in well above my pay grade! Time will tell whether this still prevails. |
Decent year of pax numbers for the airport with 600k+ in 2022 (263k for ‘21), this on the back of Covid, loss of BE business totalling 90% of flights and business travel not returning to pre pandemic levels. With the extension being available within the next few months and hopefully the addition of a select number of new routes with a LCC, the airport will be targeting 1m p/a as its first landmark towards break even and ultimate profitability. Won’t be easily achieved but one that is not insurmountable as per my post #1197. Look forward to what 2023 delivers!
|
Originally Posted by stewyb
(Post 11369587)
Decent year of pax numbers for the airport with 600k+ in 2022 (263k for ‘21), this on the back of Covid, loss of BE business totalling 90% of flights and business travel not returning to pre pandemic levels. With the extension being available within the next few months and hopefully the addition of a select number of new routes with a LCC, the airport will be targeting 1m p/a as its first landmark towards break even and ultimate profitability. Won’t be easily achieved but one that is not insurmountable as per my post #1197. Look forward to what 2023 delivers!
The long protracted small runway extension is yet to begin,and will have little effect on pax numbers for 2023. Marketing for the airport needs to.improve,the BA cityflyer operation seems to be fading fast,which is such a shame,but hasnt been promoted well from the airport. To make a profit and make full use of the extension there needs to be a major drive by the airport owners to attract airlines and promote routes now, 2024 needs to be defining for the airport future. |
RW20 - agree on many points, however SOU has a higher ceiling for future pax growth compared to BOH, which I suggest has almost maxed out with RYR being the dominant carrier and won’t produce any further significant expansion, not withstanding an additional airline or two arriving which I don’t foresee whilst O’Leary is around. You are correct in saying 2024 is a huge year for SOU and airline/s need to be lined up ready to achieve these forecasts during the period but this will only come with clever regional marketing and to maximise on spreading the message wide and far!
|
Southampton S23
Relating to the discussion about passenger numbers, I thought I'd put one of these summaries together, with some comparisons to the last 'good' summer in 2019. Based on w/c 17th July. A long way to go but not as much difference as I expected flight wise, although average aircraft size is down too. Aer Lingus Regional Belfast City - 13 weekly AT7 Dublin - 13 weekly AT7 Aurigny Alderney - 14 weekly D28 Guernsey - 7 weekly AT7 BA Cityflyer Alicante - 1 weekly E90 Bergerac - 1 weekly E90 Dublin - 1 weekly E90 Edinburgh - 1 weekly E90 Faro - 1 weekly E90 Limoges - 1 weekly E90 Malaga - 1 weekly E90 Palma - 3 weekly E90 Blue Islands Guernsey - 17 weekly AT7 Jersey - 24 weekly AT7 Eastern Airways Belfast International - 7 weekly AT7 Dublin - 7 weekly AT7 Manchester - 11 weekly AT7 Flybe Belfast City - 7 weekly DH4 KLM Amsterdam - 13 weekly E75/E90 (8x/5x) Loganair Edinburgh - 30 weekly ER4 Glasgow - 30 weekly ER4 Newcastle - 18 weekly ER4 TUI Palma - 2 weekly E90 (operated by BA Cityflyer) Summary 224 weekly departures (321-344 in S19) 32 daily departures (46-49 in S19) |
BA EDI x 1 weekly?
|
Originally Posted by SouthernAlliance
(Post 11369807)
BA EDI x 1 weekly?
|
Good information about the timetable Adfly as always
Heads up on the Bergerac, it’s now only 1 flight a week as Tuesday and Sunday been cancelled ( or about to be pulled ) BA Cityflyer are only basing 4 aircraft into Southampton this summer at peak months compared to 7 last summer |
Originally Posted by rog747
(Post 11364624)
Flybe announced summer 2023 yesterday, but SOU didn't get a mention :(
Only 2023 route seems to be BHD Belfast City just once daily at lunchtimes - (Not operating until 22 February 2023) Toulon and Avignon flown last summer are not listed as flying (yet >? Fly Maybe lol) All gone again - nothing in the local SOU rag, but the EXT paper picks it up and on morning TV news. Flybe goes under again |
SOU have got off lightly this time - wonder if this down to luck or judgement on behalf of the airport management?
|
Originally Posted by TCAS FAN
(Post 11317442)
With the current speculation as to whether or not the runway extension work has commenced, I offer the following observations, and one suggestion.
While there may be some preparatory work in progress, the planning and execution of the project is strictly regulated by a CAA aerodrome development process, as set out in CAP 791. As a runway extension is classified IAW CAP 791 as a “major” development there are multiple regulatory hoops through which AGS must negotiate, and pay the CAA for the privilege of doing so! First hoop, before any work can commence, is CAA approval of the overall project planning and execution plan. The CAA are not renowned for their speed of work, so hopefully the CAP 791 process has already been commenced by AGS. Part of the planning process is recognition of the impact that the construction work will have on any aircraft movements, and putting in place mitigation measures to ensure that they can safely continue. An overview of the project, its scheduling and its temporary impact on aircraft movements will be most likely be set out in a UK AIP Supplement, which itself may have short term issues highlighted or notified via NOTAM as the project progresses. When the AIP Supplement is published it can be accessed online via: https://nats-uk.ead-it.com/cms-nats/...p-supplements/ AIP Supplements are published every 28 days. As of today nothing is currently shown. The next batch of Supplements are due for publication on 17 November. Quite apart from the formal notification of the date that work will commence, I would think that the AGS media organisation will not miss the opportunity to have some symbolic turf cutting ceremony. or similar, immediately before construction starts. My suggestion? Maybe the BOH Airport Managing Director could be invited to do it? Latest batch of AIP Supplements released today (AIRAC 3/2023), no sign of anything relating to the runway extension, next batch should be released around 9 March which, if the actual extension work is to commence early/mid April, should contain the schedule, the impact that it will have on continued runway operations during the WIP, and any other development work that will take place concurrently. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.