Soton 30 yr plan launched

[poor southerner]

Heard on the radio this morning. Baa launch 30 year plan for Southampton International.

Proposed new terminal to cater for traffic, but no second runway or night flights. They will shortly start talking to the locals about these plans (yeh lot of good that will do).

I take it this means twenty years of dithering before something actually happens or do Baa move more swiftly at regional level. :confused:

[ClickRich]

or do Baa move more swiftly at regional level

I'm not sure the bulk of the dithering has ever been due to BAA- it's the same long, procrastinated process that all airports need to follow to cover the planning bases.

I'm sure there are times when BAA hasn't been as sharp as it might have been in turning things round, but that's a drop in the ocean compared to the planning process they're forced down.

Although the Masterplan is for public consultation, you can clearly see what the airport want and it's their chance to get public support behind it by focussing on the benefits and nipping concerns in the bud early.

It's my unenlightened view that 2015 is a long time to wait for the 'possible' new terminal (even with the various extensions and reconfigurations of the current facilities). I notice that there is uncertainty (and therefore concern) as to whether there would be room for the baggage facilities required within these plans. With doubts like that still there should, or could, they have been more aggressive/ambitious?

What is SOU's relationship like with the local stakeholders? Might they have had to dampen their enthusiasm?

BTW, was it me or was the BBC Local news coverage of this story pathetically dumbed down or what? This is an exciting Masterplan which they filtered down to "New terminal" and footage of decorators finishing out the 1st floor of the terminal. I guess that is all us simple viewers can handle with our tiny minds :rolleyes: Come on BBC, give us the real story. This plan is worth around 100 million quid per annum to the local economy.

Go BAA!

[Groundloop]

And what on earth was that woman on about when she said that when pilots reversed their engines her washing shook! She was miles from the runway.

As you said the BBC made a right hash of the story

[eyeinthesky]

Of course, if BAA hadn't been fool enough to sell/lease or whatever a large parcel of land to the Royal Mail for them to build a sorting centre on, there would be plenty of room NOW!

[Wycombe]

Room for more parking, yes, but no room to expand that other achilles heel at SOU, known as 20/02, and it's proximity to motorways and railway shunting yards.

[TCAS FAN]

Eyeinthesky

Wasn't a case of selling/leasing the land - BAA never bought it in the first place! This was one of the series of short sighted cock-ups by the "world class airport group", who at this hour are now trying to pick up the pieces and develop a long term strategy for SOU.

Have been called out, so haven't got time to go into detail at the moment about the "draft consultation" document, which I have just procurred a copy of.

First impressions are that it has been cobbled together by a group of spin doctors, not technical specialists.

I'll be back!

[eyeinthesky]

Ref 02/20 length:

Given that the motorway at the 02 threshold is already at a lower level than the runway, I would have thought that a runway extension over a tunnel/bridge might be feasible, if expensive!

[HOODED]

Sounds sensible to me they did it at LBA but had to sink the A658 to build the tunnel and I remember them blasting solid rock to do it. Expensive but feasable.

[poor southerner]

IMHO the most realistic option for the runway would be to build a new 02-20 slightly east of its currently location. Because the current one is in the wrong place for any extension. Directly north takes you to the railway station (not just the shunting yard0 and south you have the M27, but also the Ford transit factory, currently preventing an ils on this side.

So you move it all east a bit, buy up the Alstom yard and pirelli factory, all due to close in '06, have a slightly longer 02-20, just add a bit to the north. To allow safely 738, with ils both ends. Have the second terminal where pirelli is so your only building on brown field and the old 02-20 will give you a cheap almost full length taxi. Dig up the old taxiways and you parking problems for the larger stuff are sorted west side, without effecting the ils.

buy the way all the above is copyright by me and can now only be implemeted by paying me a large royalty:ok:

[Groundloop]

Slight problem with buying up the Alstom yard is the EWS depot that sits between the airport and the Alstom works!

[poor southerner]

g-LOOP

I thought they are one off the same (I had a flyer from an estate agent last week (currently moving my business to a new factory) offering the site for short term let, with a map showing the site on offer going south to the tracks by the airport northern). Beside in buying the Alsom yard the thinking was more to prevent anyone building on it, so you have a clear approach and no ils problems. The pirelli yard is ideal for a second terminal. Yes the railway would still need to be re-routed but its a low speed section and would cost less than say moving the M27.

Anyone heard any rumours about the Ford factory lately (move to spain). i know they sold off some of their former warehouses in tower lane to canada life a couple of years ago.

[TCAS FAN]

I'm back!

Firstly the document produced is intended to be the outline of a master plan for airport growth and development over the next 25 (not 30) years. The document is stated to be a draft, put out for consultation to "stakeholders", ie those who have an interest in airport growth/development. A stakeholder includes local authorities and those who live around the airport.

I do not consider myself an airport operational expert, but I know a man who is, and have consequently sought advice.

As indicated in my first response, what has been produced is essentially something that has been put together in an attempt to ameliorate the previous lack of long term planning by BAA, who have been operating the airport for more than 10 years.

This lack of forsight has included their reluctance to purchase the freehold of land in the southwest corner of the airport, at the time that they bought the airport. This land now includes the Royal Mail building. Nett result, nowhere to extend the current terminal building, or provide a cost effective apron extension. Hence the prospect of a second terminal, with all the cost of duplicating facilities, duplicating staff and last but not least, potentially horrific surface transport problems.

When they did develop the airport site, which I do not dispute was long overdue, they ended up building a multi-story car park right next to the eastern section of the apron, which stopped any apron development to lengthen aircraft parking stands to accomodate larger aircraft. The Stands in question are 6-12, which are considerably shorter than the original Stands 1-5, in the cul-de-sac. I say "original" as Stand 1 was subsequently restricted in size due to new building work in its vicinity. Sanction for the current car park was given by senior management staff, against the professional advice of operational staff. Nett result, the arrival next year of 5 Embraer 195s and currently not enough room to park them! Due to their length, which is around three metres longer than a Dash 8 Q400, they are too long to fit on Stands 6-12. Unless it is possible to modify these stands, it will mean angling them across the apron, loosing one possibly two stands in the process. From what I have seen recently, there are frequently 12 night stoppers, should be fun with 10 Stands!

As picked up by one response, the current "Achilles heal" is the runway. When the airport was to be developed by BAA, they entered into what is known as a "Section 106 Agreement" with local planning authorities. This contains a number of environmental and other planning constraints which the airport voluntarily signed up to. By showing a willingness to sign up, the overall planning process was most probably speeded up.

Contained in the Section 106 Agreement are undertakings to limit night flights, thereby removing any chance of SOU becoming a 24/7 airport. Also contained therein, and mentioned in the 25 year draft plan, are constraints on noisy first generation jets (which were banned), training flights (limited to 10500 movements per year) and helicopter movements (limited to 7500 per year). With one flying club priced out and moved to Lee on Solent, and the other with the axe hanging over it, training flights should end up as almost nil. As for helicopter movements, doubt if there have ever been, or will be more than 750 per annum.

The Section 106 Ageement places restrictions on the runway. It cannot be re-aligned more than 5 degrees from the existing, and should not be extended. However (which seems to have been overlooked by previous Airport MDs), there is provision for the airport to in future apply for planning consent to extend the runway, but any application should not cause the runway to be in excess of 2000 metres. If anyone doubts it, obtain a copy of the Agreement, page 13, para 1.6.1 (a) refers.

The draft 25 year plan indicates the possibility of a starter strip at the north end of the runway, up to the existing northern boundary. Scaling this off the drawings contained in the document this looks to be around 150 metres. The starter strip is a contingency measure to allow for the CAA enforcing the current recommended "Runway End Safety Area" (RESA) requirement of 240 metres. The airport currently only has the minimum mandatory 90 metres, which has caused the restricted TORA on runway 20, resulting in a TORA less than the runway published length. A RESA is intended as a safety buffer to minimise the chances of damage to an aircraft overrunning/undershooting the runway. It may be of interest to note that the recommended extended RESA was partially the result of the Citation ending up on the M27 many years ago, albeit that the aircraft landed with a tailwind well in excess of its limit, on a wet runway.

The starter strip issue, according to the draft plan is to ensure that runway "declared distances" are preserved. As with the restricted TORA on 20, the LDA is also restricted, firstly by a displaced threshold, and secondly by the overshoot RESA.

This is where the proverbial plot appears to have been lost. If the 20 LDA is to be retained, in the event of a 240 metre overshoot RESA being implemented for 20, the current threshold (currently inset around 50 metres) will need to go north by 150 metres, placing it around 50 metres from the northern boundary fence. The presence of the fence alone will prevent this. To protect approaching aircraft there needs to be an obstacle free area extending out from a point 60 metres before the threshold, at a slope of 1:50. To permit the new threshold, the fence must go, no road can be constructed (funny but BAA always insisted previously that any road must be in a tunnel) and the rail marshalling yard plus large sheds will need flattening. Nothing in the draft about that, especially as the road linking the new terminal with the rest of the airport is shown running between the fence and the marshalling yard.

Adoption of a "scorched earth" policy north of the runway is also required to provide the 240 metre undershoot RESA, again overlooked. The RESA would of course be part of the existing marshalling yard, which the draft does not show as "Land in control of BAA".

Assuming that "Operation Scorched Earth" can be implemented, one further major improvement will result. It should then be possible to caterogise the ILS to at least CAT 1. From personal experience, it isn't funny having to divert out with a visibility of 1800 metres, because I cannot get visual with a 200 FT cloud base, due to the current mimima imposed by an un-caterogised ILS. I cannot even fly an approach with less than 800 metres RVR, when I should be able to at least try one with the CAT 1 550 RVR metres limit. This is one for aircraft operators to start making noises to BAA about.

"Eyeinthe sky"suggested that the M27 can be bridged. Theoretically this may be possible, but the road level would need to be dropped as high sided vehicles on the motorway are already a take-off obstacle for 20. Additionally, as the road already slopes down from Junction 5, an increased gradient may not be acceptable. If the M27 could be "cut and covered" it would solve the 20 overshoot/02 undershoot extended RESA problem, but would be of no value for 20 take-offs due to the obstacles posed by the trees and hill south of the M27. Additionally, SOU already has a CAA waiver from obstacle clearance requirements on the approach to 02, long term this needs to be resolved by the 02 threshold moving north, ie extending the runway northwards. Back to Operation Scorched Earth!

The draft promises a fuller version of the plan in December 2005, after completion of the consultation process. Hopefully the new version will show an increased area of land "in control of BAA" to protect their main asset, ie Runway 02/20.

[ClickRich]

Interesting read TCAS FAN. Will have to find 5 minutes to soak all the technical details up! In the mean time, I'd like to just comment on...
their reluctance to purchase the freehold of land in the southwest corner of the airport, at the time that they bought the airport

As far as I know it was less a case of 'reluctance' and more a case of the land owner proactively screening that parcel of land out of the deal with BAA. Ok, so perhaps BAA didn't push hard enough to get the land included, but it could well have been a deal breaker. Better to have the airport with constraints than no airport at all.

A very astute deal on the part of Peter de Savery... perhaps to BAA's lament.

[TCAS FAN]

ClickRich

I think that you'll find that Peter de Savery had sold on the southwest and northeast corners to Gazeley Developments. Indications are that BAA would not pay the asking price for the southwest corner, but a subsequent digging in (no pun intended) over the northeast east corner, by insisting that any road go through a tunnel, probably made the land near useless for development, as it couldn't be accessed.

Assume that BAA got the land at a knock down price when they finally bought it from Gazeley's.

Rumour has it that the lease on the Royal Mail building is up in a few years, and they want something bigger, Give them what they want on the east side of the airport, where Terminal 2 is intended, should then permit a terminal extension and additional stands where they should be, on the west side?

One can only hope that BAA may have another agenda, but are playing their cards close to their chest, not wanting to reveal an interest in land west of the runway, and pushing up the price. Sorry BAA!

If more parking stands are going to be required, looking at the alignment of the "Chickenhall Road link" (ie the southern Eastleigh bypass) west of the runway, if the Fire Station and Signature hangar were relocated east side, the current mini cargo building removed (east side?) and fuel farm modified by moving part of it northwards, it should provide another 5 stands, just what is needed by 2015.

If BAA could persuade the tenant of Hangar 1 to move (ie the heirs and sucessors of the original airport owner, ie Nat Somers), who BAA gave an almost indefinite lease to, in exchange for their original almost derelict hangar, which was in the now short term car park, job done. Parking stands and a short term car park (over the railway line and into their newly acquired allotment!) could release space to extend the current terminal. Could it be a lot cheaper than Terminal 2?

[liquid sunshine]

Having reviewed the draft document there does seem to be a real lack of ambition and drive from the management at the airport. I fully understand the restrictions under which the airport operates but much of what is in the draft is too little too late as far as SOU( or EGHI, for all you ICAO lovers) is concerned. The current infrastructure is creaking a little to cope with current demands. There will be no business left if the airport waits 5-10 yrs to make any significant improvements. The management ( i include BAA senior mngt in this) should be looking at the way some of the smaller airports are really driving themselves forward and take a leaf out of their book before it is too late. The likes of INV etc have better landing aids etc, and a very nice roomy terminal than SOU, so I would be intetested to know where exactly SOU see themselves in the overall picture.
I think the draft lacked any real imagination to help expand the airport.

I believe some real creativity and some drive is what is required along the lines of what has been previously discussed to position the airport for what will be a very competitive future.

Perhaps someone might be able to shed some light on the pssibility of redeveloping the exisiting terminal areas. I.E. Building over the top of access roads etc and maybe redesigning the multi storey car park to allow expansion of stands 6-12?:O :(