Southampton-2

[Planespeaking]

Lets get real, firstly is no early indication that SOU would receive any of these aircraft (if and when it happened) secondly I'm sure they'd be planned to be utilized out of LHR/MAN instead (this is Virgins main priority afterall) thirdly with pax numbers falling dramatically (100k+ to date this year?) SOU might become the target for the wrong reasons and Virgin's other priority of culling their non profitable routes.
It is possible with the Stobart/Virgin alliance they could be used to restart the SEN route to MAN to feed into the Virgin network.

Are there any routes ex SOU that could support the capacity offered by the A220 aircraft at the moment?

[rog747]

TUI Summer 2020

Looks like the following routes will operate at the moment in the latest update

Tuesday PMI Volotea B 717
Saturday MAH Flybe DHC8

Following services have been dropped are Palma on a Sat and IBZ on a Thursday both with Volotea

If TUI cannot sell holidays on a SAT Palma or an Ibiza weekly flight then something is very wrong...They would normally sell like hot cakes surely.
There was hardly any last minute availability this season S19 from SOU to either of these.

[Sharklet_321]

The more likely issue for TUI at SOU is aircraft performance. Volotea can’t operate unrestricted with the 717 or the A319. Due to lack of alternative aircraft I’m not surprised it came to an end. Separately, the pax experience of a Q400 down to Spain is hardly ‘TUI product’. Doubt that will last either.

If this rumour of 220’s is true, they would be PERFECT for an airport like SOU.

[RW20]

It's been coming for a while,the decline of the Summer routes will surely be complete by the end of 2020!
The lack of investment ,continued poor management,and continued under performing will eventually lead to just a few Q400 movements with the lack luster Flybe. Can it get better?,the answer is a big No!!!
It's simply a big disappointment given the airfields transport links and location.

[sixchannel]

The more likely issue for TUI at SOU is aircraft performance. Volotea can’t operate unrestricted with the 717 or the A319. Due to lack of alternative aircraft I’m not surprised it came to an end. Separately, the pax experience of a Q400 down to Spain is hardly ‘TUI product’. Doubt that will last either.

If this rumour of 220’s is true, they would be PERFECT for an airport like SOU.
And in all this possible 220 excitement, has anyone got an idea IF they COULD actually operate with decent loads jn and out of SOU?

[SWBKCB]

The lack of investment ,continued poor management,

Is it that simple - plenty of routes have come and gone where terminal/airfield restrictions have played no part?

[stewyb]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-50011548

Well well, there's a surprise!

[TCAS FAN]

And in all this possible 220 excitement, has anyone got an idea IF they COULD actually operate with decent loads jn and out of SOU?

If there was any reason be be excited for SOU, the A220 is it. Absolutely no contest compared with the E195 and very under-powered E175.

Looking at the basic take-off performance figures the A220-100 needs 1463 metres TORA and A220-300 needs 1890 metres TORA at MTOW. Indicated maximum range is 3300 NM + for both, ie around 5 hours flight time. Flying time to the Canaries and Cyprus around 4 hours. With a prospective TORA (with 20 starter strip) of just under 1800 metres, and the south end trees reduced in height - I leave our readers to do the maths!

Lets hope that current speculation is correct.

[rog747]

TORA and or LDA (total lengths available) is not what on the day, can a flight planner or pilot use for their performance calculations - One can only use the length of runway what the book says the aircraft and its payload can lift off or land with, depending on the various other parameters, and weather occurring on the day (Of which SOU is somewhat blighted as we know, plus our increasingly hot summers days)

The holy grail is not necessarily the Canaries, Cyprus and the Greek Islands.
At the moment we cannot always even get a full load off the deck in the winter for a short Ski flight to GVA on a A320Neo.

A couple of days ago on Facebook/Twitter SOU airport announced yet more Public ''Open days'' to come and meet the management and discuss the runway planning permission and for SOU's expansion plans.
https://twitter.com/SOU_Airport/status/1182324965984608256/photo/1

[TCAS FAN]

TORA and or LDA (total lengths available) is not what on the day, can a flight planner or pilot use for their performance calculations - One can only use the length of runway what the book says the aircraft and its payload can lift off or land with, depending on the various other parameters, and weather occurring on the day (Of which SOU is somewhat blighted as we know, plus our increasingly hot summers days)

The holy grail is not necessarily the Canaries, Cyprus and the Greek Islands.
At the moment we cannot always even get a full load off the deck in the winter for a short Ski flight to GVA on a A320Neo.

A couple of days ago on Facebook/Twitter SOU airport announced yet more Public ''Open days'' to come and meet the management and discuss the runway planning permission and for SOU's expansion plans.
https://twitter.com/SOU_Airport/status/1182324965984608256/photo/1

I did say " basic take-off performance figures", these will of course be impacted by current temperature, wind velocity and runway state (if not dry). Even with these factored in the A220 is everything and more that SOU could wish for. If you want to take a very pessimistic view draw a 2000 NM radius from SOU and see what will be the possibilities, with the likelihood that this radius can be extended even further.

The total runway length is not necessrily considered for take-off/landing calculations. SOU currently has 1723 metres but only 02 has this as a TORA, RWY 20 is less than this by a need to provide a Runway End Safety Area (RESA) as a contingency to allow for an overrun. Simlarly 02 & 20 both have displaced thresholds which reduces the Landing Distance Available (LDA) below 1723 metres, due to obstacles in the approach area and/or a need to provide an undershoot RESA.

"The book" as you refer to will have the available TORA and LDA factored in with the current temperature/wind velocity/runway state to indicate what is currently available to use as a maximum take-off/landing weight.

From what is indicated by SOU can we assume that submission of a planning application is not imminent?

[rog747]

I did say " basic take-off performance figures"

From what is indicated by SOU can we assume that submission of a planning application is not imminent?

We'll have to see the outcome of any fleet expansion at Virgin/Flybe.

As for the PP - I thought the PP had already gone in!...
Seems not then - we are still at the consultation stages?

[SKOJB]

Planning application is indeed imminent!

[inOban]

Best practice in planning applications is to work with the planning authority until you have an application which the officials will support. It is rare for the council to overrule their officials, and if they do, a refusal is likely to be overturned on appeal.

[adfly]

Usual summary is below. As expected, looking a little quiet, but I'm gonna put on my optimistic hat and say that hopefully it is the last time I'll have to make this comment. Dropped Flybe routes are overall balanced out by increases on a lot of the core routes (AMS, DUB, GLA, JER, MAN, CDG) which is hopefully an indication that they are all making reasonable money - and thus unlikely to be culled when Flybe rebrand to Virgin Connect next summer.


Aurigny

Alderney - 14 weekly D28
Guernsey - 12-13 weekly AT4


easyJet Switzerland

Geneva - 2-3 weekly 319/20


Flybe (5-6 Q400 Based)

Amsterdam - 29-33 weekly Q400
Belfast City - 15 weekly Q400
Bergerac - 2-3 weekly Q400
Chambery - 2 weekly Q400
Dublin - 24 weekly Q400
Edinburgh - 26-27 weekly Q400/E75
Geneva - 3 weekly Q400
Glasgow - 25-27 weekly Q400
Guernsey - 19-25 weekly AT4/7 (Blue Islands)
Jersey - 30 weekly Q400 / AT4/7 (Blue Islands)
Leeds/Bradford - 15 weekly J41 (Eastern)
Manchester - 36 weekly Q400/E75
Newcastle - 16-18 weekly Q400
Paris CDG - 15 weekly Q400


Overall

Flybe weekly departures: 257-271 (W18/19 - 228-282)
Other airline weekly departures: 30-31 (W18/19 - 27-35)
Overall weekly departures: 287-302 (W18/19 - 255-317)
Overall average daily departures: 41-43 (W18/19 - 36-45)

[SotonFlightpath]

Usual summary is below. As expected, looking a little quiet, but I'm gonna put on my optimistic hat and say that hopefully it is the last time I'll have to make this comment. Dropped Flybe routes are overall balanced out by increases on a lot of the core routes (AMS, DUB, GLA, JER, MAN, CDG) which is hopefully an indication that they are all making reasonable money - and thus unlikely to be culled when Flybe rebrand to Virgin Connect next summer.


Aurigny

Alderney - 14 weekly D28
Guernsey - 12-13 weekly AT4


easyJet Switzerland

Geneva - 2-3 weekly 319/20


Flybe (5-6 Q400 Based)

Amsterdam - 29-33 weekly Q400
Belfast City - 15 weekly Q400
Bergerac - 2-3 weekly Q400
Chambery - 2 weekly Q400
Dublin - 24 weekly Q400
Edinburgh - 26-27 weekly Q400
Geneva - 3 weekly Q400
Glasgow - 25-27 weekly Q400
Guernsey - 19-25 weekly AT4/7 (Blue Islands)
Jersey - 30 weekly Q400 / AT4/7 (Blue Islands)
Leeds/Bradford - 15 weekly J41 (Eastern)
Manchester - 36 weekly Q400
Newcastle - 16-18 weekly Q400
Paris CDG - 15 weekly Q400


Overall

Flybe weekly departures: 257-271 (W18/19 - 228-282)
Other airline weekly departures: 30-31 (W18/19 - 27-35)
Overall weekly departures: 287-302 (W18/19 - 255-317)
Overall average daily departures: 41-43 (W18/19 - 36-45)

Thank you for such a comprehensive update. It once again shows just how well SOU caters for its core market, and despite the ‘doom mongers’ constant pessimism, Southampton is able to sustain a domestic and short regional network that should be the envy of most similar sized airports.

Although we are looking at short haul routes operated by relatively small aircraft at SOU, it should be noted that Southampton has around ten times the number of daily commercial passenger departures compared with say Bournemouth for example.

If this can be maintained, the addition of a sprinkling of low cost seasonal routes after the completion of the short runway extension and terminal upgrade will see Southampton thrive.

[stewyb]

Thank you for such a comprehensive update. It once again shows just how well SOU caters for its core market, and despite the ‘doom mongers’ constant pessimism, Southampton is able to sustain a domestic and short regional network that should be the envy of most similar sized airports.

Although we are looking at short haul routes operated by relatively small aircraft at SOU, it should be noted that Southampton has around ten times the number of daily commercial passenger departures compared with say Bournemouth for example.

If this can be maintained, the addition of a sprinkling of low cost seasonal routes after the completion of the short runway extension and terminal upgrade will see Southampton thrive.

well said indeed!👍

[Sharklet_321]

It's also good news to see Flybe surviving on the Geneva route despite easyJet - showing that an LCC can operate alongside the regional operator

[stewyb]

It's also good news to see Flybe surviving on the Geneva route despite easyJet - showing that an LCC can operate alongside the regional operator

For whatever reason EZY have cancelled Tue flights apart from Xmas/Feb half term!

[Rivet Joint]

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/17977396.southampton-airport-expansion-plans-submitted-eastleigh-borough-council/

[MARKEYD]

Southampton has published more information with a time line of what they see may happen should the runway starter strip be approved

Its available to see on their web site and at the drop in sessions that are currently going on

Nov - Dec 19 Planning application available to see for public and put in to council

Feb 20. Outcome
Spring / summer 20 Construction begins , which will be at night time , weekends and when airport is closed

April 20 Runway extension comes into full use

[SKOJB]

Southampton has published more information with a time line of what they see may happen should the runway starter strip be approved

Its available to see on their web site and at the drop in sessions that are currently going on

Nov - Dec 19 Planning application available to see for public and put in to council

Feb 20. Outcome
Spring / summer 20 Construction begins , which will be at night time , weekends and when airport is closed

April 20 Runway extension comes into full use

In addition, work on Marlhill Copse has commenced

[RW20]

There is considerable opposition building regarding SOU planning permission application,with the climate activists rampant it is noway certain that permission will be given without some form of enquiry,thus delaying the possible work into 2021 at earliest.The 2005 master plan should haven driven the development back then,and as such we would have had a sustainable, equipped airport with increasing Pax of 3million + by now. What we have however is a floundering airport relying on a floundering airline ,and hoping for a planning permission in a hostile anti-pollution activist society.

[stewyb]

There is considerable opposition building regarding SOU planning permission application,with the climate activists rampant it is noway certain that permission will be given without some form of enquiry,thus delaying the possible work into 2021 at earliest.The 2005 master plan should haven driven the development back then,and as such we would have had a sustainable, equipped airport with increasing Pax of 3million + by now. What we have however is a floundering airport relying on a floundering airline ,and hoping for a planning permission in a hostile anti-pollution activist society.

Let’s wait and see shall we before you continue to spout off more rubbish!

[RW20]

As always you come on to this site with verbal abuse,but no real constructive reply,get real ,SOU needs fresh management and owners to progress!

[stewyb]

As always you come on to this site with verbal abuse,but no real constructive reply,get real ,SOU needs fresh management and owners to progress!

You clearly haven't read or viewed the copious amounts of factual data/analysis/media releases the airport are putting out there now and don't tell me its all a smokescreen and fake news. Millions of pounds have been spent to get this far in the planning process and just maybe we should trust the management and owners on this one instead of your continuous negativity. Yes the airport has fallen behind in recent times but lets embrace the fact that something positive is at last being done about it and keep everything crossed for a positive outcome (of which I am confident)!

[rog747]

Sorry although I am a local and would love this airport to show some strengths and balls to succeed and grow, I have to agree that I seriously have the feeling that SOU owners & management are fiddling whilst Rome burns -
There have been no dynamics shown in new routes, new carriers, and building for the future has been lazy to say the least...

How many more roadshows and consultations for SOU do they need?
The planning permission - has it even been submitted formally ?

How many operators do they need to fall by the wayside, plus the Fly Lolo debacle, and TUI now dropping routes (IBZ) and frequencies (PMI) for Summer 2020 just when the package holiday industry actually has plenty of customers looking for holidays with the loss of TCK.
All we have seen is a badly leaking sieve, sorry chaps.​​​​​​, that's my tuppence.

Look at the growth of SEN and BRS in recent years, even BOH & EXT, despite the industry knock backs of the loss of MON, BMI, TCK and the 737 MAX debacle.

[MARKEYD]

Bit of a mixed day as today is the last flight of the Flybe EMB 175 on the sun routes ( as far as we know at the moment )

Alicante is the last jet scheduled in tonight

Unfortunately it looks like no jet movements are planned for summer 20 except the Volotea B717 to Palma on behalf of TUI

[Rivet Joint]

Southampton has published more information with a time line of what they see may happen should the runway starter strip be approved

Its available to see on their web site and at the drop in sessions that are currently going on

Nov - Dec 19 Planning application available to see for public and put in to council

Feb 20. Outcome
Spring / summer 20 Construction begins , which will be at night time , weekends and when airport is closed

April 20 Runway extension comes into full use

Exciting times. Big infrastructure projects like this take a while to come to fruition, with a lot of hoops to jump through. Great to see the MD attending the drop in sessions and driving this through. I think it’s important to remember the years of no activity were under the previous MD, who was a total no mark, but he’s Bristol’s problem now.

as I have said before, the future is orange :)

[LTNman]

There is no certainty that the council will be sympathetic to a runway extension. The council have only to look at the extra noise now being generated at Southend and the complaints that are being made there due to its runway extension as a reason to refuse planning permission at Southampton.

[TCAS FAN]

There is no certainty that the council will be sympathetic to a runway extension. The council have only to look at the extra noise now being generated at Southend and the complaints that are being made there due to its runway extension as a reason to refuse planning permission at Southampton.

The difference between SEN and SOU is that SOU is locked into a Section 106 Agreement with the LPA which severely restricts flights between about 2300 and 0630. Unlike SEN which I believe can operate H24, with night cargo flights recently started it appears that some elements of the local population have kicked off about these.

Cannot see that the LPA will be able to refuse planning permission for the starter strip on noise grounds.

[LTNman]

There were complaints before the cargo started and like SOU SEN also have a ban on overnight passengers flights. Never under estimate the residents when they kick off. The council will be mindful of public opinion unlike at Luton where the council owns the airport and doesn’t give a sh*t

[rog747]

I dont think we can compare SEN anymore with SOU.
SEN now have 3 x FR 737-800's and 4 or more EZY A320's based there, plus other daily Airbus's coming in with Wizz starting up, & Air Malta etc -
Stuff that SOU can only ever dream of...

Social media reports vocal objections at the recent roadshow.
It maybe now much harder to get PP through due to the increase in Climate, Noise, and Eco objections, especially after recent events with the climate warriors in London and at LCY.

SOU had opportunities years ago to get this PP through and they stalled it - That ship has now well and truly sailed, and it will likely be an uphill battle to convince planners and locals alike the benefits of the airport expansion now.

God help us now if the LHR 3rd runway starts any serious planning....
And LTN has had night flights in and out since the days of Autair BAC 1-11's going off at 02.00 hours, 3 of them at a time....LOL

[TCAS FAN]

There were complaints before the cargo started and like SOU SEN also have a ban on overnight passengers flights. Never under estimate the residents when they kick off. The council will be mindful of public opinion unlike at Luton where the council owns the airport and doesn’t give a sh*t

SOU has effectively an near total ban on flights after 2300, unless they are delayed schedules from earlier that day. No more than 10 per month are permitted.The starter extension is of course not going to change that.

[RW20]

TCAS FAN
Given work is underway in Marlhill copse for aerodrome safeguarding,will this have any significant improvements to RW20 takeoff restrictions.
Interesting times with the planning permission soon,but I read it might meet huge opposition given the environmental climate!

[TCAS FAN]

TCAS FAN
Given work is underway in Marlhill copse for aerodrome safeguarding,will this have any significant improvements to RW20 takeoff restrictions.
Interesting times with the planning permission soon,but I read it might meet huge opposition given the environmental climate!

Yes a very positive impact. I don't have specific performance figures for current types using SOU but when the E145s first arrived I worked closely with their operator to improve performance by removing obstacles. Was successful with removing redundant poles from the railcard on north end, Marhill Close was the holy grail that Bl***y Awful Airports Plc never had the will to pursue. For the E145 reduction of tree height was worth up to 3 tonnes extra take off weight.

It will take about 3-4 months for the improvements to be useable. Once the work is completed the airport's surveyors will need to verify the new obstacle environment, then submit details to NATS who will then produce and publish new Type A charts.

[RW20]

TCAS FAN
As always a clear analysis of the ongoing operations .Its clear that the airport owners and management have been woeful in the development potential of the airport up to know. Indeed the present institution seem to be similar,time will tell,but is it to late?

[Rivet Joint]

I dont think we can compare SEN anymore with SOU.
SEN now have 3 x FR 737-800's and 4 or more EZY A320's based there, plus other daily Airbus's coming in with Wizz starting up, & Air Malta etc -
Stuff that SOU can only ever dream of...

Social media reports vocal objections at the recent roadshow.
It maybe now much harder to get PP through due to the increase in Climate, Noise, and Eco objections, especially after recent events with the climate warriors in London and at LCY.

SOU had opportunities years ago to get this PP through and they stalled it - That ship has now well and truly sailed, and it will likely be an uphill battle to convince planners and locals alike the benefits of the airport expansion now.

God help us now if the LHR 3rd runway starts any serious planning....
And LTN has had night flights in and out since the days of Autair BAC 1-11's going off at 02.00 hours, 3 of them at a time....LOL

You are comparing post development SEN with pre development SOU? We absolutely can compare the two airports, not only are they very similar in a lot of ways, but more importantly, they represent opportunities for airlines to keep growing outside the congested big London airports. The airlines need these airports as much as the airports need them. also, don’t forget that the original 2005 master plan did not feature a runway extension from memory. Why might the need for an extension now be necessary? Why would a pension fun owned airport loosen the purse strings without a guaranteed reward? It all points to a low cost operator already being in the wings.

as to the environmental bollocks, I suppose the whole of London should grind to a standstill including all its airports because some unemployed people are pretending they care about the environment because it’s currently fashionable to do so? The extension will pass through planning as long as it meets all the necessary legal requirements, which judging by the thorough process SOU is going through, it will. Nothing would ever get built if residents and environmentalists had their way, they contribute only a very small part to any proper argument against planning being given.

My only concern is that there is no mention of the terminal upgrades, which presumably are to follow at a later date under a separate planning permission. I really do think they need to expand the security, baggage handling etc before servicing more large jets. The odd one they service now always seems to be on the ground for an unusually long amount of time.

[stewyb]

You are comparing post development SEN with pre development SOU? We absolutely can compare the two airports, not only are they very similar in a lot of ways, but more importantly, they represent opportunities for airlines to keep growing outside the congested big London airports. The airlines need these airports as much as the airports need them. also, don’t forget that the original 2005 master plan did not feature a runway extension from memory. Why might the need for an extension now be necessary? Why would a pension fun owned airport loosen the purse strings without a guaranteed reward? It all points to a low cost operator already being in the wings.

as to the environmental bollocks, I suppose the whole of London should grind to a standstill including all its airports because some unemployed people are pretending they care about the environment because it’s currently fashionable to do so? The extension will pass through planning as long as it meets all the necessary legal requirements, which judging by the thorough process SOU is going through, it will. Nothing would ever get built if residents and environmentalists had their way, they contribute only a very small part to any proper argument against planning being given.

My only concern is that there is no mention of the terminal upgrades, which presumably are to follow at a later date under a separate planning permission. I really do think they need to expand the security, baggage handling etc before servicing more large jets. The odd one they service now always seems to be on the ground for an unusually long amount of time.

Think I read Rivet that there will only be minimal upgrades to the terminal in this phase not requiring planning. Let’s get the airfield infrastructure up and running and a LCC in first!

[rog747]

RJ and Stewy -

I hear what you say about the comparisons and agree to much of what you both have aforementioned, thanks.

But as to the ''environmental bollocks'' - I'm afraid in this ''eco-age'' nowadays, we will see more and more vociferous objections and pro-action being taken -
As to how that may affect SOU remains to be seen.
I trust it will not impede plans, but we cannot shy away from the facts that Aviation is becoming rather more a tetchy subject with the likes of planners and public.

[SKOJB]

Planning application was submitted to the council last week!

[Dropoffcharge]

Planning application was submitted to the council last week!
Is currently nothing in the way of an application on the EBC webite??

[Dropoffcharge]

RJ and Stewy -
But as to the ''environmental bollocks'' - I'm afraid in this ''eco-age'' nowadays, we will see more and more vociferous objections and pro-action being taken -
As to how that may affect SOU remains to be seen.
I trust it will not impede plans, but we cannot shy away from the facts that Aviation is becoming rather more a tetchy subject with the likes of planners and public.

Exactly that, it's also worth noting that EBC themselves declared an "Environmental and Climate Emergency" in July of this year, so any application will be met by strong opposition on this reason alone.

[rog747]

Planning application was submitted to the council last week!

From SOU MD 5 days ago -
A planning application which, if successful, will enable this is in the process of being submitted to Eastleigh Borough Council and is due to go live for public consultation in November...
Not being pedantic but that to me means they are still tuning up for the show....

The Q&A read is worth a peek - scroll down
https://www.southamptonairport.com/masterplan/runwayextension/

[rog747]

More Public SOU master plan consultation open days announced for New Forest residents.

Flybe's new owners Virgin Connect have hinted they are intending to replace the Dash 8

Plus the chief executive Mark Anderson said the airline could stop flying between regional airports where the journey can be made easily by train or car due to climate reasons -
Well that's a great start for SOU then, plus a bit of an own goal for VC in ''Flight shaming'' themselves.
Goodness, the Eco movements are so going to love that one LOL

[Flitefone]

More Public SOU master plan consultation open days announced for New Forest residents.

Flybe's new owners Virgin Connect have hinted they are intending to replace the Dash 8

Plus the chief executive Mark Anderson said the airline could stop flying between regional airports where the journey can be made easily by train or car due to climate reasons -
Well that's a great start for SOU then, plus a bit of an own goal for VC in ''Flight shaming'' themselves.
Goodness, the Eco movements are so going to love that one LOL

I attended the conference at which the Flybe CEO was asked about new aircraft. The remarks he made were in context of serving LHR and feeding Virgin Atlantic. The Virgin CEO also spoke about an enlarged role at LHR for their new acquisition (VC). Nothing was said about dates other than that LHR expect R3 at end 2026, Virgin 2030 and Emirates 2035 if ever.

FF

[Soton27]

They can’t submit any application until they run the consultation events and write up a Statement of Community Involvement - if they don’t do that it would be refused straight away. Nowadays 90% of the work is done before the submission of the formal application to avoid delays because of government targets blah blah following the embarrassment of the Heathrow T5 inquiry.

[rog747]

Just wondered if FLYBE have dumped SOU-VRN next Summer?

Inghams Holidays shows they fly on WEDS and SATS for their package holidays to Lake Garda
Flt nos. BE1223/1224 but are these charters then?

Thanks R.

[PDXCWL45]

Just wondered if FLYBE have dumped SOU-VRN next Summer?

Inghams Holidays shows they fly on WEDS and SATS for their package holidays to Lake Garda
Flt nos. BE1223/1224 but are these charters then?

Thanks R.
Guess we will find out eventually when they release summer 2020!

[stewyb]

Guess we will find out eventually when they release summer 2020!

certainly taking their time!

[rog747]

Guess we will find out eventually when they release summer 2020!

Apologies and thanks - I duly thought that Summer 20 was already on sale by now.

[RW20]

I don't think there could be a worse time to submit expansion plans for SOU,with an accerarating " Climate emergency " dominating the headlines ,the prospect of SOU getting planning permission must be rapidly declining on a daily basis.There can't be much of a appetite for LPA to give approval , I think SOU owners and management missed the expansion boat a few years ago.

[Sharklet_321]

SOU stands a better chance than LHR given the public interest in LHR and the slightly lower national interest level in SOU

[TCAS FAN]

I don't think there could be a worse time to submit expansion plans for SOU,with an accerarating " Climate emergency " dominating the headlines ,the prospect of SOU getting planning permission must be rapidly declining on a daily basis.There can't be much of a appetite for LPA to give approval , I think SOU owners and management missed the expansion boat a few years ago.

We are all entitled to have our own opinion, I together with I suspect many others on this thread will disagree with yours, and the logic behind it. If applied I cannot see any prospect of LHR getting a third runway!

[RW20]

TCAS FAN
although I am a fan of your explanations over the years regarding SOU development or should I say up and downs of its rather slow progress,I cannot see that LHR will not get the Third runway given the economics ,however SOU location,severve development restrictions ,and environmental issues,lend it to be a prime candidate to be eventually sold off at a handsome profit to the owners.

[rog747]

We are all entitled to have our own opinion, I together with I suspect many others on this thread will disagree with yours, and the logic behind it. If applied I cannot see any prospect of LHR getting a third runway!

I fully agree with RW20's posts and Dropoffcharge & Sharklet's too, and I voiced all that myself last week above in here -

SOU has let the expansion ship sail, and will have more problems now getting PP for any expansions.

Yes they may succeed (hope they do, I use the airport, and I would like more offerings)
but this is last chance saloon to get it right IMHO.

- and as for a 3rd runway at LHR?
NOT gonna happen in our lifetimes...My Tuppence :*;)

[stewyb]

A quick look at SOU departures board today is showing 44 flights, compare that to BOU x 5, NWI x 5, EXE x 20, CWL x 19, DSA x 5 & NCL x 44. Not bad for an airport that some say should be consigned to a housing estate. Add a LCC with a select choice of routes and you have a thriving regional!

[Rivet Joint]

A quick look at SOU departures board today is showing 44 flights, compare that to BOU x 5, NWI x 5, EXE x 20, CWL x 19, DSA x 5 & NCL x 44. Not bad for an airport that some say should be consigned to a housing estate. Add a LCC with a select choice of routes and you have a thriving regional!

Exactly. The genuine posters on here really need to stop rising to the trolls though. Remember, no amount of logic will counteract their constant and irrational negativity. They are looking for bites. If you ignore a pest it will go away eventually. This thread has become the most embarrassing on pprune by a mile, some people really need to grow up.

[The Nutts Mutts]

A quick look at SOU departures board today is showing 44 flights, compare that to BOU x 5, NWI x 5, EXE x 20, CWL x 19, DSA x 5 & NCL x 44. Not bad for an airport that some say should be consigned to a housing estate. Add a LCC with a select choice of routes and you have a thriving regional!

Indeed. In addition I think there were about 10 bizjet movements before lunchtime on top of that, with no doubt more this afternoon. Some people on here have a definite anti-SOU agenda for whatever reason. I suspect their affections lie with BOH as they're spotters there and they're worried about SOU expanding and potentially threatening their favourite airport. If you listen to those people (and let's face it, they're the ones who post on here most often) you'd be forgiven for thinking that SOU is an empty, desolate tumbleweed of an airport when in actual fact you've only got to visit or fly through it to see that it's anything but, even following the recent contraction of its main operator.
Yes, its infrastructure has meant that so far it has missed out on most of the UK-Europe LOCO action, but there is a plan in place to change that and vast sums of money are being invested to futureproof the airport. If you're someone who wants to see SOU do well it's actually a pretty positive time. If you're a BOH spotter with a penchant for trolling their local (perceived) rival, perhaps less so.

[stewyb]

If I read it correct, a quick glance on Skyscanner shows BE S20 added and French regions holding up well with the continuation of 8 routes, Verona still in and as expected the removal of med sun. All in all could have been a lot worse with the expected VS cull!

[SWBKCB]

What expected cull? All the comments from Virgin Connect have been about regional connectivity - anyway, from their press release:

SOUTHAMPTON
o Increased frequency – Edinburgh (to 5 daily with new early morning departure); Newcastle (to 4 daily); Paris Charles de Gaulle (to 3 daily Mon-Fri and twice daily on Sundays)

[Bournemouthair]

just been on south today about the flybe holiday flights and that people will have to travel to Heathrow and Gatwick

Why is the news so negative about Bournemouth

[Bournemouthair]

Faro
Palma
Alicante
Malaga
Biarritz
Nantes
Bordeaux
Düsseldorf
Bastia

[Sharklet_321]

Not sure anyone is surprised about Portugal/Spain as everyone had been pre warned about the removal of the 195’s. Düsseldorf is more to do with Flybe closing their overseas base and no reflection on SOU. I am surprised by the French routes being cut but the capacity is more than being made up by additional flying to Edinburgh, Newcastle and Paris CDG. I use CDG a lot so this is welcome news. The MD should’ve focused on that good news instead of talking about the cuts,

[Wycombe]

Faro
Palma
Alicante
Malaga
Biarritz
Nantes
Bordeaux
Düsseldorf
Bastia



From a quick check it looks like TLN (Toulon) can be added to that list.
The regional France routes that look to have survived are BES, AVN, PGF, LIG, RNS, LRH and EGC.
VRN also looks to be still available, 2 weekly WeSa (as this year)

[stewyb]

From a quick check it looks like TLN (Toulon) can be added to that list.
The regional France routes that look to have survived are BES, AVN, PGF, LIG, RNS, LRH and EGC.
VRN also looks to be still available, 2 weekly WeSa (as this year)

TLN looks available on Skyscanner 1 weekly Sun!

[Rivet Joint]

Faro
Palma
Alicante
Malaga
Biarritz
Nantes
Bordeaux
Düsseldorf
Bastia



Yet still more flights in a day than BOH gets all
week. Nice troll attempt :D

[Rivet Joint]

If I read it correct, a quick glance on Skyscanner shows BE S20 added and French regions holding up well with the continuation of 8 routes, Verona still in and as expected the removal of med sun. All in all could have been a lot worse with the expected VS cull!

Exactly. It’s Virgin Connect, not Virgin bucket and spades.

This has been on the horizon for years and now leaves the market even more appealing for the forthcoming Orange lot. Interesting that they just snapped up the TCX LGW slots for £36m. Are people on here really going to still be in denial about their forthcoming arrival at SOU? And a base at SOU will cost a lot less than £36m.

[SWBKCB]

So EZY buying more slots at LGW and reducing the flights they operate out of SOU is the sign of an imminent presence? Why have BE dropped the sun routes - maybe they aren't core to the main business, maybe the EMB leases were expensive - but if the margins were there??

[BOHEuropean]

Düsseldorf is more to do with Flybe closing their overseas base and no reflection on SOU.

This is incorrect... Dusseldorf is still a base this winter and has not closed down; additionally - SOU-DUS was always operated by Southampton based crew. I'd assume it just wasn't performing to expectations.

Also maybe worth noting that the press-release; "Flybe, Europe’s largest regional airline, has today (13th November 2019) announced the first phase of its 2020 Summer schedule featuring 104 routes with a total choice of up to 2,500 flights a week across the UK and regional mainland Europe." says that this is their first-phase of the summer 2020 schedule - so maybe other routes will see increase frequency, new destinations or return of destinations?

[RW20]

SWBKCB
At last some sensible words,it's clear that River Joint is living in a dream world,if it was 5 years ago and the runway extension complete,I'm sure that Easy would be based at SOU.However it's whole new ball game now!.The airport missed the great opportunity years ago,the best that SOU can hope for is a few Sun route packages,and thats if and it's a massive if the development plans get approval.

[Reversethrustset]

Yet still more flights in a day than BOH gets all
week. Nice troll attempt :D

Why can't you lot just get along? Seriously you should all be embarrassed and ashamed of yourselves. Do you actually know what your petty quarrels look like to visitors of this thread? It's childish, grow up.
Surely it's in everyone's interest that BOTH airports prosper rather than listen to supposedly grown men/women argue the toss about who's airport is more shiny. Get a grip.

[adfly]

Why can't you lot just get along? Seriously you should all be embarrassed and ashamed of yourselves. Do you actually know what your petty quarrels look like to visitors of this thread? It's childish, grow up.
Surely it's in everyone's interest that BOTH airports prosper rather than listen to supposedly grown men/women argue the toss about who's airport is more shiny. Get a grip.
This 100%. The constant doom mongering, recycling of the same post and endless slagging off and accusations of trolling whenever someone mentions BOH from different posters on this thread is tiresome and childish.

How hard is it really to have a sensible conversation/debate about SOU (and also BOH for that matter) without resorting to this?

[Knife-Edge]

^^^ Here Here, Exactly This ^^^ . Some of the posters here should be confined to ‘Jet Blast’ where they can set up a thread called ‘my airport is better than yours’.

Unless there is a dramatic change of circumstances SOU should be a thriving business orientated regional airport and BOH a thriving leisure orientated regional airport, each playing to its strengths.

[gkmeech]

SOU Management confirmed to me in a tweet ‘Hi Graham, Flybe is reducing services, which is regrettable. However, this reinforces the case for investment in our runway to ensure we can offer more choice for passengers. We’re having discussions with other airlines to backfill routes and growth plans continue unaffected. FP

[Planespeaking]

SOU Management confirmed to me in a tweet ‘Hi Graham, Flybe is reducing services, which is regrettable. However, this reinforces the case for investment in our runway to ensure we can offer more choice for passengers. We’re having discussions with other airlines to backfill routes and growth plans continue unaffected. FP

Well bearing in mind the somewhat febrile posts on this thread I will risk the flak by saying SOU Management would say that wouldn't they?. It's management speak for stating the ' bleedin' obvious'. Surely it's the prime responsibility of any airport to maximise it's facilities to attract commercial carriers, especially when it is operationally marginal because of physical constraints.
If an airport does not have a runway long enough to offer viable payloads with modern equipment, and constrains destination options any prospective carrier is going to think twice. It's basic economics , and no wishful thinking will change that.

[stewyb]

Any runway improvement won't be ready for next summer but when Marlhill Copse is complete (by Spring '20), I believe this adds a few tonnes to take off weight. Every little helps as they say and might sway an airline to run a sun route ot two. TCAS FAN may be able to clarify this!

[TCAS FAN]

Any runway improvement won't be ready for next summer but when Marlhill Copse is complete (by Spring '20), I believe this adds a few tonnes to take off weight. Every little helps as they say and might sway an airline to run a sun route ot two. TCAS FAN may be able to clarify this!

Thank you for the confidence in my technical competence!

Improvements to RWY 20 takeoff weights resulting from the tree work cannot be quantified until new Type A Charts are published. As mentioned in my previous posts I would speculate that they will not appear until late February/March, probably too late for S20 schedule planning.

[Wycombe]

TLN looks available on Skyscanner 1 weekly Sun!

Quite so, missed that one :)

I wonder if anything further will come when the next (final?) tranche of the Flybe S19 timetable is announced?

[Rivet Joint]

Why can't you lot just get along? Seriously you should all be embarrassed and ashamed of yourselves. Do you actually know what your petty quarrels look like to visitors of this thread? It's childish, grow up.
Surely it's in everyone's interest that BOTH airports prosper rather than listen to supposedly grown men/women argue the toss about who's airport is more shiny. Get a grip.

If you looked at the history you would see that my posts are in support of SOU, there is one poster who I think we all know has some serious issues, as there is absolutely no rationale behind posting the same negative post over and over again. I like you detest the SOU v BOH debate (it’s like comparing apples with oranges), but let’s no forget what thread this is? It’s the SOU thread. So if you are looking for a way forward, perhaps the BOH loyal posters could stop being children and posting negative comments about SOU on the SOU thread? I do not look at the BOH thread, but I suspect there are no pro SOU supporters posting comments reveling in BOHs indefinite stagnation.

Deapite all the doom doom and gloom, all of which is perfectly explainable and not SOU specific, the future is very bright for SOU and all the dithering was done under the watch of a known procrastinator. I have every faith in the new MD driving SOU on to better things. In fact he appears to eat and sleep SOU judging by his social media activity.

[Rivet Joint]

So EZY buying more slots at LGW and reducing the flights they operate out of SOU is the sign of an imminent presence? Why have BE dropped the sun routes - maybe they aren't core to the main business, maybe the EMB leases were expensive - but if the margins were there??

The answers to your points have been known for a while. The Embraer leases were a very bad deal for BE, and they have been trying to get rid of them for years. The sun routes have always been on borrowed time. The issue has been that no other operator really has the aircraft to make the sun routes work, but SOU are finally addressing this by extending the runway etc. I do not want to keep bringing up SEN, but look how well it’s doing since it’s runway was extended etc. Low costs carriers have to keep growing, the second they take the foot of the gas they usually falter. EZY buying slots at LGW for a large amount of money is proof of this. Unless another operator with slots goes bankrupt (cannot think of any apart from Tui which is unlikely), then they have to open bases at surrounding airports like SEN, SOU etc. We cannot judge SOU until the infrastructure that low cost operators with their bigger aircraft require is put in place. Plans are clearly in place for this to happen shortly. Cheer up everyone.

[SWBKCB]

But on other routes BE have replaced expensive leased EMB with cheaper Stobart ones - clearly the SOU sun routes didn't warrant that. And looks like GVA didn't either.

[Wycombe]

And looks like GVA didn't either

GVA is operating, starting as usual just before Xmas, as far as I can see?

As far as I know this was mainly (or exclusively) a Q400 route.

[LGS6753]

Deapite all the doom doom and gloom, all of which is perfectly explainable and not SOU specific, the future is very bright for SOU and all the dithering was done under the watch of a known procrastinator. I have every faith in the new MD driving SOU on to better things. In fact he appears to eat and sleep SOU judging by his social media activity.



I would be astonished if the MD spends his spare time on social media. That should be the responsibility of a marketeer.

[mwm991]

All three of AGS airports are struggling just now. Their ability to manage and run airports successfully is very questionable imo.

[RW20]

All three of AGS airports are struggling just now. Their ability to manage and run airports successfully is very questionable imo.
Looks like the opposition to any expansion is rapidly increasing,as time progresses with no planning application still,surely the chances of anything happening is diminishing at a fast rate

[MARKEYD]

RW20

Do us all a favour and put a sock in it now , seriously it’s beyond boring

[stewyb]

RW20

Do us all a favour and put a sock in it now , seriously it’s beyond boring

Don’t worry, he will have sweet FA to talk about once it gets passed!

[rog747]

BBC and Echo both today reports large petition lobbying councillors against awarding the SOU PP for runway expansion citing the enviro and climate - Not going to go away anytime soon...

[stewyb]

BBC and Echo both today reports large petition lobbying councillors against awarding the SOU PP for runway expansion citing the enviro and climate - Not going to go away anytime soon...

I wish you would!!

[rog747]

I wish you would!!

Charming retort - But as they say don't shoot the messenger - I'm merely stating factual news of the day :rolleyes:

[Asturias56]

Why get on some's case when they report important news on here? It's more relevant than pages of discussion about who "might" be coming next year or the year after.

Just because it's not good news doesn't mean to say it should be ignored.

[SotonFlightpath]

As I have mentioned several times on this forum, SOU is very different to most other regional airports - as I have previously expressed, it's more of a 'local London City', catering very well for those wishing to connect to the near continent and around the British Isles. Sure, there have been a few knocks to this traffic too recently, the demise of BMI Regional and the route to Munich, the closure of the Flybe/Connect service to Dusseldorf, and the withdrawal of KLM.

But the demand for these short hop regional connections has been positively reinforced by the recent significant increase in frequency of services to AMS, CDG, EDI and MAN, demonstrating just how popular these services continue to be.

I'm a firm supporter and user of SOU, and live only five miles from the airport in a rural area under one of the flightpaths. It is noticeable that my neighbours are very accepting of the turboprops and small regional jets, but always comment and object to the occasional visits of A320s and 737s, so even I have to concede that there is likely to be a good deal of resistance to the runway expansion plans.

Maybe we have reached the point where SOU needs to re-focus even more on very short-haul regional connectivity targeted very much at the business community and the well-healed city break market using small aircraft (like LCY) and leave the bucket and spade market to more suitable alternatives like BOH.

Very few other small regionals have such a dense and frequent domestic service as Southampton. I feel whatever happens, with such a thriving and vibrant business community in a very affluent area, one way or another SOU will continue to be successful at what it does best.

[TCAS FAN]

BBC and Echo both today reports large petition lobbying councillors against awarding the SOU PP for runway expansion citing the enviro and climate - Not going to go away anytime soon...

Its never going to go away, there will always be NIMBYs. When I was a lad 90% of the SOU noise complaints came from much less than 1% of the surrounding population. Something that we were never allowed to ask was "When did you buy your house? If it was after about 1911 there has always been an airport close by, so if you don't like aeroplanes, why buy a house near an airport?"

Closer to the present, how many remember the daily BUA BAC 1-11 from/to Glasgow, that was real noise!

Unless there is going to be some changes proposed to the current Section 106 Agreement, which I find extremely doubtful, ie either the airport trying to extend operations past 2300 or the LPAs trying to further restrict operations, just exactly what is the environmental impact going to be? If you are going to object then quantify it and provide evidence to show just exactly what, beyond the current situation, is going to further adversely impact the environment.

[Planespeaking]

BBC and Echo both today reports large petition lobbying councillors against awarding the SOU PP for runway expansion citing the enviro and climate - Not going to go away anytime soon...
At SEN when the extension of the runway by 1000ft was approved an anti airport pressure group called SAEN (Stop Airport Expansion Now) forced two Judicial Reviews both of which found against them. They then sought a third only for the judge to throw out their application and to say they were wasting the court's time.

It is up to the airport owners/ operators to be prepared to fight on several fronts, some which will possibly include legal expenses. That will show how serious they are with their plans.

SAEN are still very active, especially as in the last few days Stobart have announced they expect SEN pax numbers to increase significantly with a throughput of 10m and plans to go to 20m in the medium term. That last figure is not remotely possible within the confines of the cap on ATMs and limitations on local infrastructure. But ten out of ten for ambition...and it helps to boost investors sentiment!!

Go for it SOU!

[LTNman]

Its never going to go away, there will always be NIMBYs. When I was a lad 90% of the SOU noise complaints came from much less than 1% of the surrounding population. Something that we were never allowed to ask was "When did you buy your house? If it was after about 1911 there has always been an airport close by, so if you don't like aeroplanes, why buy a house near an airport?"
.

That is a ridiculous statement as justification for an extended runway. Not everyone is an aircraft or airport fan so when people move house they will be aware of the airport and what flies in and out. They will also allow for some expansion but they would not have allowed for a runway extension so they have every right to complain.

At SEN when the extension of the runway by 1000ft was approved an anti airport pressure group called SAEN (Stop Airport Expansion Now) forced two Judicial Reviews both of which found against them. They then sought a third only for the judge to throw out their application and to say they were wasting the court's time.

And those people who lost now get woken up by 737 freighters that could not operate without an extended runway. Fan boys of airports don't care about how airports affect peoples lives. They don't care about the environment or noise as they just want to count new routes as though it was some sort of league table. Yes I get it as this is Pprune but a little compassion and sympathy is in order sometimes for those that just want to get on with their lives without runway extensions that will blight their homes.

[RW20]

Stewyb
Usuall reply with head in the sand. To get approval now is going to be extremely unlikely. SOU will have to accept that further decline in pax numbers will happen,as the limitation of its airside potential is underlined. Flybe dictate it's survival,but for how long?

[Reversethrustset]

I don't think it's unlikely, what I do think is that getting the go ahead could be a very drawn out and lengthy process

[TCAS FAN]

[QUOTE=LTNman;10622722]That is a ridiculous statement as justification for an extended runway. Not everyone is an aircraft or airport fan so when people move house they will be aware of the airport and what flies in and out. They will also allow for some expansion but they would not have allowed for a runway extension so they have every right to complain.

Never posted this to justify an extended runway, just stating facts.

We are talking about less than 200 metres extension. What is going to be the result? It will not open the doors to wide bodied aircraft (runway too narrow) or 24 hour operations (due to the Section 106 Agreement). To use your own words we are talking about “some expansion”, the first runway development, apart from re-surfacing, for about 40 years.

[SKOJB]

Planning application live on council website!

[Rivet Joint]

[QUOTE=LTNman;10622722]That is a ridiculous statement as justification for an extended runway. Not everyone is an aircraft or airport fan so when people move house they will be aware of the airport and what flies in and out. They will also allow for some expansion but they would not have allowed for a runway extension so they have every right to complain.

Never posted this to justify an extended runway, just stating facts.

We are talking about less than 200 metres extension. What is going to be the result? It will not open the doors to wide bodied aircraft (runway too narrow) or 24 hour operations (due to the Section 106 Agreement). To use your own words we are talking about “some expansion”, the first runway development, apart from re-surfacing, for about 40 years.



Exactly. It does make me laugh when people from other threads come on here to belittle SOU. I’m sure said poster wouldn’t have the same point of view if it was a debate about expanding LTN.

The simple fact of the matter is people want and need to fly from SOU, unlike a lot of airports which people only use because they have no choice. The extinction lot simply want to ban all flying, despite the fact thousands of people will lose their jobs and civilisation will go backwards 100 odd years. If people like that and some of the posters on here had their way, we would all still be living in caves and rubing sticks together. Constructive debate is always welcome, but not irrational negativity.

So news flash, SOU is going to get its runway extension. Just as SEN did, which by the way is open at night, so SOU with its restricted hours will have an easier time of it. The runway will eliminate thousands of unnecessary car journeys every year, and create hundreds of new jobs. It’s win win, and SOU just needs to jump through all the planning hoops which they are clearly doing.

N.B just another reminder to all posters to ignore the troll on here. Like all trolls, he survives off bites. Don’t rise to it.

[Rivet Joint]

Planning application live on council website!

Nice spot! It’s all coming together :D :D :D :D

[LTNman]

[QUOTE=TCAS FAN;10622754]

Exactly. It does make me laugh when people from other threads come on here to belittle SOU. I’m sure said poster wouldn’t have the same point of view if it was a debate about expanding LTN.


i am not belittling SOU. I am just saying residents have a right to object and to be heard. As a point of interest I oppose any expansion of Luton Airport. The difference between LTN and SOU is that Luton Council has its fingers in the till at LTN so ignores residents.

Anyway back to a news report. I have to say I find councillors concerns in Southampton refreshing as it is an example of democracy working. It it is allowed they will have reviewed the pros and the cons. https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18049580.protesters-campaign-southampton-airport-expansion/

[BACsuperVC10]

Why can't you lot just get along? Seriously you should all be embarrassed and ashamed of yourselves. Do you actually know what your petty quarrels look like to visitors of this thread? It's childish, grow up.
Surely it's in everyone's interest that BOTH airports prosper rather than listen to supposedly grown men/women argue the toss about who's airport is more shiny. Get a grip.

Here Here...I'm not from the area, but seems to me both airports can offer different products to the south / south west of England market.

[MerchantVenturer]

SOU is not the only regional airport facing strong opposiiton to its expansion plans.

BRS wants to further expand its infrastructure and have its current 10 mppa cap lifted to 12 mppa. As with its last major expansion application (which was approved in 2011) there is a well-orchestrated campaign that objects to that airport growing further. In fact, the current planning application was lodged with the local council (North Somerset unitary authority) a year ago next month and a determination date is still to be set. It won't be until next year now.

LBA wants to build a new terminal and opposition to that is strong too.

If regional airports around the country are prevented from expanding we as a nation will have to look to see how our economy and way of life can be moulded to accept that situation. It would contrast sharply with the likes of China that plans to build over 200 new airports in the next 15 years and India with 100 new ones planned in an even shorter timescale.

[TCAS FAN]

Planning application live on council website!

A large portion of the Application relates to additional car parking, involving removal of the large mounds located west of the road leading to the long term car park. Hopefully someone has carried out some investigative work on them - they are not mounds of earth!

[RW20]

A large portion of the Application relates to additional car parking, involving removal of the large mounds located west of the road leading to the long term car park. Hopefully someone has carried out some investigative work on them - they are not mounds of earth!
TCAS FAN
So what could be the problem with them?
Also in the plans the approach lighting,and I guess that it's a crossbar and Centreline lights have to be removed,will this effect the minimal for the cat I ILS approach in bad weather.

[TCAS FAN]

TCAS FAN
So what could be the problem with them?
Also in the plans the approach lighting,and I guess that it's a crossbar and Centreline lights have to be removed,will this effect the minimal for the cat I ILS approach in bad weather.

They are where most of the concrete and rubble from the old airport buildings ended up!

In order to retain the current RVR minima the current elevated lighting will have to be inset into the new paved surface of the starter strip.

[RW20]

They are where most of the concrete and rubble from the old airport buildings ended up!

In order to retain the current RVR minima the current elevated lighting will have to be inset into the new paved surface of the starter strip.
So at present there are two crossbars ,one of these will have to be inserted in the extension?
If this is so is this not very unusual and potentially prognostic?

[stewyb]

They are where most of the concrete and rubble from the old airport buildings ended up!

In order to retain the current RVR minima the current elevated lighting will have to be inset into the new paved surface of the starter strip.

I notice on the plans that the extended car park is ‘subject to demand’ so maybe that suggests they won’t be carrying out works straight away?

[TCAS FAN]

So at present there are two crossbars ,one of these will have to be inserted in the extension?
If this is so is this not very unusual and potentially prognostic?

Not unusual if you have a displaced threshold, as is the case with RWY 20. Just up the road at Farnborough their RWY 24 has three or four inset crossbars due to a very large threshold displacement.

[stewyb]

Not unusual if you have a displaced threshold, as is the case with RWY 20. Just up the road at Farnborough their RWY 24 has three or four inset crossbars due to a very large threshold displacement.

Many airports have inset crossbars including SEN on runway 23. Do you think TCAS FAN they should position another crossbar in front of the ILS on 02?

[TCAS FAN]

Many airports have inset crossbars including SEN on runway 23. Do you think TCAS FAN they should position another crossbar in front of the ILS on 02?

Presumably you mean the ILS localiser antenna. If so the answer is “no”. RWY 02 is equipped with what is described as a “simple approach light” system which only requires one crossbar. Unless the overall length of the current 02 approach lighting system can be significantly extended there is no justification for additional crossbars as it will not improve the RVR minima.

[RW20]

TCAS FAN
Thanks for the explanation on the crossbars,although I can understand that the LDA for 20 will not change,would I be right in saying that the LDA for 02 would increase as there is an extra piece on its northern end?

[TCAS FAN]

TCAS FAN
Thanks for the explanation on the crossbars,although I can understand that the LDA for 20 will not change,would I be right in saying that the LDA for 02 would increase as there is an extra piece on its northern end?

IMHO yes, but not much as there will need to be RESA provided to cater for an overrun. Any increase will be dependant upon what distance any blast screen is from the end of paved surface.

As SOU is frequently compared with SEN, SOU already has longer LDAs than present at SEN.

[Red Four]

So how long are the existing RESA's at SOU? An arrestor bed would seem to indicate an area of CAA concern. Edit to add, I have just seen, 90m each end.

[FrequentlyFlying]

People should stop winding and others stop biting - the application is finally live so IT HAS HAPPENED. I come from a long service in Local Authority Estates & Planning background - so yes I have an idea of what this means and likely next moves. Pressure will be massive from locals who rightly can say pollution noise and air will be considerably risen from a 3 base LCC A320 base or 7378 - 18- 24 movements? Regardless councillors will back residents - planning committee will look at business impact on community ALSO. If you work or live at the airport do not underestimate this factor even in the current climate. I would advise once comments goes live you encourage all your fellow workers and family and fiends to place a comment IF YOU SUPPORT -(same applies for those that don’t) - you do not have to live adjacent to comment should go without saying. But volume matters in tight planning decisions. If their is seen a ‘balance’ in public opinion it helps any ‘positive minded’ councillor on the committee to go out on the ‘economic and job aspect’. BE AWARE politics will play a huge part and expect it to be drawn out (a year could easily pass) even expect a refusal following a recommendation from committee over ruling the Authority allocated planner. This won’t be end. I would expect any good planning application consultant will be expecting this to go to appeal. Here I would expect less emotion and more business sense. So if you want the expansion comment and make it clear this could be a life or death of a commercial asset to an area and the job it begins. Presuming it’s Eastleigh Planning so don’t expect any ‘City’ love to come across, they won’t necessarily feel too much affection for how important it is to Southampton City. Good luck and I am sure many of you are hoping the future is Orange!

[RW20]

People should stop winding and others stop biting - the application is finally live so IT HAS HAPPENED. I come from a long service in Local Authority Estates & Planning background - so yes I have an idea of what this means and likely next moves. Pressure will be massive from locals who rightly can say pollution noise and air will be considerably risen from a 3 base LCC A320 base or 7378 - 18- 24 movements? Regardless councillors will back residents - planning committee will look at business impact on community ALSO. If you work or live at the airport do not underestimate this factor even in the current climate. I would advise once comments goes live you encourage all your fellow workers and family and fiends to place a comment IF YOU SUPPORT -(same applies for those that don’t) - you do not have to live adjacent to comment should go without saying. But volume matters in tight planning decisions. If their is seen a ‘balance’ in public opinion it helps any ‘positive minded’ councillor on the committee to go out on the ‘economic and job aspect’. BE AWARE politics will play a huge part and expect it to be drawn out (a year could easily pass) even expect a refusal following a recommendation from committee over ruling the Authority allocated planner. This won’t be end. I would expect any good planning application consultant will be expecting this to go to appeal. Here I would expect less emotion and more business sense. So if you want the expansion comment and make it clear this could be a life or death of a commercial asset to an area and the job it begins. Presuming it’s Eastleigh Planning so don’t expect any ‘City’ love to come across, they won’t necessarily feel too much affection for how important it is to Southampton City. Good luck and I am sure many of you are hoping the future is Orange!
So effectively the airport management have no chance of getting underway in April 2020?,and given your assessment of a refusal extending the consultation by at least a year.My question is doesn't this give more time for the environmental activists like extinction rebellion to generate huge opposition?

[FrequentlyFlying]

So effectively the airport management have no chance of getting underway in April 2020?,and given your assessment of a refusal extending the consultation by at least a year.My question is doesn't this give more time for the environmental activists like extinction rebellion to generate huge opposition?

NO - I don’t think I quite said it’s a given it won’t just pass, but I would be surprised given the make up of that particular Authority.
its likely to get drawn out yes, so much at stake and I would expect the Airport management to be ready for it. All I would say is don’t underestimate commenting - it will come down to jobs vs environment. Eastleigh is currently Liberal Democratic controlled by a large majority. They tend to go with the community feeling as less likely to be (terrible stereotyping I know) ruthless business men. The Council will not give much interest to the City of Southamptons interest. However I would not be surprised if we end up with a Conservative National Govt that IF the application is refused and goes to S.o.S appeal that decision gets overturned on appeal and pass (with Caveats of some
kind In faux respect of the original decision)
Again if you work at the airport or have friends or want a LCC at SOU COMMENT!! The Local Planner allocated may well be on your side. The comments against will be well orchestrated and numerous from a well organised network. It will look like a massive wave against. I’d have gone about application obviously way way earlier but also tried to stage it and slowly. Let stages slip quietly into planning over a period. A Big Bang often is unpredictable.

[TCAS FAN]

So how long are the existing RESA's at SOU? An arrestor bed would seem to indicate an area of CAA concern. Edit to add, I have just seen, 90m each end.

SOU has a Code 3 runway (iaw CAP 168/ICAO Annex 14). As such it is required to provide a minimum RESA length of 90 metres. This is in addition to the runway strip end which extends for 60 metres beyond the end of the TORA. Consequently a minimum of 150 metres overrun must be provided.

The recommended RESA length is 240 metres. If an aerodrome cannot provide this length a risk assessment must show that any risks of non containment of an overrun are at a sufficently low level as to become tolerable. Mitigation included in the assessment may include runway friction characteristics, which can normally be improved by grooving of the runway surface to assist with drainage in wet conditions.

Any increase in 02 TORA/LDA may be minimal, this is of course is due to the need to provide a RESA beyond the declared TORA.

Assuming that SOU owns the land out to the second 20 approach lighting crossbar (if they don't now is possibly the time to dust off the cheque book and go speak to the railyard owner) there is about 230 metres available, giving a possible RESA length of 170 metres with the current runway, less whatever a blast screen is going to take up. Just how much of this can be clawed back by a risk assessment to add to the current 02 TORA/LDA?

Looking at 20 TORA, which is currently 1650 metres (less than the 1723 metre runway length due to RESA requirement at the south end), with an addition of 164 metres on the north end there will be a total possible TORA of 1814 metres. However as the runway width does not meet Code 4 runway criteria, the maximum declared TORA of 1799 metres for a Code 3 runway will apply. This then extends the current RWY 20 90 metre RESA by another 15 metres. RWY 20 LDA cannot be increased as there remains a need for the current 20 displaced threshold.

Final runway TORAs/LDAs after the extension will accordingly rest on how robust a risk assessment SOU can produce to demonstrate a tolerable level of safety with less than the recommended 240 metre RESAs.

[stewyb]

Surprised to see that the airport have not included the northern taxiway within their planning submission and instead state that this will only be carried out in the future once there is a suitable number of runway movements. I thought it would have been cheaper to complete whilst equipment is on site for extension!

[TCAS FAN]

Surprised to see that the airport have not included the northern taxiway within their planning submission and instead state that this will only be carried out in the future once there is a suitable number of runway movements. I thought it would have been cheaper to complete whilst equipment is on site for extension!

Agree totally. Bl***dy Awful Airports Plc missed the original boat when the runway was being resurfaced, at the time circa £40K to add the missing link to the north end of TWY A.

An extended RWY 20 is going to increase the backtrack to further reduce the flow rate. If other LCCs are as vociferous as Ryanair when it comes to turnaround times, the current log jams at Hold B1 are going to cause considerable aggravation for the airport operator.

[stewyb]

Agree totally. Bl***dy Awful Airports Plc missed the original boat when the runway was being resurfaced, at the time circa £40K to add the missing link to the north end of TWY A.

An extended RWY 20 is going to increase the backtrack to further reduce the flow rate. If other LCCs are as vociferous as Ryanair when it comes to turnaround times, the current log jams at Hold B1 are going to cause considerable aggravation for the airport operator.

Maybe they will lay down a little bit of extra tarmac at night when no one is looking!;)

[Sharklet_321]

Why wasn’t the terminal expansion also submitted?

[stewyb]

Why wasn’t the terminal expansion also submitted?

This is phase one up to 3m pax p/a. Assume the terminal will follow in the future!

[TCAS FAN]

Maybe they will lay down a little bit of extra tarmac at night when no one is looking!;)

The availability of Google Earth will probably mean no.

[RW20]

The availability of Google Earth will probably mean no.
This is classic SOU!,no taxiway means delay,if the management thinks that this is acceptable then they are very much mistaken!
Obviously there is not the financial backing to give the airside facities needed with what a runway extension needs. In addition with no planning application for terminal improvements,means many wet and winded pax trying to board a 320!
I cannot see how any LCC will entertain setting up an operation with SOU with the very limited proposals .

[inOban]

Wet and 'winded' passengers do just that at much colder and wetter places than SOU.

[stewyb]

This is classic SOU!,no taxiway means delay,if the management thinks that this is acceptable then they are very much mistaken!
Obviously there is not the financial backing to give the airside facities needed with what a runway extension needs. In addition with no planning application for terminal improvements,means many wet and winded pax trying to board a 320!
I cannot see how any LCC will entertain setting up an operation with SOU with the very limited proposals .

I agree, how much extra would it cost to put in a taxiway of minimal length, just crazy!

[Asturias56]

"means many wet and winded pax trying to board a 320"

That's been the SOP at Aberdeen for 40 years - - and TBH teh weather there is a lot worse than at SOU

[Asturias56]

RW20 is correct - you MUST comment whenever there is a Planning Application. It's one of the first things the Councillors look at - you don't have to outnumber the greens - just show there is a significant body of opinion in favour. That pushes things in the direction of the Planning Officers opinion - tho TBH if the professional planners don't like it you're pretty much lost even on appeal.

[shamrock7seal]

Southend requires aircraft to backtrack on their runway, and they are handling 2.5m pax per annum currently with a projection to 10mppa.

I don't see a parallel taxiway being as critical as additional car-parking. You have to get your priorities right and in this case SOU does have its priorities right.

No airline will say 'oh we can't fly into SOU because they don't have a full length taxiway' it will just require a work-around. What is important is the minimums for the runway lengths and any associated payload penalties. What's also important is being able to deal with a wider catchment area - hence the need for additional car-parking.

[inOban]

I would have thought that most of the objections would be ruled inadmissible. Unlike, say, the proposed developments at Luton, everything is within the the current boundary which is zoned for its current use. Just as you can't object to plans for housing across your back fence if the land is already zoned for that. Too bad if it spoils the view. As regards the entirely valid green agenda, surely the USP of SOU is its train station. There's no reason why most of its passengers need to come by car, which by increasing congestion and emissions could be a valid objection.
Perhaps the only longstay parking should be for electric vehicles?

[welkyboy]

Southend requires aircraft to backtrack on their runway, and they are handling 2.5m pax per annum currently with a projection to 10mppa.

I don't see a parallel taxiway being as critical as additional car-parking. You have to get your priorities right and in this case SOU does have its priorities right.

No airline will say 'oh we can't fly into SOU because they don't have a full length taxiway' it will just require a work-around. What is important is the minimums for the runway lengths and any associated payload penalties. What's also important is being able to deal with a wider catchment area - hence the need for additional car-parking.


You only have to back track at Southend if the runway use is 05.

[TCAS FAN]

You only have to back track at Southend if the runway use is 05.

And it’s about 300 metres less than will be necessary for RWY 20 when the extension is completed.

[RW20]

You only have to back track at Southend if the runway use is 05.
Then that's not a big issue,as our weather predominantly is westerly .Its plan and clear that the ommision of the new taxiway will be a concern if the SOU prediction of a 50% pax and movements increase.
​​​​​​

[Sharklet_321]

i'm still not convinced that back-tracking is an issue. Even Luton requires some back tracking at both ends and they're nearing 20m pax a year. For an airport the size of SOU anything up to 6m pax a year should be easily absorbed especially if aircraft size increases as a result of the extension

[stewyb]

i'm still not convinced that back-tracking is an issue. Even Luton requires some back tracking at both ends and they're nearing 20m pax a year. For an airport the size of SOU anything up to 6m pax a year should be easily absorbed especially if aircraft size increases as a result of the extension

I agree this will not have a material affect on airport operations, my only point was they would undertake works when they already have equipment on site and would save time and money!

[TCAS FAN]

I agree this will not have a material affect on airport operations.....

With all due respect unless you are/were a Southampton ATCO I would suggest that you are not qualified to make this statement.

I see that Luton has now been added to the discussion, little or no relevance to SOU. Their RWY 08 requires about a 200 metre backtrack, and 26 a 400 metre backtrack, with other taxiways to permit a landed aircraft to vacate. Nothing near the 1000 metre or so baktrack at SOU when the extension is completed.

[RW20]

With a 1000mtrs backtrack,SOU must be the longest in UK regional airports.
If the starter strip was approved,there would be increased inbound traffic,departing 320 types could sustain significant delays!.Not the best recipe for attracting the likes of Easy I would suspect

[autoland12feet]

The irony is that by objecting to the expansion plans on environmental grounds, aircraft will continue to have to backtrack r/w 20 which means holding other aircraft in a take off queue behind both other take offs and/or landing burning fuel unnessesarily. However, when 02 is in use backtracking can be avoided by departing from the south taxiway intersection as the performance of Dash 8 on the short routes should be able to accommodate full loads.

[Sharklet_321]

Rumour about Aer Lingus on BOH thread but this is very unlikely. Could it be a cover for a potential new Southampton service?

[benm345]

Rumour about Aer Lingus on BOH thread but this is very unlikely. Could it be a cover for a potential new Southampton service?

Why would they need to 'cover' it if it was SOU?

[RW20]

Why would they need to 'cover' it if it was SOU?
Unfortunately for many years SOU management has focused on Flybe,this has had a detrimental effect on any potential airlines using SOU. Unless this changes there will always be limited scope for any airlines operating from SOU .Over the years many airlines have tried operating from the airport,but sadly without exception they have all pulled away,why you might ask?. The answer is simply that the Flybe hold continues to strangulate operations from the airport, ironically it continues to reduce services from SOU and the PAX numbers continue to decline!

[SWBKCB]

Over the years many airlines have tried operating from the airport,but sadly without exception they have all pulled away,why you might ask?. The answer is simply that the Flybe hold continues to strangulate operations from the airport, ironically it continues to reduce services from SOU and the PAX numbers continue to decline!

Really?? So it's SOU management and Flybe's fault that airlines keep coming and going? Or maybe it's because the market isn't that strong.

[Rivet Joint]

Really?? So it's SOU management and Flybe's fault that airlines keep coming and going? Or maybe it's because the market isn't that strong.

Chomp chomp. People will never learn.

[benm345]

Unfortunately for many years SOU management has focused on Flybe,this has had a detrimental effect on any potential airlines using SOU. Unless this changes there will always be limited scope for any airlines operating from SOU .Over the years many airlines have tried operating from the airport,but sadly without exception they have all pulled away,why you might ask?. The answer is simply that the Flybe hold continues to strangulate operations from the airport, ironically it continues to reduce services from SOU and the PAX numbers continue to decline!

So why would Aer Lingus apply for BOH slots it if was actually a cover for a SOU flight? Nice informative answer but it doesn't answer the question at all, unless you're implying Aer Lingus are trying to hide their intentions from Flybe/Connect?

I believe Aer lingus and Flybe currently have an agreement offering connections onwards through DUB, so I'm sure Flybe would be one of the first to know if this was about to change.

[Buster the Bear]

You are unable via the Flybe website to book a connecting flight to America via Dublin and Aer Lingus.

[benm345]

You are unable via the Flybe website to book a connecting flight to America via Dublin and Aer Lingus.

You are able via the Aer Lingus website to book a connecting flight to America via Dublin.

[benm345]

You are unable via the Flybe website to book a connecting flight to America via Dublin and Aer Lingus.

But not just Sou - Dub via Aer Lingus site. Odd agreement.

[PDXCWL45]

You are unable via the Flybe website to book a connecting flight to America via Dublin and Aer Lingus.
But you can book one on the Aer Lingus website.

[RW20]

Well all is quite at SOU,which isn't unusual nowadays,other airports such as Southend,Bournemouth,and even Doncaster announce new routes and more to.the point increasingly pax numbers!. And Southampton? Well decreasing PAX,declining routes and no prospect of any new routes.What is going on?,simply very little!!!

[The Nutts Mutts]

Can anyone tell me how you set up an ignore list on here? I've had enough of a certain poster's mindless ramblings but can't see how to ignore them.

[Planespeaking]

[QUOTE=The Nutts Mutts;10634482]Can anyone tell me how you set up an ignore list on here? I've had enough of a certain poster's mindless ramblings but can't see how to ignore them.

You may not like another poster's opinions, but you have to admit they have the right to express them.

[The Nutts Mutts]

Oh yeah I'd stand by their right to express their opinions, but I was always under the impression there was a way to ignore individual posters, and in the case of the one I'm thinking of, I've just had enough of them.

[Planespeaking]

Oh yeah I'd stand by their right to express their opinions, but I was always under the impression there was a way to ignore individual posters, and in the case of the one I'm thinking of, I've just had enough of them.
Then take responsibility and just don't read it!! Meanwhile back in the grown up world at SOU!

[Dropoffcharge]

Well all is quite at SOU,which isn't unusual nowadays,other airports such as Southend,Bournemouth,and even Doncaster announce new routes and more to.the point increasingly pax numbers!. And Southampton? Well decreasing PAX,declining routes and no prospect of any new routes.What is going on?,simply very little!!!

I think just need to be patient, is probably alot going on behind the scenes right now. If and when the extension gets done pax numbers will increase, remember the whole Virgin Connect thing is still ongoing so am sure when finalised will be new routes and again increasing pax numbers (which will happen prior to the extension) Even with expansion I genuinely think SOU is a very long way off from a LCC though, if at all, due to its existing limitations (operating hours) time will tell, but SOU will start to show growth from S20 onwards I'm certain.

[stewyb]

I think just need to be patient, is probably alot going on behind the scenes right now. If and when the extension gets done pax numbers will increase, remember the whole Virgin Connect thing is still ongoing so am sure when finalised will be new routes and again increasing pax numbers (which will happen prior to the extension) Even with expansion I genuinely think SOU is a very long way off from a LCC though, if at all, due to its existing limitations (operating hours) time will tell, but SOU will start to show growth from S20 onwards I'm certain.

Think we have seen the VS approach to route reductions and doubt SOU will get any additions over and above the already announced ie core UK trunk routes and slimmed down regional France. Therefore the airport cannot rely on VS for passenger growth over the coming months and years and is clearly the main reason to get the extension in place asap. With regards to a LCC, i'm sure they are already discussing with airline/s and will want someone in place for April '21 to back up their growth aspirations so a long way off I don't agree with. Airport operating hours are hardly limiting when considering the possible addition of x 8 A320 arrivals & departures daily that will make up the 1m pax increase and should slot in between a 0630 - 2230 (tel:0630 - 2230) operation without too many issues, that’s only an additional 1 flight in or out per hour to the current schedule although realise that any outside factors such as weather/delays might cause problems!

[Rivet Joint]

Can anyone tell me how you set up an ignore list on here? I've had enough of a certain poster's mindless ramblings but can't see how to ignore them.

I 100% agree. I am starting to think it’s a fake account set up by a BOH poster to antagonise people. Even a mentally deranged person wouldn’t post the same message over and over again. The fact ‘it’ managed to show no remorse when the planning permission was indeed lodged says it all. In fact ‘it’ managed to put a negative spin on it. Freedom of speech of course exists, but there is only one narative and it’s designed to derail what was otherwise a healthy thread. Perhaps if a number of us posters request that the mods ban its account we might get rid of it? You have to be a pretty sad individual to take enjoyment from trolling.

[Buster the Bear]

But you can book one on the Aer Lingus website.

Handy if you are looking for fights out of Southampton where Aer Lingus do not fly from.

[Wycombe]

I'm a supporter of SOU due to the mostly good airport experience, and use it around 6 times a year for flights to the CI and NI.

Did a GCI and back trip yesterday, and never seen it so quiet when I passed through at 0700-0800. I was almost on my own going though security.

Hopefully livens up a bit when the ski flights start at the weekend.

[MARKEYD]

Just curious as to why SOU did not take the 3 charter flights from Tenerife South / North yesterday bringing back passengers off the Ventura ship , which had gone tech in Tenerife and not now due back into Southampton port until the weekend

The aircraft in question were 2 Enter air and 1 Travel service B 738 . These aircraft operated into BOH instead

I thought SOU could handle this type of aircraft especially inbound ?

[Expressflight]

MARKEYD

The runway is currently too short to land the standard B738 with anything like a full pax load. The Short Field Performance variant could probably do so, as RYR's operation at SEN shows, but maybe both Enter Air and Travel Service aircraft don't have that package.

[Wycombe]

The runway is currently too short to land the standard B738 with anything like a full pax load.

Indeed, and as these folks were coming off a cruise ship, they will doubtless have a LOT of luggage
(speaking from personal experience having cruised on Ventura and other P&O ships 5 times now)

[rog747]

You're having a laugh surely :P
Best thing I have read all year on here....

3 x 189 seat 737-800 inbound from Tenerife to land on a very wet SHORT runway - ?
I wish lol
A 738 will never be able to op economically from/to SOU as is...

FYI even an A319/320 to/from Geneva on a little Ski flight can sometimes be weight restricted at SOU

[MARKEYD]

Thanks guys , Expressflight and Wycombe for your answers

It was a genuine question on here actually , nothing to make you laugh about i would have thought , " rog 747 " , but hey what do i know !

[rog747]

Marky I was only having a laugh you know me

[MARKEYD]

Marky I was only having a laugh you know me

That’s ok Rog , just missed read it !!!

[SOU_]

A Jota RJ100 came in from Malaga and out direct to TFS on Monday. Not sure if that was for the stranded cruise ship or not.

[RW20]

MARKEYD

The runway is currently too short to land the standard B738 with anything like a full pax load. The Short Field Performance variant could probably do so, as RYR's operation at SEN shows, but maybe both Enter Air and Travel Service aircraft don't have that package.
Even with the proposed extension the LDA won't change,so any pax from cruises that return airborne will still land at BOURNEMOUTH.
The extension relies on take off on RW20 being extended for 320/738 fully loaded and therefore feasible for operations,LDA still limits the type of aircraft ,which will have a substantial effect on who can operate,given the extension is finally approved

[22/04]

out direct to TFS on Monday

Isn't that a stretch for an RJ100 - didi it have any pax?

[SOU_]

Isn't that a stretch for an RJ100 - didi it have any pax?

Thats what I thought and questioned, but I have a friend at the airport who told me about it. I’m unsure if it had any PAX onboard.

[rog747]

Isn't that a stretch for an RJ100 - didi it have any pax?

Jota Aviation have been busy with their RJ100 G-JOTS
97Y economy configuration, 31 inch seat pitch

SEN - LGW - AGP - SOU - TFS - AGP - BHX - SEN

Why LGW-AGP-SOU? - I don't know - Maybe Cruise ship pax were sent from Tenerife up to AGP on local flights?
SOU-TFS was maybe to pick up P&O Ship's crew/staff/Engineers/Parts to take down to TFS?
Looks like the Cruise Ship pax were repatriated TFS-AGP-BHX


Flights below in reverse order -

11 Dec 2019 Malaga (AGP) Birmingham (BHX) (ENZ803) 3:06 — 16:19 — (Cruise ship pax - flight from AGP an hour faster than the day before)
Landed 18:26

10 Dec 2019 Tenerife (TFS) Malaga (AGP) (ENZ817F) 2:27 — 15:46 — (Cruise ship pax)
Landed 19:13

09 Dec 2019 Southampton (SOU) Tenerife (TFS) (ENZ817) 4:02 — 19:08 — (Quick flight for a 146 4h 02m TFS nonstop - empty?)
Landed 23:10

09 Dec 2019 Malaga (AGP) Southampton (SOU) (ENZ817P) 4:10 — 14:30 — (Very LONG flight time 4h 10m - No tech stop - strong headwinds?)
Landed 17:40

08 Dec 2019 London (LGW) Malaga (AGP) (ENZ802) 2:31 — 21:57 — (2h 31 m Not bad for a 146 to AGP nonstop - empty?)
Landed 01:28

[Expressflight]

rog747

Regarding the Jota LGW-AGP-SOU flights on 9th December, LGW-AGP was a revenue flight while the AGP-SOU sector was a positioning flight and the SOU-TFS was a revenue flight. I've no idea what the payload was on that sector I'm afraid.

[Expressflight]

RW 20

Provided SOU has a grooved runway the B738SFP will be able to use SOU with inbound pax in exactly the same way that those aircraft operate at SEN. Theoretically RYR could set up a SOU base using such aircraft, as it has at SEN, although that is probably unlikely.

[rog747]

rog747

Regarding the Jota LGW-AGP-SOU flights on 9th December, LGW-AGP was a revenue flight while the AGP-SOU sector was a positioning flight and the SOU-TFS was a revenue flight. I've no idea what the payload was on that sector I'm afraid.

Thanks - for a 146/RJ to do a 4 hour non stop to TFS it must have been a light payload - great news though - livened up the dreary week lol

Nice little airline Jota

EDIT-

Just read the SOU-TFS trip was to pick up parts and P&O engineers for the ship.

[stewyb]

RW 20

Provided SOU has a grooved runway the B738SFP will be able to use SOU with inbound pax in exactly the same way that those aircraft operate at SEN. Theoretically RYR could set up a SOU base using such aircraft, as it has at SEN, although that is probably unlikely.

Which raises a good point, do we know if the airport will undertake runway resurfacing at the same time as extension works? Its overdue and hasn’t been done for about 20 years!

[The Nutts Mutts]

The runway is already grooved asphalt. In spite of what's been said on here before it actually drains pretty well. Resurfacing will be due at some point.

[TCAS FAN]

RW 20

Provided SOU has a grooved runway the B738SFP will be able to use SOU with inbound pax in exactly the same way that those aircraft operate at SEN. Theoretically RYR could set up a SOU base using such aircraft, as it has at SEN, although that is probably unlikely.

It does have a grooved runway but last time I saw it the grooving isn't fully doing the job. Unlike most runways SOU's is not cambered, it has a crossfall west to east. There is a gully joining drains on the east side. The drains were not doing the job with water sitting in the gully and causing water to back up into the grooving instead of draining it away.

[RW20]

It does have a grooved runway but last time I saw it the grooving isn't fully doing the job. Unlike most runways SOU's is not cambered, it has a crossfall west to east. There is a gully joining drains on the east side. The drains were not doing the job with water sitting in the gully and causing water to back up into the grooving instead of draining it away.
TCAS FAN
Apart from Ryanair,who else has short field performance 738s?.I would imagine that even with the proposed runway extension there could be only a handful of airlines who could operate into SOU with 738s(the mainstay of most airlines).With this in mind if seems that the airport management may be putting there eggs in one basket,i.e. Easy 320 operations!

[stewyb]

TCAS FAN
Apart from Ryanair,who else has short field performance 738s?.I would imagine that even with the proposed runway extension there could be only a handful of airlines who could operate into SOU with 738s(the mainstay of most airlines).With this in mind if seems that the airport management may be putting there eggs in one basket,i.e. Easy 320 operations!

I believe Jet2’s new 738’s have the SFP package included!

[TCAS FAN]

TCAS FAN
Apart from Ryanair,who else has short field performance 738s?.I would imagine that even with the proposed runway extension there could be only a handful of airlines who could operate into SOU with 738s(the mainstay of most airlines).With this in mind if seems that the airport management may be putting there eggs in one basket,i.e. Easy 320 operations!

Apart from the two operators previously mentioned, I am not aware which others have the taken up the SFP option.

Apart from any increased take-off weights on RWY 20 due to a combination of the tree reduction south of the runway (anyone know if this was ever completed) and the northern extension, a performance limiting factor will be the LDAs for both runways, especially with a wet runway. RWY 20 LDA cannot increase with the northern extension, RWY 02 may. That said, as I mentioned in a previous post, SOU already has slightly longer LDAs than SEN.

As mentioned in my post #1928, if not already cured, the runway drainage issue needs to be resolved to reduce the need to report the runway state as "wet/wet/wet", in order to minimise the chances of the landing weight limitations that this causes.

[RW20]

Apart from the two operators previously mentioned, I am not aware which others have the taken up the SFP option.

Apart from any increased take-off weights on RWY 20 due to a combination of the tree reduction south of the runway (anyone know if this was ever completed) and the northern extension, a performance limiting factor will be the LDAs for both runways, especially with a wet runway. RWY 20 LDA cannot increase with the northern extension, RWY 02 may. That said, as I mentioned in a previous post, SOU already has slightly longer LDAs than SEN.

As mentioned in my post #1928, if not already cured, the runway drainage issue needs to be resolved to reduce the need to report the runway state as "wet/wet/wet", in order to minimise the chances of the landing weight limitations that this causes.
TCAS CAN
Excellent explanation on SOU limitations,let's hope the SOU managemet push through the tree problem South of RWY 02 and the runway drainage problem.However it's doubtful that this will be resolved,given the past track record. It appears also that given the runway extension happens,the additional take off available for RW20 is handicapped by above problems,lets hope that an airline can be found to suit the airports limitations.

[Rivet Joint]

Which raises a good point, do we know if the airport will undertake runway resurfacing at the same time as extension works? Its overdue and hasn’t been done for about 20 years!

Very much doubt it. They have confirmed that they are not going to be creating the additional taxi-way to reduce the backtracking times which is pretty mad in itself. Apparently this will only be done when the airport reaches a certain level of traffic, which is pretty flawed logic. I highly doubt they would ever spend the money just for that small piece of work, it will surely need to be grouped into a bigger infrastructure project like the runway extension. Maybe with their “sustainable growth” motto they are looking to expand in incremental steps to placate residents, but SOU is short in so many areas when it comes to handling larger planes and the tight turnarounds someone like U2 will demand. The fact that they have focused on the runway extension as their first step is an interesting one though, and suggests this has been triggered by talks with someone.

[SWBKCB]

suggests this has been triggered by talks with someone ...who presumably aren't that bothered by the lack of an additional taxi-way or the other areas that SOU is short?

[RW20]

...who presumably aren't that bothered by the lack of an additional taxi-way or the other areas that SOU is short?

It's more lightly that SOU have gone for the limited runway extension on the basis that they hope to attract a LCC. The taxiway,runway drainage problem, and take off RW20 tree obstructions are basic essentials to have in place to have any realistic operations from a LCC,two of these could be fulfilled,but not the taxiway?. It's a questionable decision.How and when are the stands being upgraded to 320/738 standard?

[SWBKCB]

So it's either a speculative "build it and they will come" approach - in which case you'd expect all the bells and whistles, or there's a deal in place, in which case they've got a fair idea of what the customer wants.

Hopefully it's not the third option....:confused:

[SOU_]

Referring back to RW20’s comment about the stands, is there any more info about work being done on them? If I’m correct, the logical idea for the stands would be to remove stand 1 (the tiny one where Aurigny used the trislander and then enlarge the width of the other stands. Also investment in better infrastructure airside to accommodate the movement of larger aircraft with bigger loads would be needed wouldn’t it?

[stewyb]

Referring back to RW20’s comment about the stands, is there any more info about work being done on them? If I’m correct, the logical idea for the stands would be to remove stand 1 (the tiny one where Aurigny used the trislander and then enlarge the width of the other stands. Also investment in better infrastructure airside to accommodate the movement of larger aircraft with bigger loads would be needed wouldn’t it?

Check out the master plan, it’s all detailed with regards to stand relocation!

[RW20]

Notams show wip on stands,but is this for accommodating 320/738 aircraft?

[rog747]

Ladies and Gentlemen - Straight from the horse's mouth - SOU airport posted on their Facebook this morning -

Quote:
Another great reason to #LoveSouthamptonAirport
An extra bit of runway won't mean larger aircraft, it will simply enable airline operators to use their planes more efficiently, which would spell out more exciting destinations for business and pleasure!
Show your support for SOU by visiting http://bit.ly/35mrZ3f and leaving a comment.
We won't operate any larger or nosier aircraft than we do now....Extra runway will simply allow us to use existing size aircraft so you can fly further to more destinations.
- Unquote

So it seems there you have it.
I think this gives a much clearer picture as to what SOU is at last hopeful to be working to and as to which airlines they may seek to come to SOU.

Existing A319/A320, maybe the A320Neo too? will hopefully be able to operate economically to say - Malaga, Faro, and possibly Greece and the Canaries with a workable payload, without the need for a Tech stop under normal conditions.
(Have we had a Neo in yet on the GVA?)
Be minded that EZY are disposing of their A319's in due course.


IMHO I doubt we will see the Boeing 737-800NG, 737M -8 200, 737M -8 or 9 or 10, nor any A321 size aircraft at SOU.
These leaves Ryanair and Jet2 both out of the frame, together with TUI, & say Enter Air and Smartwings who both operate IT charters for UK Tour Operators.

The 737-700 or 737M - 7 (149 or 172 pax) could be ideal but the -700 is too old now, and the new MAX-7 is still grounded, and no one has ordered it in Europe...

(link is the PPA to the Council)

I have purposefully left out Flybe (Virgin Connect) here as we have no idea as to their fleet (and new aircraft procurement) and their business plans for SOU, either for leisure/sun/ski, or businessman flights.

[The Nutts Mutts]

Notams show wip on stands,but is this for accommodating 320/738 aircraft?

This is to install fixed electrical ground power for stands 2-5.

[stewyb]

Ladies and Gentlemen - Straight from the horse's mouth - SOU airport posted on their Facebook this morning -

Quote:
Another great reason to #LoveSouthamptonAirport
An extra bit of runway won't mean larger aircraft, it will simply enable airline operators to use their planes more efficiently, which would spell out more exciting destinations for business and pleasure!
Show your support for SOU by visiting http://bit.ly/35mrZ3f and leaving a comment.
We won't operate any larger or nosier aircraft than we do now....Extra runway will simply allow us to use existing size aircraft so you can fly further to more destinations.
- Unquote

So it seems there you have it.
I think this gives a much clearer picture as to what SOU is at last hopeful to be working to and as to which airlines they may seek to come to SOU.

Existing A319/A320, maybe the A320Neo too? will hopefully be able to operate economically to say - Malaga, Faro, and possibly Greece and the Canaries with a workable payload, without the need for a Tech stop under normal conditions.
(Have we had a Neo in yet on the GVA?)
Be minded that EZY are disposing of their A319's in due course.


IMHO I doubt we will see the Boeing 737-800NG, 737M -8 200, 737M -8 or 9 or 10, nor any A321 size aircraft at SOU.
These leaves Ryanair and Jet2 both out of the frame, together with TUI, & say Enter Air and Smartwings who both operate IT charters for UK Tour Operators.

The 737-700 or 737M - 7 (149 or 172 pax) could be ideal but the -700 is too old now, and the new MAX-7 is still grounded, and no one has ordered it in Europe...

(link is the PPA to the Council)

I have purposefully left out Flybe (Virgin Connect) here as we have no idea as to their fleet (and new aircraft procurement) and their business plans for SOU, either for leisure/sun/ski, or businessman flights.

320N is yet to use SOU. I personally believe Rog that the orange lot are being lined up once extension works are hopefully complete. SEN announced both EZY and RYR bases in the June for the following April summer season start, which coincidently is when SOU hope to commence new runway operations (S21). Does this mean we might see an announcement mid next year? Lets keep fingers crossed!

[rog747]

It can realistically only be Orange to be brutally frank - plus Virgin Connect if they decide SOU is in their jet fleet expansion plans.

As for charters will we see Volotea (A319/B717) continue on the TUI charters to Palma? (IBZ was dropped, and BE op TUI's MAH with a jet-prop)

[Wycombe]

Show your support for SOU by visiting http://bit.ly/35mrZ3f (https://bit.ly/35mrZ3f) and leaving a comment.

Done with pleasure :) Some of the objectors comments are simply ill-informed scaremongering :ugh:

[TCAS FAN]

Ladies and Gentlemen - Straight from the horse's mouth - SOU airport posted on their Facebook this morning -

Quote:
Another great reason to #LoveSouthamptonAirport
An extra bit of runway won't mean larger aircraft, it will simply enable airline operators to use their planes more efficiently, which would spell out more exciting destinations for business and pleasure!
Show your support for SOU by visiting http://bit.ly/35mrZ3f and leaving a comment.
We won't operate any larger or nosier aircraft than we do now....Extra runway will simply allow us to use existing size aircraft so you can fly further to more destinations.
- Unquote.

Was always the case, larger aircraft, such as L1011, DC10, B707, B747 & Concorde are banned from landing at the airport by the current Section 106 Agreement with LPAs! Runway width will always preclude wide bodied ops.

Merry Christmas to all our readers, let’s hope that the forthcoming decade will show continued investment to permit the airport to achieve its full potential.

[stewyb]

CAA stats for Oct show SOU passenger traffic down a whopping 17%. Things have got to change and fast!!

[RW20]

CAA stats for Oct show SOU passenger traffic down a whopping 17%. Things have got to change and fast!!
In any other business serious questions would be asked about why and how the airport Paxs continues to decline drastically month after month! It seems that all hope is put on turning things around on a proposed 164 Mtr starter strip.Even if the strip is approved,it's going to take a long time to get back to the heady 2 million paxs of past years.As for 3 million in the next few years,well SOU will need to attract and more importantly KEEP future airlines.

[PDXCWL45]

In any other business serious questions would be asked about why and how the airport Paxs continues to decline drastically month after month! It seems that all hope is put on turning things around on a proposed 164 Mtr starter strip.Even if the strip is approved,it's going to take a long time to get back to the heady 2 million paxs of past years.As for 3 million in the next few years,well SOU will need to attract and more importantly KEEP future airlines.
Except any other business isn't like a aviation. Airports rely on airlines actually wanting to offer their product from them. If airlines like Flybe or BA or Easyjet or Lufthansa don't want to place their products there the airport can't exactly buy it from elsewhere like small shop would.

[SWBKCB]

In any other business serious questions would be asked about why and how the airport Paxs continues to decline drastically month after month!

A look at the stats and it's quite simple to see where the loses are - the sun and French regional routes. The core business routes are stable.

Hence the proposal to allow airlines to operate longer routes more effectively.

[TCAS FAN]

With the improved RWY 20 take-off obstacle environment when the tree work is completed, together with the northern extension I would ask the question "Are Virgin Connect going to be able to anything meaningful with ther de-rated E175s?".

Is there anyone out there with access to take-off performance charts to ascertain whether the summer sun routes, or something with a similar sector length could be operated with economic loads using the E175s?

[Planespeaking]

With the improved RWY 20 take-off obstacle environment when the tree work is completed, together with the northern extension I would ask the question "Are Virgin Connect going to be able to anything meaningful with ther de-rated E175s?".

Is there anyone out there with access to take-off performance charts to ascertain whether the summer sun routes, or something with a similar sector length could be operated with economic loads using the E175s?

One must assume that SOU have presented their runway / operational improvements to the various prospective airline operators.

There seems to be a reluctance to commit real money to kick start shovel ready work. Is that because the airlines are feeding back they are not interested, or it is not enough to make the airport a commercially viable proposition?

I have a lot of affection for SOU, I used to commute between GCI and SOU when I was employed by AirUK.

It's sad to see it's current decline.

[RW20]

Good points raised,points that some contributors to this blog should seriously consider.The fact is the airport has a tough job attracting operators for Sun routes with a viable BOU just down the road!

[Dropoffcharge]

There seems to be a reluctance to commit real money to kick start shovel ready work. Is that because the airlines are feeding back they are not interested, or it is not enough to make the airport a commercially viable proposition?


I Have to agree and guess we will only know the answer to this after the master plan has been approved. I will probably get shot down as a SOU hater (im far from it) but you have to ask yourself is the extension really going to attract the men in orange??

[RW20]

All there eggs in one basket? The future looks less then orange!

[The Nutts Mutts]

There seems to be a reluctance to commit real money to kick start shovel ready work. Is that because the airlines are feeding back they are not interested, or it is not enough to make the airport a commercially viable proposition?

With respect, I'd disagree with that statement, as the airport owners stand ready to commit millions of pounds on a runway extension. This is of course subject to planning permission, so isn't in their power to deliver at the moment, but if they get approval I'd expect to see work commence rapidly.

[Sharklet_321]

The largest pax losses were seen on routes to Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and Ireland. Rennes and Limoges were not operated in October this year compared to last year.

Otherwise on domestics the airport didn’t fair too badly - Guernsey was up by over 5,000 pax which is a huge increase and shows where SOU’s strengths are.

For the month SOU handled 142,607 compared to 171,037 which is still a large number of passengers. 12-month rolling total is 1,825,000. This is not a small number...other airports would kill for this!

[Wycombe]

Guernsey was up by over 5,000 pax which is a huge increase and shows where SOU’s strengths are.

No doubt because there are 2 operators on the route and prices have been driven down. I flew there and back last week (on the morning and evening peak hour flights with BEE/BCI) for around £75, which is the least I remember paying during the last 3 years (during which time I've done the journey around a dozen times).

[shamrock7seal]

Flight shaming and environmental concerns will be the death of domestic air travel. Unless they work on electric aircraft for ultra short haul flying pretty soon then I don’t see how this changes. SOU needs to get out of this reliance on domestic - hence the need for a runway extension. If LHR’s third runway gets delayed then SOU has an even stronger case environmentally to make more efficient use of its existing runway.

[stewyb]

Delay on R3 at LHR by ‘at least 12 months’ has to be good news for the airports expansion plans. Another 10 years or more of over capacity in London will mean the South East will look to gap fill elsewhere, even in these climate change times!

[stewyb]

To date circa 600 comments on council website re planning, split 60/40 against, interested in your thoughts? Happy new year all

[Dropoffcharge]

I was personally confident that after consultation the odds would be in favour, let's be honest you're never going to please everyone, but with the Uni bods throwing their 2p in, I'm not so sure now.

[inOban]

Since objectors are more likely to comment than supporters, I would have thought that 60:40 is remarkably positive. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the objections are ruled inadmissable under planning rules.

[RW20]

Since objectors are more likely to comment than supporters, I would have thought that 60:40 is remarkably positive. It wouldn't surprise me if many of the objections are ruled inadmissable under planning rules.
opposition is building steadily ,the outcome is likely to be delayed into 2021,meanwhile BOU continues to increase routes and pax at a great rate!
Good management and sustained investment always shine through,something SOU hasn't taken on board. Difficult times ahead I think.

[SWBKCB]

meanwhile BOU continues to increase routes and pax at a great rate!

And you continue to get the code for Bournemouth wrong!

[destinationsky]

I am for the expansion before anyone tries to shoot me down. However, if you read the objectors comments, a majority of them make some very good points, particularly in relation to noise and environmental issues. The airport has put together a fairly poor submission which does not do anything to appease these issues. Noise wise, the increase in use of Airbus/Boeing variants will change the noise environment and increase the noise contours, pushing them further out, particularly to the North. The locations selected to do baseline monitoring were poorly thought through and serve no relevance to people who are/will be affected by noise owing to increase of traffic. The consultation events were inadequate and there should have been more of them and over a longer period. Away from this planning application, the noise action plan does nothing to address the future noise environment which would at least show a commitment to address any noise concerns as the airport grows.

The airport (and all people who have submitted positive comments) seem to rely on one positive environmental metric - the fact that the lengthening of the runway will stop cars travelling to LGW or LHR. Will it really?! Unless I have missed it there is no quantifiable study done on this? That claim will rely on a range of operators coming in and increasing the route options so much so that you get a good timetable with good flight times, along with airline competition which will drive prices down. Lets not forget that the airport MD travelled to LHR for onward travel to Scotland owing to poor flight times from SOU. This growth will take years to achieve. Coupled with the fact that stand capacity for larger aircraft is restricted, increased use of A319/320 family aircraft will not provide an increase in routes until this issue is addressed. As for the NEO, the aircraft has restrictions on engine stabilisation and warm up times. In essence, after start up, you have to wait a period of time before power can be applied. This alone will impact on capacity so wouldn't pin hopes on that aircraft being the saviour - as a lot of people on here think.

The starter strip will only provide a demonstrable benefit for certain modes of operation - namely 20 deps and 02 arrivals. What about the other directions? All being said, there are better things that the airport could be doing to increase movements and improve their environmental metrics - improve stands, improve the airspace, implement SIDS/STARS earlier than gvmt mandate and a whole lot more. Instead of saying that cars will be taken off the road, try doing something that will provide a more obvious benefit.

I do hope that the airport will expand, but not enough has been done to address the environmental concerns. And these concerns will stop expansion.

Before I face the inevitable attacks, I live very close to the airport, I do get overflown by both arrivals and departures and the noise doesn't bother me. BUT I have experience of how this type of application should be managed.

[RW20]

I am for the expansion before anyone tries to shoot me down. However, if you read the objectors comments, a majority of them make some very good points, particularly in relation to noise and environmental issues. The airport has put together a fairly poor submission which does not do anything to appease these issues. Noise wise, the increase in use of Airbus/Boeing variants will change the noise environment and increase the noise contours, pushing them further out, particularly to the North. The locations selected to do baseline monitoring were poorly thought through and serve no relevance to people who are/will be affected by noise owing to increase of traffic. The consultation events were inadequate and there should have been more of them and over a longer period. Away from this planning application, the noise action plan does nothing to address the future noise environment which would at least show a commitment to address any noise concerns as the airport grows.

The airport (and all people who have submitted positive comments) seem to rely on one positive environmental metric - the fact that the lengthening of the runway will stop cars travelling to LGW or LHR. Will it really?! Unless I have missed it there is no quantifiable study done on this? That claim will rely on a range of operators coming in and increasing the route options so much so that you get a good timetable with good flight times, along with airline competition which will drive prices down. Lets not forget that the airport MD travelled to LHR for onward travel to Scotland owing to poor flight times from SOU. This growth will take years to achieve. Coupled with the fact that stand capacity for larger aircraft is restricted, increased use of A319/320 family aircraft will not provide an increase in routes until this issue is addressed. As for the NEO, the aircraft has restrictions on engine stabilisation and warm up times. In essence, after start up, you have to wait a period of time before power can be applied. This alone will impact on capacity so wouldn't pin hopes on that aircraft being the saviour - as a lot of people on here think.

The starter strip will only provide a demonstrable benefit for certain modes of operation - namely 20 deps and 02 arrivals. What about the other directions? All being said, there are better things that the airport could be doing to increase movements and improve their environmental metrics - improve stands, improve the airspace, implement SIDS/STARS earlier than gvmt mandate and a whole lot more. Instead of saying that cars will be taken off the road, try doing something that will provide a more obvious benefit.

I do hope that the airport will expand, but not enough has been done to address the environmental concerns. And these concerns will stop expansion.

Before I face the inevitable attacks, I live very close to the airport, I do get overflown by both arrivals and departures and the noise doesn't bother me. BUT I have experience of how this type of application should be managed.
At last a realistic and factual analysis of the planning application, and not a rose tinted appraisal that some contributors( and we know who they are) have on the SOU blog.
There will be a whole host of objections to the planning application,what will happen if the extension doesn't happen?
There is very little the airport can or more to the point will do! Its difficult to see any substantial growth happening over the next few years with the runway and airside structure currently in place.

[Wycombe]

The airport (and all people who have submitted positive comments) seem to rely on one positive environmental metric - the fact that the lengthening of the runway will stop cars travelling to LGW or LHR.

I was a positive responder and didn't put it that way. I live around 40 miles from SOU and approximately the same from LHR, so there is no positive or negative environmental impact change in terms of which airport I drive to.

For me the reason I use SOU for domestic flights is that it is so much quicker to pass through for this type of flight than LHR. It's quite possible for me to be back at home 40 miles away an hour after landing at SOU. At LHR I'd still be trying to get out of the Airport for most of that time.

I agree that the airport have not helped themselves with the quality of their submission. More detail could have allayed some of the objectors who are clearly concerned that there will be a big increase in movement numbers and aircraft size.

[FrequentlyFlying]

As I have stated before in my post it really does need every positive voice expressed and NO 60 / 40 against is not a positive however you look at it. It’s shocking as you don’t have to be local to express a comment. The lack of ‘address’ mentioned above is worrying - it will be taken apart by organisations against it. If you work there or have an interest in the airport it’s fair to say optimism is perhaps clouding your view of the impact of a (albeit small) orange fleet based here. FACT. This will create a huge uplift in pollution noise and air. This should have been tackled full on in the application. My considerable experience in working within an LA and Planning tells me either they are playing a long game or they cut corners in the application (did it on the cheap) - BUT... I would not give up hope as the Govt we have now have clear form at lying down in front of bulldozers to stop airport expansion and passing full scale expansion next day. If application falls then the appeal is where the real opportunity stands, which makes their lack of address now even more strange. For this application and most definitely if it does go to appeal then the comments and information provided in the opportunity to comment is critical. Make a positive comment NOW if you haven’t. Mention travelling and local economy and balance of capacity. Whatever path your comment takes MAKE ONE. Every organisation against will be sending out mail shots advising comment content. Volume really matters. My gut feeling is rejected at planning (and only if the consultant being used has their cards in line) success on appeal as Govt Will need to show some positivity. But climate change isn’t going away - 10 years ago was the time for this application. Complete failure has left SOU where it is.

[Buster the Bear]

With environmental concerns relating to the expansion of aviation and airport now growing, one can only think the Southampton missed the boat (pardon the pun). Expansion should have been completed years ago, but no doubt it fell victim of shortermism, profit for shareholders.

[destinationsky]

The biggest issue with Southampton was (and probably still is) is that it is the small fish in a big pond when you consider the other airports in their group. Heathrow when it was part of BAA/HAH took precedence in terms of investment and I would assume that Glasgow is now the same. BUT, Southampton was always guilty of spending money in the wrong places - over a million on the toilets a number of years ago, for example. Airside always suffered.

I really do not think that EZY will come in and make a base of SOU. Especially considering the current EZY ops are not the UK arm of the company (I am happy to be corrected on that) And also considering their proposed plans for other UK airports.....

As for the delay to LHR R3, do not think that this will be positive news for Southampton - Why would it? Even with capacity filling up, LHR serves more routes with more choice than SOU. SOU does cater for the more "unusual" French destinations but that is their niche BUT BA at LHR are already starting up some routes that SOU serve. Don't be fooled into thinking that SOU will see a massive boost due to the runway delay. It simply won't as the airport is not attractive to the airlines, even with the starter strip. Upgrades of stands, baggage capacity, airspace constraints and associated services need to vastly improve. Also, Heathrow does have some spare capacity and that will start to be released over the next few years - well ahead of R3 and SOU's starter strip.

Hate to be a naysayer but it probably is time to take off the rose tinted glasses.

[RW20]

The biggest issue with Southampton was (and probably still is) is that it is the small fish in a big pond when you consider the other airports in their group. Heathrow when it was part of BAA/HAH took precedence in terms of investment and I would assume that Glasgow is now the same. BUT, Southampton was always guilty of spending money in the wrong places - over a million on the toilets a number of years ago, for example. Airside always suffered.

I really do not think that EZY will come in and make a base of SOU. Especially considering the current EZY ops are not the UK arm of the company (I am happy to be corrected on that) And also considering their proposed plans for other UK airports.....

As for the delay to LHR R3, do not think that this will be positive news for Southampton - Why would it? Even with capacity filling up, LHR serves more routes with more choice than SOU. SOU does cater for the more "unusual" French destinations but that is their niche BUT BA at LHR are already starting up some routes that SOU serve. Don't be fooled into thinking that SOU will see a massive boost due to the runway delay. It simply won't as the airport is not attractive to the airlines, even with the starter strip. Upgrades of stands, baggage capacity, airspace constraints and associated services need to vastly improve. Also, Heathrow does have some spare capacity and that will start to be released over the next few years - well ahead of R3 and SOU's starter strip.

Hate to be a naysayer but it probably is time to take off the rose tinted glasses.
Consultation period now ends on the 16-01,then there be a public meeting,followed by extensive objections.Realistically there is no way any work will start in the spring.
The whole affair has followed the airports recent years of to little to late policy.Times have changed now,the airport isn't in a Good place,and without Flybe,or soon virgin,it certainly woudnt excist.

[adfly]

Consultation period now ends on the 16-01,then there be a public meeting,followed by extensive objections.Realistically there is no way any work will start in the spring.
The whole affair has followed the airports recent years of to little to late policy.Times have changed now,the airport isn't in a Good place,and without Flybe,or soon virgin,it certainly woudnt excist.
Please stop repeating the same doom and gloom message over and over again, it's fine to make the point a couple of times, but now it's at the point of adding nothing to this thread.

[rog747]

Overnight and out of the blue it seems - Flybe in big trouble - Blimey where did this come from? I though VS Connect was inputting £100m to rejuvenate the airline.

Seems even the staff knew nothing - Wish them well of course, but this is grim news for all and will be devastating for SOU airport should Flybe go under.

[shamrock7seal]

I think it could be good for SOU if other operators come in; there would be more opportunity for Aurigny, Blue Islands, Loganair possibly, easyJet even...

[AirportPlanner1]

I think it could be good for SOU if other operators come in; there would be more opportunity for Aurigny, Blue Islands, Loganair possibly, easyJet even...

The problem for SOU is that an all-out collapse could well bring down Blue Islands and Eastern with it. Loganair could replace some of the routes but it would be at much higher fares - this might be more sustainable but would drastically reduce pax numbers. EZY coming in is a massive IF, and even if they did the frequency of existing services wouldn’t be replicated. They may also have more of a leisure focus competing with Bournemouth so the south coast as a whole would be a lot worse off

[The Nutts Mutts]

I really hope Flybe pull through. Not just for SOU, but firstly for their employees and for the UK regional economy in general- a lot of places would feel their absence.

From a local perspective, this news is obviously out of the blue. I hope it acts as a kick up the backside to Eastleigh Borough Council and focuses their minds on the fact that SOU at the moment is dependent on a carrier which is on shaky ground. If EBC wish to have a thriving regional airport still operating within their borough,with the economic benefit that brings, then they need to permit it to expand in order to serve a wider market and acquire a greater depth of services and operators.
If SOU is to be viable long term it needs that runway extension. Hopefully this news, as unwelcome as it is, will increase the likelihood of planning permission being granted.
Best wishes to the Flybe staff today, what a horrible thing to go through once again. Fingers crossed for you all.

[Planespeaking]

I think it could be good for SOU if other operators come in; there would be more opportunity for Aurigny, Blue Islands, Loganair possibly, easyJet even...

The big word there is 'if'. Regrettably over recent years SOU has been shedding operators, so much so that Flybe now has a stranglehold on the airport's viability.

Both Flybe and SOU have been badly managed for years, Flybe by inept over -expansion and costly leasing deals, and SOU with lack of airside/operational investment and future proofing, hence the fleeing of existing operators and the inability to attract new ones.

I just hope a way can be found through this for the sake of both airline and airport staff.

[FrequentlyFlying]

Hopes with anyone working for Flybe.
No this won’t influence the local Council one way or another -they didn’t put the over reliance on one airline and they did not make the application that is seemingly very light on data and fact and actually could be argued contradictory in its detail of what ‘expansion’ this extension brings. Data light is sloppy to say the least. It is a Liberal Council that has Green issues high on list of priorities.
its critical that those that bought Flybe put in the funding promised or an enquiry should look at what exactly they bought and promised. A bonfire of inherited contracts and carve up of capacity at one airport or two, Phoenix with no baggage from ashes hopefully isn’t one of the reasons!
SOU will survive but it needs real strong management to get the details missing from the application ready for any appeal, should that happen, which will be judged with guidance from Central Govt which could be positive for the airport should it not get through planning.
The hige positives of SOU should never be underestimated, it has the transport links others can only dream of.
Once again, hopes with all connected or employed by Flybe and let’s hope it’s a desperate attempt to get that funding released and nothing more!

[SWBKCB]

SOU with lack of airside/operational investment and future proofing, hence the fleeing of existing operators and the inability to attract new ones

What makes you say that it's the lack of investment etc that has deterred operators?

[Sharklet_321]

One could argue the lack of strategic thinking at SOU in the last 5-10 years (ie reducing reliance on one carrier) would be partially to blame if SOU suffers from this.

[Planespeaking]

What makes you say that it's the lack of investment etc that has deterred operators?

I would have thought that is self evident, the airport's operational capability has stagnated. Airlines that used to operate small turboprops, ideal for SOU's runway have either gone out of business, rationalised their networks or upgraded to jet equipment that SOU cannot handle with commercial loads.

If lack of investment was not part of the problem why would the airport operator be seeking planning permission to extend the runway and upgrade it's stand situation. Albeit belatedly.

[SWBKCB]

So that's why Air France, KLM and Aer Lingus left? SOU isn't suitable for their Atr's and Embraers which seem to work just fine at other small UK airports?

[Buster the Bear]

Judging by the growth seen and the increased frequency, it was a huge surprise when Stobart pulled the Cork (or so to speak).

[Planespeaking]

So that's why Air France, KLM and Aer Lingus left? SOU isn't suitable for their Atr's and Embraers which seem to work just fine at other small UK airports?

In that case answer your own implied question. Why have so many carriers deserted SOU?

[SWBKCB]

Presumably the same as the reason most routes get dropped - not enough money in it. Just challenging the orthodoxy on this thread that this is due to airfield restrictions - "build it and they will come"!. Maybe there isn't the demand?

[Planespeaking]

Presumably the same as the reason most routes get dropped - not enough money in it. Just challenging the orthodoxy on this thread that this is due to airfield restrictions - "build it and they will come"!. Maybe there isn't the demand?

"Maybe there isn't the demand" Now I think we can agree. 👍

[The Nutts Mutts]

SOU-MME 2 x daily from the 9th March with Eastern.

[rog747]

SOU-MME 2 x daily from the 9th March with Eastern.

Thanks - Tis is a Flybe franchise operation - J41 operation not nice.
Ludicrous fares structure start from £90 o/w to yes, £800!!
You just take one look & walk away......

Flybe now asking the Govt for a £100m loan, on top of the deferred £106m APD tax bill....
Times quotes - The depth of the financial crisis at the domestic carrier has been revealed, with Flybe’s chief executive reportedly telling staff that he would be going to the government for a loan to see the company through the winter. Ouch.

Feel sorry for the staff -- hope they have other job and/or financial parachutes at the ready to escape?

[Dropoffcharge]

Flybe now asking the Govt for a £100m loan, on top of the deferred £106m APD tax

You couldn't write this stuff, what's going to happen in 6 months time when that loan is burned (if it were to happen) they going to start asking for another 100m!!!!!

[RW20]

If Flybe go under,so does Southampton!,What a decline for the airport,it could and should have been so different!

[SotonFlightpath]

The demise of Flybe would be an enormous blow to SOU, but I think it would recover relatively quickly. Many of the routes are very well used, with one or two being amongst Flybe’s most profitable. The problem Flybe has is debt, and when any business of any type gets into this situation, it is always trying to play ‘catch-up’ with its finances, and this can be a loosing battle. I agree that the Sun routes, whilst busy and well used, probably had relatively low yields, with little or no operating profit when set against the often reported high lease costs of the EMB 190s. Many of the leisure routes to France were probably very marginal too.

There has however been a steady and continuing need for the core UK/Ireland/Channel Island routes, together with destinations such as Amsterdam and Paris.

In in the event of a Flybe collapse, I can easily see other operators taking over some these routes, albeit at a more realistic slightly reduced frequency on some of them, but still timed to appeal to business users who often require an out and back in a day schedule.

I can easily see Aer Lingus Regional stepping in to offer perhaps twice daily to Dublin and daily to Belfast. Loganair would be prime contenders to operate routes to and from Glasgow/Edinburgh and perhaps reintroduce Aberdeen. Eastern could perhaps step in with perhaps Newcastle. Not sure about MAN, but as it’s one of the busiest routes from SOU, I’m pretty sure an operator would step in and be able to turn a profit on this popular route.

I do wonder about the return of the ‘sun routes’. I can’t see enough business to allow an operator such as EasyJet or Jet2 to open a base, and operating flights on W patterns from other bases can be quite complicated. The restriction on opening hours is always going to be a disadvantage in attracting a low cost carrier, even if the runway extension gets the go ahead.

The best solution I feel for these routes would be to try and attract BA Cityflyer to operate a limited range of leisure routes as they have done from a few other airports. Ferrying aircraft in from LCY at the weekend is but a short hop, and a very affluent market is available in the Hampshire/West Berks/South Wilts area. It would also provide a different product proposition (more upmarket) compared to Bournemouth thus it would avoid a ‘head to head’ battle with the low cost operators at Bournemouth - similar destinations but a different product.

I personally think SOU will overcome the difficult challenges that would be posed by losing Flybe, but would bounce back over a period of 18 months or so with passenger numbers settling at a more stable but still profitable 1.5M per annum.

[davidjohnson6]

Why would BA Cityflyer want to fly charters from SOU to the Mediterranean beaches when this a) potentially competes against their own route from Heathrow, b) they have a profitable alternate use at Stansted that involves going to the Med and c) there is talk that LCY might possibly be available for use during its current weekend curfew ?

Not saying it can't happen, but I imagine the charter rate for BA Cityflyer at the weekend would be rather high

Summer charters at SOU in a post-Flybe world could still happen but I think it might need an airline other than BA Cityflyer. Perhaps Air Baltic might be persuaded ?

[FFHKG]

SotonFlightpath (https://www.pprune.org/members/451635-sotonflightpath) I think you are a little unfair with your comment about BOH. Flying from there to ALC last year, the majority of the passengers were certainly 'affluent' and many were using the service to fly to their properties on the Costa Blanca. For such a short hop, I can't see an alternative such as BA Cityflyer from Southampton being any more attractive to them. I suspect that many look for a convenient year-round service such as those offered from BOH so they can make multiple visits, rather than a short season programme.

[rog747]

Why would BA Cityflyer want to fly charters from SOU to the Mediterranean beaches when this a) potentially competes against their own route from Heathrow, b) they have a profitable alternate use at Stansted that involves going to the Med and c) there is talk that LCY might possibly be available for use during its current weekend curfew ?

Not saying it can't happen, but I imagine the charter rate for BA Cityflyer at the weekend would be rather high

Summer charters at SOU in a post-Flybe world could still happen but I think it might need an airline other than BA Cityflyer. Perhaps Air Baltic might be persuaded ?

BACF have for many years now, flown a huge series of summer and ski leisure charter flights mainly from regional and Northern airports, plus IOM GLA EDI and ABZ
The Scottish series have been mainly chartered by Barrhead Travel for Package holiday flights. - Obviously a lucrative business for BACF to get plenty of use of their otherwise quiet EMB fleet at weekends. Likewise BA mainline have also operated a big summer charter program from LHR and some too from LGW mainly to Greece and its islands plus Turkey Corsica and Sardinia

[SKOJB]

Local MP’s and Aviation Minister visited the airport yesterday to back growth plans and connectivity. Clearly the government are on side and if it went to appeal, you would expect The Planning Inspectorate to approve. It’s not if but when!

[SWBKCB]

BACF have for many years now, flown a huge series of summer and ski leisure charter flights mainly from regional and Northern airports, plus IOM GLA EDI and ABZ

And there is nothing to stop them doing the same now from SOU - they face stronger competiton than BE at most of these other points...

[GayFriendly]

And there is nothing to stop them doing the same now from SOU - they face stronger competiton than BE at most of these other points...

BACF tried this from BHX and BRS in 2017 and 2018 but these operations stopped due to the huge crewing costs incurred (accommodation, allowances)) and impact on their main weekday ops with crew going out of hours due to delayed flights at weekends. It is a real headache from a crewing perspective to operate 'out of base flight programmes and far more operationally complicated than many realise. Not saying they wont consider doing this from SOU but the figures would really have to add up for them to do so on anything more than a limited summer season basis. Positioning aircraft and crew here, there and everywhere is not cheap!

[RW20]

There must be increasing concern with Southampton airport owners and management that there limited expansion plans will ever materialise.Southampton city council have completely rejected it,and I'm sure Eastleigh will follow along the same lines. An appeal will take a long time to complete,and in the meantime the airports main and virtually only airline Flybe are tottering on the brink of collapsing. Very troubled times ahead for The airport.

[SWBKCB]

Cllr John Savage, chair of the panel, said the council has to protect the future of the people living in the city. After the meeting he added: "We do recognised that having an airport with promised economic growth come from it sounds marvellous but the economic argument wasn't sufficiently well argued. Lots of issues weren't dealt with well enough to be able to see the evidence stacked up in order to support the application at all. I am a councillor for this city and the health (https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/health/) and wellbeing of people in this city is my responsibility and I cannot allow a plan to go forward that is going to damage the health of people in the city."

The final decision will be made by Eastleigh (https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/district/eastleigh/) Borough Council.

Cllr Savage said he thinks it will be "very difficult" for the borough council not to take into account the recommendation.

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/18193840.city-bosses-object-southampton-airport-expansion-plans/

[RW20]

The echo article says it all,the planning application is 5 years to late,environmental concerns will cloud any reasoning from the airport management,which frankly hasn't put there case environmentally well at all.