Southampton-3

[Jamesair1]

Asturias makes a valid point......I would add that Free Trade Ports when set up could well disadvangage other non FTP's in England which formerly enjoyed free single market access, now a thing of the past. Nevertheless, good luck to Southamptons port and airport with their new status.

[Sharklet_321]

Looking at other airports in the UK right now it becomes really clear that SOU has one of the most significant recoveries of any airport with a whole range of new routes and airlines coming on stream - just look at the wikipedia pages of each to get a feel for it. Pretty striking and I for one can't wait to use the BA Cityflyer services!! How the airport is not viable with all of this beggars belief.

[stewyb]

Agree to some extent and believe the airport has done a great job in recovering certain routes and airlines, however when you strip out that BA are only flying summer weekends and all UK regional services are going to be operating significantly reduced frequencies for some time, it then starts to look less substantial. There is no doubt the upcoming runway decision will have a huge impact on the airports future and the recent Freeport decision will create big opportunities!

[BAladdy]

BACF have added a weekly service to Alicante from 26th June to 30th October.

BA2905 SOU 07:30 ALC 11:00 6
BA2906 ALC 11:50 SOU 13:15 6

[Sharklet_321]

Just booked 😂

Hope local people will support these new routes by BA Cityflyer - this is the right airline for SOU!

[Dorking]

Good luck for the future

[AirportPlanner1]

EU membership restrictions meant the Freeport status had marginal benefits. Free from the shackles of Brussels, there are massive investment opportunities. For our ports and airports.

Hello Boris Johnson! Had no idea you frequented these forums...

[ATNotts]

Genuine question for the Freeport supporters. Why were the last lot scrapped in 2012?

There's a simple answer to that; they didn't (and don't) work. They are a gimmick that government used after a previous recession. Why don't they work? To understand that you have to understand what the purposes of a "freeport" actually are.

Import and storage of goods free of liability for customs duties and VAT

Really does what it says on the tin. Importers can bring goods into the UK and hold them without paying import duties and VAT until they are sold in the UK, and at that stage the duties and taxes are accounted for. Those same goods can also be re-exported perhaps to the EU, and in that scenario when the shipments is released from the freeport it is shipped directly to the destination country without paying UK customs duties and AVT, so import duty is only applicable in the country of final destination. This could prove advantageous for businesses that were set up in the UK as distribution centres for the EU, when the UK was a member, and certainly there is the potential for some benefit to be derived by business in the Brexit era, as if they continued to act as a DC serving EU countries without going down this route (of storing imported goods without payment of UK duties and taxes) the good arriving, say, from China would be subject to UK duties on arrival here, and then, because the UK / EU (not) free trade agreement requires goods to have originated in UK they would be subject all over again for customs duties on import to the destination country - double customs duty, and totally uncompetitive. All that said there are alternatives where companies can take any secure warehouse and apply for it to be bonded, say, a distributor could take their current warehouse, outside of any freeport facility, and bond all or part of it and achieve pretty much the same as they could in the freeport. Many of the remaining larger distributors may go down such a route, time alone will tell.

Importing goods and further processing them before delivering them on.

In this scenario part completed products could be brought into the freeport warehouse, and further engineered (processed) to make completed, or new products then be delivered either domestically or internationally, exactly as with the distribution model, with no UK duties and taxes payable until the products leave the freeport area. If they are exported then no duties and taxes are paid in UK.

For the new freeports so much is going to depend on the size of the freeports, be they in Southampton or East Midlands Airport. If as they were in the 1970s / 1980s, hey are on too small a scale, while they may benefit a few smaller businesses they will be irrelevant to large traders, and as it is many of the large European distribution businesses have moved their facilities on to the European mainland before Brexit finally happened.

It is very difficult to see how SOU will benefit in any way shape or form from a freeport in Southampton; the container port may well gain some benefit, however chances are bureaucracy and red tape will make freeports too much hassle to operate from. I remember trying to get in and out of the pathetic excuse for a freeport at BHX back in the day, the security was ridiculous. The real issue for freeports is that almost everything you can do in a freeport you can arrange outside one, rendering them largely superfluous, as I mentioned at the top, a political gimmick.

[SKOJB]

Question - IF the BACF summer schedule is a success, do we think they would consider a year round base from SOU (inc week days) what with LCY probably behind with capacity for some time to come?

[LGS6753]

ATNotts wrote:
There's a simple answer to that; they didn't (and don't) work.

But, for some strange reason 53 countries operate some 250 Free Zones worldwide. But they don't work, so all 53 countries are wasting their time...

[cavokblues]

SKOJB

I would say it is incredibly unlikely. I think Southampton will prove to be successful for them and a nice little niche market but I'm not sure it will be persuade them into going full time. I'm not sure LCY is behind with capacity, quite the opposite in fact at the moment?

BACF are, ultimately, only there because of the weekday restrictions at City and the the crewing nightmares they had with the Bristol and Birmingham and Manchester operations. Being stuck in a taxi from Bristol back to LCY airport after a busy weekend flying is not the best way to achieve a harmonious crew! :) If City ever goes 7 days a week I'm sure they will probably focus their entire operation from there and stop with the weekend ops from other airports.

[AirLCY]

What’s the journey length from SOU to LCY by taxi versus BRS?

There is no competition at SOU, so they’ll definitely do a lot better on the revenue front, bur surely the crew complexity will be similar to the other issues they had in the U.K. Regions.

[SKOJB]

Cavokblues - what I meant by behind with capacity was can you see an immediate return to business travel volumes at LCY, reduced demand post Covid is surely a given and fleet utilisation will still be key?

[BOHEuropean]

BAladdy

Fills the gap nicely for the aircraft inbound from Berlin on a Friday night, that doesn't depart to Faro until 14:50.

[ATNotts]

LGS6753

They were a complete failure last time around, what make you believe anything has changed, given that with a bit of imagination anything that can be done in a freeport can be achieved in a bonded warehouse?

[shamrock7seal]

I'm sure I have asked this before but I can't find the exact post or reference but can anyone help clarify whether, with the new extension, SOU's runway would allow unlimited payloads on A320/737 type aircraft to the Canary Islands/Turkey/Cyprus?

[SKOJB]

Not sure with a 738 but A320 took a 10/15 seat hit from SEN when operating to TFS (SEN runway being comparable with SOU extended)

[rog747]

Even pre runway starter strip days, the B737-300/400 and 700 had little problems going in or out of SOU to Spain and the Canaries.
Not so the slippery fish of the 737-800NG at SOU which does not operate from SOU.
Have to say that Jersey has seen both the 738NG and the new MAX-8 of Smartwings fly from their 5700' runway to Malaga & Tenerife.
I do not think JER has any clearway issues like SOU?

As mentioned above, EasyJet and also Air Malta had a payload restriction out of SEN (TORA 6000') on their A320's to MLA, CFU and The Canaries, of losing between 10-20 seats.
Air Malta did route some A320 flights via Sardinia and Sicily IIRC to off set this, but sales were poor.
EasyJet Airbus A321NEO had flights from London Southend Airport until they stopped all Ops there. Not sure of the destinations flown but I saw the performance of one there last year and it was rather impressive to say the least. EZY were tending to base more Neo a/c at SEN.

SOU's OLS/OBSTACLE LIMITATION REQUIREMENTS with current issues are TODA = Takeoff Distance Available = The TORA Takeoff Run available, plus the length of any remaining clearway beyond the end of the TORA.
Marhill Copse is located immediately south of Southampton Airport’s runway in a critical location with regards to Approach and Take-off/climb.

All in SOU's to-do-list in their Master Plan.

[Albert Hall]

The 737-400 didn't work on SOU runway at all. I seem to remember that Air Europa used to end up tech-stopping Nantes in the couple of years they did a SOU-TFS charter.

I'd doubt the -300 can do it but a -700 with the right engines could almost certainly do it.

[AirLCY]

SKOJB

738 SFP manages CFU with no issues from SEN, A320 had small payload issue to TFS of 10 seats, but no issue on NEO

[SKOJB]

Intrigued as to why nobody has taken up CDG yet, any answers?

[Buster the Bear]

Awaiting the end (hopefully) of a worldwide pandemic. Air France/KLM are effectively broke and surviving via the taxpayer.

[rog747]

Planning decision, Eastleigh Borough Council will decide on the runway extension plans on 25th March

Why we need the runway extension -
So, if you support the airport, please consider emailing the following members of Eastleigh Borough Council before 25th March, to explain why you back the runway plans. You can find their contact details below:
support or object here -
https://www.southamptonairport.com/runway/?fbclid=IwAR0uWbPgIHt0NGXvbm2M2Cc45DBpvDrJ17slXbuOPVFZCkROiC sIho4Us4E#21732

[TCAS FAN]

Albert Hall

I believe that this was a first generation B737-800 way before the SFP option was available. A tech stop in northern Spain was always necessary with the ability to route TFS-SOU direct on the northbound leg.

The problem was the weight penalty incurred by reporting of a wet runway which on at least two occasions resulted in the northbound flights diverting due to the landing weight being too great for the available LDA with a wet runway. While this is still the case there may be light on the horizon.

As of 4 November this year the new ICAO Global Reporting Format (GRF) comes in to operation for reporting of "contaminated" runways. Whereas there currently is an automatic weight penalty incurred when a wet runway is reported, when GRF comes in it appears that reporting of a wet runway will not incur a penalty unless braking coefficient measurements indicate that the runway is "slippery wet". Maybe there is a performance expert out there who can con confirm this?

[adfly]

Aurigny have put GCI-SOU on sale for W21 and S22. Early days but frequency is 19 weekly for both seasons (3x Mon-Fri, 2x Sat/Sun).

[KindaUnstuck]

Will be interesting to see what happens on the Guernsey route, only had a quick look but it looks like Blue Islands will be offering up to 29 return flights per week (4x daily apart from Friday when there will be 5 daily) this summer between Guernsey and Southampton and 20 per week during the winter (3 daily, apart from 2 on Saturdays) so looks like we'll end up with overcapacity on the route and more seats than what will be available between Guernsey and Gatwick.

Jersey - Southampton however will have less than half that capacity - 22 per week during the summer (x3 daily except x4 on Fridays) and 21 per week during the winter - (3 daily)

[stewyb]

Runway extension recommended for approval next week by council planning officers, sounds positive!

[Rivet Joint]

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/19166401.southampton-airport-plans-set-approval/

Celebration time :ok:

[Asturias56]

well it means if the Councillors reject it there are good grounds for an appeal - which will take another 12 months.

[davidjohnson6]

I get that longer runway allows greater flexibility of aircraft use, and that pilots see this as job security. I'm not looking for "you are anti-aviation and should be banned from this website" comments.

However, I'm struggling to pick out many airlines, given their current and planned fleet, where this extension is really going to add this flexibility or allow new routes to be opened

Can someone nominate some credible specific airline-aircraft-route triple combinations that would become enabled by this runway extension ?

Yes, that includes factoring in that a 1h flight needs less fuel, so less runway is required to depart, compared to a 4h flight. A 777 from SOU to NYC off no more than 1900m is for dreamers and not commercially credible

There will be a battle with the environmental crowd - clear, strong and specific arguments will be needed for a longer runway. Details of those new potential routes are a good way of convincing minds; shouting at people that they are stupid won't win the argument

[willy wombat]

DJ6 - How about improved safety for existing operations? As they say, there’s nothing quite as useless as runway behind you (unless it’s air above you).

[Rivet Joint]

davidjohnson6

Have you heard of Southend airport? You might want to look at what a small extension did for their business. Flybe, EasyJet and Ryanair for a start. Yes COVID has affected their ops but that is not surprising.

The green bunch like to make their voices heard but it is almost always on the back of no research. The boss of Loganair has come out in the past to say that SOUs runway affects their ops. They use tiny ej-145s with 50 seats. The extension will mainly help existing and the reintroduction of previous ops. Of course the green mentalists are too narrow minded to stop and think before opening their mouths.

[Aero Mad]

Rivet Joint, people are entitled to argue for and prioritise different things and we would live in a much happier world if we could do so without lobbing insults about.

There is a legitimate argument that a longer runway = larger aircraft = less CO2 per passenger, but an equally good one to say that claim is absurd greenwashing and that a longer runway may just as well = more flights = more CO2. I think davidjohnson6's question is a very reasonable one.

The parallels with Southend are limited given a very different catchment area and, possibly, unfortunate given the extent to which its present prospects...

[southside bobby]

A cautionary tale...

Planners advise & Councillors decide!

[stewyb]

agreed although with the recommendation being to approve, any future appeal to central government is more likely to succeed!

[RW20]

It will go to government decision,so 12 months,but is it really a viable operation given covid 19? I don't believe it is!

[SWBKCB]

Don't think a 777 from SOU to NYC has ever been suggested, but depending on the nature of the recovery, I think the example of Southend is a good one - can't say I'm an expert on the repective areas but the impression I get is that the catchement area of SOU is a wealthier one?

If we keep the discussion sensible and restrict it to narrow body operations around Europe, who are you excluding from operating from SOU?

[zantopst]

RW20

i think you have to keep COVID 19 out of any discussion about this decision as you could argue under COVID restrictions there isn’t one airport in the uk that is a viable operation !

[Rivet Joint]

Aero Mad

I agree and I welcome healthy debate. Cannot see where I insulted davidjohnson6? The green mentalists yes, but I think we all need to stand up to them.

SOU and SEN literally could not be more similar. Both smallish regional airports with wealthy catchments served by their own train stations. Also both on the outskirts of London so the argument of how successful they can be given their proximity to the bigger airports in London applies to both. Arguably SOU is better placed for success as the catchment is more wealthy and being the biggest cruise turnaround port in Europe alone results in 2 million visitors. The fact that SEN attracted both of the big low cost operators after some investment and a runway extension is definitely a good example of what SOU could achieve after its works are completed. Of course with Covid hanging around for a while yet we are unlikely to see the low cost operators just yet. In my opinion they definitely will when things improve though. A pension owned company does not invest £15m without a fairly certain return. In the meantime it will greatly assist the existing regional operators with their operations. I think the q400 was the only type that could operate relatively unrestricted from SOU. All the rest were impacted I believe. Of course people see them operating from SOU and think the runway is long enough for them to operate at their full potential. The extension is not just about enabling airbus sized jets to operate. I am sure the green mentalists have no idea how noisy a Neo engine airbus is compared to the bottle rockets attached the 195s that use to operate.

[davidjohnson6]

Can we discuss some specific potential airline-aircraft-route triple combinations that might be enabled by a runway extension at SOU to 1900m without resorting to metaphorically vaguely waving hands around ? Hopefully, we can come to some sort of idea about what benefits the extension might really have to the air connectivity of the region and how worthwhile an extension would be

Safety:
wombat - I agree there is a safety case, but I suspect that the shareholders (despite public protestations otherwise) will not agree to spending the money without a very good chance of increased revenue. Thus, new routes becomes critical to an extension taking place.

Network Airlines
SOU has historically functioned reliably as a regional airport, connecting people to major cities.
I thought maybe Air Nostrum to Madrid but this cannibalises LHR - will IAG want this ?
I'd like to think that LH might take a look at FRA - but wondered why an extension is necessary when LH already serve LCY. Eurowings to DUS with a 319/320 seems like too many seats to fill. I did wonder about LX with an A220 - but they'd probably look at Bristol beforehand
I also thought of Hop, but again if they don't even do Bristol, is SOU really going to attract them any time soon ?
Finally - would an Aer Lingus ATR really need the runway extension ?

LCCs
I'm afraid I just don't see Easyjet wanting to significantly dilute Gatwick or Bristol. They might add EDI, GLA, JER, BFS, AMS, CDG as a non-based or W operation but is the runway extension really necessary for 1 hour hops in an A319 ? If it was not for Covid, I think Loganair might have had a bit more competition 12 months ago
I see Wizz wanting to focus on their turning LGW into a 2nd London base - SOU is unlikely to be of interest
Volotea also came to mind, but it all seems a bit of a leap of faith

The only thing I could see is maybe Ryanair (more so than TUI) wanting to move their BOH routes to SOU. I'm wondering if SOU's terminal is capable of two 738s departing around the same time. To my untrained eyes, SOU's terminal seemed to be designed for lots of departures of smaller seat aircraft throughout the day, rather than fewer departures of 150+ seat aircraft. Additionally, is SOU sufficiently obstacle free (not the same as SEN) and would 1900m be enough for a Ryanair 738 even in bad weather ?

Summary
Extending will definitely help, but is 1900m enough to make a serious difference bearing in mind the fleet of various airlines and the routes people likely want to fly, compared to what is fly-able without an extension ?

[Flitefone]

Southampton Airport
https://simpleflying.com/klm-ba-cityflyer-southampton-airport/

[RA85684]

I've made a booking to sample Eastern's route to GIB in May, the availability of a day return was simply too good to resist!

[Sotonsean]

I made a booking within 24 hour's of Gibraltar being announced. I'm taking my 81yo mother on a day trip. As you mentioned, it's simply too good to resist.

I noticed on the Southampton Airport network map on the link provided that Alicante is included. On further investigation it appears that BACF have added now Alicante which is scheduled to start on the 26 June 2021.

Looking past the summer schedule I wonder if BACF will announce any winter destination's from Southampton Airport such as Chambery.

With regards to Eastern basing their EMB-190 at Southampton Airport for summer 2021, I'm surprised that they have not announced any further destination's to the previously announced Gibraltar. With Gibraltar operating twice a week on a Mondays and Friday what will the aircraft be doing on the remaining five days.

[Alteagod]

Probably recovering from it exhausting flight to GIB lol

[Max Angle]

the availability of a day return was simply too good to resist!
You just need to hope the wind and cloud base are within limit otherwise it will be a day trip to Malaga's departure lounge, not so appealing.

[Sharklet_321]

Regarding Southampton’s apron parking stands could they adopt something similar to Newquay where the aircraft park nose-in - but diagonal - as opposed to parallel, so as to avoid the tail-fin issue with runway instrument proximity?

[TCAS FAN]

As I indicated in an earlier post the nose-in parking issue has slightly diminished due to the ICAO reduction of a Code 3/4 instrument runway strip from 150 to 140 metres, therein resulting in a displacement east of the origin of the 1:7 Transitional Surface (aka sideslope) which causes the limitations on tallfin height.

Assuming that the runway extension planning application is successful and we would then be looking at the A320 as a common visitor, moving away from nose in parking on Stands 7-14 (Stand 6 not possible to modify) would result in a loss of at least three Stands (two or more between 7-12 and one between 13-14). IMHO not worth it unless all schedules are to be operated by A320 or something with a similar fuselage length/wingspan.

As discussed on the Southampton-2 thread either consolidation of Stands 1-5 or placement of intermediate Stands (1A-4A) can provide four A320 compliant nose-in Stands. As mentioned earlier Stand 6 cannot be modified, due to proximity of baggage make-up area, Stands 7-14 are problematical as they are narrow and short (width circa 33M and length 34M), and as previously mentioned in an earlier post the apron bearing strength is less than 1-5 which may/may not be a problem.

Assuming that the bearing strength is not a problem for 7-12 if the boundary fence is moved back into the car park where currently hire cars are parked it could be possible to provide an A320 compliant Stand (11A?) albeit resulting in a temporary loss of one Stand when being used.

Similarly, assuming that bearing strength is not a problem, with modification of the boundary fence and minor taxiway modification an intermediate A320 compliant A320 nose-in Stand 13A could be possible.

Longer term if demand requires, by removal of the current (or previous?) Cargo Building, diversion of the landside road leading to Long Term parking and removal of the Fuel Depot buildings to the north side of the Depot could provide space to accomodate A320 compliant nose-in Stands 13/14/15?

[SKOJB]

TCAS-Fan

As always a well thought out reply. For the foreseeable, stands 1-5 being replaced with 4 A320 parking spaces and maybe as you have also suggested, stand 12 being modified and pushed back in to the car park to also accommodate A320. Therefore 5 stands being able to accommodate larger aircraft I see as being more than adequate for the time being

[commit aviation]

Depending on whether the A320's are night stopping or merely visiting a Multi Choice Apron (MCA) might work.
Allows for five smaller turboprops aircraft to night stop then A320's to be turned around during the day.
If the night closure hours lead to low cost carriers preferring not to night stop as has been suggested in some quarters then this could be a flexible solution.

[Rivet Joint]

Sharklet_321

No need. Even when a low cost operator opens up a base it is unlikely to be more than 4-5 aircraft for the first couple of years. SOU could accommodate 5 larger aircraft currently.

Also, just a general comment when researching something you should always first check the primary source, i.e. SOUs own website. The masterplan (link below) clearly shows where SOU plan to accommodate larger aircraft going forward. It amazes me that rather than use the internet to carry out their own research people subscribe to the ramblings of TCAS FAN who evidently has not worked at the airport for many years so is out of touch with what is planned.

https://www.southamptonairport.com/media/fwnh31wg/sou-a-vision-for-sustainable-growth.pdf

[TCAS FAN]

Know of it and have read it. Am still amazed at the apparent proposed new Stand 1, push back from this Stand should keep ATC amused having to push past three Stands on to TWY A. The document needs an update as it was written in the days of Fly-be with an anticipated hoard of resident Q400s, no longer the case.

If LCCs are part of the development both the runway extension and somewhere more to park A320 sized aircraft is going to be needed. Apart from the novel Stand arrangment for 1-4, no further Stands capable of handling nose-in A320s. Which I believe was the gist of what was being discussed.

Time for me to ramble off for a cheeky little red, or two.

[RW20]

As always River Joint a very rude and unnecessary reply by you,TCAS FAN has given us a comprehensive review of and if the airport handles a number of 320 movements.
However this is no way certain,and what's more the master plan surely has to be revised considering the pandemic implications for avaition in the future.
I suggest your over optimistic view of the airport is more out of touch then many of us.

[stewyb]

For once I am agreeing with RW20 and feel your comments regarding TCAS are unfair, in any case, I cannot see 4-5 based aircraft being at SOU for the next few years so I think your point is also slightly misjudged. The Masterplan is already out of date due to Covid and hence there will be no need for a terminal expansion, stand 1 being in a ridiculous location or stands on the NE of airfield for some time. Being realistic, the best the airport can hope for with the extension (of which I am confident will be approved on Thursday) is for BA to become a more permanent fixture and maybe a 1 or 2 aircraft base max for either Wizz/EZY. If not then W patterns from other bases will be the way to go!

[cavokblues]

For a low cost airline to be enticed to base aircraft I would imagine Southampton will need to get those operating hours extended.

[Rivet Joint]

stewyb

Was merely putting a check mark against potential misinformation. I am all for healthy debate and speculation but TCAS FAN's post are often taken as gospel given his technical knowledge (not his fault). I am sure TCAS FAN is an adult and can handle a bit of opposition which indeed it looks like he has. I think you siding with someone who revels in people's livelihoods being destroyed is a bit much. Lets not turn this thread back into a point scoring exercise for the usual suspects. This thread has been much more positive lately.

The masterplan might be out of date, but in its basic form it still represents how SOU feel the airport could develop going forward. Of course it is all dependent on circumstance but I do not think something obvious like that needs to be pointed out.

As for stand 1, I am pretty sure BE use to park aircraft behind stands 2-5 late at night. I cannot see how the new arrangement will be much of a departure from what already exists. I am pretty sure tugs are sophisticated enough to facilitate such parking arrangements. Not ideal no, but still manageable. People often seem to miss that stand 14 can accommodate larger aircraft as well. I have seen numerous larger aircraft use it and one was parked there for a few days after going tech once.

I am minded to agree with your comments about BA and Wizz/EZY. I think BA will prove to be a runaway success when holidays are finally allowed as the catchment can afford to pay the premium they charge over a low cost operator. Wizz/EZY will almost certainly test the waters with aircraft based elsewhere. The country does seem to be moving towards doing more things locally though, which is good news for regional airports and bad news for the big London airports.

As for the runway extension itself, the following paragraph from the planning statement seems to confirm what its purpose will be:

"7.9. From a usage perspective, the runway extension will be utilised as a turning and starting point for larger or more laden aircraft taking off in a southerly direction. The extension will only be utilised by aircraft taking off and heading south, it will not be used by aircraft landing or taking off to the north. Effectively the additional surface allows those aircraft taking off in a southerly direction to have an extended take-off area by moving the aircraft turning area further north".

[TCAS FAN]

cavokblues

Unfortunately that's never going to happen, until we get to near noiseless electric aircraft. The hours are dictated by a Section 106 Agreement with the local LPA which takes into account noise control measures.

As long as airlines do not schedule flights within the night hours specified in the 106 they can operate during these hours if flights are delayed. As was the case with Fly-be on many occasions the delayed flight could legally operate but the airport did not have the staff availability to cover the extended hours, resulting in PAX ending up at best in BOH, or EXT, BRS, BHX.

[dixi188]

Rivet Joint.
That planning statement 7.9 would indicate that the extension will not be added to the ASDA or LDA on 02. So no gain in performance with northerly winds.

[TCAS FAN]

The documents submitted with the planning application indicate a slight increase (22 metres) in 02 TORA/ASDA/LDA, nothing to get excited about.

[RW20]

TCAS FAN

Regarding loading on stands 6-12,I recall seeing a loaded air europa 757 parked South facing on where stands 11-12 are now( student exchange times)
With this in mind ,surely this area could take a loaded 320?

[Buster the Bear]

Southampton is a London City, trying to be a Bournemouth. Stick to what you are good at and let aircraft performance enhancements come to Eastleigh. I wonder how far you could fly full regularly with an 190-E2 or an A220?

[willy wombat]

Worth bearing in mind that after initially opening primarily for dash 7s, LCY extended its runway to accommodate larger types and only then did it become successful.

[TCAS FAN]

RW20

I'm sorry that a determination of this is beyong my area of expertise. Am aware that there have been isolated cases of larger aircraft marshalled on to 11-12, still remember the IL-76, so there may be some tolerance for such one-off events, Whether or not with a bearing strength of PCN 23/F/C/Y/T Stands 11-14 can frequently sustain a loaded A320 is something that maybe another thread reader can comment on?

[The Nutts Mutts]

Surprised it hasn't been mentioned on here already today, but the runway extension planning committee meeting is taking place at the moment. It started at 10am and may conclude by midnight (!), if not it'll be reconvened tomorrow.

[Rivet Joint]

Very telling don’t you think about the motives of a lot of the posters on this thread. All quiet when there is nothing bad to jump on.

I have been dipping in and out of the updates and it looks like it is leaning towards permission being given. Fingers crossed.

[bad bear]

https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/19186368.southampton-airport-expansion-decision-day---happens/?fbclid=IwAR1RzvsqKw5hOYOx0NFGcBOr9OqxrzthdvWMUa_FM93bUwVp3f nHwH3Cm7k

I could copy and paste some of the comments that made me chuckle, people do come out with ill informed drivel and some emotional blackmail thrown in for good measure

[RW20]

Rivet Joint

I believe it's more telling that your delusional thinking seems to have no bounds.It would be great for the thread if you took a step back from your constant digs of posters who don't hold your views,but are equally entitled to there opinions.

[southside bobby]

For balance BBC reports when the meeting was adjourned three Councillors out of eight on the committee had given their views with two opposing and one in favour of the plans.

[j4leaphill]

RW20

indeed,I've noticed its gone from a definite to fingers crossed,so I suggest he isn't as confident as he likes to think he is.

[055166k]

RW20
Pavement loading considerations take in many factors. The Boeing 757 has a 4-wheel bogey to help weight distribution whereas the A320 family/B737 family tend to have 2-wheel bogeys. A 4-wheel bogey has been seen on the A320 but only as a special modification e.g Air India operating into some airfields. Another example is the Airbus300 fitment of what was called the "La Guardia bogey" ...six Eastern Airways A300's were fitted with wider bogeys to accommodate taxiway weight distribution restrictions.
If I was an airline operator I would be looking at a number of features such as the LDA [landing distance available] on RW20 of 1605 metres after a 3.1 degree ILS approach.......the proposed extension will not affect that. The approach light system is a little "quaint". There is no CAT2/CAT3 low visibility operation. There is history of a jet airliner over-running the end of RW20.
I've flown in/out of Southampton many times, my family and I love the place for its regional airport-sized efficiency and rapid transit [except the Mickey Mouse comical scenes of keeping arriving domestic and foreign passengers separate using tapes and Hi-Viz jacket marshalls to stop intermixing/crossing paths on the way to the arrivals hall] I don't care what the decision is really.....I just want some planes back so that I can fly again.
P.S. Some of you may remember the Air Berlin flights...gosh!!...that motorway looks awful close!! Loved the Dash 8's .......kapow!!!...landed.....aircraft carrier style retardation. I miss FLYBE so much. Regards to all

[SotonFlightpath]

I loved FLYBE too, they opened-up so many opportunities for us in Southampton, and I frequently used them to destinations as diverse as Amsterdam, Dublin, Newcastle, Dusseldorf and even Skiathos!

When I was a regular FLYBE user, on nearly all of the flights I took many of the passengers were people undertaking 'friend and family' visits, on some flights these made up the majority of the passengers. Early mornings and mid-evenings, it was mainly business traffic, often out and back in the day. There were also a surprisingly large number of passengers on their way to join a cruise at Southampton, particularly I found on flights from Glasgow, Belfast and Dublin.

Although the travel world has been shot to pieces by COVID, much of this traffic will surely return. Whilst we all hope that the runway extension gains approval, I still feel all those who support SOU must remain positive, as, although we won't have gained what we are hoping for, we have lost nothing. Southampton has a great future as a super little airport, and will surely bounce back and will continue to serve the needs of the region just as it always has done. And, with the likes of Eastern, Blue Islands, Aurigny, Logonair, BA City Flyer, and KLM stepping in, we won't have all our eggs in one basket. Onwards and upwards!

[RW20]

Good replies to the Rivet Joint comments,I hope the airport will continue,but I think times ahead are going to be troublesome,it may be that it won't be viable as a profit making airport and the land offers greater development opportunities!

[RW20]

It's being reported tonight that the airport management expects the vote to go against the proposals,it will go to the the full council assessment,but it looks increasing like a government final decision.It's going to be a long road and a possibility of not happening.The question is where does the airport go from here?

[SKOJB]

Think you have almost answered your own question and if it goes to the planning inspectorate in London, it will most definitely be passed. Along with the local planning inspector's recommendation for approval, the airport has been supported from day 1 by central government and has received various visits and backing from Aviation Ministers at the DOT. The local MP is Tory and levelling up of the regions and aviation connectivity was a manifesto pledge by the Conservatives at the last election so there is no way this will be revoked. Indeed, at present this is probably the quickest way for the airport to satisfy its shareholders!

[SWBKCB]

I don't think many people have Southampton in mind when they think of "levelling up of the regions"! :ok:

[cavokblues]

It's becoming quite a theme, same thing happened at Bristol airport - planners suggested approval but council voted it down. That's at the Planning Inspectorate as well. One thing I would say regarding the Inspectorate, and I'm probably slightly biased as I've family who work there, they're quite far removed from the influence of central government, believe it or not. They will assess the plan on its merits and how it complies with the local planning policies - so if the local planners recommended approval I would suggest that's a very good sign!

Saying that, I'm not entirely convinced this extra bit of runway will do much to help improve connectivity within the UK if that is indeed the argument. The runway is perfectly adequate as it is for UK flights.

[SotonFlightpath]

Have been following the meeting on Teams - the committee have voted against the recommendation - it will now go before the full Eastleigh Borough Council for a vote on April 8.

[Dropoffcharge]

5 votes to 3 against.

[paulc]

The decision has made the future of the airport a major issue in the upcoming local elections. Maybe the councillors who voted against will be reminded that they are supposed to work for and represent the people who elected them.

[LTNman]

That is why they voted against the application as they do represent the people who elected them.

Contrast Southampton with Luton where the planning authority is the airport owner so is not independent.

[paulc]

Public opinion here is firmly behind the proposal. It will go to full council now and hopefully be approved.

[Atlantic Explorer]

Can you substantiate that claim?

[ATNotts]

Across the wider region you're almost certainly right, but residents living in ear shot of the airport people will be concerned. Such concern exacerbated by sloppy local journalism and politicians looking for reelection.

[Flitefone]

Eastleigh Borough Election May 6th

https://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/media/9361/notice-of-election-eastleigh-borough-council.pdf

[paulc]

I am within earshot and fully support it. Numerous other groups on social media do as well. The local MP supports it, along with planners. It will now go to full council to debate and hopefully approve.

[ATNotts]

Problem is that unless it's a rotten borough you aren't the only voter!!

[TCAS FAN]

On the subject of sloppy local journalism, where did the allegation that the reason for the runway extension is to enable the airport to accept "larger aircraft" originate?

[ATNotts]

In the imagination of poor journalists at best; malicious lies by campaigners and activists at worst.

Of course larger aircraft could lead to fewer movements and thus beneficial to the environment. Throw that one back at Packham!

[SWBKCB]

TCAS FAN

Maybe Para 5.2 of the airports document linked to at post #300 above?

Southampton Airport has for many years lagged behind other UK regional airports in providing a comprehensive range of European air services to its core catchment population. Much of this deficiency can be attributed to Southampton Airport’s limited operational capability, which means it cannot cater for the larger narrow-body aircraft used by most short haul airlines, hence the need for the runway starter extension.

[southside bobby]

Previously...
"Comments that made me chuckle...ill informed drivel" & "sloppy journalism"... are not be assured peculiar to SOU they are par for the course in open debate & in the course of planning meetings too...the Airport operator/owner should have be able to assemble & counter far more effectively then.

[paulc]

The only larger narrow body they would probably be referring to is the A321. There have been plenty of visits by 757, A320, A319, 717, md80 and 737 over the years. Even had an il76 once or twice.

[SWBKCB]

Plenty of visits? Has there ever been a time when there has been more than, say, five flights a week?
Then compare to this thread and the discussions about how many such a/c could be based...

[TCAS FAN]

Maybe Para 5.2 of the airports document linked to at post #300 above?

Thankyou, which the media then take this to read "larger aircraft"? Maybe not a case of sloppy journalism but an own goal caused by a sloppy document published by the airport operator?

[SWBKCB]

I think we are splitting hairs here - the intention of the runway extension is clearly to try and attract more 737/A320 size a/c on a daily basis compared to the regional airliners which operate from the airport at present.

[Dropoffcharge]

Initially it was stated in the first application to "allow existing aircraft to travel further and without weight penalties" then suddenly the application changes and mention of bigger aircraft are being bound around. A certain MOL has stated that RYN equipment would not be suited to SOU in a post extension world, that leaves the orange army with there fleet, who have incidentally to date still not committed to anything substantial from SOU should the extension go ahead.

[TCAS FAN]

SWBKCB

Shame that the airport didn't stick to the statement apparently made in the initial application (mentioned in post 344). I doubt that the nays among the committee, and their constituents that they look to appease in order to get re-elected, have the background knowledge to appreciate this. Their focus is possibly on "larger aircraft" and the perceived noise and pollution that they would generate.

[adfly]

I have to say I'm not too suprised that at this stage the councillors have voted the extension down. It is an easy scapegoat for them to present to voters that that are acting to tackle climate change (but please don't say anything about SCC and the port...) by refusing it. I remain reasonably confident that on a whole council or even government level there is a good chance of the extension being approved.

I do feel the airport have quite got the right tune in how they have prevented a few of their ideas though.

'Larger aircraft' - I feel they should emphasise this as a redistribution of what type of traffic the airport will see as the extension will not really open up the possibility of any 'larger' aircraft than currently operate (maybe a 321N would just about work for PMI length routes, but seems very unlikely?). This could instead be presented as 'we expect the airport to go from a traffic mix of 60x 80 seat prop + 10x 120 seat jet + 2x 180 seat jet to something like 40x 80 seat prop + 15x 120 seat jet + 10x 180 seat jet to demonstrate how they can see growth through slightly less flights but on slightly larger aircraft.

Regarding noise, the prospect of less flights could be promoted more clearly, and also comparisons between aircraft. I'd be interested to see just how much noisier a 320 CEO/NEO would be compared to a Q400 of E195, as I suspect there may not be much difference. Unless the contrary is true then it feels like this is a good way to reassure those concerned about noise and the prospect of huge aircraft suddenly being commonplace at the airport.

On an environmental side, I'd be interested to see the comparison between the impact the airport has on the local air quality and that of the port. I expect you could remove the airport entirely and Southampton would still have air quality issues in the centre of town. A prominent argument on environmental grounds is that NOx emissions in the worst case may triple (can't remember the figure but it's out there). That is obviously not good but it needs some context to show how that impacts the overall air quality and NOx emissions in Eastleigh and Southampton. Not much value in protesting about one big looking number if it is orders of magnitude below the overall levels of pollution in the area, and therefore making very little difference in the grand scheme of things.

It might be that all of these details are in the information the airport has provided, but even as an interested outside I've not found them, so it feels to me as though they have not presented the finer details of the case strongly enough. The emotive 'approve the extension to save the airport' is a good headline, with some logic behind it (i.e. airport breaking even at 1.2m passengers), but I think the finer details have not been emphasised enough and this has benefitted the against case.

[Rivet Joint]

A great shame the decision went the wrong way but I guess not unexpected. Most runway extensions end up going for appeal so looks like it will end up that way. The fact remains that SOU have ticked all the boxes planning wise for the extension and the government will pass the planning accordingly.

It just shows what a joke local authorities are who always resort to satisfying the individuals that scream the loudest. I would hazard a guess that the majority of the people who support the extension are normal people with jobs and families and who hardly ever use social media to thrust their opinions on others. Those who opposed sensible decisions as a result of narrow mindedness always seem to have the time to campaign with their placards and constantly push out miss information on social media. I bet the majority of residents who took part in the meeting were against the extension which is completely biased.

Regardless of the above and correct me if I am wrong, circa 60% of the respondents to the planning permission were in favour of the extension. In a sensible world that should be the figure the councillors look to when assessing local support and clearly it gives them a mandate to support the extension. Their decision in some ways is pure corruption as the planning submission was recommended for permission by the local authorities own planning department(!) and public support was in its favour. Unfortunately this point will not be pushed as mentioned above the people that support are normal people who will just get on with their lives. We are living in very dangerous times where the minorities get their own way as they shout the loudest and the majority live in a compromised world as a result.

[LTNman]

Ross McNally, Chief Executive at Hampshire Chamber of Commerce said: "We ask the panel to back the airport, local businesses, communities and the great potential of this economy. The whole Solent business community depends on a well connected region."



Yet this application would not benefit the business community as only the holidaymaker that would use larger aircraft?

[RW20]

adfly

Good points!
I'm afraid however that with the existing covid restrictions there's going to be difficult times ahead. Clearly BA operations this year are going to be very limited!
I'm not sure that the proposed runway extension is a necessity ,maybe for survival GA aviation could be explored along with restricted opening hours.Leave the Sun routes and further afield destinations to Bournemouth who have the infrastructure to accommodate.

[adfly]

LTNman

I think the airport being better connected to more of Europe has some benefit to local business, even if it's not multiple daily flights to a destination. I'm sure even having a few flights a week to somewhere (ideally year round being the biggest caveat) can benefit the regions businesses and could support or aid inbound trade to an extent as well. Yes said flights will be predominantly leisure or VFR, but that does not mean that businesses would not benefit at all as well.

[RW20]

Rivet Joint you need to calm down ,your comment below quote will only inflame substantial objectors!


We are living in very dangerous times where the minorities get their own way as they shout the loudest and the majority live in a compromised world as a result.

[Rivet Joint]

LTNman

Luton based resident offering his expert judgment on Southampton? Aware of the international port? The fact that it is the biggest cruise turnaround port in Europe (I.e. where the most cruises in Europe start and end)? That is 2 million passengers alone to tap into let alone all the staff on the ships. The biggest port in UK for car exports? The huge container port visited by ships from all over the globe? The two international universities with a huge amount of foreign students? The fact the new forest and south downs national parks are either side of the airport and are holiday destinations for continental Europe? The huge oil refinery? The international boat show which is one of the largest in Europe? The national oceanography centre? Huge hospital which is one of the leaders in the research of cancer? Huge Portsmouth naval base? The base for countless other maritime, cruise, insurance etc companies? Etc etc etc.

Not to mention with its own train station and motorway junction it is undoubtedly the best connected airport in the region so businesses across the surrounding counties could use it if better connected.

I won’t be going on the Luton thread and passing judgement on their passenger base anytime soon.

[LTNman]

Not an expert at all but nor is the Hampshire Chamber of Commerce it would seem. You haven’t put forward a valid reason why the business community needs new holiday routes served by larger aircraft?

I can see why holidaymakers would want these potential new routes though.

[j4leaphill]

Rivet Joint

such a huge demand from all the mentioned,is 164 odd meters of tarmac on a hemmed in tiny airport going to be big enough to support the demand,I hardly think so.

[southside bobby]

Who on earth mentioned the "mad dogs" & also the visiting IL76...those surely would be enough to scare the natives & inspire a "sloppy" piece of journalism into the bargain.

Back in the day the IL76 sometimes so frightened the locals at STN (& also the airport operator at times if truth be told) that it eventually took the unilateral action to ban them.

After SOU has now failed to keep it local it may possibly be difficult to imagine Southampton Council having the courage of their convictions by overruling democratically elected Councillors & a very large green agenda thus making national headlines.

The PM for the Government is being advised in all matters green by his very own Princess Nut Nut to the detriment of the industry on here & with a planned exemplar grandstand at COP 26 any unwelcome media distraction is not to be welcomed.

Greta will be there.

The announced new coal mine in Cumbria has now being reigned in.

Best hope is to frame the argument as Building Britain/Backing Britain as some of the posts here appear as "robbed" football supporter commentary but it should be noted the PM appears mostly interested in his own short term ism.

[Rivet Joint]

LTNman

As mentioned before, whilst the extension will open up more leisure options, it will also greatly help existing operations become more operable. I used the Munich flight when BM operated it a number of times and some of the seats had to remain empty to operate it. The 50-150 seat regional jets would be used on business routes and they currently cannot operate at full potential.

As for leisure, do you think such flights are only about Brits going to the south of Spain to sunbath for a week? I know that’s some airports market but the catchment here is rich and potentially has more sophisticated tastes. City breaks can be served which will also cater for business demand, Berlin for example which BA are operating. Also as mentioned above, the south of England is a holiday destination for continental Europe so it is inward holiday passengers as well. Not to mention continental Europe and anyone else internationally that wants to cruise Europe needs to come here to start their cruise and leave here when it ends.

As things stand the prices for flights at SOU are large as a result of the operational limitations, it’s a whole different story when prices can come down by at least 50%.

So to answer your question the extension is not just about bigger aircraft, it’s existing operations. Plus there are lots of routes where aircraft could serve both leisure and business needs.

[Rivet Joint]

j4leaphill

Care to share which airline you are the CEO of? Ever heard of economies of scale?

[Rivet Joint]

southside bobby

Agreed the green agenda is becoming a big problem but we are not talking about a new coal power station here, although you would think it judging by some of the residents comments.

I would hope that it falls within the same bracket as HS2 and other transport infrastructure. HS2 is causing huge damage to the environment including various woodlands being cleared and yet it was approved. Hopefully a small runway extension within the airports existing boundary should be fine.

[SKOJB]

Demand is most definitely there for the extension, from what I can see the airport has handled between 1.7m-2m pa for over a decade. This for a regional airport I would suggest is very good and if they can add a few additional routes, it will easily add on another 500k

[cavokblues]

Bizarre that you apparently have to live in Southampton or be an airline CEO to comment now.

People are allowed to be sceptical as to what help the new runway will actually be, surely?

[j4leaphill]

SKOJB

Do you think these numbers would be possible after the covid situation has passed ?,if the answer is yes,then the claim that we need the extension to attain 1.2 million passengers to break even,is somewhat incorrect then.As with the change in use from current a/c originally to larger aircraft they are hoping for now,is something people complaining about the plans will pick up on and cause a feeling of suspision,and won't help something the authorities should have realised

[055166k]

Rivet Joint
You mention pricing. I looked up my last KL916 ticket SOU to Amsterdam 4th March 2019. It was one-way as I was flying back from DUS later in the week.
KLM Ticket price.............................................£13.00
AIRPORT Passenger Service Charge............£22.00
UK Passenger Duty.........................................£13.32
Total....................................................... ..........£48.32
I wish to differ from the claim that flight prices are high.....TAXES are High.....the airlines get next to nothing.
[Evidence available.....I still have the ticket]

[Buster the Bear]

They'll be no justification for the massive airspace grab planned then.

[BHX5DME]

SKOJB

The 1.7m-2.0m figure was good but these were achieved with FlyBe being the main operator, 2020-21 are more or less written off so we wont know SOU post FlyBe annual pax figure for a for more years yet.

[The Nutts Mutts]

Buster the Bear

What airspace grab? SOU doesn't have any airspace proposals published at the moment. Prior to the new Farnborough airspace, the last airspace change involving SOU was ATC voluntarily reverting part of the Solent CTA to class G (uncontrolled) above Lee-on-Solent as they weren't using it in normal circumstances and it was of more benefit to general aviation in the area.

[adfly]

Bringing us back to what is happening now, and hopefully injecting a little positivity as well I've put together the current planned flight resumptions. There is a chance that some of the international flight dates may change but I'm personally quite confident in the domestic/CI/IOM ones as it stands. I've put an asterix next to anything that looks like it is likely to change and two for stuff that looks like it's gonna disappear (yes I am aware to an extent none of it is particularly stable...). Frequency's based on departing flights (couple of the BA routes have additional or less inbound flights due to positioning etc)

Recently the only services have been Aurigny to Guernsey and Blue Islands to Jersey, both operating 3 weekly (M, W, F).

29/03

Aurigny increasing Guernsey to 5 weekly (Mon-Fri)

01/04

Eastern resume Belfast City, 2 weekly (Thurs/Fri, then Mon/Fri)

12/04

Loganair resume Newcastle, 4 weekly (Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun)
Eastern increase Belfast City to 4 weekly (Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun)

26/04

Blue Islands increase Jersey to 9 weekly (2x Mon and Fri)

01/05

**Blue Islands resume Guernsey 21 weekly
Loganair resume Glasgow, 5 weekly (Thurs-Mon)
Loganair resume Edinburgh, 5 weekly (Thurs to Mon, Sun and first Sat flight operate via GLA until 17/05)

08/05

Loganair increase Newcastle to 5 weekly (Sat flight added)

17/05

Aurigny increase Guernsey to 21 weekly
Loganair increase Glasgow to 8 weekly (Thurs-Mon, 2x Thurs, Fri, Mon)
Loganair increase Edinburgh to 9 weekly (Thurs-Mon, 2x except Sat)
*Eastern resume Leeds Bradford, 11 weekly (on weekdays there are 2 flights bookable southbound but only 1 northbound, looks like a glitch...)
Eastern resume Manchester, 11 weekly
Eastern resume Teesside, 5 weekly

24/05

KLM Cityhopper resume Amsterdam, 7 weekly

28/05

Blue Islands increase Jersey to 21 weekly

29/05

Volotea (TUI) resume Palma, 1 weekly
BA Cityfler start Bergerac (2 weekly), Faro (1 weekly), Malaga (3 weekly),

30/05

Loganair increase Glasgow to 11 weekly
Loganair increase Edinburgh to 11 weekly
Loganair increase Newcastle to 11 weekly
Eastern increase Belfast City to 6 weekly
BA Cityflyer start Palma (1 weekly), Mykonos (1 weekly), Ibiza (1 weekly)

01/06

Aurigny resume Alderney, 14 weekly

07/06

Blue Islands start Manchester, 18 weekly
*Blue Islands start Dublin, 7 weekly

21/06

Loganair increase Glasgow to 25 weekly
Loganair increase Edinburgh to 25 weekly
Loganair increase Newcastle to 18 weekly

22/06

Loganair start Isle of Man, 3 weekly

24/06

Eastern start Rennes, 3 weekly

25/06

Eastern start Dublin, 4 weekly
Eastern start Gibralter, 2 weekly
Eastern start Nantes, 3 weekly

26/06

BA Cityflyer start Alicante (1 weekly) Limoges (1 weekly), Nice (1 weekly), Florence (2 weekly)
BA Cityflyer increase Palma (2 weekly), Ibiza (2 weekly),

27/06

BA Cityflyer start Edinburgh (1 weekly), Berlin (1 weekly)
BA Cityflyer increase Bergerac (3 weekly)

28/06

Blue Islands increase Jersey to 23 weekly

29/06

Blue Islands increase Manchester to 19 weekly

01/07

Blue Islands resume Guernsey 12 weekly

06/09

Eastern increase Belfast City to 11 weekly

Let me know if there's any mistakes or changes and I will update this post.

[Alteagod]

Fantastic work. I was wondering what was happening with the BHD flights especially but good to see updates and positive moves on domestic flights

[TCAS FAN]

They'll be no justification for the massive airspace grab planned then.

What massive airspace grab? If you are referring to the current suspended ACP, it is still very early days in the consultation process with design options still to be discussed with stakeholders. Options for expansion of controlled airspace are very limited and by no means could be called "massive".

If the ACP is sucessful IMHO any increases will be focussed on providing contiguous airspace to permit an acceptable descent gradient in order to permit straight-in approaches from the north, to replace the current "Winchester orbit" necessary to lose height. This will of course result in fuel burn reductions and thereby reduce CO2 emissions.

Again IMHO there could be the possibility to raise parts of the CTA lower limit south of the airport, for the benefit of GA.

[stewyb]

Thanks adfly, i think TUI are using BA for their Saturday charter

[The Nutts Mutts]

It's showing as Volotea when you do a dummy booking on the TUI website.

[SKOJB]

Immaterial as cannot see much operating abroad in any case!

[rog747]

SOU Runway Planning Council meeting adjourned at 00.45 this morning after 11 hours of deliberations -
No decisions reached and Meeting will reconvene tonight at 18.00

Bournemouth & Dorset Echo pages reports that Bournemouth airport has objected due to, that it can offer what Southampton airport wants.
Southampton Council already objects to any runway extension.

There's currently now a discussion about whether to defer the Planning decision....

Public opinion poll yesterday by Echo newspapers -
80% For v 20% Against

What a mess for a 164m bit of pavement

[Flitefone]

With local elections in a few short weeks, its unlikely that politicians will want to vote on any contentious decision, and risk losing their seat. More likely a council decision after May 6, I still think the extension will get the green light. Much less clear whether the money will actually be spent by the current airport owner. This is likely to drag on for a good while yet.

[Asturias56]

"after 11 hours of deliberations "

just remember the Planning Committee do this for free in their own time.....................

[LTNman]

This is democracy working. At Luton where the airport owner is the planning authority so gets to vote on its own planning applications this would have been waved through in under an hour.

[southside bobby]

LTNman is well aware that Luton is in the last chance saloon when it comes to their own form of local democracy so stated.

[Albert Hall]

With that level of public support behind it, it will be a brave group of councillors to turn it down. It may take time to get there, but this surely has to get through?

[BA318]

Asturias56

Not quite. Cllrs get an allowance and usually Cllrs on a committee get an additional allowance. In some councils this can easily equal a full time job salary for what is usually a couple of evenings a month.

regarding the polls in a local paper it’s hardly scientific. It would be interesting to know if any of the parties have done polling on the airport being an issue. Sadly this is usually kept private and just passed to the candidates so we won’t know.

[shamrock7seal]

Adfly

With all this activity - some of which is the envy of most regional airports in the UK - how on earth can it be that SOU is unviable in its current form which is the main argument behind the extension?

[RW20]

Good points,the runway extension application will no doubt go to Government approval,so this time next year we might hear more!
The big question is will the airport owners fork our for this given that passengers numbers from the airport will be limited to mostly internal routes,and more importantly will the value of the land for building be the ultimate winner?.It's going to be a interesting next few months!

[inOban]

Surely if the full council approve it, that's it unless the government calls it in, which seems unlikely for a minor extension, or someone can convince the Law that there have been irregularities in the process in a judicial review.

[Rivet Joint]

Unfortunately not. The green loony toons will almost certainly appeal. Amazing how all these morons are always no where to be seen when the port expands like they are currently with the fifth cruise terminal being built. Even more amazing how the port doesn't have to even obtain planning for such a huge structure yet a bit of extra tarmac within SOUs own land has to. Lets not forget Southampton Council pilling on support for the cruise terminal but objecting to the runway extension. What's the lesson? If you want something done don't leave it up to local authorities. This is a planning decision and the council's own planning department have recommended it for approval. Support from respondents to the planning permission was predominantly in favor of the extension. There is nothing to discuss but of course these eco mentalists like to get on social media and attend all the meetings and not surprisingly intimidate the spineless councilors. Meanwhile the silent majority who back the extension seem to not surprisingly be to busy to give up two days of their lives to say their piece. God knows how these eco mentalists put food on their tables, can't imagine anyone is paying them to climb trees and stand outside parliament every other week. I bet all of them would look at you blankly if you asked them what an A320Neo was which just about sums up the validity of their argument. It will be approved by the government so lets wait until then.

[inOban]

The law must be different in England. Here, while the applicant can appeal against refusal, there is no right of appeal by objectors if permission is granted. Causes great anger in communities.

[zantopst]

Ironic but it sounds like the most likely complaint and one to appeal if the airport wins is actually Bournemouth airport on the grounds of unfair ability if having the extension for Southampton to take business away from Bournemouth. Didn’t seem to stop hurn letting EasyJet in to fly Edinburgh and Belfast which could arguably be core routes for Southampton and Southampton’s core business without a runway extension. Case of we have the longer runway which I don’t believe Sou argued against at the time but how dare you try and make airbus a320’s become viable from your runway! Can see this getting ugly between the two airports.

[The Nutts Mutts]

The competition aspect didn't seem to bother BOH a few years ago when they tried to poach Flybe from SOU.

[MerchantVenturer]

In England there is no third party right of appeal against a planning decision of a local authority.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06790/

Those aggrieved can apply for a Judicial Review which is a challenge to the way in which a decision was made, not the decision itself.

https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review/

[ZULUBOY]

Rivet Joint

"Morons", "Green Looney Toons", "Eco Mentalists". A bit OTT?

[RW20]

What do you expect,this is Rivet Joint your talking about!

[mrshubigbus]

Just a point that nobody in any of the meetings or on the forums seems to have touched upon. How long is Southampton's runway? How long is London City's runway? How many pax did SOU have prior to the pandemic and Flybe's demise? How many pax did London City have prior to the pandemic? SOU is a regional business airport, always has been always will be. BOH is the holiday airport, always has been always will be. The argument that SOU cannot continue to thrive as a regional business airport with the odd longer flights to Spain etc without a 164M runway extension is utter rubbish. The claim that 2500 jobs will be at risk? Why? The difference between SOU and LCY is that one is in the City of London and the other the City of Southampton. If the business needs of SOU only justify a throughput of up to 2 million pax a year then so be it. It doesn't stop the occasional charter flights to Palma, Alicante, Malaga and Faro etc going ahead as they were when Flybe operated them before and BA City Flyer / Volatea have said they will operate in future with the current runway length. The longer charter flights and low cost airlines will stay at BOH. Why does this "status quo" have to change? Will someone please give us a convincing case why an extra 164M of tarmac is required to continue with a business that was already thriving before? Businessmen don't need business flights from SOU to Spain and beyond - FULL STOP. Not going ahead isn't going to destroy the business SOU already had - FULL STOP! The list of summer 2021 airlines and destinations posted on here on the 28th March suggests to me that a very healthy state of affairs is already in the planning with no runway changes whatsoever. That's seven airlines operating to nearly 30 routes all over Europe as far as Gibraltar and Mykonos. Please correct me if I'm wrong or I might have missed something glaringly obvious?

[SKOJB]

Runway extension approved in the early hours by EBC

[rog747]

To expand on that -

The application to extend the runway at Southampton Airport has been approved by EastleighBC
Full Council voted 22 to 13 with one abstention.
Southampton Airport have been given permission to extend its runway by 164m. However, passenger numbers will be capped at 3m per year and noise implications.

EBC states -
The decision to permit the application is subject to a range of conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement addressing important issues arising during the construction and operational phases of the development, including environmental air quality and noise issues, health, transport and ecological issues, together with a Carbon Strategy to reduce emissions from the airport’s own operations, and a plan to encourage employment of local residents.

[Sharklet_321]

I am genuinely happy this got approved as it will benefit the entire region and not just SOU or it’s immediate surrounds.

My question for people in the know is: 1) when is this likely to be built? And how long would construction take? Most airlines are at a fraction of their size at the moment. 2) does 164m allow unrestricted A320 ops to Cyprus/Greece/Canaries? If so this is the death of BOH since the catchment is larger at SOU and finally 3) Given prevailing winds/weather, what % of time will aircraft have to offload luggage or restrict payload if they have to operate from the other end (without the starter strip)?

[kcockayne]

mrshubigbus sums it up nicely, as far as I am concerned. There has been a lot of overkill attached to this process & decision by both sides. I can’t see how it will be the death knell of Bournemouth, either.
It’s only 164m at one end, after all !

[rog747]

I do not think ''unrestricted'' Ops or payloads can ever be expected from SOU even using 180 seat A320NEO types.
There will always be occasions and routes where payloads will be limited.
This is not an 7 or 8000' runway!
Easy Jet were flying from SEN to the Canaries with a 10-15 seat loss.

I do not think BOH has anything to worry about.

SOU will not overnight expect to be able to fill 180 seat aircraft yet.
That type of new business has to build -
Once Covid allows Business to re-start and Travellers to act more normally then we will should see the rewards of more choice.

The new BACF Summer program was a great start albeit now likely further delayed to most or many of their leisure routes.
These flights use a 98 seat EMB Jet.

CDG/AMS and DUB are all crucial Feeder Hubs for onward travel - I would like to see those back in strength.
Plus the UK feeder network restored which SOU was famous for.

[willy wombat]

Re “when will it be built?” If it was up to me I’d get cracking first thing Monday morning before someone comes up with more objections or Swampy starts digging.

[Albert Hall]

Excellent news for SOU. The next battle should be in about ten years’ time when the 3 million pax cap is reached then! But that’s great progress for the airport.

[LTNman]

So what’s the cost of providing the extra 164m? It then comes down to extra revenue generated per year that needed that new length vs the cost of the build and the interest charges on the loans.

Will there be a parallel taxiway as in increased length will decrease the existing flow rate?

[Rivet Joint]

As another poster has said, get the spades in the ground ASAP!

There is no parallel taxiway planned for this stage of works. There was in the previous master plan. In the new plan they indicated that the runway would be linked to end of the stands at some point which would cut the backtracking time a bit. I guess the volume is not there to proceed with that yet but it seems silly not to put that bit down whilst all the machinery is there for the extension works.

Also lets not bring the SOU v BOH debate back on this thread as it is irrelevant. They are very different businesses and FR and BY are very unlikely to ever operate at SOU given their preference for a 1960s derived plane in the 737. Also BOH's sun routes are well established and will always be served. If I was BOH I would be focusing on growing the new cargo ops which have a lot of potential that SOU will never be able to serve. would like to think it would be much more productive for us to discuss what airlines could be possible candidates to open routes at SOU. It does not just have to be a low cost operator. Maybe the extension will enable ops for other CRJ, ERJ, A220 etc ops? I know some of the variants of those regional jets cannot operate at SOU at the moment.

[adfly]

Looking at the here and now, the Loganair E145's should benefit, and I think the larger CRJ's are a sub optimal choice on the current runway. There is a fairly considerable number of CRJ900's operated by Lufthansa and SAS in Europe, so being able to operate their smallest jets at Southampton more feasibly would be no bad thing...

On the topic of a parallel taxiway, a full length one would presumably be very costly, but surely a short one running from the stand 13/14 area to the runway could be a useful addition. Takes nearly 50% off the backtracking distance for an aircraft departing runway 20, and should allow the majority of flights arriving on runway 02 to not need to backtrack. See my crude drawing on Google Earth...

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x854/capture_1_png_4d0626863cd5fa61aaaba41d640f1258f916e671.jpeg

[stewyb]

Sharklet_321

1/ At present, concrete will start to be poured this winter with construction taking 34 weeks
2/ not sure although imagine any routes of this length will still be load limited (aka SEN to TFS with EZY), if SOU can attract a few sun routes with EZY/Wizz etc, there could be some dilution with BOU. BE operating to the Med always had a very loyal customer base from SOU so you could see some leakage of pax from the New Forest and beyond to SOU if the airline offering and pricing is attractive and there are route duplications, vice versa local catchment will continue to use BOU for other destinations not served from SOU
3/ take off from 02 is circa 25% of all departures and the starter strip will not be useable for TORA, therefore issue could be with weight restrictions during these times

[stewyb]

adfly

Have to agree with the northern taxiway, no idea why they cannot extend out to runway as per your diagram and with equipment on site during construction, seems illogical to me. This same mistake was made 20 years ago when they had the opportunity during runway resurfacing and would have cost pence instead of pounds!

[VickersVicount]

oh thank the lord, I couldn't have faced any more of this will they/wont they.
Id be surprised if it made a huge difference tbh with a sudden flurry of new destinations and operators...
But glad the NIMBYs dont get it all their own way for once.

[ATNotts]

LTNman

Is the cost more or less per metre than HS2?

[Asturias56]

"The next battle should be in about ten years’ time when the 3 million pax cap is reached then!

this is exactly the sort of post that people shouldn't make - it's a gift to the swampies and any appeal against the decision (and I'm sure there'll be one)

[TCAS FAN]

stewyb

Let us be clear, what has been granted is permission for a runway extension, not a starter strip which would only be usable for take-off on 20 and would not necessarily have to be full runway width.

The, as yet to be approved by CAA, intended declared distances will include a small increase in 02 TORA and LDA.

[SKOJB]

you are quite right although TORA only improves by 20m or so. If 02 is in use for departures, question remains if a 320 could lift off with increased payload to the same extent as 20 after the extension?

[adfly]

Few snippets of good news.

- Today is the first day where there will be a flight on a weekend for a number of weeks (Eastern to Belfast City)
- Belfast City increases to 4 weekly services (Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun)
- Loganair return tomorrow with flights to Newcastle initially 4 weekly (Mon, Thurs, Fri, Sun)
- Auringy appear to almost exclusively be using the E195 on Guernsey to Southampton flights at the moment, possibly an indication of increasing demand to use the only current mainland airlink to Guernsey.
- Inbound Blue Islands flight tomorrow appears to be fully booked - I expect the above applies to a lesser extent (Jersey also has a couple of BA/easyJet flights at the moment)

[TCAS FAN]

SKOJB

Although I am not versed in the science of performance calculations, may I suggest a simplistic comparison with SEN who have a TORA/TODA 1739/1799M for both runways? What do EZY/RYR achieve with that?

On occassions in my distant past we had a number of jet operators requesting a 02 departure, with a tail wind, due to the improved declared distances and obstacle environment - even with the rail shed!

[RW20]

TCAS CAN
Thank you for your observations,one thing I'm not clear about is the LDA for 02,given that it's a runway extension,why isn't 164 metre not being added on to the 02 data?
And how will the this effect the ILS minima for 20?

[TCAS FAN]

The runway must have a strip surrounding it which is generally obstacle free, to cover the eventuality of an aircraft leaving the paved surface. For 02/20 this strip is 140 metres each side of the runway centreline extending for 60 metres before the threshold (ie earliest point of landing) and beyond the end of the declared TORA/LDA. Additionally there needs to be a Runway End Safety Area (RESA) extending outward from the strip ends for a minimum of 90 M as a safety buffer to counter an accident involving an undershoot or overrun. Consequently most of the extension is in fact the 02 strip end and RESA.

Should be no impact on the ILS minima for 20.

[RW20]

TCAS FAN

Thank you,
As always a informative reply,and to the point!

[TCAS FAN]

adfly

It would be a shame if the airport operator repeats the previous mistake of not extending the taxiway system. to counter the increased 20 backtrack problem that the runway extension will cause, during the time that the plant is on-site during construction.

While a taxiway change,as indicated, will require CAA approval, it may not require planning consent, being possible under Permitted Development Rights. Is there a Town and Country Planning expert who could comment on this?

From memory the Section 106 Agreement related to the original planning consent for BAA's re-development only included future development at the north end of the runway which I believe was due to noise issues for those living in Southampton Road and Campbell Road.This has obviously been satisfied by the recent extension planning consent.

On the subject of the Section 106 Agreement (which is still in place), there is a provision in it covering runway extension whereby the expectation is that an application for an extension should not be made, but if it was it should not exceed a total runway length of 2000 metres. The expectation of no application was subsequently interpretted by a past airport MD as the runway can never be extended, something that he used to frequently quote to all and sundry.

This was the same MD who had the Short Term Car Park built, against the advice of his Ops staff (me included), up to the western apron edge, thereby stopping most future Stand development to accomodate nose-in B737/A320 parking.

How I miss Bl***y Awful Airports Plc!

[Avioactive]

Business travel will not return to previous pre-COVID, pre-Brexit, thriving-Flybe levels, not for many years, if at all. Most pundits consider it will have declined by 50% by the time it reaches post-pandemic stability. This will therefore primarily facilitate more profitable leisure Ops.

The key question is what will the new Landing Distance Available (LDA) be on RWY 02 if currently 1650m and on RWY 20 if currently 1605m? Thereby what passenger load advantages will aircraft be able to land with on a declared WET runway thereafter, over and above what they can land with now?

Are they to still get away with the reduced RESAs despite a runway physical change? Grandfather rights do not exist and in theory a distance change should come with 240m RESAs at either end which would of course shorten the declared runway lengths (they're only 90m today, the absolute minimum permitted).

[TCAS FAN]

Please excuse repetition of a sentence from my post #408, comparing SOU with SEN, with a SEN LDA 1604 "What do EZY/RYR achieve with that"?

Again, please refer to my post #274 with respect to new rules that come in on 4 November relating to reporting of a wet runway. It would appear unless the runway is known to be slippery when wet the current automatic penalty for wet runway will no longer apply.

From what I understand grandfather rights still apply to many aspects of runway 02/20.

[SKOJB]

With the revised declared distances and ‘grandfather rights’ in place, the airport now seems capable of conducting a limited schedule of Airbus ops post extension. Will be interesting to see which airline shows their cards first as several sun routes will be taken on fairly quickly I am sure!

[TCAS FAN]

Suspect that few if any will until construction of the extension starts.

[SKOJB]

Agreed although who’s your money on (just having a bit of fun)?

[TCAS FAN]

My understanding is that at least two new up and running operators, plus a new start up, are monitoring the development. Beyond that I couldn’t possibly comment!

[TCAS FAN]

New Type A obstacle charts have been published in the past few days, following AGS buying the main tree problem area south of the runway, Marhill Copse, and apparently carrying out tree work to reduce their impact on 20 departures.

Comparing the new chart with the old the whole exercise would appear to be a complete non event. The highest tree has reduced from 149 to 148 FT with some other trees between Marhill and the runway end having grown in height!

I am missing something?

[stewyb]

As you probably know, the airport failed with their recent application to remove the largest trees in the copse ie Monterey Pines, and I believe thinning of the woodland has primarily taken place with very limited felling. Not sure what action the airport is taking but assume an appeal against this decision would be forthcoming!

[TCAS FAN]

Thank you, I was not aware of the failed application.

[RW20]

TCAS FAN

I'm interested if you have any views on the news that Win ACC have written to the Secretary of state to call in the Decision allowing for the Runway extension quoting Article 31.This seems to have worked in delaying Leeds development.Action on Climate Change.

[TCAS FAN]

All I can do is express surprise as aircraft on final for 20 do not overfly the city of Winchester so any impact is going to be minimal. Could it be the well heeled residents of Twyford and Shawford, within the Winchester constituency, who have put them up to it?

Also, could this be the consequence of the apparent AGS' own goal, discussed in posts # 342-345, of indicating the need for an extension is to cater for larger aircraft? This is of course factually incorrect as there is nothing larger going to use the airport than can already do so.

[SWBKCB]

Which while being factually correct, is itself a twist. They are clearly spending the money so that airport becomes more attractive to operators of larger aircraft than the norm at SOU, so there is an expectation that there will be more of them so a greater impact on those on the ground.

They aren't going to all this expense to make LM's EMB operation more efficient.

[ATNotts]

Just another throw of the dice in the convoluted, seemingly never ending planning process in the UK, which is why we have some of the least adequate infrastructure in western Europe, be that road, rail, air or sea port. Until the pantomime is brought to heel the UK is going to struggle getting the appropriate infrastructure in place in anything approaching a timely manner. Always has done, well at least post WW2, and seemingly always will do.

[TCAS FAN]

SWBKCB

Quite simply IMHO all the general public, including the anti-airport lobby, now see is "larger aircraft".

[stewyb]

Have you read the letter that’s been submitted? that in itself will be turned in to a paper aeroplane and swiftly sent back to Eastleigh!

[TCAS FAN]

Have read it.

There appear to be similarities with Leeds. Their expansion is a new Terminal Building, to support an increase of passenger throughput they currently have. SOU's is similar, facilitated by a runway extension to increase the destination opportunities and therein passenger throughput, not primarily to permit larger aircraft to use the airport.

Time will tell whether the letter is taken seriously.

[stewyb]

One big difference here was Leeds had to go in to SofS as this was written in to their Section 106 and that the application was adjacent to green belt

[TCAS FAN]

Hopefully this in SOU’s favour. From what I remember of their Section 106 the only runway extension requirements have been mentioned in an earlier post of mine, ie the intent was that an application to extend shouldn’t be made, but if it was the total runway length should not exceed 2000 metres.

[fjencl]

Reborn Flybe plans summer restart | Travel Weekly (https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/reborn-flybe-plans-summer-restart)

[RW20]

stewyb

interesting differences,but I think there will be significant appeals to call in the Runway extension given the the ever growing opposition.
There's a long way to go before the work happens!

[RW20]

Further to above,looks like a growing number of opposition groups asking for the government to call in the planning permission,looks increasing likely that it will be take some time or will ever happen?

[SKOJB]

for once in your life, let’s be a glass half full type of person!😂

[adfly]

The below is likely subject to change but here is a summary of the planned flights from Southampton this summer. I remain confident that it will be a considerably better one than last year, even if it is still a long way from what was once considered normal. I've based the summary on week commencing Mon 12th July.

Auringy

Alderney - 14 weekly D28
Guernsey - 14 weekly AT7

BA Cityflyer (all served by E190's, 2 overnight Fri, 7 overnight Sat)

Alicante - 1 weekly
Bergerac - 3 weekly
Berlin - 1 weekly
Edinburgh - 1 weekly
Faro - 1 weekly
Florence - 2 weekly
Ibiza - 2 weekly
Limoges - 1 weekly
Malaga - 2.5 weekly
Mykonos - 1 weekly
Nice - 1 weekly
Palma - 2.5 weekly

Blue Islands (1x ATR72-500 based)

Dublin - 7 weekly
Guernsey - 12 weekly
Jersey - 23 weekly
Manchester - 19 weekly

Eastern Airways (2x ATR72-600 based, 1x E190 part based?)

Belfast City - 6 weekly AT7
Dublin - 4 weekly J41 (seems odd, flight times don't tie up with any other J41 flights - suspect it will actually flown by a based AT7)
Gibraltar - 2 weekly E90
Leeds Bradford - 10 weekly J41
Manchester - 11 weekly AT7
Nantes - 3 weekly AT7
Rennes - 3 weekly AT7
Teesside - 5 weekly J41

Loganair

Edinburgh - 25 weekly ER4
Glasgow - 25 weekly ER4
Isle of Man - 3 weekly AT7
Newcastle - 18 weekly ER3

KLM Cityhopper

Amsterdam - 7 weekly E75

TUI

Palma - 1 weekly 319 (Volotea)


Total weekly departures = 231 (around 330 in S19, and 210 planned for S20 post Flybe but before the true extent of Covid was realised)
Average daily departures = 33 (around 47 in S19)

Largest airlines:

Loganair - 71 weekly departures (Blue Islands probably have the most seats due to the average aircraft size being a fair bit bigger)
Blue Islands - 61 weekly departures
Eastern Airways - 44 weekly departures

[RW20]

Are you related to rivet joint?
Its clear that there is growing opposition to the EBC decision,this will impact on when any work might start.
The airport can and will be able to sustain profitable operations given BA use it for Summer operations in the future.Domestic services will be compromised,so survival depends on Covid restrictions,and not on a small runway extension.

[The Nutts Mutts]

Clear where? Inside your head?
The anti-airport groups are still anti-airport, but the majority of people seem to be pleased and relieved that the extension has finally been granted, going by replies and comments across various media outlets and social media sites.
There was always a silent majority who supported the airport and were in favour of the runway extension, the green groups simply shouted louder and used more hyperbole.
Of course the opposing groups will be writing to Robert Jenrick, it's pretty much their only option left.

[shamrock7seal]

If the rumour of easyJet securing LHR slots is true then SOU can kiss goodbye to any potential easyJet base - LHR is too close and basically taps into the same catchment.

Nevertheless routes like GVA and the odd thicker route (ALC, AGP?) might work on a w-basis post extension.

[stewyb]

shamrock7seal

No problem, I am certain the airport would accept a few W pattern EZY routes and a based Wizz aircraft for a select choice of destinations

[willy wombat]

I think that is unnecessarily pessimistic l1/ I think the odds of EZY getting sufficient slots to form a decent base at LHR at the right sort of timings, with historic rights, are miniscile and 2/ if they did, against the odds, get those slots they would doubtless use them for higher yield business oriented routes rather than the sort of leisure destinations that would do well from SOU.

[Albert Hall]

Unless easyJet has done a deal with another airline yet to be announced, they do not have slots at LHR. They are certainly holding none right now.

And with bases in Palma, Faro, Malaga and Alicante, they could serve Southampton if they wanted to. No W patterns would be needed. It’s exactly the same as the new services at Birmingham where the only remotely complicated routing is that to Corfu.

[TCAS FAN]

RW20

It would appear that we are now down to the final two hurdles, firstly waiting for the S of S to determine if the application is to be called in and secondly EBC to complete a new Section 106 Agreement to lock in the environmental mitigations that the airport offered/council requires..

https://www.eastleigh.gov.uk/planning-and-building/southampton-airport-planning-application

[stewyb]

Confident that if the Section 106 is robust and mitigates many of the environmental concerns, it will be passed back to EBC to rubber stamp!

[RW20]

TCAS FAN

it looks like a long way to go before any concrete is laid.On a separate note has there been any improvements on take off obstacles on 20 're Marhill copse?

[TCAS FAN]

See posts 419-421, unfortunately a non-event.

[Expressflight]

In recent history have any 20 departures taken advantage of the 15 degree starboard slew which was implemented many years ago to mitigate the tree problem?

[TCAS FAN]

Expressflight

"In recent history have any 20 departures taken advantage of the 15 degree starboard slew which was implemented many years ago to mitigate the tree problem?"

Just about every departure. The runway 20 Noise Preferential Route (NPR) provides for it.

The NPR must be flown by all turbo-jet aircraft and those with a MTOW 5700 KG or greater.

The problem was, and may still be, that for some aircraft when calculating take-off weight the height of one or more trees in/adjacent to Marhill Copse was too high/close to the end of the runway to allow for a 15 degree turn to be taken in to account. in order to afford the much better obstacle environment.

Once the runway extension is complete (all doubters on this thread please note my positivity) as the start of take-off run will be farther away from the trees it may be sufficient to take full advantage of the 15 degree turn option.

[SKOJB]

Seems TUI has cancelled its summer flight program to PMI, still some ‘holidays only’ bookable using BACF schedules

[uptoncol]

Where have you got that information from ?
August 7th flights onwards ,which I’m on that flight ,looks like they have just consolidated just to BACF ,as I was originally scheduled on Volotea.

[SKOJB]

looking at TUI website, you can no longer book flight only for the whole summer

[uptoncol]

oh right I’m on a package holiday ,may be different.

[BAladdy]

Loganair have over the last couple of days removed from sale there 3 x Weekly service to IOM

[stewyb]

BA added Chambery and Edinburgh for winter season!

[BOHEuropean]

Fantastic to see a Winter Ski flight come back to Southampton, flight programme as follows:

BA2939 EDI-SOU 20:00-21:30 FRIDAY
BA2935 SOU-CMF 07:15-09:55 SATURDAY
BA2936 CMF-SOU 10:45-11:25 SATURDAY
BA2935 SOU-CMF 07:15-09:55 SUNDAY
BA2936 CMF-SOU 10:45-11:25 SUNDAY
BA2900 SOU-EDI 12:15-13:40 SUNDAY

[stewyb]

Also a Sat pm slot up for grabs, wonder where to?

[adfly]

I would personally bet on Alicante or Malaga - can't see them trying Geneva against easyJet. Maybe a small chance of something like Innsbruck/Grenoble/Salzburg/Turin if there is demand for it and a tour operator interested?

Also, I thought the airport was open from 7:30am on Sunday's? They might struggle to make that 7:15am departure...

[TCAS FAN]

If its only one flight per week should be possible if the 10 out of hours provision per month is still in place within the current Section 106 agreement.

[adfly]

The cuts haven't stopped yet, but overall at least traffic is starting to build up again. The Dublin and Manchester and accompanying base start dates for Blue Islands have been delayed for what I believe is the 5th time, and are now due to start exactly a year after they were originally planned to! I've left the BA flights other than Faro off as they are likely highly subject to change depending on where countries fall on the Govt's colour lottery every 3 weeks... As it stands every other destination has a start date beyond 19th June.

As of today Southampton has the following operating:

Aurigny

Guernsey - 5 weekly AT7 (Mon-Fri)

Blue Islands

Jersey - 9 weekly AT7 (2x Mon and Fri)

Eastern

Belfast City - 4 weekly AT7
Manchester - 4 weekly AT7

Loganair

Edinburgh - 9 weekly ER4 (Thurs-Mon 2x except 1x on Sat)
Glasgow - 8 weekly ER4 (Thurs-Mon 2x except 1x on Sat and Sun)
Newcastle - 5 weekly ER4 (Thurs-Mon)

24/05

Eastern start Gibraltar - 2 weekly E70 (changes to E90 early June)

29/05

BA start Faro - 2 weekly E90

31/05

Aurigny increase Guernsey to 7 weekly
Eastern increase Belfast City to 5 weekly
Eastern increase Manchester to 5 weekly
Loganair increase Edinburgh to 11 weekly
Loganair increase Glasgow to 11 weekly
Loganair increase Newcastle to 9 weekly

06/06

Loganair increase Newcastle to 10 weekly

18/06

Eastern resume Teesside - 5 weekly J41

21/06

Blue Islands increase Jersey to 14 weekly (there are some extra flights prior to this on a few dates from 28/05, but no consistent schedule increase)
Eastern resume Leeds Bradford - 5 weekly J41
Loganair increase Edinburgh to 13 weekly
Loganair increase Glasgow to 13 weekly
Loganair increase Newcastle to 13 weekly

25/06

Eastern start Dublin - 4 weekly AT7

28/06

Eastern increase Belfast City to 6 weekly
KLM resume Amsterdam - 7 weekly E75

01/07

Aurigny resume Alderney - 14 weekly D28
Aurigny increase Guernsey to 14 weekly
Blue Islands resume Guernsey - 12 weekly AT7

05/07

Eastern increase Manchester to 11 weekly
Loganair increase Newcastle to 16 weekly

22/07

Eastern start Rennes - 3 weekly AT7

23/07

Eastern start Nantes - 3 weekly AT7

26/07

Loganair increase Edinburgh to 25 weekly
Loganair increase Glasgow to 24 weekly
Loganair increase Newcastle to 18 weekly

02/08

Blue Islands increase Jersey to 20 weekly

31/08

Blue Islands start Dublin - 7 weekly AT7
Blue Islands start Manchester - 19 weekly AT7

03/09

Blue Islands increase Jersey to 23 weekly

06/09

Eastern increase Belfast City to 11 weekly
Eastern increase Leeds Bradford to 10 weekly

[The Nutts Mutts]

Thanks for such a comprehensive update Adfly, I'm always appreciative of your input on this thread.
There's been some noise on Twitter and some chat on the Cardiff thread that Eastern might be about to announce a Jersey route from SOU. If that happens I'm assuming it'll be something to do with their Aurigny codeshare and potentially a way to encourage through traffic from their other SOU routes.

[shetlander]

Isn’t there an Aberdeen to Soton route?

[The Nutts Mutts]

Not a direct one at the moment, but you can fly ABZ-NCL-SOU with Loganair (if I remember correctly you can stay on the aircraft at NCL).

[SKOJB]

BA commence operations tomorrow. Why is there one flight departing to Faro yet two arriving? Thanks

[BAladdy]

The aircraft operates:

Saturday

BA8481 LCY 07:45 FAO 10:50
BA2930 FAO 11:35 SOU 14:20
BA2927 SOU 15:10 FAO 18:10
BA2928 FAO 19:00 SOU 21:45

Sunday

BA2927 SOU 07:40 FAO 10:40
BA8480 FAO 11:25 LCY 14:15

G-LCYM is currently planned to operate.

[rog747]

BAladdy - Do you have the first SOU-JMK-SOU dates yet please?

[BAladdy]

Believe it is currently planned to start from SOU on 20th June.

[TCAS FAN]

Does anyone have any information on the outbound loads on the recently started GIB flights?

[stewyb]

29, 52, 34

[TCAS FAN]

Many thanks.

[BHX5DME]

BHX are better than those

[RW20]

With these low figures it won't be long before this route disappears.

[MARKEYD]

No it won’t I am afraid
Quite reasonable figures for the start of the season and a new route

[RA85684]

Considering 52 pax makes a 68% load factor on the E170, and having been one of those 52 I know there were in fact 63 booked, an even better 83% load factor, the route is doing remarkably well and with £75+ fares, I wouldn't be too worried about the future of this route.

Eastern's new buy on board will most likely be making a valuable contribution as well, from what I saw everyone bought something and between 2 of us we spent £42 on the flight in booze and food. If that's representative of the average holidaymaker I think Eastern have made a good little move with these routes. Even the inaugural GIB-BHX had 20 onboard and the inaugural BHX-GIB was full. If I was Eastern I'd be very quickly thinking about what other GIB routes could be capitalised on while it's one of the few green list places available. I'd be looking towards BHD, NCL and LBA.

[GayFriendly]

Going on the fares being charged, BHX-GIB must be selling very well which is no surprise seeing as it's a green list route and was previously served by Monarch who also did well on the route.

Can't find any return flights for less than £200 from BHX going all the way through to end of Sept.

I'm sure the route will also do very well from both airports, I have to admit I was sceptical when it was announced but the green list status for Gibraltar couldn't have given Eastern a better start!

[shamrock7seal]

I'm not surprised the SOU-GIB route would do well - it's been a long time coming; but I am surprised that Eastern is making it work. In my opinion this route would be even more popular if it was operated by BA Cityflyer or even easyJet. Eastern doesn't have huge reach and is constrained by budgets they can't spend a fortune on marketing etc etc... If it doesn't end up working for them in particular i'm pretty sure it would be picked up by BA in the future.

[davidjohnson6]

In normal times when the choice of countries to which one can travel is large.... would SOU-GIB really be that popular ? If places like France were open without quarantine, then some of the people travelling to GIB might look elsewhere. If it were possible to fly direct to Malaga, that might remove the need/temptation to use Gibraltar as a backdoor to Spain

We have a highly artificial travel environment right now... it's not realistic to make any kind of predictions about the SOU-GIB route for 2022

[Alteagod]

Well said. I would think the same of some of the UK domestic connections as well. Very much of the now but long term maybe not as much

[Albert Hall]

That might be based on what they're charging rather than how many seats they've sold though. I cannot imagine that the economics of flying an E170 or 190 would work at £64.99 anyway on a sector like this, so the fact that there aren't any fares of that nature about might reflect that they never put them on sale to start with, not that they've sold out.

[The Nutts Mutts]

Eastleigh Borough Council have formally issued planning permission for the runway starter strip after the negotiations on the Section 106 agreement between the council and airport were completed. This would appear to indicate that the opposing groups' attempts to have the application called in by the Government have been unsuccessful. Here's hoping that construction work commences soon.

[Rivet Joint]

Thanks for the update. Fingers crossed they get spades in the ground ASAP.

[TCAS FAN]

Hopefully this winter in order to minimise the impact on flights due to the temporary reduction of declared distances during construction, caused by excavations in the current runway strip end the reduction/non availabilty of a RESA at the north end of the runway. With careful planning and execution, including some night work, the impact could be minimal.

[RW20]

There is a statement from the Airport MD today that states that the government have not called in the planning application,but this is tempered by him quote "Sadly though, the permission may still be subject to a legal challenge. I would encourage the opposition groups not to seek any further delay to the delivery of the construction phase – and the 265 jobs that go with it – by seeking to challenge the permission. "
How would this challenge be implemented?

[TCAS FAN]

Judicial Review? If you have deep pockets to fund it if the final decision doesn't go your way!

[Flitefone]

A bit more information on the Section 106 agreement:

Southampton Airport agrees Section 106 Agreement in relation to its approved runway extension | Business South (https://www.businesssouth.org/southampton-airport-agrees-section-106-agreement-in-relation-to-its-approved-runway-extension/)

The basis on which the Council agrees airport activity.

[adfly]

Some good news, BA appear to have some S22 flights on sale from SOU starting from 30/04, currently bookable up to early June. Pretty much identical to the original plan for this year at the moment but it is early days.

Alicante - 1x weekly
Bergerac - 3x weekly
Berlin - 1x weekly
Edinburgh - 1x weekly
Faro - 1x weekly
Florence - 2x weekly
Ibiza - 2x weekly
Limoges - 1x weekly
Malaga - 2x weekly
Mykonos - 1x weekly
Nice - 1x weekly
Palma - 2.5x weekly (2 dep, 3 arr)

EDIT: KLM to Amsterdam is also on sale 2x daily at the same times as before on an E75 for S22

[RW20]

legal challenge coming shortly from the campaigners,reported widely!

[cavokblues]

Some creative minds writing that press release:

Unemployment is at record levels after the pandemic

Is it? Yesterday's unemployment figures were pretty good all things considering and fell for the fourth month running.

[SKOJB]

Delaying tactic only as the outcome will not be any different, waste of time and money but hey this is what they do!

[southside bobby]

...& perhaps not if the legal challenge gets caught up in a reformulated/restrictive Government regional airport policy coupled with a tough green agenda coming down the track.

Princess Nut Nut/Attenborough & our future King were all hard at work at the G7.

[Rivet Joint]

SKOJB

100%. I think the government is a bit busy at the moment not that these delusional hypocrites would notice. What a world we live in where bullying and nuisance is tolerated so long as it’s wrapped up in a supposed noble cause. The airport was having over 2 million annual passengers not so long ago so a cap of 3 million isn’t much more.

The one thing that I wish the airport would mention more is that during the planning process anyone can lodge an objection or a support. It’s my understanding that the majority were in support of the application which should be the end of the argument. More residents support the extension so how these extremists think they speak for all of us is lunacy. Let’s not forget the planning meeting went on for a few days to hear all their baseless moaning so it’s not like they haven’t had a fair chance to speak all their rubbish. Meanwhile the fifth cruise terminal is in its final stages of completion just next door to the historic flour mill that ABP pulled down and there is a brand new huge cruise ship fresh from the ship yard spewing huge clouds of smoke non stop. Funny how these mentalists don’t have a problem with all that.

[TCAS FAN]

RW20

Have just looked at the AXO website, their case for a review and the attempt at crowdfunding. Had considered invoicing them for my valuable time taken to read such drivel!

[Rivet Joint]

KLM back on 28 June.

[TCAS FAN]

Looks if AXO & Co will shortly reach their £10K crowdfunding target to mount the Judicial Review. Apart from the enrichment of their legal team Leigh Day and David Wolfe QC and delay to work starting, doubt it is going to result in anything more. Now a waiting game for all concerned.

[RW20]

TCAS FAN,
It looks like ASK and Co are going to be a serious threat to the Airport plans,they seem to be building up cash and steam with a strong backing.
one things for sure and that is there won't be any work going on this year!

[SKOJB]

With all due respect, you have been wrong in your assumptions in every step of this process to date. It will happen and most likely commence early next year!

[TCAS FAN]

RW20

I doubt that £10k is going to go far, have you checked QC's hourly rates? That assumes that he/she is not one of the local NIMBYs or a fellow tree hugger!

[stewyb]

Good to see KLM resume on Monday and Aurigny to Alderney on Thursday. BA will hopefully commence IBZ/PMI soon and may look to run MAH as they do at LCY!

[Dropoffcharge]

TCAS FAN

The 10k has now been reached and passed, I'm not sure where DW QC sits morally on the whole climate topic? He has helped fight against the 3rd runway at Heathrow so guess this is why AXO have appointed him, the CCC (Climate Change Committee) published there parliament progress report yesterday, which could be bad timing for SOU and there plans, as you say a waiting game, but no doubt a long and drawn out one.

[Rivet Joint]

T3 also now using the e190 on the Gibraltar route.

[TCAS FAN]

See that the goalposts have moved, AXO & Co now target £25K, with just under half of it raised. Have they worked out that QCs are an expensive playmate?

[stewyb]

Likelihood is there’s going to be an expensive bill for them to pay at the end of this process!