Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I thought it was accepted that less flying would be the new normal, certainly from a business perspective. 
 

This quote from the head of ops for the airport is quite telling...

There's nobody here denying a climate emergency. With a sound economy we can find a technological solution which would decarbonise the country.”

Basically translates to ‘not my problem, give me more planes’

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's basically right though, you don't save the planet through crippling infrastructure, you do it with bio-fuels, alternative energy and increasingly modern and sophisticated aircraft. More flights from SOU will save hundreds of journeys a day to and from Heathrow and Gatwick.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

More flights from SOU will save hundreds of journeys a day to and from Heathrow and Gatwick.

That’s certainly true, but the side effects will be more traffic in and around Eastleigh, more noise and more pollution. My main objection is NIMBYism (as most of these flights come over fair oak and bishops Waltham) and I’m happy to disclose this - but more broadly, I fly much less than I used to and I find the obsession that many people have with taking multiple foreign holidays a year baffling. If the objective was to create a freight hub, I’d be less opposed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Plastic said:

That’s certainly true, but the side effects will be more traffic in and around Eastleigh, more noise and more pollution. My main objection is NIMBYism (as most of these flights come over fair oak and bishops Waltham) and I’m happy to disclose this - but more broadly, I fly much less than I used to and I find the obsession that many people have with taking multiple foreign holidays a year baffling. If the objective was to create a freight hub, I’d be less opposed.

Holidays are but a small part of the reasons for travelling.

As an island nation everything has to go in and out by plane or boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use Bournemouth more often just because of the destinations, although that means having to put up with Ryanair.  

I'd definitely welcome more options from Southampton.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve just remembered that in my dealings with the airport many years ago just after it was modernised we talked about the runway and they told me that it needed widening rather than extending. This was to allow the larger 737s and A320s to land.

The large hangars will handle a 737 but the tail fin sticks out a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Manuel said:

I use Bournemouth more often just because of the destinations, although that means having to put up with Ryanair.  

I'd definitely welcome more options from Southampton.  

Shortest distance from train to terminal of any airport in Europe.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for the city, bad for the residents under the flight path. 

Will be nice to have more flight destinations from here even though I don't fly that often. It's a pain having to go to Gatwick, Bournemouth etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, The Cat said:

Good for the city, bad for the residents under the flight path. 

Will be nice to have more flight destinations from here even though I don't fly that often. It's a pain having to go to Gatwick, Bournemouth etc. 

They get 5 grand though. Good news all round. Hopefully can do some more city breaks from here now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Cat said:

bad for the residents under the flight path

I don’t think anything using our airport is going to make any more noise than some chav with a sh*tty exhaust mod driving down the street. They aren’t going to be particularly frequent either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

I don’t think anything using our airport is going to make any more noise than some chav with a sh*tty exhaust mod driving down the street. They aren’t going to be particularly frequent either.

We have those around us, especially on Sundays.

The Channel Island flights sometimes route over our house but they’re not a bother since they’re over and gone an if they’re low they’re on landing approach at low power.

The most annoying are the single engine training flights in summer. They do a two minute holding circle over our house and that drives you round the bend. I think they are centred on the Draper Tools head office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny one for me this. As someone who lives in Bitterne Park I’m heavily affected by being under the flight path. A lot of the support from the expansion came from people that won’t be subject to the noise of a flight every 3 minutes from 6am. The previously mentioned £5k noise improvement grant for residents will go some way to help but now that the approval has been given I’m expecting Southampton Airport to move the goal posts on that promise. You can’t triple glaze your garden though and with doors and windows open in the busiest summer months there’s going to be little that can be done for the noise.

 

That being said it’s obviously great news for the city, and wider Hampshire area, and with the Solent Freeport could contribute to a very strong economy down here. Could well be a nail in the coffin for Hurn airport which despite their reach has always suffered from shocking public transport links, and their charging for every luxury policy. 
 

Wonder if we’ll see a new carrier take up residence at Southampton to replace Flybe? Guess any airline will wait until we’re well clear of Covid and travel restrictions before making any kind of deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

Wonder if we’ll see a new carrier take up residence at Southampton to replace Flybe? Guess any airline will wait until we’re well clear of Covid and travel restrictions before making any kind of deal.

A good proportion of FlyBE’s old routes have already been taken up, by BA, Eastern Airways and others. The international flights will largely focus around summer schedules. COVID aside, that was already a big part of FlyBE’s problem, in my experience (I fly to south of Spain a few times a year in normal times). Summer flights with FlyBE were usually chock full, but winter schedule flights were often at best half full, and those flights were being run 4 or 5 days out of 7. It looks like the new operators may take a more cautious approach and have a more limited schedule that they can fill all planes on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bpsaint said:

Could well be a nail in the coffin for Hurn airport which despite their reach has always suffered from shocking public transport links, and their charging for every luxury policy. 

 

Let’s hope it’s a kick up the arse for them. I live in Poole but prefer Gatwick to it. Horrendous to get to and the robbing barstards rip you right off. Nice leisurely train journey to Southampton would do me fine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Let’s hope it’s a kick up the arse for them. I live in Poole but prefer Gatwick to it. Horrendous to get to and the robbing barstards rip you right off. Nice leisurely train journey to Southampton would do me fine. 

Bournemouth is fine if you’re happy to leave your car in the car park. Yeah, public transport is awful, but the car park is massive, close to the terminal, and cheap. Unlike Soton airport car parks which are ridiculously priced (luckily I live close enough that a cab takes minutes or even a bus ride takes no longer than 20). They also do some very handy routes for summer sun and winter ski.

Flying from Soton or Bournemouth is infinitely better than schlepping it to Gatwick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Kraken said:

A good proportion of FlyBE’s old routes have already been taken up, by BA, Eastern Airways and others. The international flights will largely focus around summer schedules. COVID aside, that was already a big part of FlyBE’s problem, in my experience (I fly to south of Spain a few times a year in normal times). Summer flights with FlyBE were usually chock full, but winter schedule flights were often at best half full, and those flights were being run 4 or 5 days out of 7. It looks like the new operators may take a more cautious approach and have a more limited schedule that they can fill all planes on.

My biggest issue with FlyBe, and I know it wasn’t only them, was the business model of charging for every little extra. Whilst they were handy for city breaks or commuting when it came to longer trips abroad by the time all of the baggage etc had been factored in it just worked out cheaper to go from Heathrow or Gatwick. If some decent operators now choose to offer holidays out of Southampton at a reasonable price they could do very well out of it.

I’m sure EasyJet would probably get plenty of business from our locals with regular flights to places like Krakow, Bucharest and Riga, be a cracking option for a last minute lads trip for a piss up too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bpsaint said:

My biggest issue with FlyBe, and I know it wasn’t only them, was the business model of charging for every little extra. Whilst they were handy for city breaks or commuting when it came to longer trips abroad by the time all of the baggage etc had been factored in it just worked out cheaper to go from Heathrow or Gatwick. If some decent operators now choose to offer holidays out of Southampton at a reasonable price they could do very well out of it.

I’m sure EasyJet would probably get plenty of business from our locals with regular flights to places like Krakow, Bucharest and Riga, be a cracking option for a last minute lads trip for a piss up too.

Can’t disagree that LGW was cheaper for flights, on average. But as someone who lives in Soton, price absolutely isn’t everything, and I’d gladly pay extra for the convenience of an airport within a few miles of the house. And as you say, most airlines charge extra for baggage and what not. Even BA do it now, so I see that factor as irrelevant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

All flying should be banned, pointless and polluting. 

Yep, ALL flying is pointless and polluting and should be banned, oh wait, maybe there's an exception :mcinnes:

https://www.eurocontrol.int/news/playing-key-role-global-covid-19-vaccine-distribution

Quote

EUROCONTROL has joined forces with a wide range of partners to facilitate air traffic flow management (ATFM) for critical COVID-19 vaccines, working closely with European air navigation service providers (ANSPs), airlines, airports, as well as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and NAV CANADA, the Canadian ANSP.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Obviously good for convenience and the local economy but it does make a mockery of our so called attempts at combating climate change.

Not sure you've truly understood the principles of 'carbon neutral', but that comes as no surprise.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, aintforever said:

How can more jets flying possibly be better for the environment?

Why do you assume it’ll be more jets? What if instead of 8 flights to Mallorca from London per day, its 7 and one from Southampton, with much shorter and fewer car journeys each way?

 

Trying to save the planet by refusing new runway construction would be like removing 2 lanes from either side of the M25 to reduce car journeys.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Why do you assume it’ll be more jets? What if instead of 8 flights to Mallorca from London per day, its 7 and one from Southampton, with much shorter and fewer car journeys each way?

 

Trying to save the planet by refusing new runway construction would be like removing 2 lanes from either side of the M25 to reduce car journeys.

Because the more inconvenient something is, the less people do it. Would as many people would fly to Europe for the weekend if the nearest airport was 400 miles away? Anyway larger jets are generally more fuel efficient per passenger, so there is a strong argument against regional airports.   And yes the M25 reduction would reduce car journeys. Its been proven across the world that the more you build roads then the more people drive. 

 

Edited by buctootim
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Why do you assume it’ll be more jets? What if instead of 8 flights to Mallorca from London per day, its 7 and one from Southampton, with much shorter and fewer car journeys each way?

 

Trying to save the planet by refusing new runway construction would be like removing 2 lanes from either side of the M25 to reduce car journeys.

Of course it will mean more flights, there is no reason to invest millions in runways if it doesn't increase capacity. Gatwick and Heathrow will be back to normal after the pandemic and there will be more flights from Southampton.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Would as many people would fly to Europe for the weekend if the nearest airport was 400 miles away? 

Could it be argued that one might be more polutant spending a leisure weekend driving around the UK rather than flying to a short city break in Europe?

image.png.b6c4f63620ba6d6389475a295a8bdd84.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Would as many people would fly to Europe for the weekend if the nearest airport was 400 miles away?

No because that’s a 7 hour drive minimum, which is clearly prohibitive. One hour to Heathrow or 1.5 to Gatwick isn’t going to put people off going away for the weekend. A lot of London commuters do that every week anyway.

 

I do think people need to take a certain amount of responsibility and jetting off somewhere for a break once a month would go against that but to basically say get rid of SOU completely so we can save the environment is a fallacy. That’s what will happen without the runway extension, it’s just not viable without Flybe.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

One hour to Heathrow or 1.5 to Gatwick isn’t going to put people off going away for the weekend. A lot of London commuters do that every week anyway.

I disagree, the hassle of Heathrow and Gatwick compared to the ease of flying out of Southampton would definitely be a factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

No because that’s a 7 hour drive minimum, which is clearly prohibitive. One hour to Heathrow or 1.5 to Gatwick isn’t going to put people off going away for the weekend. A lot of London commuters do that every week anyway.

 

I do think people need to take a certain amount of responsibility and jetting off somewhere for a break once a month would go against that but to basically say get rid of SOU completely so we can save the environment is a fallacy. That’s what will happen without the runway extension, it’s just not viable without Flybe.

So on one hand you are saying the runway extension won't mean any more flights, and the other you say without the extension there will be zero flights out of Southampton (regional or international). Brilliant!

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, aintforever said:

So on one hand you are saying the runway extension won't mean any more flights, and the other you say without the extension there will be zero flights out of Southampton (regional or international). Brilliant!

It’s not exactly an abstract concept. I’ve just been on the EasyJet website, picked a random Saturday in June and flights from Gatwick to Mallorca. There were four and a pop up said you can also fly from Luton, from where there were a further three. That’s seven flights a day, just from one airline at two of the six London airports. Factor in all the airlines at all six airports and you’re well into double figures. My point is, you’d never notice if there were only 13 flights from London instead of 14 but if there’s one more from Southampton you do.

 

Anyway this is all completely trivial; Covid has wiped out enough flights in the UK to cover SOU for the next 100 years.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, buctootim said:

Because the more inconvenient something is, the less people do it. Would as many people would fly to Europe for the weekend if the nearest airport was 400 miles away? Anyway larger jets are generally more fuel efficient per passenger, so there is a strong argument against regional airports.   And yes the M25 reduction would reduce car journeys. Its been proven across the world that the more you build roads then the more people drive. 

 

You seem to think that the only reason for flying is to go abroad on holiday.

What about all the domestic flights and all the car journeys they save?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, trousers said:

image.png.b6c4f63620ba6d6389475a295a8bdd84.png

 

1. Four people in a car produces a fifth of the emissions per person of a domestic flight 2. People tend not to drive to Rome for the weekend. Airplanes enable people to travel further and more often than they could or would if they had to drive or catch a train. .  

Edited by buctootim
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You seem to think that the only reason for flying is to go abroad on holiday.

What about all the domestic flights and all the car journeys they save?

Not the only, but the majority. 80% of flights are for leisure purposes. Domestic flights and all the car journeys they save? Really? Even with just one person in a car its less polluting than a plane. 

Lets not pretend - you want to fly because its fun and you can and its nicer to be in Bora Bora than Nuneaton. Fine make that argument and say you'd rather pay a carbon levy to offset emissions elsewhere. but please spare us the specious mathematically illiterate arguments about how flying is good for the planet.    

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Covid has wiped out enough flights in the UK to cover SOU for the next 100 years.

Wow ace point. Lets attribute all the flight emissions saved globally to one regional airport in England and say that justifies the expansion. Compelling.   

Edited by buctootim
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Not the only, but the majority. 80% of flights are for leisure purposes. Domestic flights and all the car journeys they save? Really? Even with just one person in a car its less polluting than a plane. 

Lets not pretend - you want to fly because its fun and you can and its nicer to be in Bora Bora than Nuneaton. Fine make that argument and say you'd rather pay a carbon levy to offset emissions elsewhere. but please spare us the specious mathematically illiterate arguments about how flying is good for the planet.    

I suggest you check your figures.

Banning all flying is not going to make the slightest difference to the planet. Reducing the population would.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

It’s not exactly an abstract concept. I’ve just been on the EasyJet website, picked a random Saturday in June and flights from Gatwick to Mallorca. There were four and a pop up said you can also fly from Luton, from where there were a further three. That’s seven flights a day, just from one airline at two of the six London airports. Factor in all the airlines at all six airports and you’re well into double figures. My point is, you’d never notice if there were only 13 flights from London instead of 14 but if there’s one more from Southampton you do.

 

Anyway this is all completely trivial; Covid has wiped out enough flights in the UK to cover SOU for the next 100 years.

Have the people planning this expansion explicitly said that the objective is not a net increase in absolute flight capacity but an evening out of the flights across the nation so there are less in London and more in Southampton?

If they are it sounds like either a terrible business plan or a complete lie.

Edited by CB Fry
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Banning all flying is not going to make the slightest difference to the planet. Reducing the population would.

Seriously? your point is burning fossil fuels has nothing to do with climate change? It is 1974 again? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

It’s not exactly an abstract concept. I’ve just been on the EasyJet website, picked a random Saturday in June and flights from Gatwick to Mallorca. There were four and a pop up said you can also fly from Luton, from where there were a further three. That’s seven flights a day, just from one airline at two of the six London airports. Factor in all the airlines at all six airports and you’re well into double figures. My point is, you’d never notice if there were only 13 flights from London instead of 14 but if there’s one more from Southampton you do.

 

Anyway this is all completely trivial; Covid has wiped out enough flights in the UK to cover SOU for the next 100 years.

Under the airport’s own projections future carbon emissions will rise on average by 350,000 tonnes a year.

From Eastliegh council's own site: 

"Among the speakers, was Felix Eigenbrod, a Professor of Applied Spatial Ecology in the Department of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Southampton. Professor Eigenbrod was one of five academics who had co-authored a letter to the committee along with an economist, Professor Christopher Heady. A graduate of Cambridge and Yale, Professor Heady has previously been consulted by the IMF and World Bank among many other leading International institutions. Given these credentials it was clear that the expert evidence presented by Professor Eigenbrod and his colleagues would weigh with the panel.

A key passage in the academics’ letter asserts that the additional carbon emissions caused by airport expansion would quickly exceed the total carbon produced by the entire Eastleigh area by 160% and by 2032 the effect of the extra emissions would be the equivalent of adding a town of 98,000 people. They concluded that “The magnitude of these climate impacts threatens to dwarf any climate mitigation efforts by Eastleigh Borough Council.”

Edited by aintforever
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Seriously? your point is burning fossil fuels has nothing to do with climate change? It is 1974 again? 

So stop all travel of all sorts then.

Do you really, seriously m think that stopping all flying would make the slightest difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Bigger forces are at play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

8 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Do you really, seriously m think that stopping all flying would make the slightest difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

It would (although I don't think anyone here is advocating this).

8 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Bigger forces are at play.

Volcanoes or methane hydrates?

Edited by Plastic
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, buctootim said:

Wow ace point. Lets attribute all the flight emissions saved globally to one regional airport in England and say that justifies the expansion. Compelling.   

No, you’ve missed the point. In the grand scheme of things, small expansion at a regional airport isn’t going to make any significant impact compared to the worldwide aviation sector. Aviation accounts for 1.9% of CO2 emissions globally. That’s all planes globally, added together; do you think blocking the runway expansion at SOU is going to have any noticeable impact on worldwide emissions? In the time flights have been grounded, China has probably built another 1,000 factories pumping out billions of CO2 as we speak.

 

I’m all for saving the planet; the push for electric cars by 2030, all coal power stations to be closed by 2025, wind turbines, more efficient aircraft etc. But we can’t just sit here saying, "that releases some carbon, ban it," if there’re no credible alternatives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

So stop all travel of all sorts then.

Do you really, seriously m think that stopping all flying would make the slightest difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Bigger forces are at play.

 

1 hour ago, Plastic said:

  

It would (although I don't think anyone here is advocating this).

Volcanoes or methane hydrates?

 

Definitely nothing to see here!!

 

On 10/04/2021 at 22:56, Patrick Bateman said:

All flying should be banned, pointless and polluting. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})