SOUTHEND - 3 The new beginning
Perhaps this is being done on the basis of a standard news embargo ? Often happens for things like corporate press releases.
News embargo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
News embargo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just been reading a report of how many hectares of land each million passengers get at the UK’s airports.
Stansted for example has 957ha. With a forecast of 35 million passengers that works out at 27.3ha per million passengers.
Of all the airports listed Luton sits on the smallest piece of land at only 245 ha. With a forecast of 18 million passengers that works out as 13.6ha per million passengers.
Just wanted to know how many hectares of land Southend sits on to see what its full potential is.
Stansted for example has 957ha. With a forecast of 35 million passengers that works out at 27.3ha per million passengers.
Of all the airports listed Luton sits on the smallest piece of land at only 245 ha. With a forecast of 18 million passengers that works out as 13.6ha per million passengers.
Just wanted to know how many hectares of land Southend sits on to see what its full potential is.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I don't know and I can't seem to find it anywhere on the web. So I've got out my OS map and tried to calculate the area from that. The result of my simple calculation is about 220 hectares....... how far that is from the reality, I really can't say.
Southend comes top then out of the airports listed but what is Southend's true potential?
Southend
220 hectares
2,000,000 passenger forecast
110 hectares per million passengers
East Midlands
445 hectares
9,000,000 passenger forecast
49.4 hectares per million passengers
Stansted
957 hectares
35,000,000 passenger forecast
27.3 hectares per million passengers
Manchester
710 hectares
30,000,000 passenger forecast
23.7 hectares per million passengers
Edinburgh
367 hectares
16,000,000 passenger forecast
22.9 hectares per million passengers
Glasgow
340 hectares
17,000,000 passenger forecast
20 hectares per million passengers
Gatwick
674 hectares
38,000,000 passenger forecast
17.7 hectares per million passengers
Birmingham
330 hectares
20,000,000 passenger forecast
16.5 hectares per million passengers
Luton
245 hectares
18,000,000 passenger forecast
13.6 hectares per million passengers
Southend
220 hectares
2,000,000 passenger forecast
110 hectares per million passengers
East Midlands
445 hectares
9,000,000 passenger forecast
49.4 hectares per million passengers
Stansted
957 hectares
35,000,000 passenger forecast
27.3 hectares per million passengers
Manchester
710 hectares
30,000,000 passenger forecast
23.7 hectares per million passengers
Edinburgh
367 hectares
16,000,000 passenger forecast
22.9 hectares per million passengers
Glasgow
340 hectares
17,000,000 passenger forecast
20 hectares per million passengers
Gatwick
674 hectares
38,000,000 passenger forecast
17.7 hectares per million passengers
Birmingham
330 hectares
20,000,000 passenger forecast
16.5 hectares per million passengers
Luton
245 hectares
18,000,000 passenger forecast
13.6 hectares per million passengers
Last edited by LTNman; 1st Sep 2012 at 05:25.
It would appear that Southend has potential to grow well beyond 2 million passengers if careful use is made of available space.
Last edited by LTNman; 1st Sep 2012 at 07:40.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There would have been more potential if they hadn't sold property for a retail park right by the main entrance....
SEN is more or less surrounded by housing, except to the north where there is a golf course. Expansion much above 2m ppa would be difficult politically unless quieter jets come along in the future.
SEN is more or less surrounded by housing, except to the north where there is a golf course. Expansion much above 2m ppa would be difficult politically unless quieter jets come along in the future.
Am I correct in thinking that the 2mppa is not a hard planning limit but the theoretical design capacity of the second stage terminal ? The planning limit is the total annual movements cap - 53500 I believe and that was thought to be compatible with 2mppa though perhaps taking into consideration a rather lower mix of A319 sized aircraft than now looks likely.
In reality to achieve a higher figure would most probably require further expansion of the terminal, ramp and car parking arrangements, hence further planning permission. Would that be obtainable? Would Stobarts want to go the route of ploughing further development money into SEN or to concentrate on maximising their returns from their existing investment ? All very hypothetical at this stage of course, but then events at SEN have been moving rather than quicker than most would have expected, including I suspect the owners when they first made their purchase.
In reality to achieve a higher figure would most probably require further expansion of the terminal, ramp and car parking arrangements, hence further planning permission. Would that be obtainable? Would Stobarts want to go the route of ploughing further development money into SEN or to concentrate on maximising their returns from their existing investment ? All very hypothetical at this stage of course, but then events at SEN have been moving rather than quicker than most would have expected, including I suspect the owners when they first made their purchase.
Last edited by Tagron; 1st Sep 2012 at 09:27.
tophat27dt
With respect I do wish you would check the figures before speculating on the noise levels of the F100.
Reference to the type noise certification figures shows the Tay 650 powered F100 to have noise levels somewhat lower than the easyJet A319 fleet, apart from the sideline measurement which is a whole 0.1 EPNdB noisier!
I believe that we may see OLT may put back the Sa departure time a little to allow better train connections from London.
With respect I do wish you would check the figures before speculating on the noise levels of the F100.
Reference to the type noise certification figures shows the Tay 650 powered F100 to have noise levels somewhat lower than the easyJet A319 fleet, apart from the sideline measurement which is a whole 0.1 EPNdB noisier!
I believe that we may see OLT may put back the Sa departure time a little to allow better train connections from London.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
expressflight
I did not mean to start riots in the streets of Leigh-on-Sea, but I was merely comparing it when I hear a KLM FK70 or 100 take off, followed by an A319. It's a different type of "roar" and to my ears noisier, but I don't want to start questioning manufacturer's figures. I must add i love flying in the FK100, it's comfortable and quiet inside.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fokker jets are lovely and quiet ... just don't sit too near to the rear 'cos there ain't no emergency exits aft of the wings.
That said I went thru a 7.9 earthquake and tsunami alert last evening ... who cares about emergency exits
That said I went thru a 7.9 earthquake and tsunami alert last evening ... who cares about emergency exits
tophat27dt
I quite agree that a 'different' type of sound can seem noisier that its actual dB level.
The problem is that if someone here uses the phrase "expect some complaints when OLTexpress.de start!", the next thing you know is that SAEN are quoting 'aviation experts' saying they expect some complaints etc.". Better to stick to the actual figures, which cannot really be disputed.
I quite agree that a 'different' type of sound can seem noisier that its actual dB level.
The problem is that if someone here uses the phrase "expect some complaints when OLTexpress.de start!", the next thing you know is that SAEN are quoting 'aviation experts' saying they expect some complaints etc.". Better to stick to the actual figures, which cannot really be disputed.
Just been reading the SAEN website
I knew the airport was in a built up area but not that close to houses. Maybe householders have a valid point in complaining if they have had to throw away their TV's
Plus, television aerials will also have to go from homes in the flight path.
Some residents in the surrounding area have already received letters asking them to remove their aerials because of aviation regulations.
Some residents in the surrounding area have already received letters asking them to remove their aerials because of aviation regulations.
I knew the airport was in a built up area but not that close to houses. Maybe householders have a valid point in complaining if they have had to throw away their TV's
Give them cable TV as compensation ???