Legal challenge to Southend Airport runway extension fails

A LEGAL challenge against Southend Airport’s runway extension has been thrown out for the second time.

The judicial review application by a campaigner against the extension plans was dismissed by a High Court judge this morning.

Laura Millard, a Leigh resident and member of campaign group Stop Airport Extension Now, wanted Southend Council's decision to allow the runway extension to be reviewed in the High Court.

But, following a two-day oral hearing last week, Judge Waksman ruled that her claim was not sufficiently arguable to justify a full hearing.

*FULL STORY IN TUESDAY'S ECHO.

Comments (85)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:56am Mon 11 Apr 11

Max Impact says...

YAHOOOOOOOOO

Let this be an end of it.
YAHOOOOOOOOO Let this be an end of it. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

11:58am Mon 11 Apr 11

j-w says...

Still a few more things to go through yet, Church wall removal, stopping up public enquiry and the other judicial review request believed to be from a serial litigant against the Stobart group.
Still a few more things to go through yet, Church wall removal, stopping up public enquiry and the other judicial review request believed to be from a serial litigant against the Stobart group. j-w
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Mon 11 Apr 11

Dingo says...

Common sense prevails! Let's just hope that SAEN also see common sense and give up on this pointless endeavour.
Common sense prevails! Let's just hope that SAEN also see common sense and give up on this pointless endeavour. Dingo
  • Score: 0

12:07pm Mon 11 Apr 11

Max Impact says...

saen will moan but I beleve they have yet anothe right of apeal.

From what I can remember the church are happy with the work proposed, it was the friends group that caused the issue, as for the road the a better safer diversion is being built in these days of road safety that can only be a goood thing.
saen will moan but I beleve they have yet anothe right of apeal. From what I can remember the church are happy with the work proposed, it was the friends group that caused the issue, as for the road the a better safer diversion is being built in these days of road safety that can only be a goood thing. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

12:40pm Mon 11 Apr 11

jj8385 says...

HOORAY. Will they ever give up?
HOORAY. Will they ever give up? jj8385
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Mon 11 Apr 11

AspergerKidJoe says...

Good! Now lets get this expansion all done and out of the way so that we can ALL get on with our lives and have our flights to Europe. :-)
Good! Now lets get this expansion all done and out of the way so that we can ALL get on with our lives and have our flights to Europe. :-) AspergerKidJoe
  • Score: 0

12:51pm Mon 11 Apr 11

BASILBRUSH says...

Is anyone surprised? What a waste of our money that was.
Is anyone surprised? What a waste of our money that was. BASILBRUSH
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Mon 11 Apr 11

BASILBRUSH says...

SAEN are now going to investigate challenging the judges decision..... Sigh..
SAEN are now going to investigate challenging the judges decision..... Sigh.. BASILBRUSH
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Mon 11 Apr 11

maddriver says...

Dingo wrote:
Common sense prevails! Let's just hope that SAEN also see common sense and give up on this pointless endeavour.
Nice thought, but I doubt they will give up as common sense is not in their vocabulary.
[quote][p][bold]Dingo[/bold] wrote: Common sense prevails! Let's just hope that SAEN also see common sense and give up on this pointless endeavour.[/p][/quote]Nice thought, but I doubt they will give up as common sense is not in their vocabulary. maddriver
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Mon 11 Apr 11

DannyK86 says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
SAEN are now going to investigate challenging the judges decision..... Sigh..
No doubt at the taxpayers' expense... they really need to give up.
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: SAEN are now going to investigate challenging the judges decision..... Sigh..[/p][/quote]No doubt at the taxpayers' expense... they really need to give up. DannyK86
  • Score: 0

1:14pm Mon 11 Apr 11

BASILBRUSH says...

maddriver wrote:
Dingo wrote:
Common sense prevails! Let's just hope that SAEN also see common sense and give up on this pointless endeavour.
Nice thought, but I doubt they will give up as common sense is not in their vocabulary.
SAEN are lead by Environmental Campaigners. Despite protests saying they are not anti Southend Airport, they will never concede because Aviation as a whole goes against their own principles and agendas.
Sadly for the people that want answers but listen to them, they have never objectively answered their questions or engaged with the Airport. Instead resorting to misinformation and scaremongering based on a fundamental lack of understanding and driven by bias.
....
I am looking forward to using our local Airport, but I am looking forward to seeing some realistic opportunities in this town at last.
....
Queue the anti's....
[quote][p][bold]maddriver[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dingo[/bold] wrote: Common sense prevails! Let's just hope that SAEN also see common sense and give up on this pointless endeavour.[/p][/quote]Nice thought, but I doubt they will give up as common sense is not in their vocabulary.[/p][/quote]SAEN are lead by Environmental Campaigners. Despite protests saying they are not anti Southend Airport, they will never concede because Aviation as a whole goes against their own principles and agendas. Sadly for the people that want answers but listen to them, they have never objectively answered their questions or engaged with the Airport. Instead resorting to misinformation and scaremongering based on a fundamental lack of understanding and driven by bias. .... I am looking forward to using our local Airport, but I am looking forward to seeing some realistic opportunities in this town at last. .... Queue the anti's.... BASILBRUSH
  • Score: 0

1:46pm Mon 11 Apr 11

r6keith says...

Have all you antis even noticed the extra flights going over, bet not. You know the ones those quite modern planes fitted with passengers , these people passed through a check in and security with employees locals. Have you noticed the car hire firm now based at Southend Airport yet again employing someone, at last something in our town thats going in the right direction. Please Please Please back of save our money and let the airport and the bussinesses that will follow develope and grow without hinderance.
Have all you antis even noticed the extra flights going over, bet not. You know the ones those quite modern planes fitted with passengers , these people passed through a check in and security with employees locals. Have you noticed the car hire firm now based at Southend Airport yet again employing someone, at last something in our town thats going in the right direction. Please Please Please back of save our money and let the airport and the bussinesses that will follow develope and grow without hinderance. r6keith
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Mon 11 Apr 11

emcee says...

I think it's about time we can all now ignore SAEN and let them get on with their insignificant, lack lustre and pointless protests in the background while the rest of us look forward to the exiting airport developments that will now take place over the coming months.
The airport expansion and runway extension IS/WILL BE happening, like it or not. SAEN (all half dozen or so) will still be moaning and picking at this for months, if not years, to come. However, they will no longer be any more annoying than flies around a picnic.
I think it's about time we can all now ignore SAEN and let them get on with their insignificant, lack lustre and pointless protests in the background while the rest of us look forward to the exiting airport developments that will now take place over the coming months. The airport expansion and runway extension IS/WILL BE happening, like it or not. SAEN (all half dozen or so) will still be moaning and picking at this for months, if not years, to come. However, they will no longer be any more annoying than flies around a picnic. emcee
  • Score: 0

2:46pm Mon 11 Apr 11

Max Impact says...

Next we will see the election propoganda shouting about the money the council are being forced to pay out in legal fee's, and that it could have been better spent on council services... We will also get the "non-political" prorest groups telling (ordering) us who not to vote for!
Next we will see the election propoganda shouting about the money the council are being forced to pay out in legal fee's, and that it could have been better spent on council services... We will also get the "non-political" prorest groups telling (ordering) us who not to vote for! Max Impact
  • Score: 0

3:40pm Mon 11 Apr 11

tophatdt says...

good news. get on with the work as quick as possible before some other jobs worth tries to delay it before the Olympics.
good news. get on with the work as quick as possible before some other jobs worth tries to delay it before the Olympics. tophatdt
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Mon 11 Apr 11

Dougal says...

HOORAY, now cease any payment of public funds to this bunch of full time agitators. better still start a counter action for loss of revenue and vexatious claims.
HOORAY, now cease any payment of public funds to this bunch of full time agitators. better still start a counter action for loss of revenue and vexatious claims. Dougal
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Mon 11 Apr 11

Dougal says...

HOORAY, now cease any payment of public funds to this bunch of full time agitators. better still start a counter action for loss of revenue and vexatious claims.
HOORAY, now cease any payment of public funds to this bunch of full time agitators. better still start a counter action for loss of revenue and vexatious claims. Dougal
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Mon 11 Apr 11

colsmith says...

As for you box ticking, insular, greedy, narrow, selfish morons at SAEN.... Please, please visit the nearest Taxidermist locally and be done with you all - for ever. Let the wishes of the VAST MAJORITY take place and let us all progress with the expansion - as quickly as possible. If you do not like it, please just move as far away as you are able...ALL of you. Antarctic sounds good this time of year. Then I suppose you will bleat about the noise from the wildlife etc. etc. and the cold - possibly..
As for you box ticking, insular, greedy, narrow, selfish morons at SAEN.... Please, please visit the nearest Taxidermist locally and be done with you all - for ever. Let the wishes of the VAST MAJORITY take place and let us all progress with the expansion - as quickly as possible. If you do not like it, please just move as far away as you are able...ALL of you. Antarctic sounds good this time of year. Then I suppose you will bleat about the noise from the wildlife etc. etc. and the cold - possibly.. colsmith
  • Score: 0

4:05pm Mon 11 Apr 11

Jarv79 says...

Good news indeed. Nice to see common sense prevailing. I can't see the other judicial review being any different, seeing as though its from a guy who lives up north and has been in prison through his personal antics against Stobarts. Don't think he has ever even been to Southend before lol. Also the good thing about the public inquiry is that it is soley to do with the stopping up (Diversion) of Eastwoodbury Lane, and not the airport itself. According to the letter from the department for Transport, the inspector is NOT interested in hearing any for and against arguments about the airport itself, but just the advantages and disadvantages of the diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane. The new road is really progressing quickly now, and the terminal is looking great. Work on the new hotel should be commencing any time as well. One more point to those dozen or so SAEN members, i have yet to hear one single Air Arann plane land or takeoff in the 2 weeks the flights have been going, and i live a 5 minute walk from the airport.
Good news indeed. Nice to see common sense prevailing. I can't see the other judicial review being any different, seeing as though its from a guy who lives up north and has been in prison through his personal antics against Stobarts. Don't think he has ever even been to Southend before lol. Also the good thing about the public inquiry is that it is soley to do with the stopping up (Diversion) of Eastwoodbury Lane, and not the airport itself. According to the letter from the department for Transport, the inspector is NOT interested in hearing any for and against arguments about the airport itself, but just the advantages and disadvantages of the diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane. The new road is really progressing quickly now, and the terminal is looking great. Work on the new hotel should be commencing any time as well. One more point to those dozen or so SAEN members, i have yet to hear one single Air Arann plane land or takeoff in the 2 weeks the flights have been going, and i live a 5 minute walk from the airport. Jarv79
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Mon 11 Apr 11

2112 says...

Hooray!!!
Hooray!!! 2112
  • Score: 0

4:24pm Mon 11 Apr 11

Last Poster says...

Even minorities have the right to protest, but to do so at the expense of the majority over and over and over again? Let everybody have their day in court by all means, but only once! I think I have the right to protest about them spending MY money to try and stop something that I want going ahead. That cannot be justice, surely....
Even minorities have the right to protest, but to do so at the expense of the majority over and over and over again? Let everybody have their day in court by all means, but only once! I think I have the right to protest about them spending MY money to try and stop something that I want going ahead. That cannot be justice, surely.... Last Poster
  • Score: 0

4:31pm Mon 11 Apr 11

openspace says...

At a time when I was beginning to despair of the judical system ( with lenient penalties imposed and little notice taken of victims ), it is refreshing to find a judge with common sense, prepared to throw out ludicrous protests. Perhaps there is some hope for the legal system after all.
What does it say for our legal system, however, when one person representing minority views can hold up important developments. I know we all have a right to our own opinions but this seems ridiculous. Good luck to Stobarts, they might be a company who are in business to turn a profit but thank God they chose Southend to do it in !!!!!!!.
At a time when I was beginning to despair of the judical system ( with lenient penalties imposed and little notice taken of victims ), it is refreshing to find a judge with common sense, prepared to throw out ludicrous protests. Perhaps there is some hope for the legal system after all. What does it say for our legal system, however, when one person representing minority views can hold up important developments. I know we all have a right to our own opinions but this seems ridiculous. Good luck to Stobarts, they might be a company who are in business to turn a profit but thank God they chose Southend to do it in !!!!!!!. openspace
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Mon 11 Apr 11

Max Impact says...

With the diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane, should the hearing say it can be closed as the diversion will make the route safer and prevent delays when the barriers come down, I wonder if those fighting it will use it or take another route?

The anti's seem very quite at pesent...

Campbells Dad whats your view on todays news,
With the diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane, should the hearing say it can be closed as the diversion will make the route safer and prevent delays when the barriers come down, I wonder if those fighting it will use it or take another route? The anti's seem very quite at pesent... Campbells Dad whats your view on todays news, Max Impact
  • Score: 0

4:43pm Mon 11 Apr 11

openspace says...

Max Impact wrote:
With the diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane, should the hearing say it can be closed as the diversion will make the route safer and prevent delays when the barriers come down, I wonder if those fighting it will use it or take another route? The anti's seem very quite at pesent... Campbells Dad whats your view on todays news,
I agree that the diversion will be safer, even if a little longer for some journeys, and look forward to driving the new route. The " antis" will never be quiet, they need protest to prove their existence, and like Denis Walker and SAEN, they are never happy unless appearing in print. ( requiring the sane ones amongst to respond in print )
When all the airport fuss is done and dusted and we have new flights, ( hopefully to many places ), all the Saen members, ( probably all 14 of them ) will need someting else to protest against. What next, I wonder.

PS Denis, if the actual number is greater than 14, please quote actual figure !!!!!. WE wOULD LOVE TO KNOW .
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: With the diversion of Eastwoodbury Lane, should the hearing say it can be closed as the diversion will make the route safer and prevent delays when the barriers come down, I wonder if those fighting it will use it or take another route? The anti's seem very quite at pesent... Campbells Dad whats your view on todays news,[/p][/quote]I agree that the diversion will be safer, even if a little longer for some journeys, and look forward to driving the new route. The " antis" will never be quiet, they need protest to prove their existence, and like Denis Walker and SAEN, they are never happy unless appearing in print. ( requiring the sane ones amongst to respond in print ) When all the airport fuss is done and dusted and we have new flights, ( hopefully to many places ), all the Saen members, ( probably all 14 of them ) will need someting else to protest against. What next, I wonder. PS Denis, if the actual number is greater than 14, please quote actual figure !!!!!. WE wOULD LOVE TO KNOW . openspace
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Mon 11 Apr 11

RobertFS says...

The opposition is inSAEN - as so is Amess if he continues to support this lost cause. Listen, David, this is not a vote catcher. This time you backed the wrong horse!!!! I live under the flight path and look forward to all the benfits that this expansion of the facility will provide. I don't need to tell you about these benfits. If you listen you will know! Remember that bandwagons are not the best form of transport!
The opposition is inSAEN - as so is Amess if he continues to support this lost cause. Listen, David, this is not a vote catcher. This time you backed the wrong horse!!!! I live under the flight path and look forward to all the benfits that this expansion of the facility will provide. I don't need to tell you about these benfits. If you listen you will know! Remember that bandwagons are not the best form of transport! RobertFS
  • Score: 0

4:54pm Mon 11 Apr 11

paintlad says...

well done to the airport
bring on the extension !!!!
lets go places..............
..
well done to the airport bring on the extension !!!! lets go places.............. .. paintlad
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Mon 11 Apr 11

juneantom says...

lets hope there are more holdups to come,,southend will regret this in a few years time,,it will ruin the town
lets hope there are more holdups to come,,southend will regret this in a few years time,,it will ruin the town juneantom
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Mon 11 Apr 11

openspace says...

juneantom wrote:
lets hope there are more holdups to come,,southend will regret this in a few years time,,it will ruin the town
It certainly didn't ruin the town when there were many, many flights in the 60's, ( and planes were far noisier, lower take-off heights, etc, etc ).

As to regret, I doubt it !!!!. Fortunately, you are in a tiny minority hoping for failure.
Opionion, possibly, fact, almost certainly !!!.
[quote][p][bold]juneantom[/bold] wrote: lets hope there are more holdups to come,,southend will regret this in a few years time,,it will ruin the town[/p][/quote]It certainly didn't ruin the town when there were many, many flights in the 60's, ( and planes were far noisier, lower take-off heights, etc, etc ). As to regret, I doubt it !!!!. Fortunately, you are in a tiny minority hoping for failure. Opionion, possibly, fact, almost certainly !!!. openspace
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Mon 11 Apr 11

lemon demon says...

juneantom wrote:
lets hope there are more holdups to come,,southend will regret this in a few years time,,it will ruin the town
do one yeah, southend does not need imbaciles like you! i'm happy the legal challenge has failed and i think campaigners should be fined!
[quote][p][bold]juneantom[/bold] wrote: lets hope there are more holdups to come,,southend will regret this in a few years time,,it will ruin the town[/p][/quote]do one yeah, southend does not need imbaciles like you! i'm happy the legal challenge has failed and i think campaigners should be fined! lemon demon
  • Score: 0

6:01pm Mon 11 Apr 11

carnac says...

Good News I say - Hooray Hooray

With a nice runway extension

- Chocks Away !
Good News I say - Hooray Hooray With a nice runway extension - Chocks Away ! carnac
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Mon 11 Apr 11

Campbell's dad says...

good afternoon.
yes a sad day when this judge has ruled that, in his opinion, the council did follow thier processes correctly.
re Eastwoodbury Lane Stopping up, not a diversion, it should be an interesting PI if it is only the closure of the road that is to be discussed. Hopefully that will stop the airport floodingthe proceedings with non road related bumph. the little planes that fly to Ireland don't make much noise, don't fly at night & don't need an extended runway. if they manage to actract all the new jobs, then stay with the current runway & save all the fuss. I may be wrong, but I believe that since Stobarts took over the airport, there are over 200 less jobs directly at the airport. Please not, i do not feel the need to insult other contributors to this debate, but I am sure that I will be the subject of some now.
good afternoon. yes a sad day when this judge has ruled that, in his opinion, the council did follow thier processes correctly. re Eastwoodbury Lane Stopping up, not a diversion, it should be an interesting PI if it is only the closure of the road that is to be discussed. Hopefully that will stop the airport floodingthe proceedings with non road related bumph. the little planes that fly to Ireland don't make much noise, don't fly at night & don't need an extended runway. if they manage to actract all the new jobs, then stay with the current runway & save all the fuss. I may be wrong, but I believe that since Stobarts took over the airport, there are over 200 less jobs directly at the airport. Please not, i do not feel the need to insult other contributors to this debate, but I am sure that I will be the subject of some now. Campbell's dad
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Mon 11 Apr 11

BASILBRUSH says...

Campbell's dad wrote:
good afternoon.
yes a sad day when this judge has ruled that, in his opinion, the council did follow thier processes correctly.
re Eastwoodbury Lane Stopping up, not a diversion, it should be an interesting PI if it is only the closure of the road that is to be discussed. Hopefully that will stop the airport floodingthe proceedings with non road related bumph. the little planes that fly to Ireland don't make much noise, don't fly at night & don't need an extended runway. if they manage to actract all the new jobs, then stay with the current runway & save all the fuss. I may be wrong, but I believe that since Stobarts took over the airport, there are over 200 less jobs directly at the airport. Please not, i do not feel the need to insult other contributors to this debate, but I am sure that I will be the subject of some now.
"but I believe that since Stobarts took over the airport, there are over 200 less jobs directly at the airport"

Just to clarify that point, as SAEN keep talking about 200-300 jobs lost.
A company called Flightline (that were 'based' at Southend, but had employees (just over 200) all at various other places including Aberdeen) sadly closed when the Financial crisis hit us all.
Since Stobart took over there had been some redundancies (freight shed closing etc) but there has actually been a Net gain in employment at the Airport company since Stobart took over.
That information is easily gained and like most things wrongly portrayed by SAEN.

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Flightline_
(UK)

http://www.pprune.or
g/airlines-airports-
routes/353378-flight
line-into-administra
tion.html
[quote][p][bold]Campbell's dad[/bold] wrote: good afternoon. yes a sad day when this judge has ruled that, in his opinion, the council did follow thier processes correctly. re Eastwoodbury Lane Stopping up, not a diversion, it should be an interesting PI if it is only the closure of the road that is to be discussed. Hopefully that will stop the airport floodingthe proceedings with non road related bumph. the little planes that fly to Ireland don't make much noise, don't fly at night & don't need an extended runway. if they manage to actract all the new jobs, then stay with the current runway & save all the fuss. I may be wrong, but I believe that since Stobarts took over the airport, there are over 200 less jobs directly at the airport. Please not, i do not feel the need to insult other contributors to this debate, but I am sure that I will be the subject of some now.[/p][/quote]"but I believe that since Stobarts took over the airport, there are over 200 less jobs directly at the airport" Just to clarify that point, as SAEN keep talking about 200-300 jobs lost. A company called Flightline (that were 'based' at Southend, but had employees (just over 200) all at various other places including Aberdeen) sadly closed when the Financial crisis hit us all. Since Stobart took over there had been some redundancies (freight shed closing etc) but there has actually been a Net gain in employment at the Airport company since Stobart took over. That information is easily gained and like most things wrongly portrayed by SAEN. http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Flightline_ (UK) http://www.pprune.or g/airlines-airports- routes/353378-flight line-into-administra tion.html BASILBRUSH
  • Score: 0

7:08pm Mon 11 Apr 11

Max Impact says...

Campbell's dad wrote:
good afternoon. yes a sad day when this judge has ruled that, in his opinion, the council did follow thier processes correctly. re Eastwoodbury Lane Stopping up, not a diversion, it should be an interesting PI if it is only the closure of the road that is to be discussed. Hopefully that will stop the airport floodingthe proceedings with non road related bumph. the little planes that fly to Ireland don't make much noise, don't fly at night & don't need an extended runway. if they manage to actract all the new jobs, then stay with the current runway & save all the fuss. I may be wrong, but I believe that since Stobarts took over the airport, there are over 200 less jobs directly at the airport. Please not, i do not feel the need to insult other contributors to this debate, but I am sure that I will be the subject of some now.
and it will aslo stop saen scaremongering about:

Flights every 5 mins,
Increased noise from aircraft, Increased pollution from aircraft, Increased night flights
Aircraft destroying school life
Aircraft falling on our heads,

What is your view on the church wall issue, the church have said they are happy with the proposals yet people who are just members of the friend sof the church (in no way shape or form do they own any part of it) can prevent the owners from going ahead with the work. Even if it would result in better security, a new car park, more land for the church all for FREE!


(security word free-gain!)
[quote][p][bold]Campbell's dad[/bold] wrote: good afternoon. yes a sad day when this judge has ruled that, in his opinion, the council did follow thier processes correctly. re Eastwoodbury Lane Stopping up, not a diversion, it should be an interesting PI if it is only the closure of the road that is to be discussed. Hopefully that will stop the airport floodingthe proceedings with non road related bumph. the little planes that fly to Ireland don't make much noise, don't fly at night & don't need an extended runway. if they manage to actract all the new jobs, then stay with the current runway & save all the fuss. I may be wrong, but I believe that since Stobarts took over the airport, there are over 200 less jobs directly at the airport. Please not, i do not feel the need to insult other contributors to this debate, but I am sure that I will be the subject of some now.[/p][/quote]and it will aslo stop saen scaremongering about: Flights every 5 mins, Increased noise from aircraft, Increased pollution from aircraft, Increased night flights Aircraft destroying school life Aircraft falling on our heads, What is your view on the church wall issue, the church have said they are happy with the proposals yet people who are just members of the friend sof the church (in no way shape or form do they own any part of it) can prevent the owners from going ahead with the work. Even if it would result in better security, a new car park, more land for the church all for FREE! (security word free-gain!) Max Impact
  • Score: 0

7:39pm Mon 11 Apr 11

ethel the frog says...

juneantom wrote:
lets hope there are more holdups to come,,southend will regret this in a few years time,,it will ruin the town
No one is forcing you to live here
[quote][p][bold]juneantom[/bold] wrote: lets hope there are more holdups to come,,southend will regret this in a few years time,,it will ruin the town[/p][/quote]No one is forcing you to live here ethel the frog
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Mon 11 Apr 11

jayman says...

both pro and anti are just as bad as each other on here! there are some people making sensible moderate comments but the pros think the airport is going to be some sort of fairy tale ending with booming prosperity and the anti's think its going to be the end of the town as we know it.

I on the other hand don't think its going to work.. an airport is subject to many factors such as topography geography and demographic use. there is a reason rochford municipal airport fell into under use from its hay day and the same factors exists.

I just think to myself, when the sound of foulness firing, p1ss heads arguing Mitsubishi evo 8's revving amongst the constant drone of gridlocked traffic heaving towards the same i can nip to Ireland and soak up a depressing place where the situation is a lot worst. its like having a portal that will transport you to a place where the people have been screwed over worst. (cheers SBC stobarts)
both pro and anti are just as bad as each other on here! there are some people making sensible moderate comments but the pros think the airport is going to be some sort of fairy tale ending with booming prosperity and the anti's think its going to be the end of the town as we know it. I on the other hand don't think its going to work.. an airport is subject to many factors such as topography geography and demographic use. there is a reason rochford municipal airport fell into under use from its hay day and the same factors exists. I just think to myself, when the sound of foulness firing, p1ss heads arguing Mitsubishi evo 8's revving amongst the constant drone of gridlocked traffic heaving towards the same i can nip to Ireland and soak up a depressing place where the situation is a lot worst. its like having a portal that will transport you to a place where the people have been screwed over worst. (cheers SBC stobarts) jayman
  • Score: 0

7:49pm Mon 11 Apr 11

jayman says...

its like tying a dead horse to a sinking ship...
its like tying a dead horse to a sinking ship... jayman
  • Score: 0

8:19pm Mon 11 Apr 11

BASILBRUSH says...

"I on the other hand don't think its going to work.. an airport is subject to many factors such as topography geography and demographic use. there is a reason rochford municipal airport fell into under use from its hay day and the same factors exists."

But thats the point. With the extension and improvements to facilities at Southend, the same factors wont exist.
Part of the downfall was Stansted growing and the need for extra safety.
Add to that demand for tarmac in the South East which is still there, and set to increase.... Despite the problems in recent years.

Nobody has a Crystal ball, but I'm fairly sure they (Stobart) haven't gone in to this on a whim.
"I on the other hand don't think its going to work.. an airport is subject to many factors such as topography geography and demographic use. there is a reason rochford municipal airport fell into under use from its hay day and the same factors exists." But thats the point. With the extension and improvements to facilities at Southend, the same factors wont exist. Part of the downfall was Stansted growing and the need for extra safety. Add to that demand for tarmac in the South East which is still there, and set to increase.... Despite the problems in recent years. Nobody has a Crystal ball, but I'm fairly sure they (Stobart) haven't gone in to this on a whim. BASILBRUSH
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Mon 11 Apr 11

Max Impact says...

jayman wrote:
its like tying a dead horse to a sinking ship...
"Rochford municipal airport" just to point out the only time the name Rochford was been used was the First World War when it was RFC Rochford and then again when it was RAF Rochford between Sunday 1st January 1939 till Monday 28th October 1940 when it became RAF Southend.

(Information gatherd from Southend Timeline website)

If you where having a "joke" it was a very lame one.

As for being screwd its saen that are screwing the tax payer by this constant appeal after appeal after appeal...

Now they are looking at a challange to todays decision. It is now two independent judges and the ex-Secretary of State for Home and Communities who have all said SBC acted fully in line with planning process and did not break any planning rules or regulations.

Why cant saen accept this and instead of fighting and using tax payers money to carry on fighting change stance and move to a more observation group and watch what is happening at the airport checking that they are operating as per the licence sets out.

Check that night flight regulatons are being followed, check that its not just cargo flights operating, check the noise limts are being followed, check that night types are those permited etc:

More people whould listen to them if they admitted that SBC followed the planning regulations to the letter of the law and have acted fully within the planning system.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: its like tying a dead horse to a sinking ship...[/p][/quote]"Rochford municipal airport" just to point out the only time the name Rochford was been used was the First World War when it was RFC Rochford and then again when it was RAF Rochford between Sunday 1st January 1939 till Monday 28th October 1940 when it became RAF Southend. (Information gatherd from Southend Timeline website) If you where having a "joke" it was a very lame one. As for being screwd its saen that are screwing the tax payer by this constant appeal after appeal after appeal... Now they are looking at a challange to todays decision. It is now two independent judges and the ex-Secretary of State for Home and Communities who have all said SBC acted fully in line with planning process and did not break any planning rules or regulations. Why cant saen accept this and instead of fighting and using tax payers money to carry on fighting change stance and move to a more observation group and watch what is happening at the airport checking that they are operating as per the licence sets out. Check that night flight regulatons are being followed, check that its not just cargo flights operating, check the noise limts are being followed, check that night types are those permited etc: More people whould listen to them if they admitted that SBC followed the planning regulations to the letter of the law and have acted fully within the planning system. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

8:49pm Mon 11 Apr 11

Jarv79 says...

I am afraid Denis, Kitti and the other 10 or so members of SAEN will never give up. Like you say 2 different high court judges and the ex secretary of state said that the council acted in the correct way, but yet they still say the planning process was flawed. Makes you wonder how much more proof they need that they are talking sheer nonsense. Further evidence why they have losed the very little public support they had and any last bit of credibilty.
As for JAYMAN i see you are still following the SAEN path and talking out your backside. Rochford Airport, really? Is that the best you can do, Pathetic.
I am afraid Denis, Kitti and the other 10 or so members of SAEN will never give up. Like you say 2 different high court judges and the ex secretary of state said that the council acted in the correct way, but yet they still say the planning process was flawed. Makes you wonder how much more proof they need that they are talking sheer nonsense. Further evidence why they have losed the very little public support they had and any last bit of credibilty. As for JAYMAN i see you are still following the SAEN path and talking out your backside. Rochford Airport, really? Is that the best you can do, Pathetic. Jarv79
  • Score: 0

11:06pm Mon 11 Apr 11

jayman says...

Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
its like tying a dead horse to a sinking ship...
"Rochford municipal airport" just to point out the only time the name Rochford was been used was the First World War when it was RFC Rochford and then again when it was RAF Rochford between Sunday 1st January 1939 till Monday 28th October 1940 when it became RAF Southend.

(Information gatherd from Southend Timeline website)

If you where having a "joke" it was a very lame one.

As for being screwd its saen that are screwing the tax payer by this constant appeal after appeal after appeal...

Now they are looking at a challange to todays decision. It is now two independent judges and the ex-Secretary of State for Home and Communities who have all said SBC acted fully in line with planning process and did not break any planning rules or regulations.

Why cant saen accept this and instead of fighting and using tax payers money to carry on fighting change stance and move to a more observation group and watch what is happening at the airport checking that they are operating as per the licence sets out.

Check that night flight regulatons are being followed, check that its not just cargo flights operating, check the noise limts are being followed, check that night types are those permited etc:

More people whould listen to them if they admitted that SBC followed the planning regulations to the letter of the law and have acted fully within the planning system.
basil

i have a copy of an old OS map that proves you a lier sir..
[quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: its like tying a dead horse to a sinking ship...[/p][/quote]"Rochford municipal airport" just to point out the only time the name Rochford was been used was the First World War when it was RFC Rochford and then again when it was RAF Rochford between Sunday 1st January 1939 till Monday 28th October 1940 when it became RAF Southend. (Information gatherd from Southend Timeline website) If you where having a "joke" it was a very lame one. As for being screwd its saen that are screwing the tax payer by this constant appeal after appeal after appeal... Now they are looking at a challange to todays decision. It is now two independent judges and the ex-Secretary of State for Home and Communities who have all said SBC acted fully in line with planning process and did not break any planning rules or regulations. Why cant saen accept this and instead of fighting and using tax payers money to carry on fighting change stance and move to a more observation group and watch what is happening at the airport checking that they are operating as per the licence sets out. Check that night flight regulatons are being followed, check that its not just cargo flights operating, check the noise limts are being followed, check that night types are those permited etc: More people whould listen to them if they admitted that SBC followed the planning regulations to the letter of the law and have acted fully within the planning system.[/p][/quote]basil i have a copy of an old OS map that proves you a lier sir.. jayman
  • Score: 0

11:19pm Mon 11 Apr 11

jayman says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
"I on the other hand don't think its going to work.. an airport is subject to many factors such as topography geography and demographic use. there is a reason rochford municipal airport fell into under use from its hay day and the same factors exists."

But thats the point. With the extension and improvements to facilities at Southend, the same factors wont exist.
Part of the downfall was Stansted growing and the need for extra safety.
Add to that demand for tarmac in the South East which is still there, and set to increase.... Despite the problems in recent years.

Nobody has a Crystal ball, but I'm fairly sure they (Stobart) haven't gone in to this on a whim.
the death of the airport way back when was more specific then you imply. it was not the facilities at the airport but the volume of planes at gates to support the package holiday. how many terminals will Southend support.. 1 how many planes at that terminal at any one given time.. not many. what is the turn around speed of a budget airline. about as long as it takes to chuck the bags and passengers on board and throw the aircraft back up again. Southend can never support this model of mass cheap package holidays as has been suggested on here before. so don't expect a cheap flight to palma nova any time soon. think a few destinations a week to places you have never heard of.
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: "I on the other hand don't think its going to work.. an airport is subject to many factors such as topography geography and demographic use. there is a reason rochford municipal airport fell into under use from its hay day and the same factors exists." But thats the point. With the extension and improvements to facilities at Southend, the same factors wont exist. Part of the downfall was Stansted growing and the need for extra safety. Add to that demand for tarmac in the South East which is still there, and set to increase.... Despite the problems in recent years. Nobody has a Crystal ball, but I'm fairly sure they (Stobart) haven't gone in to this on a whim.[/p][/quote]the death of the airport way back when was more specific then you imply. it was not the facilities at the airport but the volume of planes at gates to support the package holiday. how many terminals will Southend support.. 1 how many planes at that terminal at any one given time.. not many. what is the turn around speed of a budget airline. about as long as it takes to chuck the bags and passengers on board and throw the aircraft back up again. Southend can never support this model of mass cheap package holidays as has been suggested on here before. so don't expect a cheap flight to palma nova any time soon. think a few destinations a week to places you have never heard of. jayman
  • Score: 0

11:42pm Mon 11 Apr 11

jayman says...

jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote:
its like tying a dead horse to a sinking ship...
"Rochford municipal airport" just to point out the only time the name Rochford was been used was the First World War when it was RFC Rochford and then again when it was RAF Rochford between Sunday 1st January 1939 till Monday 28th October 1940 when it became RAF Southend.

(Information gatherd from Southend Timeline website)

If you where having a "joke" it was a very lame one.

As for being screwd its saen that are screwing the tax payer by this constant appeal after appeal after appeal...

Now they are looking at a challange to todays decision. It is now two independent judges and the ex-Secretary of State for Home and Communities who have all said SBC acted fully in line with planning process and did not break any planning rules or regulations.

Why cant saen accept this and instead of fighting and using tax payers money to carry on fighting change stance and move to a more observation group and watch what is happening at the airport checking that they are operating as per the licence sets out.

Check that night flight regulatons are being followed, check that its not just cargo flights operating, check the noise limts are being followed, check that night types are those permited etc:

More people whould listen to them if they admitted that SBC followed the planning regulations to the letter of the law and have acted fully within the planning system.
basil

i have a copy of an old OS map that proves you a lier sir..
sorry not basil.. wrong poster

that should have been 'cllr' max impact
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: its like tying a dead horse to a sinking ship...[/p][/quote]"Rochford municipal airport" just to point out the only time the name Rochford was been used was the First World War when it was RFC Rochford and then again when it was RAF Rochford between Sunday 1st January 1939 till Monday 28th October 1940 when it became RAF Southend. (Information gatherd from Southend Timeline website) If you where having a "joke" it was a very lame one. As for being screwd its saen that are screwing the tax payer by this constant appeal after appeal after appeal... Now they are looking at a challange to todays decision. It is now two independent judges and the ex-Secretary of State for Home and Communities who have all said SBC acted fully in line with planning process and did not break any planning rules or regulations. Why cant saen accept this and instead of fighting and using tax payers money to carry on fighting change stance and move to a more observation group and watch what is happening at the airport checking that they are operating as per the licence sets out. Check that night flight regulatons are being followed, check that its not just cargo flights operating, check the noise limts are being followed, check that night types are those permited etc: More people whould listen to them if they admitted that SBC followed the planning regulations to the letter of the law and have acted fully within the planning system.[/p][/quote]basil i have a copy of an old OS map that proves you a lier sir..[/p][/quote]sorry not basil.. wrong poster that should have been 'cllr' max impact jayman
  • Score: 0

11:58pm Mon 11 Apr 11

smiler:) says...

Dear SAEN - ahahahahahahaahhaaha
hahaaaaa!!!!!

Now bugger off. Forever.
Dear SAEN - ahahahahahahaahhaaha hahaaaaa!!!!! Now bugger off. Forever. smiler:)
  • Score: 0

6:05am Tue 12 Apr 11

tophatdt says...

For Jayman, if I had my own airline I could fill a few aircraft every week in season to Ibiza, Majorca, Faro, Malta, etc, and regular flights to cities like Krakow, Prague, Rome, Venice, Nice, Barcelona. Porto, Copenhagen, and then a couple of hubs to worldwide destination via Frankfurt, Paris or Amsterdam. That should keep the terminal building and all its small businesses inside busy.
For Jayman, if I had my own airline I could fill a few aircraft every week in season to Ibiza, Majorca, Faro, Malta, etc, and regular flights to cities like Krakow, Prague, Rome, Venice, Nice, Barcelona. Porto, Copenhagen, and then a couple of hubs to worldwide destination via Frankfurt, Paris or Amsterdam. That should keep the terminal building and all its small businesses inside busy. tophatdt
  • Score: 0

7:57am Tue 12 Apr 11

lemon demon says...

let the expansion begin and tell these campaigners to move to another place because southend airport is here to stay!
let the expansion begin and tell these campaigners to move to another place because southend airport is here to stay! lemon demon
  • Score: 0

9:01am Tue 12 Apr 11

Jarv79 says...

Seriously Jayman what planet are you from. You really don't think they will offer filghts to Malaga, Palma Mallorca, Alicante etc? Where's your evidence to prove this? The airport have already said on numerous occasions these are the types of destinations they are looking at. And then for you to say they would not be able to fill these flights from Southend is a joke. I am sure all the many thousands of people from this catchment area who travel to these holiday destinations every year would rather use their local airport and be home in under an hour from landing, rather than 2-3 hours if they went to Stansted, Gatwick etc. Unless they enjoy sitting in a car park on the M25 of course.
Seriously Jayman what planet are you from. You really don't think they will offer filghts to Malaga, Palma Mallorca, Alicante etc? Where's your evidence to prove this? The airport have already said on numerous occasions these are the types of destinations they are looking at. And then for you to say they would not be able to fill these flights from Southend is a joke. I am sure all the many thousands of people from this catchment area who travel to these holiday destinations every year would rather use their local airport and be home in under an hour from landing, rather than 2-3 hours if they went to Stansted, Gatwick etc. Unless they enjoy sitting in a car park on the M25 of course. Jarv79
  • Score: 0

9:08am Tue 12 Apr 11

Norfolk says...

The Echo story is actually quite kind to SAEN and Ms Millard in saying "Judge Waksman ruled that her claim was not sufficiently aruable to justify a full hearing."
What he actually said in Court was "On a careful analysis, at the end of the day, there is simply nothing in any of the grounds alleged and, accordingly, there is no case for judicial review."
He also said that her claim that SBC's acceptance of the base case (without a runway extension) of 700,000 passengers per annum had been irrational was "hopeless". Likewise her claim that her human rights had been breached was "unarguable" he said. He pointed out that with the preferred runway system which formed part of the planning consent that, living to the South-West of the airport "The position in future is that she would be less affected by noise at night than she is now."
In light of all the above what reasonable person would expect to succeed with an appeal to the Court of Appeal? Certainly not someone who had to fund it themselves that's for sure, but if it's someone else paying - the taxpayer in this case as it's legal aid funded - what the heck.
I just hope some of the more reasonable people in SAEN - and I include Kiti Theobald in that category - will see the folly in trying to continue the process. Their role now is surely to act as watchdog to ensure all the terms of the planning consent are complied with. By doing so they can still maintain some credibility and respect.
The Echo story is actually quite kind to SAEN and Ms Millard in saying "Judge Waksman ruled that her claim was not sufficiently aruable to justify a full hearing." What he actually said in Court was "On a careful analysis, at the end of the day, there is simply nothing in any of the grounds alleged and, accordingly, there is no case for judicial review." He also said that her claim that SBC's acceptance of the base case (without a runway extension) of 700,000 passengers per annum had been irrational was "hopeless". Likewise her claim that her human rights had been breached was "unarguable" he said. He pointed out that with the preferred runway system which formed part of the planning consent that, living to the South-West of the airport "The position in future is that she would be less affected by noise at night than she is now." In light of all the above what reasonable person would expect to succeed with an appeal to the Court of Appeal? Certainly not someone who had to fund it themselves that's for sure, but if it's someone else paying - the taxpayer in this case as it's legal aid funded - what the heck. I just hope some of the more reasonable people in SAEN - and I include Kiti Theobald in that category - will see the folly in trying to continue the process. Their role now is surely to act as watchdog to ensure all the terms of the planning consent are complied with. By doing so they can still maintain some credibility and respect. Norfolk
  • Score: 0

9:25am Tue 12 Apr 11

openspace says...

Norfolk wrote:
The Echo story is actually quite kind to SAEN and Ms Millard in saying "Judge Waksman ruled that her claim was not sufficiently aruable to justify a full hearing." What he actually said in Court was "On a careful analysis, at the end of the day, there is simply nothing in any of the grounds alleged and, accordingly, there is no case for judicial review." He also said that her claim that SBC's acceptance of the base case (without a runway extension) of 700,000 passengers per annum had been irrational was "hopeless". Likewise her claim that her human rights had been breached was "unarguable" he said. He pointed out that with the preferred runway system which formed part of the planning consent that, living to the South-West of the airport "The position in future is that she would be less affected by noise at night than she is now." In light of all the above what reasonable person would expect to succeed with an appeal to the Court of Appeal? Certainly not someone who had to fund it themselves that's for sure, but if it's someone else paying - the taxpayer in this case as it's legal aid funded - what the heck. I just hope some of the more reasonable people in SAEN - and I include Kiti Theobald in that category - will see the folly in trying to continue the process. Their role now is surely to act as watchdog to ensure all the terms of the planning consent are complied with. By doing so they can still maintain some credibility and respect.
" By doing so they can still maintain some credibility and respect". Perhaps the use of the word maintain is unfortunate, they have NO credibilty or respect to maintain. " Earn" would have been a better word, but this might be difficult for an organisation that thrives on mis-information and biased views that have no place in reasonable discussion. To the poster who commented on flights to places that no-one has heard of, have you checked the destinations of Ryanair, who fly to many airports miles away from city centres. Doesn't seem to have stopped them from huge expansion and profiits, ( even if they are suffering a temporary loss of some flights due to the current financial state of the country). If the airport is likely to have few flights to unknown destinations, why are SAEN so vocal if the airport is expected to fail ??.
So-called " cheap" airlines will go where their operating costs can be kept low and if Southend get this right, perhaps some operators will transfer to Southend from other, more expensive, bases,
[quote][p][bold]Norfolk[/bold] wrote: The Echo story is actually quite kind to SAEN and Ms Millard in saying "Judge Waksman ruled that her claim was not sufficiently aruable to justify a full hearing." What he actually said in Court was "On a careful analysis, at the end of the day, there is simply nothing in any of the grounds alleged and, accordingly, there is no case for judicial review." He also said that her claim that SBC's acceptance of the base case (without a runway extension) of 700,000 passengers per annum had been irrational was "hopeless". Likewise her claim that her human rights had been breached was "unarguable" he said. He pointed out that with the preferred runway system which formed part of the planning consent that, living to the South-West of the airport "The position in future is that she would be less affected by noise at night than she is now." In light of all the above what reasonable person would expect to succeed with an appeal to the Court of Appeal? Certainly not someone who had to fund it themselves that's for sure, but if it's someone else paying - the taxpayer in this case as it's legal aid funded - what the heck. I just hope some of the more reasonable people in SAEN - and I include Kiti Theobald in that category - will see the folly in trying to continue the process. Their role now is surely to act as watchdog to ensure all the terms of the planning consent are complied with. By doing so they can still maintain some credibility and respect.[/p][/quote]" By doing so they can still maintain some credibility and respect". Perhaps the use of the word maintain is unfortunate, they have NO credibilty or respect to maintain. " Earn" would have been a better word, but this might be difficult for an organisation that thrives on mis-information and biased views that have no place in reasonable discussion. To the poster who commented on flights to places that no-one has heard of, have you checked the destinations of Ryanair, who fly to many airports miles away from city centres. Doesn't seem to have stopped them from huge expansion and profiits, ( even if they are suffering a temporary loss of some flights due to the current financial state of the country). If the airport is likely to have few flights to unknown destinations, why are SAEN so vocal if the airport is expected to fail ??. So-called " cheap" airlines will go where their operating costs can be kept low and if Southend get this right, perhaps some operators will transfer to Southend from other, more expensive, bases, openspace
  • Score: 0

9:46am Tue 12 Apr 11

APR says...

It will be interesting to see which airlines come to Southend next year.
There could be some big surprises.
It will be interesting to see which airlines come to Southend next year. There could be some big surprises. APR
  • Score: 0

11:01am Tue 12 Apr 11

DannyK86 says...

I love this picture, which show's SAEN's committee, (and probably not far off total membership). A bunch of miserable old ****! (although I recognise plenty of older people are in favour of the airport so I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush).

http://www.saen.org.
uk/2009/12/row-is-re
ady-for-take-off/
I love this picture, which show's SAEN's committee, (and probably not far off total membership). A bunch of miserable old ****! (although I recognise plenty of older people are in favour of the airport so I don't want to tar everyone with the same brush). http://www.saen.org. uk/2009/12/row-is-re ady-for-take-off/ DannyK86
  • Score: 0

11:13am Tue 12 Apr 11

jayman says...

Jarv79 wrote:
Seriously Jayman what planet are you from. You really don't think they will offer filghts to Malaga, Palma Mallorca, Alicante etc? Where's your evidence to prove this? The airport have already said on numerous occasions these are the types of destinations they are looking at. And then for you to say they would not be able to fill these flights from Southend is a joke. I am sure all the many thousands of people from this catchment area who travel to these holiday destinations every year would rather use their local airport and be home in under an hour from landing, rather than 2-3 hours if they went to Stansted, Gatwick etc. Unless they enjoy sitting in a car park on the M25 of course.
how is Southend going to support a major catering operation + staff parking + aircraft stands + passenger parking to support the vast array of destinations you have suggested? if Southend airport is relying on 'the local catchment area' for trade then the airport is truly doomed. if Southend had acres and acres of development land to expand into. ie 5,000 car park spaces and airport support companies then I would say yes.

dose the airport have convenient on-site car parking.... No

dose the airport have adequate brown field space for the expansion of support service buildings that would need to be on-site for major European operations... No

dose the airport offer on-site car parking. (if a family of six wanted to go on holiday for a week i doubt the would want to lug all the luggage of a train)... no.

would the airport make more airport sense as a cargo hub... yes
[quote][p][bold]Jarv79[/bold] wrote: Seriously Jayman what planet are you from. You really don't think they will offer filghts to Malaga, Palma Mallorca, Alicante etc? Where's your evidence to prove this? The airport have already said on numerous occasions these are the types of destinations they are looking at. And then for you to say they would not be able to fill these flights from Southend is a joke. I am sure all the many thousands of people from this catchment area who travel to these holiday destinations every year would rather use their local airport and be home in under an hour from landing, rather than 2-3 hours if they went to Stansted, Gatwick etc. Unless they enjoy sitting in a car park on the M25 of course.[/p][/quote]how is Southend going to support a major catering operation + staff parking + aircraft stands + passenger parking to support the vast array of destinations you have suggested? if Southend airport is relying on 'the local catchment area' for trade then the airport is truly doomed. if Southend had acres and acres of development land to expand into. ie 5,000 car park spaces and airport support companies then I would say yes. dose the airport have convenient on-site car parking.... No dose the airport have adequate brown field space for the expansion of support service buildings that would need to be on-site for major European operations... No dose the airport offer on-site car parking. (if a family of six wanted to go on holiday for a week i doubt the would want to lug all the luggage of a train)... no. would the airport make more airport sense as a cargo hub... yes jayman
  • Score: 0

11:52am Tue 12 Apr 11

j-w says...

Jayman has obviously never been near the airport .
Jayman has obviously never been near the airport . j-w
  • Score: 0

11:58am Tue 12 Apr 11

BASILBRUSH says...

As J-W has said, Jayman is criticising and making assumptions and clearly hasn't even visited the Airport.
Jayman do you even live around here?
As J-W has said, Jayman is criticising and making assumptions and clearly hasn't even visited the Airport. Jayman do you even live around here? BASILBRUSH
  • Score: 0

12:04pm Tue 12 Apr 11

DannyK86 says...

jayman wrote:
Jarv79 wrote: Seriously Jayman what planet are you from. You really don't think they will offer filghts to Malaga, Palma Mallorca, Alicante etc? Where's your evidence to prove this? The airport have already said on numerous occasions these are the types of destinations they are looking at. And then for you to say they would not be able to fill these flights from Southend is a joke. I am sure all the many thousands of people from this catchment area who travel to these holiday destinations every year would rather use their local airport and be home in under an hour from landing, rather than 2-3 hours if they went to Stansted, Gatwick etc. Unless they enjoy sitting in a car park on the M25 of course.
how is Southend going to support a major catering operation + staff parking + aircraft stands + passenger parking to support the vast array of destinations you have suggested? if Southend airport is relying on 'the local catchment area' for trade then the airport is truly doomed. if Southend had acres and acres of development land to expand into. ie 5,000 car park spaces and airport support companies then I would say yes. dose the airport have convenient on-site car parking.... No dose the airport have adequate brown field space for the expansion of support service buildings that would need to be on-site for major European operations... No dose the airport offer on-site car parking. (if a family of six wanted to go on holiday for a week i doubt the would want to lug all the luggage of a train)... no. would the airport make more airport sense as a cargo hub... yes
Jayman, please explain why the airport would make more sense as a cargo hub? Youre the first to criticise Southend's road connections, so you may already have shot yourself in the foot on this argument...
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jarv79[/bold] wrote: Seriously Jayman what planet are you from. You really don't think they will offer filghts to Malaga, Palma Mallorca, Alicante etc? Where's your evidence to prove this? The airport have already said on numerous occasions these are the types of destinations they are looking at. And then for you to say they would not be able to fill these flights from Southend is a joke. I am sure all the many thousands of people from this catchment area who travel to these holiday destinations every year would rather use their local airport and be home in under an hour from landing, rather than 2-3 hours if they went to Stansted, Gatwick etc. Unless they enjoy sitting in a car park on the M25 of course.[/p][/quote]how is Southend going to support a major catering operation + staff parking + aircraft stands + passenger parking to support the vast array of destinations you have suggested? if Southend airport is relying on 'the local catchment area' for trade then the airport is truly doomed. if Southend had acres and acres of development land to expand into. ie 5,000 car park spaces and airport support companies then I would say yes. dose the airport have convenient on-site car parking.... No dose the airport have adequate brown field space for the expansion of support service buildings that would need to be on-site for major European operations... No dose the airport offer on-site car parking. (if a family of six wanted to go on holiday for a week i doubt the would want to lug all the luggage of a train)... no. would the airport make more airport sense as a cargo hub... yes[/p][/quote]Jayman, please explain why the airport would make more sense as a cargo hub? Youre the first to criticise Southend's road connections, so you may already have shot yourself in the foot on this argument... DannyK86
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Tue 12 Apr 11

Max Impact says...

jayman wrote:
jayman wrote:
Max Impact wrote:
jayman wrote: its like tying a dead horse to a sinking ship...
"Rochford municipal airport" just to point out the only time the name Rochford was been used was the First World War when it was RFC Rochford and then again when it was RAF Rochford between Sunday 1st January 1939 till Monday 28th October 1940 when it became RAF Southend. (Information gatherd from Southend Timeline website) If you where having a "joke" it was a very lame one. As for being screwd its saen that are screwing the tax payer by this constant appeal after appeal after appeal... Now they are looking at a challange to todays decision. It is now two independent judges and the ex-Secretary of State for Home and Communities who have all said SBC acted fully in line with planning process and did not break any planning rules or regulations. Why cant saen accept this and instead of fighting and using tax payers money to carry on fighting change stance and move to a more observation group and watch what is happening at the airport checking that they are operating as per the licence sets out. Check that night flight regulatons are being followed, check that its not just cargo flights operating, check the noise limts are being followed, check that night types are those permited etc: More people whould listen to them if they admitted that SBC followed the planning regulations to the letter of the law and have acted fully within the planning system.
basil i have a copy of an old OS map that proves you a lier sir..
sorry not basil.. wrong poster that should have been 'cllr' max impact
Your map what year is it, do you not think it might be wrong?

Its always been RFC Rochford, RAF Rochford, RAF Southend or Southend Airport. There was a small strip Sutton Farm in Rochford but it was never a full blown airport.

and I DO NOT WORK FOR THE COUNCIL.

A lot of Heathrow based operators use off site catering services only the fianl stages of the prep are carried out at Heathrow why cant Southend use the same set up.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Max Impact[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: its like tying a dead horse to a sinking ship...[/p][/quote]"Rochford municipal airport" just to point out the only time the name Rochford was been used was the First World War when it was RFC Rochford and then again when it was RAF Rochford between Sunday 1st January 1939 till Monday 28th October 1940 when it became RAF Southend. (Information gatherd from Southend Timeline website) If you where having a "joke" it was a very lame one. As for being screwd its saen that are screwing the tax payer by this constant appeal after appeal after appeal... Now they are looking at a challange to todays decision. It is now two independent judges and the ex-Secretary of State for Home and Communities who have all said SBC acted fully in line with planning process and did not break any planning rules or regulations. Why cant saen accept this and instead of fighting and using tax payers money to carry on fighting change stance and move to a more observation group and watch what is happening at the airport checking that they are operating as per the licence sets out. Check that night flight regulatons are being followed, check that its not just cargo flights operating, check the noise limts are being followed, check that night types are those permited etc: More people whould listen to them if they admitted that SBC followed the planning regulations to the letter of the law and have acted fully within the planning system.[/p][/quote]basil i have a copy of an old OS map that proves you a lier sir..[/p][/quote]sorry not basil.. wrong poster that should have been 'cllr' max impact[/p][/quote]Your map what year is it, do you not think it might be wrong? Its always been RFC Rochford, RAF Rochford, RAF Southend or Southend Airport. There was a small strip Sutton Farm in Rochford but it was never a full blown airport. and I DO NOT WORK FOR THE COUNCIL. A lot of Heathrow based operators use off site catering services only the fianl stages of the prep are carried out at Heathrow why cant Southend use the same set up. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Tue 12 Apr 11

Carvair says...

I am sure Denis Walker, Kitti whoever and Jayman together with their little band of followers, must pray every night to the patron saint of lost causes for a miracle, however it is we the tax payers who are having to put our money in their collection box.

They are seeking to deny local people skilled employment and the opportunities of inward investment that a regional airport brings. Their anti airport propaganda is a confection of mis-information and downright untruths.

It is a tribute to the good sense of local people that they consider SAEN rather like the Monster Raving Loony Party, with a mixture of wry amusement and dismissal.
I am sure Denis Walker, Kitti whoever and Jayman together with their little band of followers, must pray every night to the patron saint of lost causes for a miracle, however it is we the tax payers who are having to put our money in their collection box. They are seeking to deny local people skilled employment and the opportunities of inward investment that a regional airport brings. Their anti airport propaganda is a confection of mis-information and downright untruths. It is a tribute to the good sense of local people that they consider SAEN rather like the Monster Raving Loony Party, with a mixture of wry amusement and dismissal. Carvair
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Tue 12 Apr 11

Carvair says...

I am sure Denis Walker, Kitti whoever and Jayman together with their little band of followers, must pray every night to the patron saint of lost causes for a miracle, however it is we the tax payers who are having to put our money in their collection box.

They are seeking to deny local people skilled employment and the opportunities of inward investment that a regional airport brings. Their anti airport propaganda is a confection of mis-information and downright untruths.

It is a tribute to the good sense of local people that they consider SAEN rather like the Monster Raving Loony Party, with a mixture of wry amusement and dismissal.
I am sure Denis Walker, Kitti whoever and Jayman together with their little band of followers, must pray every night to the patron saint of lost causes for a miracle, however it is we the tax payers who are having to put our money in their collection box. They are seeking to deny local people skilled employment and the opportunities of inward investment that a regional airport brings. Their anti airport propaganda is a confection of mis-information and downright untruths. It is a tribute to the good sense of local people that they consider SAEN rather like the Monster Raving Loony Party, with a mixture of wry amusement and dismissal. Carvair
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Tue 12 Apr 11

myhumbleopinion says...

As they have learnt, the only way they could get any support at all was by scaremongering. Fine let them appeal, but only when they are paying for all the legal costs and reimbursing Southend Council for there legal costs when they lose.
If Jayman suspects that no airline would ever want to fly rom Southend - what has he got to worry about?
As they have learnt, the only way they could get any support at all was by scaremongering. Fine let them appeal, but only when they are paying for all the legal costs and reimbursing Southend Council for there legal costs when they lose. If Jayman suspects that no airline would ever want to fly rom Southend - what has he got to worry about? myhumbleopinion
  • Score: 0

2:07pm Tue 12 Apr 11

myhumbleopinion says...

As they have learnt, the only way they could get any support at all was by scaremongering. Fine let them appeal, but only when they are paying for all the legal costs and reimbursing Southend Council for there legal costs when they lose.
If Jayman suspects that no airline would ever want to fly rom Southend - what has he got to worry about?
As they have learnt, the only way they could get any support at all was by scaremongering. Fine let them appeal, but only when they are paying for all the legal costs and reimbursing Southend Council for there legal costs when they lose. If Jayman suspects that no airline would ever want to fly rom Southend - what has he got to worry about? myhumbleopinion
  • Score: 0

2:30pm Tue 12 Apr 11

jayman says...

myhumbleopinion wrote:
As they have learnt, the only way they could get any support at all was by scaremongering. Fine let them appeal, but only when they are paying for all the legal costs and reimbursing Southend Council for there legal costs when they lose.
If Jayman suspects that no airline would ever want to fly rom Southend - what has he got to worry about?
all i can say is that its a good thing that the echo archive there stories online. so that when the airport doesn't flourish in the way most of the BS-mongers have stated i can gleefully and quite rightly link it to every future BS plan.
[quote][p][bold]myhumbleopinion[/bold] wrote: As they have learnt, the only way they could get any support at all was by scaremongering. Fine let them appeal, but only when they are paying for all the legal costs and reimbursing Southend Council for there legal costs when they lose. If Jayman suspects that no airline would ever want to fly rom Southend - what has he got to worry about?[/p][/quote]all i can say is that its a good thing that the echo archive there stories online. so that when the airport doesn't flourish in the way most of the BS-mongers have stated i can gleefully and quite rightly link it to every future BS plan. jayman
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Tue 12 Apr 11

tophatdt says...

i believe we will catch back the passengers who used to fly from Southend to Mediterranean destinations with Channel Airways in the 60s and 70s. Provided there is a good choice, and the price competetive, then they will no longer need to fight the traffic jams to Stansted and Gatwick.
i believe we will catch back the passengers who used to fly from Southend to Mediterranean destinations with Channel Airways in the 60s and 70s. Provided there is a good choice, and the price competetive, then they will no longer need to fight the traffic jams to Stansted and Gatwick. tophatdt
  • Score: 0

3:08pm Tue 12 Apr 11

openspace says...

jayman wrote:
myhumbleopinion wrote: As they have learnt, the only way they could get any support at all was by scaremongering. Fine let them appeal, but only when they are paying for all the legal costs and reimbursing Southend Council for there legal costs when they lose. If Jayman suspects that no airline would ever want to fly rom Southend - what has he got to worry about?
all i can say is that its a good thing that the echo archive there stories online. so that when the airport doesn't flourish in the way most of the BS-mongers have stated i can gleefully and quite rightly link it to every future BS plan.
Jayman, will cheerfully admit I was wrong about the airport if it proves to be a failure. But will you do the same if it is a great success, mmmmmm', probably not !!!!!
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]myhumbleopinion[/bold] wrote: As they have learnt, the only way they could get any support at all was by scaremongering. Fine let them appeal, but only when they are paying for all the legal costs and reimbursing Southend Council for there legal costs when they lose. If Jayman suspects that no airline would ever want to fly rom Southend - what has he got to worry about?[/p][/quote]all i can say is that its a good thing that the echo archive there stories online. so that when the airport doesn't flourish in the way most of the BS-mongers have stated i can gleefully and quite rightly link it to every future BS plan.[/p][/quote]Jayman, will cheerfully admit I was wrong about the airport if it proves to be a failure. But will you do the same if it is a great success, mmmmmm', probably not !!!!! openspace
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Tue 12 Apr 11

Max Impact says...

openspace wrote:
jayman wrote:
myhumbleopinion wrote: As they have learnt, the only way they could get any support at all was by scaremongering. Fine let them appeal, but only when they are paying for all the legal costs and reimbursing Southend Council for there legal costs when they lose. If Jayman suspects that no airline would ever want to fly rom Southend - what has he got to worry about?
all i can say is that its a good thing that the echo archive there stories online. so that when the airport doesn't flourish in the way most of the BS-mongers have stated i can gleefully and quite rightly link it to every future BS plan.
Jayman, will cheerfully admit I was wrong about the airport if it proves to be a failure. But will you do the same if it is a great success, mmmmmm', probably not !!!!!
Your right, those against the airport will not admit they were wrong if it is a fly away sucsess.

How about this fact a TRUE FACT no BS;

Laura Millard (backed by saen) have cost the council tax payer of Southend £35,000 so far... That will go up for as long as they appeal.

The council has rightfully defend its action that have been proven to be lawfull and to the letter of the planning rules and regs at no point have the council broken the regulations set down in law in approving the application.

Just how much in legal aid has been taken by those representing Laura Millard. Will they tell us bet not...
[quote][p][bold]openspace[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]myhumbleopinion[/bold] wrote: As they have learnt, the only way they could get any support at all was by scaremongering. Fine let them appeal, but only when they are paying for all the legal costs and reimbursing Southend Council for there legal costs when they lose. If Jayman suspects that no airline would ever want to fly rom Southend - what has he got to worry about?[/p][/quote]all i can say is that its a good thing that the echo archive there stories online. so that when the airport doesn't flourish in the way most of the BS-mongers have stated i can gleefully and quite rightly link it to every future BS plan.[/p][/quote]Jayman, will cheerfully admit I was wrong about the airport if it proves to be a failure. But will you do the same if it is a great success, mmmmmm', probably not !!!!![/p][/quote]Your right, those against the airport will not admit they were wrong if it is a fly away sucsess. How about this fact a TRUE FACT no BS; Laura Millard (backed by saen) have cost the council tax payer of Southend £35,000 so far... That will go up for as long as they appeal. The council has rightfully defend its action that have been proven to be lawfull and to the letter of the planning rules and regs at no point have the council broken the regulations set down in law in approving the application. Just how much in legal aid has been taken by those representing Laura Millard. Will they tell us bet not... Max Impact
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Tue 12 Apr 11

BASILBRUSH says...

Jayman, I am quite surprised by your post about the facilities at Southend which clearly show you havent even visited the Airport to see the first of the new car parks, the large maintenance companies aleady based on the Airport and the land available. I also wonder what timescale you give the Airport? They have always stated they are looking to grow to around 2m passengers by 2020.
That is not unfeasible at all, and perfectly possible with the infrastructure and catchment available.
Fortunately some of us are more optimistic based on the facts. ;)
Jayman, I am quite surprised by your post about the facilities at Southend which clearly show you havent even visited the Airport to see the first of the new car parks, the large maintenance companies aleady based on the Airport and the land available. I also wonder what timescale you give the Airport? They have always stated they are looking to grow to around 2m passengers by 2020. That is not unfeasible at all, and perfectly possible with the infrastructure and catchment available. Fortunately some of us are more optimistic based on the facts. ;) BASILBRUSH
  • Score: 0

9:38pm Tue 12 Apr 11

jayman says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
Jayman, I am quite surprised by your post about the facilities at Southend which clearly show you havent even visited the Airport to see the first of the new car parks, the large maintenance companies aleady based on the Airport and the land available. I also wonder what timescale you give the Airport? They have always stated they are looking to grow to around 2m passengers by 2020.
That is not unfeasible at all, and perfectly possible with the infrastructure and catchment available.
Fortunately some of us are more optimistic based on the facts. ;)
why would i visit the airport basil .. I don't use air travel. what I do have however is goggle earth and a knowledge of how airports function.

how many large aircraft stands dose the airport have?
how many other airlines have shown an interest in using the airport?
what would be the turn around speed of a European flight at the airport?
how many terminals dose the airport have?
what direct parking facilities are available at the airport?
what are the options for growth of airport real-estate?
what is the real time return SBC will receive on the massive investment pumped into the airport through capital sales and direct finance. this includes infrastructure?

the reason why i show an interest is Southend seems to be awash with failed grand plans and shattered promises to the locals. i could list them, but im too tired.

and yes I would love to be proven wrong and if I am then I will gladly admit it, this is very conditional though :)

the security word is real-debt
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: Jayman, I am quite surprised by your post about the facilities at Southend which clearly show you havent even visited the Airport to see the first of the new car parks, the large maintenance companies aleady based on the Airport and the land available. I also wonder what timescale you give the Airport? They have always stated they are looking to grow to around 2m passengers by 2020. That is not unfeasible at all, and perfectly possible with the infrastructure and catchment available. Fortunately some of us are more optimistic based on the facts. ;)[/p][/quote]why would i visit the airport basil .. I don't use air travel. what I do have however is goggle earth and a knowledge of how airports function. how many large aircraft stands dose the airport have? how many other airlines have shown an interest in using the airport? what would be the turn around speed of a European flight at the airport? how many terminals dose the airport have? what direct parking facilities are available at the airport? what are the options for growth of airport real-estate? what is the real time return SBC will receive on the massive investment pumped into the airport through capital sales and direct finance. this includes infrastructure? the reason why i show an interest is Southend seems to be awash with failed grand plans and shattered promises to the locals. i could list them, but im too tired. and yes I would love to be proven wrong and if I am then I will gladly admit it, this is very conditional though :) the security word is real-debt jayman
  • Score: 0

9:54pm Tue 12 Apr 11

BASILBRUSH says...

jayman wrote:
BASILBRUSH wrote:
Jayman, I am quite surprised by your post about the facilities at Southend which clearly show you havent even visited the Airport to see the first of the new car parks, the large maintenance companies aleady based on the Airport and the land available. I also wonder what timescale you give the Airport? They have always stated they are looking to grow to around 2m passengers by 2020.
That is not unfeasible at all, and perfectly possible with the infrastructure and catchment available.
Fortunately some of us are more optimistic based on the facts. ;)
why would i visit the airport basil .. I don't use air travel. what I do have however is goggle earth and a knowledge of how airports function.

how many large aircraft stands dose the airport have?
how many other airlines have shown an interest in using the airport?
what would be the turn around speed of a European flight at the airport?
how many terminals dose the airport have?
what direct parking facilities are available at the airport?
what are the options for growth of airport real-estate?
what is the real time return SBC will receive on the massive investment pumped into the airport through capital sales and direct finance. this includes infrastructure?

the reason why i show an interest is Southend seems to be awash with failed grand plans and shattered promises to the locals. i could list them, but im too tired.

and yes I would love to be proven wrong and if I am then I will gladly admit it, this is very conditional though :)

the security word is real-debt
Jayman. Google earth is out of date. The new terminal, apron and taxiways are being constructed 50m from the new railway station which is next to the new car parks.
Despite your alledged research, it's clear you don't actually know anything about what's happening at Southend.
If you live in Southend as you say you do, and post so much on it. I am flabbergasted you don't even have a clue what's going on there.
As has been said before. Airline discussions won't be publicised until they are signed sealed and delivered. But they have stated they are talking to several operators.
Until it is announced by the Airline, it isn't happening. That doesn't mean serious discussions aren't occurring.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: Jayman, I am quite surprised by your post about the facilities at Southend which clearly show you havent even visited the Airport to see the first of the new car parks, the large maintenance companies aleady based on the Airport and the land available. I also wonder what timescale you give the Airport? They have always stated they are looking to grow to around 2m passengers by 2020. That is not unfeasible at all, and perfectly possible with the infrastructure and catchment available. Fortunately some of us are more optimistic based on the facts. ;)[/p][/quote]why would i visit the airport basil .. I don't use air travel. what I do have however is goggle earth and a knowledge of how airports function. how many large aircraft stands dose the airport have? how many other airlines have shown an interest in using the airport? what would be the turn around speed of a European flight at the airport? how many terminals dose the airport have? what direct parking facilities are available at the airport? what are the options for growth of airport real-estate? what is the real time return SBC will receive on the massive investment pumped into the airport through capital sales and direct finance. this includes infrastructure? the reason why i show an interest is Southend seems to be awash with failed grand plans and shattered promises to the locals. i could list them, but im too tired. and yes I would love to be proven wrong and if I am then I will gladly admit it, this is very conditional though :) the security word is real-debt[/p][/quote]Jayman. Google earth is out of date. The new terminal, apron and taxiways are being constructed 50m from the new railway station which is next to the new car parks. Despite your alledged research, it's clear you don't actually know anything about what's happening at Southend. If you live in Southend as you say you do, and post so much on it. I am flabbergasted you don't even have a clue what's going on there. As has been said before. Airline discussions won't be publicised until they are signed sealed and delivered. But they have stated they are talking to several operators. Until it is announced by the Airline, it isn't happening. That doesn't mean serious discussions aren't occurring. BASILBRUSH
  • Score: 0

10:00pm Tue 12 Apr 11

myhumbleopinion says...

So why does Jayman care about all of this, spending huge amounts of his time posting rubbish, if he doesn't live locally and has never been to the airport?
So why does Jayman care about all of this, spending huge amounts of his time posting rubbish, if he doesn't live locally and has never been to the airport? myhumbleopinion
  • Score: 0

10:22pm Tue 12 Apr 11

jayman says...

actually I do live locally and I have seen the runway and control tower whilst taking some landscape photos nearby. i know google earth is out of date.. but to my knowledge the airport hasn't doubled in size so my point still remains, where are you going fit a viable European operation its not like its just a case of flying the aircraft in Willy nilly with no ground support services now is it.

allow me to state it all again for you

(((((how many large aircraft stands dose the airport have?
how many other airlines have shown an interest in using the airport?
what would be the turn around speed of a European flight at the airport?
how many terminals dose the airport have?
what direct parking facilities are available at the airport?
what are the options for growth of airport real-estate?
what is the real time return SBC will receive on the massive investment pumped into the airport through capital sales and direct finance. this includes infrastructure?)))))
actually I do live locally and I have seen the runway and control tower whilst taking some landscape photos nearby. i know google earth is out of date.. but to my knowledge the airport hasn't doubled in size so my point still remains, where are you going fit a viable European operation its not like its just a case of flying the aircraft in Willy nilly with no ground support services now is it. allow me to state it all again for you (((((how many large aircraft stands dose the airport have? how many other airlines have shown an interest in using the airport? what would be the turn around speed of a European flight at the airport? how many terminals dose the airport have? what direct parking facilities are available at the airport? what are the options for growth of airport real-estate? what is the real time return SBC will receive on the massive investment pumped into the airport through capital sales and direct finance. this includes infrastructure?))))) jayman
  • Score: 0

10:25pm Tue 12 Apr 11

jayman says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
jayman wrote:
BASILBRUSH wrote:
Jayman, I am quite surprised by your post about the facilities at Southend which clearly show you havent even visited the Airport to see the first of the new car parks, the large maintenance companies aleady based on the Airport and the land available. I also wonder what timescale you give the Airport? They have always stated they are looking to grow to around 2m passengers by 2020.
That is not unfeasible at all, and perfectly possible with the infrastructure and catchment available.
Fortunately some of us are more optimistic based on the facts. ;)
why would i visit the airport basil .. I don't use air travel. what I do have however is goggle earth and a knowledge of how airports function.

how many large aircraft stands dose the airport have?
how many other airlines have shown an interest in using the airport?
what would be the turn around speed of a European flight at the airport?
how many terminals dose the airport have?
what direct parking facilities are available at the airport?
what are the options for growth of airport real-estate?
what is the real time return SBC will receive on the massive investment pumped into the airport through capital sales and direct finance. this includes infrastructure?

the reason why i show an interest is Southend seems to be awash with failed grand plans and shattered promises to the locals. i could list them, but im too tired.

and yes I would love to be proven wrong and if I am then I will gladly admit it, this is very conditional though :)

the security word is real-debt
Jayman. Google earth is out of date. The new terminal, apron and taxiways are being constructed 50m from the new railway station which is next to the new car parks.
Despite your alledged research, it's clear you don't actually know anything about what's happening at Southend.
If you live in Southend as you say you do, and post so much on it. I am flabbergasted you don't even have a clue what's going on there.
As has been said before. Airline discussions won't be publicised until they are signed sealed and delivered. But they have stated they are talking to several operators.
Until it is announced by the Airline, it isn't happening. That doesn't mean serious discussions aren't occurring.
and im so looking forward to stobarts successfully negotiating big deals with major operators like easy jet, BA ect ect :)
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: Jayman, I am quite surprised by your post about the facilities at Southend which clearly show you havent even visited the Airport to see the first of the new car parks, the large maintenance companies aleady based on the Airport and the land available. I also wonder what timescale you give the Airport? They have always stated they are looking to grow to around 2m passengers by 2020. That is not unfeasible at all, and perfectly possible with the infrastructure and catchment available. Fortunately some of us are more optimistic based on the facts. ;)[/p][/quote]why would i visit the airport basil .. I don't use air travel. what I do have however is goggle earth and a knowledge of how airports function. how many large aircraft stands dose the airport have? how many other airlines have shown an interest in using the airport? what would be the turn around speed of a European flight at the airport? how many terminals dose the airport have? what direct parking facilities are available at the airport? what are the options for growth of airport real-estate? what is the real time return SBC will receive on the massive investment pumped into the airport through capital sales and direct finance. this includes infrastructure? the reason why i show an interest is Southend seems to be awash with failed grand plans and shattered promises to the locals. i could list them, but im too tired. and yes I would love to be proven wrong and if I am then I will gladly admit it, this is very conditional though :) the security word is real-debt[/p][/quote]Jayman. Google earth is out of date. The new terminal, apron and taxiways are being constructed 50m from the new railway station which is next to the new car parks. Despite your alledged research, it's clear you don't actually know anything about what's happening at Southend. If you live in Southend as you say you do, and post so much on it. I am flabbergasted you don't even have a clue what's going on there. As has been said before. Airline discussions won't be publicised until they are signed sealed and delivered. But they have stated they are talking to several operators. Until it is announced by the Airline, it isn't happening. That doesn't mean serious discussions aren't occurring.[/p][/quote]and im so looking forward to stobarts successfully negotiating big deals with major operators like easy jet, BA ect ect :) jayman
  • Score: 0

10:45pm Tue 12 Apr 11

BASILBRUSH says...

What makes you say they don't have the ground handling services?

At present, before the new Apron is completed, there are 11 stands excluding the GA area.
(http://www.ead.euro
control.int/eadbasic
/pamslight-55348BEBA
23F6CBF7D48EBB920EBB
559/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN
/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_
AD_2_EGMC_2-2_en_201
0-08-26.pdf)

The Airport wont discuss who or how many Airlines they are talking to for obvious reasons, and as published before.

There is one terminal operational. When the new terminal is open later this year the old one will close.
The new terminal will be constructed in 2 phases.

There is existing parking in adjacent to the old (existing terminal)......

Why am I bothering..... Get off you backside and have a look for yourself.
Or if you cant be bothered look at the Airport website or planning consent.
Southampton is mentioned a lot. They manage with a lot less land than Southend.
What makes you say they don't have the ground handling services? At present, before the new Apron is completed, there are 11 stands excluding the GA area. (http://www.ead.euro control.int/eadbasic /pamslight-55348BEBA 23F6CBF7D48EBB920EBB 559/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN /Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_ AD_2_EGMC_2-2_en_201 0-08-26.pdf) The Airport wont discuss who or how many Airlines they are talking to for obvious reasons, and as published before. There is one terminal operational. When the new terminal is open later this year the old one will close. The new terminal will be constructed in 2 phases. There is existing parking in adjacent to the old (existing terminal)...... Why am I bothering..... Get off you backside and have a look for yourself. Or if you cant be bothered look at the Airport website or planning consent. Southampton is mentioned a lot. They manage with a lot less land than Southend. BASILBRUSH
  • Score: 0

10:50pm Tue 12 Apr 11

myhumbleopinion says...

There is plenty of space - look at London City on Google Earth (which deals with almost 4 million passengers a year) and see how much space they have to play with.
Utter nonsense, how can someone who supposedly lives locally have not passed the airport in the last 2 years?
There is plenty of space - look at London City on Google Earth (which deals with almost 4 million passengers a year) and see how much space they have to play with. Utter nonsense, how can someone who supposedly lives locally have not passed the airport in the last 2 years? myhumbleopinion
  • Score: 0

11:01pm Tue 12 Apr 11

Max Impact says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
What makes you say they don't have the ground handling services? At present, before the new Apron is completed, there are 11 stands excluding the GA area. (http://www.ead.euro control.int/eadbasic /pamslight-55348BEBA 23F6CBF7D48EBB920EBB 559/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN /Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_ AD_2_EGMC_2-2_en_201 0-08-26.pdf) The Airport wont discuss who or how many Airlines they are talking to for obvious reasons, and as published before. There is one terminal operational. When the new terminal is open later this year the old one will close. The new terminal will be constructed in 2 phases. There is existing parking in adjacent to the old (existing terminal)...... Why am I bothering..... Get off you backside and have a look for yourself. Or if you cant be bothered look at the Airport website or planning consent. Southampton is mentioned a lot. They manage with a lot less land than Southend.
Well said.

If jayman cant be botherd to go and take a look at the airport then how can he know what is happenign over there, just using the internet is a bit hit and miss and as for the echos search facility that is very hit and miss, sometimes it works well others its like Blackpool FC!

Jayman many of the airlines at Heathrow have off site catering facilitys with the final prep only being undertaken on the airport site, who's to say the same can't happen at Southend.

Like has been said above, an airline will not say "we are flying fromn Southend to here, there and everywhere" untill all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, they will wait until approval from the CAA and other regulatory bodies to have signed off on the routes and timings of the flights have all been passed before saying where they are go to.

There are plenty of other operators other than your wet dream Easyjet and BA.

Some of the smaller operators can offer better service than the big budget airlines.
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: What makes you say they don't have the ground handling services? At present, before the new Apron is completed, there are 11 stands excluding the GA area. (http://www.ead.euro control.int/eadbasic /pamslight-55348BEBA 23F6CBF7D48EBB920EBB 559/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN /Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_ AD_2_EGMC_2-2_en_201 0-08-26.pdf) The Airport wont discuss who or how many Airlines they are talking to for obvious reasons, and as published before. There is one terminal operational. When the new terminal is open later this year the old one will close. The new terminal will be constructed in 2 phases. There is existing parking in adjacent to the old (existing terminal)...... Why am I bothering..... Get off you backside and have a look for yourself. Or if you cant be bothered look at the Airport website or planning consent. Southampton is mentioned a lot. They manage with a lot less land than Southend.[/p][/quote]Well said. If jayman cant be botherd to go and take a look at the airport then how can he know what is happenign over there, just using the internet is a bit hit and miss and as for the echos search facility that is very hit and miss, sometimes it works well others its like Blackpool FC! Jayman many of the airlines at Heathrow have off site catering facilitys with the final prep only being undertaken on the airport site, who's to say the same can't happen at Southend. Like has been said above, an airline will not say "we are flying fromn Southend to here, there and everywhere" untill all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, they will wait until approval from the CAA and other regulatory bodies to have signed off on the routes and timings of the flights have all been passed before saying where they are go to. There are plenty of other operators other than your wet dream Easyjet and BA. Some of the smaller operators can offer better service than the big budget airlines. Max Impact
  • Score: 0

11:08pm Tue 12 Apr 11

jayman says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
What makes you say they don't have the ground handling services?

At present, before the new Apron is completed, there are 11 stands excluding the GA area.
(http://www.ead.euro

control.int/eadbasic

/pamslight-55348BEBA

23F6CBF7D48EBB920EBB

559/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN

/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_

AD_2_EGMC_2-2_en_201

0-08-26.pdf)

The Airport wont discuss who or how many Airlines they are talking to for obvious reasons, and as published before.

There is one terminal operational. When the new terminal is open later this year the old one will close.
The new terminal will be constructed in 2 phases.

There is existing parking in adjacent to the old (existing terminal)......

Why am I bothering..... Get off you backside and have a look for yourself.
Or if you cant be bothered look at the Airport website or planning consent.
Southampton is mentioned a lot. They manage with a lot less land than Southend.
basil. because I already know. 11 stands you say, i bet the finished product will still be under 15.

i think you are being a bit coy on what sort of ground arrangement needs to be in place. this varies from one operator to the next and can be quite a specific requirement depending on the carrier..

and myhumbleopinion. LCA has a well established link to the city. it doesn't call itself a London airport whilst being several tens of miles away. and LCA handles turbo props and light jet aircraft. it is a truly efficient operation within its constraints and turns a profit through its extreme close proximity to the financial district and good links to london underground and DLR. basically all the things our little airport hasn't got. oh and i have passed the airport many times but i have not been inside to have a look. not the sort of thing I can do on a whim.
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: What makes you say they don't have the ground handling services? At present, before the new Apron is completed, there are 11 stands excluding the GA area. (http://www.ead.euro control.int/eadbasic /pamslight-55348BEBA 23F6CBF7D48EBB920EBB 559/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN /Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_ AD_2_EGMC_2-2_en_201 0-08-26.pdf) The Airport wont discuss who or how many Airlines they are talking to for obvious reasons, and as published before. There is one terminal operational. When the new terminal is open later this year the old one will close. The new terminal will be constructed in 2 phases. There is existing parking in adjacent to the old (existing terminal)...... Why am I bothering..... Get off you backside and have a look for yourself. Or if you cant be bothered look at the Airport website or planning consent. Southampton is mentioned a lot. They manage with a lot less land than Southend.[/p][/quote]basil. because I already know. 11 stands you say, i bet the finished product will still be under 15. i think you are being a bit coy on what sort of ground arrangement needs to be in place. this varies from one operator to the next and can be quite a specific requirement depending on the carrier.. and myhumbleopinion. LCA has a well established link to the city. it doesn't call itself a London airport whilst being several tens of miles away. and LCA handles turbo props and light jet aircraft. it is a truly efficient operation within its constraints and turns a profit through its extreme close proximity to the financial district and good links to london underground and DLR. basically all the things our little airport hasn't got. oh and i have passed the airport many times but i have not been inside to have a look. not the sort of thing I can do on a whim. jayman
  • Score: 0

11:31pm Tue 12 Apr 11

BASILBRUSH says...

Jayman, the new terminal will have 5 stands with a further 5 in the next phase. (All on the website)
There are an existing 11. How these will be used will be upto the Airport.
I'm not being coy about anything, you are assuming the airport isn't already making plans for specific handling requests or doesn't already have them in place. Perhaps you should write to the Airport themselves?
.....
Its not unusual for an airport 30 miles from the City to call itself a London Airport... try Stansted, Luton, Gatwick etc. Luton requires getting on a shuttle bus to get to the station. Southend is around 50m away and direct to the City.
It makes perfect sense when you are targeting market.
...
Time will tell. I am sure you have your reasons for knocking Southend and your bizarre questions. ;)
You don't have to go 'Airside' to see the car parking, terminal, station, hotel site etc etc..
.....
Just as a small example, the turnaround time for the Aer Arann flights is around 25 mins.
The Flybe Jersey flight turnaround time also 25 minutes.
....
I'm off to bed now. Night!
Jayman, the new terminal will have 5 stands with a further 5 in the next phase. (All on the website) There are an existing 11. How these will be used will be upto the Airport. I'm not being coy about anything, you are assuming the airport isn't already making plans for specific handling requests or doesn't already have them in place. Perhaps you should write to the Airport themselves? ..... Its not unusual for an airport 30 miles from the City to call itself a London Airport... try Stansted, Luton, Gatwick etc. Luton requires getting on a shuttle bus to get to the station. Southend is around 50m away and direct to the City. It makes perfect sense when you are targeting market. ... Time will tell. I am sure you have your reasons for knocking Southend and your bizarre questions. ;) You don't have to go 'Airside' to see the car parking, terminal, station, hotel site etc etc.. ..... Just as a small example, the turnaround time for the Aer Arann flights is around 25 mins. The Flybe Jersey flight turnaround time also 25 minutes. .... I'm off to bed now. Night! BASILBRUSH
  • Score: 0

8:19am Wed 13 Apr 11

Norfolk says...

Jayman, just to answer clearly one of the questions that you have asked a number of times:
The five new aircraft stands currently under construction directly in front of the new terminal will have a conservative passenger handling capacity of around 800 passengers per hour, based upon industry standard turnround times. In addition to those there will be the numerous 'remote' stands which already exist and which will be used for aircraft day stopping etc., so that all the terminal stands will always be available normal turnrounds.
Is that clear enough for you?
Jayman, just to answer clearly one of the questions that you have asked a number of times: The five new aircraft stands currently under construction directly in front of the new terminal will have a conservative passenger handling capacity of around 800 passengers per hour, based upon industry standard turnround times. In addition to those there will be the numerous 'remote' stands which already exist and which will be used for aircraft day stopping etc., so that all the terminal stands will always be available normal turnrounds. Is that clear enough for you? Norfolk
  • Score: 0

8:58am Wed 13 Apr 11

Dougal says...

Why does Jayman worry so much over the economic viability of the airport?
.
He obviously objects to what is being done. It must be a comfort to those who have put money into the project that he spends all his day being concerened over the minutiae of its operations. If it goes bust he will be happy and unless he has put money into it he will not lose out.
.
There is a hard core of posters on this site who argue purely for the sake of arguement.
Why does Jayman worry so much over the economic viability of the airport? . He obviously objects to what is being done. It must be a comfort to those who have put money into the project that he spends all his day being concerened over the minutiae of its operations. If it goes bust he will be happy and unless he has put money into it he will not lose out. . There is a hard core of posters on this site who argue purely for the sake of arguement. Dougal
  • Score: 0

9:05am Wed 13 Apr 11

jayman says...

BASILBRUSH wrote:
Jayman, the new terminal will have 5 stands with a further 5 in the next phase. (All on the website)
There are an existing 11. How these will be used will be upto the Airport.
I'm not being coy about anything, you are assuming the airport isn't already making plans for specific handling requests or doesn't already have them in place. Perhaps you should write to the Airport themselves?
.....
Its not unusual for an airport 30 miles from the City to call itself a London Airport... try Stansted, Luton, Gatwick etc. Luton requires getting on a shuttle bus to get to the station. Southend is around 50m away and direct to the City.
It makes perfect sense when you are targeting market.
...
Time will tell. I am sure you have your reasons for knocking Southend and your bizarre questions. ;)
You don't have to go 'Airside' to see the car parking, terminal, station, hotel site etc etc..
.....
Just as a small example, the turnaround time for the Aer Arann flights is around 25 mins.
The Flybe Jersey flight turnaround time also 25 minutes.
....
I'm off to bed now. Night!
you see basil that's why you cant keep it in contextual bounds. if you read the post i was referring to a comparison to LCA and LCA only.
[quote][p][bold]BASILBRUSH[/bold] wrote: Jayman, the new terminal will have 5 stands with a further 5 in the next phase. (All on the website) There are an existing 11. How these will be used will be upto the Airport. I'm not being coy about anything, you are assuming the airport isn't already making plans for specific handling requests or doesn't already have them in place. Perhaps you should write to the Airport themselves? ..... Its not unusual for an airport 30 miles from the City to call itself a London Airport... try Stansted, Luton, Gatwick etc. Luton requires getting on a shuttle bus to get to the station. Southend is around 50m away and direct to the City. It makes perfect sense when you are targeting market. ... Time will tell. I am sure you have your reasons for knocking Southend and your bizarre questions. ;) You don't have to go 'Airside' to see the car parking, terminal, station, hotel site etc etc.. ..... Just as a small example, the turnaround time for the Aer Arann flights is around 25 mins. The Flybe Jersey flight turnaround time also 25 minutes. .... I'm off to bed now. Night![/p][/quote]you see basil that's why you cant keep it in contextual bounds. if you read the post i was referring to a comparison to LCA and LCA only. jayman
  • Score: 0

9:54am Wed 13 Apr 11

Jarv79 says...

Jayman if you had done your research properly you would know Southend airport have said that once the new terminal is operational they aim to have one of the quickest turnaround times of any uk airport. You should also know flight times to and from the airport will be quicker than any other London airports, as planes landing at southend will not have to hit Londons congested air space and possibly circle for 20 minutes to land. This would result in planes using less fuel, quicker turn around times for the airlines, and passengers being on the train or in their car's before passengers at other London airports had even reclaimed their luggage. I would say that would be a pretty good reason for airlines to use Southend, wouldn't you? Also your previous comment about southend not having the right catchment area is a joke. Over 1 million journeys are made every year to other airports by people who live within 20 minutes of Southend airport. Add people who live in London and other area's nearby who could use the train and be there in 50 minutes or less, and i would say the airport has more than enough of a catchment area.
Jayman if you had done your research properly you would know Southend airport have said that once the new terminal is operational they aim to have one of the quickest turnaround times of any uk airport. You should also know flight times to and from the airport will be quicker than any other London airports, as planes landing at southend will not have to hit Londons congested air space and possibly circle for 20 minutes to land. This would result in planes using less fuel, quicker turn around times for the airlines, and passengers being on the train or in their car's before passengers at other London airports had even reclaimed their luggage. I would say that would be a pretty good reason for airlines to use Southend, wouldn't you? Also your previous comment about southend not having the right catchment area is a joke. Over 1 million journeys are made every year to other airports by people who live within 20 minutes of Southend airport. Add people who live in London and other area's nearby who could use the train and be there in 50 minutes or less, and i would say the airport has more than enough of a catchment area. Jarv79
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Fri 15 Apr 11

JamesTSB says...

I flew into Stockholm Skavsta recently and that's proof enough to me that Southend will do just fine.  It's a regional airport which handles 2.5 million passengers per year despite being 62 miles from Stockholm City Centre without a direct rail link and despite being one of four Stockholm airports, another of which, Arlanda, is a little bigger than Gatwick.

Skavsta operates 58 different routes to 22 different European countries using a small terminal the same size as Southend's new one will be and with 8 gates attached, a few less than Southend will have. Moreover, Skavsta's 58 routes to 22 countries are operated by a combined total of 2, yes 2, budget airline companies.

So why will Southend do poorly, as some people including Jayman have suggested, because it'll have 11 or so gates? Or because it won't be able to attract enough budget airlines to operate routes? Or because it's too far from London? Seems to me like 62 miles from a capital city without a train link, with a small terminal, 8 gates and only 2 airline operators works just fine.....Southend will be better off than that!

As for ground services, there is plenty of available space (especially after the old terminal has been demolished) to build a medium-sized ground operations unit/building or 3 for a couple of airlines. As has been said, many airports have off-site facilities anyway.

As for demand from airlines, again, much has already been mentioned. Some people forget that the Government appears to be operating a no-new-runways-polic
y meaning that new runway plans for Heathrow and Stansted have been/will be scrapped. Existing London airports are operating at over capacity and are stretched and it is very likely that smaller airports such as Luton, Southend and even Manston in Kent will be under pressure from the Government to take on some budget short-haul European routes from the big three airports in order to relieve pressure on their infrastructures.

Add to that the benefits of Southend. Within 3 or 4 minutes of taking off from Southend planes will be over the North Sea. Thus flight times to Europe will be shorter than any of the other London airports and fuel costs will be lower. Southend will be better than Stansted for flight times. Moreover, planes will not have to make journeys into congested official London airspace. This means - less congestion, no queueing/stacking so less fuel consumption, and lower landing fees. I imagine turn around times will be somewhere between 20 and 35 minutes too. Southend will be a fair bit cheaper to use and for budget airlines who are tight with money and looking to cut outgoings (Ryanair especially) this will be a big attraction.

We'll never know how many airlines the airport is in discussion with, not until contracts are signed anyway, but I see some important attractions here for many of them and we could well see a few surprises. I think everything is in place for Southend to be a success.
I flew into Stockholm Skavsta recently and that's proof enough to me that Southend will do just fine.  It's a regional airport which handles 2.5 million passengers per year despite being 62 miles from Stockholm City Centre without a direct rail link and despite being one of four Stockholm airports, another of which, Arlanda, is a little bigger than Gatwick. Skavsta operates 58 different routes to 22 different European countries using a small terminal the same size as Southend's new one will be and with 8 gates attached, a few less than Southend will have. Moreover, Skavsta's 58 routes to 22 countries are operated by a combined total of 2, yes 2, budget airline companies. So why will Southend do poorly, as some people including Jayman have suggested, because it'll have 11 or so gates? Or because it won't be able to attract enough budget airlines to operate routes? Or because it's too far from London? Seems to me like 62 miles from a capital city without a train link, with a small terminal, 8 gates and only 2 airline operators works just fine.....Southend will be better off than that! As for ground services, there is plenty of available space (especially after the old terminal has been demolished) to build a medium-sized ground operations unit/building or 3 for a couple of airlines. As has been said, many airports have off-site facilities anyway. As for demand from airlines, again, much has already been mentioned. Some people forget that the Government appears to be operating a no-new-runways-polic y meaning that new runway plans for Heathrow and Stansted have been/will be scrapped. Existing London airports are operating at over capacity and are stretched and it is very likely that smaller airports such as Luton, Southend and even Manston in Kent will be under pressure from the Government to take on some budget short-haul European routes from the big three airports in order to relieve pressure on their infrastructures. Add to that the benefits of Southend. Within 3 or 4 minutes of taking off from Southend planes will be over the North Sea. Thus flight times to Europe will be shorter than any of the other London airports and fuel costs will be lower. Southend will be better than Stansted for flight times. Moreover, planes will not have to make journeys into congested official London airspace. This means - less congestion, no queueing/stacking so less fuel consumption, and lower landing fees. I imagine turn around times will be somewhere between 20 and 35 minutes too. Southend will be a fair bit cheaper to use and for budget airlines who are tight with money and looking to cut outgoings (Ryanair especially) this will be a big attraction. We'll never know how many airlines the airport is in discussion with, not until contracts are signed anyway, but I see some important attractions here for many of them and we could well see a few surprises. I think everything is in place for Southend to be a success. JamesTSB
  • Score: 0

5:45pm Sat 16 Apr 11

Last Poster says...

If any of you are old enogh to remember the Carvairs of BAF operating out of Southend you may well remember the frequency with which they flew. Many people used the Roro of those planes to hop the channel and I for one really miss them. However, I seem to remember the people that were in the forefront of moaning about that were the same ones that helped nail the coffin lid of Foulness airport. I wonder how much better life would have been here if they had supported that? (And don't prattle about bird strikes, airports throughout the world now take off over the sea! Makes the land free from all kinds of pollution too!
If any of you are old enogh to remember the Carvairs of BAF operating out of Southend you may well remember the frequency with which they flew. Many people used the Roro of those planes to hop the channel and I for one really miss them. However, I seem to remember the people that were in the forefront of moaning about that were the same ones that helped nail the coffin lid of Foulness airport. I wonder how much better life would have been here if they had supported that? (And don't prattle about bird strikes, airports throughout the world now take off over the sea! Makes the land free from all kinds of pollution too! Last Poster
  • Score: 0

6:32pm Sat 16 Apr 11

jayman says...

JamesTSB wrote

" We'll never know how many airlines the airport is in discussion with, not until contracts are signed anyway, but I see some important attractions here for many of them and we could well see a few surprises. I think everything is in place for Southend to be a success."

we will see! If I see 58 routes operating from Southend on a meaningful schedule then i will be humble enough to say i got the whole thing wrong. but I doubt it.

i am also well aware that commenting on this (even on the local rag website) can be damaging when sensitive negotiations are ongoing. but there is still the issue of the train service to the new station. there is still the issue of potential unfulfilled capacity at the airport and there is still the issue of airlines having to invest ground and air services to this location in order to operate from the airport. despite all this the commentators on here still cant be objective about the possible problems.. (possible major problems) the airport has yet to grace us with.

and the white elephant in the room that the pro supporters are not talking about is the massive amount of public money that has gone into the airport already.. and how much real time return the council will get aside corporation tax that goes to central government anyway.

the council leased the airport for ((150)) years for....((£1))

the council has earmarked millions of pounds to the airport through direct finance and land sales and how much real time return will the council get back of ((our money))...... 0 pounds and 0 pence!!!!

and who will benefit? the few new jobs that the airport will create and of course the Stobart share holders..

thanks for massively subsidising a few new jobs and the FTSE 100 SBC!!
JamesTSB wrote " We'll never know how many airlines the airport is in discussion with, not until contracts are signed anyway, but I see some important attractions here for many of them and we could well see a few surprises. I think everything is in place for Southend to be a success." we will see! If I see 58 routes operating from Southend on a meaningful schedule then i will be humble enough to say i got the whole thing wrong. but I doubt it. i am also well aware that commenting on this (even on the local rag website) can be damaging when sensitive negotiations are ongoing. but there is still the issue of the train service to the new station. there is still the issue of potential unfulfilled capacity at the airport and there is still the issue of airlines having to invest ground and air services to this location in order to operate from the airport. despite all this the commentators on here still cant be objective about the possible problems.. (possible major problems) the airport has yet to grace us with. and the white elephant in the room that the pro supporters are not talking about is the massive amount of public money that has gone into the airport already.. and how much real time return the council will get aside corporation tax that goes to central government anyway. the council leased the airport for ((150)) years for....((£1)) the council has earmarked millions of pounds to the airport through direct finance and land sales and how much real time return will the council get back of ((our money))...... 0 pounds and 0 pence!!!! and who will benefit? the few new jobs that the airport will create and of course the Stobart share holders.. thanks for massively subsidising a few new jobs and the FTSE 100 SBC!! jayman
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Sat 16 Apr 11

myhumbleopinion says...

What utter rubbish you spout Jayman. You clearly have no understanding at all about how the airline industry works. I would be surprised if 56 routes operated from the airport, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see around 20. Just give it time, remember the airport only plans to accommodate 2 million passengers by 2020 - a long way out indeed. Just because the place isn't fulfilling its potential this time next year, does not mean it is a white elephant or a failure. One of the most important things in business is perseverance and patience, the former you have plenty of, while you severely lack the latter.
What utter rubbish you spout Jayman. You clearly have no understanding at all about how the airline industry works. I would be surprised if 56 routes operated from the airport, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see around 20. Just give it time, remember the airport only plans to accommodate 2 million passengers by 2020 - a long way out indeed. Just because the place isn't fulfilling its potential this time next year, does not mean it is a white elephant or a failure. One of the most important things in business is perseverance and patience, the former you have plenty of, while you severely lack the latter. myhumbleopinion
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Sat 16 Apr 11

jayman says...

i was taking issue to the comparison JamesTSB used..

you still avoided the issue I was referring to though in regards to who part financed the airport infrastructure. and where all the money to the London Southend airport co, has come from---SBC--us!!
i was taking issue to the comparison JamesTSB used.. you still avoided the issue I was referring to though in regards to who part financed the airport infrastructure. and where all the money to the London Southend airport co, has come from---SBC--us!! jayman
  • Score: 0

9:04pm Sat 16 Apr 11

myhumbleopinion says...

Yes Jayman, the council has spent money on the airport. But since they sold the lease to RAL the money has not come from the Southend ratepayer pocket but from the monies raised from the sale of Airport land which is now occupied by the golf course and the retail park.
Stobart are covering the vast majority of the cost of the development from their own pocket, something which should be commended, as if I was involved in a big business, I certainly wouldn't invest in Southend with the unemployed, sorry professional campaigners which are intent in stopping any progress.
Yes Jayman, the council has spent money on the airport. But since they sold the lease to RAL the money has not come from the Southend ratepayer pocket but from the monies raised from the sale of Airport land which is now occupied by the golf course and the retail park. Stobart are covering the vast majority of the cost of the development from their own pocket, something which should be commended, as if I was involved in a big business, I certainly wouldn't invest in Southend with the unemployed, sorry professional campaigners which are intent in stopping any progress. myhumbleopinion
  • Score: 0

9:30am Sun 17 Apr 11

jayman says...

myhumbleopinion wrote:
Yes Jayman, the council has spent money on the airport. But since they sold the lease to RAL the money has not come from the Southend ratepayer pocket but from the monies raised from the sale of Airport land which is now occupied by the golf course and the retail park.
Stobart are covering the vast majority of the cost of the development from their own pocket, something which should be commended, as if I was involved in a big business, I certainly wouldn't invest in Southend with the unemployed, sorry professional campaigners which are intent in stopping any progress.
i refer you to Southend council spending spreadsheet 2009-2010 available on any good search engine.. take note of the payments from the general council account to the London Southend airport co. please read this document then tell me again how much money (we) have spent on the airport.. as (we)/(I) have spent so much on it i think i have a right to be as sceptical as i like.
[quote][p][bold]myhumbleopinion[/bold] wrote: Yes Jayman, the council has spent money on the airport. But since they sold the lease to RAL the money has not come from the Southend ratepayer pocket but from the monies raised from the sale of Airport land which is now occupied by the golf course and the retail park. Stobart are covering the vast majority of the cost of the development from their own pocket, something which should be commended, as if I was involved in a big business, I certainly wouldn't invest in Southend with the unemployed, sorry professional campaigners which are intent in stopping any progress.[/p][/quote]i refer you to Southend council spending spreadsheet 2009-2010 available on any good search engine.. take note of the payments from the general council account to the London Southend airport co. please read this document then tell me again how much money (we) have spent on the airport.. as (we)/(I) have spent so much on it i think i have a right to be as sceptical as i like. jayman
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree