Southend Airport celebrates busiest year ever (From Southend Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us Click here for details »
Southend Airport celebrates busiest year ever
8:00am Friday 22nd March 2013 in Echo News By David Trayner
Managing director Alastair Welch looks out over Southend Airport
SOUTHEND Airport has had its busiest 12 months ever - breaking a record which has stood for more than 45 years.
In total 721,661 passengers flew from the airport in the year leading up to February 2012, almost 30,000 more than in 1967 when 692,000 used it.
Back then the airport - which hopes to serve two million passengers a year by 2020 - was the UK’s third busiest, in its package holiday heyday and had featured in the film Goldfinger just three years earlier(1964).
Hugh Aitken, UK commercial manager for easyJet, which started flights from the airport last April, said: "We're absolutely delighted that this first year of operations has been a record breaking one at Southend Airport.
“The airport's success is testament to the hard work and commitment of the Southend team and we look forward to further record setting years ahead."
And Southend Airport may be taking custom from others serving Essex and London.
While the number of people using Southend Airport rapidly rocketed from 42,000 in 2011 to 617,000 in 2012, Stansted saw passenger numbers fall by 3.2 per cent to 17.5million.
Comments(48)
Joe Wildman-Clark
says...
8:13am Fri 22 Mar 13
Still it will not take long for the moaning morons to comment on here...
pembury53
says...
8:32am Fri 22 Mar 13
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:Not moaning,.... but hardly a surprise that's its busier now than in the 60's ! "A record that has stood for more than 45 years" ..... Er, when basically its been closed ! Brilliant !
Superb, bet all those that said it would be a complete failure are sulking. Still it will not take long for the moaning morons to comment on here...
waveydavey
says...
8:40am Fri 22 Mar 13
Joe Wildman-Clark
says...
8:47am Fri 22 Mar 13
pembury53 wrote:"Basically closed" A typical response from an anti.
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:Not moaning,.... but hardly a surprise that's its busier now than in the 60's ! "A record that has stood for more than 45 years" ..... Er, when basically its been closed ! Brilliant !
Superb, bet all those that said it would be a complete failure are sulking. Still it will not take long for the moaning morons to comment on here...
Face facts the airport much to the disgust to the anti lobby is proving to be a success, private investment with the support of two local councils bringing jobs to an area that needed them.
Blackblood
says...
10:19am Fri 22 Mar 13
Joe Wildman-Clark
says...
10:44am Fri 22 Mar 13
Blackblood wrote:How wrong can a nimby be, judging by your post bigger than the universe!
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
The leaching compensation scrounging saen brigade troll that out time and again but compared to the previous types operated out of the airport the A319 is far quieter than the piston aircraft and early jets, if you say otherwise your lying, and you never lived in the area when the Carvairs and BAC 1-11's were operating.
Also the compensation law did not exist then so that shoots you down in flames.
CaptainBlackadder
says...
10:45am Fri 22 Mar 13
Blackblood wrote:'Greedy' and 'moneygrabbing' springs to mind................
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
.........
paintlad3
says...
11:03am Fri 22 Mar 13
Blackblood
says...
11:04am Fri 22 Mar 13
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:I accept that people may disagree with my view, bit disagreement does not warrant being insulted.
Blackblood wrote:How wrong can a nimby be, judging by your post bigger than the universe!
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
The leaching compensation scrounging saen brigade troll that out time and again but compared to the previous types operated out of the airport the A319 is far quieter than the piston aircraft and early jets, if you say otherwise your lying, and you never lived in the area when the Carvairs and BAC 1-11's were operating.
Also the compensation law did not exist then so that shoots you down in flames.
I have reported your post.
Blackblood
says...
11:06am Fri 22 Mar 13
CaptainBlackadder wrote:Indeed, the airport operator has been nothing but.
Blackblood wrote:'Greedy' and 'moneygrabbing' springs to mind................
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
.........
r6keith
says...
11:11am Fri 22 Mar 13
Blackblood wrote:With regards to actual flights I do not have facts and figures but most of the aircraft used in the 60's carried a lot less passengers so you would need more fliights to achieve a similar passenger number. As most of these were slow loud prop type's with the added bonus of an ear shattering BAC111 thrown in.I think the claim the airport is now louder is totally unfounded. Having lived in the area through both generations of airport use, the claim is without foundation.
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
Joe Wildman-Clark
says...
11:29am Fri 22 Mar 13
Blackblood wrote:I have reported your post as you have been nasty towards the airport, and have passed it on to the airport operators as you are making claims that they have been money grabbing this is an unfounded aligation unless you prove otherwise.
CaptainBlackadder wrote:Indeed, the airport operator has been nothing but.
Blackblood wrote:'Greedy' and 'moneygrabbing' springs to mind................
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
.........
Blackblood
says...
11:54am Fri 22 Mar 13
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:I do hope in the interest of balance you have also reported the unfounded allegations against those seeking compensation.
Blackblood wrote:I have reported your post as you have been nasty towards the airport, and have passed it on to the airport operators as you are making claims that they have been money grabbing this is an unfounded aligation unless you prove otherwise.
CaptainBlackadder wrote:Indeed, the airport operator has been nothing but.
Blackblood wrote:'Greedy' and 'moneygrabbing' springs to mind................
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
.........
disenfranchisedpast
says...
11:58am Fri 22 Mar 13
r6keith wrote:Now now, lets not bring facts and reasoned arguments into this ;-)
Blackblood wrote:With regards to actual flights I do not have facts and figures but most of the aircraft used in the 60's carried a lot less passengers so you would need more fliights to achieve a similar passenger number. As most of these were slow loud prop type's with the added bonus of an ear shattering BAC111 thrown in.I think the claim the airport is now louder is totally unfounded. Having lived in the area through both generations of airport use, the claim is without foundation.
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
Blackblood
says...
12:30pm Fri 22 Mar 13
disenfranchisedpast wrote:They didn't. What they said was: "I do not have facts and figures".
r6keith wrote:Now now, lets not bring facts and reasoned arguments into this ;-)
Blackblood wrote:With regards to actual flights I do not have facts and figures but most of the aircraft used in the 60's carried a lot less passengers so you would need more fliights to achieve a similar passenger number. As most of these were slow loud prop type's with the added bonus of an ear shattering BAC111 thrown in.I think the claim the airport is now louder is totally unfounded. Having lived in the area through both generations of airport use, the claim is without foundation.
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
A Pedant
says...
12:31pm Fri 22 Mar 13
Blackblood wrote:Given the comment in the other airport story about compensation claimants where a resident admitted he hadn't noticed any problems but would be claiming anyway, I don't think there's much to apologise for on that count...
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:I do hope in the interest of balance you have also reported the unfounded allegations against those seeking compensation.Blackblood wrote:I have reported your post as you have been nasty towards the airport, and have passed it on to the airport operators as you are making claims that they have been money grabbing this is an unfounded aligation unless you prove otherwise.CaptainBlackadder wrote:Indeed, the airport operator has been nothing but.Blackblood wrote: Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.'Greedy' and 'moneygrabbing' springs to mind................ .........
Blackblood
says...
12:57pm Fri 22 Mar 13
A Pedant wrote:So you are labelling thousands of people for the comments of one person.
Blackblood wrote:Given the comment in the other airport story about compensation claimants where a resident admitted he hadn't noticed any problems but would be claiming anyway, I don't think there's much to apologise for on that count...
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:I do hope in the interest of balance you have also reported the unfounded allegations against those seeking compensation.Blackblood wrote:I have reported your post as you have been nasty towards the airport, and have passed it on to the airport operators as you are making claims that they have been money grabbing this is an unfounded aligation unless you prove otherwise.CaptainBlackadder wrote:Indeed, the airport operator has been nothing but.Blackblood wrote: Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.'Greedy' and 'moneygrabbing' springs to mind................ .........
disenfranchisedpast
says...
1:27pm Fri 22 Mar 13
Blackblood wrote:Thousands? I thought only 950 people claims had jumped on the bandwagon
A Pedant wrote:So you are labelling thousands of people for the comments of one person.
Blackblood wrote:Given the comment in the other airport story about compensation claimants where a resident admitted he hadn't noticed any problems but would be claiming anyway, I don't think there's much to apologise for on that count...
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:I do hope in the interest of balance you have also reported the unfounded allegations against those seeking compensation.Blackblood wrote:I have reported your post as you have been nasty towards the airport, and have passed it on to the airport operators as you are making claims that they have been money grabbing this is an unfounded aligation unless you prove otherwise.CaptainBlackadder wrote:Indeed, the airport operator has been nothing but.Blackblood wrote: Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.'Greedy' and 'moneygrabbing' springs to mind................ .........
jayman
says...
1:28pm Fri 22 Mar 13
see overall stobart FTSE100 12 month share value..
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/business/marke
t_data/shares/3/9017
6/twelve_month.stm..
yes. this is a company that seems to be displaying a twelve month decline.
the stobart air division is also reporting operational losses..
Firestormgjc
says...
1:34pm Fri 22 Mar 13
r6keith wrote:Airbus A319 - Easyjet 156 seats
Blackblood wrote: Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.With regards to actual flights I do not have facts and figures but most of the aircraft used in the 60's carried a lot less passengers so you would need more fliights to achieve a similar passenger number. As most of these were slow loud prop type's with the added bonus of an ear shattering BAC111 thrown in.I think the claim the airport is now louder is totally unfounded. Having lived in the area through both generations of airport use, the claim is without foundation.
BAF Corvair 25 Seats & 5 Cars
Bristols 60 Seats
BAC 111 80 Seats
disenfranchisedpast
says...
1:45pm Fri 22 Mar 13
jayman wrote:You mean an airport does not deliver a short term return of investment after a large capital outlay?
Southend airport is a loss making liability to all who are employed there.
see overall stobart FTSE100 12 month share value..
http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/business/marke
t_data/shares/3/9017
6/twelve_month.stm..
yes. this is a company that seems to be displaying a twelve month decline.
the stobart air division is also reporting operational losses..
What a shocker
Blackblood
says...
2:25pm Fri 22 Mar 13
disenfranchisedpast wrote:950 homeowners. Do you think they are all single occupancy?
Blackblood wrote:Thousands? I thought only 950 people claims had jumped on the bandwagon
A Pedant wrote:So you are labelling thousands of people for the comments of one person.
Blackblood wrote:Given the comment in the other airport story about compensation claimants where a resident admitted he hadn't noticed any problems but would be claiming anyway, I don't think there's much to apologise for on that count...
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:I do hope in the interest of balance you have also reported the unfounded allegations against those seeking compensation.Blackblood wrote:I have reported your post as you have been nasty towards the airport, and have passed it on to the airport operators as you are making claims that they have been money grabbing this is an unfounded aligation unless you prove otherwise.CaptainBlackadder wrote:Indeed, the airport operator has been nothing but.Blackblood wrote: Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.'Greedy' and 'moneygrabbing' springs to mind................ .........
A Pedant
says...
2:25pm Fri 22 Mar 13
Blackblood wrote:No all but it is more than likely that a significant percentage are merely in it for what they can get off the airport whcih, howefully, will be seen through. Interesting point - a friend who lives within a good golf drive's distance from the runway has just had his house valued at £20k more than he bought it for just over a year ago.
A Pedant wrote:So you are labelling thousands of people for the comments of one person.Blackblood wrote:Given the comment in the other airport story about compensation claimants where a resident admitted he hadn't noticed any problems but would be claiming anyway, I don't think there's much to apologise for on that count...Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:I do hope in the interest of balance you have also reported the unfounded allegations against those seeking compensation.Blackblood wrote:I have reported your post as you have been nasty towards the airport, and have passed it on to the airport operators as you are making claims that they have been money grabbing this is an unfounded aligation unless you prove otherwise.CaptainBlackadder wrote:Indeed, the airport operator has been nothing but.Blackblood wrote: Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.'Greedy' and 'moneygrabbing' springs to mind................ .........
jayman
says...
2:42pm Fri 22 Mar 13
The airport seem to have conceded to claims of compensation and are offering advice on the criteria of compensation payouts.
Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973
the law is quite clear on this and you (as a home owner) may have a justified right to claim compensation.
http://www.southenda
irport.com/news/part
-1-compensation/
if you are entitled to compensation due to airport operations then you should make a claim with appropriate and responsible legal representation...
Rochford Rob
says...
2:58pm Fri 22 Mar 13
"If" being the operative word. Not simply because you jump on a bandwagon armed with your overweening sense of entitlement ,which is of course another matter altogether.
disenfranchisedpast
says...
3:02pm Fri 22 Mar 13
Blackblood wrote:And the rest of that statement you have chosen to ignore clarified the lack of facts and figures was with regard to the exact flight numbers/ capacities. He then provided a well reasoned and thought out argument based upon personal experience, which was then backed up by Firestorms publishing of the aircraft details.
disenfranchisedpast wrote:They didn't. What they said was: "I do not have facts and figures".
r6keith wrote:Now now, lets not bring facts and reasoned arguments into this ;-)
Blackblood wrote:With regards to actual flights I do not have facts and figures but most of the aircraft used in the 60's carried a lot less passengers so you would need more fliights to achieve a similar passenger number. As most of these were slow loud prop type's with the added bonus of an ear shattering BAC111 thrown in.I think the claim the airport is now louder is totally unfounded. Having lived in the area through both generations of airport use, the claim is without foundation.
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
jayman
says...
3:11pm Fri 22 Mar 13
Rochford Rob wrote:The law is clear. If a home owner has taken a hit on their property value (this also includes other factors) due to airport operations then they should be compensated.
".....if you are entitled to compensation due to airport operations then you should make a claim with appropriate and responsible legal representation..."
"If" being the operative word. Not simply because you jump on a bandwagon armed with your overweening sense of entitlement ,which is of course another matter altogether.
This is rightful and proper.
I am not claiming. I'm just keen to see that due process is followed without political or corporate interference...
emcee
says...
3:15pm Fri 22 Mar 13
Blackblood wrote:????
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
How does "busy" equate to "noisy".
Besides, a single A319 aircraft is a lot quieter than the three, individually noisier than an A319, turbo props from the 60s/70s which were needed to carry around the same amount of people.
I think your comment may be in the running for "silliest comment of the week" award.
Rochford Rob
says...
3:30pm Fri 22 Mar 13
This is rightful and proper........"
Yes. If.
Same as 'If a Nasa sattelite fell on your head you could claim.'
If.
Before we even moved into our haouse near the runway we were inundated with ambulance chasing 'no win, no fee' solicitors.
Bloody jackals and opportunists all.
jayman
says...
4:14pm Fri 22 Mar 13
Rochford Rob wrote:yes indeed 'if'...
"........The law is clear. If a home owner has taken a hit on their property value (this also includes other factors) due to airport operations then they should be compensated.
This is rightful and proper........"
Yes. If.
Same as 'If a Nasa sattelite fell on your head you could claim.'
If.
Before we even moved into our haouse near the runway we were inundated with ambulance chasing 'no win, no fee' solicitors.
Bloody jackals and opportunists all.
'if' it is proven a house has lost value and that the owner has suffered a financial hit.
WhateverS
says...
5:29pm Fri 22 Mar 13
waveydavey wrote:Lamo
The car par looks a bit empty. Maybe airport users take great delight in parking directly outside the houses of those strange SAEN folk. I know I do.
WhateverS
says...
5:32pm Fri 22 Mar 13
Blackblood wrote:Are you Richard head ? Is that you dick?
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
WhateverS
says...
5:37pm Fri 22 Mar 13
jayman wrote:My mistake this is Richard how are you mr head
just to sort some fact for fiction.
The airport seem to have conceded to claims of compensation and are offering advice on the criteria of compensation payouts.
Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973
the law is quite clear on this and you (as a home owner) may have a justified right to claim compensation.
http://www.southenda
irport.com/news/part
-1-compensation/
if you are entitled to compensation due to airport operations then you should make a claim with appropriate and responsible legal representation...
WhateverS
says...
5:41pm Fri 22 Mar 13
WhateverS wrote:D'oh lmao
waveydavey wrote:Lamo
The car par looks a bit empty. Maybe airport users take great delight in parking directly outside the houses of those strange SAEN folk. I know I do.
jayman
says...
5:51pm Fri 22 Mar 13
WhateverS wrote:lol. very amusing..
jayman wrote:My mistake this is Richard how are you mr head
just to sort some fact for fiction.
The airport seem to have conceded to claims of compensation and are offering advice on the criteria of compensation payouts.
Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973
the law is quite clear on this and you (as a home owner) may have a justified right to claim compensation.
http://www.southenda
irport.com/news/part
-1-compensation/
if you are entitled to compensation due to airport operations then you should make a claim with appropriate and responsible legal representation...
Barling Magna
says...
8:31pm Fri 22 Mar 13
DogsMessInLeigh
says...
8:42pm Fri 22 Mar 13
pembury53 wrote:yes agreed.....its a whole new airport with big money investment with major airlines flying in and out and its already being expanded...all with-in a year.....so of course its the busiest its ever been in 45 years.....what a dumb statement..
Joe Wildman-Clark wrote:Not moaning,.... but hardly a surprise that's its busier now than in the 60's ! "A record that has stood for more than 45 years" ..... Er, when basically its been closed ! Brilliant !
Superb, bet all those that said it would be a complete failure are sulking. Still it will not take long for the moaning morons to comment on here...
DogsMessInLeigh
says...
8:44pm Fri 22 Mar 13
Carnabackable
says...
9:36pm Fri 22 Mar 13
jayman
says...
10:49pm Fri 22 Mar 13
Barling Magna wrote:I think you will find that the criteria for compensation extends beyond 'noise' and provides a broader range of instances and considerations that effect house prices and businesses.
The airport's success is most encouraging, and a boost to local morale in these difficult times. I remember the very noisy jets from the 1960s onwards; today's jets are so much quieter. I have no problem with people seeking compensation IF they are entitled to it. Why should a development be allowed to impact very negatively on peoples' homes and lives? However, I doubt that many people will qualify for compensation because I don't think they can truly claim major intrusion from noise and I doubt whether their house prices will be affected by the increased activity at the airport.
see:
Land Compensation Act 1973
max zorin
says...
11:26am Sat 23 Mar 13
as for the noise the question is what noise, all aircraft today are very quiet and i don't get why some people are making such a fuss.
A Dermot
says...
9:11pm Sat 23 Mar 13
maxell
says...
9:21pm Sat 23 Mar 13
maxell wrote:as they will need the money to pay the compensation
really good news
Blackblood
says...
11:10pm Sat 23 Mar 13
WhateverS wrote:You know, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Blackblood wrote:Are you Richard head ? Is that you dick?
Torpedoes the argument that the airport was busier and noisier in the past, and adds weight to the argument that it's noisier since expansion. Good luck to the thousands seeking compensation.
tophatdt
says...
12:22pm Sun 24 Mar 13
Ray1963
says...
6:31pm Sun 24 Mar 13
eric naylor
says...
10:55pm Mon 25 Mar 13
Still congratulations all round and especially to the Stobart group for their investment of £100m in our town and for developing the aitrport into a thriving business operation.
maxell says...
8:12am Fri 22 Mar 13