AA in the west country

[fescalised portion]

Rumour has it that AA are undertaking a feasibilty study into operating a seasonal route into a SW airport.
A possible route could be either ORD or MIA to BRS.

[GoEDI]

How long is the runway at BRS?
Waht about EDI!! :mad: MAybe they aer also looking into EDI??? :O

[Tom the Tenor]

Please forgive my well intentioned enthusiasm - that southwest airport could never be Cork!? :8

[MerchantVenturer]

It's Bristol (BRS). They have been after a direct New York link for several years and are putting a lot of work into drumming up support with the local business community.

I still wonder about the runway length but it would seem this has been taken into consideration. EWR is the likely US airport if this ever happens.

This press release was issued a couple of weeks ago:

Bristol International Airport has returned from the USA following promising talks with both Continental Airlines and American Airlines, to secure the airport’s first transatlantic route.

Discussions between the US airlines and Bristol International focussed on the introduction of a non-stop flight to New York by Summer 2005.

Commenting on the outcome of the trip Tony Hallwood, Aviation Development Director at Bristol, said:

“Both American Airlines and Continental Airlines responded very positively to the data and presentations provided by the airport and, as a direct result, they have now agreed to undertake in-depth route evaluations. Given that the West of England has the largest unserved catchment area to the USA in Western Europe, and that a projected figure of 100,000 passengers would use a direct flight from Bristol International each year, we are confident that Bristol stands an excellent chance of becoming the UK’s next transatlantic gateway.”

Further discussions are expected to take place between Bristol International and the two US airlines in the Spring, following the outcome of their route evaluations.

US route facts:

Bristol International Airport’s research shows that:

- 139,000 people from the region currently fly from London to the USA each year
- A direct daily flight from Bristol to the US would bring 315,000 North American passengers to South West region each year
- As well as providing superb links for the region’s businesses, it is predicted that each US visitor to the South West would spend around £500 on transport, hotels, and leisure whilst in the region, and that the total contribution to the region could be £12 million each year.

[paulsstrange]

... I think Bristol has an excellant chance for a daily CO flight to Newark using a 752 within the next 18 months or so. You have the west country and wales and of course Bristol/Bath etc for a start who would make great use of a local flight across the pond.

However after BHX lost AA daily to Chicago, this mainly due to 9-11 , I beleive PAX on the ORD-BHX was pretty good ( CO recentry added 2nd daily BHX-Newark due to transatlantic demand + now we hopefully have Flyblu on thw way! ), AA's BHX-ORD operated for 6 years or more prior to 9-11 - of course I stand corrected if im wrong, but I feel if AA were to add a new English destination outside MAN and London it would be BHX for a few reasons including a larger population and business catchment area in the Midlands, not to mention more connections and transatting passengers etc etc + AA would be comfortable at BHX-T2 with BA and now Duo where they were before. AA would also link up with BA routes for connections etc etc....of course I could be wrong and BRS may have something up there sleeves...... ???

Personally I think NCL and BRS will both get daily CO 752's within the next 3 years or so - and they will both be successfull, but I doubt AA will expand outside of MAN,GLA and London airports ( not even BHX im afraid !! ) for a long while yet : (

[CentreFix25]

Does Bristol have a Summer Florida flight? If not, anybody know why?

[MerchantVenturer]

No, BRS does not have a flight to Florida in the summer months. It has had in the past but they have never lasted very long and, from memory, always went via another UK or Irish airport.

Bristol no longer has a summer Toronto flight either. It did have until Canada 3000 went out of business, but this had only been runnng for a couple of summers, first as Royal Air, then Canada 3000 when that airline took over Royal. It went via GLA.

I have enquired of the airport on a number of occasions over the years, suggesting that the runway length is the barrier, but they have always denied this.

It is a strange situation in that EXT with about a tenth of BRS's pax, has a weekly summer Toronto flight as does CWL with around half BRS's pax. CWL also has a summer Florida flight each week.

Given that BRS has pulled well away from its two closest 'rival' airports in practically everything but transAtlantics, I am suspicious that there is not an operational reason for this. Having said this they did have a Britannia B 767 fly I believe non stop to Barbados last month on a one-off cruise flight.

I speak as a regular BRS user with no experience in the aviation industry. Perhaps a professional with knowledge of BRS might comment on my contention.

I would love to see a New York flight, as I would Floridas and Torontos, but will wait to see if the EWR goes ahead first.

[Snigs]

Brittania also operate a 767 from BRS to take kiddies to Lapland to see Santa around Christmas time. That is usually full and heavy, but it operates.

Maybe someone has a few facts about the perf requirements!

[CentreFix25]

Well, here are the runway lengths. I know there is more to it than just the length (Take off run available, Take off run available, obstacle clearance height etc.)

Bristol 2011M
Exeter 2083M
Cardiff 2392M

and my local

Newcastle 2329M

Might answer the Florida question, not so sure on the NY/Toronto one???

[Standard Jet Dep]

Ref Merchant Venture

Yep I used to work there a little while ago. There has indeed been talk about an American flight for sometime. If I remember rightly it was discussed with Continental around 1998/1999. I heard a rumour from a good source that this was dropped due to BRS no being able to agree a deal simular to that in BHX. However times have changed and BRS seems to be attracting more and more airlines.

Some of the barriers from my point of view from working there are handling and as mentioned before runway length.

The Airport have always said that there is no need to extend the runway however I feel this is vital for the future of the airport.
I have heard the quote " Aircraft performances will change" alas this has not happened on the long haul routes that BRS are rumoured to have from the states.
I think a CO 757 operation would be viable. However I would be very surprised to hear of an AA operation using 767,777 a/c.
BRS is not capable of handling wide bodies, when you have 1 high lift ( that may have changed) Not a large ramp, out dated ULD trolleys and in my view a piss poor attitude from the handling staff. They certainly would have to drastically improve compared to the agents I have worked with at other UK airports.

Also from a customer point of view sitting on a cold or stuffy bus awaiting boarding is not a nice situation to be in.

BRS is my local and is a good airport however it has lost many things compared to other airports. Thats just my thoughts from previously working there. I believe not much has changed since then.

Cheers

[flower]

It does seem hard to imagine that there could be a non-stop flight to the US from Bristol, one that went via Glasgow may be more viable.
The runway length and airfield elevation make it operationally more difficult for such a flight.
The AA flight out of BHX , which has a considerably longer runway than Bristol had problems with weight if the temperature rose above about 22 degrees in the summer and had to off load freight or baggage to get airborne.

[MerchantVenturer]

Standard Jet,

Like you I have heard the Continental rumour for the last five or six years. In fact, the airport discreetly suggested they were on the verge of agreeing something when the Twin Towers outrage occurred which obviously re-wrote the script for the following years.

The apron has been doubled in size this winter by moving the general aviation to the south side. It needed to be with six easy 737s, three BA ERJs, KLM, AF, SN Brussels and some charter airlines all over-nighting. I think there are or soon will be about thirty parking stands for commercial airliners.

The design of the new terminal does not permit air bridges although the airport has built covered walkways to the nearer stands.

From a personal point of view I don't mind being bussed to remote stands. I hate entering large airports for trans continental flights with the knowledge that the next time I shall breathe outside air is on the other side of an ocean.

I would have thought a CO 757 the most likely, anything bigger might be difficult to fill anyway.

I can only assume that both AA and CO don't see any technical difficulties, otherwise would they go to the trouble of an evaluation, or does that encompass tech matters as well as commercial?

I can't comment on the efficiency of the handling staff except to say that there has been a great improvement in the speed of baggage handling in the past two or three years, in my experience anyway. In the past I have taken this up with the airport senior management because it used sometimes to be unacceptable at busy times.

When Royal Air did the weekly Toronto about four years ago (before being absorbed by Canada 3000) they used wide-bodied A 310s, but they went via another UK airport. As has been said Britannia use 767s at times.

It will be fascinating to see if anything does transpire following the route evaluation. If the runway is the sticking point I am sure that CWL would make a play for the route, if they are not doing so already.

flower,

I take the point about the elevation of the runway (600 feet, I believe), as well as the length.

I am not sure that a flight via another airport would be acceptable to business pax. From the noises coming from the business leaders here it has to be non-stop or they will continue going to the London airports or BHX.

What an opportunity Bristol City Council missed in the 1950s when they could have moved the Bristol airport to Filton from Whitchurch, but they chose Lulsgate.

If Filton (next to motorways and near Bristol Parkway Station), with its 2,450 metre runway, larger site and better weather was Bristol's airport today, I am sure it would be well on its way to BHX's size.

[Standard Jet Dep]

Thanks Merchant venture

Yep I believe all the ramp as been reconfigured since I was there.
I still think they need additional ramp space.

Totally agree ref Filton what an airport it would be if BRS was relocated there.

Funny enough I was working there when the A310 used to arrive on the Sat mornings as its timing coincided with one of our departures.

Only 4-5 ULDs used to be offloaded from the forward hold so never a need for so much equipment, however a fully laden 767 with the constraints of connection bags and other problems would be a challange for the guys there right now.

Im just looking at the negatives from an airline point of view.

As mentioned above AA was limited on runway performance with a 767 -300 at BHX. Whilst working in BHX I heard many storys regarding this so I think BRS is still limited.
CO has got to be the best option, I think that will probaly be the new airline. After all a 757 is a very easy aircraft to turnaround considering BRS facilitys.

How far do you think they could go with the runway extension?? 400 ,metres at most. Im sure the NIMBYS or should i say 4 houses that are affected at the end of 27 will not like the governments recent recommendations.

Any knowledge of the above plans??

Anyway nice to see BRS in the news again.

[Snigs]

I believe that the relocation of GA to the south side was always on the cards to enable expansion. I heard the rumour that the fuel farm will be relocated as well so the terminal can expand west past the control tower. I hope that when they do expand the terminal they think about providing covered walkways, it is much more professional!

Agree about Filton as well, all the transport infrastructure, and better wx. However, sadly, more vociferous nimby’s

[a bristolian]

Not if but When and Who !!!

BRS -New york B757 with y150 pax is easily achievable.

We have had in the past (fact) had direct flights from Bristol to Orlando with By 767-200's (y273)in 1997 and AmTram B757's (y215 and direct- I used to file the the fpl's ) also to Orlando in 1992.

The key is the market in terms of potential pax. If we didn't have some of the best aerospace , IT , Drinks ( Cider !!) and Defence companies in the world then we wouldn't stand a chance , as it happens we do everyone knows it including the US carriers so as I say not if but WHEN!!! ( and who ).

[Standard Jet Dep]

A Bristolian

Direct BRS - SFB in 1997 are you sure!! I was working for the handling agent there at that time got some photos of the a/c doing that rotation.
I thought it was doing BRS - SNN - SFB there was about 4- 5 rotations that summer season if I remember rightly,spead over uneven times during the summer season.
Some did the above and some stopped at BGR pretty sure none direct.
Coming back used to be direct SFB - BRS if I remember rightly.
Anyway im sure a 757 operation would be viable and do well from BRS CO i think would be the favourite to supply this route.

Take care everybody

[a bristolian]

Sorry my mistake , in 1997 we had the roving BY B767 doing POP with the odd times as mentioned

In 1995 we had a fortnightly Tuesday BY B767 to MCO ( B4 SFB's) and when operated by GBYAA or GBYAB it went direct - honest.

[MerchantVenturer]

Standard Jet

In reply to your query about runway extension, I read somewhere locally that is not thought likely until the annual pax throughput reaches around 8 million. I don't really understand the significance of this because extra runway surely equates to more routes not currently achieveable rather than extra pax.

I agree that any runway extension would have to be at the eastern end and would straddle the A 38. As this road was diverted a few years ago I suppose the ancient idea of a cut and cover tunnel under the runway would be used. Probably 300-400 metres of extra runway is about the most that could be wrung out, as you say.

There are NIMBYs in the local villages, most of whom have moved into the expanding villages in the past twenty or thirty years (still regarded as 'new people' by many of the old village families). The real locals in the main like and support the airport because it brings work and interest. I grew up in and around Wrington Vale villages in the 1940s and 1950s and still have a lot of contacts with the old village families.

If you listen to some of the NIMBYs you would think something akin to LHR was being planned.

I think a terminal expansion is the most likely next step. I understand it was built so it could be extended relatively easily.

As an airport Bristol is very lucky to serve a catchment area with a large Hi Tech, Aerospace, financial and insurance industry base. It also has an above average number of socio eonomic groups A B and C1 in its catchment area who have disposable money to spend onl eisure, including flights.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

I think the runway extension will happen but it will be no more than a welcome but modest 180m. Thats purely rumour and informed guesswork.

Cheers

WWW

[MerchantVenturer]

WWW,

In this week's free newspaper for the area around the airport, the local parish council is reported to be exploring its rights in case the airport 'makes a grab' for part of Felton Common which would be needed for any significant runway extension.

Would an extra 180 metres be of any real use and could this relatively small amount be achieved without tunnelling or further diverting the A 38?

I am sure your access to rumour and certainly to informed guesswork is superior to mine.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

180m requires the A38 to be in a tunnel. It wouldn't require compulsory purchase of the Common.

Its suprising what a difference a little bit of length can make when it comes to performance :ooh:

It would be worth up to 6 tonnes and that is often the difference between doable and not.

Cheers

WWW

[LBAir]

:ok: AA hmmmmmm, is that Alcaholics Anonymous or the Automobile Association:rolleyes:

Good luck to Bristol if they succeed with their plans for transatlantic flights. This has been mentioned often enough, with respect to my local haunt. The same questions are asked over and over again. Is the runway long enough; is the airport capable of handling such flights etc etc? I suspect the runway will be within limmits for such opperations.

Airlines tend not to touch airports on such routes unless the airport can prove its worthiness, this ultimately been the number of passengers per year. As a general rule, this would be around 3-4 million mark. Not sure on the actual figure for Bristol but I understand it to be well within this margine. Bristol stands a good chance in my opinion of atracting such services.

The ultimate question will be how would such services effect their other services from other airports and can both services be sustained.

Good Luck!!!

From YORKSHIRE :ok: the place to be is the city of Leeds.

[GustyOrange]

I don't see why it's not possible for CO to set up.

After all, Bristol is roughly the same size as Edinburgh and CO are starting from Edinburgh in June. (there is a taxpayer subsidy involved tho)

Gusty

[MerchantVenturer]

LB Air

At present BRS has a throughput of around 4 million pax per year, up from 3½ million the previous year and expected to be 4½ million next year.

Gusty Orange

Agreed about population sizes, especially the two conurbations, but Edinburgh is a more high profile city and is certainly perceived as one of Europe's major tourist destinations. It is also probably the UK's second most important financial centre after London.

Now Bristol is a growing tourist centre but not in Edinburgh's league (yet! - the local optimists will say), and also an important financial and banking centre, but again not quite as big a one as Edinburgh.

Bristol does have major Hi Tech and Aero industries with US connections, although probably more west coast USA, and, like Edinburgh, major universities.

Bristol must have a chance of getting such a service and making it a success provided that runway is really sufficient day in and day out. I doubt that this airport will be eligible for any subsidies. In fact, I am not aware of Bristol ever having start-up or route subsidies, not in recent times anyway, although I stand to be corrected by anyone who knows differently.

[ATCO1987]

Just a comment (slightly delayed I know) about wide bodies at Bristol.... Anyone remember the one off AIH787? EGCC-EGGD-GCTS-EGCC, G-BYDA I think, DC-10-30. That parked on the main apron on the old stand 5, doubt there would be any space with the new stand config, but a large a/c would easily fit on the western apron. Apparently an EIN A330 has visited in the past, tisnt all that small you see. On the subject of old Orlando flights, I always thought they went direct? It is possible to do direct Transatlantic from Bristol; BAL799A EGGD-TBPB GBYAA recent one.
Dan.

[marlowe]

just a little titbit i heard at MAN this week AA to do BRS MAN NEW YORK this would be a BA codeshare flight thus freeing up the citiexpress 767 that does MAN NEW YORK to do what ever??????

[Terror_is_firmer]

Just read this after being re-directed from a post I made today.

Apparantly representatives from Continental and US Airways were in talks with TBI at Cardiff about a route to Newark a few days ago. Continental are (from what I have heard) thinking of using a 777-200 once a week and US Airways a 767-300.

They also visited Bristol I believe. But as has been discussed a 772 wil not get out of Bristol for a trans-atlantic flight. Another factor with Bristol is the fog. How many times has bristol been closed because of fog this year, sending all those orange aircraft to cardiff???

It will be a close call for a much needed route for Wales and the South West. Best of luck to both CWL and BRS

[ATCO1987]

Yes Bristol does have a fog problem, once the ILS is sorted we'll be back on track. 27 is CAT III able, but down to CAT I at the moment (reasons unknown to myself) and CAT II is being put in on 09, upgrading from the existing CAT I. Things are getting better!
Dan.

[MerchantVenturer]

Terror

Not sure that a weekly flight would be that attractive. As far as BRS is concerned the airport is looking primarily to business pax and a daily service.

From what others, with presumably more technical knowledge than I possess, have said a 752 would be the most likely equipment to succeed on a BRS-EWR service - both from pax capacity and runway considerations. I guess that would mean Continental.

As for fog, the Cat III on runway 27 has made a considerable difference and reduced the need for diversions. However, the reciprocal 09 cannot be Cat III equipped because of the terrain on its approach. As has been said it is currently being upgraded to Cat II.

I think the BRS diversions can be over-egged. There are occasions when BRS stands above the fog on its 600 foot hill and other airports have to divert their arrivals to Lulsgate.

I am probably tempting fate by saying this, but over the past twenty-odd years I have flown in and out of BRS as a pax well over two hundred times and have only been diverted once because of weather. That was in the days of the Britannia B 732s and we were bussed to CWL to fly out to Palma once because the incoming a/c could not land at BRS.

[a bristolian]

Not wishing to get into BRS v CWL debate but if the weather in recent weeks is anything to go by then its not BRS with the fog problem. CAT 3B on RWY 27 has drastically reduced the number of diversions at a time when growth is +20% yoy.

If you take a typical B757 operator at Bristol with CAT 3 capability , i.e BY , we have not lost a single BY movement due to weather since CAT3 has been operational (approx early 2002).

But in terms of BY diversions in from another BY base just across the water we have had at least 8 additional movements since last Autumn and excludes a number of other times when we have not been able to park potentail BY diverts.

BRS Airport ,CO and AA (with B757's) all have CAT 3 capabilty.

[terrier21]

Yes as many have said before BRS has had problems with the runway length but i am sure many of you are aware that the governments white paper has given the goahead for bristol to build a second terminal as well as increasing the length of the runway.

AA and continental are both flying in and out of BRS at regular intervals to meet with managment and checkout the airports facillities.

we have also had direct BGI flights and YYZ in the past. BRS are also starting their first direct flight to Egypt in the winter.

Also we have a direct flight to The Gambia which runs once a week on a full load A320/A321.

If anyone is interested in using the proposed brstol-new york service please log on to www.bristolairport.co.uk and help us secure this service for the people in the south west by taking a couple of minutes to fill out the online questionair.

to terrier-is-firmer

are you not aware that brs has Cat 3 all weather landing gear and the only reason they divert is if the aircraft coming in and the flight deck are not trained.

Im sure this would not be a problem for two of Americas biggest airlines?!!!

to terrier-is-firmer

are you not aware that brs has Cat 3 all weather landing gear and the only reason they divert is if the aircraft coming in and the flight deck are not trained.

Im sure this would not be a problem for two of Americas biggest airlines?!!!

[MerchantVenturer]

terrier21

I don't think we have reached the stage where a second terminal and extended runway are automatic.

The government's paper is little more than a discussion document and normal planning rules would have to be followed. I suspect an extension to the current terminal will probably come first - I did a conducted tour prior to its opening and we were told that it had been designed so that it could be extended at the side.

I suspect any move to build a second terminal and/or extend the runway length would meet intense opposition from the local NIMBYs.

Last winter Astraeus did the weekly Gambia flight using B 737-700s. In previous winters I can remember Air 2000 (now First Choice of course) operating B 752s on the route. I cannot recall Airbuses doing Bristol-Banjul. Which airline was it?

[terrier21]

The proposed terminal expansion is for a strusture like they have at East Midlands apparently.

Merchant you are correct I was mistaken

[terrier21]

Bristol Airports press release to its major stakeholders has been written up and is set to be made public shortly.

The runway extension will be required when BRS hit the 8 million/annum figure, and the plans are for about 10 years time.

Still no more news on New York yet but apparently once this service has started up the plans are for a direct Orlando service.

[floatingharbour]

In terms of extending the runway at BRS, this would perhaps only be necessary if it was decided to operate more far flung routes. The 2011 metre runway is more than adequate for A320/A321 ops to the Gambia and has been suffient for Dominican Republic, Orlando, Toronto routes in the past. As aircraft performance improves what previously might have been a problem (MD80s stopping over in northern Spain enroute to the Canaries) may not be a factor in the future. Admittedly in warm weather with a full load of fuel/pax you don't want to be worrying about runway lengths too much but for most operations that can be accounted for. As regards a NY route, last time I looked 27 was pointing in roughly the right direction and a 757 could handle that no problem.

What might be more of a priority for BRS management in the short/medium term is laying down more apron!

[ATCO1987]

Floatingharbour,
With regards to your comment about laying down more Apron, that is being done within the next year or so I believe. The western apron is being enlarged. The buildings to the left of the ATC tower are to be flattened and the apron extended northwards, and should then be in line with the ATC tower which is just going airside now as we speak anyway. Eventually the fuel farm will move to near the Brymon hangar, and the apron extended across the area where the fuel farm was.
When the western apron is extended, especially with BFC now being southside, there will be much more space to park a/c.
Dan.

[floatingharbour]

ATCO1987, that's all more or less correct although some of the existing western apron might need upgrading before it can be brought into use for larger aircraft parking. Good to see the new BFC operation up and running southside with dedicated parking for GA/corporate.

I'm sure you'll agree that the fuel facility is a little inconveniently placed and would be better off further west, the logistics of doing so would be enormous in the short term and it has been decided to leave be for a while to the extent that a new tank has recently been added (which is supposed to be 'portable'!)

More apron development to the immediate west of the control tower is the obvious first option with space for perhaps half a dozen or more larger aircraft, however passenger logistics and commercial pressure would come to the fore - most airlines with regular schedules/quick turnarounds will not want their aircraft parked so far into the bundu with their passengers having to be bussed, the nose-in stands in front of the terminal are a prized commodity!

[ATCO1987]

Well, what with this "transitional surface" or whatever you want to call it, large aircraft can be a problem. So with the western apron moving northwards that will provide more vertical space for larger aircraft. Yes, the fuel farm is definitely incorrectly placed!
Dan.

[Terror_is_firmer]

Brittania also operate a 767 from BRS to take kiddies to Lapland to see Santa around Christmas time. That is usually full and heavy, but it operates.

One thing you forgot. Baggage. Very little if any, light fuel load etc..

And yes a BY 767 did operate once to BGI and after speaking to the BY station manager of both CWL and BRS I can tell you that the TOW was severly restricted and the flight operated with a 56% load.

[ATCO1987]

Ok you are ranting on about 767's. What about the DC-10 that operated EGGD-GCTS in 2001. That had 2 A320 loads on it I believe, and it took off using hardly any runway. Id say thats a lot heavier than a 767!
Dan.

[Terror_is_firmer]

Again, hardly any fuel. It proberbly burned about 12 tonnes to Tenerife and had a ramp fule load of approx 17 tonnes, where as to the states a ramp figure of 65 tonnes a burn of approx 58 tonnes would be the norm. Slight difference in weight

[terrier21]

T_I-F

As I think MV has rightly said before the airlines would not come into an airport to start detailed discussions if the logistics were incorrect.

To me this would say that both AA and CO think that flying to and from BRS is a viable option with, or without a full load!!!

[Taff Lad]

I doubt CO or AA will be able to use a 767 or 777 aircraft due to take off performance and weight restrictions due to the length of BRS runway. Britannia have used a 767 BGI last winter but with a much reduced passenger load. A widebody with full fuel, passengers and baggage would be able to take off with reduced fuel and tech stop in either SNN or BGR. My Travel 767-300s sometimes tech stop in BGR on their fortnightly CWL-SFB and as previously stated CWL runway is a "bit" longer!

[floatingharbour]

I think the favoured option is a 757 with perhaps somewhere in the region of 180 pax. More room/comfort for the businessmen and less weight. There's always the option to upgrade to a 767 on the route in a couple of years when the runway is extended! ;)

[Irish Steve]

Living dangerously, but this is a rumour network <g>

CO operate to Ireland at present, in summer they run 767-400's to Dublin and Shannon, winter is a 757 that covers both, but it's a pain all ways round, given the problems of the very short sector, and it also means that CO lose freight contracts in the winter, as there's just not enough room on the 757 for much cargo.

I am just wondering if maybe someone is about to put together a deal that keepS SNN being served, ( the Irish Govt agreement insists on it at present) by flying to BRS as well, with ( say) a 757, and that way CO can then operate the 767-4 to DUB, which will allow them to keep the freight contracts all the year round.

Only wondering, nothing specific to base it on, but it might be a way that they are going to do it.

Might even put a 767-4 on to SNN/BRS, in that it should be able to get out of BRS to SNN with no problems at all.

As I said at the start, this is a rumour network, but I could see that being of interest to CO, given that the 757 is pretty full these days , even in the depth of winter.

[Terror_is_firmer]

My Travel 767-300s sometimes tech stop in BGR on their fortnightly CWL-SFB and as previously stated CWL runway is a "bit" longer!

No they dont. They fly direct weekly, every thursday at 12:00. The Air New Zealand 742 used to make a stop in Bangor when it was leased to Airtours a few years back. Starting on the 20th of this month, Travel City Direct will be using an Air Atlanta 742 to fly DIRECT to SFB.

[Confirmed Must Ride]

767-400 out of BRS - would love to see it try. Not the best performing aircraft I have had the pleasure of working with.

[Taff Lad]

Terror is Firmer

My Travel operate SFB weekly in summer but fortnighlty in winter months. In winter months, due to low air pressure at CWL and dependant on winds across the pond, the 767-300 has had to tech stop on a number of occasions at BGR.

Hope that clears that up

Best Regards

[CWLSWS]

Hey Taff Lad - hows it going?!!

I agree with what Taff Lad says. From an aircraft performance point of view the 767-300 has had to tech stop in BGR in winter months due to weather constraints both or either at CWL and across the atlantic. I remember those days well Taff!

Not sure about the performance of a 767-400 out of BRS with current runway length and ramp space but would be fun to watch!!

[Terror_is_firmer]

My Travel operate SFB weekly in summer but fortnighlty in winter months. In winter months, due to low air pressure at CWL and dependant on winds across the pond, the 767-300 has had to tech stop on a number of occasions at BGR.

No it dont. The MYT049/050 operates for the summer season ONLY.

Air Transat operate for the summer season aswell.

The only transatlantic route out of Cardif in during the winter season is Britannia's 763 to BGI which operates direct and with a full load once a month on behalf of Fred Olsen.

Hope that clears things up.

[CWLSWS]

Mr Terror is Firmer
They may not operate it last winter / this winter. Dont know and to be honest dont really care (as no longer based at CWL). BUT my friend you will find that they have indeed operated this flight ex CWL in the winter as I used to operate on them and personally remember going via BGR on a good few occasions.

Now hope that clears it up!!!!!! :ok:

[flower]

The flight has been direct for as long as I can remember, also I am unaware of any airborne diversions.
Can't say that it has never happened as it obviously has, but certainly not in the last 4 years.

[CWLSWS]

Hi Flower

The flight was always advertised as direct but only "tech" stopped in BGR on a couple of occassions if winds were high / air pressure low and unable to fly direct then due to take off performance ex CWL with full fuel - hence the tech stop in BGR. In the summer months take off performance was great ex CWL so no issues!
:ok:

[Terror_is_firmer]

I used to work for Servisair at CWL and we were tasked with creating an ETOPS plot for the flight deck. To do this we had to read the flight plan. The flight plan tells the crew how much fuel to uplift for the flight, it also tells them of any RTOW's. The only reason it would have to make a "tech stop" would be if there was an RTOW. As far as I can remember there has very rarley been any RTOW's and those flights that were restricted were still within limits for a direct flight.

Give My Travel a call on (0161) 2326600 and ask them how many times they have made a "tech stop" in the last 5 years.

[CWLSWS]

Dear Terror is Firmer

I am so pleased that you used to do the long haul dispatch called Level 2 dispatch. All that involved is reading the trans atlantic way points and plotting it. Also plotting the nat track above and below including the max distances between the alternate diversion airports. The plog (flight Plan) may still say CWL to SFB on the top but when the crew report that is when the final aircraft performance calculations takes place. A crew deciding to go into BGR on a tech stop will have no bearing on your plott that you will have kindly completed.

I actually flew the plan on the aeroplane. Now, the RTOW (restricted Take Off Weight) applies to every single flight any aircraft does. The figure is different as each different aircraft type has a different RTOW. Now, the aircraft performance is measured against both the RTOW and weather along with other limiting factors. A tech stop is usually needed when the weight of the aircraft is too heavy in comparison with the runway length, hence affecting the v1 value (if you dont know whaty v1 is then please look it up)

Therefore this should hopefully explain the reasoning. And just for your info Terror, we also tech stop out of other UK bases that you wouldnt expect us to due to the fact that they have a lot of long haul. However a harsh winter can cause such problems!! :ok:

[Omark44]

Well, times change but many moons ago when I did Perf 'A' RTOW stood for REGULATED Take off weight!!!

Take-off weight is regulated by one of three things usually, the structural limit of the aircraft, the landing weight limit of the aircraft or the temperature and pressure at the airfield of departure and the length of the runway in use, obstacles etc. etc.
The most limiting of these became the Regulating Take Off Weight and would vary according to weather and other factors.
Can't find my Perf A handbook now but it had a list of definitions on the inside cover. As I have said, times and things do change so RTOW may have been changed since those days!

[fescalised portion]

I don't think that it would be a problem for an AA 767 to operate out of BRS, when you consider that an AA 767-300 will a full pax load only carries 207 punters, whereas a BY 767-300 will carry between 315 and 328 depending on config. Also, the AA flights would not be carrying the bucket and spade brigade with their max baggage allowance, sombrero's and hi-fi systems........More of your business type travellers with walk-on suitcases and laptops.............

[Taff Lad]

I agree fescalised portion but transatlantic flights allow passengers two checked in items no more that 35 kgs each (weight may have changed slightly but that was what it was last november when I flew with AA ex LGW) so even tho less punters there is still possibility of heavy baggage.

[Cyrano]

Taff Lad:

A few heavy bags aren't going to bring the weight of an AA transatlantic 767 up by *that* much. What will add quite a bit is the belly hold cargo - which, I'd assume, would contribute quite a lot to the route's profitability (less likely to be the case with BY to the sun).

[CWLSWS]

Hi Cyrano - I happen to agree with Taff on this one. During route evaluation this has to be taken into account.

Think of the maths - ok so your loosing those seats but instead of the bucket and spaders having their usual 20kgs (and yes they get only 20kgs for long haul too unless they have special package) you are increasing that to 70kgs. Those who do load control will realise that that figure is the weight of a female passenger on a load sheet (give or take a couple of kilos depending which carrier you work for)

When carriers do performance caluclations about an airfield they cant "hope" that passengers wont take all their entitled allowance. Plan for worse case scenario. So yes - it could make the difference.

On the second point - Cargo - charter carriers do carry a lot of cargo these days espeacilly on their 767s for example as forward hold is hardly used for baggage. So yes we carry cargo and I certanly know BY carry quite a large amount of cargo too.

:p

[Confirmed Must Ride]

American carrier's usually do not differentiate between male nad female pax - 180lbs + 30lbs per bag. Usually average 1.3 bags per person