Originally Posted by
OltonPete
When IT things go wrong these days it seems to take longer to resolve whereas you would think with all the expertise it would be quicker. However moving on the airport has reported the August passenger figures.
August 2018
I know a bit of spin with the "near million" but still good stats.
Still no rumours of Turkish Airlines operating as this seems an obvious choice for going east especially with their aggressive expansion and now that Qatar have settled on Cardiff or maybe they are concerned it will dilute BHX which has taken a few years to get back to double daily (summer 19).
Pete
Hello Pete. Haven't 'spoken' with you on here for a while. The IT problem with the information screens still seems unresolved nearly two days after problems surfaced.
Turkish might turn up one day. The new Istanbul airport will certainly give the airline a lot more room. I don’t think that Turkish has any Australasian connectivity though which would be a limiting factor for many potential travellers, including me.
As for the airport’s passenger figures, for many years they have consistently been under reported each month and at the end of each year when compared with those issued by the CAA (which I understand gets its figures from the airport in the first place). I’ve tried on several occasions down the years to find out why they do this. All they say is that they don’t count under 2s and some other types of passenger whereas the CAA does.
The airport’s website now carries this notice on its facts and figures section:
Due to differences in the way some flights are recorded, Bristol Airport figures may contain small variances when compared to those reported by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
The small variances can be quite large in some people's eyes. For example, in July this year the airport showed 925,910 passengers whilst the CAA came in with 938,411 terminal passengers. In 2017 as a whole BRS’s figure was 8,136,738 with the CAA showing 8,234,086. August's CAA figures when published will doubtless be in the region of 965,000 which at least is about 13,000 closer to the one million than the airport's figure.
So on the one hand the airport is making a virtue of nearly one million in August but on the other it’s consistently under reporting its passenger numbers compared with those issued by the CAA.
Originally Posted by
yeo valley
With the master plan being worked on by the airport and asking what people thinks about it has been ongoing for quite a while now. I did read that the airport is looking to expand the terminal next year rather than wait for the whole master plan to be passed by the council. The terminal expansion is in the master plan,so I wonder why the airport wants to expand terminal earlier.That tells me the pax numbers are to increase by at least 1 million,so the airport have got some thing up their sleeves that they have not released. Time will tell.
The first part of the public consultation gave three possible options for a new terminal: expand the present one; build a new and bigger one on the north side; build a second complementary terminal on the south side. Following the second round of public consultation the airport is in the process of drawing up a new draft master plan which itself will be the subject of further public consultation, probably early next year. The airport has now settled on expanding the current terminal (which has been extended already a number of times since it opened in 2000) and its scoping report re the environmental impact assessment for future planning applications reflects this.
The airport will also apply to the local authority to have the current 10 mppa limit raised. It is projecting 10 mppa by 2021 and 12 mppa by 2025. It would certainly need to have the terminal further extended (from its current size) to accommodate 12 mppa.
The consultation documents state firmly that a runway extension does not form part of the new master plan. The owners seem content that their airport is a profitable mainly short-haul facility with a sprinkling of long-haul charter flights, as is the case at the moment. With LHR relatively close and the default airport for most long-haul scheduled passengers from the region they no doubt judge that the expense, both financial and environmental, is not justified given the small number of long-haul scheduled routes that the current master plan sees as potentially viable (it names four; one ME and three US, some of which might be possible from the current runway anyway).