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.