I suspect the Evening Post article may have been prompted by the expansion planning applications which will soon be submitted.
As bycrewlgw points out, there seems nothing new regarding the B 787 beyond what is already in the master plan, except its range capabilities are now depicted in pictorial form.
In the master plan the airport says there will be limited demand for regular long haul scheduled services from Bristol, although the charter market is a different matter.
Specifically addressing the need or otherwise for a runway extension, the airport says that after detailed discussion with Boeing, CO and FCA they have been told the 787 could reach Cape Town and the west coast of the USA from BRS off the current runway, thus making the need for an extension of tarmac for take-off unnecessary. However, so far as scheduled services are concerned the airport's favoured way forward is to serve the Far East and Australasia via a hub such as Dubai or Abu Dhabi, and the USA and Canada via an east coast American hub.
BRS’s 0.4% decrease in pax numbers this April compared to April 2006 has been highlighted elsewhere in PPRuNe with a suggestion that the FR announcement has come at an auspicious time for the airport.
As atms were down a massive 17.8% in April this year (almost entirely due to the departure of BACon) this tiny reduction in pax figures might well be regarded as a creditable performance. The MD had already written publicly that pax figures would reach 6 million in 2007 (up from 5.7 million in 2006).
In fact, leaving aside the January 2007 figures when hundreds of flights were cancelled or diverted because of the runway situation, as far as I can determine April 2007 is the first month this century to show a reduction in pax numbers compared to the same month the previous year.
Some domestic routes were down noticeably in pax numbers. EDI, for example, was down 21%, perhaps not a surprise given that BACon used to operate five rotations a day to the Scottish capital. Perhaps more relevant is that this seems to confirm there is a significant market for a certain type of non-low cost player on some routes alongside the likes of easy and Ryan, because presumably many of the lost pax such as those on the EDI route have departed to other airports, mainly LHR probably, where they can still get their loyalty benefits.
No doubt this is AF’s thinking in setting up alongside easy on the CDG route.
There is another suggestion that Ryanair will bring nothing to the BRS party because it will have invited itself entirely on its own terms.
From what I read about Macquarie (BRS owner) it is also a switched-on, hard-headed and highly successful organisation so it would appear unlikely that its local management at BRS hasn’t seen something in the FR venture for its Oz masters.
It seems that some ‘supporters’ of airports that have a significant FR presence are often enthusiastic about the airline, whereas those that haven’t find reasons to be sceptical.
I always take the view that I welcome new airlines and routes that enable me to travel more conveniently, until personal experience leads me to think otherwise.