AA in the west country
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
It would be worth up to 6 tonnes and that is often the difference between doable and not.
Cheers
WWW
Its suprising what a difference a little bit of length can make when it comes to performance
It would be worth up to 6 tonnes and that is often the difference between doable and not.
Cheers
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
AA????
AA hmmmmmm, is that Alcaholics Anonymous or the Automobile Association
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
the place to be is the city of Leeds.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by MerchantVenturer; 3rd Mar 2004 at 02:32.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southwest
Age: 37
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Dan.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: where ever i wake up!!!!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??????
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southwest
Age: 37
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Dan.
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SOUTH GLOS
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?!!!
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?!!!
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
What might be more of a priority for BRS management in the short/medium term is laying down more apron!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southwest
Age: 37
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southwest
Age: 37
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Dan.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: earth
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southwest
Age: 37
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Dan.