BRISTOL - 2
Brunel to Concorde
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jr2000
There was some talk in the Bristol media in the days after the alleged terrorist plot details were put into the public domain that this was the case.
CAA stats suggest that last year August, September and October were the best months for loads on BRS-EWR, even beating the BFS-EWR figures in each of those months, despite the Northern Irish airport carrying nearly ten thousand more pax in the first full twelve calendar months of the respective operations (95,700 - 85,800).
From the West of England's point of view it is to be hoped that these increased loads can be sustained year-round.
There is an item elsewhere on PPRuNe reporting that LH is looking to the possibility of using one or more of BRS, CWL and SOU for some of its German routes in view of security congestion at the major London airports, so perhaps this is a trend that will develop amongst both pax and airlines.
There was some talk in the Bristol media in the days after the alleged terrorist plot details were put into the public domain that this was the case.
CAA stats suggest that last year August, September and October were the best months for loads on BRS-EWR, even beating the BFS-EWR figures in each of those months, despite the Northern Irish airport carrying nearly ten thousand more pax in the first full twelve calendar months of the respective operations (95,700 - 85,800).
From the West of England's point of view it is to be hoped that these increased loads can be sustained year-round.
There is an item elsewhere on PPRuNe reporting that LH is looking to the possibility of using one or more of BRS, CWL and SOU for some of its German routes in view of security congestion at the major London airports, so perhaps this is a trend that will develop amongst both pax and airlines.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merchant, re: Continental. I know you have written in the past about the challenge to attract Americans to travel from their side of the water to Bristol. Small thing only, but last week's New York Times travel section had a whole page on the delights of visiting Bath, and the prime suggestion to New Yorkers for getting there was the Continental to Bristol, then the train to Bath.............
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LH at BRS
I'll be over the moon if LH decide that BRS would be a good base (and some of the letter writing over the past couple of years might have paid off).
BACon are trying to serve Germany (DUS, MUC, FRA), but it's all one flight a day stuff, tucked in whilst the Embys aren't pounding up to EDI and GLA. If you want to "nip out" to Germany for a meeting, you have to block three days out, or go with KL via AMS or go to BHX or LHR. And they're all dead-end flights, with no onward connection possibilities.
If LH picked up a BRS-FRA/MUC route with decent frequency, it would fit in really well with onward connections to the rest of Germany/Switzerland/Austria (currently badly serviced from the West), and it would finally be a decent alternative to hubbing with KL or (shudder) SN. Just imagine doing BRS-FRA-SIN-SYD or BRS-FRA-ICN. Perfect.
(And it would make maintaining Star Alliance Gold status more compatible with supporting BRS....)
BACon are trying to serve Germany (DUS, MUC, FRA), but it's all one flight a day stuff, tucked in whilst the Embys aren't pounding up to EDI and GLA. If you want to "nip out" to Germany for a meeting, you have to block three days out, or go with KL via AMS or go to BHX or LHR. And they're all dead-end flights, with no onward connection possibilities.
If LH picked up a BRS-FRA/MUC route with decent frequency, it would fit in really well with onward connections to the rest of Germany/Switzerland/Austria (currently badly serviced from the West), and it would finally be a decent alternative to hubbing with KL or (shudder) SN. Just imagine doing BRS-FRA-SIN-SYD or BRS-FRA-ICN. Perfect.
(And it would make maintaining Star Alliance Gold status more compatible with supporting BRS....)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easyjet to Budapest
Does anybody know if Easyjet are going to be flying to Budapest after the end of October? I know you cannot book it on their website at the moment but they are advertising it as a Christmas destination on their latest news under 'December Highlights' and it says that you can fly there from Bristol during this time?? 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BRISTOL
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CO Figs
Apparently some muppet did a typo on the CO website a few weeks ago which ment you could travel to EWR from BRS for the weekend for £60 inc taxes, no wonder the figures shot up 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LH
Wonder if the Root Development Fund could tip LH in favour of CWL as it's near the top of their list of desired routes. Also BA have a habit of portecting their network - looked what happed when AF tried to muscle in on BRS CDG a few years ago
Brunel to Concorde
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kellycsi
It seems pretty certain the BUD has gone for the winter. Loads always seemed high as they do on almost every easyJet route out of BRS, so presumably it must be back to the yield.
I guess easyJet is being slightly economical, or perhaps clever would be a better word, with the true situation. They are not telling lies because it is still possible to fly from BRS to BUD – until the end of next month. The same applies to NCL which is also included in the December blurb.
WATABENCH
I really don’t know what is happening with the EWR loads. Despite all the talk of increased loads after the terrorism announcement on 10 August, the CAA provisional stats for August show BRS-EWR carrying far fewer pax than in August 2005 – 7432 as against 8777.
This is a load factor of around 70%. Whilst the final monthly figure can be expected to increase by a few hundred (for some reason this route’s figures are always increased when the final numbers are published) it still compares poorly with BFS-EWR (started at the same time) which carried just under 10,000 in August.
However, overall BRS had an excellent August with over 600,000 pax passing through for the first time in a calendar month, up 7.6% on August 2005. The rolling 12-month total is now 5,615,000, up 13.2% on the figure a year ago.
Ireland seems to be especially popular with 37,000 on the DUB route in August (up 30% on August 05) and 10,400 on Ryanair’s daily SNN – a load factor of just shy of 90% on the 189-seat B 738.
Having never been in the business, unlike you, I am still surprised how markets work.
For instance, for the past couple of years Flybe has averaged 3-4,000 pax per month on its BRS-TLS route (daily or 6 x per week year-round). Then easyJet joined Flybe on the route and a combined total of 11,300 used the two carriers in August. This suggests easyJet probably carried between 7 and 8,000.
Why didn’t some of these people use Flybe in the period before easyJet came onto the route? The Flybe load factors point to availability on their aircraft most of the time and both airlines market themselves as ‘low cost’.
It looks as though Flybe have already bowed to easyJet's dominance and stopped their own service to TLS - at least for the coming winter.
It seems pretty certain the BUD has gone for the winter. Loads always seemed high as they do on almost every easyJet route out of BRS, so presumably it must be back to the yield.
I guess easyJet is being slightly economical, or perhaps clever would be a better word, with the true situation. They are not telling lies because it is still possible to fly from BRS to BUD – until the end of next month. The same applies to NCL which is also included in the December blurb.
WATABENCH
I really don’t know what is happening with the EWR loads. Despite all the talk of increased loads after the terrorism announcement on 10 August, the CAA provisional stats for August show BRS-EWR carrying far fewer pax than in August 2005 – 7432 as against 8777.
This is a load factor of around 70%. Whilst the final monthly figure can be expected to increase by a few hundred (for some reason this route’s figures are always increased when the final numbers are published) it still compares poorly with BFS-EWR (started at the same time) which carried just under 10,000 in August.
However, overall BRS had an excellent August with over 600,000 pax passing through for the first time in a calendar month, up 7.6% on August 2005. The rolling 12-month total is now 5,615,000, up 13.2% on the figure a year ago.
Ireland seems to be especially popular with 37,000 on the DUB route in August (up 30% on August 05) and 10,400 on Ryanair’s daily SNN – a load factor of just shy of 90% on the 189-seat B 738.
Having never been in the business, unlike you, I am still surprised how markets work.
For instance, for the past couple of years Flybe has averaged 3-4,000 pax per month on its BRS-TLS route (daily or 6 x per week year-round). Then easyJet joined Flybe on the route and a combined total of 11,300 used the two carriers in August. This suggests easyJet probably carried between 7 and 8,000.
Why didn’t some of these people use Flybe in the period before easyJet came onto the route? The Flybe load factors point to availability on their aircraft most of the time and both airlines market themselves as ‘low cost’.
It looks as though Flybe have already bowed to easyJet's dominance and stopped their own service to TLS - at least for the coming winter.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: BRS
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like the next few week's taxiway resurfacing is going to be fun - total lack of activity to be seen on the building site at 8:00 this morning when we finally got going after an hour of slot delays & back-taxiing. When we returned at 11:00 there were 3 people hanging around.
Is there any sense of urgency to get this done quickly? A cynic might think Bristol airport are doing the resurfacing on the cheap while the airlines pick up the additional costs in further delays.
Is there any sense of urgency to get this done quickly? A cynic might think Bristol airport are doing the resurfacing on the cheap while the airlines pick up the additional costs in further delays.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: the gem of south devon
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It certainly was the case when flybe operated the 'airbridge' to Filton and Chester, thats why flybe got the contract.
The E195 will be operating the BHX-TLS-BRS-TLS-BHX run for the next few weekends.
DC
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BRISTOL
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been told there will be a Monarch 767 visiting this winter to do cruise flights to the caribbean, not sure how often or where its operating too, not just a once off though apparently.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dash-7 lover - I haven't heard this. Mind you it wouldn't surprise me if it did happen, but then on the other hand there's also a rumour that BA won't last all that long once the EZY CDG route starts (so why would Menzies be looking at them) and another rumour that Ryanair will have 7 aircraft based here in three years time! What would the aviation world be without rumours? EZY Budapest is gone for the winter, probably got something to do with the CDG route start-up and the fact that the program has had to be squashed into less hours because of the winter runway closure; no more 0130 scheduled arrival times!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Middle East
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will BA be affected that much by EZY coming on Paris?
It's one a day and in the middle of the day:
Won't be of too much use to business travellers!
Might be good for leisure customers if the price is right.
Might also just grow the market?
It's one a day and in the middle of the day:
Won't be of too much use to business travellers!
Might be good for leisure customers if the price is right.
Might also just grow the market?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BRISTOL
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comedy 7 FR's ha ha, and just where the heck to they expect to park them? let alone where are they going to check them in?(like that rumour ) BRS needs to start shaking a leg on the terminal expansion very very soon judgeing by this year, and what an earth is going to happen on sat mornings when FCA will have 2 757s and 767 checking in, in the 2nd hall? in theory that should be (AT LEAST) 10 check-in desks! leaving 6 left for the other charters who check-in down there MYT/KM/XLA plus normal sat morning visitors! Gulp i smell a debacle in the making, I can only imagine that a snake system would be easiest option,some mornings you will have an EZY queue comeing past the FCA check-ins with the FCA queues going the opposite way! but all this brings us back to the same old BRS story, the terminal is shockingly if not dangerously(fire reasons) to small for the amount who use it, lets not forget BRS is set to handle over 6 million this year in a terminal originally built for 3 million i believe, time to get busy with the building me thinks! Surely its going to get to a point where new carriers will be put off as theres no where for them to check-in, take example AA, if they turned round and said hey lets try BRS-BOS, they're going to want a similar set up to CO, so where the hell is it going to go? Also how long till pax really start getting wound up with haveing no where to sit? what happens if a few large jets take bad tech delays at same time, or even worse if ATC went down and no aircraft could depart for hours? Its a nightmare waiting to happen. Rant over!
) BRS needs to start shaking a leg on the terminal expansion very very soon judgeing by this year, and what an earth is going to happen on sat mornings when FCA will have 2 757s and 767 checking in, in the 2nd hall? in theory that should be (AT LEAST) 10 check-in desks! leaving 6 left for the other charters who check-in down there MYT/KM/XLA plus normal sat morning visitors! Gulp i smell a debacle in the making, I can only imagine that a snake system would be easiest option,some mornings you will have an EZY queue comeing past the FCA check-ins with the FCA queues going the opposite way! but all this brings us back to the same old BRS story, the terminal is shockingly if not dangerously(fire reasons) to small for the amount who use it, lets not forget BRS is set to handle over 6 million this year in a terminal originally built for 3 million i believe, time to get busy with the building me thinks! Surely its going to get to a point where new carriers will be put off as theres no where for them to check-in, take example AA, if they turned round and said hey lets try BRS-BOS, they're going to want a similar set up to CO, so where the hell is it going to go? Also how long till pax really start getting wound up with haveing no where to sit? what happens if a few large jets take bad tech delays at same time, or even worse if ATC went down and no aircraft could depart for hours? Its a nightmare waiting to happen. Rant over!
Brunel to Concorde
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRS’s tight timescale for terminal and other infrastructure expansion seems to have already slipped by at least six months.
The draft Master Plan was published around a year ago and the timetable set out within the draft was for the final Plan to be published and submitted to government in early 2006, followed by detailed planning applications in spring 2006.
This has not happened and in the July Consultative Committee minutes it was stated that there had been a delay in submitting the final Plan because revisions to the text had taken longer than anticipated following the public consultation. However, the final Plan would now be published ‘towards the end of August 2006’. We are still waiting!
In the draft Plan the airport management conceded that ‘the terminal building is increasingly experiencing congestion and is already operating at or near its capacity at peak periods’. Yet they then allowed vital departure lounge space to be taken up by new retail outlets.
The draft goes on to admit that this crowding has ‘an adverse effect on passenger experience’ and ‘more fundamentally’ operational processing capacity constraints and safety limits on occupancy. This all strikes a chord with WATABENCH’s comments.
The intention is to almost double the terminal building by 2015. This will require full planning consent. The draft Plan is unequivocal when it states that the ‘key milestone in the delivery of the Master Plan is the delivery of the extension to the Terminal Building’.
The idea is to increase the terminal building size in stages. The airport calculates the existing terminal can continue to function until 2009 when passenger numbers ‘are forecast to exceed 6mppa’.
This carries the unarguable implication that without a terminal extension the airport will be in major difficulties when pax numbers break the 6 million barrier and that the first part of the terminal extension must be in place by then. Well, 5.6 million was passed in August this year (it was just under 5.2 million at the end of last year) which suggests 6 million will arrive sooner than 2009.
This makes the delay in publishing the final Plan and then cracking on with planning applications even more puzzling.
The anti-expansion lobby is well organised and contains experienced environmental groups. The delay in publishing the final Plan might really be due to the airport having informal talks with planners to try to establish what might reasonably be allowed and what might not.
There is no doubt that the anti lobby will pull every legal trick in the book to retard expansion (I hope some of the more militant ones don’t go beyond that), so a target of 2009 for the first part of the terminal building expansion to be in place (and as I said it might be needed before that) might be a tall order.
I do have a lot of time for the competence and expertise of the BRS management (certainly in strategic matters) and am prepared to accept that they know what they are doing, despite an apparent tighter timescale.
My standpoint is that of a customer and an interested member of the public.
The draft Master Plan was published around a year ago and the timetable set out within the draft was for the final Plan to be published and submitted to government in early 2006, followed by detailed planning applications in spring 2006.
This has not happened and in the July Consultative Committee minutes it was stated that there had been a delay in submitting the final Plan because revisions to the text had taken longer than anticipated following the public consultation. However, the final Plan would now be published ‘towards the end of August 2006’. We are still waiting!
In the draft Plan the airport management conceded that ‘the terminal building is increasingly experiencing congestion and is already operating at or near its capacity at peak periods’. Yet they then allowed vital departure lounge space to be taken up by new retail outlets.
The draft goes on to admit that this crowding has ‘an adverse effect on passenger experience’ and ‘more fundamentally’ operational processing capacity constraints and safety limits on occupancy. This all strikes a chord with WATABENCH’s comments.
The intention is to almost double the terminal building by 2015. This will require full planning consent. The draft Plan is unequivocal when it states that the ‘key milestone in the delivery of the Master Plan is the delivery of the extension to the Terminal Building’.
The idea is to increase the terminal building size in stages. The airport calculates the existing terminal can continue to function until 2009 when passenger numbers ‘are forecast to exceed 6mppa’.
This carries the unarguable implication that without a terminal extension the airport will be in major difficulties when pax numbers break the 6 million barrier and that the first part of the terminal extension must be in place by then. Well, 5.6 million was passed in August this year (it was just under 5.2 million at the end of last year) which suggests 6 million will arrive sooner than 2009.
This makes the delay in publishing the final Plan and then cracking on with planning applications even more puzzling.
The anti-expansion lobby is well organised and contains experienced environmental groups. The delay in publishing the final Plan might really be due to the airport having informal talks with planners to try to establish what might reasonably be allowed and what might not.
There is no doubt that the anti lobby will pull every legal trick in the book to retard expansion (I hope some of the more militant ones don’t go beyond that), so a target of 2009 for the first part of the terminal building expansion to be in place (and as I said it might be needed before that) might be a tall order.
I do have a lot of time for the competence and expertise of the BRS management (certainly in strategic matters) and am prepared to accept that they know what they are doing, despite an apparent tighter timescale.
My standpoint is that of a customer and an interested member of the public.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Near sheep!
Posts: 915
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watabench I think you have hit a very valid point on the hairy end!
BRI management really do need to wake up and realise the current facilities wont cope over the next year or so! Neither will half the staff that are lacking the attitude required to make it work!
Putting 'customer service' staff in to 'un snake' an over capacitated greenhouse will never solve the issue, and on the other end of the spectrum, not being a***D to repair a u/s ambi lift is also the other kind of issue to be flushed out!
The place is going to reach saturation soon!
Saying that the terminal can cope with X amount a year, is irrelevant when most of them X's are crammed through between 0700 0900!! Madness!!
The place is a joke!
BRI management really do need to wake up and realise the current facilities wont cope over the next year or so! Neither will half the staff that are lacking the attitude required to make it work!
Putting 'customer service' staff in to 'un snake' an over capacitated greenhouse will never solve the issue, and on the other end of the spectrum, not being a***D to repair a u/s ambi lift is also the other kind of issue to be flushed out!
The place is going to reach saturation soon!
Saying that the terminal can cope with X amount a year, is irrelevant when most of them X's are crammed through between 0700 0900!! Madness!!
The place is a joke!
