BRISTOL - 4
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pandy, from what I've made out of it, IMO it will probably operate in a similar manner to ARN this year. Op for maybe 3/4 months at 2 or 3 weekly frequency with 737s.
Someone feel free to correct me though
Someone feel free to correct me though
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
a bristolian,
Yes, well done - yet again...........
I always appreciate your snippets...........anything else in the offing you can give us a clue about?
birdscarer,
I noticed that elsewhere in this message board you have taken to task a poster who does seem to like to focus on BRS’s perceived reputation as an airport that has to divert many inbound flights because of weather.
As is often the case in many fields, perception and reality are not the same.
I have looked at CAA stats for 2006 and list below the ‘top’ UK ten airports (leaving aside the London ones) for diversions of inbound aircraft to other airports:
BRS 83, SOU 70, BHX 57, LBA 53, CWL 44, LPL 39, BFS 36, PLH, NQY and MAN 39.
Although BRS is at the top of this ‘league’, when taking into account numbers of landings, it is not as bad as some other airports that are rarely mentioned in the context of diversions; of course, BRS does have Cat III capability on its westerly runway so that has undoubtedly helped to reduce diversions to a considerable degree.
BRS’s 83 diversions went respectively to BHX (27), EXT (25), CWL (24), LGW (2), LPL (2), EMA (2) and MAN (1).
The 2005 figures for BRS are slightly better with 67 diversions and this year so far shows a broadly similar pattern, if the January figures are ignored when so many flights went elsewhere because of the runway problems.
In 2006 BRS had 49 flights diverted to it from other airports, viz CWL (25), NQY (11), SOU (7), BHD (1), BHX (1), BOH (1), EXT (1), LHR (1) and ISC (1).
Interestingly, BRS and CWL (in whose thread you highlighted the matter) sent almost the same number of diversions to each other in 2006.
I realise that not all diversions are weather-related but probably the majority are.
Yes, well done - yet again...........
I always appreciate your snippets...........anything else in the offing you can give us a clue about?
birdscarer,
I noticed that elsewhere in this message board you have taken to task a poster who does seem to like to focus on BRS’s perceived reputation as an airport that has to divert many inbound flights because of weather.
As is often the case in many fields, perception and reality are not the same.
I have looked at CAA stats for 2006 and list below the ‘top’ UK ten airports (leaving aside the London ones) for diversions of inbound aircraft to other airports:
BRS 83, SOU 70, BHX 57, LBA 53, CWL 44, LPL 39, BFS 36, PLH, NQY and MAN 39.
Although BRS is at the top of this ‘league’, when taking into account numbers of landings, it is not as bad as some other airports that are rarely mentioned in the context of diversions; of course, BRS does have Cat III capability on its westerly runway so that has undoubtedly helped to reduce diversions to a considerable degree.
BRS’s 83 diversions went respectively to BHX (27), EXT (25), CWL (24), LGW (2), LPL (2), EMA (2) and MAN (1).
The 2005 figures for BRS are slightly better with 67 diversions and this year so far shows a broadly similar pattern, if the January figures are ignored when so many flights went elsewhere because of the runway problems.
In 2006 BRS had 49 flights diverted to it from other airports, viz CWL (25), NQY (11), SOU (7), BHD (1), BHX (1), BOH (1), EXT (1), LHR (1) and ISC (1).
Interestingly, BRS and CWL (in whose thread you highlighted the matter) sent almost the same number of diversions to each other in 2006.
I realise that not all diversions are weather-related but probably the majority are.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks MV - interesting reading. The majority of divvys to/from BRS would be W/X related unlike somwhere such as EXT which has a major maintanence base for tech a/c. This year (as you say excluding the Jan incident) has seemed to have been a good year thus far with only a handful of inbounds being unable to land. CWL is really only a few miles as the crow flies from BRS and is pretty much on the coast, so what we suffer in fog (albeit with the aid of CatIII) they must suffer in sea fret-things should be pretty even in reality. I just liked the opportunity to blast the guys attitude problem. 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bah
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, very interesting reading MV.
The thought crossed my mind, what are divvys as a proportion of movements.
Using the CAA movements stats for 2006
PLH - Moves 4661 Divvys 29 = 0.636%; NQY- 9983 / 29 / 0.29%; SOU - 46314 / 70 / 0.151%; LBA 37251 / 53 / 0.14%; BRS 65825 / 83 / 0.126%
What surprises me is the minute percentage chance of a divvy to the Pax. Words like 'bus, more chance and run over' come to mind.
The thought crossed my mind, what are divvys as a proportion of movements.
Using the CAA movements stats for 2006
PLH - Moves 4661 Divvys 29 = 0.636%; NQY- 9983 / 29 / 0.29%; SOU - 46314 / 70 / 0.151%; LBA 37251 / 53 / 0.14%; BRS 65825 / 83 / 0.126%
What surprises me is the minute percentage chance of a divvy to the Pax. Words like 'bus, more chance and run over' come to mind.
Last edited by Pandy; 12th Oct 2007 at 10:27.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is so boring now......
Did they slip down and take samples from Junction 20 of the M5? Visit Avonmouth Docks? After all, the 'sludge' used in shipping is so far down the distillation chart it has to be heated to be pumped on board! 
They have also selected a tiny country where most people are still living in mud huts! Just a headline grabber. Try comparing it to somewhere like Joburg alone and that would be dismissed!
BBC News: -
Bristol International Airport produces the same amount of CO2 from flying each year as the African nation of Malawi, an anti-poverty group said. The World Development Movement claimed the overall UK-wide growth in aviation was undermining efforts to control climate change.
A spokesman for the airport said: "Passenger numbers are up, but aircraft numbers have gone down.
"The industry is forecast to grow, but also to become greener and cleaner."
The airport is planning to expand, with passenger numbers expected to rise from nearly six million this year, to nine million by 2015.
It wants to double the size of its terminal, allow parking for 5,000 cars and have 17 flights an hour.
The World Development Movement also called for a target of an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 and 40% by 2020.
Bristol International Airport produces the same amount of CO2 from flying each year as the African nation of Malawi, an anti-poverty group said. The World Development Movement claimed the overall UK-wide growth in aviation was undermining efforts to control climate change.
A spokesman for the airport said: "Passenger numbers are up, but aircraft numbers have gone down.
"The industry is forecast to grow, but also to become greener and cleaner."
The airport is planning to expand, with passenger numbers expected to rise from nearly six million this year, to nine million by 2015.
It wants to double the size of its terminal, allow parking for 5,000 cars and have 17 flights an hour.
The World Development Movement also called for a target of an 80% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 and 40% by 2020.
They have also selected a tiny country where most people are still living in mud huts! Just a headline grabber. Try comparing it to somewhere like Joburg alone and that would be dismissed!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BRISTOL
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Report from the BBC website on the Air France incident........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7040968.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7040968.stm
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Devon
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> In 2006 BRS had 49 flights diverted to it from other airports,
> viz CWL (25), NQY (11), SOU (7), BHD (1), BHX (1),
> BOH (1), EXT (1), LHR (1) and ISC (1).
>
Blimey, I would be pretty p!ssed off if I had been expecting to touch down on the Isles of Scilly then got diverted all the way up to Bristol?!
Exeter seems to fare particularly well for lack of diversions to other airports, i.e. absent from the "top ten" completely??
> viz CWL (25), NQY (11), SOU (7), BHD (1), BHX (1),
> BOH (1), EXT (1), LHR (1) and ISC (1).
>
Blimey, I would be pretty p!ssed off if I had been expecting to touch down on the Isles of Scilly then got diverted all the way up to Bristol?!
Exeter seems to fare particularly well for lack of diversions to other airports, i.e. absent from the "top ten" completely??
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
Expansion plans delayed/shelved?
BBC Bristol Points West lunchtime news reports that Bristol Airport 'has done a U-turn' with regard to its expansion plans.
The report then went on to say any planning application will now be delayed until next summer whilst a 'robust look' is taken at the environmental ramifications.
This means any planning application will now be at least two and a half years behind the original publicly-stated timescale.
One wonders whether off-the-record planning discussions together with legal advice has suggested to the airport that its grand plans would be unlikely to succeed.
Perhaps we shall now see a scaling-back of what is in the master plan.
The report then went on to say any planning application will now be delayed until next summer whilst a 'robust look' is taken at the environmental ramifications.
This means any planning application will now be at least two and a half years behind the original publicly-stated timescale.
One wonders whether off-the-record planning discussions together with legal advice has suggested to the airport that its grand plans would be unlikely to succeed.
Perhaps we shall now see a scaling-back of what is in the master plan.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is very unfortunate. The plans were never that grand in comparasion to other airports, more a functional expansion based upon needs. The surface access problem is beyond their control and down to poor local government. The current terminal will become even more crowded when Ryanair starts and due to shortsightedness on behalf of the local authority we will have our own mini Heathrow!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not good at all, but certainly not unexpected, despite the fact that (as bristolflyer states) the revised master plan is not as significant a change as some would have wanted and to me at least always seemed to be very sympathetic to environmental and other concerns.
It now seems that the airport will now seek to expand as far as possible within the confines of current planning rules to enable us to get up to the projected 9 million pax per year with no expansion and then re submit a planning application, in which they can state that granting the expansion will not involve any rise in passenger or movement numbers. Unfortunately in the meantime this will involve a lot more work for my team in the terminal and probably a drop in the quality of the passengers experience. We want to try to achieve as much of this growth as possible outside of our operational peaks, but this will never be achieved while we are taking more based aircraft (FR) It is naïve however to think that the airport will stop taking on any new routes that become available because of terminal space. Lack of parking stands will prove a problem, but those are being added to and reassessed to provide more space all the time (e.g. Night parking the KLM on 16) so expect to see more of that.
It now seems that the airport will now seek to expand as far as possible within the confines of current planning rules to enable us to get up to the projected 9 million pax per year with no expansion and then re submit a planning application, in which they can state that granting the expansion will not involve any rise in passenger or movement numbers. Unfortunately in the meantime this will involve a lot more work for my team in the terminal and probably a drop in the quality of the passengers experience. We want to try to achieve as much of this growth as possible outside of our operational peaks, but this will never be achieved while we are taking more based aircraft (FR) It is naïve however to think that the airport will stop taking on any new routes that become available because of terminal space. Lack of parking stands will prove a problem, but those are being added to and reassessed to provide more space all the time (e.g. Night parking the KLM on 16) so expect to see more of that.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Weston-Super-Mare
Age: 36
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all im bothered about is gates.....we need more of them! 8 gates are not enough and boarding gets delayed if otherflights are boarding......that and everyone needs more staff!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The major problem from a planning perspective is the lack of road/rail access. The airport is at the mercy of the bureaucratic mess that is the South Bristol Ring Road. This is a route that is probably 15 years away. In addition there is the Barrow Gurney problem. There was money obtained two years ago to complete a bypass around the village but this was shelved. I would imagine the planners will try to squeeze money out of Macquaire to pay for some or all of the road in return for planning at the airport. The airport itself is one of the most efficent in the UK (as noted by Michael O'Leary). The geographical footprint is very small given the size of operations.
If you watch the interview given by Paul Kehoe on BBC Points West on the 10th July 2007 he stated "We need to address surface access issues before we submit our planning application".
If you watch the interview given by Paul Kehoe on BBC Points West on the 10th July 2007 he stated "We need to address surface access issues before we submit our planning application".
Last edited by bristolflyer; 19th Oct 2007 at 21:20.