BRISTOL - 4
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: SOUTH WEST
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Filton was Bristol City Councils choice in the early to mid 50's to replace Whitchurch, though when Bristol Aeroplane Company were approached they refused on the grounds that you could not have a manufacturing and testing airfield operating in conjunction with a commercial airport, so that plan was scuppered.
Now had they gone another 12 miles to Weston super Mare airport with it's then miles of empty flat land around it and railway on the perimeter and M5 coming along later, who knows what we could have now in the southwest. Only one fly in the ointment with this idea- it was owned by the Bristol Aeroplane Company again and used for maintenance.
BTW just a point of interest, did you know that in 1936 W-S-M Airport was the busiest airport in the world this info supplied by a friend of mine and confirmed via internet
Now had they gone another 12 miles to Weston super Mare airport with it's then miles of empty flat land around it and railway on the perimeter and M5 coming along later, who knows what we could have now in the southwest. Only one fly in the ointment with this idea- it was owned by the Bristol Aeroplane Company again and used for maintenance.
BTW just a point of interest, did you know that in 1936 W-S-M Airport was the busiest airport in the world this info supplied by a friend of mine and confirmed via internet
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
Thank you for that cj. I knew that Weston Airport was very busy at one point in the 1930s, not least with the ferry flights to Cardiff, but I hadn't realised it was that busy.
I went to school at Weston in the 1950s and always meant to go up on the 7s 6d (37.5p) pleasure flights from there then but I never did.
So, a Severnside airport (well, almost) might have appeared several decades before the various schemes that have been put forward for such a facility over the past quarter of a century. The land on either side to the east and west is pretty flat so a long runway should not have been a problem. It would certainly have been a better site than Lulsgate but if Filton had been available that was the obvious choice in my view.
Weston Airport, like parts of Filton airfield, now seems to be the scene of a huge new housing development, although I believe that the large helicopter museum on the site is still going strong.
I went to school at Weston in the 1950s and always meant to go up on the 7s 6d (37.5p) pleasure flights from there then but I never did.
So, a Severnside airport (well, almost) might have appeared several decades before the various schemes that have been put forward for such a facility over the past quarter of a century. The land on either side to the east and west is pretty flat so a long runway should not have been a problem. It would certainly have been a better site than Lulsgate but if Filton had been available that was the obvious choice in my view.
Weston Airport, like parts of Filton airfield, now seems to be the scene of a huge new housing development, although I believe that the large helicopter museum on the site is still going strong.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Up where the air is clear... ish
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hehe. I landed at Weston in a light aircraft a fair old while back; I live very close to it now (lucky me) and the old runway is now a dual carriageway under construction.
MV, I remember the Selwyn Gummer rejection but as I wasn't flying then it didn't seem to be that big a deal. As you say, low cost and all the volume it brings wasn't even contemplated. I still think (with glorious hindsight, of course) that not developing Filton was a bad decision. Belfast with its massive (?) catchment area has two airports, both largely serving different or slightly overlapping customers; Lulsgate and Filton could have complimented each other, perhaps even raising the commercial and industrial viability of the city as a whole had the government at the time had some balls.
I guarantee you there isn't a single pilot operating out of BRS with its ski-jump runway who doesn't fly over Filton and sigh. We all still have a soft-spot for BRS however 'cos, as you say, it's better than nothing and has certain undeniable idiosyncrasies... some of which are apparently worth investing in!
MV, I remember the Selwyn Gummer rejection but as I wasn't flying then it didn't seem to be that big a deal. As you say, low cost and all the volume it brings wasn't even contemplated. I still think (with glorious hindsight, of course) that not developing Filton was a bad decision. Belfast with its massive (?) catchment area has two airports, both largely serving different or slightly overlapping customers; Lulsgate and Filton could have complimented each other, perhaps even raising the commercial and industrial viability of the city as a whole had the government at the time had some balls.
I guarantee you there isn't a single pilot operating out of BRS with its ski-jump runway who doesn't fly over Filton and sigh. We all still have a soft-spot for BRS however 'cos, as you say, it's better than nothing and has certain undeniable idiosyncrasies... some of which are apparently worth investing in!
Last edited by JaffaCake; 16th Apr 2014 at 22:32.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tyne and Wear
Age: 35
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I passed through Bristol Airport for the first time last weekend, it was nice to see that the development work was progressing on a new pier, I have to ask will the new pier have seats available in the departure gates? As it was a slight shock to the system while waiting in the gate and having to stand for so long especially since they got us into the gate area before the plane had landed from its previous flight.
The expansion I imagine can't come quick enough as the airport handles far more passengers than my local (Newcastle) but the space seemed about half the size of the terminal in Newcastle. It was pretty surreal being driven through the suburbs of Bristol while on the flyer bus to the train station, but I thought added to the quaintness of the West Country.
The expansion I imagine can't come quick enough as the airport handles far more passengers than my local (Newcastle) but the space seemed about half the size of the terminal in Newcastle. It was pretty surreal being driven through the suburbs of Bristol while on the flyer bus to the train station, but I thought added to the quaintness of the West Country.
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
I'm glad you enjoyed your visit and the new central pier will have seats in its four new pre-boarding zones. The pier currently under construction is illustrated in a video at the below link nearly half way down the right-hand-side of the page that also shows the full extent of the proposed expansion plans of which the pier being built now is the latest phase.
Planning and development ? Bristol Airport
You may well have used the western walkway which is only a few years old but was built under general permitted development not requiring full planning consent, but this meant it could not be used to enhance the floor area of the terminal with such things as seating, apart from a minimal number to cater for people with impaired mobility. Planning consents have since been obtained for the major expansion which means that the 400-metre long western walkway could be upgraded but thus far the airport has chosen not to.
The airport is on a small site as some of the previous posts in recent days have mentioned. The new terminal opened in 2000 was built into the side of a hill which means that incoming passengers enter at ground level from the apron, descend the stairs and leave the terminal still at ground level.
JaffaCake talks of the airport's idiosyncracies and he's undeniably correct. In some ways it's entirely appropriate because Bristol is an idiosyncratic city. The Sunday Times recently decided it's the best city in the UK to live (this sort of thing will always be subjective) and it's certainly one of the country's most economically successful cities. PM Cameron last year said it was the second richest UK city after London but I don't know how he measured that - presumably by GVA or GDP per capita. Yet it sits cheek by jowl alongside some of the most deprived areas in the country with its inner city and huge, sprawling council estates on its edges.
Your Flyer journey would have taken you through the down market suburb of Bedminster (but even that has its jazzy parts) to Bristol's main railway station which is set well away from the central areas - another idiosyncracy.
Bristol Airport like the city whose name it bears can be both infuriating and endearing, often at the same time, which is why some people love both.
Planning and development ? Bristol Airport
You may well have used the western walkway which is only a few years old but was built under general permitted development not requiring full planning consent, but this meant it could not be used to enhance the floor area of the terminal with such things as seating, apart from a minimal number to cater for people with impaired mobility. Planning consents have since been obtained for the major expansion which means that the 400-metre long western walkway could be upgraded but thus far the airport has chosen not to.
The airport is on a small site as some of the previous posts in recent days have mentioned. The new terminal opened in 2000 was built into the side of a hill which means that incoming passengers enter at ground level from the apron, descend the stairs and leave the terminal still at ground level.
JaffaCake talks of the airport's idiosyncracies and he's undeniably correct. In some ways it's entirely appropriate because Bristol is an idiosyncratic city. The Sunday Times recently decided it's the best city in the UK to live (this sort of thing will always be subjective) and it's certainly one of the country's most economically successful cities. PM Cameron last year said it was the second richest UK city after London but I don't know how he measured that - presumably by GVA or GDP per capita. Yet it sits cheek by jowl alongside some of the most deprived areas in the country with its inner city and huge, sprawling council estates on its edges.
Your Flyer journey would have taken you through the down market suburb of Bedminster (but even that has its jazzy parts) to Bristol's main railway station which is set well away from the central areas - another idiosyncracy.
Bristol Airport like the city whose name it bears can be both infuriating and endearing, often at the same time, which is why some people love both.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Nether Region
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So BRS will get it's first jetbridge (or two in that central pier?) by the looks of that video. Moving up in the world eh..
Last edited by bravoromeosierra; 19th Apr 2014 at 16:24.
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
It won't be added initially it seems. Last year the airport included this paragraph in its press release regarding the new walkway/pier.
The design of the new facility takes into account the latest generation of twin-engine, wide-body jets, such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350, with provision made for the addition of an airbridge for passengers boarding potential long-haul flights in future.
Next phase of development begins at Bristol Airport ? Bristol Airport
On another topic, it's now been confirmed in the local press that the new hangar being built on the south side is to accommodate the £40 million Gulfstream of vacuum cleaner multi billionaire Sir James Dyson.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Jet-set...ail/story.html
The design of the new facility takes into account the latest generation of twin-engine, wide-body jets, such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350, with provision made for the addition of an airbridge for passengers boarding potential long-haul flights in future.
Next phase of development begins at Bristol Airport ? Bristol Airport
On another topic, it's now been confirmed in the local press that the new hangar being built on the south side is to accommodate the £40 million Gulfstream of vacuum cleaner multi billionaire Sir James Dyson.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Jet-set...ail/story.html
Last edited by MerchantVenturer; 19th Apr 2014 at 19:41. Reason: hangar link
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: bristol
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Large hanger southside
The Evening Post is reporting that the large hangar under construction southside is for the exclusive use of Mr James Dyson,he of vacuum cleaner fame.He has recently taken possession of a £40 million Gulfstream 650.The £2 million hangar will house the Gulfstream,helicopter and other executive jets.There will be a full time staff of fifteen to maintain the aircraft.
With reference to M.V and others mention of Weston airport.When the Bristol Brabazon was on the drawing board there was a proposal for the runway to be lengthened and construction to take place at the airport.However a survey revealed the subsoil to be unsuitable for development.In its it time it did play host to a production line for Bristol Freighters.Bristol Britannias flew in for fitting out and on one occasion a Handley page Victor flew in for work,but that did need the telegraph poles on Oldmixon Rd railway bridge being taken down.Better stop this reminiscencing or I'll get shunted off to the spotter thread.
OOPs sorry M.V by the time I composed this Piece you already posted.
With reference to M.V and others mention of Weston airport.When the Bristol Brabazon was on the drawing board there was a proposal for the runway to be lengthened and construction to take place at the airport.However a survey revealed the subsoil to be unsuitable for development.In its it time it did play host to a production line for Bristol Freighters.Bristol Britannias flew in for fitting out and on one occasion a Handley page Victor flew in for work,but that did need the telegraph poles on Oldmixon Rd railway bridge being taken down.Better stop this reminiscencing or I'll get shunted off to the spotter thread.
OOPs sorry M.V by the time I composed this Piece you already posted.
Last edited by anoraknophobia; 19th Apr 2014 at 20:55. Reason: Information already posted
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bah
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long Haul / Airbridges ??
The design of the new facility takes into account the latest generation of twin-engine, wide-body jets, such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350, with provision made for the addition of an airbridge for passengers boarding potential long-haul flights in future.
I thought that the runway length issue was (as good as) unsolvable and that the master plan envisaged (all those years ago) that the 787/350 would have lesser runway gobbling characteristic so limited long haul would be solved by better aircraft runway performance
Haven't got a clue what the runway performance of the A350 is but thought the B787 missed its target by quite a bit?
So longhaul from Brissel, what with ? A narrow body A321neo / B757? But a widebody, could a B787 or a A350 actually make anywhere meaningful from BRS off the current runway?
Not against air bridges far from it, just seemed a bit of a weird explanation.
Also isn't there a problem with wings tips for WB overhanging some lane west of the terminal?
I thought that the runway length issue was (as good as) unsolvable and that the master plan envisaged (all those years ago) that the 787/350 would have lesser runway gobbling characteristic so limited long haul would be solved by better aircraft runway performance
Haven't got a clue what the runway performance of the A350 is but thought the B787 missed its target by quite a bit?
So longhaul from Brissel, what with ? A narrow body A321neo / B757? But a widebody, could a B787 or a A350 actually make anywhere meaningful from BRS off the current runway?
Not against air bridges far from it, just seemed a bit of a weird explanation.
Also isn't there a problem with wings tips for WB overhanging some lane west of the terminal?
Last edited by Pandy; 20th Apr 2014 at 15:01. Reason: typo
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Nether Region
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The road you mention is Winters Lane, it wraps around the airfield at the 09 end. I seem to recall there being some issue with wingspan clearance but an A330 has done it (see below), so apparently so could a 787 (same wingspan) but the A350 is just under 5m wider.
EI-EWR - Aer Lingus Airbus A330-200 at Bristol - Lulsgate | Photo ID 43398 | Airplane-Pictures.net
EI-EWR - Aer Lingus Airbus A330-200 at Bristol - Lulsgate | Photo ID 43398 | Airplane-Pictures.net
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
Long haul
Just a brief recap of the situation, Pandy, but I have no technical knowledge of aircraft performance so I will steer clear of that one other than to report in general terms what has been put into the public domain by the airport and by one airline.
When the airport master plan was published around ten years ago it stated that Boeing had told the airport management that their 787 would be able to operate a distance in excess of 5,000 nautical miles from the existing runway.
The master plan recognised a potential problem with the full length parallel taxiway as the wings of anything larger than a B 767 would overhang the boundary fence immediately beyond which is a public road. It was envisaged the problem could be overcome in the short term by using turning circles and backtracking the runway with a possible relocation of the road (Winters Lane) in the future; that might not be easily achieved as it would mean intruding onto part of a golf course.
In 2010 Thomson MD Chris Browne announced that BRS would be one of the airports from which the 787 would operate.
Thomson will use 787 to offer new destinations - www.travelweekly.co.uk
At the beginning of 2013 the airport applied to the local authority for a non-material amendment to its outline planning consents to enable, inter alia, the gate lounge within the central walkway now currently under construction to be widened slightly. The specific reason given was that the Boeing 787 was likely to be configured to hold more passengers than was contemplated when the original plans were submitted (from 260 passengers to between 290 and 310 passengers).
Last year Thomson announced that their weekly summer services to Sanford and Cancun would not operate in summer 2014. I'm not aware of any definitive reason being given but the former First Choice 258-seat Boeing 767s that operated the routes will not be available after mid summer this year, but whether that is the reason or whether commercial factors played a part may be something that is sensitive to the airline.
Various rumours come and go. One is that the wing overhang problem has been overcome. I have no way of verifying this as I have no technical expertise.
It seems that the airport still expects 787 operations at some point - I read that the A 350 may not be viable but again I don't know.
If the 787 and 350 will not be able to use the ski jump runway, as one pilot in this thread recently described it, the potential loss of a wide-bodied Middle East scheduled route in the future is more damaging in my view to the airport and to the local economy than any inability to operate some long haul holiday charter flights.
There are alternatives though, one being a Turkish service using narrow-bodied aircraft to its hub at Istanbul.
When the airport master plan was published around ten years ago it stated that Boeing had told the airport management that their 787 would be able to operate a distance in excess of 5,000 nautical miles from the existing runway.
The master plan recognised a potential problem with the full length parallel taxiway as the wings of anything larger than a B 767 would overhang the boundary fence immediately beyond which is a public road. It was envisaged the problem could be overcome in the short term by using turning circles and backtracking the runway with a possible relocation of the road (Winters Lane) in the future; that might not be easily achieved as it would mean intruding onto part of a golf course.
In 2010 Thomson MD Chris Browne announced that BRS would be one of the airports from which the 787 would operate.
Thomson will use 787 to offer new destinations - www.travelweekly.co.uk
At the beginning of 2013 the airport applied to the local authority for a non-material amendment to its outline planning consents to enable, inter alia, the gate lounge within the central walkway now currently under construction to be widened slightly. The specific reason given was that the Boeing 787 was likely to be configured to hold more passengers than was contemplated when the original plans were submitted (from 260 passengers to between 290 and 310 passengers).
Last year Thomson announced that their weekly summer services to Sanford and Cancun would not operate in summer 2014. I'm not aware of any definitive reason being given but the former First Choice 258-seat Boeing 767s that operated the routes will not be available after mid summer this year, but whether that is the reason or whether commercial factors played a part may be something that is sensitive to the airline.
Various rumours come and go. One is that the wing overhang problem has been overcome. I have no way of verifying this as I have no technical expertise.
It seems that the airport still expects 787 operations at some point - I read that the A 350 may not be viable but again I don't know.
If the 787 and 350 will not be able to use the ski jump runway, as one pilot in this thread recently described it, the potential loss of a wide-bodied Middle East scheduled route in the future is more damaging in my view to the airport and to the local economy than any inability to operate some long haul holiday charter flights.
There are alternatives though, one being a Turkish service using narrow-bodied aircraft to its hub at Istanbul.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bah
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long Haul
Thanks MV
Seems a bit strange - increase the gate size (or at least get planning for it) and then state
with provision made for the addition of an airbridge for passengers boarding potential long-haul flights in future.
Maybe it means that a B787 can get off the runway with a full load, otherwise why increase the gate size?
The availability of scheduled longhaul from any airport south of BHX and west of LHR is almost non existent, BRS is the only airport that might make a go of it (with reasonable PAX volumes) & give millions the choice of avoiding LHR.
IF LHR closes & moves to Boris Island then LH from BRS becomes even more important as it would be a serious trek otherwise
Seems a bit strange - increase the gate size (or at least get planning for it) and then state
with provision made for the addition of an airbridge for passengers boarding potential long-haul flights in future.
Maybe it means that a B787 can get off the runway with a full load, otherwise why increase the gate size?
The availability of scheduled longhaul from any airport south of BHX and west of LHR is almost non existent, BRS is the only airport that might make a go of it (with reasonable PAX volumes) & give millions the choice of avoiding LHR.
IF LHR closes & moves to Boris Island then LH from BRS becomes even more important as it would be a serious trek otherwise
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect if Boris Island ever gets built BA would suddenly see the attraction of connecting flights to the regions with all those endless slot spaces and BRS would probably have numerous daily connections. I understood that the 787 was now off the board as it exceeded or is at the very edge of the airport's limits. The 767 just made it, but it was a bit hit and miss! As much as I would love to see a DXB connection, the regional ones depend a lot on cargo to make the routes profitable. Something that is not possible logistically or operationally at BRS.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Bristol
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All that would happen if Boris Island was built and LHR was closed is that BRS would gain another feeder route (BA). I can't envisage any new LH starting. Maybe if we had another 1000ft of runway to play with, but I just don't think the economics stack up for EY/EK/QR (even with the 787, maybe things will be different with the A350?) due to performance constraints.
RE the cancellation of the TOM long haul services, I thought it all happened after the report that was issued regarding the hard landing on 09, which lead to some serious airframe damage a couple of years ago? Basically the runway is seen as marginal for operating such services due to its undulating surface and length.
RE the cancellation of the TOM long haul services, I thought it all happened after the report that was issued regarding the hard landing on 09, which lead to some serious airframe damage a couple of years ago? Basically the runway is seen as marginal for operating such services due to its undulating surface and length.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Bah
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long Haul
I can't envisage any new LH starting. Maybe if we had another 1000ft of runway to play with,
That's (sort of) my point - there's not a feasible airport for LH, with a hope of any reasonable PAX nos, west of LHR and south of BHX. CWL / BOH / EXT might have the runway but not a lot else.
My back of a fag packet calculation is maybe south west region 5.5m, southern wales ?1.2m and other fringe areas (nearer to BRS than anywhere else) say 1m, total 7.7m potential LH PAX and what do they do - all go to LHR and guess what they need another runway (or Boris Island) to handle it all.
Maybe the runway issue length should be revisited NIMBYs and all!
That's (sort of) my point - there's not a feasible airport for LH, with a hope of any reasonable PAX nos, west of LHR and south of BHX. CWL / BOH / EXT might have the runway but not a lot else.
My back of a fag packet calculation is maybe south west region 5.5m, southern wales ?1.2m and other fringe areas (nearer to BRS than anywhere else) say 1m, total 7.7m potential LH PAX and what do they do - all go to LHR and guess what they need another runway (or Boris Island) to handle it all.
Maybe the runway issue length should be revisited NIMBYs and all!
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
Lon haul
The hard landing of the TOM Boeing 767 occurred in October 2010 and the AAIB report into that incident that commented on the high number of such landings on 09 with that type of aircraft was published in 2012. If TOM had decided to stop using this aircraft at BRS as a result of the AAIB report would they not have done so at least from 2013, or even the year after the incident (2011)? So far as I'm aware the occasional B 767 still operates winter cruise flights to the West Indies.
There should be some pointer later this week to the way Thomson is thinking about long haul from the region, meaning West Country/South Wales, when its summer 2015 programme is due to be published. It might be a straight toss up between BRS and CWL or Thomson might decide that other airports such as LGW and BHX can meet the demand from the Severnside area as well as from further west in both Wales and England. That's certainly the case this summer.
I don't agree entirely that BRS is the only viable option for long haul from Severnside, at least for holiday charter flights. CWL has shown itself in the past to be capable of generating high loads to Florida and to the Caribbean. It was presumably the respective yields that saw TOM preferring BRS to CWL for the summer transatlantic charters a few years ago, when CWL had been the main Severnside airport for this type of traffic for many years before that with a number of carriers and holiday companies.
CWL has also seen more Caribbean cruise flights in recent winters. That does seem an oddity considering that BRS has a large reservoir of the type of punter that one normally associates with such holidays but it is a fact.
So far as wide-bodied scheduled long haul to the Middle East is concerned the cargo issue is certainly a pertinent one, assuming the 787/350 could use the runway.
If one of the MEB3 decided on CWL it might be a leap of faith to a degree because such a service would undoubtedly need a significant degree of support from outside Wales - ie from England - and West Country travellers (the obvious main source of potential support) already have the choice of BHX and particularly LHR, and the majority have looked for many years and continue to look no further than the M 4 eastwards for their long haul. There would also be the likelihood of diluting BHX to some degree if EK was the airline involved at either BRS or CWL.
If BRS was the choice it would almost certainly need less support from Wales than the other way around as its core catchment is larger and generally wealthier but, as is the case with the current network as a whole, around 50% of passenger numbers begin or end their journey beyond the Greater Bristol area.
The clincher might be APD being devolved to the Wales Government and being reduced to a zero rate, which would then make CWL look far more attractive for flights such as those to the Midddle East if England remained saddled with the high rates imposed by the Westminster Government.
I remain convinced that a Turkish Airlines link via Istanbul with smaller aircraft is BRS's best bet for a way into the major economies of the Far East.
Every time we discuss BRS's future we come back to the poor decision to locate the airport on Broadfield Down all those years ago. Had Filton been chosen (and I accept from what we were told here a few days ago that the BAC didn't want an airport on their airfield in 1957) none of these ifs and buts would enter the equation now, although South Gloucestershire nimbys would be replacing North Somerset nimbys.
There should be some pointer later this week to the way Thomson is thinking about long haul from the region, meaning West Country/South Wales, when its summer 2015 programme is due to be published. It might be a straight toss up between BRS and CWL or Thomson might decide that other airports such as LGW and BHX can meet the demand from the Severnside area as well as from further west in both Wales and England. That's certainly the case this summer.
I don't agree entirely that BRS is the only viable option for long haul from Severnside, at least for holiday charter flights. CWL has shown itself in the past to be capable of generating high loads to Florida and to the Caribbean. It was presumably the respective yields that saw TOM preferring BRS to CWL for the summer transatlantic charters a few years ago, when CWL had been the main Severnside airport for this type of traffic for many years before that with a number of carriers and holiday companies.
CWL has also seen more Caribbean cruise flights in recent winters. That does seem an oddity considering that BRS has a large reservoir of the type of punter that one normally associates with such holidays but it is a fact.
So far as wide-bodied scheduled long haul to the Middle East is concerned the cargo issue is certainly a pertinent one, assuming the 787/350 could use the runway.
If one of the MEB3 decided on CWL it might be a leap of faith to a degree because such a service would undoubtedly need a significant degree of support from outside Wales - ie from England - and West Country travellers (the obvious main source of potential support) already have the choice of BHX and particularly LHR, and the majority have looked for many years and continue to look no further than the M 4 eastwards for their long haul. There would also be the likelihood of diluting BHX to some degree if EK was the airline involved at either BRS or CWL.
If BRS was the choice it would almost certainly need less support from Wales than the other way around as its core catchment is larger and generally wealthier but, as is the case with the current network as a whole, around 50% of passenger numbers begin or end their journey beyond the Greater Bristol area.
The clincher might be APD being devolved to the Wales Government and being reduced to a zero rate, which would then make CWL look far more attractive for flights such as those to the Midddle East if England remained saddled with the high rates imposed by the Westminster Government.
I remain convinced that a Turkish Airlines link via Istanbul with smaller aircraft is BRS's best bet for a way into the major economies of the Far East.
Every time we discuss BRS's future we come back to the poor decision to locate the airport on Broadfield Down all those years ago. Had Filton been chosen (and I accept from what we were told here a few days ago that the BAC didn't want an airport on their airfield in 1957) none of these ifs and buts would enter the equation now, although South Gloucestershire nimbys would be replacing North Somerset nimbys.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: South Wales
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRS will already see a Dubrovnik route for 2015 as part of the expanded cruise programme to include more regional airports, so whether TOM increase the base size for this it is not yet known although they did look to increase the number of based aircraft last year.
Personally, i believe that the LH market is a pretty even battle between CWL and BRS as the MON on behalf of Cosmos SFB charters were very popular two summers ago, with a short lead in time with a less known operator. CWL certainly can get loads on these sorts of routes, which has lead to further winter cruise flights with P+O, Thomson Holidays and recently Sandals. So it would be of no surprise to me to see CWL harbouring the LH ops for TOM in Summer 2015, although BRS is still a very strong competitor as of course the TOM flights operated quite recently.
TOM 2015 goes on sale this thursday (24th April).
Personally, i believe that the LH market is a pretty even battle between CWL and BRS as the MON on behalf of Cosmos SFB charters were very popular two summers ago, with a short lead in time with a less known operator. CWL certainly can get loads on these sorts of routes, which has lead to further winter cruise flights with P+O, Thomson Holidays and recently Sandals. So it would be of no surprise to me to see CWL harbouring the LH ops for TOM in Summer 2015, although BRS is still a very strong competitor as of course the TOM flights operated quite recently.
TOM 2015 goes on sale this thursday (24th April).
Last edited by AirGuru; 21st Apr 2014 at 19:54.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomson will be retiring the 75/76 fleet over the next few years. My understanding is the plan is to go 78/Ng so if Thomson have decided that BRS is not 78 suitable LH either resides in the South East or Midlands unless CWL can start persuading airlines people will travel in to Wales to fly LH again as they did in the late 90s.