BRISTOL - 4
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: east of offas dyke
Age: 82
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isnt it time all this rivalry between BRS & CWL was buried once and for all.
Put simply the battle was lost as long ago as the late 1980's a time when both airports were achieving approx 800K pax per annum. Brymon arrived in BRS and the airport started to pull ahead. A very switched on MD at BRS at that time drove the business hard and got new airlines and routes when the best CWL ,who were then owned by a committee of three county councils, could do was Manx airlines with J31's. When GO arrived at BRS the gap started to widen rapidly. With the much larger catchment area, the south west has a population of approx 5 million against approx 2 Million in south Wales it is obvious that any airline looking at the south west segment of the UK for developmet was going to favour BRS.
A huge opportunity was lost when the proposed Severnside airport plan was abandoned. It would have been idealy sited to serve both south Wales and the south west, slap bang on the motorway network and alongside the main London south Wales rail line. Had it gone ahead, we would now have a major international airport to rival BHX. AS Merchant Venturer says BRS could well be approaching capacity and new route developments may well be at CWL where there ample room for future expansion.
Put simply the battle was lost as long ago as the late 1980's a time when both airports were achieving approx 800K pax per annum. Brymon arrived in BRS and the airport started to pull ahead. A very switched on MD at BRS at that time drove the business hard and got new airlines and routes when the best CWL ,who were then owned by a committee of three county councils, could do was Manx airlines with J31's. When GO arrived at BRS the gap started to widen rapidly. With the much larger catchment area, the south west has a population of approx 5 million against approx 2 Million in south Wales it is obvious that any airline looking at the south west segment of the UK for developmet was going to favour BRS.
A huge opportunity was lost when the proposed Severnside airport plan was abandoned. It would have been idealy sited to serve both south Wales and the south west, slap bang on the motorway network and alongside the main London south Wales rail line. Had it gone ahead, we would now have a major international airport to rival BHX. AS Merchant Venturer says BRS could well be approaching capacity and new route developments may well be at CWL where there ample room for future expansion.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MV. There has been rapid expansion over the last few years and this cannot be sustained. The airport will have to enter a phase of consolidation. It is hard to see what destinations are now missing, save for a couple of German cities. The short runway will hinder any long-haul expansion and the 787 is still a long way off. Emirates is a non-starter because of the runway, their current aircraft and the fact the airport now has three full service airlines connecting to European hubs. Passenger numbers are unlikely to support a fourth transit hub in Dubai and the volume for point to point will not fill a wide-bodied jet. There are unlikely to be further American routes from full service airlines, I saw that Delta pulled a proposed EDI-ATL route because of rising fuel costs. It would be interesting if Ryanair chose Bristol as one base for it's mooted UK-US operation. Passenger expansion will come from larger aircraft on existing routes. The master plan planning application is going to be a long process because the anti lobby will fight. The airport has seen this and has very shrewdly developed the building itself with the new security area and taking Burger King air-side. This will create more space without the need for planning. The walkway is proposed as permitted development for the same reason. The current passenger throughput was expected to be reached in 2009-2010. The current developments will probably allow the airport to handle up to 9 million without the need for extension. If need arose the void above the main check in area could be developed without planning, although this would not be without logistical problems! Given that the economic cycle is going to enter a downturn and the introduction of new routes will be less frequent this current development will meet the needs of the airport in the short to medium term. Transport links to the airport need to be improved, however hell is likely to freeze over before we see the airport connected to the ring road or the M5. Interestingly it is likely that the surrounding area will be declassified as green-belt and this will lead to office parks galore! I agree that the opportunity for a large regional airport either on the Severn or at Filton was lost a long time ago and with hindsight this would have been the better option. It is the same debate as Heathrow. Do you continue to develop existing facilities or start afresh? It would need public money to start afresh and there isn't any. All in all since the time of Les "Bristol Airport" Wilson the airport management have turned the farm strip into a solid regional airport. I remember an article in the Sunday Times about 20 years ago rating all region airports and Bristol was bottom. The Times printed a cartoon with confused farmers pointing at a plane! You would have a very different picture now.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CWL v BRS
As a long time civil aviation 'anorak' and being Welsh, I too have been amazed at the rise of BRS from it's early days in the 70's with Courtline 1-11's together with the somewhat rarer Dan-Air 727's (I flew on one to Corfu from BRS!!), and then subsequently sat at what at the time was a considerably larger and better equiped airport whilst plane spotting across the bridge only to be faced with one or two movements per day!! 
Usually Cambrian Viscounts until BA pulled the plug.
Yes we(CWL) got Laker Dc-10's plus the Wardair & CPAir 747 Transatlantic flights but despite it's apparent ability to cope with said traffic it produced no long term gains across the board. The final nail was the GO decision.
I agree with bristolflyer that given the pesent economics downturn and the rise of the tree huggers, the likely large scale expansions of either airport will be hard to see, and yes expansion will come about more in the form of larger aircraft on certain routes.
The replacements of the soon to be retired F70's of KLM will be interesting?
CWL will continue to underperform relative to BRS but that's all down to historical activities, and I for one don't begrudge BRS for one moment.
Personally if I was the airport management I'd be looking at everyway I could to boost the airports capacity and runway length without the need for any planning permission.
If only to kick the tree huggers were it hurts
Usually Cambrian Viscounts until BA pulled the plug.
Yes we(CWL) got Laker Dc-10's plus the Wardair & CPAir 747 Transatlantic flights but despite it's apparent ability to cope with said traffic it produced no long term gains across the board. The final nail was the GO decision.
I agree with bristolflyer that given the pesent economics downturn and the rise of the tree huggers, the likely large scale expansions of either airport will be hard to see, and yes expansion will come about more in the form of larger aircraft on certain routes.
The replacements of the soon to be retired F70's of KLM will be interesting?
CWL will continue to underperform relative to BRS but that's all down to historical activities, and I for one don't begrudge BRS for one moment.
Personally if I was the airport management I'd be looking at everyway I could to boost the airports capacity and runway length without the need for any planning permission.
If only to kick the tree huggers were it hurts
Bristol and Cardiff
I always enjoy reading MV's sensible, well-researched and well written posts
It has always been inevitable to me that Bristol would prosper in comparison to Cardiff due to their respective catchment areas. Bristol is a wealthy city, with many employed in financial services, the media and professions. It is surrounded by wealthy counties (Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire) where affluence leads to a higher propensity to travel than the average. These are counties that attract the affluent retired, again with a high propensity to travel.
Compare with Cardiff, which although the seat of Government in Wales, is in an economically depressed region. A cursory look at the average size and standard of housing unit will confirm this apparent generalization.
Finally, Cardiff Airport is disadvantaged by its geographical location. It is some 10 miles south-west of the City centre - away from centres of population by the coast. Fine from a noise point of view, but harder for surface access. I would imagine the travel time from a large town like Newport would be similar to CWL and BRS.
One sympathises with those who want CWL to prosper, but the reality is that the demographics favour Bristol. And that's why the airlines choose it over CWL.
It has always been inevitable to me that Bristol would prosper in comparison to Cardiff due to their respective catchment areas. Bristol is a wealthy city, with many employed in financial services, the media and professions. It is surrounded by wealthy counties (Gloucestershire, Somerset and Wiltshire) where affluence leads to a higher propensity to travel than the average. These are counties that attract the affluent retired, again with a high propensity to travel.
Compare with Cardiff, which although the seat of Government in Wales, is in an economically depressed region. A cursory look at the average size and standard of housing unit will confirm this apparent generalization.
Finally, Cardiff Airport is disadvantaged by its geographical location. It is some 10 miles south-west of the City centre - away from centres of population by the coast. Fine from a noise point of view, but harder for surface access. I would imagine the travel time from a large town like Newport would be similar to CWL and BRS.
One sympathises with those who want CWL to prosper, but the reality is that the demographics favour Bristol. And that's why the airlines choose it over CWL.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BRISTOL
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing official yet, but have had it on good grounds that FCA longhaul summer 2009 will be CUN/POP/SFB, unsure of rotations at the mo, my guess would be weekly SFB and fortnightly CUN and POP on opposite weeks.
Glad to see FCA sticking with it, as MV said once it takes a while for routes like these to become established in the public mind, so if this info is true its great news for BRS considering the consolidation of certain areas of the new TUI business, Thomson hols have now started sharing on FCA longhaul flights(the only tour op able too) so I wander if the BRS flights will go in the Thomson tropical/florida brochures as well? would help sell the routes(fingers crossed).
Also been told they have no plans for longhaul down the road in EXT or across the bridge in CWL.
Glad to see FCA sticking with it, as MV said once it takes a while for routes like these to become established in the public mind, so if this info is true its great news for BRS considering the consolidation of certain areas of the new TUI business, Thomson hols have now started sharing on FCA longhaul flights(the only tour op able too) so I wander if the BRS flights will go in the Thomson tropical/florida brochures as well? would help sell the routes(fingers crossed).
Also been told they have no plans for longhaul down the road in EXT or across the bridge in CWL.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long haul operations
This is aimed towards the more technical forum members.
Would the building of the 'starter' strip at the beginning of 09 :-
1. Interfere with the Cat 3 lighting?
2. Require planning permission?
3. Provide enough additional length to be 'worth it'?
It just seems that it's 'wasted space', although as in the BA777 at LHR it comes in handy sometimes.
BBT
Would the building of the 'starter' strip at the beginning of 09 :-
1. Interfere with the Cat 3 lighting?
2. Require planning permission?
3. Provide enough additional length to be 'worth it'?
It just seems that it's 'wasted space', although as in the BA777 at LHR it comes in handy sometimes.
BBT
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BRISTOL
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasnt aware of a starter strip going on 09, Cat 3 is only on 027, believe that due to the way the land falls at 09 they are unable to install/operate Cat 3 on there, however i agree there is a fair bit of land between the end of runway and perimeter at 09 which has been commented on before.
There is a plan in the pipeline(although years off) to knock down the old terminal and re locate the offices to a new buliding in order to put a larger turning circle in and bring the threshold back, although how this effects the landing system at 027 end I wouldnt have a clue, cant imagine it would.
MV will give you all the answers with regard to the BRS master plan, however with regard to performance of long haul operations you would prob need an answer from a pilot....any takers? BHX had a starter strip added didnt they? seems to work well there i guess!
Good question though Taffy
There is a plan in the pipeline(although years off) to knock down the old terminal and re locate the offices to a new buliding in order to put a larger turning circle in and bring the threshold back, although how this effects the landing system at 027 end I wouldnt have a clue, cant imagine it would.
MV will give you all the answers with regard to the BRS master plan, however with regard to performance of long haul operations you would prob need an answer from a pilot....any takers? BHX had a starter strip added didnt they? seems to work well there i guess!
Good question though Taffy
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is currently no plan to extend the runway up to 2015. The Government White Paper on regional aviation indicates that the present terminal, without modification, can handle 8.5 million passengers. The White Paper envisaged once this limit had been passed a new terminal and runway extension would be required. This is not a view shared by the airport. Their view is that there is limited scope for long-haul destinations up to 2015. Dubai was the most likely new destination at the time of the Master Plan. The 787 is seen as the answer to the runway restriction because of that aircraft's improved takeoff performance, however the taxiway parallel to the golf course would have to be widened. The issue of extension was looked at in the Mater Plan. A start strip would mean an extra 389m on 27, but only 150m on 09. The maximum extension keeping the ILS inside the boundary is 140m, beyond this length the ILS has to go on the common. The maximum full extension is roughly 400m. This would go way out onto the common and involve the purchase of property rendered uninhabitable. A 400m extension would allow for destinations such as Chicago, the Caribbean and Atlanta to be served on stop. It adds about 2000km to the range of a 757 and 1000km to a 767. An extension of any kind falls outside of permitted or operational development and would require full planning permission. In addition Felton Common is a protected environmental habitat! I think the master plan is now largely irrelevant. The new proposed walkway was not in the plan and airport operations have changed considerably since it's drafting, for example BA has now left and Ryanair is in. Airbridges were proposed in the master plan and they are not contained in the plan for the walkway, because they are luxuries not required by the lo-co's. The more recent developments suggest larger lo-cost aircraft will be the mainstay of movements. Look at Luton were Kehoe came from. This probably gives a good pointer as to the direction of development.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watabench, You are correct about an enlarged taxiway/holding area. This was part of the plan. The current layout of the taxiway means that at peak times access to the Eastern apron can be a problem. If the runway is extended to the current limit or even just 140m the A38 has to either be moved, again, or dropped into a tunnel. Both First Choice and Continental have ordered the 787. The current First Choice long-haul routes are a precursor to the 787 coming to Bristol and flying direct rather than via MAN. This assumes the planned performance is realized after testing. Boeing have now put the delivery back by 18 months and the plane has yet to fly.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Starter strip
Ok my apologies to everyone, I meant 27 .
The reason for the question was the 'surplus' area immediately before runway 027 and whether it could be utilised WITHOUT planning permission.
I'd forgotten that the ils instrumentation would also need to be moved even further - hence onto the common!!
I realise that from a landing distance it wouldn't make a great deal of difference. It was whether or not it was a feasible option for an increased take off distance?
i'm also aware that at least part of the old terminal would need to be flattened
.The reason for the question was the 'surplus' area immediately before runway 027 and whether it could be utilised WITHOUT planning permission.
I'd forgotten that the ils instrumentation would also need to be moved even further - hence onto the common!!
I realise that from a landing distance it wouldn't make a great deal of difference. It was whether or not it was a feasible option for an increased take off distance?
i'm also aware that at least part of the old terminal would need to be flattened
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
Today’s BBC Bristol early evening news programme led with a story concerning Bristol Airport. Anyone who is interested can view the item on the BBC Bristol ‘Points West’ web page.
It was reported that new DfT regulations (following the Glasgow Airport terrorist attack) mean that the forecourt at the front of Bristol Airport will have to close permanently for vehicles.
Paul Kehoe, the airport CEO, was interviewed on the site and said that it will mean a new road having to be built on stilts across the main car parking area. The cost, to be born by the airport shareholders (as the CEO put it), is said to be many millions of pounds, but the timescale is not known.
Planning wasn’t mentioned so I assume this would be permitted development under the Town and Country Planning Order 1995. If not, the airport will have something else to put before planners and further run the gauntlet of the anti-expansionists, many of whom are really airport opponents plain and simple who would like to see it shut down.
The BBC reporter took the opportunity to link the story with BRS’s multi-million pound security area revamp which it was said will now be completed in July. Several outbound passengers were interviewed who all seemed remarkably content with their security experience today, comparing it most favourably with London airports, although it has to be said they were not passing through BRS at a peak period.
Another item in the news this week concerns a police and local authority check on the vehicles, mainly minibuses, taking passengers to and from the unofficial car parks in the area. Apparently one vehicle was given a prohibition order because of defects, and insurance and driving licence irregularities were found with some others.
It was reported that new DfT regulations (following the Glasgow Airport terrorist attack) mean that the forecourt at the front of Bristol Airport will have to close permanently for vehicles.
Paul Kehoe, the airport CEO, was interviewed on the site and said that it will mean a new road having to be built on stilts across the main car parking area. The cost, to be born by the airport shareholders (as the CEO put it), is said to be many millions of pounds, but the timescale is not known.
Planning wasn’t mentioned so I assume this would be permitted development under the Town and Country Planning Order 1995. If not, the airport will have something else to put before planners and further run the gauntlet of the anti-expansionists, many of whom are really airport opponents plain and simple who would like to see it shut down.
The BBC reporter took the opportunity to link the story with BRS’s multi-million pound security area revamp which it was said will now be completed in July. Several outbound passengers were interviewed who all seemed remarkably content with their security experience today, comparing it most favourably with London airports, although it has to be said they were not passing through BRS at a peak period.
Another item in the news this week concerns a police and local authority check on the vehicles, mainly minibuses, taking passengers to and from the unofficial car parks in the area. Apparently one vehicle was given a prohibition order because of defects, and insurance and driving licence irregularities were found with some others.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BRISTOL
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.uk-airport-news.info/bris...ews-110408.htm
Brilliant story, absolute comedy....ahh youngens nowadays!
Brilliant story, absolute comedy....ahh youngens nowadays!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New DfT regs!
Not wishing to sound somewhat gobsmaked yet almost 
!!!
Do the DfT live in the real world or as it seems thier own REACTIVE WORLD!!
Well we all know the answer to that
We now not only have somewhat impressive security set ups within the confines of the buildings, but they also wish us to totally alter road layouts AFTER an incident on the 'chance' that it 'might' happen again
Just what in God's name would they come up with if an incident were to occur outside the boundary fence approx 5 miles away .....if you know what I mean
TOTAL EXCLUSION ZONES FOR ALL LOCALS...can't be too careful
!!!Do the DfT live in the real world or as it seems thier own REACTIVE WORLD!!
Well we all know the answer to thatWe now not only have somewhat impressive security set ups within the confines of the buildings, but they also wish us to totally alter road layouts AFTER an incident on the 'chance' that it 'might' happen again
Just what in God's name would they come up with if an incident were to occur outside the boundary fence approx 5 miles away .....if you know what I mean
TOTAL EXCLUSION ZONES FOR ALL LOCALS...can't be too careful
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
BbT,
I have to admit that when I first saw the item I thought there might have been a mix-up at the Beeb and it should have been transmitted on the first of this month.
Presumably other airports will be affected but they may have easier solutions than the land-strapped BRS.
Clearly this cannot be put into operation at BRS for a year or two at the very earliest so if the threat is that serious what happens in the meantime?
If they can carry on for the next, say, two years as they are now why not the next ten or twenty or thirty...........................?
Anyone who is familiar with the airport boundary will be aware there are other ways of encroaching onto the airport land that don't involve barging in through the front door.
So your point about exclusion zones might not be that far-fetched the way things are going.
I have to admit that when I first saw the item I thought there might have been a mix-up at the Beeb and it should have been transmitted on the first of this month.
Presumably other airports will be affected but they may have easier solutions than the land-strapped BRS.
Clearly this cannot be put into operation at BRS for a year or two at the very earliest so if the threat is that serious what happens in the meantime?
If they can carry on for the next, say, two years as they are now why not the next ten or twenty or thirty...........................?
Anyone who is familiar with the airport boundary will be aware there are other ways of encroaching onto the airport land that don't involve barging in through the front door.
So your point about exclusion zones might not be that far-fetched the way things are going.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DfT regs!
What really annoys me is the totally one sided discussions that seem to take place regarding 'terrorism' and it's threats, what with that and the infamous climate change we might just as well close the airport down. Stop using the infernal combustion engine and return to the horse and cart
Anyone trying to ask simple questions as to the actual need for such changes in our activities in the 'war against terror'...Strange this 'war' only began AFTER 9/11!!!
Is regarded as somewhat of a danger to civilised society
Sorry MV long day at the 'coal face' but things like this really bring out the worst in me.
Anyone trying to ask simple questions as to the actual need for such changes in our activities in the 'war against terror'...Strange this 'war' only began AFTER 9/11!!!
Is regarded as somewhat of a danger to civilised society
Sorry MV long day at the 'coal face' but things like this really bring out the worst in me.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul Kehoe, the airport CEO, was interviewed on the site and said that it will mean a new road having to be built on stilts across the main car parking area. The cost, to be born by the airport shareholders (as the CEO put it), is said to be many millions of pounds, but the timescale is not known.
I deal with another Macquarie infrastructure company, and I can tell you that they rub their hands with glee at spending as much as they possibly can in building new infrastructure. Infrastructure expenditure gets capitalised, and the more they spend, the more money they get back from it (typically they charge it back to the business on 8-10% margin). That allows them to put up the fees for using the airport using the the DfT decision as justification. And, of course, there's no lack of demand for Bristol, so chances are they'll get away with above inflation increases, etc.
Mac intensely dislike spending money on operations, which simply hit the bottom line.
I would very much doubt that Bristol (or indeed the Ferroval owned BAA) put up much of a protest at "having" to spend so much money on new infrastructure. Maybe the airlines and passengers should point out to the DfT that their irrational decisions come back to travellers in the form of higher airport taxes?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new terminal design is to be based on a mote and bailey castle! The walkway is still being debated. The Council are researching whether or not it increases capacity. If it can be shown to be an operational building/pier and does not increase capacity then the law says it does not need planning. If it does increase capacity then an application would be required. Send us back to the stone age SBAE appear to be in the wings ready to mount a legal challenge if the Council conclude it does not need planning.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BRISTOL
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FCA schedule for summer 09 is pretty much the same as 08, added SKG is the only major development i can see at the mo, longhaul wise CUN and SFB weekly again next summer.
Brochure now showing all FCA flights next year under TOM designator...
So all in all could've been worse, could've been better hay ho!
Anybody have info on when TCX will release their summer 09 schedule?
Brochure now showing all FCA flights next year under TOM designator...
So all in all could've been worse, could've been better hay ho!
Anybody have info on when TCX will release their summer 09 schedule?