BRISTOL - 4
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: bhx
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bristol on the block
Taken from this mornings Travel Daily Press
Bristol on the block?
SPECULATION is mounting that Australian Investment group, Macquarie Airports, is set to sell its 35.5 per cent stake in BristolAirport. Reports cite a number of
analysts saying Macquarie is likely to sell soon, following the third
consecutive month of declining passenger numbers over its entire
airport portfolio. Luke McNab, a Royal Bank of Scotland analyst, said that
Macquarie was willing to offload Bristol “For the right price”. “It has been rumoured around the market that pretty much all of the assets in the listed vehicles have been up for sale if there were reasonable offers on
the table,” McNab added. The 2006 boom times saw over 6 million people pass through Bristol’s doors, and at the time it was valued at around £283
million, however it is now expected to fetch far below this.
Bristol on the block?
SPECULATION is mounting that Australian Investment group, Macquarie Airports, is set to sell its 35.5 per cent stake in BristolAirport. Reports cite a number of
analysts saying Macquarie is likely to sell soon, following the third
consecutive month of declining passenger numbers over its entire
airport portfolio. Luke McNab, a Royal Bank of Scotland analyst, said that
Macquarie was willing to offload Bristol “For the right price”. “It has been rumoured around the market that pretty much all of the assets in the listed vehicles have been up for sale if there were reasonable offers on
the table,” McNab added. The 2006 boom times saw over 6 million people pass through Bristol’s doors, and at the time it was valued at around £283
million, however it is now expected to fetch far below this.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: east of offas dyke
Age: 82
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
March figures
Watabench says traffic down 22% in March, another thread says March down 26%. Which is right and who is hurting? Is is accross the board or are scheduled flights and airlines the main losers?
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
BRS-SFB
I think we can accept a bristolian's post as the definitive answer - he knows what he is talking about on such matters.
CAA provisional stats show BRS passenger numbers decreased by 22.5% compared with March 2008.
The airport's website broke this down as a huge 45% decrease in charter passenger numbers. No doubt this was due to a large extent to the loss of XL but there were fewer flights to such destinations as the Canaries as well.
Sched international passenger numbers were down 21% and sched domestic down 10% - mainly due to fewer rotations flown by easyJet on many routes.
Also bear in mind that all airports suffered because Easter was in April this year whereas in 2008 it was in March.
Put into overall context for the rolling 12 months ending 31 March 2009, BRS's passenger numbers were down 1.5% compared with a year ago. By this measure BRS is the fourth best performer of the UK's top twenty airports with Belfast City, London City and Birmingham doing better.
I think we can accept a bristolian's post as the definitive answer - he knows what he is talking about on such matters.
Watabench says traffic down 22% in March, another thread says March down 26%. Which is right and who is hurting? Is is accross the board or are scheduled flights and airlines the main losers?
The airport's website broke this down as a huge 45% decrease in charter passenger numbers. No doubt this was due to a large extent to the loss of XL but there were fewer flights to such destinations as the Canaries as well.
Sched international passenger numbers were down 21% and sched domestic down 10% - mainly due to fewer rotations flown by easyJet on many routes.
Also bear in mind that all airports suffered because Easter was in April this year whereas in 2008 it was in March.
Put into overall context for the rolling 12 months ending 31 March 2009, BRS's passenger numbers were down 1.5% compared with a year ago. By this measure BRS is the fourth best performer of the UK's top twenty airports with Belfast City, London City and Birmingham doing better.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BRISTOL
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRS-SFB definatly now ops direct, by all accounts some obstruction on the side of runway has been removed allowing the 767 to use more runway??? How true or even what this was i do not know, anyway crew have definatly confirmed it will now ops direct.
CUN still via somewhere this summer at the moment(or at least when it resumes after the swine flu situation), however in next years brochure it is not printed saying via anywhere, although BHX is apparently via MAN and NCL via MAN so figure that one out.
CUN still via somewhere this summer at the moment(or at least when it resumes after the swine flu situation), however in next years brochure it is not printed saying via anywhere, although BHX is apparently via MAN and NCL via MAN so figure that one out.
Brs - Sfb
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Today flight to Sanford took 8 hrs 44 mins so definately direct!/QUOTE]
First flight of the summer 09 season. Wasn't a full load.
I am 99% sure that sadly these flights are still going to operate via MAN. I know this because I fly this aircraft, and also have seen the operating pattern involving a crew change (pilot, not cabin crew) on someones roster later in May.
Not totally 100% sure of course because one has not yet appeared on my roster!!
There are many occasions however when this aircraft could operate direct, performance wise, but it sure isn't most of the time. You would need good pressure, not too warm and a fair headwind to achieve performance good enough to get across the pond, me thinks.
I wish though, that BRS runway was just 1000ft longer, then think what routes we could achieve direct.....
First flight of the summer 09 season. Wasn't a full load.
I am 99% sure that sadly these flights are still going to operate via MAN. I know this because I fly this aircraft, and also have seen the operating pattern involving a crew change (pilot, not cabin crew) on someones roster later in May.
Not totally 100% sure of course because one has not yet appeared on my roster!!
There are many occasions however when this aircraft could operate direct, performance wise, but it sure isn't most of the time. You would need good pressure, not too warm and a fair headwind to achieve performance good enough to get across the pond, me thinks.
I wish though, that BRS runway was just 1000ft longer, then think what routes we could achieve direct.....
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: WALES
Age: 57
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish though, that BRS runway was just 1000ft longer, then think what routes we could achieve direct.....
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOM did try that a couple of summers ago. They can't have done too well because they never restarted again, except for the odd cruise charter.
I'm sure Emirates would come to BRS if the runway was longer, but that is just a hunch!!
I think airlines reckon there is a larger catchment area around the BRS area.
I'm sure Emirates would come to BRS if the runway was longer, but that is just a hunch!!
I think airlines reckon there is a larger catchment area around the BRS area.
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
TOM Bristol to Sanford
Baron buzz,
There is also a school of thought that First Choice (initially) and now the Tui Group is working up the route to await the B 787 which, according to Boeing, will be able to operate this sort of route from the existing BRS runway without load penalty - see BRS Master Plan.
If the route is to be considered a non-stop route but, for the technical reasons you have highlighted, will still have to often tech-stop at MAN won't this mean the flight crews will have to be rostered to fly the whole route from BRS in case conditions do permit a non-stop routing on occasions?
If, on the other hand, TOM perpetually roster a crew change at MAN it would mean the flight would never be non-stop which will fly in the face of the information provided by a bristolian.
Please don't take this as a challenge to your statement - I have no aviation qualifications whatever. It is merely a question from an interested customer of the airport/several airlines based there.
There is also a school of thought that First Choice (initially) and now the Tui Group is working up the route to await the B 787 which, according to Boeing, will be able to operate this sort of route from the existing BRS runway without load penalty - see BRS Master Plan.
If the route is to be considered a non-stop route but, for the technical reasons you have highlighted, will still have to often tech-stop at MAN won't this mean the flight crews will have to be rostered to fly the whole route from BRS in case conditions do permit a non-stop routing on occasions?
If, on the other hand, TOM perpetually roster a crew change at MAN it would mean the flight would never be non-stop which will fly in the face of the information provided by a bristolian.
Please don't take this as a challenge to your statement - I have no aviation qualifications whatever. It is merely a question from an interested customer of the airport/several airlines based there.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: England
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would seem I was incorrect before - sorry
The BRS-SFB flights are rostered to operate via MAN for the next few weeks, however it would seem that previous posters are correct in that the company is intending to operate where possible directly. The S09 plan was to operate via MAN, and this is a change fairly late in the day. I think the passengers are still being told its via MAN, and then get a pleasant surprise should they get to go directly.
The performance is close though, and there will be days when ops direct is not possible. Since the flight is only once weekly, hopefully these occasions will not be frequent.
MV, you raise interesting points. There was a school of thought that involving no crew swop and planning the flight via Shannon or something like that would work. Shannon is in the right direction and a fuel stop would be quicker than MAN.
I think MAN is chosen simply because it is an operating base, and problems/crew changes can be solved easily there (relatively). Then, should weather not be a factor flight could be planned to go directly to SFB, rather than stopping in Shannon. This would prevent the problem you raise.
It would seem though, that the company is confident enough in operating directly, and that should performance be an issue, there is enough operating hours available for a stop in MAN, without a crew change. We will see though....
I don't think FCA/TOM are specifically route testing the SFB/CUN routes for the arrival of the 787. They are just operating them because money can be made! They is much hype that the 787 will be able to operate from BRS to various places, but lets not forget the plane hasn't actually flown yet!!
Out of the 787 orders that TOM gets, you can be sure the first few will go to the big bases like LGW or MAN. It will be some time before BRS sees one I would imagine...
The BRS-SFB flights are rostered to operate via MAN for the next few weeks, however it would seem that previous posters are correct in that the company is intending to operate where possible directly. The S09 plan was to operate via MAN, and this is a change fairly late in the day. I think the passengers are still being told its via MAN, and then get a pleasant surprise should they get to go directly.
The performance is close though, and there will be days when ops direct is not possible. Since the flight is only once weekly, hopefully these occasions will not be frequent.
MV, you raise interesting points. There was a school of thought that involving no crew swop and planning the flight via Shannon or something like that would work. Shannon is in the right direction and a fuel stop would be quicker than MAN.
I think MAN is chosen simply because it is an operating base, and problems/crew changes can be solved easily there (relatively). Then, should weather not be a factor flight could be planned to go directly to SFB, rather than stopping in Shannon. This would prevent the problem you raise.
It would seem though, that the company is confident enough in operating directly, and that should performance be an issue, there is enough operating hours available for a stop in MAN, without a crew change. We will see though....
I don't think FCA/TOM are specifically route testing the SFB/CUN routes for the arrival of the 787. They are just operating them because money can be made! They is much hype that the 787 will be able to operate from BRS to various places, but lets not forget the plane hasn't actually flown yet!!
Out of the 787 orders that TOM gets, you can be sure the first few will go to the big bases like LGW or MAN. It will be some time before BRS sees one I would imagine...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: bristol
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brs/sfb
i had a quick chat with a captain whilse on the coach too his a/c on stand 30,g-byaa ops brs/bgi. heb had only 150 pax on board,byaa and byab have upgraded engines along with the relative low load he went non stop via full power!he said full load no chance!hope this sheds some help!rgds brs planespotter
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BRISTOL
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was the cruise flights, they often go out without a full load in winter months as the fares that the cruise pax pay often make up for it, SFB also 1 - 1.5 hrs shorter flight than BGI so would need less fuel.