BRISTOL - 4
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair praises Bristol Airport
Ryanair is urging potential airport partners to follow the example of Bristol if they want to see significant revenue increases.
Addressing delegates this afternoon (18 September) at the World Low Cost Airlines Congress in London, Ryanair chief operating officer, Michael Cawley, hailed the south west airport as an ideal model.
The Irish carrier will start operating from Bristol in November and is to invest $140m in two new Boeing 737-800 aircraft, aiming to serve 16 routes carrying 2m passengers by 2009 to and from the airport.
“What Bristol has done is a lesson,” said Cawley, adding: “They have some of the smallest square meterage of any airport that we operate to, but have maximised efficiency with 25min turnarounds.”
“Airports are replete with huge, fixed costs and growth is the way to deal with them. Many airports are not producing a level of service that we would like.”
Addressing delegates this afternoon (18 September) at the World Low Cost Airlines Congress in London, Ryanair chief operating officer, Michael Cawley, hailed the south west airport as an ideal model.
The Irish carrier will start operating from Bristol in November and is to invest $140m in two new Boeing 737-800 aircraft, aiming to serve 16 routes carrying 2m passengers by 2009 to and from the airport.
“What Bristol has done is a lesson,” said Cawley, adding: “They have some of the smallest square meterage of any airport that we operate to, but have maximised efficiency with 25min turnarounds.”
“Airports are replete with huge, fixed costs and growth is the way to deal with them. Many airports are not producing a level of service that we would like.”
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The business scheduled market will grow alongside LCC's and we would be foolish to turn away any extra business offered to BRS from anyone! How could what Michael Cawley said be deemed as bad in any way?
Bring it on! ALL OF IT!!
Bring it on! ALL OF IT!!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Bristol
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MV: I can speak for your delayed Austrian flight last week, at least from the Ops side: the flight was delayed, which means that it didn't get priority handling ahead of all flights the that were on time. SOP at most airports is to protect your on time departures. I can't speak for the lack of info. in the terminal though.
Airvanman: Ryanair have been parked on the W apron, it happens frequently.
As for the "myth that Ryanair had an agreement with the airport about the front stands." yes it IS a myth. No such agreement exists, it never did. I have no idea where FR ever got this idea from!
Airvanman: Ryanair have been parked on the W apron, it happens frequently.
As for the "myth that Ryanair had an agreement with the airport about the front stands." yes it IS a myth. No such agreement exists, it never did. I have no idea where FR ever got this idea from!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BRISTOL
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think CO is the only airline with a front stand agreement is it it not?
When I flew with FR last we were parked on W.
Does anybody (MV) know that with the expansion plans if they are looking at widening the nose in stands where the airbridges will be so that the likes of B767, B787 will fit on, I'm guessing a definate yes, would be a bit daft otherwise!
When I flew with FR last we were parked on W.
Does anybody (MV) know that with the expansion plans if they are looking at widening the nose in stands where the airbridges will be so that the likes of B767, B787 will fit on, I'm guessing a definate yes, would be a bit daft otherwise!
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
redfield,
Thanks for that - it was the lack of information that got up my nose and also that of some fellow pax from what they were saying.
WATABENCH,
I can only deduce from the master plan which, although intensely detailed in much of its content, does not actually mention stand sizes or even air bridges as far as I can see. However, there are some plans and sketches within the publication that appear to depict three air bridges.
In one sketch five aircraft are parked nose-in to the expanded terminal (along the extended line of the current stands 1 to 3). Two of these appear to be large aircraft. Three others are parked at right-angles to the five and it is these stands that appear to be provided with air bridges (coming from a pier that is built at right-angles to the front of the terminal building). Of course, all this might be just for illustrative purposes with the aircraft sizes not meant to be to scale.
Like you, I am sure there will be provision to take wide-bodied aircraft on some of the stands adjacent to the terminal.
B_T
The business flyer is an intriguing animal though, and one of many shades.
There are some, like my son, who are content to use low-cost airlines for their convenience.
He is not a bit interested in aviation, other than as a means to convey him around the world. He is employed by a US conglomerate and his grade entitles him to at least business-class travel. Like me, he hates LHR with a passion although has to use it at times.
For his US trips he has taken to using the CO business/first connection from BRS via EWR. As he lives in the Bristol area it is very convenient and he speaks well of the experience, although he is not so complimentary about CO's domestic first-class product.
He also uses easyJet a lot for business from BRS, and FR from BRS to DUB and SNN.
I have asked him about FR and his view is that as long as the flight operates more or less on time and safely, he has no problem with the airline’s basic service over such short sectors. He prefers these airlines to the turbo-props (‘noisy propeller planes’ as he calls them) of Aer Arann and Flybe that he has also used from BRS on business.
Kelly,
Yes, Go had a certain je ne sais quoi that put it above most other lo-cos in the service it provided. Perhaps it just seemed a bit classier (its chief exec was not a hindrance in this regard) and of course it allocated seat numbers at check-in.
Thanks for that - it was the lack of information that got up my nose and also that of some fellow pax from what they were saying.
WATABENCH,
I can only deduce from the master plan which, although intensely detailed in much of its content, does not actually mention stand sizes or even air bridges as far as I can see. However, there are some plans and sketches within the publication that appear to depict three air bridges.
In one sketch five aircraft are parked nose-in to the expanded terminal (along the extended line of the current stands 1 to 3). Two of these appear to be large aircraft. Three others are parked at right-angles to the five and it is these stands that appear to be provided with air bridges (coming from a pier that is built at right-angles to the front of the terminal building). Of course, all this might be just for illustrative purposes with the aircraft sizes not meant to be to scale.
Like you, I am sure there will be provision to take wide-bodied aircraft on some of the stands adjacent to the terminal.
B_T
The business flyer is an intriguing animal though, and one of many shades.
There are some, like my son, who are content to use low-cost airlines for their convenience.
He is not a bit interested in aviation, other than as a means to convey him around the world. He is employed by a US conglomerate and his grade entitles him to at least business-class travel. Like me, he hates LHR with a passion although has to use it at times.
For his US trips he has taken to using the CO business/first connection from BRS via EWR. As he lives in the Bristol area it is very convenient and he speaks well of the experience, although he is not so complimentary about CO's domestic first-class product.
He also uses easyJet a lot for business from BRS, and FR from BRS to DUB and SNN.
I have asked him about FR and his view is that as long as the flight operates more or less on time and safely, he has no problem with the airline’s basic service over such short sectors. He prefers these airlines to the turbo-props (‘noisy propeller planes’ as he calls them) of Aer Arann and Flybe that he has also used from BRS on business.
Kelly,
Yes, Go had a certain je ne sais quoi that put it above most other lo-cos in the service it provided. Perhaps it just seemed a bit classier (its chief exec was not a hindrance in this regard) and of course it allocated seat numbers at check-in.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M_V
I'm not a LOCO snob per-se. I use EZY and WOW a fair bit from Bristol (although admittedly I will not fly FR on any route except BRS-DUB, but that's personal protest against MO'Ls disdain of customers and business ethics).
I think my point is that the differential between using BRS and LHR in terms of ease, stress and timing will be eroded if BRS stretch their infrastructure too far in the name of keeping FR happy. I believe it will deter customers who might be prepared to pay a premium for flying, and will deter the airlines who want to charge those premiums. Does that mean we get locked into a LOCO spiral?
It's difficult for the airport. The fixed fee they receive for each departing passenger means that profit is driven only by quantity of passengers, and not necessarily quality. Therefore the LOCO business strategy drives airport revenues up more aggressively, assuming that the airport can hold fast on pricing and not get into discounting (or other incentives).
Maybe I'm painting to dark a picture; maybe there is a way to allow premium and LOCO customers (passengers and airlines) to happily co-exist on the same infrastructure. Let's see.
I'm not a LOCO snob per-se. I use EZY and WOW a fair bit from Bristol (although admittedly I will not fly FR on any route except BRS-DUB, but that's personal protest against MO'Ls disdain of customers and business ethics).
I think my point is that the differential between using BRS and LHR in terms of ease, stress and timing will be eroded if BRS stretch their infrastructure too far in the name of keeping FR happy. I believe it will deter customers who might be prepared to pay a premium for flying, and will deter the airlines who want to charge those premiums. Does that mean we get locked into a LOCO spiral?
It's difficult for the airport. The fixed fee they receive for each departing passenger means that profit is driven only by quantity of passengers, and not necessarily quality. Therefore the LOCO business strategy drives airport revenues up more aggressively, assuming that the airport can hold fast on pricing and not get into discounting (or other incentives).
Maybe I'm painting to dark a picture; maybe there is a way to allow premium and LOCO customers (passengers and airlines) to happily co-exist on the same infrastructure. Let's see.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From my point of view LOCO passengers can be made up of all types including businessmen, who's needs and expectations are very similar to those using a full service carrier, and those have been mixing with high volume charter pax (who are probably more of a drain on the airports infrastructure than LOCO's, IMO) for years. So in therory the two types should be able to co-exist happily, but it may be helped if the winters security expansion work begins to reduce queue times in that area.
I would however be lying if I said I was not a all concerned about the effect a large scale FR operation will have on the airport though, as they are really not as pax friendly as EZY and having an 2 based 738 will add almost 380 pax to every peak we currently have (including AM!!)
B_T: You are right that the airports profit is directly linked to the number of PAX, but some are more equal than others. Due to tight turnarounds and careful cost management LOCO's do not contribute as much in terms of aeronautical fees as some of the charters and full service carriers and certainly spend per head on retail in the terminal is lower with most LOCO pax. However due to the massive growth in the LOCO market they present more opportunities for the airports expansion and the growth of the business.
I think the airports management are keen not to see BRS condemmed to a low cost only future and will hopefully not let any more full service carriers be lost, and maybe gain a few as well
I would however be lying if I said I was not a all concerned about the effect a large scale FR operation will have on the airport though, as they are really not as pax friendly as EZY and having an 2 based 738 will add almost 380 pax to every peak we currently have (including AM!!)
B_T: You are right that the airports profit is directly linked to the number of PAX, but some are more equal than others. Due to tight turnarounds and careful cost management LOCO's do not contribute as much in terms of aeronautical fees as some of the charters and full service carriers and certainly spend per head on retail in the terminal is lower with most LOCO pax. However due to the massive growth in the LOCO market they present more opportunities for the airports expansion and the growth of the business.
I think the airports management are keen not to see BRS condemmed to a low cost only future and will hopefully not let any more full service carriers be lost, and maybe gain a few as well
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
The seemingly inexorable rise in passenger numbers showed no signs of abating in August, with 641,000 using the airport according to CAA stats. This is a record monthly total and is up 5.7% over August 2006. My dodgy maths makes that an average of in excess of 20,000 per day, and Ryanair hasn’t even opened its base yet.
According to the Bristol Evening Post, the major planning applications re the proposed £80 million expansion will now be submitted in November – yet another slippage in time.
With the rolling twelve-month passenger total now 5.8 million, and likely to grow significantly in the next year, the commencement of what will undoubtedly be a protracted planning process cannot begin soon enough.
Another snippet from the aforementioned local rag is that a BRS management team is visiting the annual World Route Development Forum, this year being held in Stockholm, with a Canadian route top of their agenda. At last year’s forum the airport failed to secure a route to Canada but who is to say the renowned persuasiveness of the BRS negotiating team won’t do the biz this time?
Also on the airport wish list are German routes, with FRA being specifically mentioned, and Seville, where a lot of traffic is expected to be generated in connection with the new Airbus facility there.
The mention of FRA is interesting as it could suggest the airport is not yet as close to securing a route as some had believed.
According to the Bristol Evening Post, the major planning applications re the proposed £80 million expansion will now be submitted in November – yet another slippage in time.
With the rolling twelve-month passenger total now 5.8 million, and likely to grow significantly in the next year, the commencement of what will undoubtedly be a protracted planning process cannot begin soon enough.
Another snippet from the aforementioned local rag is that a BRS management team is visiting the annual World Route Development Forum, this year being held in Stockholm, with a Canadian route top of their agenda. At last year’s forum the airport failed to secure a route to Canada but who is to say the renowned persuasiveness of the BRS negotiating team won’t do the biz this time?
Also on the airport wish list are German routes, with FRA being specifically mentioned, and Seville, where a lot of traffic is expected to be generated in connection with the new Airbus facility there.
The mention of FRA is interesting as it could suggest the airport is not yet as close to securing a route as some had believed.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mention of FRA is interesting as it could suggest the airport is not yet as close to securing a route as some had believed.
I notice the MME didn't suffer the expected cuts of their BD operated MME-LHR route, after some very vocal local protesting. Maybe their gain is our loss?
I'd be interested to see what the rationale behind a BRS-YYZ/YUL/YOW etc. route would be? Are they looking to lure someone like Zoom into BRS? I can't see AC would want to get anywhere near it, and surely CO will be a bit grumpy having some of their potential EWR traffic eroded?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes indeed, Zoom next year will have 2X weekly direct to Toronto, and a single weekly flight to Vancouver via BFS.
The loads are quite succesful on this route. I would think BRS best chance would be with a summer charter, and AC isnt going to happen, Period.
EDIT!-
Thats this years scheule above, the current schedule shows a single weekly Toronto flight direct and that is it for the moment.
However a move to BRS is less than unlikley.
The loads are quite succesful on this route. I would think BRS best chance would be with a summer charter, and AC isnt going to happen, Period.
EDIT!-
Thats this years scheule above, the current schedule shows a single weekly Toronto flight direct and that is it for the moment.
However a move to BRS is less than unlikley.
Last edited by Smile!!!; 22nd Sep 2007 at 23:02.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never say never Smile!. It may be unlikely and probably likely to be an airline stolen from elsewhere but I have a feeling BRS International Airport is going to start earning its name in the next couple of years. It only takes one mainline national carrier to set the trend and others will follow.
That ball will start rolling soon!
That ball will start rolling soon!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Makes me wonder why someone like Flyglobespan hasn't appeared on the BRS list of operators? Very big to Canada, seem to like operating from regional airports, and with aircraft types that BRS could cope with (757). Other than their summer only, weekly service from EXT (routing YHM-EXT-STN-EXT-YHM), they have no pressence in the South West and would fit in just nicely.
Forewarned is Forearmed
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toronto used to go well out of BRS as an IT route back in the 80's although it hardly ever went direct because of the 757 was in high density layout, sadly the airline called "Odyssey" folded before it could become regular route, infact another airline called "Worldways" picked up the route & operated it for a part of a second season with a DC-8 srs 63 via GLA, before also going out of business, there certainly was a market here then.
If this service is operated by a 757 with the same layout as Continental Airlines, I recon it will be a winner especially going direct.
If this service is operated by a 757 with the same layout as Continental Airlines, I recon it will be a winner especially going direct.
Last edited by Ranger 1; 23rd Sep 2007 at 21:46.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just wondering why there are no BRS-LON flights?
Would it not suit VLM, Air South West, Eastern?
Would it not suit VLM, Air South West, Eastern?
Sadly, when you get below the emotional urge to stick one in FGW's eye, it doesn't stack up sensibly unless you're coming from west of the airport (Weston, Clevedon, Chew Valley) and going to east of London (Docklands, City).
When you add up Travel Time to BRS + Security Time + Minimum Gate Time + Taxi + Airtime + Landing/Taxi + Time back into London, it gets way above the equivalent train time. And the trains, despite all their faults, go every 30 minutes each way.
The only route that would be credible would by BRS-LCY, and even then LCY is 25 minutes out of the City on the DLR.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope GSM don't read this - folk in Exeter are most pleased with the 2 flights and would not want to see BRS gain them.
Canada is calling, but unsure who it will be. I doubt Zoom. I doubt Air Transat or Air Canada. Any other suggestions guys?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Bristol City
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRS-LON and Gordon's share of cake
Notwithstanding the aforementioned logistics of a BRS-LON service and the competition with surface transport, there are now some significant commercial considerations for such short routes.
TAX!
What country in the world would levy TWICE as much tax on domestic flights than on international?
Airlines on UK domestic routes will struggle to attract leisure / short break traffic this winter.
Are any of the political parties calling for a VAT-style system of aviation tax?
e.g Long-haul flight 5%. European 7.5%. Domestic 10%
I guess my rates would be unlikely to recoup the tax-grab under the current system.
TAX!
What country in the world would levy TWICE as much tax on domestic flights than on international?
Airlines on UK domestic routes will struggle to attract leisure / short break traffic this winter.
Are any of the political parties calling for a VAT-style system of aviation tax?
e.g Long-haul flight 5%. European 7.5%. Domestic 10%
I guess my rates would be unlikely to recoup the tax-grab under the current system.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strangly enough the most common London airport that we are asked if there is a service to is STN. Presumably so people can take advantage of the large low cost network there. I would be far keener to see WOW restart the NWI service than look at any London airport (particually as they would probably go for LGW to compliment their existing operation there). The only route I could possibly see working is Eastern into LCY, where their higher fares would absorb the tax and they would only have a small a/c to fill.
BTW: London airports are by far the most common route enquiries made to the airport (that we dont currently fly to anyway). I have also taken enquiries for CWL, BHX, EXT and EMA though
BTW: London airports are by far the most common route enquiries made to the airport (that we dont currently fly to anyway). I have also taken enquiries for CWL, BHX, EXT and EMA though