brs expansion plans

[terrier21]

Temporary structures are due to be erected sometime in September offering 16 more checkin desks on the eastern end of the terminal and more baggage carosels on the western end. Watch this space for more info

[MerchantVenturer]

terrier

I assume you work at BRS.

I am a regular traveller through the airport and have always been surprised at the dearth of carousels. I had a tour of the new terminal before it opened over four years ago and on the comment form we were given I made that observation then - even before the terminal was operational.

There are now six carousels - three for international flights and three for domestic. In my experience this is often inadequate and it can be an unpleasant experience squeezing around the carousel area (especially in the international section) when the belts might be servicing two or even three flights each at one time.

I am glad to hear about more provision for reclaiming baggage and I hope this IS only a temporary solution. I was told the terminal itself was built so it could be extended at the side and it seems the number of passengers now travelling means that time has been reached.

As for more check-in desks, as a passenger this has never seemed a great problem to me but presumably it is from an operational perspective.

[terrier21]

You are correct MV we have grown much more quickly than planned (not a bad thing). Their are sometimes problems during the 'busy' periods with the amount of checkin desks mainly due to allocation, each airline wants a specific number of desks and with ezy and ba having set desks it is sometimes difficult to work. Also if there are any technical problems with the desks it can get a bit difficult.

The new expansion willbe very welcome to all who work here and hopefully to our passengers alike.

[LTNman]

Luton only has 4 carrousels for 7 million passengers

[Powerjet1]

Arrived back at LTN last sunday night, well actually monday morning, ie 01.10am, after nearly a five hour delay on the Aer Arann flight from WAT. Stood waiting at the carousel until 2.05am before luggage arrived. Not amused.

[In trim]

LTNMan, the main difference between LTN and BRS is the size of the carousels and the amount of space around them. LTN is far from perfect, but at least the reclaim area was designed (re-developed) around the type of aircraft which dominates the airport.....i.e. 150'ish seater jets.

It is very obvious looking at BRS that elements of the terminal were designed based largely around the size of aircraft which were operating at that time. i.e. Mainly 50'ish seater turboprops and commuter jets (Brymon etc.). The growth in the 'low cost' and other areas at BRS, with larger aircraft types, has clearly overtaken the terminal design.

[a bristolian]

Have to disagree with last post.

Terminal only opened in 2000. It was designed to cater for 200 pax plus loads on charter routes as well as airlines such as Ryanair on low cost and BA with 50 seaters as we have now.

The simple reason is that the total growth is far higher than we all dreamed of and is the highest of all major UK regional in the last 5 years with 114% growth.

Next year 5million+

[MerchantVenturer]

I have in my possession a glossy news sheet issue by Bristol Airport in 1993. Part of the news sheet deals with the plans for a new terminal - an artist's impression shows a structure very much like the one eventually built.

The airport was at that time handling one million passengers per year and its ten year plan envisaged 2 million annual passengers by 2003 (it turned out to be 4 million but no-one could have predicted then the growth of low cost airlines).

With this in mind the news sheet stated the projected terminal's 'ultra-modern design' could easily be extended to handle 3.5 million passengers.

I believe that what was eventually built was capable of handling 3.5 million pax without being extended, but now the airport is through 4 miilion annual pax and apparently heading quickly for 5 million I think the matter of a permanently enlarged terminal should be considered urgently.

[GrahamK]

Look at MAN T1, only 6 carousels, and what does that terminal take, 10 millin per year?
Gets kinda crowded when 7 or 8 757 sized a/c come in at one time ;)

[In trim]

a bristolian,

I'm not disagreeing and clearly when the terminal was designed there was provision for some 200+ seat charters. I'm not suggesting it was totally based on 50 seaters!!

However, if you look at the ORIGINAL size of domestic reclaim, for example (before the extension 18-24 months ago), it was clearly based on domestic services being primarily in the 50'ish seat category, and could not cope with the sudden influx of 150-seaters on Domestic routes.

I believe BRS were aware of the restrictions before the terminal was built/completed, as the LoCos had started to arrive, but to try re-designing at that stage would have caused major delays due to the planning requirements. Not sure how true this is?

[alterego]

When the terminal was opened, it was envisaged that it would be extended in the future. BRS has grown quicker than anyone imagined but the roads to the airport have had no improvement.

The terminal extension will be good but unless something is done about access it's going to be even harder to get to in more traffic jams!

[MerchantVenturer]

I agree that road links to the airport are not ideal but I question the notion (often quoted by local politicians and other ‘antis’) that local roads around the airport are being swamped by airport traffic. They are not.

I grew up in two local villages in the 1940s and 1950s. In those days the A 38 was the major route from the Midlands to Devon and Cornwall (no M5 then). It was busier in the 1950s than it is now. For a start it was narrower for much of its route and the slower heavy lorries of the period caused considerable tailbacks.

In retirement I often drive or cycle around the villages near the airport and to the airport itself. There have been no obvious signs of extra traffic congestion since the annual throughput went from 2 million pax to over 4 million pax, and I contend that 5 or 6 million pax would only bring about a marginal effect.

What does cause congestion are the thousands of commuters from south of Bristol into the city each morning and out each evening along the A 38, the inconsiderate parking of mainly locals in such villages as Chew Magna and the blasted school run of poorly driven 4-wheel drives in the afternoons. But the airport is a convenient scapegoat.

Having said this, road links do need to be improved, mainly because at present many, though by no means all, intending passengers have to thread their way through the heavily congested south west Bristol suburbs. These suburbs are congested anyway - by traffic having nothing whatsoever to do with the airport.

What needs to be tackled is the indigenous congestion around this area of Bristol. The much talked about (but so far not acted on) link road from the A 370 to the A 38 would be a start. A motorway link from the M 5 (only about four miles from the airport 'as the crow flies') would be ideal from a traffic point of view but would never get past the environmental lobby.

[terrier21]

On the whole i must admit i agree (as i normally do) with MV. The only increase in traffic causing congestion as a diredt result from the increased pax numbers is that of the services trucks using brockley combe!!

Many times after a 0600 finish have i been stuck behind a fuel tanker from the airport to the A370. And many times at 0530 in the morning have i almost hit one coming in the opposite direction having to swerve into a bush!

In an ideal world there would be a direct link from the M5 a train station and a bigger runway (sounds abit like FZO!) but unfortunatly its not; but a link between the A370 and A38 would be a start.
terrier