TUI Airways

[big g]

Goa is only 50 miles more as the crow flys, also there will be more af a tail wind flying from BRS-GOA so shouldn't be much of an issue, now Phuket is around 1500 miles further so I would say no to direct on that one.
But you never know what's going to happen at BRS in the future, if the runway had a displaced threshold at 27 it may change the game!

 

[Marko1]

I wish they just get on with lengthening the runway 300m should do it nicely

 

[forest1979]

Agree, time to bite the bullet and get it in the next master plan.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

It does seem that Cancun is on the edge of B787-8 performance from BRS. How far TUI was aware of this when it opted to return to the route only they (and perhaps the airport) would know. I presume all sorts of calculations were carried out by the airline's experts prior to TUI's decision.

Thomson operated Boeing 767-300s (the former First Choice configured model) to Cancun for a number of years and the aircraft always needed an en route fuel stop at MAN. Thomson apparently accepted this as part of their costings - how much, if anything, BRS helped to defray this expense is not known publicly.

The current master plan lists a number of options for extending the runway and even the most modest one (a 140-metre extension) would require the A38 to be lowered into a tunnel for a length of 150 metres. This is the maximum extension that can be accommodated entirely within existing airport land although part of Felton Common might have to be regraded to maintain obstacle clearances.

The maximum extension that can be contained within existing airport land is a 389-metre extension although this would necessitate airport control over part of Felton Common for the ILS localiser and approach lighting - plus the A38 tunnel.

An extension beyond 389 metres would be subject to CAA licensing approval, further encroachment onto Felton Common and approach lighting issues. As a regular visitor to Felton Common it is noticeable that the land slopes downwards towards the east and I wonder what maximum length of runway extension would be possible without the need to bank up the runway in some way in order to maintain a relatively level profile.

The airport's overall conclusion in 2006 when its master plan was published was to maintain the status quo as it was felt that the improvement in performance that might be achieved by extending the runway is relatively small in comparison with the costs and the potential environmental impact.

With a major review of the master plan set for the next 12 months the runway might well feature prominently. There would be a huge opposition locally, nationally and internationally (as there was when the airport submitted its major expansion plans that the local authority eventually agreed to) to any thought of a runway extension particularly if it involves taking possession of even part of Felton Common which the local authority has declared as a Local Nature Reserve under the relevant legislation.

It has to be remembered too that the airport owners currently have a very profitable facility and they might well not believe that a huge outlay on a runway extension (even if it was not a controversial issue) would bring in the sort of return that would justify it. Some more short haul routes and/or increased frequency on some existing ones might well paint a better picture on the balance sheet than one or two long haul ones.

B787-8s can reach the ME or eastern USA/Canada from the existing runway so that might be a further deterrent to lengthening it.

 

[Tinkerman]

Lengthening the runway at BRS is a complete non-starter due to the topography, status of adjacent land and other obstacles, namely the A38.

A project of this magnitude would run into the hundreds of millions, and would not be economically viable in the slightest considering BRS's typical services.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Lengthening the runway at BRS is a complete non-starter due to the topography, status of adjacent land and other obstacles, namely the A38.

A project of this magnitude would run into the hundreds of millions, and would not be economically viable in the slightest considering BRS's typical services.

I agree it's unlikely and the idea of a runway right across Felton Common is fanciful. The 389-metre extension (the one that keeps within existing airport land although ILS and approach lighting would need to be sited on the common) is probably the one that might merit further consideration except that would lead to a 2,400 metre runway which is 200 metres shorter than the one BHX considered insufficient in length and increased to 3,000 metres a year or two ago.

I have no idea what a 150-metre subway would cost or a 349-metre runway extension together with its accoutrements. Nearly 20 years ago BRS paid for the A38 to be diverted away from the then airport boundary (it involved some civil engineering though a low rock cutting) for a distance of about half a mile to enable Cat3b ILS to be installed on runway 27. I don't know how much that cost them. It was not as much as the new terminal which was in the high 20 millions, albeit at late 1990s levels.

When the new master plan is published - probably in a year or two - it will be instructive to learn the airport's up to date thoughts on its runway with the pros and cons that might have altered since 2006.

 

[kraktoa]

Runway extension? Not in our lifetimes as TLY once said.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Runway extension? Not in our lifetimes as TLY once said.

Not in mine; not sure about yours though .

 

[kraktoa]

Not in mine; not sure about yours though .

Lets be realistic. Tunneling under A38 that will take 10 years for just a feasibility study.

Felton common to be reattributed/reassigned. They will have to wait for the current generation to die off before they can even put forward that idea.

I am mid fifties. I dont think in my lifetime assuming i live the national average.

 

[superking]

Break out the traffic lights again like it used to be.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Cancun

The flight seems to be making it non-stop today. FR24 track shows no MAN fuel diversion and eta is more or less on time. Aircraft G-TUIB, Alfie, which I think is the one that visited BRS in April last year shortly after the TOM transatlantic routes were announced.

 

[Red Flyer]

Strange isn't it that after all the pessimism east of the Severn last week and the expertise from the west of the Severn the flight has operated nonstop for the sixth time in seven weeks. Maybe all the doom and gloom has been misplaced and the management at BRS and TOM know what they are doing after all.

 

[Jerry]

Strange isn't it that after all the pessimism east of the Severn last week and the expertise from the west of the Severn the flight has operated nonstop for the sixth time in seven weeks. Maybe all the doom and gloom has been misplaced and the management at BRS and TOM know what they are doing after all.

In the end it will depend how many times the flight gets diverted in the season. There are 19 flights left for the season. Each flight that gets diverted to MAN to refuel will cost TOM extra.
I'm surprised though that they didn't just use CWL as it's right next door and they could fill up and takeoff with no problems then and i'd have thought that for something like that CWLs fees may have been cheaper than MANs.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

In the end it will depend how many times the flight gets diverted in the season. There are 19 flights left for the season. Each flight that gets diverted to MAN to refuel will cost TOM extra.
I'm surprised though that they didn't just use CWL as it's right next door and they could fill up and takeoff with no problems then and i'd have thought that for something like that CWLs fees may have been cheaper than MANs.

TOM always used MAN for taking on fuel when they operated BRS-CUN with 767s for a number of years. CUN was out of range for non-stop from BRS with 767s.

On a 9 hour-plus flight I don't know whether using MAN rather than CWL would put any extra distance or time on the flight. Possibly depends on the track on the day.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

All depends on the weather really. There was one day of poor weather which meant the tech stop in MAN. If the market in BRS is going to perform better, then TOM will make more money in BRS than in CWL by charging less to get bums on seats just to always go direct.

 

[Jerry]

I'm not suggesting that BRS do the flights from CWL instead of BRS, i was suggesting they stop for fuel there instead of going up to MAN if they can't make it direct from BRS. As a for CWL i would love to see TOM operate Orlando/Cancun flights in the summer like they are going to do with the Barbados flights in the winter even if they were once a month, as Orlando and Cancun to a lesser extent have always been popular destinations from South Wales. Realistically though i've got more chance of winning the lottery than TOM doing Orlando flights from CWL!

 

[Marko1]

I've noticed some additions to this winters schedule which I don't think have appeared before. Madeira starts now in march 2018 whilst paphos goes twice a week in April

 

[Jerry]

Could BRS see TOMs based 757s replaced with 737 MAX 10s. As TUI has ordered 18 of them and become the first European airline to do so.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-06-19-Boeing-TUI-Group-Announce-Selection-of-18-737-MAX-10s

 

[Sierra3]

Could BRS see TOMs based 757s replaced with 737 MAX 10s. As TUI has ordered 18 of them and become the first European airline to do so.
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-06-19-Boeing-TUI-Group-Announce-Selection-of-18-737-MAX-10s

Are they 'runway gobblers' ?

Have read somewhere (can't remember where) that the A321LR needs a lot more runway than BRS has got, to operate at maximum range.

 

[Jerry]

Are they 'runway gobblers' ?

Have read somewhere (can't remember where) that the A321LR needs a lot more runway than BRS has got, to operate at maximum range.

I'm not sure. I did see a post somewhere which said the MAX 9 needed the same amount of runway as the 900er which is a lot. But would they operate at full weight and full range from an airport like BRS? The most they generally fly is 4 hours roughly 2000 miles and their range is generally double that so maybe the runway wouldn't be a problem.