Infrastructure, Construction & Developments

[big g]

Old terminal bldg most probably will be torn down by Aug 2018. One more year before the iconic bldg ceases to exist.

Then work begins for new stands in winter 2018 to be completed by summer 2019.

I'm confident that the building will be still standing in 2019.

 

[Marko1]

If that is the case how many spare stands are there overnight and will it start to inhibit growth ?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

If that is the case how many spare stands are there overnight and will it start to inhibit growth ?

It might be an opportune time for the airport to slow its breakneck growth of the past few years. It's likely that by the end of this year passenger throughput will have grown by two million passengers per year to 8.3 million over a three-year period.

Apart from questions regarding aircraft parking the infrastructure struggles to deal with the passenger numbers efficiently at certain times of the day.

The root and branch re-appraisal of the master plan will, should anyway, review this aspect as part of its considerations. The runway extension will probably be up for discussion again and I seem to remember Robert Sinclair saying something about looking at the cargo situation but I can't find the reference (maybe the Qatar experience played a part if cargo really was a defining reason for BRS to lose out).

15 mppa now seems to be the eventual target; 20 mppa has been mentioned in some reports. This isn't going to happen overnight of course and infrastructure will have to be hugely and innovatively developed if passenger numbers are to get anywhere near that. They've spent £160 million since 2010 and a similar amount in the decade before that. This sort of figure could well be needed again if the airport is to somehow squeeze 15 million passengers a year through its portals.

Realistically, the airport needs a new CEO in place before any meaningful look into the future can take place.

 

[tpm]

Ignoring the question whether there's a business case for cargo at all given the route network and type of airlines, wouldn't cargo be rather challenging from an infrastructure point of view? Would there even be enough space, without relaxing the green belt? (Not that that hasn't been proposed at some point, under there last Labour government though).

15mppa is an interesting number, because it's been said previously that 12-15mppa is what's required to make a rail link viable (I know I know).

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I'd leave a detailed answer regarding cargo viability (space for a facility and likely airlines) to those who work at the airport and would know far better than me.

Many years ago there was a small cargo facility which was later moved to Avonmouth but no longer exists.

I take the point about the type of airlines using BRS and cargo. It's possible that, if cargo was a significant factor in missing out on Qatar, the senior airport management might believe that this could be a problem with other ME airlines.

15 mppa does seem to be the figure accepted within the industry as the minimum necessary for a rail link. I presume that means to construct a new rail link. SOU has an excellent rail station but handles no more than 2 mppa. On the other side of the coin Melbourne Tullamarine, an airport I use fairly regularly, handles over 30 mppa yet has no rail link, just a shuttle bus service to the main central Southern Cross railway station that mirrors the Bristol Airport Flyer service to Temple Meads and other suburban bus services, again similar to BRS. Not even one of the ubiquitous Melbourne tram lines reaches the airport.

 

[andrewgreen]

Ignoring the question whether there's a business case for cargo at all given the route network and type of airlines, wouldn't cargo be rather challenging from an infrastructure point of view? Would there even be enough space, without relaxing the green belt? (Not that that hasn't been proposed at some point, under there last Labour government though).

15mppa is an interesting number, because it's been said previously that 12-15mppa is what's required to make a rail link viable (I know I know).

The area to the North of the runway where the main terminal is wont have any room for anything else when all the construction on the master plan has been finished as far as i can see. Any expansion for cargo or anything else has surely got to be to the south of the the runway ?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The area to the North of the runway where the main terminal is wont have any room for anything else when all the construction on the master plan has been finished as far as i can see. Any expansion for cargo or anything else has surely got to be to the south of the the runway ?

Sounds logical to me. The current CEO, in a major interview about the airport in an aviation magazine published in April this year, said that all future major development would be on the northside which is contrary to the present master plan that suggests a second terminal on the southside together with a second full-length parallel taxiway would be needed when passenger levels reached a certain point - from memory around 10 mppa.

He didn't rule out some development on the southside though and if a cargo facility is deemed necessary that might be one of the exceptions although the southside seems to be getting busy itself these days with the Airbus and BAE corporate shuttles, Centreline, the flying clubs and general aviation.

 

[andrewgreen]

I didnt know about the parallel taxiway plan but have often thought it would help especially when you have traffic for the southside having to mix it with the big boys to the north before it can cross the runway again obviously when landings are on rwy27 .
There does seem to be ample room still around the area where the fire training area is/was

 

[TheLocalYokel]

1. This is the section in the current master plan. It was of course published over ten years ago.
   
   Second terminal
   1. 12.19 The draft Master Plan concluded that new apron development on the south side of the runway would need to be brought into use in conjunction with a second, south side terminal building. However some consultees suggested that it may prove possible, and more cost effective, to transfer passengers to the north side existing terminal from aircraft in this location. This would need further consideration at the time more detailed proposals are prepared but at this stage it is difficult to envisage how satisfactory operational arrangements could be put in place for this transfer process. In terms of long term land use planning it would therefore be prudent to safeguard the delivery of the second terminal in line with the Air Transport White Paper proposals.
   2. 12.20 In principle a second terminal should be deliverable. However the following issues need to be considered:
      • A south side parallel taxiway would be needed to avoid the need for aircraft to cross the runway to get to and from the north side parallel taxiway. The terrain at the west end of the runway is particularly challenging and involves land outside BIA ownership.
      • The second terminal site is currently occupied by car parking. This would need to be relocated to suitable adjoining land. Expansion of the airport land into adjacent farm land would be required.

131

Bristol International Airport – Master Plan 2006 to 2030

• We have not given any detailed consideration to the design of a second terminal at this stage. However it is likely that a low rise recessive building could be developed to limit the visual impact from land surrounding the airport.

 

[kraktoa]

I'm confident that the building will be still standing in 2019.

Heard from another source that OTB will be pulled down circa spring 2019. Time will tell.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

I heard it was to be gone before the end of summer 2018

 

[kraktoa]

I heard it was to be gone before the end of summer 2018

Vacated by end of summer 2018. Torn down by spring 2019. Northside house adjacent to the Old terminal to stay in place.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Outdoor terrace

I used the airport twice in the past week or so - to/from Glasgow - and it was the first time I'd passed through BRS for a year. It's the longest period of non-use for probably 40 years but in my retirement I only use it for leisure and increasingly I've been using rail for continental travel and London for long haul.

We (my wife and I) arrived in plenty of time for a 1620 flight on the Tuesday before last and, as the day was reasonably clement, we spent a pleasant hour on the outdoor terrace. Rather surprisingly there were few other people there during our presence despite the terminal itself becoming very busy.

Some of the lighter coloured 'furniture' is already becoming marked and ingrained with grime. Given that it is in the outdoors all the time this is probably inevitable.

However, what shocked us was litter. The terrace has a heavy duty plastic (or some such material) transparent 'fence' to above head height around its perimeter which does not obstruct the view one iota. Between this fence and the low outside wall is a strip about a yard wide. There were numerous cigarette ends (the terrace is supposed to be non-smoking) lying in this strip with other litter. There were several discarded plastic bottles, cans and plastic that had obviously been lying there for a long time.

I know that passengers were doubtless responsible for the litter in the first place but neither my wife nor I could understand why the airport management had taken no steps to clear it.

On a positive note both flights (to and from GLA - the return yesterday early evening) arrived early and at both airports our suitcase was on the carousel as soon as we arrived in the respective baggage reclaim areas after a swift aircraft exit on both occasions.

Outbound the security process was simple and very quick, with the operatives polite. GLA was the same.

Some complain about the long walk to the far end of the western walkway (400 metres) - we departed from a gate about two thirds the way along - but GLA is as bad. For as long as I can remember easyJet at GLA has used a sort of shed at the end of a very long walk (without travellators) for its departure gates, equally as long as the far end of BRS's western walkway.

 

[andrewgreen]

The bristol enthusiasts fair is not going ahead this year , it was always held in the old terminal building , maybe that implies it might be coming down sooner rather than later ?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The bristol enthusiasts fair is not going ahead this year , it was always held in the old terminal building , maybe that implies it might be coming down sooner rather than later ?

Several months ago there was a post by Simon (I think it was him) who is connected with the Bristol Spotters forum saying that the fair was taking break this year. A reason was given - I think it was logistical but to be honest I've forgotten what it actually was - and the inference was that it would return in 2018.

However, if the old terminal is no longer there then they clearly have a problem as to venue.

I attended the fair for the first time last year and found it an enjoyable day.

 

[Marko1]

I am trying to get my head around where growth can continue to be accommodated within existing boundaries . Surely adjacent land would have to be acquired at some point in the near future notably given the indication that development will be on the north side of the runway

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I am trying to get my head around where growth can continue to be accommodated within existing boundaries . Surely adjacent land would have to be acquired at some point in the near future notably given the indication that development will be on the north side of the runway

In terms of infrastructure growth I don't think there is a likelihood of spreading beyond existing airport boundaries - the Green Belt would be a problem for starters. The exception would be a runway extension that necessitated some form of control or presence on Felton Common but that to me seems a highly unlikely scenario but is nevertheless one that should be examined in great detail.

The first multi-storey car park will see building commence this autumn. In theory, I suppose that multi-storey car parks could take some of the vehicles that currently park on the huge north side long stay surface car park, thus freeing up some space for other development. The snag with that is that as passenger numbers continue to grow more cars will be parking.

The south side Silver Zone extension surface car park is also a massive area but already seems to be packed this summer. As more passengers pass through the airport in the future perhaps consideration will have to be given to building multi-storey car parks on the south side as well as the north side.

This aspect might well form part of the master plan re-appraisal - where in heaven's name do we put everything? The way things are progressing it's becoming more and more like Manchester United having to play all their home matches at Oldham Athletic's ground.

 

[andrewgreen]

The only land i can see that can be of any use is the fields between the service exit road and the golf course . They are relatively flat for the area around there and as far as i can remember only contain a couple of houses. If this was purchased it would give room to extend the Western apron as well as a bigger exit road and probably more parking. Its to the North of where the old Bristol and Wessex hanger used to be many moons ago .

 

[TheLocalYokel]

The only land i can see that can be of any use is the fields between the service exit road and the golf course . They are relatively flat for the area around there and as far as i can remember only contain a couple of houses. If this was purchased it would give room to extend the Western apron as well as a bigger exit road and probably more parking. Its to the North of where the old Bristol and Wessex hanger used to be many moons ago .

Probably currently in the Green Belt. The airport would need support from the local authority as compulsory purchase orders might be necessary for the houses unless the airport offered silly money.

If the Bristol Corporation* aldermen and councillors of the 1950s had had more foresight they would have pursued the Filton option, which I understand was a very real one although the Corporation would not have been the owners as they were at Lulsgate.

Ironically the Corporation closed its Whitchurch airport and moved to Lulsgate as Whitchurch was incapable of further development with the larger aircraft that were coming on stream at that time. In fairness, it's probably unrealistic to blame the councillors of those days as no-one then would have said that even in 60 years time Bristol would have an airport handling over eight million passengers a year. When Lulsgate opened it was handling in a year the number of passengers that the current airport handles on a busy day.

* That was how the city council styled itself in those days

 

[andrewgreen]

I think we have to get over the Filton option now , i actually flew in to Filton the week before it was closed it felt vey sad at the time .
I agree it was by far the best option but its gone and not coming back now. All we have is a small site at Lulsgate which still has some room for development. The few houses that are around the aiport which are on land that could be useful to the airport should be considered as although they would be silly money in house price terms would represent nothing in the scheme of things for the airport .