Bristol Airport - General Thread

[TheLocalYokel]

Also, does anyone have the planning application reference for that, can't seem to find it.

The planning reference for the application rejected earlier this year is 18/P/5118/OUT

The summary of the application seems to make no mention of a PTI (see below) which would suggest that today they are either relying on the outline planning permission already granted or it is a new application.

Outline planning application (with reserved matters details for some elements included and some elements reserved for subsequent approval) for the development of Bristol Airport to enable a throughput of 12 million terminal passengers in any 12 month calendar period, comprising: 2no. extensions to the terminal building and canopies over the forecourt of the main terminal building; erection of new east walkway and pier with vertical circulation cores and pre-board zones; 5m high acoustic timber fence; construction of a new service yard directly north of the western walkway; erection of a multi-storey car park north west of the terminal building with five levels providing approximately 2,150 spaces; enhancement to the internal road system including gyratory road with internal surface car parking and layout changes; enhancements to airside infrastructure including construction of new eastern taxiway link and taxiway widening (and fillets) to the southern edge of Taxiway GOLF; the year-round use of the existing Silver Zone car park extension (Phase 1) with associated permanent (fixed) lighting and CCTV; extension to the Silver Zone car park to provide approximately 2,700 spaces (Phase 2); the provision of on-site renewable energy generation; improvements to the A38; operating within a rolling annualised cap of 4,000 night flights between the hours of 23:30 and 06:00 with no seasonal restrictions; revision to the operation of Stands 38 and 39; and landscaping and associated works.

What I'd not spotted before is that the target date for the determination of the application subsequently rejected was April 2019. It was determined in February 2020. Had the original date been met the NSC would have been Conservative-controlled and would probably have approved the application.

 

[tpm]

Perhaps it could be regarded as "permitted development" since it doesn't increase passenger numbers / capacity? Wasn't the Western Walkway done this way? Either way I don't imagine too many people will put up a fight against a public transport interchange (but then I would've said the same about feeding school children).

This was the picture the airport posted on Twitter:

View attachment 17387

Not a fan of this kind of set up, that's just an unpleasant passenger experience as anyone who's used Bristol Central Bus Station or Heathrow Bus station can probably attest. No one wants to alight/board onto the road, possibly with a tight squeeze between two busses. I hope this is not what they're planning.

The current drop-off right in front of the terminal is perfect really: bus aligned with pavement, right in front of the terminal, you just jump off, have plenty of space to arrange your luggage and get out of the way of other passengers, and then make your way to the terminal entrance.

As you might have expected, Germans actually have a word for this: Verschlimmbesserung

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I agree with your sentiments, tpm. The original idea to site the PTI on top of a second multi-storey car park with a short and direct covered walkway into the terminal looks more passenger-friendly.

It can be seen in this video. The first 20 seconds show it in relation to the airport complex then from around a minute into the video a more detailed 'walk through' is shown.

 

[superking]

Unless im dreaming wasnt the coach park bit rejected by planners. The multi story bit was ok. There is something in my mind that this was the case.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Unless im dreaming wasnt the coach park bit rejected by planners. The multi story bit was ok. There is something in my mind that this was the case.

The PTI was given outline planning permission in 2011.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Local press take on the PTI submission - largely a rehash of the airport press release. The article does refer to the 2011 planning consent for the original PTI.

Airport announces plans for multi million pound transport hub

It would be built on the site of the existing Drop and Go parking zone

www.bristolpost.co.uk

 

[Aviador]

Looks good. Moving forward, local councils are insisting on better connectivity before they will even consider other airport developments. I've added the article to the forums news pages.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Airport Business Development Director

Whilst checking the BRS website page today I accessed the page that lists the airport's senior management (see link below). There is now no mention of Nigel Scott, the business development director who joined the airport around three years ago. He was responsible amongst other things for route development and attracting new airlines.

None of the other senior members of staff seem to have those tasks listed amongst their responsibilities.

Has Nigel Scott left the airport? A quick Google search failed to find any report of such an eventuality. However, looking back through the airport's press releases the last time that Nigel Scott commented on anything was December last year. Usually he is the one to comment in a press release about any news concerning airline partners. This year the several press releases about airlines have seen Dave Lees the airport CEO commenting on behalf of the airport.

If Nigel Scott has left does anyone know who is now responsible for his duties, or at least overseeing them at senior management level?

Our people

Get to know the team tasked with running Bristol Airport and the shareholders who own the business.

www.bristolairport.co.uk

 

[Marko1]

Nigel is on twitter and still states he is the business development director. Also he is very active on that site.

 

[Scottie Dog]

His Linkedin profile still shows him as being at BRS - but that's no guarantee.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Nigel is on twitter and still states he is the business development director. Also he is very active on that site.

His Linkedin profile still shows him as being at BRS - but that's no guarantee.

Thank you for those replies.

I'm not a member of any social media site so would not be aware. When Googling this morning on the Linked-In site on Nigel Scott's page (I'm not a member of that either so could not go beyond the 'public' part of his entry) I came across this 'recommendation', "I worked for Nigel in Bristol Airports Business Development department. During Nigel's tenure as Business Development Director the airport achieved an unprecedented level of growth - passenger numbers increased from 7.6m to 9.2m in 3 years...."

The wording suggests that his tenure might be over and with no comment from him in press releases for nearly a year it could lead to the conclusion that he is no longer at the airport, particularly as he is not now listed on the senior management page on the airport's website.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

With Jet2 expecting to be providing in the region of 1m seats, where does that leave BRS with regards to its capacity cap?
Granted covid will have a big effect on numbers until demand returns, but had covid not been around, would Jet2 have been able to provide so much capacity, also with the expectation of more to come?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

With Jet2 expecting to be providing in the region of 1m seats, where does that leave BRS with regards to its capacity cap?
Granted covid will have a big effect on numbers until demand returns, but had covid not been around, would Jet2 have been able to provide so much capacity, also with the expectation of more to come?

Funnily enough, I've just touched on that in a post in the BRS Jet2 thread.

Had there been no pandemic I find it hard to see how Jet2 could have been fitted in at the moment vis-a-vis the BRS 10 mppa cap. In February this year the rolling 12-month total was approaching 9.2 million with the airport projecting that the end of 2021 would see the cap almost reached, presumably using its existing carriers. That is unless the airport knew last year that Jet2 would be coming in summer 2021 and factored that in.

The airport press release speaks of 450,000 Jet2 seats in summer 2021.

Nevertheless, there would have been no room for any of the existing airlines to grow further once Jet2 had arrived.

As it is BRS is probably not likely to get back to the 9 mppa level for two or three years at least. The pandemic therefore gives it time for its appeal (which might not be finalised for at least a year, possibly longer) to run its course without having to turn away airlines such as Jet2.

BRS's major problem of course would be a rejection of its appeal. That would leave it effectively permanently capped at 10 mppa and unable to carry on growing its business. Potentially very good news for CWL (and EXT) as I've said a number of times in the past on this website and elsewhere, as far back as the WAN and WAF days in fact when my alter ego said nearly a decade ago in the midst of CWL's fallout from the recession that its best chance might be for BRS to reach its 10 mppa (then recently applied) cap as quickly as possible and not be allowed to grow further.

 

[Marko1]

When should we expect to see our ACL slot allocations ? Would be interesting to see what plans easyJet and Ryanair have

 

[TheLocalYokel]

When should we expect to see our ACL slot allocations ? Would be interesting to see what plans easyJet and Ryanair have

BRS is currently level 3 slot co-ordinated only in summer (BST) and then only between 2300 and 0700. I don't know what's now happening with the airport's application to the DfT to become level 3 co-ordinated 24/7 throughout the year now the virus has interfered savagely with flights.

Is there a legal or operational need for airlines to submit slot applications to airports below level 3? Some airlines might do so but is it really necessary?

 

[forest1979]

Hi, long time and no post.... so thought I would start some conversation...
BRS like everyone else will have a lot to do to recover however, I have been reading about jet blue’s impending launch of transatlantic flights using A321LR’s.. not ideal for them but they have secured slots at LGW and STN. (Everyone wants LHR)
Do we think the US is still one of those destinations BRS would like back and if so, is this where they should be looking? The kit they use (A321LR) I assume is a good fit... offering NE state side do New York and Boston..

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Hi, long time and no post.... so thought I would start some conversation...
BRS like everyone else will have a lot to do to recover however, I have been reading about jet blue’s impending launch of transatlantic flights using A321LR’s.. not ideal for them but they have secured slots at LGW and STN. (Everyone wants LHR)
Do we think the US is still one of those destinations BRS would like back and if so, is this where they should be looking? The kit they use (A321LR) I assume is a good fit... offering NE state side do New York and Boston..

Hello forest, good to 'see' you again.

I'm assuming that BRS would love a transatlantic scheduled route if one was offered. How much of a priority it is at the moment though might be less certain. I would suggest that other busier airports would have a far better chance.

BRS's well-documented problem is that it's a bit too close to Heathrow when it comes to long-haul with travellers in the city region regarding LHR as their default airport for such travel. The Qatar Airways CEO said that was one of the reasons for deciding on CWL although there was an element of mixed messaging because he went on to say that CWL has a catchment of six million (nearly twice the population of the whole of Wales) which meant he was looking to the West Country to help fill his aircraft.

The other problem with an airport like BRS when it comes to long-haul is that the frequency to, say, New York would not be likely to be more than once a day which is a built-in inflexibility particularly when it comes to business travellers. When Continental were operating to Newark for five and a half years our son, who lived in Bristol, worked for a giant US conglomerate and had to travel frequently to the USA and Canada. Whilst the CO route to Newark was fine for the New York area it was a better use of his time if he drove to LHR and flew direct to other parts of North America using the myriad of flights and timings from there.

My wife and I looked at Qatar Airways from CWL when we last flew to Australia but the timings, or more specifically the very long wait at Doha for aircraft change on the dates we looked at, meant that we flew from LHR.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of people who would be quite happy to use a once-daily service but whether there would be enough, given the alternatives along the M4*, is a moot point. CO tried it and ultimately it didn't work for them but that might have been partly down to the major recession at the time. However well the CO route might have done it was always on borrowed time once CO gained LHR access rights. They switched their LGW-EWR service to LHR almost immediately and the BRS-EWR followed a couple of years later.

* I realise that a lot of people who use BRS don't begin or end their journey in the West Country (Greater Bristol-plus) and LHR might not be as convenient for them. However, over half the BRS passenger numbers are West Country-orientated and the remainder might not represent a big enough pool for a transatlantic.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Test to Release: England introduces testing strategy for international arrivals

Test to Release: England introduces testing strategy for international arrivals

www.bristolairport.co.uk

Press release from BRS in which they welcome the government's announcement on testing for passengers entering/returning to England that would reduce quarantine period to five days.

 

[Barry Man]

I think it’s going to cost £150 per passenger, may be wrong

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I think it’s going to cost £150 per passenger, may be wrong

Apparently that's the cost of PCR tests. The system proposed for quarantine-reducing tests is the LAMP system which is about half the cost of a PCR test according to press reports and could fall to £30 if such testing becomes widespread.

Some scientists seem to have doubts about the efficacy of LAMP tests, not least because the proposed system apparently allows passengers to do their own tests (alternatively they could travel to a testing centre). If the tests are not done properly it seems false results might ensue.

It might be the case that international air travel will not resume in a meaningful way until vaccines are rolled out around the world. The CEO of Qantas said this week that he expects his airline to insist on vaccination certificates for international flights and believes that this will become the norm with airlines. Even here there is controversy with, for example, criticism that a Russian vaccine has been rushed without proper testing or assessment.

Travel quarantine to be cut from two weeks to five days – with a quick test

In the New Year, quarantine could be avoided altogether with a series of seven lateral-flow tests

www.independent.co.uk