Bristol Airport - General Thread

[TheLocalYokel]

Does any one know when they hope to have the new CEO in place.

Robert Sinclair starts at London City on 30 October according to the below linked article. I presume that the BRS owners will want the replacement in post by then if possible.

http://www.cityam.com/267473/london-city-airport-has-appointed-robert-sinclair-chief

With some aviation aficionados supporting their local airport in the way that football fans support their team, I sometimes wonder if there is a parallel between the success or otherwise of football managers/head coaches (as some seem to be termed these days) and airport chief executives.

Some football managers have the golden touch wherever they go whilst others aren't as good or as consistent. Les Wilson must be one of the most outstanding examples of an airport boss (he was MD, not CEO - there wasn't a CEO at BRS then) turning a failing airport around almost single-handedly. He was also a great showman and had a knack of getting his airport publicity in almost anything it did - positive activity anyway. Les would probably have found ways of ignoring anything negative.

Would he be able to exert the same influence these days? My feeling is that he would not, at least to the same degree. Modern CEO's seem to be valued more for their management and team leadership skills rather than rolling up their sleeves and getting stuck into the day-to-day activity. Les would not have had all the senior departmental people who have their own role at the 21st Century BRS either.

And to maintain the football analogy, BRS was a League 2 club when Les took over and when he was so tragically killed in a car accident in 1995 he had taken the airport towards the top of League 1, looking odds-on to be promoted in the next year or two. The current BRS is top Championship level looking to break into the Premier League so the task is that more difficult to kick on than in 1980 when Les arrived.

I think that the most important thing for BRS is not only to find a CEO with the requisite skills but also one who is able to take a broad view of the airport's progress to date and its realistic path into the future and how it can be accomplished, unburdened by any past involvement with the airport. In other words someone who looks at the situation with a fresh pair of eyes.

 

[Marko1]

I think we could definitely do with someone who is very media and particularly social media savvy. Someone who will have to sell the new master plan and the airports future. Someone who has links to the major airlines and someone with a good past relationship with existing anchor carriers too. How about an ex brs member ?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I think we could definitely do with someone who is very media and particularly social media savvy. Someone who will have to sell the new master plan and the airports future. Someone who has links to the major airlines and someone with a good past relationship with existing anchor carriers too. How about an ex brs member ?

If you are referring to a particular ex BRS Member I was going to cheekily suggest his name (with an appropriate smilie) but I'm not sure it would work now. He didn't hang around when a bigger club came calling (as is often the case in football).

Robert Sinclair is undoubtedly an extremely efficient CEO and was proficient when dealing with the tv and radio but probably lacks a certain charisma. I know that Mr K when at BHX was always on the go with the media, both news media and social media, and from this distance he seemed very good at it. I don't think his approach was everyone's cup of tea amongst the BHX faithful. At times he could be irritating.

But you are right about social media. It's the currency of modern day popular communication - although as an old curmudgeon I invariably avoid such sites - and senior people in any field need to be able to master it, even if a certain Mr Trump goes way over the top.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Following on from my previous post I note that the last item on the BRS Twitter page is dated 7 August and the one before that 4 August. That's the part of the airport Twitter site that is available for anyone to read and it mainly seems to contain items that advertise airport activities or provide information such as the M5 closure on 4 August which is the penultimate item on the main Twitter section.

Until recently I could click on Tweet and Replies at the head of the page and bring up the really interesting bits: complaints (and sometimes praise) from the public. As I have no Twitter account the site no longer allows me to access the Tweets and Replies section.

I'm not suggesting this blocking has been done with an ulterior motive in mind but it does restrict knowledge of complaints about the airport to fewer members of the public. I wonder why this decision was taken after so long or is it something to do with new 'rules' put out by Twitter itself?

 

[tpm]

I think it's something that Twitter changed, not the airport. Can't even see a setting for it at first glance, so don't know if it's something you can opt in or out of.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Many thanks tpm. I'm not a member of any social media group - it's not my sort of thing - so don't have any other options to try with the BRS Twitter site.

 

[Ornsack]

I don't follow them but have an active account, and the option to see replies etc is available to me on the BRS page.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

It does seem then from what tpm and Ornsack have said that it's a Twitter decision rather than the airport's. If you have a Twitter account it appears you can access the Tweets and Replies Section. If you haven't (like me) you can now only access the general Twitter stuff on the BRS site which is largely advertising events and information about the airport.

 

[tpm]

You can of course just sign up with a throw-away e-mail address. Many people just have twitter accounts to read/follow and don't actively post/participate.

 

[kraktoa]

Was today the record breaking arrivals day as predicted?

 

[superking]

If the airport predicted this then I would say yes they did. They know what is going to be in and out aircraft and pax wise. Lets hope it did happen and the airport will let us know it happened as predicted.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Leadership Team

In recent weeks I've noticed a change in the posts that make up the leadership team as shown on the airport's website (see below link).

https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/about-us/who-we-are/our-people

The posts are:

Chief Executive - mainly self-evident
Finance Director - mainly self-evident
Operations Director - mainly self-evident
Commercial Director - mainly concerned with retail and other commercial ventures
Development Director - mainly concerned with infrastructure
Business Development Director - identifying new opportunities, strengthening capabilities and partnerships, enhancing the airport's brand

The last post is a newly-created one and the incumbent has recently joined Bristol Airport.

The post of aviation director that, until recently, featured in the leadership team on the website no longer does although the position still exists so far as I know, with the same individual in post; someone who has been at the airport for many years with an encyclopaedic knowledge of the aviation scene in south-west Britain and who has played a very large part in getting the airport to its current level of air routes and carriers.

It's an interesting change and one wonders if the aviation director will now report to the newly-created post of business development director where the incumbent's background seems to be senior sales and marketing in non-aviation industries.

Perhaps I'm being naive in this but I would have thought that the job of attracting airlines and new routes is one of the most important at any airport.

 

[kraktoa]

How much does an airport like Bristol charge an airline for operating out of its terminal. Do they charge them per landing and take off? Charge them for stand space and overnighting?

I heard rumours that the charges are very nominal and almost negligible if not free.

The airport makes its money from airlines bringing in passengers to the terminals and car parks and therefore airlines pay almost nothing to the airport.

What is the reality in this?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Airports have published rates but invariably individual airlines make their own deals with airports. In the case of low cost airlines - the Ryanairs and easyJets etc - an airport needs these airlines more than the airlines needs a specific airport in most cases, so this type of airline usually holds the trump cards.

If airport A plays hard to get the likes of Ryanair will soon go to nearby airport B to see if they are more pliant. No doubt there is also an element of an airline such as Ryanair playing one airport off against another to get the best deal (for the airline).

If an airport isn't keen on another airline coming in, perhaps because it thinks that it will be too much and disturb the current balance, it can always decline to 'do a deal' and stick to its advertised rates which will be far higher than deal rates and will probably put off that airline.

It's said that the major LCCs expect to pay very little to airports. In return they provide a large footfall via relatively low fares (relatively low most of the time anyway) that service the airport's ancillary revenue streams such as car parking and retail outlets. Some airports also charge for such things as fast-track security, luggage trolleys and even clear bags for liquids. I think that BRS does all these things.

It's not quite as straightforward as that though. If, for example, BRS had been stubborn down the years and had refused to countenance deals I don't see, say EXT (who for the purposes of this example had been prepared to do deals), having a 14-aircraft easyJet base, 4 Ryanair, 3 TUI etc and be handling 8 mppa. Airlines also take into account the size and type of an airport catchment and won't bite of their nose to spite their face.

Much of what I've written applies to the regional scene mainly. Somewhere like LHR is the opposite. Individual slots there can cost airlines millions of pounds, but LHR is not a smallish regional airport.

 

[forest1979]

I'm probably a little bit fixated with Norwegian but the more I read about them and future plans, they must be on the radar of Bristol.. I've read a couple of pieces today on plans to launch services to Dubai and also NA routes where there is still capacity in the UK and where larger aircraft are not suitable for the routes. Its quite clear they see this gap and their intention to fill it with the max 8 and 321LR neo aircraft. On more than one occasion we have done the rounds on the operational issues of Bristol but setting aside Thomason and their 787 routes, the smaller aircraft surely has to be a viable option for mid long haul or secondary long haul routes from the airport? I have no idea of the operational factors given the runway length but sure someone would know that... I just feel that currently, they are out there as a progressive airline and more importantly having potential connection routes with bases now in the US and setting up elsewhere. They are low cost (technically) so fit into Bristol's successful business model but really they offer a half decent service and you could argue better than some more established airlines. They don't also compete on short haul routes from the airport so while they don't fear competition they would have potential routes to themselves...

here are a couple of pieces that I have looked at... people can read between the lines and draw their own conclusions.. Mine were with Bristol in mind.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...dubai/&usg=AFQjCNF4QeXpcH6TEXExkXZddSlkdtwRbQ

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...tition&usg=AFQjCNGSzoSmaH5AKj2Y5cAMIhiWQjbGrQ

 

[Jerry]

I wouldn't be so sure that Bristol is on Norwegians radar for TATL or Dubai flights. If you look at their UK strategy for their 787 flights the focus is on Gatwick because it has the catchment area of London and for their US customers London is the main destination that Americans want to go to in the UK.
The other flights are from Edinburgh Belfast and Dublin (i know Dublin isn't in the UK). Edinburgh and Scotland are very popular with American tourists and there are a lot of Americans with Scottish ancestry, their current President included i believe, and obviously both North and Southern Ireland have massive connections with the US with a big portion of the US population having Irish ancestry. For Norwegian Bristol wouldn't have that sort of customer base that it could draw on and is the Bristol area a big enough draw for American tourists essential from the New York area with London so close by?
If you look at KLM they have the whole of the US to draw on.

 

[superking]

I wouldn't be so sure that Bristol is on Norwegians radar for TATL or Dubai flights. If you look at their UK strategy for their 787 flights the focus is on Gatwick because it has the catchment area of London and for their US customers London is the main destination that Americans want to go to in the UK.
The other flights are from Edinburgh Belfast and Dublin (i know Dublin isn't in the UK). Edinburgh and Scotland are very popular with American tourists and there are a lot of Americans with Scottish ancestry, their current President included i believe, and obviously both North and Southern Ireland have massive connections with the US with a big portion of the US population having Irish ancestry. For Norwegian Bristol wouldn't have that sort of customer base that it could draw on and is the Bristol area a big enough draw for American tourists essential from the New York area with London so close by?
If you look at KLM they have the whole of the US to draw on.

Jerry there was a lot of talk back along that cwl could support a TATL. My question to you is if BRS cant support a new York or America flight , how is cwl going to make it work.I know its only speculation in the posting but some one has to have them some where. hows the vacation going.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

A low cost carrier could make BRS or even CWL work. Zoom made CWL-Canada work but wasn't around long enough to prove the market to its maximum. I think 2x weekly direct 757 and I think a 3rd weekly 767 flight split with LGW to YYZ, and 2x weekly YVR via BFS which was continuing to improve until the demise. NYC is a bigger market and from what I've read EDI and ORK have worked quite well for DY. There's probably a lot of people that travel to LON/BHX/MAN to get to New York, but I think DY would also create a new market in the Southwest that is probably more appealing than WOW via KEF. Although I do think a lot more could be done to market the WOW route and connections which is a better offering than direct NYC only.

 

[Jerry]

Jerry there was a lot of talk back along that cwl could support a TATL. My question to you is if BRS cant support a new York or America flight , how is cwl going to make it work.I know its only speculation in the posting but some one has to have them some where. hows the vacation going.

I never said it couldn't. I said Norwegian wouldn't be attracted to Bristol. In Norwegians mind Bristol may be too close to Gatwick for them to want to do it. They don't seem to be interested in regional England by the looks of it.
Another airline might look at it differently. For BRS and CWL what could work is a carrier basing the aircraft at BRS or CWL and start off at 3 to 4 weekly and operate the aircraft on short haul routes during the rest of the time. At BRS they would have a lot more competition though and they wouldn't have any potential of a subsidy. Irony is that Easyjet would be the perfect airline for BRS to do TATL.

 

[forest1979]

I wouldn't be so sure that Bristol is on Norwegians radar for TATL or Dubai flights. If you look at their UK strategy for their 787 flights the focus is on Gatwick because it has the catchment area of London and for their US customers London is the main destination that Americans want to go to in the UK.
The other flights are from Edinburgh Belfast and Dublin (i know Dublin isn't in the UK). Edinburgh and Scotland are very popular with American tourists and there are a lot of Americans with Scottish ancestry, their current President included i believe, and obviously both North and Southern Ireland have massive connections with the US with a big portion of the US population having Irish ancestry. For Norwegian Bristol wouldn't have that sort of customer base that it could draw on and is the Bristol area a big enough draw for American tourists essential from the New York area with London so close by?
If you look at KLM they have the whole of the US to draw on.

I was thinking more Norwegian being on Bristols radar as appose the other way and more with the new fleet of smaller aircraft it has due to come in. Very aware of its Gatwick focus for 787 longhaul traffic.
Have to say I disagree on the catchment area. The southwest gets flooded with American tourists wanting to see historic sites, poldark land etc. Continental for 5 years showed there was demand. As for other destinations, unless someone tries who knowns. Bristol and the surrounding area is wealthy and we know there is a lot of onward connection through Amsterdam. As superking says, if it can be done or tried with CWL then why not Bristol?
Of course they could just kick longhaul into the grass altogether but as long as they don't then I guess we can continue to speculate on routes and potential airlines. I for one am now really interested to see who the new CEO will be and what the new master plan will set out...
Finally, although I thought WOW were not as bad as people said they were I'm not sure it's so disappointing they have gone. Having said that I hope reykjavick gets a year round route from easyJet as it is popular..