TheLocalYokel
Honorary Member Of Forums4airports
- Jan 14, 2009
- 16,688
- 343
- IMPORTANT!! To reduce spam, we request that you make a post soon after completing your registration. We request you keep your account active by posting regularly. Inactive accounts risk being deleted.
- Yes
- Admin
- #1,081
I don't think anyone would be upset with anything you might say as I suspect you are speaking from an informed background so far as BRS is concerned. I doubt that any follower of BRS in these forums thinks those running the airport have been doing a bad job; very much the reverse.I don’t want to say too much that might upset people but as a business the airport is thriving. Unfortunately for spotters this might seem to be a backward step but the fact is the business plan is working & although not everyone is happy it’s a very profitable enterprise. The fact is a business not making a profit isn’t in business long. The owners are also investing huge amounts of cash on improving facilities & infrastructure as well. Obviously there are some businesses that get benefactors who manage to get cash from various sources to prop them up but BRS isn’t one.
The fact that the airport has been so successful for such a long time means there is little for local aficionados to get their teeth into in the BRS forums. It's something like a football match where a referee is so good that no-one notices him and therefore there is nothing to discuss regarding his performance.
I think what is exercising the minds of some BRS followers is how the airport will continue to grow its passenger numbers at the rate it has projected publicly.
If that growth in the foreseeable future really is in the hands of the existing carriers for the most part there is bound to be speculation as to how this will be achieved: larger aircraft?; more aircraft? (as Marko has asked); more routes?; more frequencies on existing ones?; a combination of these things? (to a lay person probably the most likely).
Then there is the question of persuading the local authority to increase the 10 mppa limit and to re-align the night noise limit quota; the almost certain need to have land taken out of the Green Belt for airfield expansion; the purchase of land to enable such expansion; will cargo feature in any way?; the path the airport will ultimately favour to develop the airfield infrastructure.
A lot of this is not likely to be of imminent necessity and, anyway, is relatively dull (but nevertheless vital) fare to many followers compared with such things as a new airline or new routes.
Carry on the good work at BRS and if this continues to mean a fairly quiet life on BRS aviation message boards then I don't think there are many BRS followers who won't consider it a price worth paying. If anyone disagrees let us know and why. As always, all shades of opinion are welcome on F4A.