Route Development & Rumours

[tpm]

Out of curiosity, was the Continental route to EWR not supported by the airport?

I always assumed it was, and that it was part of an effort to raise the profile of the airport with business travelers in general (the kind who pay for premium parking in MSCPs).

Don't know how it works business-wise though, I think it needs an airline that can make it work without filling a front cabin, but then what about onward connections?

 

[CM.]

Personally I think it should be something they should take on because the route could do well if they were to do flights from BRS if it does well then the risks the airport has taken have worked as you have an airline with a direct link to America which does well and makes good money. But then it could be bad if they were to do a route to America and it doesn’t do aswell as anticipated. But who knows if they were to do a route to America from BRS, only hope it would.

 

[superking]

I used the flight to EWR 3 times and the out bound and in bound flights were full. Now the front of aircraft was always full and some of them had to be up grades. Continental merger into United and they pulled all the reginal routes in the UK over time to concentrate on LHR. I used United once out of LHR and after that i vowed not to use them again and i didnt. The flight and cabin crew that was to operate my flight never had enough hours so they had to find a complete new crew and we left LHR 3 hours late. The only good thing about United was you could listen to all the talk from aircraft to atc and vice a versa

 

[Marko1]

The return of a non stop transatlantic scheduled service would bring much kudos to the airport giving the airport that much needed prestige destination. Something it hasn’t had since continental left. After all Malaga or palma are ten a penny from anywhere. As for whether the airport should chase JetBlue etc absolutely - that’s exactly what they have done with lufthansa which has resulted in a once daily destination to a not exactly exotic destination. At least a US service would attract a healthy number of both leisure and business customers. As for priming Ryanair - it isn’t working if they are as they can’t even be bothered to fly to Malta any longer and easyJet’s schedule is all over the place. In summary do anything to get it because if you don’t someone else will - look at Qatar for example

 

[vickersviscount]

Much as I'd like to see a return of transatlantic flights to the United States from Bristol,I don't think its going to happen and I don't think its a priority for Bristol Airport at this moment in time.Post Covid I should imagine their priority is to restore the full schedule of flights they had before the pandemic.Where ever Jet Blue go I should imagine they will drive a hard bargain in terms of inducement and ongoing subsidies or zero fees.q

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Many thanks for the replies on this subject. I found the shades of opinion fascinating. Each one is respected and valued.

Out of curiosity, was the Continental route to EWR not supported by the airport?

I always assumed it was, and that it was part of an effort to raise the profile of the airport with business travelers in general (the kind who pay for premium parking in MSCPs).

Don't know how it works business-wise though, I think it needs an airline that can make it work without filling a front cabin, but then what about onward connections?

18 months or so after the Continental route to Newark began in May 2005 this article appeared in an American newspaper. I copied it at the time and reproduce it below. I can't now find the original article online or I would have posted a link rather than post the article in full. Conscious of possible copyright issues I would be pleased to acknowledge the copyright-holder if one comes forward or alternatively remove the copied article entirely if that is the copyright-holder's wish.

It's a long article and I've highlighted in blue those parts that specifically relate to BRS. There is a reference in it to BRS incentives.

BRISTOL, ENGLAND - Bristol International is a small airport just outside this English city, but its facilities — and others like it throughout the United Kingdom and Europe — have provided an opportunity for Continental Airlines' recent growth.

Instead of concentrating solely on huge tourist draws like London, Paris and Rome, the Houston-based carrier has moved into midsize cities, establishing nonstop links between its Newark Liberty International Airport hub and places like Bristol, a growing business center with a population of about 400,000.

In the last three years, Continental has also added nonstop flights to Belfast in Northern Ireland and Edinburgh in Scotland as well as to new locations in Europe, including Barcelona, Spain; Stockholm, Sweden; and Cologne, Germany.

The strategy has given some European cities a first-ever nonstop link to the United States and has allowed Continental to expand its European presence greatly, despite its inability to get coveted landing rights at London's Heathrow Airport.

"These routes are very strong," said James Summerford, Continental's vice president for Europe, the Middle East and Asia. "We really are turning into an international carrier. We're getting near the point where 50 percent of our revenues are international. The expansion is going fabulously well."

Continental's international performance helped lift last year's third-quarter revenue and income and will contribute to what's expected to be a profitable year when the carrier reports fourth quarter and full year 2006 earnings today.

Summerford said the international expansion plan, hatched 10 years ago, depended on a $1.4 billion renovation of the airline's facilities at Newark airport, the gateway for most of the new routes. Executives believed then that the revamped terminal would give Continental a formidable launching pad for going global, he said.

"We have a structural advantage over other airlines that allows us to hit a lot of these secondary markets," he said. "First, we have the only hub in the New York City area, with Newark Liberty. Second, we have the right kind of aircraft for these small markets, the Boeing 757-200, with 172 seats. It's great for the thin market, and it's very economical to fly. That makes routes work for us that don't work for other airlines."

The airline's European network has grown from five cities 10 years ago to 26 cities today.

Howard Wheeldon, an airline specialist at BTC Partners brokerage in London, said Continental's strategy of moving into places like Bristol may pay off and offset the company's absence from London Heathrow.

"These places might not seem very big to most of us, but they are very important places for Continental," he said. "They're growing at an equally fast pace as larger airports like Heathrow. If they play their cards right and choose places wisely, I don't think it matters if they're not in the center of London."

The process for Bristol was started by Tony Hallwood, the aviation development director of Bristol International Airport. He convinced Continental executives that the pool of travelers who would use the airline for U.S. trips extended far beyond Bristol.

Hallwood, who was also courting American Airlines, argued that leisure travelers and business people from a large, affluent swath of southwest England would fly to Newark with Continental if they could leave from Bristol's airport and skip the tedious drive to Heathrow.

"When we met with people in Houston, we knew were on solid ground," Hallwood said. "We knew there were over 300,000 trips taken to the States each year by people flying out of London Heathrow who originate in the southwest here. We knew we could pull a lot of those customers back with direct service to the States."

Hallwood's argument was buttressed by the long list of international companies in the Bristol area, including those with trading ties to Houston, which would provide a large number of travelers willing to pay premium fares for Continental's BusinessFirst service.

Airport authorities also offered Continental incentives to begin service, including an agreement to suspend landing fees for the first three years.

The addition of Bristol-Newark service also allows travelers to avoid the hassle of dealing with Heathrow, an aging, overcrowded facility where travel is frequently slowed by long security lines and by foul weather.

James Cowling, business editor at the Bristol Evening Post, said the addition of the Newark nonstop provided a major shot in the arm for the Bristol business community and brought some U.S. tourists into the region.

"There is so much potential for growth on the back of the Continental flight," he said. "The business community was delighted because it cuts time at both ends; they don't have to drive to and from Heathrow, that saves 2 1/2 hours each way."

Similar logic applies to decisions to expand to other smaller U.K. cities, including Belfast, where the economy has been growing steadily since the sectarian violence subsided.

In the past, travelers from Belfast and from Scottish cities like Edinburgh had to take connecting flights to Heathrow or to other European airports before tansferring to U.S.-bound flights. Continental's nonstop service has made that unnecessary.

Personally I think it should be something they should take on because the route could do well if they were to do flights from BRS if it does well then the risks the airport has taken have worked as you have an airline with a direct link to America which does well and makes good money. But then it could be bad if they were to do a route to America and it doesn’t do aswell as anticipated. But who knows if they were to do a route to America from BRS, only hope it would.

BRS had a daily 'New York' route (4/5 weekly in winter) between May 2005 and November 2010 with Continental Airlines operating a Boeing 757-200 aircraft to Newark.

I used the flight to EWR 3 times and the out bound and in bound flights were full. Now the front of aircraft was always full and some of them had to be up grades. Continental merger into United and they pulled all the reginal routes in the UK over time to concentrate on LHR. I used United once out of LHR and after that i vowed not to use them again and i didnt. The flight and cabin crew that was to operate my flight never had enough hours so they had to find a complete new crew and we left LHR 3 hours late. The only good thing about United was you could listen to all the talk from aircraft to atc and vice a versa

At the time of the Continental route our son worked for a major American financial conglomerate. He used to fly to North America regularly in connection with his work. He was based in Bristol but had a wide-ranging responsibility geographically. He found that Continental was fine for the New York area but beyond that it was usually a better use of his time to drive to Heathrow and catch a direct flight to other parts of the USA or to Canada, rather than connect at EWR.

He used the 16-seat 'business/first' cabin and found that it wasn't always full by any means but when it was the occupants were, as you say, often upgrades. On one flight the captain's brother and family had been upgraded.

When Continental began routes to European secondary airports, even tertiary ones in long-haul terms, it had no access to Heathrow so operated its London-Newark route from Gatwick. Within two or three years of the commencement of its Bristol route Continental was given access to Heathrow. Very quickly it closed its Gatwick route and moved the operation to Heathrow. Although BRS-EWR had begun well in terms of raw passenger numbers and within a couple of years, according to press reports, was seeing 50% of its passenger volume originating in the USA, the major recession was increasingly making its presence felt across the developed world and this inevitably had an effect on air travel, including the BRS-EWR service.

Once the Gatwick route had been moved to Heathrow I remember thinking then that it was only a matter of time before Bristol followed, and was surprised that it lasted as long as it did.

When Continental moved the BRS route to LHR it was reported in the local news media that it had done so for a number of reasons, one being a poor take-up by business travellers (who were no doubt using LHR despite assurances from local business groups that they wanted and would support a BRS scheduled service to the USA).

The return of a non stop transatlantic scheduled service would bring much kudos to the airport giving the airport that much needed prestige destination. Something it hasn’t had since continental left. After all Malaga or palma are ten a penny from anywhere. As for whether the airport should chase JetBlue etc absolutely - that’s exactly what they have done with lufthansa which has resulted in a once daily destination to a not exactly exotic destination. At least a US service would attract a healthy number of both leisure and business customers. As for priming Ryanair - it isn’t working if they are as they can’t even be bothered to fly to Malta any longer and easyJet’s schedule is all over the place. In summary do anything to get it because if you don’t someone else will - look at Qatar for example

That's the nub of my question. Would the BRS owners be prepared to spend money, directly or indirectly, on what to some people would be no more than a vanity project, if they could more readily generate additional footfall to feed their vital ancillary revenue streams through extra short-haul routes? If they were prepared to incentivise such a route then fine, but their primary aim of course is to run their Bristol Airport company in the best interests of their pension fund commitments. They may judge that a NY route would do that.

With FRA being Germany's busiest airport and the city the country's principal financial centre as well as a major European business hub, there might be less need to prime that pump than a transatlantic given that it feeds into LH's huge array of global connectivity there. Pre-pandemic FRA was going to be 2 x daily with Lufthansa, and it's not unrealistic to believe it will be after the pandemic effects have receded.

I think that BRS is arguably the most adversely affected provincial airport when it comes to long-haul (leaving aside BRS's physical limitations), because of the relative proximity of Heathrow and the willingness of West Country people to use it. BHX is no doubt similarly handicapped - it also has MAN to contend with - but BHX has a much bigger core catchment that BRS.

I hope I don't give the impression that I am against long-haul routes from BRS. I'm not. It's simply that the thinking of the BRS owners intrigues me if it's necessary to provide significant incentives to gain such a route.

Much as I'd like to see a return of transatlantic flights to the United States from Bristol,I don't think its going to happen and I don't think its a priority for Bristol Airport at this moment in time.Post Covid I should imagine their priority is to restore the full schedule of flights they had before the pandemic.Where ever Jet Blue go I should imagine they will drive a hard bargain in terms of inducement and ongoing subsidies or zero fees.q

I agree.

 

[CM.]

BRS had a daily 'New York' route (4/5 weekly in winter) between May 2005 and November 2010 with Continental Airlines operating a Boeing 757-200 aircraft to Newark.

Do you know how the route did throughout the 5 years of operations? If it did good profit wise or not? Because if it did well then I don’t see why JetBlue couldn’t consider flights to BRS. If it didn’t do well then maybe not as a previous carrier has done New York flights and didn’t do too good.

 

[Jerry]

that’s exactly what they have done with lufthansa which has resulted in a once daily destination to a not exactly exotic destination.

I think Lufthansa though are part of building a bigger picture than just 1 destination to the USA.

 

[forest1979]

Interesting read.. if I was Bristol, I would look at a few more state carriers to hubs. Lufthansa is a good start.. why AF don’t do Paris is beyond me.. Paris always seemed underserved from Bristol. Iberia to Madrid? Would be good for South American travel.
I’d also love the inside track on Turkish.. is it on/off the table? A target in the coming years? It has been much talked about for a while and then have the aircraft and a whopper of a new hub airport.
You then need to ask yourself the question of the ME3 carriers.. all in time will have aircraft that can serve Bristol.. cargo may be their rate limiting factor.
Much more to go at there in my opinion in respect of route expansion... (I’d obviously like to see transatlantic flying again from Bristol if it happened)

 

[CM.]

Interesting read.. if I was Bristol, I would look at a few more state carriers to hubs. Lufthansa is a good start.. why AF don’t do Paris is beyond me.. Paris always seemed underserved from Bristol. Iberia to Madrid? Would be good for South American travel.
I’d also love the inside track on Turkish.. is it on/off the table? A target in the coming years? It has been much talked about for a while and then have the aircraft and a whopper of a new hub airport.
You then need to ask yourself the question of the ME3 carriers.. all in time will have aircraft that can serve Bristol.. cargo may be their rate limiting factor.
Much more to go at there in my opinion in respect of route expansion... (I’d obviously like to see transatlantic flying again from Bristol if it happened)

Agreed with you here. AF to Paris from BRS could be good as you have plenty of connections to places such as the Caribbean. An Iberia link to Madrid would be good for links to South America as there lots with Iberia and Air Europa to South America. And LH to Frankfurt or Munich could be good for links to Asia. And Turkish airlines with plenty across the world but good for links to Africa and the Middle East.

 

[Severn]

Interesting article below from Simple Flying talks about Aer Lingus, it’s hub in DUB and how well it does at connecting the UK/Europe to the US.
Here is a couple of paragraphs from the article:

“Aer Lingus is a key player between North America and Europe, and in 2019 it had 16 routes across the Atlantic from Ireland. Around 45% of its Aer Lingus’ passengers connected, with the US to the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, and France the largest markets. On an airport basis, Bristol to Newark was its number-one (transit) origin and destination.”​

—-

Bristol to Newark #1​

At airport level, Bristol to/from Newark was the top origin and destination (O&D), with an estimated 13,700 passengers.​

1. Bristol-Newark: 13,700
2. Birmingham-Newark: 12,300
3. Manchester-Chicago: 12,100

The article is certainly worth a read, and shows that since the Continental days, there’s still a large demand for transatlantic flying from BRS.

ARTICLE:
Aer Lingus: The North America-Europe Connection Machine
https://simpleflying.com/aer-lingus-connection-machine/

 

[CM.]

Then I can’t see why in that case that JetBlue could not consider BRS to operate transatlantic flights as Continental have had good times of the route in the past if JetBlue did I’m sure they could do pretty well.

 

[superking]

When my step daughter came over from Iowa she flew into AMS then aircraft into BRS. On the return journey she flew BRS to DUB,cleared customs and immagration and landed in Chicago and she was treated like a internal flight with large lines of pax to clear immigration. She said she would do that route again as stress free and she found the gate she wanted to Quad cities.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Do you know how the route did throughout the 5 years of operations? If it did good profit wise or not? Because if it did well then I don’t see why JetBlue couldn’t consider flights to BRS. If it didn’t do well then maybe not as a previous carrier has done New York flights and didn’t do too good.

Until later in the 'noughties' Continental was not one of the US airlines that was able to access LHR so used LGW instead for its EWR-LON service. It also operated to EWR from larger provincial airports such as MAN and BHX.

In an endeavour to widen its UK market the airline began EWR services to both BRS and BFS in May 2005. The aircraft was a Boeing 757-200 with 172 seats (later 175 seats) which included a 16-seat 'business/first' cabin. It operated daily from the end of March until early November. For the rest of the year it was 5 x weekly, although it did reduce to 4 x weekly at times in winter as the major recession took a hold.

Prior to the route beginning Continental projected publicly that 80,000 passengers would use the route in its first year but it actually handled over 90,000 - whether the latter total was what the airline really expected I don't know. Loads held up over the next few years although there was a gradual decrease as the recession took its hold. A positive aspect was that US-originating passengers increased to 50% of the whole.

One of CO's reported problems was the poor take-up at non-discounted fares in the business-first cabin on the BRS-EWR route. Overall passenger numbers on a route don't always tell the full story. There were reports that the route had been profitable for Continental in the early years but whether it was the sort of profit the airline was looking for and how much incentives played a part probably only the airline would have known.

CO pulled out after five and a half years and effectively moved the BRS aircraft to LHR to become the fifth daily EWR rotation from there having switched its LGW-EWR service to LHR a year or two earlier.

There is no doubt that a lot of people from the West Country do fly long-haul. The CAA's annual passenger survey stats show that the South West provides more originating/final destination travellers through LHR (3.725 million with over another 2 million using LGW in the 2019 survey) than anywhere outside the South East/East - but the problem for BRS management has always been how to capture some of them from LHR with its huge number of routes, airlines and frequencies.

Interesting read.. if I was Bristol, I would look at a few more state carriers to hubs. Lufthansa is a good start.. why AF don’t do Paris is beyond me.. Paris always seemed underserved from Bristol. Iberia to Madrid? Would be good for South American travel.
I’d also love the inside track on Turkish.. is it on/off the table? A target in the coming years? It has been much talked about for a while and then have the aircraft and a whopper of a new hub airport.
You then need to ask yourself the question of the ME3 carriers.. all in time will have aircraft that can serve Bristol.. cargo may be their rate limiting factor.
Much more to go at there in my opinion in respect of route expansion... (I’d obviously like to see transatlantic flying again from Bristol if it happened)

(You will undoubtedly be aware of some of the following, forest, but there will be those who might not be which is why I have set things out in some detail).

CDG has been operated by Air France subsidiaries at various times in the past thirty years: Brit Air, Air France Regional and Airlinair for example. BA franchisees also operated to CDG as did bmiRegional/Flybmi. It seems that following the merger of Air France and KLM their policy is to leave BRS in the hands of the KLM part of the group.

Recently Paris has been solely easyJet territory but for a long time the airline had appeared reluctant to increase frequencies being content to operate at single-daily, despite selling out frequently often a week or more ahead on many of its flights. It had increased its timetable to double-daily before the pandemic took a hand.

From July easyJet seems to be anticipating a return to a daily CDG service, with June at 3 x weekly. In the coming winter it will be single-daily at the moment, although for three weeks in November there is no flight on a Tuesday.

Before the pandemic easyJet introduced a daily Paris Orly to run in tandem with Paris CDG and Orly remains bookable. However, it is only 3 x weekly during the coming summer but does return to daily next winter. That would leave Paris at double-daily split between the two airports.

It's a shame about Brussels disappearing from the BRS boards. It has been a route from BRS for over 30 years with Sabena and its subsequent incarnations. If BRS has a decent relationship with the Lufthansa Group there might be hope for its return at some point.

Turkish Airlines have long been talked about as a partner for BRS. They certainly have an excellent range of connectivity at the new Istanbul airport. I'm assuming if they did turn up it would be a case of them or a MEB3 rather than both.

At the time of the Qatar announcement re CWL I was told by a senior figure at BRS that the Lulsgate runway's length did not meet Qatar's minimum requirement for its 787 operation. TUI apparently take a different view.

TUI's 787-8s go to Florida non-stop and most of the time can get to Cancun without a fuel stop as well. 9-series have sometimes substituted. TUI's 8-series have more seats than Qatar's 787-8s and possibly take more passenger hold baggage as a result. Doha is quite a bit closer than Florida or Mexico. It's possible I suppose that the Qatar management was concerned that BRS might not be able to take a larger aircraft in the event of a last-minute substitution.

Cargo might have played a part in the decision as well, and the Qatar CEO said publicly that Bristol-area travellers are too fixated on using Heathrow for long-haul and as a result he was concerned about passenger volume. He then went on to say that CWL has a catchment of six million people which is getting on for twice the population of the whole of Wales, so he must have been targeting a substantial part of South West England in his calculations which is slightly contradictory after saying that people there use LHR too readily.

Another undoubted element with which BRS could not compete was political. The Welsh Government naturally went into bat for its airport, and subsequent events showed that it has a good relationship with the Qatari Government. With the Secretary of State for Wales also supporting the CWL cause Wales's national airport had some heavyweight politicians behind it compared with BRS's local authority politicians, many of whom aren't keen on the airport anyway. I can well understand why Qatar took the decision they did.

If the other MEB3 airlines have a similar runway criterion to Qatar then BRS might not see one of them either. It has to be hoped that is not the case. In fact, if the information I was given is true, and I have no reason to doubt it given the source, even the CWL runway is slightly below Qatar's minimum requirement, so there appears to be some flexibility. Emirates has been operating to NCL with B 777s and their runway is shown as 2,329 metres in length, a bit shorter than CWL.

 

[forest1979]

Interesting interview with simple flying and the emirates ceo on the introduction of their 787’s (~40 on order) and 350’s (~50 on order) and operational from 2023.. It risks about their strategy of further expansion into those areas that are too small for the 777 and 380’s.. the new aircraft are not about replacement of existing fleet but adding to their network. Europe is mentioned as countries already served but cites and destinations that can add to their network with smaller aircraft and complete with rivals like Qatar..
could this be a potential in the making?
i didnt buy the runway stuff from Qatar and Bristol.
Emirates also said the smaller aircraft expansion was to go along side fly Dubai..

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Interesting interview with simple flying and the emirates ceo on the introduction of their 787’s (~40 on order) and 350’s (~50 on order) and operational from 2023.. It risks about their strategy of further expansion into those areas that are too small for the 777 and 380’s.. the new aircraft are not about replacement of existing fleet but adding to their network. Europe is mentioned as countries already served but cites and destinations that can add to their network with smaller aircraft and complete with rivals like Qatar..
could this be a potential in the making?
i didnt buy the runway stuff from Qatar and Bristol.
Emirates also said the smaller aircraft expansion was to go along side fly Dubai..

Interesting possibilities. Because the Qatar CEO didn't fancy BRS it doesn't mean a rival won't.

 

[Coathanger16]

A perhaps interesting situation may evolve over the next few years.

So one of the factors in Qatar choosing Cardiff over Bristol was runway length to accommodate the 787.

Pre-pandemic, Qatar served Cardiff 5x a week with a B787-8, and in 2019 carried just over 90,000 passengers equating to a load factor of ~70%.

Qatar have some A321NEO and LR's on order which are planned to be delivered from 2022, which will probably be the earliest Qatar would resume flights to Cardiff.

A daily A321 to Cardiff, assuming the same number of passengers as before the pandemic, would give a LF of 75% (i.e. better than before the pandemic).

Assuming the runway at Bristol is long enough for an A321LR to fly to Doha, there are potentially 4 scenarios:

1). Qatar returns to Cardiff using a B787
2). Qatar returns to Cardiff using an A321NEO/LR
3). Qatar switches to Bristol using an A321NEO/LR
4). Qatar serves both Bristol & Cardiff using an A321NEO/LR

Another factor to consider is that Qatar ultimately want to replace all their B787-8's with B787-9's, which represents a 22% increase in capacity (using 2019 passenger levels would equate to a 56% LF assuming 5 flights a week).

 

[superking]

In a forum there was talk back of qatar not doing CWL any more. I dont know if this is right or not,time will tell.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

A perhaps interesting situation may evolve over the next few years.

So one of the factors in Qatar choosing Cardiff over Bristol was runway length to accommodate the 787.

Pre-pandemic, Qatar served Cardiff 5x a week with a B787-8, and in 2019 carried just over 90,000 passengers equating to a load factor of ~70%.

Qatar have some A321NEO and LR's on order which are planned to be delivered from 2022, which will probably be the earliest Qatar would resume flights to Cardiff.

A daily A321 to Cardiff, assuming the same number of passengers as before the pandemic, would give a LF of 75% (i.e. better than before the pandemic).

Assuming the runway at Bristol is long enough for an A321LR to fly to Doha, there are potentially 4 scenarios:

1). Qatar returns to Cardiff using a B787
2). Qatar returns to Cardiff using an A321NEO/LR
3). Qatar switches to Bristol using an A321NEO/LR
4). Qatar serves both Bristol & Cardiff using an A321NEO/LR

Another factor to consider is that Qatar ultimately want to replace all their B787-8's with B787-9's, which represents a 22% increase in capacity (using 2019 passenger levels would equate to a 56% LF assuming 5 flights a week).

If Qatar returns to Severnside I will extremely surprised if it's not at CWL. I see no reason why it would not be. Nothing would have changed at the respective airports in that sense.

It's not obvious why Qatar won't use its 787-8s at BRS; after all TUI uses this type of aircraft with more seats than Qatar's on considerably longer distances to Florida (non-stop) and Cancun (usually non-stop), with 9-series having substituted on occasions. Would the disproportionate number of heavy landings of Boeing 767s on runway 09 that came to light in an AAIB report a decade ago when, ironically, a TUI 767 suffered major damage on landing on 09 be a factor with Qatar? I'm not aware of the same problem with the 787. TUI continued to use 767s at BRS and seemed to have no hesitation in bringing in their 787s when the 767s were phased out.

There were a number of other factors that led Qatar to opt for CWL that I outlined in an earlier post.

I suspect that BRS's best bet is either Emirates or Turkish Airlines to Istanbul - the latter has been simmering on the back burner for the best part of ten years. Perhaps it will come to the boil when the pandemic gets out of the kitchen.

Incidentally, Bristol's current master plan believes that there is a limited demand for scheduled long-haul routes at the airport, citing the Middle East and three American rotes as the most likely. The current master plan was published in 2006 since when ownership and senior management have altered radically. The new master plan should have been published by now - the first public consultation was in 2017!- but I suppose that the pandemic and expansion uncertainty have caused the long delay.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Exclusive: Bristol Airport planning to relaunch New York flight route

The last direct flight to the 'Big Apple' from Bristol was in 2010

www.business-live.co.uk

Interesting interview Dave Lees, BRS CEO, gave to the local rag's business desk about the airport's future.

He is looking to secure the return of the New York route in the next 3-5 years with Dubai and Istanbul also on his target list.